|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 1:35AM
#1
|
|
|
I am a fan of D&D 3.5 and also 4e (although it took a while for 4e to grow on me) and I actively play both editions (playing in an Eberron 4e Seekers of the Ashen Crown game, and GMing the original Freeport Trilogy using D&D 3.5); I am also very much looking forward t D&D Next as I always though a mashup of the best of 3.5 and 4e would be great.
Despite not having played any D&D prior to 3.5 other than a couple of sessions of AD&D (not sure 1st or 2nd) D&D Next does give me a big old school vibe - simple yet elegant without nailing rules down too tightly - leaving the GM more wiggle room as to decide certain stuff (rules lawyers may not like this). It looks like the sort of simple system I was looking to buy when I looked at stuff like QUERP; something to be up and running with newbies in a matter of minutes, very beer and pretzels, but with the potential to be much more with extra modules. Yet I can still see signs of 4e in there which is good - short and long rests (short and extended rests), hit dice (healing surges), rituals (looking excellent as certain spells can be prepared or cast as rituals, the best of both 3.5 & 4e). At wills spells such as Magic Missile (more than just the PF cantrips, more like 4e's At Will powers) I love the fact that WotC have flattened the maths, so you don't get huge bonuses - a +2 is significant. The Advantage mechanic helps out with this by increasing the chances of success without actually increasing the max result you can get, though I am not sure I like the fact that Advantages don't effectively stack, it is either on or off (mind you its lkike a +4 bonus so that could be okay). It also isn't clear whether a single Advantage cancels out multiple Disadvantages (and vice versa) or whether you have Advantage if you have more Advantages than Disadvantages. The spell descriptions have flavour with the mechanics clearly spelt out, though I worry that without a template its not always easy to see what the duration is, or whether a save is allowed without reading it all. As long as the text is kept short (and keep it in the Effect part of the spell description) so you can quickly read the entirety of the spell it should be okay. I like the idea of Themes and Backgrounds, but the ones in the pre-gen characters don't seem to be anything more than re-iterating the class choice e.g. Fighter / Soldier / Slayer, Wizard / Sage / Magic User. I would like something more like Fighter / City Watch / Freedom Fighter, which gives a bit of flavour and also gives options in stuff like Streetwise skills, knowledge of Slavery Rings (because you try to disrupt them etc). I do not like healing everything all overnight, it was the main thing about 4e I didn't like. However I can see for the core game it is easy, and keeps book keeping down. Hopefully a rule module for "gritty" play will allow for something like just recovering Hit Dice and not Hit Points. or maybe a Wound mechanic like Earthdawn (and how I have written for 4e) where if you take damage in a single blow that exceeds a threshold (perhaps half your max hit points) then you are wounded, and for each Wound you recover 1 less Hit Die per night, recovering a Wound requires you to start a Long rest with full Hit Points. I also dislike the fact that a Healing Kit is required to spend Hit Dice in short rests, the reason being it ties lost Hit Points down to physical injuries, even if you are still above half hit points. I think maybe if you start a Short Rest below half hit points then you need a healing kit. This means there is a secondary goal to combats - not just to end the fight on your feet, but ideally to end the fight with more than half hit points. It means you can have combats that you know won't kill the players, but that if it manages to leave them Bloodied then they won't be able to heal (becuase they lack a healing kit). Basically, you have increments of victory. As for the Ambusher Feat, this does seem to do nothing as the core rules state you get advantage on attacks whilst hidden (see Advantage on Attacks on page 7 of How to Play). I like that Save or Die / Save or Suck spells key off Hit POints, e.g. Sleep only potentially knocking foes unconscious if they have 10 HP or less. So a PC wizard could use the spell to send some city watch guarding the city gate to sleep (as at full health they may only have 5 hp), but they can't become victim to the spell themselves in combat unless they have already taken significant damage. One thing - please, please please, do not describe monster powers as "like the XYZ spell but...", I am reading the 3.5 Monster Manual now and its a pain, in the words it has taken to say it works like a spell but with these changes, you could have simply written what it does.
