I'm pretty sure a modular system would be one that assumes a standard rule set to which modules can be added to extend or over-ride rules.
Almost, but not quite. Almost nobody will use just the core in Next.
Exactly. Even if everyone that ever played the game used some combination of modules on top of the core, the core remains. There is a default even if nobody willingly uses it. I'm sure the company will be selecting a core that people would be willing to choose.
In organized play situations you don't have a choice and I'm sure that the developers will want that type of play presented as the default in the core rules for the sake of simplicity. The options they do allow will be listed after an assumed base rule set.
---
I think the devs are already getting tired of feeding us.
Almost, but not quite. Almost nobody will use just the core in Next.[/quote]Exactly. Even if everyone that ever played the game used some combination of modules on top of the core, the core remains. There is a default even if nobody willingly uses i
In organized play situations you don't have a choice and I'm sure that the developers will want that type of play presented as the default in the core rules for the sake of simplicity. The options they do allow will be listed after an assumed base rule set.
I'm rather sure that the just the core won't be the rules in Encounters, or similar events. Things like specialties and backgrounds will be included, and those aren't core.
They are expecting people to add modules. Most of the development work they've done has been on modules. They're going to be an integral part of Next, at all levels. Except for a small few who really want the most bare-bones of rules to hang their stories on.
And yes, this isn't how they've done it before. That's what makes Next so exciting.
I'm rather sure that the just the core won't be the rules in Encounters, or similar events. Things like specialties and backgrounds will be included, and those aren't core.They are expecting people to add modules. Most of the development work they'
In organized play situations you don't have a choice and I'm sure that the developers will want that type of play presented as the default in the core rules for the sake of simplicity. The options they do allow will be listed after an assumed base rule set.
I'm rather sure that the just the core won't be the rules in Encounters, or similar events. Things like specialties and backgrounds will be included, and those aren't core.
Same.
I don't mean to insult you. It seems like you just want to argue about this when I see that we mostly agree, other than the spin you put on it.
I'm rather sure that the just the core won't be the rules in Encounters, or similar events. Things like specialties and backgrounds will be included, and those aren't core.[/quote]Same. I don't mean to insult you. It seems like you just want to argu
But the spin is what we're in disagreement about, and what people don't understand about what core and module mean in Next.
People are stuck on outdated terms, outdated structures, outdated ways of thinking. Next is quite new.
But the spin is what we're in disagreement about, and what people don't understand about what core and module mean in Next.People are stuck on outdated terms, outdated structures, outdated ways of thinking. Next is quite new.
I am pretty much OK with how small races are turning out at the moment.
If they can not use heavy weapons and do not get penalised on their stats then it is still a win for small races in general.
I am pretty much OK with how small races are turning out at the moment.If they can not use heavy weapons and do not get penalised on their stats then it is still a win for small races in general.
Honestly it is just irrelevant what you consider correct or incorrect or acceptable or not acceptable. If you have an actual logical argument for something then present it, otherwise your comments along those lines are just irrelevant.
You're right, what I consider correct or not is just as unimportant as what you do.
I never said anything I did was important. I just made a logical argument. You're welcome to accept it or reject it, but if you want to talk about it then I'd assume talking about it in logical terms would be productive. I just didn't see much value in "You're just wrong, so you are irrelevant!" lol.
But as far as "actual logical argument" goes, how can you justify going aganist what the stated goals and intent of the developers are?
Huh? How do I dare to point out that the emperor has no clothes? lol. I just report what I see and what I think. It was an argument based on logic. You are entirely welcome to refute my logic. I don't dispute that the developers STATED certain things, that's not relevant, just like if they stated they were flying to the Moon tomorrow would be irrelevant.
I'm not claiming 100% positively, absolutely, there will be no defaults. I'm claiming that the intent is that there will be no defaults, and that there is absolutely zero rational basis for assuming otherwise. There could be, there could not be. But you have absolutely no grounds to state with any authority whatsoever that they WILL do anything. At all.
I stated a perfectly logical argument. If logical reasoning isn't grounds for claiming that I have a point, then OK. I'll go find the real world where logic actually works.
You say you're 100% certain, and yet I've presented a direct counterexample to your claims (races and classes do not have defaults, and will not have defaults in Next), provided direct developer motivation describing how they don't want to do what you're 100% certain they will do, and described how all of your certainty boils down to unfounded assumptions about how they're going to present things that haven't even hit initial playtesting, let alone given consideration for book layout.
You talk about actual logical arguments - why should anyone believe yours, when it's able to be dismantled piece by piece?
As I said your talk about no defaults for races and classes is immaterial and irrelevant. You're off counting apples and I'm talking about oranges man. What the skill rules are that you're using is not the same sort of choice as "what class is my PC going to be". Just because there are no defaults for the race of a PC is LOGICALLY UNCONNECTED TO whether or not the game's core rules state that you use skill system X by default unless you pick something else. I think you've missed some things. Each player is not getting to decide for themselves what all the rules are that they will follow independently of the other players. Its not like what skill rules you use or which hit point system is in force are PC options. They are CORE OPTIONS that are decided for a whole game. It can be no other way. Those options WILL have defaults. I assure you. Of course it is possible that players can pick some sort of PC option that selects one of several spell systems for their character to use, for example. That MIGHT not have a default, but frankly I think even in these cases there really will be an effective default. There will be a system that assumed and you're welcome to use others.
You're right, what I consider correct or not is just as unimportant as what you do.[/quote]I never said anything I did was important. I just made a logical argument. You're welcome to accept it or reject it, but if you want to talk about it then I'd
Things like races, classes, etc will be just as optional as they've always been. Any DM may or may not limit or ban them for whatever reason they see fit.
That said, I fully expect there to be a "default" system to some extent or another. For instance, Hit Points are almost certainly going to be a default way of keeping track of a character's overall "health" of sorts, inasmuch as Hit Points are described to do that. However, there may be an optional module for, say, Wounds/Vitality. Or WoD-style Health Levels. Or an armor-style diagram like BattleTech. Or whatever else they might come up with - but Hit Points would be the default in that case.
Just because a system is touted to be modular doesn't mean that every single thing within that system must be defined as an optional module.
Things like races, classes, etc will be just as optional as they've always been. Any DM may or may not limit or ban them for whatever reason they see fit.That said, I fully expect there to be a "default" system to some extent or another. For instance
Just because a system is touted to be modular doesn't mean that every single thing within that system must be defined as an optional module.
I guess the question then is: What portions of the rules absolutely have to have a default setting? Hit Points, Ability Scores, and d20 based action resolution could all be called "defaults" or "core rules" (we could spend a lot of time quibbling over semantics). Does the game currently make an assumption as to whether or not you are using backgrounds or specialties? What about the rate of natural healing or XP earned? Are those components so vital to the system as a whole that they need to have a default setting to design around?
I guess the question then is: What portions of the rules absolutely have to have a default setting? Hit Points, Ability Scores, and d20 based action resolution could all be called "defaults" or "core rules" (we could spend a lot of time quibbling ove
Just because a system is touted to be modular doesn't mean that every single thing within that system must be defined as an optional module.
I guess the question then is: What portions of the rules absolutely have to have a default setting? Hit Points, Ability Scores, and d20 based action resolution could all be called "defaults" or "core rules" (we could spend a lot of time quibbling over semantics). Does the game currently make an assumption as to whether or not you are using backgrounds or specialties? What about the rate of natural healing or XP earned? Are those components so vital to the system as a whole that they need to have a default setting to design around?
Here's the thing: those aren't our questions to answer. We can probably influence them to some degree, but ultimately, the designers will probably select them (likely by doing what they've been saying they've been doing all along - distilling things down to common elements between editions, etc).
I suspect that things like Hit Points, Armor Class, the classes construct, and the like will be the default. Having Skills and Feats may or may not be default. Backgrounds and Specialties I think would not be default, as they've already said if you don't want to use them, don't.
