|
Post by malifer on Jan 29, 2013 6:20:42 GMT -8
The new playtest packet has arrived. In a futile attempt to keep the playtest manipulated by munchkins, I have tried to keep current. I keep filling out the surveys giving honest professional criticism. When something is good I let them know why and when something isn't I explain my reasoning. However none of my biggest problems are even touched upon. Humans and Rogues are still superior to other options. Did anyone hear any positive feedback on the skill die? Who the voted to keep that? Overall I think it is decent, but some of the older playtest material is better then the newer ones. The new packet gives you the Barbarian to play with, typical Berserker style. Also there are some clarifications. They do mention as a Known issue certain PCs deal more damage than desired. But man I'm starting to feel like a broken record, the next survey I will have the same problems I had the last time or two. And it takes me like half an hour to fill that damn thing out because I'm trying to stay away from "this sucks".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 10:58:57 GMT -8
most of the stuff in the new edition i think is great. I always also read the whole thing and make comments on surveys when they present them. I have a bunch of little nitpicks (the human and rogue both being amongst them), but the core mechanics are all quite fun and feel like an older D&D game, without preventing options.
|
|
clanhanna
Journeyman Douchebag
The Muffin
Posts: 221
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller, O.R.E, Mongoose Traveller
Currently Playing: Vampire: The Masquerade, Vampire: The Dark Ages, D&D 5e
Currently Running: Vampire: The Dark Ages
Favorite Species of Monkey: Peanut-buttery Rhesus
|
Post by clanhanna on Jan 29, 2013 11:13:47 GMT -8
My group is just getting around to testing the packet that was released back in December. We've only had one session of play (after one session of character creation), so we haven't been able to fully delve into the intricacies of the skill die and other mechanics like that. I still REALLY like the combat (dis)advantage mechanic, though, and I think the skill die is a good addition as well.
What we did determine after playing the August release packet was that Warlocks were SEVERELY overpowered (I played said warlock), and clerics severely UNDERpowered. From what little we've played so far, it would look to me like clerics are still very much underpowered, but that might be only at the lower levels.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Feb 5, 2013 9:33:22 GMT -8
I'm with Malifer . . . though it's a pain I take the time to complete all the surveys hoping my little voice mitigates against total a munchkin over run. The barbarian, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Right I have a few problems with class, or did. After I listened to the D&D podcast and Mr Merles take on it I'm a bit better with it but still concerned. The positive - the are thinking of renaming it Berserker or something similar. This gets a big yes because they're right . . . which leads to the negatives. The negatives - class based on 'rage' . . . fine but why? why not a hippy class based on being chilled and smoking pot (the Druid mayhaps?) or a corporate executive class based on self importance a lack of ethical restraint and desire to dominate the world?. As he's talking I start thinking . . . it's the fucking Hulk . . . the barbarian is the god damn fucking Hulk. In fact the whole thing is like The fucking Avengers - rogue: Black Widow and Hawkeye fighter: Captain America cleric: Thor and Mage: Tony Stark (Iron Man is his 'magic at work'). About 5 mins in, after I've realised this, guess who they compare the barbarian to? - you guessed it The Hulk!!!! If I want to play The Avengers I'll use M&M or Champions not D&D . . . Aaron
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2013 11:48:33 GMT -8
the barbarian class has its roots in Viking history if I'm not mistaken. Taken from the berserkers they used in War and pillaging.
I don't tend to allow Barbarians inthe same types of games as I do most other classes (or monks for that matter) They are good classes in some genres, but not in traditional fantasy IMHO
|
|
|
Post by The Northman on Feb 7, 2013 5:50:37 GMT -8
I agree on the Monk front - we usually bar them from traditional European-inspired settings unless they're serving a very specific purpose, and even then they're usually heavily re-fluffed.
On barbarians I disagree, though. The hulking brute filled with rage who might even turn on his friends is a pretty well established trope in every area from sword and sorcery to Game of Thrones. To each their own, though.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Feb 7, 2013 8:50:00 GMT -8
It's a very narrow definition of barbarian that's my problem . . . "beserker" I'd be a hundred times more comfortable with that with the class as it currently stands. In the D&D podcast M Merles discusses at length various fictional and historical sources for the barbarian class many of which aren't 'rage machines': which was why he is going to suggest a rename later in the playtest. His best example was Tarzan (books not films) - the barbarian beserker is ONE trope of many. There is also the savage learning to adapt to a civilised world and the outlander/wanderer of the uncivilised wastes. He mentions that the rage attribute is modelled mainly off Celtic (Irish) mythological heroes . . . and they were never referred to as 'barbarians' per se nor was Celtic culture uncivilised. We're talking the same historical source for druids and old style bards, a rich and complex society which differed from the likes of Rome. The 'barbarians' of that period were more normally references to the Huns, Vandals and Goths of northern Europe - though historical evidence now suggests that the Romans didn't consider them uncivilised either, especially as several displaced 'barbarian' peoples were accepted and integrated into the Roman Empire (not as slaves either) and were accorded a degree of respect. Simply put: it's not the class that's the problem it's the description/archetype the name suggests that's disconnected. A barbarian is a cultural affectation while, for example, a berserker is definitely a 'type' that's more consistent with the class as it is. Aaron PS: I still feel like it's Avengers Assemble time . . . but it's still early days. I really want see how the Paladin and Ranger shape up, that'll demonstrate how much punch the munchkins are having in shaping D&DNext
|
|