|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 12:35PM
#61
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
I think there is a bit of both going on. On some things I think they have missed why people liked 4e. Particularly the people who liked the tactical aspects of the game have simply been missed. On some things, I think they are well aware that people liked certain features of 4e but are intentionally not building 5e around them because they need to produce some comprise with the people who disliked those features of 4e. Classes tightly pinned to specific roles and balance through identical power structure are probably the big two here.
You do understand that 4E fans don't care about those two things right? I mean I'd love to see a controller style fighter as long as it continues to be able to contribute equally in most situations like combat, exploration, and socialization. I haven't seen anyone complain about not having identical power structures.
If you go look at the 5 minute work day threads, you will see quite a few posts saying you can't fix the problem as long as everybody has different power structures. It is the same complaint, phrased differently. When the designers said that roles where being relegated to the fluff, there was a bit of yelling, but you will have to go way back in the forum to find that stuff. That one wasn't huge because people realized that roles where not going away, just that classes would not be explicitly wired into roles.
The fighter issue is a real one though. The fighter does need some more defender options for people who prefer the 4e style fighter. Honestly, I think the play test has been slanted a bit towards fans of older editions then 4e fans so far. Next is closer to an updated 2e then 3e, but either way it is pretty distant from 4e. The primary feature I want from 4e that is missing is detailed tactical combat, but different people are concerned with different issues.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 12:36PM
#62
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
Most players in my 4e group chose encounter powers that serve some form of utility that their at-will capabilities do not cover (AoE, control, penalties, buffs, etc). As such we have a number of fights with players still having some unused encounter powers. The use of an encounter power becomes much more of a "if" than a "when".
As do my PCs. But that doesn't mean "all", either. Fact remains, generally, encounter powers are plainly more useful/powerful in a majority of fights. Tha's just the nature of the system as presented. Corner cases do not trump the general rule.
If you only play with groups where encounter powers are simply the same as your at-will attack with +5 damage, then yes blowing through your encounter powers right away makes sense. Straight damage tends to be the weakest choice in 4e however so most competent groups will not have that issue.
Straight damage is neither a worse nor better choice. Because of the system 4e is based on. The holy alter of balance subjugates damage and conditions under its ever-present thumb.
Besides, if an encounter dishes a condition/buff/debuff/whatever, rather than more damage, its still generally speaking the superior choice over an at-will that does neither.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 12:37PM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
Yes, you normally try to use as many encounters powers as you can in an encounter; it makes sense.
Dailies are rarer and at-wills are fillers (unless you have a class which is built on at wills). But since it is not possible to spam encounter powers, you have to pick the right one at the right moment.
In my experience players won't start with dailies at the start, unless it is clear the fight is a very tough one (big red dragon or somethign like that): normally they assess things for a couple of rounds and then decide to pull out the big guns or not.
Agreed.
That is very much how I've seen 4e played all this time. Which is why I balked at the notion that at-wills were the go-to default choice, only using encounter (and daily) powers when some arbitrary "tide" needed turning.
It's interesting: at low level at-wills are a go-to choice, but as you approach paragon the PC have enough encounter options so they get used more. Also with at-wills not scaling till level 21 encounters have the upper hand. Still at-wills can be very useful situationally.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 12:40PM
#64
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
It's interesting: at low level at-wills are a go-to choice
Of course. Due to lack of other options.
but as you approach paragon the PC have enough encounter options so they get used more.
Often never having to break out an at-will the entire fight. Unless the fight is a grind...
Also with at-wills not scaling till level 21 encounters have the upper hand. Still at-wills can be very useful situationally.
Sure. Again, in corner cases, an at-will could be the best option. I'm just talking generally.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 12:44PM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
but as you approach paragon the PC have enough encounter options so they get used more.
Often never having to break out an at-will the entire fight. Unless the fight is a grind...
Correct, which in my opinion is great as it means we get a different power used by each player each turn. It's the opposite of spam. Love it.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 12:45PM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2008
|
Yes, you normally try to use as many encounters powers as you can in an encounter; it makes sense.
Dailies are rarer and at-wills are fillers (unless you have a class which is built on at wills). But since it is not possible to spam encounter powers, you have to pick the right one at the right moment.
In my experience players won't start with dailies at the start, unless it is clear the fight is a very tough one (big red dragon or somethign like that): normally they assess things for a couple of rounds and then decide to pull out the big guns or not.
Agreed.
That is very much how I've seen 4e played all this time. Which is why I balked at the notion that at-wills were the go-to default choice, only using encounter (and daily) powers when some arbitrary "tide" needed turning.
It's interesting: at low level at-wills are a go-to choice, but as you approach paragon the PC have enough encounter options so they get used more. Also with at-wills not scaling till level 21 encounters have the upper hand. Still at-wills can be very useful situationally.