I think more of the core, underlying system (Hit Points, attack rolls, that sort of thing) will be default, with everything else being tacked onto it from there.
I guess the question then is: What portions of the rules absolutely have to have a default setting? Hit Points, Ability Scores, and d20 based action resolution could all be called "defaults" or "core rules" (we could spend a lot of time quibbling ove
There seems no universal mechanics for Small. How size effects each race (and monster) is considered separately.
• In the case of the Halfling, Small precludes heavy weapons, but benefits their nimbleness.
• However, another Small race miight be slow and stout, thus able to wield heavy weapons and not so nimble, and so on.
It seems wise to treat each different-size race on a case by case basis.
There seems no universal mechanics for Small. How size effects each race (and monster) is considered separately. • In the case of the Halfling, Small precludes heavy weapons, but benefits their nimbleness. • However, another Small race miig
Please dont use the term “Medium” for size. Nothing could be vaguer.
Use “Humansize”as it is immediately clear what this term means.
A “humansize dragon”, is exactly that.
A “medium dragon”, who knows what this is. Not too hot? Not to cold?
Size nomenclature:Please dont use the term “Medium” for size. Nothing could be vaguer.Use “Humansize”as it is immediately clear what this term means.A “humansize dragon”, is exactly that.A “medium dragon&rdqu
There seems no universal mechanics for Small. How size effects each race (and monster) is considered separately.
• In the case of the Halfling, Small precludes heavy weapons, but benefits their nimbleness.
• However, another Small race miight be slow and stout, thus able to wield heavy weapons and not so nimble, and so on.
It seems wise to treat each different-size race on a case by case basis.
Actually, small is a trait. Heavy weapons are not weildable by small creatures/characters.
Heavy Weapons: Characters who choose to wield heavy weapons must practice with these weapons to master their use. Weight and size make heavy weapons unwieldy, and so Small characters can’t wield heavy weapons.
So far we only know about disadvantages if you play a small character. You can't use heavy weapons, and you can't push or knock down large creatures.
We need to have more give and take with the small trait. We should be able to change any medium character to small and have them still be viable as a character even if they are different.
Actually, small is a trait. Heavy weapons are not weildable by small creatures/characters.Heavy Weapons: Characters who choose to wield heavy weapons must practice with these weapons to master their use. Weight and size make heavy weapons unwieldy, a
I forgot about that in the weapons description. But it seems silly. Things like “Powerful Build” let Humansize races use oversized weapons. Likewise some Small races may do similarly. So, size per-se really isnt the only determinant.
Similarly, some Large creatures have reach, others dont. Some are Large because theyr giants. Some are Large because theyr Horses or Snakes. Some are Large because theyr Humansize angels with huge wings.
It seems size doesnt say anything except body space on a grid.
Size doesnt even convey height because even Huge snakes may hug low to the ground.
Each creature is big in a different way with different consequences.
I forgot about that in the weapons description. But it seems silly. Things like “Powerful Build” let Humansize races use oversized weapons. Likewise some Small races may do similarly. So, size per-se really isnt the only determinant. Simi
On second thought, maybe my reading is the right one. The wording by Rodney makes me think there are no universal rules for Small. Maybe the third playtest will remove the size prohibition from the “heavy” weapons description. Here is the wording.
Rodney: So, looking at the halfling, we nod to the smallness as a detriment by barring them from heavy weapons (something likely to only affect classes like the fighter and the barbarian), but we also turn it into a boon with their Nimble trait. I think when we look at the gnome, we’ll likely try and achieve the same kinds of things.
It seems, they are barring the *halfling* from heavy weapons. But when looking at the *gnome* they could decide something different.
Essentially, in each case, smallness will be both a “detriment” and a “boon”. But what exactly this detriment and boon will be can differ from race to race.
Inferably, the consequences of being Large will also vary from race to race, so we can FINALLY play Large heroes (like Ogres, Trolls, Half-Giants, and so on), without getting saddled with game-breaking mechanics.
In any case, the above is how I am understanding the wording, and treating size on case by case basis is a better design approach anyway that ensures better player options.
On second thought, maybe my reading is the right one. The wording by Rodney makes me think there are no universal rules for Small. Maybe the third playtest will remove the size prohibition from the “heavy” weapons description. Here is the
You're right, what I consider correct or not is just as unimportant as what you do.
I never said anything I did was important. I just made a logical argument. You're welcome to accept it or reject it, but if you want to talk about it then I'd assume talking about it in logical terms would be productive. I just didn't see much value in "You're just wrong, so you are irrelevant!" lol.
"what you consider correct or not" -- full context. I shortened it for brevity. Apparently that was an error.
Since you appear to be inclined to take anything I say at its most insulting possible, even when it's not what I'm saying, I'm not really sure it's worth continuing this discussion with you. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and try again.
Yes, I completely agree with you that you do present a logical case using prior editions as a baseline for assumptions and axioms. But here's the thing: I'm challenging the assumptions and axioms your argument is based on. You're absolutely right that I'm not refuting your argument, because I don't think your argument is valid enough to argue against.
Next has fundamentally different baseline assumptions. Fundamentally different. And you refuse to acknowledge them, and call it the emperor having no clothes. You say he's got no clothes, I say we're all going skinnydipping. It's a complete change from historic behavior. And unless you're willing to acknowledge that possibility, then you will have a fundamental misunderstanding of how this playtest is going to proceed and what WotC, and those of us who agree with what they're doing, are trying to achieve with it. But enough metaphoric rhetoric, let's go to specifics:
You claim that there's no way that different spellcasting systems can be presented without context and have newbies understand it. Okay, granted. Here's the thing though: why can't there be context?
You claim that not having defaults for class and race are logically unconnected to having defaults for casting systems. Why can't they be? Why shouldn't a lack of a default of a casting system be an example that points to the larger design goal of not having a "right" way to play?
You claim that "each player is not getting to decide for themselves what all the rules are that they will follow independently of the other players" yet that's exactly what happens when two players crack open a 3.5 PHB and one player chooses a Sorcerer and the other chooses a Wizard. Two casting systems, distinct and separate, with completely different rules, functioning just fine within the larger game. And nobody bats an eye. Hell, compare either of them to a Rogue. Whoah now, those are totally different rules! And it still works. Huh.
You claim that all of this is just unfathomably impossible, and yet even in past editions there's evidence that it works just fine. But it is evidence that contradicts your cherished beliefs, and so you reject the evidence rather than your beliefs.
I never said anything I did was important. I just made a logical argument. You're welcome to accept it or reject it, but if you want to talk about it then I'd assume talking about it in logical terms would be productive. I just didn't see much value
If halfling have human sized arms and hands, and strong and very big feet, even for human standards, then they can have the reach and balance to use heavy weapons.
But I think a lot of people don't want to play monkeys.
Halflings as their are proportioned would fall just by pointing an heavy weapon at arm's length. Except if it's a light wooden weapon or something like that.
If halfling have human sized arms and hands, and strong and very big feet, even for human standards, then they can have the reach and balance to use heavy weapons.But I think a lot of people don't want to play monkeys.Halflings as their are proportio
You're right. I misread the organized play. So it still remains to be seen whether they will make defaults for the game, or whether they release a complete flop that requires many hours of work on the part of everyone who wants to make the game playable. My money is on defaults
Fortunately, we don't have to rely on your assertion that it's impossible to do what they're trying to do.
I never said it was impossible. In fact it is VERY possible for them to make a game where there are several options for every rule and have no defaults, thereby forcing people to become game designers and have their groups work for tens of hours or more before the game becomes playable. That possibility will sink D&D if it happens, though. People want a game that is playable out of the box, and that can only happen with defaults.
Fortunately, we don't have to rely on your assertion that it's impossible to do what they're trying to do.[/quote]I never said it was impossible. In fact it is VERY possible for them to make a game where there are several options for every rule and
I don't think it is a big reach to believe that the rules will present a default option for every core D&D rule system.
