[ a / foolz / jp / kuku / m / tg / tv / u / v / vg ] [ index / top / statistics / report a bug ]

/tg/ - Traditional Games

If you notice any bugs or issues, please report them at >>>/foolz/9163 or GitHub.

View Post

File: 80 KB, 163x196, ITBEGINS.png [View Same] [iqdb] [Google] [SauceNAO]
17721994 No.17721994 [Reply] [Original]

Ask a 5e playtester who doesn't give half a fuck about NDAs anything.

Preliminary - It is quite, quite obviously an early "build", and without a PHB or somesuch to look at, all we playesters know is off our character sheets, which were vague at best, and our experiences. Some tidbits, if I may;

Confirmed races are Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Half-Orc, and Tiefling. Classes known are the sacred 4, as well as Warlord and Paladin; more are assuredly to be included.

There are no Fort/Ref/Will defenses or saves; instead, spells and effects seem to call for simple ability saves; Con saves, Dex saves, and Wis saves obviously, but there also seem to be Cha saves against effects.

Skills seem very 2e I think, no obvious ranks, but class-based training seemed to be present for things like Bluff, Stealth, etc. Seemed very rough and unfinished.

Basis seems quite obviously 3.x largely, with some 4e semi-compromises worked in. Dying, for example, seemed like a vicious monster of 3e/4e hybridization.

AND... go.

>> No.17722028

>>17721994
WAIT.
Tripfaggin', just in case.

>> No.17722042
File: 403 KB, 390x219, sniper.gif [View Same] [iqdb] [Google] [SauceNAO]
17722042

>Charisma saves

... That iss beautiful.

>> No.17722046

How is the "New Vancian" shit?
How does the choice of "BAB vs Powers" work for fighters?

>> No.17722050

Core mechanics still d20? Hows magic?

>> No.17722059

>Dying
What'd they do with it?

>> No.17722060

Are Paladins back to be LG only, or can they work with any alignment? Or, are alignments just tossed entirely?

>> No.17722061

>>17722042
I know, makes balanced ability scores a bit more relevant, but might also increase MAD a bit.

>> No.17722088

>>17722046
Magic seems Vancian, with spells leveled 1 to 10. Yes, no 0 spells on the sheet, but the bar clearly went to 10. No idea about BAB vs. powers, level 1 playtest. HOWEVER, no one seemed to have any BAB.
>>17722050
Familiar d20, very 3.x based (for now), vancian magic. SLAs seem to be back.
>>17722060
No idea. For now though, the 9 alignments seem to be back, and the Paladin WAS LG, no idea if that's an LG-only thing.
>>17722059
- Con score = ded. You make a Con save to avoid dying. Fail, lose 1d6 HP. Make 3 and you stabilize. So, make, fail, fail, make, make, you're stable but down 2d6. Makes being dying kinda tense.

>> No.17722112

Weapons.
>Did you get to use anything besides standard knives/maces/daggers, and did they play differently at all?
>Did they specify damage types?
>Reach weapons?
>Any mention of or using special actions like tripping/grappling/disarms?
>Are there defense options? Are shields just static bonuses to armor? Parrying or counters?

>> No.17722117

>>17722050
> Hows magic?
Let me answer this a bit.

The wizard had some type of at-will magic attack, rinky-dink spell, and a very limited Vancian-style pool of prepared spells. Casting spells was a mishmash of 4e and 3e, opposed attacks vs rolled defense, with the attacker setting the DC with a roll and the defender rolling against that.

The at-will MAY have been feat-based. The character sheets didn't actually tell us if we had a feat or not! Very minimalistic.

>> No.17722121

>Half orc
>Not full Orc

WoTC will you ever learn?

>> No.17722144

>>17722112
Knives, the fuck? Meant swords.

>> No.17722158

How much would you say it feels like the other editions from what you've played?

>> No.17722159

>>17722112
Weapons were mostly similar, but proficiency bonuses seem back. We didn't really get to look at a list or anything. Simple/Martial split, light weapons were mentioned. I'm thinking a 3e/4e hybrid for weapons. Never saw any reach weapons... damage types did seem back but I can't be sure. Remember, early playtest.

Shields definitely add something to defenses, but I'm not sure how special maneuvers work, we didn't really try anything beyond STAB IN FACE. I saw the 3.x trappings and really didn't want to tempt fate and grind the game to a halt.

