What do you hate about D&D:Next?

Why do  you hate D&D:Next?



  • Fantasy Vietnam - I can't play a heroic character from first level, I have to start somewhere around level 5 to get that feeling in 5E.

  • Options - I need interesting options at every turn. During creation, interaction, exploration, and combat. We don't get that in 5E.

  • Non-Vancian Caster - I need a non-vancian caster or I can't play a Wizard the way I like. Its extremely simple to fix this. There's no excuse that it isn't fixed.

  • Interesting options for martial classes - My players demand interesting martial classes that are effective and equal to the Wizard in usefulness. Something 4E did well, but previous editions did not. I don't care if there are simple options for those that want them, but there must be options to be complex or at least interesting.

  • Monster Math - The monster math is so far off at this point that there is little point in testing anything else. You can't tell if a feature is a good one if the best option is to do a basic attack or cantrip to end the fight faster.


I'm sure there are more, what do you hate about 5E? 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.




9. Rocket-Tag/Fantasy Vietnam/Death-Trap play



Still disrespectful. 

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

What I dislike:

1) At-will Magic.
Ye gods I hate cantrips.  I especially hate cantrips that are expected to be your bread & butter in combat: the equivalent of a weapon attack.  I don't think I'd have a problem with Prestidigitation/Thaumaturgy/Druidcraft existing at-will to make magical characters able to be magical when they're out of spell slots, but At-will magic that is a reasonable use of your action removes any desire to resource manage.  For me at least, it feels cheap and makes magic un-special

2) Broken Long Rests.
So, you hae a night's sleep barricaded into a room in the middle of the dungeon, and are totally and completley refreshed?  Yeah, I'm not a fan.   My hope comes somewhat from the wilderness resting system ("Barmaid rule") that was mentioned in an article, where you get less back if you're not resting in town.  Amend town to "perfectly safe environment" and I'm all for it: a Long Rest on the dungeon would in my mind recover half your lost HP and half your expended HD.  Something still needs to be done about casters though.  I recommend this:  "Spell slot recovery: Immediatley after taking a long rest, you may recover expended spell slots and prepare new spells.  Exchanging any number of prepared spells takes 30 minutes, but recovering spell slots is a task that takes 5 minutes per spell level of the slot or slots to be restored.  If you did not recieve the benefit of a Safe Rest, you may only recover up to half your expended spell levels worth of slots, rounded down."

3) The awe-inspiring power of Spare the Dying
I've warmed up, in general, to the new dying rules.  I'm not sure if I don't still prefer a death at negative X, but I can take death saves as a thing...  as long as Spare the Dying ceases to be the Immortality Protocol.  At the moment it's pathetically easy to get this cantrip on multiple characters.  If this cantrip is on multiple characters, death quickly becomes impossible barring one of three circumstances
a) The foe is powerful enough to 1-shot you from full (Quite unfair, at least if applied to melee types)
b) The foe is numerous or fast enough to hit 3 times before any other player character gets a chance to move (Also quite unfair)
c) The foe uses Harm, or some other mechanic that reduces (preferably greatly) a character's max hp, allowing a to occur from a "Fair" fight
Even with C, which is moderatley fair, there's no real danger involved when a character is dying: they're either fine because somebody has Spare the Dying or screwed because they done be dead before anybody gets a chance to act.  The actual death saves themselves almost never come into play, though they're rather easy on their own.

The Solution: Remove Spare the Dying as an at-will cantrip or make it only stabalize (not heal to 1) its target.  Allow Coup de Grace as an insta death, but have CDG provoke attacks of opportunity, that turn the Coup into a regular attack if they connect.  Now when Bob goes down, you rush over to protect his fallen body so the monsters can't finish the job, rather than saying "It's okay, I have Spare the Dying" or "Well, he's toast."

