Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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

134689122

Posts

  • LeztaLezta Registered User regular
    MrBeens wrote:
    Lezta wrote:
    texasheat wrote:
    RP was non-existant
    ---4e was designed for combat. Peroid. There are no rewards for role playing. And really, no way to push players to do so. Combat was the focus of the rules. After reading the books alone you can tell it's not about your backstory, or how into your char you get, but how powerful he was in combat.

    ....I know the chief thing I look for in my leisure time activities is the ability to force my friends to do things I think they should think are fun. If you have to push a player into RPing they are clearly not seeing the fun in RPing.

    It's not that anyone is saying the game needs to force people to roleplay -but 4e definitely discourages roleplay by focusing on mechanics and a list of powers. Roleplaying is coming up with what your character is doing, not just describing your actions. If you don't need to do the first, in my experience you don't bother to do the latter anyway. My group loves roleplaying. But they don't bother to do it in 4e, especially not in combat. And they complain the game doesn't seem to want them to do it. I agree - by having a set list of actions (your powers) your choices are limited. Roleplaying is about making choices.

    EDIT: I'm not just talking about 'Roleplay' as in speaking/acting in character either. That's entirely optional to my mind.

    Maybe I just don't get why 4e felt constrained to you in regards to roleplaying where other systems didn't? You use the example of powers, so in 3e are you saying the spellcasters are likewise constrained?
    In my experience the system in a roleplaying game has little to do with how much people roleplay, it is mainly down to the people playing and the DM and how much they are enjoying the game. I'm not saying that you or your players are bad, all I'm saying is that maybe because you guys were obviously not enjoying the system there was a negative feedback loop and the "discourages roleplay" wasn't actually down to the system at all. I cannot imagine playing from 1 - 30 in 4e with a group that isn't keen on the system. You should have gone over to a system that you all liked and had more fun.


    Firstly I'd say that 2e/3e spellcasters can do a lot more with their spells and that encourages choice and description. Also, due to Vancian magic you have the simple choice of what to take on any given day. (Although I'm willing to concede that due to the way it all worked, it was usually a false choice and people ended up taking the same things most days). A lot of the time the text given for the spell wasn't 'do x damage' it was just a description of what the spell did (especially in 2e, which is where my group has played most of its games). Working out how to use it was interesting and fun. So, no, I wouldn't say a Spellcaster in 3e was constrained - I'd say they had a lot more freedom than one in 4e.

    We don't just play D&D and nor do I just run that. I've run a fair amount of games over the years. 4e is the first one where I've spotted the players starting to describe what they do in terms of mechanics, rather than what they're doing as a character. As I said earlier, 'I move here, attack (knocking him prone)' rather than 'I'm going to run at him from behind and sweep his legs out from underneath him'. I guess what I want from my RPGs is players to describe what they're doing then I tell them what to roll to achieve it (if it isn't obvious, which often it will be). In most other games I've run (WoD, Star Trek, Exalted, Dark Heresy and several others I'm forgetting) that's how it is.

    I've run 4e for the last two years though and I wouldn't have done if nobody liked it. We all like it. We're just about to start a new Campaign and we're all quite excited about it. That doesn't mean I can't hope for 5e to bring something that I liked from other games (and previous editions) in. I just don't know how they'd do it and keep the balance (which I didn't think I cared about - now I have it, I think differently).

  • Mojo_JojoMojo_Jojo But do you really believe him? Registered User regular
    Lezta wrote:
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    3.5e/Pathfinder and 4e have the same number of rules which enforce roleplaying.

    That's probably true. I don't think a rule that says 'if you roleplay you get x bonus' is needed or even appropriate. However, 4e often feels very constraining in a game I want to feel limitless.

    Lets be clear here.

    What you're talking about is "I can't do crazy, often game-breaking shit with my wizard anymore"

    No, that's unfair. I think it's more that in 3e you could ask your DM about situational bonuses. So, maybe you could hoof an oil lamp at a goblin while you charged him. The DM would have a think, and if it felt reasonable you'd agree on some small bonus or other.

    In 4e, such interactions were already a part of the powers. So when the DM lovingly described an encounter, there was no reward for thinking outside of the box with how to tackle it, as that is what your "distracting attack" power represented.

    Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Lezta wrote:
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    3.5e/Pathfinder and 4e have the same number of rules which enforce roleplaying.

    That's probably true. I don't think a rule that says 'if you roleplay you get x bonus' is needed or even appropriate. However, 4e often feels very constraining in a game I want to feel limitless.

    Lets be clear here.

    What you're talking about is "I can't do crazy, often game-breaking shit with my wizard anymore"

    Eh. I don't think you're really getting what he's saying. It's not straight power so much as a place where creative thought can be used. A better example is the Unmovable Rod than super high level magic.

    Even that, by itself isn't entirely what I think he means.

  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    ShadaXoraN wrote:
    Lezta wrote:
    Are you seriously suggesting that people would have to wait 7 years for any Greyhawk stuff, then get 2 years of it at once in your publishing cycle idea !?

    No, 2 years of heavy Greyhawk "highlight", and then 2-4 offerings a year between highlights.

    So, big team for the highlight, and small team continuing to develop in-between.
    So, just using Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and Eberron as examples, that would be "heavy" setting material every year, and then for the other two 2-4 releases a year? If 'Heavy' means more than four (let's just keep it at four) that means you want 8-12 releases a year.. of just campaign material. Add in 2-4 releases a year for each additional setting you want. Does that really sound reasonable to you, even after it's been noted that campaign material (and adventures) are typically poor sellers, regardless of quality?

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    Lezta wrote:
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    3.5e/Pathfinder and 4e have the same number of rules which enforce roleplaying.

    That's probably true. I don't think a rule that says 'if you roleplay you get x bonus' is needed or even appropriate. However, 4e often feels very constraining in a game I want to feel limitless.

    Lets be clear here.

    What you're talking about is "I can't do crazy, often game-breaking shit with my wizard anymore"

    No.

    What he's talking about (or at least my big thing I love about 3.5 and dislike about 4th) is saying. 'My guy started off as a poor penniless street urchin, so he took 4 levels of rogue. He then grew to loathe the theft and sneaking, and went to wander in the wilderness for a while, so he took 4 levels of scout. He happened upon a hermit living in the woods who taught him a lot about nature, so he then took a level of druid.' Etc, etc.

    3.5 allows for more choices to grow your character organically, in a way that makes sense with a complex personality, that can evolve over time. My absolute favorite thing about 3.5 is the ability to shift your focus as it makes sense storywise.

    4e takes this away in the name of balance, which makes sense if you worry a lot about balance between players and have a min-maxer problem. But it does remove a lot of the mechanical ability to grow a character, which is one of the basic building blocks of telling a story, and so, roleplaying.

  • LeztaLezta Registered User regular
    Lezta wrote:
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    3.5e/Pathfinder and 4e have the same number of rules which enforce roleplaying.

    That's probably true. I don't think a rule that says 'if you roleplay you get x bonus' is needed or even appropriate. However, 4e often feels very constraining in a game I want to feel limitless.

    Lets be clear here.

    What you're talking about is "I can't do crazy, often game-breaking shit with my wizard anymore"

    Kinda. I don't want Wizards to go back to being powerhouses while everyone else gets left in the shit though. That isn't fun.

    An example - in a recent Hunter: The Vigil game, we had a player get on his motorbike and drive it into the enemy to save his friends. We also, in a different encounter, had a player set some explosives to take out the keystone of an church doorway to drop it on the monster. 4e doesn't encourage that kind of thinking. You have your powers and you feel restricted to them.

  • ArcSynArcSyn Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    I think the problem with adventures in the past was that it required printed product that may or may not sell. There wasn't an easy way to acquire said printed product unless you had a shop which carried it in town, and it led to too much sunk costs in printed material that never was sold.

