Min/Max Boards

Gaming Discussion => General D&D Discussion => Topic started by: Agita on January 09, 2012, 11:53:54 AM

Title: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agita on January 09, 2012, 11:53:54 AM
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120109

I think I'll just let this article speak for itself.

Quote
As you may have read in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/arts/video-games/dungeons-dragons-remake-uses-players-input.html), it’s an exciting time for Dungeons & Dragons. We are happy to announce today that we are developing the next iteration of D&D, and will be looking to the legions of D&D fans to help shape the future of the game along with us.

[...]

That is why we are excited to share with you that starting in Spring 2012, we will be taking this process one step further and conducting ongoing open playtests with the gaming community to gather feedback on the new iteration of the game as we develop it. With your feedback and involvement, we can make D&D better than ever. We seek to build a foundation for the long-term health and growth of D&D, one rooted in the vital traits that make D&D unique and special. We want a game that rises above differences of play styles, campaign settings, and editions, one that takes the fundamental essence of D&D and brings it to the forefront of the game. In short, we want a game that is as simple or complex as you please, its action focused on combat, intrigue, and exploration as you desire. We want a game that is unmistakably D&D, but one that can easily become your D&D, the game that you want to run and play.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on January 09, 2012, 12:51:20 PM
Hell it was about time.

I see  two possible outcomes:
1-Either they're bluffing and will do most of the decisions themselves, with just allowing the players to do some trimming (kinda like pathfinder).

2-They're being serious, in which case we'll have the biggest, wildest flaming and trolling fests ever seen in the story of D&D net discussions as dozens or even hundreds of sides claim their vision of D&D to be the correct one.

Still, I'm positively intrigued by the whole "game can be adapted to your complexity/play preferences" aproach. If they can pull that one off, it would be amazing.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on January 09, 2012, 01:52:18 PM
This is a lot sooner than I expected for anything like this to be announced, let alone WotC actually running pre-generated preview adventures at conventions.

In fact... it sounds like they've already got the core rules of the new edition hammered out and that the whole "open playtest" thing is really just an extended preview/beta. Mearls is already talking about putting up monsters, even classes in the near future.

I don't know. I like the modular aspects that he and Monte have been bouncing back and forth, but they should have done a REAL open playtest, not a bunch of fucking polls that they then used to base the design of the game made behind the curtain (like they always do). I HIGHLY doubt that, since it sounds like the game is already mostly made, much consideration will be given to destructive playtesting.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agita on January 09, 2012, 02:16:47 PM
This is a lot sooner than I expected for anything like this to be announced, let alone WotC actually running pre-generated preview adventures at conventions.

In fact... it sounds like they've already got the core rules of the new edition hammered out and that the whole "open playtest" thing is really just an extended preview/beta. Mearls is already talking about putting up monsters, even classes in the near future.

I don't know. I like the modular aspects that he and Monte have been bouncing back and forth, but they should have done a REAL open playtest, not a bunch of fucking polls that they then used to base the design of the game made behind the curtain (like they always do). I HIGHLY doubt that, since it sounds like the game is already mostly made, much consideration will be given to destructive playtesting.

Agreed. I'm also skeptical that they may do the same mistake Pathfinder did - ask for input and then ignore it in favor of sucking grognard dick.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on January 09, 2012, 02:22:06 PM
Agreed. I'm also skeptical that they may do the same mistake Pathfinder did - ask for input and then ignore it in favor of sucking grognard dick.

Yeeeep. Now to be fair, Paizo used the argument of, "nice suggestion, but it's just not backwards compatible" A LOT, while with a new edition, WotC won't have that excuse. I am worried though that they see Paizo's "open playtest" as some triumph of game design to be emulated at all costs. Sure, it's nice in that it rallied a lot of fans around their "customer service," that's more because WotC customer service was so bad than because of any great conversations or mechanics that came out of it.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: GrandLlamaQ on January 09, 2012, 06:36:12 PM
I have to admit, this is very disappointing to me. I know WotC revamps every half a decade or so, but to me 4E still feels like it's building momentum. I just really wanted to sit down and enjoy the new edition for a decade or so before the inevitable 5E came out. This seems to be entirely too fast. Please understand, I'm not citing a preference for 4E over other editions just that...I'm freaking poor and so is my gaming group. It's taken forever for my group to get even half the books we wanted. But on every thread I see discussing 5E, no one seems to be commenting on 4E being less than 4 years old right now. Am I the only one? Am I crazy for being disappointed at the rapidity of it all?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ryu Hayabusa on January 09, 2012, 06:42:25 PM
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/01/5th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons/

Can't say I'm surprised, especially based on the following quote in this article.

Quote
I think it’s safe to say that this announcement doesn’t come as a major surprise to anyone following the difficulties the Dungeons & Dragons game has experienced as of late. An excellent series of articles (past, present, & future) on The Escapist details several of these.

Not the least of these issues is the fact that Paizo Publishing’s Pathfinder RPG, built on the Open Gaming License (OGL) of D&D 3.5, is now the number-one selling RPG for the past two quarters.

Emphasis mine. If Pathfinder is outselling 4th edition, I imagine some people are losing jobs and others are freaking the hell out.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on January 09, 2012, 06:51:23 PM
I'm not surprised.  4E was clearly a base breaker kind of game change.  I guess Monte Cook being rehired really was harbinger of 5e. 

Interesting, while Game Console generations are lasting longer, D&D generations are shortening.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: VennDygrem on January 09, 2012, 06:51:52 PM
Well, we have yet to find out how vast a departure 5E will be from 4E. Keep in mind how little time elapsed between 3.0 and 3.5 (and while the core gameplay is largely the same, the tweaks and outright changes make the two versions notably different).

Also, this is just an announcement- It's not being released now. 3.5 was released in 2003, and 4E was announced in 2007 (about the same amount of time as this). While I'm not trying to stick up for them, 4E has not been nearly as successful as WotC was hoping, and from what I've read, sales have been in decline with other systems picking up steam in their stead. It makes sense for them to begin developing the next phase, and at least they seem to be trying to figure out what went wrong and what went right, and are trying to involve the fanbase in development at least more than they did before. I don't necessarily think it'll work out, but it seems like an honorable enough intention.

I happen to be a fan of both 3.5 and 4E, so I'll likely continue playing both even as 5E starts releasing. I am, however, eager to see what changes the revision will bring, and how fun the gameplay might or might not be.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Thurbane on January 09, 2012, 08:30:48 PM
I really feel sorry for 4E fans - even though I never adopted it myself, they must be feeling more than a little cheated right now. Sure, if you look at 3.0 and 3.5 as seperate editions, the timeline for 4E doesn't look as appalling, but since 3.0 & 3.5 are so compatible, I really do consider them part of the same edition.

1E and 2E were also quite compaible. 3.0 was a fairly radical departure from 2E, however, just as 4E was a radical departure from 3.5. It wasn't particularly easy to port character between 2E and 3E, or 3E and 4E. Porting characters from 1E to 2E was quite easy, and from 3.0 to 3.5 even more so.

I can only imagine that 5E will be a similarly large departure from 4E (and earlier editions, too).

P.S. Mark me down as "extremely sceptical" about just how much WotC will listen to fan feedback regarding suggestions for the new system.

I found this to be a good article, that mirrors most of my own opinions about 5E: http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/01/5th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons/

[edit]I see this article has already been linked above[/edit]
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Shadowhunter on January 09, 2012, 08:56:25 PM
Anyone else hoping that Endarires endless question topics is related to this so that 5e can get some good feedback? ;)

Anyway, I'm not holding my breath for a good system, but I'm hoping for one. Hopefully something good can come out of this, even though I'm at the moment dubious about buying anything marked WotC.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RobbyPants on January 09, 2012, 10:29:22 PM
This is a lot sooner than I expected for anything like this to be announced, let alone WotC actually running pre-generated preview adventures at conventions.

In fact... it sounds like they've already got the core rules of the new edition hammered out and that the whole "open playtest" thing is really just an extended preview/beta. Mearls is already talking about putting up monsters, even classes in the near future.

I don't know. I like the modular aspects that he and Monte have been bouncing back and forth, but they should have done a REAL open playtest, not a bunch of fucking polls that they then used to base the design of the game made behind the curtain (like they always do). I HIGHLY doubt that, since it sounds like the game is already mostly made, much consideration will be given to destructive playtesting.

Agreed. I'm also skeptical that they may do the same mistake Pathfinder did - ask for input and then ignore it in favor of sucking grognard dick.
Open playtest is just a market gimmick. They will have way too much the game developed to want to spend any real time rewriting anything by the time playtesting starts. And there's a very good chance someone will uncover some deep seeded problem that will require a full rewrite, and there's no way that will happen. At all.

And even if they were sincere, they're gonna get shitty feedback. We'd have to trust them to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to be able to tell the difference in the first place.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Childe on January 09, 2012, 10:59:28 PM
Anyone else hoping that Endarires endless question topics is related to this so that 5e can get some good feedback? ;)

Funniest pay-off ever.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on January 10, 2012, 03:54:38 AM
The author of the escapist article (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/9329-Speak-Your-Mind-in-the-Next-Version-of-Dungeons-Dragons) mentioned that he got to play a mini adventure, which tells me that they already have a basic rule set.  Which in turn tells me that even if someone notices something huge in the "open playtest", they won't do anything about it.  In fact, they're probably less likely to fix a big problem than a small problem, because it requires a more significant rewrite. 

On the other hand, I really do hope they are able to pull off the whole "anybody who's ever seen D&D will recognize this" thing.  Maybe I'm a fool, but I'll probably buy the new "core" books whenever they come out, just to see what they're like.  Or at least the PHB.  But for the love of all that is holy, they had better bring back real multiclassing. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: GMarshal on January 10, 2012, 12:53:47 PM
As someone who was really, really excited for 4.0 color me extremely skeptic. I really hope we get a good, deep, complex game with fun mechanics and enough sophistication to be interesting. But I doubt it, more likely than not it will try to appeal to "gamers" again, rather than trying to be fun because it is.

Oh well, we'll see when the playtests start rolling in, I guess.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on January 10, 2012, 06:54:37 PM

... Open playtest is just a market gimmick ...


Yep.
The C.O. guys that were brought in at the end of 4e pretesting
... weren't really talking about how productive that experience was.


Anybody drinking at work for 4e ...  :cheers

Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on January 10, 2012, 07:46:20 PM
That is mentioned over at the Escapist (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/9329-Speak-Your-Mind-in-the-Next-Version-of-Dungeons-Dragons). 
Quote
revious editions of the game had play testing periods, but Wizards restricted access to freelancers or those connected to the company and those tests were ineffectual at best. I was in a play testing group for 4th edition back in 2007, and we submitted a 30 page annotated document of what we felt worked and what didn't work with the rules we played. Other than my name among the hundreds of play testers in the back of the 4th edition Player's Handbook, nothing I submitted made it into print. Our feedback was summarily ignored, and Mearls admitted that was essentially true of all the feedback Wizards received from the 4th edition play test.

This time it will be different. Starting in the next few months, Wizards of the Coast will open the new rules up to gamers and actively solicit feedback to shape the game. They plan to leverage the relative popularity of the Encounters program - an organized event in game stores where players across the country participate in the same adventure each week - to offer adventures written for the new iteration of D&D using the new rules. Wizards plans to set up a website survey to track players' feedback and get it quickly into the hands of Mearls and the team designing the rules.

"We want to give the community enough time to thoroughly digest each play test package," he said. "Then, we need to make sure we have time to integrate player feedback into each play test cycle so their needs and desires are captured in the final product. This will take time."
How true this proves to be remains to be seen.  But presuming its just a stunt does no good.  Better to participate and be ignored than to not and find they do listen after it is too late.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on January 10, 2012, 08:15:13 PM
Indeed. This is, people are always complaining about this and that in D&D. May as well do so in the place where there's actualy a chance the designers are listening, even if you think it's a slim one.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Solo on January 10, 2012, 09:16:13 PM
Pfft. It's called Legend.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SorO_Lost on January 11, 2012, 12:00:39 AM
I'm happy.
I've had enough of 4th enthusiasts droning on and on about 4E vs 3E no matter the subject.

To me it's an elitism stemming not form the subject or source but more from the desire to conform. Like when .NET 2.2 came out every point on the compiler taking ten times the time as the 1.0 was met with USE GENERICS!. Or how 7zip is literally the biggest peace of crap you can install on your computer next to setting up FTP/http to share your tax folder but you mention that and holy bird poo do you get told 7zip compresses text files better than Winrar.

Now they'll move onto 5th and complain about 4th, letting us 3ers skip by like we ignore those 2e guys now.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on January 11, 2012, 01:06:20 AM
Quote
The game will be modular, beginning with a basic game and allowing the players to build on it depending on their own play style. That's right, we're not getting the MMO many of us were worried about, but tailored experience. Mike Mearls said: “We hope to create a system that allows players to use much of their existing content, regardless of the edition. ..."

If they can truly pull off this modular game concept, and in essence create a cleaned-up version of 3.5 as a possible play mode, with retroactive compatibility [as they suggest], I might bite.  But I don't have high hopes of that happening.

The one huge problem I see with this modular game model, as it relates to actually playing the game, is that it will be a bitch to find a game group that matches what you want to play.  If they can pull it off, it will be an excellent product and marketing strategy from a business stand-point.  But you will no longer be able to look for a "3.5e game" or "4th ed game."  It'll all be 'D&D,' and you'll show up to find out this group plays a modular version like 4th ed, when you were wanting something like 2nd or 3rd edition.  Maybe it won't actually get that far, but you'll still end up wasting time through e-mails determining exactly what this possible new group is actually playing.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Dragon Snack on January 11, 2012, 04:21:33 AM
When I playtested Wonderland No More, I was (at least partly) responsible for 3 rewrites of the Chesspiece race (and the final iteration barely looks like anything I played).  When I playtested for Reaper, some Goblin units were removed from the final product when I abused the crap out of them (meaning some minis never got produced).  Reaper also delayed the release of CAV2 for a year after a huge hole was found (not by me) in late playtesting (we were literally told it was releasing "in a matter of days" when they found the hole). 

I'm not sure WotC has the ability (not to mention the willpower) to make huge changes or delay 5E like that, but we have to give them the benefit of the doubt - maybe they have learned their lessons...

As intrigued as I am though, I still remember 3.5, 4E, DDM2.0, Dreamblade, and Hecatomb.  Even their Magic side isn't immune with Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Mental Misstep, and Poison.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: JohnnyMayHymn on January 11, 2012, 07:34:03 AM
My theory is that if the classes and monsters can be easily converted to C&C, then they will have met the requirements of "it looks like D&D" and modularity.

if that is in fact the case, I would be thrilled to pick and choose from OSRIC, AD&D, 3.X and 5th for any given campaign.  Personally I only liked the 4th ed boxed board games (Ravenloft, Ashardalon and the other one I havent picked up yet)

now balance is another issue entirely, and i wouldnt be surprized if it comes down to a "pick two" decision
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RobbyPants on January 11, 2012, 08:07:42 AM
Penny Arcade is already making fun of it (http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/01/11).
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nemo on January 11, 2012, 01:47:28 PM
Well, I was quite surprised by this news, it seems so soon! Actually got me quite excited, mostly because I love anticipation and all the pre-release suspicions and theories ;P.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Thurbane on January 11, 2012, 08:15:21 PM
My main concern is by trying to make a version that will appeal to fans of all iterations of D&D, they may end up with a "kitchen sink"/Frankenstein/clutter edition that won't particularly appeal to anyone. I mean, if they can somehow pull it off, I will tip my hat to 'em, but I just can't see how it's possible.

Much as with 4E, I'll give it a quick glance when it comes out, but my group is pretty comfortably settled into our 3.5 game. The main thing I keep an eye out for is non-rule specific accessories, like maps, minis and such.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SolEiji on January 11, 2012, 08:23:20 PM
I am curious how the PR will go.  One of the things that turned me off was the vigorous scrubbing and poo pooing of all things 3.5e in the coming rise of 4e.  We were getting replaced and it was pretty obvious, and a real turn off just from a respect standpoint (the fact I found the game itself dull just happened to work out that way).

I still find it amusing that one of their biggest opponents wasn't another company, but their previous product.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on January 11, 2012, 09:28:14 PM
Penny Arcade is already making fun of it (http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/01/11).

"Your examples have no Monkey Astronauts.  I demand a Monkey Astronaut Prestige Class before I agree to sign off on this."

"My 3.5 PC has his left ball possessed by Satan, how do I work this in 5.0?"

"OMG you don't have were hippos anymore, wtf is wrong with you?"

Yeah I'd hate to be the guy listening to that all day...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Sinfire Titan on January 11, 2012, 09:35:35 PM
"My 3.5 PC has his left ball possessed by Satan, how do I work this in 5.0?"

Great, now I want to reread that series... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Manga/MyBalls?from=Main.MyBalls)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Tsuzurao on January 11, 2012, 09:54:15 PM
"My 3.5 PC has his left ball possessed by Satan, how do I work this in 5.0?"

Great, now I want to reread that series... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Manga/MyBalls?from=Main.MyBalls)

To be fair, that wasn't Satan. Satan did show up toward the end of the series though.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Sinfire Titan on January 11, 2012, 10:44:28 PM
To be fair, that wasn't Satan. Satan did show up toward the end of the series though.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Tsuzurao on January 12, 2012, 12:37:39 AM
To be fair, that wasn't Satan. Satan did show up toward the end of the series though.

(click to show/hide)
Touche.

Man, that was a weird series.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Dragon Snack on January 12, 2012, 03:33:12 AM
Umm, thread drift?

It went over pretty meh at Encounters tonight, even though only one of them knew about it beforehand.  Did have one kid claim he would "stay with 4E", but then I don't know who is going to play it with him...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agita on January 12, 2012, 04:02:25 AM
Umm, thread drift?

It went over pretty meh at Encounters tonight, even though only one of them knew about it beforehand.  Did have one kid claim he would "stay with 4E", but then I don't know who is going to play it with him...
You playtested it, then? Anything you're allowed to tell us about it?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Prime32 on January 12, 2012, 06:58:33 AM
Did have one kid claim he would "stay with 4E", but then I don't know who is going to play it with him...
Is that even possible once they pull the online 4e stuff?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on January 12, 2012, 08:04:54 AM
Did have one kid claim he would "stay with 4E", but then I don't know who is going to play it with him...
Is that even possible once they pull the online 4e stuff?
Why not? It's that not how things went before?
(http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/image/667)

This is, it would be kinda embarassing that after burning so much money on the books, you couldn't play whitout online suport. :p
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RobbyPants on January 12, 2012, 08:32:38 AM
Did have one kid claim he would "stay with 4E", but then I don't know who is going to play it with him...
Is that even possible once they pull the online 4e stuff?
I didn't even think about that. It's be a lot easier for them to force people to convert this time around. Hopefully 5E is good enough that they don't convert backwards.  :smirk
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on January 12, 2012, 09:41:08 AM
This is, it would be kinda embarassing that after burning so much money on the books, you couldn't play whitout online suport. :p
Keep in mind this question is coming from someone who has played 4th edition a grand total of about 4 times.

Isn't the online stuff mostly just a character generator, with power cards?  What does the on-line crap do that the books do not?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on January 12, 2012, 09:50:51 AM
This is, it would be kinda embarassing that after burning so much money on the books, you couldn't play whitout online suport. :p
Keep in mind this question is coming from someone who has played 4th edition a grand total of about 4 times.

Isn't the online stuff mostly just a character generator, with power cards?  What does the on-line crap do that the books do not?
Errata. Loads and loads of errata. One could say 4e has already moved to 4.5 because the books published at the begginning and the current online material are quite diferent with everything they changed since then. If you only have the paper suport, you're "limited" to playing 4.0 while someone checking stuff online will be playing 4.5 as they automatically update the errata in the DDI. Or you could print the errata if you don't mind having to check up hundreds of extra pages every time you pick one of your books.

Of course, anyone paying for the online service knows better and periodically copies everything they can to their hard drives.

Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agita on January 12, 2012, 10:58:08 AM
The errata is of somewhat questionable value, really. A lot of the stuff it fixed that needed fixing is a very obvious fix, while a lot of the other "fixes" are widely considered unnecessary. More importantly, the published errata is completely separate from the paid services of D&D Insider, anyone can access it and it's not even on the same page (last I checked, anyway). Furthermore, I doubt they'd pull it even if they pull everything else from the site - D&D 3.5 errata is still available as well, after all.

The real value of the online stuff is the wealth of material from the Dragon magazines. Those started being published exclusively to DDI members as .pdf files, so pulling the DDI content would mean all that extra content being pulled from the site. From what I hear, the amount of content has been lessening lately, but especially in 4e's beginning days and at the height of its popularity, Dragon magazines meant like three-four articles of new content a month. As oslecamo said, though, anyone with a lick of sense who actually paid for them has them saved. Furthermore, there's of course the usual back alley routes of getting at them.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on January 12, 2012, 01:05:30 PM
Umm, thread drift?

It went over pretty meh at Encounters tonight, even though only one of them knew about it beforehand.  Did have one kid claim he would "stay with 4E", but then I don't know who is going to play it with him...

Didn't know they were doing playtests of 5th yet. Wow, that was fast. Where were you that you got a chance to play it? How many folks were involved in the test, and was there any chance of giving substantial feedback afterward or just, "so, guys did you have fun?"
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Flay Crimsonwind on January 12, 2012, 01:29:22 PM
Penny Arcade is already making fun of it (http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/01/11).
Not gonna lie, that's totally how I found out about this. Wasn't surprised to find the boards beat me to it...

I don't happen to have a non-online dnd group. I drift between everywhere (haven't actually gotten into a game at GitP, but I've got an account), but only play pbp. In the forums I've been to, I see VERY little 4e. Maybe that's just how the online world likes it... but it seems like most people are still cool with and involved in 3.x, and haven't bothered making the transfer to 5th. I just don't know how they're going to manage to sell it, other than playing it off as a new and thus cool thing...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on January 12, 2012, 01:57:03 PM
it seems like most people are still cool with and involved in 3.x, and haven't bothered making the transfer to 5th. I just don't know how they're going to manage to sell it, other than playing it off as a new and thus cool thing...

You're the second person I've seen make this mistaken assumption. Strange. 5th Edition doesn't exist yet. It's in hush-hush, very initial beta-testing. The announcement made for it is just, "Hey, we're working on it, and we want you all to help us out. We're going to run some events for it based on rules we've written thus far, because we want to hear what you have to say about it. Consider this an open beta test."
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Prime32 on January 12, 2012, 04:23:45 PM
In the forums I've been to, I see VERY little 4e. Maybe that's just how the online world likes it...
4e doesn't really work as well as 3e in PbP - combats have more turns, so they last much longer.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Sinfire Titan on January 12, 2012, 04:28:04 PM
A friend of a friend told me that running 4E in PbP works best when there's only one or two real combat encounters per level, and the players do more political encounters to gain XP. Dungeons for him typically consisted of lost of traps and Minions that were low enough level to be under the RNG a majority of the time.

He said it worked out fairly well. I've been debating about trying that here, although my dislike of running 4E is the main counterpoint that keeps me from doing so.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on January 12, 2012, 04:42:57 PM
Eerr, you can do that in 3.X as well.

Actualy, as  a somewhat experienced PbP DM myself, it's always better to have a few big ecounters, no more than 1-2 per day, than 3-4 "average" ecounters per day. It helps keep the players motivated, and you can use it as an excuse for granting extra exp for faster level up.

In particular I've been running this PbP campaign for over 3 years, and despite giving extra "quest exp" for everything and anything, the party still has only gained 3 levels. And that's not exactly for PbP combat being slow (it is), but simply moving from one place to the other is slow, with even something as trivial as "left or right" potentialy taking days to decide. Battles interrupt the pace of travel/story advance, in particular when it comes the part of looting, so the less you have, the better (but when they happen, make them something to remember!).

Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Thurbane on January 12, 2012, 06:53:48 PM
it seems like most people are still cool with and involved in 3.x, and haven't bothered making the transfer to 5th. I just don't know how they're going to manage to sell it, other than playing it off as a new and thus cool thing...

You're the second person I've seen make this mistaken assumption. Strange. 5th Edition doesn't exist yet. It's in hush-hush, very initial beta-testing. The announcement made for it is just, "Hey, we're working on it, and we want you all to help us out. We're going to run some events for it based on rules we've written thus far, because we want to hear what you have to say about it. Consider this an open beta test."
It's an issue that's going to become relevant at some point though - what will 5E be able to offer to convert 4E and diehard 3.X fans (not to mention 1E and 2E players)?

I suspect it may even fracture the D&D fanbase futher - I can see some 4E players, suddenly without future product support, eyeballing a step "back" to Pathfinder. The lure of having current products (adventures etc.) on the shelves for an edition is not to be ignored.

I find making 5E the "definitive" edition that will appeal to ALL edition fans (to paraphrase some of the hype) an almost impossible goal...although, I'm sure they could make it a lot more "back-compatible" than 4E was. I just can see them "winning back" many 3E, 2E or 1E fans.

IMHO, a HUGE step in the right direction would be a freely available SRD of the core rules...which 4E seriously dropped the ball with.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on January 13, 2012, 05:25:33 PM
 :D

1e + 2e + 3e + 4e + 5e + goodies = 6e (?!)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: InnaBinder on January 13, 2012, 08:28:12 PM
Food for thought (http://www.howlingtower.com/).
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: VennDygrem on January 13, 2012, 10:37:12 PM
A friend of a friend told me that running 4E in PbP works best when there's only one or two real combat encounters per level, and the players do more political encounters to gain XP. Dungeons for him typically consisted of lost of traps and Minions that were low enough level to be under the RNG a majority of the time.

He said it worked out fairly well. I've been debating about trying that here, although my dislike of running 4E is the main counterpoint that keeps me from doing so.
Not to derail the discussion too much, but I've been running a PbP game and while the pace of PbP is definitely slowing things down, it seems to be working for the most part. I've had to make some concessions to the medium, but I've been finding ways to tweak the way I run it so that things work more smoothly. It's still a challenge, but from what I can tell so far the only real challenges to me are problems I can see myself having with any PbP game (things like working out who's turn it is). Given 4E's predilection toward turn-based and grid-based combat (lots of "move X squares", immediate reactions/interrupts, and often marriages of the two), I can't just let everyone on one side go first. It definitely ends up being more "wargaming, with roleplaying" than "roleplaying, with wargaming" if you have a lot of combat encounters.

As for 5E and all that, I'm just going to be cautiously optimistic. I've got access to enough 4E content that I could keep playing and/or running it for years, and the same goes for 3.5 content. If 5E fails hard, I'm not out of options. However, new players might be. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: PlzBreakMyCampaign on January 15, 2012, 02:42:39 AM
We'd have to trust them to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to be able to tell the difference in the first place.
Can't we ... I don't know all go spam their twitter or something?

enough of: "PLEASE TAKE ADVICE FROM PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND D&D GAMING SYSTEMS AT MINMAXBOARDS.COM" over and over will atleast get someone to look. Once they do it should be fairly obvious that we have a large community of skilled posters here rather than gitp 'what is alignment?' threads.

It wasn't particularly easy to port character between 2E and 3E
I wish to hear more, specifically what mechanics didn't go and why.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on January 15, 2012, 03:57:15 PM
Playtesting ... hints of CO-types banging away in that = hope.

Dim hope, but hope.


Hey, computers get better and better, and customer service
"can" get better and better, if the specific company is so inclined.
Hasbro ought to have access to what they need, to make 5e work.
Ought doesn't equal execution, though.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Thurbane on January 15, 2012, 08:26:15 PM
It wasn't particularly easy to port character between 2E and 3E
I wish to hear more, specifically what mechanics didn't go and why.
Well, it's been a few years since I played 1E or 2E now, but bringing 1E and 2E characters into 3E was a bit difficult; 1E/2E "non-weapon proficiencies" didn't translate that well into 3E skills, and feats were a whole new concept. It certainly wasn't impossible to do an "on the fly" rejigging of a 2E character to a 3E approximation, but it didn't flow as smoothly as bringing a 1E character to 2E. When we switched over to 2E, the two systems were so similar that you could run 1E modules under 2E rules with minimal conversion required (in fact most of our 2E gaming was pretty much a hybrid 1E/2E game). I suppose in that regard, 1E was to 2E much as 3.0 was to 3.5.

Now, I didn't play much 4E, but porting a 3E character into a 4E game just didn't seem feasible, with so many radical changes to the rules and character classes.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on January 16, 2012, 04:26:36 PM
The interesting thing here is that the situation heading into fifth edition is unique--one that the designers of D&D have never faced before.

In the past, regardless of whether it was the shift from OD&D to AD&D, from first to second edition, from second to third edition, or third to fourth, there was one constant: it was D&D, and therefore, it was automatically at the top of the heap.  If tabletop RPGs were a race, then regardless of what new engine the D&D car had, it automatically started in the lead position, and generally with a large head-start over the other cars.

This time, that's not true.  For the first time in the history of tabletop gaming, D&D will not be automatically starting in the pole position.  It won't be starting in the middle of the pack, true, but it'll still have to fight for the lead with another racer.

What's more, it's strongly arguable that the other racer has the head start this time.  Pathfinder will be in the position of the established game with lots of product support, while D&D 5th edition will be the new kid on the block that will have to win people over. 

Just saying, "It's D&D, it's what EVERYONE will be playing!" isn't going to cut it this time.  4th edition demonstrated pretty conclusively that that's not true anymore.  If the designers want fifth edition to reclaim the lead, they're going to have to work for it--it's not going to automatically receive the position just by virtue of being D&D.

It's also not going to be enough to create a game that does the things Pathfinder does...because Pathfinder beat them to it.   Open playtests?  Nice idea, but it's not going to magically win people over.  D&D 5th edition is either going to have to do things that Pathfinder fails to do, or it's going to have to do the things Pathfinder does do so much better that people will be willing to shell out money for it.

And to be honest, I'm not sure they can do it.  They have a LOT of problems to overcome.  In addition to the fact that they're starting in second place this time around, there's the problem of edition fatigue.  When 3.0 rolled over to 3.5, people grumbled.  When 3.5 rolled over to fourth edition, people rebelled, and they lost a substantial number of players.  Now fourth is rolling over to fifth after only four years.  How many people are just going to decide that they're unwilling to keep repurchasing their entire library of D&D books twice a decade or more? 

There's also the issue of the fragmented playerbase.  The D&D community is severely balkanized at this point, in a way that it wasn't for the last edition switch.  Yes, there were still people playing first and second edition, but the very large majority were playing third edition.

Now?  There's a chunk playing fourth edition, a chunk playing third edition, a chunk playing Pathfinder, and there are STILL people playing first and second edition.  In fact, the last group may well have grown as the result of the OSR.

They're going to have to try to craft a game that appeals to as many of those factions as possible, and appeals strongly enough to get them to switch.  Catering to only one portion of the playerbase is not going to get them back to the top of the heap.

I wish Mr. Cook and his cohorts the very best of luck--because, to be honest, I think they've been handed the most daunting task in the history of the RPG industry.





Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: phaedrusxy on January 16, 2012, 04:55:54 PM
Just saying, "It's D&D, it's what EVERYONE will be playing!" isn't going to cut it this time.  4th edition demonstrated pretty conclusively that that's not true anymore. pretty much ruined that for them.
FTFY.  :D
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on January 16, 2012, 07:50:32 PM
They're going to have to try to craft a game that appeals to as many of those factions as possible, and appeals strongly enough to get them to switch.  Catering to only one portion of the playerbase is not going to get them back to the top of the heap.

Well, it looks like the 5E team (which I suspect they will avoid calling it for PR reasons - I would bet on D&D 2012) are attempting to do exactly that (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120116).

It IS a daunting task, and an unprecedented move. Now, I'm fully on board with the "provide the most basic D&D experience possible as the core ruleset, then supplement with modular rules content" design they are espousing. What I'm not on board with, and find implausible at best, is this idea that you can play a "1E-like character" alongside a "3E-like character" and expect the game to be anything remotely resembling balanced. That seems impossible to me, and seems like an absurd design goal. However, if the core rules set is light and well-made, and there are enough well-done modular rules that I can play an interesting and good game, then I am on board with D&D 2012 as a whole.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on January 16, 2012, 09:21:51 PM
I think they really need to be careful there.  Having a game that's made up almost entirely of optional rules could really come back to bite them in the butt--particularly since it means that large numbers of their products will only be of appeal to a very limited subset of their customers. 

I'm willing to keep an open mind, but the whole reason EGG made the push to AD&D in the first place was to try to ensure that there was a common set of rules, and that a player from one table could reasonably expect to sit down at another table and know basically what the rules were.

If they've honestly found a way to make a system where people can be playing at the same table using different subsets of the rules, I'll be extremely impressed--but like you, Ziegander, I'm skeptical of that.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Tarkisflux on January 16, 2012, 10:37:56 PM
What I'm not on board with, and find implausible at best, is this idea that you can play a "1E-like character" alongside a "3E-like character" and expect the game to be anything remotely resembling balanced.

Can you expand on this Ziegander? My experience with 2e and 3e suggest that it wouldn't be all that difficult, as the primary differences between the editions were totally numeric (BAB vs. THAC0), dropped cruft rules (lack of weapon type vs. armor bonuses, lack of 50 bajillion polearms, and so on), multi-classing rules, fluff stuff, or on the monster side of the screen (stupid hit point inflation). The exception would be save paradigms, as 3e was a pretty strong departure on that note, but the other ones seem pretty easy to overcome or just drop (like dual- / multi-classing, though some form of delayed progression gestalt might work) without them getting in the way of having a 2e-like character.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on January 16, 2012, 10:52:11 PM
What I'm not on board with, and find implausible at best, is this idea that you can play a "1E-like character" alongside a "3E-like character" and expect the game to be anything remotely resembling balanced.

Can you expand on this Ziegander?

For example, in 1st edition, if I'm remembering this correctly, the Fighter leveled up faster than the other classes, had the most HP, had the best saves, and dealt the most damage, but that was the only thing he was even capable of doing. Try to imagine playing D&D 3.5 where one Fighter at your game table got no feats at all, no skills at all, but 12hp per level, all good saves +1 to all saves/four levels, and Signature Weapon (1d6 extra damage/level with signature weapon attacks); and another Fighter at your game table gets 4+Int modifier skill points per level, the usual number of bonus feats, as well as the Warblade's maneuvers progression and available disciplines. Does that sound like it would work at all? Because it doesn't to me.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on January 16, 2012, 11:37:48 PM
The only way I can see something like that working is if you have some "packages" or "archetypes" that are really a lot like ready-built characters.  So, you can pick your Fighter off the rack who is pretty cool, and maybe you make relatively few choices about the character build.  Whereas another player can opt for a more optimization, get into the fiddly bits approach with a more 3E style type of approach.  Honestly, an idealized version of 3E is kind of supposed to (note, doesn't, but is supposed to) do that:  we can build the same general type of character with 15 different classes, or with just taking a single one all the way. 

I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, though I am skeptical of its implementation.

Honestly, what I'd love to see in a new edition is a cut down on the bookkeeping.  I don't mind bookkeeping when it's significant, I happen to really like the way TOB and Star Wars Saga Edition do things.  But, D&D has always struck me as having way too much bookkeeping that is more headache than its worth. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agita on January 17, 2012, 02:12:54 AM
Well, it looks like the 5E team (which I suspect they will avoid calling it for PR reasons - I would bet on D&D 2012)  [...]
I've seen "D&D Next" being thrown around.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on January 17, 2012, 02:17:41 AM
Well, it looks like the 5E team (which I suspect they will avoid calling it for PR reasons - I would bet on D&D 2012)  [...]
I've seen "D&D Next" being thrown around.

That would be a fucking terrible, 80s-sounding, name. I hope they don't go that route...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SolEiji on January 17, 2012, 02:25:15 AM
Well, it looks like the 5E team (which I suspect they will avoid calling it for PR reasons - I would bet on D&D 2012)  [...]
I've seen "D&D Next" being thrown around.

That would be a fucking terrible, 80s-sounding, name. I hope they don't go that route...

Yo bro, don't be a bonus square dude!  Get ready for the next gen ultra tubular adventurers in fantasy awesomeness with XD&D TURBO EDITION!!! (WHOOOOOAAAAAA!!!!)  That means EXTREME Dungeoning and EXTREME Dragons, totally ripping out some new funky fresh beats!  Check out our new weapons, like the Hammer of Time Stop and spells such as Vanilla Ice Storm.  Flip out over the NPC Druid Organization known as the Planeteers in their quest to clean up polution and save the rainforest... BY KICKING BUTT!  Groovetacular!!!!

Are you ready to R-R-R-R-ROLL SOME EXTREME DICE?!

Xtreme Dungeons & Dragons: Turbo Edition!  Coming soon!  And check out our latest line of fashionable minis!  The style will never grow old!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on January 17, 2012, 05:35:20 AM
Now?  There's a chunk playing fourth edition, a chunk playing third edition, a chunk playing Pathfinder, and there are STILL people playing first and second edition.  In fact, the last group may well have grown as the result of the OSR.

Oh, give that one a break. For all intent and purposes, pathfinder is third edition. The basic rules are pratically identical, and you can easily use material from one on the other, something you cannot say from any other two diferent editions.

If you look closer, you'll notice most "Pathfinder" groups have little problem bringing in stuff from their other third edition books, and many third edition players borrow some ideas they liked from pathfinder like their skill system.

That's Pathfinder's main selling point I believe. All the 3e players that didn't want to switch to 4e, but wanted new splatbooks and adventures, could spice up their 3e games with pathfinder. Paizo took a brand that was popular and kept developing it.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RobbyPants on January 17, 2012, 08:10:50 AM
Yo bro, don't be a bonus square dude!  Get ready for the next gen ultra tubular adventurers in fantasy awesomeness with XD&D TURBO EDITION!!! (WHOOOOOAAAAAA!!!!)  That means EXTREME Dungeoning and EXTREME Dragons, totally ripping out some new funky fresh beats!  Check out our new weapons, like the Hammer of Time Stop and spells such as Vanilla Ice Storm.  Flip out over the NPC Druid Organization known as the Planeteers in their quest to clean up polution and save the rainforest... BY KICKING BUTT!  Groovetacular!!!!

Are you ready to R-R-R-R-ROLL SOME EXTREME DICE?!

Xtreme Dungeons & Dragons: Turbo Edition!  Coming soon!  And check out our latest line of fashionable minis!  The style will never grow old!
They've got to get the Power Thirst/Brondo guy to do the commercial.


"D&D is made with REAL LIGHTNING! REAL LIGHTNING!"

"With new races like Sun Elf, Robot Orc, and GUN!"

"If your DM kills your character, you FIND A NEW DM!"


I have to watch those again.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Prime32 on January 17, 2012, 11:06:36 AM
"With new races like Sun Elf, Robot Orc, and GUN!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBlweHRITsA#t=3m30s
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: kurashu on January 17, 2012, 12:58:03 PM
Well, it looks like the 5E team (which I suspect they will avoid calling it for PR reasons - I would bet on D&D 2012)  [...]
I've seen "D&D Next" being thrown around.

To be fair, they have said it's a place holder name.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: phaedrusxy on January 17, 2012, 01:14:17 PM
Well, it looks like the 5E team (which I suspect they will avoid calling it for PR reasons - I would bet on D&D 2012)  [...]
I've seen "D&D Next" being thrown around.

That would be a fucking terrible, 80s-sounding, name. I hope they don't go that route...
Having New Coke flashbacks? :P
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: kurashu on January 17, 2012, 02:08:14 PM
I've begun signing any #dndnext tweets with a #www.minmaxboards.com tag as well. Maybe they'll eventually check us out.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Risada on January 17, 2012, 03:05:12 PM
Well, it looks like the 5E team (which I suspect they will avoid calling it for PR reasons - I would bet on D&D 2012)  [...]
I've seen "D&D Next" being thrown around.

That would be a fucking terrible, 80s-sounding, name. I hope they don't go that route...

Well... WotC reserved a forum specifically for it.

Check it out: http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75882/135766/future_releases (http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75882/135766/future_releases)

It has some interesting topics... including a 21 page long discussion on alignments...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on January 17, 2012, 06:14:28 PM
Ha.
That is completely ridiculous ; but it's happened before and on going.
Technically you want that level of attention to thingy X.

 
I wonder if they'll use a metacrawler / keyword -type tracker,
just to sort through all the muck that new board will generate.
The pre release 4e board was so much nonsense.

10 000 people !@$# about Lawful Good alignment
52 people talk about linear math mechanics.
That kind of thing.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on January 17, 2012, 08:46:16 PM
Remember that they tried this in fourth edition, with the D&D Essentials line and the whole "Yes, we changed things, but you can run your D&D Essentials character right alongside existing 4e characters with no problems!"

In practice, I can't say for sure that it didn't work, but I can say that I met a lot of 4e players who didn't like the idea.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on January 17, 2012, 08:48:38 PM
Oh, give that one a break. For all intent and purposes, pathfinder is third edition. The basic rules are pratically identical, and you can easily use material from one on the other, something you cannot say from any other two diferent editions.


Maybe at first, but now?  More and more Pathfinder groups seem to be moving to "pure Pathfinder" as more PF support material comes out.  I don't deny that there's a lot of overlap, but the player bases are differentiating.

Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: PlzBreakMyCampaign on January 17, 2012, 09:57:12 PM
or it's going to have to do the things Pathfinder does do so much better that people will be willing to shell out money for it.
Like fixing 3.5?

If they wanted to they could. Hell if they paid one of us around here, a single one of us who does that sort of thing (I do, but most of us around here do too), that one person could probably fix half of if not the entire system given enough motivation.

I'm confident that a team of the top minds here could simply rip through the legal source books, 'importing' everything to a single edition. Its a lot of work yes, but its not impossible for a group. While they are at it that can even keep accurate 100% entirety feat compendiums and spell compendiums and ritual options and variant rules and ACFs and...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Dragon Snack on January 17, 2012, 10:28:41 PM
It went over pretty meh at Encounters tonight, even though only one of them knew about it beforehand.  Did have one kid claim he would "stay with 4E", but then I don't know who is going to play it with him...
You playtested it, then? Anything you're allowed to tell us about it?
Sorry, I was talking about the reaction to the announcement.  I do know people who have playtested it and they were still under NDAs the last I knew...

It went over pretty meh at Encounters tonight, even though only one of them knew about it beforehand.  Did have one kid claim he would "stay with 4E", but then I don't know who is going to play it with him...
Didn't know they were doing playtests of 5th yet. Wow, that was fast. Where were you that you got a chance to play it?
Again, I haven't actually playtested it, but they are already playtesting it.  There is a good chance that I will see a playtest of it at Running GAGG (http://gagg.geneseo.edu/pages/runninggagg//registration/event_list.php) or at the latest Queen City Conquest (http://queencityconquest.com/) though.  I'll let you know what I can...

Food for thought (http://www.howlingtower.com/).
I read it, but all I got out of it was "Whaaaa!"...

Ironic, huh?

Now fourth is rolling over to fifth after only four years.  How many people are just going to decide that they're unwilling to keep repurchasing their entire library of D&D books twice a decade or more?
I already know of a group of 4E players who are planning to switch to PF due to this announcement...

They're going to have to try to craft a game that appeals to as many of those factions as possible, and appeals strongly enough to get them to switch.  Catering to only one portion of the playerbase is not going to get them back to the top of the heap.

I wish Mr. Cook and his cohorts the very best of luck--because, to be honest, I think they've been handed the most daunting task in the history of the RPG industry.
And with the open playtest you will have people from all editions and more arguing for their versions core conceit, making their job even harder.  Or have they chased away enough customers that older edition players will care?

Remember that they tried this in fourth edition, with the D&D Essentials line and the whole "Yes, we changed things, but you can run your D&D Essentials character right alongside existing 4e characters with no problems!"
They used that line in the 3.0->3.5 transition as well.  "You could be playing at the same table using 3.0 and 3.5 rules and never know".  Except you could, ESPECIALLY if the 3.0 player was a spellcaster...

EDIT: finished reading the thread...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on January 18, 2012, 07:25:23 AM
Oh, give that one a break. For all intent and purposes, pathfinder is third edition. The basic rules are pratically identical, and you can easily use material from one on the other, something you cannot say from any other two diferent editions.


Maybe at first, but now?  More and more Pathfinder groups seem to be moving to "pure Pathfinder" as more PF support material comes out.  I don't deny that there's a lot of overlap, but the player bases are differentiating.

No more diferent than those players that stick to "core only", or "ToB+Psionics", or "core+complete+one setting splats", or "Anything but ToB and Psionics", or "everything but dragon magazine".

They're all still playing with the same base rules, the only thing they change it's the add-ons.

5e could make true to their promises if it worked like that. You have the core rules that base everything, and then you have a billion splatbooks. You have simple classes like the warlock and extra complicated stuff like Incarnum. Those classes may bend  the core rules for themselves. The trick will be making all choices equally balanced.

This is, it would be piece of cake to make a 3e class that worked like 4e. At will, per ecounter powers, dailies, learns one power per level from his own list, passive bonus to everything based on level, can't multiclass, not that hard at all.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on January 18, 2012, 11:26:04 AM
Interview with Mike Mearls up (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/17/what-is-the-next-dungeons-amp-dragons.aspx?PostPageIndex=1). Not a lot of new information up, but sometimes his silence is just as telling.

I have to say, his constant repetition that the game will be "slim" and "focused" on the "absolutely essential elements" has me optimistic. I've been wanting a much more simplified core rules set for a long while now, and the idea for 5th seems to be to design the simplest D&D rules as possible and then offer all manner of optional layers. I really like this idea.

Something they need to keep in mind, however, is that for each "layer" they should focus a "Core" book on it. If they publish a bunch of subsystems together in an Unearthed Arcana book, people are going to look at it like it's not supposed to be used with the game. They have to market each subsystem as a real, Core part of the game.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: sirpercival on January 18, 2012, 12:22:08 PM
I think they should bring in more fan-created campaign settings, like what they did with Eberron.  I found Eberron to be interesting and awesome, and I'd love more rich campaign worlds to play with.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on January 18, 2012, 01:43:59 PM
I think they should bring in more fan-created campaign settings, like what they did with Eberron.  I found Eberron to be interesting and awesome, and I'd love more rich campaign worlds to play with.
You know what would be interesting?  If they could have maybe 3 or 5 different settings representing different "magic level" play-styles.  Eberron would be a good example of a High/Prevalent Magic setting, while Greyhawk could be the "standard" D&D magic level setting where you might be able to find a few magic shops, and can fairly easily commission items.

What they really need is a good example of a "Low-Magic" setting.  That type of world seems relatively popular with DM's (and even some groups), but because there are no good examples to emulate within D&D, most DM's screw it up and you end up with 15th level fighters begging for +1 swords, and some of the players end up getting screwed in the process.

There are ways to pull off such a thing without screwing the players or their fun, but many DM's seem oblivious to their need to do anything other than remove most magic items.  I know there are home-made settings out there that can do this concept well, but I think it would help a lot of gaming groups if there were such a setting in print, that they could at least point to as the example of the way such a setting can be pulled off without unbalancing casters vs. non-casters even worse than it already is.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agita on January 18, 2012, 01:45:05 PM
Interview with Mike Mearls up (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/17/what-is-the-next-dungeons-amp-dragons.aspx?PostPageIndex=1). Not a lot of new information up, but sometimes his silence is just as telling.

I have to say, his constant repetition that the game will be "slim" and "focused" on the "absolutely essential elements" has me optimistic. I've been wanting a much more simplified core rules set for a long while now, and the idea for 5th seems to be to design the simplest D&D rules as possible and then offer all manner of optional layers. I really like this idea.
I don't know... I'm not convinced. It's a good concept, but it sounds to me like he's trying to sell it, not talk about it, and the constant repetition smacks of marketing buzzwords.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on January 18, 2012, 01:54:40 PM
Interview with Mike Mearls up (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/17/what-is-the-next-dungeons-amp-dragons.aspx?PostPageIndex=1). Not a lot of new information up, but sometimes his silence is just as telling.

I have to say, his constant repetition that the game will be "slim" and "focused" on the "absolutely essential elements" has me optimistic. I've been wanting a much more simplified core rules set for a long while now, and the idea for 5th seems to be to design the simplest D&D rules as possible and then offer all manner of optional layers. I really like this idea.
I don't know... I'm not convinced. It's a good concept, but it sounds to me like he's trying to sell it, not talk about it, and the constant repetition smacks of marketing buzzwords.

Well, for example, when asked if the new edition would have a fundamental approach that was like 4e's system of powers for each class, and Mearls repeated the mantra of slim, essential elements, I take this to mean that the new edition will not have that sort of thing as part of the core rules. Which makes me optimistic, because if that's true, then the Core game stands a greater chance to be more simple.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on January 18, 2012, 06:20:37 PM
I think they should bring in more fan-created campaign settings, like what they did with Eberron.  I found Eberron to be interesting and awesome, and I'd love more rich campaign worlds to play with.
You know what would be interesting?  If they could have maybe 3 or 5 different settings representing different "magic level" play-styles.  Eberron would be a good example of a High/Prevalent Magic setting, while Greyhawk could be the "standard" D&D magic level setting where you might be able to find a few magic shops, and can fairly easily commission items.

What they really need is a good example of a "Low-Magic" setting.  That type of world seems relatively popular with DM's (and even some groups), but because there are no good examples to emulate within D&D, most DM's screw it up and you end up with 15th level fighters begging for +1 swords, and some of the players end up getting screwed in the process.

There are ways to pull off such a thing without screwing the players or their fun, but many DM's seem oblivious to their need to do anything other than remove most magic items.  I know there are home-made settings out there that can do this concept well, but I think it would help a lot of gaming groups if there were such a setting in print, that they could at least point to as the example of the way such a setting can be pulled off without unbalancing casters vs. non-casters even worse than it already is.

+1 ... and/or hide it in plain sight.

Calling the high end "Epic" hasn't worked so well.
Calling the low end "Heroic" doesn't work like gamer presuppositions say they should.
Squeezing these into almost entirely separate game systems = Good.

2e Planescape was a semi-high end game setting.
Great fluff, I say the best the game has done (but that's just me).
2e crunch is kinda off , big deal , that's fixable.

Everybody knows Harry Potter.
Early with the kiddies = super low end.
"My wand (implement) works 40% of the time, and can target Chaos Fey now !!"
Awesome ... hey click on hannah montana.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Prime32 on January 18, 2012, 06:33:11 PM
I think they should bring in more fan-created campaign settings, like what they did with Eberron.  I found Eberron to be interesting and awesome, and I'd love more rich campaign worlds to play with.
You know what would be interesting?  If they could have maybe 3 or 5 different settings representing different "magic level" play-styles.  Eberron would be a good example of a High/Prevalent Magic setting, while Greyhawk could be the "standard" D&D magic level setting where you might be able to find a few magic shops, and can fairly easily commission items.

What they really need is a good example of a "Low-Magic" setting.  That type of world seems relatively popular with DM's (and even some groups), but because there are no good examples to emulate within D&D, most DM's screw it up and you end up with 15th level fighters begging for +1 swords, and some of the players end up getting screwed in the process.

There are ways to pull off such a thing without screwing the players or their fun, but many DM's seem oblivious to their need to do anything other than remove most magic items.  I know there are home-made settings out there that can do this concept well, but I think it would help a lot of gaming groups if there were such a setting in print, that they could at least point to as the example of the way such a setting can be pulled off without unbalancing casters vs. non-casters even worse than it already is.
What they need to do is throw out stat-boosting items, and make those bonuses inherent and built into your level progression. This also means that every magic item you find will do something unique and interesting.
At the very least put making +1 swords in the hands of blacksmiths rather than wizards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UltimateBlacksmith). (what is the Craft skill even for?)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on January 18, 2012, 09:21:31 PM
(what is the Craft skill even for?)
Noobs. Didn't you get the memo? ;)

I must be in a cynical mood, because I find myself wondering what new pejorative the bitter grognards will invent for 5e fans. We have '3tards,' '4ons,' what's next? And while we're at it, I'm sure there are a few demeaning generalizations for TSR D&Ders but I can't recall any.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on January 18, 2012, 09:26:36 PM
'3tards,' '4ons,' what's next?
Both of those are news to me...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Endarire on January 18, 2012, 09:42:23 PM
I can neither confirm nor deny whether my efforts (such as my tens of question threads) are to develop 5E.

I can honestly say that I've been working on my own tabletop RPG on my own time with the spirit of 3.5 and inspirations from a variety of tabletop and video games, such as DDO, 4E, and Pathfinder.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on January 19, 2012, 10:36:46 AM
(what is the Craft skill even for?)
Noobs. Didn't you get the memo? ;)

I must be in a cynical mood, because I find myself wondering what new pejorative the bitter grognards will invent for 5e fans. We have '3tards,' '4ons,' what's next? And while we're at it, I'm sure there are a few demeaning generalizations for TSR D&Ders but I can't recall any.
5tupid and 6hay of course.  :smirk  Followd by 7azy in 2023.  As for the old ones, grognard pretty much covers it, with fatbeard being a specific variety.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on January 19, 2012, 06:15:17 PM

hope5ey and dream5ey


By-the-way ... there's  a rather new Mearls v Trollman dust-up
floating around out there. I didn't get the link fast enough.
Oh boy(s).
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on January 19, 2012, 07:29:05 PM
By-the-way ... there's  a rather new Mearls v Trollman dust-up
floating around out there. I didn't get the link fast enough.
Oh boy(s).

:rolleyes :pout :fu
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RobbyPants on January 20, 2012, 10:52:48 AM
By-the-way ... there's  a rather new Mearls v Trollman dust-up
floating around out there. I didn't get the link fast enough.
A new one? From where?

The last one I remember reading was on 4E Skill Challenges, which is a couple of years old.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on January 20, 2012, 03:55:09 PM
I should punt. No, there "officially" isn't one.
Perhaps too many statistically improbable phrases got my attention.

otoh - could be a Prophecy, eh ?
 ;)
It's not much of a reach, to say there will be one soon enough.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on January 20, 2012, 04:11:27 PM
Seems likely. :cool
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on January 22, 2012, 03:27:26 PM
(casts: Dispel "Punt") ... wait just one day and ...


(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on January 22, 2012, 08:46:42 PM
(what is the Craft skill even for?)
Noobs. Didn't you get the memo? ;)

I must be in a cynical mood, because I find myself wondering what new pejorative the bitter grognards will invent for 5e fans. We have '3tards,' '4ons,' what's next? And while we're at it, I'm sure there are a few demeaning generalizations for TSR D&Ders but I can't recall any.
5tupid and 6hay of course.  :smirk  Followd by 7azy in 2023.  As for the old ones, grognard pretty much covers it, with fatbeard being a specific variety.
Damn. How could I forget fatbeard? Sounds like a pirate.

"It's Fatbeard's flag! Hold steady men, he's waving the original Wand of Orcus! Stuff wax in your ears, me hearties! Yo ho, don't listen to his new school tirade! And if'n he captures you, kill yourself before he offers you his Gygax grog!"
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on January 22, 2012, 09:14:57 PM

Damn. How could I forget fatbeard? Sounds like a pirate.

"It's Fatbeard's flag! Hold steady men, he's waving the original Wand of Orcus! Stuff wax in your ears, me hearties! Yo ho, don't listen to his new school tirade! And if'n he captures you, kill yourself before he offers you his Gygax grog!"


Don't forget his close rival Neckbeard.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on January 22, 2012, 10:35:24 PM
(what is the Craft skill even for?)
Noobs. Didn't you get the memo? ;)

I must be in a cynical mood, because I find myself wondering what new pejorative the bitter grognards will invent for 5e fans. We have '3tards,' '4ons,' what's next? And while we're at it, I'm sure there are a few demeaning generalizations for TSR D&Ders but I can't recall any.
5tupid and 6hay of course.  :smirk  Followd by 7azy in 2023.  As for the old ones, grognard pretty much covers it, with fatbeard being a specific variety.
Damn. How could I forget fatbeard? Sounds like a pirate.

"It's Fatbeard's flag! Hold steady men, he's waving the original Wand of Orcus! Stuff wax in your ears, me hearties! Yo ho, don't listen to his new school tirade! And if'n he captures you, kill yourself before he offers you his Gygax grog!"
:clap :lol
Great, now that sounds like someone I knew.  I'm never going to be able to think of him without a pirate's hat now.   Yo ho ho and a bag of dice! 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: PlzBreakMyCampaign on January 25, 2012, 10:44:09 PM
Don't forget his close rival
awwwwww caelic I coulda done without that
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Necrosnoop110 on January 25, 2012, 10:55:43 PM
Basic = Childhood
1E = Preadolescence   
2E = Adolescence
3E = Adulthood
4E = Midlife crisis
5E = ???
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on January 26, 2012, 12:05:03 AM
Basic = Childhood
1E = Preadolescence   
2E = Adolescence
3E = Adulthood
4E = Midlife crisis
5E = ???


5E=Post-crisis prison sentence
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on January 26, 2012, 06:31:22 PM
 :P

7th Edition = oops , we took too long in development and the Singularity happened.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on January 31, 2012, 04:54:54 PM

Wouldn't nae been fun without it ... http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=53055

 :whistle
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on January 31, 2012, 05:09:01 PM

Wouldn't nae been fun without it ... http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=53055

 :whistle

Some harsh words there from a bunch of people who haven't played the "beta" material and who weren't even present when the material was played. I would be incredibly surprised if there was an editorial anywhere online of how the beta tests have gone so far, because of non-disclosure agreements signed by all participating parties, thus making such a thing illegal, so I question how they are getting their information about the 5e beta tests being made-up numbers and magical tea party. But I'll look around and see what I can dig up.

EDIT: Okay, so I already found what they must be talking about: http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/317494-seminar-transcript-reimagining-skills-ability-scores.html (http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/317494-seminar-transcript-reimagining-skills-ability-scores.html). And wow does that actually sound a whole lot like magical tea party... but did anyone at D&DXP actually play a game? With rules? If you read the full article it sounds like they did, and there are certainly a few blogs floating around, but being under NDAs, all of them read like magical tea party. The enworld link details more types of rulesey stuff, but that's definitely not much. One interesting tidbit was that Monte Cooke mentioned that, for DMs, they're taking lots of lessons from the ease and speed of adventure generation that existed in 4th edition.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on January 31, 2012, 05:25:51 PM
Yeah, it comes across as fairly bitter.  Then again, it's hardly the only place I've seen that sentiment.  The net is full of "game designers" and "industry insiders" with a take on fifth edition, and more often than not, that take boils down to "It's doomed to failure because they didn't hire me to design it."

Ninety-nine percent of it is pure speculation.  I admit that I'm not overly sanguine about 5e's chances of success, but I'm willing to wait and judge the system once I've actually seen it.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on February 01, 2012, 06:46:59 PM
I wonder how much "upward" drift happens,
just because d&d is the biggest $ rpg ?
As in: somebody else gets something right,
big money (in a relative sense) goes out and gets it.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on February 01, 2012, 07:38:17 PM
Oh, good. Now it looks as though they're making GNS theory one of their core design principles.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on February 02, 2012, 09:45:32 AM
GNS theory
:???
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: wotmaniac on February 02, 2012, 09:55:50 AM
GNS theory
:???
HERE (http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html) you go.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RobbyPants on February 02, 2012, 10:56:24 AM
Oh, good. Now it looks as though they're making GNS theory one of their core design principles.
The theory that doesn't mean anything (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=49203&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Prime32 on February 02, 2012, 11:21:00 AM
Oh, good. Now it looks as though they're making GNS theory one of their core design principles.
The theory that doesn't mean anything (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=49203&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)?
Narrativist and Simulationist are the same? :huh
A Simulationist game would tell you that your swan-fletched yew-shafted arrow pierces the guard in his right ventricle, and has specific effects for that combination of factors.
A Narrativist game might be no more detailed then "I make my way in, taking down any guards." "Okay, you're in."
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on February 02, 2012, 11:49:26 AM
Oh, good. Now it looks as though they're making GNS theory one of their core design principles.
The theory that doesn't mean anything (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=49203&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)?
This is where I thought you were going with that at first. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaWU1CmrJNc)

But yeah, that...that was sarcasm. If I ever get genuinely excited about someone adopting GNS, please feel free to smack some sense back into me.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on February 02, 2012, 04:37:11 PM
So they've embraced the cutting edge of mid-1990's design theory.   Woohoo!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on February 03, 2012, 04:48:42 PM
One of the maths-y ideas they've pitch out,
is ditching the +1 per level progression.
So most npcs and monsters are gonna be static.

It "feels" to me like they can just ditch the +1/2 per level,
that 4e PCs use, and defacto keep something like 1/2 per level
on the monsters. I know I'm not being real clear here. (normally)
If you eliminate one of the progressions entirely,
it simplifies the other side by quite a bit. Perhaps hugely.

Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on February 03, 2012, 05:33:24 PM
I know I'm not being real clear here.
Understatement.  :???
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on February 04, 2012, 03:06:03 PM
I know I'm not being real clear here.
Understatement.  :???
... do you know any pick-up lines, that might work with the 5e design staff ?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on February 04, 2012, 03:32:25 PM
I know I'm not being real clear here.
Understatement.  :???
... do you know any pick-up lines, that might work with the 5e design staff ?
"I'd like to GN your S, if you know what I mean."
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agita on February 04, 2012, 04:13:19 PM
I know I'm not being real clear here.
Understatement.  :???
... do you know any pick-up lines, that might work with the 5e design staff ?
"I'd like to GN your S, if you know what I mean."
"You don't like it the way I like it? That's cool, we can do it both ways. At the same time.
No, it's not anatomically impossible. It's all modular."
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Risada on February 15, 2012, 10:15:59 AM
On the last few days, I've been lurking on the D&D Next forums, and I have to say things don't look good for WotC.

Maybe it's just me, but most of the discussions running there change into anything but constructive discussion. I mean, there's a huge thread going there discussing about reflavoring, and whether or not it should be included in the rules for 5e (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28903535/Keep_Reflavoring_Alive!).

I wonder if WotC bothers to look through all that content...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: FatR on February 17, 2012, 05:28:32 AM
      That's why looking to Internet for feedback on 5E is even more of a bad idea than enslaving yourself to the voice of vocal minority in general. At the moment fanbase is divided into antagonistic camps with the camp that still stands around WotC banner on their own forum being full of sycophants, thanks to moderators taking a side in the previous edition war. Seeing, also, how awful their polls are, I actually hope that their "listening to the public" is nothing more than a marketing stunt.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RobbyPants on February 17, 2012, 07:58:18 AM
Jeff Grubb made a small mention of 5E here (http://thomasaknight.com/blog.php?id=38).

Other than that, it's a fun read.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on February 18, 2012, 11:02:47 AM
Quote
I cannot speak to the new edition, except to say that the team has already written a very large check -- All D&D Editions beneath one roof. I am concerned that I have seen a lot of comment on the net along the lines of "Congratulations on revising D&D -- here are my non-negotiable demands". The only advice I can give is that each major edition change had strong reasons (from a design side as well as marketing one) to improve the earlier editions. Looking at what drove those editions forward will help shape the next iteration.
-Grubb

For those that care, but not enough to read it all.  Very large check, indeed.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on March 01, 2012, 09:30:50 PM
Bumping with Robert Schwalb's latest article. (http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/03/01/hit_points)

So the gist of the article is as follows:

But the best part is really this gem.
Quote
Character durability has been something of a moving target in the entire process of working on the game these days. We have some ideas about where we’d like hit point values to sit, but before we commit to this idea fully, we’d like some feedback from you.

Rather than break down a number of systems we could go with, I’m just going to ask you how many hit points a fighter should have at 1st level. Each of the following assumes the fighter has a 14 Constitution. Which one feels right to you?

I don't want to say that they've dropped all pretense of actually designing 5th edition instead of eyeballing it, but actually, Rob, it would be just peachy if you did go ahead and break down those systems you have. Start telling us about how you got plastered and wondered if you could turn it into wound boxes like FATE or nWoD. Anything to let me know there's some honest-to-god mathematics behind what you're doing as opposed to "here are some numbers; let us know which one looks prettiest so we can start hitting things with a hammer until they fit." It's one thing to get some feedback on the feel of your game. It's another thing entirely to base what is at least a good forty percent of the game mechanics on a set of numbers you just kinda threw out there.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: kitep on March 01, 2012, 10:29:56 PM
because it forced them to be creative instead of charging headlong into "the most exciting aspects of the game: combat." Half right

Half right indeed.  I love combat, but I also love the out of combat stuff.  Too much or too little of one or the other makes for a dull game IMO.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RedWarlock on March 01, 2012, 10:37:15 PM
Plus, hit points themselves are an arbitrary scale.. Unless we also get knowledge of average damage and various dpr expectations, then it doesn't matter how many hit points a fighter has, because it's an arbitrary number. WTF?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on March 01, 2012, 11:01:59 PM
Well, we can assume weapon damage remains consistent, which gives us a ballpark for first level fighters. 2d6 and various minors would be going in, so 14 means you can survive about 2 hits with a greatsword, but a bit of bad luck is fatal.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on March 01, 2012, 11:26:00 PM
I will be fair and say that the numbers do have some basis in prior rules. Some of them. 29 is obviously a base of 15 plus the entire Constitution score, 14 is just the Constitution score or 10+the weird ability-score-minus-ten modifier they may be toying with, 12 is the standard d10+2 Con mod, 7 is either half the Con score or 5 plus the 3.5 modifier, and 6 is...actually, why is this even an option? Is it really that far from 7?

But the mere fact that they are doing this means they don't have a system for this in mind, which means that combat in general is smoke and mirrors right now and also strongly hints that they don't know what's going on with ability scores either. I've seen some weird numbers from playtesting and it sounds like what they're doing is both convoluted in weird ways and plays hob with probability.

I strongly suspect that the playtesting they did was largely do-what-feels-right DMing which they will attempt to reconcile with the results from these polls into a workable game system. So, you know, we'll see how that turns out.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on March 02, 2012, 12:07:10 AM
I would much prefer it if they gave us examples of ways to calculate starting HP that they're toying with rather than arbitrary numbers.  At least with that we'd know that they are, in fact, using real math to figure stuff out instead of just kind of guessing at what seems right.  I totally agree that in order to know what ballpark HP numbers should be at, we need to know how much damage per round we can expect to be seeing.  27 sounds like a lot, but not if enemies do 25 per hit.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agita on March 02, 2012, 03:01:58 AM
4th edition went too far in the other direction by making it difficult to wipe out a party. Someone who play(s/ed) 4th frequently can comment on this; I've only played a few games and they were all low-level.
Also half-right. "Padded sumo" was lamented frequently especially during 4e's earlier days, but I'm given to understand that the lethality was later increased. It certainly is very possible for a party with a good Striker to take down monsters very quickly, and conversely, monsters especially from MMIII on can be plenty dangerous. As an anecdote, the 12th-level Ranger I played once easily took close to half the hp off a dragon in the opening round, and was swiftly reduced to less than half her hp in return. So playing Rocket Tag is still possible - with optimization.

As for the numbers... seriously, that's just a slap in the face. It doesn't matter one whit what the numbers look like when we don't know how damage scales.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on March 02, 2012, 03:34:05 AM
Thats assuming they understand that. They hadn't gotten that damage increases need to be met by proportionate damage resistance increases.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: FatR on March 02, 2012, 03:36:27 AM
At this point we can only hope that their polls and whatever are nothing more than a marketing stunt. But, really, I don't hold much hopes about 5E anymore.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Risada on March 02, 2012, 05:30:18 AM
Also half-right. "Padded sumo" was lamented frequently especially during 4e's earlier days, but I'm given to understand that the lethality was later increased. It certainly is very possible for a party with a good Striker to take down monsters very quickly, and conversely, monsters especially from MMIII on can be plenty dangerous. As an anecdote, the 12th-level Ranger I played once easily took close to half the hp off a dragon in the opening round, and was swiftly reduced to less than half her hp in return. So playing Rocket Tag is still possible - with optimization.

I remember this... Chaedi, Right? But yeah, rocket tag is still around 4e...

As for the numbers... seriously, that's just a slap in the face. It doesn't matter one whit what the numbers look like when we don't know how damage scales.

This. Just picking a number out of nowhere to define HP isn't very... professional...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on March 02, 2012, 05:40:24 AM
Well, one very basic problem is that your durability pretty much all comes from binary defenses and damage resistance doesn't notably increase, whereas per-attack damage and number of hits go up steadily. Anything that hits for more than once is going to make that obvious in a hurry.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agita on March 02, 2012, 06:26:30 AM
Also half-right. "Padded sumo" was lamented frequently especially during 4e's earlier days, but I'm given to understand that the lethality was later increased. It certainly is very possible for a party with a good Striker to take down monsters very quickly, and conversely, monsters especially from MMIII on can be plenty dangerous. As an anecdote, the 12th-level Ranger I played once easily took close to half the hp off a dragon in the opening round, and was swiftly reduced to less than half her hp in return. So playing Rocket Tag is still possible - with optimization.

I remember this... Chaedi, Right? But yeah, rocket tag is still around 4e...
Yeah. Especially considering that the other Ranger then novaed and killed it the rest of the way. Still, possibly the most fun I've had in a 4e game to date.

Well, one very basic problem is that your durability pretty much all comes from binary defenses and damage resistance doesn't notably increase, whereas per-attack damage and number of hits go up steadily. Anything that hits for more than once is going to make that obvious in a hurry.
4e was, relatively speaking, better about this than 3.5, that is, it didn't break down until you put in a nontrivial amount of effort. The fact that everyone, especially the classes that were supposed to take hits, had powers that allowed them to take hits hardcoded into the class's selection helped.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on March 02, 2012, 04:40:04 PM
4th edition went too far in the other direction by making it difficult to wipe out a party. Someone who play(s/ed) 4th frequently can comment on this; I've only played a few games and they were all low-level.
Also half-right. "Padded sumo" was lamented frequently especially during 4e's earlier days, but I'm given to understand that the lethality was later increased. It certainly is very possible for a party with a good Striker to take down monsters very quickly, and conversely, monsters especially from MMIII on can be plenty dangerous. As an anecdote, the 12th-level Ranger I played once easily took close to half the hp off a dragon in the opening round, and was swiftly reduced to less than half her hp in return. So playing Rocket Tag is still possible - with optimization.

As for the numbers... seriously, that's just a slap in the face. It doesn't matter one whit what the numbers look like when we don't know how damage scales.

I once (... just once) debated an over-hyper for 4e
about whether PCs should be able to die at all.

My ace-up-the-sleeve argument was WotC
suckered him into paying for the 1/4th of a page
that the Raise Dead ritual was printed on.
They done took yo' money dawg.

4e CO builds should get to the point they can't die
rather early. Still a level+8 encounter is dangerous,
especially is the monster isn't run like a cupcake.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on March 02, 2012, 07:43:30 PM
How much HP should a 1st level Fighter have poll: fucking pathetic.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on March 03, 2012, 06:08:57 AM
Pathetic indeed.  That question is absolutely meaningless in a vacuum.  What rate is he hit on average?  What is the expected range of damage he will face?  What other defenses does he have?  Does he have any personal recovery tools?  You might as well answer Blue, its a useless answer for a useless question.

The proper question for them to ask at this point would be:  How many enemy actions should a Fighter be able to survive on average unaided?  With standard Cleric intervention?  Bear in mind that doubling the monsters would halve the number of rounds the Fighter would survive.

You can use that information to decide if your total system is in the apparent sweet spot for the community then without having to actually show any numbers.
The number that are easy to guess later.  :banghead
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agita on March 03, 2012, 12:53:35 PM
https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120227

VAANNNNCCCCEEE! :shakefist

Quote
For several reasons, other than just nostalgia, we are exploring putting Vancian spellcasting back into the game. It's good for gameplay.
You have got to be fucking kidding me.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Prime32 on March 03, 2012, 01:27:19 PM
Quote
One idea we’re considering is a magical feat. These feats represent magical abilities that a character can use all the time. For example, we might have a basic feat called Wizard Mark. This feat could indicate that a character is an arcane spellcaster, and it might grant him or her a minor, at-will ability. Maybe a minor blast of force. Maybe a telekinetic ability like mage hand. More potent feats could then be accessed later. Imagine a Disciple of Mordenkainen feat that grants a spellcaster a magical hound companion (a la Mordenkainen's faithful hound) or a Disciple of Tenser feat that grants him or her a floating disk to use.

This concept accomplishes two things: First, it allows us to give new life to some spell effects that get lost in a traditional Vancian system compared to fireballs and magic missiles. Second, it provides a way for casters to be magical even when they're not using their limited resources.

One of the most interesting aspects of this system is that it allows us to design a class that relies entirely on these magical feats instead of spells. Such a class would be far easier to play than the wizard, with no spells to prepare, but would still have a number of interesting magical offensive, defensive, and utilitarian options to call upon. In effect, a non-Vancian caster with 4th-Edition-style arcane powers.
Sounds familiar. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=67) :p
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on March 03, 2012, 02:46:53 PM
Quote
One idea we’re considering is a magical feat. These feats represent magical abilities that a character can use all the time. For example, we might have a basic feat called Wizard Mark. This feat could indicate that a character is an arcane spellcaster, and it might grant him or her a minor, at-will ability. Maybe a minor blast of force. Maybe a telekinetic ability like mage hand. More potent feats could then be accessed later. Imagine a Disciple of Mordenkainen feat that grants a spellcaster a magical hound companion (a la Mordenkainen's faithful hound) or a Disciple of Tenser feat that grants him or her a floating disk to use.

This concept accomplishes two things: First, it allows us to give new life to some spell effects that get lost in a traditional Vancian system compared to fireballs and magic missiles. Second, it provides a way for casters to be magical even when they're not using their limited resources.

One of the most interesting aspects of this system is that it allows us to design a class that relies entirely on these magical feats instead of spells. Such a class would be far easier to play than the wizard, with no spells to prepare, but would still have a number of interesting magical offensive, defensive, and utilitarian options to call upon. In effect, a non-Vancian caster with 4th-Edition-style arcane powers.
Sounds familiar. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=67) :p
Even before that, it existed in the form of reserve feats. Remember those? Yeah, me neither.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on March 03, 2012, 04:23:24 PM
Even before that, it existed in the form of reserve feats. Remember those? Yeah, me neither.
I've got two players that were just ENAMORED with them when I told them about it.  They both took Fiery Burst at the first opportunity.

But keep in mind that only one of my players has even expressed any desire to multiclass AT ALL in my gestalt game.  He's taking Runescarred Berserker starting just now at 8th level.

I've no idea why the Wizard//Rogue didn't want to take Acidic Splatter.  At least that would have synergised well with the sneak attack.  (Of course, he still can't seem to remember that he can't sneak attack with things like fireball...)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on March 03, 2012, 07:29:46 PM
https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120227

VAANNNNCCCCEEE! :shakefist

Quote
For several reasons, other than just nostalgia, we are exploring putting Vancian spellcasting back into the game. It's good for gameplay.
You have got to be fucking kidding me.
As much as I loathe Vancian magic, the one thing I learned about it from 4E is that it honestly doesn't feel like D&D without it around.  Its as much a part of D&D's character as D20s and Fighters.  ...

Even if I try to avoid it like the plague.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on March 04, 2012, 02:48:36 PM
AHA ...

They ought to make a base class called "Vance"
and it would be the complicated arcane caster we all know and "love".

Then they can make "Wizard" "Mage" "Magus" "Sorc" "Prestidigitator" etc
... be whatever stereotype or mechanic of arcane caster.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Dwarfi on March 05, 2012, 03:25:00 AM
Cant say much about the vance-mage stuff. Though it sounds interesting to put in different types of magic.

I hope they redesign the whole craft-skill from 3.5.
The thought of putting points in there to make my own armor is nice and tempting, but it just takes way too much time and doesnt work very well.

Adamantine: Well, not really worth the price. I think most players prefer the mithrall armor, which makes the dwarfen racial for armor speed pretty useless.

-------
edit:
I would like to change a few skills to con based. Seriously Concentration as the ONLY skill ?
Great, lets see, I have a fighter with +5 con bonus and a lot of str... hmm all the str checks are reduced by 5-7 for ACP, so I have to spend at least that many points to reach 0. Well, what else can I do ? I can CONCENTRATE !!! That will come in handy...
seriously ?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on March 06, 2012, 07:41:21 PM
Save Or Die (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120305)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on March 06, 2012, 08:32:51 PM
Save Or Die (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120305)
..wait, what?

Quote
For most monsters, you can make a save or die effect sit on top of a damaging attack (a wyvern's tail stinger) or trigger automatically each round (a basilisk's gaze). The same can't be said for expendable spells, and the save or die mechanic is likely too powerful for spells you can reuse.

