DaleMcCoy's blog listings. Feed Zend_Feed_Writer 1.10.8 (http://framework.zend.com) http://community.wizards.com/dalemccoy Excited for GenCon
And with more luck there will be news of a compatibility license. As excited as I am for the game itself, I am really hoping there will be firm word on a license. If it is just, "Yes, a license is coming and it will be good," I am not going to get all that excited. Reason is because that was the story of the license of the 4E license and that got delayed for like 8 months. But if they have a beta version of the license, I am all ears. 

So I hope to see you at the con.

Dale McCoy
Jon Brazer Enterprises 
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:00:17 -0500 http://community.wizards.com/dalemccoy/blog/2012/08/02/excited_for_gencon http://community.wizards.com/dalemccoy/blog/2012/08/02/excited_for_gencon
And with more luck there will be news of a compatibility license. As excited as I am for the game itself, I am really hoping there will be firm word on a license. If it is just, "Yes, a license is coming and it will be good," I am not going to get all that excited. Reason is because that was the story of the license of the 4E license and that got delayed for like 8 months. But if they have a beta version of the license, I am all ears. 

So I hope to see you at the con.

Dale McCoy
Jon Brazer Enterprises 
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0 Why the Bard Could Be The Most Awesome Class in D&DNext
The bard. Just the very name of this class conjures up memories of uselessness in every version of D&D. Generalists in a game that is built around specialists, bards were fighter/thief/magic users that could then take the bard class in 1E, the joke that is Elan in 3E, and arcane healers (if ever there was an oxy moron) in 4E. But for D&DNext, it is quite possible that bards could be the most epic class. No, I'm serious. Stop laughing.

The problem with bards in 3E/Pathfinder: lack of strong base attack bonus so they do not hit as often as a fighter, they lack sneak attack so they do less damage than a rogue, they have 6 levels of spellcasting that focuses on enchantments and illusions. The best thing they have going for them is their bardic singing/performance. With it, they make others better. And that is exactly the key to the epicness of the bard in new edition.

A few weeks ago, Rodney Thompson told us about how there is not going to be an assumed increase in the ability to hit nor an assumed increase in armor class. As he spells out, that means that a large group of commoners can take on a dragon. While that is awesome in its own right, now add a bard to that mix. Imagine a bard making a group of 20 commoners even better at attacking a dragon. Say 10 of those 20 villagers hit and the bardic singing gives each a +2 to damage. So that bard just made those commoners did an extra 20 damage. Or what if the bard is one of the few classes that actually grant a +1 to hit. That might mean that 15 villagers hit instead of only 10.

Bards would suddenly become the champion of the common man. A single bard could turn the tide of battle. They could make an impossible fight of mass scale winable. And if there are mass combat rules, the most important move on either side is to stop the enemy's bards. They would be the most important character in the most epic of battles the game as ever seen. 

That is just a possibility. What do you think? Share your thought in the comments below.
1 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:45:03 -0500 http://community.wizards.com/dalemccoy/blog/2012/06/26/why_the_bard_could_be_the_most_awesome_class_in_ddnext http://community.wizards.com/dalemccoy/blog/2012/06/26/why_the_bard_could_be_the_most_awesome_class_in_ddnext
The bard. Just the very name of this class conjures up memories of uselessness in every version of D&D. Generalists in a game that is built around specialists, bards were fighter/thief/magic users that could then take the bard class in 1E, the joke that is Elan in 3E, and arcane healers (if ever there was an oxy moron) in 4E. But for D&DNext, it is quite possible that bards could be the most epic class. No, I'm serious. Stop laughing.

The problem with bards in 3E/Pathfinder: lack of strong base attack bonus so they do not hit as often as a fighter, they lack sneak attack so they do less damage than a rogue, they have 6 levels of spellcasting that focuses on enchantments and illusions. The best thing they have going for them is their bardic singing/performance. With it, they make others better. And that is exactly the key to the epicness of the bard in new edition.

A few weeks ago, Rodney Thompson told us about how there is not going to be an assumed increase in the ability to hit nor an assumed increase in armor class. As he spells out, that means that a large group of commoners can take on a dragon. While that is awesome in its own right, now add a bard to that mix. Imagine a bard making a group of 20 commoners even better at attacking a dragon. Say 10 of those 20 villagers hit and the bardic singing gives each a +2 to damage. So that bard just made those commoners did an extra 20 damage. Or what if the bard is one of the few classes that actually grant a +1 to hit. That might mean that 15 villagers hit instead of only 10.

