What if [epic level stuff]'s not in the PHB but instead in the DMG?
That would not make a lot of sense. Why does the DM care about epic level characters. Let the players think and plan their epic level characters without crowding into his book.
Just put out a simplified system, not a moron system just basic, with plenty of room for us to implement house rules. Then release options books. Worked pretty well in 2e, except for maybe the simple system part.
You must not have looked too closely into PHB2 or DMG2. The PHB2 just included a number of new races, new classes, and new feats, along with some other new in-game features that players could use (I think backgrounds). It was really no different than any other splat book. PHB3 was made in same way. As for the DMG2, it had new advice for a DM and a larger section catering to Paragon level adventures and campaigns (levels 11 to 20). I don't see how either book is offensive, especially considering you say that you don't mind if they print new option books (which is another way of saying splat books).
I find it interesting that people have a problem with Vanican magic, yet they don't have a problem with Dailies? What exactly is the difference here?
Because when people say Vancian, they are generally referring to the system with nine spell levels where a wizard gets a growing number of daily spells that grows both in existing levels and into new levels. Like how the playtest wizard goes from three first level spells to eventually four first level spells and two second level spells by 3rd level. By contrast, the Daily power system used in 4e limited a character to around four daily "attack" powers and around six utility powers that might also be restricted to daily powers, and you don't get anywhere near those numbers until you are like level 20 to 30.
That would not make a lot of sense. Why does the DM care about epic level characters. Let the players think and plan their epic level characters without crowding into his book.You must not have looked too closely into PHB2 or DMG2. The PHB2 just incl
Because when people say Vancian, they are generally referring to the system with nine spell levels where a wizard gets a growing number of daily spells that grows both in existing levels and into new levels. Like how the playtest wizard goes from three first level spells to eventually four first level spells and two second level spells by 3rd level. By contrast, the Daily power system used in 4e limited a character to around four daily "attack" powers and around six utility powers that might also be restricted to daily powers, and you don't get anywhere near those numbers until you are like level 20 to 30.
Ok so what your saying is that the whole problem Vanican magic was basicaly that the mage got too many spells? Because that is not my understanding of why people don't like it. I was under the impression the problem was with the fact that the mage "studied spells" and than "forgot them" the next day and that this whole procedure was quirky somehow. I understand people had issues with balance but if the whole problem was with how many spells they got, that seems like something that is pretty easy to correct if thats all it took to satisfy peoples dislike of the system. After all, many people do like it.
Which I noted as well, that a lot of Vanican magic supporters hated the daily/encounter power system... which again I found very odd.
Ok so what your saying is that the whole problem Vanican magic was basicaly that the mage got too many spells? Because that is not my understanding of why people don't like it. I was under the impression the problem was with the fact that the mage
Ok so what your saying is that the whole problem Vanican magic was basicaly that the mage got too many spells?
I certainly can't speak for everyone, but that is one of my single biggest complaints about the Vancian system. This system, which seems to be continued in the playtest of D&D Next, also allows a wizard to dedicate his lower level spells for non-combat utility functions. When you don't need your lower level spells for hurting your opponents, then spells like Comprehend Languages and Knock are great to memorize.
a lot of Vanican magic supporters hated the daily/encounter power system... which again I found very odd.
I think a lot of the problems had to do with presentation problems. If WotC had presented the class differently, with some semblance of the older spell levels thrown in, even with a much lower number of "daily" spells, then I think some pro-Vancian caster people would have liked it.
I certainly can't speak for everyone, but that is one of my single biggest complaints about the Vancian system. This system, which seems to be continued in the playtest of D&D Next, also allows a wizard to dedicate his lower level spells for non-comb
The two most complained about issues with Vancian that
1) Vancian wizards in the past are just high level commoners when they run out of spells or don't cast spell in an "encounter". This causes a wizard to beg for rest when they run out or don't have any effective prepared spells.
2) Number of spells per day are usually wonky. Either too few at lower levels and causing problem 1 often. Or too many at higher levels and allowing the wizard prepare their best utility spells in their junk lower slots.
@Problem with Vancian wizards.The two most complained about issues with Vancian that1) Vancian wizards in the past are just high level commoners when they run out of spells or don't cast spell in an "encounter". This causes a wizard to beg for rest w
There seems to be a lot of talk about "mandatory" game elements, but given the promise that we will see a "modular" system, I don't think you will see too much of that outside the most core aspects of the game. For me the deal-breakers would be the lack of certain options:
No module for a more defined/fleshed out skill system. The default we see in the playtest is annoying for me and my group, we would prefer more direction on what the skills actually do (though the freedom of using different ability scores can stay).
Tactical Combat and Combat maneuvers modules NOT in core rules. It had been stated time and again that these modules are on the way, and assuming they don't suck, the deal-breaker would be if they aren't in the first set of core books. I don't want to have to buy a separate book or (more importantly) wait several months to play the way I want.
Unbalanced Classes. One thing that stood out for my group in the playtest is how uneven the classes are. The fighter is a major (if boring) powerhouse. The wizard can turn a tough fight to a cakewalk with one well-placed spell. The rogue struggles to be effective in combat every round, but steals the show in exploration. The clerics just hang back, shut up, and try not to get in the way until their healbot services are required. I suppose I can acknowledge that for some folks that feels like D&D, so I guess I'm saying I have a deal-breaker if there is no simple and easy option to make all the classes balanced and effective in all modes of play.
Oversimplified monsters with nothing interesting to do. We know the monsters we've seen so far are very early versions, but this is one area where I feel rule modules are not appropriate. I cannot see a monster rule module that fundamentally changes a monsters capabilities, so the version that appear in the Monster Manual are likely what everyone will use. If these don't see significant improvement, I don't see how the game will appeal to me.
Bloat Potential. This one is a little trickier. There is going to be bloat, there always is. But the sheer volume of feats and powers in 4E is ridiculous. I would rather see quality over quantity. From what we've seen so far it looks like open-ended skills/background would be the next candidate for bloat. I want the themes, backgrounds, skills, feats, etc. that we see in the core rules to be mostly complete, or at least feel like there are no obvious holes. That way only meaningful and logical additions appear in future books.
Shardminds. There I said it. This is the one place I feel I can be unilateral. The existence of the shardmind as an option for anyone to play simply should not be.
There seems to be a lot of talk about "mandatory" game elements, but given the promise that we will see a "modular" system, I don't think you will see too much of that outside the most core aspects of the game. For me the deal-breakers would be the
6. Shardminds. There I said it. This is the one place I feel I can be unilateral. The existence of the shardmind as an option for anyone to play simply should not be.
I don't understand that one. I think they are cool. Why the hate? Why do you hate them so much that you feel no one should have them as an option?
I don't understand that one. I think they are cool. Why the hate? Why do you hate them so much that you feel no one should have them as an option?
Bloat Potential. This one is a little trickier. There is going to be bloat, there always is. But the sheer volume of feats and powers in 4E is ridiculous. I would rather see quality over quantity. From what we've seen so far it looks like open-ended skills/background would be the next candidate for bloat. I want the themes, backgrounds, skills, feats, etc. that we see in the core rules to be mostly complete, or at least feel like there are no obvious holes. That way only meaningful and logical additions appear in future books.
Well, I think the biggest problem with this kind of bloat is how generic it ended up being. Adding more and more powers and feats to 4e that could be taken by a given class at every level was bad and easily could lead to analysis paralysis. However, the later books have shown how these things can be streamlined very effectively. The new mage, hexblade, and war priest options presented in the various Heroes of X books shows how if the class contains a large section that is essentially one module, you can swap in a fairly large number of modules.
You can set it up so that players could still retain choices within that module (say between two powers at every level they would gain a power), or the class has things beyond what is in that module (such as the Slayer can still choose Fighter utility powers and feats from a large list of such things even if his other power are defined by his starting weaopn choice). In this way you can present large numbers of individual powers, feat chains, etc, with a much smaller number of decision points. Another example would be if I don't want to take the Elemental Heritage feat, than I don't have to read the 10+ feats that use it as a pre-requisite.
Well, I think the biggest problem with this kind of bloat is how generic it ended up being. Adding more and more powers and feats to 4e that could be taken by a given class at every level was bad and easily could lead to analysis paralysis. However,
Things that might be a deal breaker for me running a 5th edition game are fewer now than when I started play-testing this. I'm going to buy all this material and run a 5th edition game anyway with my own house rules or the agreed upon rules of my party. Things that I will create house rules for.
1.) rolling for hit points. There is going to be some kind of minimum hit point earning in my game. I don't want characters who are too weak. I can't design a good game with weak characters.
2.) automatic hits, damage or half damage. Not even from spells. A hit is a hit and a miss is a miss. I won't run a game with it. I'm stubbornly set on this.
3.) chacter progression, I've been talked out of needing a toHit bonus when leveling up but I want a compromise of some kind. Giving characters a +1 to an ability every level with a natural cap of 20 for humanoids will satisfy me. I want to see character progression of some kind. I'm not keen on increasing damage dice either -- but increasing standard actions every 5 levels has potential.
4.) never liked Vancian, never understood it, every character casts a known spell when needed during their turn -- no fuss. That house rule won't change and all players at my table love it.
5.) if there are redundant powers that do the same thing or powers that nobody wants because they have no combat applications, that is going to be a problem. A big problem with the previous editions is just how cluttered and difficult to choose the powers are. I want to see powers organized by what they do and given class levels based on how much damage they do in a fight. No repeat powers. No powers that are too similar just to try to sell more books.
6.) if combat rounds go too slow, I'll have to either lower monster hit points or raise character's damage. Most of us don't want combat over 5 rounds. Some of the people on various forums do. D&D is more than combat. Rounds should be kept down. That is why I'm pushing the idea of having one more standard action per turn every 5 levels. Monsters already get 2 attacks in many cases so why not characters too?
Things that might be a deal breaker for me running a 5th edition game are fewer now than when I started play-testing this.I'm going to buy all this material and run a 5th edition game anyway with my own house rules or the agreed upon rules of my part
I find it interesting that people have a problem with Vanican magic, yet they don't have a problem with Dailies? What exactly is the difference here?
I wonder the same thing. As long as casters are not overpowered at higher levels and fighters aren't always boring infinite damage dealers, I really don't see where the problem is.
I wonder the same thing. As long as casters are not overpowered at higher levels and fighters aren't always boring infinite damage dealers, I really don't see where the problem is.
What's going to be the dealbreaker for me is whether or not the grid-based rules are presented alongside "theater of the mind" distance-based rules: and no, I don't mean as a module. Either they are BOTH in the books or I'm not buying. Ditto goes for Vancian casting vs at-will/encounter/daily casting.
"Modules" has so far been the buzzword for this edition, which is an interesting idea, but if I'm going to be expected to shell out more money just so someone can translate feet into squares for me or I can play my preferred casting method, I'm not going to change editions. Simple as that.
What's going to be the dealbreaker for me is whether or not the grid-based rules are presented alongside "theater of the mind" distance-based rules: and no, I don't mean as a module. Either they are BOTH in the books or I'm not buying. Ditto goes fo
So far...almost everything shown on the playtest and all the previews are dealbreakers for me to keep me from buying...or even playing D&D, from the game design point of view...it looks terrible, and i don't care for nostalgia/tradition of older editions used to be like that. I wanted to see new stuff into D&D for D&DNext, instead of the return of old stuff and the newer stuff being gone.
So far...almost everything shown on the playtest and all the previews are dealbreakers for me to keep me from buying...or even playing D&D, from the game design point of view...it looks terrible, and i don't care for nostalgia/tradition of older edi
1.) rolling for hit points. There is going to be some kind of minimum hit point earning in my game. I don't want characters who are too weak. I can't design a good game with weak characters.
Just asking, why is it impossible to houserule? It's actualy one of the most easy, if not the single most easy, houserule in all the game. Or what if you are given both options, one you roll one you don't?
Just asking, why is it impossible to houserule? It's actualy one of the most easy, if not the single most easy, houserule in all the game. Or what if you are given both options, one you roll one you don't?
So far...almost everything shown on the playtest and all the previews are dealbreakers for me to keep me from buying...or even playing D&D, from the game design point of view...it looks terrible, and i don't care for nostalgia/tradition of older editions used to be like that. I wanted to see new stuff into D&D for D&DNext, instead of the return of old stuff and the newer stuff being gone.
Yeah, so far everything in the playtest has turned me off 5e. Our group will probably either stay with 4e or pathfinder of switch to 13th age: www.enworld.org/forum/news/324950-13th-a...
Yeah, so far everything in the playtest has turned me off 5e. Our group will probably either stay with 4e or pathfinder of switch to 13th age: www.enworld.org/forum/news/324950-13th-a...
I find it interesting that people have a problem with Vanican magic, yet they don't have a problem with Dailies? What exactly is the difference here?
I wonder the same thing. As long as casters are not overpowered at higher levels and fighters aren't always boring infinite damage dealers, I really don't see where the problem is.
People associate Vancian with overpowered because it presents a huge list of options for wizard that are customizable to the situation. The spell slot growth meant that wizards got piles of utility spells and could still remain more than viable in combat.
Vancian magic drives the resting motivation of the party. If there are encoutners/dailies, then every character is on the same schedule (and I found that resting was driven by healing surges, which felt more genuine to me, rather than driven by when the wizard needs to recharge).
I don't think any of us who weren't fans of 3e magic would believe that Vancian magic with spell slots will be kept under control. The potential for bloat is just too strong (one of the easiest and most fun things to add to D&D is more spells).
I wonder the same thing. As long as casters are not overpowered at higher levels and fighters aren't always boring infinite damage dealers, I really don't see where the problem is.[/quote]People associate Vancian with overpowered because it presents
Wasn't the real issue with 3E wizards that they had scrolls for everything? Just knowing every spell in the book meant you could solve the problem tomorrow. Maybe it was a regional playstyle preference...
My personal issue with Vancian spellcasting is that it requires you to predict everything you'll need ahead of time, and then makes your Int 18 Wizard or Wis 18 Cleric look like a fool for preparing the wrong spells.
Wasn't the real issue with 3E wizards that they had scrolls for everything? Just knowing every spell in the book meant you could solve the problem tomorrow. Maybe it was a regional playstyle preference...My personal issue with Vancian spellcasting
So far...almost everything shown on the playtest and all the previews are dealbreakers for me to keep me from buying...or even playing D&D, from the game design point of view...it looks terrible, and i don't care for nostalgia/tradition of older editions used to be like that. I wanted to see new stuff into D&D for D&DNext, instead of the return of old stuff and the newer stuff being gone.
Yeah, so far everything in the playtest has turned me off 5e. Our group will probably either stay with 4e or pathfinder of switch to 13th age: www.enworld.org/forum/news/324950-13th-a...
A very useful review. Of course, it likely means I will waste no time on looking into 13th age, but still useful.
Yeah, so far everything in the playtest has turned me off 5e. Our group will probably either stay with 4e or pathfinder of switch to 13th age: www.enworld.org/forum/news/324950-13th-a...[/quote] A very useful review. Of course, it likely means
A core fighter format that reflects the erroneous belief that casters in previous editions obseleted melee characters will break the deal for me.