Given that the last article about magic systems says that they're going with the exact opposite approach, I don't understand how you can still hold to this position.
Fortunately, we also don't have to rely on what you consider absurd to determine whether WotC can achieve their goals.
Show me where that article says that there will be no defaults and every single rule with multiple options will have to be gone through by everyone who wants to play the game.
Given that the last article about magic systems says that they're going with the exact opposite approach, I don't understand how you can still hold to this position.Fortunately, we also don't have to rely on what you consider absurd to determine whet
You say there WILL be a default. That's demonstrably false, and it's been false in every edition D&D ever created. For races, and for classes. There are no defaults. They're all equally acceptable, equally pickable by someone just cracking open a book.
This is wrong. Only the PHB races are default. No race in any other book is equal to the PHB default races and automatically pickable. The problem with your theory is that there is a big difference between the ease of picking a race and trying to pick from several different combat options. Also, according to your race example, it will be okay for each of 5 players to pick 5 different combat options and 5 different magic systems, with 5 different skill systems all at the same time. That's as has been pointed out to you.............absurd. The game cannot function like that.
This is wrong. Only the PHB races are default. No race in any other book is equal to the PHB default races and automatically pickable. The problem with your theory is that there is a big difference between the ease of picking a race and trying to
I'm pretty sure a modular system would be one that assumes a standard rule set to which modules can be added to extend or over-ride rules.
Almost, but not quite. Almost nobody will use just the core in Next.
It doesn't matter. There needs to be a core for them to use and add on to IF THEY WANT TO. According to your version of things, everyone will be forced to spend hours creating their own default game to play.
Almost, but not quite. Almost nobody will use just the core in Next.[/quote]It doesn't matter. There needs to be a core for them to use and add on to IF THEY WANT TO. According to your version of things, everyone will be forced to spend hours crea
You say there WILL be a default. That's demonstrably false, and it's been false in every edition D&D ever created. For races, and for classes. There are no defaults. They're all equally acceptable, equally pickable by someone just cracking open a book.
This is wrong. Only the PHB races are default. No race in any other book is equal to the PHB default races and automatically pickable. The problem with your theory is that there is a big difference between the ease of picking a race and trying to pick from several different combat options. Also, according to your race example, it will be okay for each of 5 players to pick 5 different combat options and 5 different magic systems, with 5 different skill systems all at the same time. That's as has been pointed out to you.............absurd. The game cannot function like that.
Furthermore if this is your view, then there is nothing new about the DnDN approach to design. Not only races and classes, there have always been rule options that you can use or ignore. It's just a lot of marketing spin. They lay out this grand vision and say go ahead, drink the Kool-aid. (TM)
"It's new, fresh and tasty! You pick the rules you want! You play the game you like! It's the choice of a new generation! (TM)"
You can make what ever you want out of Lego (TM) but they still come with instructions. All things need moderation and modularity needs to be moderated by usability. Just like they mentioned about the graphic design of the books. It doesn't matter how cool it looks if you can't use it.
This is wrong. Only the PHB races are default. No race in any other book is equal to the PHB default races and automatically pickable. The problem with your theory is that there is a big difference between the ease of picking a race and trying to
You can make what ever you want out of Lego (TM) but they still come with instructions.
This is a really key point, and the Lego analogy is quite accurate.
The instructions for Lego are guidance. Nobody at Lego thinks that the result of the instructions is the right way to play with Legos, and nobody playing with Legos expects there to be only one way to put it together.
Yet there's a fundamental difference between Legos and D&D. In D&D, there has been a right way to put it together. To extend the analogy, what we've been gotten has been a string of model airplanes, and now we're getting the Lego Airplane Set. It's different from what we had before.
This is a really key point, and the Lego analogy is quite accurate.The instructions for Lego are guidance. Nobody at Lego thinks that the result of the instructions is the right way to play with Legos, and nobody playing with Legos expects there to
You can make what ever you want out of Lego (TM) but they still come with instructions.
This is a really key point, and the Lego analogy is quite accurate.
The instructions for Lego are guidance. Nobody at Lego thinks that the result of the instructions is the right way to play with Legos, and nobody playing with Legos expects there to be only one way to put it together.
But the Lego instructions on how to make that particular set are the default for that set. You then go from there and make up new things IF YOU WANT TO. D&D will be the same.
This is a really key point, and the Lego analogy is quite accurate.The instructions for Lego are guidance. Nobody at Lego thinks that the result of the instructions is the right way to play with Legos, and nobody playing with Legos expects there to
The way things have been before shape how people perceive the new things. I don't have any problem with Lego instructions. I understand the point of the overall Lego system. I had a lot of fun making my moon base set, but I also had fun when I modified it, and then dismantled it entirely (via a horrifying barrage from alien invaders, aka Nerf guns) and rebuilt it from scratch.
That experience, in D&D, would be fine. But the problem is that the history of D&D gets in the way of people fully understanding just how different the Lego approach is from the model airplane approach. The fact that people expend so much energy so that this way, and not that way, is the default for Next completely disproves the idea that which is the default in D&D doesn't matter. Not everybody is on board with the Lego approach yet. They should be, but they're not, and acting like they are serves no one.
....I miss my legos
Missing my point.The way things have been before shape how people perceive the new things. I don't have any problem with Lego instructions. I understand the point of the overall Lego system. I had a lot of fun making my moon base set, but I also h
The way things have been before shape how people perceive the new things. I don't have any problem with Lego instructions. I understand the point of the overall Lego system. I had a lot of fun making my moon base set, but I also had fun when I modified it, and then dismantled it entirely (via a horrifying barrage from alien invaders, aka Nerf guns) and rebuilt it from scratch.
Awesome. And you're not getting out point. The vast majority of people who buy Lego cannot without defaut instructions, put together the Lego Star Wars Deathstar. For the company to put out such a set without default instructions would be an unmitigated disaster for them. They would be putting out a product that is unusable as a Deathstar except for a miniscule percentage of Lego experts who probably would rather have those default instructions anyway.
Awesome. And you're not getting out point. The vast majority of people who buy Lego cannot without defaut instructions, put together the Lego Star Wars Deathstar. For the company to put out such a set without default instructions would be an unmit
Im thinking, the lego analogy refers better to a D&D setting book.
The core rules are standard lego bricks, some fancy things, like people, trees, and transparent pieces.
The modules are novelty pieces, like swords for the people to hold.
But the lego instruction manual - this is really the setting guide that suggests a specific way of putting all these pieces together, and leaving out other pieces.
Im thinking, the lego analogy refers better to a D&D setting book.The core rules are standard lego bricks, some fancy things, like people, trees, and transparent pieces.The modules are novelty pieces, like swords for the people to hold.But the lego i
Me too. The legos are in storage, but theres no way I would ever get rid of them.
Some of them are quite valuable.
That never occurred to me.
Me too. The legos are in storage, but theres no way I would ever get rid of them.[/quote]Some of them are quite valuable.[/quote]That never occurred to me.
Me too. The legos are in storage, but theres no way I would ever get rid of them.
Some of them are quite valuable.
That never occurred to me.
I had a friend who bought, sold and traded rare pieces. Apparently the secondary market is very similar to the Magic the Gathering secondary market.
Me too. The legos are in storage, but theres no way I would ever get rid of them.[/quote]Some of them are quite valuable.[/quote]That never occurred to me.[/quote]I had a friend who bought, sold and traded rare pieces. Apparently the secondary marke
No, the core is things like what size the bricks are, how big the holes are and how far apart they're spaced.
So you're seriously saying that it would be a successful product if Lego put out a Star Wars Deathstar set without any default instructions showing kids and casual Lego builders how to actually make the thing?
So you're seriously saying that it would be a successful product if Lego put out a Star Wars Deathstar set without any default instructions showing kids and casual Lego builders how to actually make the thing?
