Flag
Pashalik_Mons
•
December 7, 2012 1:11 PM PST
However, there is a different standard of use for spells/codified elements than there is for uncodified elements. To pull off some cool improv, you have to get the DM to say 'yes'. To pull off a spell, you only need him not to say 'no'.
Flag
Zaramon
•
December 7, 2012 1:13 PM PST
However, there is a different standard of use for spells/codified elements than there is for uncodified elements. To pull off some cool improv, you have to get the DM to say 'yes'. To pull off a spell, you only need him not to say 'no'.[/quote]How
Flag
Pashalik_Mons
•
December 7, 2012 1:48 PM PST
However, there is a different standard of use for spells/codified elements than there is for uncodified elements. To pull off some cool improv, you have to get the DM to say 'yes'. To pull off a spell, you only need him not to say 'no'.[/quote]How
Flag
Arithezoo
•
December 7, 2012 1:54 PM PST
Lose the flat math, take the best aspects of 3e and 4e and mix well. Make every class feel completely unique, not everone needs combat expertise (infact could we just get rid of it altogether). Drop specialties and backgrounds, free form feats and sk
Flag
Arithezoo
•
December 7, 2012 2:02 PM PST
Thanks for answering!At-will for everyone? I can't see it happening (as it seems a significant proportion of fans like daily resources), but it is easy enough to do on your own (I'll get to that at the end).So you think the current Level 1 character
Flag
arderkrag
•
December 7, 2012 2:29 PM PST
Arithezoo - I'll send you a link later to a something I've been working on for a while. The classes I've built for it sound a bit like your suggestion, which may be a good or bad thing depending on perspective.
Flag
NightsLastHero
•
December 7, 2012 2:31 PM PST
Pashalik_Mons that may work for the current game session/game but in past experience next game you play with the dm that spell will get banned
Flag
Arithezoo
•
December 7, 2012 2:32 PM PST
Ha ha awesome!
Flag
thecasualoblivion
•
December 7, 2012 2:41 PM PST
The inertia is against the DM in that regard, though. That sort of DM heavy-handedness is likely to grate on the players and make the DM unpopular if it happens repeatedly. The DM needs some sort of justification for banning a spell, while making a c
Flag
Pashalik_Mons
•
December 7, 2012 2:42 PM PST
If the DM feels strongly enough about it to ban it, sure. But feeling strongly enough about something to step up and ban it isn't in the middle ground.
Flag
Aldarin21
•
December 7, 2012 2:44 PM PST
The main thing that would keep me from buying DnD Next would be if manuevers are left as is, with effects based solely on Expertise Dice. I initially greatly liked the expertise dice mechanic, but the more time I have to think about it, the more unco
Flag
Zaramon
•
December 7, 2012 2:56 PM PST
@Pashalik: See, that's why you're one of the posters on here that I respect. If I ask you to clarify something, you happily do so. :)I hear what you're saying. In some ways, I'm probably more lenient than most in that regard, but in others, I bet I'm
Flag
Miladoon
•
December 7, 2012 3:00 PM PST
Access to a free online fanbase.
Flag
Mournblade94
•
December 7, 2012 3:05 PM PST
However, there is a different standard of use for spells/codified elements than there is for uncodified elements. To pull off some cool improv, you have to get the DM to say 'yes'. To pull off a spell, you only need him not to say 'no'.[/quote]How
Flag
Miladoon
•
December 7, 2012 3:16 PM PST
I allowed my players to give me real world money to get whatever they wanted. They told me it was like buying virtual gold to use in an MMO.I laughed and took the five bucks.
