I can also really see the influence of 4E at play here. Knowing the numbers and tweaking the rules so a round or two of survival is built into combat for even the craziest risk-taking character is an amazing accomplishment. The math WotC must be doing has to have been based on work on 4E. You have the balanced nature of 4E combined with the spirit of deadly danger that is traditional in most D&D versions minus the frustrating stuff (the save or die, the level drains, the house cat mauling the wizard, instant death traps etc.).
As someone who admired 4edition mechanically but quit playing because of some of these things, I got goosebumps reading this description. If this game can capture the feeling and excitement I found playing DnD while removing the understandably frustrating elements (save or die etc.) then I am sold.
Now to the most important question.....
Where can I pre-order a copy??
As someone who admired 4edition mechanically but quit playing because of some of these things, I got goosebumps reading this description. If this game can capture the feeling and excitement I found playing DnD while removing the understandably frust
It sounds like he was playing a Warlord, and if that's true, sounds like the Warlord is still fun to play. Hooray!
Another review that has my cautiously optimistic.It sounds like he was playing a Warlord, and if that's true, sounds like the Warlord is still fun to play. Hooray!
I can also really see the influence of 4E at play here. Knowing the numbers and tweaking the rules so a round or two of survival is built into combat for even the craziest risk-taking character is an amazing accomplishment. The math WotC must be doing has to have been based on work on 4E. You have the balanced nature of 4E combined with the spirit of deadly danger that is traditional in most D&D versions minus the frustrating stuff (the save or die, the level drains, the house cat mauling the wizard, instant death traps etc.).
As someone who admired 4edition mechanically but quit playing because of some of these things, I got goosebumps reading this description. If this game can capture the feeling and excitement I found playing DnD while removing the understandably frustrating elements (save or die etc.) then I am sold.
Now to the most important question.....
Where can I pre-order a copy??
This is reasonably acceptable, and has revived my interest in playing and running 5E.
Proceed
As someone who admired 4edition mechanically but quit playing because of some of these things, I got goosebumps reading this description. If this game can capture the feeling and excitement I found playing DnD while removing the understandably frust
Very cool review; it's surprising to get that much of a detailed idea in something that's skirting around an NDA. It's nice to hear we weren't forgotten, but I just wish they'd have leaked something more than "warlord's back!" to show it. We have to take their word for it, I suppose.
And it sounds like they're succeeding in threading the needle between 3e Rocket Tag and 4e "at-level encounters are a joke" deadliness levels. His descriptions sound straight out of my posts for how I'm hoping 5e plays, in this respect.
Very cool review; it's surprising to get that much of a detailed idea in something that's skirting around an NDA. It's nice to hear we weren't forgotten, but I just wish they'd have leaked something more than "warlord's back!" to show it. We have to
As someone who admired 4edition mechanically but quit playing because of some of these things, I got goosebumps reading this description. If this game can capture the feeling and excitement I found playing DnD while removing the understandably frustrating elements (save or die etc.) then I am sold.
Reads like a blog designed to help sell what the DnDNext designers are trying to sell.
Wow! They managed to actually capture the feel and play of every editions! OMG, an end to the edition wars!
Didn't fall for it.
Reads like a blog designed to help sell what the DnDNext designers are trying to sell. Wow! They managed to actually capture the feel and play of every editions! OMG, an end to the edition wars! Didn't fall for it.
I'm less sold on this edition after seeing a picture of Monte Cook. How can you expect to bring back oDnD if you aren't a heavy, baldish/long gray hair/bearded old ponytail guy?
Seriously though, it would be nice if his experience rings true for others. Not getting ready to pre-order, but certainly ready to start kicking the wagon wheels on the open beta.
I'm less sold on this edition after seeing a picture of Monte Cook. How can you expect to bring back oDnD if you aren't a heavy, baldish/long gray hair/bearded old ponytail guy?Seriously though, it would be nice if his experience rings true for othe
I imagined something quite different when he mentioned 'cathouse death'. And, I think I have enough heavy, baldish, bearded old guy for me AND Monte!
Poo.
I'm starting to get jazzed up for DnD Next - though I am a BIG fan of 4E too! And 3.5. And Pathfinder. And 1E. And Oreos. Wait ...
To fjw70 below: So. How long until your NDA is over? (Sorry, couldn't resist, but didn't feel it was worth another post).
I imagined something quite different when he mentioned 'cathouse death'. And, I think I have enough heavy, baldish, bearded old guy for me AND Monte!Poo.I'm starting to get jazzed up for DnD Next - though I am a BIG fan of 4E too! And 3.5. And Pat
Reads like a blog designed to help sell what the DnDNext designers are trying to sell.
Wow! They managed to actually capture the feel and play of every editions! OMG, an end to the edition wars!
Didn't fall for it.
Translation: WotC paid him to lie about DDN.
I get being skeptical, but this is just obnoxiously offensive to said blogger. Even for you Dane, this is an all time low.
Translation: WotC paid him to lie about DDN.I get being skeptical, but this is just obnoxiously offensive to said blogger. Even for you Dane, this is an all time low.
I have to agree with that, especially since Kravell was nice enough to come into this thread and answer questions. To insinuate he is a shill is really crass.
Kravell's been a member since at least 2004! During that time, he played 3e, played 4e, left 4e with the release of Essentials, and started a thread last June about what WotC could do to get him back as a customer. That doesn't look like someone who would be a shill.
