So what have we learned so far?

Reading through the "Not liking what what I've seen so far. " thread I got to this post:

90571711 wrote:
56867388 wrote:
I don't like it so far because it's a total, spaghetti-flinging mess. There's no cohesion or direction to grab my attention. It takes a smattering of stuff I didn't like from each edition and flings it against the wall. That said, I'm not exactly expecting to like it at this point, it's still a wibbly ball of contradictions and concepts.

 
Considering alpha development consists largely of flinging stuff at a wall and seeing what sticks...working as intended?



and started thinking so what has stuck so far? Anyone have any ideas?
If we consider "stuck" to be defined as things that are unlikely to be removed or majorly changed:

Bounded Accuracy
Higher AC is better
Advantage/Disadvantage
Skills determined by Background, no Class Skill list
"baseline weapon capability + ______" structure, where weapon users' core class features are defined by the ______


Pretty much nothing else I think is "stuck."  This should give an impression of just how fluid and un-locked-in the design is at this stage.  They're actively pulling back entire classes for revision (e.g. Monk), redefining class mechanics, overhauling the damage model completely, etc.  Major, major changes, and we're nowhere close to done.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
6 attributes.
Skills are attribute+bonus.
d20
Balance between classes across all levels.
Slow down complexity after level 10 (mabey).
Owlbears are a thing.

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.


...
Balance between classes across all levels.
....



Er...
I suspect you're going to get a good deal of disagreement about that one.


What do you mean?  Whether it should be a design goal, or whether it is a design goal?

People can argue whether there should or shouldn't be balance all they want.  But it is a design goal, and it's not going to change.  They may not live up to that goal, but it won't stop being a goal.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I think there's confusion in this thread about what is a set goal and what is an accomplished goal.  Bounded Accuracy and Balance across classes are certainly set goals. Neither are accomplished to much degree. As such I wouldn't consider them something that has been learned and stuck through the playtest process.

Basically we just have Advantage/Disadvantage (with all of its issues) and Backgrounds determining skill proficiency (even though how skill proficiencies are handled isn't necessarily resolved yet.) Both of these things existed in the first playtest . . . so I would say almost nothing has stuck from the last year of efforts.
Reading through the "Not liking what what I've seen so far. " thread I got to this post:

I don't like it so far because it's a total, spaghetti-flinging mess. There's no cohesion or direction to grab my attention. It takes a smattering of stuff I didn't like from each edition and flings it against the wall. That said, I'm not exactly expecting to like it at this point, it's still a wibbly ball of contradictions and concepts.

 
Considering alpha development consists largely of flinging stuff at a wall and seeing what sticks...working as intended?



and started thinking so what has stuck so far? Anyone have any ideas?



My Palm.... to my Face.... everytime a new packet comes out.

Seriously though... not much.  Bounded Accuracy is a thing.. they are sticking with it for better or for worse.  Along with that comes Adv/Disadv as a way to express bonuses and penalties that would otherwise break BA.  I see Adv/Disadv as more of a consequence of BA than a separate concept, but either way... its sticking around.

Non-cantrip spells not scaling seems to be sticking.
The move, single action, reaction, action economy is sticking.
Non-cantrip spells not scaling seems to be sticking.

....?  They do scale.

D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Reading through the "Not liking what what I've seen so far. " thread I got to this post:

and started thinking so what has stuck so far? Anyone have any ideas?



Well some things everybody seem to like, no matter what edition tlay play curently.

Boundeed accuracy.
backgrounds.
Magic items are not included in the basic math of the game.
Good game speed at the table 
Non-cantrip spells not scaling seems to be sticking.

....?  They do scale.




Oh really?  You mean the false choice where you can spend a higher level spell slot to increase damage by a single die... you know... those scaling options that are actually just fake since casting the spell that is actually at the next higher level will always be the better choice?

Yeah... not real scaling.  I mean scaling based on ''caster level''.  You know, that wierd thing that happens when a wizard that has 10 more levels than another wizard casts the same spell and for some reason, the effects he generates are more potent.  Not a list of static effects with the option to pump a higher level spell slot in for minimal modification for people who like to make really bad decisions.
Reading through the "Not liking what what I've seen so far. " thread I got to this post:

and started thinking so what has stuck so far? Anyone have any ideas?



