Focus (not inclusion of) on 'tactical simulation'. I run solo-player/dual-player games more often than not, and NPC's tag along but are never 'full characters'. I don't have the desire to run all the monsters abilities plus coordinate tactics with players, all to recieve a +1 to hit. Advantage, however, works quite nicely in filling that void so far.
Question: How would you define the difference? Like, if you had the 5e books in your hands, and you were looking through them, what does a focus on tactical simulation look like, as opposed to just including it?
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
No attempts to balance classes against each other. It's a game. Do the math so we don't have to fix it later.
ONLY simple fighters and ONLY complex casters. You think players don't want to "hit it again" with a spell or make complicated sword attacks?
Sloppy rule writting. I want an air tight rule system that gives everyone a very clear baseline. Players/DMs can build and houserule from that. If I need to discuss every little rule element with my DM, I've been sold a bad product.
Too much bloat, too fast. I know there is going to be power creep. But lets not see a hundred niche options that provide a benefit so meaningless that it might as well just be fluff written in the background. Make meaningful options, and make them carefully. I'd rather have 5 real choices than a 100 meaningless ones (which, because of their vast number, might combine in an unintended and overpowered way).
Mixing fluff and crunch without VERY obvious fixes. Alignment is the big offender here. Don't care which is Core, but there had better be an opt out immediately available.
Plus the combat-oriented utility powers on top of that. So generally a wizard had less spell "slots" than in the previous systems.
There were some non-combat utility spells that a wizard could choose and were encouraged to do so because of the way their "spell" memorization was set up. Powers like Memory to Mist specifically said that they could not be used in combat. Unfortunately, like the other 4e PHB classes, the Wizard "looked" like all the other classes, which had a big effect on how people perceived it when the edition was first released. It wasn't even until PHB3 that WotC even tried an alternative set up than the straight up AEDU, once you include Essentials, they finally showed how you could make a variety of classes that all looked very different on the book page, which could have gone a long way towards making people make an emotional connection between the 4e wizard and the older Vancian wizards.
Having both doesn't seem too hard to me. I played in games of both varieties in editions 1e-3e and if I had stuck with 4e, would have done it there as well. It was just a matter of preference in every edition that I have seen and it doesn't seem like that will change for 5e.
I think the biggest advance here will be the bounded accuracy change for ACs and spell DCs. Removing the players' possibility of getting a weapon +X, armor +X, ring of protection +X, amulet of protection +X, etc., gets rid of the "need" to give out those magic items. Now, magical items won't be math items for your character.
How does someone know that he must attack the girl in plate because if he hits the wizard he will spontaneously explode? I mean, obviously it's magic, but seriously? If anyone was ever put into that situation, and gained that kind of knowledge, how would he react? I think the rational thing to do is to throw down your weapon and beg for mercy, because this paladin is waaay more powerful than you can possibly comprehend.
How could a mook not comprehend the slight divine influence that a Paladin's mark is supposed to represent? The mook lives in a world where divine will is fairly easy to manifest and he has almost certainly seen divine magic operate in some way at some point in his life or at least thought that he has. Understanding that people can draw on a part of the power of a god should not be very surprising to monsters, even fairly stupid ones, that live in the world of D&D. Kind of like how magic use should never be a surprise to such creatures.
I would much rather see a monster designed like this: "These guys are really fast, so their dexterity should be 17... Okay, let's test this guy out and see how much experience he should be worth."
I undersand what you are saying in that you want monsters to be created organically rather than as a simple excercise in plugging a numbers forumla based on monster level and monster role (as it appeared to be in 4e), but I don't really see how the presentation to players would be any different unless you expect me as the DM to figure out how to use the monster against the party (ie. calculate my own XP value and monster level for it). I've played in games like that, where you can never really be sure if the monsters the party are about to attack will be too strong or not, and I don't want D&D to go there.