I have to agree with that, especially since Kravell was nice enough to come into this thread and answer questions. To insinuate he is a shill is really crass.Kravell's been a member since at least 2004! During that time, he played 3e, played 4e, le
I have to agree with that, especially since Kravell was nice enough to come into this thread and answer questions. To insinuate he is a shill is really crass.
+1. I'm skeptic, but I'm calling nobody a liar. I just want to see the system before making any actual call.
+1. I'm skeptic, but I'm calling nobody a liar. I just want to see the system before making any actual call.
I like the idea of the sense of thrill from past editions... the idea that a player could take down a non-minion in one lucky round, or that player death was possible.
I'm not sure I like the description that a wizard who charges single handedly into a pack of six, axe wielding orcs has about 2 rounds to back out before dying.
A round of combat in D&D can take a while. And if it takes 12 attacks from fighter-type orcs against the weakest PC class to bring them to a point where they have to "get out of there", it sure doesn't sound like death is possible.
I don't want PCs and monsters to barely whittle away at each other, doing 5% life damage per hit, at best.
And it is not remotely fun or worthwhile to kill minions. Critting a minion, or using a real ability on a minion, is a complete waste of time.
Here's the thing...
If a low level wizard stands toe to toe with six low level orcs, and they all focus on the wizard, HE SHOULD DIE! He shouldn't have a hour of in-game time to think about what he did wrong and maybe consider getting out of there or getting help.
Sigh.
I hope I'm just misreading that and that there actually is risk in this version.
It'd be nice to see players occassionally turn to stone, die, or feel invested in the safety of their character.
I read the article.I like the idea of the sense of thrill from past editions... the idea that a player could take down a non-minion in one lucky round, or that player death was possible.I'm not sure I like the description that a wizard who charges si
I have to agree with that, especially since Kravell was nice enough to come into this thread and answer questions. To insinuate he is a shill is really crass.
Kravell's been a member since at least 2004! During that time, he played 3e, played 4e, left 4e with the release of Essentials, and started a thread last June about what WotC could do to get him back as a customer. That doesn't look like someone who would be a shill.
I'm free to express my opinions as I see fit. I certainly didn't use the word shill. You did to put a more negative slant on my opinion. That's just as crass. It's deceptive too.
On top of that, being part of something for a long time doesn't mean that much. It's not really a qualification for anything other then you've stuck around.
I'm free to express my opinions as I see fit. I certainly didn't use the word shill. You did to put a more negative slant on my opinion. That's just as crass. It's deceptive too. On top of that, being part of something for a long time doesn't mean th
Sounds neat, but I learned long ago that it's simply best to try things for oneself. Second-hand opinions are as good here as they are on the subject of preferred ice cream flavours.
Sounds neat, but I learned long ago that it's simply best to try things for oneself. Second-hand opinions are as good here as they are on the subject of preferred ice cream flavours.
I read the article. If a low level wizard stands toe to toe with six low level orcs, and they all focus on the wizard, HE SHOULD DIE! He shouldn't have a hour of in-game time to think about what he did wrong and maybe consider getting out of there or getting help.
There was still the chance that it was just numbers falling in the players favor that gave him the 2 rounds he did get. Sounds kind of storm-troopers-ish to be.
Or maybe in fact "fighter-type orcs" got hit with the same kind of fighters should be slow and steady design that they seem to want. for that matter we don't know the level of threat that encounter is designed to be for all we know that was the weakest encounter in the adventure.
There was still the chance that it was just numbers falling in the players favor that gave him the 2 rounds he did get. Sounds kind of storm-troopers-ish to be.Or maybe in fact "fighter-type orcs" got hit with the same kind of fighters should be slow
Which is why I used the word "insinuate". Which is what you were doing.
On top of that, being part of something for a long time doesn't mean that much.
Which is why I gave samples from his actual history to show that your insinuations didn't match the motivations you insinuated.
Which is why I used the word "insinuate". Which is what you were doing.Which is why I gave samples from his actual history to show that your insinuations didn't match the motivations you insinuated.
Ha, I was in this group at XP. I am the dad with the kid, but he is 10 and not 12.
How long has your son been playing D&D? My son is 9 and is kind of interested but his attention span isn't that long.
My son has been playing on and off since he was about 6. He has a very good attention span. We started playing Heroscape (a lite miniatures game) when he was 4. He actual just started DMing Pathfinder (with the basic box) for me.
My 5 yo son sometimes plays with us but he has a much lower attention span. He will come to the table for the combats and just tells us what he is doing and we tell him which dice to roll. When combat is over he goes to the other room and plays with the miniatures we aren’t using. He is still very young for D&D but he is definitely has an interest.
The 2 yo son is too young to get started and my 8 yo daughter has no interest.
How long has your son been playing D&D? My son is 9 and is kind of interested but his attention span isn't that long.[/quote]My son has been playing on and off since he was about 6. He has a very good attention span. We started playing Heroscape (
Which is why I used the word "insinuate". Which is what you were doing.
On top of that, being part of something for a long time doesn't mean that much.
Which is why I gave samples from his actual history to show that your insinuations didn't match the motivations you insinuated.
No I insinuated it was the same thing we were hearing from the designers of DnDnext. If you compare what the designers have said, and what is in this blog, they are very similar in wording.
That doesn't at all touch on if they are shilling for WoTC at all. Just that they are putting out the same views about DnD Next as the designers are telling us.
