Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests! [Archive] - Page 3

Talakeal

2012-05-20, 08:52 PM

In his monk example, if he had inflicted 100 points of damage over the course of the fight, a +2 bonus to hit would mean he would have inflicted 166 points instead. Not 110.

Exactly.

Now, I used the monk example because it was an actual situation that actually happened in a game I played where a +2 bonus to hit turned a difficulty fight into an easy fight. It was a demonstration of the principal that I am describing, and a real one, not one that happens on a theoretical game board where 2 fighters battle each other, identical in every way and needing a 20 to hit.

The actual increase in success rate (or reduction of failure rate) of a +2 bonus is at MINIMUM 10%, is usually around 20%, and can be as high 200%. If you don't believe me play it out and tally up successes or victories for two characters. As long as both characters succeed on something between 3-20 (i.e. can make use of a +2 bonus) the character with the +2 bonus will always come out more than 10% ahead of the character without, assuming you have a sample size large enough to iron out the randomness.

It is more useful to note by how many points your DPR increases, because as Saph stated, if your DPR is low (e.g. 2) then increasing it by 300% is still not going to accomplish much.

Not so coincidentally, a 10% (+2) bonus increases your DPR by 10% of the average damage you do on a hit. That's a clear and accurate figure, and more useful than a series of "if you happened to hit on an X, now Y happens".

Really, using a fighter who hits on a 19+ as an example is misleading, because (1) nobody who knows what they're doing plays characters like that, (2) in 4E at least, the math ensures this never happens in normal gameplay, and (3) if you do only hit on a 19+ your character got more fundamental issues than can be solved by a +2 bonus.

I agree a 19+ fighter is a misleading example. However, the 10% figure is only accurate for a fighter who hits on a 10% and is equally misleading. An average character who hits on an 11 would see a 20% increase in effectiveness from a +2 bonus, and I imagine that would be a more accurate baseline if your goal is to give someone a general impression that is not misleading.

My statement was not, however, that a +2 bonus did equal a certain level of increase, my claim was that a +2 bonus is AT LEAST +10%, and can be as high as a +200% increase in success rate.

It frankly is boggling my mind that people are still arguing this. Imagine real world applications of this math: If hospital A had a 1% fatality rate for patients and hospital B had a 2% fatality rate for patients you would say that patiens are twice as likely to die at hospital B, and would thus do your damndest to make sure your loved ones were sent there, you would not say "patients are only 1% more likely to die at hospital B, so the difference is miniscule".

The 10% is the most accurate figure, to be honest. Saying that you're "doubling your chances to hit" or "halving your chance to hit" reminds me of the joke of the guy who resells lottery tickets for half price and argues that they're a bargain because they're half the cost and yet the chance of winning is only one in ten million less.

I think you are actually contradicting yourself with this analogy.

Using my logic a lottery ticket with a 1/10,00,000 chance to win is infintetely more valuable than a lottery ticket with a 0% chance to win, and therefore half of is not a bargain.
Using your logic, a lottery ticket with a 0% chance to win is only .0000001% less valuable than one with 1/10,000,000 chance to win, and thus a half price ticket would be a bargain.

Now, if your point was simply that a small bonus is irrelevant when the variable is so large, I might aree with you about lottery tickets where the odds a 10,000,000.1 against, but D&D is played with a d20, and the smallest variable possible is 5%, which is 500,000 times less negligable.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-21, 02:10 AM

Your kinda using flawed logic. Saying that it gives larger bonuses in the long run ignores that its giving small bonuses each time.

If I have a large bonus the long run bonus is huge and my short term bonus is big.

In a hospital with a 1% mortality rate= 1000 people dead per 99000. My life depends on that.

Its like I was in a job that promised that for the next raise they where going to raise my profits by 200% when I only earned a dollar a day. Its still miniscule.

Thats different then D&D, where I may roll a die about....20 times total per 5 hours. And if only accounting combat thats about 10 at best. So that means that it would effect my dice rolling effectively once per 5 hours. Thats a measly advantage.

edit:

Also 3 days until public playtest.

I find myself apathetic to the whole ordeal.

Talakeal

2012-05-21, 04:40 AM

Its like I was in a job that promised that for the next raise they where going to raise my profits by 200% when I only earned a dollar a day. Its still miniscule.

Well, it may seem miniscule to you (and to me), but the difference between one dollar a day and two dollars a day could easilly mean the difference between life and death if that is your only means of income and starvation is always around the corner.

I don't see how your post demonstrates why my logic is flawed, you are simply stating that you don't roll a lot of dice and therefore swingy randomness is more important to you than a mathematically significant increase in success rate which is greater than 10%, and that your characters actions were, apparently, not very important in the first place.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-21, 04:43 AM

Hmmm. I was wrong in saying your logic is flawed. Your logic is different.

Your a glass half full kinda guy. Or maybe a penny collector. I donno.

For me, I prefer a greater then a +2 bonus to determine whether or not im skilled at a skill or not.

Kurald Galain

2012-05-21, 04:55 AM

The point is that while hypothetically, in some rare theoretical cases, a +2 bonus may triple your effectiveness, in practice it will make a difference one roll out of ten, on average.

That means that if combat lasts five rounds and you make one attack roll per round, the +2 will make a difference once every two combats. That's nice for sure, but it's not mandatory, huge, insane, or any of the other superlatives commonly applied to small bonuses. The funny thing here is that the math (1d20 + bonus >= defense) is exactly the same between 3E and 4E; and yet all 3E players know that "+1 to hit" is just not a very good feat, and most 4E players call the very same feat extremely powerful.

For skill checks? Well, suppose you roll a check on a particular skill twice per session, then the much-vaunted +2 bonus will make a difference once every five gaming sessions. Since 5E suggests that being trained in a skill adds only +2, that means that in actual gameplay, you're unlikely to notice the difference between who's trained in some skill and who's not.

Saph

2012-05-21, 04:58 AM

t frankly is boggling my mind that people are still arguing this. Imagine real world applications of this math: If hospital A had a 1% fatality rate for patients and hospital B had a 2% fatality rate for patients you would say that patiens are twice as likely to die at hospital B, and would thus do your damndest to make sure your loved ones were sent there, you would not say "patients are only 1% more likely to die at hospital B, so the difference is miniscule".

You're confusing emotion with statistics. Just because the result is something you care about doesn't change the fact that there's a 99% chance that the difference will be irrelevant.

We've already established that a 10% difference can make a difference: we've also established that on any individual roll the odds are 9 in 10 that it won't (and trying to frame it in terms of "doubling the chance of success" is useless, because you don't know WHAT's being doubled).

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-21, 05:06 AM

Guys: I have found the way to balance the Fighter and the Wizard:

I have found one of the best Fighter/ Wizard balance examples in media:

Adventure time. Hell yes. If we think as fin as a fighter and jake as the wizard (And tone down jakes powers a wee bit) we get perfect balance.

Jake is capable doing of lots of impressive feats, and lots of vertisality, yet finn is capable of doing amazing feats both defensively and offensively:

Dads dungeon is a great example of Finns offensive capabilities (Ripping a chained up sword from stone and then using it to kill a giant demon is a higlight)

He was able to resist mind control from the lich himself

In "My Way" Finn defensive capabilities are shown:

He walks through a thorn bush and doesn't even mention it later, then SWATS AWAY RAPID ACIDIC RIVER WITH A BUSH, then rips off a Cyclopses head and carries it around with him without even a blink.

High fantasy without resorting to TOB.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-05-21, 05:17 AM

Guys: I have found the way to balance the Fighter and the Wizard:

I have found one of the best Fighter/ Wizard balance examples in media:

Adventure time.

Nah, Jake's obviously a druid/warshaper, not a wizard--he stays in wild-shape all the time, stretches his form more often than actually changing shape, and has a pet fighter as a class feature. :smallwink:

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-21, 05:18 AM

Well you know what I meant. There are builds for shapeshifting wizards.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-05-21, 06:10 AM

Well you know what I meant. There are builds for shapeshifting wizards.

Yes, I know. And it's a neat idea, actually; the old "Hercules is low level, Beowulf is mid level, Cú Chulainn" example is useful for explaining relative fighter power with level, but having a character you can point to who more people are familiar with and people probably like more would certainly open up lots of ideas for giving fighters Nice Things.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-21, 06:19 AM

Thats how Im structuring my skills:

Epic level Skills are continent jumping, mind controlling people cause your just THAT good at talking, scaring armies, crafting legendary items taming animal spirit guardians ect.

Talakeal

2012-05-21, 06:30 AM

Hmmm. I was wrong in saying your logic is flawed. Your logic is different.

You’re a glass half full kinda guy. Or maybe a penny collector. I donno.

For me, I prefer a greater then a +2 bonus to determine whether or not im skilled at a skill or not.

Oh I agree with you 100% there. +2 is a great perk, but it falls far short of representing full training. If the only difference between trained and untrained is +2 I am going to be extremely disappointed with the game.

You're confusing emotion with statistics. Just because the result is something you care about doesn't change the fact that there's a 99% chance that the difference will be irrelevant.

We've already established that a 10% difference can make a difference: we've also established that on any individual roll the odds are 9 in 10 that it won't (and trying to frame it in terms of "doubling the chance of success" is useless, because you don't know WHAT's being doubled).

It doesn't have to be something emotional or important. The hospital is just an example to show how blatantly wrong the statement would be if it appeared in an important real life context.

It can be ANYTHING.

A guy who makes a mistake at work every 50 days makes twice as many mistakes as a guy who makes a mistake every 100 days not 1% more.
A road which is patrolled by cops 2% of the time vs. 1% of the time means you are twice as likely to get a ticket when you speed, not 1% more.
A pen that leaks 1% of the time is only half as likely to get ink on you as a pen that leaks 2% of the time.

If something occurs twice as often as something else, it has a 100% increase in frequency, regardless of how rare or how common the events are in absolute terms. Saying that a 2% rate is only a 1% increase over a 1% rate is objectively false, it is a 100% increase, not a 2% increase. It doesn't matter if it is absolutely trivial or a matter of life and death, the mathematical relationship is the same.

Also, what do you mean you don't know WHAT's being doubled? Are you saying that it is meaningless because you don't know the target number in a vacuum? If so I agree, which is why I said you should use a range of 10%-300%, or if you wanted to use the average 20% rather than the 10% you keep throwing about which is only a correct increase in success rate 5% of the time (when you needed a natural 3 to begin with).

And once again I AGREE that there is only a 10% chance of the +2 bonus coming up on any single dice roll, and I wouldn't worry scrounging around for a one time +2 bonus unless it was something vital, or I just wanted to remove the possibility of failure entirely because I already succeeded on a 3.
What I am arguing is that a consistent +2 modifier means a character has, on average, a 20% increase in overall success rate, and depending on the situation might have as much as a 200% increase in overall success rate.

{Scrubbed}

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-21, 06:39 AM

Again, your logic here is different. Your both right.

Its an increase by 1 percent in total yet its a doubling (100% increase) of the previous value. My chances of living increases only by 1% yet its a 100% increase from my previous value.

Your also yelling how everybody else is ignorant of maths. This leads to a dark path mate.

lesser_minion

2012-05-21, 07:35 AM

In his monk example, if he had inflicted 100 points of damage over the course of the fight, a +2 bonus to hit would mean he would have inflicted 166 points instead. Not 110.

