Poll

Would you prefer D&D 5th Edition to be more similar to (or based off of)

D&D 4th Edition(/"4.5")
D&D 3.0/3.5
Pathfinder
AD&D(Second Edition)
AD&D(First Edition)
Other(please specify) I might add an option for you
D&D/Chainmail/Outdoor Survival

Author Topic: D&D 5th Edition  (Read 25135 times)

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #40 on: December 10, 2011, 02:13:24 PM »
Clerics were as good as Fighters, and were still Clerics even then. Fewer people noticed, but it was still true.

Offline caelic

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 517
  • fnord
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #41 on: December 10, 2011, 03:09:33 PM »
Clerics were as good as Fighters, and were still Clerics even then. Fewer people noticed, but it was still true.


In first edition?  How in the world do you figure that?  No multiple attacks, no exceptional strength, no fighter Con bonus, no weapon specialization--and no spells that boosted their individual fighting power to a point that made up for those disadvantages.

Clerics were seriously underrated in first edition, I agree with you--but as good at fighting as fighters?  No.

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #42 on: December 10, 2011, 03:17:31 PM »
You are aware that most of those likely won't even come up right? In order to have percentile strength you have to get an 18 there. If you don't... And there's items that give the same effects.

Offline caelic

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 517
  • fnord
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #43 on: December 10, 2011, 10:59:33 PM »
You are aware that most of those likely won't even come up right? In order to have percentile strength you have to get an 18 there. If you don't... And there's items that give the same effects.


Sure, and generally when those items turned up, they went to the fighters--who could make the most use of them, thanks to having multiple attacks and significantly more hit points than the clerics.

Saying that a cleric is as good at fighting as the fighter if you give him magic items is the same as saying he's not as good at fighting as the fighter.

The only class in first edition that really arguably made a superior fighter to a fighter was bard, and they just broke the game in every way possible.

I'm still trying to figure out how you conclude that a first edition cleric matches a fighter in terms of combat potential, when the only category I can see where the two are equal is in armor choice.

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #44 on: December 11, 2011, 07:58:53 AM »
You are aware that most of those likely won't even come up right? In order to have percentile strength you have to get an 18 there. If you don't... And there's items that give the same effects.

Sure, and generally when those items turned up, they went to the fighters--who could make the most use of them, thanks to having multiple attacks and significantly more hit points than the clerics.

You mean least?

Those items set your Strength to x. Regardless of what it is. So what would you rather have, someone with 16 Str and someone with 8 Str going to 18 and 8, or the same going to 16 and 18? The HP difference also only mattered if you had a high stat there to begin with, which since you're stuck rolling 3d6 in order even after doing the suicide shuffle a few times is not very likely.

Quote
Saying that a cleric is as good at fighting as the fighter if you give him magic items is the same as saying he's not as good at fighting as the fighter.

It's saying that the differences probably won't come up at all AND there are better ways of doing the same thing, while still being a Cleric.

Don't even get me started on multiclassing and dual classing.

Offline caelic

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 517
  • fnord
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #45 on: December 11, 2011, 10:22:05 AM »
You mean least?


No, I mean "most."  Did I mumble?


Quote
Those items set your Strength to x. Regardless of what it is. So what would you rather have, someone with 16 Str and someone with 8 Str going to 18 and 8, or the same going to 16 and 18?

Let's see.  Would I rather have the 7th level fighter with two attacks a round and double specialization in his weapon (which is probably substantially superior to the cleric's weapon both in base stats AND in magical capabilities) go from 16 Str to 18, or would I rather have the 7th level cleric with eight strength, one attack per round, a lower base chance to hit, and no bonuses from specialization go from 8 Str to 18...knowing that he's only going to be a part-time fighter at best, given that he's also needed to cast support spells?

Well, let me think about that one for a minute.  I know--why don't we crunch the numbers?

Let's assume that both characters hit every round.  This is incredibly generous to the cleric, since the fighter has a MUCH higher chance of hitting, but we'll be nice to the cleric in this case.

Let's also use an ACTUAL first edition item, the Gauntlets of Ogre Power, which set Strength to 18/00. 

The cleric goes from a Strength of 8 to a Strength of 18.  His bonus to damage increases from 0 to 6. He swings once and hits.  Total net gain in damage this round: 6.

