DnD Next Is Not using 2nd/3rd ed Vancian Magic System... so everyone be happy

Yeah, you read that right.....  DnD Next isnt using Vancian Magic system.  

Yah,  I said it... it needed to be said and I said it....

Anyone who thinks that  DnD Next is going to use a Vancian Magic System is simply wrong.  

I mean I've only had one single 3 lvl playtest packet to base my thoughts on,  but already I can tell that this isnt 2nd or 3rd edition DnD magic.    Sure the Developers have been sharing more information in the form of articles and blogs... but nothing set in stone yet as far as I can tell.   They are basically talking to hear themselves talk,  like any one else.  The game is in such earl development after all.


I mean look at it,   Ritual Spells...   pure awesomeness.    I've been using them in 3.5 for years to shut down campaign destroying magic such as wish,  miracles,  and anything to do with planar travel to name just a few.    Rituals are NOT vancian magic.


Next we have At-wills,   another awesome idea that works out well.   At-will magic is NOT vancian magic.  Its basically the opposite of vancian magic.  Now, Granted we've only seen the cantrips as At-wills....  but that doesnt mean that it wont be worked into higher level magics.   I could easily see at-will spells being worked into the system for the lower spell levels, say  up too 3rd or even 4th level magic.


Its True that spell memorization is a throw back to older editions, and can be rightfully can be stated to be based on the vancian magic system of those editions.   But the key word here is "based".    Magic breaks the laws of physics and usually breaks the games rules in some way or another,  there are dozens of spells that are so powerful that the must be limited in some way.  Magic should always be resource thats finite.

You cant say that DnD Next is using Vancian magic, just because it has one part thats influenced and inspired by the vancian system of old editions....  and ignore all the other parts of it that dont have anything to do with "classic" Vancian magic.


Lets not forget,  we've seen the system up too what.... level 3.  Hardly even a glimpse of the complete system, or what it will become in the future.   

Nothing is written in stone, till the first book rolls of the press..... after all....


So instead of argueing for a part of a completel unique magic system to be removed,   why not compose suggestions on how to further develope the DnD Next hybrid Magic System.  

Seems more constructive to me,   but thats just my opinion... i could be wrong.      

           
 



         






   
The designers shouldn't keep anything from prior magic systems without keeping the checks and balances that went with it.  I am all for the spell slots and memorization, but I don't see why they have so many when Minor spells are at-wills and they are using rituals.  Because that's what the table used to look like?
You're right, it's not the vancian magic of old. They somehow managed to make it even more flexible.
I think it is very similar to pre-4e systems and so far the spells are almost the same.

All they have done with rituals is call spells that have long casting times rituals.   We will have to wait and see if high level spells like stone to flesh and raise dead can be cast during combat.     We also don't know if Wish will return to the game either. 

So far I see a lot of backwards compatability with pre-4e systems and the caves of chaos module is proof enough that the game is being designed that way.    I doubt very much that the game will fail to include all the classic spells like wish and teleport.    They might work a bit differently, but I expect those spells to return to the game.    

I also don't think they will nerf magic to the extent that 4e did.    Many people want magic to return to the game and they want it to be powerful again.    Open ended spells that serve as cues for role playing and inspire improvisation are key to their play styles.    If anything, the system must include these kinds of spells in some way or another.      

My suggestion is that each spell have a classic and a gamist style block that allows the spell to work in both styles of play.   A hybrid system won't work in all situations and won't make everyone happy.


It may have changed slightly, but it's still largely the same. You memorize a bunch of spells and then forget them as you use them.

The dominant tactic is still to nuke everything in sight, retreat and rest.

The problem of daily resource management remains.
The designers shouldn't keep anything from prior magic systems without keeping the checks and balances that went with it.  I am all for the spell slots and memorization, but I don't see why they have so many when Minor spells are at-wills and they are using rituals.  Because that's what the table used to look like?



The problem is what version has the best checks and balances?   If you look at the 3e Gate spell and compare it to 2e version, it's obvious which one was balanced.       IMO, many of the checks and balances written into the spells were completely lost in 3e.