Depends on the class really. My ranger early on used twin strike almost exclusively but as I have gotten into epic tier I have a couple of really hard hitting 3 attack powers that I can recharge one of with an action point so I use those after preping for a round with Twin Strike.
My paladin uses one of his at wills most of the time unless folks need a save or he is buffing his allies with an attack that is a burst 1 which gives a +5 on allies attacks until the end of my next turn (the effect of this is this particular ability almost never directly attacks anyone despite it being an "attack" it is instead used as a force multiplier on my allies). His other encounter abilities are interupts that I save until they would be useful. Dailies are likewise only used when they would be of most use (one is used against a solo big bad and another is most useful when there are a lot of regular non minon enemies and the last is used in conjunction with a wizard zone).
For both of these chars at will attacks are often used because the "timing isn't right" for my other attacks.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 1:37PM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2012
|
I think there is a bit of both going on. On some things I think they have missed why people liked 4e. Particularly the people who liked the tactical aspects of the game have simply been missed. On some things, I think they are well aware that people liked certain features of 4e but are intentionally not building 5e around them because they need to produce some comprise with the people who disliked those features of 4e. Classes tightly pinned to specific roles and balance through identical power structure are probably the big two here.
You do understand that 4E fans don't care about those two things right? I mean I'd love to see a controller style fighter as long as it continues to be able to contribute equally in most situations like combat, exploration, and socialization. I haven't seen anyone complain about not having identical power structures.
This. The devs don't seem to understand 4e, so they put in these token nods to 4e that don't begin to do what 4e was trying to do with them much less do it the way 4e should have done it. No, I haven't talked to them, so I could be wrong, which is why I said seem and then provided the basis for my belief to be taken with however many grains of salt you feel appropriate. What they have done so far is get the worst of both worlds, where the 4haters recognize the mechanics and say "this is too much like 4e!" or at least "shut up 4lovers, they gave you all these 4e mechanics stop complaining!" and yet the 4e-ers not only don't have what they want but don't expect to get what they want because the devs seem to think they've already given it to us. Again, we could be wrong, but I know plenty of 4e-ers who have given up on the playtest already because it looks like they aren't going to get anything they want out of it.
Worse, because the 4haters at least seem to think it's the mechanics we're interested in rather than the goals those mechanics were working towards, they act like the two sides are irreconcilable so we should just give up and go our separate ways. "You want AEDU for everyone and rigid class roles, we hate those things, we can't both have and not have them, so go play 4e and leave the rest of us alone." How many posts have you seen saying something to the effect of "give up on 5e and just reprint/update both 3.5 and 4e"?
In point of fact they are far more reconcilable than most people seem to think, but nobody is trying to reconcile them because they conflate "the mechanics are irreconcilable" with "the desires of their respective fans are irreconcilable" and "I don't like what 4e did" with "I don't like what 4e was trying to do." There's a way to give fighters meaningful options every round and even some resource management decisions without making them dissociative or magical (hint, maneuvers isn't it, at least not the maneuvers we have now). There's a way to have HP as an encounter resource without eliminating the consequences of your actions (hint, exp 2 isn't it). There's a way to have wizards feel vancian without having them stomp all over one encounter days or be useless in longer ones (hint, signature spells and non-scaling at-wills isn't it. I know they've said they're going to start scaling at wills, but that's only half the issue). There's a way to have roles without pigeon holing anyone into those roles. There's a way to have math that works and still have monster stats chosen on the basis of concept instead of level and that aren't all identical at a given level (I know the monster math is still up in the air, but I'm just saying I'd like it if the dev's monster design process had a step in there at the end that said "and then we compare it to the expected numbers for its level and tweak whatever is flexible in order to have monsters at least in the ballpark on offensive and defensive capabilities"). There's a way to have monsters be viable ten levels on without the narrative disconnects that pure-HP scaling (with a tad of wealth scaling) creates. There's a way to not assume magical enhancement bonuses without having the math fall apart when, shockingly, PCs actually receive magic items.
But why bother, because all we really want is to force everyone else to play a reprint of 4e, and we can't have that, so let's just cherry-pick some badly implemented 4e mechanics and call it a day, instead of trying to accomplish some of the good things those mechanics were trying to accomplish in a way that palatable to everyone.
+1
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 1:39PM
#68
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2012
|
I think there is a bit of both going on. On some things I think they have missed why people liked 4e. Particularly the people who liked the tactical aspects of the game have simply been missed. On some things, I think they are well aware that people liked certain features of 4e but are intentionally not building 5e around them because they need to produce some comprise with the people who disliked those features of 4e. Classes tightly pinned to specific roles and balance through identical power structure are probably the big two here.
You do understand that 4E fans don't care about those two things right? I mean I'd love to see a controller style fighter as long as it continues to be able to contribute equally in most situations like combat, exploration, and socialization. I haven't seen anyone complain about not having identical power structures.
