Decline Sword Coast Legends Pre-Release Thread

[Grunker]

Yeah it's a widespread thing sadly

 

[Roguey]

After the excellence that is SkyUI, any PC list inventory that does not at least match it in functionality is an abomination. This is clearly going to be a console game (later).

Just remind me how many HP did a lvl6 wizard have in DA:O

Without putting any points into constitution, 105.

Judging by that screen, this is going for DA2-style asymmetry where enemies have thousands of HP but only do single-to-double digit damage themselves.

 

[AbounI]

The Codex may have written SCL off, but the true fans on their forums are gearing up for some serious roleplaying

I am a paladin player. I always roll one named Aric, human. Kal is my paladin from Baldurs Gate saga. This time I will pick another name and roll a half-elf paladin. He will be the son of Kal and Aerie, her mother putted him in a magic slumber after Kal and her leave the Realms when he was barely 18 and now he wakes centuries later ready for SCL.
Based on the feedback i had here, I will roll a half-elf now since they make so great paladins too and it will be a nice way to connect both plots in my personal story.

Nice way to show how the Gateway tool is useless

 

[FuriousGamer87]

Judging by that screen, this is going for DA2-style asymmetry where enemies have thousands of HP but only do single-to-double digit damage themselves.

Hey, don't judge them too harshly

A boss fight in an actual D&D environment would usually take less than 10 rounds to finish by competent players, which means if they followed the ruleset too closely, even the most cinematic fight of the game would be done in a minute or so.

So, why not multiply the HP by about 30 and then reduce the average damage by half?

Now, all the boss fights in that game can last as long as WoW boss fights do.
It's the game design grand or what?

Spoiler

Holy shit, what are they smoking when they think that is a good game design for anything?

 

[a bear named spigot]

 

[sser]

I used to 'GM' games on a Starcraft 'DnD' UMS's

I'm still looking forward to this until it shows itself to be dead at my feet. That Paradox attempt at it makes me want to see it work.

 

[Shannow]

Your post is bordering on being apologetic.

Stop mincing words. My posts are apologetic. The problem is that you guys interpret every information about the game in the most negative way possible and that you are so certain about it. My inner balance-fag forces me to point out that these things can be seen in a less negative light. And if you used more words like "looks like...will probably be...I expect...shit", then I'd feel far less need to give alternative opinions.
Hell, the chances I see for this game turning out decent are getting slimmer and slimmer. I started at around 25% and am now down to 20%.

Anyway, in general I think the first question should be

No, it shouldn't. The first question should be "when core mechanics deviate this hilariously much, is there anything at all that should cause us to believe this is an actual D&D game"?
Look, I'm sure you can make a great game where creatures have 3,300 hit points at those levels, but it's got nothing to do with D&D, and the topic I was commenting on is "will this be an actual 5E game or is it 5E in name and iconography only?"

And I was commenting on whether deviating from D&D makes for a better or worse game.
To me:
The best stuff about D&D is the TB combat. That is out and with it the main reason to take D&D. What remains is lore/setting and char system.
The setting, especially the Sword Coast, is shit. But whether the devs will be able to tell interesting stories depends on them, not on the setting. They could use Planescape and still make an awful adventure.
The D&D char system is pretty shitty, too. I disagree with many of the mechanics and can only enjoy it in a gamist char-building sense (talking about 3rd ed.). I'm not even sure if that can be as fun in 5th ed. From what I gathered it's rather simplistic compared to 3rd ed. So deviation from the rules is simply not something I see negatively on principle. I see it neutrally and ask what does it change? Will the result play better or worse?
I do however agree, that nobody who does not make the game TB and implements the rules as faithfully as possible should take D&D. But we have to look at the fucking realities: We live in this world and have this gaming industry. IE games and NWNs were all RTwP, the rules were not 100% faithful (and far from great even if they had been) and still I could get a certain degree of enjoyment out of all of them. The IE games even contain some of my favourites. At this point in time I'm simply unwilling to write SCL completely off. It might be the next NWN

PS: I still don't quite get why you seem to take this all so personally.

 

[Shannow]

The Codex may have written SCL off, but the true fans on their forums are gearing up for some serious roleplaying

I am a paladin player. I always roll one named Aric, human. Kal is my paladin from Baldurs Gate saga. This time I will pick another name and roll a half-elf paladin. He will be the son of Kal and Aerie, her mother putted him in a magic slumber after Kal and her leave the Realms when he was barely 18 and now he wakes centuries later ready for SCL.
Based on the feedback i had here, I will roll a half-elf now since they make so great paladins too and it will be a nice way to connect both plots in my personal story.