Bards would suddenly become the champion of the common man. A single bard could turn the tide of battle. They could make an impossible fight of mass scale winable. And if there are mass combat rules, the most important move on either side is to stop the enemy's bards. They would be the most important character in the most epic of battles the game as ever seen. 

That is just a possibility. What do you think? Share your thought in the comments below.
1 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0 D&DNext: A Proposal About Wizards Legends and Lore that Fighters are not going to automatically get better with each level. This is great in my opinion. Finally, you can use a basic orc, goblin, kobold, etc at all levels of the game. But the question is: how do you balance that against the Wizard. In my humble opinion, that's easy: don't make the wizard automatically get new spell levels every other level. Give the wizard other options like being able to cast his existing spells better. 

Take magic missile for example. The playtest had it doing 1 missile at 1st level, 2 at 3rd, 3 at 6th and so on. That's an automatic power increase that the fighter does not get. Here's an alternate: instead of the wizard getting a new spell level, the wizard can choose to make all his spells better. He takes this option and all his spells go up to Effect 2 (for lack of a better term). Effect 2 in this case would be a 2nd missile. In charm person's case, it would be to charm a second person. In wall of fire's case it would increase the size of the wall or the damage or something. 

Now here's the catch: it wouldn't require increasing spell levels. It would just automatically happen. Like Fighter's Surve, its twice per day. You choose when that twice per day is.

The net result is that you can cast spells that are lower in power but they are ultimately more powerful spells. 

Perhaps these ideas are more suited for a sorcerer or a warlock. But they are possibilities on how to balance the wizard and the fighter while still making magic feel magical. 

What do you think? Share your ideas below.
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:41:00 -0500 http://community.wizards.com/dalemccoy/blog/2012/06/11/ddnext:_a_proposal_about_wizards http://community.wizards.com/dalemccoy/blog/2012/06/11/ddnext:_a_proposal_about_wizards Legends and Lore that Fighters are not going to automatically get better with each level. This is great in my opinion. Finally, you can use a basic orc, goblin, kobold, etc at all levels of the game. But the question is: how do you balance that against the Wizard. In my humble opinion, that's easy: don't make the wizard automatically get new spell levels every other level. Give the wizard other options like being able to cast his existing spells better. 

Take magic missile for example. The playtest had it doing 1 missile at 1st level, 2 at 3rd, 3 at 6th and so on. That's an automatic power increase that the fighter does not get. Here's an alternate: instead of the wizard getting a new spell level, the wizard can choose to make all his spells better. He takes this option and all his spells go up to Effect 2 (for lack of a better term). Effect 2 in this case would be a 2nd missile. In charm person's case, it would be to charm a second person. In wall of fire's case it would increase the size of the wall or the damage or something. 

Now here's the catch: it wouldn't require increasing spell levels. It would just automatically happen. Like Fighter's Surve, its twice per day. You choose when that twice per day is.

The net result is that you can cast spells that are lower in power but they are ultimately more powerful spells. 

Perhaps these ideas are more suited for a sorcerer or a warlock. But they are possibilities on how to balance the wizard and the fighter while still making magic feel magical. 

What do you think? Share your ideas below.
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0 Things I Did/Didn't Like About 4E and How Would I Like/Not Like Too See It In D&DNext
4E was a good game but it was not the game for me. Here are a few of them and how I would like to see it altered in D&DNext. I posted a bit on the forums here (and got a fair reply here), and I wanted to expand on that without threadjacking (hence this post). 

Classes had a role and a powersource. This was probably the biggest thing that really put me off of 4E. A fighter was a martial defender. A wizard is an arcane controller. My first thought when I heard this was, "Well why bother have the traditional class names? Why not just call the class arcane controller and martial striker or psionic leader and so forth? If you're not going to use the established flavor of the basic words, why bother use those words." Which led to my thought of, "But what if I want a fighter that doesn't specialize in his sword but instead is decent with a number of different weapons?" I know that this is not the typical option in D&D. Most often people choose to specialize in one type of weapon and stick to that weapon until the day the character dies or the campaign ends. And I feel like my options got lessen by pigeonholing the fighter into the defender role. 

What gets less mentioned is the fact that choosing a powersource also pigeonholes a character just as much. One of my last 3.5 characters was a half-giant fighter that was inlove with magic. He wanted to be a wizard but was only smart enough to cast cantrips. So he never took a single class level. But he had cross class ranks in knowledge (arcana). Yes a fighter with cross class ranks in an Int based skill with no Int bonus. Needless to say, he didn't do much in that department, but it was all about role playing. Had he lived longer, he would have improved his Int and taken a single level of wizard and would have been proud of his cantrips. Translate that to 4E and he wouldn't have been able to do that since multiclassing wasn't really done. And sure, he could have done rituals (see the things the 4E had right section), but would that same personal struggle have been there? Probably not. Not only that he would have been stepping on the toes of the arcane controller by doing that. Since everyone has their own role, personal stories like that. 