Also, making the core game too easy or nonswingy.
Not making death semi-permanent and painful.
Lack of mounted combat/mount-heavy classes.
Art that doesn't reflect a style I like.
A core fighter format that reflects the erroneous belief that casters in previous editions obseleted melee characters will break the deal for me. Also, making the core game too easy or nonswingy.Not making death semi-permanent and painful. Lack of m
Wasn't the real issue with 3E wizards that they had scrolls for everything? Just knowing every spell in the book meant you could solve the problem tomorrow. Maybe it was a regional playstyle preference...
I'm beginning to think it is a regional playstyle preference. I've never seen it anywhere but on internet forums, for instance.
I'm beginning to think it is a regional playstyle preference. I've never seen it anywhere but on internet forums, for instance.
The deal-breaker for me would be if I couldn't find anyone to play it with. Currently, there are these great organized-play events. I can just show up and play Encounters or Game Day or Lair Assault. If D&D:Next apeals only to the customized home campaign, I wouldn't buy it simply because I wouldn't have the opportunity to play it.
The deal-breaker for me would be if I couldn't find anyone to play it with. Currently, there are these great organized-play events. I can just show up and play Encounters or Game Day or Lair Assault. If D&D:Next apeals only to the customized home
Wasn't the real issue with 3E wizards that they had scrolls for everything? Just knowing every spell in the book meant you could solve the problem tomorrow. Maybe it was a regional playstyle preference...
My personal issue with Vancian spellcasting is that it requires you to predict everything you'll need ahead of time, and then makes your Int 18 Wizard or Wis 18 Cleric look like a fool for preparing the wrong spells.
and it incentivises the DM to make them look like a fool by creating adventures that negate the "I win" spells.
Want to teleport? sorry, walls are lined with magic anti teleporting juice (or lead, or whatever). So now you just wasted a spell slot on teleport. It can become a game of rock paper scissors between DM and player, that is designed to artifically decrease caster power.
Just decreases the options to begin with and you don't place this burden on the DM and you get to the same endpoint without the player feeling like the DM is just trying to spite him.
Vancian isn't really about the daily mechanic, at least not for me.
and it incentivises the DM to make them look like a fool by creating adventures that negate the "I win" spells. Want to teleport? sorry, walls are lined with magic anti teleporting juice (or lead, or whatever). So now you just wasted a spell slot o
The problem isn't that Vancian magic exists. Or that Teleport exists. It's that if you allow wizards to choose the spells they know at will, every fricking mage in the entire world has the teleport spell. And further, that you change the teleport spell so that it's entirely reliable - why wouldn't you use it? Why wouldn't every mage use it?
In AD&D, you have a small chance of ever finding the teleport spell, assuming the DM allows it in his campaign at all. The AD&D PHB has no 'Teleport without Error'. Remote viewing of any kind is insufficient to to grant the 'very familiar' category - you have to actually see it with your own eyes, in person, no intermediary, to gain that. Otherwise, you're looking at at least a 6% chance of error. And errors can be quite, quite bad. (it took 8 years, twice the lifespan of 4E, for a 'Teleport without Error' to appear in Unearthed Arcana, along with a lot of other really silly stuff)
So there's really three choices that have been made with this spell.
TSR: Allow the spell - it's rare, not every mage has it and mages who have it while simultaneously having scrying ability are vanishingly rare, and it's dangerous - it's a tough choice to use it or not, you have to balance risk vs. reward.
3E: Or you get rid of choice altogether. Every mage has it, and it's perfectly reliable. Also, every mage has scrying. DM is screwed.
4E: Or, you get lazy, throw up your hands, and just pretend the spell doesn't exist. Toss out some rituals that kind of do what it did as a feeble appeasement.
@GEBELL:The problem isn't that Vancian magic exists. Or that Teleport exists. It's that if you allow wizards to choose the spells they know at will, every fricking mage in the entire world has the teleport spell. And further, that you change the tele
I would much rather see a monster designed like this: "These guys are really fast, so their dexterity should be 17. They're also really dumb, so we'll give them a 6 intelligence. Lacking both natural armor and the intelligence to make use of fashioned armor, their AC will be 13, accounting for their +3 dexterity modifier. They don't hit very hard, so they'll do 1d4 damage with their +0 strength modifier; however, they can secrete venom from their claws when threatened, so we'll add this effect which does a lot more damage and can paralyze a player temporarily if they fail a constitution save. Their attack bonus will be their dexterity modifier plus two for being proficient with their natural weaponry, so +5. They are pretty frail creatures with a constitution of only 8, and would most likely be taken out with a few good hits from among even the least skilled of adventurers, so we'll give them about 11 hit points. Okay, let's test this guy out and see how much experience he should be worth."
I undersand what you are saying in that you want monsters to be created organically rather than as a simple excercise in plugging a numbers forumla based on monster level and monster role (as it appeared to be in 4e), but I don't really see how the presentation to players would be any different unless you expect me as the DM to figure out how to use the monster against the party (ie. calculate my own XP value and monster level for it). I've played in games like that, where you can never really be sure if the monsters the party are about to attack will be too strong or not, and I don't want D&D to go there.
A system based around general forumlas creates generally predictable results, which is what I, as the DM, want. If I want a group of monsters to be challenging, I use ones above their level OR ones that have special abilities that work against the party's weaknesses (or both). If I want a group of monsters that are easy to defeat, I use ones below their level OR ones that play into their strengths (or both). If I want to create my own monsters and my party is running around at level 7, I want guidelines to help me figure out how much damage they should do without having to read through a ton of level 7 monsters to work it out for myself or find the average damage my characters can inflict.
I guess my biggest problem with your example is that you used gut feelings to work out a monster at the level you already wanted it to play at (obviously a low level since it only has 11 hit points). If you do that enough times, you'll give yourself guidelines on how much damage a monster at level X should be able to inflict and take. Once you have such guidelines you are basically at the same place that 4e started you at.
Regarding the 'calculate my own XP value' comment: The last line I said, "Okay, let's test this guy out and see how much experience he should be worth," was meant to be the designer's words. What I mean is that the game designers would come up with the numbers based on what makes sense for that creature, then playtest him against a wide range of different level parties to determine how much XP the monster should be worth. I have nothing against giving the creature a level either. I have nothing against being able to build XP budget-based encounters either. I just don't want monsters to be shoe-horned into filling in various slots in the sliding scale of one-to-twenty and minion-to-solo, and ending up with near-identical and mostly arbitrary stats because of this.
About not knowing if monsters will be too strong: The monsters will have an XP value as an indicator of how strong they are. Perhaps a level as well. They would certainly be balanced enough that if a certain monster happened to be particularly effective against a certain class or party makeup, the players would be able to realize that in time to either come up with counter measures to neutralize that advantage or retreat.
As for the 'gut feelings' remark: I didn't go with a gut feeling on that. Not in a level-based way anyway. I just decided that the creature is pretty frail and should only be able to stand up to one solid hit or maybe two glancing blows from a regular person who knows how to use a weapon.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I mean is I don't want to see a monster designed like this: "He's level 5, so his AC should be 19. This will allow the players to hit him on an 8 or above, assuming starting ability scores of 18 and the +1 magic weapons they should have found by now. And his attack bonus should be +X because the players' average AC will be Y. And he should deal this much damage at-will and this much with his encounter attack so that the party's healer will have to use the amount of per-encounter heals he has at this level. And we'll give him this many hit points so that by the time the party has beaten him, they will have expended an amount of their daily resources which will allow them to participate in three more combats before resting to regain their powers in preparation for the four encounters they will face tomorrow."
I'd like to see a hybrid of the two.
Your method where 'cool' beats 'mechanically sound' will end with many TPKs and rage quits...
Why would it end with TPKs and rage quits? The creatures would still have an XP value and probably a level to let DMs build balanced encounters. It's not like the designers would just say, "Here's a bunch of creatures that are built in a more realistic manner, good luck!" And it's not like a party would start fighting a battle, realize they are outmatched and keep fighting until everyone dies. I mean I hope they wouldn't. You can always run away. If you see some owlbears in the forest and you know they would destroy you, you don't have to go pick a fight with them. But you could know there are owlbears in the forest, set a bunch of traps in the fields nearby, hire a bunch of soldiers with bows to sit in the treetops and lure the owlbears out into a planned massacre.
What you're talking about is precisely the problem I have with the 4e mindset. It's that logic that every monster the party encounter can be beaten using nothing more than what's on their character sheets right now. If you're 5th level and encounter a dragon, you don't hesitate to run into the fray because you know that dragon is a 5th level solo that you will absolutely beat without losing a single party member. There is no thinking involved; it's just video game logic. It's like the whole D&D world is Final Fantasy, where all random encounters and boss fights are arbitrarily tuned to allow you to win no matter where you are and when you are there.
And it takes away from the game in a huge way, because if there is never the threat of death, or even losing a fight, then winning a fight becomes expected. And never losing takes away the joy of winning. And never encountering something challenging on a "we'll probably die if we do this" level means you never have to think about anything except in which order to use your encounter powers. And taking away the idea of simply not knowing if a fight is going to be easy or suicide means the PCs are never afraid of anything. In 4e you know you are going to live forever because the challenge system is designed so that a 1st level party of adventurers has a 99% chance of living to be a party of retired 30th level demigods.
It really feels like a pathetic achievement after you've done that a few times. You can't even feel good about going from peasant to demigod because you know the odds were completely in your favor the whole time. There was never a doubt about it from day one. If we have to have the occasional TPK to get rid of that mode of playing, I'm fine with it. And if someone rage quits over not having their hand held along the way on their casual stroll into godhood, then I'm fine with people like that not playing D&D. And please don't try to tell me 4e isn't like that. I played and DM'd it for three years, and it is like that. In about 150 weekly gaming sessions, each one six to eight hours long, we only had three PCs die. One was due to not knowing the rules well enough when we first started; another was because of a marilith getting six natural twenties on one turn of attacks; and the last was because we had a campaign in which one of the players turned out to be the mastermind behind the evil plot that drove the entire campaign (I was the DM and we planned this together from 1st level to 30th when it was revealed). So really, we had one true PC death in three years.
The point is, if you're not willing to die for what you want out of adventuring, then you're not a hero. And if you risk nothing, you should be rewarded nothing. I want a D&D Next that appropriately rewards heroes who seek a challenge; not one that appropriately challenges heroes who seek a reward.
I undersand what you are saying in that you want monsters to be created organically rather than as a simple excercise in plugging a numbers forumla based on monster level and monster role (as it appeared to be in 4e), but I don't really see how the p
Gazra, I like the jab of your cot. The cat of your job. The cob of your jot? Something like that.
Don't think I haven't noticed you around here making posts in a manner that would suggest you ripped unformed thoughts directly from my skull and molded them into concise, effective statements. I've been admiring the job of your cot for many fork nights. Strike that and let the record show that I have admired the corn of your cob for a time hence to forth undetermined. I think I've made myself perfectly redundant.
Don't think I haven't noticed you around here making posts in a manner that would suggest you ripped unformed thoughts directly from my skull and molded them into concise, effective statements. I've been admiring the job of your cot for many fork nig
What's going to be the dealbreaker for me is whether or not the grid-based rules are presented alongside "theater of the mind" distance-based rules: and no, I don't mean as a module. Either they are BOTH in the books or I'm not buying. Ditto goes for Vancian casting vs at-will/encounter/daily casting.
"Modules" has so far been the buzzword for this edition, which is an interesting idea, but if I'm going to be expected to shell out more money just so someone can translate feet into squares for me or I can play my preferred casting method, I'm not going to change editions. Simple as that.
being in an optional module does not mean its not going to be in the core books...
being in an optional module does not mean its not going to be in the core books...
1.) rolling for hit points. There is going to be some kind of minimum hit point earning in my game. I don't want characters who are too weak. I can't design a good game with weak characters.
Just asking, why is it impossible to houserule? It's actualy one of the most easy, if not the single most easy, houserule in all the game. Or what if you are given both options, one you roll one you don't?
If you house rule it you can make encounters too easy or too hard...
Just asking, why is it impossible to houserule? It's actualy one of the most easy, if not the single most easy, houserule in all the game. Or what if you are given both options, one you roll one you don't?[/quote]If you house rule it you can make enc
Race restricted feats (sell themes however you want, they are just feats).
Balancing classes through "Class Features" disguised as magic items.
Lacking intelligent/charismatic classes that do not specialize in magic.
Caster superiority.
The play test fighter as the only option.
Fighters getting More feats...um themes as their only option.
Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Clerics getting 90% of the suppliment support compared to other classes.
Dwarf/Elves getting 99% of the suppliment support compared to other races.
Deal Breakers: Race restricted feats (sell themes however you want, they are just feats). Balancing classes through "Class Features" disguised as magic items. Lacking intelligent/charismatic classes that do not specialize in magic. Caster superiorit
I would much rather see a monster designed like this: "These guys are really fast, so their dexterity should be 17. They're also really dumb, so we'll give them a 6 intelligence. Lacking both natural armor and the intelligence to make use of fashioned armor, their AC will be 13, accounting for their +3 dexterity modifier. They don't hit very hard, so they'll do 1d4 damage with their +0 strength modifier; however, they can secrete venom from their claws when threatened, so we'll add this effect which does a lot more damage and can paralyze a player temporarily if they fail a constitution save. Their attack bonus will be their dexterity modifier plus two for being proficient with their natural weaponry, so +5. They are pretty frail creatures with a constitution of only 8, and would most likely be taken out with a few good hits from among even the least skilled of adventurers, so we'll give them about 11 hit points. Okay, let's test this guy out and see how much experience he should be worth."
I undersand what you are saying in that you want monsters to be created organically rather than as a simple excercise in plugging a numbers forumla based on monster level and monster role (as it appeared to be in 4e), but I don't really see how the presentation to players would be any different unless you expect me as the DM to figure out how to use the monster against the party (ie. calculate my own XP value and monster level for it). I've played in games like that, where you can never really be sure if the monsters the party are about to attack will be too strong or not, and I don't want D&D to go there.
A system based around general forumlas creates generally predictable results, which is what I, as the DM, want. If I want a group of monsters to be challenging, I use ones above their level OR ones that have special abilities that work against the party's weaknesses (or both). If I want a group of monsters that are easy to defeat, I use ones below their level OR ones that play into their strengths (or both). If I want to create my own monsters and my party is running around at level 7, I want guidelines to help me figure out how much damage they should do without having to read through a ton of level 7 monsters to work it out for myself or find the average damage my characters can inflict.
I guess my biggest problem with your example is that you used gut feelings to work out a monster at the level you already wanted it to play at (obviously a low level since it only has 11 hit points). If you do that enough times, you'll give yourself guidelines on how much damage a monster at level X should be able to inflict and take. Once you have such guidelines you are basically at the same place that 4e started you at.
Regarding the 'calculate my own XP value' comment: The last line I said, "Okay, let's test this guy out and see how much experience he should be worth," was meant to be the designer's words. What I mean is that the game designers would come up with the numbers based on what makes sense for that creature, then playtest him against a wide range of different level parties to determine how much XP the monster should be worth. I have nothing against giving the creature a level either. I have nothing against being able to build XP budget-based encounters either. I just don't want monsters to be shoe-horned into filling in various slots in the sliding scale of one-to-twenty and minion-to-solo, and ending up with near-identical and mostly arbitrary stats because of this.
