|
1 year ago ::
May 15, 2012 - 8:12AM
#1
|
|
|
I was wondering what the default assumed group size might be in D&D Next, in 3rd/3.5 a group of 4 PCs was assumed and the Challenge Rating system was based around that. I'm not sure if it's NDA restricted information or not, but I have been trying to discover what sizes the groups were during the playtests at the various conventions. I myself have a fairly large group (5-7 PCs) and am interested to know if the playtest material is scaleable for larger groups or if I need to split party for the D&D Next playtest.
Thanks in advance for any information regarding this.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 4:09PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
I don't know the answer yet, but I hope 4 is the magic number. It is much easier to scale even numbers, and 4 to me seems like a better base group because sometimes it is hard to find 5 players.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 4:11PM
#3
|
|
|
I sincerely hope they don't design the game to be played by any particular group size, other than "A DM and One or More Players". Designing for an 'expected group' is unnecessary, and when you do it, you needlessly make the game less suitable for people who don't fit your 'expected group'.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 4:14PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
Since they're including 5 characters it seems like that's the logical limit, unless you duplicate (which I guess is fine). If it's 5 I'm going to have to run 4 groups to let everyone in. *checks schedule* this could be a problem.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 5:13PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Established Group Size Official Requirement is 5, or 4 if you have a Wizard Spoiler:
Show
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 5:19PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2001
|
I agree with Kaldric, I would prefer rules that support groups of any size. If I want to play a game with my wife for instance, I don't want to be required to invite other people just so she can play. OTOH, if she did want to play with others that would be allowed too.
FWIW, in 4E, the default party size was 5 PCs; all adventures were written based on a 5 PC party. But, if you followed the experience budget, you could create a game for a party of one or a party of 20. It is my hope they retain this for the next edition (and I suspect they will.)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 5:43PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Personally i don't have trouble if 5 is the base expectation as long as published adventures take in considerations if you have 4-6 players.( or if 4/3-5)
The rest is irrelevant if their is a XP Budget table. Wether you plan encounters for 3 or 7 players, you'll budget accordingly.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 8:17PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2003
|
I've always found 4 players and a DM to be the ideal social dynamic. I find 5 or more players to start edging into not enough time to spend with any one player.
It is not entirely irrelevant even with a solid XP budget table. For instance, 4e combat becomes far richer when utilizing combos that only open up with multiple PCs. An incredible amount of texture in 4e combat is shut down when playing with only 1 or 2 PCs.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 17, 2012 - 4:24AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2011
|
4-5 seems right in my experience but it should be easy to scale the combat enounters for other sizes. I'd like to see brief instructions for scaling the encounter e.g.
"for 4 players, remove one X
for 3 players, remove one X and one Y
for 6 players, add one Y"
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 17, 2012 - 5:13AM
#10
|
|
|
All I need it page 49 from the 3.5 DMG. Useing that you can make encounters for any party of any level simply and easily.
Im sorry but ADEU is a French word for goodbye, not a combat system. You say, "Encounter Power" and I stop listening to you. Have Played/Run
Show
D&D 1st ed
D&D 3.5 ed
D&D 4th ed
Shadowrun
Star Wars SAGA
Cyberpunk
Interlock Unlimited
Run.Net
I know my games, don't try to argue about them. Alignment Explained
Show
This is a very simple problem and I will outline it below.
Their are two types of people
Type 1: a lot of people (not all, but a lot) who play see alignment as "I am lawful good thus I must play lawful good"
Type 2: a lot of people (not all, but a lot) who play see alignment as "My previous actions have made people and the gods view me as lawful good.
The difference is subtle but it is the source of the misunderstanding. Alignment does not dictate how you play your character. All it does is tell you, the player, how the rest of the world views you, and your previous actions. Any future actions will be judged by their own merits.
Say you're a baby eating pyromaniac. You are most likely chaotic evil. But one day you decide, "Hey all I really need is love." So you get a wife, have a kid, and get a kitten named Mr. Snook'ems. You become a member of the PTA and help build houses for the homeless. You are no longer chaotic evil. And just because you were once chaotic evil it does not mean that you have to stay chaotic evil.
Alignment never dictates what you can do, it only says what you have done.
Now that is cleared up here is a simple test.
What is the alignment of...
A Police officer:
The average Citizen:
A Vigilante:
The answer is simple.
The Police officer is lawful good. He uses the laws of the country and city to arrest people and make them pay their debt to society.
The Citizen is Neutral good. He wants to live is a place that is Good and follows moral and ethical principle, but he sometimes finds the laws impedes him, and he wonders why we spend so much on poor people.
The Vigilante is Chaotic Good. He wants to uphold the morals and ethics of society but finds that the bad guys often slip through the cracks in the law. He takes it upon himself to protect the people from these criminals.
That is the basic breakdown of the good alignment axis. What needs to be remembered is that any one of these people can change alignments, easily.
The Police officer could be bought off by a local gang, and suddenly he drops to lawful neutral.
The average citizen might find that his neighbors dog is annoying, barking at night and keeping him up. So he poisons its food, now he is no longer good, he is stepping towards true neutral. Maybe the citizen really goes crazy also kills the neighbor, hello neutral evil.
It is possible that the Vigilante realizes that the cops are actually doing a pretty good job and decides to become an officer himself, leaving his masked crime fighting days behind him. Now he is Lawful good.
Your alignment is not carved in stone, it is malleable and will change to reflect your actions.
|
|
|
