|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 1:56PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
No.
My favorite parts is how easy it is to customize.
Turning an orc warrior into an elf takes ~10 seconds.
You can look at the power list for a class and judge what an attack of such and such parameters is.
Making a PC race is quick.
Tactics? Pfft.
LESS TIME MATH MORE TIME STORY!
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 1:58PM
#22
|
|
|
Also Tactical means that the action/consequence/failure/success is weighter ALOT more toward decisions/tactics/planning/teamwork than RNG.
This is 100% true. It's the difference between Twilight Emperium and Monopoly :P
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 1:59PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
'm simply wondering if there are others like me out there who like 4e but for whom the tactical richness was simply an aspect of the game to be neither liked nor disliked, but simply accepted as "part of the game".
I'm with you on this one, Fox. My friends and I love 4E, but we never say, "Man, I can't wait to play...the tactical nature of the fights is just so thrilling!"
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 2:04PM
#24
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I feel that 5E is doing an equally horrific job of delivering both tactical depth and cool, evocative powers.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 2:06PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
For what it's worth, I feel that 5E is doing an equally horrific job of delivering both tactical depth and cool, evocative powers.
That's because you can't have tactical depth until you've figured out the tactical shallows.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 2:12PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2012
|
To use another game as an analogy, the reason three Marines can beat two Zealots in Starcraft 2 is because it includes tactical combat. Without tactical combat, all three marines die before they even get through the zealots' shields.
Damn stutter-stepping stimpaking imba-shouting terrans....
Sorry I couldn't resist. 
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 2:15PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Tactical play is necessary for me. Who you are and what you can do are equally important. I feel 4E really shone a spotlight on what you can do - and it's not something I'd like to give up. Round by round, turn by turn, there was something fun or interesting or cool I could decide to do. Monsters and PCs. Combat was functional (as it is in Next) AND dynamic (which it currently isn't in Next).
I think dynamic is the keyword. Tactical is kind of open ended, but dynamic really hits it home with me. Lots of interesting things to do every round and narrative control.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 2:15PM
#28
|
|
|
To use another game as an analogy, the reason three Marines can beat two Zealots in Starcraft 2 is because it includes tactical combat. Without tactical combat, all three marines die before they even get through the zealots' shields.
Damn stutter-stepping stimpaking imba-shouting terrans....
Sorry I couldn't resist.
I remember the first time I got tank cliffed. I wanted to punch my monitor.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 2:22PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2012
|
I really can't whine too much, I enjoy using really cheesy protoss tactics. No cannon rushing though. Even I have standards. But offensive ff on ramps combined with storms, super hard early 4gate pressure, all fun stuff. Anyway. I suppose I should probably contribute something of value to the thread.
Well, I feel like I should start by talking about the parts of 4e that I thought were really cool and why. See, 4e fixed several problems that 3e had. One of the most enjoyable changes I found that they made, was to the races. I was particularly happy with how they differentiated the elves and the eladrin. I also really liked the dwarves.
Now, granted, I didn't put much time into the actual combat in 4e, so my analysis may be somewhat lacking. I will say I enjoyed the unique interplay the abilities had, that was kind of cool. But it didn't light my fire like some of the other things in 4e did. That might just be because I did a lot of the same stuff in 3e though.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 2:23PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
I think dynamic is the keyword. Tactical is kind of open ended, but dynamic really hits it home with me. Lots of interesting things to do every round and narrative control.
That works. Not the same thing that others are talking about (I think? Honestly, I still don't know), but a noble goal nonetheless.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