4) Monster Math
I don't think I need to say any more.  It's bad.  I mean, really bad.  It makes the whole process of playtesting next to impossible at the current juncture.

~~~~

Things I don't mind but other people seem to hate

1) "Fantasy Veitnam" 
I guess this is the latest phrase to insult/belittle starting at an "ordinary mortal" rather than "Cut above" sort of power.  I guess it's a little less grating than "mud farmer tier", which has at least fallen into disuse.  Not sure what was wrong with "Apprentice tier".  It's the most accurate description I've yet heard.

Here's the thing about Apprentice Tier Gaming versus Starting Level.  The level system, by its inherant nature, runs from 1 to X -- X is currently set at 20.  1 is as weak as a player character can be, and X is the pinnacle of that character's innate strength.  That's what a level system is.  Now, some people wish to start play at the base level: when the campaign begins they're Bilbo Baggins hurrying out of Bag End without his handkerchifs (eventually outwitting elves and stealing from dragons), Or Taran of Caer Dallben the assistant pig-keeper (Eventually High King weilding an artifact sword), or Willow the more-stage-than-real magician (Eventually a very powerful sorcerer indeed, at least according to EU).

Starting here is a good way to indulge in The Hero's Journey, or Momomyth as described by Joseph Campbell, where the hero ventures forth from common circumstances to great and fantastic ones.  Such heroes are often out of their depth and must pass risky trials to survive and continue their journey.  It's something that the level system in general does a very good job of simulating.  "Rags to Riches" or "Nobody to Champion" is practically assured from the progression of power so long as you survive long enough to see it. 

Other people would rather start with significantly more power.  Perhaps they prever the David Adams Leeming interpretation of Monomyth, which begins with miracles at the hero-to-be's birth and ends with apotheosis rather than return.  And that's just fine.  In fact, it's so fine that it's one of the things that Wizards has professed to want to support both sides on.  I think the right way to do this is robust rules for starting at levels above 1st.

Because, like it or not, D&D next is in a large part a singular game.  There is not "My D&D Next" and "Lokaire's D&D Next" any more than there were in previous editions differences between tables.  They might want to make the bredth of options that have always existed for those willing to tinker more accessable to new DMs, but there will still exist a core system with core assumptions, and one of the questions that is going to be answered by the core system is "What does level 1 mean?"

Or, to put it another way "What's the lowest power a Player Character can have?"  Because that's what level measures, and 1 is the minimum.   If the answer returned is the start of a Joseph Campbell Hero's Journey, an individual campaign can can still start a Leeming-style journey by making the players enter at a higher level (power) than the strict minimum of the system.  If it's set at a David Adams Leeming baseline, though, the Campbell crowd is out of luck, because you can't really go lower than level 1.

Two other options have been presented: The first is to have plug-in options that radically change the power and durability of 1st-level characters when applied.  This has some serious problems, especailly at launch, because it forces a change in literally every aspect of the game.  Since levels are additive, having Level 1 be tougher and stronger makes Level 10 tougher and stronger too.  Depending on how much better PCs are, monsters may have to take that into consideration or you won't even be challenged.  Essentially, the plug-in would have to be totally transformative: you could probably devote an entire 300 page hardback to this alone, which while it would be an excellent solution to support everybody's desires, makes it quite difficult to roll out at launch (which will presumably be the Core 3 rulebooks), and the complexity involved might put a terrible lot of work on those people using it, to the point where they even wonder why they're going through that mess and not simply either starting at level 5 or playing a game that they don't have to amend literally every number in.

The second option stems, I believe, from the one argument against those who want higher power starts starting at higher level that actually holds some water.  Most of the complaints I've seen on this score pay lip service at best to the goal of being all-around supportive, but I honestly think this one needs to be addressed: "Starting at higher level forces a sector of the player base to play a shorter game".  It does, and that is something of a problem.  A group that buys D&D next books and skips levels 1-4 has paid for 20% less useable material.   The solution I've heard to this is to move "Apprentice tier" or whatever you want to call it off into some sort of bizarre prologue module, where players desiring a weaker start effectivley begin play before the progression at level 1 does.  They are, in effect, level 0 or level negative 1, and gain power in some limited ways until they become full-fledged first level characters.

The problem I see with this is that it doesn't actually answer the main gripe.  If you have a prologue progression that fills virtual levels -4 to 0, not playing the prologue out means having a shorter game than those who do.  If Prologue is part of launch rollout (and unlike "mod all the numbers" it pretty trivially could be -- one of the benefits of the proposed solution), you are still paying for a bunch of levels you don't use... you might as well call "Prologue 1/Level -4" "level 1" and "level 1" "Level 6" and "level 20" "level 25", because it is the exact same issue, you're just choosing to count from a different numeric start point, one that makes a good deal less sense than counting from 1.

It is for this reason that I think robust and well-supported rules for generating characters and starting a game at higher than first level are the appropiate solution to this particular disconnect.

2) "Dead Levels"
I really think the concept of "Dead levels" is a canard that needs to be done away with.  For one, I've yet to hear a good definition of a dead level.  There isn't a sharp line dividing them from the rest of a class progression... if 3e Fighter 3 is dead, clearly a point of BAB doesn't count... why?

The goal of eliminating the nebulous foe of Dead Levels leads, invariably, to the proliferation of minor abilities that are not germane to the class they are attached to.  A class feature should be somethign that all examples of the class ought to share.  Otherwise, it should be an option, even if there is a class feature that says "You get a new option now, pick from your list." (Like Fighter's infamous bonus feats).

That's not to say you shouldn't generally get something from levelling up.  If level is a measure of power (as I established in my last comment), then your power should increase when you level up.

A Worthy fighter

Start at level 1 with 1 expertise die, +1 Attack, and 2 maneuvers known
At each odd level past 1st, gain an expertise die (maxing out at 10 dice at level 19)
at 5, 10, 15, and 20, gain +1 Attack (+5 total at level 20)
at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20, gain Heroic Resillance, +1 to All Saves (+5 total at level 20)
at 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18, learn a new maneuver.

Double Fantasy: The Wizard that would go alongside this fighter
Start at level 1 with 4 first-level spells known and 3 L1 slots per day, maybe Prestidigitation as a class feature.
At odd levels, gain a new spell level (including a spell slot of that level) maximum level 9 spells at L17
At all levels, gain a single new spell known of your choice, any level you can cast.
At 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 gain a spell slot at the levels 1, 2, and 3 below your current maximum if you have fewer than 6 slots of that level, maxing out your spell slots at 6/4/4/3/2/1/1/1/1
(neither cantrips nor "Spellcasting Bonus" exist)


How many Dead Levels does this fighter have?  5? (the levels at which all you get is Heroic Resillance)  15? (The levels at which you don't get a new maneuver)  None? (the levels at which all you get is +1 HD).

Now how many random, off-theme powers did I give this fighter (or his comparison wizard because gaining straight up power (in the form of math) was mysteriously not good enough?  0.  That's the right answer, in my opinion.


"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

D&D characters in early editions died left and right unless the DM somehow contrived to prevent it.

Isn't that true of ALL RPGs?  Currently I am playing 4E, for example.  There is nothing preventing the DM from overwhelming us and killing all of us, other than the fact that he doesn't want to.  In other words, the DM is purposely preventing it.
 



