The only other item I can find in my stockpile now with issues is the Full Helm of the Spider -- no visuals for female characters.
I'm having trouble reproducing this issue on my end. I equipped the "Full Helm of the Spider" on a female character, and it did have visuals. Is anyone else also missing visuals when they equip "Full Helm of the Spider" on a female character?
Okay, looks good. Only broken on live.
Harper Chronicles: Cap Snatchers (RELEASED) - NW-DPUTABC6X Blood Magic (RELEASED) - NW-DUU2P7HCO Children of the Fey (RELEASED) - NW-DKSSAPFPF Buried Under Blacklake (WIP) - NW-DEDV2PAEP The Redcap Rebels (WIP) - NW-DO23AFHFH
My Foundry playthrough channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/Ruskaga/featured
I decide to try a new Paladin as I was having trouble relating to the new set up on my level 70 one. Going through the first few levels was good, but level 8 onwards was a struggle, but I am persevering because I think it is the best way to learn how to play this class on the new mod. My main problems are: 1. I cannot open celestial bag of refining, because it says I already have the bags content. 2. Having done the quest which gives me 3 shimmering lockbox, I can't get the keys to open them, I did specifically want the health stone and adventurers exp boost which would go a long way to help me in my struggles. Is there any way I could get some help with this?
The Class changes panel is being down right deceptive as well as unhelpful.
"With this Update we will be be moving away from the 4th Edition D&D Pre-defiend build classes." it is worded is if you are opening the classes up when you are really just changing their names. Classes are more Pre-defiend than ever, their builds restricted to 10 feats per path, only 5 of which you can have at time and the powers cut up and locked away in the paragon paths. While this is not a lie, it is not a good faith honest wording of the changes. Be HONEST and say something Akin to, 'We have streamlined the class functions and removed role descriptors from their names.' that way you are being diplomatic and truthful.
i am going to suggest this simply and straightforward. Do not be deceptive, we often see though it. it does nothing but erode trust.
My other complaint is less dire as these are still works in progress. While some like cleric do explain some mechanical differences others do not. The wizard explanation of the paragon paths just explains their themes, not their changes in function. There is NOTHING, about the removal of debuffs and the diminished focus on control potential and not even a 'These are DPS paths.' I hope you improve this as well as rephrasing the deceptive wording.
errmmm have you opened up a 5th edition book and compared it to a 4th edition book ? While i disagree with a bunch of how things have been implemented so far - it's pretty faithful to what 5th edition is trying to do. So far it looks like they are trying to take 20 levels worth of gaming material and stretching it out to 80 levels without taking parts of their own stat system into account.
just because in 5th edition you dont get many feats, it does not mean we can't get them in the computer to game to earn the stats we are being given anyways through combined rating on gear. We still get the stats, just from the wrong place. If we got them from leveling up then the type of complaint this player i am replying to would not happen.
Yes i have cracked a 5th edition PHB. You know what 5thE still offers? Player choice. what do Mod16 changes diminish? Player choice.
What did i complain about? Vague and deceptive wording specifically around player choice. The wording suggests they are removing restrictions when they arent. If they had said. " We are moving from 4thE to 5thE" i would have given them all kinds of slack and maybe a box of of chocolates because i like 5thE. But just wording it like you are opening up new possibilities when you are instead restricting them is deceptive.
If this is just a step in transitioning from 4thE to 5thE then i have nothing to worry about because it is likely newer mods will add features and alleviate my complaints but no one has said that is what is going on cause the Devs aren't really telling us much of anything.
Ego etiam cupo recrari et amari diu post mortem meam I too wish to be recreated, and to be loved long after my death.
The Class changes panel is being down right deceptive as well as unhelpful.
"With this Update we will be be moving away from the 4th Edition D&D Pre-defiend build classes." it is worded is if you are opening the classes up when you are really just changing their names. Classes are more Pre-defiend than ever, their builds restricted to 10 feats per path, only 5 of which you can have at time and the powers cut up and locked away in the paragon paths. While this is not a lie, it is not a good faith honest wording of the changes. Be HONEST and say something Akin to, 'We have streamlined the class functions and removed role descriptors from their names.' that way you are being diplomatic and truthful.
i am going to suggest this simply and straightforward. Do not be deceptive, we often see though it. it does nothing but erode trust.
My other complaint is less dire as these are still works in progress. While some like cleric do explain some mechanical differences others do not. The wizard explanation of the paragon paths just explains their themes, not their changes in function. There is NOTHING, about the removal of debuffs and the diminished focus on control potential and not even a 'These are DPS paths.' I hope you improve this as well as rephrasing the deceptive wording.
errmmm have you opened up a 5th edition book and compared it to a 4th edition book ? While i disagree with a bunch of how things have been implemented so far - it's pretty faithful to what 5th edition is trying to do. So far it looks like they are trying to take 20 levels worth of gaming material and stretching it out to 80 levels without taking parts of their own stat system into account.
just because in 5th edition you dont get many feats, it does not mean we can't get them in the computer to game to earn the stats we are being given anyways through combined rating on gear. We still get the stats, just from the wrong place. If we got them from leveling up then the type of complaint this player i am replying to would not happen.
Yes i have cracked a 5th edition PHB. You know what 5thE still offers? Player choice. what do Mod16 changes diminish? Player choice.
What did i complain about? Vague and deceptive wording specifically around player choice. The wording suggests they are removing restrictions when they arent. If they had said. " We are moving from 4thE to 5thE" i would have given them all kinds of slack and maybe a box of of chocolates because i like 5thE. But just wording it like you are opening up new possibilities when you are instead restricting them is deceptive.
If this is just a step in transitioning from 4thE to 5thE then i have nothing to worry about because it is likely newer mods will add features and alleviate my complaints but no one has said that is what is going on cause the Devs aren't really telling us much of anything.
The 5E PHB, assuming you're not using the feats custom rules, offers you on the order of 11 classes, each with 2 to 3 subclasses (ignoring wizards).
The paragon paths are basically subclasses.
So once you account for feats, NWO actually offers MORE customization than the PHB by itself.
0
minotaur2857Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,141Arc User
The Class changes panel is being down right deceptive as well as unhelpful.
"With this Update we will be be moving away from the 4th Edition D&D Pre-defiend build classes." it is worded is if you are opening the classes up when you are really just changing their names. Classes are more Pre-defiend than ever, their builds restricted to 10 feats per path, only 5 of which you can have at time and the powers cut up and locked away in the paragon paths. While this is not a lie, it is not a good faith honest wording of the changes. Be HONEST and say something Akin to, 'We have streamlined the class functions and removed role descriptors from their names.' that way you are being diplomatic and truthful.
i am going to suggest this simply and straightforward. Do not be deceptive, we often see though it. it does nothing but erode trust.
My other complaint is less dire as these are still works in progress. While some like cleric do explain some mechanical differences others do not. The wizard explanation of the paragon paths just explains their themes, not their changes in function. There is NOTHING, about the removal of debuffs and the diminished focus on control potential and not even a 'These are DPS paths.' I hope you improve this as well as rephrasing the deceptive wording.
errmmm have you opened up a 5th edition book and compared it to a 4th edition book ? While i disagree with a bunch of how things have been implemented so far - it's pretty faithful to what 5th edition is trying to do. So far it looks like they are trying to take 20 levels worth of gaming material and stretching it out to 80 levels without taking parts of their own stat system into account.
just because in 5th edition you dont get many feats, it does not mean we can't get them in the computer to game to earn the stats we are being given anyways through combined rating on gear. We still get the stats, just from the wrong place. If we got them from leveling up then the type of complaint this player i am replying to would not happen.