The fighter goes from a Strength of 16 to a Strength of 18/00.  His bonus to damage increases from 1 to 6. He swings twice and hits.  Total net gain in damage this round: 10.

The fighter is going to gain greater benefit from the Gauntlets--and that's using the assumptions most favorable to the Cleric.  If we factor in the chance of missing and the rounds where the Cleric's not attacking because he's taking out enemies with spells like Hold Person, or shutting down enemy spellcasters with Silence 15' radius, the benefit he's going to get from the Gauntlets goes down even further.


For instance, let's talk about a 7th level cleric and a 7th level fighter attacking a monster with an Armor Class of -2.  The fighter needs a base of 16 to hit and the cleric needs a base of 18.  We'll assume that each of them has a +1 weapon--again, being nice to the cleric, a magical weapon usable by a fighter will turn up 100% of the time on the random tables, regardless of subtable, whereas a magical weapon usable by a cleric will only turn up 27% of the time on one subtable, 13% on another, and 0% of the time on the other two subtables.  But I think we can be generous and say that the DM chose to put in a mace +1, rather than trust to the luck of the die.

Now the fighter needs a 15 and the cleric needs a 17.  But the fighter can double-specialize in his weapon; he now only needs a 12 to the cleric's 17, and is still swinging twice to the cleric's once.  Once we add the +3 attack bonus from the Gauntlets, the fighter needs a 9 and the cleric needs a 14.

The fighter is going to hit 55% of the time; his average increase in damage per round is now 5.5.  But the cleric is only going to hit 30% of the time; HIS average increase in damage is now 1.8.

Again, advantage fighter.  And we're still not factoring in time taken away from fighting to cast spells.

Please: demonstrate that I'm wrong.  Show how the cleric can possibly get more advantage out of the Gauntlets than the fighter.  Demonstrate how he can add more to the party's chances of success if HE has them.  I don't think it's possible to make the assumptions any MORE favorable to the Cleric than I did.

The ONLY time it would make sense to give the Gauntlets to a cleric over a fighter is if the fighter already has close to an 18/00 Strength...which, of course, is only a possibility for a fighter...or if the fighter is so anemic that the cleric has significantly more hit points, which, while possible, is unlikely.  The fact that a cleric with superior stats might be able to equal a fighter with crappy stats proves nothing.


Quote
The HP difference also only mattered if you had a high stat there to begin with, which since you're stuck rolling 3d6 in order even after doing the suicide shuffle a few times is not very likely.


...in which case, the fighter still has a larger hit die, AND more hit points per level after 9th level, and will STILL have more hit points on average.  And in a game where the average character does NOT get more than half his hit points from Con bonus, that extra hit point or two per level is significant.  To third edition sensibilities, it sounds trivial--but a fighter with no Con bonus in first edition is going to have, on average, 25% more hit points than a Cleric with no Con bonus right up to 9th level--and after 9th level, the fighter is going to gain 50% more hit points every level.

So where's the cleric's advantage, again?  Are we also giving him a magic item that raises his Con, while denying the fighter the same?


Quote
It's saying that the differences probably won't come up at all AND there are better ways of doing the same thing, while still being a Cleric.


Sure.  A 25% to 50% increase in hit points per level, multiple attacks per round, vastly superior selection of weaponry (both magical and non-,) weapon specialization and better attack matrix (leading to, on average, about a 25% better chance of the fighter hitting, all other things being equal)--how could any of those things make a significant difference in a fight?

Seriously, you're joking, right?  I'm having a hard time imagining anyone who ever actually played first edition thinking the fighter's benefits in combat are inconsequential, or that a cleric has "better ways of doing the same thing."  The cleric is a solid second-string fighter, but the operative term here is "second-string."

Quote
Don't even get me started on multiclassing and dual classing.


Why not?  What was the single most popular choice for powergaming the dual classing rules?

That's right--it was taking a few levels of fighter before switching to a spellcasting class, for EXACTLY the advantages spelled out above. 
« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 11:15:31 AM by caelic »

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #46 on: December 11, 2011, 12:27:21 PM »
You mean least?

No, I mean "most."  Did I mumble?

Apparently so, as otherwise you'd realize that doing it the other way amounts to a greater benefit, especially when discussing a class who has zero class features unless you roll very high stats, and those very high stats can come from items just as well.

