Everyone of said spells can be shut down. Really if someone wants to have their character have the impact in the setting, rather than riding the rails of a pre-built story by the DM, it depends almost entirely on the DM. In the games I run, players are always the ones with the agency, spells or not.
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'.
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'.
Everyone of said spells can be shut down. Really if someone wants to have their character have the impact in the setting, rather than riding the rails of a pre-built story by the DM, it depends almost entirely on the DM. In the games I run, players are always the ones with the agency, spells or not.
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'.
How do you mean?
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
Everyone of said spells can be shut down. Really if someone wants to have their character have the impact in the setting, rather than riding the rails of a pre-built story by the DM, it depends almost entirely on the DM. In the games I run, players are always the ones with the agency, spells or not.
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'.
How do you mean?
If you ask the DM to let you improv some action, he will consider it, and must give his opinion. If he is even a bit not okay with it, you are likely looking at a 'no', or at least at a roll with the odds stacked against you. You have to convince him that your proposed action is reasonable. If you want to do the thing, you must get him to explicitly say, 'yes', even if that is qualified with, "I'll let you roll for it".
If you ask the DM to let you cast a spell, well, right off the bat, generally, you don't ask. If you've got Spider Climb prepared, the rules for Spider Climb are clear, you just say, "I'm casting Spider Climb." and then it happens. The DM does not have to consider it, and does not need to think about and present his opinion. If he does not wish for it to work, he must veto it. That means that he must have a certain level of disapproval, enough to act on, before he'll do it. And he'll have to feel fairly confident in his decision as well, after all, the books clearly state that this action is reasonable. A little discomfort isn't going to get most DMs to stand up and oppose written rules, and many would even consider it poor form to veto a spell if they had not previously considered the possibility and put in a counter-measure, say, grease on the wall, or something.
What I'm getting at is that if the DM really wants a thing to happen, it generally will. If the DM is really opposed to a thing happening, it generally won't. But spells(or to be precise, codified elements), take the middle ground, whereas improv has to surrender it.
You, personally, as a DM, might be super lenient and cool about these things, but even you have a middle ground where you're not entirely certain if something is appropriate, and in that space, spells rule and improv drools.
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
What would you like to see from the next edition of D&D?
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 skill selection for everyone. The 3 base saves (fort, will, reflex) come back. Drop the modular approach.
Basically I would start of with 4e as a base, but give everyone a different subsystem, some vancian magic, some AEDU, some something new entirely, and encourage the players, DM, designers to constantly experiment with new abilities and classes, races. It would be a big bulky system, but for me very interesting.
Well, I think the designers also want each class to feel unique. So far, I think they have done a pretty good job on that. The biggest trouble seems to be Rogue vs Fighter, which is to be expected I think. Considering they are essentially the same archetype just stretched in different ways (martial fighting dude...fighter fights better, rogue is better at skills), it will take time to nail down something that makes each class feel unique. I look forward to seeing what the new packet has in store for them.
Why don't you like expertise? Why do you dislike the flatter math so much?
Freeform feats and skills IS what the playtest currently has. If you want, you can pick a premade background or specialty, but in both cases you are allowed (even encouraged) to simply make your own. What is the advantage in dropping examples for players who don't want to come up with their own (or for people who simply like having examples)?
Why do you like the 3 base saves over simply using Ability Scores? I think the new approach is simpler, more intuitive, and helps put an emphasis on all your stats.
What is wrong with modular? D&D has always been modular (they just haven't called it that). Every edition has had optional rules.
As you say, making "Give each class its own subsystem" into a dogmatic rule will make the system big and bulky, and that isn't an advantage. I think it is good that the designers aren't being dogmatic about things. If a class is served best with a new subsystem, they will do it. If it works perfectly with an existing subsystem, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel.
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
Arithezoo - I'd like to see - in the core: All classes at-will based. No "per-day" or "per encounter" based anything. Character mechanics would reflect starting out as "farmer who just learned to fight" rather than "special guy who has been fighting a while". Every class would be able to focus on their speciality to the point where dumping enough features into the speciality would put you WAY ahead of the expected growth rate. +X items available but not necessary for advancement.
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 characters are too powerful in the playtest? This is also something that you can do on your own.
Well, at least you have 1, right? Currently, +X items are available but not necessary! Your cup is 1/4 full!
Now...the houseruling. Stop me if you absolutely have no interest in doing this.
As long as you like the mechanics for the non-daily/encounter resource classes, you can reflavor anything into any class. Take Wizard, for example. Use the Fighter as a template. Give him a few base spells; use 4E at-will powers as a baseline, perhaps. He then modifies his spells using "maneuvers" (call it something else), and Bob's your uncle. Now, if you hate the design of all the at-will classes, or if you want all classes to be at-will but different mechanically...then this won't help at all.
In terms of having characters start off weaker, I came up with an idea in another thread.
Have characters start with just race and background. Everyone must have their future class already picked out, which determines starting HP (For weaker starting heroes, reduce starting HP by 1 step). You gain all the normal background benefits (for weaker starting heroes, reduce the background benefits). Assign weapons and armor based on future class (for weaker starting heroes, reduce proficiencies). For future spellcasters, allow them to prepare 2 level 0 spells each day.
When they level up, they pick their class. When they level up again, they pick a specialty, and are now a 1st level hero!
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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 call on something not covered by the rules is simply being a DM.
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
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
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.
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.
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 uncomfortable I am with it. If the manuevers are dependent on nothing more than the expertice dice, then two drastically different characters end up doing exactly the same thing. Looking back to 3.5 and 4.0, Manuevers were at the least dependent on the weapon you wielded, and partially your stats as well.
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
@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 also more strict. I really like sticking to rules, be they well-established house rules, or RAW. It lets my players know in no uncertain terms what I expect from them, and what they can expect from me. Any time I'm looking at spells, or skills, or feats, or anything like that, I'm generally inclined to allow them to function as they are.
I've never been a big fan of pre-empting player abilities, even when I think power-creep starts to get out of hand. As for "improving" actions, I still find the advice in the DMG useful after 12 years of playing. When in doubt, rule in favor of the player. There's this whole big section on performing actions that aren't covered by standard rules, things like using skills in appropriate ways that aren't necessarily covered in that skill's description.
It basically says that unless there's a really good reason for why the player shouldn't be able to do that, they should at least be given a roll. If my group's fighter wants to make an attack roll to catch the fragile falling MacGuffin, I'm geneally inclined to let him roll, unless his hands have been cut off or something drastic like that. Kind of like how I'm inclined to let a caster cast unless something is actively stopping him. As far as I have always known, a DM straight-up vetoing player action isn't a rule, but rather an exception. My instrincts right now are telling me that this kind of thing is a "DM mistake," and while that may be true, I don't think I would just leave it at that.
Is there some onus on the DM for not heeding the "rule in favor of the player" section? Yeah, sure. But as many people as I have heard voice unhappiness with the concept of "DM may I," it makes me think that this is a common enough issue that it needs more attention given to it in the DMG. Like right now, even I couldn't reference off the top of my head where the particular passage is. I'd have to go hunting for it. Maybe I'll make a new thread in the What's a DM To Do section about this very issue, and post that passage as a launching point for the discussion.
@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
Everyone of said spells can be shut down. Really if someone wants to have their character have the impact in the setting, rather than riding the rails of a pre-built story by the DM, it depends almost entirely on the DM. In the games I run, players are always the ones with the agency, spells or not.
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'.
How do you mean?