Yes i have cracked a 5th edition PHB. You know what 5thE still offers? Player choice. what do Mod16 changes diminish? Player choice.
What did i complain about? Vague and deceptive wording specifically around player choice. The wording suggests they are removing restrictions when they arent. If they had said. " We are moving from 4thE to 5thE" i would have given them all kinds of slack and maybe a box of of chocolates because i like 5thE. But just wording it like you are opening up new possibilities when you are instead restricting them is deceptive.
If this is just a step in transitioning from 4thE to 5thE then i have nothing to worry about because it is likely newer mods will add features and alleviate my complaints but no one has said that is what is going on cause the Devs aren't really telling us much of anything.
The 5E PHB, assuming you're not using the feats custom rules, offers you on the order of 11 classes, each with 2 to 3 subclasses (ignoring wizards).
The paragon paths are basically subclasses.
So once you account for feats, NWO actually offers MORE customization than the PHB by itself.
Except almost nobody uses PHB alone, NW didn't with 4E, it used something much closer to the essentials classes. TBF the only 5E I've played was in Eberron so offered more variation anyway.
0
theycallmetomuMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,861Arc User
The Class changes panel is being down right deceptive as well as unhelpful.
"With this Update we will be be moving away from the 4th Edition D&D Pre-defiend build classes." it is worded is if you are opening the classes up when you are really just changing their names. Classes are more Pre-defiend than ever, their builds restricted to 10 feats per path, only 5 of which you can have at time and the powers cut up and locked away in the paragon paths. While this is not a lie, it is not a good faith honest wording of the changes. Be HONEST and say something Akin to, 'We have streamlined the class functions and removed role descriptors from their names.' that way you are being diplomatic and truthful.
i am going to suggest this simply and straightforward. Do not be deceptive, we often see though it. it does nothing but erode trust.
My other complaint is less dire as these are still works in progress. While some like cleric do explain some mechanical differences others do not. The wizard explanation of the paragon paths just explains their themes, not their changes in function. There is NOTHING, about the removal of debuffs and the diminished focus on control potential and not even a 'These are DPS paths.' I hope you improve this as well as rephrasing the deceptive wording.
errmmm have you opened up a 5th edition book and compared it to a 4th edition book ? While i disagree with a bunch of how things have been implemented so far - it's pretty faithful to what 5th edition is trying to do. So far it looks like they are trying to take 20 levels worth of gaming material and stretching it out to 80 levels without taking parts of their own stat system into account.
just because in 5th edition you dont get many feats, it does not mean we can't get them in the computer to game to earn the stats we are being given anyways through combined rating on gear. We still get the stats, just from the wrong place. If we got them from leveling up then the type of complaint this player i am replying to would not happen.
Yes i have cracked a 5th edition PHB. You know what 5thE still offers? Player choice. what do Mod16 changes diminish? Player choice.
What did i complain about? Vague and deceptive wording specifically around player choice. The wording suggests they are removing restrictions when they arent. If they had said. " We are moving from 4thE to 5thE" i would have given them all kinds of slack and maybe a box of of chocolates because i like 5thE. But just wording it like you are opening up new possibilities when you are instead restricting them is deceptive.
If this is just a step in transitioning from 4thE to 5thE then i have nothing to worry about because it is likely newer mods will add features and alleviate my complaints but no one has said that is what is going on cause the Devs aren't really telling us much of anything.
The 5E PHB, assuming you're not using the feats custom rules, offers you on the order of 11 classes, each with 2 to 3 subclasses (ignoring wizards).
The paragon paths are basically subclasses.
So once you account for feats, NWO actually offers MORE customization than the PHB by itself.
Except almost nobody uses PHB alone, NW didn't with 4E, it used something much closer to the essentials classes. TBF the only 5E I've played was in Eberron so offered more variation anyway.
I'm guessing that you're wrong on that, factually speaking. As an example, WotC did some polling of their own and found that most groups don't actually use feats. The online sphere is big on feats, but the polling data showed that the preconceptions of the extremely online didn't match with the empirical data.
And come to think of it, for Adventurer's League, there's an explicit limit of PHB+1.
It is true that when NWO launched, it was closer to the Essentials classes-for the Fighter. There was no Paladin or Warlock back then. Nor hunter come to think of it. Just two types of fighter, the rogue, the cleric, and the wizard. Am I forgetting anyone?
Anyway my point is, saying "but D&D offers more variety!* can be answered with "not especially!" depending on where you look.
The Class changes panel is being down right deceptive as well as unhelpful.
"With this Update we will be be moving away from the 4th Edition D&D Pre-defiend build classes." it is worded is if you are opening the classes up when you are really just changing their names. Classes are more Pre-defiend than ever, their builds restricted to 10 feats per path, only 5 of which you can have at time and the powers cut up and locked away in the paragon paths. While this is not a lie, it is not a good faith honest wording of the changes. Be HONEST and say something Akin to, 'We have streamlined the class functions and removed role descriptors from their names.' that way you are being diplomatic and truthful.
i am going to suggest this simply and straightforward. Do not be deceptive, we often see though it. it does nothing but erode trust.
My other complaint is less dire as these are still works in progress. While some like cleric do explain some mechanical differences others do not. The wizard explanation of the paragon paths just explains their themes, not their changes in function. There is NOTHING, about the removal of debuffs and the diminished focus on control potential and not even a 'These are DPS paths.' I hope you improve this as well as rephrasing the deceptive wording.
errmmm have you opened up a 5th edition book and compared it to a 4th edition book ? While i disagree with a bunch of how things have been implemented so far - it's pretty faithful to what 5th edition is trying to do. So far it looks like they are trying to take 20 levels worth of gaming material and stretching it out to 80 levels without taking parts of their own stat system into account.
just because in 5th edition you dont get many feats, it does not mean we can't get them in the computer to game to earn the stats we are being given anyways through combined rating on gear. We still get the stats, just from the wrong place. If we got them from leveling up then the type of complaint this player i am replying to would not happen.
Yes i have cracked a 5th edition PHB. You know what 5thE still offers? Player choice. what do Mod16 changes diminish? Player choice.
What did i complain about? Vague and deceptive wording specifically around player choice. The wording suggests they are removing restrictions when they arent. If they had said. " We are moving from 4thE to 5thE" i would have given them all kinds of slack and maybe a box of of chocolates because i like 5thE. But just wording it like you are opening up new possibilities when you are instead restricting them is deceptive.
If this is just a step in transitioning from 4thE to 5thE then i have nothing to worry about because it is likely newer mods will add features and alleviate my complaints but no one has said that is what is going on cause the Devs aren't really telling us much of anything.
I agree with you on how the communication was delivered vs. what we actually got in the update. The communication suggested that we would have more options but more options is relative to the fact that some classes will have more option for Qing into content. We will have slightly more options with our companions. Outside of those two changes we actually lose quite a bit in character customization.
