heh taunt ?

tinypic.com/view.php?pic=95tthc&s=5

Hello, me and my friends had our second playtest of D&D next. Wizards mentioned they wont repeat mistakes of 4th edition, and now we see this. Also categories of m.items (common, uncommon, rare..) are definitly not what i wanted to see. And noone of us understands this change. What do you think, ppl ?
Taunt takes you action for the turn, so it is in fact quite bad. Also requires a whopping Cha 15 so you fighter is unlikely to qualify.

Taunt takes you action for the turn, so it is in fact quite bad. Also requires a whopping Cha 15 so you fighter is unlikely to qualify.

Man it doesn't matter if this taunt is good or not. That's not the point.

This game was announced as one step away from MMOrpg style, and we getting more MMO than in 4ed. Skills are simplified, rolls are simplified, items are categorized just like in mmo's. 

Personally i couldn't care less since i'm mmo's fan and i like them just as i like my tabletop rpg's - simple and fun. But it's not cool to tell one thing and do another. 
Taunt takes you action for the turn, so it is in fact quite bad. Also requires a whopping Cha 15 so you fighter is unlikely to qualify.

Man it doesn't matter if this taunt is good or not. That's not the point.

This game was announced as one step away from MMOrpg style, and we getting more MMO than in 4ed. Skills are simplified, rolls are simplified, items are categorized just like in mmo's. 

Personally i couldn't care less since i'm mmo's fan and i like them just as i like my tabletop rpg's - simple and fun. But it's not cool to tell one thing and do another. 




What i am trying to say is that taunt in D&DN is not a aggro tool for your tank, it is something your bard will use to lure an enemy into provoking an opportunity attack from one of his allies. Hence all similarities with an mmo taunt ends with the name.


 

Yet hello, this is role playing game. And this is another tool for players that can take colorfoul flavors away. Instead of ingame "- yo momma is sooo fat !! " there is now " Im using taunt on him - 24 i succed.
Yet hello, this is role playing game. And this is another tool for players that can take colorfoul flavors away. Instead of ingame "- yo momma is sooo fat !! " there is now " Im using taunt on him - 24 i succed.



How does a roll for success prevent the player from also roleplaying the taunt? In fact, I would apply conditional modifiers based on how good the player's actual taunt was.

And what's wrong with categorizing magic items by rarity? That's an incredibly helpful tool for DMs when planning treasure rewards. Without it we would be in the dark and have to read every item description to decide if it's too good to award yet.

Personally I can't stand 4th edition, but I don't think what you're complaining about is "MMO-like."


How does a roll for success prevent the player from also roleplaying the taunt? In fact, I would apply conditional modifiers based on how good the player's actual taunt was.

And what's wrong with categorizing magic items by rarity? That's an incredibly helpful tool for DMs when planning treasure rewards. Without it we would be in the dark and have to read every item description to decide if it's too good to award yet.

Personally I can't stand 4th edition, but I don't think what you're complaining about is "MMO-like."



So why the hell this skill even exists? Scumbag 5ed calls for a new meme:
Introduce skill that's named as MMO skill and does the same job.
Could be totally replaced by socials like bluff, etc.

Whats wrong by categorizing items? Man go play some MMO's pls. Only one thing that misses is green names on commons, blue on uncommons and purple on rares.


And probably you're the one from many that hates on 4ed because it's cool and everybody does that. NOW EVERYBODY DO THE FLOP!
I find this "anti-MMO" thread funny.

You do realise that RPGs are historically based on DnD? And MMO is just a contemporary form of RPG? And not liking coloured names on items? That's just vain.

Besides, it's obvious to an ape that different magic items have different classes of rarity. Even if it wasn't written, I would know that a Belt of Storm Giant Strength is far more valuable and uncommon than a Ring of Feather Fall (or whatever it's called). The reason they're classified is for the (beginner) DM, not for the players.

As far as taunt goes, I think it would be a horrible addition.

"I am the original gangsta"

-Warlock lvl 5 at the start of the session, dead by the end.

And MMO is just a contemporary form of RPG?



I don't know bout you, but i'm playing mmo's like most other players - not giving a damn bout roleplaying anything.

I find this "anti-MMO" thread funny.

Besides, it's obvious to an ape that different magic items have different classes of rarity. Even if it wasn't written, I would know that a Belt of Storm Giant Strength is far more valuable and uncommon than a Ring of Feather Fall (or whatever it's called). The reason they're classified is for the (beginner) DM, not for the players.



To the useless simplicity in rpg's we're telling - NOPE.
tinypic.com/view.php?pic=95tthc&s=5

Hello, me and my friends had our second playtest of D&D next. Wizards mentioned they wont repeat mistakes of 4th edition, and now we see this. Also categories of m.items (common, uncommon, rare..) are definitly not what i wanted to see. And noone of us understands this change. What do you think, ppl ?


3.5e Paladin had taunt first, but I'm sure your not going to let things like facts get in your way of bashing 4e.

Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

3.5e Paladin had taunt first, but I'm sure your not going to let things like facts get in your way of bashing 4e.

You're probably thinking of the Knight class, which was released near the end of the 3.5 production cycle. Much like the Tome of Battle, the Knight was a way of testing new concepts to gather feedback for 4E.

The metagame is not the game.

3.5e Paladin had taunt first, but I'm sure your not going to let things like facts get in your way of bashing 4e.

You're probably thinking of the Knight class, which was released near the end of the 3.5 production cycle. Much like the Tome of Battle, the Knight was a way of testing new concepts to gather feedback for 4E.




Sorry your correct I did mean Knight.  Your trying to attribute an ability, Test of Mettle,  that uses a mechanic that only exists in a 3.5e Player's Handbook II to 4e now? Test of Mettle is nothing like a -2 to hit and everything like a MMO taunt.

Are you serious saying WIzards releasing a Player Handbook II just to get feedback? I mean I can believe they would do that for a splat book, but serious a Player's Handbook? I would have to see something that supports that claim to believe it.

Edit: Sorry I meant Player's Handbook II 

Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

Are you serious saying Wizards releasing a Player Handbook II just to get feedback?

Not just to get feedback, of course. As the edition had grown established, though, they were free to experiment with designs that strayed further and further from their initial focus, though. There's not much of a chance of alienating the existing fanbase, since there was already enough content that people were expected to disallow anything they didn't like.

It seems entirely likely that they introduced the Knight because they had received feedback that something like an MMO taunt would be really useful, and they wanted to cater to that audience in a way that other players could easily ignore. It would also explain why they changed it between that incarnation and 4E - if people did complain that the Knight seemed a little too magical, then that's why the fighter's mark works how it does (by just engaging the enemy with a weapon), and also why the paladin's mark works that way (they accepted that, if the Knight's ability seemed too magical, then it would be okay if they just gave it to a class that was explicitly magical).

The metagame is not the game.

D&D's Kender had a taunt power - the "you are forced to attack me" variety - back in the 1980s, long before MMOs existed.

  On the other hand, I'm not particularly fond of "rarity" because if the 4E implementation was anything to judge by, it'll end up as an internally conflicted mess. (I find it's best ignored in 4E for that very reason, even if using other Essentials material.)

Why do we need item rarity when we have gold piece values?  Obviously the higher gold piece valued items are more rare.  Just using gold values is much more granular than a simple common, uncommon, rare scheme.  I mean, this isn't Magic the Gathering, is it?
As far as taunt goes, perhaps what we need is a more comprehensive guide on how to roleplay the monsters for the beginner DM, including how to decide who the monsters attack and why.  If someone is trying to attract the monster's attacks and the DM isn't sure if they would succeed or not, perhaps a simple charisma vs intelligence contest would suffice.
Taunt is exactly what Lord Kyrion pointed out. A mechanical component of a socially adept character (see the Rogue-Rake) to manipulate enemies. Our group has a Halfling Rogue with taunt who is pretty excited about casting aspersions in order to lure them past my glaive wielding cleric 

item rarity gives a good indication to how unlikely you are to find an item. At a certain point, "gold values" are irrelevant because there would be literally no one able to purchase the item unless a kingdom wanted to empty their coffers for an Ioun stone. So rarity (which has been in the game for as long Ive been playing) helps with the much less mundane items. 

 
Why do we need item rarity when we have gold piece values?  Obviously the higher gold piece valued items are more rare.  Just using gold values is much more granular than a simple common, uncommon, rare scheme.  I mean, this isn't Magic the Gathering, is it?


I don't think value and rarity are directly related. There are mundane things the are very expensive and there very well could be rare items that don't have much value to anyone else. I think there is value in being able to organize magic items into categories. I also think its foolish to reduce the organization of information because ones distaste for a different game.

Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

It baffles me that people are so against categorization and organization of magic items when it provides so much convenience to the DM and changes the game no more than giving monsters level ratings. Obviously I will look at the actual value of the item and how good its effects are, I won't just throw out a rare item because the chart says they can have a rare item, just like I won't just set the party against five mind flayers without reading how easily they can kill people, but when perusing a long list of magic items, or monsters, it is unbelievably convenient to have an organized list I can browse instead of just a pile that I have to dig through.
tinypic.com/view.php?pic=95tthc&s=5

 Also categories of m.items (common, uncommon, rare..) are definitly not what i wanted to see. And noone of us understands this change. What do you think, ppl ?



1st rule of RPG's is if you don't like a rule - don't use it. Throw out rarities ... it won't break the game any. It's just a tool for the DM so he can gauge how many items to place and so forth. Not every fighter in the world should have a Belt of Giant Strength - if too many do it lowers the value of them. Then it becomes the DM's problem to create encounters that can challenge a party with top-notch magic items. If it doesn't bother him then he can hand out legendary items like candy = it's his world.
Sign In to post comments