D&D Next Q&A: Legacies, High-Level Play & Expertise Dice

It is now official.  The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED.  We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.

Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!

I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!

One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine.  I don't want ED for every martial class in the game.  As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats.  There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense.  With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.



Yet if you try to give non-casters anything more potent or unique than Parry or Danger sense, then suddenly a lot of people (including, I would guess, you) are going to start crying about Fighters being too magical.

There's just no winning. Either martial classes do nothing but the mundane, which obviously magical classes should be able to do, after all it's just mundane stuff... or martial classes can do extraordinary things, and are too magical. The only thing that will appease a large segment of gamers is to have martial characters be completely useless and redundant, which is something that will drive away the other segment of the playerbase. It is literally a no win situation. 

I've got no problem with over the top maneuvers for martial classes.  I'd actually enjoy it, to be honest.  I think TWF and FoB are woefully underpowered, actually.  I think most of DDN is tepid in its overall gameplay.
Let everyone have the mundane.  Let the warriors have Florentine longswords or the ability to smash through stone pillars with wrought iron tetsubo.  Let the Monks hit 6 people in a single round.  That will provide a nice contrast to "Fireball!  Fireball!  Fireball!",
But let everyone have Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will, Parry, Cleave, Danger Sense and the like as long as they're willing to devote a Feat to it.



I'm not going to argue the TWF stuff; there's not enough released to make a determination.  However, if you look at FoB and DS without regard for the extra attack for a fighter you get:

At 65% hit percentage:

Monk's FoB - 20.25 
Fighter's DS (with a 1d8 weapon) - 17.75 

At 50% hit percentage:

Monk's FoB - 16.5
Fighter's DS (with a 1d8 weapon) - 13.85

At 35% hit percentage:

Monk's FoB -  12.75
Fighter's DS (with a 1d8 weapon) - 9.95

These calculations assume a level 10 character with a +5 attribute damage.  Since the assumption is a level 10 character, the 6d6 critical damage die is calculated into the final value.  I don't think the FoB as a power is the problem.  It's the extra attack of the fighter that puts the fighter over the top.  Here are the DPR stats for the same fighter with an extra attack:

At 65% - 23.45
At 50% - 18.125
at 35% - 12.8

So, FoB being underpowered as a general statement is inaccurate in my opinion.

I find DDN in general to be lackluster.  I want FoB to be brought up to a Fighter with extra attack's level.  I want balance through buffs rather than balance through nerfs, to use MMO parlance.



I agree with that sentiment.  I agree that the Monk's FoB needs alittle more to it.  I would rather see it get alittle more than see the fighter get a little less.  But in seculsion of the rest of the game, FoB is not necessarily underperforming in relation to fighter's DS.  It's more of a class to class issue in my opinion.  The power itself is more than comparable to its counterpart.

Ironically, if you DS as a monk as your primary attack and use FoB in case you miss on your first attack, you get:

At 65% - 30.825
At 50% -  24.6
At 35% - 18.375

That means that the combination of DS and FoB together (use DS as a primary attack; use FoB if you miss your primary attack), you get a pretty good DPR.  But then a fighter can still match and exceed it through the use of Glancing Blow.        
It is now official.  The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED.  We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.

Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!

I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!

One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine.  I don't want ED for every martial class in the game.  As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats.  There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense.  With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.


Anyone can parry or sense danger; that's what their AC and Spot/Listen bonuses are for, respectively. Classes with Expertise dice are simply capable of doing them much more effectively than anyone else, if they've developed the special techniques to do so.

All classes are equal, some are just more equal than others.


Huh? That's not what I was saying at all. I was just saying that while a wizard might be able to throw a fireball, the fighter has spent his time learning how to perform the Sevenfold Blade Barrier Technique (Parry maneuver) instead.

To argue that Parry and AC are similar even though one is more effective is the epitomy of the paraphrased quote I used.


Yes? They are; in both cases, you're parrying the other dude's sword with your sword. It's just that the Fighter has learned or developed a secret technique that lets him do it better. The fighter should do it better, because he's supposed to be better at fighting than the wizard is!
It is now official.  The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED.  We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.

Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!

I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!

One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine.  I don't want ED for every martial class in the game.  As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats.  There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense.  With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.


Anyone can parry or sense danger; that's what their AC and Spot/Listen bonuses are for, respectively. Classes with Expertise dice are simply capable of doing them much more effectively than anyone else, if they've developed the special techniques to do so.

All classes are equal, some are just more equal than others.


Huh? That's not what I was saying at all. I was just saying that while a wizard might be able to throw a fireball, the fighter has spent his time learning how to perform the Sevenfold Blade Barrier Technique (Parry maneuver) instead.

To argue that Parry and AC are similar even though one is more effective is the epitomy of the paraphrased quote I used.


Yes? They are; in both cases, you're parrying the other dude's sword with your sword. It's just that the Fighter has learned or developed a secret technique that lets him do it better. The fighter should do it better, because he's supposed to be better at fighting than the wizard is!