    Now, they can produce excellent adventures, offer it in PDF form or printed, but keep the prints to a lower quantity and print on demand if necessary. I don't know about many of you, but I don't have time to come up with adventures from scratch. If someone can give me an entire adventure, top to bottom, that I can easily use as a DM or play in as a player, it makes it so much easier and takes much less time to prepare. Give us the monster stats (or refer to the monster manual page they are in), maps of the areas, grid maps for the combat locations, and a good story and I think they could sell a lot more adventures than core books. (if offered digitally at a competitive price)

    ArcSyn on
    RkyXDNV.pngjswidget.php?username=ArcSyn&numitems=5&header=0&text=none&images=small&show=recentplays&imagesonly=1&imagepos=center&inline=1&domains%5B%5D=boardgame&imagewidget=1
  • ToxTox I kill threads Punch DimensionRegistered User regular
    I post on the WotC forums, and the general sentiment I get there is that people are upset at having spent sometimes over $700 on D&D Insider, and now not only are they never getting all the tools that were promised to them when they first signed up at 4e's release, but all the online content is going to stop supporting 4e in a year or so.

    WotC is going to need to really step up if they expect people to sign up for a 5th edition digital content subscription service. The character builder never stopped being flawed, and things like VTT never got release versions. They're going to have to seriously step their digital game up if they expect to continue the subscription services. If they don't that will spell the real doom of Dragon and Dungeon magazine runs.

    Wishlists! General | Gaming | Comics | Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    Lezta wrote:
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    3.5e/Pathfinder and 4e have the same number of rules which enforce roleplaying.

    That's probably true. I don't think a rule that says 'if you roleplay you get x bonus' is needed or even appropriate. However, 4e often feels very constraining in a game I want to feel limitless.

    Lets be clear here.

    What you're talking about is "I can't do crazy, often game-breaking shit with my wizard anymore"

    No, that's unfair. I think it's more that in 3e you could ask your DM about situational bonuses. So, maybe you could hoof an oil lamp at a goblin while you charged him. The DM would have a think, and if it felt reasonable you'd agree on some small bonus or other.

    In 4e, such interactions were already a part of the powers. So when the DM lovingly described an encounter, there was no reward for thinking outside of the box with how to tackle it, as that is what your "distracting attack" power represented.
    There is a whole section in the DMG dedicated to exactly this.

    Der Waffle Mous on
    zaku.png
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • dresdenphiledresdenphile Watch out for snakes!Registered User regular
    Lezta wrote:
    An example - in a recent Hunter: The Vigil game, we had a player get on his motorbike and drive it into the enemy to save his friends. We also, in a different encounter, had a player set some explosives to take out the keystone of an church doorway to drop it on the monster. 4e doesn't encourage that kind of thinking. You have your powers and you feel restricted to them.

    While that's awesome and a creative use of powers on the part of the player, my current group deals with the other end of the spectrum (one player in particular). He'd love nothing more than to spend 20 minutes trying to determine if he can use some random Psion power to drop a flower pot on a guy's head. It's often gets to the point where everyone else is like, "Why don't you just fucking Mind Thrust or any number of your powers against him already, so we can move on?"

    steam_sig.png
  • Mojo_JojoMojo_Jojo But do you really believe him? Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    No, that's unfair. I think it's more that in 3e you could ask your DM about situational bonuses. So, maybe you could hoof an oil lamp at a goblin while you charged him. The DM would have a think, and if it felt reasonable you'd agree on some small bonus or other.

    In 4e, such interactions were already a part of the powers. So when the DM lovingly described an encounter, there was no reward for thinking outside of the box with how to tackle it, as that is what your "distracting attack" power represented.
    There is a whole section in the DMG dedicated to exactly this.

    Right. I think you're trying to make a point here I've missed. For reference I've not looked at my 4e books for a couple of years.

    Including the situational stuff within the default powers requires the players to come up with explanations for their various attacks (or they just ignore them and play it by the numbers, but we're assuming that they want to roleplay to some degree).

    Not including situational specific elements within the powers (like 3e), lets the players work with the DM to come up with interesting actions which they are then rewarded for.

    Now, I'm not saying that the 3e approach is better. I'm pointing out why it rubs some players the wrong way despite coming hand in hand with more varied combat.

    Mojo_Jojo on
    Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    Mojo, at this point I think I'm missing your point. Thinking of situational bonuses and other ad-hoc stuff was always a consideration in 4E. If you're arguing that having baked in effects on powers makes you lazy, than thats a totally different argument.
    No.