Any slant on that, being a shill or whatever, is your biased view on my actions. You read into it, and then slanted your response to try and make something that wasn't there.
However, you put the fact he's been here since 2004 first. Your choice. Here since 2004, but only 121 posts. What does that mean? So he's play tested DnD. So have I. What does that mean? He made a long blog post on what would it take to get him back to DnD. I've made a lot of blog posts about what I expect. You present yourself as an authorty on how the game should be designed and played. What does that mean?
Nothing.
My post spoke on the subject of the blog and my view. You decided to make it about me, because you were offended. How about you simply let people speak their minds on the subject, rather then attack them, and try and stick words in their mouth?
Which is why I used the word "insinuate". Which is what you were doing.Which is why I gave samples from his actual history to show that your insinuations didn't match the motivations you insinuated.[/quote]No I insinuated it was the same thing we we
No I insinuated it was the same thing we were hearing from the designers of DnDnext.
Which is of no consequence unless you are implying some deeper connection beyond coincidence. Otherwise it's a completely irrelevant statement. And since I assume you weren't intending to post irrelevancies, you were insinuating something a bit more sinister.
However, you put the fact he's been here since 2004 first. Your choice. Here since 2004, but only 121 posts. What does that mean?
It means his experience with D&D is more than a single edition. And it was the first sentence in a larger point about what his views have been over that time period.
My post spoke on the subject of the blog and my view. You decided to make it about me
No. i made it about your insinuation.
How about you simply let people speak their minds on the subject
I didn't realize I -- or anybody else -- had the power to stop you from speaking your mind, Dane. All evidence would lead one to believe the opposite.
Which is of no consequence unless you are implying some deeper connection beyond coincidence. Otherwise it's a completely irrelevant statement. And since I assume you weren't intending to post irrelevancies, you were insinuating something a bit mor
Nobody is a liar until they're proven to have lied, but I don't believe in this edition until I see it for myself.
Especially I'd like to note that short 'encounters' and long campaigns are very different, what experience you have running a pregen in a short campaign might not translate to how it plays at the tabletop.
Nobody is a liar until they're proven to have lied, but I don't believe in this edition until I see it for myself.Especially I'd like to note that short 'encounters' and long campaigns are very different, what experience you have running a pregen in
Sounds like he drew a good DM. Maybe it's just because of the NDA, but it reminds me of the way I've heard people talk about games with good GMs and poor or simply unfamiliar systems.
Sounds like he drew a good DM. Maybe it's just because of the NDA, but it reminds me of the way I've heard people talk about games with good GMs and poor or simply unfamiliar systems.
Sounds like he drew a good DM. Maybe it's just because of the NDA, but it reminds me of the way I've heard people talk about games with good GMs and poor or simply unfamiliar systems.
This is something I've tossed around a bit. There is an identical thread over in Speculation where the individual who wrote the article is part of the discussion. He really does seem to be excited about it and seems to have some grasp on different editions and such. I suggest checking out his responses there.
This is something I've tossed around a bit. There is an identical thread over in Speculation where the individual who wrote the article is part of the discussion. He really does seem to be excited about it and seems to have some grasp on different ed
Something I'd like to see soon, is a review from someone DMing the playtest (once it's in the wild that is) in the same vein as these player playtest reviews. Tony touches on an important point, a talented DM can make even a poor game system run well. But the player reviews are giving me confidence. I guess I'll just need to keep tuning in as the release to us playtester-signees gets closer.
Something I'd like to see soon, is a review from someone DMing the playtest (once it's in the wild that is) in the same vein as these player playtest reviews. Tony touches on an important point, a talented DM can make even a poor game system run wel
Sounds like he drew a good DM. Maybe it's just because of the NDA, but it reminds me of the way I've heard people talk about games with good GMs and poor or simply unfamiliar systems.
This is something I've tossed around a bit. There is an identical thread over in Speculation where the individual who wrote the article is part of the discussion. He really does seem to be excited about it and seems to have some grasp on different editions and such. I suggest checking out his responses there.
Please post a link to the thread.
This is something I've tossed around a bit. There is an identical thread over in Speculation where the individual who wrote the article is part of the discussion. He really does seem to be excited about it and seems to have some grasp on different ed
Something I'd like to see soon, is a review from someone DMing the playtest (once it's in the wild that is) in the same vein as these player playtest reviews. Tony touches on an important point, a talented DM can make even a poor game system run well. But the player reviews are giving me confidence. I guess I'll just need to keep tuning in as the release to us playtester-signees gets closer.
Sounds like he drew a good DM. Maybe it's just because of the NDA, but it reminds me of the way I've heard people talk about games with good GMs and poor or simply unfamiliar systems.
This is something I've tossed around a bit. There is an identical thread over in Speculation where the individual who wrote the article is part of the discussion. He really does seem to be excited about it and seems to have some grasp on different editions and such. I suggest checking out his responses there.
I would like to see this as well.This is something I've tossed around a bit. There is an identical thread over in Speculation where the individual who wrote the article is part of the discussion. He really does seem to be excited about it and seems t
Ha, I was in this group at XP. I am the dad with the kid, but he is 10 and not 12.
How long has your son been playing D&D? My son is 9 and is kind of interested but his attention span isn't that long.
My son has been playing on and off since he was about 6. He has a very good attention span. We started playing Heroscape (a lite miniatures game) when he was 4. He actual just started DMing Pathfinder (with the basic box) for me.