So a physical attack, like that of a tail stinger, can have a SoD rider. But in the very next sentence, he turns around and says that it would be too much to give reusable spells (which presumably can be used at best as frequently as a physical attack) the very same thing.

Am I missing something here?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on March 06, 2012, 08:33:56 PM
No, but I think he is...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on March 06, 2012, 08:35:21 PM
Kinda reminds me of this post (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1533.0) by SneeR.  Not sure if I like the proposed idea or not; as someone who generally plays spellcasters, nerfing SoD's doesn't sit well with me.  But it definitely would make things more balanced. 
On the other hand, my DM might actually "allow" SoD's back in to his games with this mechanic.  Currently, every single monster we fight is either flat out immune (even to spells without the [death] tag), or just has saves so high they only fail on a 1. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: kitep on March 06, 2012, 09:32:27 PM
Am I missing something here?

I think so.  He's talking about a save & die is only effective after the target drops below a certain number of hit points.  So Slay Living might not work on something with 80 hp, but might work on something with 40 hit points (or whatever the numbers work out to).  Presumably, you need to whittle down the monster a bit before you can hit it with a save or die.

But this presents a problem - how do you know how many hit points a monster has left?  If the save or die happens *every* time - such as a hit with a tail stinger, or a basilisk's gaze, it's no problem.  But if it's an expendable resource - such as a scroll - then you don't want to cast it without knowing it has a chance of working.  It's not that save or die won't work with scrolls or other expendables, it's more not wanting to waste resources without a chance of them working.

Not a problem in my group - we would just ask the DM if X would work yet.  But some DMs like to be very secretive about hit points.

Hope that helps.


Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: TenaciousJ on March 07, 2012, 12:09:15 AM
The 4e bloodied mechanic helps out for letting players know when an effect will work.  Set bloodied mechanics for different HP numbers if you want effects to not work until certain times.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on March 07, 2012, 12:53:49 AM
But this presents a problem - how do you know how many hit points a monster has left?  If the save or die happens *every* time - such as a hit with a tail stinger, or a basilisk's gaze, it's no problem.  But if it's an expendable resource - such as a scroll - then you don't want to cast it without knowing it has a chance of working.  It's not that save or die won't work with scrolls or other expendables, it's more not wanting to waste resources without a chance of them working.
That's not it. The sentences in question are talking about the same save-or-die being applied to a tail stinger and a spell. He's saying that the save-or-die mechanic is too powerful for spells that you can reuse, but it's perfectly fine on something like a natural attack that you can just use whenever you want. That is the same recharge time, given as a reasonable mechanic in the first sentence and then explicitly called overpowered in the sentence immediately following. The only way that makes any sort of sense is if you can fire these spells off faster than the wyvern or whatever can sting people with its tail, which I really doubt is the case. So one of three things is going on here: His actual message is something different and he's just phrased it very badly, the mechanics he's talking about are not intuitive at all and need further elaboration, or he had a minor stroke while typing this.

I think what I dislike most about the article is the underlying hint that monsters are going to play by a different set of rules than PCs. That's something that always irks me.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on March 07, 2012, 01:09:24 AM
I think what I dislike most about the article is the underlying hint that monsters are going to play by a different set of rules than PCs. That's something that always irks me.

+1
It's useful for a DM if the rules to create monsters are simpler than for creating PC's, because it means less prep time.  But anything that would be considered "too powerful" for a PC should absolutely be "too powerful" for monsters.  Otherwise, you're creating a double standard and just asking for a "players vs DM" mentality.  Everything in the entire campaign should play by the same rules.  It promotes verisimilitude and fairness. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on March 07, 2012, 01:16:51 AM
I swear D&D designers DO NOT CARE if Team Monster gets things that Team PC can never get, and they especially don't care if Team Monster gets really powerful stuff that Team PC can never get.

Not to mention, the Save or Die article is discussing death spiral mechanics, which are just not fun.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RedWarlock on March 07, 2012, 02:01:06 AM
Well, it kind of makes sense, if you assume the accuracy of SoD effects is inversely proportional to their frequency of use. So a 1-in-20 chance could be useable every round, but a 9-in-10 chance from a daily-use ability is too strong. (I could be overjustifying, but I think it's a valid idea.)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Wiggins on March 07, 2012, 04:02:20 AM
Except that if your DM is anything like me, then if he includes a monster with a save or die ability, then he'll include a habitat for it. Perhaps a nest. Not because you want them to ever go there, but for completeness sake.

And if the players search it out, they may not realise that they're entering somewhere that's way too dangerous for them. As soon as I realise I've made something that deadly, I have a bad habit. I don't remove it, I instead surround it with plotlines heading away from it that I hope will distract players off in the opposite direction so that they don't get killed unless they persevere.

My narrative maps are almost built around these black holes, it's quite useful.

Basically, I can see a lot more black holes forming if the designers are relying on an ability being rare because the species itself is rare for balance purposes.

On a personal note, I too dislike the idea that a Monster can ever do anything a player can't do eventually if that's the goal they've set for themselves. I don't mind ALMOST impossible, but you shouldn't have to be near godhood before getting the ability of something you faced before you'd reached your first city.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on March 07, 2012, 02:06:00 PM
But this presents a problem - how do you know how many hit points a monster has left?  If the save or die happens *every* time - such as a hit with a tail stinger, or a basilisk's gaze, it's no problem.  But if it's an expendable resource - such as a scroll - then you don't want to cast it without knowing it has a chance of working.  It's not that save or die won't work with scrolls or other expendables, it's more not wanting to waste resources without a chance of them working.
That's not it. The sentences in question are talking about the same save-or-die being applied to a tail stinger and a spell. He's saying that the save-or-die mechanic is too powerful for spells that you can reuse, but it's perfectly fine on something like a natural attack that you can just use whenever you want. That is the same recharge time, given as a reasonable mechanic in the first sentence and then explicitly called overpowered in the sentence immediately following. The only way that makes any sort of sense is if you can fire these spells off faster than the wyvern or whatever can sting people with its tail, which I really doubt is the case. So one of three things is going on here: His actual message is something different and he's just phrased it very badly, the mechanics he's talking about are not intuitive at all and need further elaboration, or he had a minor stroke while typing this.

I think what I dislike most about the article is the underlying hint that monsters are going to play by a different set of rules than PCs. That's something that always irks me.
The difference is monsters will only be spamming SODs of this type in some of the encounters, while if a PC has access to the same she'll be spamming it in every last encounter.  Its quite possible that SODs may never wind up functioning for Team Monster through a campaign due to potential scarcity of the ability.  The same cannot be said for giving it to players at will.  We can, and will, use the frack out of it.  Especially if we can't tell when its finally past the thresh hold for success.  Its just safer design to avoid that potential for abuse.

That doesn't mean I like the system, just that I get his point.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on March 07, 2012, 03:18:17 PM
The difference is monsters will only be spamming SODs of this type in some of the encounters, while if a PC has access to the same she'll be spamming it in every last encounter.  Its quite possible that SODs may never wind up functioning for Team Monster through a campaign due to potential scarcity of the ability.  The same cannot be said for giving it to players at will.  We can, and will, use the frack out of it.  Especially if we can't tell when its finally past the thresh hold for success.  Its just safer design to avoid that potential for abuse.

That doesn't mean I like the system, just that I get his point.
The point of the system he mentioned in the first place where SoDs only function at a certain hit point threshold is to let you have something like a Gorgon Sword that petrifies enemies without worrying that an accident of probability (which is almost a given as you play longer and longer) will leave the BBEG an umbrella stand thirteen levels and several story arcs before the PCs were even supposed to fight him on even footing. Conversely, you can have a wyvern with deadly tail poison and not worry that you'll kill off half the party by accident while still maintaining a heightened threat level.

So with that in mind, there really is no sense to the logic that at-will SoDs are something that monsters can have but players can't, because then you have a system in place that makes them accessible but not broken.

As for move spamming/five moves of doom, that's going to happen anyway if you don't give people a reason to switch.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on March 18, 2012, 06:51:33 AM
Cleric or priest (http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/03/15/iconic_dd_clerics)

A great deal would have been avoided if we just had priests to begin with, but nostalgia says cleric as it is will remain very popular.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on March 18, 2012, 12:37:02 PM
So apparently there's a supposed leak of an early version of 5e on the SomethingAwful forums. Pasted here if you want to look at the discussion. (http://pastebin.com/zRWmNeZd) (This is obviously thirdhand and not official, but we can talk about it anyway.)

The system for ability checks/skills/what have you is pretty fucked if it's anything close to what I think it is. I'm still not sure if your modifier is the whole stat, the stat minus ten, the stat minus ten modulo 2, or some other piece of mathematical witchery, but it doesn't actually matter because it will break no matter what. You'll have weird things like someone with a 16 Strength being able to leap a pit without fail every single time, forever, while his 15 Strength buddy enjoys a 50% chance of failure on the same task (and that's if we're being generous and assuming your modifier is your score minus ten to make full use of the +1/-1 racial modifiers). So we still have some ability score numbers being much more important than others, except now you can never know which ones they are, and instead of being a 5% improved chance of success important, they are a 50% (or more) improved chance of success important. Alternatively, if they decide that your stat is the modifier, you'll have the RNG breaking from level 1.

This is admittedly largely math based on bullshit because I have no clue what the actual rules are here, but it's based on bullshit that Monte Cook has given us and these alleged playtester reports, so it counts for something.

Oh, and apparently there are six defenses, one for each ability score. But that's honestly par for the course by now.

(Also, I have no idea why they all seem convinced that it would be better to base 5th edition on 4e than 3.5.)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on March 18, 2012, 01:37:32 PM
Definitely seems like a total pile of shit so far. Which is saying something, because I was really hopeful about 4e, even up to having access to some of the beta material and junk like that. 4e is actually a fairly well-designed game (with some mathematical pitfalls) that I just don't enjoy as much as 3.5. This 5e mess they're cobbling together sounds like a fucking catastrophe.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on March 18, 2012, 03:23:54 PM
The 4e bloodied mechanic helps out for letting players know when an effect will work.  Set bloodied mechanics for different HP numbers if you want effects to not work until certain times.

This is probably right.
And it opens a number of possibilities.
Who's to say HP are only tabulated Top Down?
An effect could take away the last 4e death save.
An effect could impose a cumulative death save penalty.
Bloodied could happen later or earlier, or be delayed 2 rounds.
Zero hit point condition could be applied early, on some limited effects.
etc ...

This kinda of approach excessively compli-mc-cate-ifies combat.
But conceptually, taking the category "save-or-die" and turning it
into a more playable mechanic, is a good thing. And it jibes with
some obscure but memorable previous edition material.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on March 23, 2012, 06:18:57 PM
http://pastebin.com/zRWmNeZd (http://pastebin.com/zRWmNeZd)

A lot of folks have probably seen this already, but...good Lord.  They truly seem to just be throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something will stick.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: JohnnyMayHymn on March 24, 2012, 05:12:49 AM
http://pastebin.com/zRWmNeZd (http://pastebin.com/zRWmNeZd)

A lot of folks have probably seen this already, but...good Lord.  They truly seem to just be throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something will stick.
">You have to raise a common class character to level 10 before you can unlock the uncommon ones. Or you can unlock them right now for 400 Wizard Points.
 
>Every PHB will contain a random selection of 7 common classes, 3 uncommons, and 1 rare."

lolwut?
that wouldn't encourage piracy at all...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on March 24, 2012, 09:42:08 AM
">You have to raise a common class character to level 10 before you can unlock the uncommon ones. Or you can unlock them right now for 400 Wizard Points.
 
>Every PHB will contain a random selection of 7 common classes, 3 uncommons, and 1 rare."

lolwut?
that wouldn't encourage piracy at all...

Who cares about encouraging piracy or not, why the fuck are classes classified as "common, uncommon, or rare" at all?! That's possibly the most retarded design stance I've ever heard of. Will every iteration of D&D from this point on have like 50 classes or something? This is completely idiotic. What the fuck are Wizard points? If the uncommon classes are in the PHB, what do you mean I have to play a common class to 10th level before I'm allowed to play them?

Seriously, fuck everything about this little tidbit of information. When I read through the document before I think this stuck out as the worst failure in it. But I'm tempted to read through it again to find out for sure.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Garryl on March 24, 2012, 09:48:55 AM
http://pastebin.com/zRWmNeZd (http://pastebin.com/zRWmNeZd)

A lot of folks have probably seen this already, but...good Lord.  They truly seem to just be throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something will stick.
">You have to raise a common class character to level 10 before you can unlock the uncommon ones. Or you can unlock them right now for 400 Wizard Points.
 
>Every PHB will contain a random selection of 7 common classes, 3 uncommons, and 1 rare."

lolwut?
that wouldn't encourage piracy at all...

I'm pretty sure those were just people's joking comments.

The lines preceded with a ">" appear to be comments and questions people asked whoever was posting/transcribing the actual text. It looks a bit like a Q&A session kind of setup.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on March 24, 2012, 10:36:20 AM
Yeah, those comments seem to be tongue-in-cheek.  I'm more concerned with the apparent "Let's cobble together bits of every system!" approach.

Say what you like about fourth edition, it was well-designed.  They started from the ground up and built a system that was coherent, cohesive, and worked as a unit.  It wasn't my personal cup of tea, but I could respect the work that went into the design.

Fifth edition looks like it has no underlying design philosophy at all.  I really hope that's not the case, because, "Let's let people vote on what they want to see included from older editions" is NOT a good way to design a game. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on March 24, 2012, 10:43:05 AM
I'm pretty sure those were just people's joking comments.

Yeah, those comments seem to be tongue-in-cheek.

Maybe. Let's hope so. But I seem to recall Monte Cook or someone else actually on the design/development team mentioning something about common/uncommon/rare classes. Maybe in a Q&A? It should be somewhere in all the shit over at ENWorld.

But I agree with you Caelic. As much as I didn't enjoy 4th Edition, it was still a well-crafted game, with a clear design philosophy. This shit for 5th Edition is just so much shooting in the dark. It's incoherent babble and, so far, from what we can see of it, a monumental failure in game design.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Necrosnoop110 on March 24, 2012, 12:28:42 PM
"Let's let people vote on what they want to see included from older editions" is NOT a good way to design a game.
+1
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Risada on April 19, 2012, 01:20:06 PM
New Legends and Lore article (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120416)

...So, monsters like chokers, lammasu and a few others are not iconic enough to get automatically in the first Monster Manual.


This makes me sad. Very sad.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agita on April 19, 2012, 01:23:41 PM
Are they kidding? Chokers are like the single most iconic CO monster ever since the Choker Handbook.
Minmaxers get no respect. Fuck WotC.

Also, Lammasu are just cool.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Risada on April 19, 2012, 01:26:42 PM
Are they kidding? Chokers are like the single most iconic CO monster ever since the GLORIOUS Choker Handbook.
Minmaxers get no respect. Fuck WotC.

Also, Lammasu are just cool.

Fixed  :P

Regarding the poll: as usual, WotC gives some weird options to choose from... including the number of pages per monster.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on April 19, 2012, 01:34:03 PM
Are they kidding? Chokers are like the single most iconic CO monster ever since the Choker Handbook.
Minmaxers get no respect. Fuck WotC.

Also, Lammasu are just cool.
We should start a petition for the inclusion of wereswans.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agita on April 19, 2012, 01:39:03 PM
Are they kidding? Chokers are like the single most iconic CO monster ever since the Choker Handbook.
Minmaxers get no respect. Fuck WotC.

Also, Lammasu are just cool.
We should start a petition for the inclusion of wereswans.
No. Hell no. I draw the line at anything with a bill. Fuck swans.

Werebadgers, on the other hand...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on April 19, 2012, 01:40:34 PM
Are they kidding? Chokers are like the single most iconic CO monster ever since the Choker Handbook.
Minmaxers get no respect. Fuck WotC.

Also, Lammasu are just cool.
We should start a petition for the inclusion of wereswans.
No. Hell no. I draw the line at anything with a bill. Fuck swans.

Werebadgers, on the other hand...
Interesting. Is this based on a childhood experience?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: kitep on April 19, 2012, 02:05:52 PM
Dork Tower web comic references 5th edition surveys

http://www.dorktower.com/2012/04/02/fifth-edition-dork-tower-02-04-12/
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Risada on April 19, 2012, 02:12:08 PM
Dork Tower web comic references 5th edition surveys

http://www.dorktower.com/2012/04/02/fifth-edition-dork-tower-02-04-12/

Epic.  :lmao
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agita on April 19, 2012, 02:51:56 PM
Are they kidding? Chokers are like the single most iconic CO monster ever since the Choker Handbook.
Minmaxers get no respect. Fuck WotC.

Also, Lammasu are just cool.
We should start a petition for the inclusion of wereswans.
No. Hell no. I draw the line at anything with a bill. Fuck swans.

Werebadgers, on the other hand...
Interesting. Is this based on a childhood experience?
I neither confirm nor deny this.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on April 19, 2012, 07:54:40 PM
Dork Tower web comic references 5th edition surveys

http://www.dorktower.com/2012/04/02/fifth-edition-dork-tower-02-04-12/

Epic.  :lmao

HA !!
 :lol
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on April 19, 2012, 08:29:32 PM
Saw this on The Gaming Den:

Possible ruminations about 5th Edition... from a Paizo poster waaayyy back in 2007. (http://paizo.com/forums/dmtyz6i5?5th-edition)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Risada on April 19, 2012, 08:41:49 PM
Saw this on The Gaming Den:

Possible ruminations about 5th Edition... from a Paizo poster waaayyy back in 2007. (http://paizo.com/forums/dmtyz6i5?5th-edition)

Holy crap... everything the guy said is almost the same as the current situation...  :twitch
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on April 19, 2012, 08:43:58 PM
Saw this on The Gaming Den:

Possible ruminations about 5th Edition... from a Paizo poster waaayyy back in 2007. (http://paizo.com/forums/dmtyz6i5?5th-edition)
Mildly prophetic.  Sadly, WotC will still screw it up...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RobbyPants on April 20, 2012, 07:54:24 AM
Holy crap! that is amazing!

Sadly, based on everything I've read, I don't think it can work. The last I checked, they seriously want to balance horizontal power with vertical power on various types of rule sets (complex fighter vs big-numbers-only fighter). I only see this ending in RNG-fuckery and tears.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: InnaBinder on April 20, 2012, 08:29:40 AM
Holy crap! that is amazing!

Sadly, based on everything I've read, I don't think it can work. The last I checked, they seriously want to balance horizontal power with vertical power on various types of rule sets (complex fighter vs big-numbers-only fighter). I only see this ending in RNG-fuckery and tears.
Indeed, it looks like they're trying to simultaneously pander to the hardcore "I want my 9th level spell powah by 12 character level" CO crowd and the "I maxed out Profession: Tailor on my STR 9 Barbarian because it's ROLEPLAYING" crowd.  I'm skeptical, at best, that this is an achievable goal.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Prime32 on April 20, 2012, 05:33:05 PM
Holy crap! that is amazing!

Sadly, based on everything I've read, I don't think it can work. The last I checked, they seriously want to balance horizontal power with vertical power on various types of rule sets (complex fighter vs big-numbers-only fighter). I only see this ending in RNG-fuckery and tears.
Indeed, it looks like they're trying to simultaneously pander to the hardcore "I want my 9th level spell powah by 12 character level" CO crowd and the "I maxed out Profession: Tailor on my STR 9 Barbarian because it's ROLEPLAYING" crowd.  I'm skeptical, at best, that this is an achievable goal.
Maybe with auto-handicap. :???
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: JohnnyMayHymn on April 22, 2012, 12:35:30 AM
Aha! here (http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/) is a handy link to the D&D Next blog, most of the posts have a poll at the end.

Alas, this will probably be my level of participation, b/c I don't have the time to be among the loudest opinions on the boards over there...   :(
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agita on April 26, 2012, 03:32:34 PM
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/20120425a

Well. Looks like shit's getting real. Time to find out if it's worthwhile, a clusterfuck, or just fucked.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: PlzBreakMyCampaign on April 27, 2012, 07:49:03 PM
Minmaxers get no respect. Fuck WotC.
I still don't get why they haven't simply thrown up a post here or enworld or even GitP and said "we need a tried and true optimizer to check us." Is it really that hard to find an expert community for a geeky product???

Its not like that could possibly think WotC makes perfect product that don't need an optimizer's careful eye.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on April 27, 2012, 07:52:56 PM
Given the G0 dustup I sincerely doubt they ever speak to optimizers again.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on April 28, 2012, 01:18:27 AM
Minmaxers get no respect. Fuck WotC.
I still don't get why they haven't simply thrown up a post here or enworld or even GitP and said "we need a tried and true optimizer to check us." Is it really that hard to find an expert community for a geeky product???

Its not like that could possibly think WotC makes perfect product that don't need an optimizer's careful eye.
Ego.  They take insult at the idea that amateurs could be better at their job than they are.  They freak right the fuck out when its proven.  Time and again.
They don't need a C.O. person, they need anyone who's background is more math than humanities.  They've damn overdosed on the latter and don't have a one that can do the former.  A high school student taking a statistics course would do wonders for them.   :smirk
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agita on April 28, 2012, 03:12:52 AM
Minmaxers get no respect. Fuck WotC.
I still don't get why they haven't simply thrown up a post here or enworld or even GitP and said "we need a tried and true optimizer to check us." Is it really that hard to find an expert community for a geeky product???

Its not like that could possibly think WotC makes perfect product that don't need an optimizer's careful eye.
Ego.  They take insult at the idea that amateurs could be better at their job than they are.  They freak right the fuck out when its proven.  Time and again.
They don't need a C.O. person, they need anyone who's background is more math than humanities.  They've damn overdosed on the latter and don't have a one that can do the former.  A high school student taking a statistics course would do wonders for them.   :smirk
More importantly, optimizers are a niche market. A product that is approved by optimizers doesn't sell as well as a product that is approved by grognards. See: Pathfinder.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on April 28, 2012, 08:27:31 AM
^ I'm less certain about this. 

At least in the following sense.  A game that has fewer traps and fewer landmines (defined below) will probably sell better among all players.  At least once it's had a little bit of time to be established.  That is, better games have longer lives, all things considered.  If nothing else, they're easier to play and run -- you don't have to worry about a proliferation of house rules or awkward moments at the table as much. 

Landmines are unexpected rules hickups you run into.  White Wolf is famous for them:  neonates can send princes scurrying with trivial ease, rank 2 powers massively outpower some rank 8 ones, and so on.  There are others, too, Rifts is one that springs to mind from personal experience.

I think optimizers may want something in addition to that.  But, I hope that's at least one service or thing that people who are really into the game's mechanics add to it. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on April 28, 2012, 09:51:43 AM
More importantly, optimizers are a niche market. A product that is approved by optimizers doesn't sell as well as a product that is approved by grognards. See: Pathfinder.


You're right on the verge of fallacy territory there, Agita.  "Grognard" and "optimizer" aren't mutually exclusive.  (Though I've noticed that lately there's an effort to redefine "grognard" as "Stubborn player who's not smart enough to like the edition I like!")
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on April 28, 2012, 09:58:06 AM
^ I'm less certain about this. 

At least in the following sense.  A game that has fewer traps and fewer landmines (defined below) will probably sell better among all players.  At least once it's had a little bit of time to be established.  That is, better games have longer lives, all things considered.  If nothing else, they're easier to play and run -- you don't have to worry about a proliferation of house rules or awkward moments at the table as much. 

Landmines are unexpected rules hickups you run into.  White Wolf is famous for them:  neonates can send princes scurrying with trivial ease, rank 2 powers massively outpower some rank 8 ones, and so on.  There are others, too, Rifts is one that springs to mind from personal experience.



Unbeliever, it's a nice theory, but I really don't think it holds up in practical experience.

Case in point: White Wolf.  HORRIBLY unbalanced, LOADED with landmines.  Shelf life?  13 years for OWoD (with a recent resurrection as CWoD.)  Another eight for NWoD so far.

Second case in point: Rifts.   It's even MORE loaded with landmines, and they all do mega-damage.  Shelf life?  21 years so far.  It's outlived second, third, AND fourth edition D&D.


Counterpoint: Fourth edition.  They GOT optimizers to playtest it.  They removed most of the landmines.  They created by far the most balanced and coherent set of D&D rules forever.

Shelf life?  A little under 4 years.

The history of gaming, I would argue, teaches us that most gamers don't want a game without landmines--because they like finding the landmines.


Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on April 28, 2012, 10:30:21 AM
I don't know about the counterexamples. 

Rifts is a dead letter.  When you have to ask your fans to make donations to support your company it's probably not in good shape.  There are more people playing 1st edition D&D than there are playing Rifts in New York City. 

Likewise, everyone I know who is interested in Vampire, especially OWoD, is interested in it despite the rules.  If their rules didn't suck, I think they also wouldn't see their player base dwindling to the point where that company is likely to go under in the next year or two.  Even the big cash grab of V20 was met with a resounding "meh" by everyone outside of a very small, hardcore fanbase.  I say that from my perspective of being good friends with some of their playtesters. 

That being said, I could be totally wrong.  I just think a game that is easier to play or run, one that works as advertised, tends to have a lot longer shelf life.  Where I define shelf life as being able to push product.  Games can be easier and hard in lots of ways, but one way that they can be made hard is what I call landmines.  I think most people, optimizers aside, actually aren't that interested in them, and find themselves having to dodge them.  Identifying them, and suggesting ways around them, is a service system-minded players, like optimizers, can provide. 

This is sort of a tangent, but I also think the tolerance for bad rules in games has gone way down in the past decade or so.  Perhaps it's due to the wider availability of small print games, or simply that there are a few decent rules systems out there at present.  But, way back in the day when I got into Rifts (and oh god, did I play a lot of Rifts), I knew its rules were terrible.  But, it's only real competition was AD&D (sort of terrible rules) and White Wolf.  So, it didn't look too bad by comparison.  Nowadays, there are lots of options, many of which are pretty good.

Finally, I think 4E, to the extent optimizers were involved in playtesting, drew many of the wrong conclusions.  In their desire to standardize things and avoid ... whatever, I don't even know, they bled a lot of the color and flexibility out of the game.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on April 28, 2012, 11:58:32 AM
I don't know about the counterexamples. 

Rifts is a dead letter.  When you have to ask your fans to make donations to support your company it's probably not in good shape.  There are more people playing 1st edition D&D than there are playing Rifts in New York City. 

Likewise, everyone I know who is interested in Vampire, especially OWoD, is interested in it despite the rules.  If their rules didn't suck, I think they also wouldn't see their player base dwindling to the point where that company is likely to go under in the next year or two.  Even the big cash grab of V20 was met with a resounding "meh" by everyone outside of a very small, hardcore fanbase.  I say that from my perspective of being good friends with some of their playtesters.


Sure, they're coming to the end of their lifespan...after two decades.  Fourth edition, as I pointed out, lasted 20% as long.
 

Quote
I just think a game that is easier to play or run, one that works as advertised, tends to have a lot longer shelf life.  Where I define shelf life as being able to push product.

Can you give some examples?  I have to be honest, I'm thinking back over the powerhouse games of the last thirty years, and none of them lacked the sorts of landmines you describe, to my recollection.  I suppose you could argue for systems like GURPS and Hero, but their point-buy nature meant you could break the hell out of them, too.

Quote
But, way back in the day when I got into Rifts (and oh god, did I play a lot of Rifts), I knew its rules were terrible.  But, it's only real competition was AD&D (sort of terrible rules) and White Wolf.  So, it didn't look too bad by comparison.  Nowadays, there are lots of options, many of which are pretty good.


There were good options back then, too--it's just that the really well-balanced games were niche games that never attracted a massive following.  I would argue that, in part, that was because you couldn't break them as easily.


Quote
Finally, I think 4E, to the extent optimizers were involved in playtesting, drew many of the wrong conclusions.  In their desire to standardize things and avoid ... whatever, I don't even know, they bled a lot of the color and flexibility out of the game.


I agree.  My initial reaction was "They did what they set out to do, and it doesn't interest me at all." 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: phaedrusxy on April 28, 2012, 04:18:03 PM
If they can actually pull of the "modular design" thing, and if it turns out to be anything like the "prediction" linked to in the 2007 post on the Paizo boards... it actually could turn out to be a great game. :D Of course, it would likely be incredibly difficult to balance, and they'll probably totally mess it up... but I still found myself hopeful for a better official edition of D&D for the first time in years... (If I just want a better version, there is plenty of good homebrew to go around...)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on April 28, 2012, 06:10:26 PM
I have about as much faith in Hasbro being able to pull off 5e as I do that the local hookers will blow people for free on their birthday.

Which is to say none.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: wotmaniac on April 28, 2012, 07:08:17 PM
the local hookers will blow people for free on their birthday.
we need to start a petition. :D
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Rejakor on April 28, 2012, 07:50:37 PM
Monte Cook isn't the best game designer in the world, but I view this as a terrifically terrible horrible omen nonetheless.

If I had any kind of investment in 5th ed DnD i'd be sad.  But I don't!  The 4e crowd will go and en-mass purchase 5th ed, as well as some poor stupid newbies, leaving behind a smaller amount playing 4e/quitting the hobby than 3e vs 4e did, so Mike Mearls will punch the air and have big fake hugs with his design crew, and the 'flagship' for roleplaying will continue to be an infectious kitchen sink that pushes people away from discovering that roleplaying is heaps fun.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nicklance on April 30, 2012, 10:43:21 AM
Fighter Design Goals (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120430)

AAAARRRGGGHHHH YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!

Why do you idiots keep trying to design a fighter to match with a blaster wizard?!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: LordBlades on April 30, 2012, 11:43:19 AM
Fighter Design Goals (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120430)

AAAARRRGGGHHHH YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!

Why do you idiots keep trying to design a fighter to match with a blaster wizard?!

That can only mean 2 things: these guys still have no clue how their game works or they're going to make blaster wizard a decent (or better) choice in 5e, so comparing stuff with it wouldn't be so pointless.

Sadly, I think the former is much more likely than the latter.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on April 30, 2012, 01:47:14 PM
Fighter Design Goals (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120430)

AAAARRRGGGHHHH YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!

Why do you idiots keep trying to design a fighter to match with a blaster wizard?!

That can only mean 2 things: these guys still have no clue how their game works or they're going to make blaster wizard a decent (or better) choice in 5e, so comparing stuff with it wouldn't be so pointless.

Sadly, I think the former is much more likely than the latter.
If I had to guess, I'd say they're taking the 4e route and beating all the out-of-combat spells to death so that the math is easier.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on April 30, 2012, 02:45:45 PM
I believe that the designers realize how uber-powerful spellcasters were in 3rd Edition.  Many gamers try to achieve some level of balance by powering up the other classes, or powering down the spellcasters.  Or both.

I believe that was one of the goals of 4th Edition.  By limiting most non-combat actions to skill challenges, they pretty much made spellcasters "blasters."

Hopefully they allow the Fighters to be good at skills and out-of-combat stuff.  The inspiring general and educated revolutionary should both be valid concepts.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Halinn on April 30, 2012, 04:11:07 PM
Also, #1 on their Cleric Design Goals (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120423) is that "The Cleric Is a Healer". Sigh.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Prime32 on April 30, 2012, 04:19:16 PM
Also, #1 on their Cleric Design Goals (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120423) is that "The Cleric Is a Healer". Sigh.
Is that bad? That was their goal in 3e, they just screwed it up.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on April 30, 2012, 05:12:34 PM
I stand by my previous hooker comment  :smirk
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Halinn on April 30, 2012, 07:31:38 PM
Also, #1 on their Cleric Design Goals (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120423) is that "The Cleric Is a Healer". Sigh.
Is that bad? That was their goal in 3e, they just screwed it up.
It's not a very cool role to stick a person to. Having one person be strictly support shouldn't be a design goal, IMO.
My experience is actually that for mid-op play, pathfinder cleric is actually quite reasonable. It can do normal 3.5 cleric stuff, but it also has healing as a low opportunity cost class feature.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on April 30, 2012, 08:59:41 PM
It did specifically mention that a Cleric should be able to heal AND do something interesting in the same turn.  I took this to mean something like a 4e minor action to heal, and a standard to cast a real spell.  Either that, or Crusader style "beat people to heal my friends".

What concerns me is their stubborn "fighter = mundane" attitude expressed in the Fighter Design Goals.  It's waaaaaay to easy to fall into the trap of "that's not realistic" and end up sucking past level 6.  Unless they go the "nobody gets nice things" route they did in 4e and take away all non-combat related magic, virtually all self buffs on casters, and everything else that wasn't a blast or a crappy battlefield control spell. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on April 30, 2012, 09:24:19 PM
It reads mostly like "Fighters will have biggest numbers" and count on that to carry them through a fight. More attacks, more damage reduction, more AC, more damage, higher to hit. That was never the problem with the Fighter, it could do those things just fine anyway.

Clerics will remain spell-based, but theres mention of god specific mechanics, maybe that'd do something different. Though its still healing oriented.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: InnaBinder on April 30, 2012, 09:44:18 PM
Clerics will remain spell-based, but theres mention of god specific mechanics, maybe that'd do something different. Though its still healing oriented.
Hopefully those are well thought-out enough so that every minmaxer worth the title doesn't automatically gravitate to the same god for the mechanical benefit.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Rejakor on May 01, 2012, 08:15:49 AM
I really doubt it.

Also, of all the fixes, the ones i've liked the most have been the ones where wizards still get to do cool stuff, it's just that they have to be real creative and use terrain and tactics to be as effective as the fighter in melee combat.  I.e. make the fighter good at fighting, and the wizard good at wizarding, instead of the fighter useless at everything and the wizard using wizarding to win fights because the fighter is useless.

Don't restrict the idea space of the game by making the wizard weak and non-versatile as a pile of crap (4e style), make the fighter, y'know, GOOD AT WHAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: InnaBinder on May 01, 2012, 08:20:05 AM
I really doubt it.

Also, of all the fixes, the ones i've liked the most have been the ones where wizards still get to do cool stuff, it's just that they have to be real creative and use terrain and tactics to be as effective as the fighter in melee combat.  I.e. make the fighter good at fighting, and the wizard good at wizarding, instead of the fighter useless at everything and the wizard using wizarding to win fights because the fighter is useless.

Don't restrict the idea space of the game by making the wizard weak and non-versatile as a pile of crap (4e style), make the fighter, y'know, GOOD AT WHAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING.
In order to do that, it seems likely that they may choose to eliminate or nerf those spells that allow an arcanist to be good at melee combat; I'm not advocating this as a good idea, but it's the simplest solution at first blush, so a likely one for the designers to gravitate toward.  This, in turn, could lead to much wailing and gnashing of teeth among the gish fans. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nicklance on May 01, 2012, 10:20:26 AM
I don't think it really matters. Initially there's talk that we would be giving up all our 3.5 stuff when 4E rolls into existence, but now looking back we've pretty much ignored 4E and went ahead with 3.5 as if it is business as usual. Some port over to PF.

When 5E comes out, and if it does not satisfy us again, I think we'll ignore it just as well and carry on.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Hallack on May 01, 2012, 05:18:14 PM
I think it would be a design flaw to try to make Fighter=cleric=wizard=rogue=etc....

It is okay to have power discrepancies.  That is not to say mundanes should not have nice things.  I'm all for letting mundanes do and have nice things. 

Trying to create equality between mundanes and magic however I generally destroys a lot of the fantasy of the game, particularly when trying to make higher levels equal. 

 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 01, 2012, 05:39:44 PM
In order to do that, it seems likely that they may choose to eliminate or nerf those spells that allow an arcanist to be good at melee combat; I'm not advocating this as a good idea, but it's the simplest solution at first blush, so a likely one for the designers to gravitate toward.  This, in turn, could lead to much wailing and gnashing of teeth among the gish fans.

Or they could simply make it so that there's good melee spells, but if you pick them, then you will have a lot less spells known for other stuff.

Which is one of the few things 4e got right. No more "Some casters automatically get  a trillion options every day that keep growing with each splat book".

I think it would be a design flaw to try to make Fighter=cleric=wizard=rogue=etc....

It is okay to have power discrepancies.  That is not to say mundanes should not have nice things.  I'm all for letting mundanes do and have nice things. 

Trying to create equality between mundanes and magic however I generally destroys a lot of the fantasy of the game, particularly when trying to make higher levels equal.   

And this I believe it's what 4e got worst. If everybody has the same "powers" crunch-wise and the only thing that changes is the name and coloring, well, the players will not be happy. If both the fighter's ultimate slash and the wizard's touch of doom are both 10d10+Main stat damage+status effect, save for half and reduced status effect, then it indeed just doesn't feel right, even if it's tecnically balanced.

I don't think it really matters. Initially there's talk that we would be giving up all our 3.5 stuff when 4E rolls into existence, but now looking back we've pretty much ignored 4E and went ahead with 3.5 as if it is business as usual. Some port over to PF.

When 5E comes out, and if it does not satisfy us again, I think we'll ignore it just as well and carry on.

We may ignore it when it comes out... But what matters is that we're not ignoring it now. For better or worst, people are talking about 5e, so there's some degree of interest. I predict that when we actually get our hands in that first 5e bits, plenty of people will hungrily jump at it, if nothing else to have a new taste.

This is, if 3.5 has managed to endure until now whitout a company's suport, then it means Wotc did something right with it.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on May 01, 2012, 08:23:54 PM
I think it would be a design flaw to try to make Fighter=cleric=wizard=rogue=etc....

It is okay to have power discrepancies.  That is not to say mundanes should not have nice things.  I'm all for letting mundanes do and have nice things. 

Trying to create equality between mundanes and magic however I generally destroys a lot of the fantasy of the game, particularly when trying to make higher levels equal.

But they'll still have to keep some 4E -isms around to keep that part of the fan base happy.
Personally, I'd like to see bigger differences between those types of roles.

The lower powered gritty heroic game, has more than enough material
from all editions of the game.  The higher end game that goes from
super heroes to demigods ... yeah the mundanes look quite soft.
Heck, the beefing about "fighters" being too weak, is well known.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on May 01, 2012, 08:25:02 PM
Also, #1 on their Cleric Design Goals (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120423) is that "The Cleric Is a Healer". Sigh.

Uggh ...  >:(
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Halinn on May 01, 2012, 11:32:40 PM
Also, #1 on their Cleric Design Goals (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120423) is that "The Cleric Is a Healer". Sigh.

Uggh ...  >:(
I think that what annoys me the most of that is that it is the first thing on their list. I mean, they could have worded it as "clerics are support characters" or mentioned it after telling how cool their role in combat would be, but their number one thing is that clerics are walking band-aid dispensers.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 02, 2012, 04:31:33 AM
Remember me, since when being known as the one who can heal all wounds, remove all maladies and perhaps even bring the dead back to life, a bad thing? Wotc has even been working to make healing a fluid part of combat  for quite some time now.

And heck, considering that 5e's main purpose is to make a D&D version that is recongizeable by all, then yes, clerics have always been known as the party healers.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: LordBlades on May 02, 2012, 05:13:24 AM


Or they could simply make it so that there's good melee spells, but if you pick them, then you will have a lot less spells known for other stuff.


Alternatively, they could make spells that make you good enough at melee so you can hold your own vs. monsters, but not as good as a purely melee class like a fighter. A Gish should be a compromise between fighter and caster, not 'almost as good as a fighter, 90% as good as a caster' like it stands in 3.5.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 02, 2012, 05:58:50 AM
And do tell, what do you mean by "good enough"? Because if nothing else, what qualifies as "good enough" is one of the most hotly debated topics in D&D discussions since the dawns of time.

Plus again, if those melee spells don't actually cost you anything from the rest of your casting potential, you're back to the starting problem. The wizard now doesn't need the fighter because he's "good enough" in melee, so what's the fighter suposed to do?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: LordBlades on May 02, 2012, 06:16:21 AM
And do tell, what do you mean by "good enough"? Because if nothing else, what qualifies as "good enough" is one of the most hotly debated topics in D&D discussions since the dawns of time.

Of course, in the end, good enough is subjective. What I had in mind was 'be able to engage most melee monsters in the book with a reasonable chance of succeeding'

Plus again, if those melee spells don't actually cost you anything from the rest of your casting potential, you're back to the starting problem. The wizard now doesn't need the fighter because he's "good enough" in melee, so what's the fighter suposed to do?

Choosing to be better at fighting as a wizard should mean that you're worse at wizard-ing. For example, if something like Polymorph, instead of being 'screw your physical stats, you're a dragon now' would base it's effect on your base physical stats, you'd probably see gishes care for their physical stats more, at the expense of their casting stat, this being worse wizards.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: InnaBinder on May 02, 2012, 06:39:32 AM
And do tell, what do you mean by "good enough"? Because if nothing else, what qualifies as "good enough" is one of the most hotly debated topics in D&D discussions since the dawns of time.

Of course, in the end, good enough is subjective. What I had in mind was 'be able to engage most melee monsters in the book with a reasonable chance of succeeding'

Plus again, if those melee spells don't actually cost you anything from the rest of your casting potential, you're back to the starting problem. The wizard now doesn't need the fighter because he's "good enough" in melee, so what's the fighter suposed to do?

Choosing to be better at fighting as a wizard should mean that you're worse at wizard-ing. For example, if something like Polymorph, instead of being 'screw your physical stats, you're a dragon now' would base it's effect on your base physical stats, you'd probably see gishes care for their physical stats more, at the expense of their casting stat, this being worse wizards.
I'll wager that there's a lot of disagreement over what "choosing to be better at fighting as a wizard should mean."  Lots of folks have expressed the opinion that the simple fact that a wizard can choose to be as good as (or better than) a fighter at fighting effectively removes all need for the fighter; others have complained that the wizard's ability to choose to be as good as (or better than) a fighter at fighting on a given day, while having other options another day is the issue.  Being worse wizards than the straight wizard isn't necessarily a problem (though it will displease some players, no doubt), but being as good a fighter as the fighter while ALSO having the option to be a wizard - even a substandard one - seems consistently damning for the fighter.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Rejakor on May 02, 2012, 07:01:30 AM
Even a gish shouldn't be a fighter.

A gish should be a gish.

A gish gets to flip off walls and have the right set of buffs for each fight, but they don't get to be as all-around awesome as the fighter.  So you can be acid immune gish when fighting the acid monster, but the fighter shrugs off 75% of elemental damage at this level anyway, and has all kinds of Grit Surge abilities to ignore/mitigate hp damage in any case.

I'm okay with gishes being better than fighters if they know what's coming and spend a bunch of spell slots in the same way i'm okay with wizards being better.  Obviously not AS MUCH BETTER as they are in 3.5, like I dunno, 25% better or something.  But when they're blindsided they can get OHKO'd, or just be about 50% as effective.  There's nothing WRONG with that as a model, it's just that people fail to comprehend what's necessary to bring about that level of power thanks to consistently underestimating both wizard abilities and monster abilities.

It's just about the KIND of attacks and defenses needed at each level of play.  Most optimizers can tell you, they're just not used to the idea of it being written into a class instead of being put on gear or buffs or whatever.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: sirpercival on May 24, 2012, 10:03:08 AM
Beta playtest is go.

And downloading the packet = major server lag... lol.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 24, 2012, 02:21:07 PM
Got mine, and is... Quite interesting. Only low level stuff, but so far, at the lack of a more detailed description, I can say this is what 3.X  fans expected of 4e.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Garryl on May 24, 2012, 02:28:20 PM
Got a link to the download?

Also, details man, details! Please tell me more while I'm still at work and can't see for myself.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ariasderros on May 24, 2012, 02:31:37 PM
Got a link to the download?

Also, details man, details! Please tell me more while I'm still at work and can't see for myself.
Link. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 24, 2012, 02:59:29 PM
Got a link to the download?

Also, details man, details! Please tell me more while I'm still at work and can't see for myself.


Very well, here's the most striking details:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 24, 2012, 03:27:48 PM
More D&D next stuff

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on May 24, 2012, 03:42:29 PM
The advantage/disadvantage mechanic sounds interesting, but in the end it's just more dice rolling and adding-on-the-fly to slow down the pace of combat...  Not saying it's bad, just that I see a game-play disadvantage in it.

Edit: I also see a lot of players getting pissed off when they are subjected to a disadvantage effect.  The last session my players were fighting something with a high concealment miss chance, and it really angered them, as every time they would hit the AC, they'd miss due to miss chance, and vice versa.  That's going to lead to a lot of sour players unless it is really easy to counter.

Just curious: If the party is subject to two disadvantage effects and one advantage effect, are they disadvantaged? or just at "normal?"
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 24, 2012, 03:57:55 PM
Just curious: If the party is subject to two disadvantage effects and one advantage effect, are they disadvantaged? or just at "normal?"

Excellent question. The playtest rules don't specifically cover that case, but I would guess they're disadvantaged.

Also there doesn't seem to be concealment anymore, just cover (two grades) that simply grants a bonus to AC and reflex dexterity saves.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on May 24, 2012, 04:20:33 PM
Well, I'm waiting on my playtest packet, but I have to say... this all sounds pretty bad to me. Am I the only one?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: JohnnyMayHymn on May 24, 2012, 04:31:24 PM
wow their site is slooow right now, and they won't let me agree to the user agreement with firefox, chrome, explorer or from my phone  :banghead
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 24, 2012, 04:47:31 PM
I think I just found a borked combo.

-Being drunk reduces all damage taken by 1d6 but all your attacks and skill checks have Disadvantage.
-Wizards have several spells that don't demand attack rolls neither do they need to do skill checks in combat.
-?
-Profit!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on May 24, 2012, 04:50:12 PM
Why the fuck are there even rules for being drunk included in the playtest document?! :shakefist :banghead
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: VennDygrem on May 24, 2012, 04:50:27 PM
I think that the idea of putting more power in the DM's hands would mean that a constantly-drunk wizard would eventually gain a new feat: Cirrhosis of the Liver.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on May 24, 2012, 04:52:50 PM
Also: Could they really not put all of the playtest documents into a single PDF? [/gripe]
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 24, 2012, 04:57:14 PM
Ray of frost is a cantrip that only demands a sucessful attack roll and automatically reduces the target's speed to 0 for 1 round.

I guess single melee monsters have automatically become a no-no, since a wizard or two can just keep them in place forever while the rest of the party peppers them with arrows.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: VennDygrem on May 24, 2012, 05:05:03 PM
By the way, from my reading, trip/grapple/disarm/etc would end up being what is now being described as "contests" ie: one-on-one opposed rolls. What the end result is would likely be determined by the DM. Of course, that's not official, it just jives with what the D&D team have been saying about reducing the rules and mechanics and putting the power in the DM's hands.

 They're also keeping certain rules out of the playtest to see whether they're necessary or not, so they likely have grapple/trip rules, but are withholding them to see if they even need to be put in the published books.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on May 24, 2012, 05:13:59 PM
Honestly... I just looked over the How to Play document, and, man... I don't want to look at the rest of this.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 24, 2012, 05:23:12 PM
They're also keeping certain rules out of the playtest to see whether they're necessary or not, so they likely have grapple/trip rules, but are withholding them to see if they even need to be put in the published books.

They put a massive chapter for hiding, which basically only rogues care about, but they couldn't bother to put in a single section for extra combat maneuvers? When the fighter can just swing a weapon (or swing it more) for three levels? That's not really very motivational.

Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Prime32 on May 24, 2012, 05:34:22 PM
Quote from: oslecamo
-Also several spells are far less effective against enemies with high HP. Sleep for example can only actually put someone to sleep if they have less than 10 HP, otherwise it just reduces movement speed.
-Every combat round you can move and perform an action. Minor stuff like drawing weapons takes no action.
-You can divide your turn movement before and after your action.
-Dwarves no longer get darkvision,  just low-light vision, but are fully immune to poison.
-Elves get flat-out immunity to sleep and charmed.
Well I like the sound of these parts... I'd heard about movement not being an action before (if you want to stand still you just move 0ft), which helps mobility quite a bit compared to 3e full attacks. Instant-death spells being restricted by HP seems like a decent way to balance them (works as a finisher and for fighting mooks), and it makes martial types more resistant to them than casters.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 24, 2012, 05:48:35 PM
Well I like the sound of these parts... I'd heard about movement not being an action before (if you want to stand still you just move 0ft), which helps mobility quite a bit compared to 3e full attacks. Instant-death spells being restricted by HP seems like a decent way to balance them (works as a finisher and for fighting mooks), and it makes martial types more resistant to them than casters.

It would, if the monsters actually followed that rule. But again the medusa doesn't care about HP (and notice the wizard can just avert his eyes and blast away perfectly while the fighter/rogue need to avert their eyes and take disadvantage on all attacks). Neither does the gelatinous cube engulf care about target HP, or all the other effects with saves involved I saw in the bestiary.

There's some good ideas around, but the more I read it, the more I think this will still take a good deal of work to make them stand out to be refined into a proper new edition.

Like, the minotaur has 132 HP and the fighter at best is dishing out 20 damage per attack at level 3 (crits auto-maximize like in 4e).
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: VennDygrem on May 24, 2012, 06:11:30 PM
Like, the minotaur has 132 HP and the fighter at best is dishing out 20 damage per attack at level 3 (crits auto-maximize like in 4e).

Assuming a party of four can put out at least 10 points of dmg/turn for each party-member, that turns into about 3 rounds of combat, give or take. Is that so bad?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: InnaBinder on May 24, 2012, 06:13:01 PM
Like, the minotaur has 132 HP and the fighter at best is dishing out 20 damage per attack at level 3 (crits auto-maximize like in 4e).

Assuming a party of four can put out at least 10 points of dmg/turn for each party-member, that turns into about 3 rounds of combat, give or take. Is that so bad?
Yep, sounds like the design principle is avoiding nova-bomb combats, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 24, 2012, 06:35:34 PM
Like, the minotaur has 132 HP and the fighter at best is dishing out 20 damage per attack at level 3 (crits auto-maximize like in 4e).

Assuming a party of four can put out at least 10 points of dmg/turn for each party-member, that turns into about 3 rounds of combat, give or take. Is that so bad?
Hmm, let's check it out.

Wizard-maybe can dish out a nuke or two dealing 4d6+3 at 3rd level, save for half, then magic missile spam for automatic 2d6.

Rogue-tecnically an amazing 4d6+3 thanks to sneak attack, but geting it off whitout flanking granting advantage anymore will be tricky.

Clerics: 1d8 weapons that don't really scare much. But they do have some nice group buffs by that level so they could make a diference.

So I guess with the clerics geting to pick the right spells (instead of those sugested in the pre-gen characters), it may work.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on May 24, 2012, 11:30:06 PM
The advantage/disadvantage mechanic sounds interesting, but in the end it's just more dice rolling and adding-on-the-fly to slow down the pace of combat...  Not saying it's bad, just that I see a game-play disadvantage in it.
It shouldn't slow down anything.  It's basically the same mechanics Avengers use in 4E, I played one of those for half the time I played 4E and never had any trouble.  Just throw both d20s at the same time and use the high/low roll as appropriate.  It isn't that amazing of a bonus or penalty, it works out to roughly +/- 4.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on May 24, 2012, 11:34:09 PM
I'd wait and see once its more complete, the current state might make bad first impressions.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Wrex on May 25, 2012, 12:07:51 AM
Ray of frost is the Best. Spell. Ever.

Someone within 100 feet can't move for one round on a succesful touch attack? And I can do this at will?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on May 25, 2012, 12:15:39 AM
Ray of frost is the Best. Spell. Ever.

Someone within 100 feet can't move for one round on a succesful touch attack? And I can do this at will?
Assuming they keep minimum forward movement for poor and clumsy fliers, tag a flying dragon with this, and watch it plummet to the ground.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Wrex on May 25, 2012, 12:21:32 AM
Ray of frost is the Best. Spell. Ever.

Someone within 100 feet can't move for one round on a succesful touch attack? And I can do this at will?
Assuming they keep minimum forward movement for poor and clumsy fliers, tag a flying dragon with this, and watch it plummet to the ground.

Indeed. Colossal Red Dragon, fear my cantrips!

I am mildly saddened by the fact that team monster isn't playing by the same rules we are, though. A sleep only scores a SoD if they have ten or less HP and fail a save. A medusa has no such HP requirement. And mages don't suffer from having to avert their eyes, as Oslecamo has stated. Also, drink is absurdly useful to a wizard currently. Being drunk gives all attack rolls and skill checks disadvantage, right? Most spells use neither, and the d6 DR is a pretty damn good deal.

EDIT: Poison is absurdly expensive. 100 GP for a phial with DC 11 Con save and inflict d4 poison damage on a failed save. At least the stuff lasts for a minute, and presumeably is not depleted after each strike. It can also coat three projectiles, rather than one melee weapon. And that DC11 Con save is something you could actually fail, since you no longer get save bonuses.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Kethrian on May 25, 2012, 12:23:05 AM
Other things I've noticed:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Wrex on May 25, 2012, 12:28:02 AM
Goodby negative levels, and good ridance. The wight only drains HP, which is restored after a night's rest.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on May 25, 2012, 12:34:30 AM
Goodby negative levels, and good ridance. The wight only drains HP, which is restored after a night's rest.
Oh come now.  There is a lot of fun to be found in negative levels!   ;)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Kethrian on May 25, 2012, 12:47:29 AM
Resistance halves the damage, while vulnerability doubles it.  Simple, elegant, scales well.

Edit: and no surprise rounds, just a -20 to initiative if you're surprised.  Different... will have to see how that plays out.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on May 25, 2012, 12:57:40 AM
It bothers me that monsters don't follow the same rules as players.  It seems like it would make it simpler to DM, but it just doesn't seem right. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: altpersona on May 25, 2012, 01:02:05 AM
anything on vision?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RedWarlock on May 25, 2012, 01:05:46 AM
Resistance halves the damage, while vulnerability doubles it.  Simple, elegant, scales well.

Edit: and no surprise rounds, just a -20 to initiative if you're surprised.  Different... will have to see how that plays out.
Yeah, like with 4e, there's a few interesting mechanics in there that I'm going to borrow in for my own house game, though I'm probably going to mix-and-match different concepts, or even do both. (I like doing fractional resistance, as well as doing numeric reduction. Mix and match the two to create even more fun. :D) And a number of these concepts had already appeared in one form or another in other places or houserules, or even as more limited versions. (advantage sounds like an extrapolation of the 4e elven accuracy.) Leaves plausible deniability when those bits show up in homebrew. >:}

I have to laugh, actually, because their hit-dice as mundane healing reserve is exactly what I'm doing in my non-D&D psuedo-d20 game Cityscape. (Fairly sure I even mention it in one of my posts on here, months ago.) Independent thoughts leading to the same result.

Monsters using different rules never really bugged me. (It's like using the Elite array vs the common 10s or something rolled, it's just how much player/npc differentiation are you willing to take?) I think they're going to ground the monsters in their stats a lot more firmly than they were in 4e.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Kethrian on May 25, 2012, 01:07:07 AM
It bothers me that monsters don't follow the same rules as players.  It seems like it would make it simpler to DM, but it just doesn't seem right. 

So far, many just get special racial abilities, but leaders get effects based on their minions dying or whatnot.  And it's an early look at possible rules, so just make sure you mention the different rules thing in your feedback.  It might get them to take a different approach if you state why you don't like it and how they could go about changing it for the better.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Kethrian on May 25, 2012, 01:15:53 AM
anything on vision?

Low-light is limited to 30', but you treat shadowy as normal and dark as shadowy.  That's all so far.

The other skills are all detailed in the DM section.  It also gives a list of typical checks and their DCs.  I guess this is because they aren't as class-dependant as stealth is to the rogue.  I wonder why the bit about always rounding fractions down is in the DM section and not in the How To Play?  Seems pretty damn important to me, especially what with medium armours only adding half your dex bonus to AC, and several spells having a save for half damage.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on May 25, 2012, 01:32:11 AM
So, here's a hypothesis. The rogue is the new monk.

Actually, that's not even a hypothesis. I can just kinda point to the document and rest my case there, starting a riot on the defendant's side of the court. The DA retires and becomes a turnip farmer.

And y'know what? That comparison might not even be fair to the monk. At least it had class abilities that did something. The rogue? Well, you can effectively take 10 on a task for a trained skill...but oh what's that over there on the horizon? Let's all squint to read it:

Quote
In normal circumstances, a DC of 10 or lower represents a task that is so easy that it is not worth a check. An adventurer can almost always succeed automatically on a trivial task.

Not that it matters very much, because sweet-talking the DM is now such an integral part of the game they encourage you to grant outright success if you tried hard enough.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RedWarlock on May 25, 2012, 01:37:49 AM
Not quite. Take 10, but then add in modifiers.. Especially since I think ability boosts may become the new class attack/save/etc bonuses.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Kethrian on May 25, 2012, 01:38:36 AM
Give some feedback that it needs to be made better or at least worded better.  I think it's just currently sitting at the 3.5 taking 10 vs Rogue's skill mastery of taking 10 in strenuous conditions.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on May 25, 2012, 01:43:17 AM
It bothers me that monsters don't follow the same rules as players.  It seems like it would make it simpler to DM, but it just doesn't seem right. 

So far, many just get special racial abilities, but leaders get effects based on their minions dying or whatnot.  And it's an early look at possible rules, so just make sure you mention the different rules thing in your feedback.  It might get them to take a different approach if you state why you don't like it and how they could go about changing it for the better.

I doubt they'd make such a fundamental change to the way they design monsters, even if a majority of playtesters told them to.  But regardless, my issue isn't that monsters have abilities that players don't have access to, it's that the fundamental way in which monsters are designed is different than the way in which PCs are designed.  As in, there is no "human Wizard" monster that I can build and advance by class level to be a level-appropriate challenge.  I can grab a caster-type monster that plays a similar role to what a Wizard would do, but if I want a Goblin Shaman - type monster I'm SoL.  I'm almost forced to use their stock monsters with little to no variation - which, now that I think about it, is probably the point. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Kethrian on May 25, 2012, 01:51:04 AM
Well, yes.  Right now, all they have is prebaked PCs, too.  No buildable characters with race and class choices.  Once things really get underway, I'm sure the options will start to really open up for making your own villains/monsters/NPCs/whatever.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on May 25, 2012, 02:12:07 AM
Not quite. Take 10, but then add in modifiers.. Especially since I think ability boosts may become the new class attack/save/etc bonuses.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. Yeah, you add the modifiers, since it's effectively a regular skill check on which you're taking 10. That means the rogue only gets an advantage out of this compared to someone else with the trained skill if:

a) the DC is 10 or lower but the circumstances are stressful enough to merit a check. Not too fantastic since you don't have to roll very high at all to succeed, but sure.
b) the DC is greater than 10 but at most 10+your skill modifier. This is probably where the biggest difference comes in, since these aren't listed as auto-pass checks by default.
c) the DC is even larger and your DM has multiple levels of failure depending on the margin of failure. This is really subjective, though.

That said, with the restricted ability scores, you can have a strength of 10 and still have a decent chance to beat the tarrasque at arm-wrestling. That's never going to come up, of course, because in lieu of presenting an exponential progression or something so that the RNG makes some sense, DMs are encouraged to overrule things that are nonsensical. I'm actually a little scared at the emphasis they've put on that point in this document.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on May 25, 2012, 02:13:40 AM
Well, yes.  Right now, all they have is prebaked PCs, too.  No buildable characters with race and class choices.  Once things really get underway, I'm sure the options will start to really open up for making your own villains/monsters/NPCs/whatever.

I know all they have is prebaked PCs so far, but I fully expect them to publish rules for customizing your own when the game comes out.  But at least you can back-calculate some of the stuff that races and classes give.  I tried doing the same for monsters, and it's difficult bordering on impossible.  For example, the Gnoll on pg 10 of the Bestiary has 2 points of AC that come from nowhere, and +2 to hit that I can't find the source for.  It's almost like WotC just made up numbers that sounded good  :eh
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on May 25, 2012, 02:25:04 AM
Well, yes.  Right now, all they have is prebaked PCs, too.  No buildable characters with race and class choices.  Once things really get underway, I'm sure the options will start to really open up for making your own villains/monsters/NPCs/whatever.

I know all they have is prebaked PCs so far, but I fully expect them to publish rules for customizing your own when the game comes out.  But at least you can back-calculate some of the stuff that races and classes give.  I tried doing the same for monsters, and it's difficult bordering on impossible.  For example, the Gnoll on pg 10 of the Bestiary has 2 points of AC that come from nowhere, and +2 to hit that I can't find the source for.  It's almost like WotC just made up numbers that sounded good  :eh
The Gnoll's AC is from leather armor and shield.  12 base plus 0 dex plus 2 heavy shield equals 14.  The +2 to hit seems to be a proficiency bonus, as every sample character has it and the equipment section on weapons makes oblique reference to one.  (As a matter of fact, I presume the +2 to hit with spells serves the exact same function.  Meaning most attack rolls should be Ability mod +2, rather than the expected Ability mod.)  So far monsters seem to function quite like players, except for their racial abilities.  The problem is they're needlessly obscuring information in the Beta making it difficult to tell what the fuck they're trying to accomplish.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on May 25, 2012, 02:35:30 AM
Not quite. Take 10, but then add in modifiers.. Especially since I think ability boosts may become the new class attack/save/etc bonuses.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. Yeah, you add the modifiers, since it's effectively a regular skill check on which you're taking 10. That means the rogue only gets an advantage out of this compared to someone else with the trained skill if:

a) the DC is 10 or lower but the circumstances are stressful enough to merit a check. Not too fantastic since you don't have to roll very high at all to succeed, but sure.
b) the DC is greater than 10 but at most 10+your skill modifier. This is probably where the biggest difference comes in, since these aren't listed as auto-pass checks by default.
c) the DC is even larger and your DM has multiple levels of failure depending on the margin of failure. This is really subjective, though.

That said, with the restricted ability scores, you can have a strength of 10 and still have a decent chance to beat the tarrasque at arm-wrestling. That's never going to come up, of course, because in lieu of presenting an exponential progression or something so that the RNG makes some sense, DMs are encouraged to overrule things that are nonsensical. I'm actually a little scared at the emphasis they've put on that point in this document.
Note is states that the minimum die result is 10.  The implication there is you still roll, only results of 1 to 9 are counted as 10.  And if not, who cares?  DCs are all under 20 so far (With no sign, as of yet, they will increase by much over 20 levels.) and the rogue is looking at results of 13 to 16 for the take 10 interpretation.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on May 25, 2012, 02:43:33 AM
For some reason when I wrote the bit about AC I had it in my head that Gnolls had 16 not 14.  Serves me right for trying to figure stuff out late at night.  The +2 that all the PCs get is explicitly called out in most cases in the form of Weapon Focus for the fighter and Magic Focus for the wizard and clerics.  I have no idea where the Moradin cleric's second +2 came from on his warhammer to-hit though, or the rogue's on his weapons.  Oddly, the How to Play section lists Greataxes as having 1d12 damage, but the fighter's character sheet has it at 2d6. 
I definitely agree that they're needlessly obfuscating stuff.  It seems to me like they should be as transparent as they possibly can with the rules now, so that people can actually give real impressions on the rules and not just whether the stock adventure worked or not. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Kethrian on May 25, 2012, 02:46:28 AM
Okay, here (http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29137181/Initial_thoughts?sdb=1)'s my thread on initial feedback.  I'm sure many of you will want to add your thoughts to it, and I hope you'll do the same as me, not just putting down what you don't like, but why you don't like them, and putting down potential fixes or changes to improve the game.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on May 25, 2012, 02:53:31 AM
Note is states that the minimum die result is 10.  The implication there is you still roll, only results of 1 to 9 are counted as 10.  And if not, who cares?  DCs are all under 20 so far (With no sign, as of yet, they will increase by much over 20 levels.) and the rogue is looking at results of 13 to 16 for the take 10 interpretation.
When considered that way, it's equivalent to roughly a +3 bonus (rounded up) to the result you'd get by taking 10. On average, of course.

The main problem I have with it is that the main draw of the ability is already mostly part of an existing rule. Just like the ambush thing and just like the halfling's racial hiding thing.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: phaedrusxy on May 25, 2012, 09:45:08 AM
Hmm... sounds like an interesting mash-up of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions, with a bunch of house-rules included. It definitely sounds like a simpler, quicker system to get up and running with, which could be a big advantage overall I think. The main gripes with 3.5 that I heard was how long it took to generate a character (above 1st level), how long combat could take, and how complex the rules were (grapple, anyone?).

I think I like the idea of getting rid of scaling BAB, skill points, and saving throws, at least in theory. Having to constantly add on bonuses to your AC and other things to keep them relevant was a pain that I'm glad to see go away. This should also go a long way to keeping everyone on the same RNG, another positive.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RedWarlock on May 25, 2012, 10:06:32 AM
Not quite. Take 10, but then add in modifiers.. Especially since I think ability boosts may become the new class attack/save/etc bonuses.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.
Sorry, I was quick, I was on my phone last-second, and this site doesn't seem to play nice with mobile interface.

I think what they were saying in some of the mechanics discussion was that instead of having scaling level-based BAB, save bonuses, etc, that they would just have built-in or selectable ability advancement for each class, much more rapidly than in 3e. So like a Rogue who has most of their attacks, skills, etc, based in Dex would advance their Dex as part of their leveling progression (maybe Int, too, or selectable between a couple different stats). Fighters would advance Str (primarily), Wizards get Int, and so on. This goes to *everything* related to those abilities, providing improvement and a sense of progression, but also keeping it a slower progression than before.

Now, this isn't in the playtest level-advancement section, but they might have been leaving it out for now. Or maybe they changed their minds, who knows?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 25, 2012, 10:14:32 AM
I think I like the idea of getting rid of scaling BAB, skill points, and saving throws, at least in theory. Having to constantly add on bonuses to your AC and other things to keep them relevant was a pain that I'm glad to see go away. This should also go a long way to keeping everyone on the same RNG, another positive.

Yeah, that's very true. Speaking of which, the advantage/disadvantage system works great in that regard. In theory, it may be the equivalent of +5/-5, but in practise, re-rolling  a 1d20 gives you better/worst odds whitout going over or under the expected numbers.

Speaking of which, none of the bestiary monsters seem to have super-scores off the PC scale, which is also nice to see.

On the other hand, can anyone see a justification for using medium armor? It halves your Dex bonus to AC for a minor AC bonus over light armor (which allows your full Dex bonus), so it would only be worthwhile if you have no Dex bonus at all, in which case it's best to grab some heavy armor.
Well I guess it may be somewhat justified if some classes only get proficiency up to medium. Wearing no-proficient stuff makes all your attacks gain Disadvantage.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Kethrian on May 25, 2012, 11:05:01 AM
The way advantage/disadvantage work with the odds is: advantage halves your chance of failure, while disadvantage halves your chance of success.  So if you only have a 40% chance to succeed normally, advantage will boost it to 70% (+6 equivalent), and disadvantage will reduce it to 20% (-4 equivalent).  It's only +/-5 if the odds are 50%.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Garryl on May 25, 2012, 11:20:18 AM
The way advantage/disadvantage work with the odds is: advantage halves your chance of failure, while disadvantage halves your chance of success.  So if you only have a 40% chance to succeed normally, advantage will boost it to 70% (+6 equivalent), and disadvantage will reduce it to 20% (-4 equivalent).  It's only +/-5 if the odds are 50%.

Not quite. Advantage and disadvantage square your chance of failure or success, respectively. Actions that had a small chance of success get relatively little out of advantage, and very reliable actions suffer very little from having disadvantage. The less luck-based the action (ie: closer to 100% or 0% chances of success), the less of an effect, while the more luck-based (ie: closer to 50% odds), the greater the effect.

Assuming sufficient granularity in bonuses and a lack of automatic/critical successes and failures, you can approximate the equivalent modifier that the reroll causes simply by dividing by 5%. The aforementioned 40% success rate becomes a 64% success rate with advantage (+4.8), or a 16% success rate (-4.8) with disadvantage. Rates further from 50% are even less affected. A 10% success rate action becomes 19% or 1% (+/-1.8).
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Cannotthink on May 25, 2012, 12:34:23 PM
On the other hand, can anyone see a justification for using medium armor? It halves your Dex bonus to AC for a minor AC bonus over light armor (which allows your full Dex bonus), so it would only be worthwhile if you have no Dex bonus at all, in which case it's best to grab some heavy armor.
Well I guess it may be somewhat justified if some classes only get proficiency up to medium. Wearing no-proficient stuff makes all your attacks gain Disadvantage.

Medium armor is almost never worthwhile to grab here.
(click to show/hide)
Unless you are limited by proficiencies, your choices are really just light or heavy armor. The only place where medium armor matters is that sweetspot where you can afford Dragon Scale and have a 14 or 15 dexterity.

There should either be a greater jump in the flat AC for each armor category or some bonus aside from AC (like some DR) or both to make the jump between armor categories a little more meaningful. There also needs to be a justification for Adamantine armor having a price putting it on par with medium wonderous items.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on May 25, 2012, 01:49:12 PM
Sorry, I was quick, I was on my phone last-second, and this site doesn't seem to play nice with mobile interface.

I think what they were saying in some of the mechanics discussion was that instead of having scaling level-based BAB, save bonuses, etc, that they would just have built-in or selectable ability advancement for each class, much more rapidly than in 3e. So like a Rogue who has most of their attacks, skills, etc, based in Dex would advance their Dex as part of their leveling progression (maybe Int, too, or selectable between a couple different stats). Fighters would advance Str (primarily), Wizards get Int, and so on. This goes to *everything* related to those abilities, providing improvement and a sense of progression, but also keeping it a slower progression than before.

Now, this isn't in the playtest level-advancement section, but they might have been leaving it out for now. Or maybe they changed their minds, who knows?
If they're being entirely literal when they say "adventurers can have scores as high as 20," then I very much doubt it.

Also, I think it's funny that a club costs 5 sp while a torch costs a tenth of that despite being a better weapon in every way. Oh, and beating the shit out of someone makes it easier to charm them.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: phaedrusxy on May 25, 2012, 01:52:19 PM
Oh, and beating the shit out of someone makes it easier to charm them.
Water boarding, anyone?  :D
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 25, 2012, 03:00:00 PM
There also needs to be a justification for Adamantine armor having a price putting it on par with medium wonderous items.

To be fair, adamantine always was a quasi-magical metal.

Plus, I don't believe we know how much medium wondrous items cost yet. :p

Also, I think it's funny that a club costs 5 sp while a torch costs a tenth of that despite being a better weapon in every way. Oh, and beating the shit out of someone makes it easier to charm them.

Talk softly, and carry a big burning stick? :P
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Cannotthink on May 25, 2012, 03:13:20 PM

To be fair, adamantine always was a quasi-magical metal.

Plus, I don't believe we know how much medium wondrous items cost yet. :p

Well, I can't deny that as a justification. Just comparing it to the prices of 3.5 stuff since the armor prices/benefits are similar. Regardless, it's still really freaking expensive.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 25, 2012, 03:36:46 PM
Well, I can't deny that as a justification. Just comparing it to the prices of 3.5 stuff since the armor prices/benefits are similar. Regardless, it's still really freaking expensive.

Some speculation of mine:
-"Medium" magic items seem like they'll become DM fiat. You can make some potions and other minor stuff, but anything stronger will have to be found in loot or bargained with special NPCs. This means you go stashing large amounts of gold, and then may as well spend it in some nonmagic armor upgrade.
-If they're trying to keep overall numbers lower, that +8 to AC may actually be pretty good. In particular because it also works against spells now.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Cannotthink on May 25, 2012, 04:13:40 PM
I guess the real value in the armor will be determined as soon as we can see how everything advances in later levels and whatever other items there are in store.

On to a more mundane topic. Electrum: what's up with that. It's nice to see the stuff used, but do we really need a half-gold piece?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on May 25, 2012, 04:21:59 PM
On to a more mundane topic. Electrum: what's up with that. It's nice to see the stuff used, but do we really need a half-gold piece?
It was present in 2nd Ed, and likely before.  I've actually used it on occasion in 3rd ed.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on May 25, 2012, 04:29:34 PM
" ... Electrum ... "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrum

Yeah 1e had it too.  If they're just looking for extra words to apply
to some sort of WBL currency equivalents ...  :blush = whatever.
4e Astral Diamonds doesn't have quite the "ring" to it, either.
History of the game, blah blah, is better than nothing.
It might not matter what they do with Money as a category,
so long as they have it, there'll be problems.

Another way to make that work, is to have refined Gold
be the more valuable / order of magnitude , higher currency.
Alloy of cheap gold = mercantile exchange above the "turnip" level.
Stylized Gold Jewelry of the Deity = symbolic higher than mercantile exchange.
 :???

Not quite. Take 10, but then add in modifiers.. Especially since I think ability boosts may become the new class attack/save/etc bonuses.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. Yeah, you add the modifiers, since it's effectively a regular skill check on which you're taking 10. That means the rogue only gets an advantage out of this compared to someone else with the trained skill if:

a) the DC is 10 or lower but the circumstances are stressful enough to merit a check. Not too fantastic since you don't have to roll very high at all to succeed, but sure.
b) the DC is greater than 10 but at most 10+your skill modifier. This is probably where the biggest difference comes in, since these aren't listed as auto-pass checks by default.
c) the DC is even larger and your DM has multiple levels of failure depending on the margin of failure. This is really subjective, though.

That said, with the restricted ability scores, you can have a strength of 10 and still have a decent chance to beat the tarrasque at arm-wrestling. That's never going to come up, of course, because in lieu of presenting an exponential progression or something so that the RNG makes some sense, DMs are encouraged to overrule things that are nonsensical. I'm actually a little scared at the emphasis they've put on that point in this document.
Note is states that the minimum die result is 10.  The implication there is you still roll, only results of 1 to 9 are counted as 10.  And if not, who cares?  DCs are all under 20 so far (With no sign, as of yet, they will increase by much over 20 levels.) and the rogue is looking at results of 13 to 16 for the take 10 interpretation.

4e floated something small, kinda like this.
Wood Elf something, that gave a mini- Take 8 on an Athletics (?) check.
Fail on 1 , 2 to 7 get an 8 , 8+ get the die roll.
I liked it ... (not that this particularly matters)
but they didn't do anything else like this.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on May 25, 2012, 05:47:14 PM
Well for high end currencies theres always using standard form compact trade goods like diamonds in bulk.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Wrex on May 25, 2012, 09:14:03 PM
Clearly, we should all use Ressidium as the currency of the realm.


Human Cleric of pelor is clearly of the Str-dumping variety made popular by 4th ed.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on May 25, 2012, 10:25:25 PM
I'm wondering if the designers put so much emphasis on DM fiat in the playtest because they don't want to reveal the rules for every situation yet.  Maybe they will have more concrete, less hand-wavey rules for everything, they just didn't want to include them in this early version - especially for niche cases that are unlikely to come up in the given adventure, and would only distract from the core gameplay. 

I'm hoping this is the case, because I rather dislike the power that they've placed purely in the DM's hands.  It encourages DMs (especially new DMs) to play "god mode", which in many cases amounts to "I'm the DM, so that gives me the right to be a douchebag."  And that's just not fun. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on May 25, 2012, 10:53:13 PM
I'm still trying to figure out who this new system is for.

It's not really for the "balance uber alles" crowd--4e works fine for that.

It's not really for the hardcore optimizers and system redliners--3.5/Pathfinder still seem to be the systems of choice there.

It's not for the old-school players, who are spoiled silly these days with OSR systems.

So who is the core target market for this edition?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: JohnnyMayHymn on May 25, 2012, 11:09:35 PM
I predict that future D&D Next playtests will have different levels of DM fiat(and other mechanics will also vary), and not necessarily based on our feedback. 

I wouldn't be surprized if the next kit was already done or nearly ready.  So, I'm not getting too exited or dissapointed until I see the final core books.

@caelic: I think the target market is everyone you listed
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: InnaBinder on May 25, 2012, 11:12:26 PM
I'm still trying to figure out who this new system is for.

It's not really for the "balance uber alles" crowd--4e works fine for that.

It's not really for the hardcore optimizers and system redliners--3.5/Pathfinder still seem to be the systems of choice there.

It's not for the old-school players, who are spoiled silly these days with OSR systems.

So who is the core target market for this edition?
Everyone on Earth.  WotC wants all your base to belong to them.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on May 25, 2012, 11:12:49 PM
@caelic: I think the target market is everyone you listed


It's nice in theory, but I worry that it'll fail in execution.  It seems like they're trying to be all things to all players--and I just don't see it working out.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on May 26, 2012, 12:01:31 AM
The One Edition to Rule Them All!