Well some things everybody seem to like, no matter what edition tlay play curently.

Boundeed accuracy.
backgrounds.
Magic items are not included in the basic math of the game.
Good game speed at the table 



You really think everyone likes bounded accuracy eh?
I guess I am not a part of everbody then.

Backgrounds and traits aren't new... so I guess I have liked traits in the past and I still do.  The function of backgrounds determining a preset of skill training?  Yeah I would never use that.  The skill system is bad enough without forcing players to stick with a preset list.

Game speed does not now, nor has it ever, bothered me.  It isn't a simple comparison of fast = better.  It is the function of a good game to not needlessly drag out combat.  Other than that, it takes as long as it takes.  Combat in the Hero Quest board game was faster than D&D combat ever was.  That doesn't mean that it is better.

Magic Items.... yes I totally agree.  I hate the 3e/4e emphasis on boring number-pumping magic items.  They lost all of the mystique and made everything generic.  The magic items sections of the playtest have been my favorite parts by far. 
It's not a bad decision if you assume limited access to spells to add to your book, Malkov.

If you never find a 4th level damage spell, using your third level one at boosted effect is a good call. It also allows you (when choosing your new spells when you level up) to take something useful or interesting without being chained to the "must do more damage" treadmill.

Backgrounds and traits aren't new... so I guess I have liked traits in the past and I still do.  The function of backgrounds determining a preset of skill training?  Yeah I would never use that.  The skill system is bad enough without forcing players to stick with a preset list.




In the current packet backgrounds only give suggested skill lists, you don't have to suggest the skills the background lists. Even in the previous packet you could make your own background (read as, take one of the traits and then choose the skills you like better.)

Backgrounds and traits aren't new... so I guess I have liked traits in the past and I still do.  The function of backgrounds determining a preset of skill training?  Yeah I would never use that.  The skill system is bad enough without forcing players to stick with a preset list.




In the current packet backgrounds only give suggested skill lists, you don't have to suggest the skills the background lists. Even in the previous packet you could make your own background (read as, take one of the traits and then choose the skills you like better.)




I am fully aware... but that means that outside of traits, which I already accepted as good, there is no remaining function for backgrounds except to suggest  a preset list of skills.  As stated, I would not hold anyone to those lists in any way (as it is suggested in the current rules there is no reason or need for me to do so), and therefore there is no more function for backgrounds.
Really the feature being discussed, then, is traits.  Traits are not new.  They were in 3.0/3.5 and in Pathfinder and they maintain a similar role of a minor increase for the player that is based on flavor.  I like them.  I think they help to characterize a player and provide some fun roleplaying opportunities.  But it does mean that when talking about backgrounds as a whole concept, I have to interject that I only like that one half.

Backgrounds and traits aren't new... so I guess I have liked traits in the past and I still do.  The function of backgrounds determining a preset of skill training?  Yeah I would never use that.  The skill system is bad enough without forcing players to stick with a preset list.




In the current packet backgrounds only give suggested skill lists, you don't have to suggest the skills the background lists. Even in the previous packet you could make your own background (read as, take one of the traits and then choose the skills you like better.)




I am fully aware... but that means that outside of traits, which I already accepted as good, there is no remaining function for backgrounds except to suggest  a preset list of skills.  As stated, I would not hold anyone to those lists in any way (as it is suggested in the current rules there is no reason or need for me to do so), and therefore there is no more function for backgrounds.
Really the feature being discussed, then, is traits.  Traits are not new.  They were in 3.0/3.5 and in Pathfinder and they maintain a similar role of a minor increase for the player that is based on flavor.  I like them.  I think they help to characterize a player and provide some fun roleplaying opportunities.  But it does mean that when talking about backgrounds as a whole concept, I have to interject that I only like that one half.

Ah, I misunderstood what you were saying. What would be your preference then for how to determine skill training? Simply remove it or have it come from soemwhere else?
What do you mean?  Whether it should be a design goal, or whether it is a design goal?

  Both, particularly given that "balance" is one of those slippery words which always requires further definition.  It's certainly questionable whether or not it has been achieved to a satisfactory degree.