Let me "get this straight".  You parry with an armor class.  Which is a combination of armor and Dexterity, having nothing to do with any weapon you are or aren't wielding.  So your AC (without the TWD Feat), which doesn't go up while wielding a sword, is a case where you are parrying the opponent's sword with your own.  When you're unarmed then, do you grab a rubber chicken out of thin air to parry with?
Anyone with a weapon (and unarmed specialists) can parry.  Not everyone with an AC can.  Martial classes should be better at parrying, but that is not a reason to deny the ability to parry to the wizard with his staff.  To say that is covered by AC is patently ridiculous, because that would be the equivalent of saying the Wizard is just as good at parrying with his bare hands as he is with his staff as he is with a clown/bicycle horn.

I am all for story creep.



This is one of the best things I've ever read. Well played.

I think I want a game where story creep is practically inevitable.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls

I am all for story creep.



This is one of the best things I've ever read. Well played.

I think I want a game where story creep is practically inevitable.



I want a game where I have to adjudicate every little request of the players AND at the same time run a world full of 100's of henchmen and markets and everything that comes with it. Yep I want to spend my free time simulating a quasi-medieval world filled with magic, rather than you know telling a half-way decent story with 4-6 players...Wink
"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.
Feats are optional. So you can't do it that way.

I'd rather see them optional then see them applicable to only a small section of classes.  The former keeps more options open, whereas the latter intentionally removes options.


You grossly underestimate the depth and variety that the XD mechanic can support.  It's like spells.  You can't seriously come to me and say that there's no way to do new things with a new spellcaster class - it's simply flat out incorrect.  Different spell progressions, different spells themselves, all is on the table.  The same potential exists for XD.

And I'd like just one person who says they don't want XD spread around the classes to come up with another mechanic that accomplishes the same goals, is as simple yet still as deep, and as dramatically improves the game and the individual experience of playing a class with it.

"I don't want them to extend it because why can't they just think up new stuff?!"

Thinking up new stuff is hard.  XD is a fantastic mechanic, and they shouldn't avoid spreading it just because of your failure of imagination as far as how they can make classes unique within it.

They haven't even tried to make classes unique yet.  They've just barely identified that it is in fact a good mechanic.  Now comes polishing it, and getting the most out of it.  Don't throw away the potential just because that potential hasn't been realized yet.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Feats are optional. So you can't do it that way.

I'd rather see them optional then see them applicable to only a small section of classes.  The former keeps more options open, whereas the latter intentionally removes options.


You grossly underestimate the depth and variety that the XD mechanic can support.  It's like spells.  You can't seriously come to me and say that there's no way to do new things with a new spellcaster class - it's simply flat out incorrect.  Different spell progressions, different spells themselves, all is on the table.  The same potential exists for XD.

And I'd like just one person who says they don't want XD spread around the classes to come up with another mechanic that accomplishes the same goals, is as simple yet still as deep, and as dramatically improves the game and the individual experience of playing a class with it.

"I don't want them to extend it because why can't they just think up new stuff?!"

Thinking up new stuff is hard.  XD is a fantastic mechanic, and they shouldn't avoid spreading it just because of your failure of imagination as far as how they can make classes unique within it.

They haven't even tried to make classes unique yet.  They've just barely identified that it is in fact a good mechanic.  Now comes polishing it, and getting the most out of it.  Don't throw away the potential just because that potential hasn't been realized yet.

It isn't about how much depth and variety ED can support.  I see how it can be a good thing.  You're missing my points here.

Point 1:  By giving ED to every Martial class, they are making a homogenous mechanic I find boring.  The fact that it is the current mechanic that can accomplish such widespread goals is evidence that there is a problem with such widespread goals.  It doesn't make ED better or worse, it makes their current implementation problematic.

Point 2:  By placing what was once a Feat into the maneuvers system, you remove any non-martial classes ability to gain said ability.  Even if you provide a maneuver/ED Feat, magic classes could end up paying prohibitive feat taxes just to get what in previous editions were easily and commonly available powers (wtf is with Parry being a maneuver?).

I'm not throwing away the potential.  I'm trying to return the potential to ED.  As it stands, the system has been reduced to bland nothingness.  It has been expanded to the point that it has lost its meaningful use.  The form of ED had a function.  That function has been run to the four corners of D&D, to the detriment of the form.

I don't see current ED implementation as simple yet still deep, dramatically improving the game and the individual experience of playing a class with it.  I see it as shallow and reducing the play experience of classes with it.  ED has the potential to improve the game, but not the way it currently plays.
So, you're complaining that it makes classes too homogenous in one breath, and in another that it doesn't allow all classes access?

Which is it?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
It is now official.  The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED.  We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.

Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!

I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!

One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine.  I don't want ED for every martial class in the game.  As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats.  There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense.  With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.





Does that mean that spells should then be remade into feats so martial characters can dabble into magic? I'd kill a man for a consistent way of acquiring even a lower level spell like Fly without relying on magical items.
So, you're complaining that it makes classes too homogenous in one breath, and in another that it doesn't allow all classes access?

Which is it?