Nice way to show how the Gateway tool is useless

Actually I thought:
Finally I know what kind of person might find this gateway thingy useful.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

guys, don't let the boss HP bother you, Ray of Frost IX will do like >9000 damage, so it's OK, really

 

[Grunker]

That sure was a lot of words to basically say: yeah you're right it's D&D in name only.

I don't give a shit whether you like or dislike D&D. What you seem to have been missing from the outset is that I've solely discussed whether the game will be related to/be a faithful adaption of D&D. What you think about D&D or creatures with 50 million HP is completely irrelevant to that point.

When your reply to a post saying "this probably has shit to do with D&D" is "well I hate D&D anyway lol" I am tempted to write QED and let it rest.

 

[Grunker]

Also stop it with this fucking "might be NWN" shit. 1) NWN sucked, 2) for all its faults, it had an insanely faithful D&D implementation. Same goes for NWN2.

 

[eremita]

Also stop it with this fucking "might be NWN" shit. (...) it had an insanely faithful D&D implementation. Same goes for NWN2.

So if you combine that with the toolset, you get the best game evah for some people. Which is why I have to say "Let's hope it's like NWN!". Really Grunker, you don't seem to realize what potential this game has for community. And if it's shit, well at least there's still the masterpiece which is NWN2. (Best CRPG toolset, best DnD implementation, best storyfag game - MotB, best systemfag game - SoZ.)

 

[Grunker]

So if you combine that with the toolset, you get the best game evah for some people.

Rules implementation doesn't make a good game. No tool-set user could fix the problems with the combat.

Really Grunker, you don't seem to realize what potential this game has for community.

No, I don't. Because even with mods I never got much enjoyment out of NWN. Also, didn't you just say that the implementation of the ruleset was vital for its potential?

NWN and NWN2, for all the funtime one could have with building characters, sucked to actually play. When your ruleset/character customization is that much better than the IE-games and your game still plays like crud, you know you've done poorly.

 

[Copper]

It's the exact opposite. The simulationist argument would be to change a rules on a whim if it interferes with perceived realism or setting consistensy. In fact, my post points out the fallacy of ultra-simulationism: consistensy of simulation is achieved much better by adherence to structure and internal rules than by everyone's personal definition of "realism." How can you take seriously the rules of game if they can be changed on a whim? Which quote-unquote "gamist" argument can you think of that allows the game rules to be so flexible that they must submit to all other considerations?

I love simulation. It's why I play P&P. I just don't think the coined "simulationist" school of thought has much merit.

The bad side tends to be 'I know more about this than you, so I should be able to do what I want/this is shit.'

Well, there's nothing in this world, least of all P&P rules, that is immune to childishness and narcicism. I don't contest that strict rules adherence is bad if you're dealing with people who are not responsible adults, or at least have a GM who can detect and negate that sort of thing. I get your point, I just haven't had to deal with anything like that since I was a teenager.

We're quite probably talking at cross-purposes here. Just to clarify, your example of a simulationist argument is more or less what I meant by the 'bad' side of simulationist stuff - someone at the table browbeating others into allowing them to do something not defined by the rules because 'science'. And to be fair, it's something I've done too, although within the scope of the game's rules, to subvert paint-by-numbers plotting by GMs.

 

[Ramireza]

Hehe, funny that some guys still think this could be decent.

This will be a poor mens DA:O, nothing more.

 

[Roguey]

Hey, don't judge them too harshly

A boss fight in an actual D&D environment would usually take less than 10 rounds to finish by competent players, which means if they followed the ruleset too closely, even the most cinematic fight of the game would be done in a minute or so.

So, why not multiply the HP by about 30 and then reduce the average damage by half?

Now, all the boss fights in that game can last as long as WoW boss fights do.
It's the game design grand or what?

Spoiler

Holy shit, what are they smoking when they think that is a good game design for anything?

Didn't 4e introduce the concept of solo monsters? Looks like quite a few people like the idea of 4-6 players having to beat on a single boss for a while, but to get a comparable experience from pre-4e D&D you only had a few creature types to choose from at any given level.

 

[Grunker]

Didn't 4e introduce the concept of solo monsters? Looks like quite a few people like the idea of 4-6 players having to beat on a single boss for a while.

You realize 4th ed. tanked majorly, right?

 

[Roguey]

You realize 4th ed. tanked majorly, right?

Only compared to the grognardy nostalgiafest that is Pathfinder. Pretty sure it was still #2.