1) Removal of starting stats for our character 2) Significant reduction in feats 3) Removal of buff/debuffs - very limited compared to mod 15
The devs thinking must be in the line of LESS IS MORE with this update. Pretty sure this update also aligns with the mantra of I want it simple and easy. Well building a class now will be easier than it was with no need to select a starting ability score roll, less feats and no need to really concern yourself with buff/debuffs. Gearing now that the game scales is also easier, simply get the best and highest IL gear to improve your character. All of these updates seem more like loot shooter than a RGPMMO.
So what is NWO, it is a fantasy loot shooter game or is it a RPGMMO like FF, WOW, ESO, etc.. If it is the later, give us the customization of our characters back please.
The Class changes panel is being down right deceptive as well as unhelpful.
"With this Update we will be be moving away from the 4th Edition D&D Pre-defiend build classes." it is worded is if you are opening the classes up when you are really just changing their names. Classes are more Pre-defiend than ever, their builds restricted to 10 feats per path, only 5 of which you can have at time and the powers cut up and locked away in the paragon paths. While this is not a lie, it is not a good faith honest wording of the changes. Be HONEST and say something Akin to, 'We have streamlined the class functions and removed role descriptors from their names.' that way you are being diplomatic and truthful.
i am going to suggest this simply and straightforward. Do not be deceptive, we often see though it. it does nothing but erode trust.
My other complaint is less dire as these are still works in progress. While some like cleric do explain some mechanical differences others do not. The wizard explanation of the paragon paths just explains their themes, not their changes in function. There is NOTHING, about the removal of debuffs and the diminished focus on control potential and not even a 'These are DPS paths.' I hope you improve this as well as rephrasing the deceptive wording.
errmmm have you opened up a 5th edition book and compared it to a 4th edition book ? While i disagree with a bunch of how things have been implemented so far - it's pretty faithful to what 5th edition is trying to do. So far it looks like they are trying to take 20 levels worth of gaming material and stretching it out to 80 levels without taking parts of their own stat system into account.
just because in 5th edition you dont get many feats, it does not mean we can't get them in the computer to game to earn the stats we are being given anyways through combined rating on gear. We still get the stats, just from the wrong place. If we got them from leveling up then the type of complaint this player i am replying to would not happen.
Yes i have cracked a 5th edition PHB. You know what 5thE still offers? Player choice. what do Mod16 changes diminish? Player choice.
What did i complain about? Vague and deceptive wording specifically around player choice. The wording suggests they are removing restrictions when they arent. If they had said. " We are moving from 4thE to 5thE" i would have given them all kinds of slack and maybe a box of of chocolates because i like 5thE. But just wording it like you are opening up new possibilities when you are instead restricting them is deceptive.
If this is just a step in transitioning from 4thE to 5thE then i have nothing to worry about because it is likely newer mods will add features and alleviate my complaints but no one has said that is what is going on cause the Devs aren't really telling us much of anything.
The 5E PHB, assuming you're not using the feats custom rules, offers you on the order of 11 classes, each with 2 to 3 subclasses (ignoring wizards).
The paragon paths are basically subclasses.
So once you account for feats, NWO actually offers MORE customization than the PHB by itself.
Each feat in the PHB is more diverse, impactful and less restricted by class than those in NWO, which are % increases to damage and such. There may be fewer in number but you can get more out of them. Also they are not class restricted so the number of combinations in 5E Pen and paper are much higher and more impactful than NWO.
Which is no knock on NWO as it would be insane to try and replicate the total freedom of Pen and paper.
the system of mod15 comes close with a multitude of choices that add up along the 3 paragon paths. Mod16's 5 choices are no where near as robust. Again though, if mod16 iis just a stepping stone into a 5E interpretation then i don't blame them for starting simple.
Ego etiam cupo recrari et amari diu post mortem meam I too wish to be recreated, and to be loved long after my death.
1
minotaur2857Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,141Arc User
The Class changes panel is being down right deceptive as well as unhelpful.
"With this Update we will be be moving away from the 4th Edition D&D Pre-defiend build classes." it is worded is if you are opening the classes up when you are really just changing their names. Classes are more Pre-defiend than ever, their builds restricted to 10 feats per path, only 5 of which you can have at time and the powers cut up and locked away in the paragon paths. While this is not a lie, it is not a good faith honest wording of the changes. Be HONEST and say something Akin to, 'We have streamlined the class functions and removed role descriptors from their names.' that way you are being diplomatic and truthful.
i am going to suggest this simply and straightforward. Do not be deceptive, we often see though it. it does nothing but erode trust.
My other complaint is less dire as these are still works in progress. While some like cleric do explain some mechanical differences others do not. The wizard explanation of the paragon paths just explains their themes, not their changes in function. There is NOTHING, about the removal of debuffs and the diminished focus on control potential and not even a 'These are DPS paths.' I hope you improve this as well as rephrasing the deceptive wording.
errmmm have you opened up a 5th edition book and compared it to a 4th edition book ? While i disagree with a bunch of how things have been implemented so far - it's pretty faithful to what 5th edition is trying to do. So far it looks like they are trying to take 20 levels worth of gaming material and stretching it out to 80 levels without taking parts of their own stat system into account.
just because in 5th edition you dont get many feats, it does not mean we can't get them in the computer to game to earn the stats we are being given anyways through combined rating on gear. We still get the stats, just from the wrong place. If we got them from leveling up then the type of complaint this player i am replying to would not happen.
Yes i have cracked a 5th edition PHB. You know what 5thE still offers? Player choice. what do Mod16 changes diminish? Player choice.
What did i complain about? Vague and deceptive wording specifically around player choice. The wording suggests they are removing restrictions when they arent. If they had said. " We are moving from 4thE to 5thE" i would have given them all kinds of slack and maybe a box of of chocolates because i like 5thE. But just wording it like you are opening up new possibilities when you are instead restricting them is deceptive.
If this is just a step in transitioning from 4thE to 5thE then i have nothing to worry about because it is likely newer mods will add features and alleviate my complaints but no one has said that is what is going on cause the Devs aren't really telling us much of anything.
The 5E PHB, assuming you're not using the feats custom rules, offers you on the order of 11 classes, each with 2 to 3 subclasses (ignoring wizards).
The paragon paths are basically subclasses.
So once you account for feats, NWO actually offers MORE customization than the PHB by itself.
Except almost nobody uses PHB alone, NW didn't with 4E, it used something much closer to the essentials classes. TBF the only 5E I've played was in Eberron so offered more variation anyway.
I'm guessing that you're wrong on that, factually speaking. As an example, WotC did some polling of their own and found that most groups don't actually use feats. The online sphere is big on feats, but the polling data showed that the preconceptions of the extremely online didn't match with the empirical data.
And come to think of it, for Adventurer's League, there's an explicit limit of PHB+1.
It is true that when NWO launched, it was closer to the Essentials classes-for the Fighter. There was no Paladin or Warlock back then. Nor hunter come to think of it. Just two types of fighter, the rogue, the cleric, and the wizard. Am I forgetting anyone?
Anyway my point is, saying "but D&D offers more variety!* can be answered with "not especially!" depending on where you look.