The Fix: So how do we make this better? Let characters be open. If I want a fighter that is primarily a dex-based finesse weaponer, but is also known to grab a two handed sword shake it up, let me do so. Don't make everything be about the "at-wills and the encounters and the dailies" If I want a wide range of abilities to make my character a jack of all trades guy that are sub-optional compared to a single weapon specialist, let me do so. There should be a way for non-spellcasters to cast minor spells (perhaps an optional module way). The wizard theme would be perfect, if it didn't require the person be able to cast spells already. Suppose I just want my rogue to cast detect magic or my fighter to use magic missile instead of a bow. Let me do that. 

Grid is Required/Fireball is a Square/Distances are Squares. This one has been addressed (atleast I hope fireball is a square is being addressed) so I'm not going to waste space on it.

Tieflings and Dragonborn in the Forgotten Realms. This decision also rubbed me the wrong way. If I can play in the FR again without feeling like Tieflings and Dragonborn are forced upon me, I'll play there.

What 4E got Right, IMO.

Enough time on what I don't care about 4E. What do I want to see that was in 4E in D&DNext.

Rituals. Oh my god, yes! Please. Keep Rituals. Make all of the "OMG broken, quadratic wizard spells" a ruitual. Please. Give a cleric/wizard the option to be better at it than anyone else there but give fighters and rogues a way to help or a way to do it themselves. Let a fighter lead a ritual that can turn a city to dust. Make the cult of orcus sacrifice an entire town so they can create some evil unholy undead monstrosity that requires several powerful casters to perform. I have wanted a way to mechanically do that since day one. 

Easy GMing. I hear 4E is a breeze to GM.  I don't know. I never have. But I can say that D&DNext was damn easy. Please keep that. It is awesome!

Next time I'll discuss 3.5/Pathfinder and say things from those that they got right and they didn't and how the good can be incorporated and the bad be altered to make D&DNext the best game ever. 

 Please visit me at JonBrazer.com to learn more about me and my company. 
1 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:16:50 -0500 http://community.wizards.com/dalemccoy/blog/2012/06/07/things_i_diddidnt_like_about_4e_and_how_would_i_likenot_like_too_see_it_in_ddnext http://community.wizards.com/dalemccoy/blog/2012/06/07/things_i_diddidnt_like_about_4e_and_how_would_i_likenot_like_too_see_it_in_ddnext
4E was a good game but it was not the game for me. Here are a few of them and how I would like to see it altered in D&DNext. I posted a bit on the forums here (and got a fair reply here), and I wanted to expand on that without threadjacking (hence this post). 

Classes had a role and a powersource. This was probably the biggest thing that really put me off of 4E. A fighter was a martial defender. A wizard is an arcane controller. My first thought when I heard this was, "Well why bother have the traditional class names? Why not just call the class arcane controller and martial striker or psionic leader and so forth? If you're not going to use the established flavor of the basic words, why bother use those words." Which led to my thought of, "But what if I want a fighter that doesn't specialize in his sword but instead is decent with a number of different weapons?" I know that this is not the typical option in D&D. Most often people choose to specialize in one type of weapon and stick to that weapon until the day the character dies or the campaign ends. And I feel like my options got lessen by pigeonholing the fighter into the defender role. 

What gets less mentioned is the fact that choosing a powersource also pigeonholes a character just as much. One of my last 3.5 characters was a half-giant fighter that was inlove with magic. He wanted to be a wizard but was only smart enough to cast cantrips. So he never took a single class level. But he had cross class ranks in knowledge (arcana). Yes a fighter with cross class ranks in an Int based skill with no Int bonus. Needless to say, he didn't do much in that department, but it was all about role playing. Had he lived longer, he would have improved his Int and taken a single level of wizard and would have been proud of his cantrips. Translate that to 4E and he wouldn't have been able to do that since multiclassing wasn't really done. And sure, he could have done rituals (see the things the 4E had right section), but would that same personal struggle have been there? Probably not. Not only that he would have been stepping on the toes of the arcane controller by doing that. Since everyone has their own role, personal stories like that. 