If you ask the DM to let you improv some action, he will consider it, and must give his opinion. If he is even a bit not okay with it, you are likely looking at a 'no', or at least at a roll with the odds stacked against you. You have to convince him that your proposed action is reasonable. If you want to do the thing, you must get him to explicitly say, 'yes', even if that is qualified with, "I'll let you roll for it".
If you ask the DM to let you cast a spell, well, right off the bat, generally, you don't ask. If you've got Spider Climb prepared, the rules for Spider Climb are clear, you just say, "I'm casting Spider Climb." and then it happens. The DM does not have to consider it, and does not need to think about and present his opinion. If he does not wish for it to work, he must veto it. That means that he must have a certain level of disapproval, enough to act on, before he'll do it. And he'll have to feel fairly confident in his decision as well, after all, the books clearly state that this action is reasonable. A little discomfort isn't going to get most DMs to stand up and oppose written rules, and many would even consider it poor form to veto a spell if they had not previously considered the possibility and put in a counter-measure, say, grease on the wall, or something.
What I'm getting at is that if the DM really wants a thing to happen, it generally will. If the DM is really opposed to a thing happening, it generally won't. But spells(or to be precise, codified elements), take the middle ground, whereas improv has to surrender it.
You, personally, as a DM, might be super lenient and cool about these things, but even you have a middle ground where you're not entirely certain if something is appropriate, and in that space, spells rule and improv drools.
As a person who is strongly in the DM is authority camp, i beleive if a player proposes an action and the DM is going to rule against it, the player is entitled to a logical reason why whether it is fluff or mechanics. There are plenty of times I disallowed something, but I make sure it fits with an internal logic of what is going on in the session and with the campaign world.
I never say no because I do not "like it" alone. If a player can give me a good enough reason why it CAN happen and be beleivable (within the assumptions of the game world) we are on.
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
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.
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.
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 2nd edition books seem to be holding up. All the pages are falling out of my 3rd edition books.
For NEXT... I hope the QUALITY of the books is better. These aren't books you read once and get rid of. They are treated more like a dictionary or thesaurus... used over and over. As such, they need better binding. Even if that means a few less pictures, or less color. I can live without metallic ink if I have to, but PLEASE I hope the books are of a quality befitting a $40 - $50 price range.
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
@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 like to talk. It's not hard to get me to do it
I've never been a big fan of pre-empting player abilities, even when I think power-creep starts to get out of hand. As for "improving" actions, I still find the advice in the DMG useful after 12 years of playing. When in doubt, rule in favor of the player. There's this whole big section on performing actions that aren't covered by standard rules, things like using skills in appropriate ways that aren't necessarily covered in that skill's description.
It basically says that unless there's a really good reason for why the player shouldn't be able to do that, they should at least be given a roll. If my group's fighter wants to make an attack roll to catch the fragile falling MacGuffin, I'm geneally inclined to let him roll, unless his hands have been cut off or something drastic like that. Kind of like how I'm inclined to let a caster cast unless something is actively stopping him. As far as I have always known, a DM straight-up vetoing player action isn't a rule, but rather an exception. My instrincts right now are telling me that this kind of thing is a "DM mistake," and while that may be true, I don't think I would just leave it at that.
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, it also highlights my point. This is an entire gauntlet that spells simply don't have to go through.
Another factor is ease of use on the player. I'll use a real world example. The other day I was making a post for a PbP game. While I was thinking of what to do, it occurred to me that it would be pretty awesome if I put away my swords, picked up a nearby table, and beat the cambion over the head with it. The DM in this game has always been pretty good about letting me try crazy stuff, so I figured he'd probably say yes. On the other hand, I didn't want to hold up the game while we discussed it, so I just hit something instead. As it turns out, the idea of braining this cambion with a table has really grown on me, and I'm probably going to be doing it in one of the following rounds, but I'll still have to ask him and get the okay. If "table/head beatdown" had been a codified ability, like a spell, I would've just done it, because it would have required no extra negotiation on my part.
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
Arithezoo - I'd like to see - in the core: All classes at-will based. No "per-day" or "per encounter" based anything. Character mechanics would reflect starting out as "farmer who just learned to fight" rather than "special guy who has been fighting a while". Every class would be able to focus on their speciality to the point where dumping enough features into the speciality would put you WAY ahead of the expected growth rate. +X items available but not necessary for advancement.
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 characters are too powerful in the playtest? This is also something that you can do on your own.
Well, at least you have 1, right? Currently, +X items are available but not necessary! Your cup is 1/4 full!
Now...the houseruling. Stop me if you absolutely have no interest in doing this.
As long as you like the mechanics for the non-daily/encounter resource classes, you can reflavor anything into any class. Take Wizard, for example. Use the Fighter as a template. Give him a few base spells; use 4E at-will powers as a baseline, perhaps. He then modifies his spells using "maneuvers" (call it something else), and Bob's your uncle. Now, if you hate the design of all the at-will classes, or if you want all classes to be at-will but different mechanically...then this won't help at all.
In terms of having characters start off weaker, I came up with an idea in another thread.
Have characters start with just race and background. Everyone must have their future class already picked out, which determines starting HP (For weaker starting heroes, reduce starting HP by 1 step). You gain all the normal background benefits (for weaker starting heroes, reduce the background benefits). Assign weapons and armor based on future class (for weaker starting heroes, reduce proficiencies). For future spellcasters, allow them to prepare 2 level 0 spells each day.
When they level up, they pick their class. When they level up again, they pick a specialty, and are now a 1st level hero!
Sounds like a plan.
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
Bounded accuracy. Srsly. That's the biggest turn-off for me. Unless my accuracy singnificantly improves against lower level enemies as my character levels, count me out (and for the record, no, I'm not interested in re-flavoring additional damage as being more accurate).
Accuracy will improve with character levels, it already does that as your base attack bonus does improve.
True. And if you look at the damage in terms of percentage chance to kill... then the high level guy is pretty effective. That's not even counting that the high level guy likely has several options available that the low level guy doesn't... and is typically better equipped to boot.
And the increased basic chance to hit IS improved accuracy.
If the actual rendition of the game allows multiple attacks at higher level, that's a significant improvement vs. lower level guys. You may miss once, but here comes another shot at dealing damage. In terms of percentage to hit... pretty significant.
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
@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 not saying there shouldn't be hard-coded non-magical abilities, only so many abilities can be hard-coded, and players are highly creaitve beasts.
I would like to see a lot more non-feat based hard-coded non-magical abilities that aren't just variations on attacks, but, there are so many things players will think of doing, they'll always come up with something that falls under the category of "not explicitly covered, rule in favor of the player." I guess the question is, how much do we want to hard-code, and how much do we want to leave up to the player to come up with?
@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
@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.
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 it's that while an action might be reasonable, the player just doesn't think it's cool enough to be worth hashing out. Sometimes you've all been gaming for several hours already, everyone's just a liiiiiittle bit tired, and not on their game. Sometimes it's someone making a mistake, and sometimes it's just life, but the point remains, the two are not equal in execution.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be hard-coded non-magical abilities, only so many abilities can be hard-coded, and players are highly creaitve beasts.
Definitely. You can't hard-code everything, and if you could, you probably shouldn't. It stops being worth it after a time, and things get too clunky.
I would like to see a lot more non-feat based hard-coded non-magical abilities that aren't just variations on attacks, but, there are so many things players will think of doing, they'll always come up with something that falls under the category of "not explicitly covered, rule in favor of the player." I guess the question is, how much do we want to hard-code, and how much do we want to leave up to the player to come up with?