R Grant Erswell
Geek in wolf's clothing
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 1:54AM
#2
|
|
|
The ambusher feet allows the rogue to move and then attack on his turn and still gain advantage. Attack FROM hidden (No move) grants advantage to anyone. But the rogue can move 20 feet and attack and STILL get advantage. Which is awesome.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 3:46AM
#3
|
|
|
The ambusher feet allows the rogue to move and then attack on his turn and still gain advantage. Attack FROM hidden (No move) grants advantage to anyone. But the rogue can move 20 feet and attack and STILL get advantage. Which is awesome.
Am I missing something then? I don't see any restriction that says you cannot move and attack from hidden.
Basically you use an action to Hide (you can move before, after or either side of that) and then next round you could move and then attack from hidden - as long as the conditions for hiding i.e. being heavily obscured, aren't lost or the target takes an action to Search for the characters and succeeds in their Wisdom check.
So yeah, I am still not seeing what benefit the Ambusher feat gives.
R Grant Erswell
Geek in wolf's clothing
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 3:50AM
#4
|
|
|
because as long as you were hidden at the start of your turn, the part where you lost hidden while moving, etc does not apply, you still get advantage.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 4:16AM
#5
|
|
|
because as long as you were hidden at the start of your turn, the part where you lost hidden while moving, etc does not apply, you still get advantage.
Sorry, I didn't understand that. Are you suggesting that moving means that a character is no longer hidden? I am not seeing that anywhere in the rules.
R Grant Erswell
Geek in wolf's clothing
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 5:10AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2007
|
...
I do not like healing everything all overnight, it was the main thing about 4e I didn't like. However I can see for the core game it is easy, and keeps book keeping down. Hopefully a rule module for "gritty" play will allow for something like just recovering Hit Dice and not Hit Points. or maybe a Wound mechanic like Earthdawn (and how I have written for 4e) where if you take damage in a single blow that exceeds a threshold (perhaps half your max hit points) then you are wounded, and for each Wound you recover 1 less Hit Die per night, recovering a Wound requires you to start a Long rest with full Hit Points.
I also dislike the fact that a Healing Kit is required to spend Hit Dice in short rests, the reason being it ties lost Hit Points down to physical injuries, even if you are still above half hit points.
I agree that since DDN is assuming you haven't taken serious physical injury until you hit zero hit points that the Healing Kit shouldn't be needed unless the person is at zero hit points. If the character is above zero then they are by definition in DDN currently not seriously injured (maybe some bruises and scrapes but nothing that prevents them from fighting properly). Personally my recommendation would be that you allow players to spend thier hit dice during short rests freely if they are above zero hit points but require a healing kit to revive a character who is at or below zero (in which case the character heals back to one hit die worth of hit points). Without a healing kit the unconcious character must wait 2d6 hours before healing back to one hit point as normal.
As far as wounds I'm ok without them but I also get that there's a lot of DMs who want a wound-type system. One possible way to do it that I've suggested would be that every time a character is reduced to zero hit points they receive a wound point. Whenever a character takes a long rest if they have any wound points then they only recover half their hit dice and half their hit points and reduce their total wound points by one. If a character has no wound points then that means they aren't seriously physically injured and recover all their hit points and all their hit dice after a long rest as normal. Remember also that characters can only take a long rest if they are already above zero hit points in DDN, so if a character is currently unconcious they need to heal to at least one hit point before they can take the long rest in the first place.
As for the Ambusher Feat, this does seem to do nothing as the core rules state you get advantage on attacks whilst hidden (see Advantage on Attacks on page 7 of How to Play).
The Ambusher feat actually does something subtle but important: it lets the ambusher move out of hiding however they like and still have advantage on their attack regardless of whether or not they are currently hidden. For most characters the moment you step out of hiding you are no longer considered hidden and if you attack while you're not currently hidden you do not have advantage. So to compare the Ambusher can be hiding around a corner, see an enemy 20 feet away, then move out from around the corner right up next to the enemy and attack him in hand to hand and still have advantage even though the ambusher isn't currently hidden (provided the movement and attack are all in the same turn). Most characters would not have advantage on their melee attack in that situation.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 5:14AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2007
|
because as long as you were hidden at the start of your turn, the part where you lost hidden while moving, etc does not apply, you still get advantage.
