|
Post by raynorn on Dec 3, 2010 16:50:11 GMT -5
I actually like many of the changes that went into 4th and Essentials makes the game friendly for newbies again, so I am enjoying it thus far.
What would you change for 5th Edition?
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 3, 2010 17:00:13 GMT -5
I actually like many of the changes that went into 4th and Essentials makes the game friendly for newbies again, so I am enjoying it thus far. What would you change for 5th Edition? Everything. 4th Edition is way too samey
|
|
|
Post by raynorn on Dec 3, 2010 17:05:34 GMT -5
Everything. 4th Edition is way too samey Everything? Would that mean making it diceless and setting it in space? I was curious about a specific change that you think would be cool, because if I found/heard fun changes I would roll them into house rules
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 3, 2010 17:13:50 GMT -5
I just think the whole rules-set is boring. There's really no difference between the classes anymore... a burst 4 power is a burst 4 power is a burst 4 power. The fact that fighters and rogues now have powers with as big an area affect as wizards and other casters is... ugh.
|
|
|
Post by shenron on Dec 3, 2010 17:17:49 GMT -5
I can see where you are coming from DK, you want the separation of class which makes sense and I half agree with you.
On the other hand, it does make it kind of cool when you get a gaming group together in 4th ed. You do not need the whole group to be certain classes so they can survive. So people can actually play what they want and be good at it.
|
|
|
Post by Thuellai on Dec 3, 2010 17:18:35 GMT -5
I just think the whole rules-set is boring. There's really no difference between the classes anymore... a burst 4 power is a burst 4 power is a burst 4 power. The fact that fighters and rogues now have powers with as big an area affect as wizards and other casters is... ugh. Bit odd considering how often we agree, but we're pretty far apart on this. I play a ton of 4e, I'm even a member of the local RPGA Living Forgotten Realms campaign. And I've never run into problems with things getting too similar. Every player has a distinct role in combat and it's managed to stay pretty deadly - the last game I played, the party only avoided wiping because of the support of our Bard - several of us went face-down during our battles, and fights were tense, but they were also quick. You knew exactly what you had in reserve so you could quickly pick what it was you needed. It can be a bit slow with newbies to the system, but once you get it down things are a well-oiled machine, and I'd never compare what a Fighter is doing for me in combat to what the Wizard is doing to support me outside of the fact that they both do reasonable damage and have reasonable control over the battlefield for once in D&D's history. EDIT: In the interest of fairness I should point out that I started on AD&D and that 3.5e was everything I didn't want D&D to be, and that I literally played no enjoyable games of D&D throughout the entire 3e era. That system just never clicked with me. I enjoy the changes Pathfinder made, but it's a case of too little, too late. So I might be slightly over-appreciative of 4e just because it's been possible for me to organize, play, and enjoy D&D again.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 3, 2010 17:26:46 GMT -5
Well, my group was hardly newbies. We'd played for over 2 years, trying to start various campaigns that never worked out, and eventually after reaching moderately high levels, we all looked at one another and admitted that nobody was having fun.
This whole "distinct roles" thing you talk about... I'm confused, because I haven't seen that, ever, in 4th Edition. Every class within a grouping is exactly like every other class within a grouping. Then there's the fact that the first 3 or 4 rounds of any given combat tend to be fast paced and exciting... followed by half a dozen more rounds of "lets see which of my crappy at will powers might be effective here." (With the exception of the few classes like Ranger and Barbarian that are lucky enough to have insane, massively over-powered At Wills)
|
|
|
Post by Thuellai on Dec 3, 2010 17:32:21 GMT -5
Well, my group was hardly newbies. We'd played for over 2 years, trying to start various campaigns that never worked out, and eventually after reaching moderately high levels, we all looked at one another and admitted that nobody was having fun. This whole "distinct roles" thing you talk about... I'm confused, because I haven't seen that, ever, in 4th Edition. Every class within a grouping is exactly like every other class within a grouping. Then there's the fact that the first 3 or 4 rounds of any given combat tend to be fast paced and exciting... followed by half a dozen more rounds of "lets see which of my crappy at will powers might be effective here." (With the exception of the few classes like Ranger and Barbarian that are lucky enough to have insane, massively over-powered At Wills) One thing I will say for 4e - as much as it streamlines the process, it's no easier to DM except from the numbers perspective. If anything, encounters especially call for a lot of work from the DM - fights on anything approaching a featureless room are going to devolve into the same tactical situation every time. You have to introduce new elements, whether terrain or traps or any number of other complications. And I've found plenty of differentiation - just within Defenders, Fighters are a more classic, core Defender, while Wardens position far more and do more area damage, whereas a Swordmage's big advantage is his mobility and ability to teleport to wherever he's needed for combat. Differentiation between seperate combat roles is even bigger.
|
|
|
Post by shazam on Dec 3, 2010 17:37:13 GMT -5
I can see where WK is coming from, the maneuvers at a certain point in the PHB are limited, and unless you're willing to pay for the Powers series you'll have to make due; Worse everything is categorized, something I felt was the lowest point in the newest edition, kinda like the needed classes for a 3.5 party, except it was everyone.