It's somewhat true, though early D&D was very swingy and random from that standpoint. In 4E, generally you die from biting off more than you can chew or possibly poor teamwork or a string of bad rolls but in 1E it wasn't that clean. Character death happened "just because" a whole lot.

In the first 4E adventure I ran (Keep on the Shadowfell) I had two TPKs before they ever got to the keep because they split the party, didn't work together particularly well and took the Warlord's role designation of "Leader" to mean his place in the party marching order. That was on them. one shot-one kill on the PCs is not as fun.
'Vancian' magic, which each 'magic spell' is a unique set of rules that works exclusively outside the rules that everyone else has to use.

The power disparity between Casters and Non-caster.

AC as binary hit/miss 'dodge' effect.

All the issues that traditional D&D has always had.

And that changing any of them will either break the system and make it 'not D&D' and the player's reactions to even suggesting change.

  • Monsters are too weak.

  • Too easy to bring PCs back to combat when they get KOed, encouraging whack-a-mole combat.

  • Spellcasters are overpowered.

  • Not enough options for martial characters.

My problem with Rocket-Tag, is that often times the PCs can die before they even get to their very first initiative round. (I think Rocket-Tag is probably the least offensive term for it, but everyone has an opinion)

My problem with apprentice levels is they feel like "Tutorial Levels" and most people don't do the tutorial every single time, thus indicative of an Optional Module. Also, you might want your PC to be more survivable at 1st level, that doesn't mean you want them to have the power of a 3rd or 5th level character, and that's what you get if you start at 3rd or 5th, OR the Apprentice Tiers so scales back the power of your character in relation to everything that its hardly worth calling the character a potential hero at all...finding that balance is the real clincher to the whole Apprentice Tier approach.

If, however, Apprentice Tier is set as an optional module, you don't have to necessarily make it completely seperate from the overall structure of levels 1 to 20, instead, make level 1 to level 2 cost something like 1000 xp, but if you use the Apprentice Tier system, Appr1 is from 0 to 200, Appr2 is from 201 to 500, then 501 to 1000 is played as a normal Lv 1 character...that way you build the progression of Apprentice Tier INTO the progression from 1st to 2nd, and nobody ends up losing a portion of the game. (And the experience total can be adjusted for however many tutorial/apprentice levels  you want)

I just think that at 1st level, it would make sense to have 2 maxed out HD worth of HPs, plus Con Mod, or as others have said, full con score plus 1 HD (maxed or rolled). I also think Wizard and Cleric should start with a d6 for their HD, while Rogues and maybe Battle God Clerics get a d8, and Fighters get a d10, so Cleric goes down, Rogue goes up, based on the traditional values. Non-Battle Clerics should be more squishy, but nobody should have a d4 I think, not even the most secluded hermetic wizard.
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
 Lokaire,
I agree with this poster, the term you are using is blatantly disrespectful and not only an attack on the Vietnamese people but also the soldiers who fought in that war. I am aware of your conspiracy theorist agenda and I don't care to hear it expressed against my country now or any other time. Please use some other term.

                                                  Excersise some tact please. 
                                                             Thank you



Only if you are looking to be offended.

Which more and more seems to be the sole purpose of this frikkin forum  ::|


Bounded accuracy only applies to-hit, your damage scales so it would be suicidal so attempt to fight a dragon before a certain level. Not sure what that level should be, but IMO an Army of footsoldiers should be able to take down a Terrasque, just as well as a party of super high level PC fighters (assuming no magic). Once magic is in the mix, that's a different story, which needs a different kind of balance.

An army of 1st level wizards, each armed with an un-missable magic missile each, could reasonably expect to be able to one-round virtually any foe, except those immune to magic. In the terrasque's case, I assume it'll be easier to kill it with hordes of melee weapons than with low-level magic en-masse. Big creatures often get killed by swarms of smaller ones that overwhelm them by sheer numbers, the analogy is the same. 


That defeats the point I'm making though. I want the Dragon to be nigh on impossible for the militia/army to take on, and I want the Terrasque to be completely impossible for any but a bunch of high level heroes to even contemplate. I envision the Terrasque wading through the countryside, with ballista bolts bouncing off its nigh on impervious hide without any effect whatsoever. The Terrasque is the Godzilla Monster of D&D. Other Monsters, Giant Robot, and Laser Cannons are generally the only things that were ever even marginally effective against the beast. This is a fantasy world, I don't want the swarm effect to be sufficient. The Terrasque isn't a realistic monster, so common sense arguments shouldn't apply, analogous or not.


I've seen many DMs start us at 3rd or 5th level when they want a serious campaign, including in Pathfinder. After you've done the early levels enough times, they cease to be so interesting anyway. Keeping the math flatter allows a larger range of "sweet spot" levels where the math makes sense and there is still a steady, but slower, progression. This is IMO a good thing for long-term campaigns, once you get all Monty Haul at high levels the fun often peters out.



See My followup response earlier. I have never liked starting at higher levels, except in the case of one-offs to showcase something. I want to build my character from 1st level every single time, I don't, however, want to start as the pig-farming apprentice who can die before I ever get a single blow in. More potential new players are lost every year because their 1st level character was killed before their initiative round ever came about. I defiitely don't want to be starting brand new players at 3rd or 5th level just to show they can survive. Tutorial levels are something I'd do when teaching the game, in a seperate session with just the one player, and I would send them against Minion style monsters ala 4e to do it. I don't need or want Apprentice Tier, but I'm fine if, like every edition before Next, if they want to put an optional module that treats them like 0 levels.


Advantage/Disadvantage, to my mind, is one of the best features (aside from bounded accuracy), that they've come up with. Combat advantage in 4e and flanking in 3e were so boring, so many ways to get them. This way, it's a big math difference, that is harder to come by, meaning when you need Advantage on your big move, you really need to try hard to get it to land, possibly contriving all sorts of fun ways to achieve that. That is infinitely more fun to me than a formulaic flanking = +2, which requires no more tactics than aligning your pawns diagonally in a game of chess.



You still don't address the boolean nature of Adv/Disadv that is a major hassle. Certain abilities trigger when you have Advantage, or grant disadvantage, and there is no stacking of the conditions to end up with things working or not. If I already have Disadvantage on an attack, can I use a power or ability that requires I take disadvantage? If yes, that could be unbalancing, if no, why, your curtailing My powers. 3 Advantage vs 2 Disadvantage equalling overall Advantage would make more sense, but be a lot of bookkeeping. I far prefer bonuses and penalties to dealing with this!


I found the maneuvers interesting (especially interposing shield), and love the at-will nature of them, without the complex fiddly math of a Pathfinder trip-monkey with CMBs and sub-rules that slow the game down, or the contrived/hard-to-explain or believe nature of 4e marking or magical-seeming powers.

I want fighters to be simple, at-will, but also versatile, and fast to play. You want to trip this guy? Fine, use your EDs instead of doing damage, that'll allow the rogue to have advantage on his next attack. These combos are fun, and were fun in 4e as well, but doing the same things over and over again is only worse in a system with power cards. I can't tell you how bored I was after the fiftieth time I used all my encounters and dailies. The variety should be in the monsters you face, the rooms you're in, the things you try to win or get through their armor, a much more free-form game that plays fast but is ALSO more versatile for Theater of the Mind style play. If by having a "complex fighter", you mean one where precise positioning of pawns on a chessboard is, then thank you, no, that's been done before. It doesn't make a boring fight more epic to know exactly where I'm standing, it just takes time away from the story.