The problem is what version has the best checks and balances?   If you look at 3e Gate spell and compare it to 2e version, it's obvious which one was balanced.       IMO, many of the checks and balances written into the spells were completely lost in 3e. 



4e had the best checks and balances.  The problem effects became rituals with longish casting times and high gold costs.

Next best was 2e.  Completely busted still, but at least they had spell interruption and some magic could backfire spectacularly.

3e was a complete train wreck.  Magic could do anything, spells never got interrupted, all downsides were removed or downplayed to the point of sillyness. 
The designers shouldn't keep anything from prior magic systems without keeping the checks and balances that went with it.  I am all for the spell slots and memorization, but I don't see why they have so many when Minor spells are at-wills and they are using rituals.  Because that's what the table used to look like?



The problem is what version has the best checks and balances?   If you look at the 3e Gate spell and compare it to 2e version, it's obvious which one was balanced.       IMO, many of the checks and balances written into the spells were completely lost in 3e.

I agree.  I don't want holdovers from 3 with even less balance.


The problem is what version has the best checks and balances?   If you look at 3e Gate spell and compare it to 2e version, it's obvious which one was balanced.       IMO, many of the checks and balances written into the spells were completely lost in 3e. 



4e had the best checks and balances.  The problem effects became rituals with longish casting times and high gold costs.

Next best was 2e.  Completely busted still, but at least they had spell interruption and some magic could backfire spectacularly.

3e was a complete train wreck.  Magic could do anything, spells never got interrupted, all downsides were removed or downplayed to the point of sillyness. 



4e had checks and balances, but it did so at the expense of an entire style of play.    IMO, it completely gutted the organic feel of magic and replaced it with a strict mechanical structure. Some people like that, but it wasn't for me.


IMO, many of the checks and balances written into the spells were completely lost in 3e.



Yes, the psychotic spell (caster) breakout definitely happened with 3rd Ed.

3rd Ed can get the most unwieldy of all editions, IME. 

Good feel though. 
3e was a complete train wreck.  Magic could do anything, spells never got interrupted



Concentration checks?
It may have changed slightly, but it's still largely the same. You memorize a bunch of spells and then forget them as you use them.

The dominant tactic is still to nuke everything in sight, retreat and rest.

The problem of daily resource management remains.






Ive never seen daily resource management as a bad thing,  expecially in regards to magic...  magic should always be a finite powerful resource.


As for the tactic of "nuke" everything and run,  well thats just a forum tactic/theory...  it doesnt play out in real gameplay as often as everyone seems too think it does.   And if it does, then your DM isnt doing his job,  or reading his DMG.  This tactic just isnt as common as people on the forums try to make it out too be,  Ive only experienced it once in my entire DMing career.   I stepped on it hard, and never had another problem with it.... 


In the 3.5 DMG there are rules for what to do if encounters arent as challenging as they should be,  the "nuke" and run tactic leads to encounters that are not challenging as the standard encounter should be.   So using the encounter guidlines as intended, you  reduce those experience rewards,  problem solved.   


The 5 minute workday has nothing to do with resource management... and everything to do with metagaming for game sake,  instead of roleplaying for entertainment sake....   

             

3e was a complete train wreck.  Magic could do anything, spells never got interrupted



Concentration checks?



Casting defensively had an extremely poorly scaling concentration check (15+spell level) that made it so it was relevant only at low levels. By mid levels the check could be passed on a 1 even with their highest level spells, so that they were never interrupted.
3e was a complete train wreck.  Magic could do anything, spells never got interrupted



Concentration checks?



Concentrations checks where developed to give wizards more of a chance to cast spells,  in 2nd edition it was all or nothing because spells where so easy to spoil.


The problem comes from the 3.5's broken skill system....  making checks way way to easy.   It had potential, but the skill system hurts it so much.  
they also said caster level will be a thing of the past.
and that instead of caster level the level of the spell slot you prepare the spell in becomes important.
unfortuantely we haven't seen anything of this yet in the playtest.


i was fully expecting cure light wounds to be replaced with cure wounds.
heals the target for 1D8 HP per level of the spell slot used to cast it. 
they also said caster level will be a thing of the past.
and that instead of caster level the level of the spell slot you prepare the spell in becomes important.
unfortuantely we haven't seen anything of this yet in the playtest.


i was fully expecting cure light wounds to be replaced with cure wounds.
heals the target for 1D8 HP per level of the spell slot used to cast it. 



