Horrified by the latest playtest package.

So, just spent some time sorting through the latest batch of playtest materials.  So far, looks awful.

Low hit points.  1st level wizards are back to being one shotted by goblins.  3rd level wizards are one shotted by orcs.  INCREDBILY stupid design decision. This is why I wouldn't play a wizard in earlier editions of the game.

Is there another specialization that is remotely as useful to the party as a whole as Healer?  It looks to me that we have taken a step back to the days when you had to have cleric.  Now, not only do you need to have a cleric, you need to have a Healer cleric or you are back to a long rest after every three goblins.  Dumb.

Vanican magic.  Ugh.  I can live with a vancian wizard if there is a non-vancian equivelent.  Need to see more classes to avoid calling this a total failure.

There ins't that much more here than in the first playtest.  Yes, there are char gen rules, but there just are not that many choices for character design.  I could undertand that in the very first test, that was basically beta for the core mechanics, but what the heck have they been doing since then?  I was expecting to see a lot more, including some of the "modules" you are supposed to be able to plug in to customize the game to your own style.  

Random stats and random hit points after first level.  I think this is bad on an epic scale.  At least include a point buy as an option.  

When packet one came out, I said "wait and see" to everyone who didn't like it.  I am not sure I am up for defending this any more.  It feels like the worst parts of 1st edition duct taped to the worst parts of 3rd edition.  The whole background/specialty/class dynamic is kind of interesting, but as I said just not enough choices to make character design interesting and a whole hearted embrace of the dumb things I thought they fixed in 4th.  

Two thumbs down, pretty much feel like I am done with the game at this point.  If I can find 4th ed players I will keep playing that. 
Oh I dunno.  My first instinct was wtf, hp were way better in the first playtest.  So I've alreaady decided to stick to the original system.  Admittedly, I won't be playtesting this packet properly but I don't need to play the low hp game, I played that for 20+ years before 4e and it was awful.  Apart from that, vancian plus at-wills looks interesting enough that I want to try it.
If HD + con score is too much, and HD + con mod isn't enough, would 2xHD + con mod, or even 2x(HD + con mod) be just right?
I like idea of vancian + at will.  I want to see how that works out.

HP: I'd like to see the wizard go to d6 and the rogue to d8.  I'm not sold on starting HP yet.  Most people I knew from 3rd edition started everyone at lvl 3 just to avoid the low HP problem.  I'd like to at least see 2x base for level 1.  (Wiz: 12, Rog: 16, Clc: 16, Ftr: 20) + con.  Or how about con score+ HD?  That should give the first level wizard around 14 hp.

Healing: I still want healing magic to be based on the recipients HD.  CLW on the fighter would be d10, etc.


Healing: I still want healing magic to be based on the recipients HD.  CLW on the fighter would be d10, etc.



Definitely.
So let me get this straight, your biggest complaint with the playtest is. " OMG i could die!"
So let me get this straight, your biggest complaint with the playtest is. " OMG i could die!"



No its more like "OMG I could die from a single lucky roll from the DM"
"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.
Well i suppose this is a matter of playstyle but i guess that i am rather pro-death as a GM, too many games i've been running lately have  resulted in the party steamrolling in with no plan and just having a free for all because they know their characters  are superhuman deathlords from the kickass dimention of awesome because there's about no chance they can lose.
Well i suppose this is a matter of playstyle but i guess that i am rather pro-death as a GM, too many games i've been running lately have  resulted in the party steamrolling in with no plan and just having a free for all because they know their characters  are superhuman deathlords from the kickass dimention of awesome because there's about no chance they can lose.



Yeah, there's a far cry from "Oh no I got hit a couple times we better run or I'll die" and "The goblin hit me once so now I'm dead"...
"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.
So let me get this straight, your biggest complaint with the playtest is. " OMG i could die!"



my problem with the low amount of hitpoints is the folowing:

at this point if 3 goblins ambush the party they get a suprise round, if they focus fire 1 character they have a good chace of getting it below 0.
if one of theose goblins then wins initiative drops his bor moves forward coup de crace 1 dead player.