>> No.17722176

>>17722158
If I had to say, it was very 2e with 3e trappings, and some 4e mechanics. It really is a bit of a hybrid game. Rumor has it that fighty-types get more attack options as they level, rather than just bigger numbers, so we won't know if any of 4e's more complicated options are in there. Damn level 1 playtests...

Oh, and charging kinda sucks. Extra damage, but you take a minus TO HIT as well as to your defenses. Very risky.

>> No.17722213

>>17722121
But we don't know what the other half is. What if it's also orc?

>> No.17722217

>>17722117
>Casting spells was a mishmash of 4e and 3e, opposed attacks vs rolled defense, with the attacker setting the DC with a roll and the defender rolling against that.
...this is just stupid. Why add an extra roll? The slight change to the probability distribution is probably less beneficial than doubling the number of rolls. Even 3e's inconsistent attack/defence system only ever had one party rolling at a time.

>> No.17722240

>>17722176

>Damn level 1 playtests...

Did you see any of the other tables? Were they playing higher level characters, or did you see/hear if other tables had different things going on?

>> No.17722241

>>17722217
If it's any consolation, Magic Missile just plain hit.

Extra tidbit! Measurement is in feet.

>> No.17722243

>>17722217
This

It'll only end up taking more time at the table

>> No.17722256

Alright, last question from me:
Monks.

Any sign of 'em? Or at least unarmed combat being an option?

>> No.17722261

>>17722240
I saw a little bit yes, and NOT just because I was checking out the ladies... but everyone seemed to be the same level, playing the same module (Caves of Chaos, an old Gary Gygax one). I think the intent was to show off the differences in base mechanics, rather than character creation.

>> No.17722269

>>17722241
Shit.

This was a perfect time for it to finally switch over to Metric.

>> No.17722286

>>17722256
Monks have been mentioned in the seminars. Based on what was said there, there should be a dozen+ classes, including all the 3.x AND 4e PHB1 ones. At the table? No sign of them. Too early to say. One of the devs mentioned that monks were "easier to design than fighters". I'd assume, yes, Monks will be there at launch.

>> No.17722302

Eeveryone - ENWorld's forums have full transcripts of the dev speeches and QA sessions, with lots of answers. For example, Monte sez rituals are back, and will likely be used for the big, dramatic, out of combat stuff. And such and soforth.

>> No.17722319
File: 98 KB, 163x257, happy ted.png [View Same] [iqdb] [Google] [SauceNAO]
17722319

>>17722286
>Easier to design than fighters
And yet they managed to fuck it up so royally in 3.X

Still, I am excite.

>> No.17722326

So from what I gather, being level 1 still sucks ass, even though most campaigns begin at level 1 and don't progress beyond 6.

WOTC.... all of my rage.

And where's the gnomes?

>> No.17722330

What sort of feedback could you give them? In writing, or did you get a chance to talk to them? Did they seem serious about wanting to hear your input?

>> No.17722337

>>17722319
The gist was that Fighters could do half a dozen+ thinks, while monks were more focused. Hopefully they learn from 4e and make both those classes better at what they're supposed to do.

>> No.17722339

Warlords made it in?


FUCK YES! I AM SO HAPPY!

>> No.17722379

>>17722326
Being level 1 seemed... slightly less than 3e levels of brutal, shall we say. Personally, it was fun. Ambushes! Charges! Tactical retreats! Mass death! Also, no idea about gnomes. Not seen in the test (at least our group), but that doesn't mean anything.
>>17722330
Writing, and talking to them. The DMs were mostly THE DEVS THEMSELVES. Monte Cook is actually a very animated, fun-seeming DM, but he wasn't ours. I won't mention who that was, but he seemed genuinely interested. I'd say yes, they are genuinely interested in input and I gave it too them. I won't say what.

>> No.17722400

Wizards having some at-will spells? Color me intrigued.

>> No.17722402

>>17722339
And they don't seem terrible! Warlord was our friend.

Ohh, resting. You get 4 rests per day; 2 short 10-minute ones, a 1-hour one, and an 8-hour one. 10-minutes give you back your level in HP, the 1-hour lets you get back 1/2 your hp OR re-prep some spells (one or the other, caster-bitches!), while an 8-hour gives you back both 1/2 HP and all your spells. There were no healing surges in sight.