Short fights should be short, low set up time, easy resolution, if you wanna kill stuff fast and don't need to bust out crazy complex combos each time, just kill the orcs in your way with a couple rolls and move on down to something more interesting.



This works for your style of play, I'm sure, but in my book, a fight that's worth having is meaningful. Short fights, as you call them, like those speedbumps where you take out a random guard or two, aren't fights in my book, and may be better handled with a couple of skill checks instead, or use Minions. I don't want the Monsters falling before I have a chance for them to show their stuff either...nothing is more disappointing, as a DM, then planning a battle, picking out monsters for it because of their specific abilities, and then never getting to use those abilities because the PCs just mowed over them before they applied. I want every PC to get to at least act 75% or more of the time, and every monster as well, except the Minion types. That's why I love the Minion types from 4e, and also why I enjoy Elites and Solos, because they fit their purpose in my fights. I give most of the experience in my games for role-playing, not combat, I don't run a combat-centric game, however, when there is actual combat, I want it to be significant. 4e combats never lasted longer in my games than the ones I ran in previous editions, because I built the combats to be significant, only in the case of Rocket-tag did they go shorter, and I didn't like a TPK in 1 to 2 rounds on either side of the field, PCs or NPCs. (unfortunately, at level 1, it was hard to avoid Rocket tag in older editions)


Alignment is one of the core D&D memes, a lot of people I know and respect dislike them as explicit mechanics since they always seemed fake, but to me, as long as it's mostly related to rare creatures like undead, paladins detecting "pure evil" or detect evil spells, I'm fine with good and evil, law and order being explicitly "real" and having mechanical support. It's just a question of how mutable those things are for those who don't want them. It's stupid, IMO, to not call vampires or devils "evil" and allow paladins explicit support to find them. D&D is not going to answer life's secrets and philosophical conundrums, let's just keep it fun and easy to play. Alignment is a very common trope for a reason : it's intuitive and fun, simple to grok, and easy to build some mechanics around it. We don't need to model complex psychology in D&D all the time, sometimes it's fun to just play it straight up, and having paragons of those alignments, with some grey areas in between, is fun IMO. 

And a classic D&D thing.


Nostalgia for nostalgia's sake is not a good enough argument.
I dislike alignment restrictions. I can see creatures of an infernal nature detecting as evil, but that could easily be renamed "detect infernal origin" but I don't like all paladins being Lawful Good, and all Sorcerers being Chaotic, and all Monks being Lawful (even if I can see some justification for some of these requirements)


Promises, yeah. People expected warlords to be a separate class, and now they aren't (which I agree with...a warlord is NOT a field medic, and any class should be able to be a "leader" and lead an army if they want to and have the brains, charm, and wits to do it). But if they can support most common archetypes that people want to play, through a combination of backgrounds and class features, I don't see the problem with that. I bet you most of the classic classes will be in there in one form or another.

Princess warlord builds were super fun in 4e, but way over-powered. Having a warlord in your group was that iteration's Codzilla. I remember in two games where I brought some warlords to the table, the party went from merely winning every battle, to COMPLETELY p0wning every single encounter and removing any plausibility that Team PC could ever lose, under any circumstance.



Nobody in my players even liked to play a Warlord, so I'm not even arguing because of their builds, or for myself, but for the fact that a promise was made and thus, should be kept. They have out and out said they aren't going to include the Warlord in 5e/Next, after saying, out and out, that they would include every class in a PHB #1 of all previous editions. To me, this smacks of dishonesty and bad business dealings, make a promise, live up to it. The builds that are warlord-like don't properly reflect the class, and they already said the Warlord wouldn't be in the new edition, so that pretty much precludes it being a subclass as well, doesn't it!?



Agreed, and they are doing this already, aren't they? The 1st level HP are similar to 3e, perhaps an optional rule would be to have 1st level HP instead of max dice, be 1/2 dice, but include your con score instead of con mod. Lots of people have made those suggestions before, but be-ware, if PCs have this rule, so should monsters, there is no explicit "minion" or "Brute" or "solo" tag any more (notwithstanding legendary, but that's at least very rare, and not likely to be seen every session, maybe a few times per campaign), and having too many HP turns the low-level game into a GRIND-FEST, which sucks out all the air from the story and focuses too much play time on combat, for no real benefit.

The PCs will still usually win despite going down more often (can be healed after combat), the enemies just die faster now, allowing the story pillar to shine, while making PCs feel more vulnerable which adds to dramatic tension. There can be no tension with immortal protagonists, it's dull as doornails and a strict yawn fest. PCs should win by the seat of their pants, and maybe in this edition they'll actually value defensive feats. I remember my 4e hybrid ranger I even retrained out Toughness /TWF hybrid talent and the other defensive ones, since I was chopping enemies down so fast it was stupid to be such a tank as well. I actually had more fun when I had less HP, it felt more like a classic ranger to have to be careful not to get overwhelmed.



See my response to Apprentice Tiers above


Agreed, they should split up to-hit and damage per even/odd boosts, meaning 15 is +1 more damage than 14, 14 is +1 more to-hit than 13, etc. And same for the other stats. Con needs to have a system shock score, so every class that expects to get raised from the dead will want to NOT dump their con score, even if e.g. a wizard rarely benefits from having increased HP since staying away from melee.

I know a few 2e DMs who thought feats were way too complicated and refused to keep playing 3e because of it. Having them optional is a HUGE plus which will allow us all to play the same game again. At the very least, having learned two editions' worth of poor feat design and massive feat lists which is one of the easiest ways to ruin the game (through inability to test the innumerable permutations thereof, and thus having to nerf some due to unintended interactions only revealed later on). Power creep is a definite problem, but if the core game is GOOD, then a DM can just play with the core books and not keep adding.

I picked up MP and MP2 for my ranger in 4e just to gain access to one or two new shiny buttons and feats, the class was already very powerful, they just made it more so over time. Same with other classes. Keeping feat lists small, optional, is a HUGE design win which tons of people have asked for.

The game plays fast, is more deadly, has a classic feel but still is modern, no it's not like 4e at all, but it did LEARN from its mistakes, which is a sure sign of progress. Combat being too slow and characters being too complex, I cannot overstate, how these two core things will make Next the best D&D ever.

Combat rules matter less, just like they did in 2e, because you simply don't spend all evening grinding away. For that reason, even if Next combat is only 20% better than 2e, while keeping the versatility of 3e, and some other innovations from 4e like cantrips and bounded accuracy (they probably realized bounded accuracy directly from the Inherent Bonuses rule of 4e, combined with people in the forums noticing ...hey, if both my numbers auto-increase, and so do the enemies, why not remove that useless scaling treadmill?).

They needed to come out with 4e so that Bounded Accuracy could show the way out of that d20 + 44 to-hit vs 43 AC absurdity that 3e began.



I can agree with giving some bonuses for odd stats and some for even, although something like System Shock wouldn't be of any use in my game as I typically don't make Reincarnation/Raise Dead a big option for my players, at least at the low to mid levels. If System Shock was the only thing odd Con gave you than many campaigns of mine would be over before it ever came into play. Dead is pretty much dead in my games...rarely if ever will I let the characters get raised, and if I do, its a major quest hook, not some expenditure of gold.