I would want to have a fealing i at least got a fighting chance.
the initiative system in the first playtest would alow for it as the suprised players would act at the end of the turn with the -20 penalty to initiative so could heal the downed character before the goblin could rush in to make the coup de crace.
Low hit points.  1st level wizards are back to being one shotted by goblins.  3rd level wizards are one shotted by orcs.  INCREDBILY stupid design decision. This is why I wouldn't play a wizard in earlier editions of the game.


I may be one of the few, but I did not like the amount of hp player had in the first packet. I want character to fear one shot kill, at least at low levels. It's actualy a matter of playstyle, but the sense of danger given by so little hit point, so litlle that a first level character must actualy fear a lucky roll, is the only reason I like low level games. And it makes much more sense to me, since I see a low level adventurer as a common, well trained person, maybe with just a little better ability scores.

Random stats and random hit points after first level.  I think this is bad on an epic scale.  At least include a point buy as an option.



An array will surely come. And maybe even bupoint. Even if humas will be uber with this. As for hit point you are wrong. On the class features sections it gives either a dice to roll or a static value. So everyone gets to pick his favourite. I'm all for rolling, so I'm happy, you hate rolling so you are happy too.
From my perspective, and those of at least two of the people I play with, low hit points are a good thing.

I built a fighter and gave him the healer speciality, I also gave it to a rogue I rolled up. They can make their own potions and healing kits. Given some time they can easily do without a cleric to heal them.

I'm kind of hating at-will spells and that channel divinity thing's not much better, at least cure spells should be more effective.

Let's all go make skeleton warriors to absorb some of the damage that would otherwise be dealt to the poor unarmored putz who chose to be the mage. Where's the mage armor spell. that joke called shield certainly won't cut it.

 
Low hit points.  1st level wizards are back to being one shotted by goblins.  3rd level wizards are one shotted by orcs.  INCREDBILY stupid design decision. This is why I wouldn't play a wizard in earlier editions of the game.


I may be one of the few, but I did not like the amount of hp player had in the first packet. I want character to fear one shot kill, at least at low levels. It's actualy a matter of playstyle, but the sense of danger given by so little hit point, so litlle that a first level character must actualy fear a lucky roll, is the only reason I like low level games. And it makes much more sense to me, since I see a low level adventurer as a common, well trained person, maybe with just a little better ability scores.

Random stats and random hit points after first level.  I think this is bad on an epic scale.  At least include a point buy as an option.



An array will surely come. And maybe even bupoint. Even if humas will be uber with this. As for hit point you are wrong. On the class features sections it gives either a dice to roll or a static value. So everyone gets to pick his favourite. I'm all for rolling, so I'm happy, you hate rolling so you are happy too.

My experience of low HPs at low levels is no combat adventures or hunting rats in the city basements, and even this was dangerous.
Most of the time, my groups started at 3rd level or gained the experience from avoiding dangers and gather informations. Having class features or HPs was almost useless. A 1st level characters that can be killed by a housecat in one on one combat is… funny, not gritty Wink

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

I'm not a big fan of the lowered hit points either.  I think they let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction, but it isn't the earth shattering, end of the world type of tragedy some here are portraying.  Over dramatize much?

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.


I'm not a big fan of the lowered hit points either.  I think they let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction, but it isn't the earth shattering, end of the world type of tragedy some here are portraying.  Over dramatize much?




The fighter with a high con score (say +4 mod) has 14 hit points at first level. A goblin deals 4.5 damage with their short bow on average. They have a 25% chance of hitting the fighter so they deal 1.125 average damage per round. An average encounter is 6 goblins. If they attack the fighter on the first round they would deal 6.75 average damage so we are literally talking two rounds at average damage or 2-3 high damage hits in 1 round.

My idea of gritty is the fighter surviving the first couple rounds and deciding to run on the next round... This is not gritty this is insane...
"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.
I'm trying to decide if Next is even deadlier than 1e and 2e. Characters get more stat bonuses (because bonuses start at 12 instead of 15), but so do monsters. Hit point base is the same, but AC is a bit lower. Monsters tend to kick out more damage, for example 1e/2e Orc did 1d8 damage vs Next 1d12+2  (that's like 3e, right? I can't find my 3e MM at the moment).