The 10% is the number of hits you score that can be attributed to a +2 bonus. If you want to know what it does to your damage, you don't increase your expected damage by 10% of what it was before, you add 10% of your expected damage per hit.

Nobody's said that you're dealing 10% more damage, what we've said is that it's not helpful to calculate what fraction of additional damage you're dealing. "I deal 66% more damage" is not bad maths, and there's no "mathematical proof" that a +2 bonus isn't very big, because it can be. However, in this particular discussion, it is bad statistics, because it's not helpful -- right off the bat, you have to start making assumptions about what people will need to roll in order to pass a skill check without the background bonus.

The figure "I get 66% more damage with this bonus" can be useful if you can easily derive similar figures for different options to compare it to -- for example:

You can deal 200% more damage if you kite the barbarian until his rage expires. More, in fact, because he will deal less damage and have lower AC while fatigued.
Using the bonus to offset the penalty for a flurry of blows gives you 100% more damage (assuming that each character only gets one attack).

However, if you simply want to know who has the advantage out of two melee combatants, it's not so useful.

2xMachina

2012-05-21, 07:43 AM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Say the ticket problem.

If you speed there 100 times, you get 1 extra ticket when they patrol at 2%. It's double the ticket you'd get, yes, but also, only an extra 1/100 ticket every time you speed there.

Both are true, but different ways to say the same thing.

It's not much difference IMO, and would easily be missed due to randomness. (The increase in tickets due to going from 1% to 2% I mean)

Clawhound

2012-05-21, 08:36 AM

We also deal with multiple bonuses. The more bonuses, the more that they add up to something big.

+2 is minor. +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 is significant.

So bonuses by themselves are minor, but taken all together, are pretty major.

I'm hoping for far fewer bonuses for the next version just to stomp on this bonus mania. I would like to see:

Level Bonus + Ability Bonus + Situation Bonuses/Penalties + Other (non-stacking).

Your Level + Ability should always drive the large chunk of your effective bonuses. Everything else should help but never replace the importance of your primary bonuses.

It might be good to even remove Ability from the attack/success bonus. You would still get a bonus to effect (damage or duration or whatever). That makes class/situation bonuses that much more important. In an RPG, you really want situation bonuses. That's where the game is. That's where players think out of the box and have fun.

lesser_minion

2012-05-21, 08:51 AM

We also deal with multiple bonuses. The more bonuses, the more that they add up to something big.

Correct. It may be worth having that +2 if there are three or four other +2s you can get to complement it.

Kurald Galain

2012-05-21, 09:01 AM

So bonuses by themselves are minor, but taken all together, are pretty major.

I'm hoping for far fewer bonuses for the next version just to stomp on this bonus mania.

I fully agree to both.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-21, 09:16 AM

So that means that skills would no change much as you advance through levels.

If you could jump a ledge before you can jump it later and maybe a little bit extra.

Clawhound

2012-05-21, 09:43 AM

So that means that skills would no change much as you advance through levels.

If you could jump a ledge before you can jump it later and maybe a little bit extra.

I think that would be a good thing. Skill would then do more of what they need to do out of the box, and having the wrong person at the wrong level would mean far less.

Now, how you can add value to the skill as you level? That's a good question. Maybe just schedule in things by level.

Level 1: You can jump 5 feet and land on a good ledge.
Level 5: You can jump 10 feet and land on narrow ledge.
Level 10: You can jump 15 and land onto the barest sliver of a ledge.

You can see what I'm getting at, I hope. There are more ways to add values to skills other than bigger numbers. This would also help non-magic types be fantastic.

Athletics:
10 x Your Strength X Your Level

So a 10th level fighter could lift 180 lbs at 1st level. (That's mighty strong). He could lift 1,800 lbs at 10th level. That's nearly a ton, and certainly fantastic without resorting to magic.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-21, 09:52 AM

Here is another problem:

Fly.

Im actually embracing number creap madness because it allows the fighter to keep up with the wizard by simply being THAT good at something that it borders on magic.

Like jumping to another continent.

Your athletics solution sounds...OK. but you havent really solved number madness. You have just simplified it. So instead of dozens of stacking bonuses you get 3 that are just huge per level.

This can be easily achieved with skill-points.

navar100

2012-05-21, 12:21 PM

I'm hoping for far fewer bonuses for the next version just to stomp on this bonus mania. I would like to see:

Level Bonus + Ability Bonus + Situation Bonuses/Penalties + Other (non-stacking).

Your Level + Ability should always drive the large chunk of your effective bonuses. Everything else should help but never replace the importance of your primary bonuses.

It might be good to even remove Ability from the attack/success bonus. You would still get a bonus to effect (damage or duration or whatever). That makes class/situation bonuses that much more important. In an RPG, you really want situation bonuses. That's where the game is. That's where players think out of the box and have fun.

I wouldn't want it to be like 4E's version of this where skill bonus is almost meaningless because relative percentages never change. In 4E a DC for some task is set based on the level of the character as opposed to the difficulty of the actual task, to retain the "challenge". As I often like to give as an example, if swinging on a chandelier is DC 20 at 1st level, 4E would make it DC 30 at 10th level, DC 40 at 20th level or some such. The chandelier doesn't know the level of the character trying to swing on it. If it's DC 20 at 1st level, it should always be DC 20 regardless of level. If that means a 10th level character will always succeed, then so be it. He is just that good.

I had also included my dislike for this 4E paradigm in opposed rolls, but I suppose I really shouldn't. Given my opponent of equal level, his level bonus would and should counteract my level bonus because we're both just that good. I have an advantage against an opponent of lower level and a disadvantage against an opponent of higher level. From this perspective, my level bonus being equal to a monster's level/HD bonus means I've earned to be worthy of a fair chance to defeat that particular monster. I can accept that, but I'm still against the idea of a defined set task arbitrarily being given a DC because of my level. I want it at one set DC and my character be just that good to auto-succeed at some level when the math permits.

Edit: Diplomacy makes a mess of this. If we're a 5th level party talking to a 5th level Aristocrat Duke, we have our level bonus to Diplomacy to talk to the Duke on even scale. However, if we're a 20th level party talking to that same Duke, our level bonus overwhelms. It breaks verisimilitude the Duke is suddenly 20 HD, and it would violate my objection to just arbitrarily increase the DC because of our level, even if an opposed roll. This would mean level bonus can't be used for Diplomacy and perhaps all social skills (Bluff, Intimidate).

Crow

2012-05-21, 12:53 PM

50Copper

2012-05-21, 01:10 PM

The beta is coming out soon, and it looks as though I'll be attempting a playthrough of it. I'm not sure what classes are available, or what I'll end up playing, but I will be providing a review of my experiences as a player.

I will be unbiased. Either A) It turns out to be a better game than all of the previews, designers, and, indeed, common sense indicate possible, and thus, greater than the sum of its parts, or B) I'm fair to it, it's as bad as I thought, and that'll be absolutely damning.

I'll post it here, because why the hell not?

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-21, 01:11 PM

Thats not the idea. I just like knowing what im good at. I like DM interaction. I just like a system to help with my immersion.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-21, 01:17 PM

Clawhound

2012-05-21, 01:45 PM

I sorta see it this way:

- Most folks are generally skilled at most things
- Some folks get far better results

So, if most skills are just ability checks, there's no need for the DCs to change over the levels. Thus, you avoid the problem of breaking verisimilitude.

What does change is how those skills act. Anyone could try to pursued the Duke. They might succeed. Someone trained in Diplomacy could get said Duke to take risks where otherwise wouldn't, or trained in Lying, even bamboozle him all together.

Thus, a Paladin, a Bard, and a Thief all have high Charisma. The Paladin talks pursuedes based on evidence. The Bard sweet talks his target. The Thief intimidates his target. Same ability score. Same social interaction. Yet, they play out differently. And THAT's what I think is important. The same skills for different characters play out differently.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-21, 01:49 PM

But again: The problem is that at higher levels a wizard charms the duke into just saying yes.

If Im a god level fighter then I can expect some god level abilities.

Draz74

2012-05-21, 01:56 PM

New L&L Article (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120521) on Hit Points and Hit Dice is up.

It pretty much avoids saying anything interesting, though. I was hoping it would talk about the new 5e design that they've mentioned in passing a couple times, where attack bonuses and AC scale very little (or not at all!) with level, but HP and damage scale a lot with level. That is one of the more interesting things 5e news has said to date. But there's nothing about that in the article.

In fact, the article pretty much just says three things:

They're explicitly embracing the fluff that HP represent physical toughness and ability to turn a nasty blow into a glancing blow and plot armor. Not really revolutionary, but maybe the fact that they're acknowledging it openly means they'll implement this abstraction better than in past editions. (E.g. by making it so healing magic is more effective on high-level creatures than on low-level creatures, in terms of sheer quantity of HP.)
They're keeping the "bloodied" condition from 4e, although probably under a different name. Meh. It's not really a mechanic I'm fond of, but it's not the worst thing ever, either.
They're converting the sacred cow of "Hit Dice" (e.g. d10 for the fighter) into the new version of Healing Surges. Which, by implication, seems to indicate that they'll be adopting the 4e policy of "Hit Dice" not being used to determine new HP on level-up. Which is fine by me. They don't really give enough details about this new mechanic for me to form an opinion on whether it will be well done. Although I am a little annoyed that they've bumped the Wizard and the Rogue up to d6 and d8, respectively. (But maybe that's just me clinging to another sacred cow.)

I'm hoping for far fewer bonuses for the next version just to stomp on this bonus mania.
Amen, amen. Although actually, I don't mind lots of stacking bonuses as long as they're permanent things that you can write on your character sheet and never think about again (until you level up). It's temporary and situational bonuses that really drive me up a wall. ("The power the Cleric used gives you a +1 bonus to your attack rolls for one round, or +3 against undead!" :smallyuk:)

Which is why the "flagship initiative" of my own homebrew system is to get rid of such things ...

I can't understand why you'd consider this preferable. Skills are already somewhat marginalized in D&D...I see no reason to make this more combat centric. Plus, I rather *like* people having differing levels of skill rather than a binary system. It makes a great deal of sense.
Very much agreed.

People around here prefer less (not more) dm interaction for the most part.

Well, if I might defend that school of game design thought for a moment ... there are two essential situations here. One in which you have a masterful DM, a skilled storyteller who has a talent for weaving drama and legend ... and the other, where some shmuck at your table is doing his best to show you a good time, even if he's lacking in either the talent or the experience to be a master.

In the first situation, more "complete" rulesets are still a good thing, because they allow the DM to shift his focus from the nitty-gritty mechanics of the game to the real drama. Yes, you have less "DM interaction" when he plays the social encounter with the marketplace weaponsmith by RAW, rather than roleplaying out the whole encounter. But that's ok, because while he was letting the dice do the job for him for a few minutes, in his mind he was figuring out a REALLY AWESOME WAY to introduce the villain ten minutes later. (And in a more interesting social encounter, this DM will be inclined to ignore the RAW and roleplay the encounter with more interaction anyway.)

And in the second situation, the more "complete" ruleset practically saves the game. It turns the negotiation with the NPCs into a semi-interesting dice game rather than a snore-fest of dreary dialogue.

So I think the more spelled-out rules do, indeed, represent good game design rather than antisocial tendencies.