I just think bounded accuracy is not the game I want to play. I want some of the things done by the PCs when they get to higher levels to be so legendary that no amount of commoners could even hope to succeed. I want single PC fighters to take on threats that 10,000 soldiers wouldn't dare face. I have no problem with the treadmill effect, because its not a treadmill effect. Lower level monsters DO get easier to hit and wipe out, and higher level monsters DO become easier to handle, its just that EQUAL level monsters are an EQUAL challenge, no matter what level you are, that's why the challenges and the PCs both have a level rating, they stay equivalent. I don't want a bunch of kobolds to threaten my Lv 20 warband of PCs, I want it to have to upgrade to Ogres, or Lizardmen or something else they couldn't handle at lv 1

the sense of progress is there, the treadmill argument so many people argue is one of the true Strawman arguments out, and I almost never make that claim, but its a fact! 
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
Faux crocodile tears over the use of a term common in the hobby isn't convincing anyone. Cut it out.



Who made you the arbiter of what is, and is not, offensive to someone else?  Check your entitlement, neh?

The term in and of itself is both ignorant and offensive.  It's the mental equivalent of calling the same AEDU power structure 'Fantasy Naziism' (which, for the record, I am not saying) and belies the same lack of communication.

The term isn't 'common in the hobby', its common to a particular group of people who dislike something about someone else's game, which makes it fundamentally no different than every single other edition war pejorative out there.

IOW...grow up.




Colour me unconvinced about your sincerity.

Stop the H4TE


That defeats the point I'm making though. I want the Dragon to be nigh on impossible for the militia/army to take on, and I want the Terrasque to be completely impossible for any but a bunch of high level heroes to even contemplate. I envision the Terrasque wading through the countryside, with ballista bolts bouncing off its nigh on impervious hide without any effect whatsoever. The Terrasque is the Godzilla Monster of D&D. Other Monsters, Giant Robot, and Laser Cannons are generally the only things that were ever even marginally effective against the beast. This is a fantasy world, I don't want the swarm effect to be sufficient. The Terrasque isn't a realistic monster, so common sense arguments shouldn't apply, analogous or not.



Unless the game changes quite a bit from what we have now, or they provide a module for it, then perhaps DDN won't be the game for you. And that's okay. Not all games are for all people. I'm no fan of 40K, for instance. That's fine. I'll find other games to play.


Nobody in my players even liked to play a Warlord, so I'm not even arguing because of their builds, or for myself, but for the fact that a promise was made and thus, should be kept. They have out and out said they aren't going to include the Warlord in 5e/Next, after saying, out and out, that they would include every class in a PHB #1 of all previous editions. To me, this smacks of dishonesty and bad business dealings, make a promise, live up to it. The builds that are warlord-like don't properly reflect the class, and they already said the Warlord wouldn't be in the new edition, so that pretty much precludes it being a subclass as well, doesn't it!?



You know....people bring this word, "promise" up quite a bit, but I don't recall them ever using that word. I seem to recall phrases like "We'd like to do this," or "Our current plan is..." or "The current thinking..." Things like that.

That said, I am 36, so it's entirely possible that my mind is starting to go a bit early. If you'd be so kind as to quote where they said exactly "We promise you'll see every class that was ever in a PHB I," I'd be most appreciative. Thanks. 


For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

That it lacks vision.

It tries to want to please everybody ending up (at least so far) doing nothing better then editions already out there.
And not opening up new posibilities for campaign words and types of play
 
When 4th was desighed i realy felt they had a vision of what kind of game they wanted to create and went for that vision 100%.
To me even if you diden't like that vision or the end result it is somthing worty of respect.


Closest thing i can come up with to a vision for the design of Dnd Next would be the folowing.
Lets make a base game that is as bland as posible in a attempt to not offend anybody, and have playes ass their own spice ( moduals) if they want to.
And hope that that maximises sales.
 

This. Other than this I like 5th. They just arnt pushing the envelope like they should.

The developers didn't techincally say it would be there, to my disappointment. When I went back and watched the podcast and re-read the post it had some deceptive lawyer speak with statements that started definitively then ended with words to the effect of "...in some form" to CYA.

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!)

The developers didn't techincally say it would be there, to my disappointment. When I went back and watched the podcast and re-read the post it had some deceptive lawyer speak with statements that started definitively then ended with words to the effect of "...in some form" to CYA.



Corporate Gobbledygook.  Yah, I remember that from the TERA beta.  Ugh.

But really, how anyone couldn't see that coming I'll never know.  The Assassin as a baseline class?  The Illusionist, killed since 2E as a distinct class?  There was no way those were coming back.  At least, certainly not any way -I- could foresee.

I didn't figure the warlord would bite the dust as far as a baseline entry (although, to some degree, I can see why it did), I just expected martial healing to be adjusted rather drastically.  But I never expected every single class.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

The developers didn't techincally say it would be there, to my disappointment. When I went back and watched the podcast and re-read the post it had some deceptive lawyer speak with statements that started definitively then ended with words to the effect of "...in some form" to CYA.




This is something that happened a lot to people.  especially those that say things like promises not kept.  Almost every time someone makes that complaint it is in reference to something that was never actually promised.  Mainly because when they first started they were very good about not promising anything except for a few things like:

"I am going to 100% promise you that, especially if you are a veteran player or DM, we will include stuff in the next iteration of the game that you will ignore. In fact, I'm going to come out and say that we want you to ignore parts of the game."

that is one of the only promises made about this game.  All other promises are people reading into entirely non promise statements. 
Yeah I read into it.

I inferred from the "all PH1 classes" comment that we'd be getting all PH1 classes. I know full well they used corporate weasel words. And I don't care. This one I hold against them.

They: "Yes, there will be apples. We know you love apples, so rest assured they will be there for you."

We: "Alright! Apples!"

Later, we receive hostess apple-flavored fruit-pie.

They: "See? There's your apples. How do you like them?"

We: "Hey this isn't apples. This is a terrible pie."

They: "Well, the apples are IN the pie. We never said no pie."

We: "WTF, SRSLY?"
but then they never bring you the pie since pie/cake is a lie! 
Yeah I read into it. I inferred from the "all PH1 classes" comment that we'd be getting all PH1 classes. I know full well they used corporate weasel words. And I don't care. This one I hold against them. They: "Yes, there will be apples. We know you love apples, so rest assured they will be there for you." We: "Alright! Apples!" Later, we receive hostess apple-flavored fruit-pie. They: "See? There's your apples. How do you like them?" We: "Hey this isn't apples. This is a terrible pie." They: "Well, the apples are IN the pie. We never said no pie." We: "WTF, SRSLY?"

It seems kind of silly to be a critic about what classes are in the game at this point when we expect to see a lot of changes to the classes when sub-classes are added.  With that said it does look like warlord will likely look very different or not be included.
"Learn to read." Nice.

I admitted up front that i heard the corporate weasel-ese, and that its my inference. I did not forget the corporate weasel-ese, either.

What I'm saying is bait & switch. I don't care if its my fault (it is).

I'm holding it against them anyway. Because it DID play on my expectations, in bad faith.

2) "Dead Levels"
I really think the concept of "Dead levels" is a canard that needs to be done away with.  For one, I've yet to hear a good definition of a dead level.  There isn't a sharp line dividing them from the rest of a class progression... if 3e Fighter 3 is dead, clearly a point of BAB doesn't count... why?


Because nothing interesting happens. Oh, you can hit things 5% better now, but you're otherwise functionally identical. As opposed to say, getting to choose a new feat or even increase an ability score (Not super meaningful either, but ability score increases at least feel special, are tied to multiple things, and you ostensibly have a choice in what to increase. You're probably gonna stick with your mains, but you could pick up an extra point of Dex to qualify for a feat if you want or what have you).