What I'm saying is that we're talking about developing the base function of Legos itself, and you're wanting to put in instructions for the Lego Deathstar even though many of us don't want to use our legos for Star Wars.
No, that's not what I'm saying.What I'm saying is that we're talking about developing the base function of Legos itself, and you're wanting to put in instructions for the Lego Deathstar even though many of us don't want to use our legos for Star Wars
What I'm saying is that we're talking about developing the base function of Legos itself, and you're wanting to put in instructions for the Lego Deathstar even though many of us don't want to use our legos for Star Wars.
I think you're confusing default with core. They're different. You can have 5 core rules in 5e and 1020202 default rules for game play. If you don't want to use some of the default rules, use modules that you like instead.
I think you're confusing default with core. They're different. You can have 5 core rules in 5e and 1020202 default rules for game play. If you don't want to use some of the default rules, use modules that you like instead.
No, I'm not confusing it. Some people want Vancian casting as default. That's not a core decision, but it is a default decision, and I still disagree with the idea that there should be a default, regardless of what that default actually is.
No, I'm not confusing it. Some people want Vancian casting as default. That's not a core decision, but it is a default decision, and I still disagree with the idea that there should be a default, regardless of what that default actually is.
No, I'm not confusing it. Some people want Vancian casting as default. That's not a core decision, but it is a default decision, and I still disagree with the idea that there should be a default, regardless of what that default actually is.
Mand. If there are no defaults, then the game is not playable out of the box. If the game is not playable out of the box, it fails as a product and sales are so abysmal that there might never be another edition of D&D made. The vast majority of people need a game that is playable out of the box, but can be tweaked via module if they desire.
Mand. If there are no defaults, then the game is not playable out of the box. If the game is not playable out of the box, it fails as a product and sales are so abysmal that there might never be another edition of D&D made. The vast majority of pe
No, I'm not confusing it. Some people want Vancian casting as default. That's not a core decision, but it is a default decision, and I still disagree with the idea that there should be a default, regardless of what that default actually is.
Mand. If there are no defaults, then the game is not playable out of the box.
Yes it is.
Mand. If there are no defaults, then the game is not playable out of the box. [/quote]Yes it is.
Also the core itself will include options, to reinforce the concept, players should choose options.
Again, this is not how the devs use the word core. The initial release will include options, but that's not the same thing as the core.
Fair enough. The designers do seem to equate “core” with “default”.
Nevertheless, these dont mean the same thing. Core can include multiple options even if one is default.
Moreover, even the designers seem to treat background and specialty as if “core”, even tho they arent default.
Again, this is not how the devs use the word core. The initial release will include options, but that's not the same thing as the core.[/quote]Fair enough. The designers do seem to equate “core” with “default”.Nevertheless, t
Since the penalty in the Small Trait ony affect weapon wielders, i think if there is to be a counter-benefit attached to it then it should be one for weapon wielders too. No AC bonus or Stealth bonus that every class type will enjoy.
Initiative bonus when wielding weapons for exemple, or something else i don't know..
Since the penalty in the Small Trait ony affect weapon wielders, i think if there is to be a counter-benefit attached to it then it should be one for weapon wielders too. No AC bonus or Stealth bonus that every class type will enjoy.Initiative bonus
Since the penalty in the Small Trait ony affect weapon wielders, i think if there is to be a counter-benefit attached to it then it should be one for weapon wielders too. No AC bonus or Stealth bonus that every class type will enjoy.
Initiative bonus when wielding weapons for exemple, or something else i don't know..
This is a big thing. The issue is not so much that a halfling barbarian is penalized, but more that the halfling rogue and the halfling sorcerer aren't.
This is a big thing. The issue is not so much that a halfling barbarian is penalized, but more that the halfling rogue and the halfling sorcerer aren't.
If there are no defaults, then the game is not playable out of the box
Well, that's not completely true and it is easy to set up a game where some important choices are represented up front without giving everything a default.
For example, how characters generate their attributes can have a huge effect on how their characters play against a variety of threats in the game. For example, the difference between 4 attributes providing a bonus with at least one +3 and only 1 attribute above average and it only providing a bonus of +1 or +2. The game does not really need to have a default on attribute generation, it can simply provide people who buy the book several different options and let the players decide how they want to do it. Attribute generation is a very important decision, but it is one that doesn't have a lot of impact on other rules.
By comparison, how many hit points a character is going to have is an equally big decision for players, but it is also one with absolutely huge implications for the rest of the system. It affects the lethality of pretty much everything and even reaches into areas like the expected length of combat and the effectiveness of healing abilities. The system can provide several options to choose from, but the designers pretty much have to choose one as the default baseline assumption to design things around.
Which magic system to use, whether Vancian or spell points or whatever, seems more like the attribute choice where a choice has to be made if you are playing a wizard, but the exact choice won't have an impact on the rest of the system (mechanically speaking) so no baseline assumption needs to be made by any other part of the system. This is of course under their view of magic systems. Personally, I think there can be a pretty big balance difference between an all-dailyVancian caster and a mostly encounter-based spell point caster, but we can leave that aside for the moment.
Now, for organized play, the option for both attributes and hit point generation is going to be made by the rules, but the choice of the magic system, at least with the broadest magic systems like Vancian or spell point feels more like a Wizard class option and not a rule choice.
Well, that's not completely true and it is easy to set up a game where some important choices are represented up front without giving everything a default.For example, how characters generate their attributes can have a huge effect on how their chara
Since the penalty in the Small Trait ony affect weapon wielders, i think if there is to be a counter-benefit attached to it then it should be one for weapon wielders too. No AC bonus or Stealth bonus that every class type will enjoy.
Initiative bonus when wielding weapons for exemple, or something else i don't know..
Yep. That's why many of us who don't know why small should just be a penalty are saying to just make small guys use a smaller version of the 'heavy' weapons.
It could just do the same damage (minus one damage step for being smaller but plus one damage step for precision). Maybe have a 'small heavy' category that has the same weapons with one step less damage but a brutal 2 property.
What will probably happen is we'll get a series of fixes with specialties or backgrounds that makes a simple solution into a hard one where we have to use several player resources to figure out how to break even.
I'm curious to see how they will balance the non weapon skills that depend on size like pushes, knockdowns, and grabs. Hopefully being small will make it easier to escape and avoid controlling abilities from larger creatures.
Yep. That's why many of us who don't know why small should just be a penalty are saying to just make small guys use a smaller version of the 'heavy' weapons.It could just do the same damage (minus one damage step for being smaller but plus one damage
No, I'm not confusing it. Some people want Vancian casting as default. That's not a core decision, but it is a default decision, and I still disagree with the idea that there should be a default, regardless of what that default actually is.
Mand. If there are no defaults, then the game is not playable out of the box.
Yes it is.
Prove it.
Mand. If there are no defaults, then the game is not playable out of the box. [/quote]Yes it is.[/quote]Prove it.
If there are no defaults, then the game is not playable out of the box
Well, that's not completely true and it is easy to set up a game where some important choices are represented up front without giving everything a default.
Yep. You just need the bulk of the game to have defaults. The game has to be playable out of the box.
For example, how characters generate their attributes can have a huge effect on how their characters play against a variety of threats in the game. For example, the difference between 4 attributes providing a bonus with at least one +3 and only 1 attribute above average and it only providing a bonus of +1 or +2. The game does not really need to have a default on attribute generation, it can simply provide people who buy the book several different options and let the players decide how they want to do it. Attribute generation is a very important decision, but it is one that doesn't have a lot of impact on other rules.
And conversations/arguments by the players and DM as they try to figure out which one they want to use. Now multiply that by every rule. That's what Mand wants. That's a game with ZERO defaults.
I want the game to be done with defaults so that it's playable out of the box. The game should choose one of the rolling methods as the default and then give the others as options.