This. The devs don't seem to understand 4e, so they put in these token nods to 4e that don't begin to do what 4e was trying to do with them much less do it the way 4e should have done it. No, I haven't talked to them, so I could be wrong, which is why I said seem and then provided the basis for my belief to be taken with however many grains of salt you feel appropriate. What they have done so far is get the worst of both worlds, where the 4haters recognize the mechanics and say "this is too much like 4e!" or at least "shut up 4lovers, they gave you all these 4e mechanics stop complaining!" and yet the 4e-ers not only don't have what they want but don't expect to get what they want because the devs seem to think they've already given it to us. Again, we could be wrong, but I know plenty of 4e-ers who have given up on the playtest already because it looks like they aren't going to get anything they want out of it.
Worse, because the 4haters at least seem to think it's the mechanics we're interested in rather than the goals those mechanics were working towards, they act like the two sides are irreconcilable so we should just give up and go our separate ways. "You want AEDU for everyone and rigid class roles, we hate those things, we can't both have and not have them, so go play 4e and leave the rest of us alone." How many posts have you seen saying something to the effect of "give up on 5e and just reprint/update both 3.5 and 4e"?
In point of fact they are far more reconcilable than most people seem to think, but nobody is trying to reconcile them because they conflate "the mechanics are irreconcilable" with "the desires of their respective fans are irreconcilable" and "I don't like what 4e did" with "I don't like what 4e was trying to do." There's a way to give fighters meaningful options every round and even some resource management decisions without making them dissociative or magical (hint, maneuvers isn't it, at least not the maneuvers we have now). There's a way to have HP as an encounter resource without eliminating the consequences of your actions (hint, exp 2 isn't it). There's a way to have wizards feel vancian without having them stomp all over one encounter days or be useless in longer ones (hint, signature spells and non-scaling at-wills isn't it. I know they've said they're going to start scaling at wills, but that's only half the issue). There's a way to have roles without pigeon holing anyone into those roles. There's a way to have math that works and still have monster stats chosen on the basis of concept instead of level and that aren't all identical at a given level (I know the monster math is still up in the air, but I'm just saying I'd like it if the dev's monster design process had a step in there at the end that said "and then we compare it to the expected numbers for its level and tweak whatever is flexible in order to have monsters at least in the ballpark on offensive and defensive capabilities"). There's a way to have monsters be viable ten levels on without the narrative disconnects that pure-HP scaling (with a tad of wealth scaling) creates. There's a way to not assume magical enhancement bonuses without having the math fall apart when, shockingly, PCs actually receive magic items.
But why bother, because all we really want is to force everyone else to play a reprint of 4e, and we can't have that, so let's just cherry-pick some badly implemented 4e mechanics and call it a day, instead of trying to accomplish some of the good things those mechanics were trying to accomplish in a way that palatable to everyone.
The tactical thing is somehting 4th ed focused on so IDK how big an issue that is for some 4th ed fans. Balance was another goal 4th ed set and D&DN is trying in that regard. A relative handful of posters however are going around more or less demanding a reprint of 4th, trash talking D&DN and claiming it will fail and more or less saying everything was crap before 4th ed although they are careful to avoid mentioning any edition by name. Game woked for 34 years before 4th ed came along and through all those years it was apparently a crap game.
I don't like aspects of 4th ed but its not a crap game as such and it did have alot of good things in it worth mining for D&DN or even homebrew 3.XYZ.
Can you point them out because I haven't seen anyone that likes 4E say anything more than they want the option to be able to play their way.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 1:39PM
#69
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2008
|
D&D Next is basically taking off where 3.5 left with a dash of 4E, a pinch of innovation, a dose of progress and a torrential of old school- it's going backwards but some new bells and whistles. Most of those bells and whistles are because of 4E (the future!).
"I don't like some things" is not a "fundemental difference" between 4E and other editions.
I don't like the 4th ed classes, and roles. Kind of a big deal IMHO. Most of the other things about 4th ed I liked espicially from the DM side of things. To be fair to 4th ed I would actually like to play it as I never got that chance as I can find at least 3 classes I did like.
If you don't like vancian and overpowered spellcasters 3.5 may not be for you.
Thats probably a bit more than a few things lol.
This is off topic. Do they or do they not understand why people liked 4E? Do they or do they not realize they missed the point of the mechanics they included from 4E? That's on topic.
No, dude, I was on topic. My point, that you apparently missed, was that they are adding very little of 4th to D&D Next. It's mostly retro.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 1:42PM
#70
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Can you point them out because I haven't seen anyone that likes 4E say anything more than they want the option to be able to play their way.
I've seen a few fringe extremists say that or something very similar, but I don't attribute those claims to your entire side. Each side has some fringe elements making some pretty outrageous demands and comments. I just wish more people on your side were as aware as I am that fringe elements don't represent our side. It would be nice not to be constantly lumped in with them.
|
|
|