That said, I dunno if Dead Level is the best term for it, but it's definitely something that should be avoided as best as possible. Though maybe I'm just crazy and people like the feeling they get when they get their paycheck, but can't buy anything because they need all the money for bills and want to experience a microcosm of that when they spend 5 sessions over the span of a month outwitting kobolds to gain a hard-earned level..

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
"Learn to read." Nice. I admitted up front that i heard the corporate weasel-ese, and that its my inference. I did not forget the corporate weasel-ese, either. What I'm saying is bait & switch. I don't care if its my fault (it is). I'm holding it against them anyway. Because it DID play on my expectations, in bad faith.



except it didn't it said exactly what it meant, and taking it any steps further is on the reader and not on the person writing it.  it's like if I was writing about the party I'm having this weekend and I said that the desert would involve apples.  If you come expecting apple crisp it isn't my fault when I say the desert is apple pie, and given ettiquet it would be fairly rude of you to say, "That's a bait and switch, I was expecting apple crisp, you lied to me".  Again it isn't their fault people built false expectations around a selective reading of their very easy to understand corporate speech.  You can say you don't like corporate speech, unfortunately it is the way you must speak in situations such as these.

Sorry about the brash nature of the former post but frankly I'm getting overtly disapointed in the reading capabilities of people around here.   


  • Monsters are too weak.

  • Too easy to bring PCs back to combat when they get KOed, encouraging whack-a-mole combat.

  • Spellcasters are overpowered.

  • Not enough options for martial characters.


I don't hate D&D Next, rather like it and how its shaping up but this sums up my issues about the playtest. I am confident these will be addressed in some way.


except it didn't it said exactly what it meant, and taking it any steps further is on the reader and not on the person writing it.  it's like if I was writing about the party I'm having this weekend and I said that the desert would involve apples.  If you come expecting apple crisp it isn't my fault when I say the desert is apple pie, and given ettiquet it would be fairly rude of you to say, "That's a bait and switch, I was expecting apple crisp, you lied to me".  Again it isn't their fault people built false expectations around a selective reading of their very easy to understand corporate speech.  You can say you don't like corporate speech, unfortunately it is the way you must speak in situations such as these.

Sorry about the brash nature of the former post but frankly I'm getting overtly disapointed in the reading capabilities of people around here.   



Yep, that's really it.

And honestly, considering the whole classes conversation happened before a whole heck of a lot of surveys, why in the world do people expect that the designers knew then exactly what form the game would take?

At times, some folks around here think the designers are a bunch of idiots, and in the next metaphorical breath think they should apparently be psychic about what the game will be like who knows how far in the future. It's entirely and completely ludicrous.

At least some people are at least halfway honest saying that it was their expectation that was wrong, although I really can't agree with then turning around and blaming the designers for that. I wish folks would actually own their mistakes, but that might be too much to ask.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.


Hate might be too strong a word. I'd rather say what I dislike most about the game in its current playtest form.

♦ How they seem to waste good ideas by poor implementation. This is probably the gravest item, imo. Things like Bounded Accuracy and Advantage/Disadvantage started out as good ideas that--even if better or not than previous editions being arguable--could at least give the new version of the game an interesting new face, an original aspect. But they seem to not know how to really implement this ideas in an interesting and practical way, or else they make a mess of it by throwing it all around and sort of defeating the purpose of it even existing (the case with Adv/Disadv). I can only hope this is more or less intentional since it's still a playtest, and that they're somehow just throwing things around trying to see where they fit best, but frankly my hopes aren't high at the moment of it being the case.

♦ Still too much semblance to 4th edition, mainly with abilities that don't make any sense and don't have any narrative purpose for being there. Stuff that was thrown in just for mechanics-sake. Mechanics and pseudo-balance should NEVER come before narrative in an RPG. There's was a little of it in 3e, though not much in the Core at least, 4th ed was absolute king in that. I was sincerely hoping to see this kind of thing gone from D&D entirely but it doesn't seem it's going to be the case. I just can't stress enough how I dislike nonsensical things like Ricochet.

♦ Deadly Strike alone is a deal-breaker for me. There are other general rules I don't particularly like but I can live with, but the the lack of multiple attacks is just a no-deal for me. Deadly Strike and all involved variations and suplementar-rules feel just like a mess of unnecessary and absolutelly "un-fun" rules, when simply using multiple attacks and letting players usem as they like (either for one target or more) makes a lot more sense from a narrative point of view and are 100x more fun to play with, allowing players a lot more freedom.


Currently I would play a 5e game, but I don't think I would want to run one of my own as a DM, since 2e or 3e still offer me a better game according to my taste. But depending on how Deadly Strike, at least (amongst a few other things), comes out in the end I might give it a try. If it's easy enough to house-rule out and substitute with plain ol' multiple-attacks I'll do it, but if it comes completely embeded into several rules, abilities, options, etc, in a way that I'd have to practically house-rule the entire game to take it out, then I just wouldn't.
"Burying the message", "fine printing it", and" technically, what we said was accurate" are bad faith.

Didn't affect you? Good! (Really I'm happy for you.)

For me? Very bad move.

If the important part was "in some form" and not "all PH1 classes" then additional clarification is warranted.

"Look we're thinking some stuff is going to show up as sub-classes, builds, or prestige classes. Like maybe illusionist will be back in the form of a sub class and assassin possibly a prestige class."

That's not messing with anyone's expectations.

But "ALL PH1 CLASSES WILL BE PLAYABLE FROM DAY ONE ... in some form" builds an expectation. Later saying "in some form" was the important part is borderline dishonest.

But "ALL PH1 CLASSES WILL BE PLAYABLE FROM DAY ONE ... in some form" builds an expectation. Later saying "in some form" was the important part is borderline dishonest.



I like how you put the part you are emphasizing in all caps.  Obviously, not every phb1 class will have a 5e equivalent or they wouldn't have said in some form at all.   Words mean things.   But I do think we have not seen nearly the classes that are going to be available at full release.   I'm sure there will be a sorcerer and a warlock.   There won't like be an assassin.  There will be a druid.  So I'd say 80% of the classes will have equivalents as classes in 5e.   The others will be better reflected as backgrounds, specialities, etc...

If they do that you have no legitimate complaint.  But of course you can still get angry and not buy the game.  Rationality is not a requirement in this society. 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.



2) "Dead Levels"
I really think the concept of "Dead levels" is a canard that needs to be done away with.  For one, I've yet to hear a good definition of a dead level.  There isn't a sharp line dividing them from the rest of a class progression... if 3e Fighter 3 is dead, clearly a point of BAB doesn't count... why?

The goal of eliminating the nebulous foe of Dead Levels leads, invariably, to the proliferation of minor abilities that are not germane to the class they are attached to.  A class feature should be somethign that all examples of the class ought to share.  Otherwise, it should be an option, even if there is a class feature that says "You get a new option now, pick from your list." (Like Fighter's infamous bonus feats).

That's not to say you shouldn't generally get something from levelling up.  If level is a measure of power (as I established in my last comment), then your power should increase when you level up.




Since I brought up dead levels I will try and provide you with a 'good' definition.  I will let you determine why I think it is an annoyance.