Was this already said?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 26, 2012, 12:34:50 AM
@caelic: I think the target market is everyone you listed


It's nice in theory, but I worry that it'll fail in execution.  It seems like they're trying to be all things to all players--and I just don't see it working out.
+1 from what I hear (namely on this thread) the attempt to please everyone comes at the extent of giving the system any real identity. It's just a mishmash with a D&D label and a "let the DM sort it all out" slapped onto it.

Given that all these groups have an attractive alternative sitting on their shelves I can't see how this could possibly work.

I'm still disappointed that they didn't essentially refine the approach taken in Star Wars Saga Edition for the successors of 3.x.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on May 26, 2012, 01:07:23 AM
@caelic: I think the target market is everyone you listed


It's nice in theory, but I worry that it'll fail in execution.  It seems like they're trying to be all things to all players--and I just don't see it working out.
That is my feeling as well.  Better to have gone to make one group ecstatic than make everyone mildly interested.  However, so far I'm not seeing anything worth freaking out over.  Maybe 4E just set my expectations too low, but the beta document has actually improved my reaction level to 5e.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Wrex on May 26, 2012, 01:14:37 AM
Well, I'll wait til we see some char gen guidelines before I make any judgement. This kind of stuff is just too complicated to make any reasoned decision until you can see the whole thing.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on May 26, 2012, 02:40:59 AM
Clearly, we should all use Ressidium as the currency of the realm.
As long as you have an easily verifiable way to identify the value standard, and to prevent counterfeiting, a stable base value equal to the currency unit. Diamonds in 3.5 have a relatively stable value. After all, a thousand gp worth of them equals one death.

Got the idea off Sanderson (http://stormlightarchive.wikia.com/wiki/Currency)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: altpersona on May 26, 2012, 03:12:12 AM
i like the stormlight currency system.

i also have a tendency to carry gem dust instead of large numbers of coins on my characters.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: altpersona on May 26, 2012, 11:24:37 PM
5e game went well.

overall i think it was too simplistic.

we had 4 players. we showed up last and picked our pregens last. my boy picked the the non healing cleric and i got stuck w/ the wizard.  :eh    we talked the dm into bringing the healing cleric as a hireling npc whose job was stay out of the way and heal us when we rested.

i cant speak to if he rogue is the new monk, but at low levels the pregen rogue is probably better than they should be. auto 16s on rogue skills is overly handy.

i think my wiz had a better body count than anyone else. magic mook gun lays waste to mooky kobalds.

used 3 of my 4 first level spells. B hands : mass mook killer, Sleep: kill mooks later, comp lang: dafuq u call me?  second day re-memorized spells w/ 2 B hands and a sleep.

never needed to freeze ray anyone.

so most mechanics are familiar / easy to use. roll init... strength to hit... so on...

to me, it seems skills will be almost entirely fiat/useless.

also my lvl 1 elf wizard had 16 hp.  :twitch

in a more advanced situation beyond this first test, looks like advantages/disadvantages will be huge.

in all (i think) we killed 26 + 6 +3 + 5 +18 + 6 creatures. two got away.

after the first 40ish we went back to the coup to rekeep. went back the next day to finish off mooks that we didnt have the hp to take on the first time.

our cleric used his little bit of healing and swung his hammer... no real diff from any other version at lvl 1.

rogue was more effectively a rogue than they have been in the past at first level

fighter slayed mooks w/ his guaranteed damage hit or miss (one at a time).

it was fighters first dnd game ever. he usually plays SW saga (i think).

rogue mostly 40ks i think..

cleric is a wow kid  >:(   has played several things a time or two.

wiz is a board regular and seasoned vet known for being as handsome as he is witty.   :cool


EDIT: i retract some of the rogue stuff. i forgot how easy it was to ensure a 17 in 3.x rogue skills.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on May 27, 2012, 07:24:27 PM
Y'know what, I think I'm going to retract some of my major vitriol over 5E. If it plays like a simplified, faster-running 3.5, then, even if it's still broken as hell, that's probably a very good thing. So, I'll wait and see what they've got in store for us.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 28, 2012, 08:46:36 AM
5e-all the brokeness you know and love, now with 1/10th of the book keeping! :P

Hmm, that may actually be quite a good selling slogan.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on May 28, 2012, 11:32:12 AM
Hell, I'd buy Core just to see how it holds up to my expectations, assuming it's priced within my range (I could see my way to spending 50 bucks for the entire set, at most).
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on May 28, 2012, 02:35:14 PM
5e-all the brokeness you know and love, now with 1/10th of the book keeping! :P

Hmm, that may actually be quite a good selling slogan.

Not if they succumb to the fate of product bloat.  It happened in the last days of TSR, it happened to 3rd and 4th Edition with Wizards of the Coast; I have the feeling that history will repeat itself.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: JohnnyMayHymn on May 28, 2012, 02:39:50 PM
5e-all the brokeness you know and love, now with 1/10th of the book keeping! :P

Hmm, that may actually be quite a good selling slogan.

Not if they succumb to the fate of product bloat.  It happen in the last days of TSR, it happened to 3rd and 4th Edition with Wizards of the Coast; I have the feeling that history will repeat itself.
That's what 6e is for
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on May 28, 2012, 03:24:35 PM
Not if they succumb to the fate of product bloat.  It happened in the last days of TSR, it happened to 3rd and 4th Edition with Wizards of the Coast; I have the feeling that history will repeat itself.


I don't see how they can possibly avoid it.  Remember, WotC answers to Hasbro, and Hasbro has some pretty stringent standards for profitability.  Give the guys at WotC due credit for managing to make a tabletop RPG meet those standards for so long, given that tabletop RPGs have never been a high-profit commodity.

4e was an attempt to radically shift their profit model from a "Buy a new book every month" arrangement to a monthly fee-for-service model, not unlike MMORPGs.  However, that fell on its face spectacularly.  D&D Insider never came close to the "virtual gaming environment" they promised, and even Gleemax collapsed.

That leaves them with the "Book a month until saturation, then reset" model...and the problems that prompted them to try getting away from that model in the first place.  With every reset, they lose customers, and the time to saturation decreases.  There's a reason 4e only lasted 3 1/2 years.

I made several predictions when 4e was announced.  Unfortunately, most of them have been accurate.  I say "unfortunately," because one of those predictions was that they'd have to go to a fifth edition fairly quickly, and that fifth edition would be the end of the line for the tabletop RPG.  I still expect that to be the case, sadly.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Necrosnoop110 on May 28, 2012, 05:04:53 PM
and that fifth edition would be the end of the line for the tabletop RPG.  I still expect that to be the case, sadly.
End of the line? For real?

What are your thoughts on things going forward as hybrid techno-tabletop RPGs? Microsoft surface (http://youtu.be/n94E3IeBquY)? Game mechanics/revisions in the cloud or in eBooks (no more print books to buy)? Could these technologies and eFormats save the game?       
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on May 28, 2012, 07:27:20 PM
I've been following DDN pretty closely, and while Mearls being on the team (and INTENTIONALLY fucking certain things up*) makes me cringe, this edition has more going for it than any one before it. MS Surface is becoming used more and more (making a card shop with a MS Surface a great place to play), They have had all of 4.X to fix the godawful backend for the online features, and the modular system actually gives them a CHANCE that they CAN please everyone.



*Mearls has gone on record as saying that Vancian casting stays "because he wants it" and that the fighter is supposed to suck.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on May 28, 2012, 10:34:47 PM
I've been following DDN pretty closely, and while Mearls being on the team (and INTENTIONALLY fucking certain things up*) makes me cringe, this edition has more going for it than any one before it. MS Surface is becoming used more and more (making a card shop with a MS Surface a great place to play), They have had all of 4.X to fix the godawful backend for the online features, and the modular system actually gives them a CHANCE that they CAN please everyone.



*Mearls has gone on record as saying that Vancian casting stays "because he wants it" and that the fighter is supposed to suck.

Woah, hold it! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSr49hnwU7I)

Did he really say this?  If you remember the source, I'd like to see it.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: JohnnyMayHymn on May 29, 2012, 03:12:49 AM
Woah, hold it! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSr49hnwU7I)

Did he really say this?  If you remember the source, I'd like to see it.
I'm glad my volume was muted  :P
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RobbyPants on May 29, 2012, 08:08:56 AM
I'm wondering if the designers put so much emphasis on DM fiat in the playtest because they don't want to reveal the rules for every situation yet.
It's likely because they're trying to appeal to old AD&D players. That, or they don't want to write rules and they want you to pay for a book full of not-rules. :p


I'm still trying to figure out who this new system is for.

It's not really for the "balance uber alles" crowd--4e works fine for that.

It's not really for the hardcore optimizers and system redliners--3.5/Pathfinder still seem to be the systems of choice there.

It's not for the old-school players, who are spoiled silly these days with OSR systems.

So who is the core target market for this edition?
What it's for is to sell a new edition and make money. 4E isn't going to make them much money anymore. Their target audience is supposedly all D&D players. They want this to be a magical omni-edition that everyone will like. What's that old adage about trying to please everyone?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: skydragonknight on May 29, 2012, 08:12:43 AM
Perhaps I'm mistaken, since I only have passing knowledge of Frank and K stuff, but isn't Advantage/Disadvantage like "the Edge"? If so, and they've been researching the more popular homebrews for inspiration, I might have to set aside my skepticism and give this thing a try myself.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: phaedrusxy on May 29, 2012, 10:41:32 AM
Perhaps I'm mistaken, since I only have passing knowledge of Frank and K stuff, but isn't Advantage/Disadvantage like "the Edge"? If so, and they've been researching the more popular homebrews for inspiration, I might have to set aside my skepticism and give this thing a try myself.
Yeah, the Advantage/Disadvantage thing reminded me of The Edge too, which I also found encouraging.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RobbyPants on May 29, 2012, 10:45:29 AM
Perhaps I'm mistaken, since I only have passing knowledge of Frank and K stuff, but isn't Advantage/Disadvantage like "the Edge"? If so, and they've been researching the more popular homebrews for inspiration, I might have to set aside my skepticism and give this thing a try myself.
From what I understand, the good thing about it is it's a re-roll, which keeps you on the same RNG. Also, an advantage provides a larger bonus to someone who has a lower percentage chance to succeed than to someone with a high chance to succeed (giving less additional benefit to optimizers, being more newbie-friendly). The bad part is a disadvantage hurts people worse who have a low chance of success. So that's a mixed bag.

It looks like they've gotten rid of AoOs and you take a disadvantage casting or firing in melee. Still, instead of a five-foot step, casters now have a 30-foot step!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on May 29, 2012, 12:13:53 PM
Woah, hold it! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSr49hnwU7I)

Did he really say this?  If you remember the source, I'd like to see it.

A few gems of his: (Not actual quotes, paraphrased from interviews and cobbled together so they make sense without a paragraph of context each)

"Fighters are supposed to be entirely mundane"

"A fighter isn't supposed to have as many options as other characters"

"A fighter's HP and AC make him almost invulnerable" (Really now? In a game that now has 6 saves?)

"A wizard's spells can do better, but the fighter is more reliable" (No. Just No.)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on May 29, 2012, 06:35:14 PM
and that fifth edition would be the end of the line for the tabletop RPG.  I still expect that to be the case, sadly.
End of the line? For real?

What are your thoughts on things going forward as hybrid techno-tabletop RPGs? Microsoft surface (http://youtu.be/n94E3IeBquY)? Game mechanics/revisions in the cloud or in eBooks (no more print books to buy)? Could these technologies and eFormats save the game?     




Really depends on whether Hasbro thinks they can make a sufficient profit to justify developing the technologies, and how far removed from the tabletop RPG the end product is.  Keep in mind that I absolutely do not think Hasbro is going to shelve Dungeons and Dragons, the intellectual property.  I think they're going to shelve Dungeons and Dragons, the tabletop RPG.  There will likely still be novels and CRPGs and any number of other products based on the property, because those can and do make money.  (Heck, D&D novels were bringing in more money than the game itself way back in the TSR days.)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on May 29, 2012, 07:13:20 PM

 :D ... the Fighter is supposed to suck.

+1
They should definitely do that (again).
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on May 29, 2012, 07:17:39 PM

5e game went well.

EDIT: i retract some of the ... (stab)


Y'know ...  :rolleyes ... they can hire some dark gray hats, to find you.

 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on May 29, 2012, 10:13:12 PM
I'm wondering if the designers put so much emphasis on DM fiat in the playtest because they don't want to reveal the rules for every situation yet.
It's likely because they're trying to appeal to old AD&D players. That, or they don't want to write rules and they want you to pay for a book full of not-rules. :p


I'm still trying to figure out who this new system is for.

It's not really for the "balance uber alles" crowd--4e works fine for that.

It's not really for the hardcore optimizers and system redliners--3.5/Pathfinder still seem to be the systems of choice there.

It's not for the old-school players, who are spoiled silly these days with OSR systems.

So who is the core target market for this edition?
What it's for is to sell a new edition and make money. 4E isn't going to make them much money anymore. Their target audience is supposedly all D&D players. They want this to be a magical omni-edition that everyone will like. What's that old adage about trying to please everyone?
My first thought when I heard about 5E was they better choose someone to market to as going after everyone is destined to  please no one.  I was wrong.  I'm actually pleasantly surprised by what is in the Beta document.   I've found things to love and hate in every edition, and so far I'm mostly seeing the positive traits from the past showing up.  So there is a small group of people that this approach actually could please.

It has the basic bones of 3e there so far, but removing level scaling lends more toward 4e balance.  Going light on rules and counting on opposed rolls and Advantage to cover the gaps takes the best mechanical concept from older editions.  If they provide enough fiddly bits like 3e, and fluff/plot mechanics like 2e, I could actually like 5e.

Not that they're fucking telling us nearly enough.  Nor is the Fighter supposed to suck, damn it Mearls!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Necrosnoop110 on May 30, 2012, 01:10:34 AM
It has the basic bones of 3e there so far, ...
That was the vibe I'm getting as well, from what little I've seen. (I've downloaded the playtest)

but removing level scaling lends more toward 4e balance.
How do we know this? Isn't the playtest just low level characters?

Peace,
Necro
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: altpersona on May 30, 2012, 01:32:41 AM
imo, it felt like 4e w/ out the Magic@ cards.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on May 30, 2012, 01:47:23 AM
but removing level scaling lends more toward 4e balance.
How do we know this? Isn't the playtest just low level characters?

Peace,
Necro
That's basically what they've said in the blogs.  Plus in two level ups, no number change directly in the sample characters.  I could be wrong though, I'm not psychic.  At least that's what Dr. Venkman tells me.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: LordBlades on May 30, 2012, 02:18:59 AM
but removing level scaling lends more toward 4e balance.
How do we know this? Isn't the playtest just low level characters?

Peace,
Necro
That's basically what they've said in the blogs.  Plus in two level ups, no number change directly in the sample characters.  I could be wrong though, I'm not psychic.  At least that's what Dr. Venkman tells me.

From what Mearls said last night in his live chat, they are deliberately flattening the advancement curve. they said they want to keep iconic low-level monsters like orcs relevant for longer
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on May 30, 2012, 02:31:52 AM
Please tell me they eventually playtest higher level pc's so as to avoid the 'once the party reaches level x everything goes phbbbttt' problem.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: skydragonknight on May 30, 2012, 05:09:51 AM
My big question will be if/how they implement multiclassing. I understand it can be tricky to balance compared to individual classes, but you just don't get the same level of variety without it.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RobbyPants on May 30, 2012, 08:10:02 AM
It has the basic bones of 3e there so far, but removing level scaling lends more toward 4e balance.  Going light on rules and counting on opposed rolls and Advantage to cover the gaps takes the best mechanical concept from older editions.  If they provide enough fiddly bits like 3e, and fluff/plot mechanics like 2e, I could actually like 5e.
My biggest complaint is that very large sections of the game are pretty much pure MTP. You don't need to buy a game to play MTP. There are sections in there where the rules basically say, describe what you're doing to the DM, and he'll decide if you succeed, fail, or need to roll a check. That's not even a rule.

Also, rogues seem to suffer either from deliberate hate or unintentional lack of understanding of the base rules. A whole bunch of their abilities are pretty much identical to the base rules as-is. It's like they're commoners who decided to go steal stuff.


Please tell me they eventually playtest higher level pc's so as to avoid the 'once the party reaches level x everything goes phbbbttt' problem.
They're saving that for 6th edition.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 30, 2012, 09:17:31 AM
but removing level scaling lends more toward 4e balance.
How do we know this? Isn't the playtest just low level characters?

Peace,
Necro
That's basically what they've said in the blogs.  Plus in two level ups, no number change directly in the sample characters.  I could be wrong though, I'm not psychic.  At least that's what Dr. Venkman tells me.

That's not how 4e worked. In 4e almost everything scales by level.

That's how 1e worked. Numbers scaled much slower, meaning like LordBlades pointed out, a large bunch of grouped orcs/kobolds could still pose a threat to higher level parties, because they would be hiting more than just in nat 20s, and the PC HP wouldn't have scaled that much either.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Rejakor on May 30, 2012, 10:10:09 AM
*In 4e everything FAKED scaling by having every single thing scale by level at equal rates to every other single thing.

Fixed that for you.


So what's the prognosis?  3e style roll resolution, 4e style no multiclassing and MTP number monsters, but no 'powers'?

Sounds like 3e but boring.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: skydragonknight on May 30, 2012, 10:38:16 AM
Sounds like 3e but boring.

Sounds like a conversion method for new players. Teach them Dungeons and Dragons (5E). Then teach them ADVANCED Dungeons and Dragons (3.5).
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 30, 2012, 10:54:50 AM
*In 4e everything FAKED scaling by having every single thing scale by level at equal rates to every other single thing.

Fixed that for you.

Not  true when it came to monster combat. The 4e DMG recommended to throw fewer higher-level enemies or several lower levels enemies than the party level, as long as there wasn't a 5-level discrepancy in either way. So when you leveled up, you may end up facing more kobolds instead of stronger kobolds. That's why there's "final boss" monsters over level 30, even tough the party can only go up to level 30.

True to everything else there tough. One of the things that annoyed me more in 4e was that all the doors in the world magically turned to reinforced adamantine if you were high level enough.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Rejakor on May 30, 2012, 12:26:45 PM
within that 5 level variance, though, the world entirely scaled with you.

including your attack score to their defense bonus.  so it was just 'roll a 5 vs 'easy' enemies, roll a 10 vs 'normal' enemies, or roll a 15 vs 'hard' enemies'.. nothing changes from level 1 onwards = no customization.  I could magic tea party better numbers than that.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Halinn on May 30, 2012, 03:48:21 PM
within that 5 level variance, though, the world entirely scaled with you.

including your attack score to their defense bonus.  so it was just 'roll a 5 vs 'easy' enemies, roll a 10 vs 'normal' enemies, or roll a 15 vs 'hard' enemies'.. nothing changes from level 1 onwards = no customization.  I could magic tea party better numbers than that.
As I understand things, after the inevitable power creep of having to make new feats and magic items in new books, the numbers for PCs improved.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on May 30, 2012, 03:53:25 PM

... Nor is the "Fighter" supposed to suck ...


Fixed that.
Fighter is supposed to suck.
"Fighter" is supposed to not suck.
 :tongue
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on May 30, 2012, 04:40:53 PM
You have no idea how tempted I am at this moment to create and trademark the Magic Tea Party system and then sue any game company that dares to use "Just make it up!" for using my proprietary content.  ;)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 30, 2012, 05:09:26 PM
within that 5 level variance, though, the world entirely scaled with you.

including your attack score to their defense bonus.  so it was just 'roll a 5 vs 'easy' enemies, roll a 10 vs 'normal' enemies, or roll a 15 vs 'hard' enemies'.. nothing changes from level 1 onwards = no customization.  I could magic tea party better numbers than that.
As I understand things, after the inevitable power creep of having to make new feats and magic items in new books, the numbers for PCs improved.

Almost. The thing was, in the first 4e books, the monster stats actually scaled faster than the PC ones, even taking in acount equipment, so by the end of the game you weren't  hiting anything unless you had some Leader buffing the hell out of you. So they then started said power creep. Still kinda fail since the numbers were suposed to add up from the start.

You have no idea how tempted I am at this moment to create and trademark the Magic Tea Party system and then sue any game company that dares to use "Just make it up!" for using my proprietary content.  ;)
Silly boy, you can't trademark something that's obvious/common sense. :p

No, seriously, the laws says you need to prove other people just couldn't naturally do it by themselves in order to trademark it. Someone at a time tried to trademark "reboot your comp when it crashes", and the patent companies basically told him to go screw himself.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on June 04, 2012, 04:08:25 PM
Having looked over the packet, I'd say that I'm cautiously excited to see what 5e brings us.  My playgroup mostly consists of people who learned 3.5 from a person who learned 3.5 from a person who learned 3.5 from a person who read the books, so we already play a little bit with the hard-and-fast rules.  Moreover, since I generally have to wrap up a campaign in only a single semester, I only get ten sessions to a campaign...which means that characters level up blindingly fast.  I also only get three to four hours for a session, so literally half of the campaign generally works out to being combat.

The lessened book-keeping and flatter scaling curves of 5e will definitely make it easier to keep a world coherent within these restrictions.  Less book-keeping means faster combats, which means more out-of-combat gaming.  Flatter scaling curves mean that I don't need to worry about the villains--or the player characters!--having glaringly inconsistent power levels.

Judging solely from the playtest packet, things in general are going to be simpler.  Building and leveling characters will be faster.  It looks to me like the system invites you to focus more on the game, rather than the meta-game.  And I'm really okay with that.  I want to focus on my character, not my character sheet.

Obviously, I can't make any sweeping judgments of the system as a whole--I still can't figure out how the math works on Tordek's attack and damage bonuses or Mialee's attack bonus.  However, I can say that I already have a strong suspicion that I'll be making the switch.  Most of the things that I love about 3.5 have made the cut, and a lot of the things I dislike about 3.5 seem to have disappeared...for now.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on June 04, 2012, 04:36:43 PM

No, seriously, the laws says you need to prove other people just couldn't naturally do it by themselves in order to trademark it. Someone at a time tried to trademark "reboot your comp when it crashes", and the patent companies basically told him to go screw himself.



Damn.  So you're saying that my pending patent application for the wheel and all of its various applications probably isn't going to fly, then?

Back to the drawing board...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: sirpercival on June 04, 2012, 04:53:20 PM

No, seriously, the laws says you need to prove other people just couldn't naturally do it by themselves in order to trademark it. Someone at a time tried to trademark "reboot your comp when it crashes", and the patent companies basically told him to go screw himself.



Damn.  So you're saying that my pending patent application for the wheel and all of its various applications probably isn't going to fly, then?

Back to the drawing board...

Sorry, I hold the patent for "the drawing board".
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Prime32 on June 04, 2012, 04:59:54 PM
Damn.  So you're saying that my pending patent application for the wheel and all of its various applications probably isn't going to fly, then?

Back to the drawing board...
I think someone managed to patent that in Australia a few years back...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on June 04, 2012, 06:02:15 PM
Judging solely from the playtest packet, things in general are going to be simpler.  Building and leveling characters will be faster.  It looks to me like the system invites you to focus more on the game, rather than the meta-game.  And I'm really okay with that.  I want to focus on my character, not my character sheet.

Then you may like this news (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604).

Basically, bonus to to-hit and AC will be pretty rare, what  scales is mostly damage and HP. So suposedly you won't have to worry anymore of keeping up with most numbers on your sheets, because what you get at first level, is what you're gonna use for most of your career.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on June 04, 2012, 06:31:42 PM
Then you may like this news (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604).

Basically, bonus to to-hit and AC will be pretty rare, what  scales is mostly damage and HP. So supposedly you won't have to worry anymore of keeping up with most numbers on your sheets, because what you get at first level, is what you're gonna use for most of your career.

<.<  >.>  Not sure if want...
On the one hand, it means you don't have to hunt down every last bonus to AC and to hit just to stay relevant.  On the other hand, it means that a level 20 character will have just as much trouble hitting a goblin as he did at level 1.  Even if he kills it in one hit now, it might still take 4 swings just to connect. 

Also, they snuck in a few bits towards the end that are really telling, and I rather dislike. 
They say that the goal is to make it easy for DMs to make rulings for improvised scenarios, implying that such scenarios should be expected to come up often.  In my opinion, there should be explicit rules for 95% of situations, because it prevents DM abuse and unifies the experience between gaming groups.  For example, what if at one table a DM decides that jumping over a pit is a feat of heroic strength, and has his players roll a strength check to jump over it.  Then the next group over decides that jumping over a pit is a very agile and acrobatic thing, and has the PCs make Dex checks to clear the chasm.  If there isn't a clear rule for what kind of skill jumping is, then this situation is not only possible but likely. 
Second, they say "Now, we want to avoid situations where DMs feel bound by the numbers. ("Hey," says the player, "you said it was an iron-bound wooden door and I rolled a 17, what do you mean I didn't break it down?")"  This closely relates to the issue above, in that different groups aren't even playing the same game any more.  They're giving too much power to the DM - if you were playing in a group with a perfect DM, this wouldn't be a bad thing, but in my experience it just leads to railroading, the illusion of choice, and other DM douchebaggery. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on June 04, 2012, 07:20:38 PM
On the one hand, it means you don't have to hunt down every last bonus to AC and to hit just to stay relevant.  On the other hand, it means that a level 20 character will have just as much trouble hitting a goblin as he did at level 1.  Even if he kills it in one hit now, it might still take 4 swings just to connect.

Yeah, but it's worth remembering that four swings is still less than thirty seconds.

They say that the goal is to make it easy for DMs to make rulings for improvised scenarios, implying that such scenarios should be expected to come up often.  In my opinion, there should be explicit rules for 95% of situations, because it prevents DM abuse and unifies the experience between gaming groups.  For example, what if at one table a DM decides that jumping over a pit is a feat of heroic strength, and has his players roll a strength check to jump over it.  Then the next group over decides that jumping over a pit is a very agile and acrobatic thing, and has the PCs make Dex checks to clear the chasm.  If there isn't a clear rule for what kind of skill jumping is, then this situation is not only possible but likely.

I read that section as having to do with determining the DC of a check, not the ability score associated with it.  In fact, in the "How to Play" document, "leaping over a chasm" is listed under the checks associated with the Strength score.

Second, they say "Now, we want to avoid situations where DMs feel bound by the numbers. ("Hey," says the player, "you said it was an iron-bound wooden door and I rolled a 17, what do you mean I didn't break it down?")"  This closely relates to the issue above, in that different groups aren't even playing the same game any more.  They're giving too much power to the DM - if you were playing in a group with a perfect DM, this wouldn't be a bad thing, but in my experience it just leads to railroading, the illusion of choice, and other DM douchebaggery.

At the same time, if the DM is convinced that the door is that difficult to break down, he could just apply situational modifiers in D&D 3.5.  The sort of DM who won't let you through the door no matter what is going to hold that position no matter the system.  It's a question of how much time you want to spend establishing that you cannot get past the door: Do you want to spend half an hour attempting all kinds of shenanigans, or do you want to make a few checks and establish that the door is firmly shut?

This one is actually very close to how I already run skills, since I don't feel like restricting players to the list of skill uses.  For example, in my last campaign, an important NPC had his heart ripped out.  This would not necessarily be a problem, except that the Archivist only had access to raise dead at the time.  While most of the party mourns the loss of a rather important political figure, the Artificer/Renegade Mastermaker turns to me and asks: "Wait, can I just...sort of...make him a new one?"  I was unable to find any Craft DCs for making a heart, but--by the gods--she was slowly replacing her body with machinery.  How could I not allow it?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on June 04, 2012, 10:34:18 PM

They say that the goal is to make it easy for DMs to make rulings for improvised scenarios, implying that such scenarios should be expected to come up often.  In my opinion, there should be explicit rules for 95% of situations, because it prevents DM abuse and unifies the experience between gaming groups.  For example, what if at one table a DM decides that jumping over a pit is a feat of heroic strength, and has his players roll a strength check to jump over it.  Then the next group over decides that jumping over a pit is a very agile and acrobatic thing, and has the PCs make Dex checks to clear the chasm.  If there isn't a clear rule for what kind of skill jumping is, then this situation is not only possible but likely.


Is that necessarily a bad thing?  The flip side to that is, "Hey, my character's a world-class acrobat!"  "Yes, but the rules clearly state that Jumping can only be a Strength check."

 
Quote
Second, they say "Now, we want to avoid situations where DMs feel bound by the numbers. ("Hey," says the player, "you said it was an iron-bound wooden door and I rolled a 17, what do you mean I didn't break it down?")"  This closely relates to the issue above, in that different groups aren't even playing the same game any more.  They're giving too much power to the DM - if you were playing in a group with a perfect DM, this wouldn't be a bad thing, but in my experience it just leads to railroading, the illusion of choice, and other DM douchebaggery.


If you don't trust your DM, the game's going to fail, period.  I don't care how many thousands of pages of explicit rules the game has.  Either you trust the DM to run his game and make calls appropriate to that game, or you get a new DM. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on June 04, 2012, 11:56:06 PM
It's a bad thing because the character you make should be viable at any table, not just with DMs who base acrobatics off Dexterity.  If you want to make a character who is a world class acrobat, then the rules of the game should tell you how such a character should look.  I should be able to create a character at home, and bring him to any table, and not have him be subject to the DM's idea of how the world works for his core mechanic to function. 

Obviously, if you don't trust your DM to not be a dick then you should find a new game.  My problem is that the rules of the game are written in such a way as to encourage new DMs to make up rules on the spot, and to just say no to things that are "inappropriate" or "impossible".  That's all well and good for veteran DMs who have the experience necessary to know what kind of rulings would benefit the game as a whole and know what actions should automatically fail, but for new DMs that's horrible advice. 

I look at the rules they presented in the playtest and fear for the people that are going to be turned away from the hobby because their DM was an asshat and abused his power.  Power corrupts, and this rules set makes it remarkably easy for new DMs to fall into that trap. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Sinfire Titan on June 05, 2012, 12:05:30 AM
It's a bad thing because the character you make should be viable at any table, not just with DMs who base acrobatics off Dexterity.

I would like to point out that this mentality can cause issues as well. Each DM is going to run the game differently in order to match his personal preferences. Hopefully this means being generally helpful to the players while having a steady hand, but you never know. I've read a couple of horror stories on SA's TG section that involved players bringing in characters from another DM's campaign because the DM they wanted to play under was dumb enough to allow it, and none of those ended happily.


I know, I know, slippery slope.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Jackinthegreen on June 05, 2012, 12:57:29 AM
It's a bad thing because the character you make should be viable at any table, not just with DMs who base acrobatics off Dexterity.

I would like to point out that this mentality can cause issues as well. Each DM is going to run the game differently in order to match his personal preferences. Hopefully this means being generally helpful to the players while having a steady hand, but you never know. I've read a couple of horror stories on SA's TG section that involved players bringing in characters from another DM's campaign because the DM they wanted to play under was dumb enough to allow it, and none of those ended happily.


I know, I know, slippery slope.

Slippery slope mostly because there's so much difference between the crappy characters and the truly powerful ones in 3.P.  I have yet to hear of a DM disallowing a 4.0 character, but that likely has more to do with my lack of 4.0 investment than anything else.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on June 05, 2012, 01:32:20 AM
Judging solely from the playtest packet, things in general are going to be simpler.  Building and leveling characters will be faster.  It looks to me like the system invites you to focus more on the game, rather than the meta-game.  And I'm really okay with that.  I want to focus on my character, not my character sheet.

Then you may like this news (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604).

Basically, bonus to to-hit and AC will be pretty rare, what  scales is mostly damage and HP. So suposedly you won't have to worry anymore of keeping up with most numbers on your sheets, because what you get at first level, is what you're gonna use for most of your career.
That is basically what 4e was shooting for.  Only by doing away with the window dressing of bonuses increasing over levels this time, they eliminate the risk of another major math fuck up.  And feat taxes to patch the error.


The next playtest survey was sent out last week, if anyone hasn't checked their mail.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Rejakor on June 05, 2012, 07:29:36 AM
I love how in this thread people are listening to the things mike mearls is saying he's going to do/has done, and assuming he actually succeeded at that.

I'm pretty sure all this marketing buzzword talk of 'simplifying' and 'tailoring to your, specific, the client needs' and whatnot is just going to be a messy set of half a set of straitjacket rules, and a half set of plum nothing, 'make it up yourseeeeelllfffff' style, and the absolute worst of both worlds.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on June 05, 2012, 06:49:10 PM
It's a bad thing because the character you make should be viable at any table, not just with DMs who base acrobatics off Dexterity.  If you want to make a character who is a world class acrobat, then the rules of the game should tell you how such a character should look.  I should be able to create a character at home, and bring him to any table, and not have him be subject to the DM's idea of how the world works for his core mechanic to function. 


You've just summed up the design philosophy behind first edition AD&D.  It's a nice theory, but it's never really worked out in practice--mainly because it's impossible to write a truly comprehensive set of rules for something as inherently open-ended as a tabletop roleplaying game.

Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on June 05, 2012, 07:04:34 PM
I love how in this thread people are listening to the things mike mearls is saying he's going to do/has done, and assuming he actually succeeded at that.

I'm pretty sure all this marketing buzzword talk of 'simplifying' and 'tailoring to your, specific, the client needs' and whatnot is just going to be a messy set of half a set of straitjacket rules, and a half set of plum nothing, 'make it up yourseeeeelllfffff' style, and the absolute worst of both worlds.

Uh... a lot of us, maybe most of us, have agreed that it seems like a super messy stance to take, from the beginning of this thread. Now, we're talking about the playtest materials, in which a lot of stuff is messy, something we've also acknowledged, but y'know, some stuff is actually neat. I don't know where you're getting that this thread is some Mike Mearls circle jerk. I think you might literally be the first person to bring his name into this thread.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Demelain on June 07, 2012, 08:50:41 AM
As a counterpoint to "DMs making stuff up is bad", I'd like to point out that the inverse is also frequently true among less-gentlemanly groups. My groups once came close to imploding because the DM did not anticipate our party killing a caravan of nomad traders - the goods were negligible in value, the sticking point came when one of our players pointed out the (previously established) number of camels in the caravan. We went to sell them, and the DM lowered their price to keep us in line with the wealth that the campaign was set up for. But this guy just wouldn't have it - he had read Sandstorm and KNEW how much a camel was worth. It turned into a huge thing between him and the DM, over "cheating, railroading DM" and "metagaming jackass".
Quite frankly there are things that the players absolutely don't need to know. Should the players have a reasonably accurate idea of how hard something is? Yes. But the DM also needs to be able to adjust these things to suit his campaign.
More importantly for new DMs (which appears to be a main point of contention with the loose rules) is that you emphasize the collaborative nature of the game. I talk to my players after every session to get an idea of which parts they liked, disliked, and any mechanics they felt were too unbalanced (one way or the other). Was it hard to get them to do this at first? Very. But after the near schism between my friend (at the time DM) and my cousin (rules take priority), I wanted to head off possible problems by establishing a time and reputation for impartial feedback.
Tl;dr Being a new DM will always suck, the answer isn't straight-jacketing his rules, the answer is accelerating his training towards veteran DM.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 07, 2012, 10:59:03 AM
It's important to distinguish between things your character would almost assuredly know that you, the player, might not, and things that might be annoying metagame-wise. 

An example of the former is "can I jump this chasm?"  Is it trivial for me, difficult, risky?  That's something any heroic protagonist just knows.  And, it's something you, the player, need to know to actually play the game.  Not just in a sense of not wanting your treasured PC to plummet to their doom for no reason.  But, in the sense that without that kind of knowledge there's no sense of drama or storytelling. 

Furthermore, things like that are necessary to distinguish characters from each other.  Batman is stealthy as all hell and good at breaking and entering.  Superman is not.  We need these things reflected in their character sheets.  d20 does this in a pretty straightforward way.  Batman's stealth skill rolls are so high relative to the average person that he'll virtually never fail (and he has Skill Mastery for added insurance).  I can say my character is a "master thief" b/c when I look at his Open Locks skill and compare it to the DCs of locks, I know that he can reliably beat them.  I know that my Ranger can track like Aragorn b/c of the rough DCs described in the DMG, or that my Ninja is a master acrobat b/c he can walk a tightrope in the rain while blindfolded. 

This is one of the great strengths of the d20 system (WoD, for instance, sort of sucks at it). 

@Demelain's Story
In my humble opinion both DM and player were metagaming.  Assuming the PC had been hanging around in a desert environment, most likely guarding caravans, for any period of time, knowing the price of a camel is not exactly secret knowledge.  It's not like quoting the save DCs of various monster abilities or anything.  It's common knowledge in that environment.  The DM was metagaming by using a very heavy-handed WBL approach.  He could have more subtly corrected it as time went on.  Or, he could, I suppose, have argued that they were flooding the market for camels, and therefore driving the prices down, though that'd have to be an awful lot of camels to do it. 

Where the player fell down was that he was, I assume, not playing his character.  He was playing a murderous psychopath, and a petty one at that.  I mean, had he just adventured for a while he would have made a lot more money than a bunch of camels. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Demelain on June 07, 2012, 01:33:00 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever
 

Where the player fell down was that he was, I assume, not playing his character.  He was playing a murderous psychopath, and a petty one at that.  I mean, had he just adventured for a while he would have made a lot more money than a bunch of camels.

To be fair, he was in fact playing a NE Cleric of Nerull "that hears murderous whispers". My main point of contention was that he felt the need to argue the value of the camels with the DM, because he knew what half a camel was worth (Camels! If you need to break expected wbl, I can spontaneously create walls of permanent salt). The DM went from "they're used camels" to "it's a lot of camels, you should be glad he's willing to buy so many at once" to "listen, I'm not ready hell you to have that much money" and we finally reached "let go of the camel shit or get the fuck out". We spent six hours arguing the price of camels, economics, rule zero and metagaming.
If anything good came out of the episode, it's crazy Hassan, used camel merchant.
we're begining to diverge from the topic, though, so..

In short, I think there need to be hard rules for basics of skill checks (jumping X feet) but not necessarily for all modifiers (scree, an unfavorable wind, your mum cheering for you, etc.). The rules definitly don't need to explicitly define 95% of the possible situations. I am comfortable with WotC's first playtest. It has most of the needed rules for the included adventure, and hopefully through feedback they'll hear not only how the skeleton skill system is work but ALSO how DMs ruled in cases that the rules didn't cover, hopefully including the most common/successful methods into their base rules.
I for one am cautiously optimistic for DDN.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 07, 2012, 02:23:58 PM
^ totally agree with this.  And, again, d20 is nice about this.  You have a rough sense that a circumstance bonus is usually +/-2 (side note, I really wish DMs, including myself, would bust out with a +2 circumstance modifier sometime, I always just see penalties), scaling up to +/-5 for extreme circumstances. 

I think circumstance mods are the great untapped resource of the d20 system.  But, in a lot of ways they aren't needed -- various feats and spells have their own built-in scree-types of effects. 


P.S.:  I feel for you.  I've had a similar marathon gab session over a Rifts game of all things, and the rest of us at the table were just all "get on with it already!"
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on July 17, 2012, 10:20:04 AM
Still completely missing the point (https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120716)

Quote
As an example of the differences between casters and other characters, a wizard is far more powerful in comparison to a fighter if every monster you expect to fight during an adventure charges the group at once. A fireball damages almost every critter, and web catches them all in its grasp. Meanwhile, the fighter and rogue work through a few enemies at a time. When you compress fights, a wizard's and cleric's combat spells become much more powerful.

In comparison, imagine if the party fought one monster at a time. The wizard might never opt to cast a spell, since something such as fireball is less effective overall if it blasts only one critter. The fighter, on the other hand, can cut a swathe through the party's enemies, hacking them down one at a time.
You'd think they'd have worked this out during 4E itself already.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on July 18, 2012, 05:19:54 AM
Still completely missing the point (https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120716)

Quote
As an example of the differences between casters and other characters, a wizard is far more powerful in comparison to a fighter if every monster you expect to fight during an adventure charges the group at once. A fireball damages almost every critter, and web catches them all in its grasp. Meanwhile, the fighter and rogue work through a few enemies at a time. When you compress fights, a wizard's and cleric's combat spells become much more powerful.

In comparison, imagine if the party fought one monster at a time. The wizard might never opt to cast a spell, since something such as fireball is less effective overall if it blasts only one critter. The fighter, on the other hand, can cut a swathe through the party's enemies, hacking them down one at a time.
You'd think they'd have worked this out during 4E itself already.
(http://chzgifs.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/funny-gifs-and-headdesk.gif)
Fail, just fail.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: littha on July 18, 2012, 07:31:17 AM
It is not even a complicated fix on the part of damage spells... Just make damaging spells divide the damage between targets. You could even have rules for making the area smaller so that you could throw a more intense fireball at a single target or the big explody one at a whole group.

You would still need to tune the damage, ideally the wizard is doing less damage total per attack than the fighter but has the option to hit multiple targets.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on July 18, 2012, 05:27:06 PM
My computer warned me that the WotC page with the article had insecure content.

Seriously, Wizards, at least make sure your site is safe enough to visit first!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: chinchillaofdoom on July 19, 2012, 10:11:40 PM
  At least this time they didnt have their board mods furiously denying they were even contemplating the idea of a new edition One minute before the announcement, like they did for 4th ed...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on July 20, 2012, 02:54:46 AM
5E Interview (http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/07/15/2129225/slashdots-rob-rozeboom-interviews-dd-designer-mike-mearls-video)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on July 20, 2012, 05:00:55 AM
Its pretty bad if the designer is saying "The feel of the rules is always going to trump the mathematical soundness or the asthetics of them.".

Thats whats important to GMs and Players. Designers are supposed to be handling the mechanical soundness.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: dipolartech on July 20, 2012, 08:01:03 AM
the comments are grognard vs 3.X vs 4E still, I didn't see anybody (maybe one poster) arguing for 5E....
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on July 20, 2012, 01:38:04 PM
Its pretty bad if the designer is saying "The feel of the rules is always going to trump the mathematical soundness or the asthetics of them.".

Thats whats important to GMs and Players. Designers are supposed to be handling the mechanical soundness.
I can only agree with that.  Ideally, I'd get to focus on the feel, etc. b/c someone would have done all the hard "under the hood" work.  That's what I'm paying them for, isn't it? 

The more and more I hear about 5E the more it feels like a slow-motion train wreck.  I will be happy to be proven wrong, just not expecting to be.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on July 20, 2012, 02:29:24 PM
You should have seen their latest survey then: "What spells(big array of core 4E and 3.5 spells for clr/wiz) are most important to the feel of D&D"
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on July 20, 2012, 02:33:18 PM
I was pleased by the fact that about 90% of the spells were 3.5 (or at least had the same names as 3.5 spells.  I think most of them originated in 1 or 2e.)
I wonder if they'll get my hint that only 2 of the Wizard spells I picked were from the Evocation school (Magic Missile and Fireball)?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on July 24, 2012, 02:21:05 PM
While I have been being pretty optimistic about the 5e system, I'm really disappointed by the description of the monster creation process.  It just feels too arbitrary to me.

Unless there are tables somewhere that include target numbers for different difficulty levels, of course.  That would address most of my issues with it.  Though I'd also like monster special abilities to be codified by power in some manner.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Necrosnoop110 on July 25, 2012, 09:05:21 AM
LINK: Slashdot's Rob Rozeboom Interviews D&D Designer Mike Mearls (video) (http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/07/15/2129225/slashdots-rob-rozeboom-interviews-dd-designer-mike-mearls-video?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on July 25, 2012, 09:44:04 AM
RPG Codex Interview: Mike Mearls on Dungeons & Dragons and D&D Next (http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=8309)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on July 25, 2012, 10:09:15 AM
LINK: Slashdot's Rob Rozeboom Interviews D&D Designer Mike Mearls (video) (http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/07/15/2129225/slashdots-rob-rozeboom-interviews-dd-designer-mike-mearls-video?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29)
Little late on this, but:

Quote from: Mike Mearls
And I think that the feel of the rules is always gonna trump like the mathematical soundness and the aesthetics of them.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on July 25, 2012, 10:38:02 AM
well that quote shoots down most hopes i have
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: dipolartech on July 25, 2012, 10:39:28 AM
Little late on this, but:

Quote from: Mike Mearls
And I think that the feel of the rules is always gonna trump like the mathematical soundness and the aesthetics of them.

Anybody got any idea what that means? The "feel" of the rules? The "aesthetics" of the rules? I'm but last I checked I can't "touch" the rules of D&D, yes I can experience by putting them in play sure, but what the hell is "aesthetics" of the rules? Maybe he doesn't know what that word means?

Does he mean to say that no matter how good or bad the math of the game is he's just shooting to have people enjoy the experience of Daddy DM tell them a story? Given his other comments it does seem that he's leaning back to the "DM is the adjudicator of everything no matter what" which is like what I hear about 2e style play.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: caelic on July 25, 2012, 11:22:14 AM
I'm sort of baffled by that, myself.  What is the "feel" of the rules that's somehow distinct from both the mechanics AND the aesthetics of said rules?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Morph Bark on July 25, 2012, 11:40:04 AM
The mathematical soundness is easy: how well the system works.

Aesthetics: probably how easy they are to implement, as some systems are mechanically sound, but very complicated, which is often put to be "ugly", thus undesireable.

Feel: certainly the vaguest part. I assume he means how they come across in actual play. This is therefore also very subjective and thus a bad idea to aim for as primary goal (secondary, sure). E.g. I think incarnum is great in play and generally pretty awesome as a concept, but it certainly is 3.5's most complicated subsystem. It's mechanical soundness is on par with ToB and the Binder tough, with a few problems, as with many things in 3.5.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on July 25, 2012, 11:51:42 AM
RPG Codex Interview: Mike Mearls on Dungeons & Dragons and D&D Next (http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=8309)

This interview is a bit more encouraging. He sounds more like he knows what he's talking about. But I am left to wonder:

Quote from: Mike Mearls
One of our design goals is to create a unique mechanic for every class. I’m really happy with how our new fighter mechanic turned out[...]

What the fuck is the "new fighter mechanic?" Is it Weapon Focus? Is it Fighter's Surge? Please don't tell me it's "Fighters get two Themes!" Or is it something that we weren't shown in the initial playtest?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Risada on July 25, 2012, 12:05:52 PM
This interview is a bit more encouraging. He sounds more like he knows what he's talking about. But I am left to wonder:

Quote from: Mike Mearls
One of our design goals is to create a unique mechanic for every class. I’m really happy with how our new fighter mechanic turned out[...]

What the fuck is the "new fighter mechanic?" Is it Weapon Focus? Is it Fighter's Surge? Please don't tell me it's "Fighters get two Themes!" Or is it something that we weren't shown in the initial playtest?

I think your last option seems more likely.

I guess it's about time for an update on the rules they chose to show us...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Prime32 on July 25, 2012, 12:53:41 PM
Quote from: Mike Mearls
And I think that the feel of the rules is always gonna trump like the mathematical soundness and the aesthetics of them.
The "feel" being different from the "aesthetics" baffled me too. Best I can guess is that aesthetics is something to do with fitting fluff (eg. not giving fighters the ability to teleport).
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on July 25, 2012, 02:05:05 PM
Well, given that "feel" is being described as something to trump "aesthetics," I wouldn't be surprised if aesthetics has to do with the elegance of wording.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on July 26, 2012, 04:17:31 PM
I can see aesthetics as being elegance from a design perspective, while feel has more to do with creating enjoyable gameplay experiences. Assuming these definitions, I've been struggling with balancing these two things. For instance, I'm working on a system where granularity is becoming a problem - rolling enough dice to make the statistics elegant and keep scaling based on nice numbers seems to typically lead to rolling too many dice and having to do too much arithmetic at the table.

Some other examples:

Unknown Armies is a percentile game about which I've ranted repeatedly, but for those not in the know, the system mechanics in play seem to work fine (in that they function, and the game is so freeform that it's hard to blame the system for anything but negligence in my experience), but from a design perspective, I'm constantly irritated. Their percentile system has you wanting the highest value below a given target number, and it has several such ranges from critical success to excellent success to success to failure to critical failure. Critical success is the lowest possible roll, and critical failure is the highest possible roll. Aesthetically, I think it would be preferable if you always wanted the lowest roll, or else if you always wanted the highest roll. You could accomplish the former by maintaining the current order of results and simply saying that better results are lower within those ranges as well, or by reversing the order of the ranges and saying that rolling higher within each range is best. The statistics are the same in any case, but this is purely an aesthetics issue.

The d20 system is a great idea from an aesthetics point of view, because it bases the entire system on a single mechanic - everything else is built up from that. In fact, the areas that aren't d20-based stand out as kind of strange (hit dice and damage rolls, in particular), but they're necessary in order to keep the game's feel supported. Reducing everything to the same die (with modifiers that may vary) makes the game feel monotonous, so you have to keep those differences somewhere, even if it's less elegant overall.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on July 26, 2012, 11:50:42 PM
This interview is a bit more encouraging. He sounds more like he knows what he's talking about. But I am left to wonder:

Quote from: Mike Mearls
One of our design goals is to create a unique mechanic for every class. I’m really happy with how our new fighter mechanic turned out[...]

What the fuck is the "new fighter mechanic?" Is it Weapon Focus? Is it Fighter's Surge? Please don't tell me it's "Fighters get two Themes!" Or is it something that we weren't shown in the initial playtest?
There better be something, because so far the Fighter isn't a class.  The Fighter is merely an ability array.  Lay any other class out the same way and you get virtually the same character.  Only with, you know, class abilities.
I think your last option seems more likely.

I guess it's about time for an update on the rules they chose to show us...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on July 30, 2012, 02:42:21 AM
Fighters getting Something I guess (https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120730)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Risada on July 30, 2012, 07:37:00 AM
Fighters getting Something I guess (https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120730)

I don't know... with only that it is still not clear enough what the Fighter can do. He may have a few tricks, but is that the only thing they are going to receive?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: sirpercival on July 30, 2012, 07:37:34 AM
Sounds like they really like the Nord's Blade.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: brujon on July 31, 2012, 03:13:17 AM
You know, sometimes i wonder if the D&D designers monitor this forum... If i worked into D&D R&D i'd most certainly monitor this & GITP for the thoughts of the *active* gaming community, you know, people who take it seriously as a hobby and are wont to discussing it well into the late hours of the night with people whom they never saw or know the real names of when they had to work and do stuff all day. The technical know-how of some of the posters here are amazing, the wealth of information, too. It preserved the best of the d20 optimization community from Wizards, and to my knowledge, remains one of the largest D&D communities extant.

Anyone has any clue if they do?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Prime32 on July 31, 2012, 09:55:53 AM
Do you really think they'd want us to know if they did? :p

(Seriously, there's a reason the WotC boards had that "we own stuff posted here" clause; if, say, the writer of the 5e fighter admitted to having read the Nord's Blade then it could result in a lawsuit)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on July 31, 2012, 12:45:09 PM
This combat superiority mechanic seems very clunky, what with adding an additional dice roll to each turn AND a set of decisions made by the player each turn based on the randomness of that roll. I really don't like it at all.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: skydragonknight on July 31, 2012, 07:31:57 PM
Still sounds easier than casting mechanics. Have a couple dice by your d20 (putting them in the visual category of 'dice you may use at any moment') and roll them every now and then, setting them aside. Then when it's your turn they go back to the d20's side. I know I've played a game somewhere with similar mechanics, and I don't recall any difficulty with picking up the routine.

Design-wise, it's a compromise between giving the player things to do and keeping the Fighter as the 'generic beatstick'. I'm not saying we couldn't do better but I like the fact that they feel threatened enough by the competition and their loss of market share that they are putting some amount of effort into this.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on August 01, 2012, 12:07:09 AM
Well, its something.  It probably won't amount to enough, but its better than the big fat nothing they had before.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: phaedrusxy on August 01, 2012, 01:51:17 PM
My god... now you guys have me really curious... I can't read the WotC boards online from work! Is the 5E fighter really taking notes from the Nord's Blade?  :??? I love that class!  :tongue
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on August 01, 2012, 02:14:00 PM
Well, its something.  It probably won't amount to enough, but its better than the big fat nothing they had before.

I'm honestly not sure it is. What says "superiority" better than a randomly determined set of "options" with randomly calculated effectiveness? Oh. Oh, wait, that doesn't sound superior at all. At least before he dealt a lot of damage, but now it sounds like Weapon Focus will be taken away for this bizarre mechanic.

The more I think about this mechanic the more it pisses me off. It's clunky and it should be replaced with a simpler, more effective, more elegant mechanic.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on August 01, 2012, 04:35:18 PM
The more I think about this mechanic the more it pisses me off. It's clunky and it should be replaced with a simpler, more effective, more elegant mechanic.

Well, the system is still in development.  A step forward is a step forward, even if you step in dog droppings.  You can always clean off your shoe and keep walking.

(Let us hope and pray that Wizards of the Coast wears shoes.)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: phaedrusxy on August 02, 2012, 03:24:50 PM
The more I think about this mechanic the more it pisses me off. It's clunky and it should be replaced with a simpler, more effective, more elegant mechanic.

Well, the system is still in development.  A step forward is a step forward, even if you step in dog droppings.  You can always clean off your shoe and keep walking.

(Let us hope and pray that Wizards of the Coast wears shoes.)
Well, they are the Wizards of the Coast. Not the Hobbits of the Coast. So they should be safe. :D
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on August 06, 2012, 11:05:21 AM
Update on the "incoming" second playtest packet: https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120806 (https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120806)

Anyone else read this and get the feeling that, actually, they don't have any more of the game rules designed than they showed us for the first playtest packet?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on August 06, 2012, 11:59:47 AM
Update on the "incoming" second playtest packet: https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120806 (https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120806)

Anyone else read this and get the feeling that, actually, they don't have any more of the game rules designed than they showed us for the first playtest packet?
Pretty much. Also, this little gem:

Quote
Second, we’ve given the rogue the ability to use the higher of either a +3 bonus or an ability score modifier when using a skill in which the rogue is trained. This simple change reflects that a rogue’s expertise transcends natural talent. It also means that we can have Wisdom 8 rogues who are good at finding traps.
Isn't that part of the reason not to dump Wisdom on a rogue?

Of course, their RNG is kind of broken already, so whatever.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on August 06, 2012, 01:03:29 PM
Yeah. I'm fairly quickly losing all faith in 5e. If the next playtest packet doesn't bring significantly cleaned up material alongside a significant amount of new material, then I honestly can't see myself having the patience to wait for the playtester designed edition of D&D.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on August 06, 2012, 03:34:27 PM
Update on the "incoming" second playtest packet: https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120806 (https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120806)

Anyone else read this and get the feeling that, actually, they don't have any more of the game rules designed than they showed us for the first playtest packet?

I'm not sure.  He starts off by saying that he's following up on an earlier post that talked about the biggest issues that came up with the first playtest.  While I'm not saying that there will be any more rules, I'm also not willing to agree that there won't be.  They might want to gauge our reaction when the material hits, rather than making vague statements that will inspire objections.

Quote
Second, we’ve given the rogue the ability to use the higher of either a +3 bonus or an ability score modifier when using a skill in which the rogue is trained. This simple change reflects that a rogue’s expertise transcends natural talent. It also means that we can have Wisdom 8 rogues who are good at finding traps.
Isn't that part of the reason not to dump Wisdom on a rogue?

Of course, their RNG is kind of broken already, so whatever.

Well, I see it as an issue of breaking point.  If your ability score modifier would be higher than +3, you're better at finding traps.  So, a rogue who doesn't dump Wisdom could be better at finding traps than one who does, but the Wisdom-dumping rogue can still find some traps.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on August 06, 2012, 03:54:41 PM
Update on the "incoming" second playtest packet: https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120806 (https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120806)

Anyone else read this and get the feeling that, actually, they don't have any more of the game rules designed than they showed us for the first playtest packet?

I'm not sure.  He starts off by saying that he's following up on an earlier post that talked about the biggest issues that came up with the first playtest.  While I'm not saying that there will be any more rules, I'm also not willing to agree that there won't be.  They might want to gauge our reaction when the material hits, rather than making vague statements that will inspire objections.

No, I'm not trying to say that they won't, eventually, have more rules than we saw in the first playtest. I'm pretty sure they will. The problem I'm having is that it seems like they have been working on this for, I don't know, over a year let's say, and that it's starting to look like the first playtest packet is as far as they've gotten. It's starting to look like the additional rules we're going to see after that first packet are going to be slowly, slowly spoonfed to us as they tweak, little by little, ever so cautious to be catering to the most vocal majorities in the playtesters giving feedback.

And if that's the case, that's not a promising vision for the future. I'm not saying that is what's going on, but it's starting to look more that way.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: InnaBinder on August 06, 2012, 04:34:10 PM
Update on the "incoming" second playtest packet: https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120806 (https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120806)

Anyone else read this and get the feeling that, actually, they don't have any more of the game rules designed than they showed us for the first playtest packet?

I'm not sure.  He starts off by saying that he's following up on an earlier post that talked about the biggest issues that came up with the first playtest.  While I'm not saying that there will be any more rules, I'm also not willing to agree that there won't be.  They might want to gauge our reaction when the material hits, rather than making vague statements that will inspire objections.

No, I'm not trying to say that they won't, eventually, have more rules than we saw in the first playtest. I'm pretty sure they will. The problem I'm having is that it seems like they have been working on this for, I don't know, over a year let's say, and that it's starting to look like the first playtest packet is as far as they've gotten. It's starting to look like the additional rules we're going to see after that first packet are going to be slowly, slowly spoonfed to us as they tweak, little by little, ever so cautious to be catering to the most vocal majorities in the playtesters giving feedback.

And if that's the case, that's not a promising vision for the future. I'm not saying that is what's going on, but it's starting to look more that way.
Out of curiosity, to whom should they cater the next edition of D&D, if not the vocal majority?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: littha on August 06, 2012, 04:40:10 PM
I think he probably meant vocal minority but in either case most of the people making the noise no absolutely nothing about games design in general (much like a lot of the wizards authors) and offer some really stupid ideas...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: InnaBinder on August 06, 2012, 04:46:09 PM
I think he probably meant vocal minority but in either case most of the people making the noise no absolutely nothing about games design in general (much like a lot of the wizards authors) and offer some really stupid ideas...
Even if that's the case, how do folks propose they change their approach so that they can cater to a segment of the fanbase that's not being vocal, or at least, not expressing themselves through the channels that WotC is listening to?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: sirpercival on August 06, 2012, 04:52:10 PM
I think he probably meant vocal minority but in either case most of the people making the noise no absolutely nothing about games design in general (much like a lot of the wizards authors) and offer some really stupid ideas...
Even if that's the case, how do folks propose they change their approach so that they can cater to a segment of the fanbase that's not being vocal, or at least, not expressing themselves through the channels that WotC is listening to?

There are a couple things they can do:
1) Read these (and other, but mostly these) forums for a sense of what makes good game design.
2) Hire someone who knows what they're doing.

This whole "being able to please everyone" thing is a pipe dream.  SOMEONE is going to be offended by D&D 5E, even if it's just the fact that WotC expects them to buy more books.  If they want to please as many people as possible, the modular game seemed like a good way to do it, but it would have to be done very skillfully, and even if they had planned on it I don't think they could have pulled it off.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on August 07, 2012, 05:26:29 AM
I think he probably meant vocal minority but in either case most of the people making the noise no absolutely nothing about games design in general (much like a lot of the wizards authors) and offer some really stupid ideas...
Even if that's the case, how do folks propose they change their approach so that they can cater to a segment of the fanbase that's not being vocal, or at least, not expressing themselves through the channels that WotC is listening to?

I propose that they actually design a game, based on sound design principles, and then let us playtest the alpha version of that game. Based on the feedback received they then tweak that game, possibly radically, and present it to us again in beta form. We playtest it again, and provide feedback, and if there is still general consensus that shit needs work, they work on it again, and make more changes, and do more rounds of beta testing until we're happy with our game.

This process of giving us the barest skeleton of a game, with some of the bones missing, and then basically having us design the rest of the game for them is tedious and idiotic. It will lead to a revolting mess of a product. Right now we're basically looking at an edition where the Rogue is the shittiest character, the Fighter is barely passable at 1st level, the Wizard is pretty good, and the Cleric is clearly the best option no matter what - and that's mostly been greenlit as awesome through the playtesting. It's only going to get worse as we move forward.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: InnaBinder on August 07, 2012, 07:46:26 AM
I think he probably meant vocal minority but in either case most of the people making the noise no absolutely nothing about games design in general (much like a lot of the wizards authors) and offer some really stupid ideas...
Even if that's the case, how do folks propose they change their approach so that they can cater to a segment of the fanbase that's not being vocal, or at least, not expressing themselves through the channels that WotC is listening to?

I propose that they actually design a game, based on sound design principles, and then let us playtest the alpha version of that game. Based on the feedback received they then tweak that game, possibly radically, and present it to us again in beta form. We playtest it again, and provide feedback, and if there is still general consensus that shit needs work, they work on it again, and make more changes, and do more rounds of beta testing until we're happy with our game.

This process of giving us the barest skeleton of a game, with some of the bones missing, and then basically having us design the rest of the game for them is tedious and idiotic. It will lead to a revolting mess of a product. Right now we're basically looking at an edition where the Rogue is the shittiest character, the Fighter is barely passable at 1st level, the Wizard is pretty good, and the Cleric is clearly the best option no matter what - and that's mostly been greenlit as awesome through the playtesting. It's only going to get worse as we move forward.
I hope you'll forgive me if my reading of this suggestion is "they shouldn't make a game that appeals to the majority of those giving feedback, but should instead make a game that appeals to me and the particular community that I most closely represent.  Further, they should seek out this community and myself for this purpose, forsaking the input of others."  I can't, offhand, point to a successful product that followed that development model.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: skydragonknight on August 07, 2012, 08:06:58 AM
Market share has nothing to do with actual sound game design, only the appearance of it. Part of how Pathfinder got its market share is that it accepted (though not necessarily implemented) consumer feedback, making it appear well thought out. Wizards has learned from their competition and wants a 'let's build it together!' to get people on board and give the appearance of a good design through the philosophy that many heads are always better than one.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agita on August 07, 2012, 08:11:19 AM
Indeed. One has to keep in mind that Mearls's job isn't to make a good game, but to make a game that will sell. Those two are rarely the same thing, unfortunately.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 07, 2012, 11:44:59 AM
Yeah but for that you need a clear concept to base the structure on, which you modify the peripherals(e.g. specific spell/class details) in order to appeal better to the fanbase. You do not ask the fans about the core math, not even us. I think there is at least 5-6 personal favorite concepts of how the math should work in the posters of this thread alone, which each might work in their own right but not when you kitbash them all together.

So far they have not really shown that, other than marketingspeak. When talking about the games it will support it points to 4 disparate previous editions and playstyles. It's trying to be a chameleon when it needs to be a pillar.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on August 07, 2012, 01:22:03 PM
I think he probably meant vocal minority but in either case most of the people making the noise no absolutely nothing about games design in general (much like a lot of the wizards authors) and offer some really stupid ideas...
Even if that's the case, how do folks propose they change their approach so that they can cater to a segment of the fanbase that's not being vocal, or at least, not expressing themselves through the channels that WotC is listening to?

I propose that they actually design a game, based on sound design principles, and then let us playtest the alpha version of that game. Based on the feedback received they then tweak that game, possibly radically, and present it to us again in beta form. We playtest it again, and provide feedback, and if there is still general consensus that shit needs work, they work on it again, and make more changes, and do more rounds of beta testing until we're happy with our game.

This process of giving us the barest skeleton of a game, with some of the bones missing, and then basically having us design the rest of the game for them is tedious and idiotic. It will lead to a revolting mess of a product. Right now we're basically looking at an edition where the Rogue is the shittiest character, the Fighter is barely passable at 1st level, the Wizard is pretty good, and the Cleric is clearly the best option no matter what - and that's mostly been greenlit as awesome through the playtesting. It's only going to get worse as we move forward.
I hope you'll forgive me if my reading of this suggestion is "they shouldn't make a game that appeals to the majority of those giving feedback, but should instead make a game that appeals to me and the particular community that I most closely represent.  Further, they should seek out this community and myself for this purpose, forsaking the input of others."  I can't, offhand, point to a successful product that followed that development model.

You're right. That's exactly what I said.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 07, 2012, 01:56:02 PM
https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dnd/wanderingmonsters1

https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dreye/20120801
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Risada on August 08, 2012, 09:18:00 AM
I have no idea what does asking us "Should the gnolls look dumber" will do to the game as a whole. Can anyone enlighten me?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: InnaBinder on August 08, 2012, 09:21:37 AM
I have no idea what does asking us "Should the gnolls look dumber" will do to the game as a whole. Can anyone enlighten me?
For a vocal minority of the fanbase, the default flavor text is an important, nigh-immutable consideration.  Because they're vocal in this opinion, I can understand why WotC would want to make sure they're not actively opposed to some part of the default flavor text, regardless of my own opinion on that flavor text's importance in the grand scheme of things.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 08, 2012, 09:55:06 AM
I happen to think the default flavor text is a great boon to D&D.  It creates a shared world and lets you get into the mix pretty quickly without having to reinvent the wheel.

That being said, the idea of creating it essentially by massive committee strikes me as blisteringly stupid.  At its best, they should be considering this as an artistic project.  They are designing a game world, or a set of game worlds.  The worlds should be engaging, interesting, and most of all coherent. 

Instead, WotC seems to be taking an approach that is more akin to a dartboard.  Orcs, if they exist (and they are kind of a staple) should fill a certain niche and have a certain role and a certain character.  And, that character should be intrinsically cool and interesting.  To me, this is just another indication that they have no idea what they are doing.  Compare this kind of approach to the way races were dealt with in Dark Sun or Birthright. 

As a side note, I felt this way about 4E's races as well.  I have no idea why Dragonborn or whatever they are called are in the core book.  I don't understand how they fit in the world or what archetypes or ideas they are meant to evoke.  They just exist in the kind of "looks cool" type of thing.  That will get you some of the way, but without more you ultimately end up with a world that doesn't hang together, players and DMs feel untethered to it, and a race just becomes a bunch of stat modifiers.  Skyrim has this same issue, actually. 


P.S.:  the article itself kind of hits what I'm talking about.  They boiled down gnolls to their essence and tried to give them a distinct character.  Cool.  The poll at the bottom kind of worries me in that approach, though, but it seems more like a marketing gag than anything else. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 08, 2012, 12:28:02 PM
I swear you wouldn't believe this (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/dnd_dra_414Editorial.pdf)

Well ok, its just saying a lot of nothing much again.

EDIT: Ohei a podcast (https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120806)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on August 09, 2012, 10:37:00 PM
Can someone confirm this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=252184)? Sounds like somewhere on the internet, there's basically proof that the amount of 5E we got in the first playtest packet was the amount of 5E that WotC had complete at the time. Don't know if it's true though, and I don't know how I'd fact check it.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 10, 2012, 06:13:53 AM
Fighters (http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/02/09/fighter_a-go-go)
Goblinoids (https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20120807)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: JohnnyMayHymn on August 10, 2012, 10:45:14 AM
Can someone confirm this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=252184)? Sounds like somewhere on the internet, there's basically proof that the amount of 5E we got in the first playtest packet was the amount of 5E that WotC had complete at the time. Don't know if it's true though, and I don't know how I'd fact check it.
I listened to the pod cast linked above
EDIT: Ohei a podcast (https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120806)
and Mike Mearls mentions that the current version of D&D Next (that he's using in the podcast at least) is basically a giant Word document with rules for creating characters up to level 5.  Then he uses that (which apparently contains some kind of guidelines for creating higher level characters) to convert a 10th level 4th edition character to D&D Next.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: darqueseid on August 10, 2012, 11:25:09 AM
ugh, this is a TERRIBLE way to design a game... the problem is that the polling they're using is just stupid and wrong.  Their questions are leading and look like they tend towards group-think (I guess that's a problem with most things done by committee). 

AND, AND they shouldn't be having people vote on the flavor text, who cares?  Yes, flavor text is important for all the reasons WE mentioned in establishing the game-world, but if a 5e "Gnoll" is slightly off what people normally think of it, they're not going to throw up their hands and reject the game, their going to modify the way they view Gnolls.

The problem is, they're not having us provide feedback on that which will actually make people reject the game; the rules.  if the rules don't give us a sense that this is D&D (IMHO the main problem with 4e) then we'll be rejecting 5e too.

there are certain archetypal things that D&D players have done since the beginning (the fun in D&D):
#1 creating unique characters
#2 fighting things with the builds created
#3 taking your enemies stuff
#4 role-playing those interesting characters
#5 advancing characters

4e fell flat in the #1 spot; because the characters were cookie cutter, there just wasn't that much variation in what you could create.  Also, between classes there were several abilities that all "felt" the same mechanically even though they had different skins.
Because of that, #2, and #4 became boring; you just couldn't do anything new that hadn't been done already.  Doing imaginative things is a staple of D&D, and 4e made it tough to do anything imaginative.
#5 became boring too, because what "new" choices could you make?  you Had to follow one path and that path always led the same direction.

These are the things that they should be concerned with, providing a D&D experience, not with making sure the flavor is exactly right.



Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 10, 2012, 01:35:00 PM
^ write a letter to WotC? 

I'm only half joking.  I think you hit a lot of nails on the head there.  I would truly like to like 5E.  I'd be happy to be playing a solid, well-supported game and supporting the hobby (just like I'd love to love Diablo 3).  But, at this point I think I'm duly and appropriately skeptical.


P.S.: 
Fighters (http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/02/09/fighter_a-go-go)
I am so sick of this "Fighters are what you hand to people who don't know much about RPGs" logic.  Why treat a class, and an iconic one and cornerstone of fantasy stories, that way?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on August 10, 2012, 03:32:35 PM
P.S.: 
Fighters (http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/02/09/fighter_a-go-go)
I am so sick of this "Fighters are what you hand to people who don't know much about RPGs" logic.  Why treat a class, and an iconic one and cornerstone of fantasy stories, that way?
Because as evidenced by this quote, the people in charge do not understand what's going on at all:

Quote
The big difference between the 4E fighter and previous fighters was that the 4E fighter incentivized players to focus on a particular weapon and style to the exclusion of all other techniques. While a 3E fighter might open a combat with a few shots from a bow and then draw a melee weapon and charge, the 4E fighter is very much an in-your-face warrior who keeps the opposition from attacking the fighter’s allies. By sacrificing versatility in weapon selection, the fighter gained a far stronger identity and place in the game.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: darqueseid on August 10, 2012, 03:40:58 PM
P.S.: 
Fighters (http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/02/09/fighter_a-go-go)
I am so sick of this "Fighters are what you hand to people who don't know much about RPGs" logic.  Why treat a class, and an iconic one and cornerstone of fantasy stories, that way?

totally agree, there should be room for MANY different kinds of fighters, and they shouldn't just be locked into this "tank" mindset.   There should be a glass cannon fighter(archer), a skill-based fighter(in terms of knowing how to use a particular weapon very well), a battlefield control fighter(tripper), and many more than I could mention.  Every class should have the option to fill different roles in thier own style.  One of the few things I liked about the 3e fighter is how customizable it can be...


I might write a letter... I'm skeptical now too  :(
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on August 10, 2012, 04:57:09 PM
totally agree, there should be room for MANY different kinds of fighters, and they shouldn't just be locked into this "tank" mindset.   There should be a glass cannon fighter(archer), a skill-based fighter(in terms of knowing how to use a particular weapon very well), a battlefield control fighter(tripper), and many more than I could mention.  Every class should have the option to fill different roles in thier own style.  One of the few things I liked about the 3e fighter is how customizable it can be...

The best way, in my opinion, to do that is make the base Fighter pretty damn good at all basic combat stuff. Better than anyone else to start with. Best with all weapons, best with all armors, best at making and avoiding attacks, best at combat positioning, best at using and and countering special maneuvers such as Disarm, Grab/Pull/Push, and Trip. That's the essence of the Fighter. It is the guy that fights and he should be better at it than the Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard, even before the player makes any choices to customize the character. And there should not only be a myriad ways to customize a Fighter, but the options should be powerful and not bullshit like, "+1 to attack rolls with the Longbow (and only the Longbow)" acting as prerequisite to "when you make an attack with a Longbow, if your attack has Advantage, and if the attack hits, each of your allies gets a +1 bonus to the next attack roll he or she makes against the struck creature before the beginning of your next turn." Because, holy shit, fuck that (and, christ, even that wouldn't be a bad archer feat for 3.5 if casters needed to make attack rolls to "hit" with spells like they do in 5e).

They've only alluded to it (here (https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120730)), but their whole, "we're going to design a maneuvers system - for all classes!" boggles my fucking mind. So, a) they're giving martial-type maneuvers to everyone, and b) they're not going to make Fighters the best with them? What the fucking fuck?! Obviously they aren't (making Fighters the best with maneuvers, I mean), because the Fighter's Combat Superiority class feature, quote, "drains some of the elements we had originally intended for the maneuver and theme system." No, see, it's the other way around. Giving these maneuvers to anyone that wants them drains some of the elements that you should have originally intended for the Fighter class. You fucking rejects.

EDIT: About Combat Superiority. I've expressed my distaste for the mechanic in this thread twice already; however, reading over it again makes it sound a little better to me, depending on how they designed the mechanic to play out. I reserve my final judgment until I see it in print and in play, but as long as its not, "at the start of your turn roll your Combat Superiority dice. you are as cool this round as the resultant value allows you to be," then it might actually be a workable mechanic. BUT, unfortunately, with the introduction of the "maneuvers" system they have alluded to (which may yet be shouted down by playtester feedback once it hits the ground), all the Combat Superiority feature does is give the Fighter a predetermined, hacked out, subsection of an "extra" Theme. Or at least that's how it sounds coming from the senior manager of D&D Research and Development.

LUCKILY, Mike Mearls is actually not given the title, in any written or video medium I've looked at, of Lead Designer OR Developer. Which is an important distinction. While he is the overall senior manager of D&D Research and Development, I would, ordinarily, consider that to be a secondary position, for the purposes of the actual creation of a new edition of D&D, to Lead Designer/Developer of said D&D edition. Though perhaps I am thinking too much on how MtG does things.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on August 10, 2012, 07:58:00 PM
About Fighters...

Since there's always going to be a vocal minority of people who want fighters and other noncasters to be unable to do things that spellcasters can do (yet claim that such inequality doesn't exist), I think that restricting magic in some way would be a good decision.  I think that they can borrow a bit from 4th Edition this way, in that casters and noncasters can be defenders/strikers/controllers/etc, but a return to the days when spells were the only means of bypassing obstacles would be a step backwards.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Amechra on August 10, 2012, 10:17:50 PM
Do you really think they'd want us to know if they did? :p

(Seriously, there's a reason the WotC boards had that "we own stuff posted here" clause; if, say, the writer of the 5e fighter admitted to having read the Nord's Blade then it could result in a lawsuit)

Eh, I wouldn't mind too much if they did read it; I designed it late at night after a stressful day at work to blow off steam, and pulled a lot of the stuff of the top of my head; I'm just glad that I've got a good intuitive feel for numbers...

But yeah, if anything I write improves someone else's work, I'm ecstatic. Unless it is something I've specifically copywritten, and they then rip off the majority of it with no credit.

Then heads will roll.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: sirpercival on August 13, 2012, 06:43:06 PM
New playtest packet out, and this time I was actually able to download it!  Sadly I don't have time to look at it right now, but at least I got it.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on August 13, 2012, 07:09:28 PM
I haven't finished reading everything, so I may have missed something important, but...

Why do spells deal so much goddamned damage?

Edit: Okay, rogue sneak attack keeps pace with spell damage.  Fighters don't seem to, as much.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on August 13, 2012, 07:14:48 PM
Just started reading it.  Nonmagical crafting is entirely MTP.  Excepting you need a background to do it.   :rolleyes  So much for first impressions.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: kitep on August 13, 2012, 07:22:06 PM
MTP?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on August 13, 2012, 07:25:25 PM
Magical Tea Party.  They tell the DM to pull it out of his ass.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: JohnnyMayHymn on August 13, 2012, 08:37:59 PM
well at least you can make a character this time, ... it's time to break things  :smirk
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on August 13, 2012, 08:38:52 PM
Writing notes as reading.  Stream of consciousness below.  You have been warned.
(click to show/hide)
Not too bad at first thumb through.  Cleric can't simply self buff to outdo the Fighter.  The Fighter's always on bonuses insure that its at least competitive.  That alone is an important step.  3.0 inspired cover rules makes me a happy.  (What?  I'll take what I can get.)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on August 13, 2012, 09:47:23 PM
How is dual wielding any worse than a normal weapon?  Two attacks, each with half damage, versus one attack with full damage.  My math may be rusty, but I'm pretty sure that 2 * ½ = 1.  And given that a two-handed weapon doesn't get 1½ your Strength bonus, I don't see any real difference here.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on August 13, 2012, 10:01:04 PM
How is dual wielding any worse than a normal weapon?  Two attacks, each with half damage, versus one attack with full damage.  My math may be rusty, but I'm pretty sure that 2 * ½ = 1.  And given that a two-handed weapon doesn't get 1½ your Strength bonus, I don't see any real difference here.

