a tweet that scares me

Mike Mearls ‏Option depth is coming once the classes are finished, and they are nearly done. Can't build feats and so forth until we know base.

If they are nearly done with classes i hope their internal class design is way ahead of anything we been alouwed to see  in the playtest so far.
 
I think it's more along the lines of "nearly done figuring out what a class is".  Like what's a class, what's a sub-class, ect...

Not "nearly done with all the classes, ever".

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.

The tweet that scares me is this:

Mike Mearls ‏: NADs are also gone - attack vs. save divide has huge back end savings for complexity.
Claudio Pozas : Any option for letting casters roll their attacks instead of creatures roll their saves? At least with some spells?
Mike Mearls ‏: It'll be on a spell by spell basis. Anything that makes sense as an attack vs. AC will be one.

Mike Mearls clearly has no clue what he is talking about if thinks Saves are less complex than NADs. That really makes me fear for the game. I can understand wanting saves so the game "feels" more old school, but between class mechanic interactions, rules interactions, bonuses and penalties, advantage and disadvantage, saves are clearly more complex. A unified everyone makes an "attack" system is so much more simple that I am shocked MM even said that...
The tweet that scares me is this:

Mike Mearls ‏: NADs are also gone - attack vs. save divide has huge back end savings for complexity.
Claudio Pozas : Any option for letting casters roll their attacks instead of creatures roll their saves? At least with some spells?
Mike Mearls ‏: It'll be on a spell by spell basis. Anything that makes sense as an attack vs. AC will be one.

Mike Mearls clearly has no clue what he is talking about if thinks Saves are less complex than NADs. That really makes me fear for the game. I can understand wanting saves so the game "feels" more old school, but between class mechanic interactions, rules interactions, bonuses and penalties, advantage and disadvantage, saves are clearly more complex. A unified everyone makes an "attack" system is so much more simple that I am shocked MM even said that...

They are less complex in that you don't have 3 extra numbers on your sheet.

They are more complex in figuring out who rolls, and when certain bonuses (advantage/disavantage) apply.

So yea, i don't think he understood the question. 

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.

The recent tweet that scares me is:

Lawrence Mingoa : fluff mutability means it's easy to describe the effects of the rules in ways appropriate to the scene & character concept.
Mike Mearls ‏:   Sure, but fluff mutability isn't something that we need to build into the game. Leaves beginners high and dry, and is easy to add.

Any hope of separating fluff from crunch just went out the window in a thinly veiled "New players are too stupid to understand our complex game without having their hands held." ego driven cheap shot.
Is it weird that I find all of these Tweets to be fairly encouraging? It sounds like he and I are really on the same wavelength here, except for that whole "Advantage" thing.

The metagame is not the game.

The tweet that scares me is this:

Mike Mearls ‏: NADs are also gone - attack vs. save divide has huge back end savings for complexity.
Claudio Pozas : Any option for letting casters roll their attacks instead of creatures roll their saves? At least with some spells?
Mike Mearls ‏: It'll be on a spell by spell basis. Anything that makes sense as an attack vs. AC will be one.

Mike Mearls clearly has no clue what he is talking about if thinks Saves are less complex than NADs. That really makes me fear for the game. I can understand wanting saves so the game "feels" more old school, but between class mechanic interactions, rules interactions, bonuses and penalties, advantage and disadvantage, saves are clearly more complex. A unified everyone makes an "attack" system is so much more simple that I am shocked MM even said that...

They are less complex in that you don't have 3 extra numbers on your sheet.

They are more complex in figuring out who rolls, and when certain bonuses (advantage/disavantage) apply.

So yea, i don't think he understood the question. 



But you actually have more numbers on your sheet if you use saves rather than NADS. 

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

But you actually have more numbers on your sheet if you use saves rather than NADS.

How so?

6 attributes + 6 modifiers + HP + AC = 14
6 attributes + 6 modifiers + 3 defenses + HP + AC = 17

14 < 17.

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.

But you actually have more numbers on your sheet if you use saves rather than NADS.

How so?

6 attributes + 6 modifiers + HP + AC = 14
6 attributes + 6 modifiers + 3 defenses + HP + AC = 17

14 < 17.



