I'm all for things making sense, but there has to be real disadvantages to using those weapons and each weapon needs to have a reason to be used. If all weapons are better than daggers in every way, then why are Rogues using them at all. Every Rogue would want to use a more effective weapon and therefore you wouldn't be role playing your character right if they chose daggers...
The First part, it's not iconic from them. Rogue tipically uses dagger. And the second part, I agree with. Each weapon should have it's value. But this doesn't need to be damage. I think that we can have very big discrepancies in damage. Properties can make up for that.
In no way is the dagger iconic to the Rogue. Even in history Rogues generally favored poison on any thing they could make effective from blow darts to food to court swords to rapiers to throwing stars and knives.
No where did I say it had to be damage, that was your hang up. I was saying the current properties don't balance against the damage. They are either too situational or don't affect much of the game. 5% more hits taken is not a match for +4.5 to +6.5 average damage per round especially when this gets magnified to 6 * 4.5 = +27 damage per round average and 6 * 6.5 = 39 average damage per round increase over other weapons. In other words they can take out the enemies twice as fast and thus reduce their getting hit chance by 100% for half the rounds. I'm sure if you do the math you'll see that 50% less chance of getting hit is much better than 22% less chance of getting hit. So in order to work out that 5% needs to increase to 15% for a 55% less chance of getting hit over the course of our expected 5 round battle. If you want, I can explain how I came to these numbers, but it should be pretty obvious.
If the target has a 40% chance to hit a shield and one handed weapon Fighter and a 45% chance to hit a two handed weapon fighter, and the two handed weapon fighter can end a combat in 3 rounds rather than the 5 a one handed weapon Fighter needs, then the chance of getting hit for the two handed Fighter is:
inverse1(45%) * inverse(45%) * inverse(45%) = 83.3625% chance of being hit.
The one handed weapon and sheild Fighters chance of getting hit is:
inverse(40%) * inverse(40%) * inverse(40%) * inverse(40%) * inverse(40%) = 92.224% chance of being hit. 1 - where inverse is 100% - given percent.
So you can see that 5% doesn't mean much as the two handed fighter is still getting hit less...
Daggers are really iconic to rogues. In most RPGs I know, rogue uses dagger. The 4.5 average damage is the most extreme of the cases. (and in d4/d12 case, it's actually 4). Usually it will be +1 AC against the difference between d8 and d10/d12 (but again, they can change that). I don't know about the 6.5. I don't know where it came from.
"I was saying the current properties don't balance against the damage."
Okay, despite I disagree with you on that one, that shows that, if there is a problem here, it is in properties and it's current state. So you can complain about the specifics, but I think that they need to make the damage die of the weapon relevant across all levels, and they look like they want to do that.
And, in the sword and shield against greatsword, It's not exactly +5%. It depends on the exact numbers. For example, if enemies can hit the greatsword guy in a 10+, and the shield guy in 11+, that's a difference in 10%. But +1 AC is always good. And it seems that you overestimate damage. I mean, you keep comparing a dagger fighter to a greatsword fighter. Fighters tipically don't use daggers, and daggers many times are not the best weapon (except in the hands of a rogue), and these weapons belong to different weapon groups (talking about simple and martial, that thing). Damage is not the only thing in combat, and I am fine with daggers dealing less damage than greatswords. Daggers can have other things.
10+ and 11+ is a 5% difference not 10%. Even if you go with less difference in dice you still run into the same problems:
Fighter hits 70% of the time with a 1d6 weapon with a shield 65% hit chance 7 * 1d6 (3.5): min 7 avg 24.5 max 42; 5% critical chance (7 * 1d6 (6)) + 1d6 (3.5): min 43 avg 45.5 max 48 65% of 24.5 = 15.925; 5% of 45.5 = 2.275; Total average damage 18.2
Fighter hits 70% of the time with a 1d12 weapon no shield 65% hit chance 7 * 1d12 (6.5): min 7 avg 45.5 max 84; 5% critical chance (7 * 1d12(12)) + 1d12 (6.5): min 85 avg 90.5 max 96 65% of 45.5 = 29.575 5% of 90.5 = 4.525 Total average damage 34.1
Nearly double (2.3 points shy). So any monster that is going to take the 1d6 weapon and shield Fighter 5 rounds to kill is going to take the 1d12 two weapon Fighter half the time or 2.5 rounds to kill. You can run the math again with 1d8 weapons versus 1d12 if you want what will end up happening is the 1d8 Fighter will gain maybe a single round so it will be 5 rounds to 3 instead of 2.5. You will still end up with the same problems. The effective defense of the two handed Fighter is better even without the +1 AC because they will end the Fighter sooner and take less hits than the other Fighter with the +1 AC. The AC bonus needs to be +2 or +3 to even make it worthwhile. Now I've shown the math, please respond in kind.