Every martial class having ED is homogenous.  Turning what were Feats into Maneuvers doesn't allow all classes access to basic abilities.  I've said it multiple times now.  Are you just skimming the thread?
It is now official.  The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED.  We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.

Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!

I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!

One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine.  I don't want ED for every martial class in the game.  As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats.  There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense.  With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.



Does that mean that spells should then be remade into feats so martial characters can dabble into magic? I'd kill a man for a consistent way of acquiring even a lower level spell like Fly without relying on magical items.

I liked the abilities in Playtest 1 that allowed any class to pick up a spell or two.  I'm all for a formalized gish class that lets players fine tune just how much of a martial class and how much of a magic class they want to be.
I'll kill the man with you.

I like the potential the legacy system has although I worry that some of the old high level 1st Ed AD&D concepts may be forced on it.  I see no reaqson why a fighter might actually want to set up a rekigous knightly order just because he has no divine abilities himself.  And attracting a band of followers and forming a mercenary company should definately be an option for everyone if not the whole party.  Or maybe a pirate fleet, or building an orphanage.

But beyond class restrictions, the thing that worries me most about this is enconomy.  If I set up a guild or mercenary company it should have a cost to create, maintain and expand it and there needs to be some method of measuring income.  After all, whether you have setup a mercenary band, pirate fleet or guild house; these sorts of enterprises are often about control and profit.

But for the costs to be meaningful, the economy needs to have a solid structure.  There is no point in some high level adventurer thinking about constructing a castle and paying for it with an old cast off +1 weapon.  So I can only hope that as they look at this they consider the need for a proper look at costs for equipment, living, magic items and wages.  In 2nd ed they called it Birthright ... ... ...
It is now official.  The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED.  We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.

Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!

I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!

One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine.  I don't want ED for every martial class in the game.  As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats.  There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense.  With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.



Does that mean that spells should then be remade into feats so martial characters can dabble into magic? I'd kill a man for a consistent way of acquiring even a lower level spell like Fly without relying on magical items.



I am pretty confident/hopeful that there will be specialties/feats that give characters ED/spells. A Wizard could spend a feat to have 1d4 ED and one Maneuver (maybe taking the Feat more than once adds a Maneuver or bumps the dice). Similarly, spend a feat to gain a 1st level spell 1/day (maybe another feat is 2/day, or a higher level spell 1/day).
*snip gigant quote pyramid*
 Let me "get this straight".  You parry with an armor class.  Which is a combination of armor and Dexterity, having nothing to do with any weapon you are or aren't wielding.


Well, yeah. The parrying is the Dex bonus, and/or a portion of your armor bonus (if you're wearing heavy armor).

So your AC (without the TWD Feat), which doesn't go up while wielding a sword, is a case where you are parrying the opponent's sword with your own.  When you're unarmed then, do you grab a rubber chicken out of thin air to parry with?


Have you ever train in any real medieval combat? There's very little pure dodging; you use footwork together with your blade to redirect enemy attacks. You don't meet with a direct blow; that'll ruin your sword. Instead, you redirect it so that it doesn't hit you, and possibly so that you'll open them up for an attack of your own.
Anyone with a weapon (and unarmed specialists) can parry.  Not everyone with an AC can.  Martial classes should be better at parrying, but that is not a reason to deny the ability to parry to the wizard with his staff.  To say that is covered by AC is patently ridiculous, because that would be the equivalent of saying the Wizard is just as good at parrying with his bare hands as he is with his staff as he is with a clown/bicycle horn.


When he has a staff, he parries (and dodges, it's all a part of the same maneuver). When he doesn't, he's forced to just dodge away from the angry man with a sword.
ugh they are giving expertise dice to all martial classes? didnt mearls say he had reservations about ed for the monk? god i hope they change that. i just so dearly hope that isnt the case.
Every martial class having ED is homogenous.  Turning what were Feats into Maneuvers doesn't allow all classes access to basic abilities.


I'm not fully convinced that giving all martial classes ED is a bad thing. By the same token, all casters have "spells," so I see a definite comparison here. This is especially true given the variety of maneuvers you can have, although they need to work on something that allows for some measure of scaling because having all maneuvers equally available at level 1 is going to be very limiting, so maneuvers are just simply going to be better than others (within class lists of course).

One thing that does concern me is how the three classes compare in their use of Expertise, or more specifically how the Fighter compares to the Monk. The Monk has fewer maneuvers, but has some interesting and thematic class abilities, while the Fighter just gets more maneuvers. The Rogue, well... just gets less maneuvers. I am concerned that they are moving down a similar path to the Fighter from 3rd edition where it just got more feats, even though some of those feats were exclusive to the Fighter, it still ended up feeling very plain.

Conceptually, I can understand that making certain maneuvers exclusive can help shape a class that deals with maneuvers, but that is only going to work with a small number of maneuvers that you ensure a class gets. Skill Mastery helps define a Rogue as a skill monkey, Deadly Strike helps establish the Fighter as a damage dealer (with the most effecient damage dealing maneuver), but the role that other maneuvers play at defining a class go way down after that since many might not take those particular manevuers. Parry might end up being unique to the Fighter, but since you don't start with it and since many / most fighting styles don't have it included, a lot of fighters aren't going to have it. If each fighting style had some exclusive maneuvers it just muddies the water since we are then talking about a large number of "class defining" maneuvers that are only situationally around, unlike the aforementioned Deadly Strike, which every Fighter under the sun has.