    What he's talking about (or at least my big thing I love about 3.5 and dislike about 4th) is saying. 'My guy started off as a poor penniless street urchin, so he took 4 levels of rogue. He then grew to loathe the theft and sneaking, and went to wander in the wilderness for a while, so he took 4 levels of scout. He happened upon a hermit living in the woods who taught him a lot about nature, so he then took a level of druid.' Etc, etc.

    3.5 allows for more choices to grow your character organically, in a way that makes sense with a complex personality, that can evolve over time. My absolute favorite thing about 3.5 is the ability to shift your focus as it makes sense storywise.

    4e takes this away in the name of balance, which makes sense if you worry a lot about balance between players and have a min-maxer problem. But it does remove a lot of the mechanical ability to grow a character, which is one of the basic building blocks of telling a story, and so, roleplaying.
    Now play a game that does that without turning you into an incompetent drain on resources whenever the dice start rolling.

    May I suggest Burning Wheel?

    zaku.png
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • ShadaXoraNShadaXoraN Registered User
    ShadaXoraN wrote:
    Lezta wrote:
    Are you seriously suggesting that people would have to wait 7 years for any Greyhawk stuff, then get 2 years of it at once in your publishing cycle idea !?

    No, 2 years of heavy Greyhawk "highlight", and then 2-4 offerings a year between highlights.

    So, big team for the highlight, and small team continuing to develop in-between.
    So, just using Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and Eberron as examples, that would be "heavy" setting material every year, and then for the other two 2-4 releases a year? If 'Heavy' means more than four (let's just keep it at four) that means you want 8-12 releases a year.. of just campaign material. Add in 2-4 releases a year for each additional setting you want. Does that really sound reasonable to you, even after it's been noted that campaign material (and adventures) are typically poor sellers, regardless of quality?

    I don't know the details. I'm just a guy venting ideas into the oh-so-constructive internet. What's the alternative, the cavalcade of classes and parade of reboots? Powers out the whazoo? How well are those selling, considering the 5e announcement?

    Is there a rpg gaming company that has been succeeding hand-over-fist for more than 5 years? What is the secret of their success? How do they balance content releases?



    893c32626ed79cca.png
  • WassermeloneWassermelone Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    I use my powers all the time out of combat in 4e. Within the last two sessions I've used Distract a couple times which is a bit self explanatory and Living Missile to skip a dwarf that can't swim across a river.

    Wassermelone on
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    Not hand over fist, no.

    You've got people like Palladium and Amarillo Design Bureau who can best be described as "surviving"

    Even White Wolf iterates their stuff from time to time.

    zaku.png
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • AegofAegof Registered User regular
    I use my powers all the time out of combat in 4e. Within the last two sessions I've used Distract a couple times which is a bit self explanatory and Living Missile to skip a dwarf that can't swim across a river.

    Wizards are still the best at this, too, between their their cantrips, spellbook, and utility powers.

    I'm providing ambience.
  • MagicPrimeMagicPrime FiresideWizard Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    I've always found a lot of the OMG wizard arguments weak.

    MagicPrime on
    BNet • magicprime#1430 | PSN/Steam • MagicPrime | Origin • FireSideWizard
    Critical Failures - Havenhold CampaignAugust St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    Mojo, at this point I think I'm missing your point. Thinking of situational bonuses and other ad-hoc stuff was always a consideration in 4E. If you're arguing that having baked in effects on powers makes you lazy, than thats a totally different argument.
    No.

    What he's talking about (or at least my big thing I love about 3.5 and dislike about 4th) is saying. 'My guy started off as a poor penniless street urchin, so he took 4 levels of rogue. He then grew to loathe the theft and sneaking, and went to wander in the wilderness for a while, so he took 4 levels of scout. He happened upon a hermit living in the woods who taught him a lot about nature, so he then took a level of druid.' Etc, etc.

    3.5 allows for more choices to grow your character organically, in a way that makes sense with a complex personality, that can evolve over time. My absolute favorite thing about 3.5 is the ability to shift your focus as it makes sense storywise.