I think what we've learned is that no matter what rule, 70% of forum posters (including me) will line up to hate it.   For instance, I'm fine with backgrounds, and faster combats, but am suspicious of magic items and bounded accuracy.  
What has stuck so far:

Bounded Accuracy is still a solid Goal (I don't like it, and neither do a bunch of other posters, but it is currently stuck as a goal)
Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic (but as someone else said, this is really a part of the whole Bounded Accuracy scheme)
Backgrounds and Specialties as concepts. Their execution isn't finalized yet, but I think their here to stay, and I don't mind them at all.
Magic Items being outside the system math, and more 'magical' than in the last couple editions (and personally, my favorite part of 5e so far. The ONE thing I thought 4e did really wrong was how they handled Magic Items, this is a win)

Other than these things, not much else has stuck fully. Some things that are giving the impression they might stick though are:

Cleric Deities
Rogue Schemes
Wizard Traditions
HD mechanic and alternate systems of healing are pretty stuck in that they've recognized they will need several options and keep working to improve here

Fighter Expertise is still back and forth with Maneuvers and WDD/MDD systems, so can't say its stuck or giving the impression of sticking yet. Alternate classes such as the Monk, Ranger, Barbarian, Druid, and Paladin are still heavily in the works, so can't say they've stuck either. 
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
What do you mean?  Whether it should be a design goal, or whether it is a design goal?

  Both, particularly given that "balance" is one of those slippery words which always requires further definition.  It's certainly questionable whether or not it has been achieved to a satisfactory degree.




Allot of people also dissagree that there ever were balance issues.

Wizards usually being the target class, of which in all my years of my gaming has never been a problem... considering the severe drawbacks (low hit points, slow XP progression (2E), limited spell use etc.

Balance is important yes, but its a subject that varies greatly when each class uses different mechanics, in 4E it was easy to balance the classes given the power structure. A vancian spellcasting system is tricky to deal with and very much reliant on the type to campaign being run.

Though balance is a goal, I sincerely doubt the level of perfect balance most 4E fans are looking for will ever be attainable. Especially if you start nerfing spells left right and center which are iconic sacred cows to previous edition fans. Things like Save or Die come to mind.

Not saying wizards didn't feel overpowered in your games, just saying (for me) it wasn't an issue. And at some point we will just have to make a comprimise given the complexity WOTC is dealing with.
Bounded Accuracy is the reason I don't think Wotc are paying attention to this forum.  First of all where does it come from?  It's not in any of the previous editions, except a bit in 4th.  The way it is implemented is so intrusive that it changes much of the core rules and classes.  It is such a large part of DDN that you can say that DDN is 3E with BA.  The worst part is that it is unnecesarily instrusive and unnecessarily large.  It can be just a paragraph or two, presented as an optional module instead of the core design.   It's some designer's brainchild and so it stays despite protests and it stays in its current form.            
Bounded Accuracy is the reason I don't think Wotc are paying attention to this forum.  First of all where does it come from?  It's not in any of the previous editions, except a bit in 4th.  The way it is implemented is so intrusive that it changes much of the core rules and classes.  It is such a large part of DDN that you can say that DDN is 3E with BA.  The worst part is that it is unnecesarily instrusive and unnecessarily large.  It can be just a paragraph or two, presented as an optional module instead of the core design.   It's some designer's brainchild and so it stays despite protests and it stays in its current form.            


They're paying attention to this forum, and you can tell because they quite regularly pull popular forum 'debates' for Q&A material.

Responding to your comments about BA:

1)  Why does something have to exist in a prior edition to be included?  Do you really believe that there is no room for innovation?  If so, why bother making a new edition at all?

2)  Yes, it changes much of the core rules and classes.  For very good reasons, very clearly stated in the L&L article where the concept was introduced and explained.

3)  No, it cannot be an optional module.  Implementing it in a system like 4e, which was designed without it, would require a massive redesign.  It's not as simple as removing the half-level bonus, there's far more that would be required to make the change.  Furthermore, removing it isn't any easier.  Sure, you can tack on an artificial bonus if you feel like, but that won't undo the core system assumptions.  All you will do is render your Monster Manual useless, and have to design new monsters.  Which is a total system rewrite - not something that is anywhere even close to "a couple paragraphs."

