D&D Google+ Hangout

Did you miss today's Google+ Hangout?  Don't worry, its archived and you can watch it here or on YouTube.

All around helpful simian

Hope everyone enjoys this and sees a little bit of their own D&D Next discussions in there. We tried to get in a lot of the popular discussion topics going on out here lately, but we just ran out of time. Hopefully we can address some of the other stuff like more info on the other classes, 5MWD, the higher level legacy system ideas and all the other stuff we see people are discussing. Enjoy, and let me know what you thought of the hangout!

Trevor Kidd Community Manager

Hope everyone enjoys this and sees a little bit of their own D&D Next discussions in there. We tried to get in a lot of the popular discussion topics going on out here lately, but we just ran out of time. Hopefully we can address some of the other stuff like more info on the other classes, 5MWD, the higher level legacy system ideas and all the other stuff we see people are discussing. Enjoy, and let me know what you thought of the hangout!

You hit all the high points that i noticed.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

i facepalm when they discussed the warlord...they just don't get it...

A CLASS should NEVER be a identity, is a set of abilities that your character can do. And once again, they are stuck and held back by older edition paradigms...
i facepalm when they discussed the warlord...they just don't get it...

A CLASS should NEVER be a identity, is a set of abilities that your character can do. 


Opininon. My opinion says differently.
i facepalm when they discussed the warlord...they just don't get it...

A CLASS should NEVER be a identity, is a set of abilities that your character can do. And once again, they are stuck and held back by older edition paradigms...

I hear what you're saying, and I agree with where I think you're coming from, but I disagree on the idea that a class name shouldn't be linked to the identity.

The name of a class should resonate with the mechanics and basic idea of that class. Sure, it doesn't mean that people in game are wandering around referring to the character as a warlord, rogue or whatever. But, when someone reads the name of a class, and then sees what that class does, there shouldn't be any dissonance or confusion if possible. A person shouldn't look at the class name and the concept information in the class description and think, "well that doesn't make sense."

Trevor Kidd Community Manager

1. Thanks you for doing this. It was rather informative.

2. Most topics were answered in a rather generic way for my taste. This is not what I would have expected of a fan-oriented media like a G+ hangout. It was a rather general approach to what the design goals are again. But we heard these in the GenCon seminars already. So a bit more specific concrete examples would have been nice.

3. I wish it would have been a bit more in an interview style where questions are being asked back and and forth. Even the critical ones. The occasional "why?", "is everyone happy about this in the team?", "what were your concerns about this decision?" questions on your side would have been great...

4. Please create a Google event next time. This is helps finding out the exakt time more easily if you are not from Seattle.
"I know there's a lot of feedback on how granular skills are in this version of the playtest." "That's a really clinical way of saying people hate Use Rope."

Made my day.

Also, everyone should watch the part on skills, starting at about 54:00. Exaplains a lot of the disconnects on skills we've been seeing.
My two copper.
Here is a question for the next session:

Why doesn't one designer of the D&DN crew (or even Mike) come to this forum regulary to discuss points brought up by your playtesters/fans?
Oh yeah and lesson learned after this G+: Never post your comments in the first two days after a packet is being released in this forum. Chances are the devs will most likely ignore the feedback considering it an impulsive overreaction.
[;)]
i facepalm when they discussed the warlord...they just don't get it...

A CLASS should NEVER be a identity, is a set of abilities that your character can do. And once again, they are stuck and held back by older edition paradigms...

I hear what you're saying, and I agree with where I think you're coming from, but I disagree on the idea that a class name shouldn't be linked to the identity.

The name of a class should resonate with the mechanics and basic idea of that class. Sure, it doesn't mean that people in game are wandering around referring to the character as a warlord, rogue or whatever. But, when someone reads the name of a class, and then sees what that class does, there shouldn't be any dissonance or confusion if possible. A person shouldn't look at the class name and the concept information in the class description and think, "well that doesn't make sense."




I am playing a Gloom Pact Hexblade in mechanics, but in reality she is an assassin/spy that use magic that originate from the Underdark (is not even the source from the pact i use on mechanics)...my class identity doesn't have to do anything with my character identity, it just made sense because the abilities i get from that class and build fit my character identity.

There was nothing i hated the most when i played my first rogue, who was a noble that was basically James Bond/Sam Fisher/Jack Bauer for a kingdom, yet the DM and the party (who were more into the old style of D&D) identify him as a Thief... a freaking thief....

I know a player who's barbarian was more like a mafia mobster, who's CHA and INT were at 16 at level 5...his rages made sense because he had a very sociopath psychological profile and moments of extreme anger are not rare on those kind of people...he wasn't a tribal, he wasn't a person that wander the wasteland seminaked wailing his flail like a maniac while chargin on the battlefield.

