Because the trope its generally trying to cater to is not a generic 'Protection' effect. Protection from Good/Evil/Neutrality was actually more of a Protection from the Supernatural effect. It generally didn't and never would affect non-magical beings, no matter what their alignment even in the 1e D&D game. Extraplanar creatures were effected, and they were classified by their alignments generally, because in 1e, among other things, there were distinct alignment planes of existence that...
View full commentBecause the trope its generally trying to cater to is not a generic 'Protection' effect. Protection from Good/Evil/Neutrality was actually more of a Protection from the Supernatural effect. It generally didn't and never would affect non-magical beings, no matter what their alignment even in the 1e D&D game. Extraplanar creatures were effected, and they were classified by their alignments generally, because in 1e, among other things, there were distinct alignment planes of existence that represented the various power sources of these extra planar creatures.
A generic 'Protection' spell could work, I guess, if you just said it protected you from 'Summoned and other worldly creatures and the Undead' and then you'd probably call it 'Circle of Protection' like many other games do. If your being chased by Good NPCs or Evil ones, the Protection spell shouldn't be the way to go anyway...based on what the spell really generally conceptually meant. Its like throwing down a circle of salt...any person can break that circle, but a Zombie can't cross!
they are looking like to fight with a big, strong and hurtful group. they are looking like a green cavemen with structure of a dwarf and a cruel orc face. the goblins that i know look more like to run away immidietly. to sum up, i like this goblins, but they are looking like an half green caveorc half green cavedwarf.
View full commentthey are looking like to fight with a big, strong and hurtful group. they are looking like a green cavemen with structure of a dwarf and a cruel orc face.
the goblins that i know look more like to run away immidietly.
to sum up, i like this goblins, but they are looking like an half green caveorc half green cavedwarf.
Not really a fan of the goblin at the top. Seems a little too thick and stocky through the trunk. His eyes are dull, and the face reminds me more of a sleepy orc (savage, but tired and dull). The eyes should be sharper, more clever. The sloping forehead is good, but the wide underbitten jaw screams orc. I'd rather see a pointy chin, and a face broadest at the temples. Almost elfin, just ugly. On the positives, I like the overall proportions. The almost monkey-like arms read well to...
View full commentNot really a fan of the goblin at the top. Seems a little too thick and stocky through the trunk. His eyes are dull, and the face reminds me more of a sleepy orc (savage, but tired and dull). The eyes should be sharper, more clever. The sloping forehead is good, but the wide underbitten jaw screams orc. I'd rather see a pointy chin, and a face broadest at the temples. Almost elfin, just ugly.
On the positives, I like the overall proportions. The almost monkey-like arms read well to me. As I said before, I'd narrow the trunk a bit. I definitely like the push for a more defined culture, too.
Posture, the goblin seems a little too orc-like. I'd like to see him standing a bit straighter, more like the sketch in the bottom left (though the overly skinny legs of that sketch makes me read the goblin as being comic relief-fodder).
So, for me, a good start, but there's still a ways to go.
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
Uhg. Nuts! In the future I will endeavor to READ the published rules a little bit better before putting up posts. Sorry. The bit with the hobgoblins getting a +2 to AC rather than pcs attacking with disadvantage is right there in the "cover" section for half cover. Seems like I made the same call the developers would, but it creates a new, perhaps tougher, question. 5th ed still uses a form of the +/- system, not A/D exclusively. So what will the difference be between gaining a +/- to a...
View full commentUhg. Nuts! In the future I will endeavor to READ the published rules a little bit better before putting up posts. Sorry.
The bit with the hobgoblins getting a +2 to AC rather than pcs attacking with disadvantage is right there in the "cover" section for half cover. Seems like I made the same call the developers would, but it creates a new, perhaps tougher, question. 5th ed still uses a form of the +/- system, not A/D exclusively. So what will the difference be between gaining a +/- to a roll vs gaining A/D? Is it a more extreme situation than a +/-4 or 5? Or simply something more random than a straight +/- suggests? Example: Cover 1/2=+2AC, 3/4=+5AC, invisible=A/D. There is much back and forth between when one or the other is used. I can see where that could lead to confusion among the players/dm.
IDK guys. The more I read about and playtest with A/D system the more skeptical I become. I like the concept, but it was easier for me to just slap a +/-2 (or 4 or whatever) on the roll and go with it.
This is... very awesome. I like the idea of moves you activate when needed. You don't necessarily have to risk wasting a daily power when you might miss, you can just follow up a successful strike with an opportunistic combo. It also clearly separates the fighter's fighting mechanic from the wizard's casting mechanic, which is always activated daily-power style (with a few exceptions, like Feather Fall).