My 5 yo son sometimes plays with us but he has a much lower attention span. He will come to the table for the combats and just tells us what he is doing and we tell him which dice to roll. When combat is over he goes to the other room and plays with the miniatures we aren’t using. He is still very young for D&D but he is definitely has an interest.
The 2 yo son is too young to get started and my 8 yo daughter has no interest.
Thanks. That's really cool. I read your blog and I think you're doing great with him.
I'm going to start my son soon. As soon as the DDN playtest stuff comes out, we're going to do that. I want to see how easy it is for a complete newbie to pick up.
How long has your son been playing D&D? My son is 9 and is kind of interested but his attention span isn't that long.[/quote]My son has been playing on and off since he was about 6. He has a very good attention span. We started playing Heroscape (
I see nothing conclusive, nothing that "proves" anything in this article, other than that the author appears to have landed a good DM.
But, I care not a bit for the big selling point of DDN.
The article is good. The game as I've heard about it still fails to impress or interest me.
I see nothing conclusive, nothing that "proves" anything in this article, other than that the author appears to have landed a good DM.But, I care not a bit for the big selling point of DDN.The article is good. The game as I've heard about it still fa
I don't see confirmation that there's much of 4E in 5E - in fact, based on the information I've seen elsewhere, it's rather the opposite - very little identifiable 4th Edition rules or philosophy is evident at this point. With the exception of the Warlord class and the word "theme," I'm not seeing it yet.
I don't see confirmation that there's much of 4E in 5E - in fact, based on the information I've seen elsewhere, it's rather the opposite - very little identifiable 4th Edition rules or philosophy is evident at this point. With the exception of the Wa
Talks about the wizard setting the DC for his at-will and the target makes a save to avoid the effects it is a basic fire damage single target thing. So this means static defenses are gone except for AC, magic is now an oposed roll contest.
Of course you could assume that the target always takes a '10' on his save, I guess.
This blog, dndfifthcolumn.com/2012/02/07/considerin...Talks about the wizard setting the DC for his at-will and the target makes a save to avoid the effects it is a basic fire damage single target thing. So this means static defenses are gone except
Talks about the wizard setting the DC for his at-will and the target makes a save to avoid the effects it is a basic fire damage single target thing. So this means static defenses are gone except for AC, magic is now an oposed roll contest.
Of course you could assume that the target always takes a '10' on his save, I guess.
Am I reading that blog entry correctly in that the player basically had a Vancian caster and had taken a feat that allowed an at-will spell?
Am I reading that blog entry correctly in that the player basically had a Vancian caster and had taken a feat that allowed an at-will spell?
Talks about the wizard setting the DC for his at-will and the target makes a save to avoid the effects it is a basic fire damage single target thing. So this means static defenses are gone except for AC, magic is now an oposed roll contest.
Of course you could assume that the target always takes a '10' on his save, I guess.
Am I reading that blog entry correctly in that the player basically had a Vancian caster and had taken a feat that allowed an at-will spell?
Yes. That's supposed to be the mechanic.
Am I reading that blog entry correctly in that the player basically had a Vancian caster and had taken a feat that allowed an at-will spell?[/quote]Yes. That's supposed to be the mechanic.
Talks about the wizard setting the DC for his at-will and the target makes a save to avoid the effects it is a basic fire damage single target thing. So this means static defenses are gone except for AC, magic is now an oposed roll contest.
Of course you could assume that the target always takes a '10' on his save, I guess.
Talks about the wizard setting the DC for his at-will and the target makes a save to avoid the effects it is a basic fire damage single target thing. So this means static defenses are gone except for AC, magic is now an oposed roll contest.
Of course you could assume that the target always takes a '10' on his save, I guess.
That sounds absolutely awful.
What about that sounds awful and why?
Rolled defenses have been an optional rule for quite awhile and there isn't anything inherenly 'awful' about them.
Carl
That sounds absolutely awful.[/quote]What about that sounds awful and why?Rolled defenses have been an optional rule for quite awhile and there isn't anything inherenly 'awful' about them. Carl
It's one additional roll that is wholly unnecessary and puts the "defense" against an effect into the hands of the attacker again, which is... strange.
It's one additional roll that is wholly unnecessary and puts the "defense" against an effect into the hands of the attacker again, which is... strange.
Wizard sets DC by rolling die. Apparently it's Intelligence + d20. Attacker rolls "saving throw" by rolling die. My guess: either Intelligence or Dexterity (instead of Reflex) + d20. Likely Dexterity +d20.
That's not 4E, and that's a lot of d20s rolling on the table. And in some ways it makes racial penalties even more absurd, because now basically your entire game life is dependent on rolling high on your stats.
I'm glad they and I got the same idea -- skills = ability checks with situational bonuses -- but I clearly remember opposed checks weren't the norm (experimented on before yes, but not the norm) in any edition, so having it now as a standard seems... odd. I guess it's to reflect combat dynamics and make even the low stat characters have a better chance to hit (lowering the advantage gap between the one with high stats and the one with low stats, at least until there's a 15+ point gap between them without the d20), but until I playtest the game myself, I can't make the most well-informed of judgements.
Waaaaaait.Wizard sets DC by rolling die. Apparently it's Intelligence + d20.Attacker rolls "saving throw" by rolling die. My guess: either Intelligence or Dexterity (instead of Reflex) + d20. Likely Dexterity +d20.That's not 4E, and that's a lot o
Talks about the wizard setting the DC for his at-will and the target makes a save to avoid the effects it is a basic fire damage single target thing. So this means static defenses are gone except for AC, magic is now an oposed roll contest.