    4e takes this away in the name of balance, which makes sense if you worry a lot about balance between players and have a min-maxer problem. But it does remove a lot of the mechanical ability to grow a character, which is one of the basic building blocks of telling a story, and so, roleplaying.
    Now play a game that does that without turning you into an incompetent drain on resources whenever the dice start rolling.

    May I suggest Burning Wheel?

    Your snarky response suggests that you had a min-maxer problem. This is not the same thing as organic characters being a drain on the party, especially when everyone on the group is playing similarly. Besides which, while balance was an issue, it was not nearly as huge a problem as people made it out to be. Hell, people in here have griped about how wizards are the be-all end-all, while at various points I've heard of both druids and clerics being the god-class that is better than everything, UNAMBIGUOUSLY.

  • LughLugh Registered User
    MagicPrime wrote:
    I've always found a lot of the OMG wizard arguments weak.

    Serious question: Did you ever play a non-spellcasting class in 3.5? Pathfinder?

    UtOQN.jpg
  • AegofAegof Registered User regular
    Dnd clerics and druids are basically wizards in terms of anything but dnd class names. When people gripe about "wizards" they mean "spellcasting classes."

    I'm providing ambience.
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    Your snarky response suggests that you had a min-maxer problem. This is not the same thing as organic characters being a drain on the party, especially when everyone on the group is playing similarly. Besides which, while balance was an issue, it was not nearly as huge a problem as people made it out to be. Hell, people in here have griped about how wizards are the be-all end-all, while at various points I've heard of both druids and clerics being the god-class that is better than everything, UNAMBIGUOUSLY.
    Inadvertently breaking the game by choosing not to multiclass isn't a fucking minmaxer problem.

    zaku.png
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • MagicPrimeMagicPrime FiresideWizard Registered User regular
    Lugh wrote:
    MagicPrime wrote:
    I've always found a lot of the OMG wizard arguments weak.

    Serious question: Did you ever play a non-spellcasting class in 3.5? Pathfinder?

    Yes.

    BNet • magicprime#1430 | PSN/Steam • MagicPrime | Origin • FireSideWizard
    Critical Failures - Havenhold CampaignAugust St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
  • MrBeensMrBeens Registered User regular
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    No, that's unfair. I think it's more that in 3e you could ask your DM about situational bonuses. So, maybe you could hoof an oil lamp at a goblin while you charged him. The DM would have a think, and if it felt reasonable you'd agree on some small bonus or other.

    In 4e, such interactions were already a part of the powers. So when the DM lovingly described an encounter, there was no reward for thinking outside of the box with how to tackle it, as that is what your "distracting attack" power represented.
    There is a whole section in the DMG dedicated to exactly this.

    Right. I think you're trying to make a point here I've missed. For reference I've not looked at my 4e books for a couple of years.

    Including the situational stuff within the default powers requires the players to come up with explanations for their various attacks (or they just ignore them and play it by the numbers, but we're assuming that they want to roleplay to some degree).

    Not including situational specific elements within the powers (like 3e), lets the players work with the DM to come up with interesting actions which they are then rewarded for.

    Now, I'm not saying that the 3e approach is better. I'm pointing out why it rubs some players the wrong way despite coming hand in hand with more varied combat.

    But the thing is that the powers just describe the mechanical default of what happens, you are more than free to add in extra details or swing for situational modifiers, or try to use them in wierd ways. That is all down to the players and DM. Just like in 3E the mechanical default of a fighter is "swing my sword". You get players in 3e just going, "I hit it", just like in 4E you have players say "I use Cleave".

  • Mojo_JojoMojo_Jojo But do you really believe him? Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    MrBeens wrote:
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    No, that's unfair. I think it's more that in 3e you could ask your DM about situational bonuses. So, maybe you could hoof an oil lamp at a goblin while you charged him. The DM would have a think, and if it felt reasonable you'd agree on some small bonus or other.

    In 4e, such interactions were already a part of the powers. So when the DM lovingly described an encounter, there was no reward for thinking outside of the box with how to tackle it, as that is what your "distracting attack" power represented.
    There is a whole section in the DMG dedicated to exactly this.

    Right. I think you're trying to make a point here I've missed. For reference I've not looked at my 4e books for a couple of years.