Currently mathematically you are better off using a single big weapon than two light or finesse weapons unless you invest about 3 feats into it. Which means you won't see any benefits until level 6+. That's almost half the game if they go to 20. At which point you will only pull slightly ahead, and hope the two handed Fighter doesn't take any feats to improve their effectiveness or you won't pull ahead. The rules say at least one must be a light weapon and you get a -2 penalty so your chance to hit drops from 70% to 60%. You also use the light weapons damage dice for both attacks. The highest light weapon damage is 1d6 so you are looking at the above calculations with less chance to hit twice. In other words you deal less damage and have no advantage until you get some feats.
Even saying damage is not the only thing in combat doesn't really show anything because the traits of the weapons are all about dealing damage. No where do I see that using a Great Weapon grants disadvantage on stealth. No where do I see a movement penalty or bonus depending on the weapon you use. No where do I see a weapon that gets bonuses to maneuvers or actions in combat like trip and disarm (which are situational at best). There are a few 'special' weapons that do absolutely horrible damage, but have a status effect associated with them, but most require that you use them once and then you can't use them again until you retrieve them, so at best they are encounter weapons. Again, I'm fine with traits balancing against damage, but it actually has to balance, and that's not what we have here...
Houserules being part of D&D originally was to make sure that you had fun on your table. Problem is that the rules not only were vague, but even caused friction within tables for one reason or another, hence the need to use houserules to fix the system.
We really should take 0E-1E (and arguably 2E as well) for what they are: medieval wargames that focused on elite fighting forces rather than entire armies, whose entire foundation revolved around "make it up as you go". THAT is why houseruling is so acceptable for games prior to, well, 3E I suppose; as these games generally went about with no actual rules as solid foundations for them. 3E's probably the first edition you can truly call a "game" in the sense that there are a lot more laid-out rules and mechanics than editions before it -- in fact, there are so many rules that it's been a simulationist's dreamland of sorts -- but in terms of an actual, working and fully structured game system, I'd say 4E's the cleanest of the editions, if not the first.
Here's what I like about 13th Age: instead of Rule 0 being stated out and forgotten in a mountain of fluff and mechanics, it's seamlessly merged into the entire system and given quite the emphasis in what I would consider as the proper way of doing so. This is because in 13th Age you don't just "make stuff up as you go", but neither are you hammered down into a specific set of rules. Character creation, for instance, tells you that the devs themselves use different ability score generation methods, and that you're free to swap stuff that "feels right" (subject to DM approval). Better yet, there are sprinkles here and there in the system basically saying, "GMs, your call on the matter".
A solid system of rules that help DMs run their games and encourage them to make story-based rulings when and where appropriate: That is what I'd go for. Not "we know our system won't work that well for your table, so feel free to change it up as you like", then writing down a game that looks more like an uncheangeable, shoddily mashed set of rules than anywhere close to an actual system of rules.
Now I'm still reserving my actual ragequit for the final release of 5E (but only if by release it's still as inconsistent and poorly designed as a system as it stands), but I already have 13th Age on the way -- well ahead of 5E's release -- and honestly even with the multitude of playtests released I am nowhere near as impressed with 5E as I was with 13th Age's playtest teasers back in mid 2012.
Mike Mearls posted in one of his L&L's that he'd be happy if players get to take even a part of 5E and use it for their own home games. So far, the only thing I took away from 5E was the early itineration of Combat Superiority, but primarily (if not exclusively) as a fan service so to speak, with no real interest in having it apply on my table (unless at least one of the players on my table really want it). Otherwise, I have yet to see 5E develop into a "system" or even a set of rules that's really worth pilfering from.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
The only reason a well designed and developed game should need house ruling is for flavor, not to make it work. You should want to house rule elves out of your campaign because a plague wiped them out, not because they don't need to sleep and sense secret doors...
Wrong, house rules are part of D&D. The idea that a house rule is a system fix is just utter nonsense. They are not a taboo subject or an afront to the mechanical system. When someone suggests a house rule that person should be applauded and encouraged by the community, they should not accused of criticising a sacred system. The fact is with next you'll need house rules for your style of play and I need house rules for mine.