4)  It is, yes, some designer's brainchild, and a very beautiful one indeed.  You don't have to understand it, you don't even have to think you should like it - it will have a positive impact on your game once we actually get to the finished product.  I am quite certain on this.  And, yet, nobody who wasn't part of this process will ever know it exists - it will just be the way things are.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

Mar 27, 2013 -- 12:32PM, professordaddy wrote:

Mar 27, 2013 -- 11:02AM, Mand12 wrote:

What do you mean?  Whether it should be a design goal, or whether it is a design goal?


  Both, particularly given that "balance" is one of those slippery words which always requires further definition.  It's certainly questionable whether or not it has been achieved to a satisfactory degree.




Allot of people also dissagree that there ever were balance issues.

Wizards usually being the target class, of which in all my years of my gaming has never been a problem... considering the severe drawbacks (low hit points, slow XP progression (2E), limited spell use etc.

Balance is important yes, but its a subject that varies greatly when each class uses different mechanics, in 4E it was easy to balance the classes given the power structure. A vancian spellcasting system is tricky to deal with and very much reliant on the type to campaign being run.

Though balance is a goal, I sincerely doubt the level of perfect balance most 4E fans are looking for will ever be attainable. Especially if you start nerfing spells left right and center which are iconic sacred cows to previous edition fans. Things like Save or Die come to mind.

Not saying wizards didn't feel overpowered in your games, just saying (for me) it wasn't an issue. And at some point we will just have to make a comprimise given the complexity WOTC is dealing with.


Perfect balance, as you said, it is not necessary, and most 4e fans don't want a perfectly balanced game. Just a good enough balance.
As for your drawbacks, I think that many things actually work to balance the casters. But others don't, they seem awkward. I particularly am trying to get some premium reprints so I can see how it was.
Dispite my own personal feelings on the matter (I don't like BA) I see enough support for it on the forums to infer that it is actually something that if not a clear majority wants, enough want to make it a viable path for the D-Team to continue pursuing at the moment. The thing is, if it truly is as unpopular as it feels to those of us who hate it, then they need to make sure to not only spam the sentiment on the forums, but actually make sure to put the thoughts in EVERY SINGLE SURVEY that they take. If there isn't a question that directly relates to it, put it in the optional comment section.

WotC has shown that they will listen. They have stated that they need a clear distinction in order to make decisions when multiple things are on the table...generally they like to explore concerns that have at least a 10% following...so break that 10% mark...make BA the defining focus of your survey responses and you might overturn their dependance on it. You might not, there just might be more for than against, and that's fine if its true, everyone doesn't always agree...

They did overturn their initial "All new magic systems will be a new class" Stance from earlier, afterall. The entire point of the playtest is to HEAR what the Fanbase has to say during the development. What do you like, what do you hate, what will you tolerate under protest...etc...

For me, Bounded Accuracy is the hard spot on the current system.
I do like that they gave Expertise Dice back to the fighter as a more exclusive mechanic (another proof they have been listening, whether you like the implementation or not, you gotta admit they responded)

 
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
Dispite my own personal feelings on the matter (I don't like BA) I see enough support for it on the forums to infer that it is actually something that if not a clear majority wants, enough want to make it a viable path for the D-Team to continue pursuing at the moment.


Even if it were something unpopular, it's not something they would go back on.  This is not design by committee, and the reasons laid out in the original BA article leave very little reason to think they would ever backtrack consciously.  They describe it in epiphany-like terms, in the "how did we ever not do it like this" sense. 

They're not going back on it.  I say many times that this is early, that everything is subject to change, yes?  BA is an exception.  It's not going away.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I do not think they ever had a question like "do you like BA" and they seem hell bent on including it. Seems a good way to piss off your 1st-4th ed fans although some people like it.

 Mand12 it may not go away. Their customers can (and will). There is not that much in D&DN that does it better than an exisitng system or the new d20 based retroclones.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I'm fine with Bounded Accuracy as long as players still feel like they are actually progressing. As it is right now, there are too many dead levels where too many classes get almost nothing for leveling up.
Bounded Accuracy is the reason I don't think Wotc are paying attention to this forum.  First of all where does it come from?  It's not in any of the previous editions, except a bit in 4th.  The way it is implemented is so intrusive that it changes much of the core rules and classes.  It is such a large part of DDN that you can say that DDN is 3E with BA.  The worst part is that it is unnecesarily instrusive and unnecessarily large.  It can be just a paragraph or two, presented as an optional module instead of the core design.   It's some designer's brainchild and so it stays despite protests and it stays in its current form.            