"We thought about casting minor spells as the kind of thing a wizard might use around a laboratory that also happened to be useful in a fight. For example, a cantrip used to ignite a torch could also burn a goblin. At the last minute, however, we decided that trying to make that design work would take too long to hit this playtest." - M.Mearls This is what I expect from DnDNext. Original ideas that may or may not work, but sound awesome. Give us the chance to playtest it and find out if...
View full comment"We thought about casting minor spells as the kind of thing a wizard might use around a laboratory that also happened to be useful in a fight. For example, a cantrip used to ignite a torch could also burn a goblin. At the last minute, however, we decided that trying to make that design work would take too long to hit this playtest." - M.Mearls
This is what I expect from DnDNext. Original ideas that may or may not work, but sound awesome. Give us the chance to playtest it and find out if it does or not. The rest of the article I have likes and dislikes about.
The monsters in D&D Next are bland. But, hey, we are just starting out. I have regularly added an ability or two to monsters to keep them from just being sources of damage. The Monsters in 4th Ed. are better because they where not just a Goblin, but many types of Goblins, each with their own special powers and abilities. With Pathfinder, you can add classes to monsters, but that does take time and is hard to run off the cuff. It is easy to add powers to monster in 4th Ed. My suggestion would be...
View full commentThe monsters in D&D Next are bland. But, hey, we are just starting out. I have regularly added an ability or two to monsters to keep them from just being sources of damage. The Monsters in 4th Ed. are better because they where not just a Goblin, but many types of Goblins, each with their own special powers and abilities. With Pathfinder, you can add classes to monsters, but that does take time and is hard to run off the cuff. It is easy to add powers to monster in 4th Ed. My suggestion would be have a base monster with a number of examples of special abilitys that follow with their culture and mannerisms. Have goblins that snipe, sneak and/or backstab. Have Gnolls that go berzerk, use vile poisons and/or have demonic gifts. Each power would have an XP kicker if needed.
Oh, one more thing. I keep seeing comments like "The DM should just add or alter whatever they want". That is true and a good philosphy. But, if DMs are just supposed to make it up themselves, then why have a rulebook? And how are the players supposed to have any idea what to expect?
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.
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.
I like concept A the best. The other examples don't show enough 'bear'. See also Curse of the Asure bonds - my original introduction to owlbears. www.gamebanshee.com/curseoftheazurebonds...
I like the anatomy and the "mammal snout" of the second design but the exposed skull looks too wrock. While I always though of it as a creature of mystical (almost fey) origin it also was clear to me that it is "of the forest". I might be totally wrong. The skin on the legs and feathers on the body should feel to the touch like an owl but the feathers and pigmentation of the skin should look different in each forest depending on foliage and season. Thinking of this I wouldn't be...
View full commentI like the anatomy and the "mammal snout" of the second design but the exposed skull looks too wrock.
While I always though of it as a creature of mystical (almost fey) origin it also was clear to me that it is "of the forest". I might be totally wrong.
The skin on the legs and feathers on the body should feel to the touch like an owl but the feathers and pigmentation of the skin should look different in each forest depending on foliage and season. Thinking of this I wouldn't be surprised to know that they shed their feathers as the seasons change ("Winter-shade owlbear feather" sounds like a ritual-component), white/blackish/brown for winter, shiny-deep green/brown/gray in spring, deep bluish green most of the year (maybe the vivid color of a local flower at the "owl-ears" feathers).
The "wing" (or better the feather cape descending from the arms) gets longer with age and it gets somewhat longer for females tending the offspring (Imagine a mother owlbear covering 2-3 chick-pups with her blanket of feathers).
As for the color of the eyes gold-brown during the day and almost glowing silver with a faint bluish hue during the night.
See the claws on the front paws as very short mostly straight mining picks, ideal to dig frozen soil or to break armor plates. The hind claws I would describe as hooks (a bit thicker/sturdier than owl-claws) which help to climb trees... or just imagine a specimen leap-grabbing onto a poor soul and charging forward on his arms while pulling the victim over roots, branches & rocks.
But of course it is a omnivore (surely any forest would lose its fauna to a fit "predator" like this), and so I think that the pointy "snout" - with a line teeth that looks almost human ones sorted into a two triangles - serves to dig up fungi and insects /this also implies an acute sense of smell/.
The roots of a tree plagued by fungal-infection could serve as nest. The owlbear would get food and tree would get saved.
If we are headed down a thematic route for feats both the separate types and the one feat gives all benefits aproach could fit. Maybe as said below feats need to move away from single mechanic bonuses and encompass a broader effect with multiple bonuses to all aspects of the game. This may mean fewer feats but there could be variations on a feat to give slightly different bonuses and add more flavour to the characters.
