|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 2:10PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
I find it amazing how 5E manages to pick sparse, seemingly random elements of 4E while accurately missing all of the features which were key to that system.
Savage Worlds is closer to 4E than this playtest is.
The things key to 4th ed are probably hated by the non 4th ed players. Not saying thats right/wrong/fair it is what it is.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 2:11PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
Let's PLEASE not turn this into another "It's not 4e enough" thread. There are plenty of them already.
It's not a matter of enough, too little or too much. The point is not having an 'x edition quota' in 5E.
If 4E is left out because the design and business goals push the product in a different direction, fine.
But if instead this is supposed to appease 4E players by giving them something they can regonize as their edition of choice I'm afraid it will be missing the mark by far.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 2:12PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
I don't think reason really matters to the people who want edition X. They will complain no matter what is released. I just find it funny that the strongest fans of 4E seem to be the people that hated D&D prior to 4E.
That's not generally true. Most of us actually loved D&D before 4E. That's why we were playing it. Loving something doesn't keep you from recognizing that it's not perfect in every facet, though, and when 4e addressed a lot of the issues 3.5 had and introduced some cool new ideas, I happily embraced 4e.
As somebody who has extensive experience with both 3.5 and 4E, I find the notion that Next has more 4E in it than 3.5 patently absurd to the extent of being essentially indefensible. I wouldn't call it 3.75; it's definitely made too many lateral moves for that to be at al apropos, but it's clearly a 3.5ish system. Things like "the monk essentially has all of the form of the 3.5 monk and none of the form of the 4E monk, but I'm putting it in the 4E column because the monk doesn't suck, which makes it more like the 4E monk than the sucky 3.5 monk" are borderline gibberish. "The monk will be a mechanically impotant" wasn't a 3.5 design decision. It's just something that happened because they didn't bother to care.
And guess what? I'm actually okay with Next resembling 3.5 more than other editions. It may be just impossible for someone who sees Next's development as some kind of validation or repudiation of their playstyle to even comprehend the idea that someone would be okay with the edition strongly resembling an edition they don't think is quite as good, but I genuinely feel that it's okay if Next looks more like 3.5. I really, really liked 3.5.
What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine.
THere is very little of the 3.5 monk in the D&DN monk beyond a few shared keywords and I did say even when compared to te 4th ed monk the resemblences are superficial.
Without AEDU power structures and roles alot of thie things that worked in 4th ed won't work in D&DN. Its the same as some things which worked in 2nd ed won't work in D&DN. Want out of combat stuff invent a new category or feasts/talent/non wepaon proficinecies for example that only let you take non combat related stuff.
A simple idea, one 2nd ed pulled off and somehting both 3.5 and 4th ed struggled with.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 2:15PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
The things key to 4th ed are probably hated by the non 4th ed players. Not saying thats right/wrong/fair it is what it is.
Yes, I do reognise that - see my post above.
That's why this idea of the edition for everyone is unlikely to succeed. Dual system support would be a more practical and viable solution if the goal is keeping the playerbase united under the brand.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 2:16PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
The things key to 4th ed are probably hated by the non 4th ed players. Not saying thats right/wrong/fair it is what it is.
Yes, I do reognise that - see my post above.
That's why this idea of the edition for everyone is unlikely to succeed. Dual system support would be a more practical and viable solution if the goal is keeping the playerbase united under the brand.
Not sure if I am the only one who has noticed his but one could switch the fighter manuveurs out and plug in powers if one wanted to. Just saying. They can't really do that until they get the fighter to where they want it/is needed.
Dual system suport has only existed back in 1st ed and early days of 2nd when they had BECM runing alongside AD&D. If 4th ed can't support itself with D&DN not even on the shelf dual support is really a waste of time. Perosnally I hpope they reprint soehitng like the Adventurers Vault and see how well it sells.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 2:34PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
Not sure if I am the only one who has noticed his but one could switch the fighter manuveurs out and plug in powers if one wanted to. Just saying. They can't really do that until they get the fighter to where they want it/is needed.
I'm skeptical. This system is not build to be modular that way, despite the best intentions. Yes, it is possible to slot in 'powers' but will they just work? Will balance hold?