    Including the situational stuff within the default powers requires the players to come up with explanations for their various attacks (or they just ignore them and play it by the numbers, but we're assuming that they want to roleplay to some degree).

    Not including situational specific elements within the powers (like 3e), lets the players work with the DM to come up with interesting actions which they are then rewarded for.

    Now, I'm not saying that the 3e approach is better. I'm pointing out why it rubs some players the wrong way despite coming hand in hand with more varied combat.

    But the thing is that the powers just describe the mechanical default of what happens, you are more than free to add in extra details or swing for situational modifiers, or try to use them in wierd ways. That is all down to the players and DM. Just like in 3E the mechanical default of a fighter is "swing my sword". You get players in 3e just going, "I hit it", just like in 4E you have players say "I use Cleave".
    Right. That's the point I'm making. That these things are fundamentally different in 3e and 4e. That in 4e it makes no difference because the effect is pre-defined and in 3e there's the possibility of reward.

    Mojo_Jojo on
    Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    Not to be snarky, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that's what the Slayer was for?

    zaku.png
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    Amigu wrote:
    DMAC wrote:
    Pathfinder has gone down a very different route than recent editions of D&D. They put out one or two core books a year and the rest of their products are adventures/setting books.

    D&D 4e has more or less put out all of the rule/class/race/monster books anyone could want in 4 years and they've decided that adventures/setting books aren't profitable. Unless the new system is incredibly well received and/or they totally revise their business model, the only way to make the game profitable again in 4-5 years is to get players to buy those core books again by changing the system.

    I think that is going to be something that WotC has to address if they want fresh players or the ones they lost with 4th Ed. As easy as they tried to make GMing, they lost out on a huge opportunity to create their own on-going series. I have seen it time and again in the RPG world. Any company that fails to take up the creation of stories gets stagnant. It's not just the new classes/rules/races you have to keep supplying. You have to engage your audience in an active, on-going story of some sort.

    Now this I can agree on. Piazo has great adventure support and they just seem to have great production values and customer support which is so important. Their digital support is also fantastic. Non of these things have to do with game design maybe wizards should focus on some of those aspects instead of launching into another edition...

    As much as this may pain me to say as a homebrew designer, but game mechanics take a backseat to good storytelling. You get a GM that's good at making an engaging story happen, then all the mechanics don't mean squat.

    I understand that's why WotC/Hasbro farmed out most of the settings in 3rd and rewrote them in 4th. Writers, especially good ones, want to get paid. It's not a cheap thing to do.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    Please don't tell me you're arguing in favor of metaplots.




    I'm just so damn disagreeable today.

    zaku.png
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • AegofAegof Registered User regular
    I'd rather have a good game than a good setting. I can make up my own setting, but I'm no game designer.

    I'm providing ambience.
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    Metaplots, not so much -- but haven't you ever had the moment where all the dice floats to the background and you're far more focused on what your and the other characters are saying and doing? It's not an easy thing to achieve and harder to describe to someone who's never had that kind of moment. But those moments are the best part of RPGs. Those singular point in time and game where the myth is being made and the match really becomes a witch.

    That's what I was talking about. Good mechanics can and often do make a difference up front, but once you're at the table and are playing, the story of what happens with those characters is what matters IMHO.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
  • Zen VulgarityZen Vulgarity What a lovely day for tea Secret British ThreadRegistered User regular
    And I was just thinking of getting into 4e

    oVSbgTI.png For more artwork like this, check out Jakub Rozalski's imgur
  • DMACDMAC Moderator mod
    You still can!

    They're not going to come to your house and take your books away. If you like the look of the system, there's enough material out there to last you a lifetime.

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    Your snarky response suggests that you had a min-maxer problem. This is not the same thing as organic characters being a drain on the party, especially when everyone on the group is playing similarly. Besides which, while balance was an issue, it was not nearly as huge a problem as people made it out to be. Hell, people in here have griped about how wizards are the be-all end-all, while at various points I've heard of both druids and clerics being the god-class that is better than everything, UNAMBIGUOUSLY.
    Inadvertently breaking the game by choosing not to multiclass isn't a fucking minmaxer problem.