They're paying attention to this forum, and you can tell because they quite regularly pull popular forum 'debates' for Q&A material.

Responding to your comments about BA:

1)  Why does something have to exist in a prior edition to be included?  Do you really believe that there is no room for innovation?  If so, why bother making a new edition at all?

2)  Yes, it changes much of the core rules and classes.  For very good reasons, very clearly stated in the L&L article where the concept was introduced and explained.

3)  No, it cannot be an optional module.  Implementing it in a system like 4e, which was designed without it, would require a massive redesign.  It's not as simple as removing the half-level bonus, there's far more that would be required to make the change.  Furthermore, removing it isn't any easier.  Sure, you can tack on an artificial bonus if you feel like, but that won't undo the core system assumptions.  All you will do is render your Monster Manual useless, and have to design new monsters.  Which is a total system rewrite - not something that is anywhere even close to "a couple paragraphs."

4)  It is, yes, some designer's brainchild, and a very beautiful one indeed.  You don't have to understand it, you don't even have to think you should like it - it will have a positive impact on your game once we actually get to the finished product.  I am quite certain on this.  And, yet, nobody who wasn't part of this process will ever know it exists - it will just be the way things are.



BA can be implemented by using a larger die than a d20 when making roll check.  That's it.  One little change.  I said it in one sentence let alone a whole paragraph.   You can decide to use that feature or not as easily as deciding which die to roll.   You can play 3E with BA right now.  Heck play 4E with BA and keep AEDU if you love.   How's that for modularity?  How's that for not making unnecessary changes?


I'm fine with Bounded Accuracy as long as players still feel like they are actually progressing.


I'm always baffled by this, since the entire point of BA is to allow real, actual progression instead of fake, treadmill progression.

Dead levels are a separate issue, and should be dealt with regardless of what the system math takes.  A level in 3e where all you get is BAB and maybe a save is still a dead level.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
BA can be implemented by using a larger die than a d20 when making roll check.  That's it.  One little change.  I said it in one sentence let alone a whole paragraph.   You can decide to use that feature or not as easily as deciding which die to roll.   You can play 3E with BA right now.  Heck play 4E with BA and keep AEDU if you love.   How's that for modularity?  How's that for not making unnecessary changes?


That's not one change, it doesn't accomplish the same things as BA, and it's not "little" - changing the die that has been used for the core method of task resolution for the entire history of D&D, in every edition and every format, is not "little."

You may think that this is all it takes, but you're wrong.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I'm fine with Bounded Accuracy as long as players still feel like they are actually progressing.


I'm always baffled by this, since the entire point of BA is to allow real, actual progression instead of fake, treadmill progression.

Dead levels are a separate issue, and should be dealt with regardless of what the system math takes.  A level in 3e where all you get is BAB and maybe a save is still a dead level.



 that is still more than you get in D&DN on some levels. We had a AD&D fighter level up and he got more than that lol and seemed happy enough to get it. he gets 3 things ever 3 levels though so it still averages out as somehting every level + save, BAB and hit dice increase.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 


Mar 27, 2013 -- 1:58PM, heretic888 wrote:

I'm fine with Bounded Accuracy as long as players still feel like they are actually progressing.



I'm always baffled by this, since the entire point of BA is to allow real, actual progression instead of fake, treadmill progression.

Dead levels are a separate issue, and should be dealt with regardless of what the system math takes.  A level in 3e where all you get is BAB and maybe a save is still a dead level.


It was not fake. There is difference between "All monsters on the planet scales with you" and "The monsters you encounter scales with you".

Bounded Accuracy is a reaction over 4th E scaling problems. Basically with PCs things scaled at half level, but with monsters scaled at level. PCs were supposed to keep up with magic items and ability score raise, but it was not enough, so there come Expertise feats and other feats (and other things) that are basically fixes. Masterwork armor was a fix, and even that according to my math enhancement bonuses, ability score raise and Expertise feats are not enough.
I think we can all assume dead levels aren't representative of the final design, and are a product of...I dunno...the classes not being done yet...maybe?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Dispite my own personal feelings on the matter (I don't like BA) I see enough support for it on the forums to infer that it is actually something that if not a clear majority wants, enough want to make it a viable path for the D-Team to continue pursuing at the moment. The thing is, if it truly is as unpopular as it feels to those of us who hate it, then they need to make sure to not only spam the sentiment on the forums, but actually make sure to put the thoughts in EVERY SINGLE SURVEY that they take. If there isn't a question that directly relates to it, put it in the optional comment section.