Edit: Diplomacy makes a mess of this. If we're a 5th level party talking to a 5th level Aristocrat Duke, we have our level bonus to Diplomacy to talk to the Duke on even scale. However, if we're a 20th level party talking to that same Duke, our level bonus overwhelms. It breaks verisimilitude the Duke is suddenly 20 HD, and it would violate my objection to just arbitrarily increase the DC because of our level, even if an opposed roll. This would mean level bonus can't be used for Diplomacy and perhaps all social skills (Bluff, Intimidate).
Interesting points ... so maybe straightforward Charisma checks, with no level-based or skill-point-based bonuses, should become a dominant mechanic of social combat? Must muse further on this ... :smallconfused:

navar100

2012-05-21, 02:33 PM

Stubbazubba

2012-05-21, 02:43 PM

I don't want skills to be numerical at all. You either know a skill or you don't, and the DM/situation adjudicates success or failure (or degree of success). Though, I understand this is an unpopular opinion. People around here prefer less (not more) dm interaction for the most part.

Having formal resolution mechanics doesn't necessarily mean there's less DM interaction; the DM can still be very engaged with the situation, but the relatively small element of success or failure is out-sourced to a neutral third party, the RNG. Ninja'd by Draz74, but it's far better to have the formal mechanics and let extremely competent DMs ignore them than to not have them and let less competent DMs screw everyone over, whether accidentally or as a result of whatever anti-social tendencies they may possess.

A really slick social engine is the Holy Grail of the gaming world; mathematical systems don't produce interesting social dynamics, so the level of abstraction with these things is usually pretty high. Also, since social encounters tend to be one-on-one, it's hard for a party-based game to get into it that much. In a level-based game, where power in all the various minigames is relatively proportional to level, then you run into the fact that the PCs can literally order everyone in the kingdom to give them all of their possessions and move into a cave and never come out again, if that kingdom was a level-appropriate challenge long enough ago. These are some serious issues that are really, really tricky to fix, and I have absolute faith that WotC isn't even going to try.

Craft (Cheese)

2012-05-21, 04:12 PM

The beta is coming out soon, and it looks as though I'll be attempting a playthrough of it. I'm not sure what classes are available, or what I'll end up playing, but I will be providing a review of my experiences as a player.

There's five pregen characters: Sword-and-board fighter, rogue, blaster wizard, armor-wearing healbot, robe-wearing healbot. You won't be allowed to generate their own.

(Well, half of that is speculation, but these are the "iconic" characters so I have no doubt that's what they're going to be. Each of the characters will also be a different race.)

DrBurr

2012-05-21, 10:46 PM

There's five pregen characters: Sword-and-board fighter, rogue, blaster wizard, armor-wearing healbot, robe-wearing healbot. You won't be allowed to generate their own.

(Well, half of that is speculation, but these are the "iconic" characters so I have no doubt that's what they're going to be. Each of the characters will also be a different race.)

Pretty sure theirs only going to be 1 cleric

My bet is it'll be the following
Human Fighter built for Sword & Board
Elf Wizard built around Fireball & Magic Missile
Halfling Rogue built around Stealth and Close Combat
Dwarf Cleric wearing armor carry a Mace and worshiping Moradin

From what I've heard theirs a Weapon list based around AD&D so we might be able to tweak our Fighters with Swords, Axes and Spears

This is irrelevant to me though I'm likely to be behind the Screen hoping for some Kobolds to throw at my group as is tradition

EDIT: Oh your right I missed that Live Chat thing

Ichneumon

2012-05-21, 11:03 PM

Elf Wizard built around Fireball & Magic Missile

Really? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to try to prove that wizards have meaningful non-combat spell, like in pre-4e, again? So utility above damage dealing.

DrBurr

2012-05-21, 11:14 PM

Really? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to try to prove that wizards have meaningful non-combat spell, like in pre-4e, again? So utility above damage dealing.

Chances are they will have a couple cantrips and spells like sleep but traditionally Magic Missile and Fireball are the Wizard spells in all editions

This isn't about proving the Wizard can be more then a glass cannon, yet, right now they want to make the wizard fun but not OP so I think they'll go the blaster route later in the summer though when we get customization rules I expect a lot of non-combat spells

Ichneumon

2012-05-21, 11:38 PM

Chances are they will have a couple cantrips and spells like sleep but traditionally Magic Missile and Fireball are the Wizard spells in all editions

This isn't about proving the Wizard can be more then a glass cannon, yet, right now they want to make the wizard fun but not OP so I think they'll go the blaster route later in the summer though when we get customization rules I expect a lot of non-combat spells

I see. Good points. You might be right.:smallsmile:

Craft (Cheese)

2012-05-22, 01:31 AM

Like it or not, most D&D players come from video games, where almost always magic aside from direct damage and healing spells are nigh-worthless. That's how most clerics and wizards are going to be played, so that's what's going to be tested the most rigorously. The initial playtest wizard won't have conjuration cheese in their spellbook.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-22, 01:37 AM

I switched to P&P RPGs because they promised me the freedom and interaction that Videogames cannot offer.

Scots Dragon

2012-05-22, 02:38 AM

Speaking as someone who came from video games, what I actually liked most of all from games like Baldur's Gate was the inclusion of spells that didn't serve a combat purpose. Like identify, find familiar and limited wish - they were flavourful, intriguing, and served a purpose to your character and party that didn't necessarily involve killing monsters.

Crow

2012-05-22, 02:58 AM

Scots Dragon

2012-05-22, 03:58 AM

Agreed. This is also what I enjoyed most about magic in Morrowind.

I'm not sure about specifics, but I'm pretty sure Oblivion, which I played more thoroughly, also had telekinesis spells. Instantly a way to win points with me, that one, and kind of the reason I'll always, whether playing a Psychic Warrior, Wilder, Psion, etc. - wind up going for something that allows access to telekinetic powers.

Zombimode

2012-05-22, 03:59 AM

Yeah. Different and flavorful kinds of teleportation, levitation, water-walking... all sacrificed for the goal of... what exactly? Lazy game design, I would say.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-22, 04:00 AM

Well, they where just squeezed into rituals that are too expensive to use.

Ichneumon

2012-05-22, 04:09 AM

Even if they just ported the spells from 2e or 3.5 and called it a day, it would be good, to a certain extend.

Kurald Galain

2012-05-22, 04:30 AM

Yeah. Different and flavorful kinds of teleportation, levitation, water-walking... all sacrificed for the goal of... what exactly? Lazy game design, I would say.

Balance, mostly. This is the game that considers e.g. ranged attacks that reach more than 15 meters to be overpowered (with a handful of wizard spells that go up to 30 meters, and 60 meters for the few classes that can effectively use a longbow).

Zombimode

2012-05-22, 04:33 AM

Balance, mostly. This is the game that considers e.g. ranged attacks that reach more than 15 meters to be overpowered (with a handful of wizard spells that go up to 30 meters, and 60 meters for the few classes that can effectively use a longbow).

Heh :smallamused: I was talking about Elder Scrolls, but I guess it applies to 4e as well :smallbiggrin:

Craft (Cheese)

2012-05-22, 05:44 AM

Yeah. Different and flavorful kinds of teleportation, levitation, water-walking... all sacrificed for the goal of... what exactly? Lazy game design, I would say.

As much as I lament the death of Mark, Recall, and Levitate (and refuse to play Oblivion or Skyrim without having them modded in), they were removed for quite legitimate game design reasons. Levitate alone is very, very restraining in dungeon design (about half the dungeons in Skyrim can be partially or entirely skipped through with just levitation), and Mark/Recall mops the floor with most interesting quest ideas. Don't believe me? Play Skyrim with them yourself and see how much they can break things.

Still though, Morrowind's an exception to the rule. Most CRPGs won't even let you have decent and interesting buffs and debuffs to work with, let alone non-combat utility spells.

Excession

2012-05-22, 06:08 AM

Well, they where just squeezed into rituals that are too expensive to use.

There will also be rituals in 5e, though there have been no details and they've said the playtest won't cover them. I would assume they'll look at the cost issues. I feel that ritual cost problems are tied into 4e's gold economy being more than a bit broken and pointless.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-22, 06:17 AM

Rituals should also be impressive for the cost.

They wherent.

lesser_minion

2012-05-22, 06:32 AM

Balance, mostly. This is the game that considers e.g. ranged attacks that reach more than 15 meters to be overpowered (with a handful of wizard spells that go up to 30 meters, and 60 meters for the few classes that can effectively use a longbow).

I don't find that aspect of 4e too objectionable, really.

Slings and arrows can still be dangerous at 300m or even 400m, but you'd still have serious trouble even hitting the broad side of a barn at that range, regardless of how skilled you are.

As for spells, one 3e trope that really needs to eat a misaimed fireball is the ability to drop AoEs with pinpoint accuracy at ranges in excess of 400m, using nothing more than the untrained and unaided eye (in fact, you can even do it by ear. In the middle of a thunderstorm).

Clawhound

2012-05-22, 08:55 AM

Rallicus

2012-05-22, 09:11 AM

I DMed for some WOW raised kids. They loved D&D and had a great time, even with it being 4E. They threw me more curve balls than experienced players. I'd love to DM for them again.

That's to say, WoW is no hindrance to fun role-playing. No need to worry about kids these days.

Well, anyone arguing against you can instantly finger your choice of edition, which is said to be catered to the MMO generation. I've never played so I don't know personally, but you might have a more compelling argument if you played, say, 2e with your group.

WoW is no hinderance to fun roleplaying - I don't think anyone in this thread accused it of such? What I gathered from the last page was that the focus was on damage dealing spells and basically MMO-like combat builds, at least in the beta.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-22, 10:09 AM

I don't find that aspect of 4e too objectionable, really.

Slings and arrows can still be dangerous at 300m or even 400m, but you'd still have serious trouble even hitting the broad side of a barn at that range, regardless of how skilled you are.

As for spells, one 3e trope that really needs to eat a misaimed fireball is the ability to drop AoEs with pinpoint accuracy at ranges in excess of 400m, using nothing more than the untrained and unaided eye (in fact, you can even do it by ear. In the middle of a thunderstorm).

I do. I can, in real life, hit people with a bow at ranges greater than 60m. It's pretty hard to feel heroic when your char is less capable than you are.

J.Gellert

2012-05-22, 10:12 AM

hamlet

2012-05-22, 10:27 AM

I do. I can, in real life, hit people with a bow at ranges greater than 60m. It's pretty hard to feel heroic when your char is less capable than you are.

To be fair, there's a difference between hitting a target past 60 meters in a controlled situation, and hitting a target at all under combat conditions where the "target" is shooting right back at you.

Seerow

2012-05-22, 10:31 AM

Personally: I'm all for more options. I don't care what comes up as the "best build", I just don't want to get shoved into a strict role such as "controller" or "blaster" or "the guy with the utility belt".

The problem with this is if you don't have defined roles, then "The guy with the utility belt" becomes by default the best role. When you have defined roles, everyone has a job, and they generally are limited in what they can do outside that job. Because once roles are defined, role protection becomes a thing.

However if you don't have roles, you can't protect character niches. So inevitably you'll have someone like the 3.5 cleric or wizard who can do everything as well as anyone else, making them by default the best options.

Reverent-One

2012-05-22, 10:31 AM

Seerow

2012-05-22, 10:32 AM

Also, the normal max longbow ranges in 4e in 120 meters, not 60.

I thought it was 120ft not meters? Which would make it closer to 40 meters.

Reverent-One

2012-05-22, 10:36 AM

I thought it was 120ft not meters? Which would make it closer to 40 meters.