Of course you could assume that the target always takes a '10' on his save, I guess.
That sounds absolutely awful.
What about that sounds awful and why?
Rolled defenses have been an optional rule for quite awhile and there isn't anything inherenly 'awful' about them.
Carl
Sorry, I am a child of 4th edition. I should state my opinion more clearly: I prefer static defenses that are easy to maintain and improve. I prefer that the reason a wizard or other caster hits with his spell is because he rolled well, not because his opponent rolled poorly.
I also think this concept goes against one of the design goals that was set forth quite early in promational stuff: Ability scores matter. I'll wait to see how it is in actual play, and maybe I'm missing something about it, but as stated, I'm not sure I'll like it. Hopefully I'll have a reason to change my mind.
That sounds absolutely awful.[/quote]What about that sounds awful and why?Rolled defenses have been an optional rule for quite awhile and there isn't anything inherenly 'awful' about them. Carl[/quote]Sorry, I am a child of 4th edition. I should sta
I like the idea of it. Someone on offense isn't always going to be equally good at hitting, and someone on defense isn't always going to be equally good at defending. It makes logical sense. In earlier editions, the single roll against a static defense reflected all of this, but I find the prospect of a wider range of variation appealing in theory. As to how it will work in practice...we'll see.
I like the idea of it. Someone on offense isn't always going to be equally good at hitting, and someone on defense isn't always going to be equally good at defending. It makes logical sense. In earlier editions, the single roll against a static defen
Wizard sets DC by rolling die. Apparently it's Intelligence + d20. Attacker rolls "saving throw" by rolling die. My guess: either Intelligence or Dexterity (instead of Reflex) + d20. Likely Dexterity +d20.
That's not 4E, and that's a lot of d20s rolling on the table. And in some ways it makes racial penalties even more absurd, because now basically your entire game life is dependent on rolling high on your stats.
I think, and I could be very wrong, that it would be more like the set DC from 3.X
Int + 10 or Level(DC) against the target's Dexterity +d20(Reflex Save).
You could had it a la 4th, which is backwards:
Int + d20 against target's Reflex (Dexterity mod + 10 or Level)
But I really don't know how it is, I am just speculating as well.
I think, and I could be very wrong, that it would be more like the set DC from 3.XInt + 10 or Level(DC) against the target's Dexterity +d20(Reflex Save).You could had it a la 4th, which is backwards:Int + d20 against target's Reflex (Dexterity mod +
I think there are two different issues here and we probably need to consider them separately;
Opposed rolls for attacks: This adds one more roll to the game (arguably not a good thing). It's been an optional rule for years, but it's not one I ever really felt tempted to try. If combat is as slow as 3.x/4e, I'm pretty solidly opposed. If the game plays much faster despite this, i'm willing to see how it works in play.
What the roll is: I don't think we have sufficient information to really judge how that works. The mechanics I come up seem clumsy. But we can only guess. My guess is that it works something like: Attack rolls d20 and adds ability score. Defender rolls d20 and adds ability score. Compare the totals. If attacker is highest, attack hits. If defender is highest, attack misses. On a tie - who knows (although tradition would give the attack to the attacker).
But my point is that we are inferring even so much s that it really is an opposed roll. And we really don't (unless someone can point me to more concrete information then I've seen) know what the modifiers to the rolls are.
Sure - it appears as if it's gonna hurt if I have to defend against your ability score 18 attack with my ability score 10 defense. But we don't know enough to worry about that now. That's what the real playtest is for, as opposed to our invention of mechanics and then explaining why our invented mechanics are or are not a good idea.
But the idea of two rolls per attack (implied by the description of an opposed roll) is something we can at least discuss - starting with the assumption that the rolls themselves are balanced (because we don't have enough information to assume otherwise, yet).
Carl
I think there are two different issues here and we probably need to consider them separately;Opposed rolls for attacks: This adds one more roll to the game (arguably not a good thing). It's been an optional rule for years, but it's not one I ever r
But the idea of two rolls per attack (implied by the description of an opposed roll) is something we can at least discuss - starting with the assumption that the rolls themselves are balanced (because we don't have enough information to assume otherwise, yet).
The issue with opposed rolls, to me, is that d20s already have a huge variance in outcome. Adding a second d20, while making it slightly more bell-curved, does so while making the variance even bigger.
With opposed rolls you have to have 20 points more than your opponent to be guaranteed success.
And if you have only 10 points more than them you have a ~14% chance of failure, as opposed to a 0% chance without opposed rolls (5% if 1s autofail)
The issue with opposed rolls, to me, is that d20s already have a huge variance in outcome. Adding a second d20, while making it slightly more bell-curved, does so while making the variance even bigger.With opposed rolls you have to have 20 points mor
I think there are two different issues here and we probably need to consider them separately;
Opposed rolls for attacks: This adds one more roll to the game (arguably not a good thing). It's been an optional rule for years, but it's not one I ever really felt tempted to try. If combat is as slow as 3.x/4e, I'm pretty solidly opposed. If the game plays much faster despite this, i'm willing to see how it works in play.
What the roll is: I don't think we have sufficient information to really judge how that works. The mechanics I come up seem clumsy. But we can only guess. My guess is that it works something like: Attack rolls d20 and adds ability score. Defender rolls d20 and adds ability score. Compare the totals. If attacker is highest, attack hits. If defender is highest, attack misses. On a tie - who knows (although tradition would give the attack to the attacker).