>> No.17722408

>ITBEGINS.png
I look forward to seeing the 5E thread simulator. Fat halfling is best halfling.

>> No.17722428

>>17722408
You are now imagining that your shower was one of candy halfling semen raining down all over you.

Lathering your skin and streaming itself over your face in sticky strands

>> No.17722434

>>17722428
GUYS

I WANT A GIRLFRIEND WHO LIKES HALFLINGS

HOW DO

>> No.17722445

>>17722402
>There were no healing surges in sight.
fff
Were there any limitations placed on the cleric's healing? And did the cleric healing draw from the same spell pool as their 'fun' spells? It'd be a damn shame if they've decided to bring back healbotting.

>> No.17722452

>>17722402

Having three different kinds of rests seems weirdly overcomplicated. Only to a minor degree, but still.

>> No.17722476

>>17722445
Sadly, yeah, it looked like 3e-style converting fun spells into healing. BUT, the cleric was very, VERY adept at stabilizing people, like, move-attack-YOUARENOTDYING good at it. Not sure if the cleric was being played optimally, though. I'm sure the fighty-types were, but well, the Fighter and Rogue's sheets were one page, the clerics and wizard's were like 3. Something may have been missed.

Oh, while I'm thinking about it... HP is set by your Con SCORE, but it was also heavily implied every class had an actual hit die for future levels. Criticals were 4e/3e hybrids; roll a 20, do max damage AND roll to confirm. On a success, extra damage equal to your class' HD; rogue 1d6, fighter 1d10, etc.

>> No.17722478

>>17722452
Having an arbitrary limitation on the number of rests you can have is just fucking retarded to begin with. Sleeping once a day is one thing, but only being able to stop fighting/dungeoneering for ten minutes twice daily? Fucking stupid. Just keep encounter abilities. They worked great.

>> No.17722482

>>17722476
>but it was also heavily implied every class had an actual hit die for future levels

Oh, FUCK hit dice. Yet another mechanic I was glad to see gone in 4e.

>> No.17722504

>>17722482
>Oh, FUCK hit dice. Yet another mechanic I was glad to see gone in 4e.
Yeah, I thought they said they were flattening out the power curve? If fighters gain 5 HP a level (on average) that is going to do nothing to combat HP inflation. If all they're doing is keeping attack rolls roughly the same at high levels then they're not going to achieve the 'Make monsters useful over a wider level range' goal because they'll still be able to hit but won't be able to do a useful amount of damage.

>> No.17722523

>>17722452

Seconding. 4e having just 2 made it easier.

Also, having 6 stats with 3 used as defense and As attack divide character into glass cannon and characters that can't hit or prevent glass cannons for kgetting murdered besides having a hard forcing of monsters to try to hit them.

.... Also 4e making spells equal the level you first get them makes it easy to remember when you can get them. So I don't think that going non 4e is a good choice. Also why did they make charging suck?

>> No.17722530

>>17722478
It's possible than in the playtest they didn't want people to spend all of their time resting.

>> No.17722534

This sounds like a mashup of old mechanics for no good purpose.

I can't really see what they are trying to achieve or how it aids their stated design goals.

>> No.17722535

>>17722504
I can and can't see it working. I mean, at level 1 most characters had about 15 HP. Those orcs and bugbears and kobolds actually hit pretty hard... and they certainly weren't in small numbers, but the orcs/kobolds went down easy and smooth, but the DM wasn't marking down HP for them (even though a few survived minor blows). If hp gains per level are modest, a pack of orcs could still be a threat at higher levels, especially if all that needed upped was their to-hit and damage.

>> No.17722553

>>17722476
>hit dice
>rolling for maximum HP
NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>> No.17722560

>>17722523
> Also why did they make charging suck?

A personal guess? To keep charging from being the sole defacto combat maneuver. It's the cornerstone of more 3e builds than any other, and a great many 4e ones too. Didn't keep some of us from charging, and when it worked it felt good.

>> No.17722562

>>17722534

>I can't really see what they are trying to achieve

Make 3.5 grognards change to 5.3

>> No.17722563

I'm surprised at how much I like how all this sounds.

>> No.17722569

>>17722476

The crit mechinic is kinda over complicated but it is a functional mix of 4e and eariler d&d hit mechinics.

