I agree. Too many rules make game play heavy, if I am correctly following Thane. In combat, after attacking, your either passively defending - using your AC and armor and practical defensive moves prevent damage. Actively defending takes additional focus which may take an actual action. Doing some other action or actively trying to do something else like trying to heal someone, hide, or casting a spell. This modality of thinking is similar to the way I was thinking for the Combat Module blog
"The exclusion of said content does not make any people uncomfortable." - Speak for yourself. Enforced PC-ness and the idea that a nun with a ruler is going around smacking the artist's knuckles when he draws something "wrong" is deeply offensive to me. I'm all for getting rid of some stupidity - breasts on female lizardfolk are astonishingly dumb, I'll be the first to agree there. But 3E's dragonborn were reshaped humans given draconic traits; breasts on a female member of that race are far...
View full comment"The exclusion of said content does not make any people uncomfortable." - Speak for yourself. Enforced PC-ness and the idea that a nun with a ruler is going around smacking the artist's knuckles when he draws something "wrong" is deeply offensive to me. I'm all for getting rid of some stupidity - breasts on female lizardfolk are astonishingly dumb, I'll be the first to agree there. But 3E's dragonborn were reshaped humans given draconic traits; breasts on a female member of that race are far more reasonable. The paladin shouldn't be clanking around in plate mail which exposes her boobs, or even tightly outlines them - but the sorceress with the 18 charisma who can cast Force Armor has every reason to show a ton of skin. And damsels in distress (and undress) are a classic of the genre; they shouldn't be gratuitous and ridiculous (cultists of Hextor or Gruumsh maybe want to get off at the expense of their sacrificial victims; for cultists of Nerull or Tharizdun, this makes a lot less sense), but they shouldn't be VERBOTEN OMG SINFUL DISCRIMINATION NEVAH AGAINZORZ either.
Well written opinion column. I agree that a mechanic is not only silly, but really messes things up when I'm trying to make a race of kick-butt-in-chainmail-bikinis-and-high-heels Amazons. The height limit is cramping my style. And why do the nymphs and succubi have to be seductive looking... or medusa... ewwww! False advertising, lady! Sarcasm aside... I don't think forcing artists to create asexual gender-neutral artistic vision is particularly empowering anyone. Modern women will still...
View full commentWell written opinion column. I agree that a mechanic is not only silly, but really messes things up when I'm trying to make a race of kick-butt-in-chainmail-bikinis-and-high-heels Amazons. The height limit is cramping my style. And why do the nymphs and succubi have to be seductive looking... or medusa... ewwww! False advertising, lady!
Sarcasm aside... I don't think forcing artists to create asexual gender-neutral artistic vision is particularly empowering anyone. Modern women will still wear high-heels and the implication that this somehow diminishes them is IMHO even more of an objectification. That said.... dragon boobs WERE kinda creepy. I'm thinking aberration, not dragon.
I cast my vote for the Grizzowl. I had always thought of the beast in terms of the Gryphon as a combined creature (not that the Owlbear belongs to Greek mythology). Do you plan on illustrating a mating pair, as the original concept indicates? with a lean enough frame on the female Grizzowl, could wings actually come into play? The idea of a mating pair should bring potential for more realism with this creature, and it certainly gives great opportunities for DM's who could imagine the...
View full commentI cast my vote for the Grizzowl. I had always thought of the beast in terms of the Gryphon as a combined creature (not that the Owlbear belongs to Greek mythology).
Do you plan on illustrating a mating pair, as the original concept indicates? with a lean enough frame on the female Grizzowl, could wings actually come into play?
The idea of a mating pair should bring potential for more realism with this creature, and it certainly gives great opportunities for DM's who could imagine the behavior of family units and apply those in game.
Oh man, I wanted to vote last week "Significant violence is shown. Contact and fatal injuries, including dismemberment, are shown, with significant blood."
I like the racial archtypes created by racial penalties as well, but my playgroup is full of oldschool players anyway, so regardless of what the rules say, we never have Elves with 16+ Constitution; its just lore that we'll never let die. So whether or not they include the racial penalties in the mechanics, they'll always show up when ya want 'em to.
Floating bonus for humans: sounds pretty good. Bonuses in every stat as well? Not so much. I think it would serve the archetype of the adaptable, "everyone's unique" human better to have multiple floating bonuses (probably with a limit of +2 -- +3 at the most -- per stat) than to have static, across the board +1s. Humanity's adaptability comes from the adaptability of each individual, true, but also from the slough of differing abilities found when the race is taken as a whole. Additionally, I...