About not knowing if monsters will be too strong: The monsters will have an XP value as an indicator of how strong they are. Perhaps a level as well. They would certainly be balanced enough that if a certain monster happened to be particularly effective against a certain class or party makeup, the players would be able to realize that in time to either come up with counter measures to neutralize that advantage or retreat.
As for the 'gut feelings' remark: I didn't go with a gut feeling on that. Not in a level-based way anyway. I just decided that the creature is pretty frail and should only be able to stand up to one solid hit or maybe two glancing blows from a regular person who knows how to use a weapon.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I mean is I don't want to see a monster designed like this: "He's level 5, so his AC should be 19. This will allow the players to hit him on an 8 or above, assuming starting ability scores of 18 and the +1 magic weapons they should have found by now. And his attack bonus should be +X because the players' average AC will be Y. And he should deal this much damage at-will and this much with his encounter attack so that the party's healer will have to use the amount of per-encounter heals he has at this level. And we'll give him this many hit points so that by the time the party has beaten him, they will have expended an amount of their daily resources which will allow them to participate in three more combats before resting to regain their powers in preparation for the four encounters they will face tomorrow."
I'd like to see a hybrid of the two.
Your method where 'cool' beats 'mechanically sound' will end with many TPKs and rage quits...
Why would it end with TPKs and rage quits? The creatures would still have an XP value and probably a level to let DMs build balanced encounters. It's not like the designers would just say, "Here's a bunch of creatures that are built in a more realistic manner, good luck!" And it's not like a party would start fighting a battle, realize they are outmatched and keep fighting until everyone dies. I mean I hope they wouldn't. You can always run away. If you see some owlbears in the forest and you know they would destroy you, you don't have to go pick a fight with them. But you could know there are owlbears in the forest, set a bunch of traps in the fields nearby, hire a bunch of soldiers with bows to sit in the treetops and lure the owlbears out into a planned massacre.
What you're talking about is precisely the problem I have with the 4e mindset. It's that logic that every monster the party encounter can be beaten using nothing more than what's on their character sheets right now. If you're 5th level and encounter a dragon, you don't hesitate to run into the fray because you know that dragon is a 5th level solo that you will absolutely beat without losing a single party member. There is no thinking involved; it's just video game logic. It's like the whole D&D world is Final Fantasy, where all random encounters and boss fights are arbitrarily tuned to allow you to win no matter where you are and when you are there.
And it takes away from the game in a huge way, because if there is never the threat of death, or even losing a fight, then winning a fight becomes expected. And never losing takes away the joy of winning. And never encountering something challenging on a "we'll probably die if we do this" level means you never have to think about anything except in which order to use your encounter powers. And taking away the idea of simply not knowing if a fight is going to be easy or suicide means the PCs are never afraid of anything. In 4e you know you are going to live forever because the challenge system is designed so that a 1st level party of adventurers has a 99% chance of living to be a party of retired 30th level demigods.
It really feels like a pathetic achievement after you've done that a few times. You can't even feel good about going from peasant to demigod because you know the odds were completely in your favor the whole time. There was never a doubt about it from day one. If we have to have the occasional TPK to get rid of that mode of playing, I'm fine with it. And if someone rage quits over not having their hand held along the way on their casual stroll into godhood, then I'm fine with people like that not playing D&D. And please don't try to tell me 4e isn't like that. I played and DM'd it for three years, and it is like that. In about 150 weekly gaming sessions, each one six to eight hours long, we only had three PCs die. One was due to not knowing the rules well enough when we first started; another was because of a marilith getting six natural twenties on one turn of attacks; and the last was because we had a campaign in which one of the players turned out to be the mastermind behind the evil plot that drove the entire campaign (I was the DM and we planned this together from 1st level to 30th when it was revealed). So really, we had one true PC death in three years.
The point is, if you're not willing to die for what you want out of adventuring, then you're not a hero. And if you risk nothing, you should be rewarded nothing. I want a D&D Next that appropriately rewards heroes who seek a challenge; not one that appropriately challenges heroes who seek a reward.
If you want to threaten a group just use higher level monsters.
We want balance so we don't accidentally TPK a party because the xp chart said it should be ok, but wasn't.
Take the recent Hook Horror. It purports to be a level 5-7 creature, but the damage it can deal in 2-3 rounds is enough to kill the fighter at level 7. Because of its damage it appears to be a level 10+ creature.
I undersand what you are saying in that you want monsters to be created organically rather than as a simple excercise in plugging a numbers forumla based on monster level and monster role (as it appeared to be in 4e), but I don't really see how the p
What's going to be the dealbreaker for me is whether or not the grid-based rules are presented alongside "theater of the mind" distance-based rules: and no, I don't mean as a module. Either they are BOTH in the books or I'm not buying. Ditto goes for Vancian casting vs at-will/encounter/daily casting.
"Modules" has so far been the buzzword for this edition, which is an interesting idea, but if I'm going to be expected to shell out more money just so someone can translate feet into squares for me or I can play my preferred casting method, I'm not going to change editions. Simple as that.
So far...almost everything shown on the playtest and all the previews are dealbreakers for me to keep me from buying...or even playing D&D, from the game design point of view...it looks terrible, and i don't care for nostalgia/tradition of older editions used to be like that. I wanted to see new stuff into D&D for D&DNext, instead of the return of old stuff and the newer stuff being gone.
Yeah, so far everything in the playtest has turned me off 5e. Our group will probably either stay with 4e or pathfinder of switch to 13th age: www.enworld.org/forum/news/324950-13th-a...
I was about 13th age until I found out there was no tactical map play just more ToTM.
I wholehardly agreeYeah, so far everything in the playtest has turned me off 5e. Our group will probably either stay with 4e or pathfinder of switch to 13th age: www.enworld.org/forum/news/324950-13th-a...[/quote]I was about 13th age until I found ou
Deal breakers for me, the things I do not want to see in D&D Next:
1. Classes are over-powered / under-powered.
I really do not want to see classes that basically can do anything. I also do not want to see classes that are basically walking regenerating tactical nuclear weapons. What I mean that to harm one, you will have to use such powers that would outright kill the rest of the group. Or that the amount of damage they would do is more than the rest of the group combined.
Over-powered also in the sense of being thrown naked into the wilderness. If your fighter is still trying to figure out fire, while the wizard teleports home, that's over-powered.
Under-powered is a place holder character, someone who cannot survive an encounter without having other characters around. In 4e, as a rogue fighting toe-to-toe with a monster is usually a death sentence.
2. Character creation has to be planned out from level 1
What really annoye me in D&D 3.0 was that you really had to plan out your character from level 1 to level 10 to get any power out of the character. This meant you had to have a cha on th forums to come up with an "optimized character plan".
3. Backgrounds and descriptions have no balls.
Backgrounds and description are for me what make a roleplaying game different from playing a board game (like 4e vs Legend of Drizzt). A class is playable not only mechanically, but because there is a story to the character.
A bad example of this is in Heroes of Shadow (4e), where you can take the shade feat and become a true creature of shadow or a guy with a coincidental shade feat.
If backgrounds and descriptions are not interesting and tie-in with the wisps of a meta-story (a story which is not linked to any world, but could exist in any), then they are just a size 0 dress on a coat hanger.
4. The great supported campaign setting does not bring in anything new and refers back to older out of print books.
Forgotten Realms Campain Guide for 4e is vague with references to stuff not covered in the book. It was so thin on the world outside of quick brush strokes, that it was ultimately useless.
The world has to bring in new things and also inspire new players and GMs to campaign in it. There has to be something vastly interesting in the game, that a player will pick up the book read it cover to cover and demand that the DM run the next session in it.
AD&D's Forgotten Realms, D&D 3.0's Eberron all have this ability of inspiring players and DMs alike.
Most of my big deal breakers.
-Chrysalis
Deal breakers for me, the things I do not want to see in D&D Next: 1. Classes are over-powered / under-powered. I really do not want to see classes that basically can do anything. I also do not want to see classes that are basically walking regenerat
I find it interesting that people have a problem with Vanican magic, yet they don't have a problem with Dailies? What exactly is the difference here?
Daily powers are just that, an ability that's useable 1/day. That's it, no additional baggage.
There's a lot more to 'Vancian.' For starters, the rationale for 1/day spells is that you 'memorize' the spell in the morning and 'forget' it upon casting. That's always put some folks off it. Then there's the mechanics of it. A 1st level caster gets only 1 spell, as 2nd, 2 a 3rd, 3... but the number of spells ballons from there, 6 at 5th 9 at 6th, etc.... very high level casters could have so many spells that they litterally didn't have time to memorize them all in a 24-hour period. Then there's the progression in terms of power, with each character level, spells gained in power, and you gained more spells, and you gained new spell levels that were superior to lower level spells, and that also gained power as you leveled. Then there's the spells, themselves, which varied wildly in aplication and power. Some were rarely-used 'utility' spells, others background spells that you used only to do very specific things durring 'down time,' (like make a magic item or ward your stronghold), others powerful combat spells. Some dropped off in usefulness as you leveled, others grew with you.
Of course, that's in the sense of 'Vancian' as 'classic 0/A/BECMI D&D spell casting system as opposed to 'Vancian' in the sense of 'magic in Jack Vance's Dying Earth series.' Vancian magic in the litterary sense would encompass 'memorization,' have casters unable to memorize more than half a dozen spells or so at the very most, have only two 'levels' of spells (greater and lesser), and be tied to a far-futer Earth sci-fi setting, among other things that would differentiate it from the D&D sense.
Someone who dislikes 'Vancian' could have something against any or all of the above.
Daily powers are just that, an ability that's useable 1/day. That's it, no additional baggage.There's a lot more to 'Vancian.' For starters, the rationale for 1/day spells is that you 'memorize' the spell in the morning and 'forget' it upon casting
If the books were printed on runny cheese I wouldn't buy them. That's about all that will stop me from purchasing a new set of core rules whenever one is released.
If the books were printed on runny cheese I wouldn't buy them. That's about all that will stop me from purchasing a new set of core rules whenever one is released.
I would much rather see a monster designed like this: "These guys are really fast, so their dexterity should be 17. They're also really dumb, so we'll give them a 6 intelligence. Lacking both natural armor and the intelligence to make use of fashioned armor, their AC will be 13, accounting for their +3 dexterity modifier. They don't hit very hard, so they'll do 1d4 damage with their +0 strength modifier; however, they can secrete venom from their claws when threatened, so we'll add this effect which does a lot more damage and can paralyze a player temporarily if they fail a constitution save. Their attack bonus will be their dexterity modifier plus two for being proficient with their natural weaponry, so +5. They are pretty frail creatures with a constitution of only 8, and would most likely be taken out with a few good hits from among even the least skilled of adventurers, so we'll give them about 11 hit points. Okay, let's test this guy out and see how much experience he should be worth."
I undersand what you are saying in that you want monsters to be created organically rather than as a simple excercise in plugging a numbers forumla based on monster level and monster role (as it appeared to be in 4e), but I don't really see how the presentation to players would be any different unless you expect me as the DM to figure out how to use the monster against the party (ie. calculate my own XP value and monster level for it). I've played in games like that, where you can never really be sure if the monsters the party are about to attack will be too strong or not, and I don't want D&D to go there.
A system based around general forumlas creates generally predictable results, which is what I, as the DM, want. If I want a group of monsters to be challenging, I use ones above their level OR ones that have special abilities that work against the party's weaknesses (or both). If I want a group of monsters that are easy to defeat, I use ones below their level OR ones that play into their strengths (or both). If I want to create my own monsters and my party is running around at level 7, I want guidelines to help me figure out how much damage they should do without having to read through a ton of level 7 monsters to work it out for myself or find the average damage my characters can inflict.
I guess my biggest problem with your example is that you used gut feelings to work out a monster at the level you already wanted it to play at (obviously a low level since it only has 11 hit points). If you do that enough times, you'll give yourself guidelines on how much damage a monster at level X should be able to inflict and take. Once you have such guidelines you are basically at the same place that 4e started you at.
Regarding the 'calculate my own XP value' comment: The last line I said, "Okay, let's test this guy out and see how much experience he should be worth," was meant to be the designer's words. What I mean is that the game designers would come up with the numbers based on what makes sense for that creature, then playtest him against a wide range of different level parties to determine how much XP the monster should be worth. I have nothing against giving the creature a level either. I have nothing against being able to build XP budget-based encounters either. I just don't want monsters to be shoe-horned into filling in various slots in the sliding scale of one-to-twenty and minion-to-solo, and ending up with near-identical and mostly arbitrary stats because of this.
About not knowing if monsters will be too strong: The monsters will have an XP value as an indicator of how strong they are. Perhaps a level as well. They would certainly be balanced enough that if a certain monster happened to be particularly effective against a certain class or party makeup, the players would be able to realize that in time to either come up with counter measures to neutralize that advantage or retreat.
As for the 'gut feelings' remark: I didn't go with a gut feeling on that. Not in a level-based way anyway. I just decided that the creature is pretty frail and should only be able to stand up to one solid hit or maybe two glancing blows from a regular person who knows how to use a weapon.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I mean is I don't want to see a monster designed like this: "He's level 5, so his AC should be 19. This will allow the players to hit him on an 8 or above, assuming starting ability scores of 18 and the +1 magic weapons they should have found by now. And his attack bonus should be +X because the players' average AC will be Y. And he should deal this much damage at-will and this much with his encounter attack so that the party's healer will have to use the amount of per-encounter heals he has at this level. And we'll give him this many hit points so that by the time the party has beaten him, they will have expended an amount of their daily resources which will allow them to participate in three more combats before resting to regain their powers in preparation for the four encounters they will face tomorrow."
I'd like to see a hybrid of the two.
Your method where 'cool' beats 'mechanically sound' will end with many TPKs and rage quits...
Why would it end with TPKs and rage quits? The creatures would still have an XP value and probably a level to let DMs build balanced encounters. It's not like the designers would just say, "Here's a bunch of creatures that are built in a more realistic manner, good luck!" And it's not like a party would start fighting a battle, realize they are outmatched and keep fighting until everyone dies. I mean I hope they wouldn't. You can always run away. If you see some owlbears in the forest and you know they would destroy you, you don't have to go pick a fight with them. But you could know there are owlbears in the forest, set a bunch of traps in the fields nearby, hire a bunch of soldiers with bows to sit in the treetops and lure the owlbears out into a planned massacre.
What you're talking about is precisely the problem I have with the 4e mindset. It's that logic that every monster the party encounter can be beaten using nothing more than what's on their character sheets right now. If you're 5th level and encounter a dragon, you don't hesitate to run into the fray because you know that dragon is a 5th level solo that you will absolutely beat without losing a single party member. There is no thinking involved; it's just video game logic. It's like the whole D&D world is Final Fantasy, where all random encounters and boss fights are arbitrarily tuned to allow you to win no matter where you are and when you are there.