A system based around general forumlas creates generally predictable results, which is what I, as the DM, want. If I want a group of monsters to be challenging, I use ones above their level OR ones that have special abilities that work against the party's weaknesses (or both). If I want a group of monsters that are easy to defeat, I use ones below their level OR ones that play into their strengths (or both). If I want to create my own monsters and my party is running around at level 7, I want guidelines to help me figure out how much damage they should do without having to read through a ton of level 7 monsters to work it out for myself or find the average damage my characters can inflict.
I guess my biggest problem with your example is that you used gut feelings to work out a monster at the level you already wanted it to play at (obviously a low level since it only has 11 hit points). If you do that enough times, you'll give yourself guidelines on how much damage a monster at level X should be able to inflict and take. Once you have such guidelines you are basically at the same place that 4e started you at.
Mine is quite simple... lack of options I like while imposing options I dislike.
If the default includes: "magic item wal-mart", "everyone has super kewl powahs/everyone is fighting-caster", "Spellplague Realms continues", and "forced grid play", I will be a tad annoyed. However, modularity would allow me to rule out these things easily. And in good patience, I'm sure I'll get to play in the settings I want.
So, lack of options is the only deal breaker for me. Otherwise, I feel this thread is more about "I want the game MY way and not YOUR'S", which could damage the modular process. Have more patience before passing judgement. You got a tiny sample of something that's only 20% there! Once we're close to the end, then pass judgements! I'm cautiously optimistic (especially coming from a typically sardonic and cynical person), but the idea of giving everyone different tools to get the same job done (Play D&D!) is pretty cool by me.
Disgruntled ghost of the Knights of W.T.F. (Keep D&D alive, end the edition wars!)
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are based on opinions (and are sometimes humorous, other times inspirational)
Focus (not inclusion of) on 'tactical simulation'. I run solo-player/dual-player games more often than not, and NPC's tag along but are never 'full characters'. I don't have the desire to run all the monsters abilities plus coordinate tactics with players, all to recieve a +1 to hit. Advantage, however, works quite nicely in filling that void so far.
Question: How would you define the difference? Like, if you had the 5e books in your hands, and you were looking through them, what does a focus on tactical simulation look like, as opposed to just including it?
In a nutshell, I would say this: if running the absolute basic rules requires some kind of battlemat with miniatures, or has a slew of powers that feed off of each other as 'required' effects of the spell, then that would be focusing on. Sure, you could remove the listing of the 'required' effects, but the players will realize you're taking away something listed in the core description and they feel cheated. I wouldn't want that. Examples to look for include measurements purely in squares as opposed to feet/yards, spell area descriptions that are listed purely in squares, and so forth, terms like 'adjacency' being very common, and so on. Also, large numbers of effects that modify previous effects would be a warning flag to me.
On the other hand, including tactical options would be something like, after a spell description, 'if you are using the battlemap/tactical play modules/rules/options, this spell will allow (effect)'. This isn't a requirement, because it's conditional with the 'if' and my players won't feel cheated because in very plain language it states that what follows is only if battlemat play is being used. This would be 'including' tactical options, to me.
I'm willing to be flexible; I may prefer the style of old D&D, but I enjoy some things from every edition. I'm happy to have everyone get some of what they want.
Edit note: I use 'large numbers' although it's a rather vague term. There isn't a hard-and-fast number I would say 'oh thats it, thats too many'. It would more be an eyeballing of how many included, versus how many did not include, the things I mentioned along with the 'large numbers'. I don't ask for zero...just not 3/4 of the book, either.
Now as others have noted, 5e WILL have bloat. There will be a great many classes/races/feats/etc. The simple fact is that having put out 5e in 2013, WOTC will need money in 2014, and the routine way to get that will be to sell us more options. The alternative pretty much is they sell us 6e in 2015. Unless you can suggest a way to get money for WOTC, don't dream that they will ignore the proven way.
This needs to be repeated more often. +1
So this is one of the reasons why D&DNext is stated now. Thank you for enlightening me.
David's economics are flawed. Hasbro/WotC does not need a few measy thousand cranky older gamers buying new products and expansions each month if they can make a product which millions of ten-to-fifteen year olds will demand for christmas. That is the much more viable business model, and, frankly, the only one which doesn't lead to the ultimate extinction of D&D within this generation.