That is indeed the question, and the answer will vary from person to person. Personally, I found 4e's approach to be just about right. There was a set of widely applicable guidelines for stuff that wasn't hard-coded, and the powers that were written up did a good job of setting the tone at "Awesome things are good, you should do them", though I'd honestly shoot for a few less powers than 4e had, just because it got bloaty. What I'd set as a reasonable guideline, though, is just to make sure that there are about the same level of hard-coded non-magical stuff as there is hard-coded magical stuff.
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
@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.
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 it's that while an action might be reasonable, the player just doesn't think it's cool enough to be worth hashing out. Sometimes you've all been gaming for several hours already, everyone's just a liiiiiittle bit tired, and not on their game. Sometimes it's someone making a mistake, and sometimes it's just life, but the point remains, the two are not equal in execution.
Yup. While it is true that the DMG always talks about handling improvised actions, there is definitely a difference in how they are perceived vs premade actions or powers. Anything that has an official writeup automatically becomes, well, official. DMs will assume that it has the Official Seal of Approval stamped by the designers.
For example, take disarming. If the book contains a distinct Disarm Action, complete with rules for resolving it, DMs know how to handle it. Player wants to disarm? Fine, turn to page X, and it will tell you what to do. But now say there is no such defined rule. Now the DM has to go through a number of things in his head (and do it quickly, because the game is on):
1) Could such a thing be done? 2) How easy would such a thing be? 3) How often do I want them to be able do this thing? 4) Does this thing overlap with any existing powers/abilities that other classes might get? 5) How should I have them do this thing?
Unfortunately, at least in my experience, most DMs will simply say, "No" in order to avoid having to go through that process in the middle of the session. The next most likely outcome is the "Yes, but" which effectively means "no" because it tacks on so many penalties or hindrances as to make the player say, "Forget it, I'll just attack."
If there is one thing I think the DMG should spend a lot of space and effort on, it is teaching DMs how to make rulings on the fly that are both fun and fair.
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
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 things that I had problems with that got fixed, which was nice. Not trying to start an edition war, but I liked Pathfinder's fix for that better. I thought 4e's caster at-wills were too powerful, and there was too much bloat on the side of the martial classes. That and the universal nature of the AEDU system kind of turned me off. Anyway.
One thing in 4e's power system that I was never a fan of (And this goes for 3e's magic system too.) is that rather than allowing a few spells to scale, every couple levels, a new spell/power was given that was just a new version, or at least really similar to the old version of a previous ability. I think it's much less work, and creates a lot less bloat, to create a scaling system with more unique effects.
In my own system, I have about 80ish "arcane" spells, and they do the work of the hundreds of spells in 3e, because they scale anywhere from basic to maximum potential, depending on how many "spell points" are dumped into them at the time of casting. I mean, we have magic missile; is mordenkainen's force missiles really necessary? In 4e, it seems like half the reason so many powers are there is because they only scale to a certain point (XW). Scaling reduces redundancy.
That was one reason why I was so happy at the implementation of expertise dice. They tied scaling to the most basic and intrinsic element of the fighter's combat toolkit, and then gave new abilities that worked off that same scaling system. Then they went and gave the same scaling method to everyone else...anyway. This isn't the place for me to complain about the DDN fighter, that thread is a few notches down.
I guess in short, make the abilities scale where possible, and make the effects as unique as possible. This way we can do a lot with a little.
If there is one thing I think the DMG should spend a lot of space and effort on, it is teaching DMs how to make rulings on the fly that are both fun and fair.
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.
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
10. Going back to thac0, saving throws, and any other way of making something simple 'sound' hard 9. Classes or options that make other classes obsolete (like Mages being better rogues) 8. Bloat (class bloat, race bloat, skill bloat, feat bloat) 7. Ridiculous Bonuses to everything 6. Not having Bounded accuracy 5. Not enough emphasis on Roleplaying and Exploration Pillar 4. Too much imbalance between the classes, and too many loopholes that allow players to create broken characters 3. Excessive system complexity, unclear rules design, rules writtten as prose (not bullets) and poor formatting. 2. Universal Mechanics for every class, such that they all are the same
AND... THe Number 1 reason why I woudl not buy Next, THE BIGGEST DEALBREAKER.... 1. Squares
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
Mike Mearls has stated, on multiple occasions, that the core is close to being done. Assuming that the core will be along the lines of what we've seen, and I don't think that's a stretch, I don't think the pessimism is premature at all at this point.
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 core will be along the lines of what we've seen.
Now as for what's in 5E as of right now that would stop me from buying it.
1) "so little". As in, there is so little in it. (Extremely likely they'll fix this.)
2) Seriously unbalanced classes, which by the way is what they trolled us on.
3) Boring classes and races. They can have SOME of those (tastes vary), but they shouldn't have MOSTLY those.
4) Classes that cannot be reliably balanced against each other except under certain assumptions, because their resource-management models are so wildly divergent. (I think they are more likely to advertise this as a feature than to fix it, but they may surprise me.)
5) Classes that are pretty much useless in one pillar or another, as a way of balancing against being overpowered in some other pillar.
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
Bounded accuracy. Srsly. That's the biggest turn-off for me. Unless my accuracy singnificantly improves against lower level enemies as my character levels, count me out (and for the record, no, I'm not interested in re-flavoring additional damage as being more accurate).
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 may be excessively loose.)
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
Bounded accuracy. Srsly. That's the biggest turn-off for me. Unless my accuracy singnificantly improves against lower level enemies as my character levels, count me out (and for the record, no, I'm not interested in re-flavoring additional damage as being more accurate).
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 may be excessively loose.)
You misunderstand bounded accuracy.
It's not about the upper limit to rolls. It's about ACs and DCs being static. The result of Bouned Accuracy is that you don't get higher bonuses, because who want a +20 to a roll when the AC never gets higher then 22.
It means that players get better at hitting and better at skills as they level.
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
If there is one thing I think the DMG should spend a lot of space and effort on, it is teaching DMs how to make rulings on the fly that are both fun and fair.
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.
Special attention is the best kind of attention!
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.[
It means that players get better at hitting and better at skills as they level.
Hopefully not .. they only have me and my furnishings to target
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.
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.
Hopefully not .. they only have me and my furnishings to target
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.
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.
It means that players get better at hitting and better at skills as they level.
Hopefully not .. they only have me and my furnishings to target
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.
ACs and DCs are static, or I should say, not effected by level (except through dex bonus to DC which is pretty minor). Where as Attack bonuses and skill bonuses do go up by level. So hit rates improve. This is the first attempt in D&D to represent this type of chracter improvement I've ever seen. AT the moment I really like it.
Either way, major progression to attack bonuses in the past were there pretty much for one reason and one reason only, making high level creatures hard to "hit" by low level chracters (because their ACs increased by level also). They weren't there to show character improvement, they were there to maintain character weakness.
Calling for higher attack bonuses progressions is just wanting weaker starting characters.
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. [
It means that players get better at hitting and better at skills as they level.
Hopefully not .. they only have me and my furnishings to target
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.
ACs and DCs are static, or I should say, not effected by level (except through dex bonus to DC which is pretty minor). Where as Attack bonuses and skill bonuses do go up by level. So hit rates improve. This is the first attempt in D&D to represent this type of chracter improvement I've ever seen. AT the moment I really like it.