And it takes away from the game in a huge way, because if there is never the threat of death, or even losing a fight, then winning a fight becomes expected. And never losing takes away the joy of winning. And never encountering something challenging on a "we'll probably die if we do this" level means you never have to think about anything except in which order to use your encounter powers. And taking away the idea of simply not knowing if a fight is going to be easy or suicide means the PCs are never afraid of anything. In 4e you know you are going to live forever because the challenge system is designed so that a 1st level party of adventurers has a 99% chance of living to be a party of retired 30th level demigods.
It really feels like a pathetic achievement after you've done that a few times. You can't even feel good about going from peasant to demigod because you know the odds were completely in your favor the whole time. There was never a doubt about it from day one. If we have to have the occasional TPK to get rid of that mode of playing, I'm fine with it. And if someone rage quits over not having their hand held along the way on their casual stroll into godhood, then I'm fine with people like that not playing D&D. And please don't try to tell me 4e isn't like that. I played and DM'd it for three years, and it is like that. In about 150 weekly gaming sessions, each one six to eight hours long, we only had three PCs die. One was due to not knowing the rules well enough when we first started; another was because of a marilith getting six natural twenties on one turn of attacks; and the last was because we had a campaign in which one of the players turned out to be the mastermind behind the evil plot that drove the entire campaign (I was the DM and we planned this together from 1st level to 30th when it was revealed). So really, we had one true PC death in three years.
The point is, if you're not willing to die for what you want out of adventuring, then you're not a hero. And if you risk nothing, you should be rewarded nothing. I want a D&D Next that appropriately rewards heroes who seek a challenge; not one that appropriately challenges heroes who seek a reward.
If you want to threaten a group just use higher level monsters.
We want balance so we don't accidentally TPK a party because the xp chart said it should be ok, but wasn't.
Take the recent Hook Horror. It purports to be a level 5-7 creature, but the damage it can deal in 2-3 rounds is enough to kill the fighter at level 7. Because of its damage it appears to be a level 10+ creature.
Only if you are dumb enough to close to melee on it and it is actually able to land a hit. Shoot it from range, slow it down, and wreck it from afar. I have no need for a bunch of monsters that can all be beaten by what is commonly referred to as Tank and Spank. More often the monsters should require some kind of strategy to be beaten. Yeah it can deal a bunch of damage, but you can get out of it before it can deal the big damage (a 17 strength means just push yourself of the thing with an action and no check if you want to be nice about it). Meaning the fighter could get hit and impaled (1d10+4) then next turn push himself off the hook and attack the beast (thanks to the level two ability). It also requires the hook horror to hit which if you are playing tactically will be really hard when the hook horror has constant disadvantage to hit you (easy to make this happen on the regular). Basically the damage(which by the way they have admitted may be off) is so high because he will rarely if ever get that second attack off. Is he sort of a hard fight? yeah, if you try to melee him, but you are the same level as him, and it is an iconic monster known for its ferocity.
And don't give me any of this you should be aloud to be terrible at the game and still succeed malarky. Yeah it may take some skill to not die all the time. At it's base this is a game. Sometimes you "lose" the game (I know I just did), and trust me I know I have been angry and/or upset about an immenent character death before. However It's times like that which makes "winning" the game so much better. I put winning and losing in quotes because character death and finishing an encounter are about as close to winning and losing as you can get to in DnD. Even character death is rarely the total end for a D&D character.
Basically anyone that actually knows what the monster is (this is what monster knowledge checks or even freaking wisdom checks in general are for) this is an easy fight because you assault the thing from range. This is also completely ignoring what if any bonuses powers or manuvers may be made available between 3rd and 5th level completely ignoring 7th level because that is way to far out to see.
I undersand what you are saying in that you want monsters to be created organically rather than as a simple excercise in plugging a numbers forumla based on monster level and monster role (as it appeared to be in 4e), but I don't really see how the p
We need to be able to play without figures and grids. The fact that in 4e I have had to translate "squares" to "feet" for all of the campaigns was a serious turn-off for years. What finally brought me back was the chance to playtest Next.
- sG
We need to be able to play without figures and grids. The fact that in 4e I have had to translate "squares" to "feet" for all of the campaigns was a serious turn-off for years. What finally brought me back was the chance to playtest Next.- sG
The problem isn't that Vancian magic exists. Or that Teleport exists. It's that if you allow wizards to choose the spells they know at will, every fricking mage in the entire world has the teleport spell. And further, that you change the teleport spell so that it's entirely reliable - why wouldn't you use it? Why wouldn't every mage use it?
In AD&D, you have a small chance of ever finding the teleport spell, assuming the DM allows it in his campaign at all. The AD&D PHB has no 'Teleport without Error'. Remote viewing of any kind is insufficient to to grant the 'very familiar' category - you have to actually see it with your own eyes, in person, no intermediary, to gain that. Otherwise, you're looking at at least a 6% chance of error. And errors can be quite, quite bad. (it took 8 years, twice the lifespan of 4E, for a 'Teleport without Error' to appear in Unearthed Arcana, along with a lot of other really silly stuff)
So there's really three choices that have been made with this spell.
TSR: Allow the spell - it's rare, not every mage has it and mages who have it while simultaneously having scrying ability are vanishingly rare, and it's dangerous - it's a tough choice to use it or not, you have to balance risk vs. reward.
3E: Or you get rid of choice altogether. Every mage has it, and it's perfectly reliable. Also, every mage has scrying. DM is screwed.
4E: Or, you get lazy, throw up your hands, and just pretend the spell doesn't exist. Toss out some rituals that kind of do what it did as a feeble appeasement.
As far as Teleport goes, I wouldn't midn a combination of TSR and 4th.
You need a clear concise location to teleport to, and it takes a few minutes to go off, so it's not useful for blinking out of combat instantly.
As far as Teleport goes, I wouldn't midn a combination of TSR and 4th.You need a clear concise location to teleport to, and it takes a few minutes to go off, so it's not useful for blinking out of combat instantly.
1. The fighter and rogue being boring and lacking options like they are in the playtest. Unless they are as much fun to play as their 4e counterparts, I will not spend a penny on 5e.
2. Combat being dull and boring like it is now.
3. Rolling for HP.
4. Unbalanced classes.
5. Vancian casters.
6. Boring "sack of HP" monsters like the ones in the playtest.
7. Detect evil or any similar ability.
Deal-breakers for me:1. The fighter and rogue being boring and lacking options like they are in the playtest. Unless they are as much fun to play as their 4e counterparts, I will not spend a penny on 5e.2. Combat being dull and boring like it is now.
1.) rolling for hit points. There is going to be some kind of minimum hit point earning in my game. I don't want characters who are too weak. I can't design a good game with weak characters.
Just asking, why is it impossible to houserule? It's actualy one of the most easy, if not the single most easy, houserule in all the game. Or what if you are given both options, one you roll one you don't?
Ah yes, that reminds me. It is also a deal breaker if the game is so broken that I need to houserule it. There of course will be matters where houserules are needed, but the system is supposed to be complete and each house rule is potential grounds for throwing out the entire system.
Just asking, why is it impossible to houserule? It's actualy one of the most easy, if not the single most easy, houserule in all the game. Or what if you are given both options, one you roll one you don't?[/quote] Ah yes, that reminds me. It is al
1.) rolling for hit points. There is going to be some kind of minimum hit point earning in my game. I don't want characters who are too weak. I can't design a good game with weak characters.
Just asking, why is it impossible to houserule? It's actualy one of the most easy, if not the single most easy, houserule in all the game. Or what if you are given both options, one you roll one you don't?
Ah yes, that reminds me. It is also a deal breaker if the game is so broken that I need to houserule it. There of course will be matters where houserules are needed, but the system is supposed to be complete and each house rule is potential grounds for throwing out the entire system.
"I am going to 100% promise you that, especially if you are a veteran player or DM, we will include stuff in the next iteration of the game that you will ignore. In fact, I'm going to come out and say that we want you to ignore parts of the game." Mike Mearls talking about 5e
The entire basis of 5e is make the game how you want it to be. House ruling is in fact the name of the game for 5e. There will be multiple ways to rule most situations you will have to make a ruling of which ruling to use and sometimes (Im guessing that after a while it becomes a lot of the time) you will find that it is your own house rule that wins in that idea fest. There is nothing wrong with that. So long as everyone at the table is cool with what is happening then the rules matter very little. If you want a hard document to make rulings from those will exist but there will be about three different variations on the same thing that you will be allowed to decide between.
Just asking, why is it impossible to houserule? It's actualy one of the most easy, if not the single most easy, houserule in all the game. Or what if you are given both options, one you roll one you don't?[/quote] Ah yes, that reminds me. It is al
My deal breakers are pretty hard to meet. I tend to modify my games heavily to customize my current campaign I can do that in any D&D edition all have there pros and cons. 4E for me had alot of COns so I only purchased 2 books from it. If 5E does not bring anything new to the table I wont be buying the books. Since 5E is going back to old school it needs to trump Pathfinder for me to buy the books. If not I have no problem tweaking pathfinder and running it if I want that type of game.
My deal breakers are pretty hard to meet. I tend to modify my games heavily to customize my current campaign I can do that in any D&D edition all have there pros and cons. 4E for me had alot of COns so I only purchased 2 books from it. If 5E does not
Deal breakers for me, the things I do not want to see in D&D Next:
1. Classes are over-powered / under-powered.
I really do not want to see classes that basically can do anything. I'm fine with this. As long as it only occurs in the endgame, and everybody gets to do it.
Over-powered also in the sense of being thrown naked into the wilderness. If your fighter is still trying to figure out fire, while the wizard teleports home, that's over-powered. As long as the wizard has a significant chance to teleport himself into a brick wall and die, I don't think it's overpowered.
Under-powered is a place holder character, someone who cannot survive an encounter without having other characters around. In 4e, as a rogue fighting toe-to-toe with a monster is usually a death sentence. I'm fine with a rogue dying if he fights toe-to-toe with a monster. He's not a fighter, that's not his job in the adventure.
2. Character creation has to be planned out from level 1 I severely dislike this. I want choices in play to matter more than choices made 6 months ago. I agree with you. 3. Backgrounds and descriptions have no balls. Honestly, this falls into 'choices made outside of play' for me. I don't care much about your intricately crafted backstory. What matters is what your character does while we play.
4. The great supported campaign setting does not bring in anything new and refers back to older out of print books. What makes campaign settings great for me is not the flimsy palimpsest that floats down from the newest writer. What makes them great for me is decades of history, settling as a rich soil, over which you build your own campaign. Just a taste thing.
1. Classes are over-powered / under-powered. I really do not want to see classes that basically can do anything.I'm fine with this. As long as it only occurs in the endgame, and everybody gets to do it.Over-powered also in the sense of being thrown n
My deal breakers are pretty hard to meet. I tend to modify my games heavily to customize my current campaign I can do that in any D&D edition all have there pros and cons. 4E for me had alot of COns so I only purchased 2 books from it. If 5E does not bring anything new to the table I wont be buying the books. Since 5E is going back to old school it needs to trump Pathfinder for me to buy the books. If not I have no problem tweaking pathfinder and running it if I want that type of game.
You, sir, are the heart of the hobby. Maybe death to the business - but the life of the hobby.
You, sir, are the heart of the hobby. Maybe death to the business - but the life of the hobby.
0. Books that are so poorly written as to be unusable from the day of release. Online errata to half the items in the book. Multiple rounds of errata on the same rules items. Wholesale reworking of the core mechanics of the game after a year or two due to the cumulative effect of an avalanche of flaws building into an unplayable or silly game.
1. A game that tries to be all things to all people, and in doing so fails to be anything. Four thousand seventy-two (4072) modules, each of which can be included or ignored at the DM's option, without actually including a fully-playable default set of rules.
2. Modules presented in such a way that it is not immediately obvious that "Module #312 Alternate underwater combat rules" is incompatible with "Module #812 Cleric non-vancian Domain casting without casting foci" until you actually reach that point in your game and things grind to a halt.
3. An endless array of variations on basic, bland character concepts. Publishing strategy that consists of producing an ever-growing pile of books that add nothing to the game except for the occasional unbalanced rule element that obsoletes previous material through power-creep.
0. Books that are so poorly written as to be unusable from the day of release. Online errata to half the items in the book. Multiple rounds of errata on the same rules items. Wholesale reworking of the core mechanics of the game after a year or t
So far, the only thing I haven't really cared for was the abstractness of hit points and armor class, and full healing of hit points after an extended rest. I'd rather a slightly more complex hit point system that mimic'd reality a little bit more then what we have now.
So far, the only thing I haven't really cared for was the abstractness of hit points and armor class, and full healing of hit points after an extended rest. I'd rather a slightly more complex hit point system that mimic'd reality a little bit more t
FlimFlam - I'd imagine a wound track/hit-location system will rapidly be fan-developed, if not included as a module. There's a demand for it. Small, but there.
FlimFlam - I'd imagine a wound track/hit-location system will rapidly be fan-developed, if not included as a module. There's a demand for it. Small, but there.
What if [epic level stuff]'s not in the PHB but instead in the DMG?
That would not make a lot of sense. Why does the DM care about epic level characters. Let the players think and plan their epic level characters without crowding into his book.
Just put out a simplified system, not a moron system just basic, with plenty of room for us to implement house rules. Then release options books. Worked pretty well in 2e, except for maybe the simple system part.
You must not have looked too closely into PHB2 or DMG2. The PHB2 just included a number of new races, new classes, and new feats, along with some other new in-game features that players could use (I think backgrounds). It was really no different than any other splat book. PHB3 was made in same way. As for the DMG2, it had new advice for a DM and a larger section catering to Paragon level adventures and campaigns (levels 11 to 20). I don't see how either book is offensive, especially considering you say that you don't mind if they print new option books (which is another way of saying splat books).
I find it interesting that people have a problem with Vanican magic, yet they don't have a problem with Dailies? What exactly is the difference here?
Because when people say Vancian, they are generally referring to the system with nine spell levels where a wizard gets a growing number of daily spells that grows both in existing levels and into new levels. Like how the playtest wizard goes from three first level spells to eventually four first level spells and two second level spells by 3rd level. By contrast, the Daily power system used in 4e limited a character to around four daily "attack" powers and around six utility powers that might also be restricted to daily powers, and you don't get anywhere near those numbers until you are like level 20 to 30.
Yes you're correct I didn't look at the PHB2 or DMG2 for 4e. Mostly because I didn't like 4e at all. I found healing surges just silly. I obviously didn't like encounter and dailies. They really bogged the game to a halt when it takes sometimes two minutes to decide on a type of attack, pick your target (more difficult when you're not using a map), roll the attack. if hit roll damage, roll MORE damage and allocate after effects (depending on attack). I did like the WIL, REF, FORT system that was interesting. I was an avid 2e player and still sort of love it, but being a first level wizard was just dumb. I later created a mana system in our 2e games based on the psyonics PSP which helped but I doubt that would be a popular addition now.