40 squares, or 200 feet. Which is 60 meters. Darn metric system.

hamlet

2012-05-22, 10:43 AM

40 squares, or 200 feet. Which is 60 meters. Darn metric system.

"My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it!"

Seerow

2012-05-22, 10:50 AM

40 squares, or 200 feet. Which is 60 meters. Darn metric system.

Okay for some reason I thought the range was 12(short)/24(long) squares.

Kurald Galain

2012-05-22, 10:58 AM

To be fair, there's a difference between hitting a target past 60 meters in a controlled situation, and hitting a target at all under combat conditions where the "target" is shooting right back at you.
Yes, and that should be handled with attack penalties, not by flat out forbidding it.

I do agree that a fireball at long range should likewise have attack penalties (or saving throw bonuses).

J.Gellert

2012-05-22, 11:00 AM

However if you don't have roles, you can't protect character niches. So inevitably you'll have someone like the 3.5 cleric or wizard who can do everything as well as anyone else, making them by default the best options.

That's partly what I mean by saying I don't want to be shoved into one role or another.

I believe we don't need niches.

And from what little they've said so far, they might be agreeing, at least a bit.

hamlet

2012-05-22, 11:06 AM

Yes, and that should be handled with attack penalties, not by flat out forbidding it.

I do agree that a fireball at long range should likewise have attack penalties (or saving throw bonuses).

It is handled with attack penalties at range. You're assuming that the ranges in the book are absolute ranges. They are not. They are effective ranges beyond which you could probably send an arrow, but it would be a case of diminishing returns.

Seerow

2012-05-22, 11:19 AM

That's partly what I mean by saying I don't want to be shoved into one role or another.

I believe we don't need niches.

And from what little they've said so far, they might be agreeing, at least a bit.

But if every character can do anything, why have a party? Why have classes?

Saph

2012-05-22, 11:22 AM

But if every character can do anything, why have a party? Why have classes?

You don't have to make every class able to do anything. But there's a middle ground between "everyone can do anything" and "every class must be shoehorned into one of four roles no matter what".

Seerow

2012-05-22, 11:25 AM

You don't have to make every class able to do anything. But there's a middle ground between "everyone can do anything" and "every class must be shoehorned into one of four roles no matter what".

On the contrary, your role is defined by what you are capable of doing. Even in a game where roles are not clearly defined. The problem is when you don't try to make sure everyone has a set role, you end up with **** like in 3.5, where you have the Fighter whose role is "Dumb guy who can't do anything" and the Wizard whose role is "If it's magic I can do it. And magic can do anything"

Either you DO need to narrow down what a given class can do, in which case you are putting them into a role whether you want to call it that or not, or you need to let everyone do everything, which makes for a pretty boring game.

Stubbazubba

2012-05-22, 11:35 AM

This isn't about proving the Wizard can be more then a glass cannon, yet, right now they want to make the wizard fun but not OP so I think they'll go the blaster route later in the summer though when we get customization rules I expect a lot of non-combat spells

Blasters do not break games, ever. They may be a little OP or UP depending on who they're next to, but blasting effects are not the crux of the OP wizard problem. If they want to make the wizard fun but not OP, then show us good non-damage dealing spells that don't completely remove the need for another party member. If Finger of Death is too reliable, you don't need a Fighter. If Knock is such a low level spell, you don't need a Rogue. If Natural Spell exists, you don't need a party. Proving that the wizard is not OP by showing us a blaster build is doable in D&D as-is, and obfuscates the real issues with wizard, which is not in the class mechanics, but the spells themselves. If that's what they're "proving" here, then this sounds less like a play-test and more like an ad campaign.

navar100

2012-05-22, 11:40 AM

I'm guessing it's easy to forget that damage spells were the norm back in 2nd Ed. AD&D as well. MMOs have nothing to do with it, players will simply use whatever is more effective, or whatever they perceive as more effective.

Older D&D offered really good scaling to the damage spells. 3rd Edition offered really good scaling saving throw DCs. 3,5 offer a lot of ugly "combos".

I don't imagine D&D 5th will not include all options we're used to, at least after a couple splatbooks, but certain options will surely be better than others, as they have always been.

Personally: I'm all for more options. I don't care what comes up as the "best build", I just don't want to get shoved into a strict role such as "controller" or "blaster" or "the guy with the utility belt".

What combos does 3E have that 2E did not? I understand Spell Compendium has lots of new spells, but 2E had its share of non-PHB spells as well. At high enough caster level, a 2E wizard could cast a 1st level save or die spell. (Chromatic Orb, the precursor to 3E Orb spells.) 2E also had spells that were the precursor to metamagic feats - Extend I, Extend II, Vocalize, Persistancy.

hamlet

2012-05-22, 11:49 AM

What combos does 3E have that 2E did not? I understand Spell Compendium has lots of new spells, but 2E had its share of non-PHB spells as well. At high enough caster level, a 2E wizard could cast a 1st level save or die spell. (Chromatic Orb, the precursor to 3E Orb spells.) 2E also had spells that were the precursor to metamagic feats - Extend I, Extend II, Vocalize, Persistancy.

Just for reference, 2e also had the spell compendiums, a 4 and 3 volume set for wizrds and priests respectively containing HUNDREDS of spells with oodles of good stuff in them about alternate specialists and schools of magic and all that jazz. Very good books if you were going hog wild, or were just quietly importing a few things on the sly to your otherwise core game.

I don't think 2ed had anything that 3ed didn't, or vice versa, except stronger controls on the power of wizards. They seemed minor, but in reality, they went MILES towards making sure that, yes, while wizards were very powerful and dangerous, they were never so far out of line that they effectively won D&D and made most other classes superfluous.

Stubbazubba

2012-05-22, 11:55 AM

You don't have to make every class able to do anything. But there's a middle ground between "everyone can do anything" and "every class must be shoehorned into one of four roles no matter what".

See Seerow's reply above. A character, in literature or in an RPG, is defined by what he or she can't do as much as what they can.

I can see both angles of this issue; I want roles to be protected so you have to rely on the team functioning, but I also don't want my fluff choices to shoe-horn what mechanical role I fill. Fortunately, that's not too hard of a fix.

If I want a Ranger captain-type who excels in battlefield control (designate an area for suppressive fire which gives me a ranged AoO, for instance) or setting stuff up with my allies, I should be able to play that in the same party with some other Ranger who excels in direct damage (two-weapon fighting, multi-shot, etc.). Each class should specialize in one of several roles open to it, to the exclusion of the others. It allows for more diversity within each class, and more flexibility for each player as far as the fluff to crunch connection is concerned.

Unfortunately, that's a lot more work that has to be put in for each class, which is no longer really a class. I would rename classes 'archetypes' or something, and then rename roles as 'classes.' And that much nitty gritty work for each class is a tall order for any developer, especially because you then not only have to ensure that Wizards are relatively balanced against Rangers, but also that Wizard blasters are balanced against Ranger archers, and every other combination of Archetype/Class.

Seerow

2012-05-22, 12:02 PM

See Seerow's reply above. A character, in literature or in an RPG, is defined by what he or she can't[i] do as much as what they [i]can.

I can see both angles of this issue; I want roles to be protected so you have to rely on the team functioning, but I also don't want my fluff choices to shoe-horn what mechanical role I fill. Fortunately, that's not too hard of a fix.

If I want a Ranger captain-type who excels in battlefield control (designate an area for suppressive fire which gives me a ranged AoO, for instance) or setting stuff up with my allies, I should be able to play that in the same party with some other Ranger who excels in direct damage (two-weapon fighting, multi-shot, etc.). Each class should specialize in one of several roles open to it, to the exclusion of the others. It allows for more diversity within each class, and more flexibility for each player as far as the fluff to crunch connection is concerned.

I actually do agree with this. I personally feel that's what feats should be used for, specializing characters into a given role.

But Saph's position seems to be that roles existing in any form, whether it comes from class or feats, is bad because it is too restrictive.

Kurald Galain

2012-05-22, 12:12 PM

It is handled with attack penalties at range. You're assuming that the ranges in the book are absolute ranges. They are not. They are effective ranges beyond which you could probably send an arrow, but it would be a case of diminishing returns.

That may be true for 3E, but 4E explicitly forbids ranged attacks beyond the stated range. PHB page 219.

The point is, it's disappointing. If I'm an epic character, I expect to be able to hit a goblin's eye from a mile away. That is a feat from fairy tale and legend; characters like William Tell, Agilaz, or Odysseus simply are that good with a bow. Yet in 4E I can only shoot a measly 60 meters.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-22, 12:27 PM

To be fair, there's a difference between hitting a target past 60 meters in a controlled situation, and hitting a target at all under combat conditions where the "target" is shooting right back at you.

I do archery in larp conditions as well as target practice. Increased range makes people attacking you less of a concern, not more of one. I've scored many a hit at max range with larp bows and arrows, and could perform far, far better with more realistic equipment(larp bows and arrows are particularly handicapped in order to make people not die).

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-05-22, 12:27 PM

I actually do agree with this. I personally feel that's what feats should be used for, specializing characters into a given role.

But Saph's position seems to be that roles existing in any form, whether it comes from class or feats, is bad because it is too restrictive.

Rather than seeing feats specializing characters into certain roles, I'd prefer to see that remain the domain of class features; I like feats as more minor tweaks to a character's schtick, particularly since from the look of things 5e's feats will be less combat style-focused and more schtick-focused, and having combat capability (or lack thereof) based on certain feat choices is too much to leave to chance. I don't think having classes that can do anything within their own particular idiom is a problem, as long as individual characters fill a certain niche.

In 3e parlance, I don't want to see something like a Ranger class (less generic theme, few unique options, etc.) who dips Scout and takes the Improved Skirmish and Swift Hunter feat to be more striker-y or dips Knight and takes the Combat Expertise and Allied Defense feats to be more defender-y (both very narrow mechanics to reinforce a role without too many options attached), with class features being generic improvements to any sort of ranger. Rather, I'd like to see a class that is a Wizard in build (tons of options, broad thematic base, etc.) but must be specialized into a Dread Necromancer or Beguiler in play (tight thematic focus, narrower options, supporting class features), and feats determine whether your Wizard [Dread Necromancer] fills the blaster or minionmaster or whatever combat niche within the broader necromancer thematic niche.

Reverent-One

2012-05-22, 12:30 PM

Tyndmyr

2012-05-22, 12:38 PM

When has D&D ever allowed shots like that? 3.X didn't, and to my understanding it has the longest set of ranges for bows.

I built an NPC once for a game that could routinely do half mile shots. At level 10. Notably further is definitely possible, and I could certainly get mile long shots with rather a lot of optimization. Or being epic. In epic, it's a single feat.

It's possible in 3.5, but it's not particularly easy. You definitely have to be in the sort of game that has embraced that sort of power level of play.

Reverent-One

2012-05-22, 12:43 PM

Saph

2012-05-22, 12:45 PM

But Saph's position seems to be that roles existing in any form, whether it comes from class or feats, is bad because it is too restrictive.

Where on earth did you get that from? I said I wanted a middle ground. There's nothing wrong with roles, as in "this class is better at X, that class is better at Y". But if roles become too restrictive then you get ridiculous situations such as an entire adventure grinding to a halt because the correct character isn't there.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-22, 12:48 PM

Ah, so it is. Fair enough. I do still wonder the range you can get in earlier editions (perhaps there are similar abilties to the Distance Shot feat in them).