I skipped past the massive wall of text, as it demonstrated extreme ignorance on just how badly first edition could be abused and how crazy Clerics were. I'd go as far as to say that Clerics were better than Fighters then comparatively, it was just less obvious because the game tried to force you into being a healbot. As for abusing dual classing, think that might be because the only features of the class are dependent upon having high stats? Which makes sense, given that Fighter is the booby prize you get when you don't roll high enough stats to play one of the real classes. Only nice thing about them is that they are better than Thieves, and that the game is simple enough back then that run up and hit it gets shut down a lot less.

Offline caelic

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 517
  • fnord
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #47 on: December 11, 2011, 03:50:49 PM »
Apparently so, as otherwise you'd realize that doing it the other way amounts to a greater benefit, especially when discussing a class who has zero class features unless you roll very high stats, and those very high stats can come from items just as well.


Well, how can I argue with detailed evidence and examples like that?

Oh, right: I can't, because you didn't offer any evidence or examples.  Well, maybe you offered your evidence and examples in your highly detailed and incisive response to my evidence and examples.  Let's see.


Quote
I skipped past the massive wall of text, as it demonstrated extreme ignorance on just how badly first edition could be abused and how crazy Clerics were.


Translation: "I can't dispute the hard numbers you threw up, and I have no solid data to support my position, so I'll simply repeat my claim without any evidence and declare you ignorant."


Quote
I'd go as far as to say that Clerics were better than Fighters then comparatively, it was just less obvious because the game tried to force you into being a healbot.

 
Of course, I never said clerics were bad; nor did I say they were simply healbots.  I like clerics, and they were my preferred class in first edition.  A cleric had excellent battlefield control options, solid defenses, and a substantial ability to enhance the party's overall fighting ability, in addition to healing capabilities.  If you'd just said "Clerics were underrated in first edition," I'd be agreeing with you wholeheartedly.

I said that they weren't equal to or better than fighters when it came to combat. 

You have yet to offer any substantial refutation of that point.   

Please: prove me wrong.  Show us this combat-machine cleric who can outperform a fighter in combat.   Explain how he overcomes the advantage of swinging multiple times per round.  Show us how he overcomes the fighter's better attack matrix and substantial bonuses from weapon specialization.   Further, demonstrate how the resources you expend on getting him to that level produce a superior result when used on a cleric as opposed to a fighter.



Quote
As for abusing dual classing, think that might be because the only features of the class are dependent upon having high stats?


Sure.  Weapon specialization was dependent on high stats.  Multiple attacks per round were dependent on high stats.  Access to fighter magic items was dependent on high stats.  Superior hit dice were dependent on high stats.

Oh, no, wait; they weren't.

Did you ever actually, y'know, play first edition?    You're not, perhaps, confusing it with second edition, particularly the Skills and Powers era? 
« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 04:02:47 PM by caelic »

Offline Keldar

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • What's this button do?
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #48 on: December 20, 2011, 02:02:20 AM »
So which qualities of each system--first, second, third, and fourth--were worthy of inclusion?

I'll start:

FIRST EDITION:

1. Virtually impossible to create a truly gimped character.  Some multiclass options were stronger than others, but a neophyte character could select a character class and be reasonably assured that it would be able to contribute something to the party.

2. Party interdependency.  Fighters didn't become obsolete, because no other class could do the job of the fighter as well.  No one character should be able to do everything better than anyone else, or even as well.


THIRD EDITION:

1. Smoothed stat progression.  First and second edition only provided bonuses and penalties at the extreme ends of the stat chart, and those bonuses and penalties also tended to be extreme.  (18/00 strength comes to mind.)
I'll agree with the 1E inclusions.  Fighters, while exceedingly bland, were at least valuable back in the old days.  Clerics could fill in for Warriors in a pinch prior to 3E, but never eclipse.

Humorously, that stat mechanic appeared earlier than 3E, at least by the Rules Cyclopedia.  It wasn't AD&D, but it was D&D.

I'd add 3E's Base Attack concept to the list.  It cleaned up the mess that was THAC0, and removed a pointless barrier to entry and mastery.  (Also, not a concept that first appeared in AD&D, Gamma World did very similar a decade earlier with THAC.  Hell, 3E took a ton from Gamma World.)

