Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

I think we're probably using different definitions of streamlined. I think in 4th you are always going to have one party formation -- someone needs to play the role of striker where in 5th you can have an all striker party if you want.

No they didn't. I don't remember who wrote the article -- might have been Monte Cook but don't quote me on that, Cook was just the guy I tended to disagree with more than anyone else. It was a mechanics first, flavor second attitude vs Gygaxian cruft "story first and foremost" even if balance goes all to hell.



They tried hard to sell the idea that you needed the roles: Defender, Leader, Striker, Controller, but in actual practice, having DMed at least 200 sessions of 4th edition for many different groups, any decent players could do fine with any mix of classes/roles. You could definitely succeed with 4 Strikers or 4 Leaders or anything else, if the players were reasonably smart and conversant with the system. I remember at one convention, they had a tournament module that was really hard, and it was a contest to see which group could get the farthest in it. The winner was a group of four Rangers.

I hate some of the elements of D&D which have persisted all this time, just because of how things were in Jack Vance's novels. Like, the mechanics are just bad. Unbalanced, and they always lead to some kind of player discontent, because the different classes have wildly different power curves, resting strategies, and priorities. Some people might think that's good, for whatever reason. I don't. I don't think it's good when one class is designed to need to rest all the time, and another class is designed to not need to rest, because no matter what, one of those players gets disserved by how things go down. I don't think it's good when one class is weak and another is strong at one level range, but then the other class is strong while the first is weak at a different level range. I think the idea of memorizing spells, of spell slots, is just dumb from both a mechanical AND narrative perspective.

Yet, it seems I am very much in the minority. When they "fixed" (according to me, but not to most) those issues, the playerbase rioted and jumped ship. To this day I still don't really know why.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
How accurate is ruleset implementation? Very accurate and faithful to the DOS&D ruleset. laugh

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
@soul-scar lol smile

@firesnakearies Yeah our experiences are pretty different. I only attended one tournament and didn't like it. Most of my experiences were with close friends and family and we never had any serious discontent over party roles. And my first character was a 1st ed magic user meaning I would cast one sleep spell and then spend the rest of the time hiding from orcs.

Is there a ruleset you like better? I never got into white wolf or any of the other alternatives.

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
because sacred cows. 4e works well, but 4e works well because of the things other people consider flaws.
Yes, you can probably do well without having all he roles.

but its significantly more fun if you do have them. People act as if this is a restriction, it is not. Its liberating. It makes characters not be at odds with each other, something that especialy 3e and now 5e does.
Its a more cooperative expirience.

The real reason people didnt like 4e is aesthetics. The teamplay aspect of 4e is actually something baked into the identity of DnD. However 4e made the mistake of giving it a name. It was all about the presentation. It was too clean, too gamey and it told you too many things bluntly and upfront.
Meanwhile people that were used to 3e wanted prosa text, they wanted trap options and they wanted it to be opaque.

In many ways people expect from dnd sourcebooks to be some kind of arcane books. Im not even kidding, its part of the expirience for many people, feeling like youre reading some eldritch tome that may or may not contain rules.

Id also apreCiate if youd stop telling people nonsense.
You sneak in little snippets of nonsense in between true statements. For example.
Yes, 4e is based on positioning. How does that relate to your characters beeing super heroes? it doesnt, thats a nonsense statement. the power levels are much lower than in 3e.

Or one thing i fundamentally disagree with is that the Roles supplant classes. Absoluteley not all classes within one role feel the same. I dare you to play a Fighter and a Battlemind and tell me how those classes feel even tangentially simmilar.
The same goes for playing an Avenger and a Barbarian.

Im kind of sick of such blatant lies getting plastered all over the community. It gives people misconceptions that i then have to fight against on my table.

On the dreaded "Balance". Anothe rmisunderstanding by someone who doesnt play 4e a lot.
4e isnt any more balanced than any other editions. It is defintily among the more deadly editions in early levels, at least in the way its intended to be run. What is balanced is the Characters.
However, unlike PoE, this doesnt relate to things like "Damage", 4e isnt balanced in the sense that barbarians cannot do insane damage, or that wizards cannot pull world altering bullshit at higher levels (Tho the latter significantly less so than in other editions)

What "Balance" means in terms of 4e is that there are no Trap options and no tier lists. Youll never pick up a Character you think sounds cool and then have it be garbage. What also doesnt happen is that the your Character gets overshadowed by anoher character that does your job AND another job and does both better than you.
Wizards in 4e have a role, in 3e wizards have every role. in 5e its much the same outside of pure damage.
In 4e casters did their thing, but fighters also did their thing, ironically, in and out of combat.

When you say roleplaying is not a mechanic in 4e, that probably means youve never played a fighter in 5e. Because a fighter in 5e will do jack shit outside of combat, RAW.
It was 4e that gave martials a dedicated book of things to do outside of combat. Relating to things like Blacksmithing Items so good they might aswell be magic items, camp camoflague, tracking and so on. Basically giving Mechanics to things that used to be Mother may i.

