Pondering the direction of skills. I asked myself what skills would I say I possessed in my life. Sadly, I can only think of two exemplary (Carpentry and Performance - day job vs. aspiring actor). My conclusion is this: *Skills are vague in most cases - Looking at Perform (not a listed SKILL in this iteration as yet), obviously there are many types of performance (Dance, Oration, Acting, Painting, Sculpting, etc.). So it seems to me that a general Skill (ARTISTRY) can represent a sub-skill...
View full commentPondering the direction of skills. I asked myself what skills would I say I possessed in my life. Sadly, I can only think of two exemplary (Carpentry and Performance - day job vs. aspiring actor). My conclusion is this:
*Skills are vague in most cases - Looking at Perform (not a listed SKILL in this iteration as yet), obviously there are many types of performance (Dance, Oration, Acting, Painting, Sculpting, etc.). So it seems to me that a general Skill (ARTISTRY) can represent a sub-skill or several.
*Skills can vary with type of game - DRIVE, for instance isn't necessarily a useful skill for a fantasy game where most vehicles are animal powered. Handle Animal you say? As would I, but, should Handle Animal be generalized to all animals? Can a horse trainer equally be a lion tamer? I say no. But, If we generalize Handle Animal and produce sub-skills therein (Horses, Lions, Dogs, etc.), we can say that a skill an be flexible contingent on another factor. What might that be? See below.
*Advancement - Should a character that makes little use of a certain skill advance the same as one who makes greater use? IMO, no. How do we progress then? This is where we are with our playtesting.
SUMMERY:
*Skills should be an optional, but in the basic package.
*The list should include general/specific skills (under different game types - fantasy, sci-fy, dark age, etc.) The ability score to represent should be flexible depending on the group (i.e. - Climb might be Str or Dex based or average of both).
*A skill that can be broken down into sub-skills can be adjudicated by ability score modifiers. Handle Animal (potentially based out of Cha) might cover one or more animal types based on modifier.
*Base Modifier - IMO the Skill Die works.
*Advancement - Feat based. All start with their (four?) skills (which may have subs, broadening variety) and beginning level Skill Die (d8?). Buy Skill advancement with feats - die increase, specialist, etc.)
Umm, in my last session my level one party encountered a band of orcs. I went through both my magic missile spells, one of them empowered to do maximum damage, and I only killed one Orc. Granted, my first casting was split my missile between three different orcs (as they all were already damaged by a fire trap) but didn't kill a single one despite the fact that they were each already hurt. My second cast used my daily feat to empower them and two missiles hit one Orc and killed him, and one...
View full commentUmm, in my last session my level one party encountered a band of orcs. I went through both my magic missile spells, one of them empowered to do maximum damage, and I only killed one Orc. Granted, my first casting was split my missile between three different orcs (as they all were already damaged by a fire trap) but didn't kill a single one despite the fact that they were each already hurt. My second cast used my daily feat to empower them and two missiles hit one Orc and killed him, and one missile hit another Orc, and he still survived. After a short rest, I have one first level spell back, the fighter and rogue in the party have not lost any ability to do anything. This was just a random encounter on our way to a town (it was one Orc per party member) and it was our first encounter for the adventuring day. So I don't want to hear any nonsense about the uber power of magic missiles over other classes. Thank you.
Also, not a complaint, I am having fun playing my wizard, at least so far.
Maybe what they should do is have "classic" advancement, which is more of what we are used to and then "official advancement" for use in dnd encounters and living campaigns, as i suspect that's what is behind this move any way. Then people can chose. That could work but it involves not singling out the fast track approach as the default or "right" way to play. I know this for sure, it will fail miserable in its goal of attracting old school players back into the fold if they read that the...
View full commentMaybe what they should do is have "classic" advancement, which is more of what we are used to and then "official advancement" for use in dnd encounters and living campaigns, as i suspect that's what is behind this move any way. Then people can chose. That could work but it involves not singling out the fast track approach as the default or "right" way to play.
I know this for sure, it will fail miserable in its goal of attracting old school players back into the fold if they read that the default game is level every other session as it suggests the game was designed to again he something comlpleatly foreign to what they grew up with. As I said, I myself have been in games that house ruled quicker leveling tracks, and they were fun. But to define DnD as that kind of play won't go over well in winning people back.
I must say you do have a difficult job in laying out the strategy as you release each new edition. From the standpoint of the three groups we've play tested 5e (Next) with we've come to the consensus that you must balance: 1. Maximization within the market segments that yield the highest profitability (I am guessing this gets younger as the years go on). 2. Various ages of D&D players who each have a special place in their heart for a specific edition. 3. Keeping the original...
