Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

D&D 5e Discussion

15960626465122

Posts

  • tzeentchlingtzeentchling Dr. Doctor Oakland, CARegistered User regular
    Both of the answers to those questions are fully answerable/solveable within the 4e framework.

  • schussschuss Registered User regular
    The first answer just sets me off, because the INTRODUCTION of the subsystem to 4E meant you could be an intimidating dude without having to pump a specific stat all the time, or you could be a nature-loving barbarian, or any other number of things that just added to "flavor". If you really wanted to simplify from a DM level, you could just rock the ability mods for checks.
    I think 90% of what people think is wrong with 4E is just bad encounter design. The other 10% are rule fixes.

  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Yeah, pretty much.

    And the problem they're having with 5e is that they're pretty clearly starting from "Let's make another edition in order to sell more books" instead of "We think we've figured out a way to improve on the old edition. Let's make a new one!"

    And because of that, they're having a hard time figuring out a way to improve on 4e without just giving us 4.5 (because that wouldn't accomplish the sales goal).

    So, we're getting stupid shit like this where they deviate from 4e because they need it to be different, or refuse to take the correct answer because it's the 4e answer, instead of actually pursuing good design as a primary goal.

  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose Registered User regular
    I think I'd rather have a 4.5e after all this. Seriously, I like 4e, I don't need another new system when I could just have a new PH1 that fixes things like the wizard not actually being all that controller-y up front, applies 'inherent bonuses' by default, and gives Implements a static proficiency and damage bonus,* so that mastering different implements means more than just what set of enchantments you potentially have access to, and actually having one right from the start makes a difference to more than just the Wizard.



    *E.g. Wands having +3 to hit and +1 damage vs rods being +1 and +3 or something. Basically fold the superior implements into the system like weapons.

    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    DropBox invite link - get 250MB extra free.
  • schussschuss Registered User regular
    You know what would really improve things? Having a super-easy to use web front end for running games that automatically calculates everything on the fly pre-loaded with some stock maps and an editor. Making things simple for people means doing the math for them, not designing a new system that's impossible to put into code (since they're aiming for more DM control).
    Wizards could make mad cash through the above as well as having a robo-DM'd dungeon hack module available for when no one wants to DM.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    4.5 would be fantastic. Especially if they held off for a few more years so they could do some more experimenting.

    I still want real elemental classes.

    --

    That said, it has been clarified that the "take one action, and then move up to your speed" actually means "take one action, and move up to your speed before or after the action." WotC am gud spek.

    Incenjucar on
    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    You could almost just say "You get one Move Action and one Standard Action each turn."

    But that's just crazy talk.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Denada wrote: »
    You could almost just say "You get one Move Action and one Standard Action each turn."

    But that's just crazy talk.

    That's 4E talk you heathen.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    Sorry, I wasn't being iconic enough. What I meant to say was, "On your turn, you can perform one action, such as attacking, using a device, speaking, looking around, or disabling a trap. Before or after that action, you can also move up to your speed. You can sometimes perform other non-action actions during your movement, such as spinning in a circle, loading a crossbow, drawing a weapon, standing up, and scowling."

    That's much easier to understand.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    We believe this is going to accomplish our goal of making combat move faster across all levels, being easier to teach to new players

    If you are having a hard time explaining 'Move, Minor, Standard' to a new player, that player probably shouldn't be playing D&D (or any other tabletop game).

    Sure, it can get a little more complicated at higher levels, or with some of the more complex classes... but isn't that the whole fucking point?

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • DMBrendonDMBrendon Registered User
    schuss wrote: »
    The first answer just sets me off, because the INTRODUCTION of the subsystem to 4E meant you could be an intimidating dude without having to pump a specific stat all the time
    One thing I like about 4E is that all characters are equally capable, you don't have to be an expert to avoid some of the bum choices that were available in earlier editions. From my personal experience, in some editions you could build a character to fit a cool concept you had in your head, but which as levels progressed, became relatively ineffective.