Nope, I am correct. In the old days we had to use house rules to make the game playable because the developers didn't know any better. There is no excuse for that now. Desingers now have game theory, statistics, phsychology and other scientific methods to create a better game. They no longer have to guess at the best way to create a mechanic, they can use well thought out logicall processes to do this and make it fun for everyone.
The main problem with house rules is that they only apply at your table and every table has different house rules, so to discuss your personal game with many house rules then complain that the game isn't fun is not productive.
You can house rule all you want, but its not productive to the discussion of the play test, unless you are putting forth your personal house rules as suggested rules for the game, ready to be run through the math grinder and get peoples opinions on them. Which is fine, but when you deviate from the given rules for the game, you can't validly complain about the balance because you are the one that unbalanced the game.
For instance it would be absurd for me to complain that the shoe in monopoly was overpowered if I house ruled that it goes first and can buy any property before passing go once and they start with double money.
That's basically what you are doing now...
What is considered "playable" is subjective. That won't change with D&D next either.
What you think might be problems in the system others don't. I thought 4e was full of unplayable issues, but when I tried to suggest a house rule to "fix" it for my playstyle I was labeled a heritic. That mentality must die in the ashes of 4e.
You are infact the one who is trying to enforce your own brand of house rules on the default game. To use your example, if I want to award $500 when a player lands on free parking and you don't want to pass GO none of us have the right to demand that default system include either house rule. Your house rules "the narrative rules" should be optional. You are infact the one who is putting your personal house rules on the table and trying to pass them off as corrections to the default system. You're not even open to considering that people don't want to play the game like you do.
As for each table having it's own set of house rules. I'm all for it. that's how the game should be.
IMO, house rules allow you to customize the system. Most of the house rules that I have for my 2e game are not simply corrections to the mechanics. They are additions to the rules and provide more detail. Most of my house rules are simply customizations. I think that the game must be designed to allow for house rules and that's my only requirement for D&D Next. .
The announcement of DDN and the playtest in non-traditional venues like the Wall Street Journal and the New York times, as well as continuing coverage in places like Wired would suggest some realignment.
Well... It was featured online in the geek sections of their websites. Still not exactly breaking into new territory. And newspapers aren't exactly reaching the masses. What's next? Radio ads?
$12 is the consumer price point for dice, not the manufacturer's wholesale cost. That, I prseume, can be dropped to around a dollar (seriously, it's a little molded plastic, one step up from tiddly winks)
. The dice seller also buys for a dollar (okay, likely a buck fifty) but the stores still need to sell it at $12. So 3/5ths of the $20 box would be dice.
A dozen or so blank character sheets, 16 pages of rules, and maybe another 20 of monsters, a large bifold map or two, and, oh, let's call it a forty page campaign book. Even in color, at consumer prices, you're only talking about $8.00 or so, and significantly less than that given the bulk printing of a professional product.
Printing has to be done in 8s. That's why you see 16, 32, 64, and even 160 page books. The Red Box had a 32 page book and 54 page book. That's what around $20 gets you (plus the tokens). Dice cost waaaay more than a token sheet and some cards. To get dice in, you'd need to go up to $30 or lose a book.
A box with 32 & 64 page books is the way to go. One for players and one for DMs. But look at the playtest. The How to Play section is 24 pages and character creation is 5. Classes are 12-ish pages, Spells and maneuvers add another 20 pages. That's your 64 page book. The DM guidelines section is 14 pages. That leaves 18 pages for monsters. You have maybe 36 monsters. Tops.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?
The only reason a well designed and developed game should need house ruling is for flavor, not to make it work. You should want to house rule elves out of your campaign because a plague wiped them out, not because they don't need to sleep and sense secret doors...
Wrong, house rules are part of D&D. The idea that a house rule is a system fix is just utter nonsense. They are not a taboo subject or an afront to the mechanical system. When someone suggests a house rule that person should be applauded and encouraged by the community, they should not accused of criticising a sacred system. The fact is with next you'll need house rules for your style of play and I need house rules for mine.
Nope, I am correct. In the old days we had to use house rules to make the game playable because the developers didn't know any better. There is no excuse for that now. Desingers now have game theory, statistics, phsychology and other scientific methods to create a better game. They no longer have to guess at the best way to create a mechanic, they can use well thought out logicall processes to do this and make it fun for everyone.