What got me interested in DnDNext was the promise of a 1-2 hour complete adventure, from charachter creation to end point. If thats not going to be possible, I won't be buying in.
I don't know where you saw this promise... but... looks like you'll save your money if you think 1-2 hours is enough to make characters and complete an adventure.
Monsters being designed with arbitrary attack, defense, ability and damage scores based on their level and role instead of their physiology, training, surroundings, natural abilities, etc. In short, monsters designed to "challenge" X number of PCs at Y level by expending approximately Z% of their daily resources.
I don't get the distinction. From a DM's perspective, everything the players encounter in the world is chosen by me. Every monster they ever fight was placed there by me, every NPC they could suddenly challenge or attack was placed there by me. I choose how strong or how weak to make the monsters they fight and I also get to choose their reactions (does the ultra-power NPC the party wasn't ready to challeng slaughter them all or walk away laughing at their pitiful attempts).
When I choose monsters to place in the path of the party, I want the clearest way possible to know how that monster is going to fare against the party. I want as full as control as possible over how tough I want that fight to be. Things like roles and monster CR values do nothing but help me do this and if the DMs guide wants to give me guidelines on how to build fights such as a series of fights in a given day will challenge but not kill my party, then I'm only happy to have such advice. I am under no requirements to follow those guidelines and I can easily have a dungeon with ten encounters while expecting the party to figure out among themselves when to turn back and rest and when to push forward.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I mean is I don't want to see a monster designed like this: "He's level 5, so his AC should be 19. This will allow the players to hit him on an 8 or above, assuming starting ability scores of 18 and the +1 magic weapons they should have found by now. And his attack bonus should be +X because the players' average AC will be Y. And he should deal this much damage at-will and this much with his encounter attack so that the party's healer will have to use the amount of per-encounter heals he has at this level. And we'll give him this many hit points so that by the time the party has beaten him, they will have expended an amount of their daily resources which will allow them to participate in three more combats before resting to regain their powers in preparation for the four encounters they will face tomorrow."
I would much rather see a monster designed like this: "These guys are really fast, so their dexterity should be 17. They're also really dumb, so we'll give them a 6 intelligence. Lacking both natural armor and the intelligence to make use of fashioned armor, their AC will be 13, accounting for their +3 dexterity modifier. They don't hit very hard, so they'll do 1d4 damage with their +0 strength modifier; however, they can secrete venom from their claws when threatened, so we'll add this effect which does a lot more damage and can paralyze a player temporarily if they fail a constitution save. Their attack bonus will be their dexterity modifier plus two for being proficient with their natural weaponry, so +5. They are pretty frail creatures with a constitution of only 8, and would most likely be taken out with a few good hits from among even the least skilled of adventurers, so we'll give them about 11 hit points. Okay, let's test this guy out and see how much experience he should be worth."
I'd like to see a hybrid of the two.
Your method where 'cool' beats 'mechanically sound' will end with many TPKs and rage quits...
lack of mat and figures. Absolute. If there is not a battlemat on the table, I will not be at the table. One can provide substitutes, such as rulers or other tools, but the idea of playing is nonsense that renders the game unplayable. [Yes, you can sit around the table and say "I attack", but to actually conform to any set of rules? Not a chance. You will be routinely doing what the rules say you can't, and often enough not being able to do what the rules say you can.]
5e as per playtest. This is D&D 1.5. And I will immediately choose Pathfinder, or other choices.
Now as others have noted, 5e WILL have bloat. There will be a great many classes/races/feats/etc. The simple fact is that having put out 5e in 2013, WOTC will need money in 2014, and the routine way to get that will be to sell us more options. The alternative pretty much is they sell us 6e in 2015. Unless you can suggest a way to get money for WOTC, don't dream that they will ignore the proven way.
DDi was pretty successful number wise, imagine how much money they could rake in on a monthly basis if they put out applications that were on par with some of the high end software coming out now... They wouldn't need to add a single book if they did that...
