The main thing that would keep me from buying DnD Next would be if manuevers are left as is, with effects based solely on Expertise Dice. I initially greatly liked the expertise dice mechanic, but the more time I have to think about it, the more uncomfortable I am with it. If the manuevers are dependent on nothing more than the expertice dice, then two drastically different characters end up doing exactly the same thing. Looking back to 3.5 and 4.0, Manuevers were at the least dependent on the weapon you wielded, and partially your stats as well.
@Pashalik: See, that's why you're one of the posters on here that I respect. If I ask you to clarify something, you happily do so.
I hear what you're saying. In some ways, I'm probably more lenient than most in that regard, but in others, I bet I'm also more strict. I really like sticking to rules, be they well-established house rules, or RAW. It lets my players know in no uncertain terms what I expect from them, and what they can expect from me. Any time I'm looking at spells, or skills, or feats, or anything like that, I'm generally inclined to allow them to function as they are.
I've never been a big fan of pre-empting player abilities, even when I think power-creep starts to get out of hand. As for "improving" actions, I still find the advice in the DMG useful after 12 years of playing. When in doubt, rule in favor of the player. There's this whole big section on performing actions that aren't covered by standard rules, things like using skills in appropriate ways that aren't necessarily covered in that skill's description.
It basically says that unless there's a really good reason for why the player shouldn't be able to do that, they should at least be given a roll. If my group's fighter wants to make an attack roll to catch the fragile falling MacGuffin, I'm geneally inclined to let him roll, unless his hands have been cut off or something drastic like that. Kind of like how I'm inclined to let a caster cast unless something is actively stopping him. As far as I have always known, a DM straight-up vetoing player action isn't a rule, but rather an exception. My instrincts right now are telling me that this kind of thing is a "DM mistake," and while that may be true, I don't think I would just leave it at that.
Is there some onus on the DM for not heeding the "rule in favor of the player" section? Yeah, sure. But as many people as I have heard voice unhappiness with the concept of "DM may I," it makes me think that this is a common enough issue that it needs more attention given to it in the DMG. Like right now, even I couldn't reference off the top of my head where the particular passage is. I'd have to go hunting for it. Maybe I'll make a new thread in the What's a DM To Do section about this very issue, and post that passage as a launching point for the discussion.
Everyone of said spells can be shut down. Really if someone wants to have their character have the impact in the setting, rather than riding the rails of a pre-built story by the DM, it depends almost entirely on the DM. In the games I run, players are always the ones with the agency, spells or not.
However, there is a different standard of use for spells/codified elements than there is for uncodified elements. To pull off some cool improv, you have to get the DM to say 'yes'. To pull off a spell, you only need him not to say 'no'.
How do you mean?
If you ask the DM to let you improv some action, he will consider it, and must give his opinion. If he is even a bit not okay with it, you are likely looking at a 'no', or at least at a roll with the odds stacked against you. You have to convince him that your proposed action is reasonable. If you want to do the thing, you must get him to explicitly say, 'yes', even if that is qualified with, "I'll let you roll for it".
If you ask the DM to let you cast a spell, well, right off the bat, generally, you don't ask. If you've got Spider Climb prepared, the rules for Spider Climb are clear, you just say, "I'm casting Spider Climb." and then it happens. The DM does not have to consider it, and does not need to think about and present his opinion. If he does not wish for it to work, he must veto it. That means that he must have a certain level of disapproval, enough to act on, before he'll do it. And he'll have to feel fairly confident in his decision as well, after all, the books clearly state that this action is reasonable. A little discomfort isn't going to get most DMs to stand up and oppose written rules, and many would even consider it poor form to veto a spell if they had not previously considered the possibility and put in a counter-measure, say, grease on the wall, or something.
What I'm getting at is that if the DM really wants a thing to happen, it generally will. If the DM is really opposed to a thing happening, it generally won't. But spells(or to be precise, codified elements), take the middle ground, whereas improv has to surrender it.
You, personally, as a DM, might be super lenient and cool about these things, but even you have a middle ground where you're not entirely certain if something is appropriate, and in that space, spells rule and improv drools.
As a person who is strongly in the DM is authority camp, i beleive if a player proposes an action and the DM is going to rule against it, the player is entitled to a logical reason why whether it is fluff or mechanics. There are plenty of times I disallowed something, but I make sure it fits with an internal logic of what is going on in the session and with the campaign world.
I never say no because I do not "like it" alone. If a player can give me a good enough reason why it CAN happen and be beleivable (within the assumptions of the game world) we are on.
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
Same here. In practice, it becomes labor intensive. More dice rolls.
ALSO... for the price we pay for the books, I expect more quality from the BINDING... I still have my 1st edition books which I used for years and still reference them even today. My 2nd edition books seem to be holding up. All the pages are falling out of my 3rd edition books.