EDIT: did you designed the dragonborn siege tower on Monster Vault: threats of nethir vale? if yes, i must congratulate you for such awesome thing, we need more of those things 
Here is a question for the next session: Why doesn't one designer of the D&DN crew (or even Mike) come to this forum regulary to discuss points brought up by your playtesters/fans?

This ones relatively easy for me to answer - because currently we'd rather spend their limited time with events that reach more people and address a lot of the feedback we've seen recently. The G+ hangout is an example of that kind of thing. For me, it's mostly about how many people we're reaching. I talk a bit about the number differences in an addition to the main announcement post up top there.

There may come a day when we do some directed discussions here in the forums, but I don't have any currently planned.

Trevor Kidd Community Manager

Here is a question for the next session: Why doesn't one designer of the D&DN crew (or even Mike) come to this forum regulary to discuss points brought up by your playtesters/fans?



Developers have to walk a fine line, you must understand. I'm going to use the single largest example I can find, and that is the WoW forums. The WoW dev team decided to start interacting with the posters and replying. While this has it's ups, it completely ruined any real discussion amongst the players. All threads became "Blizzard listen to me" and threads lived or died based on whether a Dev posted in them or not. It also puts a huge strain on the dev team and moderators as well :P

I, personally, don't want to repeat that. I'd rather them reply to us in articles or "patch notes", rather than everyone just spamming threads until a dev member answers. It will just fill the forums with garbage and kill any/all reall discussion amongst players.
My two copper.


This ones relatively easy for me to answer - because currently we'd rather spend their limited time with events that reach more people and address a lot of the feedback we've seen recently. The G+ hangout is an example of that kind of thing. For me, it's mostly about how many people we're reaching. I talk a bit about the number differences in an addition to the main announcement post up top there.

There may come a day when we do some directed discussions here in the forums, but I don't have any currently planned.




Good enough. If the G+ thing becomes a regular (maybe monthly) event I'm more than happy.

(Not every companys has the luxury, capacity and time to communicate so intensively with their fansbase like Blizzard's designers on their forums.)
I think this works great on the shadowrun forums where the freelancers post and interact but the top guys seldom post. What would help is if someone did post when there was mass confusion and it would help clear things up. Take twf and the rogue maneuvers. Would have been helpful if clarity was added earlier.
THey could have 1 or 2 stickied threads though where the developers do post. Would require maybe stricter moderation. Any insults directed at developer= perma ban sort of thing. Play nicce or get out.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

THey could have 1 or 2 stickied threads though where the developers do post. Would require maybe stricter moderation. Any insults directed at developer= perma ban sort of thing. Play nicce or get out.



+1/2. I think that this kind of thing COULD be good, but as they discussed in the hangout a lot of time they want to view our reaction to something. Explaining it first might not give them the reactions they want. Remember that a new player buying a 5e book won't have a dev telling him why this mechanic is the way it is. This is probably what they are looking for.
My two copper.
I'm less than halfway through this right now, but I'm curious to see if they touch on it still being a modular D&D for everybody or how they plan to deliver 4E-style play. 
...whatever
THey could have 1 or 2 stickied threads though where the developers do post. Would require maybe stricter moderation. Any insults directed at developer= perma ban sort of thing. Play nicce or get out.



+1/2. I think that this kind of thing COULD be good, but as they discussed in the hangout a lot of time they want to view our reaction to something. Explaining it first might not give them the reactions they want. Remember that a new player buying a 5e book won't have a dev telling him why this mechanic is the way it is. This is probably what they are looking for.



Well they could get the reaction, then post a week later...Smile
"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.
THey could have 1 or 2 stickied threads though where the developers do post. Would require maybe stricter moderation. Any insults directed at developer= perma ban sort of thing. Play nicce or get out.



+1/2. I think that this kind of thing COULD be good, but as they discussed in the hangout a lot of time they want to view our reaction to something. Explaining it first might not give them the reactions they want. Remember that a new player buying a 5e book won't have a dev telling him why this mechanic is the way it is. This is probably what they are looking for.



Well they could get the reaction, then post a week later...Smile



Well it's only been a week and a half, so they aren't too far off
My two copper.
There was a line in the hangout about how in AD&D an orc didn't get a Strength mod to damage, and just rolled dice, though that kind of overlooks the elephant in the living room here-

Before 3e, monsters never had ability scores.  That is a total 3e invention.  Go check your monster manuals.  Items of Ogre/Giant strength existed, but had different effects (adding extra damage mostly, and it wasn't until 2e that they actually set your strength score and mentioned giants getting strength bonuses with weapons), and the closest thing AD&D had to giving monsters ability scores was mentioning how smart they were.