The Fix: So how do we make this better? Let characters be open. If I want a fighter that is primarily a dex-based finesse weaponer, but is also known to grab a two handed sword shake it up, let me do so. Don't make everything be about the "at-wills and the encounters and the dailies" If I want a wide range of abilities to make my character a jack of all trades guy that are sub-optional compared to a single weapon specialist, let me do so. There should be a way for non-spellcasters to cast minor spells (perhaps an optional module way). The wizard theme would be perfect, if it didn't require the person be able to cast spells already. Suppose I just want my rogue to cast detect magic or my fighter to use magic missile instead of a bow. Let me do that. 

Grid is Required/Fireball is a Square/Distances are Squares. This one has been addressed (atleast I hope fireball is a square is being addressed) so I'm not going to waste space on it.

Tieflings and Dragonborn in the Forgotten Realms. This decision also rubbed me the wrong way. If I can play in the FR again without feeling like Tieflings and Dragonborn are forced upon me, I'll play there.

What 4E got Right, IMO.

Enough time on what I don't care about 4E. What do I want to see that was in 4E in D&DNext.

Rituals. Oh my god, yes! Please. Keep Rituals. Make all of the "OMG broken, quadratic wizard spells" a ruitual. Please. Give a cleric/wizard the option to be better at it than anyone else there but give fighters and rogues a way to help or a way to do it themselves. Let a fighter lead a ritual that can turn a city to dust. Make the cult of orcus sacrifice an entire town so they can create some evil unholy undead monstrosity that requires several powerful casters to perform. I have wanted a way to mechanically do that since day one. 

Easy GMing. I hear 4E is a breeze to GM.  I don't know. I never have. But I can say that D&DNext was damn easy. Please keep that. It is awesome!

Next time I'll discuss 3.5/Pathfinder and say things from those that they got right and they didn't and how the good can be incorporated and the bad be altered to make D&DNext the best game ever. 

 Please visit me at JonBrazer.com to learn more about me and my company. 
1 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0 Dale's D&DNext Playtest Report, Analysis and After Thoughts
Easy to GM.  Like I mentioned in my report, I intentionally left the adventure and found that I was able to run an adventure rather adeptly. My only regret was that I did not have enough experience with the system to know that I could have pitted the players against some of the more challenging monsters included and would not have overpowered them. Subsequent playtests will correct for this.

Advantage/Disadvantage Worked Well. It is a simple concept and works strikingly well. It might even turn the guy at our table with terrible dice karma into a viable player (as long as he has advantage).

Spellcasters Felt Magical While Being Useful.  One complaint about Pathfinder is that 0-level spells are near useless (acid splash deals 1d3 damage), however they feel magical (deals acid damage instead of just damage). 4e's take was to make at-Will spells work the same for spellcasters as for martial classes, making them less magical, even if the spells are more useful. This got both. Kudos to you. 

Liked Class Options. Below are some of the liked class options.  Fighter: ability to deal damage even on a miss. Cleric of Pelor: Healer's kit healed without requiring spells. Wizard: ray of frost, magic missile and shocking grasp being minor spells and being useful. 

Having said that, there are some options that need fixing. The following are suggestions to fix and how to fix them from our playtest:

Int or Cha Saves. I'm sure it is just becuase it didn't come up in our game, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what would need an Int or a Cha save. In subsequent playtest rounds, could you include material that would require that. Also, if unintelligent undead do not have an Int score, do they get an Int save? That needs clarified.

Spiritual Hammer Needs Reworded. As I mentioned in my playtest report, spiritual hammer was poorly worded. If it is intended to an attack in addition to the cleric's normal attack, please state bluntly. It does state, "You do so as part of your action," but we did not have enough experience with the system to be entirely sure what that meant. We agreed afterwards that it meant that the cleric got her normal attack in addition to the spell's attack, but it should be stated bluntly that the normal attack can be taken in addition to spell's ongoing attack. 

Some Type of CR System is Required. I'm not sure if 4e called it CR or not, but having XP being the only measure of how difficult a monster is was not easy. Even if the system is basically, "the level where fighting only 1 of the monster is most appropriate" where it is known that if you have the entire town militia helping you (like in the L&L article), the group can take on a higher difficulty monster or if there are more monsters, you can fight them at a higher CR. But some quick and simple method of determining how many monsters should be that does not play in the 100's (like XP does). 