    3D Virtual Tabletop - see the dungeon the way your character sees it. Move your miniature forward to discover what lies in the darkness beyond your torchlight. You can try a live demo online right now.
  • bssbss BIBIBABIBABIBUBIII Madison, WIRegistered User regular
    schuss wrote: »
    You know what would really improve things? Having a super-easy to use web front end for running games that automatically calculates everything on the fly pre-loaded with some stock maps and an editor. Making things simple for people means doing the math for them, not designing a new system that's impossible to put into code (since they're aiming for more DM control).
    Wizards could make mad cash through the above as well as having a robo-DM'd dungeon hack module available for when no one wants to DM.

    I've been musing a clean room 4e implementation that followed a client/server model and would allow for stuff like this. It followed from the digital stuff from the last couple pages. As much as I like to think about it, it'd just be a shit-ton of work. But that's not going to stop me from poking at the idea.
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    That said, it has been clarified that the "take one action, and then move up to your speed" actually means "take one action, and move up to your speed before or after the action." WotC am gud spek.

    It's even worse. Trevor clarified on Twitter that one action didn't necessarily mean only one action: "there's still plenty of ways to do multiple things on a turn. ... Like healing and attacking as part of a standard action, or doing a trick or something while you move." So it's one action, except when it isn't. When isn't it? Sometimes! I think the comment was regarding criticism that only one action meant that clerics were just going to be healbots.

    They are so fucking bad at this.
    Abbalah wrote: »
    And the problem they're having with 5e is that they're pretty clearly starting from "Let's make another edition in order to sell more books" instead of "We think we've figured out a way to improve on the old edition. Let's make a new one!"

    And because of that, they're having a hard time figuring out a way to improve on 4e without just giving us 4.5 (because that wouldn't accomplish the sales goal).

    So, we're getting stupid shit like this where they deviate from 4e because they need it to be different, or refuse to take the correct answer because it's the 4e answer, instead of actually pursuing good design as a primary goal.

    I had a long back-and-forth with a dude on Twitter about this. His argument was 4e had clearly failed because they're abandoning it. Mine was that the edition cycle has absolutely zilch to do with actual editions, just books. But I agree, what you described is entirely their problem right now. They're starting from scratch.

    3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam: bsstephan Twitch: bsstephan
    Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
    Occasional words about games: my site
  • schussschuss Registered User regular
    bss - in regards to the clean version of it etc. - if you want help, I'm here. I have a DDI sub and have a masochistic bent when it comes to systems testing. I don't think it would be that bad if you started small and kept things modular. I suck at coding, but I could probably work out all the logic and test cases. Then test them.

  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    bss wrote: »
    schuss wrote: »
    You know what would really improve things? Having a super-easy to use web front end for running games that automatically calculates everything on the fly pre-loaded with some stock maps and an editor. Making things simple for people means doing the math for them, not designing a new system that's impossible to put into code (since they're aiming for more DM control).
    Wizards could make mad cash through the above as well as having a robo-DM'd dungeon hack module available for when no one wants to DM.

    I've been musing a clean room 4e implementation that followed a client/server model and would allow for stuff like this. It followed from the digital stuff from the last couple pages. As much as I like to think about it, it'd just be a shit-ton of work. But that's not going to stop me from poking at the idea.
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    That said, it has been clarified that the "take one action, and then move up to your speed" actually means "take one action, and move up to your speed before or after the action." WotC am gud spek.

    It's even worse. Trevor clarified on Twitter that one action didn't necessarily mean only one action: "there's still plenty of ways to do multiple things on a turn. ... Like healing and attacking as part of a standard action, or doing a trick or something while you move." So it's one action, except when it isn't. When isn't it? Sometimes! I think the comment was regarding criticism that only one action meant that clerics were just going to be healbots.

    They are so fucking bad at this.
    Abbalah wrote: »
    And the problem they're having with 5e is that they're pretty clearly starting from "Let's make another edition in order to sell more books" instead of "We think we've figured out a way to improve on the old edition. Let's make a new one!"