That would not make a lot of sense. Why does the DM care about epic level characters. Let the players think and plan their epic level characters without crowding into his book.You must not have looked too closely into PHB2 or DMG2. The PHB2 just incl
- classes sharing spells (like pathfinder/3.5 where wizards and clerics have 70% of the same spells) - basic attack only melee fighters - no new mechanics - no feats
currently i do not plan on buying it, its more or less rehashes of old editions, nothing new or exciting that makes me want to play.
that dosent mean that i cant be swayed with shiney new mechanics and cool new math that makes the DMs job as easy as it currently is.
- classes sharing spells (like pathfinder/3.5 where wizards and clerics have 70% of the same spells)- basic attack only melee fighters- no new mechanics- no featscurrently i do not plan on buying it, its more or less rehashes of old editions, nothing
The deal-breaker for me would be if I couldn't find anyone to play it with. Currently, there are these great organized-play events. I can just show up and play Encounters or Game Day or Lair Assault. If D&D:Next apeals only to the customized home campaign, I wouldn't buy it simply because I wouldn't have the opportunity to play it.
Yes, this is an issue as well. They need more schedules online game times/games as well. That would be great.
Yes, this is an issue as well. They need more schedules online game times/games as well. That would be great.
I will only buy one set of rulebooks. Player's handbook, DMG and a Monster Manual. I expect all the rules to be inside those including any rules for creating new magic items, new monsters, new classes, new abilities, new races, etc.
I'll just download any other books as pdfs so I won't pay any extra. I won't carry around a dozen books anyway. I also don't want later supplements to make the original books to be useless.
I'll buy extra supplements if they are useful for gameplay for a particular adventure or something but not more books.
5E should have no limit to a player's or DM's imagination. If they can imagine it, it should be possible in the game.
If a character wants to play a troll wizard, there should be a mechanic to create it in a way that is playable.
Any NPC should be playable as a PC with only small modifications.
NPCs should be built in less than 5 minutes.
Combat should not take significantly longer at 12th level than 1st level.
There should be options to create simplified PCs at all levels as well as more complex PCs (regardless of class). These options should be somewhat balanced so a player wanting a simple character is not at an enormous disadvantage in playing with a player who wants a complex character.
I will only buy one set of rulebooks. Player's handbook, DMG and a Monster Manual. I expect all the rules to be inside those including any rules for creating new magic items, new monsters, new classes, new abilities, new races, etc. I'll just down
I dont want the DndNext "kernal" to make alot of assumptions about my campain. The core books need to contain enough modules so I can make the game suit my campagin instead of tayloring my campagin world to the system. Similarly I want players to not have to worry about optimal and suboptimal builds, while still having enough option to make a wide varierty of characters. When I build a character I want think "hmmm a shamans apprentice from a tribe of nomadic Horse Archers" not "A mobile AoE dealer whos dex will mitigate damage."
I dont want the DndNext "kernal" to make alot of assumptions about my campain. The core books need to contain enough modules so I can make the game suit my campagin instead of tayloring my campagin world to the system.Similarly I want players to not
I dont want the DndNext "kernal" to make alot of assumptions about my campain. The core books need to contain enough modules so I can make the game suit my campagin instead of tayloring my campagin world to the system. Similarly I want players to not have to worry about optimal and suboptimal builds, while still having enough option to make a wide varierty of characters. When I build a character I want think "hmmm a shamans apprentice from a tribe of nomadic Horse Archers" not "A mobile AoE dealer whos dex will mitigate damage."
Whole heartedly agree, though strictly speaking I think you better get ready for disapointment. Every version of D&D had a very specific "style" of play in mind and it definitivly existed in a very specific fantasy world as much as it tried to be generic. I found that in particular in 3rd and 4th edition only one play style worked, over the top high fantasy adventure which included high magic. It was really pissing against the wind if you will to create anything else under the system, but it did that genre very well for the most part. Trying to run a low magic game for example was a trying task since everything about both 3rd and 4th edition just screamed "MAGIC!!!". Trying to create a gridy, violant and deadly world was also impossible without serious rules modification and house ruling.
In any case, I think D&D will remain High Fantasy Adventure in NEXT.
As for optimal and sub-optimal builds. As an old school GM I literly cringe when someone in my group describes what "their build will be". Its just so not role-playing to me, it sounds more like a conversation I would expect in my MMO guild. I suppose its a game for a different generation, but I think so much has been lost in the last couple of editions in regards to the art that is role-playing. I mean its great to see balance, streamlining and all, but I personally don't think the game is improved by it.
Whole heartedly agree, though strictly speaking I think you better get ready for disapointment. Every version of D&D had a very specific "style" of play in mind and it definitivly existed in a very specific fantasy world as much as it tried to be ge
well one posible reeason for our main group not to play 5th edition would be if it turns out to have a lot less online support.
with 4th edition you only have to buy a PHB+ DMG or rules compendium. all other books are purly optional to buy as they are included in the online tools.
We are a IT heavy group 4 of 6 players work in IT, so we loved the fact that we diden't have to use hardcopies.
finance isen't a big broblem for our group, but with the online tools replacing the need to buy books 4th edition has been the cheapest edition to play so far.
well one posible reeason for our main group not to play 5th edition would be if it turns out to have a lot less online support.with 4th edition you only have to buy a PHB+ DMG or rules compendium.all other books are purly optional to buy as they are
1.) rolling for hit points. There is going to be some kind of minimum hit point earning in my game. I don't want characters who are too weak. I can't design a good game with weak characters.
Just asking, why is it impossible to houserule? It's actualy one of the most easy, if not the single most easy, houserule in all the game. Or what if you are given both options, one you roll one you don't?
Ah yes, that reminds me. It is also a deal breaker if the game is so broken that I need to houserule it. There of course will be matters where houserules are needed, but the system is supposed to be complete and each house rule is potential grounds for throwing out the entire system.
"I am going to 100% promise you that, especially if you are a veteran player or DM, we will include stuff in the next iteration of the game that you will ignore. In fact, I'm going to come out and say that we want you to ignore parts of the game." Mike Mearls talking about 5e
I remain hopeful that statements like this are delusions or lies. An honest effort to make a game this way will likely produce a mess.
The entire basis of 5e is make the game how you want it to be.
And I want a game I can play right out of the box, not one where I have to select the rules before starting, or one where the DM has selected rules I hate. And I want a game where I can tell somebody in another game about my troll PC and not have to explain a dozen rules in order for him to understand what I am talking about. If every game is a different set of rules, we have no game.
House ruling is in fact the name of the game for 5e. There will be multiple ways to rule most situations you will have to make a ruling of which ruling to use and sometimes (Im guessing that after a while it becomes a lot of the time) you will find that it is your own house rule that wins in that idea fest. There is nothing wrong with that.
Quite the contrary. With all due respect to my inflated idea of my own DM skills, a professional should be routinely producing better ideas than I can. If I start thinking a lot of my ideas are superior, I have solid reason not to buy the game.
So long as everyone at the table is cool with what is happening then the rules matter very little. If you want a hard document to make rulings from those will exist but there will be about three different variations on the same thing that you will be allowed to decide between.
Which means that since you have many parts to the game, you have three variations that are playable, 30 that can be tolerated just to have a game, and 300 that just conflict so bad you need yet more variations just to use them at all.
Just asking, why is it impossible to houserule? It's actualy one of the most easy, if not the single most easy, houserule in all the game. Or what if you are given both options, one you roll one you don't?[/quote] Ah yes, that reminds me. It is al
I dont want the DndNext "kernal" to make alot of assumptions about my campain. The core books need to contain enough modules so I can make the game suit my campagin instead of tayloring my campagin world to the system. Similarly I want players to not have to worry about optimal and suboptimal builds, while still having enough option to make a wide varierty of characters. When I build a character I want think "hmmm a shamans apprentice from a tribe of nomadic Horse Archers" not "A mobile AoE dealer whos dex will mitigate damage."
Whole heartedly agree, though strictly speaking I think you better get ready for disapointment. Every version of D&D had a very specific "style" of play in mind and it definitivly existed in a very specific fantasy world as much as it tried to be generic. I found that in particular in 3rd and 4th edition only one play style worked, over the top high fantasy adventure which included high magic. It was really pissing against the wind if you will to create anything else under the system, but it did that genre very well for the most part. Trying to run a low magic game for example was a trying task since everything about both 3rd and 4th edition just screamed "MAGIC!!!". Trying to create a gridy, violant and deadly world was also impossible without serious rules modification and house ruling.
In any case, I think D&D will remain High Fantasy Adventure in NEXT.
As for optimal and sub-optimal builds. As an old school GM I literly cringe when someone in my group describes what "their build will be". Its just so not role-playing to me, it sounds more like a conversation I would expect in my MMO guild. I suppose its a game for a different generation, but I think so much has been lost in the last couple of editions in regards to the art that is role-playing. I mean its great to see balance, streamlining and all, but I personally don't think the game is improved by it.
I think I'm in total accorde with you, trying to run a low or magic game in recenent versions is nearly impossible. My guess is most DndNext material will be geared towards high magic but they've said they will build low and no magic modules and untill the final product comes out I will take take them at their word.
The build thing shocked me the first time I heard about it, When I then heard that players not only expected magic items but specific magic items and if they didn't get them it would destroy game balance I died a little. I know alot of people enjoy that kind of game but it's not for me, if every one knows what to expect it's no longer an adventure but a package holiday tour.
Whole heartedly agree, though strictly speaking I think you better get ready for disapointment. Every version of D&D had a very specific "style" of play in mind and it definitivly existed in a very specific fantasy world as much as it tried to be ge
When I then heard that players not only expected magic items but specific magic items and if they didn't get them it would destroy game balance I died a little
Yeah I recall reading somewhere (not sure if it was on the forum or in the actual books) talking about how "players should suggest what magic items they want and the GM should provide them as treasure".. I was like .. .what now? I'm sorry to me that just breaks the spirit of the game. This is suppose to be a game of wonders, mystery, danger, story.. not a game of builds, optimization and tactical combat superiority. The spirit of this game has been deeply wounded by this sort of meta game philosophy, as a GM I was ... whatever the opposite of inspired is. Im sad that this exists but Im glad its a localized thing with D&D rather than some global design mantra with the genre as a whole. Lots of people are still making lots of great games that maintain the spirit of D&D, its just unfortunate that the franchise itself can't maintain it themselves. I wish Gygax was alive and I wish he was the CEO of WotC, I miss his imagination.
Yeah I recall reading somewhere (not sure if it was on the forum or in the actual books) talking about how "players should suggest what magic items they want and the GM should provide them as treasure".. I was like .. .what now? I'm sorry to me that
Metagaming isn't roleplaying. 4E seems, at many points, to demand it. 3E removes all caster restraint. Back to TSR! Raaaawr. Heh. Anyway, I'm liking the new version so far.
Metagaming isn't roleplaying. 4E seems, at many points, to demand it. 3E removes all caster restraint. Back to TSR! Raaaawr. Heh. Anyway, I'm liking the new version so far.
I really like what I've seen so far. I also hope 4th Ed players get all their wacky per encounter powers and everyone is alway special positive reinforcment and animie ourtfits or whatever, just so long as it's not forced on me and my game table.
I really like what I've seen so far. I also hope 4th Ed players get all their wacky per encounter powers and everyone is alway special positive reinforcment and animie ourtfits or whatever, just so long as it's not forced on me and my game table.
When I then heard that players not only expected magic items but specific magic items and if they didn't get them it would destroy game balance I died a little
Yeah I recall reading somewhere (not sure if it was on the forum or in the actual books) talking about how "players should suggest what magic items they want and the GM should provide them as treasure".. I was like .. .what now? I'm sorry to me that just breaks the spirit of the game. This is suppose to be a game of wonders, mystery, danger, story.. not a game of builds, optimization and tactical combat superiority. The spirit of this game has been deeply wounded by this sort of meta game philosophy, as a GM I was ... whatever the opposite of inspired is. Im sad that this exists but Im glad its a localized thing with D&D rather than some global design mantra with the genre as a whole. Lots of people are still making lots of great games that maintain the spirit of D&D, its just unfortunate that the franchise itself can't maintain it themselves. I wish Gygax was alive and I wish he was the CEO of WotC, I miss his imagination.
So what your saying is you want a treasure module that is completely random rather than wish list oriented, and if they include wish lists in core you won't buy the game?
Yeah I recall reading somewhere (not sure if it was on the forum or in the actual books) talking about how "players should suggest what magic items they want and the GM should provide them as treasure".. I was like .. .what now? I'm sorry to me that
Metagaming isn't roleplaying. 4E seems, at many points, to demand it. 3E removes all caster restraint. Back to TSR! Raaaawr. Heh. Anyway, I'm liking the new version so far.
Hopefully 5E will cater to both playstyles, i.e. role-play versus roll-play, so they don't miss out on a segment of the market...
Hopefully 5E will cater to both playstyles, i.e. role-play versus roll-play, so they don't miss out on a segment of the market...
So what your saying is you want a treasure module that is completely random rather than wish list oriented, and if they include wish lists in core you won't buy the game?
Not at all. What Im saying is if they design the game in such a way that monsters and level balance assumes that players will have X amount of treasure worth of items (magic items) and encounter design is built around this the whole thing falls apart for me, because than the players actually have a pretty valid "hey Im a fighter and I haven't found any magic swords and im way under powered now" execuse which is where this whole thing actually comes from.
But yes, I think this kind of thing is what chips away at the spirit of the game and why these games are looking less and less like role-playing games and more and more like MMO's. In a MMO I go to a wiki to find out where an item I want drops, I go there and kill the monster who drops what I expect him to. This is effectively what you are doing. Its not role-playing, its a treasure hunt with predicted (in fact requested) results. Next thing your going to do is have the players make a "monsters I want to fight" wish list. Players are supposed to make character and discover the world around them, not dictate to the GM what they expect to find.
Not at all. What Im saying is if they design the game in such a way that monsters and level balance assumes that players will have X amount of treasure worth of items (magic items) and encounter design is built around this the whole thing falls apar
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Not at all. What Im saying is if they design the game in such a way that monsters and level balance assumes that players will have X amount of treasure worth of items (magic items) and encounter design is built around this the whole thing falls apart for me, because than the players actually have a pretty valid "hey Im a fighter and I haven't found any magic swords and im way under powered now" execuse which is where this whole thing actually comes from.
But yes, I think this kind of thing is what chips away at the spirit of the game and why these games are looking less and less like role-playing games and more and more like MMO's. In a MMO I go to a wiki to find out where an item I want drops, I go there and kill the monster who drops what I expect him to. This is effectively what you are doing. Its not role-playing, its a treasure hunt with predicted (in fact requested) results. Next thing your going to do is have the players make a "monsters I want to fight" wish list. Players are supposed to make character and discover the world around them, not dictate to the GM what they expect to find.
OR, it IS role playing because you are asking the players what kind of rewards,what kind of magic items, would interest their character and motivate them, and then build your campaign or dungeons around what their character are searching, giving a good , realistic reason for them to go there. If the fighter puts "acidic sword" in his wish list, it means you can have rumors of a dungeon where an ancient powerful acidic sword is guarded, and have the characters go there on their own volition. And MMORPG don't use wishlists - you drop random items, you know. That is WHY players built wiki and databases - so they CAN make their own wishlists, and have a possible strategy to find what they want for their character, despite the fact that the game oly uses random drops. MMOs work just the way you seem to like, players invented tools to bypass the system.