So what is so logical about characters not getting progressively better at inducing adversaries missing eh? You just restated it ... you didnt explain how this is good or how it makes sense... just said you like it. I am fighting vs a fencing master my chance to hit is crap not because of his armor.
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. [
Either way, major progression to attack bonuses in the past were there pretty much for one reason and one reason only, making high level creatures hard to "hit" by low level chracters (because their ACs increased by level also).
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 they can pick up from feats. The only exception to that was on high-end monsters, with their ridiculous natural armor bonuses, and even then it wasn't a function of level.
Everything prior to 4E had bounded AC.
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
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?
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?
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?
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 would convince me that they intended to make a better game.
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
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 time, along with spell points and caster fatigue.
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
It means that players get better at hitting and better at skills as they level.
Hopefully not .. they only have me and my furnishings to target
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.
ACs and DCs are static, or I should say, not effected by level (except through dex bonus to DC which is pretty minor). Where as Attack bonuses and skill bonuses do go up by level. So hit rates improve. This is the first attempt in D&D to represent this type of chracter improvement I've ever seen. AT the moment I really like it.
So what is so logical about characters not getting progressively better at inducing adversaries missing eh? You just restated it ... you didnt explain how this is good or how it makes sense... just said you like it. I am fighting vs a fencing master my chance to hit is crap not because of his armor.
Fair enough.
Why do I like it? It's not because of realism, that has no place in my evaluation. Mainly because character progression is important to me, the feeling of growth is key. We play lots of games, and in strange way we find that progression in many RPG's where there is no level mechaninic, the characters actually represent growth much better. Because chracters aren't being constantly matched to a leveled encounter, expectaions about an encounter vary much more. It makes the player feel way more powerful.
I also don't like the "miss" a bunch style combat either, I want combats to be fast take three rounds and be intense. Players seems to be most frustrated when they are inept. Sometimes its just bad rolling. I'd trade a high HP creature for a high AC creature any day. Because in the former if we kill it was through endurance, the later is the result of a lucky roll (at least that's they way it feels to me).
I also like the potential for unique circumstances that this provides that was impossible before (without total dm fiat). A level 3 party who unites a village of peasants to fight off a lvl 10 dragon (three amigos style).
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. [
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 it into DR. So, in 3e, a suit of platemail would look something like this: +4 AC, DR 4/- +1 Max Dex Bonus, rather than +8 AC and +1 Max Dex Bonus. Come to think of it, I always combined the class-based scaling AC bonus rule with armor as DR. This pretty much eliminated low-level gibbing, allowed for more hits, and made players feel like their characters had a more complete progression.
I guess I used a lot of variant rules from UA, spell points, caster fatigue, armor as DR, class AC bonus, cleric domain spontaneity, (Spelling.) specialist wizard familiars...I guess you could say...I really threw the book at my players!
Edit: Hrm, looking back on this, I honestly have no idea why I never replaced caster level with magic rating. It's such a better system. The hell was I thinking?
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
It means that players get better at hitting and better at skills as they level.
Hopefully not .. they only have me and my furnishings to target
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.
ACs and DCs are static, or I should say, not effected by level (except through dex bonus to DC which is pretty minor). Where as Attack bonuses and skill bonuses do go up by level. So hit rates improve. This is the first attempt in D&D to represent this type of chracter improvement I've ever seen. AT the moment I really like it.
Either way, major progression to attack bonuses in the past were there pretty much for one reason and one reason only, making high level creatures hard to "hit" by low level chracters (because their ACs increased by level also). They weren't there to show character improvement, they were there to maintain character weakness.
Calling for higher attack bonuses progressions is just wanting weaker starting characters.
ACDC static eh. Icwutudidthar :P
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. [
It means that players get better at hitting and better at skills as they level.
Hopefully not .. they only have me and my furnishings to target
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.
ACs and DCs are static, or I should say, not effected by level (except through dex bonus to DC which is pretty minor). Where as Attack bonuses and skill bonuses do go up by level. So hit rates improve. This is the first attempt in D&D to represent this type of chracter improvement I've ever seen. AT the moment I really like it.
So what is so logical about characters not getting progressively better at inducing adversaries missing eh? You just restated it ... you didnt explain how this is good or how it makes sense... just said you like it. I am fighting vs a fencing master my chance to hit is crap not because of his armor.
Fair enough.
Why do I like it? It's not because of realism, that has no place in my evaluation.
Certainly doesnt need to be realism... when I say how do I get my Conan and Elric wading through the mooks... hit point progression just might not be good enough however the fighter getting things like parry... he really is getting better armor class just simulated a different way. If I want more of the fighting the hoards we just add things like wall of steel where your parry can affect multiple opponents and so on.
We play lots of games, and in strange way we find that progression in many RPG's where there is no level mechaninic, the characters actually represent growth much better.
levels in 4e atleast measure competance at something.. without that correspondence they lose meaning... they were utterly meaningless in 1e.
I dont want uber fast combats but rather some time and iterations so choices in a fight have enough time for them to be actually meaningful. I still rather like the median for a significant fight to be 8 rounds... where 1 or 3 rounds is just a fluff piece unless it transforms in to a significant fight.
I can certainly get behind the argument that whiffing is unfun ... the Hit point is really the ultimate yes,but mechanic yes you succeeded in progressing the fight but no its not quite done... the to hit roll is a bit much of a no not this time and not that interesting.
I want the yes, but... and not yet progression for out of combat activities and so on.
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. [
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 it into DR. So, in 3e, a suit of platemail would look something like this: +4 AC, DR 4/- +1 Max Dex Bonus, rather than +8 AC and +1 Max Dex Bonus. Come to think of it, I always combined the class-based scaling AC bonus rule with armor as DR. This pretty much eliminated low-level gibbing, allowed for more hits, and made players feel like their characters had a more complete progression.
I guess I used a lot of variant rules from UA, spell points, caster fatigue, armor as DR, class AC bonus, cleric domain spontaneity, (Spelling.) specialist wizard familiars...I guess you could say...I really threw the book at my players!
Edit: Hrm, looking back on this, I honestly have no idea why I never replaced caster level with magic rating. It's such a better system. The hell was I thinking?
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 such a slap together of untested (but sometimes beautiful) goo.. the implication of damage reduction armor seems to be that it becomes uber necessary sorry no more zorro or three musketeers characters for you. In 4e the light armored character was quite viable... I worry about that a bit in Next.
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
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.
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.
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 right to enjoy their own ed of D&D but i am sorry if your going to slap a bigger number on the edition title of this game, they need to be bringing a lot of new stuff to the table.
I happen to very much LIKE 4th ed over 3rd and 3.5. But then 4th brought a lot of changes over the older edition, love it or hate it the game changed in a different direction not taken before in a lot of ways. Never played AD&D or 2nd so I can’t comment but my point still stands. What’s the point of going backwards in a new edition rather then forwards? And that’s really the core of my gripe with D&D next. They should just call it D&D Past and be done with it.
Also no bloody dragonborn so far. Sadface
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
Either way, major progression to attack bonuses in the past were there pretty much for one reason and one reason only, making high level creatures hard to "hit" by low level chracters (because their ACs increased by level also).
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 they can pick up from feats. The only exception to that was on high-end monsters, with their ridiculous natural armor bonuses, and even then it wasn't a function of level.
Everything prior to 4E had bounded AC.
I think your looking at the opposite way I would. NPCs are going be built simliar to characters. The monters did get higher ACs at higher levels. This didn't serve the chracters to make them better, it just made monsters harder to hit for lower level PCs. There is always exceptions. 4e did it to a much greater magnitude, the previous editions. this is the first edition to make sure there was bounded accuracy through progression.