I missed that...  thats awesome.....
they also said caster level will be a thing of the past.
and that instead of caster level the level of the spell slot you prepare the spell in becomes important.
unfortuantely we haven't seen anything of this yet in the playtest.


i was fully expecting cure light wounds to be replaced with cure wounds.
heals the target for 1D8 HP per level of the spell slot used to cast it. 

Me too.  Instead we got MM scalage. 

If you take caster level and replace it with spell slot level which could be synonymous with spell level, then your gonna about halve those spells dice.  At 11th level you get a 5th level spell slot so your Cure Wounds could be 5d8.

I think this is a great way to reduce caster power and is also closer to where you want your weapon swingers to be.

But if the two - casting and non casting dice - scale in some ratio, your gonna end up with lots of dice getting rolled by everyone.

they also said caster level will be a thing of the past.
and that instead of caster level the level of the spell slot you prepare the spell in becomes important.
unfortuantely we haven't seen anything of this yet in the playtest.


i was fully expecting cure light wounds to be replaced with cure wounds.
heals the target for 1D8 HP per level of the spell slot used to cast it. 

Me too.  Instead we got MM scalage. 

If you take caster level and replace it with spell slot level which could be synonymous with spell level, then your gonna about halve those spells dice.  At 11th level you get a 5th level spell slot so your Cure Wounds could be 5d8.

I think this is a great way to reduce caster power and is also closer to where you want your weapon swingers to be.

But if the two - casting and non casting dice - scale in some ratio, your gonna end up with lots of dice getting rolled by everyone.



From my many years of Mage and Shadowrun, I can assure you Jim...

...nothing feels as good as rolling a handful of dice lol.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

From my many years of Mage and Shadowrun, I can assure you Jim...

...nothing feels as good as rolling a handful of dice lol.



Pffft. Mage and Shadowrun, play old school Champions, make a brick and then attack with a haymaker . . . now thats a handful of dice!

;)
I have no issues with the direction that WotC is headed with Wizards and Clerics, the classes as presented in the play test materials have a nice blend of old and new ideas and feel like an evolution of the game.

Fighters and Rogues on the other hand . . .  
The problem comes from the 3.5's broken skill system....  making checks way way to easy.   It had potential, but the skill system hurts it so much.  




Totally agree, 3rd Ed started the silliness.
From my many years of Mage and Shadowrun, I can assure you Jim...

...nothing feels as good as rolling a handful of dice lol.



Pffft. Mage and Shadowrun, play old school Champions, make a brick and then attack with a haymaker . . . now thats a handful of dice!

;)

Tin GHoD (Great Handfulls of Dice!) syndrome, yeah. ;)  Though large Arete pools were hard to come by in Mage, in other storyteller games you could easily be rolling 8 or 10 dice or more.  And, Shadowrun came pretty close to that haymaker.   Though the dice mechanic was a bit broken in both classic Storyteller and Shadowrun, while Champions! dice mechanics were fine (except for KAs, of course)...

Anyway, the idea of giving weapon users more damage dice as they level up is a good one - and nothing new, actually, I recall AD&D variants that did that, old-school Gamma World did it... and, well, 4e did it with X[W] powers, including at-wills & basic attacks at Epic.



 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Is it per day? Yes.
Does it still involve memorizing and forgetting spells? Yes.
Will I be forced to use this system if I want to play iconic character classes? Seems so.


Not happy. 
...whatever
Yeah, you read that right.....  DnD Next isnt using Vancian Magic system.

You cant say that DnD Next is using Vancian magic, just because it has one part thats influenced and inspired by the vancian system of old editions....  and ignore all the other parts of it that dont have anything to do with "classic" Vancian magic.



Yeah, it's like, you can't say that I'm wearing shoes and ignore the fact that I'm wearing pants and a shirt. I'm not wearing shoes, I'm wearing an ensemble. The shoes are just part of the ensemble. Really, even though they look exactly like shoes – in fact they were shoes until I put on a shirt and pants – they are no longer shoes and it is inaccurate to say that I am wearing shoes. Sure they share many features inspired by shoes: a thick rubber sole on the bottom, a well-supported heel and arch, an enclosed toe, a soft insole to cushion my steps, but the fact is that they are clearly not shoes but rather the "foot component" of my entire outfit.