Bear in mind most of my D&D is in basic->3.5 where feats became essential, and there are thousands in 4th (we used to use the online character generator). Hunter was ranger and archer/combat existed, I came to 4th after essentials so am not sure what was what, I never used the written books.
I always hated the fact that none of the characters I played in 4/5E exist in NW (Druid, monk, psion, assassin, seeker in 4th and monk in 5th), so them stopping releasing classes was really annoying.
0
theycallmetomuMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,861Arc User
The Class changes panel is being down right deceptive as well as unhelpful.
"With this Update we will be be moving away from the 4th Edition D&D Pre-defiend build classes." it is worded is if you are opening the classes up when you are really just changing their names. Classes are more Pre-defiend than ever, their builds restricted to 10 feats per path, only 5 of which you can have at time and the powers cut up and locked away in the paragon paths. While this is not a lie, it is not a good faith honest wording of the changes. Be HONEST and say something Akin to, 'We have streamlined the class functions and removed role descriptors from their names.' that way you are being diplomatic and truthful.
i am going to suggest this simply and straightforward. Do not be deceptive, we often see though it. it does nothing but erode trust.
My other complaint is less dire as these are still works in progress. While some like cleric do explain some mechanical differences others do not. The wizard explanation of the paragon paths just explains their themes, not their changes in function. There is NOTHING, about the removal of debuffs and the diminished focus on control potential and not even a 'These are DPS paths.' I hope you improve this as well as rephrasing the deceptive wording.
errmmm have you opened up a 5th edition book and compared it to a 4th edition book ? While i disagree with a bunch of how things have been implemented so far - it's pretty faithful to what 5th edition is trying to do. So far it looks like they are trying to take 20 levels worth of gaming material and stretching it out to 80 levels without taking parts of their own stat system into account.
just because in 5th edition you dont get many feats, it does not mean we can't get them in the computer to game to earn the stats we are being given anyways through combined rating on gear. We still get the stats, just from the wrong place. If we got them from leveling up then the type of complaint this player i am replying to would not happen.
Yes i have cracked a 5th edition PHB. You know what 5thE still offers? Player choice. what do Mod16 changes diminish? Player choice.
What did i complain about? Vague and deceptive wording specifically around player choice. The wording suggests they are removing restrictions when they arent. If they had said. " We are moving from 4thE to 5thE" i would have given them all kinds of slack and maybe a box of of chocolates because i like 5thE. But just wording it like you are opening up new possibilities when you are instead restricting them is deceptive.
If this is just a step in transitioning from 4thE to 5thE then i have nothing to worry about because it is likely newer mods will add features and alleviate my complaints but no one has said that is what is going on cause the Devs aren't really telling us much of anything.
The 5E PHB, assuming you're not using the feats custom rules, offers you on the order of 11 classes, each with 2 to 3 subclasses (ignoring wizards).
The paragon paths are basically subclasses.
So once you account for feats, NWO actually offers MORE customization than the PHB by itself.
Except almost nobody uses PHB alone, NW didn't with 4E, it used something much closer to the essentials classes. TBF the only 5E I've played was in Eberron so offered more variation anyway.
I'm guessing that you're wrong on that, factually speaking. As an example, WotC did some polling of their own and found that most groups don't actually use feats. The online sphere is big on feats, but the polling data showed that the preconceptions of the extremely online didn't match with the empirical data.
And come to think of it, for Adventurer's League, there's an explicit limit of PHB+1.
It is true that when NWO launched, it was closer to the Essentials classes-for the Fighter. There was no Paladin or Warlock back then. Nor hunter come to think of it. Just two types of fighter, the rogue, the cleric, and the wizard. Am I forgetting anyone?
Anyway my point is, saying "but D&D offers more variety!* can be answered with "not especially!" depending on where you look.
Bear in mind most of my D&D is in basic->3.5 where feats became essential, and there are thousands in 4th (we used to use the online character generator). Hunter was ranger and archer/combat existed, I came to 4th after essentials so am not sure what was what, I never used the written books.
I always hated the fact that none of the characters I played in 4/5E exist in NW (Druid, monk, psion, assassin, seeker in 4th and monk in 5th), so them stopping releasing classes was really annoying.
We're never going to get a Psion in NWO.
If you want to play a psion in a D&D based video game, either decide that Pathfinder counts, or join the club of people secretly voodoo dolling NWO hoping it'll shut down for good so that the IP of Neverwinter can be used for a Neverwinter Nights 3 style game.
0
theycallmetomuMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,861Arc User
The Class changes panel is being down right deceptive as well as unhelpful.
"With this Update we will be be moving away from the 4th Edition D&D Pre-defiend build classes." it is worded is if you are opening the classes up when you are really just changing their names. Classes are more Pre-defiend than ever, their builds restricted to 10 feats per path, only 5 of which you can have at time and the powers cut up and locked away in the paragon paths. While this is not a lie, it is not a good faith honest wording of the changes. Be HONEST and say something Akin to, 'We have streamlined the class functions and removed role descriptors from their names.' that way you are being diplomatic and truthful.
i am going to suggest this simply and straightforward. Do not be deceptive, we often see though it. it does nothing but erode trust.
My other complaint is less dire as these are still works in progress. While some like cleric do explain some mechanical differences others do not. The wizard explanation of the paragon paths just explains their themes, not their changes in function. There is NOTHING, about the removal of debuffs and the diminished focus on control potential and not even a 'These are DPS paths.' I hope you improve this as well as rephrasing the deceptive wording.
errmmm have you opened up a 5th edition book and compared it to a 4th edition book ? While i disagree with a bunch of how things have been implemented so far - it's pretty faithful to what 5th edition is trying to do. So far it looks like they are trying to take 20 levels worth of gaming material and stretching it out to 80 levels without taking parts of their own stat system into account.
just because in 5th edition you dont get many feats, it does not mean we can't get them in the computer to game to earn the stats we are being given anyways through combined rating on gear. We still get the stats, just from the wrong place. If we got them from leveling up then the type of complaint this player i am replying to would not happen.
Yes i have cracked a 5th edition PHB. You know what 5thE still offers? Player choice. what do Mod16 changes diminish? Player choice.
What did i complain about? Vague and deceptive wording specifically around player choice. The wording suggests they are removing restrictions when they arent. If they had said. " We are moving from 4thE to 5thE" i would have given them all kinds of slack and maybe a box of of chocolates because i like 5thE. But just wording it like you are opening up new possibilities when you are instead restricting them is deceptive.
If this is just a step in transitioning from 4thE to 5thE then i have nothing to worry about because it is likely newer mods will add features and alleviate my complaints but no one has said that is what is going on cause the Devs aren't really telling us much of anything.
The 5E PHB, assuming you're not using the feats custom rules, offers you on the order of 11 classes, each with 2 to 3 subclasses (ignoring wizards).
The paragon paths are basically subclasses.
So once you account for feats, NWO actually offers MORE customization than the PHB by itself.
Except almost nobody uses PHB alone, NW didn't with 4E, it used something much closer to the essentials classes. TBF the only 5E I've played was in Eberron so offered more variation anyway.
I'm guessing that you're wrong on that, factually speaking. As an example, WotC did some polling of their own and found that most groups don't actually use feats. The online sphere is big on feats, but the polling data showed that the preconceptions of the extremely online didn't match with the empirical data.