Flag
brap8
•
December 7, 2012 3:23 PM PST
Expertise dice. Hate it
Flag
Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe
•
December 7, 2012 3:32 PM PST
Same here. In practice, it becomes labor intensive. More dice rolls.ALSO... for the price we pay for the books, I expect more quality from the BINDING... I still have my 1st edition books which I used for years and still reference them even today. My
Flag
Pashalik_Mons
•
December 7, 2012 3:35 PM PST
I like to talk. It's not hard to get me to do it ;)I agree that a good DM should be fair in this, I wasn't trying to out anyone in specific or anything like that. But while having this sort of thing in the DMG is good, and absolutely should be done
Flag
Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe
•
December 7, 2012 3:42 PM PST
Thanks for answering!At-will for everyone? I can't see it happening (as it seems a significant proportion of fans like daily resources), but it is easy enough to do on your own (I'll get to that at the end).So you think the current Level 1 character
Flag
Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe
•
December 7, 2012 3:47 PM PST
I think this is just a matter of how you look at it.Accuracy will improve with character levels, it already does that as your base attack bonus does improve.[/quote]True. And if you look at the damage in terms of percentage chance to kill... then the
Flag
Zaramon
•
December 7, 2012 4:19 PM PST
@Pashalik: I see you're point. The hard-coded nature of spells indeed enables them to do something unless the DM says otherwise, but really, the DMG kind of says that everything a player wants to do should be treated that way, hard-coded or not. I'm
Flag
Pashalik_Mons
•
December 7, 2012 4:41 PM PST
It sure does say that, and again, it still totally should. But there is a gap between what the book says we should do, and what ends up happening at the table. Sometimes that gap is a stingy DM, sometimes it's an impatient or shy player. Sometimes
Flag
Arithezoo
•
December 7, 2012 4:59 PM PST
It sure does say that, and again, it still totally should. But there is a gap between what the book says we should do, and what ends up happening at the table. Sometimes that gap is a stingy DM, sometimes it's an impatient or shy player. Sometimes
Flag
Zaramon
•
December 7, 2012 5:06 PM PST
Two major things I liked about 4e's power system was the provision for options for every class, and the small-effect yet reliable spells for the casters. I may not necessarily agree with the broad execution of the system, but those were in fact two t
Flag
zago
•
December 7, 2012 5:18 PM PST
What would make not buy Next top 1010. Going back to thac0, saving throws, and any other way of making something simple 'sound' hard9. Classes or options that make other classes obsolete (like Mages being better rogues)8. Bloat (class bloat, race blo
Flag
warrl
•
December 7, 2012 5:44 PM PST
Considering the public acknowledgment that the 3rd playtest packet deliberately included something they expected would be unacceptable (i.e. they trolled us), so they could judge *how* unacceptable......it's pretty unreasonable to assume that the cor
Flag
warrl
•
December 7, 2012 5:52 PM PST
Please, can we edit that to "excessively tightly bounded accuracy"? Every edition has had bounded accuracy, but where the boundaries are has varied. (For 4E I believe the upper bound is somewhere around +50 to +60, and I'm willing to accept that this
Flag
zago
•
December 7, 2012 7:28 PM PST
Please, can we edit that to "excessively tightly bounded accuracy"? Every edition has had bounded accuracy, but where the boundaries are has varied. (For 4E I believe the upper bound is somewhere around +50 to +60, and I'm willing to accept that this
Flag
Arithezoo
•
December 7, 2012 7:50 PM PST
Whole post was good but I think this deserves special attention. It makes sense that DMs that for whatever reason who want to avoid work, would just veto something like that, regardless of whether or not it's true to the spirit of the game to do so.[
Flag
Garthanos
•
December 7, 2012 9:56 PM PST
Hopefully not .. they only have me and my furnishings to target :rofl:But seriously ... then they arent better at dodging and evading and enemies that level arent better ath those things either? Huh?.. This is not some grandly logical thing here.
Flag
Zaramon
•
December 7, 2012 10:08 PM PST
Reminds me of the time I side-armed one of my D20's out of rage after one too many bad rolls, and almost put it through my friend's 60-inch HD TV. He was pissed.
Flag
zago
•
December 7, 2012 10:21 PM PST
Hopefully not .. they only have me and my furnishings to target :rofl:But seriously ... then they arent better at dodging and evading and enemies that level arent better ath those things either? Huh?.. This is not some grandly logical thing here. [
Flag
Garthanos
•
December 7, 2012 10:35 PM PST
Hopefully not .. they only have me and my furnishings to target :rofl:But seriously ... then they arent better at dodging and evading and enemies that level arent better ath those things either? Huh?.. This is not some grandly logical thing here. [
Flag
Saelorn
•
December 7, 2012 10:41 PM PST
Um... no? In both AD&D and 3.X, nobody gained AC just with level. If you look at some pre-generated NPCs in 3E, you can easily find level 10 or 15 characters with AC 19 or worse, because they still only get armor and Dex and whatever minor bonuses
Flag
Zaramon
•
December 7, 2012 10:43 PM PST
Is now a bad time to bring up the class-based AC bonus by level from Unearthed Arcana in 3e? Or the standard class-based defense bonus in Star Wars D20RPG, which is basically the same thing?