Honestly not certain. I played 2e, and own a good bit of 1e, but I never developed the system mastery I did with 3.5. That said, I'd assume that you're correct on 3.5 having the highest upper limit.

I don't need 5e to have AS high of a limit as 3.5...just a good bit further than I can reasonably do. If I'm playing a ranger who spends his career shooting a bow, I expect him to be better at it than me, as I am merely a skilled hobbyist. If it also supports the image of the guy who uses a scrying ball sovereign glued to his bow to spot his target...awesome. But that's rather less necessary, being a small subset of the former.

Seerow

2012-05-22, 12:49 PM

I built an NPC once for a game that could routinely do half mile shots. At level 10. Notably further is definitely possible, and I could certainly get mile long shots with rather a lot of optimization. Or being epic. In epic, it's a single feat.

It's possible in 3.5, but it's not particularly easy. You definitely have to be in the sort of game that has embraced that sort of power level of play.

Yeah in 3.5 even with no special things at all, you can easily have 1100ft range, just by picking up a composite longbow. That's about 1/5th of a mile. Just taking Far Shot gives you 1600ft, which is about 490 meters, which is a fairly impressive. And that's before looking at magical properties (ie distance), or prestige classes.

Honestly though, I think the real reason is that such long ranges typically aren't practical. Especially at low levels. I mean, when you're restricted to moving 30ft (up to 120ft) per round, someone who can shoot from that kind of distance is hitting you 10 times before you're even close to them, assuming they're not moving as well. Most DMs don't want to deal with an encounter like that, and in my experience 9 times out of 10 a fight won't start more than a few hundred feet away until you're at a level where distance is meaningless anyway.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-22, 01:05 PM

Yeah, that's normal...in this case, it was kind of a specialized encounter, utilizing a low level caster with Invisibility and heightened scrolls of Message(crystal ball and scrying ability would have meant a much higher CR encounter). Designate square relative to a landmark, sniper fires at it. Took the PCs a couple of rounds to figure out what was going on and blow away the spotter, and even with the 50% miss chance, a PC got plastered before they got did so.

You're probably not going to see encounters like that outside of a relatively high-op campaign. Most encounters tend to be no larger than the DM's map.

Reverent-One

2012-05-22, 01:07 PM

Yeah in 3.5 even with no special things at all, you can easily have 1100ft range, just by picking up a composite longbow.

*Thinks "isn't a max of 5 range increments?"*

*Checks srd*

*facepalms*

Apparently I can't do math or remember rules today. So I'm just going to agree with the second part of Seerow's post and bow out before I make some other stupid mistake.

hamlet

2012-05-22, 01:54 PM

That may be true for 3E, but 4E explicitly forbids ranged attacks beyond the stated range. PHB page 219.

The point is, it's disappointing. If I'm an epic character, I expect to be able to hit a goblin's eye from a mile away. That is a feat from fairy tale and legend; characters like William Tell, Agilaz, or Odysseus simply are that good with a bow. Yet in 4E I can only shoot a measly 60 meters.

Well, that's because (and all will forgive me when I say this because it's more than 50% a joke and not very serious) 4E kind of sucks in some ways. It doesn't really like people going outside pre-set parameters and fails when they try.

And, to answer the question further down, there were no real hard mechanics for getting mile long shots. It would have been something left up to the DM. You'd have to, basically, explain yourself and ask him to adjudicate how it would work, which, I'm told, is just something that D20 players loathe.

And, to anwer the LARP issue . . . yeah. LARP is to actual Combat as Laser Tag is as well. Not even within the same reality folks.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-22, 02:17 PM

Well, that's because (and all will forgive me when I say this because it's more than 50% a joke and not very serious) 4E kind of sucks in some ways. It doesn't really like people going outside pre-set parameters and fails when they try.

And, to answer the question further down, there were no real hard mechanics for getting mile long shots. It would have been something left up to the DM. You'd have to, basically, explain yourself and ask him to adjudicate how it would work, which, I'm told, is just something that D20 players loathe.

I've already stated mechanics. Several people have cited many of them.

Cragtop archer can do 15 range increments, for example. A bog standard comp longbow has a range increment of 110 feet. Far shot boosts that by 50%. So, an entirely mundane archer of moderate level can, with minimal investment, fire shots at 2475 feet. If he grabs a dragonbone comp longbow, he's looking at 130 feet base increments, or a total of 2925 feet.

With a simple distance enchantment, that's 5850 feet by RAW, or well over a mile. And you can do MUCH better than this. There were hard rules in 3.5.

And, to anwer the LARP issue . . . yeah. LARP is to actual Combat as Laser Tag is as well. Not even within the same reality folks.

The point is that incoming is less an issue with range. The further away you are, the safer you are from your targets, as an archer. This is true historically, this is true in larp...if you demand a currently experienced person in mass combat with live medieval weapons...that person doesn't exist. But every bit of evidence we have points to bows being effective beyond 60m in real life.

hamlet

2012-05-22, 02:34 PM

I've already stated mechanics. Several people have cited many of them.

Cragtop archer can do 15 range increments, for example. A bog standard comp longbow has a range increment of 110 feet. Far shot boosts that by 50%. So, an entirely mundane archer of moderate level can, with minimal investment, fire shots at 2475 feet. If he grabs a dragonbone comp longbow, he's looking at 130 feet base increments, or a total of 2925 feet.

With a simple distance enchantment, that's 5850 feet by RAW, or well over a mile. And you can do MUCH better than this. There were hard rules in 3.5.

And I was speaking of AD&D, not 3.x.

Is this some kind of new mentality? People seem to entirely forget that AD&D or the three little books ever existed.

The point is that incoming is less an issue with range. The further away you are, the safer you are from your targets, as an archer. This is true historically, this is true in larp...if you demand a currently experienced person in mass combat with live medieval weapons...that person doesn't exist. But every bit of evidence we have points to bows being effective beyond 60m in real life.

Yes, the further away you are, the less likely you are to be under threat of death and the more likely you are to be able to line up a shot. However, real life physics do get in the way here and your accuracy will decline over distance. Add to that the stress of a life or death battle, and it works out to, under those conditions, after a certain range, and for the sake of game balance, your bow just isn't effective unless under very specific conditions (i.e., sniping from a blind or inaccessible location).

Tyndmyr

2012-05-22, 02:45 PM

And I was speaking of AD&D, not 3.x.

Is this some kind of new mentality? People seem to entirely forget that AD&D or the three little books ever existed.

Different versions have been mentioned, but you didn't cite what version you were talking about. If you don't mention a version, AD&D will not be assumed to be the default.

Yes, the further away you are, the less likely you are to be under threat of death and the more likely you are to be able to line up a shot. However, real life physics do get in the way here and your accuracy will decline over distance. Add to that the stress of a life or death battle, and it works out to, under those conditions, after a certain range, and for the sake of game balance, your bow just isn't effective unless under very specific conditions (i.e., sniping from a blind or inaccessible location).

Accuracy declining is entirely different from "no, you can't do that shot". 3.5 had accuracy normally decreasing over range.

Nobody was ever arguing that range has no relationship to accuracy...only that shots >60 meters are obviously possible.

hamlet

2012-05-22, 02:49 PM

Different versions have been mentioned, but you didn't cite what version you were talking about. If you don't mention a version, AD&D will not be assumed to be the default.

You default to a different system than I do. When I'm talking, it's generally safe to assume that I'm speaking of AD&D.

Accuracy declining is entirely different from "no, you can't do that shot". 3.5 had accuracy normally decreasing over range.

Nobody was ever arguing that range has no relationship to accuracy...only that shots >60 meters are obviously possible.

Again, that's a specific mistake created by and perpetuated by fourth edition. It's a major problem with the game, but it is hardly representative of the rest of D&D and is, in fact, a major outlier in that regard.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-22, 02:56 PM

You default to a different system than I do. When I'm talking, it's generally safe to assume that I'm speaking of AD&D.

Yes, everyone will now proceed to memorize what system you prefer, and thus, when you jump into a conversation focusing primarily on 3.5 and 4e, will immediately understand what you mean, regardless of lack of context.

AD&D is not among the more popular versions. If you want to be understood, you need to be specific, not expect everyone on the remarkably large, well populated forum, to know you and your personal preferences.

Again, that's a specific mistake created by and perpetuated by fourth edition. It's a major problem with the game, but it is hardly representative of the rest of D&D and is, in fact, a major outlier in that regard.

I'll just leave this here: http://advancedgaming-theory.blogspot.com/2009/07/missile-weapon-ranges-and-how-they-have.html

Kaiyanwang

2012-05-22, 02:56 PM

At epic 3.5 you can go further.

Originally posted by SRD
Distant Shot [Epic]
Prerequisites

Dex 25, Far Shot, Point Blank Shot, Spot 20 ranks.
Benefit

You may throw or fire a ranged weapon at any target within line of sight, with no penalty for range.

For my homebrew, I just started to add this stuff before level 20, sometimes way before. PH2 and Pathfinder already did, with highly debatable coherency.

I just hope the designers realize that if a game breaks in half not because of simulacrum or gate, but because mongols can beat virtually any monster, should not be considered an "improvement".

Should not be considered "different but interesting" too, but whatever. :smallsigh:

Oracle_Hunter

2012-05-22, 03:01 PM

You default to a different system than I do. When I'm talking, it's generally safe to assume that I'm speaking of AD&D.
For the sake of clarity, you might want to say what system you're talking about just the same :smallsmile:

hamlet

2012-05-22, 03:02 PM

{Scrubbed}

hamlet

2012-05-22, 03:03 PM

Double Post.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-22, 03:21 PM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

The last explicit version reference you made was to 3e, in a comment about 2e. Plenty of other folks discussed 3 and 4e. Specify what you're talking about if you want to be clear.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

It's a comparison of the changes in missile ranges, citing the books directly. This is somewhat helpful to those who don't have all the different books handy at a given point in time.

And as the range change between 2e printings is pretty notable, your statement is not sufficient explanation. The assumption that they were in 10s of yards is not one that everyone can be expected to make. Still, looking backward, we can determine what they meant, and thus, look at the history of weapon ranges in D&D with some accuracy.

60 meters is a short limit even historically speaking, but older version contain some questionable ranges as well. A sling bullet performing nearly as well as a composite longbow(2e, 1995 print) does seem a bit odd, for instance.

hamlet

2012-05-22, 03:34 PM

It's a comparison of the changes in missile ranges, citing the books directly. This is somewhat helpful to those who don't have all the different books handy at a given point in time.

And as the range change between 2e printings is pretty notable, your statement is not sufficient explanation. The assumption that they were in 10s of yards is not one that everyone can be expected to make. Still, looking backward, we can determine what they meant, and thus, look at the history of weapon ranges in D&D with some accuracy.

60 meters is a short limit even historically speaking, but older version contain some questionable ranges as well. A sling bullet performing nearly as well as a composite longbow(2e, 1995 print) does seem a bit odd, for instance.

Yes, the ranges over the course of the various TSR editions changed. However, the thing is, those ranges were created not with an eye to historicity, but with an eye to balance. Yes, AD&D had balance, and quite good balance when it came down to it.

A sling had a long range in game, and that was done to balance it out against it's relatively low damage. It makes it a viable choice for somebody who's restricted from a long bow (a thief or a mage or a cleric) and still wants to get some good range in. It brings it on to some sort of parity with the long bow. Decent range, but sucktastic damage (though sling bullets could do frightening things).