    This is completely overblown and misses the actual mechanical issues with 3rd edition, which were spellcasters not having good multiclass options, and high level spells being too powerful. My scout/wizard was not substantially weaker than my friend's single class druid, as we were not 18th level.

  • texasheattexasheat Registered User regular
    I can't stop. I can't stop reading this. Arguing with people in my head only to see someone else has already made my point for me. I can't stop thinking, this is what RP is about. Arguing about weather or not it's possible to throw a lantern at a goblin when running full speed as a dwarf with a two handed axe. This is what defines role playing for me. The imagination of being able to do anything. And sharing those imaginations with other people.

    What i ment earlier about the lack of roleplaying in 4e, is that, with the powers as is, there is little to no imagination being used. It very clearly tells you what your doing. How your going to do it, and what your going to do it with. The only thing left to think about, is how effective power a will be, over power b or c. That's not role playing, it's calculations 101. And the people we played with pretty much felt the same way.

    Now, to whoever asked why i would play 1-30 and not enjoy it? Because, I did enjoy it. Not so much the system, but the story. The playing of the game with friends. All of us found something we liked with 4e. Personally, I enjoyed the strategy of the group, and overcomming the odds. Since it was so combat focused, it gave a unique feel planning and resource management.

    All in all, i hope i'm given some form of creative ability for attacks in 5e. I want to make my own twin strike, sly flurish, etc. And i want to be able to use any of my abilities outside of combat as i see fit, with GM over ruleing anything considered OP. I shouldn't have to say, please let me attack an ally in order to give x buff.

  • gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    This is completely overblown and misses the actual mechanical issues with 3rd edition, which were spellcasters not having good multiclass options, and high level spells being too powerful. My scout/wizard was not substantially weaker than my friend's single class druid, as we were not 18th level.

    The problem wasn't with high-level spells, the problem was mainly with spells that made the target save or die, or at least save or be effectively taken out of the fight, and those latter spells were available from first level onwards. Save-or-lose abilities simply aren't an option for non-casters, and those same non-casters (especially fighters) tend to have the worst saving throws for actually resisting save-or-lose effects when enemies get to use them on the party. Yes, a well-positioned melee character might do enough damage in one hit to kill a level-appropriate enemy, but that's assuming that the character was able to get within melee range to make a full attack in the first place. Many save-or-die effects, even at mid-level, are ranged, or can be made ranged with spells that let casters make range touch attacks.

    The other problem is that versatility in spells and in caster class abilities tended to make other classes effectively redundant. A mid-level druid with wildshape and Natural Spell tends to outperform all but the most specialized martial classes in combat; a cleric with Find Traps can spot traps better than an average rogue; and likewise with a wizard with Knock or Invisibility beating out the rogue's Open Locks or Hide skills.

    Of course, if the casters in your party only ever cast direct-damage or healing spells, none of this was ever an issue, but that's no defense of the system as written.

    And yes, multiclassing in 3e was broken, but that wasn't a problem only for casters. Being skilled in two different things doesn't really help when your character can only consistently beat ACs or DCs or SRs meant for characters half his level, or your caster doesn't have any spells that are actually effective against CR-appropriate monsters.

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    gtrmp wrote:
    This is completely overblown and misses the actual mechanical issues with 3rd edition, which were spellcasters not having good multiclass options, and high level spells being too powerful. My scout/wizard was not substantially weaker than my friend's single class druid, as we were not 18th level.

    The problem wasn't with high-level spells, the problem was mainly with spells that made the target save or die, or at least save or be effectively taken out of the fight, and those latter spells were available from first level onwards. Save-or-lose abilities simply aren't an option for non-casters, and those same non-casters (especially fighters) tend to have the worst saving throws for actually resisting save-or-lose effects when enemies get to use them on the party. Yes, a well-positioned melee character might do enough damage in one hit to kill a level-appropriate enemy, but that's assuming that the character was able to get within melee range to make a full attack in the first place. Many save-or-die effects, even at mid-level, are ranged, or can be made ranged with spells that let casters make range touch attacks.
    I'll agree that there are too many save or die effects in the spells, but that's mostly a problem just due to the randomness and high consequences. I'll disagree with your implication that sleep is one of them though, as that's only a save or lose if you're fighting like...one guy, or get everyone in it at once. And then make stealth checks to kill everything. Other than that it's still pretty much mid to high level magic
    The other problem is that versatility in spells and in caster class abilities tended to make other classes effectively redundant. A mid-level druid with wildshape and Natural Spell tends to outperform all but the most specialized martial classes in combat; a cleric with Find Traps can spot traps better than an average rogue; and likewise with a wizard with Knock or Invisibility beating out the rogue's Open Locks or Hide skills.