By comparison, how many hit points a character is going to have is an equally big decision for players, but it is also one with absolutely huge implications for the rest of the system. It affects the lethality of pretty much everything and even reaches into areas like the expected length of combat and the effectiveness of healing abilities. The system can provide several options to choose from, but the designers pretty much have to choose one as the default baseline assumption to design things around.
Which magic system to use, whether Vancian or spell points or whatever, seems more like the attribute choice where a choice has to be made if you are playing a wizard, but the exact choice won't have an impact on the rest of the system (mechanically speaking) so no baseline assumption needs to be made by any other part of the system. This is of course under their view of magic systems. Personally, I think there can be a pretty big balance difference between an all-dailyVancian caster and a mostly encounter-based spell point caster, but we can leave that aside for the moment.
Then design your own game. I don't want to spend hours and hours and hours with my group trying to figure out all the rules so that we can actually play. I expect that the vast majority of people don't want to go through that hastle, either.
Well, that's not completely true and it is easy to set up a game where some important choices are represented up front without giving everything a default.[/quote]Yep. You just need the bulk of the game to have defaults. The game has to be playable
You have never once shown how you can play out of the box a game that has no set rules. Play out of the box is defined as "Playable without having to take make any choices that haven't been present as default options in previous editions. Race and class for example"
You have never once shown how you can play out of the box a game that has no set rules. Play out of the box is defined as "Playable without having to take make any choices that haven't been present as default options in previous editions. Race and
So, you have to make choices, but not those choices, to be playable out of the box?
You're the one putting me in the box, by making it impossible to actually address your arbitrary restrictions.
So, you have to make choices, but not those choices, to be playable out of the box?You're the one putting me in the box, by making it impossible to actually address your arbitrary restrictions.
So, you have to make choices, but not those choices, to be playable out of the box?
Races and classes in the PHB are default. You aren't forced to choose from among them in order to play the game. However, it is not possible to have 4 different ways to do combat all functioning at the same time. If any such choice must be made, the game is not playable out of the box.
Races and classes in the PHB are default. You aren't forced to choose from among them in order to play the game. However, it is not possible to have 4 different ways to do combat all functioning at the same time. If any such choice must be made, t
So, you have to make choices, but not those choices, to be playable out of the box?
Races and classes in the PHB are default. You aren't forced to choose from among them in order to play the game.
wut
Sorry. I bit clearer. You aren't forced to select which races will be in the game before playing. You have the option to remove races, but every last race in the PHB is default for the game. The same cannot be said for multiple combat options or magic options. Any choice you are forced to make before you can play the game is preventing the game from being playable out of the box.
You MUST be able to play the game without having to make such choices.
Races and classes in the PHB are default. You aren't forced to choose from among them in order to play the game. [/quote]wut[/quote]Sorry. I bit clearer. You aren't forced to select which races will be in the game before playing. You have the opt
Right...and I'm in favor of extending "all casting styles" to that same status. You have the option to remove casting styles, but every last casting style in the PHB is default for the game. The same can be said of this, but you don't want to because it's a break with D&D tradition in that you've never had to do that before.
Why are you so insistent that casting styles just aren't the same as races? Particularly if they implement casting styles as a character option, and not a campaign-wide choice like magic item availability or character hitpoints or the value of a point buy allowed?
If it really just boils down to not wanting to do it because you've never had to, then I can accept that. But to argue that it absolutely, positively, can-be-that-way-and-no-other is incorrect. You want it to be that way, but must is too strong a word.
Right...and I'm in favor of extending "all casting styles" to that same status. You have the option to remove casting styles, but every last casting style in the PHB is default for the game. The same can be said of this, but you don't want to becau
Right...and I'm in favor of extending "all casting styles" to that same status. You have the option to remove casting styles, but every last casting style in the PHB is default for the game.
So if there are 5 different casting styles, you want 5 diffferent players to all be able to simultaneously play a wizard of each different style? What a jumbled freaking mess. What's more, those same 5 wizards can all use 5 different combat systems. Now it's gone from mess to unplayable and we haven't even gotten into all the other different systems with various options.
So if there are 5 different casting styles, you want 5 diffferent players to all be able to simultaneously play a wizard of each different style? What a jumbled freaking mess. What's more, those same 5 wizards can all use 5 different combat systems
... 5 diffferent players to all be able to simultaneously play a wizard of each different style ...
Okay, really -- how likely is that? Five wizards in one group? Rather rare, I would expect. But if the DM feels capable of handling it, then why not?
I don't mind having all the magic systems available, but I think it likely that if a table wants more than two systems in the group, the DM will sit down with everyone and talk it out. And for organised play, I expect WotC will narrow it down to two or three somehow.
Okay, really -- how likely is that? Five wizards in one group? Rather rare, I would expect. But if the DM feels capable of handling it, then why not?I don't mind having all the magic systems available, but I think it likely that if a table wants more
... 5 diffferent players to all be able to simultaneously play a wizard of each different style ...
Okay, really -- how likely is that? Five wizards in one group? Rather rare, I would expect. But if the DM feels capable of handling it, then why not?
If the DM has to make that choice prior to the game, then it is not playable out of the box. If all of them are equally valid for all classes, then the game is a bunghole and I for one won't be paying for it.
Okay, really -- how likely is that? Five wizards in one group? Rather rare, I would expect. But if the DM feels capable of handling it, then why not?[/quote]If the DM has to make that choice prior to the game, then it is not playable out of the box.
Right...and I'm in favor of extending "all casting styles" to that same status. You have the option to remove casting styles, but every last casting style in the PHB is default for the game.
So if there are 5 different casting styles, you want 5 diffferent players to all be able to simultaneously play a wizard of each different style? What a jumbled freaking mess. What's more, those same 5 wizards can all use 5 different combat systems. Now it's gone from mess to unplayable and we haven't even gotten into all the other different systems with various options.
Why not?
The only people who would use it are the people who would choose to do so, why should they be prevented from doing so the way you describe?
So if there are 5 different casting styles, you want 5 diffferent players to all be able to simultaneously play a wizard of each different style? What a jumbled freaking mess. What's more, those same 5 wizards can all use 5 different combat systems
I've played in an all wizard campaign before. Everyone went to school together, and we differentiated by spell list.
I've always wanted to do one where each player was a different school specialist.
Personal opinion...
I ran a Harry Potter inspired wizard's school campaign once where the PCs were students. Each specialization (this was 3.5) was represented by a house, so each PC had to choose a house (and thus specialty).
A cult of Vecna that included both a few instructors and some students were the primary antagonists.
I've always wanted to do one where each player was a different school specialist.[/quote]Personal opinion...I ran a Harry Potter inspired wizard's school campaign once where the PCs were students. Each specialization (this was 3.5) was represented b
Right...and I'm in favor of extending "all casting styles" to that same status. You have the option to remove casting styles, but every last casting style in the PHB is default for the game.
So if there are 5 different casting styles, you want 5 diffferent players to all be able to simultaneously play a wizard of each different style? What a jumbled freaking mess. What's more, those same 5 wizards can all use 5 different combat systems. Now it's gone from mess to unplayable and we haven't even gotten into all the other different systems with various options.
Why not?
The only people who would use it are the people who would choose to do so, why should they be prevented from doing so the way you describe?
Why should we give up defaults so that a few people who can easily just add the options they want, have a mess that they can spend hours on creating their game. Why should bulk of us should be forced to go through many hours of pain so that a few can have the set-up that they want?
So if there are 5 different casting styles, you want 5 diffferent players to all be able to simultaneously play a wizard of each different style? What a jumbled freaking mess. What's more, those same 5 wizards can all use 5 different combat systems
I've played in an all wizard campaign before. Everyone went to school together, and we differentiated by spell list.
I've always wanted to do one where each player was a different school specialist.
Personal opinion...
I ran a Harry Potter inspired wizard's school campaign once where the PCs were students. Each specialization (this was 3.5) was represented by a house, so each PC had to choose a house (and thus specialty).