Of course, there were also just flat out silly things from time to time, but they really didn't impact the game overly. As a group, you had to decide when this issue popped up which set of ranges to agree to and just settle down on it. I.e., not be massive jerks and just agree to compromise. That's what the DM's job is in prior editions. To impose some modicum of consistency of rules calls.

Are the more hard codified ranges of 3.x "better"? I don't know. I've never played that game to any great length (I think maybe 4 sessions en toto), so I can't speak educatedly about them. I will say, though, that they obviously have some benefits and some drawbacks. I will say that I look very down upon what 4th edition did in some regards. Objectively so. And missile weapon ranges is one of those things.

That, and measuring distance in squares. That particular fetish needs to die now.

DrBurr

2012-05-22, 07:36 PM

Why is bow range even being discussed? I thought this was a thread on 5th edition not 4e sucks cause I can't shoot a bow 1 mile, and why would you even need to shoot that far to begin with?

Rogue Shadows

2012-05-22, 07:44 PM

DrBurr

2012-05-22, 07:48 PM

...okay, I'll bite.

Because the thing you're trying to hit is 1 mile away?

Why would something in combat be 1 mile away? if your in combat they should at least be close enough for your fighter to charge the nearest enemy in a couple of turns

This is all irrelevant anyways what does this have to do with 5th ed beyond Gee I hope their aren't range caps in 5th edition, why can't we leave it at that and not derail the thread

Scots Dragon

2012-05-22, 08:01 PM

This is all irrelevant anyways what does this have to do with 5th ed beyond Gee I hope their aren't range caps in 5th edition, why can't we leave it at that and not derail the thread

Because we're nerds on the internet. Everyone knows that nerds on the internet actually derive sustenance from taking part in arguments. It's kind of like with vampires, only with less blood and more accusations of grognardism.

Doran

2012-05-22, 08:55 PM

Just split off a thread for it

Craft (Cheese)

2012-05-22, 09:01 PM

Just split off a thread for it

But being inside a popular thread lots of people are always looking at is the only thing keeping these... "discussions" alive!

Crow

2012-05-22, 09:13 PM

why would you even need to shoot that far to begin with?

Good question. Ask this guy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMWmjCgmM8U)

Draz74

2012-05-23, 12:51 AM

Well, the limitations on bow range are hardly the first time this thread has been derailed to a certain topic that should have been a separate thread ... but ...

But being inside a popular thread lots of people are always looking at is the only thing keeping these... "discussions" alive!

I dunno about that. I posted a bunch of comments on a recent article a little ways back, and no one has continued that discussion at all. :smallsigh:

J.Gellert

2012-05-23, 12:56 AM

Craft (Cheese)

2012-05-23, 01:25 AM

They're explicitly embracing the fluff that HP represent physical toughness and ability to turn a nasty blow into a glancing blow and plot armor. Not really revolutionary, but maybe the fact that they're acknowledging it openly means they'll implement this abstraction better than in past editions. (E.g. by making it so healing magic is more effective on high-level creatures than on low-level creatures, in terms of sheer quantity of HP.)

Percentage-based healing is *amazing*. Why didn't every game move toward it years ago? It's the best way to handle the problem of having to constantly spend more and more resources on getting effectively the same thing as you level up.

(I mean, let's say a swipe from a generic baddie of equal level knocks out 1/4th of the fighter's health, regardless of what level of play you're at. At level 1 you can deal with this with a first-level spell, but at level 15 you need a seventh-level spell to get the same result. Having Cure Light/Moderate Wounds restore 25% health no matter what would fix this problem and would make higher-leveled healing spells actually stronger, instead of just necessary to keep up with the number inflation.)

That said though, I read the article too and I didn't get the impression that's what they wanted to do with it at all. Would be nice though.

They're converting the sacred cow of "Hit Dice" (e.g. d10 for the fighter) into the new version of Healing Surges. Which, by implication, seems to indicate that they'll be adopting the 4e policy of "Hit Dice" not being used to determine new HP on level-up. Which is fine by me. They don't really give enough details about this new mechanic for me to form an opinion on whether it will be well done. Although I am a little annoyed that they've bumped the Wizard and the Rogue up to d6 and d8, respectively. (But maybe that's just me clinging to another sacred cow.)

You forgot the most important part! You don't have to spend hit dice to get healed with magical effects. This was basically complaint #1 when it came to 4E's healing surges.

Draz74

2012-05-23, 02:21 AM

That said though, I read the article too and I didn't get the impression that's what they wanted to do with it at all. Would be nice though.

Well, they're obviously not going for a straight percentage. But it was ambiguous whether a higher-level character gets to roll more "Hit Dice" than a low-level character when they are both struck by a healing effect. I guess I was just mentally giving WotC the benefit of the doubt.

I guess we'll know in a couple days.

MukkTB

2012-05-23, 02:30 AM

2xMachina

2012-05-23, 05:02 AM

Personally, I prefer ACCD or so. BCCD means that ADDD exists somewhere, and that class would be absolutely boring for being unable to do anything but their One Trick.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-23, 06:59 AM

Why is bow range even being discussed? I thought this was a thread on 5th edition not 4e sucks cause I can't shoot a bow 1 mile, and why would you even need to shoot that far to begin with?

Because something exists a mile away that you want to shoot?

Now, I only care in that maximum ranges(and other things) should be at least as high as people can achieve in real life. Is it necessary to allow builds that can fire an arrow literally as far as the eye can see? Not for many sorts of games. But some people might use it.

The thing is...it hasn't appeared to be a notable problem. Anybody picking up a comp longbow in D&D can fire 1100 feet, which is pretty far. Anyone. But archers being broken due to range isn't really a major complaint about 3.5. It appears to be something people just ignore if they aren't interested in it.

So, it makes sense to err on the side of allowing longer ranges.

navar100

2012-05-23, 07:49 AM

Lets hypothesize for discussion that there are 4 roles. Lets simplify things even further and declare that there are 4 levels of mastery of any role.
D - Incompetent: You physically cannot do that role.
C - Competent: You have the ability to fill the role barely.
B - Skilled: You are pretty good at the role.
A - Expert: You are top of the line in that role.

So one class could be ADDD. It fills its role very well and can't fill the others. You could build 4 classes ADDD, DADD, DDAD, DDDA, and have a 'balanced' party.

I would prefer a little more variety than that. How about BCCD? CCCC? As long as you don't sit AAAB next to BDDD you have some level of balance.

OR
I prefer a collection of characters with differing levels of breadth and depth with regard to roles. Balance only demands that each cover the same volume.

Every class should have an A. The A is what makes the class fun. I think the ideal is for every class to be ABCD - A for the fun, B for the interesting secondary abilities, C for not being totally screwed when out of your element, D for why you need a party member who has A in that. Everyone being ABCD means everyone has their place to shine, and it's ok for a given two classes shine in the same area but in different ways, when they eventually publish the 4! + 1th class. :) In the meantime, it's also ok for one class to be AB in two roles where another class is BA or one class be ABCD where another is ADCB and so forth.

Seerow

2012-05-23, 09:30 AM

Lets hypothesize for discussion that there are 4 roles. Lets simplify things even further and declare that there are 4 levels of mastery of any role.
bD - Incompetent: You physically cannot do that role.
C - Competent: You have the ability to fill the role barely.
B - Skilled: You are pretty good at the role.
A - Expert: You are top of the line in that role.

So one class could be ADDD. It fills its role very well and can't fill the others. You could build 4 classes ADDD, DADD, DDAD, DDDA, and have a 'balanced' party.

I would prefer a little more variety than that. How about BCCD? CCCC? As long as you don't sit AAAB next to BDDD you have some level of balance.

OR
I prefer a collection of characters with differing levels of breadth and depth with regard to roles. Balance only demands that each cover the same volume.

The option of more granularity is why I like the idea of feats for specialization. Imagine for example a character gets 11 feats over the course of his career, and it takes 6 of those feats to get effectively A rank. Now you can keep investing in that same role if you want, just getting that much better at it. Or you can branch out to the others for some more versatility. If you -really- wanted to you could go the jack of all trades route and not have anything up to 6 or more, but doing so would probably make you too unfocused and weak.

Every class should have an A. The A is what makes the class fun. I think the ideal is for every class to be ABCD - A for the fun, B for the interesting secondary abilities, C for not being totally screwed when out of your element, D for why you need a party member who has A in that. Everyone being ABCD means everyone has their place to shine, and it's ok for a given two classes shine in the same area but in different ways, when they eventually publish the 4! + 1th class. :) In the meantime, it's also ok for one class to be AB in two roles where another class is BA or one class be ABCD where another is ADCB and so forth.

Honestly the biggest problem with this is how hard it is to define what a given rank is, and make sure a class gets it. What makes the difference between the different ranks for each role? How do you know the difference between a B rank Defender and an A rank Defender? What about a controller? Striker and Healer you can probably pinpoint because it's mostly about numbers, but even there that level of finesse is hard to accomplish. How do you make sure that the A rank strikers are a step above the B rank ones? How bad is a D rank supposed to be? Should -anyone- actually be that terrible at doing something as basic damage? If not, how do you define a top tier striker?

It's a messy tangle.

lesser_minion

2012-05-23, 02:11 PM

Because something exists a mile away that you want to shoot?

Now, I only care in that maximum ranges(and other things) should be at least as high as people can achieve in real life. Is it necessary to allow builds that can fire an arrow literally as far as the eye can see? Not for many sorts of games. But some people might use it.

I agree that 60m is too short a range, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the designers ruling that a certain shot is forbidden when it's really just ridiculously hard.

You can get an arrow 400m. That doesn't mean that you can fire a longbow accurately at that range. That's the entire point. The effective range of a longbow in a D&D combat is vastly shorter than that.

As far as your personal experiences are concerned, they are rather different to the real deal. An authentic longbow is harder to shoot accurately than anything you're likely to come across on a range, let alone a LARP; and D&D longbows can be harder still.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-23, 02:15 PM

I agree that 60m is too short a range, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the designers ruling that a certain shot is forbidden when it's really just ridiculously hard.

You can get an arrow 400m. That doesn't mean that you can fire a longbow accurately at that range. That's the entire point. The effective range of a longbow in a D&D combat is vastly shorter than that.

As far as your personal experiences are concerned, they are rather different to the real deal. An authentic longbow is harder to shoot accurately than anything you're likely to come across on a range, let alone a LARP; and D&D longbows can be harder still.

I have and shoot a handmade longbow, so, no.

If you don't buy my experiences, wiki has all manner of citations for longbows. Such as that by order of Henry VIII, no practice range was to be less than 220 yards in length.

The only reasonable conclusion is that a 60 meter limit is substantially too short.

lesser_minion

2012-05-23, 04:13 PM

If you don't buy my experiences, wiki has all manner of citations for longbows. Such as that by order of Henry VIII, no practice range was to be less than 220 yards in length.

I've read the Wikipedia article. It does nothing to hurt my point. Shooting at a target on a range (larger than a person; not moving) is far easier than shooting at an enemy in a D&D-style fight.

Also, remember that D&D archers can use bows with a draw weight far higher than the original longbow -- I'd imagine that a Str 18 longbow would have pretty close to a 300lb draw weight, for example.

Percentage-based healing is *amazing*. Why didn't every game move toward it years ago? It's the best way to handle the problem of having to constantly spend more and more resources on getting effectively the same thing as you level up.

