|
4 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 11:06AM
#171
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
4th ed threw the 3.5 players under the bus so been there done that.
And given the massive backlash from that, you'd think they're have learned throwing the previous fanbase under the bus is not the best marketing strategy.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 12:18PM
#172
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
More I think about it the more I come to feel that the "best" edition of D&D all around was Star Wars Saga Edition.
Probably. There's one fundamental problem using that as a basis for D&D, though. No class in SWSE has a spell progression - all force powers are learnt through taking a feat, and they're not really that different in power. It's very unlike the way D&D spellcasters work.
Personally I would have used SWSE cleaned up and simplified for D&DN. One can add bounded accurcy and tweak the skill system in Saga no problem. Not all classes in D&D Saga would have had to have the talent/feat progression the SWSE characters had. The spellcasters for example could still have had a vancian spell progression table and only had a few talents or feats like the 3.5 spellcasters.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 12:24PM
#173
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
4th ed threw the 3.5 players under the bus so been there done that.
And given the massive backlash from that, you'd think they're have learned throwing the previous fanbase under the bus is not the best marketing strategy.
The problem being 4th ed was different than previous ediitons of the game. Someone was going to get thrown under the bus so your choice is really 4th ed or 1st to 3rd ed. They're also not insulting their own game this time around, are doing a playtest focusing on some of the lessons from 4th ed in regards to balence.
If a 4th ed player is dedicated to powers and tactical options on a battlemat D&DN is a bus. If they like things such as balance more then D&DN may appeal as it doesn't have the massive inbalance problems 3.5 had. its is also hard to guess the amount of hard core dedicated fans for 4th ed as well. I don't think you will have large numbers of D&D players running 4th ed in 20 years time put it that way.
As I said personally I would have gone with SWSE as a baseline for D&DN and tweaked it from there and put things like encounter powers in as an option to be purchased via feats/talents etc.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 2:58PM
#174
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
You forgot the part where ASF only applies to armor your not proficient with so your fighter/mage could wear any armor you wanted also sure that SOUNDS strong but what is that fighter NOT getting because he's 3 levels behind his brethren.
To be able to cancel out my disadvantage and cause monsters in my Darkness to have disadvantage is more then enough to worth 3 levels of fighter.
The party fights a dragon.
My fighter/wizard can cast Darkness to protect himself and pin down that dragon.
The cleric can just sit back and spam lance of faith and heal if the dragon hits me.
The pure wizard can just fire away until the dragon is dead.
The rogue is gonna have a field day with my Darkness as he can hide and sneak attack.
If I can find a way to create Darkness without taking 3lv in wizard then I'll be more then happy
to get my 3 missing fighter levels, but then again some of the lv1 spells are not bad like Shield.
1) This isn't 4E and you are not a Drow. You can't see in your own darkness either.
2) Darkness requires concentration. The dragon breathes on you (doesn't need to see you). You take damage. Darkness fails.
Next?
Carl
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 3:35PM
#175
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2006
|
4th ed threw the 3.5 players under the bus so been there done that.
Except 4e didn't throw anybody under a bus, any moreso than 3.5 did; both games were continuing evolutions of the game in which large portions of the game were drawn from experience in the later portions of the previous modules. You can see 3.5 beginning to grow from the Players Options books in 2e; you can see 4e start to grow from things like ToB:Bo9S in 3.5.
The problem being 4th ed was different than previous ediitons of the game.
An astute observation. Do you mean to imply that any edition was not different from previous editions, or are you simply implying that unless a game is not different it is a poor choice for the game to release as a new edition?
They're also not insulting their own game this time around
So you're saying that making 4e was an insult to their own game?
If a 4th ed player is dedicated to powers and tactical options on a battlemat D&DN is a bus.(sic)
I assume you mean "a bust". If you're referring to D&DN-Core, then yes, you are right. However the people in charge of this whole project have said, on multiple occasions, that they are wanting to bring the things that 4e did well back to the game. That means they'll have modules for tactical, grid-based combat - in theory, such things will appeal to 4e gamers, and if they completely fulfill their promise, you'll have a system that does it better than 4e. In theory.
its is also hard to guess the amount of hard core dedicated fans for 4th ed as well. I don't think you will have large numbers of D&D players running 4th ed in 20 years time put it that way.