You can get permanent bonuses to saves that are different than bonuses to ability checks (and vice versa). You also have to have your Save DC on your character sheet. You also can get temporary bonuses to one or the other that require additional numbers to look up. Also magic attack bonus.

So in reality it is:

Current Setup - 6 attributes + 6 modifiers + 6 saving throws + HP + AC + Weapon Attack bonus + Magic Attack bonus + Save DC = 23

With NADs - 6 attributes + 6 modifiers + 3 NADs + HP + AC + WeaponAttack bonus + Magic Attack bonus = 19

That is on top of the confusion caused by how poorly spells and attacks interact together. A spell that gives +1 to attacks has no effect on save DCs for the caster classes. A spell that grants +1 to all saves has no benefit to AC. A class like the warlord cannot grant "attacks" to caster classes because they don't use attacks. A class like the bard cannot inspire his allies to be more "accurate" because caster classes do not make attack rolls.
Is it weird that I find all of these Tweets to be fairly encouraging? It sounds like he and I are really on the same wavelength here, except for that whole "Advantage" thing.



Not weird, I find them fairly encouraging as well.

Is it weird that I find all of these Tweets to be fairly encouraging?


Nah, folks have different tastes.

And honestly, none of these "scare" me, though that's because I'd already sort of suspected them to be how they were handling it.

They just kind of make me... tired.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
These tweets actually make me quite happy....

.... that I preordered 13th Age six months ago.

Skidoosh. ;-P 
Mike Mearls ‏Made an 8th level fighter in 15 minutes. I am pleased.

to me being able to make a character that quickly is a bad thing.
This is a character you are expected to play for a long time if you can make one so quickly it probebly does not have enough options to keep me intrested in such a character for long. 
Mike Mearls ‏Made an 8th level fighter in 15 minutes. I am pleased.

to me being able to make a character that quickly is a bad thing.
This is a character you are expected to play for a long time if you can make one so quickly it probebly does not have enough options to keep me intrested in such a character for long. 



A bad thing to me as well, but since Next is all grognardy, the expectation is probably that you won't play your character very long.
Mike Mearls ‏Made an 8th level fighter in 15 minutes. I am pleased.

to me being able to make a character that quickly is a bad thing.
This is a character you are expected to play for a long time if you can make one so quickly it probebly does not have enough options to keep me intrested in such a character for long. 



A bad thing to me as well, but since Next is all grognardy, the expectation is probably that you won't play your character very long.



usualy I spend 4+ hours mailing back and forth with the DM just to make up the characters back story even before doing anything with stats.
I am not a "grognard" and I still see positives in the game. A I played and enjoyed all editions of the game.
TMike Mearls clearly has no clue what he is talking about if thinks Saves are less complex than NADs. That really makes me fear for the game. I can understand wanting saves so the game "feels" more old school, but between class mechanic interactions, rules interactions, bonuses and penalties, advantage and disadvantage, saves are clearly more complex. A unified everyone makes an "attack" system is so much more simple that I am shocked MM even said that...

Yeah.  Mike strikes me as a creative type.  The math and game theory don't seem to interest him as much as coming up with something just cool.  If you look at Dragon articles he wrote personaly, for instance, they're often full of neat things, but need a little errata right off the bat.  The Magic of the Feywild one, with Winged Horde, for instance.

 

 

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

Mike Mearls ‏Made an 8th level fighter in 15 minutes. I am pleased.

to me being able to make a character that quickly is a bad thing.
This is a character you are expected to play for a long time if you can make one so quickly it probebly does not have enough options to keep me intrested in such a character for long. 



A bad thing to me as well, but since Next is all grognardy, the expectation is probably that you won't play your character very long.



I somehow doubt you will be able to create a wizard, cleric, or druid in fifteen minutes. Not with 80 pages of spells to look through.
But you actually have more numbers on your sheet if you use saves rather than NADS.

How so?

6 attributes + 6 modifiers + HP + AC = 14
6 attributes + 6 modifiers + 3 defenses + HP + AC = 17

14 < 17.