If I had to guess, it's partly to make it easier to come up with higher-level spell effects, and partly because in certain games, having to spend more and more resources on getting what amounts to the same thing is considered a desirable feature.

Kaiyanwang

2012-05-23, 05:50 PM

You can get an arrow 400m. That doesn't mean that you can fire a longbow accurately at that range. That's the entire point. The effective range of a longbow in a D&D combat is vastly shorter than that.

That's why I posted that feat. The system allows you to specialize and get that accuracy for that distance (just, as I indirectly commented, too late).

Is the "too late" the part we need to fix.

And yes, discuss about how ranged weapons work among edition is pertinent in a discussion about editions.

Craft (Cheese)

2012-05-23, 06:09 PM

So, playtest starts tomorrow. Anyone interested in starting up some PbP playtest games? (Assuming the terms allow that, which they probably won't.)

holywhippet

2012-05-23, 07:30 PM

I think range increments like in 3rd edition are a good start to how to handle ranged weapons but they don't go far enough. Hitting a stationary target at the range of the bow is possible, but really tricky and you'd want to take some time to aim. Hitting a moving target? That would be extremely difficult, unless your target was moving in a direct line at the same speed in which case it would just be very difficult.

If anything, I think the precise shot feat is more questionable than anything else. You wouldn't expect either combatant in melee to be moving around a lot so shooting from the side wouldn't be much of a problem. On the other hand, shooting from behind your ally should be near impossible. Shooting from behind the enemy shouldn't risk hitting your ally by very much as they are covered by their opponent.

DrBurr

2012-05-23, 07:59 PM

That's why I posted that feat. The system allows you to specialize and get that accuracy for that distance (just, as I indirectly commented, too late).

Is the "too late" the part we need to fix.

And yes, discuss about how ranged weapons work among edition is pertinent in a discussion about editions.

This isn't a discussion about editions though this is a thread about 5th edition, our hopes fears and dreams of what this game will be, not lets argue about bows cause I liked how they use to be

So, playtest starts tomorrow. Anyone interested in starting up some PbP playtest games? (Assuming the terms allow that, which they probably won't.)

I can't wait hoping to set up a second weekly game with my group for it so far Tuesdays are looking good

Loki_42

2012-05-23, 09:11 PM

So, playtest starts tomorrow. Anyone interested in starting up some PbP playtest games? (Assuming the terms allow that, which they probably won't.)

If the terms allow it, I'm game.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-23, 11:17 PM

I hpe the terms allow it.

Im also game

Maxios

2012-05-23, 11:32 PM

I'm in, if the Terms of +1 Rules allow it.

50Copper

2012-05-24, 01:48 AM

{Scrubbed}

Tvtyrant

2012-05-24, 01:57 AM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I think this is kind of a simplification. An RPG is fundamentally a game, which means that the center of it has to be having fun. All of the mechanical perfection in the world doesn't make a game good if no one wants to play it.

If people didn't have fun, then the game has problems. Calling them idiots doesn't change the fact that the game failed them on some level. And calling someone an idiot for having what is in this case different tastes isn't exactly helpful in achieving...Anything.

Anecronwashere

2012-05-24, 05:01 AM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

4E fixed Health using Percentages yes.
Then broke it by running Magical Healing (and every other healing) of an expendable pool tied to the character.

4E has it's good and bad points, just like every other edition, simply because it broke the things it tried to fix and the things they fixed weren't broken.
They made the classes feel all samey, put all the good stuff in Rituals then made them take too long and cost too much, etc.

If anyone is an idiot it's you for not seeing the oppositions side, something you must do to be a good debater

lesser_minion

2012-05-24, 05:22 AM

The problem with range increments is that range doesn't simply make things a little harder -- it compounds just about everything that might make your shot harder, including things you can't actually change like imperfections in your equipment.

I don't think it's unreasonable to require characters to use mythic equipment to make a mythic shot.

As for melee and precise shot, no, melee characters are in near-constant motion. If they aren't, they present an easy target to their opponent. This is why grid-based combat fails. It not only gives you unnecessary detail, it gives you wrong unnecessary detail.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-24, 05:55 AM

Hey I like grid combat. It makes all those little bonuses matter. It also helps imagine the combat in my head.

A wrong details does not meen that we should abolish all details. It means that the details should be fixed.

king.com

2012-05-24, 06:26 AM

So, playtest starts tomorrow. Anyone interested in starting up some PbP playtest games? (Assuming the terms allow that, which they probably won't.)

Im actually particularly interested in this playtest. I've never actually played any version of D&D beyond the most simplistic of and will be interested to see how this explains itself to someone with nothing to go on.

Anecronwashere

2012-05-24, 06:42 AM

Have the playtesters already gotten their acceptance notifications or do I still have a chance
:crosses fingers:

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-24, 06:56 AM

When and how are we actualy getting the playtest material?

Kurald Galain

2012-05-24, 07:04 AM

When and how are we actualy getting the playtest material?

How: digitally.

When: officially today, but no official news has been posted about this yet.

hamlet

2012-05-24, 07:24 AM

Hopefully they'll be doing a true open playtest rather than trying to make people sign agreements and the like.

If I can just get the material and use it, I'm definately going to put something together in person with some locals and give it a test drive.

Not really holding out high hopes, though.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-24, 07:28 AM

Realy, all they have to do to regain consumer trust is act like Roleplayers that care about the game their making, not like a corporation that cares about the money in my pocket.

So posting it up for everybody would be a nice gesture.

kaomera

2012-05-24, 07:40 AM

When and how are we actualy getting the playtest material?
If you signed up for the email reminder you should have or be getting an email letting you know that the playtest documents are going up. You have to agree to the terms and prove you're a human, and then they'll send you info on getting the stuff a few hours early (mostly to ease server load by spreading things out I think). ''Later today'' the playtest materials should be available for everyone to get their grubby little electronic fingers on - hopefully the servers don't immediately melt...

Ichneumon

2012-05-24, 07:42 AM

They've said it's a public beta, but you need to sign an agreement before having acces to it. Depending on the content of the beta, it wouldn't be too much of a problem. Although I'm expecting it to be limiting it to private use. It's a shame though, since I was planning on maybe starting a short play by post adventure on these boards to test things out. Don't think it will be allowed.:smallsigh:

I am very much looking forward to 5e though, everything I've read looks very promising.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-24, 07:54 AM

Goddamit. Cant find a link.

kaomera

2012-05-24, 08:02 AM

Goddamit. Cant find a link.
If you signed up you'll get an email - although they haven't gotten back to me with an actual download link yet and in 5 minutes I'll have to leave for work. The general access link isn't up yet, ''later today'' is what has been said.

hamlet

2012-05-24, 08:08 AM

To be honest, I kind of hope that they wait until late this afternoon or even tomorrow. Can't actually get to the WOTC website here in the office and it'd be aggravating if I missed out because of a stupid Firewall.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-24, 08:11 AM

Got It! Yes Yes Yes Yes!

Maxios

2012-05-24, 08:12 AM

How is it?!?!

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-24, 08:19 AM

Its...Uh...Arriving in 60 minutes...

Also, thier agreement states that its allowed to discuss the game on any internet forum approved by them. Im not sure which ones they aprove.

some guy

2012-05-24, 08:28 AM

My download link sends me to their Customer Service. And not only DMs must go through the sign-up process, also players. That makes it much harder for me to get a group of players interested in playtesting.

Shades of Gray

2012-05-24, 08:30 AM

Am I only allowed to playtest it with other playtesters? Can I take this game to my regular group?

hamlet

2012-05-24, 08:33 AM

Am I only allowed to playtest it with other playtesters? Can I take this game to my regular group?

That would be a question for WOTC to answer.

Ichneumon

2012-05-24, 08:40 AM

Well, at least there is a public beta. Guess that's better than what we could've expected.

DrBurr

2012-05-24, 08:51 AM

Well got my second email now to wait for the entire thing to be fixed

Dienekes

2012-05-24, 08:53 AM

Am I only allowed to playtest it with other playtesters? Can I take this game to my regular group?

What are they gonna do, break into your basement and tell you to stop playing?

Though technically reading the NDA right now, it looks like no. You are not allowed to copy, display, or distribute the materials given. So each of your players would have to download it themselves. Seems an odd way to go about things.

Though you are allowed to publicly discuss your experience. So it looks like we're ok to talk about it here.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-05-24, 08:55 AM

Though technically reading the NDA right now, it looks like no. You are not allowed to copy, display, or distribute the materials given. So each of your players would have to download it themselves. Seems an odd way to go about things.
Presumably they did this to (1) have a tight rein on their playtesters and (2) to ensure that they would get reviews from people that actually played the game.

How that turns out remains to be seen.

ClothedInVelvet

2012-05-24, 08:56 AM

Got my packet. If you get your second email with the supposed link, go to wizards.custhelp.com and search for "Download playtest" and you should find a link. You'll have to search in the D&D results, but it's there if you're signed in.

Seems like a silly technical mistake for a bunch of nerds.

Ichneumon

2012-05-24, 08:59 AM

Presumably they did this to (1) have a tight rein on their playtesters and (2) to ensure that they would get reviews from people that actually played the game.

How that turns out remains to be seen.

Would there really be people who'd hand in reviews without reading the play-test?

Oracle_Hunter

2012-05-24, 09:00 AM

Would there really be people who'd hand in reviews without reading the play-test?
Have you seen the Edition Warz? :smallamused:

Saph

2012-05-24, 09:01 AM

Well, got my first email. Apparently I should be getting the second in 30-60 minutes.

Am I the only one who really, really hates those illegible captchas? :smalltongue:

Bayonet Priest

2012-05-24, 09:06 AM

Am I the only one who really, really hates those illegible captchas? :smalltongue:

Hah, same here. I got lucky, I could actually read the second captcha they gave me. I couldn't make heads or tails of the first one.

DrBurr

2012-05-24, 09:07 AM

Well, got my first email. Apparently I should be getting the second in 30-60 minutes.

Am I the only one who really, really hates those illegible captchas? :smalltongue:

I do to, I usually refresh until I get something that looks like a word

Got my packet. If you get your second email with the supposed link, go to wizards.custhelp.com and search for "Download playtest" and you should find a link. You'll have to search in the D&D results, but it's there if you're signed in.

Seems like a silly technical mistake for a bunch of nerds.

Not seeing this, I should probably stop reading tweets is driving me nuts

some guy

2012-05-24, 09:23 AM

Alright, the 'search' thing didn't work. But in their twitter (http://twitter.com/#!/Wizards_DnD) they had a few workarounds which worked after a bit of patience.

Yora

2012-05-24, 09:24 AM

It's probably easier to wait until someone else uploads it somewhere and download it from there. :smallbiggrin:

DrBurr

2012-05-24, 09:25 AM

Alright, the 'search' thing didn't work. But in their twitter (http://twitter.com/#!/Wizards_DnD) they had a few workarounds which worked after a bit of patience.

They just bring me back to the same error page :smallannoyed:

Anecronwashere

2012-05-24, 09:29 AM

I just got the email!

http://images.mylittlefacewhen.com/media/f/img/mlfw27_129987086745.jpg

I'm so happy!!!

Ditto on the captcha stuff. I had to redo like 3 times and the 4th had like requaq and looked almost too fuzzy to read

Kurald Galain

2012-05-24, 09:32 AM

Well, that's needlessly byzantine.