For NEXT... I hope the QUALITY of the books is better. These aren't books you read once and get rid of. They are treated more like a dictionary or thesaurus... used over and over. As such, they need better binding. Even if that means a few less pictures, or less color. I can live without metallic ink if I have to, but PLEASE I hope the books are of a quality befitting a $40 - $50 price range.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller.
WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes.
@Pashalik: See, that's why you're one of the posters on here that I respect. If I ask you to clarify something, you happily do so.
I like to talk. It's not hard to get me to do it
I've never been a big fan of pre-empting player abilities, even when I think power-creep starts to get out of hand. As for "improving" actions, I still find the advice in the DMG useful after 12 years of playing. When in doubt, rule in favor of the player. There's this whole big section on performing actions that aren't covered by standard rules, things like using skills in appropriate ways that aren't necessarily covered in that skill's description.
It basically says that unless there's a really good reason for why the player shouldn't be able to do that, they should at least be given a roll. If my group's fighter wants to make an attack roll to catch the fragile falling MacGuffin, I'm geneally inclined to let him roll, unless his hands have been cut off or something drastic like that. Kind of like how I'm inclined to let a caster cast unless something is actively stopping him. As far as I have always known, a DM straight-up vetoing player action isn't a rule, but rather an exception. My instrincts right now are telling me that this kind of thing is a "DM mistake," and while that may be true, I don't think I would just leave it at that.
I agree that a good DM should be fair in this, I wasn't trying to out anyone in specific or anything like that. But while having this sort of thing in the DMG is good, and absolutely should be done, it also highlights my point. This is an entire gauntlet that spells simply don't have to go through.
Another factor is ease of use on the player. I'll use a real world example. The other day I was making a post for a PbP game. While I was thinking of what to do, it occurred to me that it would be pretty awesome if I put away my swords, picked up a nearby table, and beat the cambion over the head with it. The DM in this game has always been pretty good about letting me try crazy stuff, so I figured he'd probably say yes. On the other hand, I didn't want to hold up the game while we discussed it, so I just hit something instead. As it turns out, the idea of braining this cambion with a table has really grown on me, and I'm probably going to be doing it in one of the following rounds, but I'll still have to ask him and get the okay. If "table/head beatdown" had been a codified ability, like a spell, I would've just done it, because it would have required no extra negotiation on my part.
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.
Arithezoo - I'd like to see - in the core: All classes at-will based. No "per-day" or "per encounter" based anything. Character mechanics would reflect starting out as "farmer who just learned to fight" rather than "special guy who has been fighting a while". Every class would be able to focus on their speciality to the point where dumping enough features into the speciality would put you WAY ahead of the expected growth rate. +X items available but not necessary for advancement.
Thanks for answering!
At-will for everyone? I can't see it happening (as it seems a significant proportion of fans like daily resources), but it is easy enough to do on your own (I'll get to that at the end).
So you think the current Level 1 characters are too powerful in the playtest? This is also something that you can do on your own.
Well, at least you have 1, right? Currently, +X items are available but not necessary! Your cup is 1/4 full!
Now...the houseruling. Stop me if you absolutely have no interest in doing this.
As long as you like the mechanics for the non-daily/encounter resource classes, you can reflavor anything into any class. Take Wizard, for example. Use the Fighter as a template. Give him a few base spells; use 4E at-will powers as a baseline, perhaps. He then modifies his spells using "maneuvers" (call it something else), and Bob's your uncle. Now, if you hate the design of all the at-will classes, or if you want all classes to be at-will but different mechanically...then this won't help at all.
In terms of having characters start off weaker, I came up with an idea in another thread.
Have characters start with just race and background. Everyone must have their future class already picked out, which determines starting HP (For weaker starting heroes, reduce starting HP by 1 step). You gain all the normal background benefits (for weaker starting heroes, reduce the background benefits). Assign weapons and armor based on future class (for weaker starting heroes, reduce proficiencies). For future spellcasters, allow them to prepare 2 level 0 spells each day.
When they level up, they pick their class. When they level up again, they pick a specialty, and are now a 1st level hero!
Sounds like a plan.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller.
WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes.
Bounded accuracy. Srsly. That's the biggest turn-off for me. Unless my accuracy singnificantly improves against lower level enemies as my character levels, count me out (and for the record, no, I'm not interested in re-flavoring additional damage as being more accurate).
Accuracy will improve with character levels, it already does that as your base attack bonus does improve.
True. And if you look at the damage in terms of percentage chance to kill... then the high level guy is pretty effective. That's not even counting that the high level guy likely has several options available that the low level guy doesn't... and is typically better equipped to boot.
And the increased basic chance to hit IS improved accuracy.
If the actual rendition of the game allows multiple attacks at higher level, that's a significant improvement vs. lower level guys. You may miss once, but here comes another shot at dealing damage. In terms of percentage to hit... pretty significant.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller.
WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes.