Flag
Saelorn
•
December 7, 2012 10:49 PM PST
Honestly, something like that would work wonders for my acceptance of Next. Even if they kept it bounded, by giving people a static class-based AC bonus instead of AC from armor, it's exactly the kind of minor concessions toward reasonability that w
Flag
Garthanos
•
December 7, 2012 10:51 PM PST
The lack of anyone except the monk progressing in armor class was one of the many "this doesnt make much sense elements of 1e actually. "
Flag
Zaramon
•
December 7, 2012 10:52 PM PST
Out of curiousity, say they don't do that, but you have access to the actual rule from UA. Would you adapt the rule to Next, if you thought the system was otherwise worth it?Because that is one of the variants I have used and loved for quite a long t
Flag
zago
•
December 7, 2012 10:58 PM PST
Hopefully not .. they only have me and my furnishings to target :rofl:But seriously ... then they arent better at dodging and evading and enemies that level arent better ath those things either? Huh?.. This is not some grandly logical thing here. [
Flag
Zaramon
•
December 7, 2012 11:31 PM PST
3e Unearthed Arcana to the rescue again. There is a rule called "armor as damage reduction" which cuts the armor class value of physical protection sources, like natural armor and normal armor in half, and then takes the value that was cut and turns
Flag
Samrin
•
December 8, 2012 12:06 AM PST
Hopefully not .. they only have me and my furnishings to target :rofl:But seriously ... then they arent better at dodging and evading and enemies that level arent better ath those things either? Huh?.. This is not some grandly logical thing here. [
Flag
Garthanos
•
December 8, 2012 1:11 AM PST
Hopefully not .. they only have me and my furnishings to target :rofl:But seriously ... then they arent better at dodging and evading and enemies that level arent better ath those things either? Huh?.. This is not some grandly logical thing here. [
Flag
Garthanos
•
December 8, 2012 1:17 AM PST
I read UA (from 2e and 3e)but even from an outsiders pov (I played and DMd 1e) with a big gap of a huge number of other games in the middle and only came back to DnD because of 4e, I never quite trusted Unearthed Arcana .. the math behind it seemed s
Flag
Zaramon
•
December 8, 2012 1:34 AM PST
Even with something as heavy as plate it was only 4 points of DR, which is nothing at higher levels. Besides, maybe some of our more finesse-types should have abilities that help them mitigate that particular obstacle.
Flag
Davrix
•
December 8, 2012 1:46 AM PST
The biggest issue I have is really I don’t see the point of 5th. It just feels like a half ass attempted to pander to older ed players while bringing nothing new to the table that makes me go hey that’s kind of cool. Everyone has a righ
Flag
zago
•
December 8, 2012 8:47 AM PST
Um... no? In both AD&D and 3.X, nobody gained AC just with level. If you look at some pre-generated NPCs in 3E, you can easily find level 10 or 15 characters with AC 19 or worse, because they still only get armor and Dex and whatever minor bonuses
Flag
zago
•
December 8, 2012 9:08 AM PST
Hopefully not .. they only have me and my furnishings to target :rofl:But seriously ... then they arent better at dodging and evading and enemies that level arent better ath those things either? Huh?.. This is not some grandly logical thing here. [
Flag
eRaz0r
•
December 8, 2012 10:21 AM PST
However, there is a different standard of use for spells/codified elements than there is for uncodified elements. To pull off some cool improv, you have to get the DM to say 'yes'. To pull off a spell, you only need him not to say 'no'.[/quote]How
Flag
EnglishLanguage
•
December 8, 2012 11:45 AM PST
Hopefully not .. they only have me and my furnishings to target :rofl:But seriously ... then they arent better at dodging and evading and enemies that level arent better ath those things either? Huh?.. This is not some grandly logical thing here. [
Flag
Darkwolf_Bloodsbane
•
December 8, 2012 12:07 PM PST
Vancian casting.