View full commentI must say you do have a difficult job in laying out the strategy as you release each new edition. From the standpoint of the three groups we've play tested 5e (Next) with we've come to the consensus that you must balance:
1. Maximization within the market segments that yield the highest profitability (I am guessing this gets younger as the years go on).
2. Various ages of D&D players who each have a special place in their heart for a specific edition.
3. Keeping the original books in an edition release relevant as you release more books.
4. Upholding the basis of every facet of the RPG landscape, because let's be honest D&D dictates the game mechanics of every other table top and console game RPG that temporally follows.
You seem to be referring to point three though in terms of core books that we purchased vs. those of essentials. Of course I am guessing here, as I don't have the sales figures in front of me. One assumption, that which I think you are making, is ease of use for new players, which I would agree that essentials made it easier for new players to join. I myself found it easier to bring in about 30 new players, using the essentials over time, and then supplementing with PHB 2/3, and the other fantastic add-ons. The other way to possibly interpret it though is that PHB1 just became outdated in 4e with all the new DDI content that was published, especially in the areas of dailies, encounters, and utility powers.
Either way your new strategy sounds fundamentally sound. The key in expansion, in my opinion, though would be to continue to provide new content in the DDI compendium, and make it easy to access with a mobile app. In this manner you can reach more people if you put in place growth mechanisms to get a larger DDI subscriber base, and you also benefit from a beta-release approach being that you integrate it so well with the forum.
In summary I like the approach though, love the beta-test, and am excited for the 5e release.
I would never call the lack of fluff reason for mechanics a weak point for 4e, personally, I think one of 4e's strengths was it put the fluff back where it belonged, in the hands of DMs and Players...out of combat actions, story, roleplaying, all work better in an environment where the rules aren't focused on them, but rather on just resolution mechanics, which 4e was. The DM an the Players bring the story, the exploration, and the interaction, they bring the story alive, and the more staid and...
View full commentI would never call the lack of fluff reason for mechanics a weak point for 4e, personally, I think one of 4e's strengths was it put the fluff back where it belonged, in the hands of DMs and Players...out of combat actions, story, roleplaying, all work better in an environment where the rules aren't focused on them, but rather on just resolution mechanics, which 4e was. The DM an the Players bring the story, the exploration, and the interaction, they bring the story alive, and the more staid and mechanical and combat focused the rules are, the more it frees the game up for that.
Now, I understand how some had trouble doing 4e in TotM (I didn't, when needed, I've run it just fine that way, but have always preferred figures anyway) As for player and tactical decisions, leave those to the Players and DM explain, I don't want canned explanations, I want the PCs to have to come up with why they do what they do, and how.
Now, elements of 4e in 5e, let's see, the whole new HitDice healing mechanic is clearly a variation on Healing Surges. I see some other small influences of 4e, which are ever evolving as the playtest progresses, but that's the clearest example so far. At-Will spells, Backgrounds and Themes/Specialties all harken to 4e (and previous editions have had examples that were similar too, because that's where 4e got them)
Now, I know a ton of non-4e players who are diving in and participating in the playtesting right now, plus the new Season of Encounters is going to give the choice of 4e or 5e Playtest and most areas I've heard are opting for the 5e route. I'm looking forward to showing up for Encounters to play 5e myself. I'm both an Olde and New School gamer having played every edition, and yes, those who are active in the playtest and on the website will be the most vocally acknowledged, considering, but the more others encourage people to join the playtest, the more diverse the overall feedback can become
Ummm...why not just keep it simple, ala the original 1st or second version of the AD&D game. I see it far too often that the issue is trying to be over complicated, or trying to overdefine the mechanics instead of the story. There were a bunch of additional appendices with the second edition that were there for DM's to utilize, so in essence i'd leave it up to them. Keep the system as it is, or was....
Because not everyone likes Vancian magic. I personally prefer spell points, because it provides a way to limit the power of spellcasters while, for me at least, it makes it a bit more fun to play as.
Yes! that is correct--perfect balance is a myth. I remember a while back when one game designer was trying to justify the penalties given to a wood elf (FR) because they received bonuses to STR/DEX. According to him it was 'unfair' because physical trait bonuses were more of an advantage, therefore 2 INT, WIS, or CHA points had to be deducted for each. Some races or classes have more advantages than others (in some people's eyes), the trick is to break them down to their essence and get rid of...