I definately like separating the combat bonuses from the other types of bonuses. Having feats focus on combat, while things like backgrounds and "traits" can handle other types of benefits sounds like it will allow players the ability to choose things that they would like their character to have without worrying about lagging behind in combat.
I'm a guy. I like pretty women. But all these bikini-clad or bare-midriff adventurers are ridiculous. It makes NO SENSE. It breaks immersion. And it makes it that much harder for many girls or young women to find D&D approachable. Also, as a guy who likes playing funny characters, I think the occasional funny-looking guy or gal is perfectly appropriate. D&D is about adventure, but there should be room for other elements, and one of those is humor. Don't make D&D so...
View full commentI'm a guy. I like pretty women. But all these bikini-clad or bare-midriff adventurers are ridiculous. It makes NO SENSE. It breaks immersion. And it makes it that much harder for many girls or young women to find D&D approachable.
Also, as a guy who likes playing funny characters, I think the occasional funny-looking guy or gal is perfectly appropriate. D&D is about adventure, but there should be room for other elements, and one of those is humor.
Don't make D&D so 1-dimensional (or even 2-dimensional). Leave some room in it for the real world to creep in, where sometimes you fall in love with the average-looking but wonderful girl...
It might make no sense to you, but it is a truth I've seen. Even if combat isn't the focus, it is the type of element that when it does come into play, it ends up getting involved with all other elments. In a high role-play game, you have to be able to role-play while in the midst of battle, but if the combat rules aren't fleshed out well, then the role-play can't mesh with the combat and it becomes a mess...if there is NEVER combat, then maybe you don't have to worry about the combat rules, but...
View full commentIt might make no sense to you, but it is a truth I've seen. Even if combat isn't the focus, it is the type of element that when it does come into play, it ends up getting involved with all other elments. In a high role-play game, you have to be able to role-play while in the midst of battle, but if the combat rules aren't fleshed out well, then the role-play can't mesh with the combat and it becomes a mess...if there is NEVER combat, then maybe you don't have to worry about the combat rules, but if there is any combat, you should consider it carefully. Now, D&D is working on the 3 pillars as all being foci in the upcoming game, and that being the case, a well oiled and complete as can be combat system is absolutely essential to the smooth operation of the game, until/unless you happen to be running a completely No combat whatsoever type of scenario.
Other rules elements don't play well with combat if combat is on the fly and loosely explained, however, if combat is set like a well oiled engine, than it can be worked with and anticipated for, and used as a platform for all the other aspects of the game. Good, well thought out combat rules actually aid in the ability to role-play, because if they are at their best, they fade to the background and you don't have to overthink them to do the job!
"I don't want Skill Challenges, I thought they just turned out of combat into combat by another name." It's funny, because I found they didn't make out-of-combat challenges *enough* like combat! Not that I want any direct analogue to the combat system, here - it should feel different in any number of ways - but I don't just want a series of die rolls. I've written more extensively on the Forums about this, but I think the main things "missing" from non-combat action - in all editions...
View full comment"I don't want Skill Challenges, I thought they just turned out of combat into combat by another name."
It's funny, because I found they didn't make out-of-combat challenges *enough* like combat! Not that I want any direct analogue to the combat system, here - it should feel different in any number of ways - but I don't just want a series of die rolls.
I've written more extensively on the Forums about this, but I think the main things "missing" from non-combat action - in all editions of D&D, actually - are:
1) Active opponents. In combat, the "monsters" are busy doing stuff to foil the characters, and this adds interest and often excitement. I want some more structured ways for NPCs to take an active role (but a defined one, one that the players understand the "language" for, not a hand-wavey arbitrary one) in the situation.
2) "Terrain". I'm not talking about literal geography, necessarily (although exploration challenges will use that, possibly crossing over with the combat system at this point). But things like groups, cabals, cliques, social superiority and inferiority (and changing them), and traditions and mores that form the expectations of behaviour in any society.
3) Social "area effects". Things like the way ideas and opinions move around the "social geography", affecting decisions just as surely as logical argument or debate. Rumours and their propagation.
Having the character abilities is all very well, but unless you have some language to describe the "landscape" that they act upon, you don't really have a "system".
One thing about #6 that I find strange is the notion of "If the fighter can get close, the wizard's dead." That seems to be the angry old-school consensus, along with the related "If the wizard can keep the fighter at a distance, the fighter is dead." Whatever happened to "I ready my bow and shoot him in his eye"? Why should a fighter's ranged attacks be less deadly than his up close ones, if he is truly versatile (#4 above). I admit, I do love the idea of balance across classes so I never...