Exactly.  Same damage output, twice as much chance to miss. 

Edit:  Although for a Rogue or Fighter, it might be worth it.  Assuming the bonus damage from Sneak Attack or Deadly Strike applies to both weapons and is not halved.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on August 13, 2012, 10:09:12 PM
Sneak Attack and Deadly Strike both only apply to one attack.  Deadly Strike mentions that it adds the damage "to the attack's damage against that creature," whereas Sneak Attack is actually dealt to a creature that you hit, rather than adding to your weapon's damage.

However, I'd disagree with your "twice as much chance to miss" analysis.  While you might only hit with one attack--and therefore do half damage--you can also hit with one attack instead of hitting with no attacks.  I don't know that we have the numbers necessary to run right now, but--given that your attack bonus is the same for both--I wouldn't be surprised if it was a close-to-neutral option.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Garryl on August 13, 2012, 10:18:59 PM
Sneak Attack and Deadly Strike both only apply to one attack.  Deadly Strike mentions that it adds the damage "to the attack's damage against that creature," whereas Sneak Attack is actually dealt to a creature that you hit, rather than adding to your weapon's damage.

However, I'd disagree with your "twice as much chance to miss" analysis.  While you might only hit with one attack--and therefore do half damage--you can also hit with one attack instead of hitting with no attacks.  I don't know that we have the numbers necessary to run right now, but--given that your attack bonus is the same for both--I wouldn't be surprised if it was a close-to-neutral option.

If you have once per round abilities, dual wielding will be a slight advantage since you can apply those abilities on either attack that hits. A single big attack gives a greater chance of no hits than two weaker attacks, while the lack of double triggering means that dual wield won't be an absolutely required option.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on August 13, 2012, 10:23:48 PM
Even if it comes out to net no gain, then it's worse than single wielding because you have to spend a feat on it.  You have to have some other ability that makes it worthwhile, otherwise all you've done is set a feat on fire.  Of course, that's pretty much how dual wielding works in 3.5, so no change there.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on August 13, 2012, 11:46:18 PM
Why are throwing axes martial weapons?

Also, according to the section on damage in the "How to Play" PDF:

Quote
Each weapon and spell indicates the damage it deals, such as 1d8 or 2d8.  Roll the dice, add any modifiers (including the ability modifier you used to make the attack), and apply the damage to your target.

Yet the pregen with a longbow doesn't add his Dexterity modifier to damage...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: xaotiq1 on August 14, 2012, 12:08:15 PM
AFAIK, Throwing/Handaxes have always been martial weapons. They were in 3.5.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on August 14, 2012, 05:01:18 PM
Because throwing an axe isn't easy, but it isn't particularly hard?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on August 14, 2012, 05:12:38 PM
Because throwing an axe isn't easy, but it isn't particularly hard?
Pretty much.  Tomahawk throwing takes know-how and a bit of skill, but it's something that can be learned pretty quickly.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on August 14, 2012, 05:13:38 PM
Fair enough.  I had just assumed--without having ever really spent time with throwing weapons in 3.5--that they would be categorized as ranged weapons.  I am fairly certain that 3.5 thrown weapons use Dexterity for their attack rolls, rather than Strength, if only because there's a feat that lets you use your Strength modifier for your attack rolls with thrown weapons.

Do we know for certain how multiclassing is going to work in 5e?  Last I heard, it was going to be 3.x-style multiclassing, which would be my hope.  And, given that we now have enough levels that we can multiclass, it would be good to know.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on August 14, 2012, 06:27:05 PM
Do we know for certain how multiclassing is going to work in 5e?  Last I heard, it was going to be 3.x-style multiclassing, which would be my hope.  And, given that we now have enough levels that we can multiclass, it would be good to know.

So far it looks more like 4e "multiclassing" (if you can call it that).  Those feats that let you learn wizard or cleric spells or borrow other class's abilities seem to indicate the direction they're going with this.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ChupacabraJohn on August 14, 2012, 06:29:41 PM
Did anyone else notice the subtle hints of facing referenced in the shield spell & a couple places in the how to play guide?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on August 14, 2012, 06:37:17 PM
So far it looks more like 4e "multiclassing" (if you can call it that).  Those feats that let you learn wizard or cleric spells or borrow other class's abilities seem to indicate the direction they're going with this.

Given that those specialties were actually suggested by the wizard/cleric classes themselves--and they're chosen at character creation--I strongly doubt that that's going to be how multiclassing works.  If you're right, that'll be enough for me to write off the entire edition.

Did anyone else notice the subtle hints of facing referenced in the shield spell & a couple places in the how to play guide?

We can only hope.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ChupacabraJohn on August 14, 2012, 07:24:33 PM

Did anyone else notice the subtle hints of facing referenced in the shield spell & a couple places in the how to play guide?

We can only hope.

I've always found facing rules/variant rules to be too clunky.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on August 14, 2012, 07:49:08 PM
I've always found facing rules/variant rules to be too clunky.

I've been playing a lot of GURPS lately, so that may have biased me.  But they've already shown a willingness to include variants alongside the standard rules, so maybe that's what will happen here.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 14, 2012, 08:03:17 PM

Did anyone else notice the subtle hints of facing referenced in the shield spell & a couple places in the how to play guide?

We can only hope.

I've always found facing rules/variant rules to be too clunky.
Facing rules tended to scale up poorly, especially for mini-less play. Maintaining facing doubles the amount of positional bookkeeping on a flat mat and cubes it on a 3d field.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: JohnnyMayHymn on August 15, 2012, 10:07:39 AM
Part 2 of that podcast (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120813)...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on August 15, 2012, 04:46:47 PM
Do we know for certain how multiclassing is going to work in 5e?  Last I heard, it was going to be 3.x-style multiclassing, which would be my hope.  And, given that we now have enough levels that we can multiclass, it would be good to know.

So far it looks more like 4e "multiclassing" (if you can call it that).  Those feats that let you learn wizard or cleric spells or borrow other class's abilities seem to indicate the direction they're going with this.
4E multiclassing was a steaming pile.  It needs to die a painful death.  :chairhit
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RobbyPants on August 16, 2012, 07:56:30 AM
So, I guess in 5E, DMs are encouraged just to look at the raw numbers on the dice rather than worry about mods and DCs if it feels right.

Some quotes from the playtest posted at the Den: (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=279504#279504)

Quote from: Duke Flauros
Quote from: DM guidelines
The first rule of being a good DM is to remember that the rules are a tool that you and the players use to have a good time. The rules aren’t in charge. You, the DM, are the one in charge of the game. Guide the play experience and the use of the rules so that as many of your players have a good time as possible. There will be setbacks, such as a character being slain by an unlucky die roll, but look for ways to turn setbacks into interesting complications in the game’s story.
Quote from: DM guidelines
Using These DCs:
Nobody expects you to keep these numbers in your head, but we really don’t want you to have to look at a table every time you have to decide on a DC. So here are some tips.
If you have decided that a check is called for, then clearly it’s not a trivial task—you can eliminate DC 7.
Then ask yourself: “Is it easy, moderate, or hard?” If the only DCs you ever use are 10, 13, and 16, your game will run just fine.
If you find yourself thinking, “Well, it’s really hard,” then you can go up to the higher DCs. If it’s a bit harder than hard, add +3, to 19 (very hard). If it’s still harder than that, add another +3, to 22 (formidable). If you think the task is next to impossible, then 25 is your DC.
Here’s another secret: You don’t actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the check.  Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result.You’ll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player’s) squares pretty well with the set DCs presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the middle teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls a 16 or better, there’s usually little question that the character succeeds. Your players will never know.
Quote from: DM guidelines
As a DM, you could memorize these guidelines, apply them flawlessly, and still miss out on the point of D&D. Unlike other games, D&D is a flexible set of guidelines, not a rigid set of laws.
Quote from: DM guidelines
Checks: When a player makes a check, invite him or her to describe the character’s action. If the player makes clever use of the situation in the description, consider either granting an automatic success or advantage on the check.
Quote from: DM guidelines
As a DM, remember that the dice are like the rules. They’re a tool to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player’s action is automatically successful, even if the DC would normally be somewhere above 20. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform even the easiest task into an impossibility.
The dice are neutral arbiters. They come into play when success and failure are far from clear. Think of them as impartial judges, ready to dispense a yes or no answer based on a character’s bonus and the DC you have selected. The dice don’t run the game. You do.
Quote from: DM guidelines
You determine how many magic items characters can find in your adventures. The game does not assume that characters need them to succeed. Magic items, when found at all, simply make PCs better.
Thus, you can add or withhold magic items in your adventures as you see fit. Being somewhat stingy with magic item placement, especially at lower levels, means that players will appreciate such items all the more when they find some.



My response (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=279501#279501) to the "don't worry about mods and DCs and just look at the dice" thing:

Quote from: RobbyPants
Quote from: CapnTthePirateG
Here it is, RobbyPants. 

Quote from: DM guidelines
Here’s another secret: You don’t actually have to
set the DC before the player rolls the check.  Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result.You’ll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player’s) squares pretty well with the set DCs
presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the middle teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls
a 16 or better, there’s usually little question that the character succeeds.
  Your players will never know.

So, there's that.
Jesus Christ! Really!? Why even have mods and DCs if we only care about the raw dice?

I mean, I get where they're going here. On a level appropriate task, you'd figure you have X% chance to succeed. This will go up or down a bit depending on your skill level (are you specialized in this?) and circumstances. Also, it will change if it's not level appropriate, and is instead harder or easier. You know: all the things that make the modifiers and the DC.

It seems like it would have been easier to just give a table with 20 rows and 3 columns listing a single DC for an easy, moderate, and hard task per every level, and slap it on the inside of the DM screen. Then instead of Ad Post Hoc MTP Bullshit, they'd actually be using the fucking rules. God damn.

(Side note: so, we're supposed to fail 50% of the time on a level-appropriate task, too? Wonderful)


BTW, thanks for pointing me to that so quickly.

I wonder why they'd even post rules for this new system... :nonono
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 16, 2012, 09:55:15 AM
^ Jesus is WotC just trying to troll their fanbase?

My 2E friends and I spent years training ourselves not to look or shout out the natural die rolls because they don't usually matter. They seem hellbent at taking as many steps backward in game design as possible. They might as well just call it Dungeons and Magical Tea Party. It'd be more honest.

PS: I noticed with M&M's 3E rules which overall are pretty good that a lot of game designers don't really pay attention to their own rules. That seems ... odd to say the least.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: dipolartech on August 16, 2012, 10:11:14 AM
This is the exact crap I fight so hard to avoid.... I don't want to arbitrarily assign a value to hit "randomly" if I can help it, cause its just a smokescreen for saying "did i want you to succeed or did I want you to fail?" Cause really a DC 20 to a level 1 character is complete different than a DC 20 to a level 12 character.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 16, 2012, 10:26:06 AM
They did something similar with Points of Light.

Its something every good DM does at some point, but making it official means that bad DMs now assume its the norm and try to do it that way. Its also just downright lazy as a published designer.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 16, 2012, 11:03:22 AM
They did something similar with Points of Light.

Its something every good DM does at some point, but making it official means that bad DMs now assume its the norm and try to do it that way. Its also just downright lazy as a published designer.
Barring an instance where there's no stat, skill, etc. associated with the attempt -- something that I can't even think of off the top of my head -- why would you ever need to just say "roll and we'll see what happens?"  These are situations that in my D&D experience almost never come up. 

You should always be using a DC, meaning there should always be some sort of modifier associated with the roll.  If not, then what's on the character sheet ceases to matter.  I think that's part of the attraction of OD&D to some people, and maybe it works when you have really minimal character sheets.  But, I think when you're ignoring stuff that is (and crucially, is not) on the character sheet the game is going sideways
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: darqueseid on August 16, 2012, 11:05:44 AM
This is not something you do lightly, you can do this if it is a critical story thing, but to a certain extent you canshould let die rolls determine the narrative. That is, if people have to climb a wall and the acrobatic rogue passes the DC easily, and everyone else has trouble, then when you describe the situation you can say "so and so" scampers up the wall with barely an effort and everyone else is stuck or "so and so" has to throw a rope down for the rest of the party, etc etc.   

I rarely, if ever anymore, make a die roll so critical that I have to have the characters make it; what I try to do is come up with consequences for success or failure in my mind when i ask the character to make a check.  That way I already know whats going to happen regardless of the outcome.   To be honest I don't fudge the die nearly as much as I did when I started DMing, which I chalk up to me being a newbie.  I think you only learn this with experience, you build better, more balanced encounters, you set dificulties that are reachable, but not too easy etc etc; such that its rarely necessary to fudge much of anything.

I share Veekie's concerns on this, every newbie who tries DMing is gonna be fudging left and right now, thinking its ok.   Which is terrible...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 16, 2012, 11:38:05 AM
They did something similar with Points of Light.

Its something every good DM does at some point, but making it official means that bad DMs now assume its the norm and try to do it that way. Its also just downright lazy as a published designer.
Barring an instance where there's no stat, skill, etc. associated with the attempt -- something that I can't even think of off the top of my head -- why would you ever need to just say "roll and we'll see what happens?"  These are situations that in my D&D experience almost never come up. 

You should always be using a DC, meaning there should always be some sort of modifier associated with the roll.  If not, then what's on the character sheet ceases to matter.  I think that's part of the attraction of OD&D to some people, and maybe it works when you have really minimal character sheets.  But, I think when you're ignoring stuff that is (and crucially, is not) on the character sheet the game is going sideways
You never let the PCs know when you do it. It happens when you are surprised by their actions, and need to make something up FAST, with no time to derive opposed stats and DCs...so you just make a DC that happens to be their skill mod + 10. Its improvisation skills, and not to be done lightly, because you should do it only when you need to maintain pacing and tension, keeping the illusion that everything is under control.

You give the advice to 'improvise something for the encounter' to someone who has the basics down. Someone completely new should not be given that advice, they need all their preparation, so they know what is right, how encounters should be.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 16, 2012, 02:13:23 PM
I remain unconvinced.  I understand the idea.  I just think the basic DC chart in the DMG (page 31) obviates the need for it. 

Once I know the roll is going to be skill mod, then those charts are really handy.  I know that DC 15 is hard for an untrained person, easy for a trained one, DC 30 is quite challenging for a trained person, and DC 40 is epicly challenging, and so on.  Sometimes I don't force the roll if they are likely to make it, but that's based on the logic of the DCs and the modifiers. 

I can maybe, possibly imagine doing it when I have to make a roll that's based on nothing like a skill or stat check.  Although even then I usually have something, like a caster level or Spellcraft check, to base something on. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on August 16, 2012, 07:09:00 PM
Quote from: RobbyPants
Quote from: CapnTthePirateG
Here it is, RobbyPants. 

Quote from: DM guidelines
Here’s another secret: You don’t actually have to
set the DC before the player rolls the check.  Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result.You’ll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player’s) squares pretty well with the set DCs
presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the middle teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls
a 16 or better, there’s usually little question that the character succeeds.
  Your players will never know.

So, there's that.
Jesus Christ! Really!? Why even have mods and DCs if we only care about the raw dice?

I mean, I get where they're going here. On a level appropriate task, you'd figure you have X% chance to succeed. This will go up or down a bit depending on your skill level (are you specialized in this?) and circumstances. Also, it will change if it's not level appropriate, and is instead harder or easier. You know: all the things that make the modifiers and the DC.

It seems like it would have been easier to just give a table with 20 rows and 3 columns listing a single DC for an easy, moderate, and hard task per every level, and slap it on the inside of the DM screen. Then instead of Ad Post Hoc MTP Bullshit, they'd actually be using the fucking rules. God damn.

(Side note: so, we're supposed to fail 50% of the time on a level-appropriate task, too? Wonderful)


BTW, thanks for pointing me to that so quickly.

This is them not-so-subtly saying "We aren't done with this yet". They made a similar statement in the previous packet, then replaced it with rules in the second. Stop being so dramatic about an incomplete system.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 17, 2012, 02:08:34 AM
Quote
This is them not-so-subtly saying "We aren't done with this yet". They made a similar statement in the previous packet, then replaced it with rules in the second. Stop being so dramatic about an incomplete system.
Actually, given how many man-hours they are supposed to have put into this(full time, paid), you'd expect more. This kind of pace I'd expect from a design-by-committee fantasy heartbreaker.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RobbyPants on August 17, 2012, 07:42:22 AM
This is them not-so-subtly saying "We aren't done with this yet". They made a similar statement in the previous packet, then replaced it with rules in the second. Stop being so dramatic about an incomplete system.
I don't expect the system to be perfect. I do expect them to at least come up with a list of level-appropriate DCs in a game with a system based on d20s, mods, and DCs.

Sure, the DCs of their first test, their second test, and the next version may vary, and that's fine. It's all part of the process, but they should still have it. It's a core part of the game, and not that hard to hammer out. At all.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: InnaBinder on August 17, 2012, 09:27:21 AM
This is them not-so-subtly saying "We aren't done with this yet". They made a similar statement in the previous packet, then replaced it with rules in the second. Stop being so dramatic about an incomplete system.
I don't expect the system to be perfect. I do expect them to at least come up with a list of level-appropriate DCs in a game with a system based on d20s, mods, and DCs.

Sure, the DCs of their first test, their second test, and the next version may vary, and that's fine. It's all part of the process, but they should still have it. It's a core part of the game, and not that hard to hammer out. At all.
A major part of the issue is deciphering exactly where 'level-appropriate' lies, given the propensity of a certain portion of the fanbase (many of us, frex) to optimize. 

If they design for their presumptive baseline fans, they'll get their modules run roughshod over in every Con and Living [Gameworld] event, causing that portion of the fanbase to talk about how borked the system is because they figured out how to snap it in half. 

If they design with an eye on the optimizers, the casual gamers will decry the game as 'requiring' more optimization than they're interested in doing. 

If they strive for a middle ground, they'll likely hit most of the same nerves that 4e did, which was apparently not desirable. 

If they try to design a modular game that allows optimizers to play with casual gamers, they'll get complaints about an unfocused hodge-podge of a system.

All of the above are complaints I've seen levied against 5e so far on the internet, based solely on advanced releases.  Designing to appease all of those complaints does not appear to be an easy task. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 17, 2012, 09:47:43 AM
^^
Those actually are relatively minor concerns. Major concerns are how the core engine work, the bottom, peak and median modifiers for specialists and non-specialists, how open stacking is, etc. The exact numbers almost never mattered at high level design, its always about how you get there.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: InnaBinder on August 17, 2012, 10:11:19 AM
^^
Those actually are relatively minor concerns. Major concerns are how the core engine work, the bottom, peak and median modifiers for specialists and non-specialists, how open stacking is, etc. The exact numbers almost never mattered at high level design, its always about how you get there.
I guess we have very divergent opinions on what qualifies as "relatively minor concerns," then.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: darqueseid on August 17, 2012, 10:59:54 AM
I feel like both your concerns are valid.  but at different times.

Veekie's concern is that they get a good core game together, which I agree, is probably the most important thing.  But this is a design phase or early development concern.

Innabinder's concern is about the way the game plays, once it has been developed.  Which is valid, but doesn't come up until playtesting-AFTER the core game has been created.  Sure they can jump back and fix things in the core at this stage, but they should have most of the core already done by that point and are just tweaking. 

Both are valid, as the game needs to actually play well, as well as appeal to a majority of fans (and I agree this isn't an easy thing to do)

I just don't think they have really been developing in clear stages, it almost seems as if they are taking a piecemeal approach, where they develop part of the game, playtest it, then go back to develop another part, etc etc...   I guess that can work, but it seems like a poor design methodology to me.   
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 17, 2012, 11:48:52 AM
If I designed an application like that it'd be pretty damned bug infested for sure, plan it out, and build it from bottom up.

I want to believe they have a solid core mechanics structure because that's what any modular game is hanging on. Game balance is anchored upon the core, because thats what your numbers engine runs on. Your core system determines how numbers are generated and grow. How your contested and static difficulties operate relative to player capabilities. How challenges are oriented towards the specialist or the whole party. How specialization is rewarded/contraindicated.

They don't seem to have any clue along those lines.

That said, theres word of some panel or announcement at Gencon? I heard various things, including FR getting to be blown up(again) and that Next might take 2 years to finish development.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on August 17, 2012, 01:26:25 PM
That said, theres word of some panel or announcement at Gencon? I heard various things, including FR getting to be blown up(again) and that Next might take 2 years to finish development.

Whoa, haven't heard anything about either of those tidbits, but there's more to this round of playtesting - The Sorcerer, the Warlock, and a new adventure - Reclaiming Blingdenstone (https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Daily.aspx).
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on August 17, 2012, 02:58:32 PM
The sorcerer and warlock are pleasing to me.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 17, 2012, 03:30:26 PM
Oh yes they are, one of the better 5E news I've seen yet.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on August 17, 2012, 03:47:27 PM
I'll be honest, even if the current DC rules are lacking, the presence of three different casting mechanics is enough to tip me back to nearly complete optimism.  I still have some points of uncertainty--Do fighters ever get a second fighting style, or are they locked into a predetermined progression of maneuvers?  Does your specialty dictate every feat you will ever get?  Are magic items mandatory, or will it be possible to keep them as rare items of power?  And, most importantly, how does multiclassing work?--but, on the whole, I'm feeling good about the edition.

We'll have to see how balance works out, of course.  Even if every class is mechanically distinct and interesting, that means nothing if spellcasters are head-and-shoulders above mundane characters.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: darqueseid on August 17, 2012, 04:01:33 PM
not really, even if spellcasters are powerful its fine by me as long as they can't be more powerful at doing the specific things that a fighter excels at for example.
but I'm reserved still even with the new classes.  I like how they are doing the abilities and the warlock is pretty cool, but I'm a little concerned that they may be humano-centric  did anyone else notice that the humans get +1 to all ability scores and +2 to one of them?  whereas the other races get at best +1 to one stat...  seems like humans are the way to go, depending on how important stats are overall.  And they look important, in that everything uses them... 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 17, 2012, 04:03:56 PM
The human perks are absurdly good.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on August 17, 2012, 04:11:29 PM
Well, don't forget that PC ability scores cap at 20.  Humans will hit the cap faster, but members of other races will still catch up.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Garryl on August 17, 2012, 04:18:49 PM
Well, don't forget that PC ability scores cap at 20.  Humans will hit the cap faster, but members of other races will still catch up.

So humans will be really good at low levels and peter out at high levels?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on August 17, 2012, 04:23:13 PM
Well, don't forget that PC ability scores cap at 20.  Humans will hit the cap faster, but members of other races will still catch up.

At first I read that as, "PC scores are capped at 20 in this edition, monsters and Gods can have however high stats we want," but upon my second reading I read it more as, "Adventurers have a chance to begin play with a score of 20," because, that much is demonstrably true, if you're using rolled scores, or even as, "natural mortal ability scores cap at 20, but they can be made higher through unnatural means."
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on August 17, 2012, 04:37:17 PM
So humans will be really good at low levels and peter out at high levels?

Eh, I'd say it's a slight advantage, but I'm not sure if it's "really good."  Using the provided array, and assuming that race/class selection is chosen to prioritize one ability score, we end up with:

Human: 18, 15, 14, 13, 11, 9.
Non-Human: 17, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.

The human's highest modifier is 1 higher than the non-human's, as is its third-highest.  That gives it an effective +1 bonus on things involving its primary and tertiary stats.

Let's say that the characters advance to level four, and prioritize their two highest ability scores with the ability score increase:

Human: 19, 16, 14, 13, 11, 9.
Non-Human: 18, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8.

The human and the non-human now have equal modifiers with their highest stats, but the human's secondary and tertiary ability modifiers are 1 higher.  The human has an effective +1 bonus on things involving its secondary and tertiary stats.

Let's go to level eight:

Human: 20, 17, 14, 13, 11, 9.
Non-Human: 19, 16, 13, 12, 10, 8.

We're back to the human having an effective +1 bonus on things involving its primary and tertiary stats.  However, the human's primary stat can go no higher.

We don't yet know how many levels advancement will include, but it looks to me like the human will only ever have an effective +1 to two ability modifiers.  And, over time, those are going to be ability scores that matter less and less to the character.  Still, since saving throws can now be against any ability score, it will always be somewhat useful.

Is it a nice trait?  Absolutely.  I just don't see it as "absurdly good."

At first I read that as, "PC scores are capped at 20 in this edition, monsters and Gods can have however high stats we want," but upon my second reading I read it more as, "Adventurers have a chance to begin play with a score of 20," because, that much is demonstrably true, if you're using rolled scores, or even as, "natural mortal ability scores cap at 20, but they can be made higher through unnatural means."

"A score of 18 is the highest that a normal person usually reaches.  Adventurers can have scores as high as 20, and monsters and divine beings can have scores as high as 30."

I feel like the antecedent of "the highest that a normal person usually reaches" sets up the second sentence to read as a cap.  We'll have to wait for clarification, though.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on August 17, 2012, 06:48:05 PM
So, I'm trying to find a DM for a second round playtest/deconstruction of the D&D Next packets we've got so far over at GitP (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=252995), but with no luck. There are five interested players, but no one dedicated to DM (there's a player that has said they'll DM and play if they must, but I'd rather avoid that and I think they would as well).

Is anyone here up to the task of DMing a deconstructivist-minded D&D Next Playtest?

EDIT: Well, I stand corrected, I guess the player does want to also DM.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on August 17, 2012, 08:49:47 PM
That Sorcerer Dragon's Breath power looks interesting, pity no one actually gets to have it.  :smirk
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on August 17, 2012, 09:03:08 PM
That Sorcerer Dragon's Breath power looks interesting, pity no one actually gets to have it.  :smirk

lol, I know. Good stuff.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ChupacabraJohn on August 18, 2012, 05:43:08 PM
So, last night I ran a short dungeon crawl for some friends (a dwarf slayer fighter survivor, & a human war domain cleric survivor). We ran levels 1 & 2 with some pretty tough fights in there. After we finished we all sat down and discussed out thoughts on the system, here is what we came up with:

Cons:
-damage is too high across the board (mooks should deal mook damage/players need toughness to survive)
-Ceric is low on healing
-perry, does it work on magical attacks/are magical attacks attacks?
-elves are too weak as compaired to other races (humans & dwarves even out with static numbers & halfling re-roll is good)
-damage dealing orisons/cantrips are too powerful
-dwarves are constantly encumbered in reguards to land speed
-armor check penalty only applys to stealth, seems odd
carrying capacity is too damn high (an 8 str wizard has 80Ibs light load)
--spells deal way too much damage
-inflict deals half damage on a miss?
-team monster don't use the same mechanics as players (even when using mechanics with the same name)
-encounter level system is ineffective due to flat math
-need for concrete rules on advantage/disadvantage
-grid combat mechanics need implemented (I didn't but all these minis for nothing)
-Channel Divinity has too few uses (1-2/Day is too little)
-specialties seemed inbalanced, some could become useless very quickly
-skills felt to random (d20 is too much variance for flat math skills)
-reactions are too harsh of a penalty for giving your action next round

Pros:
-Fighter is great! (their mechanics worked)
-Short rests system/hit dice works
-backgrounds worked well for skills
-players had fun
-DM had fun
-Ranged healing works really well
-spells that allow an attack in the same action make the player feel like they were contributing/allowed healing to not impeade usefulness of the "healer" in combat
-feat taxes (from previous editions) are gone

Other thoughts:
-Slower Hit Point recovery variant seems more realistic then standard recovery system
-War Domain Cleric player felt weaker then fighter (as opposed to different)
-cleric spell preperation: I like it, but I feel like the wizard should have it instead (cleric prays to gods for uses of spells & is supplied via diety whereas wizards prepares spells but magically forgets them after casting) But from past experiances (3.5) that would make the wizard too powerful
-there should be some restrictions on "minor actions" (draw/sheath weapon & such) in one round

Now clearly we didn't get to test everything, we were missing a wizard, rogue, sorcerer, & warlock, but I feel like we got a good overall feel for the game.

Does anyone else feel similar? Any thoughts on the pros or cons? Any different experiences?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: JohnnyMayHymn on August 19, 2012, 07:02:30 PM
Videos from GenCon on the Wizards site (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/gencon.aspx#dnd/gencon/5/videos) about D&D Next.

WOTC employees; if you're reading this thread, check out this unofficial D&D 5E poll (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1560.0) from before we knew D&D Next was a thing.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 21, 2012, 01:12:41 PM
Incidentally on the spell layout, I assume it was a Beta layout thing but...
Quote
Spells: The spell rules should look familiar to 3E fans. The big change here is in the spell description. We wanted something that was fun to read, so we decided to fall back on plain language rather than a formal stat block. You read through the spell and do what it says under its effect. That's it.
Why the hell would you do that?!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RedWarlock on August 21, 2012, 01:19:05 PM
Because they're being reactionary again. Some people complained about the excess of power blocks in 4e. (I was not one of them.)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 21, 2012, 01:29:08 PM
Except that was visibly worse than 3E, or even 2E.

Even WoD had clearer powerblocks. And thats saying something.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RedWarlock on August 21, 2012, 01:54:48 PM
I'm not saying better or worse, just that there was too much 'block formatted' game mechanics, to some people's minds. This feels like a direct reaction to that complaint. Clarity is a separate issue.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on August 21, 2012, 02:03:40 PM
So, feel trumping soundness again?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on August 22, 2012, 01:34:35 AM
Worse, design by (huge) focus group.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on August 24, 2012, 02:01:01 PM
Just saw this article on rpg.net (http://www.rpg.net/columns/brave/brave81.phtml)

I don't know what to think about this.  Part of it sounds like anecdotal evidence, and he alternated between "characters are unstoppable now" and "rogues feel useless in comparison to casters."

But I don't have the Playtest Packs, and I bet a lot of you do, so you may know what he's talking about.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ziegander on August 24, 2012, 03:02:56 PM
Just saw this article on rpg.net (http://www.rpg.net/columns/brave/brave81.phtml)

I don't know what to think about this.  Part of it sounds like anecdotal evidence, and he alternated between "characters are unstoppable now" and "rogues feel useless in comparison to casters."

But I don't have the Playtest Packs, and I bet a lot of you do, so you may know what he's talking about.

I swear to Pelor, I've been cursed to never play D&D again, so I couldn't tell you if he's right about any of that or not. :(
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on August 25, 2012, 01:17:26 AM
Just saw this article on rpg.net (http://www.rpg.net/columns/brave/brave81.phtml)

I don't know what to think about this.  Part of it sounds like anecdotal evidence, and he alternated between "characters are unstoppable now" and "rogues feel useless in comparison to casters."

But I don't have the Playtest Packs, and I bet a lot of you do, so you may know what he's talking about.
Oh noes!  First level characters that aren't reduced to chunks the first time they meet an orc?!  How ever shall we cope?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: snakeman830 on August 25, 2012, 10:27:57 AM
Just saw this article on rpg.net (http://www.rpg.net/columns/brave/brave81.phtml)

I don't know what to think about this.  Part of it sounds like anecdotal evidence, and he alternated between "characters are unstoppable now" and "rogues feel useless in comparison to casters."

But I don't have the Playtest Packs, and I bet a lot of you do, so you may know what he's talking about.
Oh noes!  First level characters that aren't reduced to chunks the first time they meet an orc?!  How ever shall we cope?
Orcs are one thing.  Wights and Ogres are totally different stories and should mop the floor with first level characters in a straight-up fight.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agrippa on August 25, 2012, 12:41:53 PM
Just saw this article on rpg.net (http://www.rpg.net/columns/brave/brave81.phtml)

I don't know what to think about this.  Part of it sounds like anecdotal evidence, and he alternated between "characters are unstoppable now" and "rogues feel useless in comparison to casters."

But I don't have the Playtest Packs, and I bet a lot of you do, so you may know what he's talking about.
Oh noes!  First level characters that aren't reduced to chunks the first time they meet an orc?!  How ever shall we cope?

I think part of the complaint is the belief that if PCs have somewhat to very high starting hit points and potent special powers at first level they won't have much reason to play it safe, run from fights, avoid fights or use trickery and deciet in their adventures. See here (http://dreamsinthelichhouse.blogspot.com/2012/06/challenge-for-5e.html), here (http://dreamsinthelichhouse.blogspot.com/2011/12/man-or-superman.html) and here (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2012/05/dude-wheres-my-first-level.html) for old school complaints about this. I don't agree with them, but I understand where they come from.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Terminus Est on August 25, 2012, 02:34:06 PM
Just saw this article on rpg.net (http://www.rpg.net/columns/brave/brave81.phtml)

I don't know what to think about this.  Part of it sounds like anecdotal evidence, and he alternated between "characters are unstoppable now" and "rogues feel useless in comparison to casters."

But I don't have the Playtest Packs, and I bet a lot of you do, so you may know what he's talking about.

To me it seems like in one playtest he had a good DM and in the second he didn't.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: JohnnyMayHymn on August 25, 2012, 06:31:56 PM
^^ plus 1

DMs vary widely in rules interpretations, storytelling ability and style. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: dipolartech on August 29, 2012, 12:37:48 PM
I'm thirding T EST, the author bounces between a un-educated semi-informed review of the mechanics of the new rules and commenting on how awesome the game was the first time he played with an entirely different set of people in a different "campaign" than the second time he played it where the whole game sucked. Really its just different set ups for the characters to "play" in that made that difference.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: VennDygrem on August 30, 2012, 03:14:02 PM
After reading that article, I kind of got a headache. The author seems an unreliable source. He had a bad experience, and so will you, if he is to be believed. I've read over both playtest packets, and while I still haven't had a chance to play either if them, I don't think the changes that have been made to the mechanics are as sweeping as he makes them out to be. He mentions that in his first playtest, players went into great detail to gain advantage, but that didn't happen this time. That doesn't sound like a failing of the game, but of the players. The DM didn't allow a player to use his ability to do something he's not supposed to? Well, guess what, you're playtesting a low level character with limited options being DM'd by an official DM. Play the same rules at home and maybe that DM can afford a bit more flexibility.

All in all, that article does nothing to dissuade me from my interest in the game. Sure, it does seem to need a lot of kinks to work out, but in my opinion the game seems like it's got a pretty decent start toward being fun and enjoyable. Who knows, though. *shrug*

/end rant/
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on September 01, 2012, 03:28:16 PM
FYI: The rules in the D&DN packets change wildly between iterations. The first one had some good ideas, but sucked overall. The second one is a lot better, but still needs work.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: JohnnyMayHymn on October 12, 2012, 05:26:33 AM
Yet another play test packet (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/DnDNext.aspx), they added magic items!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on October 12, 2012, 03:14:29 PM
Oathbow is back, and still worse than kick in the nuts.  Good job WotC!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on October 17, 2012, 02:04:14 AM
Oathbow is back, and still worse than kick in the nuts.  Good job WotC!
I was pretty on board with it up until the part where you attack everything else with disadvantage. No.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on October 17, 2012, 02:42:35 AM
Sometimes I see a comment claiming that D&D Next won't be released until 2014.

Sounds like a far ways away, if it's true.  Can anyone clarify this claim for me?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on October 21, 2012, 05:02:13 PM
Sometimes I see a comment claiming that D&D Next won't be released until 2014.

Sounds like a far ways away, if it's true.  Can anyone clarify this claim for me?

http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29321869/When_DD_Next_will_be_released:_a_2-year_process_at_the_current_rate
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on October 22, 2012, 05:48:33 PM
What the Abyss is the product line till then?  Nothing?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on October 22, 2012, 07:50:19 PM
hmm ... give the Edition War Hacks a couple of years to calm down.


And reprint the most requested / highest "auction" (amazon) priced 3e Books.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: FlaminCows on October 22, 2012, 11:27:03 PM
What the Abyss is the product line till then? Nothing?

There's some edition-neutral fluff books, and some 4e adventures and Dungeon Tiles and such. 4th edition isn't technically dead, although DDI's output has decreased dramatically. There's also some more reprints in the works, which the more I look at it the more I suspect they were planning reprints a long time and just "saving them" for the dry period when the new edition is being worked on. While that put together isn't quite nothing, yeah, there isn't going to be much.

There'll still be lots of novels and Magic cards printed, and we all know that's where the real money is.  :p
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: JohnnyMayHymn on October 31, 2012, 04:24:57 AM
Yet another Playtesting Packet (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/DnDNext.aspx), up to level 10.

Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Lord Slasher on October 31, 2012, 04:18:40 PM
Let's see now wizards and clerics can now only cast 2 spells per spell level today (And no word on bonus spells) thereby the 5 min workday is in full force.

Word of Power is nice though is it wasn't for the aforementioned spells per day it would actually make healing worth it.

And LOL WOTC, nice try with disguising 3.5 feats as if they where TOB maneuvers (newsflash there not).

In short, Bleh!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on October 31, 2012, 10:44:48 PM
Let's see now wizards and clerics can now only cast 2 spells per spell level today (And no word on bonus spells) thereby the 5 min workday is in full force.

Word of Power is nice though is it wasn't for the aforementioned spells per day it would actually make healing worth it.

And LOL WOTC, nice try with disguising 3.5 feats as if they where TOB maneuvers (newsflash there not).

In short, Bleh!
The more they put out the worse things look.  Fighter and Rogue are basically the same dumb thing now and get feats as class abilities.  As a bonus they can't even use those class abilities as freely as they can feats!  Yay!
Sorcerer and Warlock are gone now, the masses didn't like them or something.  Pity those showed a sign of inventiveness.

On the upside, the Fighter does get a second attack at 6th that no one else does.  They found one thing to do right with the class.  It only took them three editions to go back to the well.  :smirk
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Lord Slasher on November 01, 2012, 12:52:45 PM
Let's see now wizards and clerics can now only cast 2 spells per spell level today (And no word on bonus spells) thereby the 5 min workday is in full force.

Word of Power is nice though is it wasn't for the aforementioned spells per day it would actually make healing worth it.

And LOL WOTC, nice try with disguising 3.5 feats as if they where TOB maneuvers (newsflash there not).

In short, Bleh!
The more they put out the worse things look.  Fighter and Rogue are basically the same dumb thing now and get feats as class abilities.  As a bonus they can't even use those class abilities as freely as they can feats!  Yay!
Sorcerer and Warlock are gone now, the masses didn't like them or something.  Pity those showed a sign of inventiveness.

On the upside, the Fighter does get a second attack at 6th that no one else does.  They found one thing to do right with the class.  It only took them three editions to go back to the well.  :smirk
Actually IMO the sorcerer and warlock were best thing to come out of the playtest. It was probably because they didn't feel like a sorcerer and warlock or something like that.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: FlaminCows on November 01, 2012, 01:59:05 PM
Mearls said that they do want to keep a class like the Sorcerer of the previous packet in the game, they just might do it later or under another name. It being removed is not because they don't like the idea and it is never going to appear in the new edition but rather because they're going back into internal testing: the playtest packet isn't the full extent of the game they've made so far, rather, it is just the parts they want feedback on right now.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agrippa on November 01, 2012, 08:57:06 PM
While I'm not part of the playtest I have been following the reviews of it so far. Mostly from this site and Dragonsfoot. As you can guess their complaints (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=56371&p=1293334#p1293334) aren't the same as ours. Mostly they feel that the PCs are too powerful/durable (same thing by old school D&D standards) and that players end up looking at their rather sheets more rather than just playing the game. The vast majoraty of them don't even like the idea of maneuver like sub-systems and believe that they detract from the "feel" of D&D. A feel they find closer to characters like Cugel the Clever, Farfhd and the Grey Mouser and at the higher end Robert E. Howards' heroes.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on November 01, 2012, 09:07:45 PM
Well, I'm pretty sure that the 4th Edition fans have another set of complaints.

Different strokes for different folks.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on November 02, 2012, 12:50:00 AM
That is why this will be an exercise in frustration for them. Appeasing(much less actually PLEASING) the disparate fanbase is going to be a rather uncertain goal. Much of the feedback is directly in conflict with each other.

We still hadn't really seen much of an image or ideal of the game that they are trying to make. It looks like a big lump of play-doh everyone tries to mold.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: FlaminCows on November 02, 2012, 02:00:44 AM
One thing that I was very relieved to read is that the developers don't actually care about the feedback given in WotC's boards, in fact they only occasionally go there at all (they read the official feedback given through surveys, and the comments on their articles). It may sound harsh, but I am so damn thankful that the threads in the D&D Next board on WotC are to not have any major effect on the final game. Those people are insane.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ChupacabraJohn on November 05, 2012, 11:51:58 AM
One thing that I was very relieved to read is that the developers don't actually care about the feedback given in WotC's boards, in fact they only occasionally go there at all (they read the official feedback given through surveys, and the comments on their articles). It may sound harsh, but I am so damn thankful that the threads in the D&D Next board on WotC are to not have any major effect on the final game. Those people are insane.

Those boards are a satan pit  :banghead
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on November 13, 2012, 06:14:50 PM
Monk Class just released. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20121113)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 13, 2012, 07:02:04 PM
... to an immediate Alignment flame war.


Star Wars and Star Trek have had "pauses" between
productive eras.  WotC could just sit around for a while,
and let all the do-do un-hit-the-fan.  Should.  Won't.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on November 13, 2012, 07:16:32 PM
I'm not an Insider Subscriber.  What's going on with the Monk's alignment?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Garryl on November 13, 2012, 10:48:10 PM
You don't have to be a subscriber to see the playtest documents and stuff, just sign up with an email address.

Monks are Lawful only, once again. They're the only alignment-restricted class currently in the playtest.

Did anyone notice that with the change to Rogues using Expertise Dice, Sneak Attack is just a very limited version of Deadly Strike?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Wilb on November 15, 2012, 10:24:54 AM
The developers seem to be trying to bring the fighter to the "top" of the martial classes, and then flattening other nonmagical (or quasi-nonmagical in case of the monk) classes to sometimes match his damage output or defense (seeing as the monk needs to roll stats really well to equal a fighter in fullplate at least in AC).

The cleric seems to pull ahead right now, because as they`re built, they`ll go the same way as the 3.0-3.5 one, only casting a few "powerful" spells per day.

The wizard and his traditions seem to be the strangest right now. The academic tradition gets shafted compared to the rest, and they`re going all AEDU on the others. Vancian casters need to die or something, according to wizards forum members. Low level Illusion spells causing psychic damage really don`t feel ok to me. I thought Wizards could play ok in Next, but it seems that only damage dealing ones will remain in the end.

The previous package felt nice as a game but this one feels like the bastard kid of 4E and 3E who inherited only the bad stuff of the "couple".

Alignment wars as they are "fought" at Wizards`boards just enrages me. Why can`t the guys write the fluff they want if they already said that everything regarding limitations is purely optional?

I love the old campaign settings and the things they changed in 4E made me abandon it even before taking a look at the system, because I could always change what I didn`t like, but it was nice to see the story of each world developing along the editions. Without casting Raise Dead so that the right cows are brought back, no amount of work will make me pay for a system that just changes stuff to be different while keeping it fluffless where needed so that the "Dark n Edgy" guys will like it. I`ll keep the deeply flawed systems and worlds I already bought, thank you.

With this, I`m trying to say that if 4E had not killed so many sacred cows, I`d buy every book that contained fluff, even if i disliked the system (which i kinda enjoyed when playing one shots). If there is no standard fluff that is internally consistent and doesn`t throw all previous editions`fluff away (except 4E, which did just this), there is nothing that makes me stay. They should make it so that everything is optional,  and anyone can play their game as they wish, but never straying too far from the old times in the standards adopted, if they really wish to bring at least a fraction of their lost customers back.

Different mechanics can never be brought together perfectly, making each feeling remain present and separate, but a constant stream of fluff can at least keep some players together. People that build their own campaign worlds will only buy the system if the mechanics let they do what they and their players want, so they still need to decide which kind of integration they want with this edition, after all, there will always be players from every edition that will not leave them.

Sorry if this sounds offensive or out of place, it is not my intention to offend anyone, and I`m ready to receive criticism for expressing my limited and strange opinion on these boards.

Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: PlzBreakMyCampaign on November 19, 2012, 12:16:36 AM
One thing that I was very relieved to read is that the developers don't actually care about the feedback given in WotC's boards, in fact they only occasionally go there at all (they read the official feedback given through surveys, and the comments on their articles). It may sound harsh, but I am so damn thankful that the threads in the D&D Next board on WotC are to not have any major effect on the final game. Those people are insane.

Those boards are a satan pit  :banghead
I didn't bother when it was obvious WotC wouldn't listen there, so I haven't looked to see. Why is it crappy?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Wilb on November 19, 2012, 09:53:29 AM
One thing that I was very relieved to read is that the developers don't actually care about the feedback given in WotC's boards, in fact they only occasionally go there at all (they read the official feedback given through surveys, and the comments on their articles). It may sound harsh, but I am so damn thankful that the threads in the D&D Next board on WotC are to not have any major effect on the final game. Those people are insane.

Those boards are a satan pit  :banghead
I didn't bother when it was obvious WotC wouldn't listen there, so I haven't looked to see. Why is it crappy?

Because the mods let the more rabid 4E fans bash the previous editions, as long as they keep this tag: "developers aren`t bothering with keeping the 4E players, they`re biased", and anything that relates to previous editions, be it fluff or crunch, is considered "a wrong way to play D&D". Another problem is that some users have the autonomy to do as they like, going as low as personally attacking the posters with almost absolute freedom, mods only slapping their wrists digitally, without any effect on the whole.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on November 19, 2012, 10:10:07 AM
So basically unending edition warfare. You'd think that could be better handled by now.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on November 19, 2012, 02:18:40 PM
So, have they just given up on D&D or something?  Sounds like Mearls and co. are just half-heartedly slogging through things.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 19, 2012, 07:34:37 PM

... Alignment wars as they are "fought" at Wizards`boards just enrages me.

Why can`t the guys write the fluff they want if they ... (implying WotC ?) ... already said that everything regarding limitations is purely optional? ...
bolding mine.

Really? Wotc did say that?
If they did, technically that's very good.
(idk but I wouldn't know ; I'm not paying much attention.)

Might be a push toward "Law" having a historically implied meaning,
but not an etched-in-stone meaning.  Do the fluff you want, but not
so far off the beaten track.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Wilb on November 20, 2012, 06:06:48 AM
The developers are trying to rescue the fluff from older editions, while leaving some barely noticeable 4E like mechanics to try to please everyone (which is sure to happen, sure... :lmao). This is presented almost explicitly on their new article about demons and devils (undoing the 4E changes for change`s sake). You can almost notice a palpable "We`re sorry" with every article posted.

The posters there mostly complain about the non prevalence of 4E mechanics and express inhuman hate towards the default fluff, always complaining that "you`re having badwrongfun!!!". Some of them, even being shown that alignments as a whole were optional, still complained about the EXISTENCE of an OPTIONAL rule that could LIMIT in any way the choice of players. When some tame posters identified themselves as DMs that used such rule (even if his players were cool with it), they were accused of being tyrants who limit the fun of others (nice to accuse someone of doing what they do it seems...) and then they sank to pure ad hominem level.

Those guys hate everything that tries to look like default fluff that is not 4E-again, and also complain that it is hard for new DMs to start playing without guidance. Just to make sure I make you guys get the point: Its not that different groups are complaining this, the very same group of people advocate such contradictory viewpoints, and when an innocent, naive little guy points it out, a shitstorm occurs, where the wotc forum zombies clean the mess and say something that ammounts to "no no, stop making ... angry! I`ll ban him for a day, are you satisfied you bully?" and go cry in the corner.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 20, 2012, 06:31:01 PM
So Fluff is freed from mandatory-ness 1st, to placate 4e fans 2nd.
That could work, even if people don't want it to.



... Vancian casters need to die or something, according to wizards forum members.

Low level Illusion spells causing psychic damage really don`t feel ok to me...

The word "Wizard" needs to be divorced from Vancian casting.
There still can be a Vance class, even called exactly that, doing
what everyone knows a "vance" has been doing forever.
After that the "Wizard" will suffer the exact same problem again. 
It won't be wizard-y enough for the next stereotype down the list.
 :P (but happy)

hmm ... 3e, 3.5e and Dr#349 had various takes on Illusion = Psi.
Similarly with psi/magic transparency, also with Complete Psionic.
If it's a minor streamlining, I don't see it being a big problem.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Wilb on November 21, 2012, 06:50:29 AM
The only problem I see Awaken, is that they are divorcing from their initial idea that every wizard tradition would be close to the same in terms or raw power, considering that they shafted the vancian one, while making all others become the AEDU standard, with at-will, encounter (signature), and daily.

They haven`t tried different ways to twist the casting, such as separating prepared spells from slots (as in preparing spells equal to the wizards int modifier for every spell level without forgetting them when a slot was used), not a pure cooldown caster (with each spell being able to be used, albeit each of them having unique cooldowns), nor a threshold caster (as in being able to cast X spell levels in sequence, with 1 level returning for every round spent not casting, with a 1-x hour(s) penalty in case of overcasting) while claiming to be stressing the classes to the limit (which is mentioned by them on the D&D hangout video).

I just don`t believe they`re trying to do this massive variety thing with casters, just catering to AEDU fans and offering a dirty bone for Vancian fans ( I for one would like to see Vancian being the main option for the Wizard, with at least 2 completely different ways presented on the PHB). What remains is the reason, they may be holding up their horses to have some stuff already prepared for future publications, or they may be disregarding the casters in favor of the melee guys (which I don`t think its working well, seing the reaction of the players to this iteration of the rogue, whose power decreased considerably, while being not even close to compensate with its ridiculously minimal utility).

Edit: 2nd level freeform illusions causing damage for up to 10 mins is my concern Awaken. Illusional structures such as selective walls or bridges would be more welcome to the school than raw damage, in my flawed opinion. 3E had the shadow evocation/conjuration line that limited a bit of the damage caused by them but look at the level they started, this one feels just a tad too early.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 21, 2012, 03:32:45 PM
Heh ... I like getting all the old fluff back in.
+1 to that !!

3e has Eberron way over "there" and Forgotten Realms
way over "that-a-way", so it'd be easy enough to have
a 4e Alternate Multiverse 'port with a few more barriers
to get through "over here".
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Amechra on November 21, 2012, 08:26:08 PM
I like that Threshold caster idea...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Wilb on November 22, 2012, 05:01:51 AM
If they made the 4E basic fluff (Nentir vale is the name, i think) a separate campaign setting, It`d feel great, a new completely different setting with crazy cosmology and elemental demons. Having that stuff shoved down your throat  and being told that what was before shall never be again , coupled with forcing that stuff throughout all settings is what left me wanting to tear their heads barehanded. Lucky me they didn`t touch Greyhawk.

Amechra, can I take it that you will join me in the Homebrewing boards when the obviously lacking Next is finally done? Because Altering these simple things in innovative ways is just what I think it needs, after all, some guys were complaining that Vancian made them feel "not casters" for the majority of the day. This previous sentence translates to "I wanna nova like 5MWD all day long! Make me able to nova as much as I want so I can be the top dawg, but not so much that Fighter Mcfighter feels bad for not being as awesome as me." when you consider who says that. 5MWD just ticks them off because the can`t feel awesome all the time, not because it`s unbalanced.

The threshold, as well as the others (and many new ones i keep thinking spontaneously) are just the ideas that play with the casting aspect, making it "more" or "less" Vancian, while allowing the permanence of the aspect I think makes the D&D Wizard (not so iconic for the Cleric, i think), the preparation, which is not present only in the pure cooldown I suggested. You can also notice that some of those variations can also be used with other casting systems without much problems (threshold applied to slots, MP or Warlock Favors is quite possible, am I right?), leaving the 5MWD an issue to be dealt with at player level. Both as player and DM I enjoyed the machinations necessary to prepare my spells every day (Wiz, Clr, Drd 3+3.5) and when something was not tailored to the spells prepared I felt intrigued and a sense that "not everything is made to suit my capabilities and desires but to create a world in itself", which screams fantasy to me.

Awaken I hope that they`re bringing all the cosmologies to their respective places, and maybe bringing some new ones (RICH BURLEW`S SETTING FOR GODS SAKE!!!) but with the Great Wheel being taken as the default, not forced to anyone as the crap move done to World Axis. I have homebrewed a setting which i used since 2003, but I treasure most of the official ones, that used to contain so much inspirational fluff. Greyhawk and Planescape are my favorite ones (Greyhawk wins by a little margin), with Spelljammer, Mystara, Dark Sun, Ravenloft and Birthright (in order) just behind, but I consider all settings up to the end of 3.5 to be amazing compared to what came after.

Check out the new articles and lets post about them! (In a legal, civilized way, not found there)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 23, 2012, 03:34:37 PM
I think the Homebrewing "cat" is out of the bag.
That's a very good thing.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on November 27, 2012, 12:08:15 AM
I think the Homebrewing "cat" is out of the bag.
That's a very good thing.

Mows?  :ninja
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 27, 2012, 05:18:11 PM
... although to be fair, it is not very likely
that a 5e Book of Vile Darkness would
include a Cactus with a Profane bonus.



Lots of recent play on the wotc 5e board about a
product announcement.  Someone put 5+2 together ...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Rejakor on November 29, 2012, 12:32:29 PM
4e was actually a great system, for one thing.  Separating out the people I would never want to play with.

With an acknowledgement for the small group of people who joined in 4th ed and yet are good at running games (mostly via just eyeballing and homebrewing everything up to and including the core ruleset), 4e 'fans', with their obsessive focus on low power games, endless dice-rolling, 'keeping up' with errata updates, thinking a default setting where races are evil and loot 'drops' from nowhere is amazing, and all the rest of the pointless rage-inducing minutiae and terrible design flaws hailed as manna from heaven for terrible reasons, are just everything I hate about the roleplaying community in specific and nerds in general.

So I like that, because I can hear '4e', listen briefly for the 'but I change everything', and then simply tune that person out of my personal reality forever.


That said, given the mismanagement of 3e, the enormous leap backwards of 4e, and the same faces in the same places, wotc has about a bazillion negative rep with me when it comes to selling new games.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 29, 2012, 05:23:16 PM
The 4e Loot problem has bugged me from the start.

Who made that +2 Sword with Property X ??
NPC Wizard or NPC Artificer or NPC Human with
the Mark of Making feat ... are the most likely answers,
but NPCs and Monsters get unlimited rituals anyway.

Why be a PC if you'be got rituals in your game ?!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Wilb on November 29, 2012, 06:33:09 PM
4e was actually a great system, for one thing.  Separating out the people I would never want to play with.

With an acknowledgement for the small group of people who joined in 4th ed and yet are good at running games (mostly via just eyeballing and homebrewing everything up to and including the core ruleset), 4e 'fans', with their obsessive focus on low power games, endless dice-rolling, 'keeping up' with errata updates, thinking a default setting where races are evil and loot 'drops' from nowhere is amazing, and all the rest of the pointless rage-inducing minutiae and terrible design flaws hailed as manna from heaven for terrible reasons, are just everything I hate about the roleplaying community in specific and nerds in general.

So I like that, because I can hear '4e', listen briefly for the 'but I change everything', and then simply tune that person out of my personal reality forever.


That said, given the mismanagement of 3e, the enormous leap backwards of 4e, and the same faces in the same places, wotc has about a bazillion negative rep with me when it comes to selling new games.

 :clap Dude, just, dude...

I feel there are not enough people who could just state that nowadays.

In my country, whose RPG community is divided between otaku animuniacs and vampire wannabe goth virgin men, 4E was hailed as the salvation, given the low creativity of the DMs and the rejection of RPG settings as worlds. Everyone was just happy with their theme park adventures with Carlos the Adventurer Dwarf, while hailing the new books and errata as godly gifts (with that "ooh shiny" face) thinking that using them was equivalent to cheating, which is an almost national hobby (google "jeitinho brasileiro" to see what kind of crazy shenanigans brazillians are up to).

The 4e Loot problem has bugged me from the start.

Who made that +2 Sword with Property X ??
NPC Wizard or NPC Artificer or NPC Human with
the Mark of Making feat ... are the most likely answers,
but NPCs and Monsters get unlimited rituals anyway.

Why be a PC if you'be got rituals in your game ?!


3+3.5E was really thorough when it came to crafting. So many systems and subsystems related to it (nipple ring reversed infinite torture spell clock ambrosia harvesting, dark craft XP, Artificer craft reserve, crafting XP redistribution amulets and so on)  and a stupid amount of things to craft (from basic magic trinkets to LIFE AND PLANES THEMSELVES!!!!) just made the world all the more believable when it came to the possibility of finding magic items anywhere.

OFF TOPIC: is there a way to create a topic that can be seen only by certain people? I still couldn`t ascertain the legality of Next homebrew, so, to avoid any future problems, I`d like to create a place to post at least the caster ideas mentioned by me in this topic, and discuss that with those interested. Sorry if I couldn`t post this here.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: InnaBinder on November 29, 2012, 07:12:04 PM
Quote
OFF TOPIC: is there a way to create a topic that can be seen only by certain people? I still couldn`t ascertain the legality of Next homebrew, so, to avoid any future problems, I`d like to create a place to post at least the caster ideas mentioned by me in this topic, and discuss that with those interested. Sorry if I couldn`t post this here.
My 2cp, completely free of official status:

This sounds like a question best handled via PMing the moderator account, which AFAIK every mod has sigged.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Prime32 on November 29, 2012, 07:42:05 PM
PMing you mean? Private boards are possible, but not private threads. I have no idea what the legal status of Next homebrew is, though I saw some posted on GitP...

To be on the safe side, you could try discussing it in a chat room?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: FlaminCows on November 29, 2012, 10:35:44 PM
3+3.5E was really thorough when it came to crafting. So many systems and subsystems related to it (nipple ring reversed infinite torture spell clock ambrosia harvesting, dark craft XP, Artificer craft reserve, crafting XP redistribution amulets and so on) and a stupid amount of things to craft (from basic magic trinkets to LIFE AND PLANES THEMSELVES!!!!) just made the world all the more believable when it came to the possibility of finding magic items anywhere.

On top of that, Wizards forgot the #1 thing about crafting magic items in 3.5: it is FUN. So fun that it deserves the all caps. When they made 4e, they were like "Crafting magic items is overpowered, pitch it out the window." Which completely missed the point, really.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Wilb on November 30, 2012, 05:51:41 AM
PMing you mean? Private boards are possible, but not private threads. I have no idea what the legal status of Next homebrew is, though I saw some posted on GitP...

To be on the safe side, you could try discussing it in a chat room?

Surely. Anyone wanting to discuss Next brew just PM me and I`ll get in contact with some solution.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Childe on November 30, 2012, 11:50:48 PM
I just want to weigh in to say I don't understand why anyone would homebrew 5e right now, as there essentially isn't a system besides the d20 mechanic. What are you modifying? The loosely altered Standard / Move action economy (already present in 3.X and 4e)? The checks/saves/etc. systems, which are all different words used for the d20 mechanic? The class system that isn't really very different from 3.X? The feats and class features that are hopefully all agreed to be terrible? The items that are actually incredibly game-breaking in very silly ways?

You're working with scorched earth. You can do that without calling it homebrew. Just create your game.

That's my two cents.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Wilb on December 02, 2012, 06:43:25 AM
There`s no use in homebrewing for playing purposes right now.

What I intend to do is just demonstrate that they haven`t done what they claimed, which was testing all different possible mechanics within a class.

I want to do it by creating a different mechanic to use with feats, maneouvres and spells already present in the playtest, while mantaining what I, in my limited and useless opinion, think is acceptable flavour for each class, starting with Wizards and Traditions.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Wilb on December 03, 2012, 09:44:54 AM
Guys, see the new article on D&D Next rules! There`s a chance that Mike Mearls really is reading what the guys post in the surveys (or he reads this board). He explicitly states that Wizards`spell slots and prepared spells will be separate on the next packet, just as I had suggested in these boards and answered in the surveys (as well as 12 DM friends that discussed this online somewhere else).

There was no indication of such change in the previous packet, and he claims that this is just like the Deity choosing mechanic for the cleric, which worked like this for the Domain-like spells. That is not even close to the truth because the spell preparation was still there, with the option of giving up a prepared spell for one from the fixed list being added (just as the spontaneous domain option in the 3.5 CD or CC, I don`t really remember which). This time he is givinf the wizards a fixed amount of spells prepared per spell level, completely divorced from the slots (you prepare the spells but no spell is tied to a slot, and it seems to indicate that the number of slots, claimed to be increasing, will be greater than the number of prepared spells).

(I like the fact that new wizard styles are going to be tested, I will dislike if it becomes the only option)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on December 06, 2012, 06:33:20 PM
I doubt many or any of them read over here.
Old C.O. and the post C.O. crowd is pretty
much a corner case.  Everyone thinks highly
of themselves, but they're busy.


That Wiz stuff, sounds like an attempt to
a) ... keep the Vance historical Wizard
b) ... partially please the anti-Vances
c) ... better have a "wizard" option that has no
Vance at all lest the skies cloud and meteors
fall and the Mayan apocalypse, etc ...

Feels like a Wiz-y Sorc with half-way home sign posts.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Wilb on December 06, 2012, 07:04:07 PM
I hope they don`t try to use this packet to AEDUfy the Vance, limiting his prepared spells to 2 per level while expanding on the spells per day table...

The best they could do is give a small but considerable amount, like 1+1/5 levels plus INT mod per spell level. A good amount but not exactly spontaneous casting of the whole spellbook.

Bring em strange casters, the pally and the ranger! Alignment limitations included, but optional as stated (to keep the settings fluff as intact as possible).
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Necrosnoop110 on December 07, 2012, 06:34:01 PM
Quote
The fighter is in good shape. We're likely going to give the fighter a special parry mechanic that doesn't use expertise dice but works much the same way. If anything, the fighter might be a little too good. The feedback pegs the fighter as the most powerful class.
Source: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20121203

Thoughts?


Peace,
Necro

PS - Sorry if someone addressed this already, I haven't be following the thread 100%
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on December 09, 2012, 11:57:20 PM
More importantly
Quote

The biggest piece of feedback we received was that the rogue came across as a lame fighter. This was a key test to see how much tolerance people have for varied combat strength across classes. There's some give, but it looks like people want to avoid dramatic differences.

Frankly, that's not surprising, but now is the best time for us to challenge our assumptions before we lock things down.
Calling it a test eh. Either the game is MUCH further from completion than I thought, or they're just covering their ass.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on December 10, 2012, 01:34:57 AM
Stuff like this killed most of the enthusiasm I had for D&D Next, and I've mellowed out on Pathfinder books (most of the stuff I can get for free online for my games).  Probably explains why my primary interests are now out of print 3rd Edition Campaign Settings and old school Retro Clones.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on December 10, 2012, 04:30:05 PM
I also like the idea of dramatic differences among character builds.  Although I prefer them to be an affirmative choice rather than a default setting.  If it's a default setting that's probably a bad idea.  It's one of the things D&D (3E) has going for it compared to say Mutants and Masterminds.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on December 10, 2012, 04:32:18 PM
I disagree about the Mutants & Masterminds bit.  The sheer customization of Powers allows for an incredible variety of character builds.  But this is straying off-topic.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Eldritch_Lord on December 10, 2012, 05:51:10 PM
More importantly
Quote

The biggest piece of feedback we received was that the rogue came across as a lame fighter. This was a key test to see how much tolerance people have for varied combat strength across classes. There's some give, but it looks like people want to avoid dramatic differences.

Frankly, that's not surprising, but now is the best time for us to challenge our assumptions before we lock things down.
Calling it a test eh. Either the game is MUCH further from completion than I thought, or they're just covering their ass.

If the Ivory Tower Game Design article is anything to go by, I wouldn't rule out that they're just covering their collective ass.  However, they've said they're targeting a 2014 release (and remember, 4e was basically written in 2 years as well), and between that and the amount of changes between playtest packets, I'm inclined to say that it's just really really early in the process right now.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on December 10, 2012, 07:45:25 PM
I disagree about the Mutants & Masterminds bit.  The sheer customization of Powers allows for an incredible variety of character builds.  But this is straying off-topic.
I'm not a topic Nazi.  I have played a lot of M&M, and made many, many characters (got to be over 100).  The system is amazingly flexible and intricate, allowing you to do a lot of things and create a lot of subtle differences.  It's one of the few systems where you can have 3 characters with essentially the same power set, say Superman, Black Adam, and Wonder Woman, and have them be interestingly mechanically-distinct. 

But, the PL system does mute the differences between builds.  This is, to be fair, its intended function.  You will notice that characters have less separation, or the separation comes in particular set of ways (e.g., Impervious defenses), than it does in D&D.  You won't have the potential large differences in AC or the Paladin's ability to scoff at saving throws.  This is more the case with the 3rd edition of the game, where characters are encouraged to have more balanced defenses. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on December 27, 2012, 04:14:46 AM
If anyone still cares, the next Next packet is out.  Up to 20th level now.  I have yet to peruse.
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: JohnnyMayHymn on January 30, 2013, 01:56:18 AM
Yet another playtest (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/DnDNext.aspx) is out.  They must have been waiting for the boards to be back online.

Barbarian 1-20.

Where is the druid, DoTC?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on January 30, 2013, 10:10:52 PM
They've really hung a ton on people liking the whole Martial Die mechanic.  There is one whole class that doesn't use it; the Wizard.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on January 30, 2013, 11:37:06 PM
They've really hung a ton on people liking the whole Martial Die mechanic.  There is one whole class that doesn't use it; the Wizard.

Wait, Clerics use it now too?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Garryl on January 31, 2013, 12:15:33 AM
They've really hung a ton on people liking the whole Martial Die mechanic.  There is one whole class that doesn't use it; the Wizard.

That seems a little overboard, if it's the case. It's a good subsystem (enables player choice, scaling effects, varied abilities, and a consistent unified mechanic), but having too many classes use it would really kill the system's diversity (like 4E's at will/encounter/daily/utility paradigm). It could also marginalize the mechanic's worth for class that rely on it when compared to classes that have it and another subsystem to combine with. That said, I'm downloading the playtest now to take a look.

Edit: Wow, yeah, every class but Wizards. Clerics pick it up at level 6.

Edit 2: It seems that most classes get a sort of stunted progression after level 10. You don't get much in the way of new features and existing ones stop or dramatically slow their progression. Wizards get higher level spells, but not more slots (just 1 slot of each spell level from 6 through 9).
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on January 31, 2013, 12:52:18 AM
Edit 2: It seems that most classes get a sort of stunted progression after level 10. You don't get much in the way of new features and existing ones stop or dramatically slow their progression. Wizards get higher level spells, but not more slots (just 1 slot of each spell level from 6 through 9).
This bodes ill for the possibility of simple multiclassing.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Amechra on January 31, 2013, 01:43:58 AM
Actually, wouldn't it incentivize it?

After all, if you aren't getting much from your main class, its best if you grabbed stuff from other places.


Or it could just be WotC being bad at writing high level abilities again.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on January 31, 2013, 04:00:43 AM
Actually, wouldn't it incentivize it?

After all, if you aren't getting much from your main class, its best if you grabbed stuff from other places.


Or it could just be WotC being bad at writing high level abilities again.

Depends on what abilities you are getting, I guess.  Like in 3.5, martial and skillmonkey builds tend to dip around a lot because their high level abilities aren't that great.  Casters on the other hand don't multiclass hardly at all (excluding PrC's) because delaying their high level spells is such a big deal. 

Edit:  I worry that they've kind of latched on to this extra die mechanic in a way that's a bit too similar to what happened with 4E.  They stumbled upon a system that makes certain classes more interesting, and now they're forcing everything to fit the system.  That will only bite them in the butt.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on February 01, 2013, 02:06:58 AM
Actually, wouldn't it incentivize it?

After all, if you aren't getting much from your main class, its best if you grabbed stuff from other places.


Or it could just be WotC being bad at writing high level abilities again.
Emphasis on "simple". In particular, if numbers aren't a simple linear function of level in a class, they'll be quick to realize they can't have you just sum them across your classes, which is what made it so simple in 3E. There's no way in hell they'll trust the players to do square roots or logarithms or whatever they base their progressions on (if they base it on anything numerical, as opposed to "by feel"), which means they'll either have an absurdly elaborate system of table lookups, or else you'll have fixed points in your progression where you can multiclass, a la 4E. Either way, classes become significantly less modular and the system becomes less likely of being capable of representing your character idea.

They could easily miss it if gains accelerated as level increased (they sure did with spellcasting in 3E), but I would bet US dollars to Zimbabwe dollars that they'll zoom in on anything that makes multiclassing fundamentally and strictly better than singleclassing, and rule against it.

I think they may be running up against the fundamental limitations of the d20 as a system, unfortunately, and you can't ditch it as the basis of your RNG without losing what's pretty much the only mechanical constant that defines D&D. You can't support open-ended character growth in pure numbers without an RNG that grows to match, and you can't write an open-ended progression of new abilities at all. At some point, if you hard-capped numbers, you'd have to essentially write Epic Spellcasting again. So all you can do is slow growth down as you grow, in the hopes that nobody will ever actually play to the point where the system breaks down.

An alternative might be to redefine what a given result on a d20 means by what your level is (so that a 10 for a level 1 Fighter is a solid blow and a 10 for a level 20 Fighter is cutting down an entire battlefield of ordinary soldiers with a single swing), but that would require such a fundamental overhaul of the system that I can't even begin to imagine what it would look like, and it'd have a lot of DM Fiat problems.

Big ol stream-of-consciousness post is rambly.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on February 03, 2013, 07:48:56 AM
I've been losing faith in D&D Next, and this packet does nothing to restore it.  I'll wait and see, but I'm not holding my breath for anything at this point.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on February 03, 2013, 02:17:57 PM
I've been losing faith in D&D Next, and this packet does nothing to restore it.  I'll wait and see, but I'm not holding my breath for anything at this point.

Agreed.  When the first packet came out, I was pretty interested, but my enthusiasm has been steadily declining as they introduce more and more 4e design elements. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Garryl on February 03, 2013, 04:43:32 PM
I've been losing faith in D&D Next, and this packet does nothing to restore it.  I'll wait and see, but I'm not holding my breath for anything at this point.

Agreed.  When the first packet came out, I was pretty interested, but my enthusiasm has been steadily declining as they introduce more and more 4e design elements. 

What 4E design elements? I'm not familiar with the depths of 4E (only the generalities) and I've done little more than skim the playtest packets. I haven't even looked at the higher level spells in the new packet, just levels 1-5 from the previous iterations.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: PlzBreakMyCampaign on February 03, 2013, 08:47:09 PM
4e was actually a great system, for one thing.  Separating out the people I would never want to play with.

With an acknowledgement for the small group of people who joined in 4th ed and yet are good at running games (mostly via just eyeballing and homebrewing everything up to and including the core ruleset), 4e 'fans', with their obsessive focus on low power games, endless dice-rolling, 'keeping up' with errata updates, thinking a default setting where races are evil and loot 'drops' from nowhere is amazing, and all the rest of the pointless rage-inducing minutiae and terrible design flaws hailed as manna from heaven for terrible reasons, are just everything I hate about the roleplaying community in specific and nerds in general.

So I like that, because I can hear '4e', listen briefly for the 'but I change everything', and then simply tune that person out of my personal reality forever.
:)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on February 04, 2013, 04:22:02 AM
What 4E design elements? I'm not familiar with the depths of 4E (only the generalities) and I've done little more than skim the playtest packets. I haven't even looked at the higher level spells in the new packet, just levels 1-5 from the previous iterations.

Forcing the same system onto every class, when the original system was just fine; and the general toning down of everything.  I don't really know what else they've done, but those were the biggest things. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on February 22, 2013, 09:18:49 PM
After looking at D&D Next, 4th Edition looks more appealing to me.

Every Edition had its one unique mechanics and design philosophies.  D&D Next seems mainly to be aping the pre-4th Editions instead of going for its own unique thing, like a Frankenstein's Monster of RPGs.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: McBeardly on February 22, 2013, 11:24:34 PM
I'm having difficulty getting ahold of D&D Next stuff. Could someone explain why it looks so unappealing.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on February 23, 2013, 02:20:52 PM
From what I've seen, though this was a packet or two ago, they've latched on very strongly to the idea of a purely mechanical niche defining character. In essence, if you want a character who is good at X, they have to take some particular class, race, or feat, because that's how the designers planned to let you access that ability. The way they're setting up the numbers, it looks like multiclassing is very likely going to be a tacked-on afterthought accessible only at certain points in advancement (a la 4E), for instance. They're still going for a lot of the design-by-feel elements of previous editions, which seems likely to result in the imbalance of 3E and Co., but because they're retaining bits of 4E design philosophy we're likely to get similarly cookie-cutter characters because they don't want to risk unforeseen combinations arising from the mists of CharOp.

As I put it in another thread, they're putting tons of effort into coming up with cool mechanics for a particular character idea, and then saying that you can only have those mechanics if you're playing that particular archetype. Very much an emphasis on letting players play the characters the designers come up with, instead of tools to let the players design their characters. At least, this is the impression I got. It was a playtest, but I can't help but feel if they're cutting out player expression for the sake of reliable (read: standardized) results, they're missing the goal of character creation rules, and they're likely never to move out of that mindset later in development once it becomes the norm.

That's it for me, though. There actually are a lot of cool bits that I might one day set about backporting into 3.5 houserules.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on February 23, 2013, 03:41:02 PM
As I put it in another thread, they're putting tons of effort into coming up with cool mechanics for a particular character idea, and then saying that you can only have those mechanics if you're playing that particular archetype. Very much an emphasis on letting players play the characters the designers come up with, instead of tools to let the players design their characters. At least, this is the impression I got.

Eerr, isnt that actually a good thing? Isn't it best if the class/archetype "swordman" actually makes for the best swordman?

Because a good chunk of the problems with 3.X is precisely that some classes can blatantly steal the cool tricks of other classes.

Each class/archetype should have its own unique stuff. Otherwise it's kinda pointless to have classes to begin with if you ask me.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on February 23, 2013, 05:53:08 PM
If the only way to make a (effective) Swordsman is to take the Swordsman class, then the game is pruning and eliminating a lot of creativity in character creation. 

In 3E, you can make various flavors of X with various different class combinations.  That lithe, agile swordsman could be a conglomeration of random martial classes that give various class abilities, a ToB character, a Rogue, a gishy Assassin, even an Artificer or a Mage.  And, all of those have distinctive mechanical feels and advantages.  The ones with Sneak Attack might be better at single target burst damage whereas the feat-based ones might be better against mobs ... or something.  Side note:  this was also true in AD&D. 

That's not to set aside 3E's failings in various regards.  Notably the fact that some of the ways of realizing a concept -- which are legion -- will utterly suck compared to others.  But, that's the idea:  lots of different, distinct and mechanically interesting ways to realize a concept that you could pick and choose from or create/uncover through interesting combinations.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on February 23, 2013, 07:53:12 PM
Nobody ever said that those are mutually exclusive. The swordman class would be the best at swordmanning, but other classes could still be solid at stabbing stuff while having other tricks up their sleeves to compensate.

However it's kinda delusional to expect 5e to deliver the equivalent of roughly a decade worth of 3.X splatbooks right away.

A much fairer comparison would be D&D core, and in there no, there's no legion ways of making an "effective" swordman.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on February 23, 2013, 08:28:31 PM
I don't have much of a dog in the fight b/c the odds of me playing 5E are vanishingly small from what I've seen.  But, I still disagree with the basic philosophy you're espousing.  Unless you mean "Swordsman" to be a very specific, limited thing as opposed to "guy who hits people with pokey things." 

Even if there's a clear "best" or "right" way to build my earlier example of "lithe, agile swordsman" (which is a bit narrower), I'd say that's a mark against and not for the game.  There should be trade-offs, and situations where one shines more than others, but there should the system should be crafted with an eye towards reaching the concept in mind through many different means.  I would expect more build variability and depth from D&D than I do from Borderlands or Dragon Age. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on February 23, 2013, 08:46:45 PM
The biggest problem I have is that it cuts off character concepts not explicitly intended by the designers. In 3E, unforeseen combinations can allow for new niches to arise without houserules. I don't think anybody who wrote the rules actually intended for Lockdown Fighters to crop up as such a relatively effective niche for the class, for instance. If the rules don't allow for new ideas to arise organically from the system, then it's not one I'm very much interested in. Emergent optimization is a good thing.

As far as I can tell, the designers saw Pun-Pun (or whatever) and decided to back away from customization and minimize unexpected combinations of rules so that nothing could prove surprisingly broken, when I think the better decision would have been to embrace it and encourage creative optimization. The problem is, it takes an extraordinarily different paradigm of development to make that work (otherwise, we wind up with volumes of errata quashing combos that get "too powerful"). But that's a rant for a different time, though it reminds me I really do need to get back to work on my own system. >______>
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: InnaBinder on February 23, 2013, 09:01:15 PM
Everything I've seen so far - from the releases and discussions pertaining to them - indicates an apparent design goal of allowing  5 - 7 relative strangers (including the DM) to get together for a D&D campaign, without significant advance discussion and without worrying about whether Pat's character will be incompetent or whether Robin's character will outsize the adventure or make the DM curl up in a corner sobbing in terror.

Whether or not this apparent design goal is attainable while still maintaining the "feel" of D&D and allowing for a variety of character creation choices within each class, remains to be seen.  As I have tried to indicate before, D&D's fan-base may be too large and varied for the game to adequately and simultaneously fill the needs and desires of all those who want to play.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on February 24, 2013, 01:10:01 AM
I'd think it's pretty good as a design standpoint actually.

Emergent design is horribly complex to learn and to balance, it requires comprehensive knowledge of the entire ruleset, further complicated by imprecise wording and a lack of standardized ability components. You CAN balance emergent design, but it requires that the pieces you put together be comparable by simple metrics, such as your options being rooted in the same ability structure, consume standard resources and operate within predefined concepts. It is newbie and casual play hostile, and invariably has pitfalls for a player to deprive himself of synergy(as long as you can build for unrestricted synergies, this is unavoidable, some pieces combine for more useful effects).

To a lesser degree, it also means divorcing the pieces from flavor, the more flexible they are to use, the less cohesive their design. You see this all the time in homebrew, the broader and more mutable the concept the more difficult it is to avoid being generic or inconsistent, whereas abilities constructed around a single concept lends it's own fluff to the tale. Taken to an extreme, this can be seen in highly modular systems like Mutants & Masterminds, while it allows you to create nearly any character conceivable, what you end up with is a significantly smaller set, consisting of the basic mechanical archetypes in dressup or variations upon extant characters in the media. It does not inspire characters.

Worst of all, as far as WotC is concerned, is it sets a shorter lifespan on the product. You can quite feasibly fit all the pieces you could ever want to combine into one mega book, or several smaller books. After that you cross the complexity peak, where it becomes increasingly difficult to A) retain any semblance of balance due to the options proliferating beyond designers ability to account for them B) be newbie accessible with the alarming array of options and C) avoid design space depletion without breaking the parameters set originally. And then it's time for a new edition and a new war.

Going the other way they could feasibly go on writing for many times longer, going for increasingly specific character options. And that sells more books.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on February 24, 2013, 01:34:07 AM
I'll grant you that it's horribly complex to learn and balance, to be sure. Like I said, it requires a fundamental revision of the design paradigm. You can't just have a bunch of guys plugging away at your system until it's done, and then you release an edition that gets updates for a couple of years before you start over. Still, it isn't necessarily the point - I can't reasonably ask a well-established business to upend their entire business model. They don't have to completely embrace the idea and run with it, they just have to avoid retreating so far from it that character creation becomes a sterile character-select screen, which is what 4E felt like in some respects when I looked, and what the philosophy behind 5E started to look like.

Emergent design is one thing, emergent optimization is slightly different; the latter is inevitable in any complex system, and attempting to crush it only leads to a false sense of security that encourages tunnel vision in writers. You don't have to go out of your way to create a generic system, you just have to allow flexibility in the options you do offer. Multiclassing is something I'll never stop harping on because the idea in 3E was spectacular; if the classes had been balanced with one another, it would have been the ideal middle ground between purely single-classed advancement and purely modular abilities, at least in my opinion. 4E butchered it, and 5E looks like it'll be done either in the same way or will be an arithmetic clusterfuck. Or, to be fair, it did when I last looked at it, which was the release immediately following the Sorcerer (the release, that is to say, in which the Sorcerer was redacted so they could focus on the Core Four).

Though I'll grant you the character selection screen is fiscally attractive. No argument there.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on February 24, 2013, 10:27:02 AM
I think Bauglir mostly hit upon the things that were important to me.  Put relatively simply, the ideal class-based system for me (caveats below), would be one that has a lot in common with 3.5E but where many of the base classes were actually good at their job. 

What I mean by that is a game where you can find classes that realize common and cool archetypes "off the rack."  Looking for a lightly armored guy inspired by the Grey Mouser?  Look at Ranger and Rogue, those will work fine.  Want a heavily armored tank who can take punishment?  Check out these Barbarian, Knight, and Paladin variants.  I'd like the same thing for spellcasters, too, but D&D I find it easier to describe warrior concepts this way. 

And, all of that would coexist with something along the lines of 3E's mix and match multiclassing system.  So, that someone who is particularly interested in mucking around in the system could achieve those same ends in very different ways with different mechanics, and so on.  To a non-trivial (but highly imperfect) extent, 3E managed this by the end of its life.  A sneaky, agile melee fighter type can be pretty well-realized with a Swordsage (out of the box), an Assassin (again, pretty much out of the box), or more exotic combinations like a Melee-ficer. 

Caveats:  I am a particular kind of player.  I'm going to spend a lot of time working on my character concept and my character build, and I'm comfortable and even prefer talking about a campaign at some length before it starts.  So, I'm sort of the opposite of the strangers get together to play a game comfortably without any fuss model.  If D&D wants to go that way, then they'll leave me behind, and that's fine -- I can understand the appeal of that sort of game. 

That being said, I think it's probably an extremely poor strategy on the designers' part.  D&D has for a long time been just too fiddly, tactical, and mechanics-heavy of a game to be suited to that.  And, I'm not talking about comparing the OD&D style of games to 3E and 4E.  There are a lot of nice games out there that aren't stripped down or even "rules-lite" but that are a whole hell of a lot less fiddly than the previous 3 editions of D&D.  And, that fiddliness has probably been its subtle attraction to a lot of people.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on March 22, 2013, 05:52:44 PM
New Playtest Packet is out.  RPG.net thread about it. (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?680192-New-Playtest-3-20-is-up!)

Highlights:

Typical thieving abilities such as picking pockets now require a feat to do.

Druid-zilla is back.

Quote
Incidentally, D-Zilla is back in the house, quite literally. A level 7+ Moon Druid can become a Dire Behemoth, whose attacks do 6d6+4 damage which scales up to 15d6+4 at level 20. After all, Deadly Strike (and the Dire Beast equivalent) say you "roll the damage dice twice and add up the results". Behemoths do 3d6 damage. Oh caster supremacy, how I missed you.

Fighter class is heavily borrowing from its 3rd Edition counterpart.  In fact, 3rd Edition seems the most obvious piece of inspiration here.

The 4th Edition Warden class ("martial-based nature dude") is back.  Wardens are just Paladins who have nature-themed spells.  Don't know enough about it or the 4e version to make a judgment.

More Druidzilla, supplied by Sage Genesis:

Quote
Here's a thought. Follow me down the road for a moment.

1. Druids can't cast spells in animal shape, but they can maintain concentration on any pre-cast spells.

2. Dire Beasts can do five times dice damage "when you roll damage for an attack". While implied, it's not quite 100% ironclad that this effect is limited to the natural attacks of the animal shapes.

3. Flame Blade has a duration of concentration, meaning it can be cast and carried over into animal shape. (See #1.)

4. Flame Blade does 10d6 damage per hit if you cast it with a 9th level slot.


Ergo, with a bit of creative interpretation, 20th level Druids can do 50d6 damage per round, with an accuracy of +14 to hit (+5 Wisdom, +5 Spellcasting Bonus, +4 Dire Beast bonus).

I call it the Magmasaur build. You're welcome.

(Even if you disagree on the somewhat uncertain rules interpretation, the Dire Behemoth + Flame Blade can still make a Trample attack with a +14 bonus in a 40x10 line for 10d6 damage to every target it hits.)




PS: Flame Blade doesn't specify that the attacks you can make with it are melee attacks. Yes, Druidzilla can now breathe atomic fire.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on March 22, 2013, 07:08:51 PM
Just a friendly reminder: When they put out the first packet for a class, it's almost universally overpowered or underpowered. I don't even think they check for balance, only how the class feels. As the packets matured, they started bringing things in line (not to say it's perfect, but you can see the improvements with each packet)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on March 23, 2013, 02:30:44 AM
So have they bothered making a second class that doesn't use the gods awful martial dice yet?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on March 23, 2013, 03:42:16 AM
So have they bothered making a second class that doesn't use the gods awful martial dice yet?

Wait, how are martial dice bad? I haven't seen a real argument against them yet other than them being too common.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on March 23, 2013, 02:24:08 PM
They're hardly inherently bad. They're only bad if they're supposed to be Wizards' way of letting Fighters have nice things on par with 3.5E casters, and they're implemented too widely (as you mentioned), rendering them generic and giving the designers too much leeway to attach to them things that have no business being a consumable resource. Unfortunately, I feel like WotC will assume exactly those things are the way to go.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on March 23, 2013, 02:38:38 PM
They're hardly inherently bad. They're only bad if they're supposed to be Wizards' way of letting Fighters have nice things on par with 3.5E casters, and they're implemented too widely (as you mentioned), rendering them generic and giving the designers too much leeway to attach to them things that have no business being a consumable resource. Unfortunately, I feel like WotC will assume exactly those things are the way to go.

It's a consumable resource, but it refreshes EVERY TURN, meaning all it really does is prevent the fighter from using a ton of different reactions in the same turn, since many of them don't use actions at all, but DO take dice.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on March 23, 2013, 03:18:52 PM
Yes, that is exactly it's place in the rules. What I'm complaining about is that I foresee WotC deciding that this mechanic "fixed" the Fighter and associated classes like Paizo decided they'd "fixed" them in Pathfinder. Paizo thought the solution was to add raw, simple numbers, to make them keep up, WotC will think that the solution will be added complexity to give them the tactical options they need. WotC is closer, but complexity isn't inherently good and I'm not seeing mechanics that justify it.

I really do need to actually read the packet, though, my information is badly out of date. This is mostly pessimistic whining.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on March 23, 2013, 06:25:36 PM
Yes, that is exactly it's place in the rules. What I'm complaining about is that I foresee WotC deciding that this mechanic "fixed" the Fighter and associated classes like Paizo decided they'd "fixed" them in Pathfinder. Paizo thought the solution was to add raw, simple numbers, to make them keep up, WotC will think that the solution will be added complexity to give them the tactical options they need. WotC is closer, but complexity isn't inherently good and I'm not seeing mechanics that justify it.

Bring back Tome of Battle!  It didn't fix things completely, but it's the best hope we've got if WotC is throwing out all the 4th Edition ideas for martial character concepts.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SorO_Lost on March 23, 2013, 06:52:04 PM
I wonder what it'd take for a 5th edition PDF to appear in my inbox...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on March 24, 2013, 12:24:05 AM
They're hardly inherently bad. They're only bad if they're supposed to be Wizards' way of letting Fighters have nice things on par with 3.5E casters, and they're implemented too widely (as you mentioned), rendering them generic and giving the designers too much leeway to attach to them things that have no business being a consumable resource. Unfortunately, I feel like WotC will assume exactly those things are the way to go.

It's a consumable resource, but it refreshes EVERY TURN, meaning all it really does is prevent the fighter from using a ton of different reactions in the same turn, since many of them don't use actions at all, but DO take dice.

I'm fairly certain that it's no longer every turn, and I'm fairly certain that only fighters use them now.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Eldritch_Lord on March 24, 2013, 07:10:15 AM
I wonder what it'd take for a 5th edition PDF to appear in my inbox...

It's not your inbox, but you can go here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/dndnext.aspx), click the button, and register for the playtest, and then you can download the latest packet and will get an email whenever a new one comes out.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SorO_Lost on March 26, 2013, 04:21:03 PM
So... their NDA says: "Not with standing the foregoing, you may publicly discuss your thoughts regarding the D&D Next Playtest Materials and your playtesting experience." Which is awesome.

To start things off I applaud WotC for realizing 4th sucks balls and going back to 3rd. However 5th is a little under whelming. I can see where they are going, boil things down and simplify them. However they have all but removed the level element. Level 20 feels like level 1 in all but the Class mechanic. And even then it depends on who you are. Let me give you an example;
A. D&D:N is design for twenty levels of advancement.
B. You gain Feats at the 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 9th levels.
C. You start with four Skills and at 7th, 12th, and 17th level you obtain a new skill or upgrade the die (d6->d8->d10->d12).
D. Anything over a +1 Armor/Weapon is a unique item.
E. You don't really gain numerical bonuses, you reroll a single die.
F. You cannot have more than a 20 in your Ability Score, this a hard cap. And you can start with a 19.
G. Attack Bonuses are rescaled to +5 over twenty levels, for all classes.
H. Caster Level doesn't exist.
I. Unless we're talking Cover, then you gain +2, +5, or 'can't be attacked'.
J. And being drunk, you take 1d6 less damage from everything ever.
K. Save system rewritten to use all six ability scores, good luck there.

If you want to feel special because you 'capped' your character. Play 4th Edition. Yeah, I went there. Feat progression only happens in the first half of the game. The difference obtain for dedicated focus in a Skill is a +3 to your average roll. Proficiency, Flanking, Blind, Frightened etc are all the same mechanic now, roll twice and take greater/lesser result, and there is no stacking them. CL is absent form the game, durations are based on concentration so you can never really turn someone to stone, just hold them still while your party chips them down. And if you want to deal more damage with your blaster spells you'll need to expend a higher Spell Slot. As if God-Wizard wasn't the true style to play already. At the same time, they abolished the system where you could choose to buy a +5 or +3 and Holy Sword, instead you buy unique Magical Items. Because if you want to see +3 Armor, you're going to have to spend $30 bucks on Complete Ripoff. Another huge change is capped Ability Scores, adventurers can have up to 20, under PB you can't have more than 15 but you can still roll an 18 (wtf?) and then obtain a +1 racial bonus. Where 4th standardized progression and required you to have nothing less than a starting 16 and focus on progressing it, 5th doesn't even know what the fuck to do with them. Actually, I may have hit the dot right there.

5th is a rehash of 3rd & 4th, picking the worst traits of both.
3rd has three Saves that could have super high values? 4th has one and you're lucky to get bonuses in it.
5th's answer: Have six. Where are your bonuses now!?
3rd's Skill suffer from too many so it's hard to do even trivial stuff? 4th, everyone gets bonuses in everything as they level.
5th's answer: Everyone sucks, all the frigging time.
3rd let you Bullrush creatures into a wall smeared with glue. 4th had a generic X[W]+YdZ damager that can slide a mini around.
5th's answer: You need to take a Feat to do that.
3rd had Chaotic Neutral PCs acting drunk. 4th was under 21 and couldn't legally drink.
5th's answer: Everyone is drunk!
3rd's Spellcasters were epic! 4th's were too but required you to buy splat books.
5th's answer: Casters should be cool, but how do we do this?
3rd had Cleric Domains which gave more Spell Choice and additional benefits. 4th had more At-Will powers.
5th's answer: You get one Domain, but it's less of a Domain and more like a Daily power.
3rd RAW vs RAI for moar power! 4th, RAW shall be plain, be balanced, and be boring.
5th's answer: I hope an editor gets hired soon. <- (example, astral projection is you+8 people. It's uncastable in small parties...)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on March 26, 2013, 04:27:32 PM
To be honest, back in 1e and 2e, numerical bonus were a lot harder to come by as well, and there was indeed a lot less numeric discrepancy between low and high level characters due to that.

3e went a lot overboard on how easy it's to boost numbers and stack stuff, and that's something that really needs to be fixed if you ask me.

4e actually also suffered from that problem to a degree, where you wanted to squeeze out as much numeric bonus as you could as you leveled up.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SorO_Lost on March 26, 2013, 05:47:14 PM
I have no clue on 1st but I have ideas on 2nd via downloaded PDFs and extensive play in the old Baldur's Gate & Icewind Dale.

In 2nd some Ability Scores had were extremely powerful even if it were increased by a single point. Eg, Elven Wizard reads a Tome (yes they have those), his 20 Int means he can learn every single Wizard Spell rather than X per level. 14+ Con was worthless unless you were a key Class, and if you were those bonuses improved at an even faster rate. And 18 Str was such a big deal you had to roll a d%, netting a +1 bonus was possible and rewarded you massively for such.

Class wise, Fighters attacked more often and got better at doing it, Rogues dealt more back stab damage and became significantly more successful with their thieving skills, a Wizard's spells improved with their level so they dealt more and lasted longer, everyone got Save boosts for leveling up. And this edition was front loaded and fundamentally designed to taper down once you got past the first ten levels. Mindful that's in a Class perspective, IE 11th level of Fighter sound boring? Go pick up 6 levels of Cleric then.

3rd had options. Not necessarily Bonuses, but options. It has a wide can do attitude and what you could do exceeded it's own expectations. 4th readdressed this and tried liner scaling. PCs progressed at half rate and have to optimize for proficiency. As a result, level by level snapshots remained semi-fair to what they were expected to go against, but clearly an 11th level Fighter is superior to his 3rd level counterpart. 5th's idea was to boiled things down even further. Instead of forced comparable numbers, they gutted the numbers. As a result, level 20 feels like level 17 which feels like level 4.

Judging by the huge mismatched butchery to 5th & update notes I'd say the problem is no one knows what the hell they are doing. Like while Armor & Attack doesn't progress, HP & mundane damage do. While Feats don't progress, accessible Spell Levels do. It's why it makes no difference if you're Invisible or Flanking a creature, but Cover has three levels to it awarding a valued AC bonus. Even Resistance/Damage_Reduction is short coined into taking 1/2 damage formula, but being drunk reduces damage by random 1d6. It's a cluster fuck and why? Well judging by their update notes they don't have a design in mind as they have apparently redesigned integral systems (melee damage, cleric/paladin divines, rogues & skills). It's as if one half the team is over simplifying the rules, and the other half are the results of a GitP & PF merger. And some how they came up with something that feels like it's trying to abolish the level system and it doesn't know what the hell an RPG is supposed to do.

As noted, I like the direction. It feels like D&D and it's meant to be simpler than 3rd. I can agree with those things. But they are boiling the wrong elements down. The rant on levels is just the easiest thing to explain, and also the part they need to revamp in the next update.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: JohnnyMayHymn on March 27, 2013, 01:52:10 AM
I think a slower progression could be a good thing if D&DN is going to be around a while; IF they plan on supporting higher levels.  If a 20th level fighter has +5 BaB, then an 80th level fighter would naturally have +20.  That gives us 80 whole levels to play in before the system starts breaking down.  They just need to spread out the spell advancement, and come on, a wizard gets the same bonus to attacks as the fighter?

20 levels of e6? Hrm...

More levels also leaves more design space to distinguish between classes without later classes simply trumping the core classes(see factotum vs rogue); although, some power creep is to be expected if we are expected to purchase splats.
 I just hope they make it like 3.x in that the game is like a tool kit and you build a character/story/world with whichever pieces you want to use.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SorO_Lost on March 27, 2013, 11:22:27 AM
You know, I didn't even think of Multiclassing (no rules on it yet).

A quick comparison.
Barbarian 19th/Fighter 1 would have 6 Rages per day vs Barbarian's 20th level unlimited amount.
Barbarian 19th/Fighter 1 would have x4 damage & two +1d6 to AC/Damage effects vs 20th level Barbarian's x5 damage.
Barbarian 19th/Fighter 1 would have a Bonus Martial Feat vs Barbarian's cannot die from HP damage while Raging.

And for a little more detail, how about Monk dipping Barb? Monk 20th sets your Ability Scores to 20 for 20 AC, +5 damage, really nice Saves, etc. Since Unarmed Progression stops at level 1 (see previous rants) this means the Monk deals 1d6+5*5 (42 avg)damage. Barb dip? As noted +1 Racial and either Roll an 18 or PB a 15 means you're currently not going to get over a +4 bonus and Rage applies to one roll, it's 1d6+4*4+2 (32 avg). Other traits? Barb can grant him self an Advantage to his Attack Roll (2d20 take best) but it grants his Enemy as well, while Raging that 1/day he has Resistance (-50%) to mundane but less AC/Saves.

Dipping pretty much comes off as a penalty. >.>
However, split Multiclassing currently may work. Recall the game is front loaded. Maybe the Fighter does gain more Combat Dice or the Rogue does gain more Sneak Attack, but you gain everything by the 9th level in most other areas. A Monk 10 / Fighter 10 would have x3 damage, but capped Ki & Martial Feat Progression. I might play around with this later and see what I can come up with, it's a shame Deadly Strikes says weapon or I'd stare down a Wizard/Fighter.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on March 27, 2013, 08:20:54 PM
Soro's review is definitely dampening any enthusiasm I have for this...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on March 27, 2013, 09:43:33 PM
I could write my review from scratch, but it's easier to just argue with everything SorO said. :)


Level 20 feels like level 1 in all but the Class mechanic.

It does seem like they didn't fill out the levels. I like the way 3E and, to a greater extent, Pathfinder, grant new, interesting abilities every 1-3 levels to most classes. It's possible that they just haven't written this part yet. On the other hand, I think one of the major flaws of every other edition of D&D is that a high-level character so vastly outpowers a low-level character. In my opinion, it should be very dificult for a party of level 5 characters to take on a level 15 opponent, but possible. In 3E, it's just not possible.


Quote
C. You start with four Skills and at 7th, 12th, and 17th level you obtain a new skill or upgrade the die (d6->d8->d10->d12).

I don't like the new skill system. Two characters with the same class and ability scores have the exact same skill modifiers. Rogue A will pretty much always look exactly like Rogue B. Even the character who's best at a skill is only marginally better than the character who's the worst at it. I know 3E skills are often criticized, but I think it's one of the best concepts in the system. It really allows you to make your character unique.

Quote
D. Anything over a +1 Armor/Weapon is a unique item.

This is something I really appreciate. It's not just weapons and armor -- every item is unique. There are no magic item shops, and there are very few simple items which just grant a bonus to something. 3E is all about maxing out your bonuses -- buying the most boring items you can afford so your character will be that much more powerful. 5E makes magic items interesting again.


Quote
H. Caster Level doesn't exist.

In some ways, I don't like this, but it's a nice simplification, and makes low-level play easier. If the spell always has a duration of 1 minute, no matter what your level, it's always equally useful. High level caster still get better spells, so caster level still exists to that extent.


Quote
K. Save system rewritten to use all six ability scores, good luck there.

I like this. In 3E, it's too easy to have no weaknesses. I like every character to have some weakness.


Quote
Because if you want to see +3 Armor, you're going to have to spend $30 bucks on Complete Ripoff.

That seems overly cynical. If a DM wants +3 armor in his game, he can just add it to the game. Sure, Complete Ripoff has been WotC's and TSR's primary money-making strategy since the 2E options books, but the lack of +3 armor is not what's going to sell those books.


Quote
3rd's Skill suffer from too many so it's hard to do even trivial stuff? 4th, everyone gets bonuses in everything as they level.
5th's answer: Everyone sucks, all the frigging time.

Some of your complaints, like this one, don't take into account that these are two seperate games. You're not going to play in a campaign that has both 3E characters and 5E characters. 5E is a lower-power, weaker-magic-item game. That doesn't make it a bad game, just a different one.


Quote
3rd had Cleric Domains which gave more Spell Choice and additional benefits. 4th had more At-Will powers.
5th's answer: You get one Domain, but it's less of a Domain and more like a Daily power.

In other words, 3E and 5E are different. This doesn't seem like a real complaint. You happen to like the 3E domains, but they don't really exist in 5E, so I guess that's fine.



I'm not sure what to think about the advantage/disadvantage system. It might play well, but it feels like an oversimplification. Optimizers are just going to figure out how to always give their characters advantage, and always give opponents disadvantage. Then they've won the game. While it's harder to keep track of and can slow down combat, I think I prefer 3E's system of scalling numerical bonuses.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: PlzBreakMyCampaign on March 27, 2013, 10:42:35 PM
You're not being entirely fair to Soro, but that's fine.

they don't have a design in mind
Bingo.

Here's what they need to do. Take a look at comparable systems across editions: Multiclassing, skills, feats, xp, class features, etc. Be blatant when listing x is good, y is bad. Then cobble them together. Don't hide what is good or bad, throw playtesters at whatever stuck last revision and see where things shape from there.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on March 28, 2013, 08:08:33 PM

I could write my review from scratch, but it's easier to just argue with everything SorO said. :)


 ;)
OK that's funny right there ...  :lmao

(in total isolation)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SorO_Lost on March 28, 2013, 08:45:48 PM
;)
OK that's funny right there ...  :lmao

(in total isolation)
I laughed too, but he agreed to about half the things I said anyway.

However, do note 3rd has thousands of unique magic items. And yet, you can Enhance your own. In fact, UA gives you Item Familiar & Ancestral Weapons to really custom it. And if you want unique lore that requires side quests? Weapons of Legacy is the book for you. 3rd gave you freedom of choice and plenty of static uniques. Is it too much to ask of 5th to try to do the same?

Plus you don't need to banhammer Flaming Frost Hammer because +2d6 damage scares the pee out of you anyway, srsly.
Edit - Actually, their Flaming weapon deals +2d6, but no bonus to Attack/Damage making it a +0 sword, lulz.

Edit 2 - Actually really read their Vorpel weapon this time around. It's a "Legendary" +1 Bastard Sword, when Attuned it becomes +3 and on a Critical Hit (natural 20) you can roll your Attack again. If successful it deals an additional 6d8 damage. If that second attack is also a Critical Hit AND they have less than 150 HP you chop off their head. Yeah, not the work of the simplify department at all huh?

Edit 3 - Also Otto's Irresistible Dance has a Will Save. And they can still attack you while they dance.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on March 29, 2013, 11:56:20 AM
They clearly have some work to do on the spells. I haven't read the most recent packet, but I remember that in the last packet, Wish could create 25,000gp items, with the only cost being that you couldn't cast any more spells that day. So that's a free 25,000gp per day during off time.

Yes, 3E gives you options with magic items, but it has a lot of problems:
- The system encourages you to give a large number of items to PCs.
- The system encourages magic item shops, which takes a lot of the excitement out of acquiring items.
- It's often more beneficial to get boring items (belt of giant strength, ring of protection etc) than interesting items.

I tend to be biased towards low-magic games, so obviously 5E's system is more appealing to me. In 2E, finding a magic item was something really special. They were rare enough that you wouldn't just sell the item -- you'd figure out how to make use of it. In 3E, you just have your average-wealth-by-level worth of items and that's it. Equipping your character like that is fun, of course, but it's a different kind of fun.

Really, we just have to accept that 5E and 3E are not the same game. Rather than asking, "how does each little detail compare to 3E in isolation," maybe we should be asking, "does 5E look like a fun game?" I agree that it has a lot of flaws in its current state, but I also think it has a lot of potential.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on March 29, 2013, 12:54:41 PM
Yeah, I'm actually a fan of anything that reduces a PC's resemblance to a Christmas tree, so I think a different perspective from 3E is a good thing. Obviously the actual rules need tweaking, but at least they're trying. I don't think they're banhammering a flaming frost hammer because it's too powerful.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on March 29, 2013, 02:48:48 PM
Yeah, I'm actually a fan of anything that reduces a PC's resemblance to a Christmas tree, so I think a different perspective from 3E is a good thing.

That is something people don't usually think about when they play. I mean, most magic items are made of valuable gemstones and stuff. Put on a crystal mask, a robe of eyes, a hand of glory, and throw in a few ioun stones, and you look pretty ridiculous, not to mention very, very rich. Now walk up to that commoner and start a conversation, and wonder why he's deciding between cowering in awe, fleeing in terror and rolling on the ground laughing. Even sillier is druids with wilding clasps, who think they can still get away with pretending to be an animal.

In a slightly more socially realistic game, magic items would be only for adventuring -- something like a superhero costume. You can't walk around town blatently wearing magic items.

Okay, I think I'm going off topic now (wait. can you go off-topic in a thread with almost 600 posts?)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on March 29, 2013, 04:04:42 PM
Yeah, I'm actually a fan of anything that reduces a PC's resemblance to a Christmas tree, so I think a different perspective from 3E is a good thing. Obviously the actual rules need tweaking, but at least they're trying. I don't think they're banhammering a flaming frost hammer because it's too powerful.
You know, this just gave me an idea.

Give all your PC's the numerical benefits of Vow of Poverty (but not the bonus feats, not needing to eat, etc, and not the actual RP-requirements of the vow), and then just tone down the magic items.  The VoP benefits would just be assumed to be a part of leveling, and then the items they get will be unique and special, or maybe change PC wealth by level into equaling NPC wealth by level.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on March 29, 2013, 04:28:04 PM

Okay, I think I'm going off topic now (wait. can you go off-topic in a thread with almost 600 posts?)

My kitty avatar asks first every time (or begs) ...  ;)



Are they really getting spazzed over +2d6 ??
 :tongue
I mean that's the difference between 1st and 3rd levels.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on March 29, 2013, 04:45:07 PM
SorO - where do you see the 20 cap for ability scores? The closest I can find is a cap for starting scores, and there are magic items which clearly bring you above 20.

More on the topic of magic items: I think they did a great job describing each item in detail. Sure, it's up to the DM and players to make use of the descriptions, but it's a good motivator.

I also like how they did away with magic item slots. The way it works now is, "if it makes sense to wear it, then you can." So no more anklets conflicting with boots, or 2-ring limitations. You can even wear multiple hats if you don't mind looking silly. In a high-magic campaign, this will make it even more likely that PCs look like Christmas trees, but given that they encourage DMs to make magic items rare, that will probably be an uncommon problem.

I also like the pricing. The guidelines put anything over 15k in value as as an artifact. That means that wealth won't scale exponentially, which I think is a good change. I also like that items don't have specific prices. It's up to the PCs to find a buyer to pay what they think items are worth. On the other hand, I really like the flexible but predictable magic item creation rules in 3E, and this makes that impossible.


My biggest complaint is still about skills. Your skill die is based on level, and nothing else. That means your proficiency in a skill is (d20 + [level-based factor] + [ability score]). What this basically means is, two characters with the same level and skill have almost exactly the same proficiency in that skill, and the skill die is small enough that there's very little difference between having a skill and not having it.

To give an example, two characters have the same ability scores, and one has a skill. Both characters are level 10. The skilled character averages 15 on a skill roll, with a range of 2-28. The unskilled character averages 10.5, with a range of 1-20. The skilled character has a low probability of making very low or very high rolls, so most rolls will be in the 5-23 range. So a skilled character:
- Is less likely to make a fool out of himself by rolling really low.
- Has a higher average roll.
- Is not by any means out of the range of the unskilled character.

The first two are nice. The third isn't. A terrible level 1 painter (abilty score of 8, unskilled) can roll as high as 15, which is just as good as an average painting by an excellent level 1 painter (ability score of 15, skilled - average=16).

Of course, the more I write about this and think about it, the less convinced I am that I'm right. Maybe I'll give this skill system a shot. It's a step up from 2E proficiencies, anyway. It does get rid of the ridiculous disparity in 3E between low level and high level characters.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SorO_Lost on March 29, 2013, 05:31:39 PM
SorO - where do you see the 20 cap for ability scores? The closest I can find is a cap for starting scores, and there are magic items which clearly bring you above 20.
Quote from: How to Play
A score of 10 or 11 in an ability is average for a human adult. A score of 18 is the highest that a normal person usually reaches. Adventurers can have scores as high as 20, and monsters and divine beings can have scores as high as 30.
&
Quote from: Character Creation
The character might gain new feats. Additionally, at certain levels, you choose two of your character’s ability scores to increase by 1 each, abiding by the rule that a character’s ability score cannot go above 20.
& causality to a certain extent.
* Maximum Starting is 15 Point Buy or 18 Rolled.
* Races grant +1.
* Leveling grants a total of +5, but as noted it cannot be used to exceed 20.
* Monk sets to 20.
* Gauntlets of Ogre Power (uncommon) set to 19 if below.
* Ioun Stones (very rare) grant +1.

The magic items item that *might* allow you to have more than 20 you are referring to is a Belt of Giant Strength which increases your score if it is below a set value. They are 21 (rare), 23 (very rare), 25/27 (legendary), and 29 (artifact). Think it'll change in a future release?

I do.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on March 29, 2013, 06:45:08 PM
The magic items item that *might* allow you to have more than 20 you are referring to is a Belt of Giant Strength which increases your score if it is below a set value. They are 21 (rare), 23 (very rare), 25/27 (legendary), and 29 (artifact). Think it'll change in a future release?

I do.
That's pretty much how the Girdles of Giant Strength worked in 2e.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SorO_Lost on March 29, 2013, 08:56:59 PM
I wonder if they know that?
*shrugs*
The right hand & left hand thing they got going on is so terrible that even if someone did the rest wouldn't.

You know the terrible part? The items encourage dumping your primary stat. Let's say the rules will update and allow the Belt to actually function. You're starting at level 8 or whatever it takes to own a Rare. The Encounter pattern undoubtedly will be designed to expect you to have around 21 Str so you are going to have to buy the item no matter what. But set to trait can be abuse, dump Str in PB or give it your lowest roll. Focus on HP or rounding your Saves. Increasing 8 Str to 21 costs exactly the same as increasing an 18 to 21.

It's probably why nothing else uses a system like that.

Edit - Oh Pelor. I just had a scary thought. What if I'm wrong. The Belt is a new addition to the play test, they forgot to remove the cap. If you look at it from this angle, and the fact this items are +8~+20 in value they absolutely have to plan around PCs having 28+ Str (27 item & ioun stone, discounting artifact). It'll be like 4th, Christmas Trees required. Want a "low magic game"? Good luck, cops fine you for littering if you toss magical items at hobos.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on March 30, 2013, 03:48:18 PM
But set to trait can be abuse, dump Str in PB or give it your lowest roll. Focus on HP or rounding your Saves. Increasing 8 Str to 21 costs exactly the same as increasing an 18 to 21.

Assuming that the DM allows this behavior and decides to give you the item, yes, this is possible.

But if someone came to my table with a Strength-based character with Strength as his lowest ability score, I'm not sure why I would feel possessed to enable such ridiculousness.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on March 30, 2013, 09:42:12 PM
The rarity of the item is a factor -- you don't get it unless the DM says you do -- but SorO's right. Some DMs will keep handing out magic items freely, making STR a dump stat. Even in more standard games where items are rare, imagine being a fighter who invested a lot in that 20 STR. It would stink to get that belt, and realize you could have had a strength of 8 and put more points in CON or DEX.

I hope they remove the cap, and turn the belt into a bonus, but I also hope they continue to avoid from ridiculously high scores. One way to do it is to say that you can raise your score higher than 20, but you have to use both of your level-up bonuses to raise it one point. So now you have to decide between a well-rounded character, and superhuman ability scores.

One more problem with the cap is that a wizard with a polymorph spell will have higher physical attributes than a fighter can ever hope to have, even with magic items.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on March 31, 2013, 01:22:22 AM
Caps are bad, diminishing returns are good, basically. And don't do things like, "Monsters get to be better than you, because nyeh", because it tells me you aren't going to accommodate unusual PCs any better this time around than in 3.5.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on March 31, 2013, 07:12:33 AM
I don't think it's that big of a problem. A monster having a higher strength score than you doesn't mean you can't beat it. It makes sense that the collossal red dragon is going to be stronger than a PC. I don't argue for caps, because players shouldn't feel like they've "maxed out" their characters, or that they have to diversify their abilities, but monsters being better than characters in one area or another isn't a big deal.

Let's look at the numbers the game actually encourages, to understand the designers' logic. Standard array with two starting bonuses gets you (16,15,13,12,10,8). Point buy can't raise a score above 15, so that's pretty much the same. You get a bonus to two scores every 4 levels. This means that there will only be one point which can't get used for a primary score. You end up with (20,20,14,12,10,8). Without caps, you could have had (21,20,13,12,10,8) instead, which is almost exactly the same.

The problem is, they let you roll 4d6 instead, which is likely to give you at least one 16 or 17. Then, you're wasting more points. They should either remove the caps, raise them, or remove the option of rolling attributes.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on March 31, 2013, 07:25:18 AM
Concentration

The concentration rule is interesting. You need concentration to keep someone polymorphed or under the affect of energy resistence. In fact, I think that most of the long-duration spells require concentration. But concentration is not the same thing as in 3E. You keep your concentration unless:

I think there's a need for feats that let you concentrate on more than one spell at the same time.

This rule is another piece of evidence that they're going for much lower magic and weaker spellcasters than in 3E.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on March 31, 2013, 09:51:00 AM
I think there's a need for feats that let you concentrate on more than one spell at the same time.

I think there's very much a need for no such feats to exist ever.

Edit: I also have to disagree with the general attitude towards caps.  The ability score cap is one of my favorite things about 5e thus far.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bozwevial on March 31, 2013, 10:03:12 AM
Edit: I also have to disagree with the general attitude towards caps.  The ability score cap is one of my favorite things about 5e thus far.

Here's hoping it doesn't end up like this.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SorO_Lost on March 31, 2013, 11:00:24 AM
imagine being a fighter who invested a lot in that 20 STR. It would stink to get that belt, and realize you could have had a strength of 8 and put more points in CON or DEX.
It'd be abysmal. Get an Uncommon Magic Item and regret playing your entire character the way you did.

Maybe there is a euphemism in there somewhere. An artist's rendition of the in and outs of drug abuse and how D&D is just another trip in life.
I feel is entirely relatable to the design team...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on March 31, 2013, 12:58:44 PM
I actually don't understand why Hercules can't be as strong as a colossal dragon. It isn't about whether or not you can beat the monsters, it's about creating unnecessary boxes that characters have to fit inside, based on "common sense". Maybe they're trying to create a game that actually stays within the bounds of heroic, but not superhuman, characters, but that becomes a reason to be less interested in D&D for me.

A hard cap tells me that, as a designer, you're unwilling to invest the effort to examine the implications of your rules when you extrapolate out of your original assumptions, and then rebalance those rules accordingly. Instead, you're saying, "No, you can't do that." That's a good thing to do with a lot of games, where breaking assumptions can break down any semblance of reason, but tabletop roleplaying games are one of the few genres where you're fighting against your medium when you take that approach. That players are able to use the rules to play a variety of different kinds of game is a strength of the format.

If you want to get a similar outcome, you need to structure your pricing scheme for ability score increases in a way that provides a disincentive to exceed the cap you're looking for too early, or have a floating cap that depends on some other aspect of your character (such as level). Create a system where your cap arises naturally out of the general rules, and make it obvious - include a sidebar, or something, so you don't see people falling into traps.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on March 31, 2013, 03:39:55 PM
I think there's a need for feats that let you concentrate on more than one spell at the same time.

I think there's very much a need for no such feats to exist ever.

Could you explain your reasoning? Mine is that, by allowing only one long-duration spell at a time, they have basically gotten rid of the concept of a "buff." It's an effective way of weakening spellcasters, but it might be unnecessarily limiting.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on March 31, 2013, 04:10:08 PM
For all of those complaining that PC ability scores are too low right now, I would like to point out the highest Str score in the 5e bestiary I saw was a 26 Str for the pit fiend, at level 20 (and even then just 17 AC). Among the biggest dragons none has more than 25 Str. Most monsters do have under 20 Str. So yes, 20 Str is already superhuman by 5e's standards. You're stronger than an ogre, stronger than a minotaur, stronger than an earth elemental.

I think there's a need for feats that let you concentrate on more than one spell at the same time.

I think there's very much a need for no such feats to exist ever.

Could you explain your reasoning? Mine is that, by allowing only one long-duration spell at a time, they have basically gotten rid of the concept of a "buff." It's an effective way of weakening spellcasters, but it might be unnecessarily limiting.
It is necessary. One of the main reasons casters are borked in 3.X is that they can stack so many magics at once they should be checking for radiation poisoning or overdose.

Just like in stories you don't hear of the great fighter going with multiple dozens of magic items, you don't hear about the great wizard going around with multiple dozens of personal buffs at once.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on March 31, 2013, 04:19:43 PM
Eliminating buff-stacking is probably a good thing. It cuts down on the edge you can get by hunting through books for dozens of small effects (this rarely makes the game more interesting at the table, and makes it harder for people who've barely got time to play the game, much less to do stuff away from the table, have fun) and makes it easier to construct encounters because you don't have such a wide range of potential meanings for, say, CR 16.

It cuts out some character concepts, which is why I'd hope to see it compensated for by character options that enhance buffs ("You can grant an ally under the effects of your spells a +1 attack bonus in addition to that spell's effects" sort of things), and options that allow for efficient, on-the-fly buff-swapping (so you can still play your prepared-for-everything character).

Anyway, that's why I'd agree with Sir Quixote; dunno what his reasoning is, exactly.

For all of those complaining that PC ability scores are too low right now, I would like to point out the highest Str score in the 5e bestiary I saw was a 26 Str for the pit fiend, at level 20 (and even then just 17 AC). Among the biggest dragons none has more than 25 Str. Most monsters do have under 20 Str. So yes, 20 Str is already superhuman by 5e's standards. You're stronger than an ogre, stronger than a minotaur, stronger than an earth elemental.
I care less about the fact that they're too low, and more about the fact that they have an arbitrary hard cap. What would be better is a guideline that tells you where Strength 20 fits into the world, and then rules that go, "You can't exceed Strength 20, unless" and then have some conditions like a feat that raises your cap by 6 and increases your score by 1 with a prerequisite of Strength 20, etc. I don't know if that fits the balance, it's just supposed to illustrate that you should have options that allow you to reach any score you damn well please, provided sufficient investment of character-building resources.

Otherwise, you're saying, "It doesn't matter how awesome you are, it doesn't matter if you're higher level than Zeus himself, you're still going to lose if you arm-wrestle a Pit Fiend."
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on March 31, 2013, 04:43:28 PM
Be a barbarian or a cleric with righteous might, gaining advantage on Str checks. There, now you can arm-wrestle the Pit Fiend head on.

Considering that, as already mentioned, most of the time 20 Str automatically means you're stronger than your opponent, I'm perfectly fine with there no being mechanics for PCs over the cap. If anything, they can save that for splatbooks. Or what, you wanted the alpha version to already allow you to stat Zeus big brother that curb-stomps pit fiends for breakfast? When Zeus himself still doesn't have stats?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SorO_Lost on March 31, 2013, 05:44:56 PM
I think you're off by a lot there. Maybe stop reading the Spellcaster & Kobolds entries. If it's a melee style monster is exceeds 20 Str by 9th level. Even at cap you're barely stronger than an Earth Elemental (1str9@6th) or Owlbear (18str@5th).

Also Grappling a Balor is just as misleading if not worse. Yes it has 26 Str (avg 18.5), yes 20 Str & Advantage (avg 18.82) is comparable. But Balors don't Grapple, they use their Whip to deal
2d6+8 slashing +4d6 Fire, then drags you next to it to deal 3d8+8*2 via Longswords, then 6d6 next round because you stood near it. You want to Restraint it? It's Flaming Body hits you twice and Multiattacks while you still have yet to deal damage, plus your odds of success are one in four. Worse tactic ever.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on March 31, 2013, 06:34:20 PM
Or what, you wanted the alpha version to already allow you to stat Zeus big brother that curb-stomps pit fiends for breakfast? When Zeus himself still doesn't have stats?
No, I want them to not explicitly forbid it as an option. Which a cap does. They don't have to actually give us the tools to make it practical in the alpha, or even in the published Core. They can save it for an Epic Level Handbook, but they should lay the groundwork for that in Core so they don't have to write rules that say, "Starting at level 21, ignore all these rules in earlier sourcebooks". They should let you start "ignoring" them whenever you'd naturally reach that point in your character's development.

I also don't want a game that automatically ends at 20, or forbids nonhumanoid characters. I don't want a game that forces singleclassed characters, or requires a PC to be decked out in enough bling to make a pimp-themed supervillain feel underdressed. I don't want a game that assumes your enemies are Chaotic Evil, or that reduces every character to different shades of "Move enemy, deal damage, impose -1 penalty for 3 rounds". I want characters to have meaningful non-combat decisions to set themselves apart from each other.

There's a lot of things I want. 5E seems to be delivering on some. They're reducing the assumed dependence of PCs on magical gear, for instance. On the other hand, the skills revision isn't doing it for me. The last paragraph wasn't an exhaustive list, nor was it a list of things that are wrong with 5E. It was a short, general list of things I want or don't want in a roleplaying game. I'm going to talk about conflicts with what I have as an ideal, whatever the other merits of the system are.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on March 31, 2013, 06:47:55 PM
I think there's a need for feats that let you concentrate on more than one spell at the same time.

I think there's very much a need for no such feats to exist ever.

Could you explain your reasoning? Mine is that, by allowing only one long-duration spell at a time, they have basically gotten rid of the concept of a "buff." It's an effective way of weakening spellcasters, but it might be unnecessarily limiting.

Primarily that, last I checked, unregulated buffing was responsible for wizards being able to out-fighter fighters.

Edit: On the "nonhuman characters" argument, which seems to be the primary argument against the stat cap, why not just simply have different stats for the PC version of a monster?  It would simplify a lot of other problems.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on March 31, 2013, 07:20:50 PM
Then you only get to play a stunted minotaur who can never catch up even when he's 15 levels above his race's CR. And level 40 characters are actually my primary argument, not unusual PCs (the level cap just implies that there won't be any real support). I'm not saying you should definitely be able to exceed 20 before level 20, just that a hard cap, irrespective of level or other resources, is bad.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on March 31, 2013, 07:45:55 PM
Then you only get to play a stunted minotaur who can never catch up even when he's 15 levels above his race's CR.
So geting point buy and feat choice and class abilities and equipment and party support and whatnot is playing a "stunted" version of a monster? Ah, yes, you're not playing a proper centaur if you can't effortestly wrestle down a pit fiend and zeus is your personal minion right?

How about making sure the first 20 levels work for humanoids, then the developers can start worrying about concept that aren't even supported by any current media?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on March 31, 2013, 08:44:29 PM
I would think the main argument would be giants.  If your a 100' tall, and str still caps at just above human levels, physics works mighty damn weird in your world.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on March 31, 2013, 08:45:32 PM
@oslecamo
No, you're playing a stunted centaur who's excelled in other areas than in being a centaur if their strength score is never going to equal that of a normal centaur, whatever that happens to be (which is probably not high enough to wrestle a pit fiend). That can make for a fine story and character, but maybe it isn't the one you had in mind when you decided to play a centaur.

Did you read the post I made before the quoted one? If so, read it again, and try to let the meaning sink in. You clearly failed the first time around if you think I'm arguing for some sort of bizarre power fantasy.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SorO_Lost on March 31, 2013, 09:57:22 PM
There's a lot of things I want. 5E seems to be delivering on some. They're reducing the assumed dependence of PCs on magical gear, for instance.
No their not.

Reducing the numerical bonus does not mean less dependency.
Take 3.5. You start with an 18, +5 from level, maybe a +2 Race. You augment your melee by spending 36,000gp for +6 Enhance to Str, 137,500gp on +5 Inherent, and another 50,300gp for a +5 Weapon. You're original +7 damage from Str grows to +18. A 62% increase.

In 5th? Your Str is capped at +5. A +3 weapon is a +60% increase and we haven't even discussed other properties. You use less items in total, due to lack of splat, but each one is significantly more powerful to you in this Edition making you even more inherently dependent on using Magical Items. And worse yet, they have a Favored Enemy thing going on.
Dwarven Thrower: +3, +1d8 when thrown or +3d8 when thrown vs Giants.
Hammer of Thunderbolts: +3 & +3d6 Thunder vs Dragons & Giants.
Holy Avenger: +3 & +2d10 vs Fiends & Undead.
Mace of Disruption: +0 & +2d6 vs Fiends & Undead.

So the more diverse the game is, the more weapons you'll wish you had. Because those things double your damage and they haven't even finished Core to get to those splatbooks. Which if they print a way to bypass the 20 cap, it'd become night vs burning alive on Mars.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on March 31, 2013, 10:49:42 PM
But they're not an assumed part of gameplay, is the point. If you have one of those, it's going to put you above and beyond the capabilities of your CR. That's why I specified assumed dependence.

Of course, if that's not an accurate assessment of how they're constructing opponents, or how they instruct DMs to advance the players, then forget it. They're just finding new ways of screwing up the Christmas Tree Effect, yes.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SorO_Lost on April 01, 2013, 08:00:53 PM
Legendary Items are 9th level items, if this means what it did in the MiC then by 9th level you own your first -- Through technically a standard Encounter at level 1 has a 0.05% chance of dropping one. -- So the rest of the twenty levels (all 11 of them) would probably mean owning multiple Legendaries. No WBL to confirm, just an observation.

I do very much agree on them finding new ways to screw up the Christmas tree effect.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on April 02, 2013, 01:31:37 AM
I expected that to mean that the item is appropriate for 9th level characters, not that it's assumed by the standards of the challenges you're expected to complete.

Maybe I should actually read the damn thing.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SorO_Lost on April 03, 2013, 07:29:17 AM
I'd be happy if you did. I haven't the time to compare a trend vs monsters or accurately describe effective WBL (I know 12.5gp per encounter & four encounters per day is still expected, but that rate is far to low to meet item expectations, suggesting items will be more like 4th).

Which is a bit more accurate then they are printing this and that should be in the hands of a 9th level, etc.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on April 23, 2013, 12:19:58 AM
So, character customization now optional? (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130422)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on April 23, 2013, 12:55:09 AM
Has Mearls shit his own spleen?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on April 23, 2013, 01:18:24 AM
Has Mearls shit his own spleen?

No, he's a blind man fumbling in the dark.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on April 23, 2013, 03:26:10 AM
Congratulations Mike, you've managed in the past few months to take someone that liked the initial presentation for 5E and make him give up on it completely!  Keep up the awesome work!  :P
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: DonQuixote on April 24, 2013, 01:38:50 AM
Congratulations Mike, you've managed in the past few months to take someone that liked the initial presentation for 5E and make him give up on it completely!  Keep up the awesome work!  :P

Seconded.  I might come back and look at it once the dust settles, but...Jesus.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on April 24, 2013, 01:19:33 PM
Why is it bad to have "basic" and "advanced" versions of the game sold as a single book? Skills are optional (fine -- simple ability checks are easier) and basic players get to have high ability scores, while advanced players get interesting feats. Why does that make D&D Next a bad game?
 
I'm not saying it will definately work out, but give them a chance.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on April 24, 2013, 07:09:05 PM
Why is it bad to have "basic" and "advanced" versions of the game sold as a single book? Skills are optional (fine -- simple ability checks are easier) and basic players get to have high ability scores, while advanced players get interesting feats. Why does that make D&D Next a bad game?
 
I'm not saying it will definately work out, but give them a chance.

Because this is an internet forum, specifically one where harsh criticism of any and all game systems used is the norm. If the playtesters were entirely starstruck by the system they would be ignoring the flaws (of which the system currently has many). It's a great IDEA, and I really want to see them pull it off. If they do it, it'll be THE D&D for the next decade, as it will encompass just about every D&D player. If they don't, it'll be a buggy, unfocused system that makes concessions on all sides to try to please the fanbases, then fails on all fronts.

"Don't knock it till you try it" only applies to the finished product, and even then only if the game is theoretically sound.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on April 24, 2013, 08:09:29 PM
"Don't knock it till you try it" only applies to the finished product, and even then only if the game is theoretically sound.

That's not quite what I meant. I wasn't saying that the entire D&D Next game is perfect, or even that it will be. I was just asking why there was such a strong negative reaction to them putting a basic and advanced version of the game in the same book.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Eldritch_Lord on April 24, 2013, 09:42:20 PM
That's not quite what I meant. I wasn't saying that the entire D&D Next game is perfect, or even that it will be. I was just asking why there was such a strong negative reaction to them putting a basic and advanced version of the game in the same book.

The problem isn't that they're putting Basic 5e and Advanced 5e in the same book, it's that they're developing the game(s) in such a way that the two versions suffer from being developed together.

Basic 5e has no feats, fine.  Advanced 5e does have feats, fine.  The devs have come up with a way to let Basic 5e players customize their characters without dealing with feats, fine.  Advanced 5e feats come at the same level as Basic 5e stat boosts so you don't need to re-learn the level progression when switching between the two, fine.

Advanced 5e feats are limited to being just about as powerful as piddly little bonuses that no one really cares about so the two versions are roughly comparable power-wise?  Not fine.

It's like taking 3e and saying,"Okay, we're going to make a Basic 3e that doesn't use skills and feats.  This leaves the rogue high and dry with no real reason to exist, so instead of making Basic 3e a separate game and tweaking things based on that, we're going to change 'real' 3e so that all classes are as gimped and pathetic as a skill-less feat-less 3e rogue so the rogue players don't feel left out."  Both versions of the game are made worse because of one terrible decision on WotC's part...except it's not just one decision, it's many, because every single time they make a much-vaunted module to satisfy player with different tastes they have to design to the lowest common denominator instead of just saying "Using Module X makes characters more powerful because options = power, deal with it."
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on April 24, 2013, 11:38:31 PM
Every single time they make a much-vaunted module to satisfy player with different tastes they have to design to the lowest common denominator instead of just saying "Using Module X makes characters more powerful because options = power, deal with it."

Lowest Denominator design is the only efficient way to end up with a balanced product. One of the reasons CR was broken because of how different books valued creature abilities differently. In a universal system, CR10 is CR10, not "CR10 vs a party who has module X, CR14 vs everyone else"

I agree that the system is making concessions on all sides. That's what lowest denominator design does, it cuts things left and right until it finds the parts that are universal, then builds it up again with that universal balance in mind.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on April 25, 2013, 01:18:18 PM
My problem with it is that it speaks to me of a design philosophy I'm not a fan of, which I've already complained about. Removing feats and skills from the core game means that characters become much more cookie-cutter in style. "Putting emphasis on the abilities" sounds nice, but it doesn't offer you many character options for a given class unless they radically restructure them to include several selectable special abilities that cover every ability score. Backgrounds don't seem to offer options for customizing your character's combat abilities, although they're a welcome addition anyway. What that means is that after your first couple of games, characters are going to start feeling same-y. On top of that, you don't have the option of piecing a character together when your concept isn't met by a base class (and every single thing I read makes me feel less confident in multiclassing's potential to address this), nor do you have the option of finding interesting interactions and basing a character off of that.

So, obviously, you are going to want to move out of the Basic game after a game or two. Yay, everything's working as intended. Except the design space that feats and skills are allowed to explore is now heavily boxed in because of Basic. Presumably, they don't intend to print two books in between every cover. You aren't going to see a double-thick Monster Manual with Basic and Advanced versions of each monster. So you're left with two possible outcomes. They design material specifically for each type of game, therefore ensuring that there are simply adventures you can't have in one system or the other without heavy homebrew*, or they only print things for Basic, and the extra rules Advanced adds can't really add anything new to the game. Feats have to be so weak that half of them are useless (or that 2 of them combine to give you a +1 bonus on a common roll), and Skills look like they're going to be tacked-on and largely neglected.

Essentially, Basic is not a good game (it's too simplistic, but it's not built to the standard of elegance that a good, simple game requires, because that isn't how D&D works), and its design philosophy constrains what Advanced is able to do.

*Homebrew isn't bad, and I recognize that you'll often need to do a lot of it to run the adventure you want to, anyway. What I'm objecting to is the injection of unnecessary homebrew that could be avoided by a unified rules set.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agrippa on April 25, 2013, 02:03:15 PM
Even though they're trying to appeal to more old school gamers by making skills and feats optional WotC still isn't winning their support for D&D Next. They claim that some of the classes are too complicated (i.e. have too many features) for them and many also dislike the idea of level based ability score improvement. Many old schoolers*, largely on Dragonsfoot forums, think that ability increases from just levels aren't really earned and that they make PCs too "godlike". These are the same guys who see no problem with high level NPCs having higher than average ability scores, even ones occasionally above 18. Nor do they see any problem with stat improving items because the DM can make them as rare and difficult to obtain as he or she wants and can take them away if they think it's needed. So in trying to make both camps happy WotC just managed to piss off everyone.

*P.S. By "old schoolers" I'm talking about a specific subset of them that prefer pre-Dragonlance 1st Ed. D&D or other older games like original Traveler.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on April 25, 2013, 03:37:20 PM
A lot of assumptions are being made, which aren't necessarily true.
 
It's clear that the D&D designers have always considered a +1 stat boost to be really powerful. Just look at the 3E Epic Level Handbook. You can either get a +1 to strength, or turn all your attacks into vorpal attacks. You can have +1 to intelligence, or the ability to alter reality at a whim with epic spellcasting. In 5E, the power of attribute boosts is slightly more real, because they're so hard to come by, and because the maximums are so low compared to 3E. But either way, I doubt the attitude is going to be, "take a +1 stat boost, or a wimpy little feat." In fact, I know that's not true, because a long list of feats has already been printed. +5 reach, +1d6 on unarmed strikes, dispel magic several times a day, much higher average rolls for a skill, etc. These are significant, and most are better than +1 to an ability score, especially in the low-magic, low-power game that is 5E.
 
And that leads me to another assumption, which is that a game with less magic and lower power must be a bad game. People seem to be comparing 5E characters to 3E characters, and that comparison just isn't valid. Now maybe you don't want a low-power game, and that's fair, but for what it is, I think 5E looks fairly balanced and fun so far.
 
I think the Basic version is a good idea, if they can make it work. Beginning players can easily go from level 1-20 with basic characters and have fun. That will take a couple years of real-time, after which they can play an advanced character. Advanced players will only play advanced characters. A character isn't cookie-cutter to you unless you've played a lot of D&D in the past and know what to expect.
 
Will they be able to address the monster issue? They already have. Monsters don't have feats -- they have special abilities.
 
And obviously, WotC isn't going to abandon their business model and stop producing splat books. The options will expand dramatically over the years, sating everyone's need for non cookie-cutter characters. Since they're dropping the notion of prestige classes, these might take the form of additional base classes, feats, spells, backgrounds and even alternate rules.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Eldritch_Lord on April 25, 2013, 04:13:46 PM
Lowest Denominator design is the only efficient way to end up with a balanced product. One of the reasons CR was broken because of how different books valued creature abilities differently. In a universal system, CR10 is CR10, not "CR10 vs a party who has module X, CR14 vs everyone else"

I agree that the system is making concessions on all sides. That's what lowest denominator design does, it cuts things left and right until it finds the parts that are universal, then builds it up again with that universal balance in mind.

Designing to the LCD is indeed the best and really only way to handle designing a modular game, but modular design only works to a certain point.  We're not talking about a small module like "Group A is using normal hit points, Group B is using the Vitality/Wounds variant" or some other UA add-on, where assuming the lowest common denominator only requires minor tweaks and the "universal balance" point is close to the baseline system.  We're effectively talking about trying to find the lowest common denominator between OD&D and D&D 3e, which is an absolutely terrible approach given the fundamental differences in playstyle, assumptions, PC capabilities, and everything else between the two versions.

I agree completely with Bauglir when he says:
Quote
Essentially, Basic is not a good game (it's too simplistic, but it's not built to the standard of elegance that a good, simple game requires, because that isn't how D&D works), and its design philosophy constrains what Advanced is able to do.
You can build a game such that you have a Basic version and an Advanced version and the two are branches of a common ruleset that easily interact and don't constrain or otherwise impede each other, but 5e is not such a game thus far.

Quote from: zioth
And that leads me to another assumption, which is that a game with less magic and lower power must be a bad game. People seem to be comparing 5E characters to 3E characters, and that comparison just isn't valid. Now maybe you don't want a low-power game, and that's fair, but for what it is, I think 5E looks fairly balanced and fun so far.

Again, there's a theory vs. practice divide here.  In theory, you can have a fun low-magic low-power game, and in fact several of those exist; Riddle of Steel, low point-buy GURPS, and other games with little supernatural stuff and more realistic/down-to-earth characters work out just fine.  But in practice, you can't start with a high-magic mid-/high-power game, remove several fundamental subsystems that provide a lot of character options, and expect the resulting low-magic low-power game to work as-is.

I like several low-magic games, but all of those games are games in which there are fun options that don't involve magic or lots of character power.  RoS has very detailed, granular combat and a well-done Arthurian setting; GURPS has a ton of options to build your character to differentiate it from others; FATE is rules-light, but the free-form aspect(s) mean you're not just limited to rolling a few checks to do stuff.  I may prefer games and settings where the players can shape the setting and do things on a grand scale, but I can still have fun in the shallow end of the options pool.  But 5e doesn't fill the void of its missing subsystems with anything new, interesting, or fun--the entire system for "everything you could possibly want to do out of combat and sometimes in combat" is spells and rolling one of six ability checks.  Characters are same-y and noncasters get very few out-of-combat options that spellcasters don't also have, and as noted above 5e doesn't have the right structure to work as a rules-light system when all the "fun stuff" is taken out.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on April 25, 2013, 06:43:59 PM
Yeah, I'm not complaining about power level. You can construct your gameworld however arbitrarily you need to in order to create a fun campaign for characters of any comprehensible power level, so I don't really give a shit about how the system handles it when I talk about the system's design. Options are what I'm talking about. It's possible that the current feat list won't be entirely revised, and they're representative of where we're going here. If that's the case, then Wizards fundamentally misunderstands how their own game is going to work, but whatever. Nothing new there. At least they're not guilty of the particular problem I'm accusing them of - feats can still be a useful way of customizing your character outside of Basic.

But the thing is, it's easy to get trapped in your Simplifying Philosophy. You start writing rules under certain assumptions, and you go on to build a game system that works. But when it's time to add on the complications, you find you have to overhaul a lot of the system you spent so much time building, if you even consider it at all. It becomes very easy for, "Feats are optional, so we can work on them after we get the class system up and running" to become, "Feats are optional, so they're not as important as the class system" to become, "Feats aren't important, we're going to focus on the core of the system" by the time you get to release.

So what I'm worried about here is that this is going to become an ingrained part of the design paradigm, and it's going to poison future development for the rest of the edition. You'll get people saying that if you don't like the balance of feats, you shouldn't allow them in your game, as if playing Basic for the rest of ever is actually the default assumption. Stuff like that, that completely ignores the current intent.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on April 26, 2013, 04:17:57 AM
We're effectively talking about trying to find the lowest common denominator between OD&D and D&D 3e, which is an absolutely terrible approach given the fundamental differences in playstyle, assumptions, PC capabilities, and everything else between the two versions.

They are trying to discover the "unified theory of D&D", and it's a HUGE order. You are saying it's a terrible approach, when it's the core philosophy of the entire product. EVERY version of D&D caters to some particular group, even retroactively. They are trying to find a way to cater to all groups in an acceptable manner. What is most likely is that they will make a product (good or bad) that attracts hate from all sides for not being enough like their favorite edition. They really can't please everyone, but D&D is inherently about getting a bunch of people at a table to play a story. If this edition is an acceptable compromise for all sides, then they succeeded, no matter how many complaints they get from diehard fans of other editions.

As a comparison...do you have an example of a game that appeals to all editions of D&D players equally and lets them do everything they would do in their own edition?

EDIT: Make no mistake, I expect them to crash and burn. My argument is that since this is the intended product, it is the only sound design decision, no matter how improbable their success is.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Eldritch_Lord on April 26, 2013, 12:32:04 PM
They are trying to discover the "unified theory of D&D", and it's a HUGE order. You are saying it's a terrible approach, when it's the core philosophy of the entire product.

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive, you know. ;)

Quote
EDIT: Make no mistake, I expect them to crash and burn. My argument is that since this is the intended product, it is the only sound design decision, no matter how improbable their success is.

There are other ways to unify multiple editions' approaches without just starting with 3e/4e and removing things until it's boring as hell.  For instance, they could use all the same resources in Basic 5e that are used in Advanced 5e but pre-choose them for beginners, so the Advanced Fighter class has a bunch of feats and maneuvers and selectable weapon styles and all that jazz and an Advanced Wizard has the usual spellbook and plethora of spells, but the Basic Fighter class is pre-built as a sword-and-board fighter with the simplest maneuvers and most unobtrusive feats and the Basic Wizard has his spells pre-chosen to create the "classic" blaster-with-some-utility; going between the two systems in either direction is easy (A->B means things get simpler, B->A still leaves you with some familiar options) and you don't sacrifice all the options just because you're playing Basic.

Or they could make Basic "Advanced, but less so" to just take the existing mechanics and simplify them.  If Advanced has lots of fiddly bonuses for creature size or whatever, condense or remove them; if Advanced gives everyone several AoOs that trigger on various conditions, reduce that to "once per round, martial classes can smack someone who tries to run away from them"; if Advanced lets you improve skills or learn new ones at certain levels, have Basic just scale them automatically, the same way many players just max out their X+Int class skills in 3e instead of considering individual points; and so forth.

There are plenty of ways to simplify the game to cater to the crowd that wants a simpler game that doesn't amount to "You want a simple game, so we're just ripping out chunks of the mechanics for you."
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on April 27, 2013, 11:32:19 AM
Or they could make Basic "Advanced, but less so" to just take the existing mechanics and simplify them.  If Advanced has lots of fiddly bonuses for creature size or whatever, condense or remove them; if Advanced gives everyone several AoOs that trigger on various conditions, reduce that to "once per round, martial classes can smack someone who tries to run away from them"; if Advanced lets you improve skills or learn new ones at certain levels, have Basic just scale them automatically, the same way many players just max out their X+Int class skills in 3e instead of considering individual points; and so forth.

There are plenty of ways to simplify the game to cater to the crowd that wants a simpler game that doesn't amount to "You want a simple game, so we're just ripping out chunks of the mechanics for you."

That way lies madness my friend. You can't easily take a complex system and simplify it on a case by case basis, then expect each of those cases to be balanced against each other. It's not impossible, but it is VERY difficult, and it is also extremely hard to playtest in the public manner they are currently, as every design decision is effectively a houserule, piling up until they either collapse under their own weight or condense into a new version of the core rules.

As I said though, I'm pretty sure they are doing it wrong...but I'm not sure what you are suggesting is better. At least this way it's easier to notice and correct the mistakes as soon as they happen, instead of just hoping that the houserules they are cooking up fit together correctly.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Eldritch_Lord on April 27, 2013, 06:26:47 PM
That way lies madness my friend. You can't easily take a complex system and simplify it on a case by case basis, then expect each of those cases to be balanced against each other.

Well, you can't really expect to throw a "2e module" and a "2e with Player Options module" and a "3e module" and a "4e module" and an "Essential module" and so forth at the rules to drastically change the balance and playstyle and have all (or any) of them work out fine, can you?  And yet that's what their plan is, to make the game so modular that you can play your favorite edition with it.  Basic 5e should be nothing more than the "OD&D module" thrown at the 5e rules, but instead they're making that the foundation for everything else, so instead of having a basic game that can be improved with a set of modules to make it resemble your game of choice they've made a basic game that needs modules and modifications to not suck.

And each of those cases can in fact be relatively balanced if implemented correctly in the base.  Each of the changes I proposed was less invasive than a UA variant subsystem, and should ideally be special cases of the "advanced" rules rather than rules on their own, the same way that "you have level+3 ranks in X+Int class skills" is a special case of "you have X+Int skill ranks per level, times 4 at 1st, that can be spent on class and cross-class skills to gain various amounts of ranks."

Quote
It's not impossible, but it is VERY difficult, and it is also extremely hard to playtest in the public manner they are currently, as every design decision is effectively a houserule, piling up until they either collapse under their own weight or condense into a new version of the core rules.

As I said though, I'm pretty sure they are doing it wrong...but I'm not sure what you are suggesting is better. At least this way it's easier to notice and correct the mistakes as soon as they happen, instead of just hoping that the houserules they are cooking up fit together correctly.

I'd prefer to see a three-car pileup of houserules than the current version, where every playtest packet changes things at random, ignores a bunch of feedback, and makes several things worse (usually with the poor fighter or rogue) compared to the previous incarnation(s).  Actually, I'd say the current public playtest is the best way to playtest modules--instead of providing one rule that one of AD&D, 3e, and 4e fans will like and the others will hate, they can provide several different options and let them be tested in parallel.  Using two modules per packet results in splitting the fanbase only four ways, which should give plenty of coverage for each possibility, and if one option is covered much more or much less than the others, well, that's useful information in and of itself.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on April 28, 2013, 07:33:34 AM
That way lies madness my friend. You can't easily take a complex system and simplify it on a case by case basis, then expect each of those cases to be balanced against each other.

Well, you can't really expect to throw a "2e module" and a "2e with Player Options module" and a "3e module" and a "4e module" and an "Essential module" and so forth at the rules to drastically change the balance and playstyle and have all (or any) of them work out fine, can you?

Actually, yes. In that case, each of them is being built off the same core, being modified in a consistent manner, and being balanced against all other modules. You just can't do that when you start with the modules, then try to work back.


Neither of us really have much ground to stand on besides our personal preferences and experience, so let's just call this.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Eldritch_Lord on May 02, 2013, 12:40:48 PM
Actually, yes. In that case, each of them is being built off the same core, being modified in a consistent manner, and being balanced against all other modules. You just can't do that when you start with the modules, then try to work back.

Except that if you were to make a Venn diagram of all the editions' signature characteristics (power growth rate, saves/defenses, casting methods, multiclassing, etc.) to try to figure out what consistent, balanced core you could use to generate all the editions from, I'm guessing the only thing in the intersection of all the editions would be "uses a d20". :eh Not a very solid core to build on.  I mean, heck, not even the class names stay the same between editions!

And that's all I'm saying, really; making a modular system for 2e and 3e fans wouldn't be too hard, just throw in a few equations to convert from THAC0 to BAB, a few mappings from the five 2e saves to the three 3e saves, and so on, since 2e+Players' Options and 3e are fairly close; you could probably make 50-60% of the system the "core" and the rest all the tweaks.  Same for 3e and 4e--you'd have to change a ton of stuff, but they're still fairly similar d20 systems under the hood, you might be able to get 60-70% "core" there as well.  But one that can handle 0e, 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e, including all the little sub-editions and 0e variations?  The "core" would be small enough that you might as well make at least 2-3 different games, and the design of each edition would suffer as you tried to blur the differences between them to make combining them easier.

Quote
Neither of us really have much ground to stand on besides our personal preferences and experience, so let's just call this.

I still think it's an interesting discussion to have, since we haven't seen WotC's attempt at modularity and the latest packet is the same old same old, but if you want to drop it I can.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on May 02, 2013, 05:49:13 PM
I have a hard time understanding "why" a
Grand Unified Theory Of D&D Editions (tm)
isn't do-able with a concerted effort and decent group.

1e Fighter is basically a 3e Warrior with slightly better
or different saves, and a weaker mini-Leadership effect.

Basically do a direct game maths translation first, and
then a small amount of soup-up (or soup-down) balance.
 ;) ... but not so much it takes any real work.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 02, 2013, 06:07:41 PM
Because there's several points where people just don't agree on what should be the "right" thing to do.

Some people want a balanced game with clear rules where even a begginner that just grabbed the books can shine.

Other want badly written rules that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways where the guy who spends more time twisting english from as many books as possible "wins". I'm not kidding. Some people have spent over a decade now doing this, while being cheered on by small crowds. They clearly enjoy it.

Some are fine with charge->full attack. Others will agonize if their character doesn't have more different special attack options than it has Hit points.

Then some people are not happy at all if their character can't do everything monsters can do, while being better, while others want monsters to have unique powers and be an actual challenge to overcome.

Magic items. Feats. Skills. What do you want them to do? Should they even be there?

And that's before starting to decide how the fluff should be (plenty of people raged over the simple possibility of 5e having an alignment system, despite, you know, it being there ever since the begginning).
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: 123456789blaaa on May 02, 2013, 06:17:44 PM
Because there's several points where people just don't agree on what should be the "right" thing to do.

Some people want a balanced game with clear rules where even a begginner that just grabbed the books can shine.

Other want badly written rules that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways where the guy who spends more time twisting english from as many books as possible "wins". I'm not kidding. Some people have spent over a decade now doing this, while being cheered on by small crowds. They clearly enjoy it.

Some are fine with charge->full attack. Others will agonize if their character doesn't have more different special attack options than it has Hit points.

Then some people are not happy at all if their character can't do everything monsters can do, while being better, while others want monsters to have unique powers and be an actual challenge to overcome.

Magic items. Feats. Skills. What do you want them to do? Should they even be there?

And that's before starting to decide how the fluff should be (plenty of people raged over the simple possibility of 5e having an alignment system, despite, you know, it being there ever since the begginning).

I think you may be a bit biased.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 02, 2013, 06:59:50 PM
Just check this forum's PbP recruitment section. Then check other forum's PbP recruitment section.

I dare you to find two diferent DMs that will use the same base houserules base for their campaigns.

There's countless fixes for everything and anything, but very few things that everybody will agree on.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: 123456789blaaa on May 02, 2013, 07:45:58 PM
Just check this forum's PbP recruitment section. Then check other forum's PbP recruitment section.

I dare you to find two diferent DMs that will use the same base houserules base for their campaigns.

There's countless fixes for everything and anything, but very few things that everybody will agree on.

Oh I agree with that. My statement was more for the 2nd to 5th lines of your previous post. They seem a little...exaggerated  :p.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on May 02, 2013, 08:12:18 PM

Other want badly written rules that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways where the guy who spends more time twisting english from as many books as possible "wins". I'm not kidding. Some people have spent over a decade now doing this, while being cheered on by small crowds. They clearly enjoy it.

My kitty avatar sees what you done there ...  :whistle
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Necrosnoop110 on May 10, 2013, 08:23:16 AM

Other want badly written rules that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways where the guy who spends more time twisting english from as many books as possible "wins". I'm not kidding. Some people have spent over a decade now doing this, while being cheered on by small crowds. They clearly enjoy it.

My kitty avatar sees what you done there ...  :whistle
Yeah but isn't he about to be eaten? Can you trust what he sees?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on May 10, 2013, 10:51:20 AM
Subclasses. (https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130429) 
Not sure if I like these or not.  It's nice that they're offering a bit more customization, but not if it locks you in to certain concepts.  What if the concept you were going for isn't supported by any existing subclass?  Can you multiclass between subclasses in the same class (for example, Knight/Gladiator)?  Are these more like ACFs and Substitution Levels in 3.5, or Kits in 2E? 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on May 10, 2013, 01:29:24 PM
Looks like the new version of Kits/PrC's
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SorO_Lost on May 10, 2013, 02:32:05 PM
Downloading, downloading, omg 5 minutes noooo!!!

*waits*

Ahh, still not out.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on May 10, 2013, 03:40:08 PM

Other want badly written rules that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways where the guy who spends more time twisting english from as many books as possible "wins". I'm not kidding. Some people have spent over a decade now doing this, while being cheered on by small crowds. They clearly enjoy it.

My kitty avatar sees what you done there ...  :whistle
Yeah but isn't he about to be eaten? Can you trust what he sees?

Gulp ... roll 2d6 stomach acid damage,
handle 2 d3 claw attacks per round, and
disease (mange) check +2 save from iron gut.
Contingency Raise Avatar.

Let's see 5e simulate that !!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: PlzBreakMyCampaign on May 10, 2013, 09:00:08 PM
That grand-unified D&D is very doable. A lot of work? Yes. Impossible? No.

We have people here who've gone through every 3.5 spell in existance. Whoa.

When this thread hits 50 pages, I'll spell out how its doable if no one else has.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: JohnnyMayHymn on May 11, 2013, 03:31:40 AM
Bump for 50 pages!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: wotmaniac on May 11, 2013, 04:16:32 AM
Bump for 50 pages!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 11, 2013, 10:41:41 AM
The design idea for 5E being "low powered and low magic" has come up several times in this thread.  Is that an explicit choice by the designers? 

Here's what I'm thinking.  Part of the goal of 5E is to bring D&D players back to D&D -- D&D fans are quite fragmented (and fractious?) now.  I'm a huge fan of Hyboria and Lankhmar and Sanctuary, so I have absolutely no objection to a fantasy game with few spells and relatively mortal heroes.  Even Conan is relatively mortal when stacked up against the likes of Drizzt and Elminster. 

But, it seems to me that they're abandoning the core of D&D.  D&D, unlike the other fantasy games I've played, is the one with an orgy of splatbooks, spells, and magic items.  It's one of the few common threads between all the editions I've played.  I don't really know how D&D-esque an edition would feel without some significant degree of magic item/gear/paper doll type of interaction. 

