|
7 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 12:57PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2012
|
The reasons for why my group played one session of the first packet and then never wanted to look at Next again:
*Balance of hit points and damage
In our first adventure our wizard fell down into a trap andr right after a bunch of rats ganged up on the rest of the group. The fighter would kill a rat hit or miss and the others would try to hit a rat on the turns they had. This then went on and on and on. At the same time, the rats almost killed the PCs. I had a look at the bestiarity or whatever it is called in the lates playtest packet, and still seems like the same problem. I much prefer the 4e balance of damage and hit points. Also, I much prefer the general level of AC in 4e. I think that the chance to hit was fairly good there, and I guess everyone has a larger chance to hit in Next compared to 4e.
TL;DR: I prefer HP, damage and AC as they are balanced in 4e compared to Next. Unless I find that they have fixed that I will be more likely to stop play D&D than to buy 5e (or participate in playtests). ALso, it I lose access to 4e Charbuilder, Monster builder and compendium I will most probably stop playing D&D 4e (and hence D&D at all).
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 22, 2012 - 1:14AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2010
|
For me it's simple: currently the math of nearly everything put out is wonkey in one way or another. This edition desperately needs to be fixed on a mathematical level for it to be acceptable to me.
Advantage/disadvantage is a god awful kludge if you understand stats and/or probability
Monsters can't hit, defend, take a hit but can one shot a squishy.
HP/damage out of whack for both monsters and PCs
Balancing by gold = bad
and a whole lot more.
Other no-nos
Gameplay pillar spotlight design. No more fighter goes and plays X-box when social time comes round please.
Mechanical allignment.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 22, 2012 - 10:32PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2012
|
I for one don't want to see another game in which every class is good at everything. Some are good for exploration, some are good for social interaction, every class needs to be good at combat but some really excel at it. If every class can do all three just as well, then why not just make every party five fighters? Sure, it could be great for the individual, but where does the party balance come in? Isn't this game about teamwork? I think your class should reflect what type of character you want to play, and they all need strengths and weaknesses.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 1:30AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2010
|
Strengths and weaknesses = fine, strengths and gaping voids =/= fine.
Being ~75% as effective as the speciliast in the pillar is fine and leaves you able to contribute but the specialise will lead the charge in the task.
Sadly the design of the past and the direction of the current characters is far closer to strenghts and gaping voids than it is to strenghts and weeknesses.
Remembe the days of the bard that sucked in combat and could talk a vestal vergin into his bed vs the fighter who could decapitate orcs in a single swing but had BO and drooled on the counts carpet so got told to stand in the back and look dangerous as thier sole contribution to negotiations with the count and his Senechel. I've been there and it sucks.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 3:48PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2012
|
But how exactly is a Barbarian with 9 Charisma supposed to contribute to delicate negotiations? If you want to be a Fighter who can talk his way around a town like a Rogue, there's nothing stopping you from training in the relevant skills to do that, they don't need a class feature for it. If you were constantly shoved off to the side during non-combat scenes, sounds like a problem with the group, not with the rules.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 7:19AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
But how exactly is a Barbarian with 9 Charisma supposed to contribute to delicate negotiations?
Impossible to say, because we need more information. What are the barbarian's stats and what is his background? What are the delicate negotiations about?
If the DM decided for some reason that the only way to contribute is through Charisma checks, then of course this character would be at a disadvantage (mitigated if they have relevant skills). But I can't imagine ever doing that as the DM. There are countless ways for characters to contribute during negotiations.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 7:46AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2012
|
I worded that badly. Of course you can have low Charima and still be useful in social situations, but that's all about how you build the character. I don't believe every class should have built-in features for it. I think the game already allows you to compensate for your class's weaknesses by non-class means like skills, especially now that trained skills aren't linked to your class.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 9:22AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2005
|
Rage Quit?
- Alignment mechanics
- Racial class restrictions
- Ability score restrictions to classes
- Lame multiclassing rules. (at least as good as 3.X, but there is a lot of room for improvement.)
- Monsters using a different core system than the PCs for creation
- Non-working skill challenges. (Leave them out, or include a working system, don't give a non-working system on this)
- +X items
Annoyed?
- Crossbows still sucking
- heavy armor still sucking
- 3 kinds of elves in PHB 1
- ability scores tied to races. (Orcs get +2 strength)
- Less than 12 classes in PHB 1
- Core setting is still in "Totally not tolkien fantasy world".
As you can see I basically already ragequit...
Ill still grab the core books, but doubt I'll be getting much more.
5e comments and thoughts all in one place. Check it out to provide feedback, mock, or steal ideas.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28835423/Krusks_5e_Design_Goals?sdb=1
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 4:21PM
#19
|
|
|
Red Flags: vancian magic in the current form, alignment mechanics, hit die
Spoiler:
Show
Concisely: I want a system where players don't have to pick between mechanics and roleplaying. I hope 5E fails asap so a better system can be made asap.
Spoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 28, 2012 - 6:16PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Sep 13, 2005
|
I'm getting closer and closer to the "Rage quit" on Next:
- Alignment mechanics in ANY form (if people want to have an alignment, fine... but keep the mechanics out of the game)
- Alignment requirements of ANY kind (yes... this is a bit redunant... but I can't say it enough.)
- VANCIAN ANYTHING!
- Hobbit Fatlings. Halflings were finally becoming something of their own, and now this **** is back?
I'm sure I could list dozens, but these are the immediate items that pop into mind. There's plenty of mechanical issues atm, and LOTs of nitpicks, but I'm not ready to throw someone threw a window over them yet.
I'll say this though... after this last article about the direction of class design, I'm about convinced the team has no idea what they're doing.
Stay Frosty!
- Shado
|
|
|
