Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 8:47:42 GMT -8
At 4e background gave you what? +1 on 2 skills or 1 more trained skill, iirc. Big deal, hardly anything inovating... In 5e it seems to me that it will give you an entire skill package, so not every fighter will have the same skills just because the system restricts them to the same 3 or 4 skills, "You're a fighter! Fighters don't speak! They grunt!" "What? You are a noble knight? Then spend feats to be a bit good at diplomacy." See?
Guys, don't be so hasty to bring the shovels for 5e yet. Whenever I hear stuff like "Wizards will ruin dnd." "Wizards will do X.", "Wizards will do Y", I picture hooded mysterious men in a round table plotting on how to ruin the industry while laughing maniacally. Guess what, the "Wizards" that designed 4e are not the same "Wizards" that design 5e now; Mike Mearls, Monte Cook, Bruce Cordell etc. are not some random puppets fullfiling their puppet masters' nefarious plot. They have published some great work in their careers, so perhaps give them a chance?
Just my 2 gold pieces (apperently enough money to feed a farmer and his family for a year, or buy 1/1000 of a shitty +1 sword)
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Apr 23, 2012 13:23:00 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2012 17:14:28 GMT -8
I'm trying to be a solid "wait and see" type of person in the whole situation...
But as was pointed out before they went to the Q&A, in the more recent editions the Players have been granted far more control of the world and the game and GM's have lost a significant bit of control over the world they have created...
Yes, in 1e there was strong wording advising the DM that he is essentially GOD and what he says goes and players that don't like it can skidaddle... But many a douschy DM found himselfe with no players when they forgot that everyone is there to have fun.
I don't like all of the crazy customization that has crept into the game. If I want to play a thief, I play a theif. If I want to play a fighter/magic-user, I multi-class and suck it up.... The whole ideaOF taking out of class skills and feats annoys the piss out of me!! Just play that other class if that is what you want...
I want to see what 5e has to offer... I'm afraid I'm not going to like it, but I hope that I do.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Apr 23, 2012 17:51:11 GMT -8
But as was pointed out before they went to the Q&A, in the more recent editions the Players have been granted far more control of the world and the game and GM's have lost a significant bit of control over the world they have created... I'm sorry, but that is completely false.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2012 5:20:41 GMT -8
In 3e the GM had to follow the same rules as the players for antagonists (hit dice, classes), especially NPCs that were build exactly like PCs, in 4e it was a step forward to seperate the two. Nothing indicates that they will take such a step backwards in that regard in 5e, that would be completely counter-intuitive.
If a GM wants to make a beholder mage, being forced (by the rules) to give him wizard/sorcerer levels and the Beholder Mage (tm) prestige class from splatbook no265, was completely pointless. If what 4e did to monsters didn't give more freedom to the GM I don't know what did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2012 6:59:01 GMT -8
Aslyn check out the video from PaxEast starting at 10:15 and focusing in at 11:00 - maybe I misheard it...
I have no experience with 2e or 3.x.
One of the things I like about 4e is the encounter tooks, including monster selection and customization.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Apr 25, 2012 8:44:38 GMT -8
Aslyn check out the video from PaxEast starting at 10:15 and focusing in at 11:00 - maybe I misheard it... I just rewatched it. His comment was that in 3 and 4e, the players had more and more control over shaping their characters on a mechanical level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2012 17:36:17 GMT -8
They've announced that the public play test will begin near the end of May - Can't wait!!!
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 4, 2012 22:44:52 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2012 18:51:03 GMT -8
Interesting! What's your take on it ayslyn?
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 6, 2012 7:09:25 GMT -8
I find it very interesting, and more promising than the Cleric goals were. I especially like point 6.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2012 15:51:03 GMT -8
Yeah, high level equality seems to be the most difficult of all the points they are trying to hit.
I understand why they are pushing for that, but I lean more toward the "reality" that a Conan needs the help of his friends, luck and wits when he goes up agaisnt a Thulsa Doom...
No matter high high level a fighter is, high level sorcery should be getting the better of him... But I lean more toward low level characters to begin with... Once I get past 10th level I start to lose interest.
But I also lean toward 1e, B/X and OSRIC... The WoW feel of 4e doesn't sit well with me.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 6, 2012 19:25:57 GMT -8
Fun fact, Thulsa Doom was a Kull villian. However, I take your meaning. ^.^
I would argue that Thulsa Doom would have been a good bit higher in level than Conan, hence his need for allies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2012 20:15:38 GMT -8
Yeah, high level equality seems to be the most difficult of all the points they are trying to hit. I understand why they are pushing for that, but I lean more toward the "reality" that a Conan needs the help of his friends, luck and wits when he goes up agaisnt a Thulsa Doom... No matter high high level a fighter is, high level sorcery should be getting the better of him Eh, I guess it's subjective preference. Kind of also depends on the campaign/system world. D&D2E was interesting in that while casters of equivalent level were more powerful they also technically had more experience (each class leveled at different rates). The fighter though had the benefits of getting followers at level 10 - ranging from elite cavalry units to a horde of infantry. If one were to consider "power" broken into: - Physical Combat
- Spell Casting
- Social Resources (Spy network, guilds, a religious order)
- Physical Resources (Land, property, money, equipment)
- Allies (Squire, apprentice, intelligent/"movie style" pet, bound demon)
D&D3.X and 4th did a very poor job, in my opinion (and especially compare to other modern systems) of incorporating the last three points into balancing the classes. So it may not be a case of level 20 Fighter can 1v1 a level 20 Wizard but a case of level 20 Fighter with his elite sworn sword (and here I'm imagining the Morgan Freeman to Kevin Costner in Prince of Thieves) and the resources of his keep versus the level 20 Wizard and his grimoires, talismans, and spells.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on May 6, 2012 23:29:53 GMT -8
" Like" The "every man for himself" (and the close cousin: "red shirt" NPC) thinking is totally video game originated and not in keeping to the original play concept. It's a good point cesius is making on multiple levels. Yeah, high level equality seems to be the most difficult of all the points they are trying to hit. I understand why they are pushing for that, but I lean more toward the "reality" that a Conan needs the help of his friends, luck and wits when he goes up agaisnt a Thulsa Doom... No matter high high level a fighter is, high level sorcery should be getting the better of him Eh, I guess it's subjective preference. Kind of also depends on the campaign/system world. D&D2E was interesting in that while casters of equivalent level were more powerful they also technically had more experience (each class leveled at different rates). The fighter though had the benefits of getting followers at level 10 - ranging from elite cavalry units to a horde of infantry. If one were to consider "power" broken into: - Physical Combat
- Spell Casting
- Social Resources (Spy network, guilds, a religious order)
- Physical Resources (Land, property, money, equipment)
- Allies (Squire, apprentice, intelligent/"movie style" pet, bound demon)
D&D3.X and 4th did a very poor job, in my opinion (and especially compare to other modern systems) of incorporating the last three points into balancing the classes. So it may not be a case of level 20 Fighter can 1v1 a level 20 Wizard but a case of level 20 Fighter with his elite sworn sword (and here I'm imagining the Morgan Freeman to Kevin Costner in Prince of Thieves) and the resources of his keep versus the level 20 Wizard and his grimoires, talismans, and spells.
|
|