View full commentFloating bonus for humans: sounds pretty good. Bonuses in every stat as well? Not so much. I think it would serve the archetype of the adaptable, "everyone's unique" human better to have multiple floating bonuses (probably with a limit of +2 -- +3 at the most -- per stat) than to have static, across the board +1s. Humanity's adaptability comes from the adaptability of each individual, true, but also from the slough of differing abilities found when the race is taken as a whole. Additionally, I like the idea of racial penalties. An Elf and a Half-Elf should generally have similar wisdom, but the Elf should normally have the lower constitution score. I feel like the penalties -- in addition to making it possible to add more bonuses without becoming overpowered -- really make it possible for the races to each have a truly unique feel (and a truly unique physiology/personality).
I know this is a long shot, since your comment is 5 months old at the time of my reply, but bounded accuracy essentially describes a paradigm shift in the "mathematical engine" that runs behind the scenes. In earlier editions there was this ever-escalating quasi-arms race between the PCs and the DM, with the PCs gaining ability bonuses and attack bonuses every level making it increasingly difficult for the DM to construct challenging encounters. The bounded accuracy system spaces out these...
View full commentI know this is a long shot, since your comment is 5 months old at the time of my reply, but bounded accuracy essentially describes a paradigm shift in the "mathematical engine" that runs behind the scenes. In earlier editions there was this ever-escalating quasi-arms race between the PCs and the DM, with the PCs gaining ability bonuses and attack bonuses every level making it increasingly difficult for the DM to construct challenging encounters. The bounded accuracy system spaces out these bonuses better making them feel special to your character, like they have crossed some important milestone in their adventuring career. Taking the place of the attack bonus bumps is damage. Now your damage goes up with level, representing a higher competence in regards to the placement of your sword in the troll's back, or the dragon's exposed underbelly. A orc raiding party facing a first level party would be an almost insurmountable task at 1st level in past editions. Whereas at 20th level, that raiding party is a cake walk. Bounded accuracy now says that that at 20th level, these orcs should still be a tangible threat without having to artificially inflate their statistics. Instead, just throw more of them at the party.
Thanks for the input on this, PrestonSnow. Now it makes sense. And you nailed something I do to this day in 4E - "level-up" creatures so they are a challenge to the party.
As I said, I'm not listing blogs about Next that were posted after the playtest from people who haven't playtested. That goes under Rule 7 (tickling my fancy). But yeah I expected a lot more too.
I have to say, as a long-time DM, I absolutely love DnDNext. All you've done, for our group at least, is taken the exact way we play, and gotten rid of all the garbage from every edition into a simplified bounded accuracy. Provided you completely leave level-based stat scaling out of the equation (aside from damage:hp), you have our entire hoard of geeks eagerly awaiting full-blown content =)
I must say I am so happy with what I have read so far. There are some issues that need to be addressed - The magic (cantrips are a great idea but just too powerful) and dying ( way too difficult to kill a character - there is very little threat). Please do can you now overhaul the public play adopted by WOTC. Hiding D&D in game shops will do as much harm to D&D as this new addition will help it. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SPREAD THE WORD TO GAME GROUPS, SCHOOLS and PUBLIC EVENTS.
I like having some example unique items pre-made in the books. Especially some throw-backs and classics. But they're usually more of a jumping off point for me. I like to design my own items and I don't particularly care for rules (and a chapter thereof) to tell me how to do it "the right way". I generally disregard these rules and generate my ideas. My players enjoy the weapons, items, and artifact I create, and that's the important part. I work hard to make balanced items that don't break...
View full commentI like having some example unique items pre-made in the books. Especially some throw-backs and classics. But they're usually more of a jumping off point for me. I like to design my own items and I don't particularly care for rules (and a chapter thereof) to tell me how to do it "the right way". I generally disregard these rules and generate my ideas. My players enjoy the weapons, items, and artifact I create, and that's the important part. I work hard to make balanced items that don't break games. I give my players my own unique and personal parts of the game - often custom tailored for specific characters. I am not opposed to having guidelines, especially for newer DMs, but leave them at that, and drop the expectations for characters to upgrade their weapons like they do in console RPGs. It ruins the magic. No pun intended. Honestly.