And if you point out how hideous my shoes are, I will refuse to address your core point but rather huffily clarify that I am not wearing shoes and that I have no idea what you are talking about. Clearly the foot component of my outfit look fine, because you are saying that my shoes are hideous and I am not wearing shoes.

And if you tell me that you would rather I not wear shoes in your house because of all the mud crusted on them, I will carefully explain that you should be happy because the presence of pants and a shirt mean that I am not wearing shoes. You can't say that I am wearing shoes or complain about my shoes because that is just ignoring the presence of a shirt and pants. 

Until and unless you can penetrate this cloud of semantic confusion concerning shoes, which I release in my wake like an escaping squid, there is absolutely no reason for me to address your substantive points and you are irrational to have any problem with me propping the foot component of my ensemble on your coffee table.
4e had checks and balances, but it did so at the expense of an entire style of play.    IMO, it completely gutted the organic feel of magic and replaced it with a strict mechanical structure. Some people like that, but it wasn't for me.

I think thats a really good way of putting it.
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
From my many years of Mage and Shadowrun, I can assure you Jim...

...nothing feels as good as rolling a handful of dice lol.



Pffft. Mage and Shadowrun, play old school Champions, make a brick and then attack with a haymaker . . . now thats a handful of dice!

;)

Tin GHoD (Great Handfulls of Dice!) syndrome, yeah. ;)  Though large Arete pools were hard to come by in Mage, in other storyteller games you could easily be rolling 8 or 10 dice or more.  And, Shadowrun came pretty close to that haymaker.   Though the dice mechanic was a bit broken in both classic Storyteller and Shadowrun, while Champions! dice mechanics were fine (except for KAs, of course)...

Anyway, the idea of giving weapon users more damage dice as they level up is a good one - and nothing new, actually, I recall AD&D variants that did that, old-school Gamma World did it... and, well, 4e did it with X[W] powers, including at-wills & basic attacks at Epic.


First and second edition deckers.  Oh my holy god handfuls of enormous quantities of dice...particularly when one had a Fairlight Excalibur, hand cooked over the course of the game so it had stats beyond the 'generic' one even.  Red Samurai?  Here...lemme roll my -28- dice... lol.  Routinely rolling 15 dice for spells.  "Yes, that's right...my power dart staged to 14D three times over."  We had silly-overpowered Shadowrun characters, I swear.

Never heard of this Champions, may have to give it a quick gander.

Back to topic, I like the concept of the additional dice, or perhaps a 'dice increase' (d4-->d6, d6-->d8, etc).  Maybe both.  d6-->d8-->2d6-->2d8

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Next we have At-wills,   another awesome idea that works out well.   At-will magic is NOT vancian magic.  Its basically the opposite of vancian magic.  Now, Granted we've only seen the cantrips as At-wills....  but that doesnt mean that it wont be worked into higher level magics.   I could easily see at-will spells being worked into the system for the lower spell levels, say  up too 3rd or even 4th level magic.



I can see all non-ritual spells being available as at-will at some point in the game if the caster acheives a certain level of mastery with the spell. For example, having each spell have 5 tiers of mastery, and at the 5th tier it can be cast at will. The dificulty of gaining a tier of mastery would be dependent on how powerful the spell is.

 
D&D Next - Basic and Expert Editions

I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.

Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.


Here's a mockup of the Basic Set I created.



(CLICK HERE TO VIEW LARGER IMAGE)
  

Basic Set

This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).

The Basic boxed set contains:

Quick Start Rules
A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms.

Player's Handbook
(Softcover, 125 pages)
Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level.

Dungeon Master's Guide

(Softcover, 125 pages)
Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.

Monster Manual
(Softcover, 100 pages)
Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D. 

Introductory Adventure
(Keep on the Borderlands)
An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.

Also includes: 

Character Sheets
Reference Sheets
Set of Dice


Expert Set

A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:

Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.)
Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.)
Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)


Expansions

These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.) 

Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book)
Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book)
Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book)
The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)





A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage

A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points

In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...

What are hit points?
The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.

So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then?
It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.

But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target?
Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.

Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact?
Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.

If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent?
Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.

Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack?
It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.

What about poison and other types of non-combat damage?
Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.

If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages?
Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.

What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points?
If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.

Why are monsters killed immediately and not players?
Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.

What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage?
If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).

Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded?
See below.
 

Damage and Dying

Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.

  1. Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly. 
  2. Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
  3. If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
  4. Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.

Unharmed: 1 hp or more
Wounded: 0 hp or less
Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level)
Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)

Wounded
When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.

Incapacitated
Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).

If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.

If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.

Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.

Dead
Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.

I'll point out that while we haven't seen a whole lot of levels- the character sheets for the spellcasters are much more complex than their non-caster counterparts.  Character creation is going to be a big factor in my concern with the casters, because I want to see the options that led from the cleric of pelor to the cleric of moradin.

Hmm... I wonder if the whole vancian thing is a ploy to get people that hate it to try cleric.  The Clerics were awesome.

Pelor's Cleric did more damage than the wizard, had more aoes(at second level), had a more powerful ranged at-will (arguable at 3rd level) and imho was more fun... oh yea and he could heal.

One thing I have to say about the whole "vancian sucks" view (which I totally agree with) is

I freaking love the clerics in next (at level 2+)- and I've ALWAYS hated clerics.
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
Is it per day? Yes.
Does it still involve memorizing and forgetting spells? Yes.
Will I be forced to use this system if I want to play iconic character classes? Seems so.


Not happy. 



Not exclusively per day. There are At-Wills (and evidentally some plans for the ritual side of casting). And nothing to preclude taking the same spell multiple times to fill your slots, so you're not one and done.

The memorizing / forgetting thing can be interpreted differently, as in, the wizard had a certain amount of power and after casting that spell no long has the power to cast it again until resting - which is the same flavoring of the powers system in 4e. Just because it's flavored as memorization and mind wipe for the basic presentation, doesn't mean you have to keep it that way.

And you can't say for certain there won't be an option that fits what you're looking for, it's too early to tell.

Don't tone down your opinion - criticism of the development material can be a good thing, but please tone down the rhetoric against "Vancian" style casting and the venom that accompanies it - particularly when you're still operating on assumptions about the final product and the arguments being made are neither represented correctly nor addressing the real problem.
What's the matter, you dissentious rogues, That rubbing the poor itch of your opinion Make yourselves scabs?
Mearls has said multiple times that there will not be a non-Vancian option for the wizard class. If there isn't something that isn't a wizard in all ways except for the casting style, then they lost me.
Is it per day? Yes.
Does it still involve memorizing and forgetting spells? Yes.
Will I be forced to use this system if I want to play iconic character classes? Seems so.


Not happy. 



Not exclusively per day. There are At-Wills (and evidentally some plans for the ritual side of casting). And nothing to preclude taking the same spell multiple times to fill your slots, so you're not one and done.

The memorizing / forgetting thing can be interpreted differently, as in, the wizard had a certain amount of power and after casting that spell no long has the power to cast it again until resting - which is the same flavoring of the powers system in 4e. Just because it's flavored as memorization and mind wipe for the basic presentation, doesn't mean you have to keep it that way.

And you can't say for certain there won't be an option that fits what you're looking for, it's too early to tell.

Don't tone down your opinion - criticism of the development material can be a good thing, but please tone down the rhetoric against "Vancian" style casting and the venom that accompanies it - particularly when you're still operating on assumptions about the final product and the arguments being made are neither represented correctly nor addressing the real problem.



At-Will magic doesn't make up for other issues.

As for the rest, WotC has lost any patience or goodwill I have in the matter, and is no longer entitled to the benefit of the doubt in my eyes. Until I see it in writing, it doesn't exist. 
...whatever
3e was a complete train wreck.  Magic could do anything, spells never got interrupted



Concentration checks?



Did you see someone fail a concentration check in 3.x?  Ever?

I didn't.  It was essentially -1 skill point per level, no drawback to casting in melee or being hit.

