|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 12:36AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Save or Die/Suck still trumps weapon damage. Weapon damage is just the janitors cleaning up the mess after its over.
There are not really any save or die/suck spells. Those few spells that are anything like the old save-or spells either a) don't make a target suck, b) require multiple failed saves for the effect to truly happen, or b) just deal a flat amount of damage that is not any higher than a martial character's DPR...
Hold Person/Monster
Also, have you compared how spell DCs scale compared to how saving throws (don't)scale?
Do you really think that a spell that takes up a wizard's concentration, doesn't permanently remove the foe from a fight, deals no damage or permanent effects, and gives a foe a save every round in any way, shape, or form invalidates what a fighter can do? Really!?
And yes, I have looked at how things scale. At first I was bothered. Then I saw that PCs can take a feat that allows them to gain advantage on any saving throw vs. a spell as a reaction, and that a number of monsters are immune to spells below certain levels and gain advantage to all saves vs. spells. At that point in time I stopped being bothered.
Wizards are quite nice in this edition. They do not, however, in any way, shape, or form overshadow anybody else. Some people might subjectively feel that they get cooler effects. I subjectively feel that those people should probably play wizards. I think that the type of effects martial characters get both a) feel martial and b) feel cool. Most importantly, the numbers of everything seem balanced. There are a few broken elements here or there, but there is by no means the systemically broken foundations found in 3e.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 12:38AM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2012
|
The lack of options for ALL characters (Wizard included) in both play and in Character Creation (seriously, FOUR feats???!!?!), just doesn't make this game seem like a very fun thing. My favorite thing about any edition is character building (especially in 3xE and 4E), because I never feel like I am creating the same character twice. But as of right now, DDN just doesn't meet that baseline need for me. Heck, even the dreaded 3E fighter got a crapton of feats to choose. Sure, it was all pretty meaningless in the end, but the DDN fighter has even less choice, which I didn't think was actually possible.
I just don't see anything that will make me drop 4E or Pathfinder (I will play PF, but never DM it).
I hear you. The tiny number of choices involved in character creation is one of my biggest complaints with Next so far. You only ever get four skills, and they're chosen by your background. You only ever get four feats, and their determined by your specialty. It's like they want everyone to take one of these few pre-made packages and not even customize their character. Every blacksmith has the same skills. Every Defender has the same feats. The one thing that really kept me playing 3.x over the years, despite all of its flaws, was all of the options in character creation. Next seems to be designed to make characters as basic and cookie-cutter as possible.
I honestly feel like there's a lot of customization in this edition, we just don't have a bulk of the options yet.
Ding ding ding ding.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 12:39AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2012
|
Save or Die/Suck still trumps weapon damage. Weapon damage is just the janitors cleaning up the mess after its over.
There are not really any save or die/suck spells. Those few spells that are anything like the old save-or spells either a) don't make a target suck, b) require multiple failed saves for the effect to truly happen, or b) just deal a flat amount of damage that is not any higher than a martial character's DPR...
Hold Person/Monster
Also, have you compared how spell DCs scale compared to how saving throws (don't)scale?
Do you really think that a spell that takes up a wizard's concentration, doesn't permanently remove the foe from a fight, deals no damage or permanent effects, and gives a foe a save every round in any way, shape, or form invalidates what a fighter can do? Really!?
And yes, I have looked at how things scale. At first I was bothered. Then I saw that PCs can take a feat that allows them to gain advantage on any saving throw vs. a spell as a reaction, and that a number of monsters are immune to spells bellow certain levels and gain advantage to all saves vs. spells. At that point in time I stopped being bothered.
Wizards are quite nice in this edition. They do not, however, in any way, shape, or form overshadow anybody else. Some people might subjectively feel that they get cooler effects. I subjectively feel that those people should probably play wizards. I think that the type of effects martial characters get both a) feel martial and b) feel cool. Most importantly, the numbers of everything seem balanced. There are a few broken elements here or there, but there is by no means the systemically broken foundations found in 3e.
This. After the previous playtest packet, I was ready to pack it in. I'm ready to believe again.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 12:43AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
The lack of options for ALL characters (Wizard included) in both play and in Character Creation (seriously, FOUR feats???!!?!), just doesn't make this game seem like a very fun thing. My favorite thing about any edition is character building (especially in 3xE and 4E), because I never feel like I am creating the same character twice. But as of right now, DDN just doesn't meet that baseline need for me. Heck, even the dreaded 3E fighter got a crapton of feats to choose. Sure, it was all pretty meaningless in the end, but the DDN fighter has even less choice, which I didn't think was actually possible.
I just don't see anything that will make me drop 4E or Pathfinder (I will play PF, but never DM it).
I hear you. The tiny number of choices involved in character creation is one of my biggest complaints with Next so far. You only ever get four skills, and they're chosen by your background. You only ever get four feats, and their determined by your specialty. It's like they want everyone to take one of these few pre-made packages and not even customize their character. Every blacksmith has the same skills. Every Defender has the same feats. The one thing that really kept me playing 3.x over the years, despite all of its flaws, was all of the options in character creation. Next seems to be designed to make characters as basic and cookie-cutter as possible.