WotC has shown that they will listen. They have stated that they need a clear distinction in order to make decisions when multiple things are on the table...generally they like to explore concerns that have at least a 10% following...so break that 10% mark...make BA the defining focus of your survey responses and you might overturn their dependance on it. You might not, there just might be more for than against, and that's fine if its true, everyone doesn't always agree...

They did overturn their initial "All new magic systems will be a new class" Stance from earlier, afterall. The entire point of the playtest is to HEAR what the Fanbase has to say during the development. What do you like, what do you hate, what will you tolerate under protest...etc...

For me, Bounded Accuracy is the hard spot on the current system.
I do like that they gave Expertise Dice back to the fighter as a more exclusive mechanic (another proof they have been listening, whether you like the implementation or not, you gotta admit they responded)

 



I'm still waiting to see anything about the bolded part in action. They can talk all they want until I see it I don't believe it. Oh and the pathetic attempt at Traditions that makes a Wizard 99% vancian and 1% AEDU doesn't cut it...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.
BA is a line in the sand, currently, but so was "Any casting method other than Vancian WILL BE grounds for its own unique class"

Enough feedback came in outrage to that statement that they backpedaled and changed their minds. That was a hard line in the sand, they stated it repeatedly. They even justified it as "We feel that something like an alternate casting system is unique enough to entitle it to have a class built around it as a concept" (paraphrased)

I see very little reason for BA. a slower progression of numbers is okay, but too many fantasy tropes are violated by the BA concept. Some of us want that monster that NOBODY but leveled PCs have a chance against. Even an armor scatters before an enraged dragon, their attacks ineffectual as they can't penetrate its armored scales. The Terrasque, the most feared behemouth to hit the D&D worlds should take on legions of soldiery without so much as a bloody nose. Leveled Epic Characters on the other hand should be able to hit this unhittable titan, and do enough damage to send it back to its slumber far beneath the earth's crust until it rises again to purge the world of its excess population.

Robin Hood should be splitting the Arrow 19 out of 20 times, while the country bumpkin archer/hunters in town can't even split the arrow once. Yes, 1st level characters should be tackling Iron Bound Wooden Doors and having difficulty kicking them in, while 20th level characters can be confronted by Mithril Bound Iron-Wood Doors carved with runes and still find a way to overcome them.

Yes, a 1st level PC party vs a 1st level Monster group should have the same basic To Hit and AC number ranges in comparison to a 17th level PC party vs a 17th level Monster group...it seems like your not making progress only if your not taking into account the fact that the 17th level Monster group was completely unhittable by your 1st level counterparts, and the 1st level monster group should be swept under the rug handily by the 17th level PC group without breaking a sweat, that's real, quantifiable proof of advancement. The thing the D-Team isn't getting is, scaling by damage isn't showing real advancement, scaling by the ability to hit/be hit actually reflects something to the PCs as they go up. Damage can be changed, add 0's to the ends of the numbers as long as they are done consistently across both sides, they give no real evidence of improvement, just big numbers. How often you hit gives a tangible reference that the PCs can sink their teeth into. The first time a 5th level PC actually finds he can't miss against that goblin menace that gave his so much trouble at level 1, is a real turning point for him. If you want, slow it down, and make it the 8th level PC, or 10th level who does it, but at some point, as a player, you want to get to that point. At 1st level, you dream of the time when you can actually hit the Adult Dragon and save the village, at 10th level you, dream about fighting a Titan and making a difference, at 20th level you dream about challenging the champions of the Gods or defeating the major Fiends of the Underworld, at 30th level, you've accomplished these dreams that you couldn't have done with an entire army behind you back at level 1
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
Dispite my own personal feelings on the matter (I don't like BA) I see enough support for it on the forums to infer that it is actually something that if not a clear majority wants, enough want to make it a viable path for the D-Team to continue pursuing at the moment.