A cult of Vecna that included both a few instructors and some students were the primary antagonists.
That's awesome. Sounds like it was a fun campaign.
I've always wanted to do one where each player was a different school specialist.[/quote]Personal opinion...I ran a Harry Potter inspired wizard's school campaign once where the PCs were students. Each specialization (this was 3.5) was represented b
The Lego video games in general are a lot of fun. My favorite is 3D Dot Game Heroes. It's basically Lego Zelda.
I guess that is why I like Minecraft so much.Its kinda like a mix of Legos and DnD.[/quote]The Lego video games in general are a lot of fun. My favorite is 3D Dot Game Heroes. It's basically Lego Zelda.
I moved out after growing up, and didn't take them with me...
Its sad, but I bought my nephews several hundred generic legos (the small ones) and let them do whatever they wanted and they stacked them straight up and made flat picture like things. I had to show them you could create 3D objects with them... it was sad...
Its sad, but I bought my nephews several hundred generic legos (the small ones) and let them do whatever they wanted and they stacked them straight up and made flat picture like things. I had to show them you could create 3D objects with them... it w
... 5 diffferent players to all be able to simultaneously play a wizard of each different style ...
Okay, really -- how likely is that? Five wizards in one group? Rather rare, I would expect. But if the DM feels capable of handling it, then why not?
I don't mind having all the magic systems available, but I think it likely that if a table wants more than two systems in the group, the DM will sit down with everyone and talk it out. And for organised play, I expect WotC will narrow it down to two or three somehow.
So you are saying the DM is gonna ban the Warlock and Sorcerer if the Wizard shows up?
Because we already have 3 different casting systems in the game Warlock is AE, Sorcerer is Will Power, Wizard is Vancian. There is literally no difference in play. Each casting system will be tied to the character that uses it. There won't be any more adjudication for the DM than allowing players in the same group to play a Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard...
Okay, really -- how likely is that? Five wizards in one group? Rather rare, I would expect. But if the DM feels capable of handling it, then why not?I don't mind having all the magic systems available, but I think it likely that if a table wants more
I imagine the default verses non-default argument will continue until the books come out, at which point buth sideswill claim victory. Wotc isn't dumb, and the excitement that many and others have about a truly modular game needs to be harnessed. But, having a game for organized play is also valuable, and having a game for beginners, or those who don't want to think too much about rules is smart. So my guess is they'll use organized play as a default but couch it with enough disclaimers that everyone feels like there's no,default for them.
For instance, for experience defaulted to 10 encounters per level. But, they mentioned that you could change it, and said what would happen if you did. Default, but soft default.
And, from the Lego analogy - I always start the assembly process by hiding the instructions. That will be possible in next, I'm sure, even if it is through selective reading
I imagine the default verses non-default argument will continue until the books come out, at which point buth sideswill claim victory. Wotc isn't dumb, and the excitement that many and others have about a truly modular game needs to be harnessed.
I don't mind having all the magic systems available, but I think it likely that if a table wants more than two systems in the group, the DM will sit down with everyone and talk it out. And for organised play, I expect WotC will narrow it down to two or three somehow.
So you are saying the DM is gonna ban the Warlock and Sorcerer if the Wizard shows up?
Because we already have 3 different casting systems in the game Warlock is AE, Sorcerer is Will Power, Wizard is Vancian. There is literally no difference in play. Each casting system will be tied to the character that uses it. There won't be any more adjudication for the DM than allowing players in the same group to play a Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard...
That's not at all what I said. Working from the recent information that magic systems may be decoupled from the class (for at least one round of playtesting), it would be quite possible for a DM to have only one or two magic systems and not have to limit the classes that can use magic.
So you are saying the DM is gonna ban the Warlock and Sorcerer if the Wizard shows up?Because we already have 3 different casting systems in the game Warlock is AE, Sorcerer is Will Power, Wizard is Vancian. There is literally no difference in play.
I don't mind having all the magic systems available, but I think it likely that if a table wants more than two systems in the group, the DM will sit down with everyone and talk it out. And for organised play, I expect WotC will narrow it down to two or three somehow.
So you are saying the DM is gonna ban the Warlock and Sorcerer if the Wizard shows up?
Because we already have 3 different casting systems in the game Warlock is AE, Sorcerer is Will Power, Wizard is Vancian. There is literally no difference in play. Each casting system will be tied to the character that uses it. There won't be any more adjudication for the DM than allowing players in the same group to play a Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard...
That's not at all what I said. Working from the recent information that magic systems may be decoupled from the class (for at least one round of playtesting), it would be quite possible for a DM to have only one or two magic systems and not have to limit the classes that can use magic.
I was replying to the part where you said it would be confusing or too hard to run more than two magic systems at the same table. We can already run 3-4 at the same table with the Warlock, Sorcerer, Wizard, and Cleric, so that part of the point is moot...
So you are saying the DM is gonna ban the Warlock and Sorcerer if the Wizard shows up?Because we already have 3 different casting systems in the game Warlock is AE, Sorcerer is Will Power, Wizard is Vancian. There is literally no difference in play.
The hype about the modular design approach just doesn't catch fire in my mind. It's always been a modular game. They encouraged people to house-rule it and make it their own and we have. The core books created a basic DNA and from there a vast variety of species evolved. The only thing that is different now is that they will take the most popular "house-rules" and lend them official support. To what end? I admit I'm cynical.
Will the rule books be easier to read? I can't believe it for a minute. Fatter book full of distractions. Just post the modules in the DI so people can give their money directly to WoTC without killing more trees.
Can it really make the game easier/better to play? If you didn't like something about the previous games you ignored it or made something up. Today you don't even need to make things up because there are hundreds of sites where people do the work for you for free because they love this stuff. Are they hoping that people will be content with just a few modules that WoTC provides and supports? Or are they in fact looking to monetize an untapped natural process that the original makers of this game encouraged and nurtured?
Why the desire to make your favorite rules official if it is only optional anyway? In organized play you can't have all these options. At private tables the DM or players can still over-rule the modules you just can't live without. You can't leverage the stance of the company against a group of private interests who want to play "their" game.
Balancing, balancing and more balancing. It took enough time and revisions and errata ("Damn it I just bought an updated book!") to keep up with the standards that they set in past editions. The one thing they need to focus on balancing is character advancement and high level campaign design that won't break the game. WoTC, just work on getting that right and you will have the gratitude of the fan base and they will throw piles of money at you. Let the geeks worry about geeking out over a new module that THEY are trying to design because that is what they will do anyway. They do all the work and it's for free! They make your product better for you and other players because they have to. It's in their nature. It's a labor of love.
But then you couldn't charge us for it...
The hype about the modular design approach just doesn't catch fire in my mind. It's always been a modular game. They encouraged people to house-rule it and make it their own and we have. The core books created a basic DNA and from there a vast variet
I think the best way to handle multiclass is with the specialites, if each Specialaity ran for 6 levels, you could choose to get a smidgen of another class every so often. Something like a Holy Warrior speciality could be used with the Fighter to make a Paladin, or a Woodsman speciality to make a Ranger.
While I think theres a place for a generalist type character class (The Rogue is probably best at it) I think the game works much better if Characters have defined roles, places where they shine. Which is one of the cool things about the combat tactics/rogue schemes and i hope the magic traditions. I think they should add something like Dogmas to the cleric class, that fullfil the same kind of personalisation options as the Combat Tactics. A dwarf protecor plays very differently than a human archer for example.
I think the best way to handle multiclass is with the specialites, if each Specialaity ran for 6 levels, you could choose to get a smidgen of another class every so often. Something like a Holy Warrior speciality could be used with the Fighter to mak
Small Size - its seems fairly self evident to me that hobb-halflings cant use greatswords - at least not those made for humans. If memory serves me right a longsword should be about 1 and half times the lenghth of your arm and a greatsword should come up to your shoulders. A sword does most of its damage from its weight, a small person would have great difficulty wielding a sword that weighs a sizeable portion of his/her own weight and height, regardless of their strength.