Called Shots allowed non-casters to play in the binary attack park.  Its removal for 3E is a subtle part of what increased the gap between the two by removing a big option from one group while the other continued to gain options.  (Letting Wizards choose any spells on their own was a second subtle change responsible for the swing.  Remember the days when after first level wizards were dependent on DM kindness for spells?)

At Will Attacks from 4E were a good idea.  Giving Fighters interesting options beyond "I swing my sword" ad infinitum and insuring no Wizard ever had to resort to thumping things ineffectively with a staff was the part of 4E I liked best.

Saving Throws hit their peak with 3E in my opinion.  Before that they operated too differently from other rules, and with arcane categories.  4E's switch to defenses just made magic play too much like melee.  Simply changing who makes the die roll provides a huge mechanical differentiation that really helps provide a different feel for  the mystical and the mundane.  Using saves as a duration mechanic in 4E was just obnoxious, worse than trying to keep track multiple effects with short durations.  I had thought that impossible!  They sure showed me!

Skills I don't think have been done well at any point.  Second Edition's non weapon proficiencies favored base stats too much. ( Don't have a high Int, but want to be a Weaponsmith?  Too bad you'll suck at it no matter what!  Even if you spend all your NWP points on it, the Wizard that just picked it up will be better than you.  No I don't still have issues from 2E.  ;) )  The skills from 3E on eliminated the problems from before but created a new one, with a potentially infinite range for skill levels it became impossible to design skill challenges.  I think 2E's Skills & Powers came close to a balance between the two, but my book has vanished into the Astral Plane, having a solid range but rewarding those willing to invest in a skill more than those with simple raw talent.  Obviously, it ran the problem of being a roll low system in a game otherwise dedicated to rolling high, but it still came closer than the rest.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #49 on: December 20, 2011, 04:40:24 AM »
Can someone explain what Skills & Powers is to someone who has no clue?
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline InnaBinder

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1244
  • Onna table
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #50 on: December 20, 2011, 09:20:45 AM »
Can someone explain what Skills & Powers is to someone who has no clue?
Skills & Powers is an optional supplement that came out toward the end of the 2e production cycle.  I've heard it referenced as "2.5 edition" a few times.

Among other things, it presented methods of customizing characters by putting each stat along one of two 'tracks' so that, for example, STR could be used for Muscle or Endurance.  The former allowed for short bursts of strength, such as in combat, while the latter allowed for carrying things over long distances and such (guess which one 99% of the folks took?).  It also presented what some might call precursors to feats with Cleave and (poorly-conceived, IMO) Called Shot mechanics.
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.  Even if you win, you're still retarded.

shugenja handbook; talk about it here

Offline Ziegander

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 692
  • bkdubs123 reborn
    • View Profile
Continued from the Legends & Lore thread
« Reply #51 on: December 20, 2011, 12:50:19 PM »
To some extent they tried it with 4E, but reducing the range of possible rules interaction. Balance tends to come at the cost of variety, since the more true variety there is(rather than reskins or recombinations of the same components), the more likely for obfuscated game breakers to appear.

The models I want to see most emulated are development models, these are the models that control the clarity of the coding of the game. I want clear and consistent game language. If a term is defined by the game as meaning something special to D&D, then I don't want it ever used in a rules document to mean anything else. Period. D&D needs to develop a clear and consistent mechanical product, and then stick with it, just like Magic has gone through only minor revisions and refinements in its 18 years. Don't try to design D&D to be more like Magic, but do try to develop D&D more like Magic.

A more clearly defined set of rules will automatically result in a more easily balanced product. From there, if balance between player characters leans this way or that due to the actual setting in which the players play in, that will also be much easier to balance than the Fighter-in-FaerunTM situation. I would advocate a rules-lite, stripped down book for DMs as the core D&D product. This explains how to create a game, how to run a game, and how to play a game. And that's it. Then, any other game content is setting-driven.

The stripped down basic rules may need tweaked from time to time, but if they make a good game the first time (or fifth time, such as it is currently), they should never release a new "edition" of the game. After Beta, when was the last time Magic issued an entirely new rules set? Sure, with many of the numbered Magic Editions rules were tweaked to create a better gameplay environment by certain standards, but the game as a whole remained the same. D&D needs to learn to do that. To keep D&D the same game while simultaneously improving/tweaking little things here and there.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #52 on: December 21, 2011, 02:00:48 AM »
And then you need to make it sell.