And come to think of it, for Adventurer's League, there's an explicit limit of PHB+1.
It is true that when NWO launched, it was closer to the Essentials classes-for the Fighter. There was no Paladin or Warlock back then. Nor hunter come to think of it. Just two types of fighter, the rogue, the cleric, and the wizard. Am I forgetting anyone?
Anyway my point is, saying "but D&D offers more variety!* can be answered with "not especially!" depending on where you look.
Bear in mind most of my D&D is in basic->3.5 where feats became essential, and there are thousands in 4th (we used to use the online character generator). Hunter was ranger and archer/combat existed, I came to 4th after essentials so am not sure what was what, I never used the written books.
I always hated the fact that none of the characters I played in 4/5E exist in NW (Druid, monk, psion, assassin, seeker in 4th and monk in 5th), so them stopping releasing classes was really annoying.
We're never going to get a Psion in NWO.
If you want to play a psion in a D&D based video game, either decide that Pathfinder counts, or join the club of people secretly voodoo dolling NWO hoping it'll shut down for good so that the IP of Neverwinter can be used for a Neverwinter Nights 3 style game.
Although, not that Psion ever made it into Neverwinter Nights. Only D&D CRPG that had psions was the Dark Sun games.
Why have my stats been so nurfed that I need to run with somebody else to do content like "Ghost Stories". Former solo content seems now to need a party to be successful or you will die many times to get through it. That is not fun for me. The most important factor of any game is the fun factor and mod 16 removes that for me. By the way I am not talking about dungeons or trials that already require a party. I only want to party a few times for these and don't like being forced to party thorough old content just because Cryptic has decided to nurf our solo stats into the ground.
3
minotaur2857Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,141Arc User
The Class changes panel is being down right deceptive as well as unhelpful.
"With this Update we will be be moving away from the 4th Edition D&D Pre-defiend build classes." it is worded is if you are opening the classes up when you are really just changing their names. Classes are more Pre-defiend than ever, their builds restricted to 10 feats per path, only 5 of which you can have at time and the powers cut up and locked away in the paragon paths. While this is not a lie, it is not a good faith honest wording of the changes. Be HONEST and say something Akin to, 'We have streamlined the class functions and removed role descriptors from their names.' that way you are being diplomatic and truthful.
i am going to suggest this simply and straightforward. Do not be deceptive, we often see though it. it does nothing but erode trust.
My other complaint is less dire as these are still works in progress. While some like cleric do explain some mechanical differences others do not. The wizard explanation of the paragon paths just explains their themes, not their changes in function. There is NOTHING, about the removal of debuffs and the diminished focus on control potential and not even a 'These are DPS paths.' I hope you improve this as well as rephrasing the deceptive wording.
errmmm have you opened up a 5th edition book and compared it to a 4th edition book ? While i disagree with a bunch of how things have been implemented so far - it's pretty faithful to what 5th edition is trying to do. So far it looks like they are trying to take 20 levels worth of gaming material and stretching it out to 80 levels without taking parts of their own stat system into account.
just because in 5th edition you dont get many feats, it does not mean we can't get them in the computer to game to earn the stats we are being given anyways through combined rating on gear. We still get the stats, just from the wrong place. If we got them from leveling up then the type of complaint this player i am replying to would not happen.
Yes i have cracked a 5th edition PHB. You know what 5thE still offers? Player choice. what do Mod16 changes diminish? Player choice.
What did i complain about? Vague and deceptive wording specifically around player choice. The wording suggests they are removing restrictions when they arent. If they had said. " We are moving from 4thE to 5thE" i would have given them all kinds of slack and maybe a box of of chocolates because i like 5thE. But just wording it like you are opening up new possibilities when you are instead restricting them is deceptive.
If this is just a step in transitioning from 4thE to 5thE then i have nothing to worry about because it is likely newer mods will add features and alleviate my complaints but no one has said that is what is going on cause the Devs aren't really telling us much of anything.
The 5E PHB, assuming you're not using the feats custom rules, offers you on the order of 11 classes, each with 2 to 3 subclasses (ignoring wizards).
The paragon paths are basically subclasses.
So once you account for feats, NWO actually offers MORE customization than the PHB by itself.
Except almost nobody uses PHB alone, NW didn't with 4E, it used something much closer to the essentials classes. TBF the only 5E I've played was in Eberron so offered more variation anyway.
I'm guessing that you're wrong on that, factually speaking. As an example, WotC did some polling of their own and found that most groups don't actually use feats. The online sphere is big on feats, but the polling data showed that the preconceptions of the extremely online didn't match with the empirical data.
And come to think of it, for Adventurer's League, there's an explicit limit of PHB+1.
It is true that when NWO launched, it was closer to the Essentials classes-for the Fighter. There was no Paladin or Warlock back then. Nor hunter come to think of it. Just two types of fighter, the rogue, the cleric, and the wizard. Am I forgetting anyone?
Anyway my point is, saying "but D&D offers more variety!* can be answered with "not especially!" depending on where you look.
Bear in mind most of my D&D is in basic->3.5 where feats became essential, and there are thousands in 4th (we used to use the online character generator). Hunter was ranger and archer/combat existed, I came to 4th after essentials so am not sure what was what, I never used the written books.
I always hated the fact that none of the characters I played in 4/5E exist in NW (Druid, monk, psion, assassin, seeker in 4th and monk in 5th), so them stopping releasing classes was really annoying.
We're never going to get a Psion in NWO.
If you want to play a psion in a D&D based video game, either decide that Pathfinder counts, or join the club of people secretly voodoo dolling NWO hoping it'll shut down for good so that the IP of Neverwinter can be used for a Neverwinter Nights 3 style game.
Although, not that Psion ever made it into Neverwinter Nights. Only D&D CRPG that had psions was the Dark Sun games.
Dark Sun was indeed where I played my psion, I'd have had druid before warlock though, appeared much earlier in D&D history.
0
theycallmetomuMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,861Arc User
The Class changes panel is being down right deceptive as well as unhelpful.
"With this Update we will be be moving away from the 4th Edition D&D Pre-defiend build classes." it is worded is if you are opening the classes up when you are really just changing their names. Classes are more Pre-defiend than ever, their builds restricted to 10 feats per path, only 5 of which you can have at time and the powers cut up and locked away in the paragon paths. While this is not a lie, it is not a good faith honest wording of the changes. Be HONEST and say something Akin to, 'We have streamlined the class functions and removed role descriptors from their names.' that way you are being diplomatic and truthful.
i am going to suggest this simply and straightforward. Do not be deceptive, we often see though it. it does nothing but erode trust.
My other complaint is less dire as these are still works in progress. While some like cleric do explain some mechanical differences others do not. The wizard explanation of the paragon paths just explains their themes, not their changes in function. There is NOTHING, about the removal of debuffs and the diminished focus on control potential and not even a 'These are DPS paths.' I hope you improve this as well as rephrasing the deceptive wording.
errmmm have you opened up a 5th edition book and compared it to a 4th edition book ? While i disagree with a bunch of how things have been implemented so far - it's pretty faithful to what 5th edition is trying to do. So far it looks like they are trying to take 20 levels worth of gaming material and stretching it out to 80 levels without taking parts of their own stat system into account.
just because in 5th edition you dont get many feats, it does not mean we can't get them in the computer to game to earn the stats we are being given anyways through combined rating on gear. We still get the stats, just from the wrong place. If we got them from leveling up then the type of complaint this player i am replying to would not happen.