OR, it IS role playing because you are asking the players what kind of rewards,what kind of magic items, would interest their character and motivate them, and then build your campaign or dungeons around what their character are searching, giving a go
So what your saying is you want a treasure module that is completely random rather than wish list oriented, and if they include wish lists in core you won't buy the game?
Not at all. What I'm saying is if they design the game in such a way that monsters and level balance assumes that players will have X amount of treasure worth of items (magic items) and encounter design is built around this the whole thing falls apart for me, because than the players actually have a pretty valid "hey I'm a fighter and I haven't found any magic swords and I'm way under powered now" excuse which is where this whole thing actually comes from.
But yes, I think this kind of thing is what chips away at the spirit of the game and why these games are looking less and less like role-playing games and more and more like MMO's. In a MMO I go to a wiki to find out where an item I want drops, I go there and kill the monster who drops what I expect him to. This is effectively what you are doing. Its not role-playing, its a treasure hunt with predicted (in fact requested) results. Next thing your going to do is have the players make a "monsters I want to fight" wish list. Players are supposed to make character and discover the world around them, not dictate to the GM what they expect to find.
The word I bolded is the problem.
You totally misunderstood the point behind the wish lists. Nothing in that paragraph is mandatory for anybody. Just because you CAN do something in no way means you HAVE to. Wish lists are a thing for the DM to have an easier time picking out treasure. That's it, nothing more.
If you're players are whining demanding and spoiled that is a fault of your players not a paragraph in the DMG.
And as a side note personally I think if you have a fighter in the party and you aren't giving out ANY magic swords that seems kind of weird to me. Even back when I played 2nd edition everybody got something.
Not at all. What I'm saying is if they design the game in such a way that monsters and level balance assumes that players will have X amount of treasure worth of items (magic items) and encounter design is built around this the whole thing falls apa
I've never had whining or demanding in any of my games in 30 years of gaming. Players from my generation came to the table with briliantly defined characters anticipating the story, not formulating a list of demands. Call it a wish list if you want but if you ask a player to write down items on a piece of paper that they want and you don't put them into a dungeon for them you have created an expectation and failed to meet it, so it is effectively a list of demands.
Besides I don't have a problem with other people running their games anyway they like, but if you put that kind of nonesense into the players handbook, players are going to point it out and it becomes another thing GM's have to deny or approve of. Just give me the rules, keep your "wish lists" to D&D Insider Article suggestions and out of the rulebooks.
I've never had whining or demanding in any of my games in 30 years of gaming. Players from my generation came to the table with briliantly defined characters anticipating the story, not formulating a list of demands. Call it a wish list if you want
I think you are still missing the point of the wish lists. Possibly because you've never tried it. Magic items are supposed to be a reward for players for completing adventures or clearing a dungeon or whatever and it is not really a reward to give players something that they find useless.
As the DM, you have sole control over what happens in the world and what treasure players get, so if your party consists of a long bow using Ranger and a hammer using Fighter (with feat / class / theme support for those types of weapons), every time they see a crossbow or a magic sword or a magic trident they are going to be unimpressed and are going to be looking for the next place it can be bartered / sold for money or influence. Basically, what was the point of placing the item there in the first place, what did the DM hope to accomplish by having the party fight valiantly through a dungeon in hopes of finding treasure only to find a magic item that could have easily been more gems for all the good it does them.
When I started DMing 4e, I heard about the ideas of the wish list and while I never read the actual section on it in the DMG, I asked my players to tell me magic items they want over the next five levels and I ask them to make the lists as long as possible. They know up-front that they are not going to be everything on their list and in the end their list is usually a mix of specific items that they want and general categories like "items that give me more healing surges or make them heal more". This gives me guidelines on the kinds of items to give the players as rewards.
Now, I do think that bounded accuracy in AC and attack bonuses gives magic items the possibility of being more exciting. DMs don't have to worry about math fixes and game expectations for magic items, so a Fighter might go a long time before he finds his first magic sword, making it feel more special, and I, as the DM, won't have to adjust the challenge of combat to compensate for his lower attack bonus.
I think you are still missing the point of the wish lists. Possibly because you've never tried it. Magic items are supposed to be a reward for players for completing adventures or clearing a dungeon or whatever and it is not really a reward to give p
And as a side note personally I think if you have a fighter in the party and you aren't giving out ANY magic swords that seems kind of weird to me. Even back when I played 2nd edition everybody got something.
Not at all you can give them a magic halberd. I find the idea that the players expect particular equipment at specific levels weird. I like magic to be rare and wondorous, not something that can be bought in a shop. A +1 dagger is something that you cherish, one day your son will inherit it and the edge will be just as sharp as the day you stole it from the Emir's personal armoury, you could never sell that dagger, you've probably only met a handful of people who could afford it and anyway if anyone found out you had it you would have the people trying to kill you for it. Anyway thats how I like to treat magic items in my campaigns, I know not everyone is the same but a player expecting +3 Galoshes of Mirky Justice when they hit level 9 because their Shadowhexgorecaster needs one around that level to continue being effective just doesnt suit my game.
Also less classes with stupid names I dont want to pay for this game if it contains any classes with the word hex at the beginng or blade at the end.
Not at all you can give them a magic halberd.I find the idea that the players expect particular equipment at specific levels weird. I like magic to be rare and wondorous, not something that can be bought in a shop. A +1 dagger is something that you c
And as a side note personally I think if you have a fighter in the party and you aren't giving out ANY magic swords that seems kind of weird to me. Even back when I played 2nd edition everybody got something.
Not at all you can give them a magic halberd. I find the idea that the players expect particular equipment at specific levels weird. I like magic to be rare and wondorous, not something that can be bought in a shop. A +1 dagger is something that you cherish, one day your son will inherit it and the edge will be just as sharp as the day you stole it from the Emir's personal armoury, you could never sell that dagger, you've probably only met a handful of people who could afford it and anyway if anyone found out you had it you would have the people trying to kill you for it. Anyway thats how I like to treat magic items in my campaigns, I know not everyone is the same but a player expecting +3 Galoshes of Mirky Justice when they hit level 9 because their Shadowhexgorecaster needs one around that level to continue being effective just doesnt suit my game.
Also less classes with stupid names I dont want to pay for this game if it contains any classes with the word hex at the beginng or blade at the end.
Strangely enough, 4th Edition (since I assume that's what you're still complaining about) had an easy alternate system in place to handle characters never getting magical items that came out with the Dark Sun material (since, you know, Athas is pretty screwed magic-wise). The wishlist feature was there to help the DM mold the game to the interests of the players. It wasn't a list of demands. It was a list of interests.
As for stupid class names, you'll probably just have to deal. Just because you don't care for the name of a class doesn't mean everyone else hates it as well.
Not at all you can give them a magic halberd.I find the idea that the players expect particular equipment at specific levels weird. I like magic to be rare and wondorous, not something that can be bought in a shop. A +1 dagger is something that you c
The wishlist was a fantastic idea that kept players interested in advancement. I loved giving out TONS of low-level magical items, some of which weren't that great, but became treasured among the party - a great example was our fighter getting "Hedge Wizard's Gloves" which allowed him to replicate Cantrips IIRC - he used them in nearly every concievable way throughout the campaign, such that it embarassed the Wizard, who almost never used his cantrips.
The wishlist was a fantastic idea that kept players interested in advancement. I loved giving out TONS of low-level magical items, some of which weren't that great, but became treasured among the party - a great example was our fighter getting "Hedge
If you don't want the game to tell the DM that it assumes certain items are available to the party by the time they fight certain monsters, which is basically what 4e's "X bonus by Y level" system does, then the monsters can't have the existance of such items built into their stats. And if that's the case, then what items do exist have to be extremely minimal in their actual benefit, especially in terms of attack or defense bonuses, or the game falls apart.
If +X weapons aren't assumed in the dragon's defenses, then a +5 sword trivializes the dragon, and makes fighting it easier then fighting the ogre back at level one. If the dragons defenses are arbitrarily spiked to account for the sword (whether built into the system or ad libbed by the DM), then that +5 sword isn't a fancy bonus, but rather something required just to keep up, and anyone in the party without the +5 sword has fallen behind and won't be able to participate meaningfully.
4e embraced the whole deal, went with the item treadmill, but made it clear to the DM what was going on so they understood why the party was expected to have +Y items at +Z level, and even introduced a varient system where in those bonuses would be built into the characters by default so that the DM could go with an itemless system, or at least one where items weren't required.
5e supposedly wants to go for a system where progressive bonuses aren't needed, but then also seems to be handing them out anyway. That won't work. It's one or the other, not both here.
If you don't want the game to tell the DM that it assumes certain items are available to the party by the time they fight certain monsters, which is basically what 4e's "X bonus by Y level" system does, then the monsters can't have the existance of s
When I then heard that players not only expected magic items but specific magic items and if they didn't get them it would destroy game balance I died a little
Yeah I recall reading somewhere (not sure if it was on the forum or in the actual books) talking about how "players should suggest what magic items they want and the GM should provide them as treasure".. I was like .. .what now? I'm sorry to me that just breaks the spirit of the game.
A couple of things: It wasn't a rule. It was a suggestion to encourage player involvement. As a DM, you want your players to use the cool magic items you throw into the game, not go to the local shop and sell them. At the very least, a player asks for a Staff of X, you know to throw a Staff of Y into the game. It might not be what he asked for, but at least he'll be able to use it. It was by no means give the PCs exactly what they want. Basically, each level, players would give you a list of 3-5 items that they wanted. And you as DM, if you thought they made sense, could put them into the found treasure.
Yeah I recall reading somewhere (not sure if it was on the forum or in the actual books) talking about how "players should suggest what magic items they want and the GM should provide them as treasure".. I was like .. .what now? I'm sorry to me that
4 Strangely enough, 4th Edition (since I assume that's what you're still complaining about) had an easy alternate system in place to handle characters never getting magical items that came out with the Dark Sun material (since, you know, Athas is pretty screwed magic-wise). The wishlist feature was there to help the DM mold the game to the interests of the players. It wasn't a list of demands. It was a list of interests.
As for stupid class names, you'll probably just have to deal. Just because you don't care for the name of a class doesn't mean everyone else hates it as well.
I'm not just talking about 4th Ed I think 3.x sufferd from alot of this nonsense as well. And yes 4th Ed dark sun was one of 4th Eds best products, funny because the same could be said for 2nd Ed. I think we should all agree that Dark Sun is pretty awesome. I think a player can lust after a particular item , their character can try and hunt down rumors of it's existence and hunt it down but if there is no reason for their character to of ever heard of sutch an item or belive it existis then the player is using in game knowledge inappropriately. The real issue I have with magic item expectation is having to deck out all my players in +2 kits because they're level eight and the game has been balanced for it doesn't suit my campaign.
I know that not everyone hates the stupid names, I just feel that if I could mistake a prestige class for deathmetal band the class probably a bit fruity for my taste.
I'm not just talking about 4th Ed I think 3.x sufferd from alot of this nonsense as well. And yes 4th Ed dark sun was one of 4th Eds best products, funny because the same could be said for 2nd Ed. I think we should all agree that Dark Sun is pretty a
4e did have the built in enhancement bonus module right in the core books for groups that didn't want items to be so default necessary, or to have to replace them every so often.
If just said "these are the expected bonuses. If you don't want to be constantly handing out upgraded gear, or if you don't want to use magic items, just add these bonuses to the characters by default and they'll still be in line with expectations". The bonuses didn't stack with magic weapon bonuses, so you could even still hand out items, they'd just be useful for their powers or properties and not for their static attack bonuses.
Such a module was possible because the designers had a clear set of bonuses built into thier math. They knew what was expected when and could keep everything moving smothly. D&D Next doesn't seem so much to have a different mathematical foundation as it does no foundation at all, and if that isn't fixed then it's going to be a mess. It might be an 'immersive' mess with tons of 'versimilitude', but as a game it will likely end up distractingly clunky and ill fitting, with DMs having to work five times as hard trying to guess what will work rather then having a solid foundation they can build on.
4e did have the built in enhancement bonus module right in the core books for groups that didn't want items to be so default necessary, or to have to replace them every so often.If just said "these are the expected bonuses. If you don't want to be c
4e did have the built in enhancement bonus module right in the core books for groups that didn't want items to be so default necessary, or to have to replace them every so often.
If just said "these are the expected bonuses. If you don't want to be constantly handing out upgraded gear, or if you don't want to use magic items, just add these bonuses to the characters by default and they'll still be in line with expectations". The bonuses didn't stack with magic weapon bonuses, so you could even still hand out items, they'd just be useful for their powers or properties and not for their static attack bonuses.
Such a module was possible because the designers had a clear set of bonuses built into thier math. They knew what was expected when and could keep everything moving smothly. D&D Next doesn't seem so much to have a different mathematical foundation as it does no foundation at all, and if that isn't fixed then it's going to be a mess. It might be an 'immersive' mess with tons of 'versimilitude', but as a game it will likely end up distractingly clunky and ill fitting, with DMs having to work five times as hard trying to guess what will work rather then having a solid foundation they can build on.
I understand your fear but I think everyone is jumping to conclusions about how loose or ridgid this system will be. I kind of feel 9 pages of DM guidelines isn't really the same as a 221 page DMG. Also quite a decent chunk of those guideline are rules for determining DC. Maybe it will be messy clunk but having rules that encourage improvisation dont cause that, infact it does the opposite it makes it easy to do make rulings when things the game designers didn't think of happen and thats what I want out a system because otherwise I would play a computer game.
I understand your fear but I think everyone is jumping to conclusions about how loose or ridgid this system will be. I kind of feel 9 pages of DM guidelines isn't really the same as a 221 page DMG. Also quite a decent chunk of those guideline are rul
My deal-breakers: Wizard like 4th edition but I like what it look like in 5th. Just curious how the would deal with high level. What I hate of 3rd wizard is the time it take to memorized spell at high level. (working on a solution at this moment)
Everybody can heal himself without magic.
Non flexible monsters: I like a ettin barbarian or ranger but I loved having monster ready to use with an idea how difficult will the fight for my PC. Just a mix between the two.
Everybody able to be good in fight (why play a fighter if the rogue is as good as me?)
Power from other non-spellcasting class be as useful as the caster. My point: I remember playing a wizard at low level having a hard time survive, trying to find spell to become more powerful. And as I grow in power the other class change role in the group. Wizard should be (like other casting class) more powerful as the gain power. In D&D, what can shake mountain, and whipe nation: wizard. High level fighter are the one that can withstand blow from dragon and deliver powerful blow vs some adversaries and if the can whipe a nation is with an army! Power from caster are more spectacular and the one from fighting class are more fight specific vs a few adversary (or just one).
I bought 4th edition tried it and all of my player decided to stay with 3.5 edition. I used house rules to keep it balanced (still didn't find the problem with 20 minutes memorization of the 13th wizard but I'm close). Every character have his place in the game and if a player don't whant to play complex caster, he can always take the "boring" fighter and add some flavor with feat or prestige class. Different classes are for different kind of players.
Thanks for reading.