You also have a problem where most maneuvers need to be balanced against other maneuvers (at least within whatever bands, levels, or restrictions they put on maneuvers, if any). For example, you can't simply have all of the Fighter exclusive maneuvers being better than the shared maneuvers, especially since "exclusive" might just mean until the next book is released. Defined class features, like Ki for the Monk, don't have any of those restrictions and can be as powerful or as weak as needed for what the designer is trying to accomplish.

Basically, to sum up, I think any class that is going to use ED and maneuvers also needs to have class features that help ensure that the class is unique instead of just relying on any kind of list of maneuvers, no matter how exclusive it might be.
One thing that does concern me is how the three classes compare in their use of Expertise, or more specifically how the Fighter compares to the Monk. The Monk has fewer maneuvers, but has some interesting and thematic class abilities, while the Fighter just gets more maneuvers. The Rogue, well... just gets less maneuvers. I am concerned that they are moving down a similar path to the Fighter from 3rd edition where it just got more feats, even though some of those feats were exclusive to the Fighter, it still ended up feeling very plain.


All true.  But don't read too much into this.  They've just established that they (and we) really like the XD mechanic, and they're rolling it out to more things.  The Fighter hasn't seen a direct, focused treatment since that decision was made, and as the first class that got it I'm not surprised that it doesn't look quite as shiny as the more recent ones.

The point is don't look at the current state and extrapolate intent based on it.  But, should an updated Fighter come along the road in the next packet, and that doesn't meet your expectations, then absolutely give them that feedback.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
The point is don't look at the current state and extrapolate intent based on it.  But, should an updated Fighter come along the road in the next packet, and that doesn't meet your expectations, then absolutely give them that feedback.


At what point should I complain if they haven't updated the Fighter? At what point will they discern patience on my part as liking the Fighter (ie. "the complaints have gone way down on the Fighter, I think that means they are starting to like it")?

However, I think this can tie again back into the lack of indication on their part on where certain things stand in the playtest packages. Where do they consider the Fighter or this Monk or the Cleric in the development process? Do they really like this Monk and want it to work or are they testing the water?

I read a post in the Dungeon Masters feedback section where a playtester (a DM) was saying that his players struggled a little trying to figure out the differences between feats, features, and class abilities. From this, I assume that the playtesers in question are pre-3ed and are simply not familiar with how WotC terms things (they eventually figured it out based on context), but the package doesn't make any mention on how sparse the rules are. The package is written to kind-of be like a real RPG product, while skimping on some descriptive text here and there because it is not actually a real RPG product. However, there is no indication on the level of knowledge they expect people to have.
If your complaint is about the internal schedule of the playtest, then no, you shouldn't bother making it.  They're going to release things as they damn well please, and you have no right to expect anything other than them determining what is the best course of action for their development process.

You are correct that there is a lack of indication on their part where certain things stand in the playtest packets.  Absolutely, 100% correct.  The problem is that people demand indications, and search for any scrap or shred of indication they can find, no matter how tenuous or unrepresentative it might be.

The bottom line is that everything is in flux.  If they find something amazingly better, they can change entire class designs as a result.  That happened for the Rogue.  But that means that the previous Rogue wasn't an indication of the intent for the final product, just the best iteration up until the point they released it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
If your complaint is about the internal schedule of the playtest, then no, you shouldn't bother making it.  They're going to release things as they damn well please, and you have no right to expect anything other than them determining what is the best course of action for their development process.


Ahh, but without indications, how am I supposed to be able to tell the difference between a class that they haven't got to yet and class that they would like to consider "finished".

The problem is that people demand indications, and search for any scrap or shred of indication they can find, no matter how tenuous or unrepresentative it might be.


Of course, because I want to be an effective playtester.

I want to know if they are looking for information on how the Wizard plays at the table, how easy it is to make, how long it takes to pick spells as she levels, how long it takes to pick a spell to cast during combat, etc. There are all kinds of things I can pay attention to and provide feedback on, far too many for me to report on all of these things. I don't want to waste my time or their time on things that they don't care about (regardless of the reason why they don't care, although I wouldn't mind knowing that too).
If your complaint is about the internal schedule of the playtest, then no, you shouldn't bother making it.  They're going to release things as they damn well please, and you have no right to expect anything other than them determining what is the best course of action for their development process.


Ahh, but without indications, how am I supposed to be able to tell the difference between a class that they haven't got to yet and class that they would like to consider "finished".


By tracking the rate of changes as the packets come along, and by testing them, and seeing if they need further work.  That's the purpose of this entire exercise.

And indications on what they're wanting to focus on are not what I meant, I'm talking about people who want indications on things like "are they going to have alignment mechanics required or optional" or "are they going to have both vancian and non-vancian casting equally represented" or "are they going to have the ranger be its own class or a sub-type of fighter."  Those are the questions that any individual packet cannot answer, no matter how much those people would like them to.