Flag
Gatt
•
December 8, 2012 1:25 PM PST
The point is that D&D lost a massive amount of market share. D&D was the dominant RPG for decades, to the point where the majority of people who played RPGs had played only D&D. With 4th edition, they lost massive amounts of market share in the s
Flag
thecasualoblivion
•
December 8, 2012 1:30 PM PST
4E lost market share, but it also took market share. A big part of the D&D market share is now 4E, and its going to stay that way. 4E needs a place in 5E just the same as pre-4E. People preferring how 4E does things isn't going to go away just becaus
Flag
Polaris
•
December 8, 2012 1:37 PM PST
That is an incomplete and thus inaccurate analysis. 4E (and honestly the OGL keeping 3.5 alive) fractured the market. There is no way that Hasbro can reach it's target if it DOES throw the 4E part of the fanbase (and the only ones currently Wotc's
Flag
Dwarfslayer
•
December 8, 2012 4:48 PM PST
That is an incomplete and thus inaccurate analysis. 4E (and honestly the OGL keeping 3.5 alive) fractured the market. There is no way that Hasbro can reach it's target if it DOES throw the 4E part of the fanbase (and the only ones currently Wotc's
Flag
Otherworldly
•
December 8, 2012 5:23 PM PST
That is an incomplete and thus inaccurate analysis. 4E (and honestly the OGL keeping 3.5 alive) fractured the market. There is no way that Hasbro can reach it's target if it DOES throw the 4E part of the fanbase (and the only ones currently Wotc's
Flag
Gatt
•
December 8, 2012 6:19 PM PST
4E lost market share, but it also took market share. A big part of the D&D market share is now 4E, and its going to stay that way. 4E needs a place in 5E just the same as pre-4E. People preferring how 4E does things isn't going to go away just becaus
Flag
Samrin
•
December 8, 2012 8:19 PM PST
Actually, the reason there were no CRPG's is because Atari had been sitting on the license letting it go stagnant for a long time. That is why WotC sued them and won the rights back.
Flag
mrpopstar
•
December 8, 2012 8:27 PM PST
Honestly, something like that would work wonders for my acceptance of Next. Even if they kept it bounded, by giving people a static class-based AC bonus instead of AC from armor, it's exactly the kind of minor concessions toward reasonability that w
Flag
Pashalik_Mons
•
December 8, 2012 8:31 PM PST
Oh? I didn't hear about this.
Flag
arnwolf666
•
December 8, 2012 8:32 PM PST
what the heck is "DM may I"
Flag
mrpopstar
•
December 8, 2012 8:37 PM PST
A term used to describe the irrational fear many hold of an open-ended game that does not explicitly define any and all capability for the sake of impugning one's character's intent and action on the experience in spite of the DM's attempt at telling
Flag
sgt_d
•
December 8, 2012 8:58 PM PST
To respond to the original question:What would stop me from purchasing D&D next would be the following.1. FR the only published setting.2. A lack of AD&D style modules (ya know, $10 for a reasonable adventure)3. Additional price-creep. I'm not spendi
Flag
Be3Al2
•
December 8, 2012 8:58 PM PST
Having to ask "DM may I [do this improvised thing I want to do]?" Or in other words, having to ask the DM every step of the way if you may do something you want to do.
Flag
Chakravant
•
December 8, 2012 9:09 PM PST
Actually, the reason there were no CRPG's is because Atari had been sitting on the license letting it go stagnant for a long time. That is why WotC sued them and won the rights back.[/quote]Weird. Atari bought Cryptic and set Cryptic to work on the
Flag
Saelorn
•
December 8, 2012 9:15 PM PST
Oh, there are lots of solutions. Personally, I am partial to armor as DR, but it's harder to see how that would work under the current inflationary damage model. Maybe it gives level-based DR? The other, easier and simpler model is to have armor g
Flag
Warrant
•
December 8, 2012 9:18 PM PST
A game where the DM can be out lawyered by the players is a game I won't buy. D&D is a story game, not a tactical board game so it is incumbent upon the DM to create a compelling story and have the power to rule on the fly to make his/her story come
Flag
Jenks
•
December 8, 2012 9:18 PM PST
I would hit $10 adventures so hard, they wouldn't be able to be run for days :P In all realism, they'd probably be 15 dollars (like the PF ones), but damnit it's WAY better than nothing!