While I don't want horribly inflated hit points, I do think that they need go up a bit to compensate for all the extra damage. I would like it if characters got more hit points from their HD (those dice things one rolls for hit points, not the one's used to heal oneself-- ahh, shifting lexicons!) than their Con bonus. I think too many people wqnted to add their Con bonus to hit points every level and that's why the change. I liked Packet 1's method better. Maybe something in between is needed.

I'm not a big fan of the lowered hit points either.  I think they let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction, but it isn't the earth shattering, end of the world type of tragedy some here are portraying.  Over dramatize much?




The fighter with a high con score (say +4 mod) has 14 hit points at first level. A goblin deals 4.5 damage with their short bow on average. They have a 25% chance of hitting the fighter so they deal 1.125 average damage per round. An average encounter is 6 goblins. If they attack the fighter on the first round they would deal 6.75 average damage so we are literally talking two rounds at average damage or 2-3 high damage hits in 1 round.

My idea of gritty is the fighter surviving the first couple rounds and deciding to run on the next round... This is not gritty this is insane...



My last sentence stands.

Using the Dungeons & Dragons Dice Roller here, I conducted a little test.  Assuming that there were other targets for the goblins I put 3 of them on the fighter and ran a mock combat.  It took 3 rounds before the fighter even got hit.  In contrast it looks like the fighter can't miss the standard goblin, and on average kills them with a hit.  So unless the goblins won initiative, the fighter never got hit and killed 3 goblins freeing him up to assist the cleric or whoever else is still fighting goblins at that point.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.


I'm not a big fan of the lowered hit points either.  I think they let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction, but it isn't the earth shattering, end of the world type of tragedy some here are portraying.  Over dramatize much?




The fighter with a high con score (say +4 mod) has 14 hit points at first level. A goblin deals 4.5 damage with their short bow on average. They have a 25% chance of hitting the fighter so they deal 1.125 average damage per round. An average encounter is 6 goblins. If they attack the fighter on the first round they would deal 6.75 average damage so we are literally talking two rounds at average damage or 2-3 high damage hits in 1 round.

My idea of gritty is the fighter surviving the first couple rounds and deciding to run on the next round... This is not gritty this is insane...



My last sentence stands.

Using the Dungeons & Dragons Dice Roller here, I conducted a little test.  Assuming that there were other targets for the goblins I put 3 of them on the fighter and ran a mock combat.  It took 3 rounds before the fighter even got hit.  In contrast it looks like the fighter can't miss the standard goblin, and on average kills them with a hit.  So unless the goblins won initiative, the fighter never got hit and killed 3 goblins freeing him up to assist the cleric or whoever else is still fighting goblins at that point.



Unless you did 4,000 combat simulations your data is a fluke. Check out www.anydice.com for average chances to hit. The math I posted above is correct. Statistically the fighter won't last past the first few rounds unless they use their 1d6 CS dice exclusively for defense and even then its very very iffy and statistics will catch up with them...
"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.
Unless you did 4,000 combat simulations your data is a fluke. Check out www.anydice.com for average chances to hit. The math I posted above is correct. Statistically the fighter won't last past the first few rounds unless they use their 1d6 CS dice exclusively for defense and even then its very very iffy and statistics will catch up with them...



You don't understand statistics very well, 4,000 isn't needed for a statistically relevant sample, and you don't apply average damage each round.  That isn't how the game works, thank goodness.  Your premise is flawed.  You have to allow for rounds where some damage is taken, but also where no damage is taken because it does make a statistically relevant difference in the outcome.  Applying average damage each round if a flawed model.  It doesn't work.  Try again.

BTW, in melee the goblins do 2hp on average. 

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

Death doesn't come at zero hit points. A single healing starts at zero as well. A goblin might knock a wizard unconscious with one hit but he certainly can't kill him.
Unless you did 4,000 combat simulations your data is a fluke. Check out www.anydice.com for average chances to hit. The math I posted above is correct. Statistically the fighter won't last past the first few rounds unless they use their 1d6 CS dice exclusively for defense and even then its very very iffy and statistics will catch up with them...