Powers worked in 4E because thay were part of a coherent and integrated structure, there is no guarantee they will fit in this new environment.
I'd rather they would focus on doing the game they want at its best rather than speding efforts in this exhausting (and possibly pointless) exercise of trying to hit 5 pigeons with a stone.
Dual system suport has only existed back in 1st ed and early days of 2nd when they had BECM runing alongside AD&D. If 4th ed can't support itself with D&DN not even on the shelf dual support is really a waste of time. Perosnally I hpope they reprint soehitng like the Adventurers Vault and see how well it sells.
Dual support will not require double printing: just adding stats blocks in crunchy bits for 4E in future material (not rulebooks). This would broaden the audience, and thus revenue potential from sales and DDI subscriptions. Question is, can 5E support itself if it loses part of the playerbase in a niche, shrinking market?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 2:55PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
I don't see them doing dual stat blocks. It would have been liking 4th ed adventures having dual 3.5 stat blocks. It will jsut drive up the cost of printing. If D&DN has DDI I hope they keep the 4th ed DDI up somewhere even if its in an options menu instead of front page.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 3:09PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2009
|
As somebody who has extensive experience with both 3.5 and 4E, I find the notion that Next has more 4E in it than 3.5 patently absurd to the extent of being essentially indefensible. I wouldn't call it 3.75; it's definitely made too many lateral moves for that to be at al apropos, but it's clearly a 3.5ish system. Things like "the monk essentially has all of the form of the 3.5 monk and none of the form of the 4E monk, but I'm putting it in the 4E column because the monk doesn't suck, which makes it more like the 4E monk than the sucky 3.5 monk" are borderline gibberish.
Could not have put it better myself... and I tried, till I saw this post.
What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine.
That's going in my signature!
"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - Thecasualoblivion
"When I DM Next I feel that I might as well be running a game based off of notes scribbled on a paper napkin." -Reinhart
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 5:09PM
#19
|
|
|
THere is very little of the 3.5 monk in the D&DN monk beyond a few shared keywords and I did say even when compared to te 4th ed monk the resemblences are superficial.
Flurry of Blows, the ki strike/undaunted strike mechanic, Purity of Body, Diamond Body, Abundant Step, Diamond Soul, Quivering Palm, Timeless Body, Tongue of Sun and Moon and Empty Body would all seem to disagree with this assertion. I'll grant you that Perfect Self was significantly changed.
The DDN Monk is exactly the same as the 3.5 Monk. A hodge-podge of odd abilities completely unrelated to the theme of the class. What part of the Monk ethos outside of D&D has immunity to poisons, disease, or the ravages of aging? What Monks outside of D&D can talk to every living creature, become ethereal, or slip magically between spaces like a dimension door spell?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 5:42PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Mar 11, 2008
|
THere is very little of the 3.5 monk in the D&DN monk beyond a few shared keywords and I did say even when compared to te 4th ed monk the resemblences are superficial.
Flurry of Blows, the ki strike/undaunted strike mechanic, Purity of Body, Diamond Body, Abundant Step, Diamond Soul, Quivering Palm, Timeless Body, Tongue of Sun and Moon and Empty Body would all seem to disagree with this assertion. I'll grant you that Perfect Self was significantly changed.
The DDN Monk is exactly the same as the 3.5 Monk. A hodge-podge of odd abilities completely unrelated to the theme of the class. What part of the Monk ethos outside of D&D has immunity to poisons, disease, or the ravages of aging? What Monks outside of D&D can talk to every living creature, become ethereal, or slip magically between spaces like a dimension door spell?
If you read the OP, the Monk is using abilities from 1E and 3E, so claiming the Monk is a 3E clone doesn't work unless you consider all Pre-4E Editions to be 3E. Most of the Monks abilities that you comment on were from 1E, where the Monk was not about Kung Fu. The monk represented a mystic unrelated to any real world counterpart. This is why Monks in 2E were a Priest Kit. The Kung Fu Monk was created in 3E and continued into 4E (and sadly into Next).
I would rather see the Monk either return to it's roots (droping the Kung Fu nonsense) or become the Psionic Kung Fu Master. Mixing the two (as 3E has done) just doesn't work for me.
|
|
|