This is not my opinion it's their stated goal. I'm just summarizing it repeatedly, because many people thinks it means it just means there character just progresses at a slower rate. They don't understand that it generally means that their char progresses faster from a hit percentage standpoint.
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
It means that players get better at hitting and better at skills as they level.
Hopefully not .. they only have me and my furnishings to target
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.
ACs and DCs are static, or I should say, not effected by level (except through dex bonus to DC which is pretty minor). Where as Attack bonuses and skill bonuses do go up by level. So hit rates improve. This is the first attempt in D&D to represent this type of chracter improvement I've ever seen. AT the moment I really like it.
So what is so logical about characters not getting progressively better at inducing adversaries missing eh? You just restated it ... you didnt explain how this is good or how it makes sense... just said you like it. I am fighting vs a fencing master my chance to hit is crap not because of his armor.
Fair enough.
Why do I like it? It's not because of realism, that has no place in my evaluation.
Certainly doesnt need to be realism... when I say how do I get my Conan and Elric wading through the mooks... hit point progression just might not be good enough however the fighter getting things like parry... he really is getting better armor class just simulated a different way. If I want more of the fighting the hoards we just add things like wall of steel where your parry can affect multiple opponents and so on.
We play lots of games, and in strange way we find that progression in many RPG's where there is no level mechaninic, the characters actually represent growth much better.
levels in 4e atleast measure competance at something.. without that correspondence they lose meaning... they were utterly meaningless in 1e.
I dont want uber fast combats but rather some time and iterations so choices in a fight have enough time for them to be actually meaningful. I still rather like the median for a significant fight to be 8 rounds... where 1 or 3 rounds is just a fluff piece unless it transforms in to a significant fight.
I can certainly get behind the argument that whiffing is unfun ... the Hit point is really the ultimate yes,but mechanic yes you succeeded in progressing the fight but no its not quite done... the to hit roll is a bit much of a no not this time and not that interesting.
I want the yes, but... and not yet progression for out of combat activities and so on.
In my games I actually work off a 9 encounter formula (loosely). This would be 5 easy encounters, 4 average encounters, and 1 tough encounter. We shoot for about 3 encounters per session (6 hours). An easy Easy encounter can be an average encounter but players get advantage and it becomes easy. This system is designed to give players a lot of superiority sensation (55%) of encounters. These (easy) are the encounters that need to be under 3 rounds, otherwise it just becomes too boring. This helps me the dramatize the 45% average and hard encounters. I'm fine with a 20 round tough encounter if it's exciting to the players. Ususally I find that a high AC encounter is the most irritating and boring of the tough encounters though, a few rounds of bad luck on the part of the players can completely wipe player morale. I like to control the power of a tough encounter with environment and monster capabilities instead.
There is some AC escalation happening both for chracters and monsters, we're looking at more like 5 points of escalation, rather then 16. Right now monters aren't balanced well. In our last session I gave the characters a 2.5x tough exp encounter and they beat it without anyone going to zero. Hopefully when monsters get balanaced it will be better. But right now players should be getting some of the experience of being inpenetrable because monster hit rates are super low. The only encounters that seem to be challenges now are the ones where creatures still do damage on misses.
So where does that leave us? i don't know garth.
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. [
Everyone of said spells can be shut down. Really if someone wants to have their character have the impact in the setting, rather than riding the rails of a pre-built story by the DM, it depends almost entirely on the DM. In the games I run, players are always the ones with the agency, spells or not.
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'.
How do you mean?
If you ask the DM to let you improv some action, he will consider it, and must give his opinion. If he is even a bit not okay with it, you are likely looking at a 'no', or at least at a roll with the odds stacked against you. You have to convince him that your proposed action is reasonable. If you want to do the thing, you must get him to explicitly say, 'yes', even if that is qualified with, "I'll let you roll for it".
If you ask the DM to let you cast a spell, well, right off the bat, generally, you don't ask. If you've got Spider Climb prepared, the rules for Spider Climb are clear, you just say, "I'm casting Spider Climb." and then it happens. The DM does not have to consider it, and does not need to think about and present his opinion. If he does not wish for it to work, he must veto it. That means that he must have a certain level of disapproval, enough to act on, before he'll do it. And he'll have to feel fairly confident in his decision as well, after all, the books clearly state that this action is reasonable. A little discomfort isn't going to get most DMs to stand up and oppose written rules, and many would even consider it poor form to veto a spell if they had not previously considered the possibility and put in a counter-measure, say, grease on the wall, or something.
What I'm getting at is that if the DM really wants a thing to happen, it generally will. If the DM is really opposed to a thing happening, it generally won't. But spells(or to be precise, codified elements), take the middle ground, whereas improv has to surrender it.
You, personally, as a DM, might be super lenient and cool about these things, but even you have a middle ground where you're not entirely certain if something is appropriate, and in that space, spells rule and improv drools.
As a person who is strongly in the DM is authority camp, i beleive if a player proposes an action and the DM is going to rule against it, the player is entitled to a logical reason why whether it is fluff or mechanics. There are plenty of times I disallowed something, but I make sure it fits with an internal logic of what is going on in the session and with the campaign world.
I never say no because I do not "like it" alone. If a player can give me a good enough reason why it CAN happen and be beleivable (within the assumptions of the game world) we are on.
The thing is though, there was a very large 'not-magic-is-mundane' feel in previous editions. It's not unreasonable to have the fighter lunge for the falling maguffin, but generally a lot of DMs might have felt it unreasonable if a fighter wanted to roar and push away his enemies or stomp the ground and knock them down or even just taunt one to attack him instead of the rogue, or bash them with a shield and push them away. Magic, on the other hand, gets a pass "Because ..magic!" This means that, without codified abilties that telegraph "Hey-it's ok that your fighter can do this", the DM is forced to rule on "reasonableness" rather than "that would be awesome.. you should totally do that!" The DM has to rule against the spell - which is a rule that says "Yes, the mage can do this". Most likely he'll do that ahead of time "Yeah, this is a low-magic campaign." or "IME, Polymorph is broken, so we're houseruling it in this campaign." But he and the player are left to sort out improvised actions on the spot. Intuitively, actions which have cooler or more powerful results than the mundane "I hit it" are going to be mechanically punished by harder skill checks (if allowed at all). After all, if you could do this all the time, why don't you? That makes sense in a game where Spells are daily resources and fighter improvs are not. It's intuitively unfair if the fighter can replicate some of the cooler spells at will.. OTOH, taking this to the logical conclusion means "fighters don't get cool stuff unless the rules give it to them." -- which is what 4e did.
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
It means that players get better at hitting and better at skills as they level.
Hopefully not .. they only have me and my furnishings to target
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.
ACs and DCs are static, or I should say, not effected by level (except through dex bonus to DC which is pretty minor). Where as Attack bonuses and skill bonuses do go up by level. So hit rates improve. This is the first attempt in D&D to represent this type of chracter improvement I've ever seen. AT the moment I really like it.
So what is so logical about characters not getting progressively better at inducing adversaries missing eh? You just restated it ... you didnt explain how this is good or how it makes sense... just said you like it. I am fighting vs a fencing master my chance to hit is crap not because of his armor.
The hilarious thing I just realized about this whole thing is it essentially means everyone starts off as completely godlike at their class abilities at level 1, and no one really seems to care despite the constant whining about "Level 1 4e characters are superheroes!!!!"