My deal-breakers: Wizard like 4th edition but I like what it look like in 5th. Just curious how the would deal with high level. What I hate of 3rd wizard is the time it take to memorized spell at high level. (working on a solution at thi
My deal-breakers: Wizard like 4th edition but I like what it look like in 5th. Just curious how the would deal with high level. What I hate of 3rd wizard is the time it take to memorized spell at high level. (working on a solution at this moment)
Everybody can heal himself without magic.
Non flexible monsters: I like a ettin barbarian or ranger but I loved having monster ready to use with an idea how difficult will the fight for my PC. Just a mix between the two.
Everybody able to be good in fight (why play a fighter if the rogue is as good as me?)
Power from other non-spellcasting class be as useful as the caster. My point: I remember playing a wizard at low level having a hard time survive, trying to find spell to become more powerful. And as I grow in power the other class change role in the group. Wizard should be (like other casting class) more powerful as the gain power. In D&D, what can shake mountain, and whipe nation: wizard. High level fighter are the one that can withstand blow from dragon and deliver powerful blow vs some adversaries and if the can whipe a nation is with an army! Power from caster are more spectacular and the one from fighting class are more fight specific vs a few adversary (or just one).
I bought 4th edition tried it and all of my player decided to stay with 3.5 edition. I used house rules to keep it balanced (still didn't find the problem with 20 minutes memorization of the 13th wizard but I'm close). Every character have his place in the game and if a player don't whant to play complex caster, he can always take the "boring" fighter and add some flavor with feat or prestige class. Different classes are for different kind of players.
Thanks for reading.
And this right here is a big part of the problem- what you want is the exact opposite of what I want in many cases.
The question "Why play a fighter if everyone is good in a fight?" I would answer by saying because Fighters are good in a fight in different WAYS than rogues, or clerics, or wizards are. They each have their roles to play in combat AND out of combat. Balancing ACROSS spheres leads to folks not being useful for large portions of the game. Balancing ACROSS spheres also invalidates a lot of character types that I would like to play (the Suave duelist who is an expert on the dueling grounds and a flamboyant courtier for example, the warrior poet for another).
What if a player wants to play an archetype that is opposite of your ideals. A simple caster or a complex swordsman. Because it doesn't fit YOUR ideal does not mean they are invalid playstyles. I specifically don't want "boring fighter awe inspiring wizard". Saying "If you wanted to play a complex character you should have picked a caster" is NOT acceptable to me. Just because you think imagining sprinkling powder and wiggling your fingers is more interesting than imagining the cut and thrust of melee does not mean those of us who feel the opposite want to or should play less heroic or interesting characters.
The game is Dungeons and Dragons NOT Casters and Caddies.
And this right here is a big part of the problem- what you want is the exact opposite of what I want in many cases.The question "Why play a fighter if everyone is good in a fight?" I would answer by saying because Fighters are good in a fight in diff
Boring Martials: There's plenty of systems were I can "hit with my axe" every turn, heck, I can make one up easily on the spot. I'm not paying 30+ dollars to tell me how to do it with slightly different math. I could go play your other products to do that. I understand that WotC said there would be options for manouvers, but they better be good and in the first PHB alongside the brute some people want.
Lack of Balance: If your not going to attempt to balance, then this might as well be "our spin on pre-4e!" as what does this edition do that 2e or others didn't?
Lack of Online Support: You messed up with early 4e on this, but you got the CB working and eventually a table. Not having these will prevent many of your DDI customers from switching. Dropping the old ones will also cause me to simply cease to support you.
You in this post means WoTC Boring Martials: There's plenty of systems were I can "hit with my axe" every turn, heck, I can make one up easily on the spot. I'm not paying 30+ dollars to tell me how to do it with slightly different math. I could go pl
And as a side note personally I think if you have a fighter in the party and you aren't giving out ANY magic swords that seems kind of weird to me. Even back when I played 2nd edition everybody got something.
Not at all you can give them a magic halberd.
Halberd, axe, sword, Whatever. The point is you most likely will give them something. Why not give them something they can actually use?
I find the idea that the players expect particular equipment at specific levels weird. I like magic to be rare and wondrous, not something that can be bought in a shop. A +1 dagger is something that you cherish, one day your son will inherit it and the edge will be just as sharp as the day you stole it from the Emir's personal armory, you could never sell that dagger, you've probably only met a handful of people who could afford it and anyway if anyone found out you had it you would have the people trying to kill you for it. Anyway that's how I like to treat magic items in my campaigns, I know not everyone is the same but a player expecting +3 Galoshes of Mirky Justice when they hit level 9 because their Shadowhexgorecaster needs one around that level to continue being effective just doesnt suit my game.
Once again as I told Xguild that is NOT how wish lists are supposed to work. He claimed his players weren't demanding, but if they aren't then there is no problem.
Wish lists are NOT demands, NOT expectations, and NOT a problem.
They are an aid to DM's to know what treasure to give out. Nothing more than that. If you do not want the help then don't use them. The only problem is in your mind.
Not at all you can give them a magic halberd.[/quote]Halberd, axe, sword, Whatever.The point is you most likely will give them something. Why not give them something they can actually use?Once again as I told Xguild that is NOT how wish lists are sup
And as a side note personally I think if you have a fighter in the party and you aren't giving out ANY magic swords that seems kind of weird to me. Even back when I played 2nd edition everybody got something.
Not at all you can give them a magic halberd.
Halberd, axe, sword, Whatever. The point is you most likely will give them something. Why not give them something they can actually use?
I find the idea that the players expect particular equipment at specific levels weird. I like magic to be rare and wondrous, not something that can be bought in a shop. A +1 dagger is something that you cherish, one day your son will inherit it and the edge will be just as sharp as the day you stole it from the Emir's personal armory, you could never sell that dagger, you've probably only met a handful of people who could afford it and anyway if anyone found out you had it you would have the people trying to kill you for it. Anyway that's how I like to treat magic items in my campaigns, I know not everyone is the same but a player expecting +3 Galoshes of Mirky Justice when they hit level 9 because their Shadowhexgorecaster needs one around that level to continue being effective just doesnt suit my game.
Once again as I told Xguild that is NOT how wish lists are supposed to work. He claimed his players weren't demanding, but if they aren't then there is no problem.
Wish lists are NOT demands, NOT expectations, and NOT a problem.
They are an aid to DM's to know what treasure to give out. Nothing more than that. If you do not want the help then don't use them. The only problem is in your mind.
Again you keep talking about wishlists but thats only the tip of the iceburg when you have a system that demands particular bonuses at particular levels. Magic item bloat isn't something I want at my game table. The problem with the wishlist is it's one of the many aspects of the design of 3rd and 4th ed that encourages the bluring on in and out of game knowledge. You're also assuming magic has to be useful. And anyway if my players cant find a use for a magic item then they're not thinking hard enough. And ultimatly most magic items I've seen in pretty much all editions dont really do it for me and I'd rather create my own to give my players.
Not at all you can give them a magic halberd.[/quote]Halberd, axe, sword, Whatever.The point is you most likely will give them something. Why not give them something they can actually use?Once again as I told Xguild that is NOT how wish lists are sup
I probably missed a post or two in here, but doesn't 4E mandate a progression of ever-improving magical items for each character? Isn't every character expected to acquire a magical +X weapon/implement/armor/etc (where X = level/5) just so they won't be brutally slaughtered by an encounter of the same level?
It's been a while since I ran the math, but I seem to recall that even accounting for automatic loot progression left players behind the curve as enemies with their +level to all stats outpace players with their +level/2 to all stats.
I probably missed a post or two in here, but doesn't 4E mandate a progression of ever-improving magical items for each character? Isn't every character expected to acquire a magical +X weapon/implement/armor/etc (where X = level/5) just so they won'
being in an optional module does not mean its not going to be in the core books...
I know. In fact, that's what I'm hoping for: for BOTH systems to be in the core books. But if it's done in a fashion where, at the end of the book there's a few lines of text saying "And if you're using a battle grid, 5 feet = one square" I'm not going to be buying it. If battlegrids vs. feet is going to be a matter of modules, they had better be presented side-by-side when powers are described or I'm not interested. I don't want to do extra work to get my games going, and I don't want my players doing math when it shouldn't be necessary.
And that brings up a interesting point when we talk about casting modules: how exactly are WOTC going to fit both of those into the PHB without using an incredible amount of space?
In the end I'm going to be waiting till the books come out to see exactly how the system works.
I know. In fact, that's what I'm hoping for: for BOTH systems to be in the core books. But if it's done in a fashion where, at the end of the book there's a few lines of text saying "And if you're using a battle grid, 5 feet = one square" I'm not g
I probably missed a post or two in here, but doesn't 4E mandate a progression of ever-improving magical items for each character? Isn't every character expected to acquire a magical +X weapon/implement/armor/etc (where X = level/5) just so they won't be brutally slaughtered by an encounter of the same level?
It's been a while since I ran the math, but I seem to recall that even accounting for automatic loot progression left players behind the curve as enemies with their +level to all stats outpace players with their +level/2 to all stats.
No, it's not so. It was not a rule, just a suggestion, in my group we play in a world with very few and rare magical items, and with every edition this worked very well, expecially with the 4th Edition I must say.
No, it's not so. It was not a rule, just a suggestion, in my group we play in a world with very few and rare magical items, and with every edition this worked very well, expecially with the 4th Edition I must say.
I probably missed a post or two in here, but doesn't 4E mandate a progression of ever-improving magical items for each character? Isn't every character expected to acquire a magical +X weapon/implement/armor/etc (where X = level/5) just so they won't be brutally slaughtered by an encounter of the same level?
It's been a while since I ran the math, but I seem to recall that even accounting for automatic loot progression left players behind the curve as enemies with their +level to all stats outpace players with their +level/2 to all stats.
Yes, 4e requires magic equipment in order to properly scale (er, run the treadmill) with the monsters ... or you can totally opt out of that and use the Inherent Bonus (I think that's what they called it) system instead and choose to use magic items strong in flavor rather than mechanics or no magic items at all.
This dislike of the wishlist thing has me confuzzled. I mean, I've played for over 20 years and we always had something similar. It just works better that way. And, believe it or not, it can aid balance. I know, sounds silly but hear me out - cuz I've seen it: You've got your standard party of whatever construct you wish. They're all advancing the same and have all received the same amount of magic items over the course of, say, the 12 levels they've been together. These magic items were random in nature and they're of the same level of power. Then one day in a fight with some tough minions of the BBEG, one of the characters dies. The player opts to roll a new character and does so - and makes sure to equip the character with level appropriate equipment using the correct wealth formula. That player doesn't choose randomly and, in effect, makes this new character more powerful because the items suit the character far better than any other character's items suit them. That's not good.
Now that's obviously an extreme case. What I actually saw happen more than once - and what lead us to accept the wish list - was that people would have some magic items they wanted and some that they just got - more of the latter category. And when a new character came in, they were specced out proper and were, as a result, on a different level than the rest of the party. It became a joke: 'well, death makes you better'. Of course our DM could have selected the magic items for the new character and if that's the way you wanna roll, by all means. We didn't, though, because the character is the player's domain (to an extent, of course). So we found that the wish list solved our problem. Obviously we still use some random stuff (random is fun, after all) but the biggies? That's typically what the player is looking for. Like, if I spec out a Dwarven Fighter that specializes in hammers, a halberd won't be good for me. My character (RP - yay!) wouldn't even want it. And it's pretty lame if my DM gives me one instead of a hammer especially when a hammer is so important to my character not only mechanically but as part of my RP as well. Meh, I just don't get the hate for wish lists.
Yes, 4e requires magic equipment in order to properly scale (er, run the treadmill) with the monsters ... or you can totally opt out of that and use the Inherent Bonus (I think that's what they called it) system instead and choose to use magic items
My deal-breakers: Wizard like 4th edition but I like what it look like in 5th. Just curious how the would deal with high level. What I hate of 3rd wizard is the time it take to memorized spell at high level. (working on a solution at this moment)
Everybody can heal himself without magic.
Non flexible monsters: I like a ettin barbarian or ranger but I loved having monster ready to use with an idea how difficult will the fight for my PC. Just a mix between the two.
Everybody able to be good in fight (why play a fighter if the rogue is as good as me?)
Power from other non-spellcasting class be as useful as the caster. My point: I remember playing a wizard at low level having a hard time survive, trying to find spell to become more powerful. And as I grow in power the other class change role in the group. Wizard should be (like other casting class) more powerful as the gain power. In D&D, what can shake mountain, and whipe nation: wizard. High level fighter are the one that can withstand blow from dragon and deliver powerful blow vs some adversaries and if the can whipe a nation is with an army! Power from caster are more spectacular and the one from fighting class are more fight specific vs a few adversary (or just one).
I bought 4th edition tried it and all of my player decided to stay with 3.5 edition. I used house rules to keep it balanced (still didn't find the problem with 20 minutes memorization of the 13th wizard but I'm close). Every character have his place in the game and if a player don't whant to play complex caster, he can always take the "boring" fighter and add some flavor with feat or prestige class. Different classes are for different kind of players.
Thanks for reading.
And this right here is a big part of the problem- what you want is the exact opposite of what I want in many cases.
The question "Why play a fighter if everyone is good in a fight?" I would answer by saying because Fighters are good in a fight in different WAYS than rogues, or clerics, or wizards are. They each have their roles to play in combat AND out of combat. Balancing ACROSS spheres leads to folks not being useful for large portions of the game. Balancing ACROSS spheres also invalidates a lot of character types that I would like to play (the Suave duelist who is an expert on the dueling grounds and a flamboyant courtier for example, the warrior poet for another).
What if a player wants to play an archetype that is opposite of your ideals. A simple caster or a complex swordsman. Because it doesn't fit YOUR ideal does not mean they are invalid playstyles. I specifically don't want "boring fighter awe inspiring wizard". Saying "If you wanted to play a complex character you should have picked a caster" is NOT acceptable to me. Just because you think imagining sprinkling powder and wiggling your fingers is more interesting than imagining the cut and thrust of melee does not mean those of us who feel the opposite want to or should play less heroic or interesting characters.
The game is Dungeons and Dragons NOT Casters and Caddies.
To Stoloc:
I agreed with that I don't want to stereotype in close caste classes. I want variety : I fighter with who can sing , charm or cast some spell. What I don't want is that everybody as the power the do everything. Ex: OK guy here a group of 12 orcs who's gonna take them! Everybody as mass effect power.
And as I recall from the beginning and even from RPG online there a lot role to be fill by differents classes. Like I said I don't whant that the fighter is only machine to fight it can fill some other role but probably not as good as some other class.
The forum is there to said what we don't want so I'm just saying that some general ideas behind each class could be something I would like and if power are to general and available to all. It will be a deal-breaker for me and probably I will continue with my 3.5 edition and be happy with (I gonna save money)
Have a nice day and good gaming to you
And this right here is a big part of the problem- what you want is the exact opposite of what I want in many cases.The question "Why play a fighter if everyone is good in a fight?" I would answer by saying because Fighters are good in a fight in diff
Again you keep talking about wishlists but thats only the tip of the iceburg when you have a system that demands particular bonuses at particular levels. Magic item bloat isn't something I want at my game table.