And they care about everything.  They may care more about things by giving them more direct, focused attention, but they do care about everything.  Anything you comment on in the feedback is worth doing.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
By tracking the rate of changes as the packets come along, and by testing them, and seeing if they need further work.  That's the purpose of this entire exercise.


But that just goes back to my earlier question. You said this:
The point is don't look at the current state and extrapolate intent based on it.  But, should an updated Fighter come along the road in the next packet, and that doesn't meet your expectations, then absolutely give them that feedback.


I take that to mean that I shouldn't look at the current Fighter and assume that this is the Fighter they intend to print, so I shouldn't bother to complain about it as it is, and I should wait until they make an updated Fighter and I should examine that one. But, if I sit passively waiting for another Fighter, how are they going to know that I don't like the current one and that it needs more work? How are they going to distinguish between a "I'll wait until a new version is made before I give more feedback" and "this class is growing on me, I don't have any more complaints about it"?

And indications on what they're wanting to focus on are not what I meant, I'm talking about people who want indications on things like "are they going to have alignment mechanics required or optional" or "are they going to have both vancian and non-vancian casting equally represented" or "are they going to have the ranger be its own class or a sub-type of fighter."  Those are the questions that any individual packet cannot answer, no matter how much those people would like them to.


The package can answer such questions. With the Monk, we got our first class that has a alignment restriction in it. Was this done because they set on including alignment restrictions or are they merely testing the waters? Do they want to see how those alignment restrictions play at the table with their new alignment rules? Do they intend that the Monk class would be removed if you took out alignment restrictions (assuming no house rules)?

Now, I agree that indications on what is not in the current packet is not something I really need. The packet shouldn't be telling me anything about the Ranger unless the Ranger is in the packet, but once it is, there is a great deal they could tell me, and I think this most recent Monk article was a set in the right direction. They should have done that for every class in the current packet that changed (with a footnote saying why some classes didn't change if they in fact didn't change).

And they care about everything.  They may care more about things by giving them more direct, focused attention, but they do care about everything.  Anything you comment on in the feedback is worth doing.


But they only give us a certain amount of space in the survey to put down observations, and they can't actually care about everything simultaneously, otherwise they would be (and probably are) flooded by information that they have to sort through and organize and catalog. There are only so many hours in a day and only so many things they can work on before the next packet should be delivered to players. For example, getting information on how long it takes to pick which spell to cast is not important to them right now since how wizards cast spells is going to be quite different in an upcoming package, so they could easily tell us not to care about such things. If they wanted to know how long character creation took if you start at level 5, for example, they would make sure players knew to say whether they were using custom specialties, the listed specialties, or no specialties at all. The list can go on and on.
No, you should absolutely complain about the current fighter if you find it unsatisfying, but what you shouldn't do is complain that because the current fighter is unsatisfying, that the intent behind the fighter is unsatisfying.  That's a step beyond what you can do.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
*snip gigant quote pyramid*
 Let me "get this straight".  You parry with an armor class.  Which is a combination of armor and Dexterity, having nothing to do with any weapon you are or aren't wielding.


Well, yeah. The parrying is the Dex bonus, and/or a portion of your armor bonus (if you're wearing heavy armor).

So your AC (without the TWD Feat), which doesn't go up while wielding a sword, is a case where you are parrying the opponent's sword with your own.  When you're unarmed then, do you grab a rubber chicken out of thin air to parry with?


Have you ever train in any real medieval combat? There's very little pure dodging; you use footwork together with your blade to redirect enemy attacks. You don't meet with a direct blow; that'll ruin your sword. Instead, you redirect it so that it doesn't hit you, and possibly so that you'll open them up for an attack of your own.
Anyone with a weapon (and unarmed specialists) can parry.  Not everyone with an AC can.  Martial classes should be better at parrying, but that is not a reason to deny the ability to parry to the wizard with his staff.  To say that is covered by AC is patently ridiculous, because that would be the equivalent of saying the Wizard is just as good at parrying with his bare hands as he is with his staff as he is with a clown/bicycle horn.


When he has a staff, he parries (and dodges, it's all a part of the same maneuver). When he doesn't, he's forced to just dodge away from the angry man with a sword.

You don't parry with your Dexterity.  You dodge with your Dexterity.  Accelerating a static 3 pound weight is a factor of your strength, not your Dexterity.

I have trained in medieval combat, yes.  Most D&D characters wear lighter armor than full plate.  I'd describe parrying a little differently, but you are right that you never meet weapons blade to blade.  I have a pair of tai chi swords struck blade to blade repeatedly just so that I can physically show this to people in real life.

You missed the point of my rant completely, apparently.  If AC included weapon use to defend,  weapons would modify one's AC.  They don't, aside from a very select few Feats.  AC has nothing to do with using weapons to defend, which is why your AC isn't improved by using a weapon.  Dodging =/= Dodging + Parrying, and it seems to me you are saying they are.