You don't understand statistics very well, 4,000 isn't needed for a statistically relevant sample, and you don't apply average damage each round.  That isn't how the game works, thank goodness.  Your premise is flawed.  You have to allow for rounds where some damage is taken, but also where no damage is taken because it does make a statistically relevant difference in the outcome.  Applying average damage each round if a flawed model.  It doesn't work.  Try again.

BTW, in melee the goblins do 2hp on average. 



Yeah again you don't seem to understand what I posted. it takes into account hits and misses and 4,000 is needed for a statistically relevant sample, or you can just do the math and reach the same conclusion. The math is correct. Goblins against the pre-gen dwarven fighter deal 1.125 average damage per round with miss and hit and crit calculated in. 6 of them is an average encounter together they will on average deal 6.75 per round with hits and misses calculated in. If only 3 engage the fighter then it will take 3-4 rounds instead of 1-3 rounds. Either way you are still dying within the first 4 rounds of a 6-10 round combat. If you drop 1 goblin per round you might last to round 6. Either way statistically you will die before you get enough xp to level...
"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.
I don't mind the low hit points in the abstract.  I think it will be a shock at GenCon for players who've been playing 4E for the past couple of years and will probably result in the game getting very bad reviews from a number of players.


I do think that the game needed either an increase in monster damage OR a decrease in player hit points. 


Sure - there should be, I guess, a difference in hit points between the magic user and the fighter.  But there is no reason why fighters should have many times the hit points (at high level) as the magic user.  Magic users are squishy enough with their lack of armor - they don't need that squishiness multiplied by also having a fraction of the hit points.

Generally speaking, I like a roughly two to one ratio at first level - that is, it takes two or more hits by a level one monster to kill a PC (this works out to more like three or four attacks depending on AC because they don't always hit).   Maybe closer to 2.5 for fighters.  But, generally speaking - no character should always drop from one blow because that eliminates the character's ability to respond when attacked (if you are dead you can't run away).


In AD&D - a fighter typically had around 8 hit points (d10 + ConMod) and an orc did 1d8 (avg 4.5) damage -  this is around a two to one ratio (1.8:1), so AD&D had a legitimately lethal feel.  In contrast - a magic users typically had 3 to 4 hit points - this was a less than one to one ratio - one hit typically killed them.

In the prior packet, the fighter had 20 hit points, and an orc did 1d8+1 (avg 5.5).  This was close to 4 to 1 (3.6:1).  The orc's average damage should be more like 8 points (2.5:1).  A magic user had sixteen hit points, a ratio of 2.9 to 1 -  also pretty high.  If the damage were increased to 8 points, the magic user is at 2:1 - nicely in line with 'the goal' - and less lethal than v. AD&D fighters.  As the numbers  (and my impression in play) show - the damage values were too low.

In the current packet, the fighter has 14 hit points and the orc does 1d12+2 for 8.5 points.  This is less than two to one (1.6:1).  In fact this is more lethal than AD&D was, despite AD&D reputation for lethality.  The magic user has 6 hit points - again a less than one to one ratio - one hit will kill them (or at least knock them negative).




The game is now slightly more lethal than AD&D 1st edition.

Basically - as I see it, in the last packet the monster's damage was too low for the character's hit points.  So they 'fixed' both problems.  They raised the damage and they lowered the hit points.


Either fix alone would have worked:


Raise the damage and keep the old hit points  - you are at 2.35:1 and 1.9:1; values within acceptable range.


Keep the old damage and lower the hit points - you are at 2.5:1 and 1.1:1; the mage is lower than desirable - but at least the mage has a 50/50 shot at surviving the first hit.


It's almost as if two different people worked on the problem - one from the perspective of player hit points, one from the perspective of monster damage; each figured out how to fix it - and then they implemented both fixes , overcompensating wildly.

Carl     

I prefered the higher starting hit points, but I don't think the sky is falling either.  Its just more encouragement for groups to start at level 2 or higher.
I'm also not a fan of the lowered hit points. What's the point in creating a character with a backstory, personality, motivations, and whatnot if he has an exceedingly poor chance of surviving the first couple of levels?

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
I prefered the higher starting hit points, but I don't think the sky is falling either.  Its just more encouragement for groups to start at level 2 or higher.



Many people want to start at level 1, they just want more heroic characters.