View full commentOne thing about #6 that I find strange is the notion of "If the fighter can get close, the wizard's dead." That seems to be the angry old-school consensus, along with the related "If the wizard can keep the fighter at a distance, the fighter is dead." Whatever happened to "I ready my bow and shoot him in his eye"? Why should a fighter's ranged attacks be less deadly than his up close ones, if he is truly versatile (#4 above). I admit, I do love the idea of balance across classes so I never feel like my class was a bad choice unless I'm the one playing it badly. I don't want to be the wizard's caddie at high level anymore than I want to be his mommy at low level. I want him by my side, being awesome while I do the same. Our jobs aren't exactly the same, but I want to feel cool while I do mine and clap and yell encouragement as he does his. I very much loved the roles of different classes, and hoped that they would expand on that idea across classes. I wanted a wizard defender who wasn't a swordmage but instead used magic to up his defenses, who tanked the demon prince while wearing a dress and flip-flops, armed with a stick and a headful of hoodoo. One of the failings of 4th ed is they have never hammered out the martial idea enough to come up with a really good, solid martial controller. They took the idea of martial meaning "no magic at all" too far and painted themselves into a corner.
I actually totally agree a high level fighter should be able to hit a wizard with a bow attack, its just that on average arrows do less damage than heavy weapons since you don't get your str bonus unless you have a special bow, and this would mean it takes 3 or 4 rounds of arrows (whatever) to take down the wizard outright, giving the wizard hope of escape (teleport). I posted the earlier comment purely in response to #6 above suggesting that a high level fighter should be close to immune to a...
View full commentI actually totally agree a high level fighter should be able to hit a wizard with a bow attack, its just that on average arrows do less damage than heavy weapons since you don't get your str bonus unless you have a special bow, and this would mean it takes 3 or 4 rounds of arrows (whatever) to take down the wizard outright, giving the wizard hope of escape (teleport). I posted the earlier comment purely in response to #6 above suggesting that a high level fighter should be close to immune to a full assault of a high level wizard. I actually don't think of PC vs PC contests much when I play. I love playing wizards and I love playing barbarians, pretty much the two extremes role wise. I worry less about balance and more about fun.
I like the idea of limited self healing as it helps the flow of the game. If after every fight the party has to rest for 8 hrs nothing would ever get done or every subsequent fight gets more and more deadly, especially if the adventure has time constraints. It should not be during combat, that is the clerics job or get potions. The Playtest idea is great but may need further scaling if it works out too powerful.
I feel very strongly that the level of healing generally being discussed trashes the 4th wall. Magic allows for a lot of leeway in modelling, but without magic, healing should take place at a rate akin to reality- or at least no better than a typical action film. I hope you create an optional modular rule doing this, because for those gamers that left at the introduction of 4th ed, I think this is probably the largest issue. Imagine in real life (doesn't matter if you are the toughest person...
View full commentI feel very strongly that the level of healing generally being discussed trashes the 4th wall. Magic allows for a lot of leeway in modelling, but without magic, healing should take place at a rate akin to reality- or at least no better than a typical action film. I hope you create an optional modular rule doing this, because for those gamers that left at the introduction of 4th ed, I think this is probably the largest issue. Imagine in real life (doesn't matter if you are the toughest person on earth or a wimpy couch potato), getting beaten down to "one hit point," taking a 10 minute rest to apply antibiotic, band-aids, etc., and being all better, then having the beating immediately resume and again lowering you to 1 hp. This time you go to bed for 6 hours, take a couple hours to shower, relax, and eat breakfast before going back for more of the same, again taking 10 minutes to apply some quick first aid before driving off to work, fit as a fiddle.
Obviously the characters are heroic and the rules will be more generous than real life, but when the above example is actually the one where you didn't get really luck when rolling your hit dice for healing, the system threatens to become more board-game than RPG. Sorry if that was a bit scathing, but I like SO MUCH of the playtesting material that the bad bits stand out even more.
Hello My name is Kine, It's my pleasure to write you today after viewing your profile on this website , i just want to say hello and how was your day? Well, i will like to known little more about you, and also i want to tell you more about my self, please i will be very happy if can reply me via my email address, so that we can move further for knowing each other (kinemabou@yahoo.com) I will be waiting for your...
View full commentHello
My name is Kine, It's my pleasure to write you today after viewing your profile on this website , i just want to say hello and how was your day? Well, i will like to known little more about you, and also i want to tell you more about my self,
please i will be very happy if can reply me via my email address, so that we can move further for knowing each other (kinemabou@yahoo.com) I will be waiting for your response,
Thanks Yours
Kine.
(kinemabou @ yahoo.com)
View full comment