    And because of that, they're having a hard time figuring out a way to improve on 4e without just giving us 4.5 (because that wouldn't accomplish the sales goal).

    So, we're getting stupid shit like this where they deviate from 4e because they need it to be different, or refuse to take the correct answer because it's the 4e answer, instead of actually pursuing good design as a primary goal.

    I had a long back-and-forth with a dude on Twitter about this. His argument was 4e had clearly failed because they're abandoning it. Mine was that the edition cycle has absolutely zilch to do with actual editions, just books. But I agree, what you described is entirely their problem right now. They're starting from scratch.

    How the hell can a PnP RPG fail? If someone started saying things like that to me I would edge away, get to somewhere with other people around, and then call the police.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Edit: Oh Vanilla, you card.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • bssbss BIBIBABIBABIBUBIII Madison, WIRegistered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    How the hell can a PnP RPG fail? If someone started saying things like that to me I would edge away, get to somewhere with other people around, and then call the police.

    Yeah, it was a really messed up core premise. It was, basically, that 4e was not the lineage of 5e, and 4e was replaced a lot sooner than 3e (despite him totally misunderstanding the basic timeline of 3e, including the change that 3.5e introduced), ergo 4e failed where 3e succeeded. There was so much lunacy in the argument that, even if it ignored stuff like what Abbalah said, it was pushing it.

    But there's a lot of amusing dumb stuff on #dndnext so I read it and casually troll it with dissent.

    3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam: bsstephan Twitch: bsstephan
    Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
    Occasional words about games: my site
  • bssbss BIBIBABIBABIBUBIII Madison, WIRegistered User regular
    schuss wrote: »
    bss - in regards to the clean version of it etc. - if you want help, I'm here. I have a DDI sub and have a masochistic bent when it comes to systems testing. I don't think it would be that bad if you started small and kept things modular. I suck at coding, but I could probably work out all the logic and test cases. Then test them.

    My thoughts are crazy nascent and mostly just thought exercises and excuses to code, rather than anything deliverable, but thanks. Messing around with a CB is the first step and goes towards my other project of consuming the Compendium wholly. But again this is just me messing around and talking aloud. That and becoming the guy who rants about contingency plans and The Man when The Man takes down 4e DDI (as is inevitable).

    3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam: bsstephan Twitch: bsstephan
    Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
    Occasional words about games: my site
  • bssbss BIBIBABIBABIBUBIII Madison, WIRegistered User regular
    Denada wrote: »
    Sorry, I wasn't being iconic enough. What I meant to say was, "On your turn, you can perform one action, such as attacking, using a device, speaking, looking around, or disabling a trap. Before or after that action, you can also move up to your speed. You can sometimes perform other non-action actions during your movement, such as spinning in a circle, loading a crossbow, drawing a weapon, standing up, and scowling."

    That's much easier to understand.

    The more I read this post the more I realize how perfect it is. Can you spin in a circle AND scowl in the same movement? Or is it just stand up and scowl? If loading a crossbow is the trigger to disabling a trap, is that an action or a move? Find out after this hour-long argument between two nerds.

    It's like the perfect parody of pre-4e rules.

    3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam: bsstephan Twitch: bsstephan
    Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
    Occasional words about games: my site
  • ToxTox I kill threads Pharezon's human garbage heapRegistered User regular
    Denada wrote: »
    You could almost just say "You get one Move Action and one Standard Action each turn."

    But that's just crazy talk.

    They made it pretty clear that one of things they felt they got wrong with both 3rd and 4th is too much jargon. You have to know too many specialized terminology to understand how the game works.

    Saying you get an action, and then you get to move either before or after the action is simplespeak for "we're doing away with minor actions." and if it's effective, good.

    Grey Ghost wrote: »
    James Dean was the actor, Jimmy Dean was in the sausage business.