I am a sucker for rolling for more success after a great success.

>> No.17722576

How did social and exploration mechanics work?

Did you have any special abilities at all related to anything but combat?

>> No.17722579

>>17722534
No idea. I'll say this; it was fun, it was D&D, but it was still early. Honestly, we'll need to wait until the F&F playtest to find out about level 2+ stuff.

>> No.17722585

>>17722478
House rule I already have for my 1e/2e games: you can sleep all you want, but beyond a certain point it's useless or even counterproductive.. Think about it: have you ever successfully slept again for 8 hours during the day, no matter how tired you are, and woken up feeling anything but shitty?

Likewise, Basic and 1e >require< players to rest for 1 turn out of every 6 while dungeoneering, or begin to suffer penalties (ooh, look, it's another rule that no-one ever remembers!), so it's not a matter of "allowing" it - but of finding a safe place to rest for a couple minutes and rejigger your armor/light new torches/ etc. Trust me, I've worn a hauberk while hiking. You fucking need the rest.

>> No.17722587
File: 64 KB, 402x402, 1325272232901.png [View Same] [iqdb] [Google] [SauceNAO]
17722587

Holy shit, is this sounding amazing to anyone else?

>> No.17722614

>>17722576
Skills and social stuff seemed limited, but this was obviously a hack-n-slash dungeon crawl module. Some characters had bonuses to certain actions, like the rogue being good at bluffing, the wizard using arcana to detect magic/identify items, the fighter kicking down doors left and right, and so forth. It seemed very simple, almost ad-hoc... which is how I DM. So far, I'm a bit impressed but cautiously so.

>> No.17722615

>>17722535
In the top right corner of the character sheet's ifrst page, there were several stats. What were they?

>> No.17722648

>>17722615
Seen a screenshot? The character sheets were very non-uniform, with people's stats in different places for the various characters. It wasn't a familiar "blank character sheet to fill out", it was a computer printout.

tl;dr -
> implying there were stats on the first page
tl;dr tl;dr - the big 6 are back, AC exists, initiative exists, HP is a thing

>> No.17722672

>>17722269
Hey, at least it's better than squares.

I mean, yeah, you're obviously going to be working with 5-ft squares when using a grid, but I always prefer measurements to be given in real-world units rather than game abstractions.

>> No.17722688

>>17722648
Every charsheet had the same stats in the top right corner.

>> No.17722697

I don't like this whole Vancian thing.
They shouldn't feat tax spellcasters just to avoid it.

>> No.17722707

No battlemats, I hope? I hated 4e's movement system. I'd rather just estimate relative travel against a map.

>> No.17722717

>>17722688
MAy have been looking at the back of someone else' and thought it was the front, but they looked far more chaotic from my perch. I can say mine had HP, Crit Dice, Initiative, AC, Str/Con/Dex/Int/Wis/Cha off the top of my head.

>> No.17722728

>>17722707
From what I saw, some groups did, some groups didn't. I'd say they're optional at this stage.

>> No.17722739

>>17722717
That makes sense. What were the numbers next to the stats? Like, it was Strength -- Value1 - Value2? One of them was obviously the score, what was the second?

>> No.17722754

>>17722739
Sorry to disappoint, but ability scores were the same old 16 (+3), so still 3e/4e stats. Attack bonuses/AC were higher = better, so no THAC0.

>> No.17722759

I'm not going to lie, OP.
This sounds like they turned the game into the shit I was worried about. Did anyone try to pull off Batman Wizard or CoDzilla-style play? I don't trust Monte Cook to believe that those are BAD THINGS.

>> No.17722773

>>17722707

For non-combat encounters, probably, but combat that is more than a sniper duel or pcs vs mob needs it particularly opportuntu attacks.

Also, why the fuck would wotc use metric? It is a US company. That said, I like squares morejust because you can describe them as being any real world measurement equal to roughly 5 squares and not confuse players if you split into the game terms.

>> No.17722778

>>17722759
At level 1? Hell now. Not sure what it will be 10 levels down the road, but the wizard stayed well the fuck back and threw lazers, the cleric helped keep us alive and smashed face, the warlord told everyone else to STAB MORE FACES, etc. Will BATMAN and CoDzilla return? Too soon to say. If I get in the playtest, I'll do what I can to prevent it.