The overall best option is to let the DM assign one of 3 variant rules that govern hit point progression...
"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 again you don't seem to understand what I posted. it takes into account hits and misses and 4,000 is needed for a statistically relevant sample, or you can just do the math and reach the same conclusion. The math is correct. Goblins against the pre-gen dwarven fighter deal 1.125 average damage per round with miss and hit and crit calculated in. 6 of them is an average encounter together they will on average deal 6.75 per round with hits and misses calculated in. If only 3 engage the fighter then it will take 3-4 rounds instead of 1-3 rounds. Either way you are still dying within the first 4 rounds of a 6-10 round combat. If you drop 1 goblin per round you might last to round 6. Either way statistically you will die before you get enough xp to level...



No, I understand how deeply flawed it is.  It doesn't take into account a round where all the goblins miss (a strong likelyhood).  In fact it is a strong likelyhood that they all miss over the course of several rounds.  During that time, the fighter still kills a goblin per attack more than half of the time (revised from my last post).  That lowers the potential incoming damage accordingly.

In your example where you last to round 6, doesn't that win the fight against the goblins if you have initiative, and especially if you have companions actually helping you?  Sounds like you live to fight another day, and eventually gain levels.  I love how in order for your flawed examples to work they have to be in a vacuum.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

Yeah again you don't seem to understand what I posted. it takes into account hits and misses and 4,000 is needed for a statistically relevant sample, or you can just do the math and reach the same conclusion. The math is correct. Goblins against the pre-gen dwarven fighter deal 1.125 average damage per round with miss and hit and crit calculated in. 6 of them is an average encounter together they will on average deal 6.75 per round with hits and misses calculated in. If only 3 engage the fighter then it will take 3-4 rounds instead of 1-3 rounds. Either way you are still dying within the first 4 rounds of a 6-10 round combat. If you drop 1 goblin per round you might last to round 6. Either way statistically you will die before you get enough xp to level...



No, I understand how deeply flawed it is.  It doesn't take into account a round where all the goblins miss (a strong likelyhood).  In fact it is a strong likelyhood that they all miss over the course of several rounds.  During that time, the fighter still kills a goblin per attack more than half of the time (revised from my last post).  That lowers the potential incoming damage accordingly.

In your example where you last to round 6, doesn't that win the fight against the goblins if you have initiative, and especially if you have companions actually helping you?  Sounds like you live to fight another day, and eventually gain levels.  I love how in order for your flawed examples to work they have to be in a vacuum.



It takes that all into account. Yes the first fight might go fine with the fighter not taking any damage (or being able to heal to full using hit dice), but the fighter (the highest hp class in the game) has a 25% chance of dying in every combat. Guess how many combats it'll take to TPK the party? 1 in 4. Personally I don't like those odds...

I'd rather go with 1 in 20 or something like 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.
There ins't that much more here than in the first playtest.  Yes, there are char gen rules, but there just are not that many choices for character design.  I could undertand that in the very first test, that was basically beta for the core mechanics, but what the heck have they been doing since then?  I was expecting to see a lot more, including some of the "modules" you are supposed to be able to plug in to customize the game to your own style.



See, I think this is the problem around here - not just you, but quite a few people.

To state the obvious: this is a playtest. One does not get accurate feedback and implementation on something one is testing if one tests in broad swaths. Instead, you test smaller samples, to see how something works. The first playtest was exactly what I expected it to be, overall content-wise. As far as this second one is concerned, they told us a week ago what would be in it (the Legends and Lore article from last week covers the big changes, anyway). This really shouldn't be a surprise, and I'm not sure - unless folks missed, forgot, or didn't read the Legends and Lore article - how any of this is a surprise. 

People are expecting far more than what is going to happen. I'm not sure if this is some level of player entitlement or what, but they are going to put out what they need to test, and that's that. We will get more information when they are ready to test it.