You can get permanent bonuses to saves that are different than bonuses to ability checks (and vice versa). You also have to have your Save DC on your character sheet. You also can get temporary bonuses to one or the other that require additional numbers to look up. Also magic attack bonus.

So in reality it is 6 attributes + 6 modifiers + 6 saving throws + HP + AC + Weapon Attack bonus + Magic Attack bonus = 22

That is on top of the confusion caused by how poorly spells and attacks interact together. A spell that gives +1 to attacks has no effect on save DCs for the caster classes. A spell that grants +1 to all saves has no benefit to AC. A class like the warlord cannot grant "attacks" to caster classes because they don't use attacks. A class like the bard cannot inspire his allies to be more "accurate" because caster classes do not make attack rolls.



1) Bonuses to saves in this care are irrelevant. As the same bonuses would apply to NADs so the numbers increase for both.
2) Adding attack numbers to the tally is also irrelevant to this discussion.
3) There will be attack spells. So classes granting attacks or bonuses to attacks would grant bonuses to the related spells.

NADs just add complexity to the game. This isn't a bad thing by itself. But with the goal of "simplicity" it becomes undersirable. Having ability checks = saves is a super simple baseline that's really easy to explain. And it's a solid mechanical foundation that can be built upon.

Anything else is just a matter of preference and personal taste. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Mike Mearls ‏Option depth is coming once the classes are finished, and they are nearly done. Can't build feats and so forth until we know base.

If they are nearly done with classes i hope their internal class design is way ahead of anything we been alouwed to see  in the playtest so far.

I think when they're saying the classes are finished they mean the concepts of the classes are finished and the baseline for the classes are finished. You can't add a dozen fighter builds, complex options, variant builds, and the like until you have the baseline power curve established.
Once you know how powerful a fighter should be and and how powerful each ability should be then you can create variations. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

It all seems in line with expectations at this point. 5E won't be even near anything I will be interested in buying (or playing). It's ok, others will like it, I will move on, that's life.
The dev team so has shown that a) they don't much care much about gamaplay issues I care about b) even if they would care, they wouldn't know how to address them.
 
Mike Mearls ‏Option depth is coming once the classes are finished, and they are nearly done. Can't build feats and so forth until we know base.

If they are nearly done with classes i hope their internal class design is way ahead of anything we been alouwed to see  in the playtest so far.

I think when they're saying the classes are finished they mean the concepts of the classes are finished and the baseline for the classes are finished. You can't add a dozen fighter builds, complex options, variant builds, and the like until you have the baseline power curve established.
Once you know how powerful a fighter should be and and how powerful each ability should be then you can create variations. 



wel for many classes in the packet we have now i still see problems with base concepts of the classes.

Cleric reduced to a heal bot due to lack of spell slots, the cleric player in out group only cast healing apells in the last 3 sessions to afraind to waist any of his spell slots on anything else in case somthing goes wrong in the next combat.
One of the things that prevented heal bots in 4th was seperating healing from other recources the cleric character had.

Ranger and paladin do not have class features to warent them being seperate classes at this point.
resorting in turning them into spellcasters that they never been before instead of giving them good mecanics of their own.
 

But they might be far ahead of what we are alouwed to see in the playtest 
NADs just add complexity to the game.

How?  

Making all attacks rolled by the attacker is simple and intuitive. 

Having defenders roll for certain attacks, instead, adds complexity, both the small amount of complexity involved in determining if a given spell or special attack uses the attack or save mechanic, and in the larger implications of any ability meant to buff or debuff both requiring aditional language to accomplish this (as opposed to simply listing which deffenses it affects).

For instance, if I have an ability that puts an ally in a tactically favorable position in 4e, I simply cause certain enemies to grant him combat advantage.  In 5e, I would have to give him advantage on attacks vs certain allies, and have those allies suffere disadvantage on saves that he forces.  That's not a huge amount of complexity, but it's also not something that would be hard for someone creating such an ability to carelessly leave out...


 

 

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

NADs just add complexity to the game.



NADs simplify and streamline the game significantly.