You sorta hit on the answer.  You have passive bonuses like BAB that do count in increasing character's power, however, there are OPTIONS in a character's progression that I consider 'versitile' choices.  If there is no option, at level, than you have the inverse of character versatility...essentially, a dead level.  That becomes very evident when you have a caster that gains several spell slots, the ultimate in versatility, every level and a class that gains a +1 to hit or spell casting bonus or an additional daily of the same feature the class grants two levels ago.  There is a difference between a power up and a concept option.

Remember, we are talking 5E, where feats are optional.  I think the Fighter has come a long way with options built within its class progression, but there are some levels that have no versatile choices and leave me wondering why.

EDIT: Ninja'd by RPJ.

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

But "ALL PH1 CLASSES WILL BE PLAYABLE FROM DAY ONE ... in some form" builds an expectation.



You're right. It builds an expectation that all previous PHB1 classes will be playable in some form. That's it.

To suggest otherwise is a breakdown of basic communication.

Later saying "in some form" was the important part is borderline dishonest.



Only if you lack basic communication, then yes it's dishonest.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

What I hate most about D&D Next is forum posts like these.

D&D Next is a great product. The devs get so much hate by some in this community and it's kind of ridiculous. They are doing us all a favor by letting us in the design process. For the first time, the community gets to actually playtest the rules while they're in work. But some people seem to take each new packet as if it was written in stone. They see one rule and they curse and moan about how terrible the game is. It's a PLAYTEST. The rules are going to change each time. They've told us specifically that they're testing the limits of the system (too hard, too easy, too complicated, too simple, etc) in order to find the sweet spot.

You're well within your right to make topics like this, but do you actually think this is a helpful thread? (of course you do, I'm sure)

And this is why we can't have nice things.

Please introduce yourself to the new D&D 5e forums in this very friendly thread started by Pukunui!

 

Make 5e Saving Throws better using Ramzour's Six Ability Save System!

 

Lost Mine of Phandelver: || Problems and Ideas with the adventure ||  Finding the Ghost of Neverwinter Wood ||

Giving classes iconic abilities that don't break the game: Ramzour's Class Defining Ability system.

Rules for a simple non-XP based leveling up system, using the Proficiency Bonus

 

Basically hate it due to two reasons.  But those reasons are responsible for a large part of makes D&D feel like D&D for me.

1)  Like the last edition, Next is too focused on combat balance in terms of class development.  Basically, classes have been balanced into bland monotony.  I'll stick with the editions and rpgs where class role development was geared towards class roles as they would appear in a traditional works of fantasy fiction rather than based on MMO style roles.  Editions/systems where fighters are the martial class with the best martial damage and defense, not just MMO style tanks.  Where thieves are characters specialized in explorational tasks, not MMO style DPS.  Where clerics are supportful mace-swinging, god fearing, healers and bane of the undead, and not a single classed version of a gish character.  And where wizards haven't been reduced to a novelty act capable only of parlor tricks that clear weak fodder in combat, and make trivial tasks a little more convenient during exploration.  I prefer the full vancian casters of AD&D, or at least 3rd edition.  Athough an improvement over last edition, magic still doesn't feel like magic.  There's no longer any awe to it.  It's just another bland class.

2)  Next is a fist-full-o-dice edition.  In the earliest play tests, I was happy to see no dependency on the battle grid hard-coded into the system like the past couple of editions.  This went a long way toward streamlining play by only using it as a future modular option.  However, a degree of the fluidity of combat gained was lost when expertise/martial dice was added to the system.  Now every turn consists of rolling a fist full of dice, chasing them around the table, and herding them, then an exercise in boring basic math.

I'll be sticking Dungeon Crawl Classics and Labyrinth Lord. Or to AD&D where D&D is concerned.  WotC panders too much to the MMO kids for 5th to be worth a damn in my book.


EDIT:  Well, guess I'll make it 3 reasons.  The third being the lack of uncertainty.  There never seems to be any real risk in this system.  Monsters are WAY too easy, though I'm going to be the optimist on this one and assume they'll be getting another go later in development.  But still, the system holds the player's hands, just like the other WotC editions.  And with the all to abundant healing, both magical and natural, the only way an exerienced or natural player can die is through a string of very unlucky rolls in just the wrong situation.  That or suicide out the the sheer boredom induced by this system.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/5.jpg)

The initial statement wasn't dishonest but it was disceptive. I don't extend them as much good faith because it seems like the statement doesn't hold much mean so I took it as an attempt to trick customers.

Where I see them being dishonest in my view is their attempt to frame 3e Marshal as "counts" as supporting the 4e Warlord.  The examples powers placed in the fighter and Mearl comments on twitter better fit the Marshal and ignored or discredited any fluff or mechanically unique feature of the Warlord.

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!)

Although personally part of the MMO kids (having played D&D since 1978 myself) as I don't really get much from MMOs except a Bandaid for the itch when there aren't games around, I still have to point out one very important thing...

From a Business/Design standpoint, it is like financial suicide for any modern game developer to NOT pander to the MMO kids as much as possible. We, the grognards, more or less hidebound, are dying out, and they, the MMO kids, are spending thousands of dollars on those MMOs every month. Even when they go to the Free to play way, they still drop thousands. These are the optimum target audience for expansion of the hobby, period.
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
D&D Next is a great product.

Erm...no, it really isn't. People aren't even sure if it's an alpha or beta test, but it's nowhere near a finished product. Everything that D&DN does at this moment, another game system does better. Either retroclones, Pathfinder, 13th Age, or an older edition of D&D, they all perform better than D&DN. Saying otherwise is looking at a half - or even less than half - cake and saying it's better than anything else in the bakery. Nonsense. There is a reason it is a playtest and not a real product.

Will the 5e spawned from D&DN be a quality product? That's arguable (mostly because we haven't seen it) from both an objective (some of the rules design can be objectively bad) as well as a subjective (and this is the big one - which audience groups will the new edition actually work to appease?) standpoint.

And this is why we can't have nice things.

Really, that's mostly the fanbase. Move the game forward and make too many advances? omg a hatestorm. Move really slowly and don't really fix anything? hatestorm. No matter which crowd you appease, you'll be upsetting two other crowds. The only hope for D&D to move forward without the hatestorm is by appeasing at least the majority of the crowds.

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."

I hate that there is no hope to influence the direction of the game, except to vote on corner case issues; as long as what is being voted on is not 4E. 4E gets the banhammer by default. If you prefer previous editions like the developers, then you will tend to state it is headed in the right direction. But if I have to choose to play a previous edition, I may as well play Pathfinder. Although it may be hard to DM, at least they have adventure paths to do the work for me. Otherwise, 5E is flat without much depth, and must be house ruled to make it work.

Overall, where 4E attempted to make everything uniform to a fault, 5E is doing the opposite by making sure everything is different and to compensate they make the math a pushover with BA. Otherwise any type of complexity will break the game.
I don't hate D&D Next, but there a number of things I dislike about it.

Condensed levels - What was once the 1-20 experience is curently being planned to be condensed into the 3-16 experience.  I kind of want things to be taken in the other direction, with the 1-20 experience being stretched into the 1-30 experience.

Not enough Feats per level - If one is going to have Feats, even as an option, one needs to have more than four of them in 20 levels.  As such a small part of the game, they end up just wasting paper and development space.