In game terms it seems reasonable that a halfling can not use heavy weapons, I'd take it one further and suggest that it would take two hands to wield most medium sized weapons. The halfling weapon training seems to make up for the lack of access to heavy wepons imho, perhaps too much.
Small Size - its seems fairly self evident to me that hobb-halflings cant use greatswords - at least not those made for humans. If memory serves me right a longsword should be about 1 and half times the lenghth of your arm and a greatsword should c
I don't mind having all the magic systems available, but I think it likely that if a table wants more than two systems in the group, the DM will sit down with everyone and talk it out. And for organised play, I expect WotC will narrow it down to two or three somehow.
So you are saying the DM is gonna ban the Warlock and Sorcerer if the Wizard shows up?
Because we already have 3 different casting systems in the game Warlock is AE, Sorcerer is Will Power, Wizard is Vancian. There is literally no difference in play. Each casting system will be tied to the character that uses it. There won't be any more adjudication for the DM than allowing players in the same group to play a Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard...
That's not at all what I said. Working from the recent information that magic systems may be decoupled from the class (for at least one round of playtesting), it would be quite possible for a DM to have only one or two magic systems and not have to limit the classes that can use magic.
I was replying to the part where you said it would be confusing or too hard to run more than two magic systems at the same table. We can already run 3-4 at the same table with the Warlock, Sorcerer, Wizard, and Cleric, so that part of the point is moot...
Actually, I found that having the sorcere warlock and wizard at the table made it very difficult, and I spent way too much time having to look up and remember how it worked for each player. (Since they were even more clueless than myself on how thier own charachters worked)
Also,the cleric and wizard magic systems work the same way, they just have different lists of spells. I'm honestly rather curious why Orisons and Cantrips are given two different labels.
So you are saying the DM is gonna ban the Warlock and Sorcerer if the Wizard shows up?Because we already have 3 different casting systems in the game Warlock is AE, Sorcerer is Will Power, Wizard is Vancian. There is literally no difference in play.
Actually, I found that having the sorcere warlock and wizard at the table made it very difficult, and I spent way too much time having to look up and remember how it worked for each player. (Since they were even more clueless than myself on how thier own charachters worked)
Well no offense to your players, but that seems like a special circumstance that is not generally applicable. Most players will know how their own character's work or will be able to figure it out after the first session or two. By your logic, it is "difficult" to have every player play a different class at all since you'd have to look each of them up separately.
Also,the cleric and wizard magic systems work the same way, they just have different lists of spells. I'm honestly rather curious why Orisons and Cantrips are given two different labels.
They don't cast spells the same way. Clerics prepare X number of spells per day but are free to mix and match their spell slots as they choose to cast those prepared spells. For example, a first level Cleric prepares two different cleric spells, but could choose to cast one of those spells twice in the same day. Wizards don't work like that.
As for Cantrips / Minor Spells and Orisons. Just tradition, and a relatively hardmless one at that since I doubt there will be any rules that one to refer to both types of minor spells collectively.
Well no offense to your players, but that seems like a special circumstance that is not generally applicable. Most players will know how their own character's work or will be able to figure it out after the first session or two. By your logic, it is
Actually, I found that having the sorcere warlock and wizard at the table made it very difficult, and I spent way too much time having to look up and remember how it worked for each player. (Since they were even more clueless than myself on how thier own charachters worked)
Well no offense to your players, but that seems like a special circumstance that is not generally applicable. Most players will know how their own character's work or will be able to figure it out after the first session or two. By your logic, it is "difficult" to have every player play a different class at all since you'd have to look each of them up separately.
Also,the cleric and wizard magic systems work the same way, they just have different lists of spells. I'm honestly rather curious why Orisons and Cantrips are given two different labels.
They don't cast spells the same way. Clerics prepare X number of spells per day but are free to mix and match their spell slots as they choose to cast those prepared spells. For example, a first level Cleric prepares two different cleric spells, but could choose to cast one of those spells twice in the same day. Wizards don't work like that.
As for Cantrips / Minor Spells and Orisons. Just tradition, and a relatively hardmless one at that since I doubt there will be any rules that one to refer to both types of minor spells collectively.
It's really not a special circumstance at all. Not all players are expert rules lawyers, and I've never played a game of D&D where all players understood all their options equally well.
The difference between the Cleric and Wizard spell casting system is so negligable as to be ignored.
Well no offense to your players, but that seems like a special circumstance that is not generally applicable. Most players will know how their own character's work or will be able to figure it out after the first session or two. By your logic, it is
It's really not a special circumstance at all. Not all players are expert rules lawyers, and I've never played a game of D&D where all players understood all their options equally well.
I would assume that there is a fairly wide gulf between a rules lawyer and someone with familiarity with their own character. Now sure, when you gain a level, a non-involved player might not understand / know what options they have available, but outside of that, there is only so much that a single class can do on a day to day basis.
Basically, the problem you describe is either not really much of a problem OR it is a problem that is so broad that it would cover all classes and not just spell casting ones. If your table has a problem with a Wizard and a Sorcerer at the same table from rules complexity, then it probably would have a problem with a Fighter and a Rogue and likely a Paladin and a Barbarian at the same table as well.
The difference between the Cleric and Wizard spell casting system is so negligable as to be ignored.
Sure, at first level there is not much of a difference, but assuming that spell progression continues as it looks like it does, then at tenth level you'll see a very large difference in how they cast spells at the table. The cleric will likely have a wider variety of optional spells that he can cast that are only of limited usefulness or require specific circumstances to be useful. A cleric can prepare those types of spells with less potential waste than a wizard, assuming the cleric has at least one generally useful spell at each / most levels, he'll be fine. The Wizard can't do that.
I would assume that there is a fairly wide gulf between a rules lawyer and someone with familiarity with their own character. Now sure, when you gain a level, a non-involved player might not understand / know what options they have available, but out
You are mixing up so many different issues, and talking in such hyperbole that I have no idea what you are actually trying to say.
If every martial class had a different system for dealing with Combat superiority dice, then yeah I would agree, that could get confusing pretty quick.
Spell selection, and magic systems, are two very different things, and you seem to be conflating them.
You are mixing up so many different issues, and talking in such hyperbole that I have no idea what you are actually trying to say.If every martial class had a different system for dealing with Combat superiority dice, then yeah I would agree, that co
You are mixing up so many different issues, and talking in such hyperbole that I have no idea what you are actually trying to say.
I am extrapolating based on what you said. You said: Actually, I found that having the sorcere warlock and wizard at the table made it very difficult, and I spent way too much time having to look up and remember how it worked for each player. (Since they were even more clueless than myself on how thier own charachters worked)
Now, I look at this as simply being two players who didn't understand their characters'. I don't especially care why they didn't understand, but I do believe that most people would get the hang of their character after a session or two. However, the point I believe you were trying to make is that because they didn't understand their characters, they relied on you to understand for them and that took time. However, if, let's say, the Wizard player wasn't there or did understand her character, then the Sorcerer would still not understand and would still be relying on you. Also, it is possible that the Sorcerer player might not have understood the Fighter class either, or the Cleric, or the Rogue, etc. and she might have still been relying on you for help.
Basically, from your description, it doesn't sound like the problem had anything to do with running two magic systems at the same table and instead it sounds like the problem was giving these two players two different classes, neither of which they understand properly.
Spell selection, and magic systems, are two very different things, and you seem to be conflating them.
Or maybe I am viewing "magic systems" more broadly than you (or maybe more broadly than most people). I see the Cleric and the Wizard as using two different magic systems that are very similar. By the same token, I see the magic system that the Sorcerer uses (ie. daily refreshing spell points) as also being a very similar magic system.