But my point is that we are inferring even so much s that it really is an opposed roll. And we really don't (unless someone can point me to more concrete information then I've seen) know what the modifiers to the rolls are.
Sure - it appears as if it's gonna hurt if I have to defend against your ability score 18 attack with my ability score 10 defense. But we don't know enough to worry about that now. That's what the real playtest is for, as opposed to our invention of mechanics and then explaining why our invented mechanics are or are not a good idea.
But the idea of two rolls per attack (implied by the description of an opposed roll) is something we can at least discuss - starting with the assumption that the rolls themselves are balanced (because we don't have enough information to assume otherwise, yet).
Carl
A solid post.
On the concept of opposed rolls: I don't like it. I know there are times when it makes sense to me (Stealth vs Perception in 4e for hiding) but in attacking it just feels too random to me. It may be that you can modify the base system to work with the four static defenses anyway (all the ability scores needed are already there, after all) so it might be something players who really don't like it can take out of their games with a little wiggling. I'm willing to actually play with it before I make a real decision, but my gut feeling was "ugh."
A solid post.On the concept of opposed rolls: I don't like it. I know there are times when it makes sense to me (Stealth vs Perception in 4e for hiding) but in attacking it just feels too random to me. It may be that you can modify the base system to
I want to stick with the attack vs. defense method. Period. There isn't an added benefit to the game with having a second offensive mode, so don't add it. It's inelegant, it doesn't really do anything differently than attack vs. defense, and now you have both sides trying to do the math.
The whole attack vs defense for both wizards and warriors was one of the things I most anticipated in the run-up to 4th. It seems as though Wizards is intent on throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Actually, the whole nursery.
Or just give me a module where I can fix this travesty easily.
I want to stick with the attack vs. defense method. Period. There isn't an added benefit to the game with having a second offensive mode, so don't add it. It's inelegant, it doesn't really do anything differently than attack vs. defense, and now you
On the concept of opposed rolls: I don't like it. I know there are times when it makes sense to me (Stealth vs Perception in 4e for hiding) but in attacking it just feels too random to me. It may be that you can modify the base system to work with the four static defenses anyway (all the ability scores needed are already there, after all) so it might be something players who really don't like it can take out of their games with a little wiggling. I'm willing to actually play with it before I make a real decision, but my gut feeling was "ugh."
Opposed attack/defense rolls aren't uncommon in other game systems that I'm used to, it certainly doesn't dtract from them in my experience. That said, it seems kinda "un-D&D" to me... Except in a few cases, D&D has always used an offense roll against a static defense (to hit vs. AC) or a defense roll against a static offense (save vs. spell DC).
Opposed attack/defense rolls aren't uncommon in other game systems that I'm used to, it certainly doesn't dtract from them in my experience. That said, it seems kinda "un-D&D" to me... Except in a few cases, D&D has always used an offense roll agains
One possible interpretation "the attacker sets the DC" in that the DC is simply the ability score. Eladrin Wizard with 20 int? DC 20. Half orc wizad with 16 int? DC 16
One possible interpretation "the attacker sets the DC" in that the DC is simply the ability score. Eladrin Wizard with 20 int? DC 20. Half orc wizad with 16 int? DC 16
But the idea of two rolls per attack (implied by the description of an opposed roll) is something we can at least discuss - starting with the assumption that the rolls themselves are balanced (because we don't have enough information to assume otherwise, yet).
The issue with opposed rolls, to me, is that d20s already have a huge variance in outcome. Adding a second d20, while making it slightly more bell-curved, does so while making the variance even bigger.
With opposed rolls you have to have 20 points more than your opponent to be guaranteed success.
And if you have only 10 points more than them you have a ~14% chance of failure, as opposed to a 0% chance without opposed rolls (5% if 1s autofail)
To be honest - as you describe that - I see that as a good thing, not a bad thing. I'd rather NOT see it be easy to get to the point where you are 'guaranteed success' or guaranteed failure.
I think I'd like to see the linear spread of the current d20 roll turned into a longer-tailed bell curve.
So if that were the only change I might support it (although the extra roll still bothers me). But I'll have to look at the full range of paired rolls and see how the whole spread of results looks.
Carl
The issue with opposed rolls, to me, is that d20s already have a huge variance in outcome. Adding a second d20, while making it slightly more bell-curved, does so while making the variance even bigger.With opposed rolls you have to have 20 points mor
I think the math here is sound. Please correct me if I'm not framing this properly. If opposed d20 rolls can be thought of as the difference between the two resulting rolls, then for the sake of argument lets assume a negative result signifies success for the attacker and a positive result signifies success for the defender. I've modeled it assuming equal and non-equal modifiers. A) Four sets of rolls are shown, d20+1 vs. d20+1, d20+2 v d20+2 and so on.
B) Two sets of rolls shown, d20+1 v d20+0 and d20+4 v d20+0
It seems the scales only really tip at all when there is a greater difference between modifiers, but certainly not by much. Results of 20 or -20 would mean there was a huge difference between each roll. That is supported by fewer combinations of dice so it comes up less often. Results closer to zero signify less difference between each roll and are much more likely. Which means its all about the ability scores.