Even if it were something unpopular, it's not something they would go back on.  This is not design by committee, and the reasons laid out in the original BA article leave very little reason to think they would ever backtrack consciously.  They describe it in epiphany-like terms, in the "how did we ever not do it like this" sense. 

They're not going back on it.  I say many times that this is early, that everything is subject to change, yes?  BA is an exception.  It's not going away.



I hope you're right. BA is the most innovative and interesting part of DDN so far, if it doesn't make the release I don't expect I will be playing.
I'm fine with Bounded Accuracy as long as players still feel like they are actually progressing.


I'm always baffled by this, since the entire point of BA is to allow real, actual progression instead of fake, treadmill progression.

Dead levels are a separate issue, and should be dealt with regardless of what the system math takes.  A level in 3e where all you get is BAB and maybe a save is still a dead level.

It doesn't matter if the monsters' AC band never really changes if you're only getting a +1 every 4 levels (or less if you're a rogue). That's, what, a 5% increase in accuracy every 10 sessions or so? For my groups, it would take over 2 months to get that much play in.

You can chastise the "treadmill" and "fake progression" all you want, but its better than NOTHING for 2 months.

 

Magic Items.... yes I totally agree.  I hate the 3e/4e emphasis on boring number-pumping magic items.  They lost all of the mystique and made everything generic.  The magic items sections of the playtest have been my favorite parts by far. 



Yeah magic items is about the only part of the playtest that got me excited.
BA can be implemented by using a larger die than a d20 when making roll check.  That's it.  One little change.  I said it in one sentence let alone a whole paragraph.   You can decide to use that feature or not as easily as deciding which die to roll.   You can play 3E with BA right now.  Heck play 4E with BA and keep AEDU if you love.   How's that for modularity?  How's that for not making unnecessary changes?


That's not one change, it doesn't accomplish the same things as BA, and it's not "little" - changing the die that has been used for the core method of task resolution for the entire history of D&D, in every edition and every format, is not "little."

You may think that this is all it takes, but you're wrong.



Isn't that what you said about BA not in any of the previous editions.  Just because a larger die is not used in any of the previous edition does not mean that it should be excluded.  I don't think you have a clue understanding how using a larger die implements BA.

My responses to these blogs contain mathematical examples explaining how using a larger die than a d20 implements BA:

dmdavid.com/tag/dd-next-trades-to-hit-bo...

dmdavid.com/tag/two-problems-that-provok...


Just because a larger die is not used in any of the previous edition does not mean that it should be excluded.


Yes, it does.  D&D is the d20.  It is core.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Oh, and Treadmill advancement is not fake advancement.

That's why PCs and Monsters HAVE LEVELS, so you know their relative power compared to each other. At the same level, numbers should be about the same, give or take. If a 1st level PC hits 65% of the time vs a 1st level Monster, than a 10th level PC should hit between 60%-70% of the time against a 10th level Monster, BUT should hit a 5th level monster closer to 90% of the time, and a 1st level monster 95% of the time (miss on a fumble only). That same 1st level PC will hit a 5th level monster only maybe 30% of the time, and that 10th level PC will hit the 15th level monsters 25-35% of the time. I give a range past 1st level only because as the levels go up, the ranges of available defenses can vary more...Higher AC means less HPs and/or less damage, Lower AC means more HPs and/or more damage/special abilities, etc...

This kind of treadmill SHOWS progression. The idea is not to win the race, its to keep up...lets face it, there is NOTHING scary about a Dracolich with a 16 AC and just a sack of hitpoints. If it weren't for his resistances, he'd be a total joke. Its more a grind than a challenge to defeat him. Bring a big enough army to bare, and he can be defeated without the PCs at all. Dracoliches are supposed to be Awe-Inspiringly Scary!  
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
Oh, and Treadmill advancement is not fake advancement.

Yes it is.  Treadmill systems take something you should be excited about (You found a +3 magic sword, it's a lot better than your +2 magic sword!) and turn it into something you shouldn't be excited about (Ah, it's about time you got a +3 magic sword, things were starting to seem a bit tough to hit) because you had to keep pace with the assumed progression and not fall behind.  That's exactly fake progression.

The idea is not to win the race, its to keep up

Precisely.  I couldn't have said it better myself, and this is exactly the problem.  Progression means actually getting better, not avoiding falling behind.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition