Pondering the direction of skills. I asked myself what skills would I say I possessed in my life. Sadly, I can only think of two exemplary (Carpentry and Performance - day job vs. aspiring actor). My conclusion is this: *Skills are vague in most cases - Looking at Perform (not a listed SKILL in this iteration as yet), obviously there are many types of performance (Dance, Oration, Acting, Painting, Sculpting, etc.). So it seems to me that a general Skill (ARTISTRY) can represent a sub-skill...
View full commentPondering the direction of skills. I asked myself what skills would I say I possessed in my life. Sadly, I can only think of two exemplary (Carpentry and Performance - day job vs. aspiring actor). My conclusion is this:
*Skills are vague in most cases - Looking at Perform (not a listed SKILL in this iteration as yet), obviously there are many types of performance (Dance, Oration, Acting, Painting, Sculpting, etc.). So it seems to me that a general Skill (ARTISTRY) can represent a sub-skill or several.
*Skills can vary with type of game - DRIVE, for instance isn't necessarily a useful skill for a fantasy game where most vehicles are animal powered. Handle Animal you say? As would I, but, should Handle Animal be generalized to all animals? Can a horse trainer equally be a lion tamer? I say no. But, If we generalize Handle Animal and produce sub-skills therein (Horses, Lions, Dogs, etc.), we can say that a skill an be flexible contingent on another factor. What might that be? See below.
*Advancement - Should a character that makes little use of a certain skill advance the same as one who makes greater use? IMO, no. How do we progress then? This is where we are with our playtesting.
SUMMERY:
*Skills should be an optional, but in the basic package.
*The list should include general/specific skills (under different game types - fantasy, sci-fy, dark age, etc.) The ability score to represent should be flexible depending on the group (i.e. - Climb might be Str or Dex based or average of both).
*A skill that can be broken down into sub-skills can be adjudicated by ability score modifiers. Handle Animal (potentially based out of Cha) might cover one or more animal types based on modifier.
*Base Modifier - IMO the Skill Die works.
*Advancement - Feat based. All start with their (four?) skills (which may have subs, broadening variety) and beginning level Skill Die (d8?). Buy Skill advancement with feats - die increase, specialist, etc.)
Ummm...why not just keep it simple, ala the original 1st or second version of the AD&D game. I see it far too often that the issue is trying to be over complicated, or trying to overdefine the mechanics instead of the story. There were a bunch of additional appendices with the second edition that were there for DM's to utilize, so in essence i'd leave it up to them. Keep the system as it is, or was....
Because not everyone likes Vancian magic. I personally prefer spell points, because it provides a way to limit the power of spellcasters while, for me at least, it makes it a bit more fun to play as.
Lots of things were broken about it, but tons of people absolutely *loved* it anyway, because but made it practical to achieve all sorts of character concepts you could never have made otherwise. So if they can design an *optional* system that has built in mechanics for fixing game balance issues while still giving folks the things they love about having that flexibility, as far as I'm concerned, that's the best of both worlds. But already in Next, you can do a lot of things with...
View full commentLots of things were broken about it, but tons of people absolutely *loved* it anyway, because but made it practical to achieve all sorts of character concepts you could never have made otherwise. So if they can design an *optional* system that has built in mechanics for fixing game balance issues while still giving folks the things they love about having that flexibility, as far as I'm concerned, that's the best of both worlds.
But already in Next, you can do a lot of things with specialties that required multiclassing in 3e, so hopefully it will be much more rare, even when allowed.
Actually, with separate advancement rules for multiclass characters, it sounds like a compromise with hybrids -- much more flexible than just playing a hybrid (you many more degrees you can use to balance your mixture of classes), but much more level-scaled than 3E, which resembles a hybrid.
In my opinion, there are a few things the wrong with this gnoll; a) the little braids near the ear, need to go, this is, in a sense, a bipedal, humanoid hyena, so the ear hair, looks unnatural, b) they need to look dumb, but not like Quasimodo, the hunchback thing is weird and awkward, it needs to look hyena like, so have their back straighter, but give them sloping shoulders, c) their knees do not ALWAYS have to be bent, they are humanoids, so give them something that says 'feral' without...
