|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 1:46PM
#1
|
|
|
From the 5/16/2012 chat:Spoiler:
Show
"Mearls: I've been DMing mostly, and the rules have changed a lot over the past few days. Probably the funniest thing was guest starring as a librarian in a playtest game at DDXP. Also, I got to test the DR rules when the players had to cut open a dead wererat's stomach to find a gem it had swallowed. That was not how I expected to test those rules."
"Mearls: I also pitch in as needed to get work done. For instance, my other open window has the rules text for rituals, though those won't be in the initial playtest."
"Mearls: Probably the biggest change is in the mechanic for advantage and disadvantage. We've also have done a lot to the cleric, fleshing out domains and making those a bigger part of the class that changes a lot of stuff."
"Mearls: There are off-turn actions in the game, but the philosophy now is to have them eat into your turn or have something you have to set up. For instance, instead of everyone automatically getting opportunity attacks, a character might need to take a feat or choose an ability that basically says, "If you make a melee attack on your turn, you get one opportunity attack for the next round."
A rogue might have this - you can move away from an enemy that moves next to you, but you lose your move on your next turn."
"Mearls: We're trying to keep the list of conditions slim and make it apply to things that are obvious changes in the world. For instance, right now invisible and ethereal are on the list of conditions. We also added intoxicated. Basically, what are things that when they happen to you have a clear effect on how you interact with the world?
here's another thing - with stuff like paralyzed, we're dealing more in describing what happens rather than trying to make everything mechanical. So paralyzed says that you can' t move your limbs. Spellcasting specifies that you need to move your arms to cast a spell. Thus, a paralyzed creature can't cast spells.
The idea is that we give the DM clear mechanics, but also make it clear what's happening in the world so the DM can make any judgment calls as needed."
"Crawford: While Mike answers that, I'll say something else about race. A thing I love about our current approach is that you don't just pick your race, such as dwarf. You also pick what kind of dwarf you are."
"Mearls: I did a review of our weapon table, and I think the spear was the one weapon I didn't comment on. Probably the biggest things are rogue schemes and cleric domains."
On buying fighter maneuvers with feats:
"Mearls: And to be clear, right now if you spend a feat for maneuvers you're getting a whole suite of options to use, not just one thing."
Clarifying what cantrips will be:
"Mearls: Yes, cantrips that you use to attack are basically utility cantrips that have a way you can use them against creatures. The ignite cantrip lets you start fires, whether its lighting a torch or a goblin's butt."
"Mearls: That's a great question. We want magical to feel magical yet rooted in the world. The cantrip thing ties into this. Cantrips aren't specifically made to blast people, but a cantrip you use to create a small amount of acid as part of an alchemy experiment can also be a useful weapon. Spells should feel magical and maybe even mysterious in some way."
"Mearls: For instance, going back to cantrips, we specifically didn't want to just make a spell that was the same as a crossbow but it did fire damage. That sells magic short, IMO."
So, it looks like rituals, damage reduction, off-turn actions, somatic components, an intoxicated condition, rogue "schemes", variables for races, and cleric domains are going to be in. What do you guys think? What are you hoping to see from these game elements? What are your concerns?
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 1:59PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2008
|
Looks pretty good to me, although I'm dissapointed we can't see a more complicated fighter in the playtest.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been."
- Manwë, High King of the Valar
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 2:07PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2001
|
I'm more disappointed that we will not be able to generate our own characters for the first playtest. But we might be able to extrapolate the necessary information to "mix and match" the characters.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 2:13PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
What are my concerns?
That people will nitpick their pet peeve features and not pay enough attention to how the game works as a whole.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 2:20PM
#5
|
|
|
What are my concerns?
That people will nitpick their pet peeve features and not pay enough attention to how the game works as a whole.
Well, that's more of a concern with the forums (and we're all concerned with the hostility and defensiveness on the forums). Is there anything in there that you're excited to see, whether it's coming back or being newly implemented, or anything that makes you leery? I know there was a thread a while back about an intoxicated condition (specifically about rules for getting drunk, I think), and several people expressed concern about that or felt that it was unnecessary.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 2:23PM
#6
|
|
|
What are my concerns?
That people will nitpick their pet peeve features and not pay enough attention to how the game works as a whole.
I'm trying, but there is stuff I love in 4th edition that appears will just not be there or will be there in such small quantities.
For instance, if the entire concept of a defender is a theme, then that means it's more likely that there is only one way to be a defender. I like that almost every defender in 4th edition is different in how it defends and punishes. The Fighter is good at lockdown, the Paladin at punishing multiple enemies (for a few rounds at least), the Swordmage at making an enemies attack half meaningless, and the Warden at making it hard for an enemy to go anywhere or do anything
However, I am optimistic that I will enjoy both DMing and playing the game, and I look forward to seeing how good the core mechanics are. If they are good enough, we might be able to houserule 4e classes to play well with the new system, and that would be fine with me.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 2:28PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
There's a big difference between an example and an exclusion.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 7:55PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2003
|
What are my concerns?
That people will nitpick their pet peeve features and not pay enough attention to how the game works as a whole.
Well, that's more of a concern with the forums (and we're all concerned with the hostility and defensiveness on the forums). Is there anything in there that you're excited to see, whether it's coming back or being newly implemented, or anything that makes you leery? I know there was a thread a while back about an intoxicated condition (specifically about rules for getting drunk, I think), and several people expressed concern about that or felt that it was unnecessary.
In every game I've seen that included rules for intoxication it made me think that the designer had never imbibed an alcoholic beverage in his life, but rather, got their ideas on drunkenness from a cartoon. Here's to hoping Mearls and company enjoy a good bourbon and know what it is like.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 8:32PM
#9
|
|
|
So, it looks like rituals, damage reduction, off-turn actions, somatic components, an intoxicated condition, rogue "schemes", variables for races, and cleric domains are going to be in. What do you guys think? What are you hoping to see from these game elements? What are your concerns?
Rituals: Good.
Damage Reduction: Fine.
Off-Turn Actions: Not sure this is actually an improvement, since how you have to keep track of what you lose on your upcoming turn ...
Somatic Components: Bad. Harder to reflavor. 4e did this right, this is a major step backwards.
Intoxicated: Seems pointless, but whatever ...
Rogue Schemes: Neutral
Variables for Races: Meh. Don't like, since I think race is too big a chunk of the character 'pie' now and I'd like to see it de-emphasized.
Cleric Domains: Neutral; it's a rare day I've any interest in playing a divine character, so what does and doesn't happen to clerics and paladins doesn't greatly concern me.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 9:02PM
#10
|
- Unconventional Mafia Pro
- Dark Lord
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
|
Rituals: Meh. They seem like an interesting tool for variant parties if the "anyone can use them" nature is maintained, at least
Damage Reduction: Glad to see it
Off-Turn Actions: Seems clunky, really. I get what they're trying to do, reducing the number of "gotchya" and "Interrupt" details, but if you still have people acting off turn, the matter is moot.
Somatic Components: All we know now is that a bound or paralyzed caster can't cast. I find this to be good.
Intoxicated: Whatever.
Rogue Schemes: We know nothing other than "this exists". Neutral
Variables for Race: Do like. I especially like a divorcing of cultural and physical traits, while retaining access to either. Should make it easy to homebrew "X raised by Y"
Cleric Domains: Clerics of Specific Mythoi are the way to go. Glad to hear they're in.
"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice." THE COALITION WAR GAME-Phyrexian Praetor Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill) Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills) Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill) Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills) Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills) Round 6: (8-7-1) [current round] Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920
|
|
|