I think the math here is sound. Please correct me if I'm not framing this properly. If opposed d20 rolls can be thought of as the difference between the two resulting rolls, then for the sake of argument lets assume a negative result signifies succes
Can you generate the sum of the odds? I.e. - with a difference of +4 (red, second curve) - what is percentage of rolls that are +1 or better versus the total that are -1 or better?
In other words - with a bonus of +4, how often do you hit?
What about with a bonus of +1 or +8?
Carl Edit: My probability calculations give me:
With a +4 bonus, the attacker has a 66%chance of a hit and a 30% chance of a miss (ignoring the 4% chance of a tie since I don't know who wins ties). In 4E, with a +4 bonus (and assuming you hit on an 11 normally) you have 65% chance of beating the roll, a 30% chance of going lower (and a 5% chance of a tie). In 4E, with an abilty score of 4 higher (+2 to roll), you have a 55% chance to beat the DC, a 40% chance to go low (and a 5% chance to tie).
With a +1 bonus: 52.5% higher; 42.75% lower; 4.75% equal. 4E with a +1 bonus: 50% higher; 45% lower; 5% equal
With a +8 bonus : 80.5%higher; 16.5% lower; 3% equal. 4E with a +8 bonus: 85% higher; 10% lower; 5% equal. 4E with an eight higher stat (+4 bonus): 65% higher; 30% lower, 5% equal.
It's not horribly out of line, but higher attributes - when attacking lowest attributes - shows a clear advantage. I'd say - as long as the difference in die rolls (ability score and maybe something else?) is in the range of +0 to +4, the odds of hitting are comparable.
Not surprisingly , it is roughly the same as doubling the Attribute modifier in 4E. If you had a +6 instead of a +3 for a 16 strength, you'd end up with similar numbers.
Of course - I think that is going the wrong direction. I think attribute modifiers need to go down, not up. But I'm not going to get too worried until we have real mechanics, not made up mechanics.
The real issue, to me, is the two die rolls. Does it really add to the game or does it detract. And that we can all test by rolling defenses in 4E now. Just take the (defense -10) and add that to a d20 roll.
Carl
Can you generate the sum of the odds? I.e. - with a difference of +4 (red, second curve) - what is percentage of rolls that are +1 or better versus the total that are -1 or better?In other words - with a bonus of +4, how often do you hit?What abou
One possible interpretation "the attacker sets the DC" in that the DC is simply the ability score. Eladrin Wizard with 20 int? DC 20. Half orc wizad with 16 int? DC 16
I was thinking that, but then a melee type would have d20+10 vs. AC.
I was thinking that, but then a melee type would have d20+10 vs. AC.
One possible interpretation "the attacker sets the DC" in that the DC is simply the ability score. Eladrin Wizard with 20 int? DC 20. Half orc wizad with 16 int? DC 16
I don't think matches up with what the blogger said about adding tension to the fight.
Here is the relevent text.
The wizard made frequent use of the “javelin of fire” at-will magic feat but she also had carefully chosen her spells for the day, and deployed them where they would do the most good. I felt the mechanic of the attacker (our wizard) setting the DC for the defender added tension to the fight, and differentiated her attacks nicely from standard melee or ranged attacks.
-bspauls
I don't think matches up with what the blogger said about adding tension to the fight.Here is the relevent text.-bspauls
Can you generate the sum of the odds? I.e. - with a difference of +4 (red, second curve) - what is percentage of rolls that are +1 or better versus the total that are -1 or better?
In other words - with a bonus of +4, how often do you hit?
What about with a bonus of +1 or +8?
Carl
I think thats what I did. The way I set it up was =(randbetween(1,20)+4)-(randbetween(1,20)) for the red and =(randbetween(1,20)+1)-(randbetween(1,20)). So if the result was positive it would represent a hit and if it was negative it would represent a miss. Focusing in on -1 to +1...
It would seem that even over 1,000 rolls the d20 is ornery. I would have expected the +4 modifier group to contain more 1s than the +1 group, but it was the opposite.
I think thats what I did. The way I set it up was =(randbetween(1,20)+4)-(randbetween(1,20)) for the red and =(randbetween(1,20)+1)-(randbetween(1,20)). So if the result was positive it would represent a hit and if it was negative it would represent
I read the article. If a low level wizard stands toe to toe with six low level orcs, and they all focus on the wizard, HE SHOULD DIE! He shouldn't have a hour of in-game time to think about what he did wrong and maybe consider getting out of there or getting help.
There was still the chance that it was just numbers falling in the players favor that gave him the 2 rounds he did get. Sounds kind of storm-troopers-ish to be.
Or maybe in fact "fighter-type orcs" got hit with the same kind of fighters should be slow and steady design that they seem to want. for that matter we don't know the level of threat that encounter is designed to be for all we know that was the weakest encounter in the adventure.
I think it was somewhat hyperbole. Think about it, a wizard running into 6 orcs at melee range in 4e would last about 1/2 a round at say level 4. Each MM2 orc will AT LEAST bloody the PC with a hit (for your typical orc warrior), so with 6 orcs you figure 3 hits, 1 might get negated by shield. With a bunch of luck you might survive long enough to try to bolt for it, MAYBE. Now, in say 2e you'd just be deaders. 1 or 2 orcs would surely hit you and at level 1 on both sides it would be over unless you were SUPER lucky. Honestly I think the 4e tune on that is pretty good. OTOH it is fine if damage is harder to fix later on and/or you are dying a bit more easily if you go down and/or are a bit harder to bring back into play. 4e is pretty much on the extreme end there.