    James Deen is both an actor AND in the sausage business.
    Secret Satans! Post | Gaming Wishlist | General Wishlist
    Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • NullzoneNullzone Registered User regular
    Tox wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    You could almost just say "You get one Move Action and one Standard Action each turn."

    But that's just crazy talk.

    They made it pretty clear that one of things they felt they got wrong with both 3rd and 4th is too much jargon. You have to know too many specialized terminology to understand how the game works.

    Saying you get an action, and then you get to move either before or after the action is simplespeak for "we're doing away with minor actions." and if it's effective, good.

    Except they've already sort of recanted on that and stated that there will be exceptions where you are doing multiple things on a turn despite only having one action, so they're functionally back in Minor Action land.

    One of the biggest problems I've had with the playtest is not being able to conceptually know what I could do on my own turn without having to prod the DM for information first. Every turn I had to declare what I would like to do and then it would go into a negotiation game as the DM declared caveats based on the situation and I would re-evaluate my options based on this new information.

    I have yet to see a post on the new edition that assuages my fears that it is 3e reprinted with new words, really; every time I look at it I can draw direct parallels to 3rd Ed. "Simplified" action economy that has lots of exception based caveats is straight up 3e with its action speeds, they're just not calling it that yet.

    I shouldn't be surprised that it is channeling 3e, since Monte Cook is principle designer, but still, blegh.

  • SJSJ Registered User regular
    Tox wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    You could almost just say "You get one Move Action and one Standard Action each turn."

    But that's just crazy talk.

    They made it pretty clear that one of things they felt they got wrong with both 3rd and 4th is too much jargon. You have to know too many specialized terminology to understand how the game works.

    Saying you get an action, and then you get to move either before or after the action is simplespeak for "we're doing away with minor actions." and if it's effective, good.

    Yes let us change things from being clearly delineated to ambiguous as hell (maybe, sort of, sometimes, we haven't decided yet). That will help.

  • VanguardVanguard Drive your cart and your plow over the bones of the dead. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2012
    I think I'm just going to play Dungeon Crawl Classics if I want to get my D20 (and d3, d5, d6, d7, d8, d10, d12, d14, d24 and d30) on.

    Vanguard on
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Vanguard is the Cool English Teacher that wears sneakers, drives a convertible, and teaches at risk youth the magic of learning. He's the motherfuckin' Mary Poppins of Iambic Pentameter

    MY RPG Blog: The Earthlight Academy
  • SJSJ Registered User regular
    I'm just going to play the Iron Kingdoms RPG when it comes out this summer and not have any fucks left to give.

  • VanguardVanguard Drive your cart and your plow over the bones of the dead. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2012
    I don't see how anyone could expect this to turn out well at this point. Game design has come a long way since AD&D, and, while I'll always have a soft spot for getting together with a group of friends to root out underground mazes full of monsters and treasure, the more I play other systems makes me realize how arcane it is.

    For example, in planning for the Burning Wheel, I rolled eight fully statted NPCs in an hour. How long does it take to do that in 3.5/Pathfinder? A long fucking time.

    Vanguard on
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Vanguard is the Cool English Teacher that wears sneakers, drives a convertible, and teaches at risk youth the magic of learning. He's the motherfuckin' Mary Poppins of Iambic Pentameter

    MY RPG Blog: The Earthlight Academy
  • SJSJ Registered User regular
    And then do it at some point past level 2, and have even more fun.

  • VanguardVanguard Drive your cart and your plow over the bones of the dead. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2012
    I think one of the biggest complications to the whole system is that, at least for 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder, is they've given stats to everything. It's that kind of complexity which bogs the game down. My least favorite part of it all is how quickly the math escalates.

    In DCC RPG, they don't even have a codified skill system. They're dictated by your profession, and, if it's reasonable to expect that profession to have that skill, you can test it. They don't have feats, either. Because everything is scaled down, the math doesn't seem to escalate quite as badly (the game also caps out at level 10).