That said, I get the impatience. I've liked a lot - almost all, in fact - of what they've put out so far, so I'd like to have a fully-functional game ready to go. However, I also don't want them to rush it and put out a game which is rubbish. So, I have to wait. In fact, I'll probably have to wait through a later playtest which includes 4E-style powers or AEDU-type things (or whatever exactly they implement for that), so I get the 4E folks being a little upset that they have to wait. But waiting is what we have to do. We can be adults about it and realize that we have plenty of gaming that we can do in the meantime - you've got your 4E, I have Ptolus and 3.5 and in fact, damn near the entire nWoD library sitting on a bookcase three feet to my left at the moment. Or, we can be childish and rant and rave and demand things, and complain that we're not getting enough material, or whatever.

As far as I'm concerned, I have plenty of great games to run and to play in the meantime, and I can spice it up with occasional forays into playtest ground while I wait for them to put polish on DDN. And if the final game isn't exactly what I want, that's fine (hell, I expect it won't be exactly what I want), so long as I don't do anything too wonky to the game by removing or changing the things I don't like, or adding in things I do like. Which is exactly what I've done with every edition I've continued to play so far anyway.

In fact, that's the point of this modularity - that folks can add, change, or delete things as they like, to adjust the game to their table. So long as they do it right, it'll work like a charm, too. I already know that it'll work because it's already been done. The aforementioned nWoD books on my bookshelf are testament to that. It's exactly how White Wolf's Storytelling System works. Everything is a toolkit approach - the ST can add, change, or delete what he or she likes. In fact, there are a number of books they put out designed specifically to provide advice for that. The Chronicler's Guides for Requiem, Forsaken, and Awakening all have a number of variant rules in them, some of which change the games on a very fundamental level. The book WoD: Mirrors pretty much tells you how to rip the system apart and put it back together how you like. It also includes rules for miniatures play and a lot of other variant rules. WoD: Armory Reloaded has what it calls "Combat Hacks" - changes to combat so that the dial between "gritty" and "cinematic" can be set to whereever the playing group (called "troupe" in their parlance) wants it set.

So long as WotC does DDN like that (or similarly), not only will it work, but they'll have plenty of book options to create later for further dismantling or changing of the rule system, if they want to go that route - which translates into more revenue (at least, ideally).

But, to get there, we need to test smaller, more discrete sections of the rules. That's what we're doing now. So don't expect large sections of rules or huge changes between playtest packets. In fact, huge changes between playtest packets would be the worst thing they could possibly do during the playtest period.

Random stats and random hit points after first level.  I think this is bad on an epic scale.  At least include a point buy as an option.



First, in regards to random stats: not only do some people like that (I've been using the "4d6 drop the lowest, arrange to taste" method for years, and I don't see me changing anytime soon, especially as my group likes it), but as someone mentioned on another thread - they know how point buy works. They don't need to test it. If you want point buy (and don't like the array provided in the packet), then simply use the point buy scale from your favorite edition. I reckon it will work perfectly fine. If it doesn't, note that, and why. I'm sure that would be good feedback.

In regards to the random hit points, let me direct your attention to the Classes PDF. Specifically, under Cleric it says "Hit Points: 1d8 (or 5) + your Constitution modifier per cleric level gained." Under Fighter: "Hit Points: 1d10 (or 6) + your Constitution modifier per fighter level gained." Under Rogue: "Hit Points: 1d6 (or 4) + your Constitution modifier per rogue level gained." And under Wizard: "Hit Points: 1d4 (or 3) + your Constitution modifier per wizard level gained." So.....yeah. Seems like they've provided you with an option to do exactly what you seem to want to do - have a steady, non-random HP progression. I'm not sure what the problem is, exactly.

When packet one came out, I said "wait and see" to everyone who didn't like it.  I am not sure I am up for defending this any more.  It feels like the worst parts of 1st edition duct taped to the worst parts of 3rd edition.  The whole background/specialty/class dynamic is kind of interesting, but as I said just not enough choices to make character design interesting and a whole hearted embrace of the dumb things I thought they fixed in 4th.  

Two thumbs down, pretty much feel like I am done with the game at this point.  If I can find 4th ed players I will keep playing that. 



See ya. Have fun with 4E.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

I prefered the higher starting hit points, but I don't think the sky is falling either.  Its just more encouragement for groups to start at level 2 or higher.



I think they will swing back in the middle somewhere before this is all done.  That is why I agree with your first sentence.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.