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. [
I happen to very much LIKE 4th ed over 3rd and 3.5. But then 4th brought a lot of changes over the older edition, love it or hate it the game changed in a different direction not taken before in a lot of ways. Never played AD&D or 2nd so I can’t comment but my point still stands. What’s the point of going backwards in a new edition rather then forwards? And that’s really the core of my gripe with D&D next. They should just call it D&D Past and be done with it.
Also no bloody dragonborn so far. Sadface
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 span of a few years.
WOTC wants the market share back, that market share is playing a game much more similiar to earlier editions. Which clearly indicates they want a product that is similiar to earlier editions.
Building on 4th edition isn't going to get them the market share back, people have already made their decision regarding it.
You're welcome to be angry about that, but that's the opinion capitalism has demonstrated the market holds. Being deragoratory about that opinion isn't going to change it.
Additionally, we can extend your arguement to other forms of media. The Star Wars prequels are markedly different from the Original Star Wars. Your arguement, extended to Star Wars, means that Disney shouldn't try to make the upcoming trilogy like the Original Star Wars, they should try to make it like the Prequels, because making it like the Originals is going backwards. But here again is a situation where the market has made it evident they preferred the original style over the updated style, and it is evident that trying to push the updated style is very likely going to harm the product and it's future value.
It's the same thing with D&D. If they want to succeed, they're going to need to build on pre-4th edition, or the market that passed on 4th edition will pass on 5th edition and ultimately D&D will not reach it's goals.
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
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />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 span of a few years.
WOTC wants the market share back, that market share is playing a game much more similiar to earlier editions. Which clearly indicates they want a product that is similiar to earlier editions.
Building on 4th edition isn't going to get them the market share back, people have already made their decision regarding it.
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 because some wish it would.
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
It's the same thing with D&D. If they want to succeed, they're going to need to build on pre-4th edition, or the market that passed on 4th edition will pass on 5th edition and ultimately D&D will not reach it's goals.
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 customers) under the bus. Frankly I don't think there is any single game that can.
-Polaris
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
It's the same thing with D&D. If they want to succeed, they're going to need to build on pre-4th edition, or the market that passed on 4th edition will pass on 5th edition and ultimately D&D will not reach it's goals.
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 customers) under the bus. Frankly I don't think there is any single game that can.
At this point, all the developers can do is try to make the best game they can, learning from the mistakes of each edition.
Worrying about crap like appeasing fans of certain editions is only going to end in failure. The problem is that if people want to play 4E, 3E or AD&D, there's nothing stopping them. To get them to convert, you must offer something better.
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
It's the same thing with D&D. If they want to succeed, they're going to need to build on pre-4th edition, or the market that passed on 4th edition will pass on 5th edition and ultimately D&D will not reach it's goals.
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 customers) under the bus. Frankly I don't think there is any single game that can.
At this point, all the developers can do is try to make the best game they can, learning from the mistakes of each edition.
Worrying about crap like appeasing fans of certain editions is only going to end in failure. The problem is that if people want to play 4E, 3E or AD&D, there's nothing stopping them. To get them to convert, you must offer something better.
Not that I'm disagreeing, but isn't that where the problem lies, it isn't better or even different in a meaningful way. Why can't I get anyone and I mean anyone to play-test this game, especially since where I live there is a lot of 4e and pathfinder players.
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
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />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 span of a few years.
WOTC wants the market share back, that market share is playing a game much more similiar to earlier editions. Which clearly indicates they want a product that is similiar to earlier editions.
Building on 4th edition isn't going to get them the market share back, people have already made their decision regarding it.
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 because some wish it would.
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 customers) under the bus. Frankly I don't think there is any single game that can. -Polaris
Let n = the total market prior to 4e's release. Post release, n became...
X - The total number of people who migrated to 4e Y - The total number of people who migrated to Pathfinder Z - The total number of people who lapsed due to 4e and/or remained with previous editions
How big is X?
I suspect that the value of X is overestimated. As evidence, I give you the complete lack of 4th edition based CRPG's. If the value of X was large, the property wouldn't have been dropped from video gaming. Until 4th edition's release, Dungeons and Dragons was in the top 5 most valueable video gaming properties, with a guaranteed return on investment. The other Industries didn't avoid the property because the value of X is large.
Not that I'm disagreeing, but isn't that where the problem lies, it isn't better or even different in a meaningful way. Why can't I get anyone and I mean anyone to play-test this game, especially since where I live there is a lot of 4e and pathfinder players.
An RPG is an investment, the DM's and Players become invested. A playtest means that you're not really telling a narrative or progressing a character, you're just, well, testing. It's not surprising that people aren't interested in a beta product.
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
I suspect that the value of X is overestimated. As evidence, I give you the complete lack of 4th edition based CRPG's. If the value of X was large, the property wouldn't have been dropped from video gaming. Until 4th edition's release, Dungeons and Dragons was in the top 5 most valueable video gaming properties, with a guaranteed return on investment. The other Industries didn't avoid the property because the value of X is large.
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.
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.
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?
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 would convince me that they intended to make a better game.
Does armor then become significant as a source of Damage Reduction? Or what do we do with armor to make it meaningful at that point?
I'm intrigued by the idea, but it makes me do math, which is an auto-grievance.
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
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.
The heavy reliance on DM Fiat. Playing "DM may I" is no way to release a game.
Fluff and mechanics intertwined in the classes. It seems like classes that DDN feels have a poor identity get new fluff stuck onto them and that new fluff used to justify a radical redirection of the class.
Modules, modules, modules. Advanced modules that don't automatically assume gridded combat, 2E Skills and Powers point buys, and casting modules allowing different casting styles of the same class to coexist in harmony at the same table are all needed before I buy DDN.
Balancing around the "day" is old and busted. We need new hotness.
Alignment needs to made completely optional to the point of not even being mentioned in any class section.
Feats need to be more like feats. As it stands they are completely lackluster. They also need ability, level, and class prerequisites removed completely.
Monster recharges just need to go away. They are a crutch tacked on to monsters that can't be made unique or challenging enough in their own right, and such lazy design can't be good for the game as a whole.
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 a story.
Soon to appear in the DSM V, upon its release.
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
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 spending $60 per book or higher. 4. A continued lack of classes and races available.
No one of these would stop me from joining the 5e ranks, but if more than two are still around...
Other than these, I can probably home-rule and shoehorn the crap out of the system, as I have in previous editions to make the system work. But #1 is probably my biggest concern. If we just end up with FR, DS, & Eberron again, I will not be a happy camper.
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
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.
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.
I suspect that the value of X is overestimated. As evidence, I give you the complete lack of 4th edition based CRPG's. If the value of X was large, the property wouldn't have been dropped from video gaming. Until 4th edition's release, Dungeons and Dragons was in the top 5 most valueable video gaming properties, with a guaranteed return on investment. The other Industries didn't avoid the property because the value of X is large.
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.
Weird. Atari bought Cryptic and set Cryptic to work on the current/upcoming Neverwinter MMORPG. They then sold Cryptic to Perfect World, and the MMO is set to come out in the first half of 2013. If Atari was just sitting on the D&D video game license, why did they order one of their studios to design an MMO for it and announce it to the world back in August of 2010, when Cryptic was still part of Atari?
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
Does armor then become significant as a source of Damage Reduction? Or what do we do with armor to make it meaningful at that point?
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 grant extra HP.