Again you keep talking about magic item bloat, but skipping the part where 4e has easy to use optional rules that completely eliminate the need to give out any magic items.
The problem with the wishlist is it's one of the many aspects of the design of 3rd and 4th ed that encourages the bluring on in and out of game knowledge.
This is a problem you are creating by assuming that the wish list must be in character knowledge.
You're also assuming magic has to be useful. And anyway if my players cant find a use for a magic item then they're not thinking hard enough. And ultimatly most magic items I've seen in pretty much all editions dont really do it for me and I'd rather create my own to give my players.
So...do that? Making your own magic items isn't incompatible with wish lists. Here's a small sample of some wish list items I've given and recieved over the years:
"I think it'd be cool to have this really fancy heirloom armor that used to be used by a legendary ancient knight or king."
"So my character's gonna be a swashbuckler, and I think it'd be so cool if I found some sort of fire rapier, and then I'd slash at candles and light them with my sword."
"Rituals. I want so many rituals. I don't even care which ones. And components to use them, obviously."
"Something to help me be more stealthy."
Again you keep talking about magic item bloat, but skipping the part where 4e has easy to use optional rules that completely eliminate the need to give out any magic items. This is a problem you are creating by assuming that the wish list must be in
I probably missed a post or two in here, but doesn't 4E mandate a progression of ever-improving magical items for each character? Isn't every character expected to acquire a magical +X weapon/implement/armor/etc (where X = level/5) just so they won't be brutally slaughtered by an encounter of the same level?
It's been a while since I ran the math, but I seem to recall that even accounting for automatic loot progression left players behind the curve as enemies with their +level to all stats outpace players with their +level/2 to all stats.
No, it's not so. It was not a rule, just a suggestion, in my group we play in a world with very few and rare magical items, and with every edition this worked very well, expecially with the 4th Edition I must say.
Were you using inherent bonuses? Where you possibly completely ignoring the encounter design guidelines? Maybe you're just throwing what would be considered low ball encounters? In some way you have to be making up for the absolute fact that the player's characters are not following the mechanically expected mathematical progression that the magic items represent?
No, it's not so. It was not a rule, just a suggestion, in my group we play in a world with very few and rare magical items, and with every edition this worked very well, expecially with the 4th Edition I must say.[/quote]Were you using inherent bonus
Over-reliance on rule-0 rather than writing seemless and tight rules.
Boring rules.
Lack of innovation.
A retro-feel or play-style that can't be 'de-moduled'.
Unexciting combats.
Lack of class flexibility.
Dissasociated mechanics (cf Vancian Magic)
Deal-breakers for me: Class imbalance. One-true-way game design. Over-reliance on rule-0 rather than writing seemless and tight rules. Boring rules. Lack of innovation. A retro-feel or play-style that can't be 'de-moduled'. Unexciting combats. Lack
Wait, people are complaining about 4e's scaling of +X items as "math fix"...you know that scaling on 5e is thru items/equipment that increase ability scores...right?
"you want to hit this guy...you will need +16 STR just from your equipment to have a decent chance to hit him"
I can see that coming
EDIT: I thought i was the only one that remember the "inherent bonuses" option =D
Wait, people are complaining about 4e's scaling of +X items as "math fix"...you know that scaling on 5e is thru items/equipment that increase ability scores...right? "you want to hit this guy...you will need +16 STR just from your equipment to have a
4e's scaling wasn't a 'math fix', it's simply the math. They did, however, provide a non-magic alternative and that needs to be mentioned, IMO, every time the 'Christmas tree' stuff is.
4e's scaling wasn't a 'math fix', it's simply the math. They did, however, provide a non-magic alternative and that needs to be mentioned, IMO, every time the 'Christmas tree' stuff is.
Wait, people are complaining about 4e's scaling of +X items as "math fix"...you know that scaling on 5e is thru items/equipment that increase ability scores...right?
"you want to hit this guy...you will need +16 STR just from your equipment to have a decent chance to hit him"
I can see that coming
the conjecture and wrongess in your statement makes it almost impossible to respond. There is no scaling upon level. given them achieving their design goals you will never need a magical bonus to hit something that is apropriate for your level. A level 20 adventurer naked as the day he was born will be able to fight an apropriate level 20 threat. It may be a hard fought battle but it won't be a battle determined by the fact that the player doesn't have 3 specific magic items.
The inherent bonus system itself was in fact invented as a math fix. They admitted it when they gave that system out. It has been a little while since I read its entry but I am fairly sure it said in the inherent bonus entry that it is to be used when you don't want to use magic items because the players will be at a great disadvantage if you do not. It was inveted and distributed along side a campaign setting where there are little to no magic items. Literally if you have 0 magic items by mid paragon and you aren't using the inherent bonuses system the players cannot actually face a by the guidelines fight. It will kill them. Without magic items not only do the players hit less but the monsters hit more, and the monsters hit harder too. There were systemic balance issues that were only solved by giving the players magic items or inherent bonuses or lowballing the encounters by a wide margin. Much like todays subject of Feat Tax there was hardly even a choice in the arena. The increases were expected mathematically by the system.
For 5e they have expressly stated multiple times that this will not be the case. A +1 sword will be usefull from first level all the way to 20th not because you need it in order to hit things that are your level, but because it actually makes you better at hitting things. Getting a +5 weapon will mean that you hit far more often not that you can hit. Having +5 armor means you are hit far less often not that you have the minimum required bonus in order to not be hit 80% of the time. The items will be powerful and they will make things easier for the player, but it will not be required for the character to be functional.
the conjecture and wrongess in your statement makes it almost impossible to respond. There is no scaling upon level. given them achieving their design goals you will never need a magical bonus to hit something that is apropriate for your level. A
I would NOT buy DND Next if Vancian magic is the only option for a "magic system" - I can't stand the Vancian magic system. It needs to include the Vancian option and the 4e magic system option.
Everything else in DND Next is negotiable and just "sauce for the goose" as far as I am concerned.
I would NOT buy DND Next if Vancian magic is the only option for a "magic system" - I can't stand the Vancian magic system. It needs to include the Vancian option and the 4e magic system option.Everything else in DND Next is negotiable and just "sau
Well its already a broken thread, but that said, I thought I'd add in my own gripe...
I want a system that makes NO ONE happy at first level. I want a first level character with holes to fill. Things to learn. If I can do everything at first level, and all I'm looking forward to is getting better at them, I'm out.
Thief not as good as a fighter at dealing damage? Well you can try to be at a higher level! Fighter not versatile enough for you? Maybe you're not high enough level yet.
I will, on occasion (whatever the system) make a character at an even level as the party after a death, especially if they are high level, but I love playing first level characters in a 4th-5th level campaign and trying to survive.
If I can make a character at first level and be happy with everything he can do, I'll retire him instantly. Talk about boring.
Strife brings growth. Weakness is something to overcome.
Well its already a broken thread, but that said, I thought I'd add in my own gripe...I want a system that makes NO ONE happy at first level. I want a first level character with holes to fill. Things to learn. If I can do everything at first level,
Price and organization. I can't really describe what I will or won't go with until I see it for myself, in which case I'll go "Yeah, that's the stuff!" or "Egad! That's insane!"
Price and organization. I can't really describe what I will or won't go with until I see it for myself, in which case I'll go "Yeah, that's the stuff!" or "Egad! That's insane!"
Well its already a broken thread, but that said, I thought I'd add in my own gripe...
I want a system that makes NO ONE happy at first level. I want a first level character with holes to fill. Things to learn. If I can do everything at first level, and all I'm looking forward to is getting better at them, I'm out.
Thief not as good as a fighter at dealing damage? Well you can try to be at a higher level! Fighter not versatile enough for you? Maybe you're not high enough level yet.
I will, on occasion (whatever the system) make a character at an even level as the party after a death, especially if they are high level, but I love playing first level characters in a 4th-5th level campaign and trying to survive.
If I can make a character at first level and be happy with everything he can do, I'll retire him instantly. Talk about boring.
Strife brings growth. Weakness is something to overcome.
Yes, I like your attitude.
I don't know why people want so badly to be able to do everything at first level anyway. The first few levels represent adventurers just starting out, and they should still have a lot to learn. That's part of the fun.
You want to play characters with a little more experience under their belt? Then just start them at a little higher level. What's the problem?
Yes, I like your attitude.I don't know why people want so badly to be able to do everything at first level anyway. The first few levels represent adventurers just starting out, and they should still have a lot to learn. That's part of the fun.You wan
I'd be more worried about 5e's commercial and financial chances of success if the new edition fails to achieve the stated design goal of unifying the entire fanbase (consisting of both 4e fans AND fans of previous editions.)
If more and more people consider anything and everything that the previous posters dislike as "dealbreakers", if 4e fans and fans of previous editions don't stop edition warring, and if they don't "agree to disagree" and allow 5e to be all inclusive like the design goals state, then 5e won't be successful.
i think that with the very definition of being all-inclusive, 5e should have everything that 1e through 4e had...everything that fans of any edition like or dislike. Whether it's the traditional 9 alignments, powerful and permanent spells like Wish, or all of the core and optional races...if any of those are not in the rulebooks as modules, options or core, then that would be a dealbreaker to many fans.
I want the new edition to include the 9 alignments, all of the spells from all of the editions, and all of the player races in the rulebooks as core rules or as modules/options. I want the Great Wheel to return, and I'm sure that other fans would like that too.
in my opinion, 5e has to be all-inclusive.
I'd be more worried about 5e's commercial and financial chances of success if the new edition fails to achieve the stated design goal of unifying the entire fanbase (consisting of both 4e fans AND fans of previous editions.) If more and more people c
I'd be more worried about 5e's commercial and financial chances of success if the new edition fails to achieve the stated design goal of unifying the entire fanbase (consisting of both 4e fans AND fans of previous editions.)
If more and more people consider anything and everything that the previous posters dislike as "dealbreakers", if 4e fans and fans of previous editions don't stop edition warring, and if they don't "agree to disagree" and allow 5e to be all inclusive like the design goals state, then 5e won't be successful.
i think that with the very definition of being all-inclusive, 5e should have everything that 1e through 4e had...everything that fans of any edition like or dislike. Whether it's the traditional 9 alignments, powerful and permanent spells like Wish, or all of the core and optional races...if any of those are not in the rulebooks as modules, options or core, then that would be a dealbreaker to many fans.
I want the new edition to include the 9 alignments, all of the spells from all of the editions, and all of the player races in the rulebooks as core rules or as modules/options. I want the Great Wheel to return, and I'm sure that other fans would like that too.
in my opinion, 5e has to be all-inclusive.
If it's all inclusive, why bother buying it? Everything that you want in 5e would already be available. Or do you just want a 1000+page core book listing all of the rules from 1e-4e? They need to come up with something that includes all of the old, mixed with something new, that will make everyone happy. But as the saying goes, "You can't make everyone happy all of the time."
Personally, I'd prefer WotC assign a small development team to each past edition, go over them with a fine-toothed comb (maybe set up polls or questionaires to find out what the players loved or hated about that particular edition and make small fixes here and there), then re-issue and reprint all of it.
If it's all inclusive, why bother buying it? Everything that you want in 5e would already be available. Or do you just want a 1000+page core book listing all of the rules from 1e-4e? They need to come up with something that includes all of the old, m
Well its already a broken thread, but that said, I thought I'd add in my own gripe...
I want a system that makes NO ONE happy at first level. I want a first level character with holes to fill. Things to learn. If I can do everything at first level, and all I'm looking forward to is getting better at them, I'm out.
Thief not as good as a fighter at dealing damage? Well you can try to be at a higher level! Fighter not versatile enough for you? Maybe you're not high enough level yet.
I will, on occasion (whatever the system) make a character at an even level as the party after a death, especially if they are high level, but I love playing first level characters in a 4th-5th level campaign and trying to survive.
If I can make a character at first level and be happy with everything he can do, I'll retire him instantly. Talk about boring.
Strife brings growth. Weakness is something to overcome.
Yes, I like your attitude.
I don't know why people want so badly to be able to do everything at first level anyway. The first few levels represent adventurers just starting out, and they should still have a lot to learn. That's part of the fun.
You want to play characters with a little more experience under their belt? Then just start them at a little higher level. What's the problem?
That's how I want low levels too. Not just first level. Low levels in general.
Well I'd like also to see some of it at max level, something like "a rogue will never, ever deal just as much damadge as a fighter, unless he has a good sneak attack/backstabbing opportunity" or "a fighter will never be just as versatile as a wizard" and this sort of stuff.
I'd be more worried about 5e's commercial and financial chances of success if the new edition fails to achieve the stated design goal of unifying the entire fanbase (consisting of both 4e fans AND fans of previous editions.)
If more and more people consider anything and everything that the previous posters dislike as "dealbreakers", if 4e fans and fans of previous editions don't stop edition warring, and if they don't "agree to disagree" and allow 5e to be all inclusive like the design goals state, then 5e won't be successful.
i think that with the very definition of being all-inclusive, 5e should have everything that 1e through 4e had...everything that fans of any edition like or dislike. Whether it's the traditional 9 alignments, powerful and permanent spells like Wish, or all of the core and optional races...if any of those are not in the rulebooks as modules, options or core, then that would be a dealbreaker to many fans.
I want the new edition to include the 9 alignments, all of the spells from all of the editions, and all of the player races in the rulebooks as core rules or as modules/options. I want the Great Wheel to return, and I'm sure that other fans would like that too.
in my opinion, 5e has to be all-inclusive.
This is more or less the feeling they tried to give to 5th edition when it was announced. We have just one playtest pack, so it's impossible to say if they will manadge or not, but that would be the most awsome design.
Yes, I like your attitude.I don't know why people want so badly to be able to do everything at first level anyway. The first few levels represent adventurers just starting out, and they should still have a lot to learn. That's part of the fun.You wan
I will only buy one set of rulebooks. Player's handbook, DMG and a Monster Manual. I expect all the rules to be inside those including any rules for creating new magic items, new monsters, new classes, new abilities, new races, etc.
I'll just download any other books as pdfs so I won't pay any extra. I won't carry around a dozen books anyway. I also don't want later supplements to make the original books to be useless.
I'll buy extra supplements if they are useful for gameplay for a particular adventure or something but not more books.
This would be my dealbreaker. I know that this next edition is going to be all about modules, and that very likely means lots of module books that come out after the first set of "core" books, but they better not be something that is mandatory for a complete and fun game or incredibly expensive. At the very least, those first "core" books need to have rules and guidelines for creating your own modular things (such as additional Backgrounds and Themes). One of my least favorite experiences with 4th was seeing a certain limited # of powers in the PHB1 and then smatterings of others throughout additional PHBs and other supplemental books that better fit the character concept I originally wanted.
Bottom line, I don't want to spend $25-35 per book on 4-5 additional supplemental books just to get bits and pieces of mechanics necessary to enjoy my gaming experience; nor do I want to turn to piracy of illegal PDFs just to avoid paying for a book I largely have no interest in but for a few small bits of information.
This would be my dealbreaker. I know that this next edition is going to be all about modules, and that very likely means lots of module books that come out after the first set of "core" books, but they better not be something that is mandatory for a
)