View full commentIn my opinion, there are a few things the wrong with this gnoll; a) the little braids near the ear, need to go, this is, in a sense, a bipedal, humanoid hyena, so the ear hair, looks unnatural, b) they need to look dumb, but not like Quasimodo, the hunchback thing is weird and awkward, it needs to look hyena like, so have their back straighter, but give them sloping shoulders, c) their knees do not ALWAYS have to be bent, they are humanoids, so give them something that says 'feral' without saying 'unevolved' or 'underdeveloped', d) they need to be muscular, but not so bulky, they're hunters, not lumbering oafs, so their necks do not have to bee 4 feet in circumference, and lastly, e) their faces need to be a tad more humanoid, they should be distinctly hyena like, but not so much it looks like someone cut out a hyena head and stuck it on a body.
"This edition has to appeal to the largest number of people, which requires mass feedback." Gygax didn't do a mass playtest for OD&D. Or BD&D. AD&D, first or second edition. While 3e had a pretty broad playtest, it wasn't a mass playtest. All these editions are currently being hailed special or "true D&D" or the model for what D&D should be or what D&D Next should harken to or some such. All without mass playtests. But that aside, D&D Next isn't going...
View full comment"This edition has to appeal to the largest number of people, which requires mass feedback."
Gygax didn't do a mass playtest for OD&D. Or BD&D. AD&D, first or second edition. While 3e had a pretty broad playtest, it wasn't a mass playtest.
All these editions are currently being hailed special or "true D&D" or the model for what D&D should be or what D&D Next should harken to or some such. All without mass playtests.
But that aside, D&D Next isn't going to appeal to everyone. Already I'm seeing "grognards" - people at whom the edition is aimed - swearing off its because it includes elements which are necessary for other players to be interested in it. There's no mass consensus on issues - just a bunch of people telling each other what the game has to be like to be D&D. - John
I have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Essentials. Most of what I've heard since its release was that DMs should restrict their players to Essentials stuff because it's better balanced and each class doesn't feel so much the same. There wasn't much of a nostalgia feeling with it either. Also, Next isn't 'just being retro'. So far, it's just the core, so get over it and wait for some nice modules that do what you want to do. Lastly, I don't think that they're being...
View full commentI have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Essentials. Most of what I've heard since its release was that DMs should restrict their players to Essentials stuff because it's better balanced and each class doesn't feel so much the same. There wasn't much of a nostalgia feeling with it either.
Also, Next isn't 'just being retro'. So far, it's just the core, so get over it and wait for some nice modules that do what you want to do.
Lastly, I don't think that they're being secretive with us at all. The 'late summer' due date isn't them being mysterious and secretive, it's them simply being unsure. They didn't want to hurt us, the way they did with their initial estimate of the first week of July, if they ended up being a week or two later than an exact date.
For the poll, I don't actually use a DM screen. All dice are rolled in front of the players. I do however make random arbitrary rolls with zero meaning to throw them off. I add either excited or upset expressions (or the much loathed by my players - evil grin). This way they never truly know what the dice rolls are for except for attacks and the occasional skill check.
View full commentFor the poll, I don't actually use a DM screen. All dice are rolled in front of the players.
I do however make random arbitrary rolls with zero meaning to throw them off. I add either excited or upset expressions (or the much loathed by my players - evil grin).
This way they never truly know what the dice rolls are for except for attacks and the occasional skill check.
I thought I'd found the perfect dm dice shortcut: the d&d virtual table! I had all the characters and monsters pre-loaded, and the players at the table never knew I was doing anything different (other than much faster monster turns). Sadly that all ends after July. I can only hope the next version of d&d will have even better digital integration options.
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.
*Skills are vague in most cases - Looking at Perform (not a listed SKILL in this iteration as yet), obviously there are many types of performance (Dance, Oration, Acting, Painting, Sculpting, etc.). So it seems to me that a general Skill (ARTISTRY) can represent a sub-skill...
View full comment