Yes i have cracked a 5th edition PHB. You know what 5thE still offers? Player choice. what do Mod16 changes diminish? Player choice.
What did i complain about? Vague and deceptive wording specifically around player choice. The wording suggests they are removing restrictions when they arent. If they had said. " We are moving from 4thE to 5thE" i would have given them all kinds of slack and maybe a box of of chocolates because i like 5thE. But just wording it like you are opening up new possibilities when you are instead restricting them is deceptive.
If this is just a step in transitioning from 4thE to 5thE then i have nothing to worry about because it is likely newer mods will add features and alleviate my complaints but no one has said that is what is going on cause the Devs aren't really telling us much of anything.
The 5E PHB, assuming you're not using the feats custom rules, offers you on the order of 11 classes, each with 2 to 3 subclasses (ignoring wizards).
The paragon paths are basically subclasses.
So once you account for feats, NWO actually offers MORE customization than the PHB by itself.
Except almost nobody uses PHB alone, NW didn't with 4E, it used something much closer to the essentials classes. TBF the only 5E I've played was in Eberron so offered more variation anyway.
I'm guessing that you're wrong on that, factually speaking. As an example, WotC did some polling of their own and found that most groups don't actually use feats. The online sphere is big on feats, but the polling data showed that the preconceptions of the extremely online didn't match with the empirical data.
And come to think of it, for Adventurer's League, there's an explicit limit of PHB+1.
It is true that when NWO launched, it was closer to the Essentials classes-for the Fighter. There was no Paladin or Warlock back then. Nor hunter come to think of it. Just two types of fighter, the rogue, the cleric, and the wizard. Am I forgetting anyone?
Anyway my point is, saying "but D&D offers more variety!* can be answered with "not especially!" depending on where you look.
Bear in mind most of my D&D is in basic->3.5 where feats became essential, and there are thousands in 4th (we used to use the online character generator). Hunter was ranger and archer/combat existed, I came to 4th after essentials so am not sure what was what, I never used the written books.
I always hated the fact that none of the characters I played in 4/5E exist in NW (Druid, monk, psion, assassin, seeker in 4th and monk in 5th), so them stopping releasing classes was really annoying.
We're never going to get a Psion in NWO.
If you want to play a psion in a D&D based video game, either decide that Pathfinder counts, or join the club of people secretly voodoo dolling NWO hoping it'll shut down for good so that the IP of Neverwinter can be used for a Neverwinter Nights 3 style game.
Although, not that Psion ever made it into Neverwinter Nights. Only D&D CRPG that had psions was the Dark Sun games.
Dark Sun was indeed where I played my psion, I'd have had druid before warlock though, appeared much earlier in D&D history.
Well, 4E was big into Warlocks. Makos was a character they wanted to promote. Druid didn't really click in 4E.
I agree with the idea of the new mod. However, the more I play on test the more I find myself thinking that the release date needs to get pushed far far back to address many things being implemented. Its hard to "test" abilities or broken powers that do not show reality in the tooltip & charactersheet. I play a cleric and a barbarian on preview. The new content and dungeon added I like alot. The new stats & combat system overall........I don't quite know where to begin. I don't have alot of time to test and match up broken companions, abilites, feats, enchants (to name a few) to what they are actually doing & why. I'm a little frustrated, but have optimism that things will fall into place as they should at the proper time. thank you for your time.
Ironically, there was probably more actual "choice" back when there were fewer classes. (You chose HOW you played a pretty basic character.)
I don't play anything beyond 2ndE. I have done, but I always come back to the original game. I like that back in 1E there were 4 basic classes, (5 if your campaign supported the Monk) and a bunch of sub classes. IMHO they should have stuck with that base, and new classes should have been the same as Paladin, Druid, Illusionist and Assassin and introduce them as Sub classes of those 4 basic choices. Or "Paragons" if you like. Of course, Unearthed Arcana started to break that down with the introduction of Cavalier, (originally from the pages of Imagine magazine) and shifting Paladin to a sub class of that, and replacing Paladin under the fighter tree with the Barbarian.
The thing was, back then, you took the bare bones of a class and it was all about how you PLAYED that character rather than the options and stats deciding for you.
That is all in the past however, and the devs have to make a choice as to which elements of the game they adopt, and which they ignore. As the rule books change, do they change to match? Or do they stick with what works and maybe tweak things here and there? Or do they ignore the changes completely?
Dungeons and Dragons is a game all about how you feel when you play it. That is governed by three relationships. 1) The relationship between you and your character 2) The relationship between you and your fellow players 3) The relationship between the players and the Dungeon Master.
It is next to impossible for a computer game to replicate the essence of a good D&D game in the 3rd of those relationships, because there is no Dungeon Master, and the computer has to be fair. This means the rule that all (GOOD) DM's live by of "a Dungeon Master only rolls dice for the noise they make" can't apply. RNG is God.
The second relationship is also next to impossible for the devs to control. They can step in when toxic players attempt to ruin the experience for other players but they can't build friendships for you.
It is therefore paramount that the relationship between player and character be facilitated to the BEST of their ability. it is the ONE relationship they can either make or break. And it should be the first thing they consider when making any changes.
It is not enough to make all classes match on a Paingiver line graph. It is NOT acceptable to clone all classes and create a spread of stats that make everyone the same. Personally, I don't care how many Boons or Feats there are, or how much they impact the stats on my character sheet. I just want the choices to make the character I'm playing at any given time feel right when I'm playing it.
Please... Cryptic... remember that, to some of us, our characters are more than just an animated set of statistics we manage in the bid to excel in combat.
2
minotaur2857Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,141Arc User
The Class changes panel is being down right deceptive as well as unhelpful.
"With this Update we will be be moving away from the 4th Edition D&D Pre-defiend build classes." it is worded is if you are opening the classes up when you are really just changing their names. Classes are more Pre-defiend than ever, their builds restricted to 10 feats per path, only 5 of which you can have at time and the powers cut up and locked away in the paragon paths. While this is not a lie, it is not a good faith honest wording of the changes. Be HONEST and say something Akin to, 'We have streamlined the class functions and removed role descriptors from their names.' that way you are being diplomatic and truthful.
i am going to suggest this simply and straightforward. Do not be deceptive, we often see though it. it does nothing but erode trust.
My other complaint is less dire as these are still works in progress. While some like cleric do explain some mechanical differences others do not. The wizard explanation of the paragon paths just explains their themes, not their changes in function. There is NOTHING, about the removal of debuffs and the diminished focus on control potential and not even a 'These are DPS paths.' I hope you improve this as well as rephrasing the deceptive wording.
errmmm have you opened up a 5th edition book and compared it to a 4th edition book ? While i disagree with a bunch of how things have been implemented so far - it's pretty faithful to what 5th edition is trying to do. So far it looks like they are trying to take 20 levels worth of gaming material and stretching it out to 80 levels without taking parts of their own stat system into account.
just because in 5th edition you dont get many feats, it does not mean we can't get them in the computer to game to earn the stats we are being given anyways through combined rating on gear. We still get the stats, just from the wrong place. If we got them from leveling up then the type of complaint this player i am replying to would not happen.