View full commentYes! that is correct--perfect balance is a myth. I remember a while back when one game designer was trying to justify the penalties given to a wood elf (FR) because they received bonuses to STR/DEX. According to him it was 'unfair' because physical trait bonuses were more of an advantage, therefore 2 INT, WIS, or CHA points had to be deducted for each. Some races or classes have more advantages than others (in some people's eyes), the trick is to break them down to their essence and get rid of what doesn't work, or what makes them too advantageous for some. Despite my own complaints, nowadays I don't mind dark elves having a little less oomph in certain areas (as just one example). And I don't mind the ideas of wizards having some minor 'at will' capabilities if that should arise. There will always be some inherent disadvantages--a cavalier who gets a bonus while using his lance may not be able to enjoy it while crawling through the muck of the Underdark--but the 'disadvantage' in that case is merely logical.
One additional thought: please keep in mind that you can't "patch" a game like D&D like you can patch a computer game, since many people purchase physical books. You can't really run errata each month and expect someone to keep up with it all, or to even know about it. One problem with the previous edition was that there were so many substantive, core-rule changes that the books became worthless within months. Please don't do that to us again.
My experience in 3e does not match what you are describing. The standard wealth per level was more than enough to afford magic items. 2700 gp by 3rd level? That's enough for a +1 weapon. Even if the character's rarely found coins, gems, or commodities and had to sell their loot at a meager 50% of its worth (dropping that 2700 to 1350), that's still enough for +1 armor ... not to mention all the Wondrous Items, Potions, Scrolls, and Wands that could buy. And that's by 3rd level! By 8th...
View full commentMy experience in 3e does not match what you are describing. The standard wealth per level was more than enough to afford magic items.
2700 gp by 3rd level? That's enough for a +1 weapon. Even if the character's rarely found coins, gems, or commodities and had to sell their loot at a meager 50% of its worth (dropping that 2700 to 1350), that's still enough for +1 armor ... not to mention all the Wondrous Items, Potions, Scrolls, and Wands that could buy.
And that's by 3rd level! By 8th level, they're getting more than that every encounter! And by 15th? They could have close to 200,000 gp to spend; even after their upkeep (2 to 200 gp per month), that still buys quite a few magic items. Quite a few.
These figures were taken from the Character Wealth by Level table on page 145. If you actually used the Treasure Values per Encounter, it gets worse ... Needing 13 and 1/3 encounters to level up, a party of four would have 3000 gp each by level 3 ... 15,333 each by level 8 ... and 234,000 by level 15!
The only thing that keeps this in check is the GP Limit of the Population (on page 137). With that limit in place, the 15th level characters above would be limited to items worth than less than 800 gp in a small town or less than 40,000 gp in a large city. But with 234,000 gp, that still affords five such items (almost six). If they decided to spend 10% of that on potions, for example, they could buy 31 potions of cure serious wounds.
So, in my experience, magic items were not too expensive to buy if the DM followed the gold per level limits. Not by a long shot ... but don't get me wrong, if you want magic items in shops, then D&D should provide you a way of doing that. No rationale necessary ... but I shouldn't have to hand out such copious amount of magic in my campaign, even if you want them in yours. So, D&D should provide that too me, as well.
I agree with you about Backgrounds. Great idea. I don't necessarily like how they implemented every single one of them, but I love the idea. As far as Intimidate goes, you're right that a big, muscular guy should get a bonus to Intimidate. What about little guys with high STR scores? Or big guys with little strength scores? Should D&D include some kind of "unless your strength and size aren't what expected" exception to that rule? Moreover, if you read the comments below, there are...
View full commentI agree with you about Backgrounds. Great idea. I don't necessarily like how they implemented every single one of them, but I love the idea.
As far as Intimidate goes, you're right that a big, muscular guy should get a bonus to Intimidate. What about little guys with high STR scores? Or big guys with little strength scores? Should D&D include some kind of "unless your strength and size aren't what expected" exception to that rule?
Moreover, if you read the comments below, there are a TON of reasons why STR shouldn't be the ONLY stat that can be used to Intimidate. Sure, STR should help when intimidating someone with the threat of physical violence, but that's not the only way to intimidate someone. Please read the comments below, as I have no intention of re-hashing that argument.
*Skills are vague in most cases - Looking at Perform (not a listed SKILL in this iteration as yet), obviously there are many types of performance (Dance, Oration, Acting, Painting, Sculpting, etc.). So it seems to me that a general Skill (ARTISTRY) can represent a sub-skill...
View full comment