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
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 to life. If the players have the same rules as the monsters so they can "call out the DM" on using an ability that he may feel adds flavor/balance/adversity to the game because "it's not in the rules" I won't buy it. I have enough to do to prevent that from happening in Pathfinder. Ironically, I never had that problem with 2e because there weren't such concepts as key words and damage types, and action types. Players knowing all so they can rules lawyer the DM is a tragedy for the game, and the game was much better when the DM had the answers and players were there to try and live.
Players and DMs cannot be equal. Well, they can, however this DM will be running PF or Dungeon Crawl Classics instead of funneling income to D&D.
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
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!
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!
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!
$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; even when I didn't use the modules as written, I always managed to find concepts, maps, and plots in these 1e/2e modules that I could poach and add to my campaign as needed. And that's usually worth $15.
$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
I happen to very much LIKE 4th ed over 3rd and 3.5. But then 4th brought a lot of changes over the older edition, love it or hate it the game changed in a different direction not taken before in a lot of ways. Never played AD&D or 2nd so I can’t comment but my point still stands. What’s the point of going backwards in a new edition rather then forwards? And that’s really the core of my gripe with D&D next. They should just call it D&D Past and be done with it.
Also no bloody dragonborn so far. Sadface
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 span of a few years.
WOTC wants the market share back, that market share is playing a game much more similiar to earlier editions. Which clearly indicates they want a product that is similiar to earlier editions.
Building on 4th edition isn't going to get them the market share back, people have already made their decision regarding it.
You're welcome to be angry about that, but that's the opinion capitalism has demonstrated the market holds. Being deragoratory about that opinion isn't going to change it.
Additionally, we can extend your arguement to other forms of media. The Star Wars prequels are markedly different from the Original Star Wars. Your arguement, extended to Star Wars, means that Disney shouldn't try to make the upcoming trilogy like the Original Star Wars, they should try to make it like the Prequels, because making it like the Originals is going backwards. But here again is a situation where the market has made it evident they preferred the original style over the updated style, and it is evident that trying to push the updated style is very likely going to harm the product and it's future value.
It's the same thing with D&D. If they want to succeed, they're going to need to build on pre-4th edition, or the market that passed on 4th edition will pass on 5th edition and ultimately D&D will not reach it's goals.
Please don’t put words into my mouth sir. My statement was neither derogatory nor spiteful in anyway. Your argument with the star wars example by the way is utterly ridiculous and has no relevance to the matter. Movies are not rule editions, they are stories and be they good or bad depends on the viewer.
My own argument is based around the fact we are talking about an edition here, they can call it next or whatever they want but it’s still 5th ed at the core. Can they bring back a lot of the old stuff that many seem to feel belongs to D&D yes they sure can but they should also try to bring new ideas as well and I am just not seeing that in anything they are doing right now.
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
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.
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.
I suspect that the value of X is overestimated. As evidence, I give you the complete lack of 4th edition based CRPG's. If the value of X was large, the property wouldn't have been dropped from video gaming. Until 4th edition's release, Dungeons and Dragons was in the top 5 most valueable video gaming properties, with a guaranteed return on investment. The other Industries didn't avoid the property because the value of X is large.
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.
Weird. Atari bought Cryptic and set Cryptic to work on the current/upcoming Neverwinter MMORPG. They then sold Cryptic to Perfect World, and the MMO is set to come out in the first half of 2013. If Atari was just sitting on the D&D video game license, why did they order one of their studios to design an MMO for it and announce it to the world back in August of 2010, when Cryptic was still part of Atari?
I believe the development was going painfully slow, and Atari had already violated part of their contract with Hasbro for the video game rights to D&D. WotC won the rights back after a lawsuit in 2010. Daggerdale looks like it was rushed to shelves to try and keep the IP.
The fact is that WotC sued Atari for the rights and won them back. Atari had violated a term of the license by subcontracting to another company without WotC's consent. They weren't holding up their end, so they tried to get a subcontractor to do it for them (Atari hadn't released anything since DDO). That's when Hasbro jumped in and took legal action.
Bottom line is that Atari no longer owns any legal rights to the D&D name. Hasbro owns the license again. That license was tied up in court from 2009 to 2011.
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
I'm not surprised there is a bit of vitriol for the recent packet. I think it is pretty clear that WotC made some drastic changes primarily to shock the playtesters and see how far they could push design in certain directions.
And they think this will garner them good will how?
And they think this will garner them good will how?
I'm not surprised there is a bit of vitriol for the recent packet. I think it is pretty clear that WotC made some drastic changes primarily to shock the playtesters and see how far they could push design in certain directions.
And they think this will garner them good will how?
+1
Putting 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 mentioning why for weeks is not good.(alignment restrictions)
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
I'm not surprised there is a bit of vitriol for the recent packet. I think it is pretty clear that WotC made some drastic changes primarily to shock the playtesters and see how far they could push design in certain directions.
And they think this will garner them good will how?
+1
Putting 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 mentioning why for weeks is not good.(alignment restrictions)
Yeah. It's essentially just trolling your customers. That only works for Gabe Newell.
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
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...
+1
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
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 know why that wasn't just part of a survey. I mean, you can ask people straight out if they like alignment restrictions, and get a straight answer. And they already have our emails, they already have us willingly filling out their surveys. Why not just ask?
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
I suspect that the value of X is overestimated. As evidence, I give you the complete lack of 4th edition based CRPG's. If the value of X was large, the property wouldn't have been dropped from video gaming. Until 4th edition's release, Dungeons and Dragons was in the top 5 most valueable video gaming properties, with a guaranteed return on investment. The other Industries didn't avoid the property because the value of X is large.
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.
Weird. Atari bought Cryptic and set Cryptic to work on the current/upcoming Neverwinter MMORPG. They then sold Cryptic to Perfect World, and the MMO is set to come out in the first half of 2013. If Atari was just sitting on the D&D video game license, why did they order one of their studios to design an MMO for it and announce it to the world back in August of 2010, when Cryptic was still part of Atari?
I believe the development was going painfully slow, and Atari had already violated part of their contract with Hasbro for the video game rights to D&D. WotC won the rights back after a lawsuit in 2010. Daggerdale looks like it was rushed to shelves to try and keep the IP.
The fact is that WotC sued Atari for the rights and won them back. Atari had violated a term of the license by subcontracting to another company without WotC's consent. They weren't holding up their end, so they tried to get a subcontractor to do it for them (Atari hadn't released anything since DDO). That's when Hasbro jumped in and took legal action.
Bottom line is that Atari no longer owns any legal rights to the D&D name. Hasbro owns the license again. That license was tied up in court from 2009 to 2011.
Development of the Neverwinter MMO was slow, and WotC did sue and did get back the rights. Atari did not let the IP go stagnant, which was my point in dispute. Atari currently has the rights to both Daggerdale and Heroes of Neverwinter, and at the time of the lawsuit had rights to the Neverwinter MMO. Making three titles in the IP and keeping the rights to them post lawsuit is hardly letting the D&D video game franchise go stagnant. They had placed a considerable amount of capital into the IP, enough to convince Hasbro to let them keep making the games. Friction between Turbine and Atari or Hasbro wanting Turbine's money would be more likely causes of the suit.
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
Does armor then become significant as a source of Damage Reduction? Or what do we do with armor to make it meaningful at that point?
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 grant extra HP.
Armor granting HP is awesome!
It's far more elegant than DR, in my opinion. -- Down with math!
EDIT: What do we do when armor is removed, though? Say your character has 20 HP (5 HP from chainmail), he gets hit for 16 HP and is knocked off the side of the boat into a river, he begins drowning and removes his chainmail in order to reach the surface. -- Does he automatically fall unconscious because he lost the armor's HP bonus?