In AD&D - a fighter typically had around 8 hit points (d10 + ConMod) and an orc did 1d8 (avg 4.5) damage -  this is around a two to one ratio (1.8:1), so AD&D had a legitimately lethal feel.  In contrast - a magic users typically had 3 to 4 hit points - this was a less than one to one ratio - one hit typically killed them.

In the prior packet, the fighter had 20 hit points, and an orc did 1d8+1 (avg 5.5).  This was close to 4 to 1 (3.6:1).  The orc's average damage should be more like 8 points (2.5:1).  A magic user had sixteen hit points, a ratio of 2.9 to 1 -  also pretty high.  If the damage were increased to 8 points, the magic user is at 2:1 - nicely in line with 'the goal' - and less lethal than v. AD&D fighters.  As the numbers  (and my impression in play) show - the damage values were too low.

In the current packet, the fighter has 14 hit points and the orc does 1d12+2 for 8.5 points.  This is less than two to one (1.6:1).  In fact this is more lethal than AD&D was, despite AD&D reputation for lethality.  The magic user has 6 hit points - again a less than one to one ratio - one hit will kill them (or at least knock them negative).

The game is now slightly more lethal than AD&D 1st edition.



Only if you insist on treating an orc as a typical lvl 1 challenge. Personally I see no problem with lvl one adventurers fighting goblins and kobolds not orcs. And both kobolds and goblins are much less lethal. Less likely to hit and much lower damage (d6+1/d4+1 at range, d6-1/d4-1 in melee - so about half of what an orc does for goblins, even less than that for kobolds, which are borderline harmless in melee). Once you level up once or twice you can fight orcs and I see no problem with that. It's not like you have to grind your first level on cellar rats.

In our playest we wiped the whole kobold cave clean in one go, with only 6 hit points lost, that were lost only because the party wizard got balsy and decided to whack kobold chieftain on a head with a quaterstaff. We didn't have to use healing of any kind, and there were only 3 of us.

To be honest I would prefer them keeping initial hit points as they were, but lowering advancement gains, but on the other hand I don't mind kobolds and goblins actually being relevant enemies. And considering an orc to not be a lvl-1-typical-enemy is ok with me. After all orcs are no pushovers in source material.
 And it makes much more sense to me, since I see a low level adventurer as a common, well trained person, maybe with just a little better ability scores. 



And I see them as the protagonist in a heroic fantasy fiction.... not a mook. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

 And it makes much more sense to me, since I see a low level adventurer as a common, well trained person, maybe with just a little better ability scores. 



And I see them as the protagonist in a heroic fantasy fiction.... not a mook. 



It seems bizarre that the game hits the challenge level peak right at the beginning and then it goes downhill from that point onwards.
I'm pretty firmly in the horrified camp too.  Every section of the packet has sloppy design elements in it.  I know its alpha, and in development, but the whole thing is just ... bad.  There's no area of this packet that appeals to me, and I'm seeing that I'm not alone, so maybe I won't give up hope entirely, but this was a strongly disappointing set of rules for me too.  Every aspect has something wrong with it, IMO.  The list is too big to post.  I tried elsewhere, but even that was insufficient to capture the way it galls me, and a bit inept on my part too. 

I'd rate it: "Go back to the drawing board and never speak of it again".  Not worth even playtesting. 

Has anyone here playtested it?  Are all these on-sight gripes playing out this way?
I prefered the higher starting hit points, but I don't think the sky is falling either.  Its just more encouragement for groups to start at level 2 or higher.



I think they will swing back in the middle somewhere before this is all done.  That is why I agree with your first sentence.



When all is said and done, I think there are going to be some parts of the Core will need to have built in "dials", with no one option being the default.  Starting hit points is one of them.  Healing is another (overnight, martial vs magical, etc). Critical hits will likely be another.  Hell, just about anything related to hit points will need a "Hardcore to Heroic" dial. These will simply be decisions that the DM has to make when starting up a new campaign.

Wounds Module [updated for Basic]

Proficiency Module

I do think that the game needed either an increase in monster damage OR a decrease in player hit points. 