Now I'm not fan of 4th edition, but I will admit that their take on the skill rolls were interesting in that it grouped many skills from earlier together which was nice. Unfortunately for one good thing I find another bad, in a sense I dislike the monster creation system or the way that monsters are...I don't know the right words, but it feels so streamlined that I feel railroaded and thats the last thing a GM wants
|
|
|
Post by Thuellai on Dec 3, 2010 17:40:01 GMT -5
I can see where WK is coming from, the maneuvers at a certain point in the PHB are limited, and unless you're willing to pay for the Powers series you'll have to make due; Worse everything is categorized, something I felt was the lowest point in the newest edition, kinda like the needed classes for a 3.5 party, except it was everyone. Now I'm not fan of 4th edition, but I will admit that their take on the skill rolls were interesting in that it grouped many skills from earlier together which was nice. Unfortunately for one good thing I find another bad, in a sense I dislike the monster creation system or the way that monsters are...I don't know the right words, but it feels so streamlined that I feel railroaded and thats the last thing a GM wants I think this is the biggest thing, is that the streamlined formatting makes it hard to spot the differences. It's clean and simple formatting and that's good, but it's almost too transparent about the underbelly of the system. As to monsters, I actually enjoy having a template to work off of when I create monsters - be they new creations or old favorites updated to the new system, at least I can easily and accurately gauge their challenge. I will also say, the first Monster Manual was not as well balanced as it could have been - for the pacing of the game, monsters therein have too much HP and do too little damage. Later Monster Manual additions have less HP and do more damage and combat flows much faster and better using those monsters.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 3, 2010 23:59:43 GMT -5
Now I'm not fan of 4th edition, but I will admit that their take on the skill rolls were interesting in that it grouped many skills from earlier together which was nice. Unfortunately for one good thing I find another bad, in a sense I dislike the monster creation system or the way that monsters are...I don't know the right words, but it feels so streamlined that I feel railroaded and thats the last thing a GM wants The word is "overbalanced" As far as skills... they did some things right, but getting rid of skill ranks was a HUGE mistake. Making everybody as good at everything as everybody else is a terrible idea (and something that ruins Saga Edition Star Wars for me, too). What ends up happening is that anyone who actually wants to be good at something will end up with the exact same bonus as everyone else who actually wants to be good at that thing.
|
|
|
Post by Dominus on Dec 4, 2010 11:05:18 GMT -5
I don't really want to get into the nit and gritty of the game mechanics but I just wanted to add that in my opinion 4th edition sucks and is not worth anyones time playing. My group gave it their best shot and we all hated it.
|
|
|
Post by shenron on Dec 6, 2010 0:53:29 GMT -5
I have played in multiple games of 4th Edition and I have even ran a quick 1-3 level mini campaign that was pre-generated. I cannot think of what its called. I enjoyed it and I am excited to plan and run a Dark Sun campaign. I am sure they smoothness of the system and the lack of mechanics for social situations is a turn off for some people and that is fine.
As I said, I am not super experienced with 4th (I just picked up the first three essential books after I sold off my 1st prints a year ago) but I think it can be fun even though I prefer Pathfinder or Second Edition.
@ Dominus: I just want to say I have respect for you for actually trying out the system and playing with it for awhile and then deciding you do not like it. Most people just flip the rules, decide their hate it, and wage open war about it.
@ WK: Hey, I understand what you are saying about scrapping in and doing a 5th Edition, but I honestly think it would cause a gamer riot. To be honest, I think 4th Edition was designed for a different market and a different type of gamer and to be user friendly to all ages. My local game store runs a kids game every Sunday and there is a 8 year old in the group (I do feel sorry for the poor bastard who is the GM). Anyway, to "save" 4th Edition, I think they need to come up with some kind optional rule system with social rules, etc. I think there is no way to make it any smoother. Oh and why no love for Dark Sun? I admit I am not a fan of Spelljammer, but I wish they would bring back Planes Scape.
Hell, in all honesty, I wish the Frankenstein that TSR transformed into (Wizards/Hasbro) would go back to second edition, smooth it up and do a 2.5 Edition. That would be Legend (Wait for it) Dary.
|
|
|
Post by shenron on Dec 6, 2010 0:56:24 GMT -5
As far as skills... they did some things right, but getting rid of skill ranks was a HUGE mistake. Making everybody as good at everything as everybody else is a terrible idea (and something that ruins Saga Edition Star Wars for me, too). What ends up happening is that anyone who actually wants to be good at something will end up with the exact same bonus as everyone else who actually wants to be good at that thing. I agree with you here. I am a fan of the percentage system for skills like they had for the Thief in Second Edition, they should have something like that for all skills.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 6, 2010 7:34:15 GMT -5
2nd edition was, no offense, trash, and would never sell in the modern gaming market. Fans want systems that actually work. 2nd Edition may hold nostalgic value, but then so does my NES. That doesn't mean I'd actually choose to forego my XBox 360 so I can play with 8 bit graphics and two button controllers.
As far as a gamer riot... I think you're overestimating gamers ability to do anything but whine and complain when they feel like they're being ripped off (but they WILL still buy the product, just like they WILL still go see the movie, no matter how badly it rapes their favorite comic/book/cartoon). Everybody whined when they jumped from 3 to 3.5 so quickly, but ultimately people accepted it, because 3.5 was such a massive improvement.
Right now, D&D is a gaping wound, and its bleeding Hasbro dry. Soon it will get to the point where they're stupid NOT to release a new edition.
|
|