The target audience is not generally people who care about game balance here. The RPG gaming community has generally put a low weight on such unless its grossly obvious even without any effort invested.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline Ziegander

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 692
  • bkdubs123 reborn
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #53 on: December 21, 2011, 03:30:41 AM »
And then you need to make it sell.

The target audience is not generally people who care about game balance here. The RPG gaming community has generally put a low weight on such unless its grossly obvious even without any effort invested.

Right. Now we know they have the clout and the capital to back lots of marketing, they just need to stop failing at marketing. I don't actually know how Magic continues to sell well, or who it is that they are selling to, but they continue to bring in new players every year and I haven't seen any overt marketing from Magic in a loooooong time. Of course, I haven't seriously played the game in a long time either. So maybe marketing strategies is another way D&D can learn from MtG.

EDIT: Just to clarify - I'm not saying that doing all of this will magically enable WotC to create some perfect dream game that will be exactly the game I want to play, or the game designers themselves want to play. What I am saying, is that following a set of goals like the ones I'm talking about should result in WotC obtaining the kind of consistent revenue and customer satisfaction that they want and arguably need.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 03:33:20 AM by Ziegander »

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #54 on: December 21, 2011, 04:22:37 AM »
Different market and entry entirely, though some aspects may be shared. MtG has low entry costs(one preconstructed deck gets you started as casual), but high mastery costs(but to build combos you need cards obtainable in the desired quantity only from dozens or even hundreds of booster packs as far as the manufacturer is concerned).
Casual players can stay at a semi-casual level and pick up a deck or booster from a new set if it interests them. MtG is not time intensive, a quick game can last 10-15 minutes, which is good for casual players. Piracy is somewhat impractical, but each player needs at least one deck.

In contrast, RPGs, even on the low end, take several hours, which rather limits the available time for working adults. The books present a significant entry price(especially where the exchange rate is unfavorable, over here a rulebook(one of the smaller ones to boot) can cost enough to buy food for two weeks). Core rulebooks can cost twice to thrice that, so randomly deciding to pick it up is unlikely. Mastery cost is thus also fairly sizable, but piracy is easy. The costs can be reduced however, as each group can share books.

So from that, what you really need to sell, is to hook new, casual players on their first contact with the game. Mechanics doesn't do that, you won't know about imbalance, generally speaking, until at least your second or third game(by which time you have invested upwards of 10 hours into the game, and sunk costs is kicking in). You need an engaging story that they want to be part of. You need something they can learn the basic rules of and create a new character in under an hour.

Secondly, you can't waste existing players. All the splatbooks launched? They only sell to non-casual players, because they aren't playable without the corebook. So any new editions has to satisfy a majority of old players who are perfectly comfortable where they are, and appeal to their wants. As Paizo managed to demonstrate, what they want is more flash and glitter, new campaigns and settings to play in.
Actually attempting to fix flaws resulted in various uproars, from those who see it as not going far enough, to the grognards(who believe in Ivory Tower, Caster Supremacy and 'Feature, Not Bug'), to shallow understanding players, who can only see the surface reactions(cue overpowered monk claims, and realism protests).

So...as far as the final product is concerned, the mechanics don't really matter. Except to us. A minority. As long as it doesn't explode on launch nobody else gives a damn.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 04:24:23 AM by veekie »
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline RobbyPants

  • Female rat ninja
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8172
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #55 on: December 21, 2011, 01:00:11 PM »
Can someone explain what Skills & Powers is to someone who has no clue?
Skills & Powers is an optional supplement that came out toward the end of the 2e production cycle.  I've heard it referenced as "2.5 edition" a few times.

Among other things, it presented methods of customizing characters by putting each stat along one of two 'tracks' so that, for example, STR could be used for Muscle or Endurance.  The former allowed for short bursts of strength, such as in combat, while the latter allowed for carrying things over long distances and such (guess which one 99% of the folks took?). 
If my Str was 13 or less, I'd take Stamina to get my carrying capacity up. If it were 14 or higher, I'd take Muscle to get some combat use out of the stat.