In terms of the whole review, it sounds nice. Of course the fact that 'everyone is having fun' in an organized event of this type IMHO doesn't say a LOT about the game necessarily. How many of you would have gone to DDN and sat at the table and been jerks and had a bad time? Ain't real likely. Especially when obviously you're going to be treated to a highly qualified DM that's probably been briefed to the gills on the game. Not at all knocking the review, it was good to get some more tidbits and sounds like fun.
Don't fight too much guys, I'm sure you'll all have plenty to fight about in a couple months. Save your healing surges and don't blow your dailies in the first encounter!
There was still the chance that it was just numbers falling in the players favor that gave him the 2 rounds he did get. Sounds kind of storm-troopers-ish to be.Or maybe in fact "fighter-type orcs" got hit with the same kind of fighters should be slow
I was looking at the numbers from that opposed d20 model again because the results seemed wacky when we focused in on the -1 to +1 range. I resampled the numbers a few times and they didn't move much but it swung back in favor of the +4 modifier and then back to the +1 mod, then back to the +4. d20 rolls are unpredictable. It seems to me that against a static defense like AC or 4e Fort Ref and Will the d20 can be more easily predicted. When you try to predict its behavior against a dynamic defense, i.e. another d20, its too close to call in any meaningful way. I can try doubling the sample size again but I suspect that two rolls with uniform probabilities are going to continue to behave in this way. Any thoughts?
I was looking at the numbers from that opposed d20 model again because the results seemed wacky when we focused in on the -1 to +1 range. I resampled the numbers a few times and they didn't move much but it swung back in favor of the +4 modifier and
I did the probability calculations upthread a ways. Actual probability calc are better than modeled rolls, imho.
The odds of a hit with +x to the roll is actually pretty similar whether you are talking about d20 versus 11 or d20 versus d20. Of course, if they go with ability score versus modifier, that will scew the odds a bit.
Carl
I did the probability calculations upthread a ways. Actual probability calc are better than modeled rolls, imho.The odds of a hit with +x to the roll is actually pretty similar whether you are talking about d20 versus 11 or d20 versus d20. Of cours
I did the probability calculations upthread a ways. Actual probability calc are better than modeled rolls, imho.
The odds of a hit with +x to the roll is actually pretty similar whether you are talking about d20 versus 11 or d20 versus d20. Of course, if they go with ability score versus modifier, that will scew the odds a bit.
Carl
I saw that but I didn't understand how you came to those numbers. Could you bring me up to speed? I understand the odds to hit once I know what one of the d20 rolls is, but I'm lost on how you would deal with the two unknowns.
I saw that but I didn't understand how you came to those numbers. Could you bring me up to speed?I understand the odds to hit once I know what one of the d20 rolls is, but I'm lost on how you would deal with the two unknowns.
I broke it down into paired rolls (Attacker v. Defender) For Attacker roll equal 1, there are: 0 rolls where Attacker - Defender gives Attacker the advantage; 1 roll where Attacker - Defender 0 (no advantage): 1 - 1 19 rolls where Attacker - Defender gives Defender the advantage: 1 -2, 1-3, etc. For Attack roll equal 2, there are: 1 roll where Attacker - Defender gives Attacker the advantage: 2 - 1 1 roll where Attacker - Defender = 0 (no advantage): 2-2 18 rolls where Attacker - Defender > 0; Defender advantage: 2-3, 2-4, etc. Etc
This totals to 190 rolls giving the attacker the advantage, 190 rolls giving the defender the advantage and 20 rolls where there is no advantage (both rolls the same value).
Similar calculations can be done for any modifier to the roll.
(I probably should be able to do this using formulas rather than brute force, but what can I say... It's been thirty one years since I took probabilty and statistics).
Carl
I broke it down into paired rolls (Attacker v. Defender)For Attacker roll equal 1, there are: 0 rolls where Attacker - Defender gives Attacker the advantage; 1 roll where Attacker - Defender 0 (no advantage): 1 - 1 19 rolls
...and 20 rolls where there is no advantage (both rolls the same value).
my gears are still turning but if with 2d6 you have a 1/36 chance of rolling a 2 then with 2d20 you have a 1/400 chance of rolling a 2, as in 1 v 1. Thats .25% and I think the same goes for all the rolls in which there was no advantage.
my gears are still turning but if with 2d6 you have a 1/36 chance of rolling a 2 then with 2d20 you have a 1/400 chance of rolling a 2, as in 1 v 1. Thats .25% and I think the same goes for all the rolls in which there was no advantage.
...and 20 rolls where there is no advantage (both rolls the same value).
my gears are still turning but if with 2d6 you have a 1/36 chance of rolling a 2 then with 2d20 you have a 1/400 chance of rolling a 2, as in 1 v 1. Thats .25% and I think the same goes for all the rolls in which there was no advantage.
Correct - there are 20 different ways of coming up with a roll where there is no advantage. Each has a 0.25 % chance of occuring. Totalling all of those gives you 20 x 0.25% equals 5%.
Which, if you page back, is what I said the odds of no advantage was in an even modifier roll.
Carl
my gears are still turning but if with 2d6 you have a 1/36 chance of rolling a 2 then with 2d20 you have a 1/400 chance of rolling a 2, as in 1 v 1. Thats .25% and I think the same goes for all the rolls in which there was no advantage.[/quote]Correc