*In the attacker always rolls method you do not need to have a separate subsystem for spells and save DCs.
*With NADs the rules are more clear and concise because everyone resolves an action the same way.
*You can treat spells and weapon attacks the same in terms of critical hits and automatic misses. 
*You can reduce the amount of bloat in the spellbook as spells can be simplified to be +X to attacks or +Y to defenses (right now you need +X to attacks and +X to save DCs or +Y to AC and +Y to saving throws).
*You remove a lot of useless information from the character sheet by using 3 NADs instead of 6 saves + Save DCs.
*In a simplified ruleset you can have classes that grant attacks like the warlord and have their bonuses apply equally to spellcasters and weapon users.
*Advantage and disadvantage can apply to spells and attacks equally in a way that actually makes sense (how can a wizard throw a fireball down a completely dark hallway while blindfolded and manage to hit his targets 100% of the time?)
*And more

NADs are clearly the simple way to go. Just count the number of pages required to explain Save DCs (for every single class that uses them which right now is all but 3). Then count the number of pages required to explain saving throws compared to AC. Then compare the rules section for quirky interactions that affect AC and Saving throws differently such as advantage and cover.

A simplified rule system could remove a good 20+ pages from the core rules by using NADs.

I get why people prefer saving throws (tradition) but do not hide behind the flimsy excuse that they are "easier" or "less complex" than NADs.
Great tweet. Saves always have been always will be. 
Saves are simpler in that they work just like contests. Guy tries to grab you? Roll a d20 and add Str. Guy casts a spell that makes vines try to grab you? Same thing.

Plus it's arguably faster with AOE effects to have a bunch of people roll saves than to have one attacker roll 20 attacks vs Reflex.

Also, 15 minutes to build a mid-level character (when you're familiar with the system) sounds great. I spend plenty of time on non-mechanical aspects of character creation; I don't need to spend 3 hours on top of that picking between subtly different attack powers.
But you actually have more numbers on your sheet if you use saves rather than NADS.

How so?

6 attributes + 6 modifiers + HP + AC = 14
6 attributes + 6 modifiers + 3 defenses + HP + AC = 17

14 < 17.



You can get permanent bonuses to saves that are different than bonuses to ability checks (and vice versa). You also have to have your Save DC on your character sheet. You also can get temporary bonuses to one or the other that require additional numbers to look up. Also magic attack bonus.

So in reality it is 6 attributes + 6 modifiers + 6 saving throws + HP + AC + Weapon Attack bonus + Magic Attack bonus = 22

That is on top of the confusion caused by how poorly spells and attacks interact together. A spell that gives +1 to attacks has no effect on save DCs for the caster classes. A spell that grants +1 to all saves has no benefit to AC. A class like the warlord cannot grant "attacks" to caster classes because they don't use attacks. A class like the bard cannot inspire his allies to be more "accurate" because caster classes do not make attack rolls.



1) Bonuses to saves in this care are irrelevant. As the same bonuses would apply to NADs so the numbers increase for both.

Nope. Saves only allow you to avoid writing another number on your sheet as long as they remain exactly the same as your ability bonus. As soon as that's different, you either have to write the number on the sheet separately or just memorize it. That's why in 3.5, you always your Fort/Ref/Will bonuses written on the sheet - because they weren't strictly tied to your ability bonus. But you're counting NADs as already being written on the sheet, so if you take an ability that improves one, you just increase that number. No new numbers. Saves as Next currently implements them only avoid being written on the sheet because right now very little messes with them. As soon as things do, they either end up as memory issues or they get written on the sheet, same as they were in 3.5. Then you have the same number of things written on the sheet (assuming the same number of NADs as saves), plus the tremendous additional inconsistancy that saves add to the system regardless of what else is going on.

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Saving throw: Defender rolls a die, adds a modifer, trying to beat a number set by the attacker.

NAD: Attacker rolls a die, adds a modifier, trying to beat a number set by the defender.

More simple? More complex? The only thing that changes is who rolls the die. (And the relative complexity of "what if a boulder is rolling down the mountain to roll over your character on a cliffside path?" -is that a saving throw, an attack, or an ability check?)