Hey, it's the supposition and random guess game again everybody! Honestly, I don't think there will be all that many - speaking as a percentage of all gamers overall - gamers that are hard into 4e in 20 years, for several reasons. None of these have anything to do with the quality of the game, but it's nice for you to insinuate that (that was sarcasm, actually constant needless ragging on 4e is really actually pretty annoying).
Want the tl;dr of my posts? Read the bold text; I put it there to highlight the main points for ease of skimming.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 4:00PM
#176
|
|
|
More I think about it the more I come to feel that the "best" edition of D&D all around was Star Wars Saga Edition.
Probably. There's one fundamental problem using that as a basis for D&D, though. No class in SWSE has a spell progression - all force powers are learnt through taking a feat, and they're not really that different in power. It's very unlike the way D&D spellcasters work.
Oh, totally agree. The biggest sticking point is no similar spel casting mechanic. I wasn't sugesting that you could take SWSE , replace the word "force" with "fireball" and off you go. If you took the system , chucked out all classes except the scoundrel and the noble and then used as a basis to implement changes like bounded accuracy etc, I think you would have a much better starting point.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 4:09PM
#177
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
Blacksheep 3.5 players thrown under bus= we voted with our wallets and here we are testing 5th ed. THe book of Nine Swords was not even that popular with the 3.5 crowd as a whole. In the lead up to 4th ed also had Star Wars Saga which alot of people did like and wanted somehting based off that than what we got with 4th ed.
WoTC more or less slagged off 3.5 in the lead up to 4th. THey're not doing that this time around.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 4:22PM
#178
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2006
|
Blacksheep 3.5 players thrown under bus= we voted with our wallets and here we are testing 5th ed. THe book of Nine Swords was not even that popular with the 3.5 crowd as a whole. In the lead up to 4th ed also had Star Wars Saga which alot of people did like and wanted somehting based off that than what we got with 4th ed.
WoTC more or less slagged off 3.5 in the lead up to 4th. THey're not doing that this time around.
I don't think "getting thrown under the bus" means what you think it means.
Do you have a basis for "was not even that popular with the 3.5 crowd as a whole" that isn't anecdotal? Do you have a basis for lots of people liking SWSE? Are you really just saying "I feel this way, so logically, it's how other people felt"?
Even if it wasn't well recieved, you can still see where they were leading towards a design similar to 4e with that book, and other mechanics introduced in other books made towards the end of 3.5. Similarly, you can see the same concepts with 2e Player's Options evolving into 3e.
Does your basis of argument still work with "2e players thrown under bus= we voted with our wallets and here we (were playing) 4th ed."?
And this time around, they're not using the exploratory mechanics they had time to introduce in the previous version. They're rebuilding D&D from the ground up, with no previous experience in the mechanics they are trying to implement. It's sound of them to bring up community voice (and free playtesting) in such an environment (just as it would have been sound to let the community playtest every previous version of D&D for free).
WoTC more or less slagged off 3.5 in the lead up to 4th. THey're not doing that this time around.
I don't understand what you mean here. Are you trying to say that WotC is keeping support and conceptual alignment with 4e in making 5e?
Or are you trying to make the (faulted) argument that "4e was way more different than 3.5, than 3.5 was different from 2e"?
Want the tl;dr of my posts? Read the bold text; I put it there to highlight the main points for ease of skimming.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 4:24PM
#179
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Or are you trying to make the (faulted) argument that "4e was way more different than 3.5, than 3.5 was different from 2e"?
What's faulty about it?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 4:28PM
#180
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
More I think about it the more I come to feel that the "best" edition of D&D all around was Star Wars Saga Edition.
Probably. There's one fundamental problem using that as a basis for D&D, though. No class in SWSE has a spell progression - all force powers are learnt through taking a feat, and they're not really that different in power. It's very unlike the way D&D spellcasters work.
Oh, totally agree. The biggest sticking point is no similar spel casting mechanic. I wasn't sugesting that you could take SWSE , replace the word "force" with "fireball" and off you go. If you took the system , chucked out all classes except the scoundrel and the noble and then used as a basis to implement changes like bounded accuracy etc, I think you would have a much better starting point.
Soldier = fighter, Scoundral = rogue, Noble tweak it a bit ans make it a bard. Warlord gets tac talent tree and inspiring talent tree, powers rather than being class based go where the force powers are and you can take them via talents and feats if you want them.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