Flag
sgt_d
•
December 8, 2012 9:29 PM PST
$15 is fine with me. It's just that I have seen that the game focuses more on the big-ticket purchases, as most of the 4e books are $30+, instead of having options for people to buy at all levels of price. And a large adventure library is always good
Flag
Davrix
•
December 9, 2012 12:12 AM PST
The point is that D&D lost a massive amount of market share. D&D was the dominant RPG for decades, to the point where the majority of people who played RPGs had played only D&D. With 4th edition, they lost massive amounts of market share in the s
Flag
Zardnaar
•
December 9, 2012 4:02 AM PST
D&DN resembles pre 4th ed but it is very different in mechanics. a D&DN fighter isn't the 3.5 or 2nd ed one, Wizards is about the slosest conversion and then its really only becuase it has vancian casting. Even the spell patern isn't the same.
Flag
Samrin
•
December 9, 2012 4:15 AM PST
Actually, the reason there were no CRPG's is because Atari had been sitting on the license letting it go stagnant for a long time. That is why WotC sued them and won the rights back.[/quote]Weird. Atari bought Cryptic and set Cryptic to work on the
Flag
lokiare
•
December 9, 2012 8:51 AM PST
And they think this will garner them good will how?
Flag
EnglishLanguage
•
December 9, 2012 8:55 AM PST
And they think this will garner them good will how?[/quote]+1Putting in controversial ideas and suggestions is one thing, but slapping things into the playtest packet that have already been stated as guarunteed dealbreakers for people without mention
Flag
Samrin
•
December 9, 2012 9:35 AM PST
And they think this will garner them good will how?[/quote]+1Putting in controversial ideas and suggestions is one thing, but slapping things into the playtest packet that have already been stated as guarunteed dealbreakers for people without mention
Flag
Jenks
•
December 9, 2012 9:50 AM PST
It's extremely useful data nonetheless.
Flag
thecasualoblivion
•
December 9, 2012 10:04 AM PST
Information that somebody with half a brain would already know and not need to test.
Flag
mexrage
•
December 9, 2012 10:08 AM PST
I know that if i hit myself with a hammer it will hurt me....but let's investigate further...(slam head with hammer)...yep, it indeed hurted me...
Flag
Samrin
•
December 9, 2012 10:15 AM PST
I know that if i hit myself with a hammer it will hurt me....but let's investigate further...(slam head with hammer)...yep, it indeed hurted me...[/quote]+1
Flag
Pashalik_Mons
•
December 9, 2012 10:33 AM PST
Eh, I can kinda see a defense of the Rogue thing. You can't just ask people how much disparity is okay(How much Rogue-suckage are you okay with? 10%? 3 units? Banana phone?) but the alignment restrictions thing was a bad move. I really don't kn
Flag
Chakravant
•
December 9, 2012 2:43 PM PST
Actually, the reason there were no CRPG's is because Atari had been sitting on the license letting it go stagnant for a long time. That is why WotC sued them and won the rights back.[/quote]Weird. Atari bought Cryptic and set Cryptic to work on the
Flag
mrpopstar
•
December 9, 2012 3:48 PM PST
Oh, there are lots of solutions. Personally, I am partial to armor as DR, but it's harder to see how that would work under the current inflationary damage model. Maybe it gives level-based DR? The other, easier and simpler model is to have armor g
Flag
Zardnaar
•
December 9, 2012 4:21 PM PST
Eh, I can kinda see a defense of the Rogue thing. You can't just ask people how much disparity is okay(How much Rogue-suckage are you okay with? 10%? 3 units? Banana phone?) but the alignment restrictions thing was a bad move. I really don't kn
Flag
zago
•
December 9, 2012 4:31 PM PST
And they think this will garner them good will how?[/quote]+1Putting in controversial ideas and suggestions is one thing, but slapping things into the playtest packet that have already been stated as guarunteed dealbreakers for people without mention
Flag
EnglishLanguage
•
December 9, 2012 6:40 PM PST
Eh, I can kinda see a defense of the Rogue thing. You can't just ask people how much disparity is okay(How much Rogue-suckage are you okay with? 10%? 3 units? Banana phone?) but the alignment restrictions thing was a bad move. I really don't kn
Flag
mexrage
•
December 9, 2012 6:49 PM PST
Oh, there are lots of solutions. Personally, I am partial to armor as DR, but it's harder to see how that would work under the current inflationary damage model. Maybe it gives level-based DR? The other, easier and simpler model is to have armor g
Flag
Zardnaar
•
December 9, 2012 6:50 PM PST
Tradition matters to a corporation when in comes to sales. Coke/New Coke and the 2002 relaunch of the mini for example. Tradition is something like brand identity. D&D players will accept change as thye always have (new editions, new splats etc) but
Flag
mexrage
•
December 9, 2012 6:58 PM PST
In this case, we are talking about...not wanting to upgrade/buy/use intel i7 core, because back in the day we used Pentium 2 arquitecture 10 years ago and now it's tradition...and that you would rather want to buy and adquire Pentium 2 over i7, even
Flag
Wndstar
•
December 9, 2012 7:05 PM PST
Well inadvertantly I have found a way for me to enjoy my D&D, Amazon...... So if DDN fails to meet my expectations I now have an alternative.