The main problem with house rules is that they only apply at your table and every table has different house rules, so to discuss your personal game with many house rules then complain that the game isn't fun is not productive.
You can house rule all you want, but its not productive to the discussion of the play test, unless you are putting forth your personal house rules as suggested rules for the game, ready to be run through the math grinder and get peoples opinions on them. Which is fine, but when you deviate from the given rules for the game, you can't validly complain about the balance because you are the one that unbalanced the game.
For instance it would be absurd for me to complain that the shoe in monopoly was overpowered if I house ruled that it goes first and can buy any property before passing go once and they start with double money.
That's basically what you are doing now...
What is considered "playable" is subjective. That won't change with D&D next either.
What you think might be problems in the system others don't. I thought 4e was full of unplayable issues, but when I tried to suggest a house rule to "fix" it for my playstyle I was labeled a heritic. That mentality must die in the ashes of 4e.
You are infact the one who is trying to enforce your own brand of house rules on the default game. To use your example, if I want to award $500 when a player lands on free parking and you don't want to pass GO none of us have the right to demand that default system include either house rule. Your house rules "the narrative rules" should be optional. You are infact the one who is putting your personal house rules on the table and trying to pass them off as corrections to the default system. You're not even open to considering that people don't want to play the game like you do.
As for each table having it's own set of house rules. I'm all for it. that's how the game should be.
IMO, house rules allow you to customize the system. Most of the house rules that I have for my 2e game are not simply corrections to the mechanics. They are additions to the rules and provide more detail. Most of my house rules are simply customizations. I think that the game must be designed to allow for house rules and that's my only requirement for D&D Next. .
Again you are entirely incorrect. I want everyone to be able to play their way, but we can't get that with the current setup. All I'm doing is pointing out that things aren't going to work and suggesting fixes. If you actually find something wrong with my suggestions please chime in and tell me in a logical and fact filled way where they don't work. The developers are free to ignore my suggestions. I also am not house ruling for the simple fact that if you house rule the play test to bits and then give feedback, you aren't giving feedback on the play test, you are giving feedback on your custom game which is not at all helpful to the developers who asked you to try out their rules and tell them whether they work or not and whether you like them or not.
I'm all for house rules, but not because the game is broken and the players and DMs need to fix it themselves. I'm perfectly fine with people house ruling to fit a story or world or a particular flavor as long as everyone knows ahead of time. I am not ok with house ruling to fix things. That shouldn't need to happen. If that happens then 5E is a failure. Now you should be able to get your game by using modules and optional rules. I should be able to get my game by using modules and optional rules. However neither of us should be forced to house rule to get the game we want. That would be a failure.
My problem wasn't that you were suggesting a rule change, it was that up until this time you never mentioned that you wanted all the fiddly weapon rules in the game at all, and then out of the blue you said as soon as 5E comes out that would be your first house rule. Why not suggest it as a rules module? This is exactly the kind of stuff that will sink 5E, waiting until the last minute to tell them what needs to be in the game.
Now I personally don't want to have to deal with a bunch of tiny little modifiers tacked onto weapon attack and damage. I am ok with differentiating weapons by traits, maybe even doing some kind of armor resistance versus weapon types if it can be kept simple, however I don't think they can keep it simple, which is why I'm writing it off.
Here are some of your comments that are bordering on edition warring:
"That mentality must die in the ashes of 4e."
Please refrain from using them, lest you get reported...
The announcement of DDN and the playtest in non-traditional venues like the Wall Street Journal and the New York times, as well as continuing coverage in places like Wired would suggest some realignment.
Well... It was featured online in the geek sections of their websites. Still not exactly breaking into new territory. And newspapers aren't exactly reaching the masses. What's next? Radio ads?
$12 is the consumer price point for dice, not the manufacturer's wholesale cost. That, I prseume, can be dropped to around a dollar (seriously, it's a little molded plastic, one step up from tiddly winks)
. The dice seller also buys for a dollar (okay, likely a buck fifty) but the stores still need to sell it at $12. So 3/5ths of the $20 box would be dice.
A dozen or so blank character sheets, 16 pages of rules, and maybe another 20 of monsters, a large bifold map or two, and, oh, let's call it a forty page campaign book. Even in color, at consumer prices, you're only talking about $8.00 or so, and significantly less than that given the bulk printing of a professional product.