I had a good group though, lots of bitchin' RP, and everyone felt useful and awesome.

>> No.17722791

>>17722778
>STAB MORE FACES

Best. Battle Cry. Ever.

>> No.17722800

>>17722778
>but the wizard stayed well the fuck back and threw lazers
Oh for fuck's sake. Please tell me they're not testing based off of blaster Wizards again. If you get into another playtest MAKE SURE TO PICK THE WIZARD AND PLAY HIM AS A BATTLEFIELD CONTROLLER.

>> No.17722802

>>17722778
What sort of spells did the wizard get?

>> No.17722812

>>17722778
Please convince the devs to add more level 1 and low-level content. Low levels see far more play than high levels.

I'm talking like 4x the normal number of spells and feats for low levels than high levels.

Most of the D&D game is never experienced if your DM restarts the campaign, or switches worlds, or everyone dies.
You read the book, you expect to "eventually get there" and do cool things like own a keep and cast Teleport, but YOU DON'T USUALLY GET THERE.

>> No.17722819

>>17722800
IF, IF I get the F&F pplaytest, than yes, I'm a 2e-4e vet, I'll make sure to emphasize the wizard's more proper role as a force multiplier rather than a force additive. That said, blasting *should* be a viable tactic, because its hella fun, but it shouldn't be the minimum baseline and assumption of what wizards do.

>> No.17722820

Can you give us some more Warlord info? I'm a sucker for Warlords and would love to hear anything about them.

>> No.17722837

>>17722802
I didn't see much... an at-will scorching ray type deal, some daily magic missile-age, mage armor... the basic stuff really.
>>17722820
The one we saw was very charisma-based, lowish strength, but very 4e in basic function; initiative bonuses and granting free attacks to others that did extra damage, presumably by pointing out hos very stabbable faces are.

>> No.17722844

>>17722837
How much did Magic Missile do, as a daily spell? And was it single-target?

>> No.17722854
File: 16 KB, 469x320, BisonYes.jpg [View Same] [iqdb] [Google] [SauceNAO]
17722854

>>17722837

Pic related. Good to know the BroLord still does what he does best!

>> No.17722855

>>17722837
Did they fix spell durations?

Think about the 3e Summon Monster at level 1.
You cast it, monster appears next round, gets one attack that probably misses, then it vanishes at the end of that round.

Wooooooooo

>> No.17722859

>>17722844
I... honestly can't remember. It was either 1d4+1 or 1d6+1 I think, BUT, it was definitely 2 missiles.

>> No.17722861

>>17722241
>Extra tidbit! Measurement is in feet.
Ok, lost all interest.

>> No.17722869

>>17722854
Not gonna lie, guy playing the Warlord was a bro.
>>17722855
Unknown, never saw any spells that lasted longer than BAMF. Spell descriptions looked 3e-style, though.

>> No.17722888

>>17722861
Actually, that reminds me!

5e halflings seem faster than 3e ones, but slower than 4e ones (25 feet/5 squares), while armor appears to slow you down less (scale only slows you down by 5 feet it seems, not 10). So, another 3e/4e compromise.

>> No.17722897

>>17722869
How was the attack roll? Did people roll effectively strength checks or how high was the modifier?

>> No.17722912

>>17722897
Well, the Rogue had "weapon finesse", but his damage was still Str-based. The attack roll seemed to be mostly Strength+a hidden weapon proficiency bonus, seemed to be +2 for everything+masterwork if any. It was modifier based, not score based. In other words, not radically different.

>> No.17722926

CURRENCY!

Ready to be excited? Gold is the new platinum, and electrum is back. Electrum was explicitly found. EL-ECT-RUM

>> No.17722942

Alright folks, last chances for any unanswered questions; I've got about 15 minutes left at this position and then I have to bug out. Get'em in here or forever hold your peace.

>> No.17722947

>>17722926
I'm excited by this!

>> No.17722954

>>17722926
What about bars of gold pressed latinum?

>> No.17722973

What spells did the cleric have?

>> No.17722975

>>17722954
LEVEL 1
If we'd found that we woulda run back to town, cashed in, and bought our own island. Screw adventuring, I want a tropical atoll populated by morally lax islander elf wenches.

>> No.17722982

>>17722942

Any info on feats or are we still in the dark? Did you get to spy what any of them did?