The main thing this book allowed was custom-making your PCs with Character Points. Both the race and class had a list of abilities you could pick. You could also earn CP by taking disadvantages. These tended to be more abusable than 3.5's Flaws.


It also presented what some might call precursors to feats with Cleave and (poorly-conceived, IMO) Called Shot mechanics.
I think this was in Combat & Tactics, one of the other two books in the Player's Option (2.5) series. The other book was Spells & Magic.
My creations

Please direct moderation-related PMs to Forum Staff.

Offline InnaBinder

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1244
  • Onna table
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #56 on: December 21, 2011, 04:14:00 PM »
You are correct, Robby.  I tend to mentally group Skills & Powers, Combat & Tactics, and Spells & Magic into the same "2.5e" category.
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.  Even if you win, you're still retarded.

shugenja handbook; talk about it here

Offline Keldar

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • What's this button do?
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #57 on: December 22, 2011, 03:46:21 AM »
You're thinking of the insane Critical Hit system.  Pages and pages of roll charts, epically Gygaxian.  In the DMG called shots were for sundering or plot related attacks.  (Ask Bard about Smog.)  The Complete Fighter's Handbook (page 80 if you have a copy about still) had a nice clean called shot system that gave noncasters recourse other than hit point damage.  Though it annoyingly relied on tracking more hit points rather than making use of the save system.  There are plenty of ways to justify mundanes doing more than simply hitting things, since 2E the rules never even tried.  And people praised that for "simplifying things."  Sheesh.

Offline darqueseid

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #58 on: December 22, 2011, 02:40:38 PM »
Wow, Alot of topics, first off I voted 3.5.

-As to the filler feats/material, thats actually one thing i love about 3.5.  no two people will create the same character, its extremely hard to produce the same character with all these feats and tricks and spells out there.  That being said, each feat needs to provide sOMETHing to the game, that is we shouldn't have filler material in there that NO-ONE uses or are totally worse than other feats (?enlarge spell?, ?combat casting?). 

-IMHO D&D 4e failed because it got rid of alot of the features that people really liked about D&D, and one of the MAJOR ones was the ability to customize and create characters from a huge pool of different options.  D&D 4e was all about the cookie-cutter.  To me every class looks and feels the same in 4e, its not just about balance, its about having unique abilities that fits peoples character.  There are some people who will always play a fighter, some who will always play a cleric, and like me, those who will always play a wizard-regardless of how under or overpowered thier characters are.   The 4e Designers missed that when they "rebalanced" everything.  One of the strengths of D&D has always been that I can play a wizard today, and in the future play a fighter, or a rogue or a cleric and each time, my game experience will be different-and in 3.5 there are probably hundreds of different builds you can try for a unique experience.  I just don't see the differences in 4e, its the same game from one class to another.

On top of that thier marketing strategy was idiotic I agree.  They SHOULD have maintained support for 3.5, they should NOT have denegrated 3.5 material they should have incorporated it into the new product.  The reason 3.5 was a success and 4e was a bust was that 3.5 KEPT the best parts of 3.0 and only made fixes to a broken system.  I contend they could have done the same with 4e.  They should have just extolled 4e as new core rules, and let 4e stand on its own.  Sure, many players wouldn't have moved to 4e, but I think more would have stayed with it if they could have updated thier old splatbooks and moved forward.  As it stands now wizards is losing the rpg market war, Pathfinder(which is exactly an update to the core rules but keeps the splatbooks right?) is the closest succesor to real D&D out there that I would even try- and while its not perfect, it may be the only way real D&D survives. 

if they want 5e to be a success they will return to the basics, original classes original gygax d&d style, just with updated, streamlined rules that provide for uniqueness and individuality. 
 
« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 02:44:10 PM by darqueseid »

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #59 on: December 23, 2011, 03:03:48 AM »
Quote
As it stands now wizards is losing the rpg market war, Pathfinder(which is exactly an update to the core rules but keeps the splatbooks right?) is the closest succesor to real D&D out there that I would even try- and while its not perfect, it may be the only way real D&D survives. 
Not exactly, old splats are mostly compatible, but by now its mostly an independent product with its own feat, class and spell base standards. Its kinda trivial to port over but well, game balance could suffer somewhat(because of course people would port over the powerful/unique stuff)
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.