Special Note: I would like to mention that I did not comment on the dwarf cleric since it was obvious that the character was built with more role playing and teamwork in mind (knight background, guardian theme) and it went into the hands of the one player at the table that neither role playing nor teamwork were his play styles. The character was suboptimal for him and I do not feel it is fair to evaluate that character except to say this: I looked over the character and saw nothing wrong with it. I am sure in the hands of a more role playing, teamwork friendly player, he would have excelled with that character. But the player was late and that was the last character available. Having said that and the fact that he is a full Pathfinder convert should make this statement all the more meaningful: even he had positive things to say about the system.

After Thoughts. I liked this game. Alot. I do like the fact that it is not assumed that the ability to hit did not increase with level. I am hopeful that it will make GMing at higher level easier since a larger bredth of monsters will be available and numbers will not get crazy high. This fixes a number of complaints I have had about D&D 3.x, 4e and Pathfinder all in one swoop. While there are still rough edges that need to be smoothed out and higher level play needs playtested, I like where this is going and am far more excited now about D&DNext than I was when it was first announced.

May the force be with you.
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Mon, 04 Jun 2012 09:30:09 -0500 http://community.wizards.com/dalemccoy/blog/2012/06/04/dales_ddnext_playtest_report,_analysis_and_after_thoughts http://community.wizards.com/dalemccoy/blog/2012/06/04/dales_ddnext_playtest_report,_analysis_and_after_thoughts
Easy to GM.  Like I mentioned in my report, I intentionally left the adventure and found that I was able to run an adventure rather adeptly. My only regret was that I did not have enough experience with the system to know that I could have pitted the players against some of the more challenging monsters included and would not have overpowered them. Subsequent playtests will correct for this.

Advantage/Disadvantage Worked Well. It is a simple concept and works strikingly well. It might even turn the guy at our table with terrible dice karma into a viable player (as long as he has advantage).

Spellcasters Felt Magical While Being Useful.  One complaint about Pathfinder is that 0-level spells are near useless (acid splash deals 1d3 damage), however they feel magical (deals acid damage instead of just damage). 4e's take was to make at-Will spells work the same for spellcasters as for martial classes, making them less magical, even if the spells are more useful. This got both. Kudos to you. 

Liked Class Options. Below are some of the liked class options.  Fighter: ability to deal damage even on a miss. Cleric of Pelor: Healer's kit healed without requiring spells. Wizard: ray of frost, magic missile and shocking grasp being minor spells and being useful. 

Having said that, there are some options that need fixing. The following are suggestions to fix and how to fix them from our playtest:

Int or Cha Saves. I'm sure it is just becuase it didn't come up in our game, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what would need an Int or a Cha save. In subsequent playtest rounds, could you include material that would require that. Also, if unintelligent undead do not have an Int score, do they get an Int save? That needs clarified.

Spiritual Hammer Needs Reworded. As I mentioned in my playtest report, spiritual hammer was poorly worded. If it is intended to an attack in addition to the cleric's normal attack, please state bluntly. It does state, "You do so as part of your action," but we did not have enough experience with the system to be entirely sure what that meant. We agreed afterwards that it meant that the cleric got her normal attack in addition to the spell's attack, but it should be stated bluntly that the normal attack can be taken in addition to spell's ongoing attack. 

Some Type of CR System is Required. I'm not sure if 4e called it CR or not, but having XP being the only measure of how difficult a monster is was not easy. Even if the system is basically, "the level where fighting only 1 of the monster is most appropriate" where it is known that if you have the entire town militia helping you (like in the L&L article), the group can take on a higher difficulty monster or if there are more monsters, you can fight them at a higher CR. But some quick and simple method of determining how many monsters should be that does not play in the 100's (like XP does). 

Special Note: I would like to mention that I did not comment on the dwarf cleric since it was obvious that the character was built with more role playing and teamwork in mind (knight background, guardian theme) and it went into the hands of the one player at the table that neither role playing nor teamwork were his play styles. The character was suboptimal for him and I do not feel it is fair to evaluate that character except to say this: I looked over the character and saw nothing wrong with it. I am sure in the hands of a more role playing, teamwork friendly player, he would have excelled with that character. But the player was late and that was the last character available. Having said that and the fact that he is a full Pathfinder convert should make this statement all the more meaningful: even he had positive things to say about the system.

After Thoughts. I liked this game. Alot. I do like the fact that it is not assumed that the ability to hit did not increase with level. I am hopeful that it will make GMing at higher level easier since a larger bredth of monsters will be available and numbers will not get crazy high. This fixes a number of complaints I have had about D&D 3.x, 4e and Pathfinder all in one swoop. While there are still rough edges that need to be smoothed out and higher level play needs playtested, I like where this is going and am far more excited now about D&DNext than I was when it was first announced.

May the force be with you.
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0