AC and Parry are nothing alike.
Well, I have NOT trained in medieval combat as I find it less then useful in the modern-day business-world setting that I am currently a part of. When dealing with the particulars of how things work in relation to game mechanics, I'd much rather the rules be fun and entertaining, even if that means realism takes a hit from time to time.
The question, originally, was whether martial powers should be mundane - and to what extent non-martial characters should be able to do manouvers. I find it weird that people on the Boards have no trouble with lock picking being a specialized skill that you must train to have, but parrying or other attack manouvers being seen as general that "anyone can do". If a trained fighter is attacking me with a sword, I'm not going to effectively parry him, no matter how dexterous I am. It's like juggling or lock picking or pole vaulting - just because its martial doesn't mean it's easy.

Now, I agree that if someone wants a wizard who can parry, the rules should allow it. But that wizard, who spent the time training staff play didn't spend time learning magic. So, it should be a feat or some other trade off (1 level of fighter?). But please, let's not ignore reality by pretending that in combat, the average studious wizard is going to do anything with that staff other than spells.

Make the fighter feel awesome by treating his training as awesome, and not just as the things you'd be doing if you ran out of spells.
Dungeons and Dragons is a fantasy game, it is not about realistic medieval tactical combat. That is one of the reasons I like to focus on narrative combat instead of tactics. I realize this disrupts the "virtual reality" immersion for some people, but it can't be helped. Combat should contain an element of risk for the characters that can be adjusted by the DM when planning encounters. It doesn't need to be a 90 minute recreation of a 10 minute cinematic combat sequence.

My problem with "traditional spellcasters" is that they are unbalanced as they level up and they are unbalanced (positively or negatively depending on level) with non-spellcasters. I also don't think spellcasting in DnD has typically matched magic in actual mythology (or the Tolkein saga) very well.

I think the concept of expertise dice will provide nice options for people to do something extra with their characters. I definitely hope that Next retains the at-will power concept from 4e.
New Game+? "I'm bored with this game. Can we restart? My Level 12 fighter retires and gives his vorpal sword and +2 plate to his level 1 fighter son."



but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.

Where's your DM, man?

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

New Game+? "I'm bored with this game. Can we restart? My Level 12 fighter retires and gives his vorpal sword and +2 plate to his level 1 fighter son."



but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.

Where's your DM, man?



Why is it the answer to all mechanical questions ends up being "The DM can fix it with an arbitrary and contrived in world event."?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.
New Game+? "I'm bored with this game. Can we restart? My Level 12 fighter retires and gives his vorpal sword and +2 plate to his level 1 fighter son."



but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.

Where's your DM, man?



Why is it the answer to all mechanical questions ends up being "The DM can fix it with an arbitrary and contrived in world event."?Smile



Because, at alot of tables, the DM is responsible for presenting the world and guiding the story.  If he or she does not provide the guidelines (like let's say, you need to stop this ritual before midnight), the players expect to be able to take their sweet time and do the job "right". 

It's how real life works, and it spills into our, well at least most us it does, games.  You tell me to fix my fire control radar that represents the ship's first line of defense, I'll fix it.  However, I'll check every piece of circuitry if there is no dead line.  I don't do that to be lazy or to rebel or anthing like that.  I want my equipment to by perfect; so, when the poop hits the fan, we got the best system ready for combat.  You tell me to get the radar up in ten minutes or we're all dead, you can bet your life that I'll have it up in five.

If the DM presents a story that gives no incentive to keep moving, players will abuse every "rule" to make sure they are in the best position to be successful.  It's human nature.  If the story's presented by the DM doesn't give the incentive, I guess the game can still be fun with tough combats, but it seems to me like that half of the game is being ignored.  Daily resources and giving incentive to keep going as those resources dwindle is suppose to build tension and lead to a climax.  This is a primary focus, at least in my opinion, in giving the DM tools to create suspense.

In my opinion, you take away those resources, it's just a series of tough fights (or a bunch of easy ones).  This is one reason that 4e failed to keep my attention for the long run.  I'm not saying its a failure of 4e; it was a failure of the 4e DMs that I was involved with.       
New Game+? "I'm bored with this game. Can we restart? My Level 12 fighter retires and gives his vorpal sword and +2 plate to his level 1 fighter son."



but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.

Where's your DM, man?



Why is it the answer to all mechanical questions ends up being "The DM can fix it with an arbitrary and contrived in world event."?Smile



Because, at alot of tables, the DM is responsible for presenting the world and guiding the story.  If he or she does not provide the guidelines (like let's say, you need to stop this ritual before midnight), the players expect to be able to take their sweet time and do the job "right". 

It's how real life works, and it spills into our, well at least most us it does, games.  You tell me to fix my fire control radar that represents the ship's first line of defense, I'll fix it.  However, I'll check every piece of circuitry if there is no dead line.  I don't do that to be lazy or to rebel or anthing like that.  I want my equipment to by perfect; so, when the poop hits the fan, we got the best system ready for combat.  You tell me to get the radar up in ten minutes or we're all dead, you can bet your life that I'll have it up in five.