Spells - While I want to avoid overpowered casters, only getting one spell per level is again a waste of paper and development space.

Monsters with "recharges on a X-6" mechanic - This smacked of lazy monster design when it was first implemented, and I'd love to see it eliminated altogether.

Subclasses - I am against marginalizing classes into second rate ones for any reason whatsoever.  This includes the current plans for the Warlord and Warden.

Races with immunities - resistances are fine, but racial immunities are just too much.

Advantage/Disadvantage - It sounds great on paper, but in practice is too swingy.  Also, the moment disadvantage steals a success from a player, that player is less inclined to enjoy the game/system.

Legendary Creatures - The thought behind letting every Dragon, Titan, and Orc king with a certain spear warp the ecosystem around them seems like a way to ensure your system will never be taken seriously.

Dead Levels - Every level needs to come with some kind of gratification or reward.  Otherwise the levelling system becomes even more arbitrary than it already is.

Tiers - They were a bad idea when they were first implemented, they are a bad idea now.

Alignment restrictions - Another thing that should have gone the way of the Dodo.

Divine Healing only - No single group should have the monopoly on the glorous path of the Healbot.

Race/Class dissociative mechanics - A Barbarian Rage gives a bonus to hitting, but not to damaging?  Half Orcs with advantages to Charisma checks?  Is this Bizzaro world or something?

Bounded Accuracy - I understand why it seems like a good idea, but in the end it just makes levelling meaningless.  Math isn't always a bad thing.

Deadly Strike - How many classes are you going to give this to?  I don't dislike it in and of itself, but when you give it to almost every single Martial class in the game it looks like a crutch that needs removing, or at least work so that fewer classes absolutely need it just to function.

That's a good start.
I hate pretty much everything the above poster said.

 
 Unless you consider every word they say to be lies every indication we have is that a majority of the people currently playing the game want it to be the way it is being designed towards.



After a year of changing mechanics but very similar playstyles, yeah, I imagine that anyone who is still playing DDNext likes it. Kind of like how people who are playing 2ed probably like it. 

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

Spells - While I want to avoid overpowered casters, only getting one spell per level is again a waste...

Divine Healing only - No single group should have the monopoly on the glorous path of the Healbot.


I like the restricted higher level spells. It helps keep ranger and paladin spell casting from becoming as marginalized as older editions.

Bards were arcane healers so we'll see if they remain arcane but hit dice healing and herbalism are not restricted to divine healing either. We don't need healbots.


2) "Dead Levels"
I really think the concept of "Dead levels" is a canard that needs to be done away with.  For one, I've yet to hear a good definition of a dead level.  There isn't a sharp line dividing them from the rest of a class progression... if 3e Fighter 3 is dead, clearly a point of BAB doesn't count... why?

The goal of eliminating the nebulous foe of Dead Levels leads, invariably, to the proliferation of minor abilities that are not germane to the class they are attached to.  A class feature should be somethign that all examples of the class ought to share.  Otherwise, it should be an option, even if there is a class feature that says "You get a new option now, pick from your list." (Like Fighter's infamous bonus feats).

That's not to say you shouldn't generally get something from levelling up.  If level is a measure of power (as I established in my last comment), then your power should increase when you level up.




Since I brought up dead levels I will try and provide you with a 'good' definition.  I will let you determine why I think it is an annoyance.

You sorta hit on the answer.  You have passive bonuses like BAB that do count in increasing character's power, however, there are OPTIONS in a character's progression that I consider 'versitile' choices.  If there is no option, at level, than you have the inverse of character versatility...essentially, a dead level.  That becomes very evident when you have a caster that gains several spell slots, the ultimate in versatility, every level and a class that gains a +1 to hit or spell casting bonus or an additional daily of the same feature the class grants two levels ago.  There is a difference between a power up and a concept option.

Remember, we are talking 5E, where feats are optional.  I think the Fighter has come a long way with options built within its class progression, but there are some levels that have no versatile choices and leave me wondering why.

EDIT: Ninja'd by RPJ.


I'm glad someone took up providing a clean definition.  I think I can work under that definition.

Now, the question becomes: are some dead levels, strictly speaking, a bad thing?  We hold that balance (at least in a broad sense) is a good thing, and at some points diversity of options can be weighed against the potency.

Let's take the 2 minute Fighter and Wizard from my opening post.  The Wizard, by definition, has no dead levels in his progression: every level gets a single Spell Known and many get one or more spell slots.  The Fighter, by your definition probably has 5: the levels where a save bonus is the primary gain: the other 15 levels either grant a new Expertise Die (which is quite powerful as an option, much like spell slots.), or a new maneuver to use those dice on.  At the end of their progression the fighter has 10 dice * 7 maneuvers to use them on (somewhere between encounter and round-by-round as a resource), the wizard has 24 known spells to fit to a like number of slots.  I'm not entirely sure which has more legal ability outlays

Do the 5 dead levels there make the fighter bad?  Is the man with +5 hit/saves worse off for that being part of his progression?  I for one think it is better to have a clean and clear progression than to pick up scraps and add them in just to prevent a dead level.

I think a good degree of my opposition to dead-level-busting can be drawn from looking at some Late 3.5 class design.  Warlocks inexplicably get some token DR and other little abilities in their progression (their Use Magic Device plus might be one, but that's such a useful skill it got remembered).  at 17th level, Favored Souls sprout wings.  Awesome, but... why?  Why does every god just add wings to their champion at 17th level?  It's an ability I use... but it feels so miserably tacked on!  You know it was there just because somebody said "you know, this class doesn't get enough shinies at 17th.  Find something to put on the progression there".  From an integrity-of-design standpoint, it makes no sense.

The online enhancement articles "Dead Levels" which added minor class features to fill such levels for other classes, were even worse.  For instance, Swashbucklers learned and then imptoved upon "Seduce to learn secret" -- because apparently everyone with a mobile and pervceptive figiting style ought to be charming and loose.  Of course, you could always neglect to use it (you could even neglect to take Gather Information, which the ability required... It's not like concentration/arcana on a mage, there's no reason any given member of the class actually needs that skill) but it would still be there.

I'm not against progressions that try to spread abilities niceley, but I do think that elegance is a good goal...  higher than the goal of totally abolishing dead levels

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

What I hate most about D&D Next is forum posts like these.

D&D Next is a great product.



This. Even at this stage, there are far, far fewer rules that I dislike in Next than in any past edition. I think it's going to be a great game.

The OP whining that there's not an official non-vancian wizard is particularly ridiculous, IMO. What edition (other than 4th, arguably) has ever had a non-vancian wizard in the core rulebook? I can't think of one. There most likely will be optional casting systems later, but it's ridiculous to expect the core rulebook to have alternative classes to please every possible taste. Besides, the casting system in Next fixes all of the biggest problems I ever had with vancian casting.

And the people complaining about the lack of creativity, this is also ridiculous. Whenever they dare to make something cool, like the sorcerer and warlock classes they had several packets ago, they get shot down.
Dirto. Easily the most unlikeable thing about DDN is having to wade through empty-headed naysaying.
Honestly, after this topic was put out... I've got to say I'm starting to feel the same way too

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

Sign In to post comments