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
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 know why that wasn't just part of a survey. I mean, you can ask people straight out if they like alignment restrictions, and get a straight answer. And they already have our emails, they already have us willingly filling out their surveys. Why not just ask?
Not a bad idea. I want alignment restrictions due to tradioitn but if I am out voted so be it as its not a deal breaker for me.
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
I'm not surprised there is a bit of vitriol for the recent packet. I think it is pretty clear that WotC made some drastic changes primarily to shock the playtesters and see how far they could push design in certain directions.
And they think this will garner them good will how?
+1
Putting 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 mentioning why for weeks is not good.(alignment restrictions)
You guys ADD a lot of emotions to devolopers intentions. They did not think alignment restrictions would go over well, but tested it to make sure. They don't know how people's opinions might have changed. Maybe they would have learned something about restrictions that would clue them how some people would like it (for a module perhaps). There is nothing malicouis, mean, tricky crappy weird, or damaging about testing contraversial ideas in an iteration of playtest.
It's as important that they know what we don't like as much what we do like. EVEN more important they need to know why, because it helps them DEVELOP NEW IDEAS using our dislikes and likes as guidelines.
The playest isn't trying to make friends, its a system of communication between players and developers. They don't need good will they need honest reactions.
I can asnwer why for you all. Because its a playtest, not the final product. Maybe they are doing it to passify the minority of people who like alignment restrictions, and now they can respond to complaints in the final by saying " Our playetest clearly showed that there was overwhelming disapproval fro restrictions, we knew this before the test, but felt it would be unfair to not get legitamate confirmation of your (players) views."
So take a deep breath and thank them for testing it, and not just throwing it into the final without us getting the chance to posit our views.
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
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 know why that wasn't just part of a survey. I mean, you can ask people straight out if they like alignment restrictions, and get a straight answer. And they already have our emails, they already have us willingly filling out their surveys. Why not just ask?
Not a bad idea. I want alignment restrictions due to tradioitn but if I am out voted so be it as its not a deal breaker for me.
The problem is, tradition by itself is not a very good point in anything's defense. There are plenty of things people did in the past that were tradition that were abandoned for a variety of, sometimes good, reasons.
Tradition is a decent defense, however, if we end up havng two equally viable solutions to something, with one having "seniority" over the other.
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
Does armor then become significant as a source of Damage Reduction? Or what do we do with armor to make it meaningful at that point?
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 grant extra HP.
Armor granting HP is awesome!
It's far more elegant than DR, in my opinion. -- Down with math!
EDIT: What do we do when armor is removed, though? Say your character has 20 HP (5 HP from chainmail), he gets hit for 16 HP and is knocked off the side of the boat into a river, he begins drowning and removes his chainmail in order to reach the surface. -- Does he automatically fall unconscious because he lost the armor's HP bonus?
It would be like in videogames i suppose, what it does, it increase your max HP...thought this would all fall apart because of how healing works on D&DNext
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
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 there is a limit to the amount of changes they will accept before they walk.
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
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 there is a limit to the amount of changes they will accept before they walk.
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 thought it will cost you the same price...
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
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 franchise now. Using James Bond as an example differnet actors, sometimes different stye (Moore was a funny Bond) but the basic elements have always been there (cars, women, spy, action sequences, sex appeal etc).
D&D classes, vancian, alignment, 6 attribute stats, saving throws, great wheel, FR as a living campaign world etc. You don't want to mess with the basics to much.
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
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 enjoy the "next" one ( see what I did there...clever huh?)
My only deal breaker is if I do not get a better feel about WotC's approach to the stewardship of the game in regards to releasing new rules, updates and books to combat the "death by bloat" that has done in previous versions (4e included....Essentials I am looking at you) in increasingly faster cycles.
If WotC cannot do a better job at this...I don't think ia matters what 5e ends up including in its core...it'll be unplayable inside of 2 years. I'd like to see more talk about this coming from WotC on this before they get more of my cash.
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
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 with that
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
@Bronze:Eh....kinda tricky. Inevitably, 5e will have bloat. It's msotly seeing how long they can stall having too much of it.
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 emotional investment is for nought.
My suggestion ( hope ) is to abandon the previous business model of releasing new rule books (with new classes, races, spells and feats) every month..but rather put that effort into adventures, modules and other things and slow down (once a year?) on touching the "core rules enhancements" so play testing and balancing isn't compromized to meet every month's deadlines....perhaps not as compelling a business case...but a better long term strategy for 5e IMO.
I feel 5e is the last chance to get it right ( for me any ways )
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
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 campaign lore or things to help with non-crunch rules, such as the historical campaign books or the castle guides. 3e/3.5 did a pretty good job with some of that as well, including the environment books (stormwrack, etc.).
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
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 Fifth Edition so far hasn't been the D&D that EVERYONE wants to play. It's the edition that Mearls wants to play. He's being purposefully exclusionary in his design decisions and is trying to dress it up as an open and honest playtest.
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
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 campaign lore or things to help with non-crunch rules, such as the historical campaign books or the castle guides. 3e/3.5 did a pretty good job with some of that as well, including the environment books (stormwrack, etc.).
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.
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.
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 include interesting settings, monsters, magic items, a short adventure, DM advice, player advice, races, classes, spells, powers, class and race features, etc...etc...
That way both the DM and the players have a reason to pick it up.
In fact you could do a setting adventure boxed set that had new character options as well as minis for the monsters and some character minis, adventures, battle mats (double sided poster sized maps with a grid), a list of new magic items, races, classes, etc...etc...
Of course its a smart strategy so we can be sure WotC will probably ignore it completely...
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
EDIT: What do we do when armor is removed, though? Say your character has 20 HP (5 HP from chainmail), he gets hit for 16 HP and is knocked off the side of the boat into a river, he begins drowning and removes his chainmail in order to reach the surface. -- Does he automatically fall unconscious because he lost the armor's HP bonus?
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 damage, so you'll be fine with 4 HP as you take the armor off. I'd also say that healing can only take you up to your maximum, and you need an armorer (someone with appropriate skill, or a mend spell) to restore the temporary HP to the armor.
In that situation, the only weird thing is that after the armor HP have been worn through, the armor is essentially just holding you back (move penalties) and not granting any bonuses whatsoever. Of course, that would only matter if you could feasibly remove your armor during combat.
It's unfortunate, because I really like the model where heavy armor increases your max HP by 50% (or whatever), and every three damage you take is two points of meat damage and one point of armor damage; that gets much math-ier, though.
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
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 include interesting settings, monsters, magic items, a short adventure, DM advice, player advice, races, classes, spells, powers, class and race features, etc...etc...
That way both the DM and the players have a reason to pick it up.
In fact you could do a setting adventure boxed set that had new character options as well as minis for the monsters and some character minis, adventures, battle mats (double sided poster sized maps with a grid), a list of new magic items, races, classes, etc...etc...
Of course its a smart strategy so we can be sure WotC will probably ignore it completely...
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?
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 would convince me that they intended to make a better game.
Does armor then become significant as a source of Damage Reduction? Or what do we do with armor to make it meaningful at that point?
I'm intrigued by the idea, but it makes me do math, which is an auto-grievance.
It's been a while since I looked at the rules, so I don't really know. I want to say that the enhancement bonus factors into the aforementioned equation. 6-7 damage reduction at level 20 is pretty significant.
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