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

NADs are great as they are easier. (I love the Earthdawn system, which is similar. There's a phyisical defense as well as a mystic (magic) defense.) Here's a target number, roll that number or higher.

Saving throws are great because it gives you a chance to "escape" something bad. Pulls your hero's bacon from the fire as it were. Those make great game moments. Especially when you just barely make it. Whew!

On the other hand, it sort of stinks when the enemy gets a save. My roll says I hit. His roll says "not so fast."

Both systems are good, and I think some sort of hybrid system could work. How many times did you see in the older modules, "No Save"? Why not use a NAD for such rolls?
Show
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity.... In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.
But you actually have more numbers on your sheet if you use saves rather than NADS.

How so?

6 attributes + 6 modifiers + HP + AC = 14
6 attributes + 6 modifiers + 3 defenses + HP + AC = 17

14 < 17.



You can get permanent bonuses to saves that are different than bonuses to ability checks (and vice versa). You also have to have your Save DC on your character sheet. You also can get temporary bonuses to one or the other that require additional numbers to look up. Also magic attack bonus.

So in reality it is:

Current Setup - 6 attributes + 6 modifiers + 6 saving throws + HP + AC + Weapon Attack bonus + Magic Attack bonus + Save DC = 23

With NADs - 6 attributes + 6 modifiers + 3 NADs + HP + AC + WeaponAttack bonus + Magic Attack bonus = 19

That is on top of the confusion caused by how poorly spells and attacks interact together. A spell that gives +1 to attacks has no effect on save DCs for the caster classes. A spell that grants +1 to all saves has no benefit to AC. A class like the warlord cannot grant "attacks" to caster classes because they don't use attacks. A class like the bard cannot inspire his allies to be more "accurate" because caster classes do not make attack rolls.




But you haven't yet seen the upcoming Debuffer class.
Heh heh, everyone who thinks that they hit the enemy take a step forward.....hang on Bruce, not so fast. 

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
I think it's intentional that there aren't many specific bonuses to saves (and the ones that do exist are rarely straight passive +x bonuses).
Well, I don't agree with Mearls, but he has a point here, and it's valid.  If they are 100% (100%!) clear on saving throws and Never Ever Ever Ever Ever give a bonus on saving throws which isn't driven through an attribute, then I agree - there's less math.   Because the attribute way will include 6 attributes, verses the NAD way of 6 attributes + 3 NADs.

But, if they don't have that kind of fervor, then everything they just said was thrown out due to a cool feat.  Because once you give +2 to charisma saving throws, now you need to distinguish between your charisma modifier and your charisma saving throw modifier.   And, then you're at 12 attributes.  

Given that the paladin gets a virtual bonus to saving throws and we're still in the playtest, i don't believe that removing NADs will decrease complexity - I think it'll add.
Well, I don't agree with Mearls, but he has a point here, and it's valid.  If they are 100% (100%!) clear on saving throws and Never Ever Ever Ever Ever give a bonus on saving throws which isn't driven through an attribute, then I agree - there's less math.   Because the attribute way will include 6 attributes, verses the NAD way of 6 attributes + 3 NADs.

But, if they don't have that kind of fervor, then everything they just said was thrown out due to a cool feat.  Because once you give +2 to charisma saving throws, now you need to distinguish between your charisma modifier and your charisma saving throw modifier.   And, then you're at 12 attributes.  

Given that the paladin gets a virtual bonus to saving throws and we're still in the playtest, i don't believe that removing NADs will decrease complexity - I think it'll add.



In the basic rules, players see only the option to improve an ability score. This rule places further emphasis on the abilities. It also scoops up all the passive, simple feats that have appeared in the past. We don't need to give a +1 bonus to attack rolls, damage rolls, or saves, because the ability bonuses include those.

So seems all feats that give a flat + are a thing from the past


Finally, this approach allows us to use feats to shoulder a lot of the load in shifting complexity. Powers, special attacks, minor spellcasting, expertise at sneaking or interaction, and so forth can live inside of feats


So sounds 4th edition style powers will become feats including the utility powers to cover snealing and interaction

Well since advantage and disadvantage are supposed to most bonuses, saving throws bonus should just be ability modifiers.

