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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Anyone else hoping that Endarires endless question topics is related to this so that 5e can get some good feedback? ;)
... Open playtest is just a market gimmick ...
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.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.
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."
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. ..."
Penny Arcade is already making fun of it (http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/01/11).
"My 3.5 PC has his left ball possessed by Satan, how do I work this in 5.0?"
"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.
Touche.To be fair, that wasn't Satan. Satan did show up toward the end of the series though.(click to show/hide)
Umm, thread drift?You playtested it, then? Anything you're allowed to tell us about it?
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...
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?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. :smirkDid 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?
This is, it would be kinda embarassing that after burning so much money on the books, you couldn't play whitout online suport. :pKeep in mind this question is coming from someone who has played 4th edition a grand total of about 4 times.
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.This is, it would be kinda embarassing that after burning so much money on the books, you couldn't play whitout online suport. :pKeep 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?
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...
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...
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...
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.
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)?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."
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.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.
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.
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?
It wasn't particularly easy to port character between 2E and 3EI 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.It wasn't particularly easy to port character between 2E and 3EI wish to hear more, specifically what mechanics didn't go and why.
Just saying, "It's D&D, it's what EVERYONE will be playing!" isn't going to cut it this time. 4th editionFTFY. :Ddemonstrated pretty conclusively that that's not true anymore.pretty much ruined that for them.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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!!!!They've got to get the Power Thirst/Brondo guy to do the commercial.
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!
"With new races like Sun Elf, Robot Orc, and GUN!"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBlweHRITsA#t=3m30s
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.
Having New Coke flashbacks? :PWell, 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, 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...
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.
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?
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...You playtested it, then? Anything you're allowed to tell us about 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...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?
Food for thought (http://www.howlingtower.com/).I read it, but all I got out of it was "Whaaaa!"...
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.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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.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 is the Craft skill even for?)Noobs. Didn't you get the memo? ;)
'3tards,' '4ons,' what's next?Both of those are news to me...
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.(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.
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).
By-the-way ... there's a rather new Mearls v Trollman dust-upA new one? From where?
floating around out there. I didn't get the link fast enough.
Damn. How could I forget fatbeard? Sounds like a pirate.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.(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.
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 :lolDamn. How could I forget fatbeard? Sounds like a pirate.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.(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.
"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 rivalawwwwww caelic I coulda done without that
Basic = Childhood
1E = Preadolescence
2E = Adolescence
3E = Adulthood
4E = Midlife crisis
5E = ???
Wouldn't nae been fun without it ... http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=53055
:whistle
GNS theory:???
HERE (http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html) you go.GNS theory:???
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? :huhOh, 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)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)?
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 know I'm not being real clear here.Understatement. :???
"I'd like to GN your S, if you know what I mean."... do you know any pick-up lines, that might work with the 5e design staff ?I know I'm not being real clear here.Understatement. :???
"You don't like it the way I like it? That's cool, we can do it both ways. At the same time."I'd like to GN your S, if you know what I mean."... do you know any pick-up lines, that might work with the 5e design staff ?I know I'm not being real clear here.Understatement. :???
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
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?
because it forced them to be creative instead of charging headlong into "the most exciting aspects of the game: combat." Half right
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.
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.
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.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...
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.
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.
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.
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.Sounds familiar. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=67) :p
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.
Even before that, it existed in the form of reserve feats. Remember those? Yeah, me neither.QuoteOne 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.Sounds familiar. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=67) :p
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.
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.
https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120227As 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. ...
VAANNNNCCCCEEE! :shakefistQuoteFor 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.
Save Or Die (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120305)..wait, what?
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.
Am I missing something here?
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.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.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.
That doesn't mean I like the system, just that I get his point.
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.
http://pastebin.com/zRWmNeZd (http://pastebin.com/zRWmNeZd)">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.
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...
http://pastebin.com/zRWmNeZd (http://pastebin.com/zRWmNeZd)">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.
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.
>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.
Yeah, those comments seem to be tongue-in-cheek.
"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
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.
Are they kidding? Chokers are like the single most iconic CO monster ever since the Choker Handbook.We should start a petition for the inclusion of wereswans.
Minmaxers get no respect. Fuck WotC.
Also, Lammasu are just cool.
No. Hell no. I draw the line at anything with a bill. Fuck swans.Are they kidding? Chokers are like the single most iconic CO monster ever since the Choker Handbook.We should start a petition for the inclusion of wereswans.
Minmaxers get no respect. Fuck WotC.
Also, Lammasu are just cool.
Interesting. Is this based on a childhood experience?No. Hell no. I draw the line at anything with a bill. Fuck swans.Are they kidding? Chokers are like the single most iconic CO monster ever since the Choker Handbook.We should start a petition for the inclusion of wereswans.
Minmaxers get no respect. Fuck WotC.
Also, Lammasu are just cool.
Werebadgers, on the other hand...
Dork Tower web comic references 5th edition surveys
http://www.dorktower.com/2012/04/02/fifth-edition-dork-tower-02-04-12/
I neither confirm nor deny this.Interesting. Is this based on a childhood experience?No. Hell no. I draw the line at anything with a bill. Fuck swans.Are they kidding? Chokers are like the single most iconic CO monster ever since the Choker Handbook.We should start a petition for the inclusion of wereswans.
Minmaxers get no respect. Fuck WotC.
Also, Lammasu are just cool.
Werebadgers, on the other hand...
Dork Tower web comic references 5th edition surveys
http://www.dorktower.com/2012/04/02/fifth-edition-dork-tower-02-04-12/
Epic. :lmao
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)
Saw this on The Gaming Den:Mildly prophetic. Sadly, WotC will still screw it up...
Possible ruminations about 5th Edition... from a Paizo poster waaayyy back in 2007. (http://paizo.com/forums/dmtyz6i5?5th-edition)
Holy crap! that is amazing!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.
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.
Maybe with auto-handicap. :???Holy crap! that is amazing!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.
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.
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???
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.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.
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.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.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.
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.
^ 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 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.
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.
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.
the local hookers will blow people for free on their birthday.we need to start a petition. :D
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?!
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.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.
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.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.
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.
I really doubt it.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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 ... >:(
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.
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?
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.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.
Got a link to the download?Link. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx)
Also, details man, details! Please tell me more while I'm still at work and can't see for myself.
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.
Just curious: If the party is subject to two disadvantage effects and one advantage effect, are they disadvantaged? or just at "normal?"
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.
-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.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.
-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.
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).
Yep, sounds like the design principle is avoiding nova-bomb combats, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.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.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?
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.
Ray of frost is the Best. Spell. Ever.Assuming they keep minimum forward movement for poor and clumsy fliers, tag a flying dragon with this, and watch it plummet to the ground.
Someone within 100 feet can't move for one round on a succesful touch attack? And I can do this at will?
Ray of frost is the Best. Spell. Ever.Assuming they keep minimum forward movement for poor and clumsy fliers, tag a flying dragon with this, and watch it plummet to the ground.
Someone within 100 feet can't move for one round on a succesful touch attack? And I can do this at will?
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! ;)
Resistance halves the damage, while vulnerability doubles it. Simple, elegant, scales well.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. >:}
Edit: and no surprise rounds, just a -20 to initiative if you're surprised. Different... will have to see how that plays out.
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.
anything on vision?
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.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
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.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.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.
Sorry, I was quick, I was on my phone last-second, and this site doesn't seem to play nice with mobile interface.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.
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.
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%.
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.
Sorry, I was quick, I was on my phone last-second, and this site doesn't seem to play nice with mobile interface.If they're being entirely literal when they say "adventurers can have scores as high as 20," then I very much doubt it.
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?
Oh, and beating the shit out of someone makes it easier to charm them.Water boarding, anyone? :D
There also needs to be a justification for Adamantine armor having a price putting it on par with medium wonderous items.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
I'm still trying to figure out who this new system is for.Everyone on Earth. WotC wants all your base to belong to them.
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?
@caelic: I think the target market is everyone you listed
+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.@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.@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.
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.
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.
That's what 6e is for5e-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.
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.
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?
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)I'm glad my volume was muted :P
Did he really say this? If you remember the source, I'd like to see it.
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.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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
5e game went well.
EDIT: i retract some of the ... (stab)
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.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. :pI'm still trying to figure out who this new system is for.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?
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?
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?
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.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.but removing level scaling lends more toward 4e balance.How do we know this? Isn't the playtest just low level characters?
Peace,
Necro
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.
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.
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.but removing level scaling lends more toward 4e balance.How do we know this? Isn't the playtest just low level characters?
Peace,
Necro
Sounds like 3e but boring.
*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.
within that 5 level variance, though, the world entirely scaled with you.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.
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.
... Nor is the "Fighter" supposed to suck ...
within that 5 level variance, though, the world entirely scaled with you.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.
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.
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.
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...
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?I think someone managed to patent that in Australia a few years back...
Back to the drawing board...
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.You'd think they'd have worked this out during 4E itself already.
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.
Still completely missing the point (https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120716)(http://chzgifs.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/funny-gifs-and-headdesk.gif)QuoteAs 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.You'd think they'd have worked this out during 4E itself already.
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.
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.".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?
Thats whats important to GMs and Players. Designers are supposed to be handling the mechanical soundness.
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:
And I think that the feel of the rules is always gonna trump like the mathematical soundness and the aesthetics of them.
Little late on this, but:Quote from: Mike MearlsAnd I think that the feel of the rules is always gonna trump like the mathematical soundness and the aesthetics of them.
RPG Codex Interview: Mike Mearls on Dungeons & Dragons and D&D Next (http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=8309)
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[...]
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 MearlsOne 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?
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).
This interview is a bit more encouraging. He sounds more like he knows what he's talking about. But I am left to wonder: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.Quote from: Mike MearlsOne 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...
Fighters getting Something I guess (https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120730)
Well, its something. It probably won't amount to enough, but its better than the big fat nothing they had before.
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, they are the Wizards of the Coast. Not the Hobbits of the Coast. So they should be safe. :DThe 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.)
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)Pretty much. Also, this little gem:
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?
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?
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?
QuoteSecond, 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.
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.
Out of curiosity, to whom should they cater the next edition of D&D, if not the vocal majority?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.
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 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 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 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.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.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 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.
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.
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?
P.S.:Because as evidenced by this quote, the people in charge do not understand what's going on at all: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?
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.
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...
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did anyone else notice the subtle hints of facing referenced in the shield spell & a couple places in the how to play guide?
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.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.
4E multiclassing was a steaming pile. It needs to die a painful death. :chairhitDo 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.
Quote from: DM guidelinesThe 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 guidelinesUsing 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 guidelinesAs 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 guidelinesChecks: 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 guidelinesAs 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 guidelinesYou 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.
Quote from: CapnTthePirateGHere it is, RobbyPants.Jesus Christ! Really!? Why even have mods and DCs if we only care about the raw dice?Quote from: DM guidelinesHere’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.
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 ofAdPost 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.
They did something similar with Points of Light.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.
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.
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.They did something similar with Points of Light.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.
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.
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
Quote from: CapnTthePirateGHere it is, RobbyPants.Jesus Christ! Really!? Why even have mods and DCs if we only care about the raw dice?Quote from: DM guidelinesHere’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.
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 ofAdPost 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.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.
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.
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.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.
^^I guess we have very divergent opinions on what qualifies as "relatively minor concerns," then.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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."
That Sorcerer Dragon's Breath power looks interesting, pity no one actually gets to have it. :smirk
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?!
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.
Just saw this article on rpg.net (http://www.rpg.net/columns/brave/brave81.phtml)Oh noes! First level characters that aren't reduced to chunks the first time they meet an orc?! How ever shall we cope?
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.
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.Just saw this article on rpg.net (http://www.rpg.net/columns/brave/brave81.phtml)Oh noes! First level characters that aren't reduced to chunks the first time they meet an orc?! How ever shall we cope?
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.
Just saw this article on rpg.net (http://www.rpg.net/columns/brave/brave81.phtml)Oh noes! First level characters that aren't reduced to chunks the first time they meet an orc?! How ever shall we cope?
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.
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.
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.
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?
What the Abyss is the product line till then? Nothing?
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.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!
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!
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.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.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!
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!
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
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.
I didn't bother when it was obvious WotC wouldn't listen there, so I haven't looked to see. Why is it crappy?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?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
bolding mine.
... 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? ...
... 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 think the Homebrewing "cat" is out of the bag.
That's a very good thing.
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.
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 ?!
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:
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.
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?
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
Calling it a test eh. Either the game is MUCH further from completion than I thought, or they're just covering their ass.
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.
More importantlyQuoteCalling it a test eh. Either the game is MUCH further from completion than I thought, or they're just covering their ass.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, wouldn't it incentivize it?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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So have they bothered making a second class that doesn't use the gods awful martial dice yet?
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.
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.
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 wonder what it'd take for a 5th edition PDF to appear in my inbox...
Level 20 feels like level 1 in all but the Class mechanic.
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.
H. Caster Level doesn't exist.
K. Save system rewritten to use all six ability scores, good luck there.
Because if you want to see +3 Armor, you're going to have to spend $30 bucks on Complete Ripoff.
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 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.
they don't have a design in mindBingo.
I could write my review from scratch, but it's easier to just argue with everything SorO said. :)
;)I laughed too, but he agreed to about half the things I said anyway.
OK that's funny right there ... :lmao
(in total isolation)
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.
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.
Okay, I think I'm going off topic now (wait. can you go off-topic in a thread with almost 600 posts?)
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.
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.&
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.
The magicThat's pretty much how the Girdles of Giant Strength worked in 2e.itemsitem 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.
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.
I think there's a need for feats that let you concentrate on more than one spell at the same time.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
Has Mearls shit his own spleen?
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Yeah but isn't he about to be eaten? Can you trust what he sees?
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?
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
Bump for 50 pages!
They are never going to please everyone with 5e.The real question will be: can they please enough people to turn up a profit?
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
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: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.They are never going to please everyone with 5e.The real question will be: can they please enough people to turn up a profit?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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
Paladins must be of any Lawful alignment, and represent champions of order as opposed to Goodliness.
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.
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 would much rather have Paladins function like Crusaders - any non-TrueNeutral.
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. :/
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Otherwise there's no reason not to have magic marts, because [entirely plausible in-character logic]
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.
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
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 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.
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. :(
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 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...
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.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...
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.
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.You're claiming that leaders in D&D never get backstabbed by their underlings?
Rather undercut if they can be defeated by a tiny group of peasants.
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.
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 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.
Wonder then why they try so hard to get those cultist groups going right? :ehQuoteSince 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.
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. :/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.
There is a problem if 'bring in lots of peasants' is an option for 'take out the most powerful Devil'.
Wonder then why they try so hard to get those cultist groups going right? :ehQuoteSince 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.
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. :/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.
There is a problem if 'bring in lots of peasants' is an option for 'take out the most powerful Devil'.
Then Sauron himself got taken out by a counter humie rush.
Proceeded by being finished off by "bring in lots ofhobbitsfat children".
Thousands of farmers-"A speck of dirt that shouldn't even be worth acknowledging."QuoteWonder 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.
... 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
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. :PGo 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.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.
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.
Thousands of farmers-"A speck of dirt that shouldn't even be worth acknowledging."QuoteWonder 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.
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. :PGo 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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Now this thread is interesting again. Tell me about the entwives, grandfather.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
So if there are no skills now how do you do the things they used to represent? DM fiat?
So if there are no skills now how do you do the things they used to represent? DM fiat?
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. :/I'm not sure they quite get the purpose of modularity, really.What is the true purpose of modularity?
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.
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?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. @_@
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.
So if there are no skills now how do you do the things they used to represent? DM fiat?
Trying to compete with other TRPGs is a losing strategy....I think something's gone terribly offtrack.
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: MearlsTrying to compete with other TRPGs is a losing strategy....I think something's gone terribly offtrack.
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: MearlsTrying to compete with other TRPGs is a losing strategy....I think something's gone terribly offtrack.
@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.
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.
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.
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: MearlsTrying 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?
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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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 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."
The Take 10 thing proposed has exactly that problem, though. I said nothing about taking 10 in general. :ehThat's totally my fault. I read it too quickly before I dashed off my reply. Will edit the above post appropriately.
So. If one were to write DM guidelines for when not to roll for plot reasons, how would you word that?
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.
I'm actually quite satisfied with many of the ideas presented to us over the playtest. I'm just not satisfied with the math.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?
If WotC can get someone who can do the math on board, I'd look forward to this edition.
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)
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?
But... they're still making drastic changes with each update!
I don't have much hope left for Next if the playtest is to end with it in such a state :(
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.
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.
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.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!"
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.
I read the playtest this week. I like it. May even start gaming again. Shrug.
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.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?
Uh...ADMG is that you? This post seems a little different than your others.
Hey, getting married versus playing 4th Edition.Yeah I saw JJ's posts in a few places too.
Sounds like the same "compromise" JanusJones
had to make ; and he recently reappeared too.
Whoa ... that's a Harmonic Convergence (sda).
Forgoten Realms was nuked.I will never forgive them for that.
Hey, getting married versus playing 4th Edition.Yeah I saw JJ's posts in a few places too.
Sounds like the same "compromise" JanusJones
had to make ; and he recently reappeared too.
Whoa ... that's a Harmonic Convergence (sda).
"I sense something...a presence I haven't felt since..."
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.
...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.
After seeing many editions of FR world-changing cataclysms, I can't get worked up over the latest one.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.
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.)
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.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.
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.
Mike Mearls is bringing back Kender as a PC race. (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?699501-Kender-Oh-No-Mearls-Didn-t)Now I think he's just fucking with us.
MEEEAAARRRLLLSSS!!!
Hey, getting married versus playing 4th Edition.Yeah I saw JJ's posts in a few places too.
Sounds like the same "compromise" JanusJones
had to make ; and he recently reappeared too.
Whoa ... that's a Harmonic Convergence (sda).
"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.
Hey, getting married versus playing 4th Edition.Yeah I saw JJ's posts in a few places too.
Sounds like the same "compromise" JanusJones
had to make ; and he recently reappeared too.
Whoa ... that's a Harmonic Convergence (sda).
"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?
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)
@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.
the arguments from 3.5 were non-stop compared to my 1e groups
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".
That "fighter #114" thing that you describe is how I feel about 2e non-casters.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.
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. ;)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)
3.x character building makes me think "Ughhh, I thought I already did my taxes this year..."
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.
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?
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.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.'
Why do people think Magic Items should be rare?
I've heard that Champions chargen is crazy "realistic."
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?
Actually, barring further review, I'm going with they changed depending on the scene in the film.Really? Because a green elven cloak appearing as a rock sounds pretty flipping magical to me.I thought they were grey? :huh
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.
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.
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.
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.
At least in the way that the game expects PCs to function.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...
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.
I've heard that Champions chargen is crazy "realistic."
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?
And then you die. So basically, it sounds a lot like 3.x chargen turned up to 11.
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.I've heard that Champions chargen is crazy "realistic."
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
How come? The rule-dynamics, the gamers, or both?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.
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.
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.
^ 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.
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
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.
I'm not a huge fan of expending character resources on consumables.
...It's been decades since I've played GURPS. But, somehow I recall that you could buy a gun with $$$ in most settings. Likewise a car, helicopter, etc. Somehow I also recall that you could spend character points on getting an advantage, subtly named Wealth. So, ummm ... yeah, you can spend character points on money. It's more explicit in other games, like Shadowrun, for good or ill. I happen to prefer M&M's approach to these things, but D&D has its own way of doing things and its own legacy.D&D just doesn't unify them like the purely point-based systems do.
Incorrect. None of the games mentioned in my previous post, as a system default, unify cash and character points. None of them. And the only prominent example of that occuring is D&D 1st ed. . . like I just said.
If you're going to make declarative statements, try not to make them be demonstratively false. E.g.:...It's been decades since I've played GURPS. But, somehow I recall that you could buy a gun with $$$ in most settings.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.
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 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.
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.
... 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 ...
... So Sally Swordsyourface gets a Sacred Shortsword at ...
Yeah yeah D&D legacy stuff. Slay enough sacred cows and people go more apoplectic than the 3e/4e edition war.
You act as though those customisation point based systems are balanced by default. I would like you to read some white wolf systems.
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.
And is this a bad thing? Really?
I fail to see the need to overbalance things in a traditional pen and paper RPG.
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?
Wait, I'm confused. [etc, etc]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.
That said, I don't know what you mean by "overbalance." Clarify?
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.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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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)
I never felt the need for that in games with high mortality or with limited customization choices (like Cyberpunk with poor people and CoC)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 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
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.
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.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)
I never felt the need for that in games with high mortality or with limited customization choices (like Cyberpunk with poor people and CoC)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.
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
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
Anyone can cause so much crap with just one word; Ravnos. Though it helps to use it in a proper sentence.
This has been my experience too.
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.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.
@Complete4thOdd, 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.
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.
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.
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 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.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.
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.Quote from: bhuIn 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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.)
There is no piece of equipment less evocative than a +1 sword, armor or protective amulet.
Nope, if they exist, they will always be more optimal than items which do not grant similar bonusesUnless 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.
...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.
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.
On the DR tangent, years ago I incorporated this house rule into my 3.5 games: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.
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!
...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.
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.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.
And I thought I had found a diamond in the rough. :tongueOn the DR tangent, years ago I incorporated this house rule into my 3.5 games: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.
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!
But I may remain in the minority.
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.
... They've got to be hiding the real thing. At least most of it.
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 :???
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/398897952724238336While 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".
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 :???
Anyways ... they both have a little blurb that says they work with 3.5e + 4e + 5e.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.
So is this Officially Official , or is this a soft roll out ?!
:??? I do want to know :flutter
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).
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.https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/398897952724238336While 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".
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 :???
I'm terrified that the dev team thinks that's what Evil is, and that they think DM authority should be entirely unlimited.
... instead of continuing to pursue the Game For All Games path of inevitable ruin ...
<snip>
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.
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.Yeah, I'd like to see how it can be done, too.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!
C'mon guys, just a few more posts! I'm holding PlzBreakMyCampaign to his promise!
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...
Ahem.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.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 would think in the difference of abilities, you would pick an edition to act as for the whole turn, maybe?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!)
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 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.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).
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).
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
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.
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.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.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.
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.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.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.
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.
Did you guys see the release announcement? A "thrilling" launch. (http://company.wizards.com/content/wizards-coast-announces-thrilling-dungeons-dragons-launch-summer-2014)
... 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 ...
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.
Where are you, PBMC?PBMC, where are you?!
TBH, if I wasn't missed ...