    Burning Wheel uses a dice pool system. All rolls are virtually your dice pool vs. an obstacle number. Advantages are given to you in the form of bonus dice; disadvantages manifest themselves as an increase to the obstacle. Whereas in D&D, rolling more dice makes the game slow and boring, in BW, casting a handful of dice is exciting and doesn't add any more time as you're still looking to roll a 4+ most often.

    Vanguard on
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Vanguard is the Cool English Teacher that wears sneakers, drives a convertible, and teaches at risk youth the magic of learning. He's the motherfuckin' Mary Poppins of Iambic Pentameter

    MY RPG Blog: The Earthlight Academy
  • SkyCaptainSkyCaptain Registered User regular
    Mr_Rose wrote: »
    I think I'd rather have a 4.5e after all this. Seriously, I like 4e, I don't need another new system when I could just have a new PH1 that fixes things like the wizard not actually being all that controller-y up front, applies 'inherent bonuses' by default, and gives Implements a static proficiency and damage bonus,* so that mastering different implements means more than just what set of enchantments you potentially have access to, and actually having one right from the start makes a difference to more than just the Wizard.

    *E.g. Wands having +3 to hit and +1 damage vs rods being +1 and +3 or something. Basically fold the superior implements into the system like weapons.

    I'm surprised they made implements work the way they do and instead didn't make them more like weapon categories with different damage dice and ranges.

    The RPG Bestiary - Dangerous foes and legendary monsters for D&D 4th Edition
  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose Registered User regular
    I was a little surprised by that myself, but I also get why they don't necessarily want the damage to be wholly dependent on the implement, that being the idea that the spell itself is the weapon and you're effectively using the wand like a scope.
    It occurs to me that this would also indirectly force them to fix weapliments by essentially requiring an "implement properties" line and removing a little of the confusion.

    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    DropBox invite link - get 250MB extra free.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    So. Monte Cook has jumped ship.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman THANOSCOPTOR Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Best news I've heard yet. The man was so embedded into his own paradigm that he couldn't even recognize anything from 4E, even when his own "radical new ideas" had already been done in 4E.

    Undead Scottsman on
    thanossig_zps4bf2ceeb.jpg
  • InfidelInfidel Too easy. PiltoverRegistered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    So. Monte Cook has jumped ship.

    Fuck yes.

    Now to see what actually develops out of D&D.

    TwitchTV channel: OrokosPA check.php?c=OrokosPA
    Play D&D 4e? :: Check out Orokos and upload your Character Builder sheet! :: Orokos Dice Roller
    The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
  • Silas BrownSilas Brown Registered User regular
    Isn't it a little late? Like, I get that Monte Cook is the iconic source of all that is wrong with 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons, but I doubt his absence is going to make 5e suddenly not have a stupid premise behind its design.

    I'd love to be proven wrong by Wizards, but Mike Mearls is as dedicated to appealing to Pathfinder sycophants as anyone.

    CmgpQ.jpg
  • VanguardVanguard Drive your cart and your plow over the bones of the dead. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    I've never played 4E, but I'd love to see them turn this more into 4.5 than a whole new edition. I really disagree with some of the things they've done with the game, but I think a second draft would at least be interesting.

    Deebaser wrote: »
    Vanguard is the Cool English Teacher that wears sneakers, drives a convertible, and teaches at risk youth the magic of learning. He's the motherfuckin' Mary Poppins of Iambic Pentameter

    MY RPG Blog: The Earthlight Academy
  • WassermeloneWassermelone Registered User regular
    Isn't it a little late? Like, I get that Monte Cook is the iconic source of all that is wrong with 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons, but I doubt his absence is going to make 5e suddenly not have a stupid premise behind its design.

    I'd love to be proven wrong by Wizards, but Mike Mearls is as dedicated to appealing to Pathfinder sycophants as anyone.

    Fortunately, from what the blog has been sounding like lately, its not like they had a whole lot done in the first place.

