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!
Posts
Aidan Twosouls, Dwarf Shaman, in Vale of Buried Shadows
I think 90% of what people think is wrong with 4E is just bad encounter design. The other 10% are rule fixes.
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.
*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.
DropBox invite link - get 250MB extra free.
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 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.
But that's just crazy talk.
That's 4E talk you heathen.
That's much easier to understand.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Secret Satans! Post | D&D Wishlist | General Wishlist
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
DropBox invite link - get 250MB extra free.
Fuck yes.
Now to see what actually develops out of D&D.
The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Phalla discussion and Secret Santas :: PhallAX 2013
Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
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.
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.
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.
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.
The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Phalla discussion and Secret Santas :: PhallAX 2013
Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
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.
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.
Yes, Wizards, you should listen to the 5~ people offering this criticism. That will be a good business decision.