    This is only an issue if you're playing the game like Neverwinter nights and just sleep on the floor constantly as you go, or have dm's that run games where it's a complete surprise that the pc's (or anyone else) have access to magic (which is sadly commonplace).
    And yes, multiclassing in 3e was broken, but that wasn't a problem only for casters. Being skilled in two different things doesn't really help when your character can only consistently beat ACs or DCs or SRs meant for characters half his level, or your caster doesn't have any spells that are actually effective against CR-appropriate monsters.

    Unless you're talking about level adjustment and not multiclassing, then you're wrong. A barb/fighter has the same to-hit as a fighter. Making a fighter/caster will lower your to-hit, yeah, but it still goes up. Casters don't stack DC and SR checks, but that was my point, as well as not getting any high level spells.

  • GospreyGosprey Registered User
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    Gosprey wrote:
    The big thing spruiked about 4th Edition was the `Points of Light' setting...which they warped existing game worlds to sort of almost achieve, and never released a new setting that actually embodied this supposedly core concept.

    If the first setting released for 5th edition is not a brand new setting, they're seriously taking the piss. I have all the Eberron and Forgotten Realms books I'll ever want or need.

    There was never a planned book for the implied setting. The point was that it was implicitly explained through other products, which allowed DMs to use all the various pieces as they wished.
    Because if there's one thing that really sells a concept, its implicit explanation.
    I really doubt they'll start off 5th with a new setting unless it's something similar. 3e got a single new official setting and it was part of a big competition / marketing campaign.
    And it was a fantastic way for "today's" gamers to feel like they were in on something from the beginning, rather than playing more cobbled together/rewritten stuff designed a generation ago.

    I'm not saying put a brand new setting in the players handbook, I'm saying release a brand new setting in its own book at the same time, to get people excited about an actual new experience, and make new players actually feel like they're coming in on the ground floor.

  • Silas BrownSilas Brown Registered User regular
    Yeah, I'm not psyched at all about Forgotten Realms being the "default" setting. It's not really a big deal, D&D was meant to be altered at that level, but the PoL setting that was built up in 4E was great. It was just enough to make me feel invested in "the world of D&D" while still leaving enough room to make the whole thing almost entirely homebrew. It was the best of both worlds.

  • GospreyGosprey Registered User
    I guess what I'm saying is that I want to see some vision. Like, "OK guys, this is what we intend. We have design goals that guide how the edition has been made. Here is a new setting that reinforces our design goals cohesively, so that new players, and old players looking for something new and interesting can rock that. Now go do all the crazy homebrew shit that you're going to do anyway and enjoy."

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    ShadaXoraN wrote:
    Is there a rpg gaming company that has been succeeding hand-over-fist for more than 5 years? What is the secret of their success? How do they balance content releases?
    Catalyst (basically FASA reborn, with the Shadowrun and Battletech licenses) is doing pretty well, and they even had an embezzlement scandal recently. They stagger content releases every couple of months, but they are also pretty heavy on the digital distribution angle and have a pretty loyal fanbase. Steve Jackson Games isn't in danger of closing any time soon, but they have so much merch (Card Games, Board Games, RPGs, sourcebooks, a lot of classic reprints, etc.).

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MHGU: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
  • AegofAegof Registered User regular
    "Everything is broken. Earth, heaven, literally everything. Go fix it." That's Points of Light. I love it. I'll honestly kind of miss PoL's vagueness and the feel that all I really need to do is give the players a couple of matches and watch them try and fail not to set off the powderkeg that is all of existence.

    I'm providing ambience.
Sign In or Register to comment.