That, and what sounds like a radical shift away from the familiar level structure -- really, if you can't differentiate characters in 20 or 30 levels, then they aren't really levels -- makes me wonder to what extent this game really would have anything, besides superficial terminology, that would be recognizably D&D. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on May 11, 2013, 10:35:05 PM
It's not exactly low magic. The two changes are first, that spellcasters get a lot fewer spell slots per day, and second, that magic items are rare and special, not things you can just walk into your local magic shop and buy. The first seems like a new thing. The second is similar to the style of 2E.
 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: littha on May 11, 2013, 11:34:13 PM
You see, I actually like the plethora and abundance of magic items in 3e for example. If I am fantasy roleplaying I want the fantasy aspect to be emphasised heavily and to me that means magic or magic items. 'Low Fantasy' could only interest me less if it was historical roleplay.

They are never going to please everyone with 5e.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: FlaminCows on May 12, 2013, 07:05:38 AM
For me, the killer of the current "iteration" of the playtest is the skill system, which I am hating with all of my hate. All the RPGs I like to play are highly skills-focused: Dungeons & Dragons 3.5, Mongoose Runequest (2/6/Legend), Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, Eclipse Phase, and WFRP 2e. One thing in common among all those RPGs is that they have a detailed and granular skills system where each skill has listed skill uses with a set target number and game effect, and a character is defined largely by their skill set.

Many people dislike such skill systems, citing that they don't need rules for roleplaying and that the skill rules get in the way of their game and to this group Next caters, but for me such a skill system is a vital component. Skill uses act like "powers", giving the player a game piece to manipulate in order to overcome a challenge. You don't need rules for roleplay, but you do need rules for a game. In Next, as it currently is, skills are just a die roll to beat a number that the DM must decide arbitrarily and the effect of the skill's success/failure is also in the hands of the DM. Without some predictable uses of a skill there is no tactics involved in deciding to use it, or deciding to train in it. For me, if only combat has rules for it then most of the game is still missing.

Another issue I have with Next is that there are less things each character can do. I prefer rules-heavy systems because they give more pieces to move, so to speak. In short:
They are never going to please everyone with 5e.
The real question will be: can they please enough people to turn up a profit?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 12, 2013, 08:21:54 AM
For me, the killer of the current "iteration" of the playtest is the skill system, which I am hating with all of my hate. All the RPGs I like to play are highly skills-focused: Dungeons & Dragons 3.5, Mongoose Runequest (2/6/Legend), Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, Eclipse Phase, and WFRP 2e. One thing in common among all those RPGs is that they have a detailed and granular skills system where each skill has listed skill uses with a set target number and game effect, and a character is defined largely by their skill set.
Whot? :psyduck

Can't really speak about those other RPGs, but skills in 3.5 are at best secondary stuff, at worst a broken mess.

Some are indeed against fixed DCs. But others are opposed checks against things that may or may not properly scale, and others can indeed be against arbitary DCs (gather information and spellcraft for the harder stuff for example).

Some are basically useless as Profession.
Others could be good, but are then greatly overshadowed by magic or other class abilities (hide/move silently, open lock, craft, tumble, etc).

Meanwhile Diplomacy auto-wins everything as written, precisely because the DCs are fixed but the skill itself is relatively easy to boost. Intimidate comes a close second. And nobody is very sure what Gather Information is suposed to do when you already have Diplomacy/Intimidate and Knowledge skills.


Another issue I have with Next is that there are less things each character can do. I prefer rules-heavy systems because they give more pieces to move, so to speak. In short:
They are never going to please everyone with 5e.
The real question will be: can they please enough people to turn up a profit?
Oh, that's a given. The D&D name is still strong, so they'll most certainly sell enough to make a profit as long as they put "Dungeons and Dragons X" on the book cover. The question is how much of a profit they make.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on May 12, 2013, 08:22:19 AM
Yeah. Dispite its shortcomings, the skill system is one of my favorite parts of D&D 3.5. 5E's seems inferior.
 
I'm not sure about the "less things a character can do" thing. There do seem to be fewer class abilities so far, but combat is a lot more flexible. By having guidelines instead of rules, players are encouraged to be creative. Jumping off a balcony, swinging from a chandelier and landing on the enemy is no longer a stupid thing to do. In 3.5, any creative act in combat results in penalties, and the loss of a full attack.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: FlaminCows on May 12, 2013, 08:52:37 AM
Whot? :psyduck

Can't really speak about those other RPGs, but skills in 3.5 are at best secondary stuff, at worst a broken mess.

Some are indeed against fixed DCs. But others are opposed checks against things that may or may not properly scale, and others can indeed be against arbitary DCs (gather information and spellcraft for the harder stuff for example).

Some are basically useless as Profession.
Others could be good, but are then greatly overshadowed by magic or other class abilities (hide/move silently, open lock, craft, tumble, etc).

Meanwhile Diplomacy auto-wins everything as written, precisely because the DCs are fixed but the skill itself is relatively easy to boost. Intimidate comes a close second. And nobody is very sure what Gather Information is suposed to do when you already have Diplomacy/Intimidate and Knowledge skills.

D&D 3.5 has the benefit of many years of extensive support. There are enough additional skill uses in the sourcebooks, magazines, and feats that the game can be run pretty much as I described. Gather Information, for example, is used for Urban Tracking, which in my game group is included with being trained in Gather Information rather than being a feat; something we do with all feats that grant skill uses. Diplomacy has fixes made by the community. Some of the skills are folded into other skills for more utility: Open Lock, for example, is just an aspect of Disable Device as suggested by the Rules Compendium. Some of the more bothersome 3.5 spells are just removed, considered to not exist by the game group.

That is, of course, a considerable number of changes from "default" D&D 3.5, but that's not the point. Next isn't competing with basic 3.5, it is competing with 3.5 in its current state, which is 3.5 with all the good parts of all those years of people tinkering with it. The Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 that I play is a highly skills-focused game where a character is largely defined by their skill set. If Next is to be worth buying, it would have to be better than the Dungeons and Dragons that I play, and the same would apply to each other individual who is considering it. They're saying that they are creating a modular, customizable D&D, when people have been modifying and customizing D&D for decades.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on May 12, 2013, 09:37:04 AM
A similar thing happens in video games. Popular ones get extensive homebrew modding over the years, that make them much more enjoyable than the "base" games.

However, people will still buy said video game sequels, even if at start they're more dull and limited than the previous modded games.

This is because at the end of the day, even if your group managed to come up with your perfect "homebrew/modding combo patch", composed of a hundreds if not thousands of small chances, well... That's still just the game you play. But what if you want to bring new people in your group? People who haven't being modding/homebrewing D&D for decades?

That's why Pathfinder suceeded, even surpassing 4e. They made a bunch of changes to a popular base game, and then they made them widely available to the public. If a DM wants to start a pathfinder game, they can point interested players to the paizo srd that has everything neatly organized.

So I would wager that the chances of 5e suceeding will not be based on the comparison with personal group rules, but on how widely available they make the base rules to the general public, even if said rules aren't that hot compared to your personal version. IMO their biggest mistake in 4e was not having an open srd equivalent.


Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 12, 2013, 02:15:51 PM
It's not exactly low magic. The two changes are first, that spellcasters get a lot fewer spell slots per day, and second, that magic items are rare and special, not things you can just walk into your local magic shop and buy. The first seems like a new thing. The second is similar to the style of 2E.
Based on my experience in 2E I kind of want to distinguish something.  There's the "magic shoppe" approach to D&D, which has existed since time immemorial (stipulated for these purposes as being 20+ years) and is particularly common on charopp forums and which has some reasonable justifications for it. 

The rarity of magic items doesn't depend on magic shoppes, though.  AD&D, the version I mostly cut my teeth on, had 4 volumes of encyclopedias devoted to magic items.  Every single D&D character was presumed to have a large quantity of them, especially in the older iterations of the game as gear was one of the few things you had to customize your character.  It was hardly the case that magic items were rare or special.  They were expected and essential parts of the game.

I seem to recall being corrected as to what 2E was as opposed to AD&D, so I could just be misreading these things.  But, the idea of magic items not being a fairly huge part of the game -- no matter where you acquire them -- seems to be a sea change to me. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on May 12, 2013, 02:53:55 PM
Magic items sort of just wound up in their position from where they were just the incentives to do pretty much anything in the game. They didn't really get locked into their present significance until 3E, which was sort of fine before because there weren't particularly well defined standards on your character performance yet either.

You had X wealth at Y level because experience correlated to wealth gain, but due to being random loot, you wouldn't have something like a Big Six, but more a random mashup of cool toys you could apply to problem solving.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on May 13, 2013, 08:43:46 AM
The rarity of magic items doesn't depend on magic shoppes, though.  AD&D, the version I mostly cut my teeth on, had 4 volumes of encyclopedias devoted to magic items.  Every single D&D character was presumed to have a large quantity of them, especially in the older iterations of the game as gear was one of the few things you had to customize your character.  It was hardly the case that magic items were rare or special.  They were expected and essential parts of the game.

Sure, that's the way you and many other people played AD&D, but the game described in the 2E DMG was very different. The DMG suggested that magic items be rare, requiring specific quests to acquire them. 5E also suggests that items be hard to acquire, and adds that they have no fixed gp value, which makes them harder to buy and sell. Naturally, some DMs will create campaigns where PCs are covered in magic items starting at level 2, but that's not standard for 5E or 2E. It's very much standard for 3E and 4E.
 
 
Next isn't competing with basic 3.5, it is competing with 3.5 in its current state, which is 3.5 with all the good parts of all those years of people tinkering with it.

I don't think that's as true as you think. D&D has a huge following, while these (and other) boards include what - a couple thousand players at most? We, with our focus on optimization or heavy modding are not the typical D&D players that Next is targetting. Next is going for:
 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: wotmaniac on May 13, 2013, 06:37:55 PM
Sure, that's the way you and many other people played AD&D, but the game described in the 2E DMG was very different. The DMG suggested that magic items be rare, requiring specific quests to acquire them.
Sure, the fluff tells you that magic items are/should be rare; but then that gets completely thrown out the minute you actually start rolling the treasure charts.  As I remember, my 2e groups had much more treasure than my 3e groups.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on May 13, 2013, 09:55:56 PM
The 2E treasure was probably a lot more varied though. 3E loot is pretty functionally oriented. Earlier editions took more of a whimsical approach.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on May 13, 2013, 10:55:31 PM
I did so like my Wand of WOnder....
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: kitep on May 14, 2013, 12:45:52 AM
I agree with Veekie.  With 2E, the magic items seemed more random - you got what the DM gave you.  In 3E, it seems more like shopping, you get what you pick out.  Great for min/maxing, but I sometimes I miss having strange items.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on May 14, 2013, 10:33:16 AM
I agree with Veekie.  With 2E, the magic items seemed more random - you got what the DM gave you.  In 3E, it seems more like shopping, you get what you pick out.  Great for min/maxing, but I sometimes I miss having strange items.
This can be controlled by the DM though.  In my viking gestalt game there are no magic item shops; there is basically no magic item trade to speak of.  The players pretty much got what I awarded to them.  I even doubled the requisite caster level for all item creation feats, as the setting is supposed to be "rare magic" (characters have appropriate wealth by level, but it might not be exactly the "best" items they would pick).

Even so, no one took an item creation feat until 12th level.  Now they are making many of their own Wondrous Items, but for the first 11 levels, they got what I gave them.  I did keep in mind things that would be helpful to them, and even got a short list of "desired items" that each player wanted, and would drop those in throughout the campaign.  It was always fun when the player realized the bad guy they were facing had the item he really wanted... then he had to earn it by having it used against him.  I still do the desired items list, and occasionally drop in those items at level-appropriate times.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on July 16, 2013, 09:21:24 PM
Looking at the latest (June 7th) Playtest Packet.

The Druid can cast Wish as a 9th-level spell.  Miracle doesn't exist.

Wish functions almost the same as it does in 3.X
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 16, 2013, 09:23:33 PM
Looking at the latest (June 7th) Playtest Packet.

The Druid can cast Wish as a 9th-level spell.  Miracle doesn't exist.

Wish functions almost the same as it does in 3.X

I... it...

Why have they brought that thing back?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on July 16, 2013, 09:26:42 PM
Because they're trying to go for a 3rd Edition-esque game.  Except stripped down and simplified for the Old School crowd.

Oh, and they weren't nice enough to throw 4th Edition fans a bone.  Hell, 4E had plenty of neat ideas.  The Warlock and the Warden are both thematically awesome.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 16, 2013, 09:28:47 PM
Because they're trying to go for a 3rd Edition-esque game.  Except stripped down and simplified for the Old School crowd.

Oh, and they weren't nice enough to throw 4th Edition fans a bone.

Oh, I realise that (I've been hanging around on the GitP thread for some reason), I just want to know what the hell possessed them to add Wish again. I want to know in what conceivable way Wish was ever a good idea to add in that form in the first place.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on July 16, 2013, 09:57:59 PM
Wish is an iconic spell, so I understand wanting to keep it, but they did it very poorly. They have to fix it before it goes out. Wizards were very hesitant to cast the spell in 3E, because of the high XP cost. In 5E, the cost is that your strength drops to 3 and you can't cast any more spells that day. So it's no longer a combat spell except in the most dire of go-for-broke emergencies, but it can still create magic items. This means that, in a caster's down-time, he's going to be casting Wish every night before going to bed, to make 25,000gp in extraordinarily rare magic items every day (at least, items are supposed to be rare in 5E). Or he can just wish himself a 25,000gp block of gold every day. High level casters are supposed to be powerful, but unlimited wealth without even having to be clever, or risking flooding the market (Wall of Iron) is a little ridiculous.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on July 16, 2013, 10:09:18 PM
Gonna be posting some 5th Edition stuff in a minute.

Quote
Neutral is the alignment of those that prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most druids, and many humans are  neutral

Neutrals just don't give a shit.  Expect everybody tired of alignment dilemmas to take this.


Feats are optional, but skills aren't.

The copypasta doesn't work well.  It makes A SEPARATE LINE FOR EVERY WORD!  I'm not putting up with that shit, I'm paraphrasing from now on.

No hard and fast mechanics, but it looks like we're saying goodbye to Magic Item Wal-Mart.  Under "selling magic items" in the Magic Items document, it mentions that there is no real established market.  Most people trade for other magic items or services instead of gold and coins, and demand is partially based upon usefulness and rarity.  Also, finding someone who can give its true value is usually an isolated and powerful person, such as a dwarven lord in a mountain stronghold or reclusive wizard in a remote tower.

Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, and Humans are the "core" races.  Half-elves, Gnomes, and Half-Orcs are separate, under "additional races."  With the exception of Humans and the half-races, each race has two sub-races with alternate traits (Rock Gnome and Forest Gnome, Lightfoot and Stout Halflings, etc).

Classes include Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, and Wizard.

Paladins must be of any Lawful alignment, and represent champions of order as opposed to Goodliness.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 16, 2013, 10:35:27 PM
Quote
Paladins must be of any Lawful alignment, and represent champions of order as opposed to Goodliness.

Gaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on July 16, 2013, 11:04:06 PM
Didn't I read a Legends and Lore article that said they were doing away with alignment almost entirely?
Oh yeah, here it is (https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20121210).

They put out a Q&A that said
Quote
In the Legends & Lore, Mike mentions decoupling alignment from the rules. In the current packet, paladins are still required to be lawful. Is that something that you guys will change to decouple the alignment from the rules?

Yes. It simply has not been changed yet in the public playtest packets, because we are working hard to present some major changes across all classes in an upcoming packet, and we want to make sure that everything is interacting properly.

That Q&A was dated June 27, so maybe they intend to change it in the next packet.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on July 17, 2013, 01:44:24 AM
Has anyone explained to Mearls that his name is mentioned with the same amount of disdain frequently used when discussing MLP erotic fan fiction?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on July 17, 2013, 02:37:04 AM
Has anyone explained to Mearls that his name is mentioned with the same amount of disdain frequently used when discussing MLP erotic fan fiction?

I think that he's aware of the hostility he generates, but he keeps on truckin'.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 17, 2013, 05:37:14 PM
EDIT --- double biff, deleted part of this post.

"4e did stick Wish and Polymorph back in just at the end.
I'm forgetting off hand which book they're in,
but they act like a kind of Super-Rare scrolls/boon thingy."


Huh, the board wouldn't let me do a self-referencial quote.
Serves my kitty avatar's ego right.  Anyways ... found it.


4e Dungeon Survival Guide has a "rewards" section
with those 2 and Mass Heal and 1 other convert.
And they have a tier-level so technically they are
accessible via Boons ... (technically).
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Demelain on July 17, 2013, 09:48:45 PM
I would much rather have Paladins function like Crusaders - any non-TrueNeutral.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 17, 2013, 09:58:49 PM
I would much rather have Paladins function like Crusaders - any non-TrueNeutral.

Now that doesn't even sound like it should be called a paladin, honestly. :/
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on July 17, 2013, 10:14:01 PM
I would much rather have Paladins function like Crusaders - any non-TrueNeutral.

Now that doesn't even sound like it should be called a paladin, honestly. :/

Shrug.  Only in the context of roleplaying games does a paladin generally mean "Defender of Goodness".  The general definition is just "champion of a cause".  As long as you have a cause to fight for, you should be able to be a paladin.  I'd even go so far as to say that Neutrality can be a cause.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 17, 2013, 10:23:24 PM
I would much rather have Paladins function like Crusaders - any non-TrueNeutral.

Now that doesn't even sound like it should be called a paladin, honestly. :/

Shrug.  Only in the context of roleplaying games does a paladin generally mean "Defender of Goodness".  The general definition is just "champion of a cause".  As long as you have a cause to fight for, you should be able to be a paladin.  I'd even go so far as to say that Neutrality can be a cause.

The word comes from a single guy's fictional knights, so a chaotic paladin is something that's a bit hard to picture. You may as well not bother having it as a class by that point.

I have never heard of the definition as champion of a cause, to be honest. Knights? Yup. Knights in Shining Armour? Yup. 'Champion of a cause'? No.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on July 17, 2013, 10:29:36 PM
All I did was google "define paladin" and it was the second definition in like 3 different sources.  The first one varied between "paragon of chivalry" (which supports the 'knight in shining armor' style it has in d&d - though not precisely, as you can be both chivalrous and a bad person) and "one of the 12 members of Charlemagne's court" which doesn't really help. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 17, 2013, 10:34:23 PM
All I did was google "define paladin" and it was the second definition in like 3 different sources.  The first one varied between "paragon of chivalry" (which supports the 'knight in shining armor' style it has in d&d - though not precisely, as you can be both chivalrous and a bad person) and "one of the 12 members of Charlemagne's court" which doesn't really help. 

'Paragon of Chivalry' and 'bad person' sound mutually exclusive. Since... uh... one of the pillars of chivalry is protecting the weak. Seriously. Also not lying, perseverance... about the only thing that could creep into evil is 'obey your lord', but breaking half the rules to obey one other isn't going to get you labelled a paragon of it. @_@

And Charlemagne's, in legend, seem to tend towards being a bunch of knights errant doing random quests (look up Astolfo at some point).

The first definition seems better, honestly. 'Champion of a cause' makes me think 'zealot' before anything else.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Demelain on July 17, 2013, 10:49:08 PM
LN - The law, not too far from standard ideas so I don't feel a need to expound.
NG - Goodness, frankly closer to my idea of a Paladin anyway (because the law does sometimes conflict with what is morally right in the LG case)
CN - personal freedom, which should not be limited by man and his laws/subjective morality (CE and CG follow, emphasizing/excising different parts)
NE - perhaps the hardest to imagine. Really, I picture it as evil for the sake of evil. More insanity, but black knight/blackguard style.

LE follows into might makes right, and the law is the law.
LG is typical.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: brujon on July 17, 2013, 11:12:30 PM
LN - The law, not too far from standard ideas so I don't feel a need to expound.
NG - Goodness, frankly closer to my idea of a Paladin anyway (because the law does sometimes conflict with what is morally right in the LG case)
CN - personal freedom, which should not be limited by man and his laws/subjective morality (CE and CG follow, emphasizing/excising different parts)
NE - perhaps the hardest to imagine. Really, I picture it as evil for the sake of evil. More insanity, but black knight/blackguard style.

LE follows into might makes right, and the law is the law.
LG is typical.

I think to end all that debate, they should just can the term Paladin and start using the term Paragon, because it actually fits much better.

Take the variant paladins, but substitute the name "Paladin" with the name "Paragon"

Paladin of Honor (Standard)
Paragon of Freedom
Paragon of Slaughter
Paragon of Tyranny

Much better. They're Paragons of a cause, they take an idea, and express it to the ultimate level. Be it Virtue, Good, Freedom, or even Slaughter or Tyranny. The idea remains exactly the same, but ends the confusion and permits more variety. What creates the problem is really the term they chose...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Demelain on July 17, 2013, 11:14:42 PM
Yeah, I suppose. Much like 5e's first iteration of sorcerer - the name of the class was the problem, the mechanics were actually really interesting.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: LordBlades on July 18, 2013, 04:14:33 AM

No hard and fast mechanics, but it looks like we're saying goodbye to Magic Item Wal-Mart.  Under "selling magic items" in the Magic Items document, it mentions that there is no real established market.  Most people trade for other magic items or services instead of gold and coins, and demand is partially based upon usefulness and rarity.  Also, finding someone who can give its true value is usually an isolated and powerful person, such as a dwarven lord in a mountain stronghold or reclusive wizard in a remote tower.



Since I lost the patience to read 5E iterations a good while ago, are there any magic item creation rules out yet?

Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on July 18, 2013, 01:51:41 PM
Since I lost the patience to read 5E iterations a good while ago, are there any magic item creation rules out yet?

No, but they say it will be in a future playtest packet.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on July 18, 2013, 01:56:42 PM
My guess is that they'll do something similar to 4e, where the only way to craft magic items is to break down existing ones into some kind of magic dust, which is then used to enchant the new item.  Otherwise there's no reason not to have magic marts, because a PC with the ability to create magic items out of gold can just open his own shop.  Or at least provide the benefits of one to his party.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 18, 2013, 05:37:10 PM
Yeah, I suppose. Much like 5e's first iteration of sorcerer - the name of the class was the problem, the mechanics were actually really interesting.

Heh right.
The have to make a class called: The Vance, and it'll be a Wizard.
Then they have to make a class called:  The Wizard, and people will
go put their 2 cents of Non-cents in on how That class is wrong.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: 123456789blaaa on July 18, 2013, 05:50:18 PM
Yeah, I suppose. Much like 5e's first iteration of sorcerer - the name of the class was the problem, the mechanics were actually really interesting.

Heh right.
The have to make a class called: The Vance, and it'll be a Wizard.
Then they have to make a class called:  The Wizard, and people will
go put their 2 cents of Non-cents in on how That class is wrong.

Heh "two cents of non-cents". I'll have to remember that.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: TuggyNE on July 18, 2013, 08:39:39 PM
Otherwise there's no reason not to have magic marts, because [entirely plausible in-character logic]

Yes, but you're assuming they actually consider that.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 18, 2013, 09:17:19 PM
Oh god, I started an argument about whether adventurers would exist if peasantry had the capability of killing demon gods through sheer numbers, as is currently the case.

Someone apparently thinks that the rules give a fuck about real psychology, which is cute.

... I hate bounded accuracy. Still not sure what it's meant to do, except make a drunk peasant with no legs capable of injuring a god.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on July 18, 2013, 10:11:15 PM
New Q&A regarding feats (http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2013/07/18/dd_next_qa:_feat_progression,_bonus_feats__requirements)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: brujon on July 18, 2013, 11:56:25 PM
Oh god, I started an argument about whether adventurers would exist if peasantry had the capability of killing demon gods through sheer numbers, as is currently the case.

Someone apparently thinks that the rules give a fuck about real psychology, which is cute.

... I hate bounded accuracy. Still not sure what it's meant to do, except make a drunk peasant with no legs capable of injuring a god.

Wait... Omg. New strategy for killing Dispater? o.O
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on July 19, 2013, 12:19:50 AM
"Truly Asmodeus cannot withstand our Filthy Peasant Cannon..."
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 19, 2013, 08:06:44 AM
Oh god, I started an argument about whether adventurers would exist if peasantry had the capability of killing demon gods through sheer numbers, as is currently the case.

Someone apparently thinks that the rules give a fuck about real psychology, which is cute.

... I hate bounded accuracy. Still not sure what it's meant to do, except make a drunk peasant with no legs capable of injuring a god.

Wait... Omg. New strategy for killing Dispater? o.O

End result of bounded accuracy is that nobody can ever fall off the RNG, which means that you can literally just throw children and the elderly at a problem until it goes away. :(
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nanshork on July 19, 2013, 11:18:05 AM
Oh god, I started an argument about whether adventurers would exist if peasantry had the capability of killing demon gods through sheer numbers, as is currently the case.

Someone apparently thinks that the rules give a fuck about real psychology, which is cute.

... I hate bounded accuracy. Still not sure what it's meant to do, except make a drunk peasant with no legs capable of injuring a god.

Wait... Omg. New strategy for killing Dispater? o.O

End result of bounded accuracy is that nobody can ever fall off the RNG, which means that you can literally just throw children and the elderly at a problem until it goes away. :(

.....I am now plotting on how to make that character.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on July 19, 2013, 11:26:46 AM
I believe I read a Legends and Lore that said they were working on a way for this not to happen.  I think it involved basically giving every important monster DR/+X. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Kasz on July 19, 2013, 11:46:39 AM
I believe I read a Legends and Lore that said they were working on a way for this not to happen.  I think it involved basically giving every important monster DR/+X.

Well... if DR works like in 3.5, Damaged reduced to 0 still inflicts a minimum of 1, provided it did at least 1 in the first place...

So if you have, Choooooooor'atyl, Eater of Flesh; Who can kill 10 peasants a round... but one of those peasants hits him for 1 damage a round and he happens to not have access to healing or regen, then... it'll take Nx10 peasants to kill him over N rounds, N being his HP. Despite his 100 DR/-
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on July 19, 2013, 12:15:42 PM
Oh god, I started an argument about whether adventurers would exist if peasantry had the capability of killing demon gods through sheer numbers, as is currently the case.

Someone apparently thinks that the rules give a fuck about real psychology, which is cute.

... I hate bounded accuracy. Still not sure what it's meant to do, except make a drunk peasant with no legs capable of injuring a god.

Wait... Omg. New strategy for killing Dispater? o.O

End result of bounded accuracy is that nobody can ever fall off the RNG, which means that you can literally just throw children and the elderly at a problem until it goes away. :(

And that's the reason why humanoid-eating monsters lurk in dungeons filled with traps, mazes and choke points, while non-hidden civilizations are possible/viable. If the monster can butcher a whole nation worth  of peasants whitout any risk to itself, then there's no logic reason why humanoid races still exist, let alone grouping themselves togheter in towns/cities. If there's no strength in numbers, living togheter with many others of your kind just means you're making yourself an easy target for the next wandering monster.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 19, 2013, 12:20:11 PM
Oh god, I started an argument about whether adventurers would exist if peasantry had the capability of killing demon gods through sheer numbers, as is currently the case.

Someone apparently thinks that the rules give a fuck about real psychology, which is cute.

... I hate bounded accuracy. Still not sure what it's meant to do, except make a drunk peasant with no legs capable of injuring a god.

Wait... Omg. New strategy for killing Dispater? o.O

End result of bounded accuracy is that nobody can ever fall off the RNG, which means that you can literally just throw children and the elderly at a problem until it goes away. :(

And that's the reason why humanoid-eating monsters lurk in dungeons filled with traps, mazes and choke points, while non-hidden civilizations are possible/viable. If the monster can butcher a whole nation worth  of peasants whitout any risk to itself, then there's no logic reason why humanoid races still exist, let alone grouping themselves togheter in towns/cities. If there's no strength in numbers, living togheter with many others of your kind just means you're making yourself an easy target for the next wandering monster.


I thought it was because people could become that strong themselves, and that all the various types of monster aren't known for getting along, and that trained soldiers can possibly overcome MOST things.

I do not, however, see why you would think an army of old men and children should be able to beat a demon god. Seriously? :p
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on July 19, 2013, 12:48:16 PM
I believe I read a Legends and Lore that said they were working on a way for this not to happen.  I think it involved basically giving every important monster DR/+X.

Well... if DR works like in 3.5, Damaged reduced to 0 still inflicts a minimum of 1, provided it did at least 1 in the first place...

I don't think 3.5 damage reduction works like that...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agita on July 19, 2013, 02:19:17 PM
I believe I read a Legends and Lore that said they were working on a way for this not to happen.  I think it involved basically giving every important monster DR/+X.

Well... if DR works like in 3.5, Damaged reduced to 0 still inflicts a minimum of 1, provided it did at least 1 in the first place...

I don't think 3.5 damage reduction works like that...
It does not. Penalties to a damage roll from low Strength can't reduce damage below 1, but DR, energy resistance, and the like can.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 19, 2013, 02:22:08 PM
Although ... there has to be a semi-plausible reason
for why Demogorgon / Orcus / the usual suspects,
haven't shown up and wiped out the peasant village.

Auto-hit on a 20, means a Squadron of 200 slingers
can el'david a goliath demon lord at ~25 hp per round.
 :sh ... go git 'im tigers.

Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 19, 2013, 02:28:17 PM
Although ... there has to be a semi-plausible reason
for why Demogorgon / Orcus / the usual suspects,
haven't shown up and wiped out the peasant village.

Auto-hit on a 20, means a Squadron of 200 slingers
can el'david a goliath demon lord at ~25 hp per round.
 :sh ... go git 'im tigers.

I would presume because they have better things to be doing than showing up in person to take a peasant village. Maybe conquer the world, but a peasant village? That's certainly not something that should be solved by a small group of peasants.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RedWarlock on July 19, 2013, 02:41:04 PM
This is why demon lords are lords, because they tend to have demonic *followers*. Let the hordes take on other hordes, and let the champions take on the champions. Focused fire doesn't really work in real-world situations as well as it does in tabletop and RTSs.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 19, 2013, 03:02:08 PM
This is why demon lords are lords, because they tend to have demonic *followers*. Let the hordes take on other hordes, and let the champions take on the champions. Focused fire doesn't really work in real-world situations as well as it does in tabletop and RTSs.

And they have followers because... they are by far and away the strongest, so those below them can't hope to take them out.

Rather undercut if they can be defeated by a tiny group of peasants.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on July 19, 2013, 03:35:23 PM
And they have followers because... they are by far and away the strongest, so those below them can't hope to take them out.
You're claiming that leaders in D&D never get backstabbed by their underlings?

Those below have hope of taking the one above. But since the odds aren't in their favor in a straight out fight, they'll usually rather live as a servant than challenge their master and risk a nasty death.

Or it's simply magic. Bindings/summons/pokemons all take orders from someone who isn't necessarily stronger than them, many time they're actually weaker.

Rather undercut if they can be defeated by a tiny group of peasants.

Since when are thousands of peasants a "tiny" group?

Don't have the latest bestiary, but last time I checked Asmodeus has a frightening aura with range "everybody I can see".
Every round he drops two auto-kill attacks plus a flame strike that roasts some more peasants.

Then 1/3 of the rounds he also can summon pit fiends  that drop fireballs and bash in some more peasant skulls.

The peasants are dying in droves every round, and Asmodeus Devil Army just keeps growing. You'll have to bring in a LOT of peasants to take him down.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 19, 2013, 03:39:38 PM
And they have followers because... they are by far and away the strongest, so those below them can't hope to take them out.
You're claiming that leaders in D&D never get backstabbed by their underlings?

Those below have hope of taking the one above. But since the odds aren't in their favor in a straight out fight, they'll usually rather live as a servant than challenge their master and risk a nasty death.

... things like Orcus and Demogorgon? Challenged or even remotely threatened by the teeming masses beneath them?

Quote
Rather undercut if they can be defeated by a tiny group of peasants.

Since when are thousands of peasants a "tiny" group?

When you're talking about demon princes? Minuscule. A speck of dirt that shouldn't even be worth acknowledging.

Quote
Don't have the latest bestiary, but last time I checked Asmodeus has a frightened aura with range "everybody I can see".
Every round he drops three auto-kill attacks plus a flame strike that roasts some more peasants.

Then 1/3 of the rounds he also can summon pit fiends  that drop fireballs and bash in some more peasant skulls.

The peasants are dying in droves every round, and Asmodeus Devil Army just keeps growing. You'll have to bring in a LOT of peasants to take him down.

This reminds me that it is possible for a peasant to befriend Asmodeus with about as much ease as a 20th level character very, very into diplomacy and politics. :/

There is a problem if 'bring in lots of peasants' is an option for 'take out the most powerful Devil'.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on July 19, 2013, 03:52:41 PM
Quote
Since when are thousands of peasants a "tiny" group?

When you're talking about demon princes? Minuscule. A speck of dirt that shouldn't even be worth acknowledging.
Wonder then why they try so hard to get those cultist groups going right? :eh

This reminds me that it is possible for a peasant to befriend Asmodeus with about as much ease as a 20th level character very, very into diplomacy and politics. :/

There is a problem if 'bring in lots of peasants' is an option for 'take out the most powerful Devil'.
I didn't see you complaining when Sauron came up with the plan "bring in lots of goblins and orcs" as an option for taking over Middle Earth.

Then Sauron himself got taken out by a counter humie rush.

Proceeded by being finished off by "bring in lots of hobbits fat children".
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 19, 2013, 04:00:35 PM
Quote
Since when are thousands of peasants a "tiny" group?

When you're talking about demon princes? Minuscule. A speck of dirt that shouldn't even be worth acknowledging.
Wonder then why they try so hard to get those cultist groups going right? :eh

Constant failure is embarrassing? Fun diversion? It's not as if demonic cults' main foe is supposed to be a tide of farmers.

Quote
This reminds me that it is possible for a peasant to befriend Asmodeus with about as much ease as a 20th level character very, very into diplomacy and politics. :/

There is a problem if 'bring in lots of peasants' is an option for 'take out the most powerful Devil'.
I didn't see you complaining when Sauron came up with the plan "bring in lots of goblins and orcs" as an option for taking over Middle Earth.

Then Sauron himself got taken out by a counter humie rush.

Proceeded by being finished off by "bring in lots of hobbits fat children".

... why would I complain that a guy was using a huge army to conquer a kingdom? What logical sense would that make? Hell, he's hardly on the same level of power as I was talking about, seeing as the strongest anyone gets in LotR is about level five. Still made a pretty good attempt to turn the tide of battle until he had his hand cut off, which was a bit of a downer for him.

Also, the Last Alliance of Elves and Men is basically taking as many highish levelled soldiers as you can  and using them against what is basically a nigh endless tide of level 1's. Now, who won that fight? Was it sheer numbers? Nope, so I am, of course, perfectly fine with this. :P

Being defeated by not being confronted directly because that would be suicide? About as much as a pair of level 1's could hope for, and they got very lucky.

Anyway, LotR isn't a very good comparison for 'peasants can defeat something that should challenge a party of level 20's'. :/

My issue would be if, say, the Shire picked a fight with Sauron at the height of his power and won. You know, the peaceful, idyllic community of food-obsessed midgets.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: brujon on July 19, 2013, 04:43:37 PM
Nitpick: The strongest any of the MC gets is level 5 - excepting Gandalf. Elrond is most definitely NOT level 5. In the Silmarillion and then in the first War of the Ring he shows fighting prowess waaaaay beyond anything anyone can do. Same goes for Galadriel, who was around since the time of the first elves, and lived for a long time in Valinor before coming back to Middle-Earth, and she's considered one of the wisest beings still alive in ME in the LoTR era. The spider which i always forget the name of is totally unappropriate as an encounter for the hobbits, being infinitely stronger than them, who basically just kill her because they happened to have the exact items needed to kill her. She's definitely not a CR5 encounter... One of the worst things Tolkien did, IMO :|. I digress. There are several other much stronger characters than level 5, but for the MC's? 5 is about right.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on July 19, 2013, 05:59:37 PM
Quote
Wonder then why they try so hard to get those cultist groups going right? :eh

Constant failure is embarrassing? Fun diversion? It's not as if demonic cults' main foe is supposed to be a tide of farmers.
Thousands of farmers-"A speck of dirt that shouldn't even be worth acknowledging."
A dozen farmers found some dark scriptures-"Good evening gentlemen, how shall we amuse ourselves tonight?" :p

... why would I complain that a guy was using a huge army to conquer a kingdom? What logical sense would that make? Hell, he's hardly on the same level of power as I was talking about, seeing as the strongest anyone gets in LotR is about level five. Still made a pretty good attempt to turn the tide of battle until he had his hand cut off, which was a bit of a downer for him.
...Only Level Five? :psyduck

Did you miss the whole armie of treants? The war trolls? Stone giants? Or perhaps Tom Bombadill, the guy that basically does as he pleases?

Sauron himself is stated multiple times in the Silmarion as basically being the baddest and strongest around, and everybody that challenges him 1 on 1 gets crushed to a pulp whitout doing much worst than a scratch to him. And there's quite a bit of challengers over the centuries.

So yes, Sauron "I eat heroes for breakfast and stand in the frontline of armies when you have thousands of elite archers" can and is overwhelmed by throwing him much lower level guys until they get enough lucky hits in.

Also, the Last Alliance of Elves and Men is basically taking as many highish levelled soldiers as you can  and using them against what is basically a nigh endless tide of level 1's. Now, who won that fight? Was it sheer numbers? Nope, so I am, of course, perfectly fine with this. :P
Go check the fluff again. The elves went ask help from the humies because they basically were the only ones that could match the orc numbers. Including managing to swamp Sauron himself despite he greater cleaving kings.

Being defeated by not being confronted directly because that would be suicide? About as much as a pair of level 1's could hope for, and they got very lucky.

Anyway, LotR isn't a very good comparison for 'peasants can defeat something that should challenge a party of level 20's'. :/

My issue would be if, say, the Shire picked a fight with Sauron at the height of his power and won. You know, the peaceful, idyllic community of food-obsessed midgets.
Point is, the idyllic community of food-obsessed midgets played a key role on defeating a giant floating eye that can see over miles and commands zillions of orcs/goblins and wraiths that ride zombie dragons and war trolls. An enemy so fearsome the elves themselves are legging it to the other side of the world, and they state not even that may be enough to Stop Sauron's advance. And you consider them a speck of dust not worth noticing. Well, keep watch only for the giants and you'll be devoured by the ants as they say.

Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 19, 2013, 06:14:21 PM
Quote
Wonder then why they try so hard to get those cultist groups going right? :eh

Constant failure is embarrassing? Fun diversion? It's not as if demonic cults' main foe is supposed to be a tide of farmers.
Thousands of farmers-"A speck of dirt that shouldn't even be worth acknowledging."
A dozen farmers found some dark scriptures-"Good evening gentlemen, how shall we amuse ourselves tonight?" :p

I meant as a threat. As pawns? Oh, sure, always good to have more pawns, no matter how inconsequential they are. And hey, they might actually do something right.

Quote
... why would I complain that a guy was using a huge army to conquer a kingdom? What logical sense would that make? Hell, he's hardly on the same level of power as I was talking about, seeing as the strongest anyone gets in LotR is about level five. Still made a pretty good attempt to turn the tide of battle until he had his hand cut off, which was a bit of a downer for him.
...Only Level Five? :psyduck

Did you miss the whole armie of treants? The war trolls? Stone giants? Or perhaps Tom Bombadill, the guy that basically does as he pleases?

Sauron himself is stated multiple times in the Silmarion as basically being the baddest and strongest around, and everybody that challenges him 1 on 1 gets crushed to a pulp whitout doing much worst than a scratch to him. And there's quite a bit of challengers over the centuries.

Actually, he's still below Melkor/Morgoth, for all that he's probably the most powerful of the Maia. Anyway... uh, Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas? They are, as it is, not really above level 5. And they're the best the world has to offer. Hell, Lord of the Rings is the go-to example for how you can still have epic tales without getting to high levels.

Bombadil may or may not be Eru Iluvatar, which would literally make him God. 

Quote
So yes, Sauron "I eat heroes for breakfast and stand in the frontline of armies when you have thousands of elite archers" can and is overwhelmed by throwing him much lower level guys until they get enough lucky hits in.

A) Given the setting as it stands, Sauron is maybe level 10 at most.
B) The 'much lower level guys' that actually finished him off were the strongest of elves and men, and only one of those that actually fought him survived. See, this isn't so bad--it's the same thing as a party of adventurers beating a stronger foe. If it was the hobbits taking on Melkor before he squandered all his power, and winning? Yeah, that's a problem.
C) I think he was defeated once before the hand accident.

Quote
Also, the Last Alliance of Elves and Men is basically taking as many highish levelled soldiers as you can  and using them against what is basically a nigh endless tide of level 1's. Now, who won that fight? Was it sheer numbers? Nope, so I am, of course, perfectly fine with this. :P
Go check the fluff again. The elves went ask help from the humies because they basically were the only ones that could match the orc numbers. Including managing to swamp Sauron himself despite he greater cleaving kings.

Uh... the fluff is that there weren't that many men either, because these are the Numenoreans and their home had just blown up, and this was only a comparatively small fraction. What they did have is a bloodline and nobility that make them much, much better than other races of men, and these are the exiles at the height of their power. Yeah, the Last Alliance had huge numbers--but that's pretty much the main thing about orcs. They get ridiculously huge armies easily.

Quote
Being defeated by not being confronted directly because that would be suicide? About as much as a pair of level 1's could hope for, and they got very lucky.

Anyway, LotR isn't a very good comparison for 'peasants can defeat something that should challenge a party of level 20's'. :/

My issue would be if, say, the Shire picked a fight with Sauron at the height of his power and won. You know, the peaceful, idyllic community of food-obsessed midgets.
Point is, the idyllic community of food-obsessed midgets played a key role on defeating a giant floating eye that can see over miles and commands zillions of orcs/goblins and wraiths that ride zombie dragons and war trolls. An enemy so fearsome the elves themselves are legging it to the other side of the world, and they state not even that may be enough to Stop Sauron's advance. And you consider them a speck of dust not worth noticing. Well, keep watch only for the giants and you'll be devoured by the ants as they say.

Sauron's not a giant floating eye, for a start. Evidence from Gollum way back at the beginning of the story mentions a  hand missing a finger.

And yes, they played a role. Well done them. I'm not denying that.

The issue is with mechanics that make it perfectly acceptable for the Shire to, say, take on Sauron with sticks and stones. Unathletic, no natural advantages, no combat skill--they'll still win. Or against the Balrog. Hell, if one of the Valar stopped by for tea, them too. That doesn't work.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: brujon on July 19, 2013, 07:03:49 PM
The way i interpreted the Ring and Sauron, is like a Lich with his Phylactery. As long as the Ring exists, he will too, and he will slowly become whole again. What happened in LoTR is that Sauron knew the Ring was on the verge of being rediscovered, and he was already doing something. He assumed his persona as the Necromancer once more, reactivated the fortress of Dol Goldur, which is in Legola's forest, Mirkwood, btw, and that's before LoTR, way back when Bilbo was still playing riddles with Gollum. The reason Gandalf didn't go with the Dwarves was because he, Saruman, and some other folks who are not pointed out specifically, went to Dol Goldur to drive the Necromancer out. And Sauron did leave weakened from that fight, which is why he doesn't interfere directly in LoTR. Saruman was also into the whole scheme back then, and subtly helped keep the Necromancer's identity as Sauron a secret, and helped him not get crushed in that battle - if both Gandalf and Saruman had faced him as weak as he was back then, he wouldn't have had the strength to muster his army in the LoTR saga. He retreated back to Mordor in order to conserve his strength and prepare his army, but he DID have a physical form. When he left Dol Goldur, he also reactivated the Ringwraiths, who left Minas Morgul in order to prepare the terrain, especially the Witch King. Back then, he weakend the Dwarves by attacking Khazad-Dûm, and creating conflict in the Iron Mountains, so the dwarves would be weakened and couldn't intervene like they did before. They were also weakened after the whole incident with Smaug.

Actually, 90% of the really INTERESTING things happened behind the scenes in LotR. Some of this stuff is in the Letters, others were remnants of unfinished work... But Sauron was MUCH more cunning than LotR makes him out to be. He was preparing literally for millenia for this.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 19, 2013, 07:07:18 PM
The way i interpreted the Ring and Sauron, is like a Lich with his Phylactery. As long as the Ring exists, he will too, and he will slowly become whole again. What happened in LoTR is that Sauron knew the Ring was on the verge of being rediscovered, and he was already doing something. He assumed his persona as the Necromancer once more, reactivated the fortress of Dol Goldur, which is in Legola's forest, Mirkwood, btw, and that's before LoTR, way back when Bilbo was still playing riddles with Gollum. The reason Gandalf didn't go with the Dwarves was because he, Saruman, and some other folks who are not pointed out specifically, went to Dol Goldur to drive the Necromancer out. And Sauron did leave weakened from that fight, which is why he doesn't interfere directly in LoTR. Saruman was also into the whole scheme back then, and subtly helped keep the Necromancer's identity as Sauron a secret, and helped him not get crushed in that battle - if both Gandalf and Saruman had faced him as weak as he was back then, he wouldn't have had the strength to muster his army in the LoTR saga. He retreated back to Mordor in order to conserve his strength and prepare his army, but he DID have a physical form. When he left Dol Goldur, he also reactivated the Ringwraiths, who left Minas Morgul in order to prepare the terrain, especially the Witch King. Back then, he weakend the Dwarves by attacking Khazad-Dûm, and creating conflict in the Iron Mountains, so the dwarves would be weakened and couldn't intervene like they did before. They were also weakened after the whole incident with Smaug.

Actually, 90% of the really INTERESTING things happened behind the scenes in LotR. Some of this stuff is in the Letters, others were remnants of unfinished work... But Sauron was MUCH more cunning than LotR makes him out to be. He was preparing literally for millenia for this.

You also don't really get to learn that he's at the extreme end of Lawful Evil unless you go digging around and see why he originally joined Melkor. Odd, eh?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on July 19, 2013, 11:51:50 PM
Now this thread is interesting again.  Tell me about the entwives, grandfather.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on July 19, 2013, 11:59:51 PM
How sad is it that a discussion of decades old books is more interesting than ones that will be coming out....well not soon...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Demelain on July 20, 2013, 01:05:44 AM
Are you implying that there exists a decade when Tolkein will cease to be an interesting discussion? I pray I don't live to see that time.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on July 20, 2013, 01:48:04 AM
All works of fiction eventually cease to be interesting discussion.  At some point society will be so unlike that of the time when said fiction was written that the two have nothing in common.   The Hobbit was written in 1937.  While it has endured, will it be remembered in another 100 years?  Will the themes in it have been exhausted and seem cliche to people who have never read it, but have seen legions of works that consciously or not plagiarize it?  Will culture even resemble that of the 30's enough that there's even an understanding there, or will the book seem like an alien relic of a past when we were foolish primitives?  Will we even still be human enough to have anything in common with it's writer?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on July 20, 2013, 03:54:20 AM
The War of Troy/Illiad/Greek mythology was still pretty popular last time I checked.

Some billions of people still following the some old book called "Bible" out there as well.

Gilgamesh, aka the oldest hero story we still have a physical copy of, still discussed and relevant.

Killing, stealing and  mugging will never get old for humanity. It's an intemporal topic.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: FlaminCows on July 20, 2013, 04:14:57 AM
Shakespeare is still being discussed. Homer too. We still understand them, and they're much older than Tolkien will be in another 100 years. We don't change nearly as much as people think.

What we really should be worried about is the possibility that Tolkien will some day take their place in English classes; hated with a passion by struggling secondary school and college students everywhere who have to deal with the old-timey language and the constant dissection of every sentence and idiom until the original meaning is buried under layers upon layers of inferred metaphor that seems completely contrary to the text's apparent meaning but must be remembered and expounded in the exams for fear of a bad grade.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: brujon on July 20, 2013, 04:50:42 AM
Shakespeare is still being discussed. Homer too. We still understand them, and they're much older than Tolkien will be in another 100 years. We don't change nearly as much as people think.

What we really should be worried about is the possibility that Tolkien will some day take their place in English classes; hated with a passion by struggling secondary school and college students everywhere who have to deal with the old-timey language and the constant dissection of every sentence and idiom until the original meaning is buried under layers upon layers of inferred metaphor that seems completely contrary to the text's apparent meaning but must be remembered and expounded in the exams for fear of a bad grade.

You made me sad. I never thought of that.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on July 20, 2013, 01:57:13 PM
For what it's worth, a catalog of Sauron's many defeats (as far as I can recall):

Overcome by Huan, a hound that could be slain only by the greatest wolf ever. Loss by hero.
Surrendered to the Numenorean invasion in order to corrupt them. Loss by army, but planned. Not an army of mooks, either.
Drowned/crushed/struck by lightning during Numenor's fall. Loss by God Himself.
Ring taken by Isildur. Loss by hero. EDIT: Some sources say Gil-Galad and Elendil slew Sauron, and Isildur just took the Ring afterward. In which case it would be loss by two heroes.
Ring destroyed. Loss by stealthy hero.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 20, 2013, 03:04:40 PM

Now this thread is interesting again.  Tell me about the entwives, grandfather.

Hey baby, your roots are lookin' mossy ...  :eh
(200+ years of metaphoric foreplay later)
... long story short, that's where saplings come from.

entkid: 
eww, granpa  :tongue ... pauses for a few days, then  :plotting
Hey granpa it looks like I have a little Redwood in me, did gramma ...

entgrandfather spits out a beehive.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on July 20, 2013, 04:23:25 PM
The War of Troy/Illiad/Greek mythology was still pretty popular last time I checked.

Some billions of people still following the some old book called "Bible" out there as well.

Gilgamesh, aka the oldest hero story we still have a physical copy of, still discussed and relevant.

Killing, stealing and  mugging will never get old for humanity. It's an intemporal topic.

Ask the average 14 year old who gilgamesh is, or if they've ever read the Iliad.  And by average I mean someone who isn't a gamer or who isn't going to go to college for anthropology/mythological studies. 

As for the bible, yes several million people claim to follow it (emphasis on claim).  By far the majority of them have never read it, misunderstood what they did read, or rely on what others claim it says.  My personal experience locally is that so far as I'm able to tell there are plenty of Christians (or at least people who claim to be them), but I'm the only person I know who has ever read the damn thing other than a handful  of guys who went into seminary.  People aren't following the Bible, because they haven't read the Bible.  They're conforming to a social construct because they believe there's an advantage to doing so or they're afraid of being marginalized if they're seen as different.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 20, 2013, 04:33:41 PM
The War of Troy/Illiad/Greek mythology was still pretty popular last time I checked.

Some billions of people still following the some old book called "Bible" out there as well.

Gilgamesh, aka the oldest hero story we still have a physical copy of, still discussed and relevant.

Killing, stealing and  mugging will never get old for humanity. It's an intemporal topic.

Ask the average 14 year old who gilgamesh is, or if they've ever read the Iliad.  And by average I mean someone who isn't a gamer or who isn't going to go to college for anthropology/mythological studies. 

What has playing games got to do with knowing Babylonian mythology?

Also, I've known about Gilgamesh since I was... six? Maybe seven. :p
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on July 20, 2013, 05:18:46 PM
The only people I know that have any knowledge whatsoever of any form of mythology are myself and other gamers because said pantheons are used in rpg's.  And some college professors.  That's it.  The average guy doesn't know Isis from Frodo.  That you have known of Gilgamesh from an early age means you are definitely not average. 

On the other hand it does raise the unsettling prospect that perhaps I am surrounded by uneducated morons...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 20, 2013, 05:39:03 PM
The only people I know that have any knowledge whatsoever of any form of mythology are myself and other gamers because said pantheons are used in rpg's.  And some college professors.  That's it.  The average guy doesn't know Isis from Frodo.  That you have known of Gilgamesh from an early age means you are definitely not average. 

On the other hand it does raise the unsettling prospect that perhaps I am surrounded by uneducated morons...

I got given a book of myths and legends and read them all. Still got it on my shelf, though loads of the pages are stuck together. One of the things in it is... the Epic of Gilgamesh. Child-friendly version, which is to say--massively simplified. Doesn't have Enkidu's origin or Humbaba or anything, it starts with Gilgamesh rejecting... what's-her-name, Ishtar?

About half the book's fairytales, though.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on July 20, 2013, 06:07:01 PM
Ah so you were one of the lucky ones.   I managed to get several encyclopedia sets because my parents wanted to ensure I had an education.  I still have fond memories of the Funk and Wagnall's Wildlife Encyclopedias.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: TuggyNE on July 21, 2013, 12:11:18 AM
The War of Troy/Illiad/Greek mythology was still pretty popular last time I checked.

Some billions of people still following the some old book called "Bible" out there as well.

Gilgamesh, aka the oldest hero story we still have a physical copy of, still discussed and relevant.

Killing, stealing and  mugging will never get old for humanity. It's an intemporal topic.

Ask the average 14 year old who gilgamesh is, or if they've ever read the Iliad.  And by average I mean someone who isn't a gamer or who isn't going to go to college for anthropology/mythological studies. 

As for the bible, yes several million people claim to follow it (emphasis on claim).  By far the majority of them have never read it, misunderstood what they did read, or rely on what others claim it says.  My personal experience locally is that so far as I'm able to tell there are plenty of Christians (or at least people who claim to be them), but I'm the only person I know who has ever read the `|&[{ thing other than a handful  of guys who went into seminary.  People aren't following the Bible, because they haven't read the Bible.  They're conforming to a social construct because they believe there's an advantage to doing so or they're afraid of being marginalized if they're seen as different.

I think you're saying "million" when you mean "billion". Those numbers are not the same thing, by a factor of a thousand. Assuming, of course, that "by far the majority" of the actual ~2.2 billion do not in fact read the Bible, that would still leave perhaps tens of millions, maybe as much as a hundred million or so that do. Which is still larger than your estimate of all those that exist by a factor of 10+ times.

Sorry, I dislike innumeracy.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on July 21, 2013, 01:25:08 AM
Was referencing the US, not the world as a whole.   :p

More specifically my area of the US...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 22, 2013, 05:02:00 PM

"4e did stick Wish and Polymorph back in just at the end.
I'm forgetting off hand which book they're in,
but they act like a kind of Super-Rare scrolls/boon thingy."


Huh, the board wouldn't let me do a self-referencial quote.
Serves my kitty avatar's ego right.  Anyways ... found it.


4e Dungeon Survival Guide has a "rewards" section
with those 2 and Mass Heal and 1 other convert.
And they have a tier-level so technically they are
accessible via Boons ... (technically).


edit --- double biff
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 22, 2013, 05:05:37 PM
Aha, but they do know Gilgamesh
even if they don't know that they know.
Young Earth Creationists keep the
Gilga-"port" well discussed / believed.
 :D ;)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on August 03, 2013, 10:54:53 PM
Comments on the latest playtest packet:
 
Skills have been replaced with Lore, which are basically knowledge skills. Many people don't like the D&D 3.5 skill system, but I think it's one of the best parts of the game, so it's a shame to see it go. The new system could use a little balancing too. You only get two "Lore" skills, and one of them is extraordinarily specific (a hobby). This means you can be a master of all arcane knowledge, or be good at chess.
 
Saving throws for all spells are 10 + ability modifier. Since this modifier can never be higher than +5, and it's very easy to attain that modifier after a few levels, you're basically always going to have to roll a 15 to save against a spell. Besides the annoying lack of variety, this means that classes like Fighter which eventually get advantage on all saving throws are all but immune to magic. Some balancing work is needed here.
 
I skimmed most classes except Mage, so I'll comment on that one class:
  You now get very few feats (4-6 by 20th level, depending on class, and gaining a feat forgoes an ability score bonus), but they're quite potent, kind of like 2E's proficiencies. For example, the Healer feat lets you heal a fair amount of damage without magic, even during combat.
 
I still really like the new magic item rules. Items are rare, and can't normally be bought or sold. Some have secrets powers that are hard to detect. There aren't a lot of items that just grant a straight bonus. And amost all of the items are quite flavorful, both in their descriptions and their powers.
 
The only spell I check from version to version is Wish. That spell is still totally broken.
 
 
Overall: 5E still has potential. I believe they've succeeded it keeping the basic feel of D&D, while simplifying the rules and getting rid of a lot of 3E and 4E's number crunching. Whether the game holds up in play to its predecessors is yet to be seen (and probably not by me, since I'm already involved in too many campaigns).
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: VennDygrem on August 04, 2013, 12:02:10 PM
Well, concerning the Wizard/Mage's small amount of spells, I believe it's meant to be balanced against the fact that they also have a few all-day cantrips, which are much more potent.
Thus, spells with actual levels are likely more powerful, but are meant to be used only in specific circumstances. Thus, it's better to save your actual spell slots for spells that have utility or buffing/debuffing purposes, or general BFC purposes, than outright damage. Or, if you want a couple of much more highly-damaging spells, if you happen across a large group of enemies.

But for general combat, you can fall back on shocking grasp or ray of frost pretty reliably.

The thing my brother was more concerned with, as I was walking him through character creation, was the seemingly small number of spells prepared. I don't think it's as much a problem as he thinks to start off, at low levels, but we've yet to play with these rules and it remains to be seen how it compares to, say, 3.X.

At higher levels, well, you've got a built-in recovery mechanic for lower-level spell slots, and magic items exist which can recover spell slots or grant more of them. At the same time, the Wizard shouldn't outclass the Fighter or Rogue or what-not by such a huge margin that they are living Gods before hitting high levels, and I think that while a lot of balancing still needs to be done, there's a good amount of progress made so far.

Oh, and while the ability mod gets no higher than 5, they do have their spellcasting bonus, making the DC eventually get up to 18. But that's still fairly minor (especially when the last version got up to a +5 bonus for DC 20).
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on August 04, 2013, 12:26:11 PM
The fighter has been awarded the most useless capstone to have ever lived.

If they hit an enemy with 20HP or less (or is it just less? Can't remember), it dies. This is a 20th level fighter attacking, here. Even within bounded accuracy, hitting something with that little HP is probably going to kill it anyway.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Agrippa on August 04, 2013, 02:00:26 PM
The fighter has been awarded the most useless capstone to have ever lived.

If they hit an enemy with 20HP or less (or is it just less? Can't remember), it dies. This is a 20th level fighter attacking, here. Even within bounded accuracy, hitting something with that little HP is probably going to kill it anyway.

That's because they're using 1st and 2nd AD&D edition logic in a post 3rd edition D&D game. At least they don't seem to think class imbalance is a good thing (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=62454).
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on August 04, 2013, 02:11:02 PM
The fighter has been awarded the most useless capstone to have ever lived.

If they hit an enemy with 20HP or less (or is it just less? Can't remember), it dies. This is a 20th level fighter attacking, here. Even within bounded accuracy, hitting something with that little HP is probably going to kill it anyway.

That's because they're using 1st and 2nd AD&D edition logic in a post 3rd edition D&D game. At least they don't seem to think class imbalance is a good thing (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=62454).

It's somewhat disturbing that they never look at the maths of the system that they're creating until after they've released it to the public.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on August 04, 2013, 06:06:22 PM
Is it possible they simply aren't good with math?  They may be lacking in that area and are simply hoping the public will do the work for them.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 04, 2013, 07:10:50 PM
Sounds like they went and did English Major Game Design again? You got to make the game compelling on an emotional level, interesting to play and reasonably balanced under the previous two constraints. Having people good at only one category isn't really healthy.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on August 04, 2013, 07:24:49 PM
Sounds like they went and did English Major Game Design again? You got to make the game compelling on an emotional level, interesting to play and reasonably balanced under the previous two constraints. Having people good at only one category isn't really healthy.

Mmm, well, it basically goes something like this, going by one of the recent Legends & Lore: they come up with something, they write it out, they slap some numbers on it, and then when the numbers don't fit their goals they go change it. This is instead of coming up with mechanics that give what they want and using them to get the numbers for whatever it is.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on August 04, 2013, 08:19:32 PM
Am I missing anything noteworthy or significant?  Because it sounds like they're still stumbling along, and I can't be motivated to check the latest playtest packet.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on August 04, 2013, 08:22:34 PM
I think it's a playable game at this point, and more balanced than 3.5, 3.0 or 2 (the editions I've played), but it's clearly not complete.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on August 04, 2013, 08:23:14 PM
Am I missing anything noteworthy or significant?  Because it sounds like they're still stumbling along, and I can't be motivated to check the latest playtest packet.

They got better at filling in dead levels, but they forgot spells are a feature too.

Also, you can get a spell with a feat. A spell. So spellcasters essentially get 19 free feats. Or was that a Legends & Lore thing? Bah.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on August 04, 2013, 09:24:46 PM
So if there are no skills now how do you do the things they used to represent? DM fiat?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on August 04, 2013, 09:25:40 PM
So if there are no skills now how do you do the things they used to represent? DM fiat?


For now. They'll probably add them back in somehow later on.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on August 04, 2013, 09:29:26 PM
So if there are no skills now how do you do the things they used to represent? DM fiat?

Back during the first playtest, there weren't any skills either.  The DM was just supposed to decide what attribute was best tied to your action, and then come up with a DC based on how difficult the task should be.  I think the table capped out at DC 25, which was for something almost, but not quite, impossible.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Demelain on August 04, 2013, 09:36:24 PM
Like 1st and 2nd, I suspect the skill system will be optional/modular.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on August 04, 2013, 09:53:02 PM
I'm not sure they quite get the purpose of modularity, really.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Necrosnoop110 on August 05, 2013, 09:14:37 AM
I'm not sure they quite get the purpose of modularity, really.
What is the true purpose of modularity?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on August 05, 2013, 09:20:26 AM
I'm not sure they quite get the purpose of modularity, really.
What is the true purpose of modularity?
Wait, purpose was the wrong word. I'm not sure they get how you do it. You need a working skeleton to stick bits on and design around. This would require that they actually work out the mathematical basics, and go from there. Buuuut... no, they just keep fiddling with numbers. :/

Drunkenly throwing darts in the dark and seeing what sticks is not good design.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on August 05, 2013, 11:02:40 AM
Would it really kill them to hire someone who remembers grade school math?  Or ask one of their kids to figure things out at least.   I'm beyond tired of them fucking up the math, making a mess of the game, then getting offended when people point out how they screwed up.

Seriously, trying to build a game that's "balanced" and refusing to take the elementary steps in design needed to accomplish that goal is insane.  If you want to make a game that way, go make Rifts or something, where balance isn't in their lexicon.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 05, 2013, 11:10:03 AM
Hmmm.  I am not plugged into the 5E thing at all.  There are 2 big reasons that my groups and I keep on playing D&D (though we haven't played for a few months due to business):  we know it really well and monster manuals make it one of the easier games to run.  Take away half of that, and I don't know if I'd be that enamored with the game, given its failings.

I'm a little confused by their approach, from the comments above.  One of the nicest things about the d20 system -- one of the things that I think might account for its market dominance some years ago -- was that the core mechanic was very straightforward and very intelligible.  You have this d20+modifier thing, and then you only need to get a sense of what reasonable target numbers will be, which is sketched out in the DMG, among other places. 

Sure, in a lot of ways charopp can throw those things out of whack -- that's kind of its mission statement -- but it's a very straightforward numbers chasis to hang things on.  A DC 35 check is awesome -- that's Aragorn's tracking in LotR or something -- and then you can hang all the mods around it.  I guess I wonder why they aren't, if I'm understanding things right, leaning heavily on the core mechanic they invented and then hanging all the cool stuff on that numbers chasis. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on August 05, 2013, 11:22:29 AM
Sure, in a lot of ways charopp can throw those things out of whack -- that's kind of its mission statement -- but it's a very straightforward numbers chasis to hang things on.  A DC 35 check is awesome -- that's Aragorn's tracking in LotR or something -- and then you can hang all the mods around it.  I guess I wonder why they aren't, if I'm understanding things right, leaning heavily on the core mechanic they invented and then hanging all the cool stuff on that numbers chasis. 

Aragorn isn't that good. @_@
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Demelain on August 05, 2013, 11:38:48 AM
Sure, in a lot of ways charopp can throw those things out of whack -- that's kind of its mission statement -- but it's a very straightforward numbers chasis to hang things on.  A DC 35 check is awesome -- that's Aragorn's tracking in LotR or something -- and then you can hang all the mods around it.  I guess I wonder why they aren't, if I'm understanding things right, leaning heavily on the core mechanic they invented and then hanging all the cool stuff on that numbers chasis. 

Aragorn isn't that good. @_@
I admit that it has been almost a decade since I read LotR, but didn't he at some point sniff dirt and deduce from it that Mary and Pippin had scrambled off into the woods?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on August 05, 2013, 11:41:54 AM
Hmm... well, maybe; but the most he'd be likely to make is DC 32. :p
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on August 05, 2013, 05:10:02 PM
The fighter has been awarded the most useless capstone to have ever lived.

If they hit an enemy with 20HP or less (or is it just less? Can't remember), it dies. This is a 20th level fighter attacking, here. Even within bounded accuracy, hitting something with that little HP is probably going to kill it anyway.

I guessing ... they might have improved the Minion situation.
(I don't know, I might not care much medium term)
So instead of having a 1hp + Cleave style semi-loop, this
set-up will make more sense when monsters are known.
(I'm going by feel / conjecture)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: VennDygrem on August 05, 2013, 09:42:53 PM
So if there are no skills now how do you do the things they used to represent? DM fiat?

They're ability checks, in the way that they've always been ability checks (with individual bonuses you invest in). Only now you don't really call them skills as a separate subsystem. You don't generally get a +2 to hide or +5 to jump with this.

One of the things they're trying to do is streamline gameplay in reducing dependency on skill checks. So if someone has a high Strength score, they can probably lift something heavy, jump a basic gap, etc., so they don't have to roll for that; they succeed because they should be able to. The Wizard probably has more cause to roll a check for simple strength-related activities that a Fighter can do on a basic level, or the Fighter might still need to roll to jump especially far, or bash a door in, or something, as the packet says, that there's even a reasonable chance that they could fail at.

Just like how they mention how a player in another edition might give an elaborate, moving speech, but flub their diplomacy check and technically fail. So the idea is that it's more in the DM's court whether an action even calls for a check. If you do something especially well, describe it well, etc., maybe the DM still makes you roll but gives you advantage based on circumstances, rather than a flat skill bonus. There's still the chance that you fail, but greater chance that you may succeed.

I like the concept, and the skills are still there (as part of the ability scores), but there are less... fiddly bits. Some people like fiddly bits. But I think it contributes to slowing things down at the table, and for giving more things for people to argue over at the table. But hell, what do I know?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on August 05, 2013, 11:07:27 PM
So I've been wondering, why did they rename the Wizard the Mage?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 06, 2013, 12:29:25 AM
It looks like in general there really is no vision for 5E so far. They're experimentally pandering to the audience rather than trying to sell their dream.

For all of 4E's limitations, they had a dream they believed would work, and that sold. Here....
Quote from: Mearls
Trying to compete with other TRPGs is a losing strategy.
...I think something's gone terribly offtrack.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on August 06, 2013, 02:35:52 AM
It looks like in general there really is no vision for 5E so far. They're experimentally pandering to the audience rather than trying to sell their dream.

For all of 4E's limitations, they had a dream they believed would work, and that sold. Here....
Quote from: Mearls
Trying to compete with other TRPGs is a losing strategy.
...I think something's gone terribly offtrack.

wtf Mearls?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 06, 2013, 10:05:11 AM
@VennDygrem
I don't want to sound like an old school d20 booster, but it seems to me that the "take 10" system is a fairly elegant way of getting at that.  If you can make the Jump by taking 10, then don't bother picking up the dice.  I don't think it was implemented all that well -- that general principle, for example, is something that we use and I don't think it's really codified or underscored in the rules.

This may just be a taste thing, and 5E may be catering more towards old-school D&D than my inclinations run.  I just don't want to make it too difficult to create, for some reason, a really athletic Wizard. 

Thinking about your comments, it's possible that people have leaned a little too hard on skill checks, especially inexperienced DMs.  I've had people make me roll when I was offering someone their asking price for a product.  I was like "I'm not haggling, I'm paying the man what he wants."  I've had other experiences:  you don't necessarily need to intimidate the last soldier in a group into surrendering, he may just realize that it's better than being dead. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: littha on August 06, 2013, 10:16:12 AM
It looks like in general there really is no vision for 5E so far. They're experimentally pandering to the audience rather than trying to sell their dream.

For all of 4E's limitations, they had a dream they believed would work, and that sold. Here....
Quote from: Mearls
Trying to compete with other TRPGs is a losing strategy.
...I think something's gone terribly offtrack.

That is worrying, though I wonder if they mean Pathfinder?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 06, 2013, 10:39:15 AM
Context (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29508037/Mike_Mearls_on_Twitter:_Summary_Version?post_num=1058#534104095) doesn't help a whole lot.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: VennDygrem on August 06, 2013, 09:34:39 PM
@VennDygrem
I don't want to sound like an old school d20 booster, but it seems to me that the "take 10" system is a fairly elegant way of getting at that.  If you can make the Jump by taking 10, then don't bother picking up the dice.  I don't think it was implemented all that well -- that general principle, for example, is something that we use and I don't think it's really codified or underscored in the rules.

This may just be a taste thing, and 5E may be catering more towards old-school D&D than my inclinations run.  I just don't want to make it too difficult to create, for some reason, a really athletic Wizard. 

Thinking about your comments, it's possible that people have leaned a little too hard on skill checks, especially inexperienced DMs.  I've had people make me roll when I was offering someone their asking price for a product.  I was like "I'm not haggling, I'm paying the man what he wants."  I've had other experiences:  you don't necessarily need to intimidate the last soldier in a group into surrendering, he may just realize that it's better than being dead.

That's definitely valid. It's really up to the DM, and how they run the game. For what it's worth, I think it's incredibly easy to make an athletic Wizard in 5E, assuming you give the Mage the belt of Giant Strength you found instead of to the Fighter. :P
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 07, 2013, 12:04:26 AM
^ that just sounds like a big step backward to me.  Or, more precisely, a step back to the AD&D/2E that I cut my teeth on.

That's totally unfair, though, so take it with a grain (giant pile) of salt.  I haven't read the 5E materials.  And, I'd prefer to have relatively little character customization through magic items, as opposed to my hoary recollections of AD&D where that was essentially where all the action was, especially if you weren't a caster and so didn't even have spells to pick to customize your character. 

There's a whole movement that feels differently, though.  And, if 5E wanted to reach back to a more AD&D style, which I thought 4E did in a great many ways, then that's at least a vision of the game and a coherent approach.  It will leave people like me behind, perhaps looking for another fantasy game if I ever really get good and tired of some hacked form of 3E.  I don't expect I am their target audience. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: VennDygrem on August 07, 2013, 12:21:19 AM
Actually, I should have been more clear in that my comment was a tongue-in-cheek reference to something I don't care for. Because they put a hard limit on ability scores, they realize that they've cut out one of the better-known magic items, and end up making something that specifically breaks their own rules. Not sure how it alters things but no melee character worth their salt would NOT try to get their hands on a belt of giant strength.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on August 07, 2013, 12:23:17 AM
Actually, I should have been more clear in that my comment was a tongue-in-cheek reference to something I don't care for. Because they put a hard limit on ability scores, they realize that they've cut out one of the better-known magic items, and end up making something that specifically breaks their own rules. Not sure how it alters things but no melee character worth their salt would NOT try to get their hands on a belt of giant strength.

Do Belts of Giant Strength give pluses or do they set your stat to whatever, like they did in older editions?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on August 07, 2013, 09:05:33 AM
The Belt of Giant Strength sets your strength to a specific value, like in AD&D. I think this is a bad idea, because it will make players feel like they wasted an important resource. Imagine giving up a ton of advantages to get your character up to 20 strength, and then finding a belt that boosts it to 21, and realizing that you could have gotten feats and better ability scores all around if only you'd known that you'd come upon that magic item. This item has already been discussed extensively earlier in this thread.
 
So analyzing where various parts of the game come from:
 
AD&D elements:
- Philosophy of magic items (rare, and nearly impossible to buy and sell)
- The Power of the DM: In 3.5, there were so many rules that the DM didn't have to make a lot of rules decisions. From what I've heard, 4E takes that to an even greater extreme, making D&D almost videogame-like in its precision. 5E goes back to earlier editions, where the DM has to make a lot of decisions. For example, the DM decides which ability score to use for a saving throw, or what kind of ability check to make and when it's appropriate. I think this will make the game go a lot more smoothly with a good DM, but may result in arguments with an inexperienced DM. I wouldn't be surprised if some precision is added before the final game is published.
 
D&D 3.5 elements:
- Ability scores. The same values and modifiers are used as in 3.5, though there's now a cap.
- Spell balance. The power of the various spells relative to the power of PCs has a similar balance to 3.5.
- Skill checks: While skills have been removed, equivalent checks are based on ability bonuses, as opposed to AD&D's "I have a proficiency and therefore I'm good at skill X."
 
Pathfinder-inspired:
- Per-level class abilities: Earlier playtests gave non-casters a very small list of class abilities at level 1, and that was it. The latest playtest has very few dead levels.
- Paths: Each class has multiple paths, much like Pathfinder's archetypes. This adds a nice bit of customization, and the paths have different enough abilities that, for example, playing an Enchanter is significantly different from playing an Evoker.
 
Hybrid 3.5/AD&D
- Feats: While feats have a lot of the same effects as 3.5 feats, they often act more like 2E's proficiencies.
 
New elements (or 4e, since I never played 4e):
- Spell saves and durations are no longer variable based on caster or spell level. This is a simplification of 3.5's math-heavy spell variables, and an improvement on 2e's tendency to give each spell its own special save modifier.
- Magic item flavor. Both the descriptive text and the powers of items are much more interesting than in previous editions.
- Lore: While skills are gone, knowledge skills still exist in the form of lore. This system is new to the latest playtest, and needs work.
- Backgrounds: Each character has a background, which is often a profession, which provides mostly role-playing bonuses, and gives the character a place in the world. Systems like this exist in other RPGs, but it's new to D&D.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 07, 2013, 10:46:15 AM
Actually, I should have been more clear in that my comment was a tongue-in-cheek reference to something I don't care for. Because they put a hard limit on ability scores, they realize that they've cut out one of the better-known magic items, and end up making something that specifically breaks their own rules. Not sure how it alters things but no melee character worth their salt would NOT try to get their hands on a belt of giant strength.
I actually caught the tone, and should have mentioned it in my earlier post.  I was being lazy and rambly.

Thanks Zioth for the breakdown.  I think it's really helpful for those of us who haven't studied the emerging system.  As I believe I did earlier in this thread, I'd quibble with the rarity of magic items in AD&D based on my extensive but also long-forgotten experience in that system.  But, it's just that, a quibble, with absolutely nothing I can think of riding on it.  Also, AD&D had a secondary skills system that was like professions, but I think it was optional and hand wavey. 

Looking over that list, I'm not exactly against the idea of trying to cherry-pick the "good" (based on the designer's judgments) of all the previous iterations.  From this thread I gather that the implementation, or what the designers adjudge to be "good" may leave me a bit cold. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on August 07, 2013, 05:59:35 PM
Cherry Pick or "Cherry" Pick , for now.

Maybe full on conversion later including the gimpy stuff.
Put it in an Optional box, and a separate tag box that
says the Grogs are not allowed to have it be Optional.
 :pout ... No matter what !!
 ;)

It looks like in general there really is no vision for 5E so far. They're experimentally pandering to the audience rather than trying to sell their dream.

For all of 4E's limitations, they had a dream they believed would work, and that sold. Here....
Quote from: Mearls
Trying to compete with other TRPGs is a losing strategy.
...I think something's gone terribly offtrack.

That is worrying, though I wonder if they mean Pathfinder?

... Trying to cooperate with Previous Editions of D&D ...

Yes?  Please??
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on August 07, 2013, 07:12:28 PM

AD&D elements:
- Philosophy of magic items (rare, and nearly impossible to buy and sell)
- The Power of the DM: In 3.5, there were so many rules that the DM didn't have to make a lot of rules decisions. From what I've heard, 4E takes that to an even greater extreme, making D&D almost videogame-like in its precision. 5E goes back to earlier editions, where the DM has to make a lot of decisions. For example, the DM decides which ability score to use for a saving throw, or what kind of ability check to make and when it's appropriate. I think this will make the game go a lot more smoothly with a good DM, but may result in arguments with an inexperienced DM. I wouldn't be surprised if some precision is added before the final game is published.
 

A return to DM burnout due to constant player arguments.  Oh goodie.