Then you only have:

Mr. Fighter

12 HP
16 AC (18 w/ Shield)

Str 16 (+3)
Dex 15 (+2)
Con 14 (+2)
Int 13 (+1)
Wis 8 (-1)
Cha 11 (+0)

Longsword +X
BastardSword +X
Exp Dice 2d6

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!

Well since advantage and disadvantage are supposed to most bonuses, saving throws bonus should just be ability modifiers.



But if that is the case, then you run into the problem that saving throws fall behind as you level. That problem currently exists in the playtest, but eventually they're going to have to introduce a way to improve saves, which will kill the advantage you describe.

On the other hand, you could change it so the attribute itself IS your NAD, which makes the system much more balanced overall AND reduces numbers you need to track. So with a 14 wisdom you have +10 vs 14, instead of +2 vs 20, it makes the chances of success much better in general.
TMike Mearls clearly has no clue what he is talking about if thinks Saves are less complex than NADs. That really makes me fear for the game. I can understand wanting saves so the game "feels" more old school, but between class mechanic interactions, rules interactions, bonuses and penalties, advantage and disadvantage, saves are clearly more complex. A unified everyone makes an "attack" system is so much more simple that I am shocked MM even said that...

Yeah.  Mike strikes me as a creative type.  The math and game theory don't seem to interest him as much as coming up with something just cool.  If you look at Dragon articles he wrote personaly, for instance, they're often full of neat things, but need a little errata right off the bat.  The Magic of the Feywild one, with Winged Horde, for instance.



The problem I have with a lot of things that came out for D&D, both TSR and WotC is that they might have sounded cool, but the mechanics often didn't back that up.

Cool needs to be backup by mechanics, otherwise it's only going to disappoint someone who actually tries to use it and anger those who do understand the mechanics, because of filling the pages with useless stuff.

5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."

 

I once asked the question (in D&D 3.5) "Does a Druid4/Wizard3/ArcaneHierophant1 have Wildshape?". Jesse Decker and Andy Collins: Yes and the text is clear and can't be interpreted differently. Rich Redman and Ed Stark: No and the text is clear and can't be interpreted differently. Skip Williams: Lol, it's worded ambiguously and entirely not how I intended it. (Cust. Serv. Reference# 050815-000323)

It all seems in line with expectations at this point. 5E won't be even near anything I will be interested in buying (or playing). It's ok, others will like it, I will move on, that's life.
The dev team so has shown that a) they don't much care much about gamaplay issues I care about b) even if they would care, they wouldn't know how to address them.
 



  Same boat.  It's obvious Mearls hasn't learned anything from 4E, he's making mistakes even amateurs don't make.  When you can go to rpg.drivethrustuff.com/ and pick from hundreds of better systems made by first time developers with far smaller teams, budgets and development time, nostalgia and brand name won't be enough.

@mikemearls don't quite understand the difference

I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down. - Eric Cartman

Enough chitchat!  Time is candy! - Pinky Pie

Recent tweets that scare me:

"Dragonborn will definitely be in the game." (hopefully they remember the dragon boobs debacle too!)

"There's a bunch of tactical rules written, wargame/skirmish game derived with stuff like facing. Untested, tho" (yep, tactical players are really looking forward to untested facing rules)


@Seerow

All of that could be handled by removing the DC bonus to saves.

With abilities capped at 20, a caster will only have a DC of 15 before bonuses. But PCs will all hva multiple modifiers of +4 or more.

Or better yet, making caster DC's equal their magic score. And giving classes' advantage to certain ability saves.

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!

"There's a bunch of tactical rules written, wargame/skirmish game derived with stuff like facing. Untested, tho" (yep, tactical players are really looking forward to untested facing rules)



This is my fear with most o fthier modules, considering they have yet to actually release any for playtesting. It seems like the modular aspect of the game is going to be a bunch of untested, ill-thought out garbage. The fact that they've done pretty much nothing to revise Healing/Resting Expiremental Rule 2's refocus action for several packets now pretty much says they probably don't care at all about the modules.

Sign In to post comments