Lets take the absolute worst case scenario for the caster, someone is in his face and readies an action to hit him when he starts to cast.  Assuming he doesn't just 5' step away and blast him completely negating the action... and assuming he is hit.  We assume the stats are roughly equivilent so we don't figure those, the caster took combat casting so he has a +4 to his roll and lets say level 10 caster being hit with a +2 flaming longsword.  Average damage somewhere around 12 not including strength bonus with we assume is similar to the con bonus.  Now at 10 concentration is 13 ranks and 4 from combat casting.  DC to avoid interruption is 10+damage so he needs a 3 to keep his spell.  If he didn't spend a feat he needs a 7.  He needs to take 28 points of damage before strength mod before he has a 50/50 shot of being interrupted.

That's just not very risky.  Considering if you have 10d4 + 3 hp a level you have 55 hp that means you just took over half of your hp in one wack and only have a 50/50 chance of losing your spell.
Never heard of this Champions, may have to give it a quick gander.

One of the better games to come out of the 80s
Show
it was the first in a series of games that were eventually consolidated into the "Hero System" which while it didn't exactly set out to, was more generic and universal than GURPS.  A great, but complex, system with a steep initial learning curve.  Also, makes D&D look like a piker when it comes to editions:  3 eds of Champions starting in 1981, two of Fantasy Hero, plus Star Hero, Espionage, Danger International, Justice Inc, and others - finally Hero System 4th (BBB) in 1989 (4 eds in 8 years), then an open-source digression called Fuzion, then back to Hero System 5th (FRED), HS 5th 'Revised,'  Hero System Sidekick (and 'Revised'), and now Hero System 6th in two volumes.  


Back to topic, I like the concept of the additional dice, or perhaps a 'dice increase' (d4-->d6, d6-->d8, etc).  Maybe both.  d6-->d8-->2d6-->2d8

It's a nice, visceral way of building progression through damage rather than AB, yes, so could be a good adjunct to bounded accuracy. 

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

3e was a complete train wreck.  Magic could do anything, spells never got interrupted



Concentration checks?



Concentration checks were a joke around level 5 or so. You'd do defensive casting and pass it with a roll of a 1 because there were no critical misses on skill checks...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
It may have changed slightly, but it's still largely the same. You memorize a bunch of spells and then forget them as you use them.

The dominant tactic is still to nuke everything in sight, retreat and rest.

The problem of daily resource management remains.






Ive never seen daily resource management as a bad thing,  expecially in regards to magic...  magic should always be a finite powerful resource.


As for the tactic of "nuke" everything and run,  well thats just a forum tactic/theory...  it doesnt play out in real gameplay as often as everyone seems too think it does.   And if it does, then your DM isnt doing his job,  or reading his DMG.  This tactic just isnt as common as people on the forums try to make it out too be,  Ive only experienced it once in my entire DMing career.   I stepped on it hard, and never had another problem with it.... 


In the 3.5 DMG there are rules for what to do if encounters arent as challenging as they should be,  the "nuke" and run tactic leads to encounters that are not challenging as the standard encounter should be.   So using the encounter guidlines as intended, you  reduce those experience rewards,  problem solved.   


The 5 minute workday has nothing to do with resource management... and everything to do with metagaming for game sake,  instead of roleplaying for entertainment sake....   

             




Your right, I remember hearing a DM say one time "Your spells don't work, your in a 1 foot lead lined dungeon, with anti-scry, anti-teleport, anti-magic creatures, the princess is about to die, the monsters split by asexual reproduction, etc..." after a about a 5 minute tirade the player then asked if the DM would like him to play something else like say a cleric or druid.

The game broke down after that...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Yeah, you read that right.....  DnD Next isnt using Vancian Magic system.

You cant say that DnD Next is using Vancian magic, just because it has one part thats influenced and inspired by the vancian system of old editions....  and ignore all the other parts of it that dont have anything to do with "classic" Vancian magic.



Yeah, it's like, you can't say that I'm wearing shoes and ignore the fact that I'm wearing pants and a shirt. I'm not wearing shoes, I'm wearing an ensemble. The shoes are just part of the ensemble. Really, even though they look exactly like shoes – in fact they were shoes until I put on a shirt and pants – they are no longer shoes and it is inaccurate to say that I am wearing shoes. Sure they share many features inspired by shoes: a thick rubber sole on the bottom, a well-supported heel and arch, an enclosed toe, a soft insole to cushion my steps, but the fact is that they are clearly not shoes but rather the "foot component" of my entire outfit.