Yes i have cracked a 5th edition PHB. You know what 5thE still offers? Player choice. what do Mod16 changes diminish? Player choice.
What did i complain about? Vague and deceptive wording specifically around player choice. The wording suggests they are removing restrictions when they arent. If they had said. " We are moving from 4thE to 5thE" i would have given them all kinds of slack and maybe a box of of chocolates because i like 5thE. But just wording it like you are opening up new possibilities when you are instead restricting them is deceptive.
If this is just a step in transitioning from 4thE to 5thE then i have nothing to worry about because it is likely newer mods will add features and alleviate my complaints but no one has said that is what is going on cause the Devs aren't really telling us much of anything.
The 5E PHB, assuming you're not using the feats custom rules, offers you on the order of 11 classes, each with 2 to 3 subclasses (ignoring wizards).
The paragon paths are basically subclasses.
So once you account for feats, NWO actually offers MORE customization than the PHB by itself.
Except almost nobody uses PHB alone, NW didn't with 4E, it used something much closer to the essentials classes. TBF the only 5E I've played was in Eberron so offered more variation anyway.
I'm guessing that you're wrong on that, factually speaking. As an example, WotC did some polling of their own and found that most groups don't actually use feats. The online sphere is big on feats, but the polling data showed that the preconceptions of the extremely online didn't match with the empirical data.
And come to think of it, for Adventurer's League, there's an explicit limit of PHB+1.
It is true that when NWO launched, it was closer to the Essentials classes-for the Fighter. There was no Paladin or Warlock back then. Nor hunter come to think of it. Just two types of fighter, the rogue, the cleric, and the wizard. Am I forgetting anyone?
Anyway my point is, saying "but D&D offers more variety!* can be answered with "not especially!" depending on where you look.
Bear in mind most of my D&D is in basic->3.5 where feats became essential, and there are thousands in 4th (we used to use the online character generator). Hunter was ranger and archer/combat existed, I came to 4th after essentials so am not sure what was what, I never used the written books.
I always hated the fact that none of the characters I played in 4/5E exist in NW (Druid, monk, psion, assassin, seeker in 4th and monk in 5th), so them stopping releasing classes was really annoying.
We're never going to get a Psion in NWO.
If you want to play a psion in a D&D based video game, either decide that Pathfinder counts, or join the club of people secretly voodoo dolling NWO hoping it'll shut down for good so that the IP of Neverwinter can be used for a Neverwinter Nights 3 style game.
Although, not that Psion ever made it into Neverwinter Nights. Only D&D CRPG that had psions was the Dark Sun games.
Dark Sun was indeed where I played my psion, I'd have had druid before warlock though, appeared much earlier in D&D history.
Well, 4E was big into Warlocks. Makos was a character they wanted to promote. Druid didn't really click in 4E.
There were several good druid types in 4th, I think a friend and I played all of them between us.
The Class changes panel is being down right deceptive as well as unhelpful.
"With this Update we will be be moving away from the 4th Edition D&D Pre-defiend build classes." it is worded is if you are opening the classes up when you are really just changing their names. Classes are more Pre-defiend than ever, their builds restricted to 10 feats per path, only 5 of which you can have at time and the powers cut up and locked away in the paragon paths. While this is not a lie, it is not a good faith honest wording of the changes. Be HONEST and say something Akin to, 'We have streamlined the class functions and removed role descriptors from their names.' that way you are being diplomatic and truthful.
i am going to suggest this simply and straightforward. Do not be deceptive, we often see though it. it does nothing but erode trust.
My other complaint is less dire as these are still works in progress. While some like cleric do explain some mechanical differences others do not. The wizard explanation of the paragon paths just explains their themes, not their changes in function. There is NOTHING, about the removal of debuffs and the diminished focus on control potential and not even a 'These are DPS paths.' I hope you improve this as well as rephrasing the deceptive wording.
errmmm have you opened up a 5th edition book and compared it to a 4th edition book ? While i disagree with a bunch of how things have been implemented so far - it's pretty faithful to what 5th edition is trying to do. So far it looks like they are trying to take 20 levels worth of gaming material and stretching it out to 80 levels without taking parts of their own stat system into account.
just because in 5th edition you dont get many feats, it does not mean we can't get them in the computer to game to earn the stats we are being given anyways through combined rating on gear. We still get the stats, just from the wrong place. If we got them from leveling up then the type of complaint this player i am replying to would not happen.
Yes i have cracked a 5th edition PHB. You know what 5thE still offers? Player choice. what do Mod16 changes diminish? Player choice.
What did i complain about? Vague and deceptive wording specifically around player choice. The wording suggests they are removing restrictions when they arent. If they had said. " We are moving from 4thE to 5thE" i would have given them all kinds of slack and maybe a box of of chocolates because i like 5thE. But just wording it like you are opening up new possibilities when you are instead restricting them is deceptive.
If this is just a step in transitioning from 4thE to 5thE then i have nothing to worry about because it is likely newer mods will add features and alleviate my complaints but no one has said that is what is going on cause the Devs aren't really telling us much of anything.
The 5E PHB, assuming you're not using the feats custom rules, offers you on the order of 11 classes, each with 2 to 3 subclasses (ignoring wizards).
The paragon paths are basically subclasses.
So once you account for feats, NWO actually offers MORE customization than the PHB by itself.
The majority of those subclasses had choices within them, with a sizeable impact on playstyle that is, somewhat understandably, not being conveyed.
The obvious one is spell selection, especially for bards, sorcerers, and warlocks. There's wizard schools and cleric domains, which are more impactful than they've been in any previous edition (for all that each essentially constitutes a subclass in and of themselves). The kind of warlock you are is influenced as much by your pact type as your patron(to say nothing of your Invocation choices!); a Bear totem barbarian plays very differently from a Wolf totem one; Battlemasters have almost as much depth as they appear to, with even their lower-tier maneuver picks being viable to certain builds; the Ranger's Hunter path has multiple choice points in its progression.
With the feats in their current state, they add next to nothing; even the ones that modify powers that are enjoyable to use have the effect of locking that power into your build or becoming a massive opportunity cost; their effects are significant enough on the power but minor enough on the playstyle that overall they feel less over the course of your progression like "here's 6 new things you can do" and more like "here's an ever-increasing list of combinations of things you can't do anymore."
I honestly better be Drowning in druids, mired in minstrels, slathered in swordmages and swimming in sorcerers after a few modules. With mechanics this simplified they should be pelting us with new classes.
Ego etiam cupo recrari et amari diu post mortem meam I too wish to be recreated, and to be loved long after my death.
I honestly better be Drowning in druids, mired in minstrels, slathered in swordmages and swimming in sorcerers after a few modules. With mechanics this simplified they should be pelting us with new classes.
I'da gone with "buffeted by bards," for all that that sounds like the title of an in-universe bodice-ripper(which one could argue is ENTIRELY in keeping with the Bard class fantasy).
I honestly better be Drowning in druids, mired in minstrels, slathered in swordmages and swimming in sorcerers after a few modules. With mechanics this simplified they should be pelting us with new classes.
I'da gone with "buffeted by bards," for all that that sounds like the title of an in-universe bodice-ripper(which one could argue is ENTIRELY in keeping with the Bard class fantasy).
New mechanic to where all dragons do everything they can to keep the bard out from behind them?
1
theycallmetomuMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,861Arc User
I honestly better be Drowning in druids, mired in minstrels, slathered in swordmages and swimming in sorcerers after a few modules. With mechanics this simplified they should be pelting us with new classes.
Question to the developers. will add characteristic of the duration of the effects? Is it now for characters?Does the strength of control affect the duration? Very interesting for me!
On the occasion of changes in the new module, it would be good to modify: Character Sheet -> "History card" so that you can add more rich content in different colors, ascii images etc.. - In addition, please to add the possibility of hiding the view of the Shield item in the Paladin classes. - Thanks
Comments
Blood Magic (RELEASED) - NW-DUU2P7HCO
Children of the Fey (RELEASED) - NW-DKSSAPFPF
Buried Under Blacklake (WIP) - NW-DEDV2PAEP
The Redcap Rebels (WIP) - NW-DO23AFHFH
My Foundry playthrough channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/Ruskaga/featured
What did i complain about? Vague and deceptive wording specifically around player choice. The wording suggests they are removing restrictions when they arent. If they had said. " We are moving from 4thE to 5thE" i would have given them all kinds of slack and maybe a box of of chocolates because i like 5thE. But just wording it like you are opening up new possibilities when you are instead restricting them is deceptive.
If this is just a step in transitioning from 4thE to 5thE then i have nothing to worry about because it is likely newer mods will add features and alleviate my complaints but no one has said that is what is going on cause the Devs aren't really telling us much of anything.
I too wish to be recreated, and to be loved long after my death.
The paragon paths are basically subclasses.
So once you account for feats, NWO actually offers MORE customization than the PHB by itself.
And come to think of it, for Adventurer's League, there's an explicit limit of PHB+1.
It is true that when NWO launched, it was closer to the Essentials classes-for the Fighter. There was no Paladin or Warlock back then. Nor hunter come to think of it. Just two types of fighter, the rogue, the cleric, and the wizard. Am I forgetting anyone?
Anyway my point is, saying "but D&D offers more variety!* can be answered with "not especially!" depending on where you look.
1) Removal of starting stats for our character
2) Significant reduction in feats
3) Removal of buff/debuffs - very limited compared to mod 15
The devs thinking must be in the line of LESS IS MORE with this update. Pretty sure this update also aligns with the mantra of I want it simple and easy. Well building a class now will be easier than it was with no need to select a starting ability score roll, less feats and no need to really concern yourself with buff/debuffs. Gearing now that the game scales is also easier, simply get the best and highest IL gear to improve your character. All of these updates seem more like loot shooter than a RGPMMO.
So what is NWO, it is a fantasy loot shooter game or is it a RPGMMO like FF, WOW, ESO, etc.. If it is the later, give us the customization of our characters back please.
Which is no knock on NWO as it would be insane to try and replicate the total freedom of Pen and paper.
the system of mod15 comes close with a multitude of choices that add up along the 3 paragon paths.
Mod16's 5 choices are no where near as robust.
Again though, if mod16 iis just a stepping stone into a 5E interpretation then i don't blame them for starting simple.
I too wish to be recreated, and to be loved long after my death.
I always hated the fact that none of the characters I played in 4/5E exist in NW (Druid, monk, psion, assassin, seeker in 4th and monk in 5th), so them stopping releasing classes was really annoying.
If you want to play a psion in a D&D based video game, either decide that Pathfinder counts, or join the club of people secretly voodoo dolling NWO hoping it'll shut down for good so that the IP of Neverwinter can be used for a Neverwinter Nights 3 style game.
EDIT: suggested fixes posted in new topic:
https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter/#/discussion/1247050/truescale-system
(You chose HOW you played a pretty basic character.)
I don't play anything beyond 2ndE. I have done, but I always come back to the original game.
I like that back in 1E there were 4 basic classes, (5 if your campaign supported the Monk) and a bunch of sub classes.
IMHO they should have stuck with that base, and new classes should have been the same as Paladin, Druid, Illusionist and Assassin and introduce them as Sub classes of those 4 basic choices. Or "Paragons" if you like.
Of course, Unearthed Arcana started to break that down with the introduction of Cavalier, (originally from the pages of Imagine magazine) and shifting Paladin to a sub class of that, and replacing Paladin under the fighter tree with the Barbarian.
The thing was, back then, you took the bare bones of a class and it was all about how you PLAYED that character rather than the options and stats deciding for you.
That is all in the past however, and the devs have to make a choice as to which elements of the game they adopt, and which they ignore. As the rule books change, do they change to match? Or do they stick with what works and maybe tweak things here and there? Or do they ignore the changes completely?
Dungeons and Dragons is a game all about how you feel when you play it.
That is governed by three relationships.
1) The relationship between you and your character
2) The relationship between you and your fellow players
3) The relationship between the players and the Dungeon Master.
It is next to impossible for a computer game to replicate the essence of a good D&D game in the 3rd of those relationships, because there is no Dungeon Master, and the computer has to be fair. This means the rule that all (GOOD) DM's live by of "a Dungeon Master only rolls dice for the noise they make" can't apply. RNG is God.
The second relationship is also next to impossible for the devs to control. They can step in when toxic players attempt to ruin the experience for other players but they can't build friendships for you.
It is therefore paramount that the relationship between player and character be facilitated to the BEST of their ability.
it is the ONE relationship they can either make or break.
And it should be the first thing they consider when making any changes.
It is not enough to make all classes match on a Paingiver line graph. It is NOT acceptable to clone all classes and create a spread of stats that make everyone the same.
Personally, I don't care how many Boons or Feats there are, or how much they impact the stats on my character sheet. I just want the choices to make the character I'm playing at any given time feel right when I'm playing it.
Please... Cryptic... remember that, to some of us, our characters are more than just an animated set of statistics we manage in the bid to excel in combat.
The obvious one is spell selection, especially for bards, sorcerers, and warlocks. There's wizard schools and cleric domains, which are more impactful than they've been in any previous edition (for all that each essentially constitutes a subclass in and of themselves). The kind of warlock you are is influenced as much by your pact type as your patron(to say nothing of your Invocation choices!); a Bear totem barbarian plays very differently from a Wolf totem one; Battlemasters have almost as much depth as they appear to, with even their lower-tier maneuver picks being viable to certain builds; the Ranger's Hunter path has multiple choice points in its progression.
With the feats in their current state, they add next to nothing; even the ones that modify powers that are enjoyable to use have the effect of locking that power into your build or becoming a massive opportunity cost; their effects are significant enough on the power but minor enough on the playstyle that overall they feel less over the course of your progression like "here's 6 new things you can do" and more like "here's an ever-increasing list of combinations of things you can't do anymore."
With mechanics this simplified they should be pelting us with new classes.
I too wish to be recreated, and to be loved long after my death.
-
In addition, please to add the possibility of hiding the view of the Shield item in the Paladin classes.
-
Thanks