>On 5e and roles
>In 5e there can be a full striker party
In 5e these roles do not exist and thus the comparison isnt correct. Yes you can be a Party of 5 fighters in 5e. Because Fighter is the only 5e class that i would consider to be simmilar to the Striker role.
You can. but you also could in 4e. It would work. However, the main point of htis is that in 5e while it works, it also then makes you miss out on 60% of allt he game mechanics because you dont have a caster at all.
I dont see how that is any more "playable" than it is in 4e, where you actually have more ways to build an actual fighter.

Last edited by Sordak; 12/11/20 06:55 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sordak
It was too clean, too gamey and it told you too many things bluntly and upfront.
Meanwhile people that were used to 3e wanted prosa text, they wanted trap options and they wanted it to be opaque.

In many ways people expect from dnd sourcebooks to be some kind of arcane books. Im not even kidding, its part of the expirience for many people, feeling like youre reading some eldritch tome that may or may not contain rules.



This is a good point. I think you're onto something here.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Totally is. It's a good analysis. Indeed the first edition rule books were printed on parchment like paper to give the impression of an arcane tome. And that's a good thing -- the rules have a mystique to them. Without the history, without the mystique that surrounds the ruleset D&D would just be another game.

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
honestly dnd is still dnd without it. i dont think 5e captures that feeling either.
I enjoy the arcane nature of dnd sometimes.
but as someone who mostly DMs and who does his own world and his own rulings, clear spelt out rules are a godsend.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
I prefer to design my own systems these days. Even when I play a published RPG, I modify the hell out of it. I couldn't possibly DM 5e by the book any more. I really dislike so much about it. I'd need about 10 pages of house rules to make it tolerable.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Who really cares about this and that rule set as long as its fun, deep and interesting?

The real question is, how accurate is the Baldurs gate world building and atmosphere?? Since its CALLED BG3!! (and not DnD : a xxx adventure)
Not very...If I wasn't told this is BG3, I doubt Id figure it out. "Oh, its a Larian RPG using DnD rules!"
"OMG, its BG3!!! So obvious! " Is the last thing Id be saying.

Last edited by mr_planescapist; 12/11/20 09:55 AM.
Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
Because a ruleset is how the game is run. Obviously. I care that its good, hence why i dont want 5e RAW, as 5e RAW is extremeley barren
>how accurate is it to BG worldbuilding
oh yes, another one of those...

come on, how about some actual points instead of just complaining

Last edited by Sordak; 12/11/20 09:56 AM.
Joined: Jun 2014
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2014
So, just to confirm, monsters do not take all reactions (the spectator doesn't have spell reflections, dragons aren't available to fight so can't say about legendary actions and legendary resistance) and I think there are also some issues on how the NPC proficiencies and saving throws are handled (at least according to the limited data we have). I can see multiattack is there but I have no idea how it is regulated.

Joined: Sep 2015
N
old hand
Offline
old hand
N
Joined: Sep 2015
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
I prefer to design my own systems these days. Even when I play a published RPG, I modify the hell out of it. I couldn't possibly DM 5e by the book any more. I really dislike so much about it. I'd need about 10 pages of house rules to make it tolerable.


I actually like the freedom of the cypher system. I switched to it a while ago and I must say it's always difficult to go DM back with more elaborate and restrictive rulesets.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
I prefer to design my own systems these days. Even when I play a published RPG, I modify the hell out of it. I couldn't possibly DM 5e by the book any more. I really dislike so much about it. I'd need about 10 pages of house rules to make it tolerable.


I actually like the freedom of the cypher system. I switched to it a while ago and I must say it's always difficult to go DM back with more elaborate and restrictive rulesets.



Cypher system is great! Really easy to teach to new players, really flexible. I used it to run a game about modern-day real world street kids facing an alien invasion.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
What's it like? I've never even heard of it.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Have you heard of Numenera?

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Have you heard of Numenera?

Does it respond to anti-biotics?

Joined: Jun 2014
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2014
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Have you heard of Numenera?

Does it respond to anti-biotics?


only occasionally.

Joined: Jun 2014
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2014
Are exhaustion mechanics in-game?

Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
To everyone saying oh its an adaption, you cant put al the rules in a video game. The only problem with these arguments is that Solasta exists, its a faithful reproduction of the table top and its bloody fun, instead of been DOS 2.5 with some DnD thrown in.

Joined: Jun 2014
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2014
Originally Posted by simsurf
To everyone saying oh its an adaption, you cant put al the rules in a video game. The only problem with these arguments is that Solasta exists, its a faithful reproduction of the table top and its bloody fun, instead of been DOS 2.5 with some DnD thrown in.


Is it? I haven't tried it yet.

Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5