I say this because in my experience it doesn't matter if the DM is experienced or not.  If the players are inexperienced you still get fights.  If the player or DM happen to be asshats, you still have fights.  I actually liked that part of 3.5 because it made my life a helluva lot easier.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bard on August 08, 2013, 06:01:54 AM
A return to DM burnout due to constant player arguments.  Oh goodie.

I say this because in my experience it doesn't matter if the DM is experienced or not.  If the players are inexperienced you still get fights.  If the player or DM happen to be asshats, you still have fights.  I actually liked that part of 3.5 because it made my life a helluva lot easier.

This.
Plus, at least for some people, me included, that's a huge turnoff even without that aspect, when everything works fine. I like the feeling of the rulebooks setting the workings of the world, the "physics" behind it so to say, even if it's much more.. how the sandbox I'm put in works and what I have to work with. I feel that every time the DM has to make a rule decision it detracts some of the immersion and enjoyment I feel. Even if it's in my favor :(

I do realize it's more a matter of personal taste than the quality of the game itself tho.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 08, 2013, 10:00:50 AM
@Bard and Bhu

This is my take on such things, and I'm curious to what extent you agree or disagree. 

I find that relatively clear rules are very important in order to give me, the player, a sense of agency and a sense of what the character I've created can do.  It is important to me, in making decisions, to know how easy it is for my character to do something even quite mundane, such as jumping a fence.  That will inform my decisions as well as the dramatic tension of a scene.  Is the leap a routine one for this character?  Or is the leap across that chasm a giant risk, worthy of slow motion? 

The same applies for taking hits, etc.  Does leaping in front to take that arrow represent a sacrifice, or is it trivial?  If my character steps up to stop those 3 guards from tormenting that half-orc child, am I taking a serious risk, or am I demonstrating that not all those with power use it for ill? 

Without a clear rules structure on basic tasks, as a player I find it hard to (a) translate the character I have in my head to the table in an intelligible way, a way that the other people participating can get a handle on it.  And, (b) find it hard to interact with the world and make meaningful decisions.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on August 08, 2013, 10:24:05 AM
I don't think 5E completely destroys the kind of determinism you're looking for, Unbeliever. There are enough guidelines even now (and there will be more in the final rule book, no doubt) for a moderately intelligent DM to figure out what to do. A jump is going to require a strength check. If you're trying to jump a great chasm, the DM might decide that it's a Very Hard (DC25), Formidable (DC30) or Nearly Impossible (DC35) check. These names and numbers are laid out in the "DM Guidelines" pdf. If you're a barbarian with a strength score of 20, trying to jump over a puddle without getting wet, the DM will call it a Trivial (DC5) check and not require you to roll.
 
This system isn't nearly as precise as 3E, but I think it will work pretty well. A beginner DM can read the document and have a good enough idea of how things work to run a game. Actually, since the rules are so much simpler, such a DM will probably make a lot fewer mistakes than in 3.5, or *gasp* Pathfinder, which, while a nice system, seems to have tripled the number of rules players and DMs need to know off the tops of their heads.
 
Arguments are likely in more obscure situations. You're trying to climb a mountain while rocks are tumbling past you. Is that a strength check or dexterity? Which attribute should some saving throw be based on? And is some skill check really hard enough to require a roll?
 
 
One new thing I just noticed: The XP table is quite nice, certainly a lot better than the confusing 3rd edition calculations. You just choose whether the encounter is going to be easy, average or tough, look up the reward in a table based on the average PC level, and give each PC that much XP. This means you can't suddenly jump ten levels when you accidentally cause a cave-in which kills a red dragon, and people may like that or dislike it, but it certainly makes things easier.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bard on August 08, 2013, 11:23:59 AM
@Unbeliever: I totally agree

@zioth: at this point is a bit early to tell, I will wait for the skills to come back in in the beta packages. As it is now, with only attributes, it lacks the basic ability to fine-tune the character skills (duh, there are no skills) and that is a big issue to me.

I want a difference to exist between someone that is naturally inclined to do something (high stat), someone that is not (low stat) someone that dabbles in it (a couple of skill point) and someone dedicated in training/studying it (lots of skill points) and everything in between.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on August 08, 2013, 12:20:48 PM
I agree. I really like 3.x's skill system for that reason. Having every 20 STR fighter (translation: every fighter, since it's easy to hit the cap) have exactly the same skill is annoying. The same problem existed in 5e's original skill system.
 
The interesting thing is, 5e could easily just plaster in 3E's or Pathfinder's skill system unmodified as an optional rule. The systems are pretty compatible in that regard.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bard on August 08, 2013, 12:28:45 PM
I think I posted it somewhere already, unsure if it was here, but if they rebooted 3.5 with some of the Pathfinder stuff and ToB classes instead of the basic ones (or some initiator version of the basic melee ones), I'd start throwing money at them already :P (Maybe with Eberron swapped in as main setting as an added bonus ;D)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on August 08, 2013, 03:34:36 PM
@Unbeliever:  I don't have people make rolls for mundane tasks that don't affect the game or plot in any meaningful way.  There;s no point in slowing things down.  But I also have a rl group full of hotheads and rules lawyers who pounce on any form of perceived ambiguity and are willing to argue it to fucking death if necessary, sometimes splitting the group in the process.  3.5 stopped some of that cold precisely because it spelled things out, even if some of it could have been written better.  The players were perfectly capable of making informed decisions, they simply chose not to.  Standard set up was them all making their characters in secret, starting off not knowing one another , and spending most of the game trying to conceal from each other what they were capable of.  I sent mild encounters against them because they were so tactically incapable an opponent that actually thought would tpk them.  They'd been playing since Basic, and I joined them somewhere around the end of 2E.  The DM fiat 2e used to decide tasks translated to "How much does the DM like you?"  Or alternatively "How badly does the DM need this roll to fail to railroad the party into defeat." 


In short I played with a bunch of asshats.  They've matured a little over the years but not by much, and most of the other local gamers are like them: It's everyone for himself and the DM against us all.  In such an environment DM fiat doesn't work.  Granted explicit rules dont work much better, but it's more difficult to convince people to let you railroad them when the rules explicitly state otherwise.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 08, 2013, 03:44:25 PM
@Unbeliever:  I don't have people make rolls for mundane tasks that don't affect the game or plot in any meaningful way.  There;s no point in slowing things down.
Just to shore up my own point:  the question of whether a task is mundane or trivial should be a function of the rules.  Leaping that chasm or running along that tightrope might be so mundane as to not bother for Haley (OOTS) or Drizzt (Drizzt), but might present a serious issue for Durkon or Bruenor. 

From what I understand, 5E doesn't necessarily have this problem, or at least not drastically.  But, it's the argument in favor, I think, of relatively crystallized rules.  And, it applies broadly.  Is standing up to a Red Dragon a feat of suicidal bravery or a perfectly reasonable calculated risk?  Stuff like that. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on August 08, 2013, 04:00:41 PM
Skills need to have its own Encounter equivalent.
And the maths have to work as effectively as combat.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on August 09, 2013, 03:15:34 AM
@Unbeliever:  I don't have people make rolls for mundane tasks that don't affect the game or plot in any meaningful way.  There;s no point in slowing things down.
Just to shore up my own point:  the question of whether a task is mundane or trivial should be a function of the rules.  Leaping that chasm or running along that tightrope might be so mundane as to not bother for Haley (OOTS) or Drizzt (Drizzt), but might present a serious issue for Durkon or Bruenor. 

In either of those cases, the DC is still the same. The task does not change, only the character's capability to do it.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Demelain on August 09, 2013, 09:23:09 AM
@Unbeliever:  I don't have people make rolls for mundane tasks that don't affect the game or plot in any meaningful way.  There;s no point in slowing things down.
Just to shore up my own point:  the question of whether a task is mundane or trivial should be a function of the rules.  Leaping that chasm or running along that tightrope might be so mundane as to not bother for Haley (OOTS) or Drizzt (Drizzt), but might present a serious issue for Durkon or Bruenor. 

In either of those cases, the DC is still the same. The task does not change, only the character's capability to do it.

Agreeing with this. The DC for a task is should be independent of a character's ability/level - that's what it means to be better at something than someone else. You have a better chance to succeed at the same task.

We don't need a page 42 (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Page_42).
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 09, 2013, 11:06:58 AM
@Unbeliever:  I don't have people make rolls for mundane tasks that don't affect the game or plot in any meaningful way.  There;s no point in slowing things down.
Just to shore up my own point:  the question of whether a task is mundane or trivial should be a function of the rules.  Leaping that chasm or running along that tightrope might be so mundane as to not bother for Haley (OOTS) or Drizzt (Drizzt), but might present a serious issue for Durkon or Bruenor. 

In either of those cases, the DC is still the same. The task does not change, only the character's capability to do it.

I don't know if we're disagreeing at all, but that was sort of my point.  I'd just add to that that they need to be transparent too. 
(click to show/hide)
Otherwise what happens is I think I'm playing Haley, that's how I've built my character, and I make decisions based on that, but I'm really playing Durkon.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: FlaminCows on August 13, 2013, 09:11:46 AM
I think "running on a tightrope is effortless for this character" would be covered by a Take 10 mechanic. The only addition to the Take 10 mechanic would be to take the guesswork out and have the rulebook tell the DM "if the character can succeed on this task by taking 10, don't ask the player to roll."
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on August 13, 2013, 09:15:54 AM
I think "running on a tightrope is effortless for this character" would be covered by a Take 10 mechanic. The only addition to the Take 10 mechanic would be to take the guesswork out and have the rulebook tell the DM "if the character can succeed on this task by taking 10, don't ask the player to roll."

But that means that you basically only roll when your chance of failure is greater than your chance of success--which means the skill system is going to look very negative.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: FlaminCows on August 13, 2013, 09:52:43 AM
Good point, I didn't think of that.

Now that I did think for a moment, a "trivial" task (like Unbeliever's Haley on a tightrope) would just be any check that the character would succeed on a 1, but a "mundane" or not plot-important task (like what Bhu referred to) may well be non-trivial in difficulty but doesn't need a roll anyway because a chance of failure on that task would not add anything good to the game. That would be harder to codify in rules, since a plot-unessential task may have a high DC. So the rule I suggested in my last post wouldn't address the problem at all. Bummer.

So. If one were to write DM guidelines for when not to roll for plot reasons, how would you word that?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 13, 2013, 10:29:09 AM
As indicated by my earlier comments, I approach this from a character construction perspective.  The rules should do a good job at distinguishing Haleys from Durkons. 

You should never roll if the act is trivial.  You don't roll to drive to work in the morning -- although the drivers here make it more Mad Max-esque than it should be -- or to haggle if you're just paying the market price.  Trivial generally equals no drama associated with it or any ordinary person could handle it. 

Walking across a tightrope isn't definitionally trivial, though.  It's only trivial for people with the right skills.  A take 10 mechanic is fine for that sort of thing, I have just been arguing that it needs to be paired with transparent DCs.  Otherwise a player (and a DM for that matter) doesn't know how to build a character who can easily walk across tightropes (high enough ranks, skill mastery, etc.). 

In practice, taking 10 in 3.5 seems to work out just fine.  If we're just talking about crossing a tightrope when there is no stress and time, then Haley can take 10.  No problem, no drama, she's good at tightrope walking.  If there are arrows wizzing by, then she has to roll, and then the ranks really matter (needing to roll a 5 to succeed is a lot different than a 9 in those instances), or there are things like Skill Mastery that say "I'm so good I can't be rattled with these skills."  Skill Mastery is unfortunately kind of a pain to get -- M&M does this better by making it more readily available.  Batman only risks failing Stealth checks in exceptional cases.


EDITed b/c I apparently can't read. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on August 13, 2013, 10:33:47 AM
The Take 10 thing proposed has exactly that problem, though. I said nothing about taking 10 in general. :eh
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 13, 2013, 10:38:37 AM
The Take 10 thing proposed has exactly that problem, though. I said nothing about taking 10 in general. :eh
That's totally my fault.  I read it too quickly before I dashed off my reply.  Will edit the above post appropriately. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on August 13, 2013, 01:22:10 PM
So. If one were to write DM guidelines for when not to roll for plot reasons, how would you word that?

The guidelines are in the playtest packet. A DC5 check is generally something which doesn't have to be rolled. The DM can presumably also decide that for your character, the task is trivial enough that it's not worth the bother. But considering that your skill modifier can never be much higher than +5, that character-specific part probably won't come into play very often.
 
Now some characters get advantage on certain skill checks (take the higher of 2 d20s). That makes tasks a whole lot easier, and creates the "Haley" type character who keeps getting mentioned. The difference between a master thief (advantage - highest of two rolls) and a fighter in heavy plate (disadvantage - lowest of two rolls) is huge.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on August 13, 2013, 01:24:43 PM
So. If one were to write DM guidelines for when not to roll for plot reasons, how would you word that?

The guidelines are in the playtest packet. A DC5 check is generally something which doesn't have to be rolled. The DM can presumably also decide that for your character, the task is trivial enough that it's not worth the bother. But considering that your skill modifier can never be much higher than +5, that character-specific part probably won't come into play very often.

Skill modifiers could get to an average of +12 for rogues, but the skills aren't even in the latest packet. @_@
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on August 13, 2013, 01:29:31 PM
More precisely, the average d20 check when you have:
- advantage: 13.825
- nothing: 10.5
- disadvantage: 7.175
 
So the difference between Haley (dex=20, advantage) and durkon (dex=8 plus heavy armor) is an average of 12.65.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on August 16, 2013, 06:55:00 AM
Public Playtests coming to an end this Septeber, final product preparing for release. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/30046093/Mid-September_will_be_the_last_public_playtest_packet)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bard on August 16, 2013, 09:07:10 AM
I don't have much hope left for Next if the playtest is to end with it in such a state  :(
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Demelain on August 16, 2013, 10:11:52 AM
I'm actually quite satisfied with many of the ideas presented to us over the playtest. I'm just not satisfied with the math.
If WotC can get someone who can do the math on board, I'd look forward to this edition.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 16, 2013, 10:22:17 AM
I'm actually quite satisfied with many of the ideas presented to us over the playtest. I'm just not satisfied with the math.
If WotC can get someone who can do the math on board, I'd look forward to this edition.
I don't mean to completely take advantage of your efforts, so feel free not to answer this.  But, do you mind doing a quick rundown of what you like out of it, under the hood math notwithstanding? 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on August 16, 2013, 12:01:29 PM
Public Playtests coming to an end this Septeber, final product preparing for release. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/30046093/Mid-September_will_be_the_last_public_playtest_packet)

But... they're still making drastic changes with each update!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Demelain on August 16, 2013, 12:28:11 PM
I don't mean to completely take advantage of your efforts, so feel free not to answer this.  But, do you mind doing a quick rundown of what you like out of it, under the hood math notwithstanding?

Some time later, I'm occupied ATM.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on August 16, 2013, 01:49:50 PM
But... they're still making drastic changes with each update!

It just means they've tried a bunch of things, figured out what players like and don't like, and are now going to work out the rest in private. Is that a good idea? We won't know until 5E is published.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on August 16, 2013, 03:36:58 PM
I don't have much hope left for Next if the playtest is to end with it in such a state  :(

Almost all of the playtesters were deluding themselves, that their opinion mattered.

Buried under that bunch, are a few really insightful people who've made a difference.  A few guys from old wotc C.O. got in on 4e playtesting (as much good as that did) and some of those guys lasted through 4e C.O.  Hopefully a bunch more will "out" themselves.

It's standard practice to send a Disguised Car out on the streets for real world testing.  Then on a few rare occasions, some snoop will spot one and take a juicy rumor pic.  Like this 2011 shot of a 2013 rumor --> http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2013-dodge-small-car-spied-inside-and-out-news

This analogy to 5e oughta be obvious.  They've got to be hiding the real thing.  At least most of it.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 16, 2013, 04:01:56 PM
^ that's not how beta testing works for video games, though, right?  Or playtesting for that matter?  Wouldn't that be the right analogy?  Or, I guess what the userbase is expecting, though not necessarily what was on offer.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on August 16, 2013, 08:47:06 PM
Metaphorically their playtesting seems to be the equivalent of Mearls leaping naked out of a closet and screaming 'look, my dingus is curved like a banana."  In other words a distraction.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on August 16, 2013, 09:00:33 PM
Metaphorically their playtesting seems to be the equivalent of Mearls leaping naked out of a closet and screaming 'look, my dingus is curved like a banana."  In other words a distraction.

Paizo Playtesting:

"We'll improve upon the follies of 3rd Edition!  We'll listen to your concerns and comments on our progress."

Cranks boombox to maximum volume.

"What?!  Sorry, can't hear you!"

WotC Playtesting:

"I'm out of ideas, what should we do?"

"Consult the wheel!"

Spins wheel with 100+ mechanics from 30 years worth of Editions.

Lands on 'gender-based Strength score maximum.'

"Uhhh... let's take it to an online vote!"
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: 123456789blaaa on August 17, 2013, 12:26:37 AM
I don't have much hope left for Next if the playtest is to end with it in such a state  :(

Almost all of the playtesters were deluding themselves, that their opinion mattered.

Buried under that bunch, are a few really insightful people who've made a difference.  A few guys from old wotc C.O. got in on 4e playtesting (as much good as that did) and some of those guys lasted through 4e C.O.  Hopefully a bunch more will "out" themselves.

It's standard practice to send a Disguised Car out on the streets for real world testing.  Then on a few rare occasions, some snoop
will spot one and take a juicy rumor pic.  Like this 2011 shot of a 2013 rumor --> http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2013-dodge-small-car-spied-inside-and-out-news

This analogy to 5e oughta be obvious.  They've got to be hiding the real thing.  At least most of it.

Uh...ADMG is that you? This post seems a little different than your others.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 17, 2013, 01:00:52 AM
Metaphorically their playtesting seems to be the equivalent of Mearls leaping naked out of a closet and screaming 'look, my dingus is curved like a banana."  In other words a distraction.

Paizo Playtesting:

"We'll improve upon the follies of 3rd Edition!  We'll listen to your concerns and comments on our progress."

Cranks boombox to maximum volume.

"What?!  Sorry, can't hear you!"

WotC Playtesting:

"I'm out of ideas, what should we do?"

"Consult the wheel!"

Spins wheel with 100+ mechanics from 30 years worth of Editions.

Lands on 'gender-based Strength score maximum.'

"Uhhh... let's take it to an online vote!"
Sounds about right yeah. One does what they wanted to begin with, whatever the feedback. The other had no idea what they, nor anyone wants.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on August 17, 2013, 05:05:35 AM
To be fair nobody has any real idea of what the D&D playerbase wants. There's still caster vs mundane (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=10954.0) discussions going around after over a decade of 3.X.

And ironically enough, the closest "solution" to that problem came from wotc themselves, aka tome of battle.

That's not to mention stuff like the people who seem to want to play logistics and dragons and demand clear economy systems (nevermind that real-world economy is a murky mess no matter how you look at it, and we don't have magic and a million other sentient species to worry about, so asking wotc to come up with a better system than our actual economists and bankers force down our throats is kinda delusional if you ask me).

Anyway, just 8 more pages for this:
That grand-unified D&D is very doable. A lot of work? Yes. Impossible? No.

We have people here who've gone through every 3.5 spell in existance. Whoa.

When this thread hits 50 pages, I'll spell out how its doable if no one else has.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 17, 2013, 05:21:57 AM
Basically, trying to satisfy all aspects of a disparate fanbase is a fruitless endeavor. Each category of fan appreciates a different subset or edition of the game.

Some of these are incompatible due to exponentially rising overheads, especially balance issues.
Look at for example, multiclassing, if you have multiclassing, you have to either pay in variety(4E style, limiting what you can gain from multiclassing), balance(combining classes designed for different roles and expecting to get consistent results is a pipe dream even if not for differring gains at different levels) or originality(abolishing classes altogether, allowing for free pick of abilities). Multiclassing MUST either cap the returns, deny synergy or ignore balance concerns to some extent.

Some of these are mutually incompatible.
Elegance and brevity of game rules cannot be attained while satisfying semi-realistic game world. Rules for edge cases and varied environments take up space and add complexity.  At the same time they are dealing with legacy effects, which cause an uproar if outright removed.


What I think they should have tried is to sell vision. 4E did that, except the attacks on older editions split the fanbase. It achieved it's own success, if not quite of the same quality. The designers should have a dream, and then make people believe it, and become invested in it. Instead they're going for centrist pandering in a divided environment. 5E does not appear to have a cohesive self image. It is defined, and trapped by the past, rather than carving a future in d20.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on August 17, 2013, 06:35:18 AM
4E was a failure by D&D standards. It was the first edition to be outsold by a rival product being sold simultaneously. Do you think Microsoft's shareholders would be pleased if a Linux version suddenly started selling more than the latest Windows? That's why no 4e boss ever lasted more than 1 year before being sacked. That's why they've scrapped 4e so early on its life cycle. Not to mention the whole set of online promises that never came to being.


4e tried to be all hip and hop, but change for change's sake is a lot worse than nostalgia effect if you ask me. Not just on the mechanics department but also on the fluff.  Forgoten Realms was nuked. Eberron barely got any support. Those were both D&D money-making parts  that plenty of people loved, and wotc basically threw them in the ditch. Why? Because they were "carving a future in d20" and not wanting to be"trapped by the past". Turned out pretty well didn't it?

Basically, there's lots of RPGs out there trying to be the next cool thing, but only D&D can try to be, well, Dungeons and Dragons. It should stick to its guns that have proved to work.

(and as an aside, I'm perfectly fine with a multiclassing system where only a fraction of the combinations is viable, if we still get hundreds of viable combinations out of the millions of possibilities)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: dna1 on August 17, 2013, 08:46:27 AM
I just jumped on board this thread, and didn't bother to read the previous 42 pages of comments. So forgive me for being a bit ignorant on this subject.

I know nothing about 5e, this is the first time I've heard it being mentioned is this thread. But I think that scrapping 4e, and moving onto a 5th version would be similar to a slap in the face for us players.
Its like... rather than come out with another shitty version of D&D, fix the previous version. Or if you insist on making another new version. Wait longer to release it... Wait til the bugs are out and you have a solid build. If 4e was created correctly then in theory they shouldn't need a 5e. Why not just make another version x.5  lololol

I don't like to buy new versions of things that are functionally worse than the previous versions. I think making a new and improved version of something just to start raking in more money is part of whats wrong with our real world system. It seems stupid to make products that are built to break after a certain mileage, know what I mean?
The last thing I need is some rich business man to decide that I should move to a new version of D&D.... just because he wants to sell more products. Granted when I first heard of 3e I wasn't fond of the idea. But after reluctantly moving I can now see this version was indeed better than the last.

But I'm not a fan of 4e, instead of taking a step forward like from AD&D to 3.5. It's like they tried to make a kindergarten version of D&D that was simpler, cooler, faster! and shittier.
I will be honest here and admit that I've never played 4e. But I've never smoked crystal meth either, and I can tell you I don't want to. With 4e, I've looked at it, I've had it explained to me.  But they took away a lot of the character customization. Not all of it.. but a lot of it. When I make a character, its a unique masterpiece. I don't want to shit out a barbarian that has the same moves and everything as all of the other barbs, except his race and name is diff.

The only thing I did like about 4e is that a Wiz can cast magic missle all day long... 




 


TL:DR- The cycle of feces must end. I'm tired of the torrential downpour of utter shit being forced upon me, in the name of progress. Don't just hastily shit out another product, that you will later find too many flaws to deal with, then have to make another newer shittier product to correct the previous ones mistakes.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: jameswilliamogle on August 17, 2013, 09:25:25 AM
I read the playtest this week.  I like it.  May even start gaming again.  Shrug.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: 123456789blaaa on August 17, 2013, 10:40:53 AM
I read the playtest this week.  I like it.  May even start gaming again.  Shrug.

Why'd you stop? Busy with life? Bored with TTRPG's?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: jameswilliamogle on August 17, 2013, 10:49:04 AM
I read the playtest this week.  I like it.  May even start gaming again.  Shrug.

Why'd you stop? Busy with life? Bored with TTRPG's?
Really didn't like 4e, was having a hard time finding players in my area, and life also got busy (several role transitions within my company, got married, etc).  I was getting bored with the ruleset of 3.5, but not the play of 3.5.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on August 17, 2013, 12:42:48 PM
Hey, getting married versus playing 4th Edition.
Sounds like the same "compromise" JanusJones
had to make ; and he recently reappeared too.

Whoa ... that's a Harmonic Convergence (sda).



Uh...ADMG is that you? This post seems a little different than your others.

All in the eye(s) (?!) of my kitty avatar's Beholder.
 :D
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: jameswilliamogle on August 17, 2013, 12:57:46 PM
Hey, getting married versus playing 4th Edition.
Sounds like the same "compromise" JanusJones
had to make ; and he recently reappeared too.

Whoa ... that's a Harmonic Convergence (sda).
Yeah I saw JJ's posts in a few places too. 
"I sense something...a presence I haven't felt since..."
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Demelain on August 17, 2013, 01:37:48 PM
Forgoten Realms was nuked.
I will never forgive them for that.
Short of ret-conning (most of) 4E Faerun, there is nothing WotC can do with that setting which will get me to buy back into it. I'll continue to run the 3rd Edition setting, thank you very much.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nanshork on August 17, 2013, 01:37:55 PM
Hey, getting married versus playing 4th Edition.
Sounds like the same "compromise" JanusJones
had to make ; and he recently reappeared too.

Whoa ... that's a Harmonic Convergence (sda).
Yeah I saw JJ's posts in a few places too. 
"I sense something...a presence I haven't felt since..."

Why do people that I haven't seen in years keep popping up?  Not that I'm complaining, it is just odd timing.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on August 17, 2013, 02:52:45 PM
Forgoten Realms was nuked.
I will never forgive them for that.
Short of ret-conning (most of) 4E Faerun, there is nothing WotC can do with that setting which will get me to buy back into it. I'll continue to run the 3rd Edition setting, thank you very much.

I haven't heard much since the initial announcement, but it seems like the Sundering is basically a giant undoing of everything that 4e changed.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on August 17, 2013, 09:48:26 PM
...change for change's sake is a lot worse than nostalgia effect if you ask me.
Change for the sake of change is only occasionally successful, and often destructive.

But significant improvement is worth significant change, and to my way of thinking, nostalgia takes a back seat to every other consideration. (In gaming, and in life.)

Not surprisingly, I'm kind of a 4e fanboy.  :D

Forgoten Realms was nuked.
I will never forgive them for that.
Short of ret-conning (most of) 4E Faerun, there is nothing WotC can do with that setting which will get me to buy back into it. I'll continue to run the 3rd Edition setting, thank you very much.
After seeing many editions of FR world-changing cataclysms, I can't get worked up over the latest one.

I hear tell Greenwood still DMs his original 1e (?) FR setting.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bard on August 17, 2013, 10:48:45 PM
But significant improvement is worth significant change, and to my way of thinking, nostalgia takes a back seat to every other consideration. (In gaming, and in life.)

While I agree on this, there's also difference between improving a system to better achieve the desires of its target audience and changing the direction of an IP.


(click to show/hide)

TL;DR version: They changed a lot in 4th. It ended up as a good game that I enjoyed. It did not FEEL Dungeon & Dragons.

I would LOVE change, but what I want is a new, better version of D&D. I don't want another game with the D&D franchise on it. :(
Exactly like 3.0 improved on AD&D removing of simplifying some bad rules (THAC0 anyone?), improving the heroic feeling making everyone end up stronger, improving the customization (PrC, feats), what I'd like to see is another game that keeps building up on that (making mundanes fun with more meaningful choices for one... toning down some areas of magic that imho can ruin a campaign like strong divinations/enchantments)

For now, from what I tested of Next, it still doesn't feel D&D, but I still hope it will, maybe 4-5 months after it's out with the splatbooks coming out. It just doesn't look promising.

Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on August 17, 2013, 11:43:32 PM
Mike Mearls is bringing back Kender as a PC race. (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?699501-Kender-Oh-No-Mearls-Didn-t)



MEEEAAARRRLLLSSS!!!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on August 18, 2013, 12:13:39 AM
But significant improvement is worth significant change, and to my way of thinking, nostalgia takes a back seat to every other consideration. (In gaming, and in life.)

While I agree on this, there's also difference between improving a system to better achieve the desires of its target audience and changing the direction of an IP.
Clearly, the nature/value of improvement and D&D's target audience is a matter of opinion. I've been playing D&D for many editions now, so I'm part of its target audience right? You feel that 4e doesn't feel like D&D, which is fine. But 4e fulfills my three D&D requirements: It has strange monsters to kill, lots of loot to grab, and weird dice to roll.

And some of the things that make 3.x so much fun for you are things that other gamers would point to as "not D&D". Some of them are things that I myself can't be bothered to deal with.

FYI: For what it's worth to you, 4e currently has lots and lots of character options. Maybe not as many as 3.x -- I don't know, I haven't counted -- but still more than I'll ever be able to play in my lifetime. And once the number of options gets beyond the 'in my lifetime' threshold, it doesn't actually matter whether one edition has more than the other.

For now, from what I tested of Next, it still doesn't feel D&D, but I still hope it will, maybe 4-5 months after it's out with the splatbooks coming out. It just doesn't look promising.
I'm so unhopeful that I'm currently writing a true-to-4e clone, because I'd rather iron out the few wrinkles it has than dive into a new half-assed edition. I'd prefer WotC do it for me, but it's not in their business model.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 18, 2013, 12:36:57 AM
Mike Mearls is bringing back Kender as a PC race. (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?699501-Kender-Oh-No-Mearls-Didn-t)



MEEEAAARRRLLLSSS!!!
Now I think he's just fucking with us. 

@Forgotten Realms:  The idea of changing fluff and settings due to system changes strikes me as quite silly.  They did this with 3E, too, I think, with the inclusion of Sorcerers and some suchness.  I am not now, nor have I ever been, really on top of FR as a setting.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: 123456789blaaa on August 18, 2013, 12:43:58 AM
Hey, getting married versus playing 4th Edition.
Sounds like the same "compromise" JanusJones
had to make ; and he recently reappeared too.

Whoa ... that's a Harmonic Convergence (sda).
Yeah I saw JJ's posts in a few places too. 
"I sense something...a presence I haven't felt since..."

Why do people that I haven't seen in years keep popping up?  Not that I'm complaining, it is just odd timing.

Like who?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nanshork on August 18, 2013, 12:47:45 AM
Hey, getting married versus playing 4th Edition.
Sounds like the same "compromise" JanusJones
had to make ; and he recently reappeared too.

Whoa ... that's a Harmonic Convergence (sda).
Yeah I saw JJ's posts in a few places too. 
"I sense something...a presence I haven't felt since..."

Why do people that I haven't seen in years keep popping up?  Not that I'm complaining, it is just odd timing.

Like who?

jameswilliamogle and janusjones for two.  :p
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bard on August 18, 2013, 12:52:38 AM
FYI: For what it's worth to you, 4e currently has lots and lots of character options. Maybe not as many as 3.x -- I don't know, I haven't counted -- but still more than I'll ever be able to play in my lifetime. And once the number of options gets beyond the 'in my lifetime' threshold, it doesn't actually matter whether one edition has more than the other.
I'm happy to hear that, I'll make sure to take a new look at it as soon as I have the chance to grab some 4th books (should be soon). The biggest grief I had with it is that it was a "you got two classes, one for 11 levels and another similar one later" deal with some little feats to make it seem you were different from any other guy for the first 11 levels even tho you weren't. Coming from "I've got 3 classes and 4 PrC carefully stacked in a character" it made me feel like I was just $token_soldier_13. I hated, hated, hated that feeling. I felt like I was playing Ragarok Online :lmao If it turns out well I might have to convince our DM to try another go at it.

But 4e fulfills my three D&D requirements: It has strange monsters to kill, lots of loot to grab, and weird dice to roll.
That's true for lots of games, most of the ones I played actually ended like that at least once (often way more than once). I think it could describe even some World of Darkness campaigns I ended in :rolleyes and ALL of the Deadlands ones :D (plus Hollow Earth Expedition, some Shadowrun ones, the cthulhu-cyberpunk one, Exalted, Scion, some Star Wars d20, the old and bad Mutant Chronicles game, etc, etc)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 18, 2013, 01:30:14 AM
@Forgotten Realms:  The idea of changing fluff and settings due to system changes strikes me as quite silly.  They did this with 3E, too, I think, with the inclusion of Sorcerers and some suchness.  I am not now, nor have I ever been, really on top of FR as a setting.
Each time the ruleset changes, the most noticeable change is to the magic system.

So they kill Mystra.

Again.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: jameswilliamogle on August 18, 2013, 09:31:28 AM
The 5e playtest feels a lot like the system my 1e crew used to use, incorporating the 2e proficiencies into the 1e ruleset in some manner.  The progression feels like the kits of 2e (we never played through those).  The only other thing different is the feats, which are more relevent to combat than the proficiencies.  There's no multiclassing yet from what I've read.  The experience etc. system feels much more simpler, which I really appreciate.  The amount of rules in the playtest is extremely light compared to any edition previously IMO and that I REALLY like.  4e was such a foreign beast to me that it didn't feel like DND.  The 5e playtest feels like DND to me as I remember it from the 1e-2e days, but with much less rules pressure on the DM, which I like (the arguments from 3.5 were non-stop compared to my 1e groups).  The magic feels much closer to 1e, for all the spellcasters, but the warrior classes feel closer to 4e, and utility classes feel close to 2e.

Overall, I think this is a great move away from 4e without swinging so far back to 3.5 that its a full reversal.  I think that they need to work on PC and monster customization options to satisfy the 3.5 crowd, still.  The playtest ruleset feels solid: enough concrete rules to show how the game is played, but still enough flexibility that DMs can play the way they want it to play such that they don't feel like they're completely rewriting the rules.

I'm trying to assemble a playtest for 5e in Spring, TX, if anyone reading this is interested...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bard on August 18, 2013, 10:56:36 AM
the arguments from 3.5 were non-stop compared to my 1e groups

It was the very opposite for me, 2nd edition in my group at the time was WAR, I don't know how else to put it. It was bad to a point we stopped playing D&D and went on to play other games for years until 3.0 hit the shelves.
With 3.0 most of the arguments were "No DM, you forgot this or that rule, it's actually like that" - "You're right/You're wong/Let it go for now, we'll check the books during the week" and with time and more rules and experience with them they almost disappeared.
I think it really depends on the group, but sometimes it surprises me how different some experiences can be in front of the same "issue".
I must admit I never played 1e tho. I'm way to young for that :\ 2nd edition came out that I was 5, and I didn't start playing until high school, in my Ultima Online days.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: jameswilliamogle on August 18, 2013, 11:50:45 AM
I must admit I never played 1e tho. I'm way to young for that :\ 2nd edition came out that I was 5, and I didn't start playing until high school, in my Ultima Online days.
1e was so confusing that you had to just "wing it".
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on August 18, 2013, 01:42:43 PM
FYI: For what it's worth to you, 4e currently has lots and lots of character options. Maybe not as many as 3.x -- I don't know, I haven't counted -- but still more than I'll ever be able to play in my lifetime. And once the number of options gets beyond the 'in my lifetime' threshold, it doesn't actually matter whether one edition has more than the other.
I'm happy to hear that, I'll make sure to take a new look at it as soon as I have the chance to grab some 4th books (should be soon). The biggest grief I had with it is that it was a "you got two classes, one for 11 levels and another similar one later" deal with some little feats to make it seem you were different from any other guy for the first 11 levels even tho you weren't. Coming from "I've got 3 classes and 4 PrC carefully stacked in a character" it made me feel like I was just $token_soldier_13. I hated, hated, hated that feeling. I felt like I was playing Ragarok Online :lmao If it turns out well I might have to convince our DM to try another go at it.
That "fighter #114" thing that you describe is how I feel about 2e non-casters.

3.x character building makes me think "Ughhh, I thought I already did my taxes this year..." Don't get me wrong, I think 3e-style multiclassing was a great idea, but failed because non-casters are front-loaded in all the wrong ways and casters...well, because casters. Maybe one of these editions WotC will do 3e-style multiclassing right, but 5e doesn't look like the one.

4e character building feels just about right. I think I could happily play the game without feats -- the zillion available powers, paragon paths, and epic destinies scratch my character-building itch -- but feats fill dead levels, so whatever.

But 4e fulfills my three D&D requirements: It has strange monsters to kill, lots of loot to grab, and weird dice to roll.
That's true for lots of games, most of the ones I played actually ended like that at least once (often way more than once). I think it could describe even some World of Darkness campaigns I ended in :rolleyes and ALL of the Deadlands ones :D (plus Hollow Earth Expedition, some Shadowrun ones, the cthulhu-cyberpunk one, Exalted, Scion, some Star Wars d20, the old and bad Mutant Chronicles game, etc, etc)
The truth is that I and many gamers don't actually need the D&D logo to feel like we're playing D&D. Our D&D needs aren't tied to specific game mechanics or legacy quirks, which means that we can get that D&D experience from any edition or clone, and even other games. Although we all have our favorite rulesets. ;)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SorO_Lost on August 18, 2013, 01:48:33 PM
Open ended question here.

Why do people think Magic Items should be rare?

And I mean that question, all to often we have threads about omfg magic items Banhammerz them!, or in *my* game magic items are rare. It's such a huge thing that 5th is being built on the idea f*ck wealth (and leveling). But I just cannot grasp the concept. And before you reply, I want you to keep two things in mind.

* 3rd Edition makes a better JRR Tolken world than 2nd. That rag tag group of 5th level PCs were handed magical stuff at each leg of their journey (sic, end rewards). By the time everything was said and done they had no less than three magical swords, two artifact rings, a half dozen enchanted tools, freaking magical stay-fresh bread, and every damn one of them owns an enchanted cloak. Think on that, seriously. A typical D&D character would murder a Kobold for loot, all these guys did was move through uncivilized areas and they obtained enough to blind someone using Detect Magic. So ever since D&D came to be, and in all video games today, magical loot has always been handed out like candy.

* "I want my items to be unique!" Is a common point seen. Which I don't understand either. 3rd is littered with unique magical rewards, blanket banning items that add unique abilities or traits in favor of making items that add +1 to a metagame die element uber rare isn't going to change how exciting they are. Oooh a +1 Greatsword you say? That's +1/12th to my damage *rollseyes*. Oh, it's a +1 Flaming Greatsword? So you mean to tell me the depths of your creativity is to plagiarize adding a d6 in damage that doesn't work on anything color coded in red, looks hellishly menacing, or is on fire, and amounts to dousing my sword in oil and setting it on fire. Got it.

I just don't understand the appeal at all.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on August 18, 2013, 01:58:47 PM
Most of the LotR items aren't particularly magical, that's why. They're exceedingly well crafted--masterwork, basically--but the most magical property any of the weapons possess is 'glow in the presence of orcs'. The cloaks aren't exactly magical, either. Now, the random junk they're carrying around--Sam's dirt, that flask that somehow has starlight (and that's a gem on a guy's forehead, at that)--is magical, but they're also basically slightly helpful at best. Ditto for the Ring and Palantir. Most of the stuff they've got is actually just the result of exceptional craftsmanship (and materials, for the mithril chainmail)

So no, 3.X does not emulate LotR better because it requires doling out +X equipment like it's going out of fashion. :|
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SorO_Lost on August 18, 2013, 02:08:27 PM
Really? Because a green elven cloak appearing as a rock sounds pretty flipping magical to me.

Edit - Sam's rope could magically untie any knot when tugged on. Eragon's Scabbard bestowed unbreaking traits to whatever sword rested in it. Both of which didn't appear in the movies.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on August 18, 2013, 02:10:49 PM

3.x character building makes me think "Ughhh, I thought I already did my taxes this year..."

I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark here and say you've never played Champions have you?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on August 18, 2013, 02:16:27 PM
Really? Because a green elven cloak appearing as a rock sounds pretty flipping magical to me.

I thought they were grey? :huh

Quote
Edit - Sam's rope could magically untie any knot when tugged on. Eragon's Scabbard bestowed unbreaking traits to whatever sword rested in it. Both of which didn't appear in the movies.

Aside from the fact you've gotten the wrong name there: how do either of these, in any way, correlate to 3.X's addiction to doling out pluses? They're interesting abilities, but they're not crucial, and they're not just numerical bonuses. It's the sort of thing that aids in strange plans rather than bizarre combat abilities.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bard on August 18, 2013, 02:37:17 PM

3.x character building makes me think "Ughhh, I thought I already did my taxes this year..."

I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark here and say you've never played Champions have you?

Whoa I forgot that game, used to play a lot of it back in the 4th/5th Hero System version time.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on August 18, 2013, 02:40:57 PM
Most of the LotR items aren't particularly magical, that's why. They're exceedingly well crafted--masterwork, basically--but the most magical property any of the weapons possess is 'glow in the presence of orcs'. The cloaks aren't exactly magical, either. Now, the random junk they're carrying around--Sam's dirt, that flask that somehow has starlight (and that's a gem on a guy's forehead, at that)--is magical, but they're also basically slightly helpful at best. Ditto for the Ring and Palantir. Most of the stuff they've got is actually just the result of exceptional craftsmanship (and materials, for the mithril chainmail)
The difference between 'magical' and 'well-crafted' is pretty semantic in the context of SorO's question. They're not all super-useful items, but they have properties which can only be explained as magical or sufficiently advanced technology.

Open ended question here.

Why do people think Magic Items should be rare?
Personally, I can appreciate magic being either rare or everyday. What I hate is how D&D ties a significant portion of its level-up math to magical bling, which naive DMs then frequently take away in the pursuit some sort of 'pure fantasy.'

In 3.x and earlier, your PC becomes a glass cannon without his magical +X's. And he maybe can't even damage some monsters without his +X sword. Any deviation from 'quite a lot of magical loot,' and every time a dispel magic goes off, results in a fundamental change in combat dynamics. And NPCs suck, because they can't afford to carry all that +X soon-to-be loot.

In 4e, your PC more or less becomes X levels lower without his +X gear, unless your DM has inherent bonuses turned on.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on August 18, 2013, 02:42:54 PM

3.x character building makes me think "Ughhh, I thought I already did my taxes this year..."

I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark here and say you've never played Champions have you?
I've heard that Champions chargen is crazy "realistic."

And then you die. So basically, it sounds a lot like 3.x chargen turned up to 11.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SorO_Lost on August 18, 2013, 02:43:17 PM
Really? Because a green elven cloak appearing as a rock sounds pretty flipping magical to me.
I thought they were grey? :huh
Actually, barring further review, I'm going with they changed depending on the scene in the film.
(click to show/hide)

Aside from the fact you've gotten the wrong name there: how do either of these, in any way, correlate to 3.X's addiction to doling out pluses? They're interesting abilities, but they're not crucial, and they're not just numerical bonuses. It's the sort of thing that aids in strange plans rather than bizarre combat abilities.
You've just hit the head on the nail without realizing it.

3rd "plus" problem isn't simply magical items. Feats, Skills, mundane items, alchemical items, Races, Class, Templates, etc, all grant numerical bonuses and 3rd has hundreds of magical items that do not provide numerical bonuses. Exactly how does treating all magical items as rarity address any of this? You still have the same "plus" problem but now no one can spend their left over change in unique, cool, magic items.

Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on August 18, 2013, 02:44:57 PM
Aside from the fact you've gotten the wrong name there: how do either of these, in any way, correlate to 3.X's addiction to doling out pluses? They're interesting abilities, but they're not crucial, and they're not just numerical bonuses. It's the sort of thing that aids in strange plans rather than bizarre combat abilities.
You've just hit the head on the nail without realizing it.

3rd "plus" problem isn't simply magical items. Feats, Skills, mundane items, alchemical items, Races, Class, Templates, etc, all grant numerical bonuses and 3rd has hundreds of magical items that do not provide numerical bonuses. Exactly how does treating all magical items as rarity address any of this? You still have the same "plus" problem but now no one can spend their left over change in unique, cool, magic items.

Because rarity should reduce ingrained assumptions about needing a certain amount of magical bonuses to function, which actually makes the weird items more viable.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: littha on August 18, 2013, 02:54:09 PM
Aside from the fact you've gotten the wrong name there: how do either of these, in any way, correlate to 3.X's addiction to doling out pluses? They're interesting abilities, but they're not crucial, and they're not just numerical bonuses. It's the sort of thing that aids in strange plans rather than bizarre combat abilities.
You've just hit the head on the nail without realizing it.

3rd "plus" problem isn't simply magical items. Feats, Skills, mundane items, alchemical items, Races, Class, Templates, etc, all grant numerical bonuses and 3rd has hundreds of magical items that do not provide numerical bonuses. Exactly how does treating all magical items as rarity address any of this? You still have the same "plus" problem but now no one can spend their left over change in unique, cool, magic items.

Because rarity should reduce ingrained assumptions about needing a certain amount of magical bonuses to function, which actually makes the weird items more viable.

The problem of course being that you DO need those magical bonuses to function...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SorO_Lost on August 18, 2013, 03:08:29 PM
Because rarity should reduce ingrained assumptions about needing a certain amount of magical bonuses to function, which actually makes the weird items more viable.
That's just it. It doesn't.

A Rod of Ropes's value doesn't alter because you own a Vet of Resistance +3 or not, it's still a grappling hook and the Vest still saves you're life. As long as the vest exists, players will seek it. IE why have a 20% chance of being killed when you could have 15%, or even 10%? It's only after these bonuses are obtained do you turn else where and purchase those unique tools. Blanket banning and it's embodiment D&D Next share the same fundamental problem. They both want you to think +3.5 damage is a unique very rare effect. But all it really is, is a boring bland tasteless numerical bonus. The good stuff isn't worth typing up in new rule books or worth acknowledging.

When you ban things under the pretenses you want magic items to feel special, you're doing more harm than good. You've created a greater demand for numerical items, not the gimmicky or functionally interesting ones that are already special and cool to own.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 18, 2013, 03:26:15 PM
Yeah you're better off ditching the raw bonuses entirely, or making them unavailable without tradeoffs to other raw bonuses. As long as they exist they will be first choice.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 18, 2013, 03:27:45 PM
@Magic Items
It is perhaps an issue like all magic in a fantasy setting:  if there are a lot mages or magic items, then the  assumptions about the setting might seem to fall apart. 

It's hard, though, to think about this at the level of a system as it seems to be a function of the setting.  But, to the extent that there's some setting-based idea that makes you want to make magic items rare -- some sense that they should be special and treated with a sense of wonder -- it runs into two issues. 

Issue #1:  in all editions of D&D to date magic items have been an important way of customizing your character.  They open up avenues that don't exist otherwise, and a series of combinations, builds, and archetypes rely on them.  Reducing them therefore reduces the richness of the characters available at the game table. 

Issue #2: getting magic items as loot is FUN!  I think some of Issue #1 and the math assumptions of the system get in the way of this a bit, as you just get rid of all the quirky random crap you find in favor of [thing that makes character/build more awesome #14].  But, that loot dynamic is part of what keeps D&D and games like it entertaining.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on August 18, 2013, 03:48:39 PM
Aside from the fact you've gotten the wrong name there: how do either of these, in any way, correlate to 3.X's addiction to doling out pluses? They're interesting abilities, but they're not crucial, and they're not just numerical bonuses. It's the sort of thing that aids in strange plans rather than bizarre combat abilities.
You've just hit the head on the nail without realizing it.

3rd "plus" problem isn't simply magical items. Feats, Skills, mundane items, alchemical items, Races, Class, Templates, etc, all grant numerical bonuses and 3rd has hundreds of magical items that do not provide numerical bonuses. Exactly how does treating all magical items as rarity address any of this? You still have the same "plus" problem but now no one can spend their left over change in unique, cool, magic items.

Because rarity should reduce ingrained assumptions about needing a certain amount of magical bonuses to function, which actually makes the weird items more viable.

The problem of course being that you DO need those magical bonuses to function...
At least in the way that the game expects PCs to function.

You can run games where Bob the High-Level Warrior is lucky to have his +1 sword, but the gameplay is going to be very different from normal 3.x games. IME, the problem is that most DMs who want magical items to be rare don't realize this, which results in frustration, lots of dead PCs, and many scrapped campaigns.

Some particularly experienced DMs do realize this -- I played under one such DM -- but even so, the best that I can say about that short-lived campaign is that it was fun despite our lack of magical gear.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on August 18, 2013, 04:17:36 PM
Because rarity should reduce ingrained assumptions about needing a certain amount of magical bonuses to function, which actually makes the weird items more viable.
That's just it. It doesn't.

A Rod of Ropes's value doesn't alter because you own a Vet of Resistance +3 or not, it's still a grappling hook and the Vest still saves you're life. As long as the vest exists, players will seek it. IE why have a 20% chance of being killed when you could have 15%, or even 10%? It's only after these bonuses are obtained do you turn else where and purchase those unique tools. Blanket banning and it's embodiment D&D Next share the same fundamental problem. They both want you to think +3.5 damage is a unique very rare effect. But all it really is, is a boring bland tasteless numerical bonus. The good stuff isn't worth typing up in new rule books or worth acknowledging.

When you ban things under the pretenses you want magic items to feel special, you're doing more harm than good. You've created a greater demand for numerical items, not the gimmicky or functionally interesting ones that are already special and cool to own.

From my experience playing artificers, I have to agree with you here. When I can use 1/10th of my WBL to cover all the standard gear, I tend to get excessively creative with the remainder of my money, making all manner of inefficient but FUN items.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on August 18, 2013, 04:30:33 PM

3.x character building makes me think "Ughhh, I thought I already did my taxes this year..."

I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark here and say you've never played Champions have you?
I've heard that Champions chargen is crazy "realistic."

And then you die. So basically, it sounds a lot like 3.x chargen turned up to 11.

No that's GURPS.

Champions is still cinematic, but if you'd made a pc for it you'd realize how easy 3.5 pc's are.  Doing a PC for 3.5 is like filling out your local taxes.  10 minutes and you're done unless you want to complicate things by calling the guy behind the counter a thieving bastard.  Champions is like filling out your federal 1040 with schedules and optional complications.  While naked in public next to a sign that says "My penis is a balloon animal feel free to touch him."    At one point I was good enough to write out 1 pc for it an hour, but for newbies the first two playing sessions are making your pc's.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on August 18, 2013, 05:08:36 PM

3.x character building makes me think "Ughhh, I thought I already did my taxes this year..."

I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark here and say you've never played Champions have you?
I've heard that Champions chargen is crazy "realistic."

And then you die. So basically, it sounds a lot like 3.x chargen turned up to 11.

No that's GURPS.

Champions is still cinematic, but if you'd made a pc for it you'd realize how easy 3.5 pc's are.  Doing a PC for 3.5 is like filling out your local taxes.  10 minutes and you're done unless you want to complicate things by calling the guy behind the counter a thieving bastard.  Champions is like filling out your federal 1040 with schedules and optional complications.  While naked in public next to a sign that says "My penis is a balloon animal feel free to touch him."    At one point I was good enough to write out 1 pc for it an hour, but for newbies the first two playing sessions are making your pc's.
I can whip up a 1st-level fighter-type in 10 minutes. But usually I want to play something more interesting, or I'm DMing for a group and I'm lucky if they can manage one-hour chargen. I'm well aware that there are more time-intensive systems out there, but that doesn't make me want to deal with 3.x chargen any more.

The existence of oceans doesn't make the local lake any less wet.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on August 18, 2013, 06:31:55 PM
On the other hand, I look at building things in 3.5 as a game of its own, and one which I enjoy thoroughly. Naturally, though, this causes problems if you like playing D&D, but don't like playing CharGen.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: littha on August 18, 2013, 06:57:41 PM
On the other hand, I look at building things in 3.5 as a game of its own, and one which I enjoy thoroughly. Naturally, though, this causes problems if you like playing D&D, but don't like playing CharGen.

I quite often enjoy the CharGen more than actually playing the game... the latter disappoints me way too often.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 19, 2013, 01:16:30 AM
For me, even high level chargen takes at worst an hour...and then I have to spend MULTIPLE hours gearing up in 3.5. Suffice to say, the math dependency on gear, especially magical gear is pretty much a timewaster, not to mention distracting from the actually interesting magic items. The rod of ropes is nifty and fun, but given the choice between it and a +3.5 damage enhancement, you'd flog the rod for the damage every time.

Whether magic items are rare or not isn't the problem. Whether the math is noticeably affected by magic items is.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on August 19, 2013, 04:13:56 AM
I thoroughly agree, Veekie, its the math of the items that makes them a problem.  Even what we see in 5E means magic items will make a minimum 30% impact on your attack bonus for the best published of them.  That's the kind of thing that makes the difference between Monty Haul and Scrooge campaigns so vast and the system break down on both ends.  And the smaller you make the number range, the greater the impact those numbers have.  If they had honestly wanted magic items to focus on the interesting rather than on the level math, they really needed to top all bonuses out at +1, because they've capped the level and attribute bonuses at +5 apiece.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: zioth on August 19, 2013, 09:27:34 AM
I thoroughly agree, Veekie, its the math of the items that makes them a problem.  Even what we see in 5E means magic items will make a minimum 30% impact on your attack bonus for the best published of them.  That's the kind of thing that makes the difference between Monty Haul and Scrooge campaigns so vast and the system break down on both ends.  And the smaller you make the number range, the greater the impact those numbers have.  If they had honestly wanted magic items to focus on the interesting rather than on the level math, they really needed to top all bonuses out at +1, because they've capped the level and attribute bonuses at +5 apiece.

That's not how it looks to me. It seems like they've said, "+1 items are common. Anything with a higher bonus is either a unique, named item, or so rare that we're not even going to list it. The highest bonus I see on any magic weapon is +3, though I guess that is only a "rare" item...
 
The Fighter can get an attack bonus of up to +11 (+6 from class, +5 from primary attribute) before magic items. Add on a +1 weapon, and you've only increased it 9%. Of course, the highly-debated Belt of Giant Strength can add another +4, which is 30%, but classes with other primary attributes don't get that bonus.
 
Alright, maybe you're more right than I thought. Capping bonuses at +1 would make sense. And they have to get rid of that Belt of Giant Strength!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on August 19, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
On the other hand, I look at building things in 3.5 as a game of its own, and one which I enjoy thoroughly. Naturally, though, this causes problems if you like playing D&D, but don't like playing CharGen.
QFT.

And "Do you like playing CharGen?" doesn't necessarily provoke a yes/no answer. I myself like playing CharGen...to a point. Picking class, race, and then assigning stats is fun (preferably by point buy). After that the water gets muddy though. If I'm making a wizard for example, I have to consider the game. Is this a one-shot game? If yes, sleep ftw! If no, I might pick grease if I think the DM might be erratic about making spells available. (Also, stuff like the HD cap of sleep reminds me of how gamey D&D is, as much as anything in 4e does. And why is the cap not based on CR/level?!)

And then the skills...skills exemplify what drives me nuts about 3.x chargen. Not only the long list of 'em, including the good, the bad, and the ugly ones that I have to navigate thru; but I also have to decide how many poinks to put into each one. (Usually I make this simple and max out a minimum number of skills, but non-vet players always obsess over how they assign their spoinks.) Skill taxes, skill traps, class vs. cross-class skills, skill synergies...ugh. I'm experienced enough that I can navigate thru it all with minimal fuss, but skills exemplify the things I don't like about 3.x.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on August 19, 2013, 11:51:44 AM
On the other hand, I look at building things in 3.5 as a game of its own, and one which I enjoy thoroughly. Naturally, though, this causes problems if you like playing D&D, but don't like playing CharGen.

I quite often enjoy the CharGen more than actually playing the game... the latter disappoints me way too often.
How come? The rule-dynamics, the gamers, or both?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on August 19, 2013, 11:52:55 AM
Whether magic items are rare or not isn't the problem. Whether the math is noticeably affected by magic items is.
I cannot agree with this enough.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Raineh Daze on August 19, 2013, 11:54:49 AM
I would like to introduce to you to the concept of the edit button. Please, make friends with this wonderful feature. :eh
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 19, 2013, 12:18:27 PM
@Complete4th

I think we get it.  You don't like fiddly chargen systems.  That's a preference, and that's fine. 

You might add that 3E marries its fiddliness to trap options and a lack of transparency -- say what you will about the complex point-buy systems (M&M, Champions, GUPRS, though I'm working from long memories on the latter two) but they tend to be relatively transparent.  I, for example, find the execution of Burning Wheel's lifepath system fiddly to the point that it ruins chargen, which is something I typically enjoy. 

In my limited experience I found 4E fairly fiddly and riddled with many, many trap options.  Class and race are easy enough, but choosing powers/spells/whatever they are called I found tremendously opaque.  So, it's pretty weird for me to hold 4E up as the game with not so fiddly chargen, especially when there are much better exemplars out there. 

To gamely attempt to bring this back to the topic, these sorts of divides sort of indicate the strength and weakness of the D&D brand.  I think the ideal would be this:  anyone who wants to just play a single-classed character and just GO! will be well-supported, but so will someone who has a fairly particular concept in mind and wants to indulge in the exotic side hobby (akin to miniature painting, etc. in that it's related to playing D&D but not exactly playing D&D) of chargen and charopp. 

So, someone who is jonesing to play a Druid or a Ranger is good as is someone who wants to play the Grey Mouser and will pore over rulebooks to get there.  This would, imho, require classes to credibly do what they say they are supposed to do, e.g., Rangers need to be competent in melee combat, and involve removing truly "trap" options.  It's fine if some options, especially in combination, are better than others, but things that are truly crappy just shouldn't exist. 

I suspect D&D will not try and balance those two and instead, perhaps being overattentive to the OD&D "revolution" (their term, not mine), and instead focus more on the straightforward, plug and play side.  That's sort of how I felt about 4E, which struck  me as much closer to AD&D in philosophy.  That's not an inherently bad thing mind you, it's just not my preferences.  It does mean abandoning a chunk of the player base and a chunk with a demonstrated desire to spend money.  Although query what it'd take to bring that player base back "into the fold." 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on August 20, 2013, 05:58:22 PM
Magic Items have to be balanced with the same
game maths, that the PCs and Monsters use.
If they aren't ... then craziness happens.

Value of a feat is a limited +1, or very limited +1.
4e did this rather well, except the Feat Tax ~fix.
Value of a magic item goes from game-breaking,
all the way down to useless.  Trouble.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: FlaminCows on August 21, 2013, 05:52:57 AM
Magic Items have to be balanced with the same game maths that the PCs and Monsters use.
If they aren't, craziness happens.

Value of a feat is a limited +1, or very limited +1. Value of a magic item goes from game-breaking,
all the way down to useless.  Trouble.

One way to do this is to give magic items a level adjustment. For example, if the character possesses the Charring Flame-Sword of Blazing Combustion, she is considered one level higher than if she didn't have that sword. If she's facing opponents that are immune to fire she's considered of her normal level, and if she's facing opponents weak against fire she's considered two levels higher than normal instead.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 21, 2013, 05:55:14 AM
That would help with unique, tremendously powerful items which you wouldn't use on a regular basis at least. You break them out for bosses and the like.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on August 21, 2013, 04:33:55 PM
Interesting idea.

Let's say a Wizard 10 decided he needed
to whip out his shiny Staff Of Nad-golf.
It's worth an LA+1.  So the staff provides
about 1 levels worth of juice; and scales.
Later he's a Wizard 15 / Item LA+1 that
gets Sorcy-like extra uses of a few spells.

Let's say a Fighter 10 with UMD (the new linear)
and wants the same staff.  Sure no problem.
Here you go, have fun with your powers: ABCD.

Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ananse on August 22, 2013, 10:33:49 PM
LA has never been a good answer to anything in the history of mankind.

Nonconsumable magic items should be a function of the broader character development system, not a function of gold obtained (just as they are in many solid games -- GURPS, HERO, FATE -- that are, oddly, spelled in all-caps). Thus, a new resource needs be created from which magic items can be drawn, and that resource should probably be expendable on some other character asset in order to make Not Having Magic Items a meaningful choice. (And that other asset should, of course, provide benefits worth forgoing magic items.)

Character power isn't a function of in-game economy, but of the character creation system we use to ensure inter-PC balance and challenge-appropriateness. Throwing the ridiculously variable in-character economy into the mix is simple insanity, as WBL has shown conclusively. It would only begin to make sense if one adopted a D&D 1ed-style rule where gold collected counted as xp, and that, though less insane, is thoroughly stupid.

Note that if this new resource helped pay for racial advantages, it could make a lot of sense. "Sure, you're a werewolf, but now you're naked and unarmed. Which isn't really a problem." And, oh, look at that, LA waddles into the dustbin of history alongside WBL and the Christmas Tree, all thanks to the Motherfucking Competent Game Design Faerie.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 23, 2013, 12:11:45 AM
^ I think this overstates things quite a bit.  In D&D, gp is just such a character resource.  Just like character points in GURPS, et al.  It's one of the many "bins" of character resources out there, which include feats, class levels, skill points, and so on.  D&D just doesn't unify them like the purely point-based systems do. 

And, not having magic items isn't really an option or a meaningful choice, outside of the corner case represented by Vow of Poverty.  It's equivalent of saying "not having feats."  It doesn't really make sense in the system.

Now, what does need to happen is that gold pieces_sub_character resource and gold pieces_economy need to be pretty seriously divorced.  It seems to work that way in practice in many games, but it's worth highlighting. 

As a side note, I'm not a huge fan of expending character resources on consumables.  I feel like it inevitably runs the risk of pulling things out of balance.  This is less of an issue, probably, when the consumables are just an extra reward, like randomly rolled treasure that is on top of WBL or whatever system you choose.  Although in practice they have other issues -- e.g., it's rarely worth it to take an action drinking a randomly rolled potion than it is doing whatever action your character is built for. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ananse on August 23, 2013, 01:15:40 AM
^ I think this overstates things quite a bit.

Hyperbole and sarcasm have, in fact, never been involved in overstating anything, ever.

In D&D, gp is just such a character resource.  Just like character points in GURPS, et al.

No it's not, and I just said why it isn't. All those other games have cash as well, and all of them explicitly say "Pay character resources for X" where X is something that can actually be bought with cash. GURPS, in 3rd ed's Cyberpunk (and maybe Bio-Tech), had optional rules for using cash to buy cyberware (effectively Attributes), and those were horrible. Outside of that -- and most definitely in GURPS 4th, character points are how you buy things. You can tell your GM that you bought your high-ST torso from Wal-Mart, and she'll say "Fine, now pay the character points for high-ST."

Cash is a fluid resource that is completely unbalanced as to the game system's stat allocation, and that's fine, so long as it cannot feed back into the aforementioned system.

D&D just doesn't unify them like the purely point-based systems do.

Incorrect. None of the games mentioned in my previous post, as a system default, unify cash and character points. None of them. And the only prominent example of that occuring is D&D 1st ed. . . like I just said.

And, not having magic items isn't really an option or a meaningful choice

In 3x, no, but I'm not talking about 3x, I'm talking about a new system. You can tell because I proposed a new system. In a thread about a new system. What are you talking about?

Now, what does need to happen is that gold pieces_sub_character resource and gold pieces_economy need to be pretty seriously divorced.  It seems to work that way in practice in many games, but it's worth highlighting.

This is basically both impossible and irrelevant. Removing an economic entity from an economy -- I can't even parse that. In any event, gold needs to be dropped as an essential PC resource. In a decently-designed game, cash is a character motivation and a plot coupon that has no bearing on character creation (such that having a lot of money is just another stat you can buy on a character sheet).

I'm not a huge fan of expending character resources on consumables.

Consumables are simple enough to handle: allow for a maximum number of consumable-generated effects one can employ at a time and then characters have to make strategic choices about which consumables to use. Give some consumables greater benefits balanced by drawbacks and one could engineer an interesting subsystem.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 23, 2013, 10:12:29 AM
If you're going to make declarative statements, try not to make them be demonstratively false.  E.g.: 
...
D&D just doesn't unify them like the purely point-based systems do.

Incorrect. None of the games mentioned in my previous post, as a system default, unify cash and character points. None of them. And the only prominent example of that occuring is D&D 1st ed. . . like I just said.
It's been decades since I've played GURPS.  But, somehow I recall that you could buy a gun with $$$ in most settings.  Likewise a car, helicopter, etc.  Somehow I also recall that you could spend character points on getting an advantage, subtly named Wealth.  So, ummm ... yeah, you can spend character points on money.  It's more explicit in other games, like Shadowrun, for good or ill.  I happen to prefer M&M's approach to these things, but D&D has its own way of doing things and its own legacy. 

I was going to bother responding to the rest of your post, but then I realized by your tone it would be a waste of mine and anyone else reading this thread's time.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ananse on August 23, 2013, 10:24:28 AM
If you're going to make declarative statements, try not to make them be demonstratively false.  E.g.: 
...
D&D just doesn't unify them like the purely point-based systems do.

Incorrect. None of the games mentioned in my previous post, as a system default, unify cash and character points. None of them. And the only prominent example of that occuring is D&D 1st ed. . . like I just said.
It's been decades since I've played GURPS.  But, somehow I recall that you could buy a gun with $$$ in most settings.

I literally just said that in my last post. Literally. Like, just read it. I mentioned, offhand, that you can just get cash with character points:

In a decently-designed game, cash is a character motivation and a plot coupon that has no bearing on character creation (such that having a lot of money is just another stat you can buy on a character sheet).

I know my posts can be dense, but why bother replying if you're not going to read them?

I was going to bother responding to the rest of your post, but then I realized by your tone it would be a waste of mine and anyone else reading this thread's time.

Um, I think deliberately ignoring someone's post in order to make a point is pretty rude and I don't think I deserve that, so I very much appreciate your commitment to no further rudeness. I'm not even sure where this hostility of yours comes from; nothing I posted was even remotely controversial.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on August 23, 2013, 03:45:29 PM
LA has never been a good answer to anything in the history of mankind.

Nonconsumable magic items should be a function of the broader character development system, not a function of gold obtained (just as they are in many solid games -- GURPS, HERO, FATE -- that are, oddly, spelled in all-caps). Thus, a new resource needs be created from which magic items can be drawn, and that resource should probably be expendable on some other character asset in order to make Not Having Magic Items a meaningful choice. (And that other asset should, of course, provide benefits worth forgoing magic items.)

Character power isn't a function of in-game economy, but of the character creation system we use to ensure inter-PC balance and challenge-appropriateness. Throwing the ridiculously variable in-character economy into the mix is simple insanity, as WBL has shown conclusively. It would only begin to make sense if one adopted a D&D 1ed-style rule where gold collected counted as xp, and that, though less insane, is thoroughly stupid.

Note that if this new resource helped pay for racial advantages, it could make a lot of sense. "Sure, you're a werewolf, but now you're naked and unarmed. Which isn't really a problem." And, oh, look at that, LA waddles into the dustbin of history alongside WBL and the Christmas Tree, all thanks to the Motherfucking Competent Game Design Faerie.

'Course I was just doing that post off the cuff
as an immediate reaction to FlameCows.
(not that it's possible to read my kitty avatar's mind)
 ;)

Magic Items could be balanced on the schedule
of feats instead, or a gear approximation, or
spells, or Z or Y or X.  3e does have a power
curve that fits closely to Spells.  4e added in
monster levels = caster levels (I suppose).

So when I said "LA" for lack of a better term,
I was putting a Magic Item on about the same
schedule as Monsters levels = Caster Levels.
They don't have to be.  And it can be called
something else entirely.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ananse on August 23, 2013, 07:46:15 PM
Sure! That all makes sense. Part of the point is that once you drop the legacy assumptions of 1-3ed, it's actually a really easy problem. Almost no modern game suffers from this problem; D&D is stuck in the late seventies on this score.

To elaborate on the above in more detail (spoiled for length):

(click to show/hide)

Having considered the above, I have to comment:

D&D bleeds from self-inflicted wounds, its problems resulting from the design team's refusal to address real issues and instead shove their collective heads into whatever orifices are handy. Given the dramatically awful bit of PR his online playtest game created, I have to wonder if Mearls even cares at this point. I don't think I'm notably clever for coming up with this scheme; I am surprised that Mearls is lackadaisical even though he displays only a passing familiarity with why his brand is tanking, and amazed that Hasbro seems just fine with that.

Anyway, a d20 system that created a semi-point buy would begin to address its more pedestrian issues, though there are still huge genre and conflict resolution mechanics issues to hit. You'd still need to ask and answer "what does the d20 system emulate?" before even starting -- something the designers haven't done for a decade, at least.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on August 24, 2013, 03:34:13 PM
 :)

... once you drop the legacy assumptions of 1-3ed, it's actually a really easy problem. Almost no modern game suffers from this problem; D&D is stuck in the late seventies on this score ...

Yeah yeah D&D legacy stuff.  Slay enough sacred cows and people go more apoplectic than the 3e/4e edition war.

Quote

... So Sally Swordsyourface gets a Sacred Shortsword at ...

 :lol ... umm , I wanna meet her.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ananse on August 25, 2013, 10:53:37 AM
Yeah yeah D&D legacy stuff.  Slay enough sacred cows and people go more apoplectic than the 3e/4e edition war.

Acknowledged, but that's a marketing problem. Marketing is for making people want things, regardless of the need. The "edition war" only occurred because WotC deliberately created it, not just by creating 4e, but by specifically scorning 3e and encouraging others to do so. Bizarrely enough, this means that the marketing didn't fail, but the designers of 4e are utterly incompetent at marketing.

That's staggering. The 4e design team effectively contributed <i>nothing</i> to Hasbro. Had they simply refused to go to work each day and presented an eleventh-hour rehash of 3e as 4e, they would have made Hasbro more money (since Pathfinder wouldn't have had a chance).

Oh, by the way, that resource pool described above could be used to help determine the relative worth of various monster abilities, which means that it could be used with polymorph, metamorphosis and the like to create a "customization pool" of abilities. This would be a complete fix of the shapeshifting effects line, unlike the PF patch.

So that nails nearly all the bullshit problems of 3e except noncaster relevance (which is a problem of poor genre conceptualization) and basic combat rules issues.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: littha on August 25, 2013, 10:57:16 AM
You act as though those customisation point based systems are balanced by default. I would like you to read some white wolf systems.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 25, 2013, 11:05:00 AM
^^
They tend to be even LESS balanced than classed systems, any time resources are allocated as points(case in point, GP usage for equipment), it opens up a great deal of room for optimizability. Even exponential costs don't really help there, they just worsen the problem for those with lesser skills. Only way they work that I've seen is the M&M method of hard caps on what you can do with the points.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ananse on August 25, 2013, 12:03:29 PM
You act as though those customisation point based systems are balanced by default. I would like you to read some white wolf systems.

I already addressed this. It isn't a pure point-buy system since everything that is purchaseable is heavily restricted by level and package based restrictions -- e.g., in order to get claws, you have to buy something that has claws, which makes it more difficult to laser in on high-op combos. This isn't really any noticeably different from how magic items are handled in 3e and 4e right now: they're a menu of character assets you can buy in each case. As such, both existing systems can be interpreted as a poorly-implemented point-buy. What a resource pool does is, at a minimum, standardize costs and effects and adds in explicit level associations for the same.

In effect, what you really have is a second class-based system stuck to the original one, where "werewolf" is a possible alternate to "guy with awesome sword."

Second, WW is a terrible example of this going poorly and I'm frankly confused as to why you'd think that the Storyteller's semi-kinda-optional-mixed-point-buy system is an example (and wouldn't mind hearing why). GURPS and Champions are better examples of the problems and benefits, both, of point-buy systems: even with the GM being extremely mindful and carefully houseruling certain combinations, the difference between high-op and low-op can be staggering. This is despite the fact that the game assets may be mostly appropriately priced, since clever combinations of assets are worth more than the sum of their parts.

In Storyteller, Merits and Flaws are optional in oWoD, and most of the character design problems are derived from the fact that every other option is either a trap option or a must-buy. Storyteller is shit before you get to looking at it for combinations, emergent behaviors, or unintended consequences.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bard on August 25, 2013, 05:05:53 PM
GURPS and Champions are better examples of the problems and benefits, both, of point-buy systems: even with the GM being extremely mindful and carefully houseruling certain combinations, the difference between high-op and low-op can be staggering. This is despite the fact that the game assets may be mostly appropriately priced, since clever combinations of assets are worth more than the sum of their parts.

And is this a bad thing? Really?
I would concur it's bad design and could ruin a game if we were talking about a wargame or a Player vs Player videogame of some sort, but I fail to see the need to overbalance things in a traditional pen and paper RPG.
Some people are more powerful, some are weaker, some things and choices are better than others... those are all things that make the world more fun to play in and character creation more fun to do (as long as there's at least a way to make any character concept work). If I'm playing in a "high" magic fantasy setting such as most of Dnd ones are, I expect mages to be vastly more powerful than mundane *anything*. I expect that even having the same experiences some more talented (read: well built) characters will be just better than others.
Sure, that means putting a bit more work on the party and DM when creating the character builds for the party to keep >playing characters< on an acceptable range of power between each other, but in my opinion it's well worth the effort. Also it allows to decide to play, with the same game, at various levels of power in a meaningful way (different classes and playstyles) instead of relying on some cheap "you get less/more points" mechanic.

PS: As far as point buy goes M&M is way worse than those two, there's some combos that let you get tens of times the point worth out of a character.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on August 25, 2013, 05:29:31 PM


And is this a bad thing? Really?
I would concur it's bad design and could ruin a game if we were talking about a wargame or a Player vs Player videogame of some sort, but I fail to see the need to overbalance things in a traditional pen and paper RPG.


Having played a lot of Champions it's not about over balancing, it's about trying to keep in party disputes to a minimum because one or more PC's outshine the other.  Unlike the rest of my rl group I twigged on to how to make characters for champions early in the game, which made headaches for the GM.  Anything that was a challenge for me would vaporize the rest of the party.  Anything that could challenge the other members of the party I could solo easily.  My PC's often were powerful enough to make a better BBEG than the ones done by the GM.   In such situations the less powerful members of the group get pissed off because they effectively can't do anything without the more powerful party members help.  The more powerful party members get bored because nothing is a challenge and they resent the constant sniping from everyone else, especially after pointing out to them how they could easily redesign their character to make it work.  Depending on how PC's spend their points they can end up with either The Hulk or Squirrel Girl.  Parties work wel when they stay roughly at similar levels of power and have a role to fill.  In point based systems, it's easy for one or more players to screw up and have no role to fill by virtue of being too weak to do anything.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ananse on August 25, 2013, 05:32:37 PM
And is this a bad thing? Really?

What you are questioning is ambiguous -- it's impossible to tell if you're saying it's a bad example or a bad result. Could you clarify?

I fail to see the need to overbalance things in a traditional pen and paper RPG.

Wait, I'm confused. The system I was proposing was less likely to allow for high-op combos than typical point-buy systems. It should be noted that whether or not that that's a generally good thing, it's considered a good thing for D&D because that's why classes exist. GURPS was, in part, a reaction to that, which is why it has no classes. If you don't like the restrictions and don't mind the possibility of high-op combos, then that's an argument against D&D in general, since classes are pretty much one of the few things that D&D has to have to be D&D, most people believe.

In other words, if you don't want the restrictions, you don't want classes and you don't want D&D, which is perfectly fine. But if you want classes, then you're buying into the restrictions, so it's weird to say, "hey, how come this isn't a pure point-buy?" Pure point-buy systems are not, by definition, class systems.

I'll come right out and say that point-buy systems are better, imo, than class systems, but that doesn't mean that the latter don't have some great uses -- bhu goes into that. (And I could post anecdotes about GURPS along the same lines.)

That said, I don't know what you mean by "overbalance." Clarify?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bard on August 25, 2013, 06:04:26 PM
And is this a bad thing? Really?

What you are questioning is ambiguous -- it's impossible to tell if you're saying it's a bad example or a bad result. Could you clarify?

Yeah sorry for that, I didn't realize it when I wrote it.
I was just asking if the fact that a system isn't balanced and allows for different power levels in character created with the same "reource pool" is necessarily a bad thing. I don't see it as one (within some limits of course) in certain kind of games such as super hero and high-magic settings. (Batman and Superman are both heroes, but Superman is infinitely more powerful than Batman on the paper, same goes for the characters in lots of fantasy books like for example Wheel of Time)

Quote
Wait, I'm confused. [etc, etc]
That said, I don't know what you mean by "overbalance." Clarify?
Here I wasn't talking about the merits or demerits of the specific systems (point-buy, class, mixed, multiple pools point buy), I was just pointing out that I don't think that traditional RPGs need  to be balanced like other kind of games, it is fine if there are more powerful combos and useless ones, if some classes, options, stuff-you-can-buy-chains or whatever are better than others. It was an answer to what seemed to me the trend of the thread of "D&D system is too unbalanced, here's some alternative to fix it", not to the single proposals.