>> No.17722985

>>17722861
...Need to correct myself on closer look.
While this is shitty in GURPS, it makes total sense in D&D.
D&D is medieval fantasy and I'm German. Medieval fantasy in Germany uses imperial units to sound archaic.
So yeah, I'm actually fine with this.

>> No.17722989

>>17722973
Seemed like standard low-level 2e/3e fair, cure wounds, bless, etc. Nothing huge, fancy, or off-the-wall. Level 1, y'know.

>> No.17722992

did you enjoy the playtest, even with it being a rough draft of the rules? did anything stick out as particularly strange?

>> No.17722998

>>17722975
True.

So, was there anything like wealth-per-level? Entitlements? Class-based resources? Wealth checks? Average gold per encounter?

>> No.17723016

>>17722982
No; the character sheets didn't even hardly mention "feats", though presumably they're back, just... invisible to us due to character sheet opaquity. We THINK wizards get feats that gave him the at-will spell, I THINK the rogue's weapon finesse might have been a feat, but we don't really know... when I say the character sheets weren't proper sheets like we know them, I mean it.

>> No.17723027
File: 174 KB, 576x711, FuckYeahMisato.jpg [View Same] [iqdb] [Google] [SauceNAO]
17723027

>>17722926

>electrum is back

>> No.17723036

>>17722992
I did. The strangest thing was probably spells being in effect opposed attack rolls, which kinda helped because a good roll almost ensured it worked, but a bad roll... hope the DM botches.
>>17722998
No real mentions of WPL or average encounter gains. Most of what we found was sensical treasure, like looted gear, pouches of money, a few hidden stashes, etc... seminars and such seem to confirm that magic items will NOT be an assumed part of character development.

>> No.17723046

>>17723036


YESSSSS

>> No.17723063

What did the Rogue's "Weapon Finesse" do if his attack and damage were both still based on Strength?

>> No.17723073

>>17723063
It was basically 3e weapon finesse; to-hit was Dex, damage was Str.

>> No.17723115

>>17722562

>mfw grognard is used to describe 3.5 players
>mfw I play 1e
>mfw I have no face

>> No.17723117

Alright,that does it for me. If you want more, you'll have to wait for another kind Anon. Have fun stewing in your antici.........pation.

>> No.17723130

So... archive this shit for future reference?

>> No.17723131

>>17723117
Well thank you for your information

>> No.17723154

I haven't dabbled in 4e enough...is warlord better than fighter for options besides "hit shit"? If so it might be worth saddling up as one for 5.

>> No.17723170

>>17723154
4e fighter is supported out the ass for basically everything imagniable.

4e warlord is really good at making others hit shit really good and moving others (both allies and enemies).

>> No.17723172

>>17723154

From my experience The Warlord is the Fighter's best friend, a pal to the Rogue, and a cool guy for everyone else.

>> No.17723200

>>17723170

From what I remember of 4e fighter, a lot of his tricks were variants on hitting stuff. I'm looking for a fighter with varied tactical options. Hmmm. Does it support maybe a "weapon master" type of character, one loaded with different weapons and gear to switch on the fly?

>> No.17723216

holy cow, 5th edition actually sounds pretty cool!

Is anyone else excited for this?

>> No.17723236

I think I know why they do clumsy opposed rolls:
They want to have better probability distributions, yet can't make a multi-die system because the grognards would cause the rage of the century.

>> No.17723244

>>17723154

Hi, guy who has written the CharOp handbook on the warlord here. IMHO, the Warlord is the most powerful class in 4e, bar none. The Fighter is top tier too, but the Warlord is not only powerful, but also versatile. Anything you want it to do within the Leader role, it CAN do. And more importantly, it can do it while both being SUPER fun (you win encounters, seriously) and not hogging spotlight (you know why the team is winning and how - your allies are just happy they get to attack more). The Fighter is great, but a Warlord is a total blast, and you will never regret picking one.

>> No.17723272

>>17723216
See
>>17722587
And yes I am very fucking excited.


>>17723130
And also yes, once we get our curiosity sated.

>> No.17723293

>>17723244

Sounds good. See, I want to be able to contribute in different ways besides just "hit this guy", and I figure someone with supreme battle tactics should be able to help influence a fight.