  • schussschuss Registered User regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    I've never played 4E, but I'd love to see them turn this more into 4.5 than a whole new edition. I really disagree with some of the things they've done with the game, but I think a second draft would at least be interesting.

    I think they could just make some basic changes (rework charge, for example) that don't impact existing stuff TOO much and it shouldn't be a problem.

  • gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    I've never played 4E, but I'd love to see them turn this more into 4.5 than a whole new edition. I really disagree with some of the things they've done with the game, but I think a second draft would at least be interesting.

    Personally, I'd rather see a new edition that drew from 4e as its main inspiration than see a third iteration of the 4e rules.

  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    SJ wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    So WotC appears to have absolutely no faith in the players whatsoever.

    http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20120424

    "As of right now, we have a system that states that on your turn you can take one action, and then move up to your speed."

    :rotate:

    The first question is fucking terrible. You already have that system! That system is 4e!

    Minor actions module coming Dec 2012 in a boxed expansion set: ONLY $29.95

    Defenders aren't going to be worth shit until they put interrupts in 12 months down the line.

    steam_sig.png
  • InfidelInfidel Too easy. PiltoverRegistered User regular
    SJ wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    So WotC appears to have absolutely no faith in the players whatsoever.

    http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20120424

    "As of right now, we have a system that states that on your turn you can take one action, and then move up to your speed."

    :rotate:

    The first question is fucking terrible. You already have that system! That system is 4e!

    Minor actions module coming Dec 2012 in a boxed expansion set: ONLY $29.95

    Defenders aren't going to be worth shit until they put interrupts in 12 months down the line.

    Re-release 4E to generate sales for the same thing again!

    But first disguise it and piece it out as 5E "modular system."

    Why resell 4E once when you can sell it again over time for several times the amount!

    With the right modules you'll be back to 4E but with the DND NEXT. Get as much of the old game as you can fit to budget.

    The 3E throwback modules are the trap options. Gotta have those so that the Real Gamers can feel good about their purchasing prowess.

    TwitchTV channel: OrokosPA check.php?c=OrokosPA
    Play D&D 4e? :: Check out Orokos and upload your Character Builder sheet! :: Orokos Dice Roller
    The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
  • bssbss BIBIBABIBABIBUBIII Madison, WIRegistered User regular
    As much as I'd like a 4.5e (or just, you know, more 4e content) I'm not breaking out the party hats yet. If the blogs are any indication they're doing a pretty good job of screwing up the game with or without Monte Cook. See:
    The current edition introduced the concept of healing surges. Healing surges provide every character an ability to get their second wind, so to speak, several times per day (but not an unlimited number of times). The benefit, of course, is that 4th Edition allows for games that have resilient heroes that don’t rely so heavily on magical healing. To some extent, this approach removes simulation in favor of portraying heroes who can take a licking but are able to keep coming back for more. Healing surges have suffered some criticism, however, in that they feel a little too “game-y” and not grounded enough in the world. In fact, such criticism has come even from the many players who enjoy having personal access to self-healing.

    Other players feel that healing surges are the best innovation 4e brought to the game, but, you know, whichever. Also, to suggest that hit points are simulationist is hilarious.

    Really though, Monte's departure is far from shocking. When your high-profile design lead is relegated to one of the dudes filling out the ranks in his blog, you know something is up. My guess is what my guess was posts ago, that they'd muzzled him, and he'd had it. I'm sure he will have fun on Pathfinder 2e though.

    3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam: bsstephan Twitch: bsstephan
    Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
    Occasional words about games: my site
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Hahahahahahahahaha.

    Healing Surges being removed is maybe the dumbest idea so far. Like, it might be on par with deciding that uber wizards need to make a comeback.

    Healing surges have suffered some criticism, however, in that they feel a little too “game-y” and not grounded enough in the world. In fact, such criticism has come even from the many players who enjoy having personal access to self-healing.

    Yes, Wizards, you should listen to the 5~ people offering this criticism. That will be a good business decision.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
Sign In or Register to comment.