Monsters didn't get ability bonuses to hit, damage, saves, skills, or HP because they had no abilities to speak of.  It was only 3e that decided to go with that (something 3e designer Jonathan Tweet has since apologized for).
I think this covered most of the concerns of the community. That was a great use of the media to talk to the fans about the ins and outs of the Playtest

Also glad to hear Trevor say this the first Hangout....as i hope there is more of these in the future. 

A big THANK YOU to Trevor, Jeremy and Mike for doing this Google+ Hangout Chat.  

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I think this covered most of the concerns of the community. That was a great use of the media to talk to the fans about the ins and outs of the Playtest

Also glad to hear Trevor say this the first Hangout....as i hope there is more of these in the future. 

A big THANK YOU to Trevor, Jeremy and Mike for doing this Google+ Hangout Chat.  



Maybe most of the concerns of the 'yes men'. They didn't address those of us who have deep misgivings very much at all, and they said almost nothing about how 5E is supposed to support the 4E playstyle.
...whatever
I also hope we still get an Assassin as i liked the poison user martial Assassin in latest print and really look foward to it.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I like this G+ Hangout thing. It really informs me on what they are testing instead of me having to guess.

It wasn't until my 3rd playtest session where I started to call all ability checks. I keep calling skills. Now I will actively attempt to call only for abilities.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I think this covered most of the concerns of the community. That was a great use of the media to talk to the fans about the ins and outs of the Playtest

Also glad to hear Trevor say this the first Hangout....as i hope there is more of these in the future. 

A big THANK YOU to Trevor, Jeremy and Mike for doing this Google+ Hangout Chat.  



Maybe most of the concerns of the 'yes men'. They didn't address those of us who have deep misgivings very much at all, and they said almost nothing about how 5E is supposed to support the 4E playstyle.



I hope i misunderstood when they said they reached the limits of "complexity"...because if it means what i think it means...then it means, 4e playstyle won't be supported at all, and worst of all...it would mean the classes will be plain boring, because all the core 4 classes right now looks, feels and play in a very boring, uninspired and generic way
Personal opinion...

I'm also hoping for the assassin, though I prefer the shadow assassin.  ;)  Hopefully, 1. we'll get an assassin as a class and 2. it'll have options for both a "martial" poison-using character and a shadow assassin. 

All around helpful simian

Well, one of the guilds could be shadow magic guild for assassination.
Yeah that would adress both builds pretty well

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Well, one of the guilds could be shadow magic guild for assassination.




Actually guild might be an excellent way of doing the subclasses for assassins!
I think this covered most of the concerns of the community. That was a great use of the media to talk to the fans about the ins and outs of the Playtest

Also glad to hear Trevor say this the first Hangout....as i hope there is more of these in the future. 

A big THANK YOU to Trevor, Jeremy and Mike for doing this Google+ Hangout Chat.  



I totally agree.  This validation of feedback and clarification of design plans really helps to show how much more powerful and rewarding the playtest experience is.  It also helps to focus the playtesting community so that they realized that sometimes ideas in the playtest are performing a stress test.  That sounds like the best way to see how how much flexibility WoTC will have when making final design decisions.

Thanks to all of the WotC folks.

Keep the ideas and communication flowing.


    

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

I think this covered most of the concerns of the community. That was a great use of the media to talk to the fans about the ins and outs of the Playtest

Also glad to hear Trevor say this the first Hangout....as i hope there is more of these in the future. 

A big THANK YOU to Trevor, Jeremy and Mike for doing this Google+ Hangout Chat.  



I totally agree.  This validation of feedback and clarification of design plans really helps to show how much more powerful and rewarding the playtest experience is.  It also helps to focus the playtesting community so that they realized that sometimes ideas in the playtest are performing a stress test.  That sounds like the best way to see how how much flexibility WoTC will have when making final design decisions.

Thanks to all of the WotC folks.

Keep the ideas and communication flowing.


    



I totally agree! Great stuff. Impressive job working with and listening to players.
Never seen another company do this much. It's unbelievable. 

Haters gonna hate.  

My mind is a deal-breaker.

I think this covered most of the concerns of the community. That was a great use of the media to talk to the fans about the ins and outs of the Playtest

Also glad to hear Trevor say this the first Hangout....as i hope there is more of these in the future. 

A big THANK YOU to Trevor, Jeremy and Mike for doing this Google+ Hangout Chat.  