I also agree with the style guidelines listed - great start! And Westerness has a great point: "rating" is still very subjective, and the US (presumably the biggest market) is quite prudish compared to many other first world countries. I think many have already said this but it's worth repeating: it's probably easiest to start with a slightly more prudish standard to push the broad-based appeal, and open up more risqué materials for those who want it. That seems to be the standard...
View full commentI also agree with the style guidelines listed - great start!
And Westerness has a great point: "rating" is still very subjective, and the US (presumably the biggest market) is quite prudish compared to many other first world countries. I think many have already said this but it's worth repeating: it's probably easiest to start with a slightly more prudish standard to push the broad-based appeal, and open up more risqué materials for those who want it. That seems to be the standard marketing approach, anyway: the trick is to make sure you don't make it too boring/sanitized or quash too much creative output.
This list sounds perfect. As far as the survey, I'm not sure which level to pick, but I'd like to see definite hints of "sexy" in D&D artwork. Cover most of the bum and bust (is that armor realistic), but you can definitely allude to them (and everything else is fair game). Give equal "sexy" treatment to males. Remember Hennet from 3.5? There's nothing wrong with some male chest. Focus on very expressive facial expressions. Accentuating the eyes also usually has good effect. In a fight...
View full commentThis list sounds perfect. As far as the survey, I'm not sure which level to pick, but I'd like to see definite hints of "sexy" in D&D artwork. Cover most of the bum and bust (is that armor realistic), but you can definitely allude to them (and everything else is fair game). Give equal "sexy" treatment to males. Remember Hennet from 3.5? There's nothing wrong with some male chest. Focus on very expressive facial expressions. Accentuating the eyes also usually has good effect. In a fight scene, don't be afraid of dirt on faces, messed up hair, even a little wounding (bruises, small amount of bleeding) etc. As far as being more creative with the "sexy" (clothes ripped off, people tied up, women pinning men down...), I want depictions to be true to context (would a battle or cult or woman warrior do that - then do it), but don't go so far that I'd be afraid of opening a book around pubescent children.
Also, consider how sexy non-traditionally sexy people can be? Something kind of fun that I incorporate into games and stories is the idea that a larger person, an amputee, a person with scars or a deformity (etc) can find himself/herself sexy or be paired with someone who finds them sexy. Through that perception, they can become as sexy as a more traditionally sexy character. It's about attitude (often expressed in the face/eyes/body posture).
Finally, in 3.5, some friends and I really wanted to see artwork that depicted adventurers on a good day. Why couldn't the adventurer's (of all sexes) go shopping and not get jumped just one time. Why not show some bro's helping each other don some armor? Why not show a nice campfire scene? Why not show an obvious romantic context (not a bedroom, but maybe 2 adventures look at each other for a few seconds too long)? Most scenes should be battle, but one or two vignettes of daily life could be fun too (& not just all of them at a bar or Mialee messing up a spell).
First off, I like the Hit Dice mechanics for healing, and don’t have a problem with how HP’s are gained each level. Those are fine, but I think some of the other posters are right, just call ‘Hit Dice’ used for natural healing something else (surges, first aid, recovery dice, etc). ‘Hit Points’, as defined by M.Mearls, raises my hackles. Actually, it’s just a different way of saying ‘Wound Points’ and ‘Vitality Points’ like the Star Wars games. Which I liked, and they worked well, but...
View full commentFirst off, I like the Hit Dice mechanics for healing, and don’t have a problem with how HP’s are gained each level. Those are fine, but I think some of the other posters are right, just call ‘Hit Dice’ used for natural healing something else (surges, first aid, recovery dice, etc).
‘Hit Points’, as defined by M.Mearls, raises my hackles. Actually, it’s just a different way of saying ‘Wound Points’ and ‘Vitality Points’ like the Star Wars games. Which I liked, and they worked well, but it’s not how I see ‘Hit Points’ in DnD. Maybe I could even get behind your definition if it works well, except for this:
By stating that this is how you view ‘Hit Points’, and making that part of the Core system, you are taking away how I see ‘Hit Points’ and replacing them with your version. I don’t want you telling me how to play a class, or what roles a class should fill. So don’t try and tell me how I should view ‘Hit Points’, either.
Also, it ties into another problem with DnDNext that, as I understand it, is still being worked on. That is the Armor situation. People take M.Mearls definition of ‘Hit Points’ and use it to rationalize why Armor makes PC’s harder to hit, rather than provides protection from damage. I don’t like that Armor works like that in DnD, and always house-rule it differently. So don’t force your definition of ‘Hit Points’ on me, because I have more than one reason to ignore it.