>> No.17723331

>>17723293

My favorite ability of the Warlord was swapping places with someone in the initiative, and then that person gets to have their entire turn. I think it was Guileful Switch or something...

>> No.17723347

so sounds like they got it right for us 3E players TBH.
also i like the tweaks they made from 4E as well, because there were some things i liked in it, even if i didn't play much.

>> No.17723390

>>17723200

weapon switching as something other than a range changer or replacement of a broken seems kinds silly.

4e starting fighter had a lot of attacks because 4e had 1st level characters only have standard action attacks as at wills or encounter powers and you don't want to forgo damage when damage is the main way to end a fight. 4e is still leathal in that 3 hits is enough to down a non defender.

>> No.17723411

I really hope there's no feats or anything like that. Makes roleplaying more important than rollplaying.

>> No.17723457

>>17723347
To be frank, 5e sounds fucking horrible so far.

>> No.17723495

>>17723236

Except that generally the result of such an roll is binary. Either the spell or attack works or it does not, and it doesn't matter if you beat the spread, with the expection of crits, which happen 5% of the time

>> No.17723496

>>17723200
4e supported that, with one issue. Default play includes magic bonuses into the math, so to actually work decently at switching between various weapons (without using a magic weapon that changes form, of course), you would have to keep them all at decent enchantment levels. Which is expensive as fuck, of course.
Using the inherent bonuses version, to remove the need for magic enhancement bonuses, it works perfectly fine. Won't get you the same sheer output as a focused fighter, of course.

>> No.17723498

>>17723390

Hrm. My big problem with 4e was mainly "look at all of these feats!" and if I had to do that, I figure I'd rather work with buffs that have a huge benefit that made them work using.

>> No.17723517

>>17723495
Have you read what was posted?
Crits are now 20 + Confirmation roll.
So it's less than 5%. That's what I mean.

>> No.17723557

>>17723457
Play tests are horrible. They're monkeying around with it, which is why it's a play test.

>> No.17723569

>>17721994
>mfw you are just copy/pasting from other leaks

>> No.17723586

>>17723569
I see a lack of face to go with your lack of sauce.

>> No.17723592

>>17723517
On a 20 you get a crit, and on a confirmation you add bonus damage to it.

>> No.17723620

>>1772351

they still do max damage if you fail to confirm. And confriming is still a binary case anyway.

>> No.17723693

>>17723200

you can do that in 4E/Essentials

>> No.17723728

>>17723498

Yeah, had wotc been better at defining feats by type eariler rather than post essentials, you would not have a problem. Or better power classifactions as well.

Also, 3.5 had a large array of feats that could over load a player as well.

On 5e having plate not be used at 1st level, it's fine with me if it is used like masterwork armor was in 4e (a way for chars without a stat based ac to still have good ac, but still have good ac before that point)

>> No.17725841
File: 47 KB, 509x572, YouSeemUpset.png [View Same] [iqdb] [Google] [SauceNAO]
17725841

>>17723569

>> No.17726625

bump

>> No.17726797

Well, from what I've read it seems a little overly complicated.

>> No.17726859

>>17722812
This.
Large chunks of the 4e MM1 and MM2 were useless(Even before the bad math) because they were monsters for level 20+ players.

I would much rather have a BECMI book setup than cutting low level options from the PHB to stuff in 21 to 30.

I mean, honestly, a combat based game just ceases to be interesting once players get a lot of tools to actively ignore things like terrain or control effects.

Kind of like how pinning is useless in WH40k because all the hand to hand armies have rules to ignore leadership checks.

>> No.17727410

>>17723293
I played a Warlord once.
He was an old man with a stick, a shadow of the former warrior he used to be.
However, he traded his strength for intellect, and could still stand up to a few solid blows himself, even if his own were feeble in comparison.
He was always the center of the maelstrom, directing winds of blood and steel around him while striking out only when needed. His allies won when they trusted him and his enemies usually played into his schemes.
His only ambition was to lead the group that would see a new king to the throne, as the last one died hundreds of years ago and the stewards had been poor rulers (think Gondor).

>> No.17729881

>>17722269
Metric is scifi
Imperial is fantasy

This is a hard coded rule of gaming. Breaking from it is a point to show the devs do not know their audience at large.

>>
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?] Password used for file deletion.
Action


[ Translate FoOlFuuka ] Theme [ Default / Fuuka ]