|
12 months ago ::
Jun 27, 2012 - 9:55AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2007
|
This time around, Developer Tom LaPille explores the concept of optional rules modules, plus gives you an example of how they work in D&D Next.
Trevor Kidd
Community Manager
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 27, 2012 - 10:07AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2007
|
In principle, what Tom said was reasonable.
However, the example of a module that he presented was awful. I know he said it was an early draft of a module, but...blah.
Check out my blog--now REACTIVATED with DnDnext feedback!
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 27, 2012 - 10:07AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Eh, it works for what it is. Succeeds at its limited, targeted goal.
I'd still like to see more unique things that a Fighter can do that nobody else can, rather than "everybody can do what a Fighter can if they roll really well" as a model. It's like saying I can, with no training, dangle a watch in front of the orc, and if I roll well enough he'd be affected by the Wizard spell Sleep. It would feel half-baked, it would intrude on the coolness that is the Wizard, and generally I don't think people would like it.
The real question out there is "What is the point of the Fighter?" This doesn't do much to answer it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 27, 2012 - 10:08AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
This approach works for me and i like the direction of the Narrative Combat Modules as well as the Tactical Combat Modules. Reminds me more and more of the AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Options: Combat & Tactics. I hope these have all kinds of possible effects, especially applying Conditions like Immobilized, Restrained, Prone, Slowed etc...
I just don't like how the Fighter seems to get the shaft again and find himself doing things anyone else can do, but just better. They should have unique Maneuvers no one else can do. Hopefully the next Playtest Packet will bring a more dynamic Fighter as i know the class is being currently worked on.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 27, 2012 - 10:09AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2011
|
I like the basic idea--alot.
This is essentially how we used called shots in our games--which was a flat -4 to hit unless you wanted some spectacular effect.
But I like the idea of fixed bonuses in Mr. LaPille's article better. And I can see a cornucopia of possibilities with such an approach. Blind, cripple, disarm and the like.
But my main concern is that the idea of narrative combat isn't lost in the mix. I think these manuevers should be "described" by the person attempting them. Or you going to blind by throwing sand in his eyes, by delivering a slashing headwound right above the eyes, or gouging an eye out. And if the circumstances dictate you'll have to take environmental factors into mind as well. I really like the idea, becuase it allows for players to try things GMs might otherwise disallow, assigns a target penalty and bonus and relies on roleplaying the action.
Which of course doesn't preclude a GM fro allowing a players to simply declare he attempts a knockback either--I just like more description in my games: "Okay, so how are you going to knock him back?" That sort of thing.
Very good in my opinion and a lot more likely to make it into my game than a tactical minis module. But that's the beauty of D&DNext--it supports them both. Good work Mr. LaPille.
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs. He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." --Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 27, 2012 - 10:09AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
In principle, what Tom said was reasonable.
However, the example of a module that he presented was awful. I know he said it was an early draft of a module, but...blah.
Why? I liked it and would use it in my games. It doesn't have to be useful all the time, only provide the option for characters to do something like that if they wish. You don't have to use it if you don't want characters to be able to knock enemies over or deal a little more damage. That's why it's so good as a module.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 27, 2012 - 10:11AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2011
|
Why? I liked it and would use it in my games. It doesn't have to be useful all the time, only provide the option for characters to do something like that if they wish. You don't have to use it if you don't want characters to be able to knock enemies over or deal a little more damage. That's why it's so good as a module.
Couldn't agree more, in this case flexibility and generality is good.
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs. He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." --Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 27, 2012 - 10:12AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Eh, it works for what it is. Succeeds at its limited, targeted goal.
I'd still like to see more unique things that a Fighter can do that nobody else can, rather than "everybody can do what a Fighter can if they roll really well" as a model. It's like saying I can, with no training, dangle a watch in front of the orc, and if I roll well enough he'd be affected by Sleep. It would feel half-baked, it would intrude on the coolness that is the Wizard, and generally I don't think people would like it.
The real question out there is "What is the point of the Fighter?" This doesn't do much to answer it.
I expect we'll see some fighter only things come out. As for the other classes doing things that the fighter can, but having to work harder. I doubt any class other than fighter will be able to knock a 4 legged creature prone. With bounded accuracy meaning that +'s to hit will be scarce as hell, that -10 will likely put that particular ability out of reach of any class other than the fighter who won't take the penalty. Even the -5 will likely mean that the other classes have to roll a 17 or higher to succeed.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 27, 2012 - 10:20AM
#9
|
|
|
I'm lukewarm on this concept. -5 or -10 in a bounded accuracy system seems a little too harsh, but whatever.
My bigger concern is that the game seems to be drifting toward a 2e/3e do-over.
This is excellent for a lot of people and I'm happy for them.
But i don't play that way anymore and I'm uninterested in returning to it.
The latest ideas don't seem fresh to me. They seem warmed-over from older editions (except 4e).
"coming soon- things you might like." Maybe. But I'm reaching my good-faith limit, here.
Thus far, the playtest hasn't offered me anything to love.
-sidebar-
I am seriously considering that I may be an insignificant representative market share. Maybe I'm so in the minority, maybe my desire for AEDU in my wizard and Fighter class are so against-the-grain, that I could be and should be ignored.
Maybe d5d isn't for me. That's ok. I'm just one guy, after all. World cant revolve around me.
-sidebar over-
This is a serviceable concept. Like the core game. It works, I'm sure. Simple, quick, & effective. I'm just not excited about it. It's not inspiring me to daydream about all the exciting things I'm goin to do with this. I'm not saying, "Finally! Now my enemies will quake in fear a m new bag of tricks."
But hey- a hammer just needs to be a hammer.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 27, 2012 - 10:21AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Also, penalties should not range in the -5/-10 and should only -2/-4 max as Spells don't grant +5/+10 to their saving throws for Immobilizing or Proning you on top of damaging you afterall.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