*snip*




That's a good analysis.  I remember reading that the devs claimed the second playtest lowered HP AND lowered monster damage to boost healing.  But some enemies - like the orc - actually got a boost in damage.  Although, it's worth mentioning they have -1 to hit from last time as well.  Also worth mentioning is that an orc is now a "level 3" monster, so presumably you wouldn't fight more than one or two - ever - at level 1.


However, even the lowly level 1 kobold went from 1d8-2 (avg. 2.5) melee / 1d4-2 (.5) ranged  to 1d4-2 (.5) melee* / 1d4 + 1 (3.5) ranged.  (The * is there because kobolds can act to boost all nearby enemies' damage against a single foe.)  Their melee to-hit went down, but the ranged stayed the same.  At best, this isn't really a reduction of damage, and at worst, it's higher.  But, it is worth accounting for the fact that nearly all kobolds would have had advantage on attacks in the previous playtest, boosting their overall damage significantly.  In the end, it's hard to say if it went up or stayed the same - but it certainly didn't go down very much, if at all.


The goblin faired slightly better; it's ranged attack is exactly the same (although 2 worse to hit) and the melee attack does -1 damage and is -3 to hit.  Its "dirty tricks" bonus also changed from 1d6 to just 2, but the condition to meet it is easier now.  It still seems like lower damage overall.


If "lowering monster damage" was the goal, they seemed to have done a spotty job of it.  Certainly we don't really have a "level" for previous monsters, so it's harder to compare apples to apples, but it does seem irregular at best.

I'm horrified with this playtest, and it being a mere playtest does not lessen that horror. Frankly, I don't see a path between things how they are now and something I would enjoy playing. I could cut the game some slack if I saw any hope, but the current direction of nostalgia, retrocloneism, mundanity and going against everything I enjoyed about 4E just kills it.
...whatever
Eh - the playtest packet 2 exceeded my very very low expectations.

There are elements that beg for tweaking, but that's what we signed up for. We're not at "product" level yet. We're at white-room initial hypothesis level.

I haven't run a playtest of the new packet yet. But I will.

So far, I am encouraged by the "encounter-design" paradigm, the loose "adventuring day" definition, and the return of AOs.

Spells, monsters, skills, classes, & feats are begging for more work.

Still though, this is at least a +1 over packet 1.
I prefered the higher starting hit points, but I don't think the sky is falling either.  Its just more encouragement for groups to start at level 2 or higher.



Many people want to start at level 1, they just want more heroic characters.

The overall best option is to let the DM assign one of 3 variant rules that govern hit point progression...




don't you think that if the default option isn't the "overall best", it probably shouldn't be the default?
So let me get this straight, your biggest complaint with the playtest is. " OMG i could die!"



No its more like "OMG I could die from a single lucky roll from the DM"



The lucky roll isn't so much a problem as when the average roll is more than enough to lay out a ranged character or 2 average rolls to lay out a melee character.

People talk about the wizard having it bad when they have d4 + con mod hp and a goblin does d6+1.  What about a fighter with d10 + con mod hp being hit by two goblins for 2d6 + 2?

Hp that low are just a bad idea.  Fantasy Vietnam with a revolving door party... no thanks. 
 And it makes much more sense to me, since I see a low level adventurer as a common, well trained person, maybe with just a little better ability scores. 



And I see them as the protagonist in a heroic fantasy fiction.... not a mook. 




To my knowledge most protagonists start off as mooks.  Think of the WoT(I know you've read it).  First book the guys do hardly anything on their own.  They make it through because they have high level characters pulling them through.  If the high level people hadn't been there those dudes would have been some dead dead mooks, and they can practically twist fate to their whims now.
So let me get this straight, your biggest complaint with the playtest is. " OMG i could die!"



No its more like "OMG I could die from a single lucky roll from the DM"



The lucky roll isn't so much a problem as when the average roll is more than enough to lay out a ranged character or 2 average rolls to lay out a melee character.

People talk about the wizard having it bad when they have d4 + con mod hp and a goblin does d6+1.  What about a fighter with d10 + con mod hp being hit by two goblins for 2d6 + 2?

Hp that low are just a bad idea.  Fantasy Vietnam with a revolving door party... no thanks. 




on the flip side we can kill them all just as quickly.
Sign In to post comments