Flag
Zardnaar
•
December 9, 2012 7:08 PM PST
Completely different products and one can get 15 and 20 year old games to work on a modern PC. If Intel made a new PC machine that wasn't based on the PC/Apple "standard" then you would probably have a closer example. D&D is a multi generational fra
Flag
Bronze_Age
•
December 9, 2012 8:10 PM PST
I can only see one thing prevent me (and my group) from purchasing and playing 5e.....and it isn't anything to do with the rules, classes and spells that result from the play test. I've played and enjoyed all the previous versions....I am sure I can
Flag
EnglishLanguage
•
December 9, 2012 8:12 PM PST
@Bronze:Eh....kinda tricky. Inevitably, 5e will have bloat. It's msotly seeing how long they can stall having too much of it.
Flag
YouKnowTheOneGuy
•
December 9, 2012 8:27 PM PST
Hopefully it'll be storycreep. Interesting settings. Horror mechanics (maneuvers risk loss of sanity). Fun stuff. I could also be okay w/ them adding more levels of play and crazy powerful stuff creeping in at (4e termwise) new tiers. I could be okay
Flag
Bronze_Age
•
December 9, 2012 9:08 PM PST
I agree, rules bloat happens. I just want to hear "the plan" to ensure the correct care, checks and balances are in place to maintain the integrity of the game that they (we) are trying so hard to get right...otherwise I fear all this time and emotio
Flag
sgt_d
•
December 9, 2012 9:13 PM PST
I agree with you, Bronze_Age. I am hoping that, instead of bloat-producing splatbooks every other month or so, getting a steady stream of adventures or campaign booklets. Back in the 2e days, there was a lot of product released, but so much of it was
Flag
LordofKhyber
•
December 9, 2012 9:26 PM PST
The lack of rational and balanced design is a big sticking point for me. Alignment restrictions? Martial characters having to be boring and bad to placate the jock hating 'nards? Boring, generic, and uninspired fluff?Yeah no thanks. I'm sorry but Fif
Flag
Bronze_Age
•
December 9, 2012 9:28 PM PST
Agreed. Hmm... I feel I may have inadvertently hijacked the thread so I'll a attempt a course correction here to get back on track. Despite my comments above, there are no specific rules or play test choices that are deal breakers for me.
Flag
lokiare
•
December 9, 2012 9:30 PM PST
The real trick is finding a compelling reason for both DMs and players to purchase new books. 4E's everything is core was a good idea but implemented badly.The best approach is to have books that include rules for both DMs and players. Its should inc
Flag
Saelorn
•
December 10, 2012 12:15 AM PST
Yeah, "taking off armor" and "healing through it" are the problems created by the "armor as HP" model.If you treat armor HP as true temporary HP, then those always come off the top. You'd lose the 5 HP from chainmail and take another 11 HP of real d
Flag
Zardnaar
•
December 10, 2012 1:24 AM PST
Somehitng like that would be good.
Flag
Zaramon
•
December 11, 2012 4:11 PM PST
Honestly, something like that would work wonders for my acceptance of Next. Even if they kept it bounded, by giving people a static class-based AC bonus instead of AC from armor, it's exactly the kind of minor concessions toward reasonability that w