 

[Grunker]

You realize 4th ed. tanked majorly, right?

Only compared to the grognardy nostalgiafest that is Pathfinder. Pretty sure it was still #2.

Ignoring your ignorance, #2 in terms of what? It caused a major move away from D&D and lost market share for Wizards. When you talk about it with Wizards employees today it is clear that it was basically a failed experiement. Its relation to other RPGs is immaterial, the fact is that after 3rd ed. nothing could challenge D&D's absolute hold on the market. After 4th ed., 5th couldn't even generate that much buzz. I don't even know someone personally who owns the player's handbook. Casuals and grognards alike. That was unheard of before 4th happened.

Are you, a poster who prides herself on research, under the delusion that 4th ed. was succesful?

As for your ignorance: calling Pathfinder a grognardy fest is reducing any value that ever was in the term. Grognards hate 3rd edition because it started the move towards build-focus and gameplay and away from simulation and oldschool games. Just look at the debates in the Gazebo or EN World or the like. You gotta tidy up your prejudices if you want to apply them to people. Otherwise they're just meaningless bait.

 

[Roguey]

Ignoring your ignorance, #2 in terms of what? It caused a major move away from D&D and lost market share for Wizards. When you talk about it with Wizards employees today it is clear that it was basically a failed experience. Its relation to other RPGs is immaterial, the fact is that after 3rd ed. nothing could challenge D&D's absolute hold on the market. After 4th ed., 5th couldn't even generate that much buzz. I don't even know someone personally who owns the player's handbook. Casuals and grognards alike. That was unheard of before 4th happened.

Are you, a poster who prides herself on research, under the delusion that 4th ed. was succesful?

RPGs must be in a pretty bad spot if being #2 doesn't make you money.

http://icv2.com/articles/games/view/23500/top-5-rpgs-spring-2012
http://icv2.com/articles/games/view/24224/top-5-rpgs-summer-2012

I figured it's one of those "it's not successful enough" deals.

 

[Grunker]

Who said anything about making money?

4th ed sold on its name alone. Along with doing that it removed 5th ed's possibility to do so. You can only rely on reputation to sell a broken product once.

Why did 3E have a billion side-products and 4E nearly none?

 

[Bubbles]

RPGs must be in a pretty bad spot if being #2 doesn't make you money.

#4 being Dragon Age might be taken as another indicator of that fact.

 

[Roguey]

4th ed sold on its name alone. Along with doing that it removed 5th ed's possibility to do so. You can only rely on reputation to sell a broken product once.

5e fails on its own merits. As JES said, it tries to be too many things to too many people.

Why did 3E have a billion side-products and 4E nearly none?

Less successful is still successful.

 

[Grunker]

Less successful is still successful.

When you have as strong as brand D&D, breaking even on the core product and having no spin-offs whatsoever is not succesful. I know you are bullheaded, but claiming 4th ed was successful is absurd. It's easily the most catastrophic error Wizards have commited.

 

[FuriousGamer87]

Hey, don't judge them too harshly

A boss fight in an actual D&D environment would usually take less than 10 rounds to finish by competent players, which means if they followed the ruleset too closely, even the most cinematic fight of the game would be done in a minute or so.

So, why not multiply the HP by about 30 and then reduce the average damage by half?

Now, all the boss fights in that game can last as long as WoW boss fights do.
It's the game design grand or what?

Spoiler

Holy shit, what are they smoking when they think that is a good game design for anything?

Didn't 4e introduce the concept of solo monsters? Looks like quite a few people like the idea of 4-6 players having to beat on a single boss for a while, but to get a comparable experience from pre-4e D&D you only had a few creature types to choose from at any given level.

Not precisely.

The dragons, golems, "classed" NPC with templates and "elite" monsters types from the monster manuals and such are pretty much the same thing pre-4e D&D.
In those cases, one of them is pretty much a whole encounter as themselves and is usually run as one.
4e just make the monster roles differentiate clearer, which helps a lot when trying to use pre-existing monster as a base for your own monsters stats.
Solo type monster is just multiply the health by four for pre-3th MM monsters. By the 3rd MM, usually solo monsters have a wide range of rechargeable and reaction abilities to keep them surprising and deadly throughout the entire encounter, especially when they are on their last legs.

I don't know about other DMs but I had runned these types of encounter, usually as the climax of an adventure, though usually with a sprinkling of other previous enemies I have thrown at my players and never just them.
Even with their HP multiply by four, like I said before, I usually never have a boss fight run more than 10 rounds, dead PCs or otherwise.