I am extrapolating based on what you said. You said:Actually, I found that having the sorcere warlock and wizard at the table made it very difficult, and I spent way too much time having to look up and remember how it worked for each player. (Since
I see, so you are just speculating and extracting information which just isn't true.
The confusion came from people confusing the rules for wizards, warlocks and sorcerers and asking me for clarification as to which magic rules applied to thier class since it was all jumbled in their heads. As in asking if minor invokations are at-wills, or if spell points refresh at the end of combat.
I'm sure that after years of playing these rules would not require being looked up, nor would these questions exist. But you have to get players playing for a long amount of time first, and not just falling back on other systems which they allready know well.
I see, so you are just speculating and extracting information which just isn't true.The confusion came from people confusing the rules for wizards, warlocks and sorcerers and asking me for clarification as to which magic rules applied to thier class
I'm sure that after years of playing these rules would not require being looked up, nor would these questions exist. But you have to get players playing for a long amount of time first, and not just falling back on other systems which they allready know well.
This is a valid concern. With so many similar-yet-different things right out of the gate, 5E is not yet shaping up to be new-player friendly.
This is a valid concern. With so many similar-yet-different things right out of the gate, 5E is not yet shaping up to be new-player friendly.
The confusion came from people confusing the rules for wizards, warlocks and sorcerers and asking me for clarification as to which magic rules applied to thier class since it was all jumbled in their heads. As in asking if minor invokations are at-wills, or if spell points refresh at the end of combat.
But again, that is a problem with a person understanding her own character and has nothing to do with running multiple magic systems at the same table simultaneously. Your two players added extra work for you because they relied on you for the answers to their questions. If your Sorcerer player had been playing a Fighter and asked an equal number of questions, you would have had the same amount of extra work even though your table would have had only one magic system.
But again, that is a problem with a person understanding her own character and has nothing to do with running multiple magic systems at the same table simultaneously. Your two players added extra work for you because they relied on you for the answer
This is a valid concern. With so many similar-yet-different things right out of the gate, 5E is not yet shaping up to be new-player friendly.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that because of so many similar-yet-different things, 5e is not turning out to be old-player friendly. For example, if lets say it remains unchanged, how many older players are going to overlook the fact that the Cleric doesn't prepare spells the way it used to? At a casual glance, it looks like a standard Vancian-style casting system and how many older players are going to think it is and not catch on to the daily-spontaneous aspect of it.
New players have no such pre-conceptions and are less likely to fall into such traps.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that because of so many similar-yet-different things, 5e is not turning out to be old-player friendly. For example, if lets say it remains unchanged, how many older players are going to overlook the fact that the C
The confusion came from people confusing the rules for wizards, warlocks and sorcerers and asking me for clarification as to which magic rules applied to thier class since it was all jumbled in their heads. As in asking if minor invokations are at-wills, or if spell points refresh at the end of combat.
I think what cheethorne is trying to get at is, is this limited specifically to different flavors of spellcasters (or even different flavors of arcane spellcasters), or is this something that also occurs with other classes? I.e. did you also see trouble with, say, a Rogue and a Ninja at the same table getting confused about how their extra damage features work, or Monks being confused about how flurry works?
I think what cheethorne is trying to get at is, is this limited specifically to different flavors of spellcasters (or even different flavors of arcane spellcasters), or is this something that also occurs with other classes? I.e. did you also see trou
New players have no such pre-conceptions and are less likely to fall into such traps.
Yes, new players (people to D&D) can be some of the most pleasurable people to DM for (no preconceptions, entitlement issues, etc).
I absolutely agree.
Yes, new players (people to D&D) can be some of the most pleasurable people to DM for (no preconceptions, entitlement issues, etc).[/quote]I absolutely agree.
New players have no such pre-conceptions and are less likely to fall into such traps.
Yes, new players (people to D&D) can be some of the most pleasurable people to DM for (no preconceptions, entitlement issues, etc).
I absolutely agree.
Imagine DMing for Sheldon (Big Bang)...
Yes, new players (people to D&D) can be some of the most pleasurable people to DM for (no preconceptions, entitlement issues, etc).[/quote]I absolutely agree.[/quote]Imagine DMing for Sheldon (Big Bang)...
New players have no such pre-conceptions and are less likely to fall into such traps.
Yes, new players (people to D&D) can be some of the most pleasurable people to DM for (no preconceptions, entitlement issues, etc).
I absolutely agree.
Imagine DMing for Sheldon (Big Bang)...
I've gotten pretty close.
Yes, new players (people to D&D) can be some of the most pleasurable people to DM for (no preconceptions, entitlement issues, etc).[/quote]I absolutely agree.[/quote]Imagine DMing for Sheldon (Big Bang)...[/quote]I've gotten pretty close.
The confusion came from people confusing the rules for wizards, warlocks and sorcerers and asking me for clarification as to which magic rules applied to thier class since it was all jumbled in their heads. As in asking if minor invokations are at-wills, or if spell points refresh at the end of combat.
I think what cheethorne is trying to get at is, is this limited specifically to different flavors of spellcasters (or even different flavors of arcane spellcasters), or is this something that also occurs with other classes? I.e. did you also see trouble with, say, a Rogue and a Ninja at the same table getting confused about how their extra damage features work, or Monks being confused about how flurry works?
As I wrote earlier, if all Martial charachters used CS dice, I could see the same problem happening, if they all used it differently. However so far, that is not the case.
I'm sure there will be a default magic system, and then lots of other magic systems to choose from. Those with time and energy and know how will be able to manage all the different systems. Those who just want a quick game, will just use the default system provided.
I think what cheethorne is trying to get at is, is this limited specifically to different flavors of spellcasters (or even different flavors of arcane spellcasters), or is this something that also occurs with other classes? I.e. did you also see trou
I don't watch the show, but I caught part of an episode where Sheldon comes back early from meeting with another group because "They were having fun wrong." I immediately thought of these forums and laughed.
I don't watch the show, but I caught part of an episode where Sheldon comes back early from meeting with another group because "They were having fun wrong." I immediately thought of these forums and laughed.
As I wrote earlier, if all Martial charachters used CS dice, I could see the same problem happening, if they all used it differently. However so far, that is not the case.
Yes, you stated this earlier, but how is this different from a person (or multiple people) simply not knowing how her character works?
I'm sure there will be a default magic system, and then lots of other magic systems to choose from. Those with time and energy and know how will be able to manage all the different systems. Those who just want a quick game, will just use the default system provided.
But players don't have to manage multiple magic systems at the same time, only the one for their class. Yes, DM's do need to know how the ones the players are using work, but they also need to know how the all the classes work and all the classes could be different from each other anyway. To put it another way, a DM has to know about the same amount of "stuff" if the party consists of a Wizard, a Rogue, a Fighter, and a Cleric or it consists of a Wizard (point system), a Wizard (vancian), a Rogue, and a Fighter. I just don't see enough of a difference to matter.
Yes, you stated this earlier, but how is this different from a person (or multiple people) simply not knowing how her character works?But players don't have to manage multiple magic systems at the same time, only the one for their class. Yes, DM's do
Sorry, I'm not sure how else to explain it. People get confused. They may not require knowing how a vancian mage works if they are using a spell point mage, but they can't really erase the information from their mind which caused them to choose spell points over vancian or visa versa.
Sorry, I'm not sure how else to explain it. People get confused. They may not require knowing how a vancian mage works if they are using a spell point mage, but they can't really erase the information from their mind which caused them to choose spel
People get confused. They may not require knowing how a vancian mage works if they are using a spell point mage, but they can't really erase the information from their mind which caused them to choose spell points over vancian or visa versa.
I suppose, but that would be true of a lot of things, like people missing how the Cleric in the playtest package casts spells in a different way than the wizard, especially since the two have always cast spells the same way.
I suppose, but that would be true of a lot of things, like people missing how the Cleric in the playtest package casts spells in a different way than the wizard, especially since the two have always cast spells the same way.
Ever consider
Different XPs
Small player races...