If the DM presents a story that gives no incentive to keep moving, players will abuse every "rule" to make sure they are in the best position to be successful.  It's human nature.  If the story's presented by the DM doesn't give the incentive, I guess the game can still be fun with tough combats, but it seems to me like that half of the game is being ignored.  Daily resources and giving incentive to keep going as those resources dwindle is suppose to build tension and lead to a climax.  This is a primary focus, at least in my opinion, in giving the DM tools to create suspense.

In my opinion, you take away those resources, it's just a series of tough fights (or a bunch of easy ones).  This is one reason that 4e failed to keep my attention for the long run.  I'm not saying its a failure of 4e; it was a failure of the 4e DMs that I was involved with.       



Unless of course there is a rule that prevents the problem at the root, then the DM doesn't have to come up with arbitrary and contrived story rulings in order to keep the game on track...Smile that frees the DM up to tell an even greater story, something they can't do if they have to make sure the players are attacked 4-5 times per day and that everything they do has a time limit...
"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 of course the problem at the root is too many rules.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Aaaactually, maybe I'm just blind but...I can't seem to find mention of the Legacy system anywhere.  :/  I have no idea what anyone is talking about.
Custom Races
Kt'Lahn (Last Update: Oct 22, 2010)
Noble tiger people who will do almost anything to maintain honor.

Custom Classes
Soulforged (Last Update: Jul 23, 2010)
Incarnum Defender

PEACH if you would.

I am Red/White
I am Red/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

So a couple followers, a crafted item, a title, or a castle. Sounds like the Legacy system is just fluff or it ate the Followers, Structure, Crafting, and Reputation systems.


Maybe it unlocks New Game+, and your next character gets to benefit from your Legacy.

My next character is often not in the same universe.

So if someone can explain how an Eladrin Fighter|Ranger on a homebrewed alternate-earth can leave a legacy for a Gnome Bard on Eberron - and why he would do so...


"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
New Game+? "I'm bored with this game. Can we restart? My Level 12 fighter retires and gives his vorpal sword and +2 plate to his level 1 fighter son."



but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.

Where's your DM, man?



Why is it the answer to all mechanical questions ends up being "The DM can fix it with an arbitrary and contrived in world event."?Smile



Because, at alot of tables, the DM is responsible for presenting the world and guiding the story.  If he or she does not provide the guidelines (like let's say, you need to stop this ritual before midnight), the players expect to be able to take their sweet time and do the job "right". 

It's how real life works, and it spills into our, well at least most us it does, games.  You tell me to fix my fire control radar that represents the ship's first line of defense, I'll fix it.  However, I'll check every piece of circuitry if there is no dead line.  I don't do that to be lazy or to rebel or anthing like that.  I want my equipment to by perfect; so, when the poop hits the fan, we got the best system ready for combat.  You tell me to get the radar up in ten minutes or we're all dead, you can bet your life that I'll have it up in five.

If the DM presents a story that gives no incentive to keep moving, players will abuse every "rule" to make sure they are in the best position to be successful.  It's human nature.  If the story's presented by the DM doesn't give the incentive, I guess the game can still be fun with tough combats, but it seems to me like that half of the game is being ignored.  Daily resources and giving incentive to keep going as those resources dwindle is suppose to build tension and lead to a climax.  This is a primary focus, at least in my opinion, in giving the DM tools to create suspense.

In my opinion, you take away those resources, it's just a series of tough fights (or a bunch of easy ones).  This is one reason that 4e failed to keep my attention for the long run.  I'm not saying its a failure of 4e; it was a failure of the 4e DMs that I was involved with.       



Unless of course there is a rule that prevents the problem at the root, then the DM doesn't have to come up with arbitrary and contrived story rulings in order to keep the game on track...Smile that frees the DM up to tell an even greater story, something they can't do if they have to make sure the players are attacked 4-5 times per day and that everything they do has a time limit...



It depends.  The rules to take away that problem could easily lead to bland gameplay, or lead to one dimensional gameplay.  Generalizations are generalizations.  How would you address the 5MWD?
So a couple followers, a crafted item, a title, or a castle. Sounds like the Legacy system is just fluff or it ate the Followers, Structure, Crafting, and Reputation systems.


Maybe it unlocks New Game+, and your next character gets to benefit from your Legacy.

My next character is often not in the same universe.

So if someone can explain how an Eladrin Fighter|Ranger on a homebrewed alternate-earth can leave a legacy for a Gnome Bard on Eberron - and why he would do so...





You've seen game of thrones right?
"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.
New Game+? "I'm bored with this game. Can we restart? My Level 12 fighter retires and gives his vorpal sword and +2 plate to his level 1 fighter son."



but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.

Where's your DM, man?



Why is it the answer to all mechanical questions ends up being "The DM can fix it with an arbitrary and contrived in world event."?Smile



Because, at alot of tables, the DM is responsible for presenting the world and guiding the story.  If he or she does not provide the guidelines (like let's say, you need to stop this ritual before midnight), the players expect to be able to take their sweet time and do the job "right". 