Printing has to be done in 8s. That's why you see 16, 32, 64, and even 160 page books. The Red Box had a 32 page book and 54 page book. That's what around $20 gets you (plus the tokens). Dice cost waaaay more than a token sheet and some cards. To get dice in, you'd need to go up to $30 or lose a book.
A box with 32 & 64 page books is the way to go. One for players and one for DMs. But look at the playtest. The How to Play section is 24 pages and character creation is 5. Classes are 12-ish pages, Spells and maneuvers add another 20 pages. That's your 64 page book. The DM guidelines section is 14 pages. That leaves 18 pages for monsters. You have maybe 36 monsters. Tops.
As a distributor for chessex I bought them at about half price and sold them for full MSRP, however if I bought in bulk I could get it down to about 1/4 the price. That was before plastic became super expensive. I wouldn't assume its $1 or less. Its more likely to be $4 or more for distributors now for dice...
The announcement of DDN and the playtest in non-traditional venues like the Wall Street Journal and the New York times, as well as continuing coverage in places like Wired would suggest some realignment.
Well... It was featured online in the geek sections of their websites. Still not exactly breaking into new territory. And newspapers aren't exactly reaching the masses. What's next? Radio ads?
$12 is the consumer price point for dice, not the manufacturer's wholesale cost. That, I prseume, can be dropped to around a dollar (seriously, it's a little molded plastic, one step up from tiddly winks)
. The dice seller also buys for a dollar (okay, likely a buck fifty) but the stores still need to sell it at $12. So 3/5ths of the $20 box would be dice.
A dozen or so blank character sheets, 16 pages of rules, and maybe another 20 of monsters, a large bifold map or two, and, oh, let's call it a forty page campaign book. Even in color, at consumer prices, you're only talking about $8.00 or so, and significantly less than that given the bulk printing of a professional product.
Printing has to be done in 8s. That's why you see 16, 32, 64, and even 160 page books. The Red Box had a 32 page book and 54 page book. That's what around $20 gets you (plus the tokens). Dice cost waaaay more than a token sheet and some cards. To get dice in, you'd need to go up to $30 or lose a book.
A box with 32 & 64 page books is the way to go. One for players and one for DMs. But look at the playtest. The How to Play section is 24 pages and character creation is 5. Classes are 12-ish pages, Spells and maneuvers add another 20 pages. That's your 64 page book. The DM guidelines section is 14 pages. That leaves 18 pages for monsters. You have maybe 36 monsters. Tops.
As a distributor for chessex I bought them at about half price and sold them for full MSRP, however if I bought in bulk I could get it down to about 1/4 the price. That was before plastic became super expensive. I wouldn't assume its $1 or less. Its more likely to be $4 or more for distributors now for dice...
Right, on the distributor level. WotC is the level above that and sells to distributors at said $4 and would then buy from the manufacturer at $2.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?
While the material can - in theory - be layered on top, new feats, class builds, racial options, skills and the like from splatbooks don't affect the Basic classes and characters. While the players can upgrade at any time and layer new options on top of their characters, this still means moving to the "standard edition". Now, the DM might have more luck with their options and modules. And DMs are often the people at the table who buy the most books. So this might be fine.
If they do it right, moving to the expanded version won't mean upgrading. It will mean unlocking more choices if the player wants to change their characcter, but they can take their basic character, drop them in an expanded game and play them fine. The power level of the basic character will be the same as the expansion characters because they will have the expansion options baked in behind the scene.
True, but there's still no content for Basic characters. If they buy more content they upgrade.
While does defeat the purpose of having a high selling core product that generates a continual profit. This isn't the video game market where they can sell consoles at a loss because people need games. Everything WotC sells after the core books is essentially optional.
The point of the introductory boxed set isn't high profit. It is always going to be a fairly low selling nich product. It is getting people into playing D&D, the profit comes when they subscribe to the online content and buy other expansion material later.
Accessories don't offer much money. The money comes from core books. DDI and online content would be profitable if WotC wasn't outsourcing payment and likely losing a good chunk of the profits.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?
Accessories don't offer much money. The money comes from core books. DDI and online content would be profitable if WotC wasn't outsourcing payment and likely losing a good chunk of the profits.
While this may have been historically true, I don't think it needs to be the model going forward. Consider the micro-transaction economy of apps and in-app purchases. I don't necessarily think that's the best route for DDN, but I also don't think the current model has penetrated the marketplace nearly well enough.