And is this a bad thing? Really?
I would concur it's bad design and could ruin a game if we were talking about a wargame or a Player vs Player videogame of some sort, but I fail to see the need to overbalance things in a traditional pen and paper RPG.

Having played a lot of Champions it's not about over balancing, it's about trying to keep in party disputes to a minimum because one or more PC's outshine the other.  Unlike the rest of my rl group I twigged on to how to make characters for champions early in the game, which made headaches for the GM.  Anything that was a challenge for me would vaporize the rest of the party.  Anything that could challenge the other members of the party I could solo easily.  My PC's often were powerful enough to make a better BBEG than the ones done by the GM.   In such situations the less powerful members of the group get pissed off because they effectively can't do anything without the more powerful party members help.  The more powerful party members get bored because nothing is a challenge and they resent the constant sniping from everyone else, especially after pointing out to them how they could easily redesign their character to make it work.  Depending on how PC's spend their points they can end up with either The Hulk or Squirrel Girl.  Parties work wel when they stay roughly at similar levels of power and have a role to fill.  In point based systems, it's easy for one or more players to screw up and have no role to fill by virtue of being too weak to do anything.
This IS a serious issue I admit, and one that I often encountered in most groups I tried outside my ""usual"" ones. That is why I was mentioning the need for the party and the DM to discuss and create character builds (not sheets, the full builds or at least a gross idea of what they'll be) in advance, to make sure they're not too far apart in power. Most of the games with "fun and complex character creation" (D&D, Champions, M&M in primis) share this issue and the need to compare and balance sheets ahead of the game. But I don't feel like it's that big of a drawback.


Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ananse on August 25, 2013, 06:39:37 PM
I appreciate the clarification.

I disagree with one of those points, though, and spoiled the response for length.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 26, 2013, 01:20:11 AM
I was just asking if the fact that a system isn't balanced and allows for different power levels in character created with the same "reource pool" is necessarily a bad thing. I don't see it as one (within some limits of course) in certain kind of games such as super hero and high-magic settings. (Batman and Superman are both heroes, but Superman is infinitely more powerful than Batman on the paper, same goes for the characters in lots of fantasy books like for example Wheel of Time)
Key difference. These are non-interactive media, they are there to be read or watched, not played. Thus power levels in such cases are essentially irrelevant, it's based on what would make an interesting story, not what is fun to play.

For a group game, you need the following:
-Everyone must be able to contribute. In combat, this is simple, outside combat, not so simple.

-Comparable challenges. You know what happens when a hit that would take out only a quarter of one player's health would oneshot another player? Or offensively, when one player can oneshot things which would otherwise tank the rest of the party indefinitely. A one man show.

-Variety. If everyone is doing the same thing, that diminishes the inter-character potentials. Variety is what makes combat more than just a countdown contest of numbers.

Contrasted with how point buy systems, barring specific adjustments, face difficulty:
-Freedom to allocate your points is freedom to overspecialize or overgeneralize. You might become a one trick pony, and then the trick might never come up, or you become a jack of all trades and find that none of them are strong enough to do anything.

-If you can trade between offense and defense, you risk losing comparability. M&M3E solved the problem one way, you can trade caps between types of offense or types of defense, but not trade offense with defense. There still remains the risk of a newbie digging themselves into a hole by grabbing cool powers instead of essential capabilities, for starters, how are they to know better?

-Finally, with any point buy, there will eventually derive ideal arrays. If the system is capped, you'd hit all the important caps first before doing anything else. If it's using escalating costs, you'd find the middle ground of expenditures. What all this does is kill variety, paradoxically, offering unlimited choice is a very good way of getting only a handful of similar options, whereas tightly constrained paths supports more branching. Think of it as a a plant analogy, a tree is rigid, but the rigidity can support elaborate structures, a vine is fully flexible, but it'd only support simple structures, because anything complicated collapses.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on August 26, 2013, 01:31:32 AM
On that note, there IS a way to make a point based system balanced, but it's boring as hell. If at every point of the game, every point is worth exactly as much as the last, and exactly as much as putting it in another place, then that would be by definition perfectly balanced.

The problem here of course is that overspecialization has to (oddly enough) grant bonuses to neglected stats, while generalization has to grant synergy bonuses to single stats.

+2 STR & +2 DEX also gives +2 CON
+4 CON also gives +1 to STR and DEX

This is really heavy handed, but can be fluffed around pretty easily (being stronger and faster naturally makes you more durable, while being extremely resilient means you can push yourself harder to move faster or lift more)


I'm not saying this is the best way of doing it, but DOES work within the limited scope of such a system.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 26, 2013, 01:48:34 AM
It could, at the cost of increasing bookkeeping. Sort of like how hard caps lock in an optimal state(you always want to meet them), but can encourage diversification after said state is reached.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bard on August 26, 2013, 03:37:48 AM
You're saying that traditional RPGs don't have to worry too much about the relative power levels of characters within the same party. That is, variations of power between PCs is not a large concern in a traditional RPG, you are saying.*
I was saying quite the opposite really :D
I think that inter-party balance is the only things that matters in a traditional RPG, and that can be achieved by planning and sharing with the rest of the party (or at least the DM) your character plan in advance, so he/everyone can judge and balance it against the others.
What I am saying is that I don't think it's needed for said balance to be integrated in the system itself, and that *ALL* character created by said system should be balanced against each other.

Quote from: veekie
Key difference. These are non-interactive media, they are there to be read or watched, not played. Thus power levels in such cases are essentially irrelevant, it's based on what would make an interesting story, not what is fun to play.
This is a good point, as is the rest of the post, and I admit I may have exagerated the issue in my example :P
I might be too used to D&D, but I don't mind if the "wizard" of the situation is more powerful and versatile of my sword and board crusader. He is using magic, I'm waving a stick. If we had the same level of power or usefulness it'd make me feel like magic was not powerful enough :P

On a side note, caps did not do much for M&M, there where huge loopholes derived by its versatility... stuff like overspecialized forms changeable as a reaction "I'm a glass cannon but if you shoot me, I'm suddenly a rock", or perfect sensory abilities coupled with reaction-timed teleport portals, or powers like object creation that could do *EVERYTHING* with just 1 point for an alternate use (and the fact that creating a bubble around someone worked much better than trapping him with a dedicated power).
This is actually a good example of a game that's totally unbalanced but it's tons of fun as long as the party compares characters and balances them before playing.

Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 26, 2013, 05:36:49 AM
Well...caps help, but there are enough options to dodge around the matter, so yeah. It's a game toolkit, not quite a game.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 26, 2013, 11:46:12 AM
In defense of M&M (and similar systems), some of that game imbalancing stuff is inevitable given the genre choices.  If you really want to make a game with that kind of flexibility you are going to run into the risk of bathroom telepaths and so on.  More generally, if you want a game where there is the richness offered by modifiers -- autofire, reaction, etc. -- then you are going to have, to some degree, some circumvention of the hard caps. 

Rank 10 Autofire Attack is more powerful than just vanilla Rank 10 Attack.  On the other hand, Autofire, and especially Reaction (which doesn't actually work the way Bard is describing, but that doesn't invalidate the thrust of the argument), is really expensive points-wise.  So, you're supposed to be making a semi-meaningful tradeoff.

That being said, despite my affections for M&M -- and I do find it's the best superhero game for my preferences, and I would use it for some (and maybe some related genres as well) for my preferences -- it does not quite have the richness of gameplay and the real differences between characters that something like 3E D&D does.  I suspect that the caps have something to do with that; even among characters that in my humble opinion are "balanced" against each other there tends to be a lot more difference in roles, abilities, etc. in D&D than there is in M&M.  Although in a lot of ways that's probably driven by genre conventions.

it's tons of fun as long as the party compares characters and balances them before playing.
I find that this is necessary in literally every RPG I play. 

Well...caps help, but there are enough options to dodge around the matter, so yeah. It's a game toolkit, not quite a game.
I'm not quite sure what this means.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on August 26, 2013, 01:00:22 PM

This is actually a good example of a game that's totally unbalanced but it's tons of fun as long as the party compares characters and balances them before playing.

In my experience, and this is just based off where I live, parties don't do that.  Everyone's had at least a half dozen asshats they know of in their gaming experience who are in it for pvp, and as a result no one I know compares PC's.  They try to ensure no one else ever knows what their PC can do, to the point of always taking their character sheet with them and never letting it lie around where anyone could see it.  They even hold off on using abilities "until it's necessary" to avoid letting people know what they can do, often at the expense of the party.  It's why I end up in groups where everyone but me is a fighter/melee type because everyone but me decided "I'm playing Conan this time!"  And then when they can't beat simple encounters because they all fight as individuals as opposed to actually thinking, they scrap the game and start over with a situation just as likely to fail.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bard on August 26, 2013, 01:22:56 PM
Reaction (which doesn't actually work the way Bard is describing, but that doesn't invalidate the thrust of the argument), is really expensive points-wise.
I may be wrong, but iirc it was a free action you could take any number of times (read: until the GM smacks you with the really heavy M&M corebook), even in other people rounds, in response to something else happening. It was back in second edition, I'm unsure if at a later time they fixed it. Iirc with 7 points you'd get a rank 1 reaction teleport that teleports you up to 30m away when you get attacked. But if you avoided exploits it was fun. (even if at the end of the day most attacks were the same)

Quote
it's tons of fun as long as the party compares characters and balances them before playing.
I find that this is necessary in literally every RPG I play. 
I never felt the need for that in games with high mortality or with limited customization choices (like Cyberpunk with poor people and CoC)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ananse on August 27, 2013, 08:46:51 AM
I might be too used to D&D, but I don't mind if the "wizard" of the situation is more powerful and versatile of my sword and board crusader. He is using magic, I'm waving a stick. If we had the same level of power or usefulness it'd make me feel like magic was not powerful enough

Very few people react the way you've described; most would be unhappy that they didn't get to play alongside the wizard in a meaningful fashion. It's important to note that, in d20, the vanilla fighter as written is completely redundant, not merely weak, and it's only incompetence or massive house-ruling (including self-nerfing) that pulls him into playability vis-a-vis the wizard. Ars Magica is a much cleaner, much more honest example of this phenomenon.

In my experience, and this is just based off where I live, parties don't do that.  Everyone's had at least a half dozen asshats they know of in their gaming experience who are in it for pvp, and as a result no one I know compares PC's.

Ugh. Been there. I hate heaping duties on the GM, but this is something that he could stop if he wanted to. The main problem with this sort of thing isn't that it happens, but that it happens a) in the wrong system and b) in the wrong games.

d20 is a Bad Place for this because its intraparty balance is so utterly crazytown. Suggestion alone pretty much can end PvP conflicts, and immunities to various shticks aren't to hard to come by. Winning a fight with another PC is ultimately pretty random, depending on the books allowed.

The wrong place is far more important, though. The fact of the matter is, stock fantasy adventuring is a terrible, terrible place for hard-core paranoid intraparty conflict. You wouldn't even bother adventuring with people that were this dangerous to yourself (hence the sheer unplayability of kender). You're forced into a railroad before you enter the game, having answered "Do you want an adventure?" with "N" from jump. Now everything that follows is contrived and stupid.

This would be way more useful in games like VtM, but, weirdly enough, I've (almost) never had this level of conflict in a oWoD game or any other political skullduggery game. The intraparty conflict types seem to gravitate to the very kind of game they shouldn't be playing to scratch that itch.

Meanwhile, I sit down to run a game about psychotic rape cannibals with chronic backstabbing disorder, and everyone holds hands and sings kumbayah.

"Let's send an emmisary to the Lupines and form a mutual protection pact!"
"Games over, everyone take your sourcebooks and burn them. Seriously. Burn your motherfucking books."
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 27, 2013, 12:02:49 PM
Reaction (which doesn't actually work the way Bard is describing, but that doesn't invalidate the thrust of the argument), is really expensive points-wise.
I may be wrong, but iirc it was a free action you could take any number of times (read: until the GM smacks you with the really heavy M&M corebook), even in other people rounds, in response to something else happening. It was back in second edition, I'm unsure if at a later time they fixed it. Iirc with 7 points you'd get a rank 1 reaction teleport that teleports you up to 30m away when you get attacked. But if you avoided exploits it was fun. (even if at the end of the day most attacks were the same)
That's probably true, and hilariously broken.  It might not be entirely game-breaking in some fashion -- you'd probably have to specify where you teleport (e.g., 30 ft. directly away from the attacker) -- but that's a quibble next to what is an obvious exploit.  You made a comment regarding what sounded like arrays that could be reconfigured as reactions, which isn't quite right. 

I totally agree with the sentiment, though, the system is eminently breakable.  Although there seem to be few that aren't.  One slight virtue in M&M's favor -- and it's not unique in this regard -- is that it's relatively hard to break it by accident.  White Wolf games are riddled with game balance land mines just waiting to demolish a game, even by a well-meaning player. 

Quote
it's tons of fun as long as the party compares characters and balances them before playing.
I find that this is necessary in literally every RPG I play. 
I never felt the need for that in games with high mortality or with limited customization choices (like Cyberpunk with poor people and CoC)
[/quote]
That's probably true.  Although given the attention I like to lavish on character creation, such games don't really attract me.

That being said, I am a strong proponent of intraparty parity.  Doesn't have to be precise, but niche protection and cool abilities that are unique are usually very good things. 

@Interparty Conflict
I generally think troupe play is a bad place for interparty conflict.  White Wolf games notwithstanding.  While LARP is a fine forum for interparty conflict -- player v. player is often the only way to really run it -- the practical difficulties always seemed quite large.  I'm not saying it's impossible, but the trouble to reward ratio has struck me as unsatisfying in the run of the mill case.

I tend to think it's best to design a party (or pack or coterie), and one with motivations that can be sufficiently simpatico not to derail the game. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bard on August 27, 2013, 01:11:00 PM
Quote
Although given the attention I like to lavish on character creation, such games don't really attract me.
I agree and usually I don't play many of those either, but sometimes the party wants to :P
Cyberpunk anyway is a strange beast, at character creation there's not much to do, just some stats and skills (and an hilarious random lifepath system). Then if you play it well you get MONEY (eurobucks!) and then it becomes worse than any other game  :lmao
Basically ALL CP splatbooks are list of stuff to buy and components for other stuff. There's even a whole book of pieces to assemble power armors (patlabor-style mechas).
(Then a hobo with a shotgun gets a lucky headshot on you from a window of an abandoned building because you were loud and you die. True story.)


Quote
That being said, I am a strong proponent of intraparty parity.  Doesn't have to be precise, but niche protection and cool abilities that are unique are usually very good things.
That's it for me too. Even when I help coordinate sheets for a party I usually leave weak points in all builds that the other members can fill, so even if someone is slightly weaker than the others there's always something needed that only he can do.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on August 27, 2013, 01:24:36 PM


d20 is a Bad Place for this because its intraparty balance is so utterly crazytown. Suggestion alone pretty much can end PvP conflicts, and immunities to various shticks aren't to hard to come by. Winning a fight with another PC is ultimately pretty random, depending on the books allowed.


The PVP guys here usually play casters while most everyone else is rogue/fighter.  In 2e a campaign ended because a Cleric didn't get his way so he cast Hold Person on the Party and coup de graced one each per turn.  To the DM's shock no one showed up the next week.   :rolleyes
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: littha on August 27, 2013, 05:04:21 PM
I was once in a drop in game at a con, the PVP guy there was a rogue. A really badly built rogue at that. I think I had my animal companion eat him when he inevitably decided to pick a fight with my super optimised druid.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on August 27, 2013, 08:07:17 PM

@Interparty Conflict
I generally think troupe play is a bad place for interparty conflict.  White Wolf games notwithstanding.  While LARP is a fine forum for interparty conflict -- player v. player is often the only way to really run it -- the practical difficulties always seemed quite large.  I'm not saying it's impossible, but the trouble to reward ratio has struck me as unsatisfying in the run of the mill case.

I tend to think it's best to design a party (or pack or coterie), and one with motivations that can be sufficiently simpatico not to derail the game.
LARP is great for player conflict, paranoia tends to run so rampant the GM's only job is to hand the idiot ball off whenever things get slow. 
Anyone can cause so much crap with just one word; Ravnos.  Though it helps to use it in a proper sentence.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: brujon on August 27, 2013, 09:56:12 PM

@Interparty Conflict
I generally think troupe play is a bad place for interparty conflict.  White Wolf games notwithstanding.  While LARP is a fine forum for interparty conflict -- player v. player is often the only way to really run it -- the practical difficulties always seemed quite large.  I'm not saying it's impossible, but the trouble to reward ratio has struck me as unsatisfying in the run of the mill case.

I tend to think it's best to design a party (or pack or coterie), and one with motivations that can be sufficiently simpatico not to derail the game.
LARP is great for player conflict, paranoia tends to run so rampant the GM's only job is to hand the idiot ball off whenever things get slow. 
Anyone can cause so much crap with just one word; Ravnos.  Though it helps to use it in a proper sentence.

To be fair, Malkavian and Brujah seem to be the go-to clans for really bad and disruptive roleplayers. Seriously. Venture, Tremere and Toreador are usually the more "hardcore" roleplayers and there's the goth sabbath guys. There's the stereotypes!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on August 27, 2013, 10:11:28 PM

This is actually a good example of a game that's totally unbalanced but it's tons of fun as long as the party compares characters and balances them before playing.

In my experience, and this is just based off where I live, parties don't do that.
This has been my experience too.

Everyone's had at least a half dozen asshats they know of in their gaming experience who are in it for pvp, and as a result no one I know compares PC's.  They try to ensure no one else ever knows what their PC can do, to the point of always taking their character sheet with them and never letting it lie around where anyone could see it.  They even hold off on using abilities "until it's necessary" to avoid letting people know what they can do, often at the expense of the party.  It's why I end up in groups where everyone but me is a fighter/melee type because everyone but me decided "I'm playing Conan this time!"  And then when they can't beat simple encounters because they all fight as individuals as opposed to actually thinking, they scrap the game and start over with a situation just as likely to fail.
This has not, and I wish to express my deepest sympathies. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've never encountered the 'PvP guy' in 20ish years of gaming.

*knocks on wood*

IME, players don't compare characters before playing -- other than race and class -- simply because they want to get to the game!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on August 27, 2013, 10:12:13 PM

@Complete4th

I think we get it.  You don't like fiddly chargen systems.  That's a preference, and that's fine. 

You might add that 3E marries its fiddliness to trap options and a lack of transparency -- say what you will about the complex point-buy systems (M&M, Champions, GUPRS, though I'm working from long memories on the latter two) but they tend to be relatively transparent.  I, for example, find the execution of Burning Wheel's lifepath system fiddly to the point that it ruins chargen, which is something I typically enjoy. 

In my limited experience I found 4E fairly fiddly and riddled with many, many trap options.  Class and race are easy enough, but choosing powers/spells/whatever they are called I found tremendously opaque.  So, it's pretty weird for me to hold 4E up as the game with not so fiddly chargen, especially when there are much better exemplars out there. 
Odd, I've never heard anyone express this perception of 4e before. I'm not claiming that 4e is some paragon of chargen simplicity, but I'm surprised to hear this from a BGer -- someone who presumably enjoys parsing the swirling torrent of the 3.x ruleset.

4e's trap choice is to not take an Expertise feat and Improved Defenses at some point, so it is not without its glaring design mistakes. I can't imagine how 4e options can be opaque to someone well versed in WotC editions, but maybe that's a failure of imagination on my part. It's probably gamer specialization at work.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: littha on August 28, 2013, 12:06:04 AM
4e's trap choice is to not take an Expertise feat and Improved Defenses at some point, so it is not without its glaring design mistakes. I can't imagine how 4e options can be opaque to someone well versed in WotC editions, but maybe that's a failure of imagination on my part. It's probably gamer specialization at work.

I thought 4e's trap choice was not taking every single accuracy bonus possible, which in turn makes the fights take like 12 hours of real time. Something to do with Dwarf Warriors with Warhammers if I recall.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on August 28, 2013, 01:39:23 AM
I thought 4e's trap choice was not taking every single accuracy bonus possible, which in turn makes the fights take like 12 hours of real time. Something to do with Dwarf Warriors with Warhammers if I recall.

To be fair, the designers realized how long combats took and drastically reduced monster hp in the Monster Manual 3 and Essentials books.  Better late than never.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bard on August 28, 2013, 05:49:14 AM
Quote from: bhu
In my experience, and this is just based off where I live, parties don't do that.
IME, players don't compare characters before playing -- other than race and class -- simply because they want to get to the game!

I guess that depends on the party, the game and a lot of things, maybe even necessity after having too many games broken or characters suddenly suicide after a round of DM-nerfstick.

I'd take that since you mention that "they want to get to the game" you're using a "let's make the character sheets during the first session" approach instead of a "we start a game of X in 2-3 weeks, start reading up rules and making characters"?  With weeks to spare comparing character often comes naturally while players talk to each other or start giving "trial characters" to the DM for approval.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on August 28, 2013, 06:16:37 AM
That's basically why the game should be engineered such that you can arrive at an acceptable median state without requiring assumptions of player behavior. Equal linear power, comparable usefulness across challenge types, leave no one locked out of the game entire. Everyone should contribute to any challenge to some extent, while perhaps one character or another will be the best at a given challenge, nobody should be just sitting things out.
Build for that and inter-player difficulties will diminish.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on August 28, 2013, 02:41:28 PM
4e's trap choice is to not take an Expertise feat and Improved Defenses at some point, so it is not without its glaring design mistakes. I can't imagine how 4e options can be opaque to someone well versed in WotC editions, but maybe that's a failure of imagination on my part. It's probably gamer specialization at work.

I thought 4e's trap choice was not taking every single accuracy bonus possible, which in turn makes the fights take like 12 hours of real time. Something to do with Dwarf Warriors with Warhammers if I recall.
I think you're taking the general 4e charop wisdom, throwing it into a blender, and then topping it with a specific charop build that may or may not have been errataed since you read it.

In other words, yes, accuracy bonuses are generally sweet deals in 4e. The expertise feats especially because 1) they grant a consistent and scaling +1/2/3 bonus, and 2) they're required to make the game math actually work the way it's intended. Charop puts a heavy emphasis on getting even more accuracy bonuses, but the others are circumstantial and not necessary. (And accuracy bonuses tend to shorten fights, unless you're using them just to stunlock solos.)

And as Libertad mentioned, the 4e team cut down on monster HPs and elite/solo defenses after two MMs of looong combats. MM3+ monsters are much more fun.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on August 28, 2013, 02:58:32 PM
Quote from: bhu
In my experience, and this is just based off where I live, parties don't do that.
IME, players don't compare characters before playing -- other than race and class -- simply because they want to get to the game!

I guess that depends on the party, the game and a lot of things, maybe even necessity after having too many games broken or characters suddenly suicide after a round of DM-nerfstick.

I'd take that since you mention that "they want to get to the game" you're using a "let's make the character sheets during the first session" approach instead of a "we start a game of X in 2-3 weeks, start reading up rules and making characters"?  With weeks to spare comparing character often comes naturally while players talk to each other or start giving "trial characters" to the DM for approval.
Sometimes we did chargen before session 1, sometimes not. In both cases I didn't push strategies like "Hey everyone, let's talk about everyone's chargen details" because I can count on one hand the number of players I've had who wouldn't mentally check out or start moaning about the "extra homework" I was asking them to do. Most simply weren't into the nitty gritty of system mastery.

Instead, my solution to the issues that cropped up was to boost or nerf the most broken options into a semblance of sanity, and giving my players chargen tips. Player is disappointed in his TWF fighter? Free retraining into warblade! Casters turning the game into Russian roulette with dispel magic tactics? Give everyone innate bonuses so nobody becomes a glass canon every time one goes off!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on August 28, 2013, 04:29:32 PM
@4E
I can only speak from my limited 4E experiences. So, I wouldn't defend my stance to the death or anything.  It's based on creating more than a few characters and spending a non-trivial amount of time with the sourcebooks.  I recall it being distinctly difficult to figure out what was a good or useful power and what wasn't, and I felt there were serious differences. 

Part of this depends on what the purported virtues of a system are.  3E D&D is a clunky mess, and I take one of 4E's goals was to make things easier and more user-friendly.  Hence the more 2E style character creation.  My contention is that hid a lot of complexity and trap options that were hard to parse.  They were hard for me, at least, and I think it's fair to call me a veteran gamer.  They moved a lot from the class picking stage to the power picking one, just how in 3E Conjurer or Druid 20 can still be deceptively difficult to build given that spells range from the suck to the game-breaking. 

Given that I felt -- not entirely unfairly I believe -- that one of 4E's goals was to streamline things and help mitigate Ivory Tower Game Design, I was disappointed.  That's one man's opinion and experiences. 


@Party Construction
It has been ages since we created characters during the first "session."  It's hard enough to get together to play to begin with, we aren't going to waste that time with character creation.  Most of us also like to have a chance to ruminate on our ideas to begin with. 

I wanted to underscore something, though.  It's not just about character parity.  That's part of it, too, but we are extremely upfront about our sensibilities so everyone is on the same page (and most of us have been gaming together for years, now, which helps).  It's that the goal is to create an interesting party that will troupe along the plot together.  That's especially important for an ongoing plot and character driven campaign, and probably less for a dungeon crawl for a few sessions. 

None of this necessarily involves system mastery.  In fact, it can sort of be the opposite if one of the more build-oriented players wants to help out one of the less-inclined.  It'a annoying to have the DM be entirely responsible for all of this.


Just as
...
LARP is great for player conflict, paranoia tends to run so rampant the GM's only job is to hand the idiot ball off whenever things get slow. 
Love it.  That was usually my ideal when I GMed LARPs, as it was one of those places where players could really get at each other's throats without it becoming too impractical.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on September 05, 2013, 04:15:49 PM
 :plotting :) ... if those new Planes that are like Transition Planes
to more unsurvivable planes is retained , I'll like it.  It's feels like
a consolidation of the various Outer Planes, and some of the
earthly Terrains, into one usable setting.

Instead of Fire, you have Fireyness, like Avernus, Phlegethos, Yellowstone
Instead of Salt, you have Desert, al-Qadim, Wastes, Sand, Dark Sun
Instead of Negative, you have Ravenloft, Vamp The Mask, 4e Shadowfell, Thriller Video
etc
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: SorO_Lost on September 05, 2013, 06:44:59 PM
I'm behind like two or three pages and only skimmed to catch (as usual :p).

First all, I like 3rd's WBL. It *could* be a little more stream lined on the non-magical stuff, sometimes it's a pain in the ass to remember ink & and frigging ink well when you just want to make an in game note. Only to find out you forgot to note paper on your sheet as well. There is also the problem that most of your wealth is dumped in numerical bonuses rather than cool gear. However, it's still a superior option than say 4th's setup. 4th standardized Magic Item requirements, you must have X numerical bonuses to join or you'll die a most horrible death you underpowered noob. But they did away with WBL and didn't really give you any rules for obtaining these highly required magical items beyond the whims of a DM making crap up. This lack of WBL lead to some groups giving to many items creating over-powered characters and other groups not giving enough for TPK wipes, and everyone experienced headaches when trying to start beyond level one. 5th appears to have the same fuck you approach to magical gear, it's not WotC's job to attempt to balance their product, it's yours. A level one murdering a level 20 because he brought an Ironman's Jericho missile to a knife fight? Yeah, 5th doesn't care.

Also a word on the M&M since Equipment Points came up. M&M is not balanced in the rules but by a gentleman's agreement. It considers all flavor mutable. For instance, you can take the Flight power and attach a Flaw that requires you to hold a simple chicken feather in your hand, or attach a Flaw that your flight can be stolen. Which is all you're doing with the Equipment Feat, investing Points for Powers with an inherent Flaw. Mechanically calling it equipment so it can be stolen is just one of the thousand ways to obtain more powers than you should by using Flaws/Drawbacks, which routes back to the gentleman's agreement. One cannot truly say Magical Items exist in M&M, rather here is Powers & here is Flavor now mash them together how you want and try not to break the game.

The correct way of doing things is WBL, dedicated to shiny cool gadgets.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on September 06, 2013, 02:35:28 PM
Yeah 4th's is ridiculous ... (separately it is playable though).

F/K use the Turnip / Gold / Wish economies.
While I doubt wotc would ever ... thinking of a Taylor Swift song here.
Deities are clearly on their own Economy, not giving much care to Turnip or Gold.

Turnip / Silver+ / Crafting say ~3s+4s / Wish / low Deific / near T.O.
... might be a finer toothed comb.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on September 09, 2013, 11:19:46 PM
4th standardized Magic Item requirements, you must have X numerical bonuses to join or you'll die a most horrible death you underpowered noob. But they did away with WBL and didn't really give you any rules for obtaining these highly required magical items beyond the whims of a DM making crap up. This lack of WBL lead to some groups giving to many items creating over-powered characters and other groups not giving enough for TPK wipes, and everyone experienced headaches when trying to start beyond level one.
Funny, everyone I know has had the exact opposite experience with 4e.

That said, I'm not impressed by the 5e comments I've seen to the effect of "It's about the story, not the math." Bull shit, it's about the story and the math.

The correct way of doing things is WBL, dedicated to shiny cool gadgets.
WBL works great, so long as the ones writing it go the extra step of actually telling DMs what value-equivalent gear the PCs are supposed to find/buy with it. Otherwise you end up with stingy DMs telling the younger generation that +1 swords are precious super rare treasures even for 20th level PCs. As universal game fact, because hey, "Nothing in the DMG or PHB contradicts my Tolkien fantasy!" And then there are the mid-level parties with sub-15 ACs, because their new DM made the mistake of actually rolling for random loot.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on September 10, 2013, 02:29:53 AM
The intent there is for WBL not to modify your statistics. Leave primary defensive and offensive traits as part of your chassis. The reasoning is simple. If everyone must buy one of those items, then nobody should have to buy them, all it does is add needless book keeping.

There is no piece of equipment less evocative than a +1 sword, armor or protective amulet.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: LordBlades on September 10, 2013, 02:50:38 AM
The intent there is for WBL not to modify your statistics. Leave primary defensive and offensive traits as part of your chassis. The reasoning is simple. If everyone must buy one of those items, then nobody should have to buy them, all it does is add needless book keeping.

There is no piece of equipment less evocative than a +1 sword, armor or protective amulet.

The magic sword concept is a quite common fantasy trope. In D&D, upgrading from a MW sword to a +1 sword is quite evocative of that trope IMO. You can now hurt creatures that were either flat out immune to your MW sword (like Incorporeal creatures) or were supposed to be highly resistant to it (DR/magic, or any other kind of DR for that matter doesn't really do anything, but the system was designed with the assumption that it works in mind).

So, while I do agree with your statement on flat bonuses to stats (I too think they should go), I'd like the magical sword concept (even if it does nothing more than 'it's magical' which just allows you to hurt stuff you couldn't or had trouble with before) to stay. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on September 10, 2013, 03:36:33 AM
Except again, you can have a magic sword without any numerical bonuses at all. The numerical bonuses limit the effectiveness of TWF, thrown weapons, unarmed combat and natural weapons by imposing disproportionate costs to their use.
We do in fact have a type of magic sword which lets you hurt things you normally couldn't. Ghost touch weapons make it much more feasible to fight immaterial creatures. Keen weapons are just that, an extra sharp sword.

What I'm saying is, if you are making a choice for a character, said choice should be meaningful. As it is, you might as well call the +1 sword a sword, because it's not a choice but a necessity. There is no magic in it, heck, what creatures have DR /magic and have it matter? Everyone facing a creature with DR/magic has a full array of magic weapons. So the ability is effectively, wasted text.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: LordBlades on September 10, 2013, 04:21:52 AM
Except again, you can have a magic sword without any numerical bonuses at all. The numerical bonuses limit the effectiveness of TWF, thrown weapons, unarmed combat and natural weapons by imposing disproportionate costs to their use.
We do in fact have a type of magic sword which lets you hurt things you normally couldn't. Ghost touch weapons make it much more feasible to fight immaterial creatures. Keen weapons are just that, an extra sharp sword.

What I'm saying is, if you are making a choice for a character, said choice should be meaningful. As it is, you might as well call the +1 sword a sword, because it's not a choice but a necessity. There is no magic in it, heck, what creatures have DR /magic and have it matter? Everyone facing a creature with DR/magic has a full array of magic weapons. So the ability is effectively, wasted text.

That's what I was saying as well. I do think numerical bonuses need to go as they're just a wBL tax. You actually have less WBL to do stuff with because you need to spend some of it on mandatory numerical bonuses which, as you said, is a disadvantage to people who need numerical bonuses to more stuff.

However, I can see a place for magic swords that don't necessary possess any specific obvious powers (like keen or flaming or whatnot), but just do some stuff by virtue of being magic swords (ghost touch is actually an excellent example of that).

As for DR/magic, I completely agree it doesn't work, but I believe that like many other things in 3.5, they believed it would. It probably was meant to be something like 'you want to fight that dragon? you need to get a magic weapon first' not 'by the time you meet that dragon you already have a magic weapons for 5 levels or so, so feel free to ignore that useless line in the statblock'.

As a tangent, I think a world where magic items are actually rare, and stuff of wonder, would be a better approach, as it would shift the focus more toward 'what your character can do' and less toward 'what your backpack can do'.

Think Merlin (the TV show), where the world is quite full of supernatural (numerous magic users, and literally every other episode had some sort of supernatural being appearing), and yet magic items are much rarer.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on September 10, 2013, 05:18:17 AM
There is no magic in it, heck, what creatures have DR /magic and have it matter? Everyone facing a creature with DR/magic has a full array of magic weapons. So the ability is effectively, wasted text.

DR/magic isn't an anti-hero ability.

Is an anti-mook ability.

Sure, the PCs surely have all magic weapons.

But what about their summons/zombies/companions? And what about those local villagers? DR/magic means the dragon/infernal/celestial can't just be zerg rushed by the local population with rocks.

(And then there was the 3.0 DR/magic that could demand higher grades of magic to pierce)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on September 10, 2013, 06:08:15 AM
As a tangent, I think a world where magic items are actually rare, and stuff of wonder, would be a better approach, as it would shift the focus more toward 'what your character can do' and less toward 'what your backpack can do'.
With magic wealth being divorced from direct combat competence, the role of wealth becomes more flexible. If the setting calls for everyone to have a wand? So be it. And if they weren't to have any either? No great fuss would result.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on September 10, 2013, 10:21:32 AM
The intent there is for WBL not to modify your statistics. Leave primary defensive and offensive traits as part of your chassis. The reasoning is simple. If everyone must buy one of those items, then nobody should have to buy them, all it does is add needless book keeping.

There is no piece of equipment less evocative than a +1 sword, armor or protective amulet.
Oh I agree. Unfortunately, there's never been an iteration of D&D without mandatory +X items, and 5e appears to be the Edition of Nothing New so that's unlikely to change anytime soon. (Well, +X items might end up being unnecessary in 5e, in which case they'll simply be CharOp staples and every smart player's best friend. In other words; item cheese rather than item taxes.)

In any case, so long as D&D does have +X items, the rule books should ideally give us insight into what's expected of PCs. Whether that's part of a WBL guideline, a parcels guideline, or some other kind of guide.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on September 10, 2013, 10:33:59 AM
On the DR tangent, years ago I incorporated this house rule into my 3.5 games:

I tweaked monsters with DR/magic so that the values are about (CR / 4) x 5.

Instead of DR being a binary thing, I said "For every +1 [actual] enhancement bonus your weapon has, you bypass 5 points of DR." So for example if you're fighting a big dragon with DR 20/magic, and you're hitting with a +2 frost dagger because it's sitting on you, you only subtract 10 damage with each hit.

I wish I could take credit for this bit of brilliance, but it came from someone on ENworld who I no longer remember. I love it because it's the best of 3.0 and 3.5 DR!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on September 12, 2013, 12:27:03 PM
We've had this conversation regarding magic items before.  I don't disagree with what has been stated above, but I do want to make one semi-counterpoint.  Magic items are a way to customize your character.  To the extent someone wants to customize their character in combat-relevant ways -- they want to play a tank or focus on burst damage or what have you -- then taking away the ability for someone to opt to, e.g., throw a bunch of that resource into hardening their defense you run the risk of taking away that option. 

This can be achieved through the +X bonus items that have been discussed above (e.g., Full Plate +3), but that isn't always necessary (e.g., Cloak of Displacement). 

D&D has traditionally approached these decisions through gear, but it could be done through feats and class features, if it was done right.  They are both character resources.  I'm not sure why one would be better than the other, but if building a new system from the ground up you could approach it that way. 

I guess here's my tl;dr of this comment:  removing "maintenance" items, things you need to have just to make the math work, is an attractive idea.  Removing all +X items or things that are operationally equivalent may remove some customization options, which is less attractive and should be accounted for somewhere else.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on September 12, 2013, 02:02:09 PM
Nope, if they exist, they will always be more optimal than items which do not grant similar bonuses, and thus a party with high treasure necessarily has much better attributes all round than parties which do not.
Feats exist for such specialization, feats and the BASE form of the equipment. Arguably the choice to use a shield or heavier armor is all the customization towards defense you need, especially with abilities to back them up.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on September 12, 2013, 02:41:58 PM
And, how do you draw a distinction between Plate Mail +3 and a Cloak of Displacement?  How about a Wand of Greater Mirror Image? 

I think unless you do a really really good job at drawing those lines, you're just trading one mechanic for another.  And, if you do such a good job then what you've made is an idealized version of something like M&M's power level caps.  Which might be nice and all, and are probably necessary in that game, but, and I say this as a fan, bleed out a lot of the richness that a game like D&D offers. 

Also: 
Nope, if they exist, they will always be more optimal than items which do not grant similar bonuses
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, this cannot be true.  There are often much more efficient ways of spending your cash than a +X to a weapon, armor, or some other characteristic.  Just paging through Bunko's, the anit-beatstick guides, and stuff like god wizard advice has tons of those. 

Unless you mean that bonuses = affects combat.  Removing items that affect combat in any tangible mechanical way (as opposed to how a Tree Feather Token could affect combat in a creative way) would be something I'd have to give more thought to.  Although that runs into the initial problem I described.

...
Feats exist for such specialization, feats and the BASE form of the equipment. Arguably the choice to use a shield or heavier armor is all the customization towards defense you need, especially with abilities to back them up.
Why is it ok for feats to do so and not treasure?  I fail to see any value distinction between the two -- they are both character resources.  Why is it ok to take "+5 to AC" as a feat and not as a piece of equipment?  The analysis should be the same.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on September 12, 2013, 03:01:47 PM
I don't draw a difference between Plate Mail +3 and a Cloak of Displacement, both have the same basic problem. When you specialize in defense, you pick plate mail. It limits you in terms of mobility, armor check penalty and dexterity, in exchange for increased defense. Or you pick a shield, dedicating your off hand to defense and eliminating the option for two weapons or two handing. Both require proficiencies.

These choices are true tradeoffs, which can be enforced to take from the same capabilities and you don't really need to alter the exchange rates any further. Due to how the d20 works, a gap of 5 points is going to be the same difference in probability over 20 levels. When you make a tradeoff, it should be between comparable factors. A bonus to combat should cost you in terms of other combat capabilities. Wealth is an uncontained tradeoff. It freely equates diplomacy, information ability, mobility, combat, and all into one single pool, and naturally the most optimal route would always be to spend on the area which you can be sure will turn up(namely, combat).

Feats don't vary game by game, treasure often does, in spite of the necessity. WBL is a tricky thing to keep in the right range, when for the most part there just isn't a NEED for such number wrangling and huge treasure amounts.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on September 12, 2013, 03:13:31 PM
On the contrary.

Ever since The Hobbit that treasure has been the main motivation for D&D adventuring. Sure there may be a dragon or some evil overlord trying to take over the world in between, but I'll be damned if you aren't going to find plenty of sweet expensive loot along the way.

Let campaigns where kid's fists are always the equal of legendary swords to other games.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on September 12, 2013, 03:53:21 PM
On the DR tangent, years ago I incorporated this house rule into my 3.5 games:

I tweaked monsters with DR/magic so that the values are about (CR / 4) x 5.

Instead of DR being a binary thing, I said "For every +1 [actual] enhancement bonus your weapon has, you bypass 5 points of DR." So for example if you're fighting a big dragon with DR 20/magic, and you're hitting with a +2 frost dagger because it's sitting on you, you only subtract 10 damage with each hit.

I wish I could take credit for this bit of brilliance, but it came from someone on ENworld who I no longer remember. I love it because it's the best of 3.0 and 3.5 DR!
Just about everyone and their brother tried that as a house rule in 3.0.  If there was a more common house rule in that era, it was no Favored Class.   :tongue  3.0 DR was so bad, that that fix was obvious to everyone.  So of course, 3.5 decided it was a pinin' for the golf bag.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on September 12, 2013, 06:22:14 PM
...
When you make a tradeoff, it should be between comparable factors. A bonus to combat should cost you in terms of other combat capabilities. Wealth is an uncontained tradeoff. It freely equates diplomacy, information ability, mobility, combat, and all into one single pool, and naturally the most optimal route would always be to spend on the area which you can be sure will turn up(namely, combat).
I'll just reiterate that the same analysis applies to feats, stats, class features, etc.  The number of feats in D&D represent a pool of character resources that can be spent in combat, social situations, and so on.  The same is true for class levels, etc.  Other systems highlight this a bit more clearly when they give you just a big pool of character points. 

Tangentially, to the extent you have players making any choices about how to deploy their character resources, wouldn't you run into the same problem? 

Feats don't vary game by game, treasure often does, in spite of the necessity. WBL is a tricky thing to keep in the right range, when for the most part there just isn't a NEED for such number wrangling and huge treasure amounts.
This is really the only treasure/gear-specific point.  I don't know if it's a system flaw that people want to ignore WBL guidelines, especially how integral magic items are to D&D.  There does seem to be real variation in the amount of freedom that is given in customizing one's gear, perhaps more so than when it comes to feats and class levels.  Although people seem to have all sorts of crazy house rules regarding classes and feats.  In my personal experience I have never found WBL difficult, just rolling up treasure and allowing some trading/customization has always proved sufficient. 

These seem to me more aesthetic arguments, though.  And (as Oscelamo notes above) ones that may be at odds with the idea of loot as a reward in the game.  I'm not saying this to be critical; I think there's some utility to clarifying the underlying argument and propositions.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Ananse on September 13, 2013, 01:18:57 AM
The "why not spend it all on combat stuff" problem exists whether or not buyable equipment exists. It must be addressed by some combination of making the other minigames more prominent, useful, and fair and letting those other minigames contribute to the combat minigame. If diplomacy could get you a reasonable number of goons in a reasonable fashion, that could justify putting points into diplomacy as opposed to more combat stuff.

Equipment isn't truly special. It's basically a character asset with the [Gear] tag that is purchasable by the "gold" resource pool as opposed to (say) the "feat" resource pool. A +1 to hit from a feat and a +1 to hit from a weapon is functionally the same. Once you've balanced the minigames available to characters, equipment will be relatively easy to design.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on September 13, 2013, 06:30:38 PM
On the DR tangent, years ago I incorporated this house rule into my 3.5 games:

I tweaked monsters with DR/magic so that the values are about (CR / 4) x 5.

Instead of DR being a binary thing, I said "For every +1 [actual] enhancement bonus your weapon has, you bypass 5 points of DR." So for example if you're fighting a big dragon with DR 20/magic, and you're hitting with a +2 frost dagger because it's sitting on you, you only subtract 10 damage with each hit.

I wish I could take credit for this bit of brilliance, but it came from someone on ENworld who I no longer remember. I love it because it's the best of 3.0 and 3.5 DR!
Just about everyone and their brother tried that as a house rule in 3.0.  If there was a more common house rule in that era, it was no Favored Class.   :tongue  3.0 DR was so bad, that that fix was obvious to everyone.  So of course, 3.5 decided it was a pinin' for the golf bag.
And I thought I had found a diamond in the rough.  :tongue

Now I'm curious why it didn't stick with many groups?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on September 14, 2013, 05:49:18 AM
You need to modify monsters to fit. Which is a lot more work than rolling out a change to PCs to remember to implement.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Complete4th on September 14, 2013, 03:05:42 PM
What's the alternative change that players implement?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on September 14, 2013, 03:15:12 PM
3.5   :p
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on September 20, 2013, 02:44:23 PM
So we got a new playtest packet. I took a look at the multiclassing rules, and I don't hate them. Which is rather surprising. They're probably the most intuitive you could hope for with the adherence to Vancian casting as a thing, and I don't think any of us could honestly expect that particular golden calf to go anywhere. The ability score prerequisites bug me, but 5E is looking like one that puts a heavier emphasis on the idea of classes than 3.5 or (for that matter) 4, even if 4 gave you fewer options in that regard over the course of your career. I'm okay with letting that slide as a difference of opinion.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ImperatorK on September 22, 2013, 07:59:27 PM
Can someone tell me, in simple words, how similar is D&D 5e to 3.P and how are "mundanes"/martials doing in comparison to casters (which I assume still reign supreme)? I'm not interested in the new edition, but am considering stealing some ideas/concepts/materials if it's not too much work.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on September 23, 2013, 12:10:41 AM
Since its the last packet, I figured I'd take a look again.  And holy shit, much of the things I hated were removed!

The overused martial die are gone.  The stupid skill die is dead too.  Though skills are basically gone as well.  Bizarrely, they still exist as ability checks.  With all the various lores spelled out under Intelligence for some reason.  They'd need one whole paragraph to turn that into a basic skill system.

Feats are still an optional system, that trades out the all important stat boost.  :banghead  But they're strong feats.  Such as giving heavy armor proficiency and ignoring the speed penalty and getting your Con mod as DR all for one feat.

Extra Attack is a class feature, meaning spellcasters can't touch it without deep multiclassing giving noncasters role protection they've been lacking since 2e.  Why multiclassing decided it wanted to use old Dual Classing restrictions is beyond me.  Is it really a good idea to block someone from a class just because they didn't plan their limited ability scores ahead of time for it?  Though how they handle spellcasting with multiclassing is pretty good.

Girdle of Giant Strength still is unchanged, thus still makes a mockery of the array or point buy system they default to.  And the potential huge bonus from it still completely shatters the idea of magical items being interesting rather than huge numerical bonuses.    :banghead  Magic items can still make up to nearly 70% of your attack value thanks to this thing! (+7 magic vs max +11 natural)

Overall a huge move back in a direction I like from the hot mess that I gave up on.  Not enough to sell me yet, but enough to make me pay attention again.  I guess I'll have to read the whole thing.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: VennDygrem on September 25, 2013, 06:24:15 PM
I've been playtesting it with a game I run for my brother and his friends and Sunday we updated to the current packet's rules. I added in a few houserules to make the game run how I want it to, but the game is running really smoothly despite everyone pretty much learning the system's particulars at once. I've got a crew mixed up out of seasoned d&d vets and newbies alike and everyone seems to be having fun. Despite the packet being kind of messy to use in practice, I've been able to run the game with minimal preparation (thanks to running the first leg of the campaign using a module from a previous edition). The bestiary suffices and actually fits the module really well, though a full monster manual will make things a lot easier on me.

Homebrewing content specific to the campaign has also been fairly easy.

As for party balance, the group is currently made up of a Monk, a Barbarian, two Mages (one enchanter and one evoker), and the newly released Bard. Everyone so far seems quite capable in combat, and though I was disappointed at how thoroughly my brother's Ray of Enfeeblement knocked the wind out of my mini-boss monster, everyone had fun. I was able to improvise encounters easily though I still am not sure about how to properly advance monster stats to provide increased challenge while remaining balanced.

I am glad to see skills are back and the realms of lore is dead (I really disliked that implementation in the last packet), though I wish the character sheet had been updated to reflect this. Overall, I quite like the rules and look forward to seeing how they evolve between now and release. But I may remain in the minority.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on September 28, 2013, 10:08:08 AM
But I may remain in the minority.

Well, I at least am with you on that opinion. I see a lot of nice ideas and streamlining, and if wotc doesn't screw up too badly, they may just suceed on making an easy-entry D&D game that still allows for deeper complexity and diversity should the players choose.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on September 30, 2013, 05:29:54 PM
But I may remain in the minority.

Well, I at least am with you on that opinion. I see a lot of nice ideas and streamlining, and if wotc doesn't screw up too badly, they may just suceed on making an easy-entry D&D game that still allows for deeper complexity and diversity should the players choose.

I'm really happy with their decision to include simple buffs into the chassis of the classes, with things like feats as substitutions.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on October 01, 2013, 05:10:53 PM

... They've got to be hiding the real thing.  At least most of it.

Proved right (though not really intentionally) :

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130923
Meanwhile, a second design team will tackle a number of outstanding topics ... underlying math of the game ...


So like, C.O. + Stormwind Fallacy = fix the maths first, fluff/roleplay off of that.
They're doing this the other way around.  That's weird.

Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on October 01, 2013, 08:04:13 PM
 :plot
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Demelain on October 01, 2013, 08:12:58 PM
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130930

I was a fan of class groupings in 2E, so I'm interested in seeing this. Though I hope they don't feel straight-jacketed by it when making design decisions.

I like the comment about the keyword system in 4E, as well as (the spirit of) the short rant about meta-labels.


From the comments section:
(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on October 03, 2013, 12:48:10 PM
A thought:  are class groupings not pernicious? 

The article Demelain linked to described Warriors, Tricksters, Mages, and Priests.  "Warriors are masters of arms."  Ok, that makes perfect sense.  And, stabbing things is a pretty huge part of D&D.  But, "Mages specialize in arcane magic," Priests in "divine magic," and Tricksters "in a variety of fields." 

Two things jump out at me.  First, Tricksters, Mages, and Priests seem to have much more capacious bailiwicks.  Second, they seem so vague as to be not particularly helpful.  I have a sense of what D&D traditionally labels arcane magic vs. divine magic, but that's from experience.  It's not readily accessible to a reader, even assuming the division persists from edition to edition.  In short, telling me a Mage is a specialist in arcane magic doesn't really tell me anything.

I thought 4E's roles conveyed more information, although I found the game overly mechanistic about it.  And, I'm not sure how useful it was to codify them as such.  Saying that a Ranger is a Striker and maybe a Warlock is a Striker with more Controller elements tells you something.  But, that doesn't seem any more enlightening than saying that an Invoker specializes in direct damage, often to a group, and an Enchanter focuses on manipulating targets.  The latter appears much more engaging and interesting, and also might unshackle designers to be more creative in designs. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: linklord231 on October 03, 2013, 01:29:44 PM
I'm afraid that having class groupings will be a bad thing.  There's nothing wrong with them in and of themselves, but I'm afraid they'll be too limiting on the designers.  Unless they introduce more groups, or allow classes to be a member of two or more groups, I don't see it working. 

Presumably a Spellthief would be a Trickster and a Hexblade would be a Warrior, but what about a Duskblade or a Beguiler?  Is a Ranger a Warrior, a Trickster, or a Priest?  What about something that doesn't fit in to any of the current groups, like a Binder or Incarnate? 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Demelain on October 03, 2013, 02:29:52 PM
I agree. I'd rather not see the groupings used as Super-classes, from which every sub-class must inherent its properties. I'd rather they move them towards both more meta-labels (as 4E), and to use them as keywords that give you an idea of what it does, but does not necessarily tie the class into the general rules for the keyword.

So a Duskblade would have, say, the Warrior/Mage keywords. A Beguiler the Mage/Trickster. And staying away from the idea of a Super-class means that you can just create a new keyword for Binders, Incarnate, Psionics, etc. where creating a dedicated super-class for two or three sub-classes would be wasted effort.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on October 03, 2013, 04:49:17 PM
The 4 roles, and the 5 power sources, in 4e ... feel to me like class "groupings".

If it's just fluff - big deal; if there's gonna be crunch tie-ins, cue C.O.

Still, it's fertile ground lots of way to do it.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Unbeliever on October 06, 2013, 05:55:54 PM
Played a 5E playtest packet at a local Con yesterday.  It's than I expected, just from that limited experience.  Especially if your goal was to capture something more like AD&D and 2E.  That's not exactly my preference -- it feels far too limiting to me to approach character creation in an almost purely chinese menu type of way -- but I recognize I might be idiosyncratic. 

Advantage was a nice, reasonably straightforward mechanic that felt fun to use.  1st level characters were still sort of pathetic, though.  They feel so fragile that you have to wonder what would possess them to ever adventure at all.  I will never understand why D&D wants its "heroes" to start out as somewhat less competent than Bilbo Baggins. 

The biggest problem remains, though.  As a warrior type (Elven TWF Ranger, with SCIMITARS if you can believe it!) I just didn't have that much that was interesting to do in the system.  I could attack with both my swords or use a shield, and even that was b/c I picked a shield off of a foe and the DM was generous with weapon switching.  My only other option was to fire my bow, in situations where that was appropriate.  That was it.  Anything else I could do as a creative player was completely separate from my character sheet, class, etc.

Even at 1st level the spellcasters seemed to have a lot more options to make encounters feel more dynamic.  I'm still shocked that trained warriors can't feint, disarm, knock people off balance, guard allies, go corps a corps, or ANYTHING that is a hallmark of cinematic (note, not necessarily realistic) stabbing of people.  It's like the fighting manuals in D&D worlds are a whole 3 pages long. 

So, that disappointed me greatly.  It seems cracking that riddle is something that has and will still escape D&D.  There were a number of non-combat things I could do that were interesting, mostly the standard Ranger scouting and tracking.  That was nice, though not exactly earth-shattering.  And, it had all the typical scouting issues -- divide the party, risky, etc. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: PsyBomb on October 20, 2013, 06:53:26 PM
I'm liking it so far, except for the set-to stat items (particularly the Belt of Giant's Strength) and the missing combat maneuvers. The former is easily fixed, the latter... not so much. I understand why they imposed such a harsh stat limit on the characters, though, given their system of stat improvement vs. feats. It interacts interestingly with their Multiclass system, especially since it is very possible to ensure that your stats are up to par for a multiclass almost no matter what your starting point.

They are really trying to recapture the older feel of the game with updated systems, which is an admirable goal... it's just that they're not quite in the bullseye on mechanic playability yet.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: LordBlades on December 13, 2013, 01:46:34 AM
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/398897952724238336

So apparently everything remotely-related to Evil will be in the DMG...including spells, because allowing (or not) my neutral wizard to prepare Protection from Good should be a 'DM option' WTF :???
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nanshork on December 13, 2013, 10:04:26 AM
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/398897952724238336

So apparently everything remotely-related to Evil will be in the DMG...including spells, because allowing (or not) my neutral wizard to prepare Protection from Good should be a 'DM option' WTF :???

This is my favorite response to that.

"Most people want to be heroes? That's not my experience. IMXP, most people want to be amoral treasure hunters."
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: TenaciousJ on December 13, 2013, 03:04:40 PM
For my last 2 games, I opened up all alignments.  The first game had 2 neutral characters, 2 evil characters, and 1 good character.  They were all contractually obligated to work for an organization together or have their deferred executions carried out.  The 2nd game has had 3 evil characters and 2 neutral characters, and one of those neutral characters leans more towards evil considered he tortured and maimed some defeated enemies just for fun.

I have gathered that they enjoy playing evil because good is so forced upon them by convention.

Also alignment-based abilities are dumb.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on December 14, 2013, 01:29:49 PM
I haven't been paying much attention, but

my local Big Box just got 1 copy of:  Murder in Baldur's Gate
and 2 copies of: Legacy of the Crystal Shard.
My local gaming store did not get them (yet?).


Anyways ... they both have a little blurb that says they work with 3.5e + 4e + 5e.

So is this Officially Official , or is this a soft roll out ?!

 :???   I do want to know  :flutter

Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Bauglir on December 14, 2013, 08:58:00 PM
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/398897952724238336

So apparently everything remotely-related to Evil will be in the DMG...including spells, because allowing (or not) my neutral wizard to prepare Protection from Good should be a 'DM option' WTF :???
While I like that they're hardening their position on what the game is supposed to do (You're The Good Guys), instead of continuing to pursue the Game For All Games path of inevitable ruin, they probably should have put these in a separate section of the PHB (to emphasize that they're not part of the default playstyle). Putting it in the DMG implies it's an issue of DM authority, instead of playstyle, which is absolutely the wrong way to go about it. Anything that enhances the impression that the DM should dictate character concepts beyond the minimum for campaign functionality is not something I like, and this only improves functionality if you think Evil is "Trololol, I kill my allies in their sleep for the evulz".

I'm terrified that the dev team thinks that's what Evil is, and that they think DM authority should be entirely unlimited.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on December 14, 2013, 10:19:09 PM
Anyways ... they both have a little blurb that says they work with 3.5e + 4e + 5e.

So is this Officially Official , or is this a soft roll out ?!

 :???   I do want to know  :flutter
The product page (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/45370000) for Murder in Balder's Gate has a PDF with creature stat blocks.  It is divided roughly into thirds, giving the creature stats in all three edition formats.

The page for Legacy of the Crystal Shard has three separate downloads; one each for the stats in the three named editions.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: LordBlades on December 15, 2013, 05:33:33 AM
While I like that they're hardening their position on what the game is supposed to do (You're The Good Guys), instead of continuing to pursue the Game For All Games path of inevitable ruin, they probably should have put these in a separate section of the PHB (to emphasize that they're not part of the default playstyle).

To me it sounds less 'You are the Good Guys' and more 'You are the Good Guys that never ever do Evil under any circumstances', which is pretty dumb and limited IMO.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: veekie on December 15, 2013, 06:33:25 AM
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/398897952724238336

So apparently everything remotely-related to Evil will be in the DMG...including spells, because allowing (or not) my neutral wizard to prepare Protection from Good should be a 'DM option' WTF :???
While I like that they're hardening their position on what the game is supposed to do (You're The Good Guys), instead of continuing to pursue the Game For All Games path of inevitable ruin, they probably should have put these in a separate section of the PHB (to emphasize that they're not part of the default playstyle). Putting it in the DMG implies it's an issue of DM authority, instead of playstyle, which is absolutely the wrong way to go about it. Anything that enhances the impression that the DM should dictate character concepts beyond the minimum for campaign functionality is not something I like, and this only improves functionality if you think Evil is "Trololol, I kill my allies in their sleep for the evulz".

I'm terrified that the dev team thinks that's what Evil is, and that they think DM authority should be entirely unlimited.
Mmm, it does help that they now have an actual game concept even if it's kinda limited. Two steps forward, one step back perhaps.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on December 16, 2013, 07:35:48 PM

... instead of continuing to pursue the Game For All Games path of inevitable ruin ...

 :)


<snip>

Thanks and interesting.  However I doubt strongly the 3+4+5e at the same time strategy ; feels rather Game For All Gamers.

I have to suspect, that Hasbro* has plenty of history of developing games having nothing to do with D&D.  Following their run-of-the-mill new game Plan, ought or has to work better than the 4e launch.  Chances are d&d is more complex than anything else they've tried, but a basic start-up Plan is better than Shwinging it.


edit **
"Hasbro" the game company ; not "Hasbro" the holding company semi- hedge fund let's make some $ of those d&d weenies / dude don't insult the consumers so loudly.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on December 17, 2013, 12:56:04 AM
So, are we starting a new thread once we hit 50 pages, or are we continuing with this one?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on December 17, 2013, 06:33:55 AM
Ahem.
That grand-unified D&D is very doable. A lot of work? Yes. Impossible? No.

We have people here who've gone through every 3.5 spell in existance. Whoa.

When this thread hits 50 pages, I'll spell out how its doable if no one else has.

C'mon guys, just a few more posts! I'm holding PlzBreakMyCampaign to his promise!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RobbyPants on December 17, 2013, 08:01:22 AM
So, are we starting a new thread once we hit 50 pages, or are we continuing with this one?
So far as I know, the 50-page rule is still in place.


Ahem.
That grand-unified D&D is very doable. A lot of work? Yes. Impossible? No.

We have people here who've gone through every 3.5 spell in existance. Whoa.

When this thread hits 50 pages, I'll spell out how its doable if no one else has.

C'mon guys, just a few more posts! I'm holding PlzBreakMyCampaign to his promise!
Yeah, I'd like to see how it can be done, too.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: JohnnyMayHymn on December 17, 2013, 09:46:33 AM
I wonder how one of the new adventures would run if you allowed 3.x, 4 and 5th edition PCs.   There would be quite a lot of averaging to find a certain mooks current life, but it might work w/ a few houserules.

To be clear of what i mean, when 4th fighter attacks mook xyz, use the 4th ed stat block.  When the 3.P wizard casts a SoD, use the 3rd stat block for saves etc...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Gazzien on December 17, 2013, 10:11:59 AM
That'd certainly be interesting, but I feel like it might get a bit hairy, what with 4e's Minion rules.
'
I'd love to try it, though.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on December 17, 2013, 01:21:49 PM
C'mon guys, just a few more posts! I'm holding PlzBreakMyCampaign to his promise!

C'mon guys, we can do this!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: oslecamo on December 17, 2013, 01:31:34 PM
I wonder how one of the new adventures would run if you allowed 3.x, 4 and 5th edition PCs.   There would be quite a lot of averaging to find a certain mooks current life, but it might work w/ a few houserules.

To be clear of what i mean, when 4th fighter attacks mook xyz, use the 4th ed stat block.  When the 3.P wizard casts a SoD, use the 3rd stat block for saves etc...

What happens in the monster's own turn? Say, they have a multi-target attack in 4e, but not in 3.X. Can they attack the 3.X player and the 4e player who are near each other? Just the 4e guy?

What if the monster has an area attack in both 3.X and 4e, and uses it against a 3.X and 4e guy? Does the area attack affects them diferently based on editions? What if the areas/shapes are diferent?

Ditto for auras, both from allies and enemies.

(page 50 go!)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on December 17, 2013, 01:42:56 PM
Ahem.
That grand-unified D&D is very doable. A lot of work? Yes. Impossible? No.

We have people here who've gone through every 3.5 spell in existance. Whoa.

When this thread hits 50 pages, I'll spell out how its doable if no one else has.

C'mon guys, just a few more posts! I'm holding PlzBreakMyCampaign to his promise!
I have some general ideas.  Though I'm way too lazy to do it today, and the thread is about full anyway.  But 5E's idea of modularity is a good start, they're just way too chicken to be successful.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Gazzien on December 17, 2013, 02:12:09 PM
I wonder how one of the new adventures would run if you allowed 3.x, 4 and 5th edition PCs.   There would be quite a lot of averaging to find a certain mooks current life, but it might work w/ a few houserules.

To be clear of what i mean, when 4th fighter attacks mook xyz, use the 4th ed stat block.  When the 3.P wizard casts a SoD, use the 3rd stat block for saves etc...

What happens in the monster's own turn? Say, they have a multi-target attack in 4e, but not in 3.X. Can they attack the 3.X player and the 4e player who are near each other? Just the 4e guy?

What if the monster has an area attack in both 3.X and 4e, and uses it against a 3.X and 4e guy? Does the area attack affects them diferently based on editions? What if the areas/shapes are diferent?

Ditto for auras, both from allies and enemies.

(page 50 go!)
I would think in the difference of abilities, you would pick an edition to act as for the whole turn, maybe?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on December 17, 2013, 02:20:32 PM
I'm interested in seeing if PlzBreakMyCampaign's version is the same as mine.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on December 17, 2013, 04:10:42 PM
I wonder what a Chimera encounter would
sound like simultaneously in 3e , 4e and 5e ??


Wait , that joke too nerd obvious ...  :-\



<chant> p l z ... P l z ... P L Z ... P L Z ... P L Z ... P L Z
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Risada on December 17, 2013, 04:24:30 PM
Ahem.
That grand-unified D&D is very doable. A lot of work? Yes. Impossible? No.

We have people here who've gone through every 3.5 spell in existance. Whoa.

When this thread hits 50 pages, I'll spell out how its doable if no one else has.

C'mon guys, just a few more posts! I'm holding PlzBreakMyCampaign to his promise!

Let's help the cause...

But yes, I think 3 stat blocks will be a big mess...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Wrex on December 17, 2013, 04:40:27 PM
This will be horrible beyond imagining.

Of course i'm adding my vote to the pile.

Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: RedWarlock on December 17, 2013, 05:24:27 PM
Whoo! 50 pages!

I will say my friends and I tried a 5e game a week ago, and while it was manageable, it was.. limited. It was hard to figure out how to do things, and despite the fact that I was not DMing, I was handed the rules packet to be the 'rules nazi' and figure out how stuff runs.

(Not helped by the fact that the guy DMing apparently played for a long time in a 3.5-ish game with a LOT more houserules and imported homebrew than he realized.)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Childe on December 17, 2013, 11:14:59 PM
I wonder how one of the new adventures would run if you allowed 3.x, 4 and 5th edition PCs.   There would be quite a lot of averaging to find a certain mooks current life, but it might work w/ a few houserules.

To be clear of what i mean, when 4th fighter attacks mook xyz, use the 4th ed stat block.  When the 3.P wizard casts a SoD, use the 3rd stat block for saves etc...

I think this would just be problematic in terms of the amount of books required in total and at once. Tracking three different books at a time is a hassle, and having to have three books at any time you would ever need one would make campaign planning for DMs nightmarish.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on December 18, 2013, 09:45:05 AM
I think this would just be problematic in terms of the amount of books required in total and at once. Tracking three different books at a time is a hassle, and having to have three books at any time you would ever need one would make campaign planning for DMs nightmarish.
Agreed.  By the time you get to a high-teens game of 3.5, there's already enough info that the DM is juggling in his head that he forgets things in the heat of the moment (trust me; this just happened to me last Monday).
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on December 18, 2013, 05:04:22 PM
I get the marketing idea of dragging 3e people into 5e, while not abandoning the 4e folks.

Marketing = old Detroit
Engineering = Toyota/Honda
... we know who won that one.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Keldar on December 18, 2013, 08:41:41 PM
I want to say Yugoslavia. 
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on December 19, 2013, 07:56:22 AM
I think this would just be problematic in terms of the amount of books required in total and at once. Tracking three different books at a time is a hassle, and having to have three books at any time you would ever need one would make campaign planning for DMs nightmarish.
Agreed.  By the time you get to a high-teens game of 3.5, there's already enough info that the DM is juggling in his head that he forgets things in the heat of the moment (trust me; this just happened to me last Monday).

Our group does rules by committee, with no clear rules answer going to DM until they group can discuss it in depth between sessions. You should try it sometime  :p
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Childe on December 19, 2013, 11:23:23 AM
I think this would just be problematic in terms of the amount of books required in total and at once. Tracking three different books at a time is a hassle, and having to have three books at any time you would ever need one would make campaign planning for DMs nightmarish.
Agreed.  By the time you get to a high-teens game of 3.5, there's already enough info that the DM is juggling in his head that he forgets things in the heat of the moment (trust me; this just happened to me last Monday).

Our group does rules by committee, with no clear rules answer going to DM until they group can discuss it in depth between sessions. You should try it sometime  :p

This isn't about making an executive decision on a rules debate though.  This is about the routine running of encounters.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on December 19, 2013, 01:27:12 PM
I think this would just be problematic in terms of the amount of books required in total and at once. Tracking three different books at a time is a hassle, and having to have three books at any time you would ever need one would make campaign planning for DMs nightmarish.
Agreed.  By the time you get to a high-teens game of 3.5, there's already enough info that the DM is juggling in his head that he forgets things in the heat of the moment (trust me; this just happened to me last Monday).

Our group does rules by committee, with no clear rules answer going to DM until they group can discuss it in depth between sessions. You should try it sometime  :p

This isn't about making an executive decision on a rules debate though.  This is about the routine running of encounters.

That too actually. If the DM doesn't understand something, he defers to the person most knowledgeable in that field, whether is be archer/charger tactics, or how a certain undead's biology functions. Metagaming used to run rampant in our group until we decided that the game is the responsibility of everyone at the table.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Libertad on December 19, 2013, 01:41:20 PM
Where are you, PBMC?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on December 19, 2013, 01:47:21 PM
I think this would just be problematic in terms of the amount of books required in total and at once. Tracking three different books at a time is a hassle, and having to have three books at any time you would ever need one would make campaign planning for DMs nightmarish.
Agreed.  By the time you get to a high-teens game of 3.5, there's already enough info that the DM is juggling in his head that he forgets things in the heat of the moment (trust me; this just happened to me last Monday).

Our group does rules by committee, with no clear rules answer going to DM until they group can discuss it in depth between sessions. You should try it sometime  :p

This isn't about making an executive decision on a rules debate though.  This is about the routine running of encounters.

That too actually. If the DM doesn't understand something, he defers to the person most knowledgeable in that field, whether is be archer/charger tactics, or how a certain undead's biology functions. Metagaming used to run rampant in our group until we decided that the game is the responsibility of everyone at the table.
My comment was more about the number of things you are mentally juggling.  He has 10 buff spells up, but the party waited to strike, so now he only has these four remaining.  Oh, yeah, and he has a permanent Rary's Telepathic Bond with his boss that I forgot about.  Then after the session... Oh, if I'd remembered he had that, it would have been harder to kill him, etc.

Rule by committee doesn't help that aspect.  Then you add in trying to juggle three such stat blocks for one bad guy, with different abilities that apply against different PC's, etc.  It would be a nightmare.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on December 19, 2013, 02:08:10 PM
I think this would just be problematic in terms of the amount of books required in total and at once. Tracking three different books at a time is a hassle, and having to have three books at any time you would ever need one would make campaign planning for DMs nightmarish.
Agreed.  By the time you get to a high-teens game of 3.5, there's already enough info that the DM is juggling in his head that he forgets things in the heat of the moment (trust me; this just happened to me last Monday).

Our group does rules by committee, with no clear rules answer going to DM until they group can discuss it in depth between sessions. You should try it sometime  :p

This isn't about making an executive decision on a rules debate though.  This is about the routine running of encounters.

That too actually. If the DM doesn't understand something, he defers to the person most knowledgeable in that field, whether is be archer/charger tactics, or how a certain undead's biology functions. Metagaming used to run rampant in our group until we decided that the game is the responsibility of everyone at the table.
My comment was more about the number of things you are mentally juggling.  He has 10 buff spells up, but the party waited to strike, so now he only has these four remaining.  Oh, yeah, and he has a permanent Rary's Telepathic Bond with his boss that I forgot about.  Then after the session... Oh, if I'd remembered he had that, it would have been harder to kill him, etc.

Rule by committee doesn't help that aspect.  Then you add in trying to juggle three such stat blocks for one bad guy, with different abilities that apply against different PC's, etc.  It would be a nightmare.

Fair enough.

PBMC, where are you?!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: bhu on December 19, 2013, 05:06:06 PM
Be patient, he hasn't logged in in 8 days.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on December 19, 2013, 05:53:33 PM
Hell(!) let's throw some 2e in there too ...  :D


4e Asmodeus says:  I use a Daily Power
3e Asmodeus says:  4e Asmo needs a donut, activate The Ruby Rod Of Doom
2e Asmodeus says:  3e Asmo, did you take a bath in the river Lethe?  I'm a Greater God there at the creation of the 9 Hells.  I'm'n'a survive the Spellplague and throw the whole Abyss into the elemental planes.
3e Asmodeus says:  I do that?
2e Asmodeus shakes his head  :pout
4e Asmodeus says:  I use an Immediate Interrupt
Tiamat looks at her various selfs and says:  And I/We thought I/We were complicated?!
Tiamat's Black and Red Heads simultaneously cough, accidentally killing 4e Asmo.
5e noob DM says:  Alright lemme try to resolve these actions here ... just a sec ...
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Childe on December 19, 2013, 11:07:14 PM
I think this would just be problematic in terms of the amount of books required in total and at once. Tracking three different books at a time is a hassle, and having to have three books at any time you would ever need one would make campaign planning for DMs nightmarish.
Agreed.  By the time you get to a high-teens game of 3.5, there's already enough info that the DM is juggling in his head that he forgets things in the heat of the moment (trust me; this just happened to me last Monday).

Our group does rules by committee, with no clear rules answer going to DM until they group can discuss it in depth between sessions. You should try it sometime  :p

This isn't about making an executive decision on a rules debate though.  This is about the routine running of encounters.

That too actually. If the DM doesn't understand something, he defers to the person most knowledgeable in that field, whether is be archer/charger tactics, or how a certain undead's biology functions. Metagaming used to run rampant in our group until we decided that the game is the responsibility of everyone at the table.
My comment was more about the number of things you are mentally juggling.  He has 10 buff spells up, but the party waited to strike, so now he only has these four remaining.  Oh, yeah, and he has a permanent Rary's Telepathic Bond with his boss that I forgot about.  Then after the session... Oh, if I'd remembered he had that, it would have been harder to kill him, etc.

Rule by committee doesn't help that aspect.  Then you add in trying to juggle three such stat blocks for one bad guy, with different abilities that apply against different PC's, etc.  It would be a nightmare.
This.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: sirpercival on December 20, 2013, 11:39:42 AM
Did you guys see the release announcement? A "thrilling" launch. (http://company.wizards.com/content/wizards-coast-announces-thrilling-dungeons-dragons-launch-summer-2014)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: ksbsnowowl on December 20, 2013, 12:11:20 PM
"Multi-Platform."  Interesting.  So I'm guessing there will be back-door 3.5 material, much like the two mentioned adventures?

Yea for more monsters?
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on December 20, 2013, 01:08:54 PM
Did you guys see the release announcement? A "thrilling" launch. (http://company.wizards.com/content/wizards-coast-announces-thrilling-dungeons-dragons-launch-summer-2014)

Oh dear...

Hint  1: They say Gaming Platform, not Edition or anything to denote a tabletop launch. That's fine though, since they probably have another tool like the 4E character builder or something.

but wait...

Hint 2: Why is it saying Monster as a singular? That would imply that they have a specific foe planned, which at the very least sounds like the 4E Orcus debacle all over again, but worries me much more when combined with Hint 1.


Oh look, someone else already noticed. (http://community.wizards.com/comment/49976301#comment-49976301)
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on December 20, 2013, 02:10:35 PM
 :D


... Hint 2: Why is it saying Monster as a singular? That would imply that they have a specific foe planned, which at the very least sounds like the 4E Orcus debacle all over again ...

Echoes of Rattata sugar Plums dancing in their heads !!
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: PlzBreakMyCampaign on January 19, 2014, 01:21:50 AM
Where are you, PBMC?
PBMC, where are you?!
TBH, if I wasn't missed, I wouldn't come back very soon. Working lots. Doing things differently in life. I've oddly been doing a bunch of 3.5 stuff ... just not posting it, yet.

Be patient, he hasn't logged in in 8 days.
Actually I have a persistent log-in cookie so whenever my computer is turned on from sleep, my browser reloads tabs.



Btw is this (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=12123.0) the next 5e thread since we are at 50 pages?

Edit: I thought I was missed, rather than people seeing about calling my bluff. :( but whatever I'll spill.

Firstly all canon 3e information would have to be quantized. They own all the licenses after all. A few books at a time, wouldn't be too hard. 5e environments updating stormwrack, frostburn, sandstorm, etc. Then 5e Completes & Races etc. Then Eberron and Faerun, etc. Then the adventure modules. Then dragon and dungeon mags twenty at a time or so. You get the point.

Each update would have the same header to explain system changes. Then individual entries would be noted that didn't fit. It wouldn't be that much work on the individual side if the broader system changes were specific enough. You wouldn't even have to worry about precedence if you do this just after the core 5e books.

This kind attack could even be done for 4e but obvious with completely different conversion rules than for 3e. Now on to the specifics:

I don't like combining spot and listen into perception. Some people are blind and some are deaf and even people who are neither are often better at seeing than hearing or visa versa. But it seems 5e wants just perception. So for said official updates to 5e, it would look something like this: "for any bonii or penalties to 'listen' or 'spot,' instead add half the value to your perception skill. Any ranks put into the second are now free ranks to be places into another skill." There now you can now worry about that little change.

Yes xp values or gold values will need to be readjusted for the new tables, but the proportions shouldn't be that difficult to figure out. Classes and magic items won't be as bad as it might seem. The worst thing is probably spells, many of which will have to be nerfed or thrown out. Go figure since those are the most broken parts of 3e.

tl;dr make the edition a compatible update from 3e. Don't trash it all, sh|t on your fans and then wonder why they are wary about buying more books that will end up heading into obsolecence in 3 years. I just watched an interview where the main 4e lead admitted 2005 was when WotC considered abandoning 2003's 3.5 system.
Title: Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on January 19, 2014, 02:28:22 PM
Where are you, PBMC?
PBMC, where are you?!

TBH, if I wasn't missed ...

Aww c'mon PLZ , all of bg/mmx loves you ... it's just "some" of us are a little weird about it.