Sorry, I didn't understand that. Are you suggesting that moving means that a character is no longer hidden? I am not seeing that anywhere in the rules.
Moving itself doesn't break hiding but the moment you move out of concealment you are no longer hidden. (See Being Detected, "If you lose the conditions needed to remain hidden, you are automatically spotted, as long as the creature is looking in your direction.") So most characters who step out from hiding into plain sight immediately lose their hidden status and any attacks from that point forward don't get advantage. But the ambusher's attacks that turn still advantage even though the ambusher is no longer hidden.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 5:20AM
#8
|
|
|
Ah, I see, so with the Ambusher feat you can break stealth (i.e. lose conditions that allow you to be hidden) and still retain advantage. That does make a difference I guess.
If the feat is to be retained I think it needs to be clarifed greatly - emphasise the "When you start your turn" bit.
Thanks for helping clarify that for me!
R Grant Erswell
Geek in wolf's clothing
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 5:33AM
#9
|
|
|
because as long as you were hidden at the start of your turn, the part where you lost hidden while moving, etc does not apply, you still get advantage.
Sorry, I didn't understand that. Are you suggesting that moving means that a character is no longer hidden? I am not seeing that anywhere in the rules.
Yes, the rules say that you are able to be hidden while you're out of sight or obscured, etc. As soon as none of those conditions apply and you are in plain sight of the enemy you are no longer hidden. Thus a non-ambusher can't lurk, run out, attack, and get advantage. The ambusher can do that. It is a significant advantage. Basically hiding and stealth work approximately the same way they did in 4e, with the major difference that you can't hide as part of a move action (at least not yet, I predict this will change).
I think basically I agree that, aside a few very minor things which there is plenty of time to fix, the core combat rules are nicely streamlined. In fact it is almost as if someone read one of my many posts over the last couple years on that subject (eliminate most off-turn actions, get rid of minor action, streamline bonuses and penalties). We still lack a formal translation of the combat rules to a battlemat, but the extrapolation is relatively straightforward. You can assume basically 4e conventions there and it should be workable even if a few things are missing still (no charge rule or flanking rule, no rules for forced movement, LoS, etc).
The spell and monster stat blocks are quite ugly at this point. I'm not sure if that reflects some badly conceived style decision or just a lack of focus on those details yet (I'd assume monsters and spells change frequently, so it is quite possible nobody has bothered to think about that much yet). Assuming there's a reasonable cleanup so spells have headings for range, attack, hit effect, and some attempt at organized keywords spells can be easily cleaned up. Gotta agree on the whole thing with spell call-outs in monster descriptions. Just give the monsters some simplified effects that can be described in 2 lines.
While I don't have a problem with the ritual concept I think it is generally inferior to the 4e ritual magic concept. It simply creates more versatility for the swiss-army-knife wizard instead of creating a generalized framework for 'plot magic' and is far too exclusive to one class which has really no business getting more goodies. I'd much rather see 4e style rituals, just with better writeups where each specific ritual scales reasonably and associated skills are more integrated.
Frankly I'd be fine with a more mild hit point recovery, as you suggest, but again not a big deal because I'm sure it will be simple to slot in one of a few options and in any case full recovery doesn't bother me either. The rest of the healing system so far however is really borked. The healer cleric is absurdly too powerful. The 'potion factory' feature is eye-rollingly whacked, and the general overall result so far is a game where you chug potions all day and every hero has to lug a healbot sidekick along to recharge him throughout the day. Terrible tone there, doesn't match any note that I want to strike in a game. Of course there's plenty of time for this to change for the better.
Overall it is mixed. I think the tone of the writing and the greater thought put into the relation between prose and rules is nice, the HTP document reads well. The rules overall in a general sense are progressive, but there are a lot of tone regressions and resurfacing of questionable game concepts. The ham-handed attempts to avoid replicating any 4e terminology are also mildly irritating.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