Maybe most of the concerns of the 'yes men'. They didn't address those of us who have deep misgivings very much at all, and they said almost nothing about how 5E is supposed to support the 4E playstyle.




sigh...

My mind is a deal-breaker.

I think this covered most of the concerns of the community. That was a great use of the media to talk to the fans about the ins and outs of the Playtest

Also glad to hear Trevor say this the first Hangout....as i hope there is more of these in the future. 

A big THANK YOU to Trevor, Jeremy and Mike for doing this Google+ Hangout Chat.  



Maybe most of the concerns of the 'yes men'. They didn't address those of us who have deep misgivings very much at all, and they said almost nothing about how 5E is supposed to support the 4E playstyle.



I hope i misunderstood when they said they reached the limits of "complexity"...because if it means what i think it means...then it means, 4e playstyle won't be supported at all, and worst of all...it would mean the classes will be plain boring, because all the core 4 classes right now looks, feels and play in a very boring, uninspired and generic way



I think they already published a module for 4E.  Can you guess what it's called?  I think it's something that rhymes with Mudgeons and Wagons Pourth edition.
So, why does the same argument not apply to ALL THE OTHER EDITIONS?

The clear goal of this edition (the ONLY clear goal) has been to appeal to ALL fans of ALL editions.  So, why is fourth the one which you sarcastically say players who enjoy it, shouldn't get to have what they enjoy in Next?
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
Seems as though the die-hard 4E fans are getting a taste of what the 3.5 die-hards were bellowing about a few years ago.
Seems as though the die-hard 4E fans are getting a taste of what the 3.5 die-hards were bellowing about a few years ago.


Followed by the 5E fans getting a taste of what we 4E fans have had to put up with for the past few years.
...whatever
So, why does the same argument not apply to ALL THE OTHER EDITIONS?

The clear goal of this edition (the ONLY clear goal) has been to appeal to ALL fans of ALL editions.  So, why is fourth the one which you sarcastically say players who enjoy it, shouldn't get to have what they enjoy in Next?




I don't see anyone complaining that Next isn't catering to their editions playstyle except 4ed fans. 

Suggesting that Next NEEDS to cater to a playstyle other then its own is ridiculous, because when it's done it will be 5ed playstyle. It's not how can we make next more like a previous editions playstyle, it's how can we make 5ed it's own great playstyle that players from all editions can enjoy (given that they are willing to play something other then an ye olde playstyle of D&D Past). 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

>.< which is my point entirely.  For an edition whose only clear goal is to cater to all fans from all editions, it's doing a great job of catering to most fans.  And the fans its catering to, are doing a great job of shouting at the minority it's not, that they shold go back to playing 4e.  What if I want to play 5e, but find that it doesn't fit my style?  Why should it be me who has to go back to 4e, and not Johnny Pathfinder who has to go back to 3.5, or Billy Chainmail who has to go back to AD&D?

The 'no true Scotsman' dissonance is astounding sometimes.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
Seems as though the die-hard 4E fans are getting a taste of what the 3.5 die-hards were bellowing about a few years ago.


Followed by the 5E fans getting a taste of what we 4E fans have had to put up with for the past few years.



Since I was never a fan of 3E/3.5, and only fleetingly a 4E fan (about a year or so), I only have the feelings that 2E fans had when 3E first came out. I was mad as Hell. I boycotted the game (for 8 years). I vented. I raged. Then....I got over it. Since I still play 2E weekly, nothing that has happened in the last 12 years has affected me in the slightest. When I finally realized that a new edition coming out didn't mean that my umpteen-thousands of dollars' worth of old-E books would suddenly burst into flames, it was quite liberating. If 5E never captures any of the 4E feel, then 4E fans will keep playing 4E. 5E will suffer for it, be it minor or severe. WotC will gain customers and lose customers, just like they've done with each new edition that comes out. Life goes on. If you've found a game that you and your group love, hang onto it. Don't rely on something new replacing it. Nine times out of ten, you'll end up disappointed. While it's still too early to say for sure, and I have absolutely no inside info about this, but were I to guess I'd say that 5E will have only fleeting glimpses of 4E design in it. If that means that 4E fans will not play it, then so be it. It has happened with every edition so far, and I don't see that changing in the future.
Seems as though the die-hard 4E fans are getting a taste of what the 3.5 die-hards were bellowing about a few years ago.


Followed by the 5E fans getting a taste of what we 4E fans have had to put up with for the past few years.



I would just continue playing 5th ed then.  Or play another system entirely.  There's a lot of awesome games out there.  DnD isn't the only roleplaying game.  I wasn't mad about the switch to 3.5, to 4th or any switch in editions.  If i didn't like the new edition I wnet and played another game.