And if you point out how hideous my shoes are, I will refuse to address your core point but rather huffily clarify that I am not wearing shoes and that I have no idea what you are talking about. Clearly the foot component of my outfit look fine, because you are saying that my shoes are hideous and I am not wearing shoes.

And if you tell me that you would rather I not wear shoes in your house because of all the mud crusted on them, I will carefully explain that you should be happy because the presence of pants and a shirt mean that I am not wearing shoes. You can't say that I am wearing shoes or complain about my shoes because that is just ignoring the presence of a shirt and pants. 

Until and unless you can penetrate this cloud of semantic confusion concerning shoes, which I release in my wake like an escaping squid, there is absolutely no reason for me to address your substantive points and you are irrational to have any problem with me propping the foot component of my ensemble on your coffee table.



Yeah except the minor at-will spells are equivalent to the crossbow refluffed from pre-4E editions, and the ritual spells aren't all that helpful...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
@OP: Whether or not the wizard class keeping its new vancian (I've referred to it elsewhere as an ADU system), and only being able to use that subsystem, is acceptable for some of us depends largely on how much flavor is locked into the class itself.  If you can recreate the exact same flavor in another class, without expending any character resources to do so, then it's fine.  However, if anyone wants to play a wizard, and cannot recreate that flavor in another class without having to spend themes or backgrounds to do so, then it's not acceptable.

The best and simplest answer is for WotC to give us modular rules for replacing subsystems that we don't think are fun to use.  Because no one should be stuck with a subsystem they hate just to fulfill a character concept.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Actually, I hope they remove casters altogether. They are annoying.

D&D Next - Basic and Expert Editions

I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.

Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.


Here's a mockup of the Basic Set I created.



(CLICK HERE TO VIEW LARGER IMAGE)
  

Basic Set

This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).

The Basic boxed set contains:

Quick Start Rules
A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms.

Player's Handbook
(Softcover, 125 pages)
Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level.

Dungeon Master's Guide

(Softcover, 125 pages)
Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.

Monster Manual
(Softcover, 100 pages)
Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D. 

Introductory Adventure
(Keep on the Borderlands)
An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.

Also includes: 

Character Sheets
Reference Sheets
Set of Dice


Expert Set

A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:

Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.)
Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.)
Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)


Expansions

These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.) 

Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book)
Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book)
Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book)
The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)





A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage

A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points

In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...

What are hit points?
The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.

So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then?
It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.

But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target?
Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.

Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact?
Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.

If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent?
Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.

Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack?
It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.

What about poison and other types of non-combat damage?
Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.

If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages?
Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.

What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points?
If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.

Why are monsters killed immediately and not players?
Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.

What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage?
If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).

Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded?
See below.
 

Damage and Dying

Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.

  1. Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly. 
  2. Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
  3. If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
  4. Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.

Unharmed: 1 hp or more
Wounded: 0 hp or less
Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level)
Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)

Wounded
When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.

Incapacitated
Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).

If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.

If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.

Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.

Dead
Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.

I really, honestly, truthfully desire to see how the sentiments of our online community regarding Vancian casting compares to that of the hobby at large.

Though I know it's utterly impossible, it would be an awesome insight.

Danny

Actually, I hope they remove casters altogether. They are annoying.



My philosphical creed has informed me that there is to be no moar healing for you, barechested fighty man!

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Ok on the shoe analogy I'd like to point out that all 4e did was add a belt shirt and pants.

5e took away the belt and now everyone is screaming OMG we have to wear shoes again!!

You had shoes in 4e but everyone had to wear them not just your caster.


To the argument on disruption in 3e. Most monsters were not dealing just 12 HP at mid levels. The caster could easily fail with readied actions from the big hitters and from multiple mid damage opponents.

It required the enemy to choose that action but was entirely possible and really not very difficult. People just complained when you used that tactic with any regularity if they were meta gaming. Just like all of the other restrictions you could place within the rules.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Sign In to post comments