Which is actually a dealbreaker for me. Like I said, I LOVE character creation, and the idea that each character is my own and that I am not creating the same character twice. I just don't know if they can fix this. Which is sad, because this playtest is greatly improved from the last one in many respects. But the thing is, all that fixing some of the little things that bugged me has done is unearthed much more widespread issues with the system. And the thing is, I have owned every edition of D&D that has come out since I have been alive (1E is older than I am, but 2E came out when I was five, and I purchased it when I was 11 or 12). And it is also really sad that I would rather play Pathfinder(not 3.5E, Pathfinder, which I view as being inferior to 3.5E) than DDN right now.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 12:45AM
#45
|
|
|
Save or Die/Suck still trumps weapon damage. Weapon damage is just the janitors cleaning up the mess after its over.
There are not really any save or die/suck spells. Those few spells that are anything like the old save-or spells either a) don't make a target suck, b) require multiple failed saves for the effect to truly happen, or b) just deal a flat amount of damage that is not any higher than a martial character's DPR...
Hold Person/Monster
Also, have you compared how spell DCs scale compared to how saving throws (don't)scale?
Do you really think that a spell that takes up a wizard's concentration, doesn't permanently remove the foe from a fight, deals no damage or permanent effects, and gives a foe a save every round in any way, shape, or form invalidates what a fighter can do? Really!?
And yes, I have looked at how things scale. At first I was bothered. Then I saw that PCs can take a feat that allows them to gain advantage on any saving throw vs. a spell as a reaction, and that a number of monsters are immune to spells bellow certain levels and gain advantage to all saves vs. spells. At that point in time I stopped being bothered.
Wizards are quite nice in this edition. They do not, however, in any way, shape, or form overshadow anybody else. Some people might subjectively feel that they get cooler effects. I subjectively feel that those people should probably play wizards. I think that the type of effects martial characters get both a) feel martial and b) feel cool. Most importantly, the numbers of everything seem balanced. There are a few broken elements here or there, but there is by no means the systemically broken foundations found in 3e.
1. Concentration is cheap
2. The advantage on saving throws vs magic feat has "can cast 1st level spells" as a prerequisite.
3. Dealing with saving throws that don't scale having to pay a maneuver/feat tax when you get so few of them
...whatever
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 12:46AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I honestly feel like there's a lot of customization in this edition, we just don't have a bulk of the options yet.
More options won't really help the issue for me. More places to use those options will. As it stands, a character gets four feats and four skills, PERIOD. Having more things to put in those limited slots isn't going to drastically improve customization. They actually have a fair enough number of options for playtesting purposes, they just don't have enough slots to use them in.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 12:50AM
#47
|
|
|
I honestly feel like there's a lot of customization in this edition, we just don't have a bulk of the options yet.
More options won't really help the issue for me. More places to use those options will. As it stands, a character gets four feats and four skills, PERIOD. Having more things to put in those limited slots isn't going to drastically improve customization. They actually have a fair enough number of options for playtesting purposes, they just don't have enough slots to use them in.
Mearls did just tweet that there are customization options not represented in the new packet, so there's still some hope. Like, an entire system of stuff that kicks in once feats are done.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 12:53AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I honestly feel like there's a lot of customization in this edition, we just don't have a bulk of the options yet.
More options won't really help the issue for me. More places to use those options will. As it stands, a character gets four feats and four skills, PERIOD. Having more things to put in those limited slots isn't going to drastically improve customization. They actually have a fair enough number of options for playtesting purposes, they just don't have enough slots to use them in.
Mearls did just tweet that there are customization options not represented in the new packet, so there's still some hope. Like, an entire system of stuff that kicks in once feats are done.
Ummm...yay? So basically Specialties ARE 4E Themes (heroic tier Paragon Paths/Epic Destinies), and Feats as they were in 3E/4E don't exist?
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 12:54AM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2012
|
I honestly feel like there's a lot of customization in this edition, we just don't have a bulk of the options yet.
More options won't really help the issue for me. More places to use those options will. As it stands, a character gets four feats and four skills, PERIOD. Having more things to put in those limited slots isn't going to drastically improve customization. They actually have a fair enough number of options for playtesting purposes, they just don't have enough slots to use them in.
Given Wizards' history with feats, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that the four feat thing is absolutely not the full progression for their feat system. There could be any number of reasons for them holding back on the number of available feats and skills for now. I wouldn't be surprised if we got something on the level of 4e/Pathfinder for number of feats, for example.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 12:56AM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I honestly feel like there's a lot of customization in this edition, we just don't have a bulk of the options yet.
More options won't really help the issue for me. More places to use those options will. As it stands, a character gets four feats and four skills, PERIOD. Having more things to put in those limited slots isn't going to drastically improve customization. They actually have a fair enough number of options for playtesting purposes, they just don't have enough slots to use them in.
Given Wizards' history with feats, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that the four feat thing is absolutely not the full progression for their feat system. There could be any number of reasons for them holding back on the number of available feats and skills for now. I wouldn't be surprised if we got something on the level of 4e/Pathfinder for number of feats, for example.
I won't hold my breath. It sounds like they are making another subsystem that goes into effect after feats are done. Doesn't sound that promising.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
|
|
|