It's how real life works, and it spills into our, well at least most us it does, games.  You tell me to fix my fire control radar that represents the ship's first line of defense, I'll fix it.  However, I'll check every piece of circuitry if there is no dead line.  I don't do that to be lazy or to rebel or anthing like that.  I want my equipment to by perfect; so, when the poop hits the fan, we got the best system ready for combat.  You tell me to get the radar up in ten minutes or we're all dead, you can bet your life that I'll have it up in five.

If the DM presents a story that gives no incentive to keep moving, players will abuse every "rule" to make sure they are in the best position to be successful.  It's human nature.  If the story's presented by the DM doesn't give the incentive, I guess the game can still be fun with tough combats, but it seems to me like that half of the game is being ignored.  Daily resources and giving incentive to keep going as those resources dwindle is suppose to build tension and lead to a climax.  This is a primary focus, at least in my opinion, in giving the DM tools to create suspense.

In my opinion, you take away those resources, it's just a series of tough fights (or a bunch of easy ones).  This is one reason that 4e failed to keep my attention for the long run.  I'm not saying its a failure of 4e; it was a failure of the 4e DMs that I was involved with.       



Unless of course there is a rule that prevents the problem at the root, then the DM doesn't have to come up with arbitrary and contrived story rulings in order to keep the game on track...Smile that frees the DM up to tell an even greater story, something they can't do if they have to make sure the players are attacked 4-5 times per day and that everything they do has a time limit...



It depends.  The rules to take away that problem could easily lead to bland gameplay, or lead to one dimensional gameplay.  Generalizations are generalizations.  How would you address the 5MWD?



Look in the Mechanical Solutions to the 5MWD for answers to that...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.
You've seen game of thrones right?

Read the first book in the series. Saw no reason to go for the second.

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
New Game+? "I'm bored with this game. Can we restart? My Level 12 fighter retires and gives his vorpal sword and +2 plate to his level 1 fighter son."



but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.

Where's your DM, man?



Why is it the answer to all mechanical questions ends up being "The DM can fix it with an arbitrary and contrived in world event."?Smile



Because, at alot of tables, the DM is responsible for presenting the world and guiding the story.  If he or she does not provide the guidelines (like let's say, you need to stop this ritual before midnight), the players expect to be able to take their sweet time and do the job "right". 

It's how real life works, and it spills into our, well at least most us it does, games.  You tell me to fix my fire control radar that represents the ship's first line of defense, I'll fix it.  However, I'll check every piece of circuitry if there is no dead line.  I don't do that to be lazy or to rebel or anthing like that.  I want my equipment to by perfect; so, when the poop hits the fan, we got the best system ready for combat.  You tell me to get the radar up in ten minutes or we're all dead, you can bet your life that I'll have it up in five.

If the DM presents a story that gives no incentive to keep moving, players will abuse every "rule" to make sure they are in the best position to be successful.  It's human nature.  If the story's presented by the DM doesn't give the incentive, I guess the game can still be fun with tough combats, but it seems to me like that half of the game is being ignored.  Daily resources and giving incentive to keep going as those resources dwindle is suppose to build tension and lead to a climax.  This is a primary focus, at least in my opinion, in giving the DM tools to create suspense.

In my opinion, you take away those resources, it's just a series of tough fights (or a bunch of easy ones).  This is one reason that 4e failed to keep my attention for the long run.  I'm not saying its a failure of 4e; it was a failure of the 4e DMs that I was involved with.       



Unless of course there is a rule that prevents the problem at the root, then the DM doesn't have to come up with arbitrary and contrived story rulings in order to keep the game on track...Smile that frees the DM up to tell an even greater story, something they can't do if they have to make sure the players are attacked 4-5 times per day and that everything they do has a time limit...



It depends.  The rules to take away that problem could easily lead to bland gameplay, or lead to one dimensional gameplay.  Generalizations are generalizations.  How would you address the 5MWD?



Look in the Mechanical Solutions to the 5MWD for answers to that...Smile



338 results over 20+pages...  Thanks though.
I have been trying to understand the legacy system and twist my head into how something like what was described can work. I keep coming back to something like my Legend idea. Basically a character would have a Legend Legacy rank and their Legacy rank adds free bonuses to their works through fate.

So lets say the basic rule for Legacy is the character's level.

So Mr Fighter hits level 13 and has 50,000 gp.

When Attracting followers, he can attract a number of 1 HD followers equal to is his legacy*5 plus his Charisma score. Every tradesman or man-at-arms and 100 sp per month. Other followers are 50 sp per month. Seargents, lietentants, spell casters, and expert artisans cost 100 gp per month per level.

When Attempting to craft a magical item or pay an artificer to craft an item, he can obtain an item of gp value equal to his legacy*100.

When Building a keep, he can obtain land and property of value up to his legacy*3000

So Mr Fighter buys a 25,000 gp fortress, spends a year proccuring a 5,000 gp frost brand,  finances 50 fighting men bleeding him for 500 gp per month, hires 5 1st level fighter sergants eating 500 gp per month, and builds a church with 2,000 gp a month worth of clerics inside.

Better kill some dragons and take their stuff.

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!

Sign In to post comments