Okay, I signed up, got an e-mail, went to the webpage; there, that made me sign up again, download a license agreement, get an e-mail with a link to another webpage. That link doesn't work, but by searching the 'net I find a tweet pointing me to the WOTC forums. There they tell me the aforementioned link is incorrect and I need another. That one takes minutes to resolve properly, but eventually redirects to a search page which points to the download. Wow.

Also, major slashdot effect, but they should have seen that one coming.

Anyway, I've got the package; reading now.

hamlet

2012-05-24, 09:33 AM

Got first email, now working with the painfully slow WOTC website to create an account.

Must say Shiboleth . . .

Dienekes

2012-05-24, 09:35 AM

Alright Wizards, it's been over an hour, where's my email?

Also yes, the fuzzy word things are annoying.

Flickerdart

2012-05-24, 09:38 AM

I haven't even gotten email 1 yet, sad. :smallfrown:

Saph

2012-05-24, 09:40 AM

My email arrived. Have been trying to download the materials.

So far I've gotten three login screens, a painfully slow entry page, and an 'Error 400 - URL Not Found'. Progress limited.

Anecronwashere

2012-05-24, 09:43 AM

I haven't even gotten email 1 yet, sad. :smallfrown:

They are going in batches, never fear they'll soon be here :smallcool:

RedWarlock

2012-05-24, 09:43 AM

I never have any problems with captcha.. ...you're all robots, aren't you?

Waiting on my 30-60 minute download delay now. C'mon...

Yora

2012-05-24, 09:45 AM

Lol, if it was late evening in the US, then you could claim the servers got overburdened with the massive simultaneous logins.
But it's between 7 and 10 in the morning, there can't be that many people trying to download right now.

Sorry to disappoint you. In 30 to 60 minutes, you get your next email with a link that does not work. :smallbiggrin:

Saph

2012-05-24, 09:49 AM

Got it! :smallbiggrin:

Kurald Galain

2012-05-24, 09:49 AM

First impression: Elegance.

My first impression of the ruleset is that it's elegant, concise, and streamlined.

Overall the rules feel like 3E. However, where 3E has lots of different stats (your attributes; BAB; fort/ref/will save; various skill ranks) 5E simply has six. I think the theme here is to avoid unnecessary complications, as well as unnecessary dice rolls.

Seerow

2012-05-24, 09:49 AM

Still haven't got my first email. Now Im wondering if I messed up in my sign-up or something.

Ichneumon

2012-05-24, 09:52 AM

J.Gellert

2012-05-24, 09:57 AM

I don't know what you're allowed to say, but if it still has Vancian magic, blink twice. :smallbiggrin:

Textor44

2012-05-24, 09:58 AM

I just got my materials. I can't wait to be off work so I can actually go through them properly :smallbiggrin:

hamlet

2012-05-24, 10:00 AM

Went through the abysmally slow process of signing up for a WOTC account.

Now that login doesn't work.

Figure I probably have to wait for some confirmation email from them to activate it before I can proceed to the next step.

I hate computers. This worked better when the game was written on typewriters by dudes with awesome neckbeards.:smallwink:

Yora

2012-05-24, 10:01 AM

I'd say try again in three or four hours. If it doesn't work by that time, there will be mirrors of it on the internet that will work.

Shades of Gray

2012-05-24, 10:02 AM

Initial impressions are good.

Conundrum

2012-05-24, 10:02 AM

The Wizards site is incredibly slow at the moment, but I managed to get through signing up for a Wizards account and everything, and now I'm in my 30-60 minute wait for a download link :smallbiggrin:

hamlet

2012-05-24, 10:03 AM

I'd say try again in three or four hours. If it doesn't work by that time, there will be mirrors of it on the internet that will work.

But in three to four hours, my head will have already exploded . . .

Textor44

2012-05-24, 10:08 AM

I don't know what you're allowed to say, but if it still has Vancian magic, blink twice. :smallbiggrin:

From my understanding of the agreement we signed, we can't disclose mechanics, but we can disclose our thoughts on how things are going...

like, "Fireball now has a 1d12 damage on it" is probably not allowed, but "I'm loving the new fireball spell!" is perfectly fine.

Yora

2012-05-24, 10:12 AM

noparlpf

2012-05-24, 10:17 AM

I wish I could even access the stuff in the first place. The site is lagging so much right now, probably because of all the other geeks trying to access it too.

Venser

2012-05-24, 10:25 AM

For those who haven't been able to download it: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29135447/Download_link_issue_work_around!_

I'm reading through it now. Don't know what I can say about it in "public" and I'll reserve judgement until I've read it all (and played it), but I like what I see. They seem to have done a good job and it certainly "looks" like D&D.

The download llink in the original emails was corrupted. We've fixed that problem and for most who have gone through the process so that future emails have the correct link. For those who had the problem, we'll be sending out new emails with the correct link at some point, but for now you can click on this link to get to the playtest packet. wizards.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/...

this link does not work :smallfrown::smallfrown::smallfrown:

hamlet

2012-05-24, 10:26 AM

Well that's crapped out. WOTC locked me out for "exceeding my number of login attempts."

Have to wait till I get home at 10:00 now.

Scots Dragon

2012-05-24, 10:33 AM

Kurald Galain

2012-05-24, 10:33 AM

I don't know what you're allowed to say, but if it still has Vancian magic, blink twice. :smallbiggrin:

It does, but we already knew that from the various preview articles.

ImperiousLeader

2012-05-24, 10:38 AM

Vancian plus at-wills. The pregen wizard is pretty cool.

Laser Clerics and Battle Clerics survive!

Right now, colour me impressed.

Kurald Galain

2012-05-24, 10:45 AM

See also the public WOTC forum (http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/forum/view/75882/135766/dd_next_general_discussion) about 5E. It's seeing some heated discussion already.

Ichneumon

2012-05-24, 10:48 AM

Okay, having gotten hold of it...

I like what I see here, and this looks like a genuine step forward. I have no idea if later material will change that interpretation on my end, but there it is; I'll echo the statement that this does indeed 'look' like Dungeons & Dragons, and a whole lot more than 4th edition did, in my honest opinion.

True that. I was expecting it to look a lot like 3.5 (or pathfinder), but my initial impression is that it looks a lot more like AD&D (class presentation, simplification, class features etc.). Having said that, I think I can also see some clear influences of 4e and I don't think people who are on the 4e side of the fence will necessarily dislike it.

Again, I'll have to look at it more carefully (and still actually play it). Also, things might change and we haven't seen any maneuvers or "martial powers" at all yet. But I'm pleasantly surprised and think I'll like this game. Maybe they've even pulled it off (or are able to pull it off in coming revisions) to end the Edition Wars once at for all?

supermonkeyjoe

2012-05-24, 10:49 AM

Skimming through the files so far my impressions are pretty positive! It seems like the streamlining of 3.5 that I wanted from 4e but without the mechanics that didn't get right (haven't seen anything about healing surges or at-will/encounter/daily powers yet) powers yet)

I'm liking the idea of the Advantage/disadvantage mechanic, I'll be interested to see that one in play.

Edit: also Electrum and spell preparation time based on spell level! It really does seem like they've taken bits from every edition.

Scots Dragon

2012-05-24, 10:59 AM

Again, I'll have to look at it more carefully (and still actually play it). Also, things might change and we haven't seen any maneuvers or "martial powers" at all yet. But I'm pleasantly surprised and think I'll like this game. Maybe they've even pulled it off (or are able to pull it off in coming revisions) to end the Edition Wars once at for all?

I wouldn't go that far. People tend to be stubborn and set in their ways (myself included in that), so you'll likely still have the 'broken base'. Hell, just look at Dragonsfoot.org for the edition war as fought between 1st edition... and 1st edition after the release of a certain sourcebook. But I can see a lot of things here that people who are fans of earlier versions might be quite fond of, and I know I'm liking quite a bit of it.

Ranting Fool

2012-05-24, 10:59 AM

I'm still waiting for the servers to work so I can have a look :smalltongue:

Maxios

2012-05-24, 11:00 AM

I just signed up for the play-test, but I don't know what to do now. How do I access the rules?

Reynard

2012-05-24, 11:06 AM

Wait for an email, then hope against hope that the Wizard site isn't slow as all hell when you try to log in.

The Dark Fiddler

2012-05-24, 11:09 AM

I'm dying, here. I appear to have forgotten my password, so I'm trying everything I could possibly think of, waiting about 2 minutes each time. When I go to recover my password, I forget what I made the answer to the question, and when I finally remember, it tells me it can't give me my password, so I have to keep trying.

Eventually, I figure that maybe I just never made an account, so I try making one. Which takes forever, won't let me accept the Terms and Conditions, and ends up not working because I am, in fact, already using my email.

:smallsigh:

Anecronwashere

2012-05-24, 11:09 AM

something went wrong :smallfrown:
The download link didn't work and the download fix on the forum doesn't either. Does anyone know where the 2nd fix can be found?

Maxios

2012-05-24, 11:10 AM

Wait for an email, then hope against hope that the Wizard site isn't slow as all hell when you try to log in.

Thanks :smallsmile:.

J.Gellert

2012-05-24, 11:13 AM

Oooh so far it's looking good, feels like 4th edition never happened.

Venser

2012-05-24, 11:16 AM

Someone please help me.

The download llink in the original emails was corrupted. We've fixed that problem and for most who have gone through the process so that future emails have the correct link. For those who had the problem, we'll be sending out new emails with the correct link at some point, but for now you can click on this link to get to the playtest packet. wizards.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/...

After I could not get the 5th edition to download via mail, I have tried this, and after several minutes of loading all it says is bad request :(

Pls help me

Starbuck_II

2012-05-24, 11:20 AM

Venser

2012-05-24, 11:21 AM

How long will this playtest be avaliable?

DogbertLinc

2012-05-24, 11:28 AM

How long will this playtest be avaliable?

Probably until the next Playtest iteration comes around with rules on how to make characters and whatnot.

The Dark Fiddler

2012-05-24, 11:29 AM

Venser

2012-05-24, 11:32 AM

Probably until the next Playtest iteration comes around with rules on how to make characters and whatnot.

So, it is no problem if I don't download it today?

For those of you who have downloaded it...is the material on PDF or what?

J.Gellert

2012-05-24, 11:35 AM

So, it is no problem if I don't download it today?

For those of you who have downloaded it...is the material on PDF or what?

Zip file, multiple pdfs.

There are a number of solutions posted over on the ENWorld forums for those of you having trouble.

Maxios

2012-05-24, 11:48 AM

Zip file, multiple pdfs.

There are a number of solutions posted over on the ENWorld forums for those of you having trouble.

Can you provide some links?

Ichneumon

2012-05-24, 11:49 AM

So, it is no problem if I don't download it today?

For those of you who have downloaded it...is the material on PDF or what?

It's a friendly letter from Mike Mearls, 5 character sheets, one monster manual kind of file, the adventure module, DM guideline and a Player's guide.

Siegel

2012-05-24, 11:55 AM

Someone please make a motivator

5E Dwarfen Fighter
Breaking the action economy by level two. Twice a day.

J.Gellert

2012-05-24, 12:04 PM

This was given as a help to those that asked
http://ow.ly/b7Fkc

The thread is here
http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/323644-playtest-has-begun-6.html

Siegel

2012-05-24, 12:05 PM

CHA is a dumpstat again since social DCs depend on the level of roleplaying of the player. Thanks DnD for not helping the socialy awkard guys play cool talky bards...
No need to put points into CHA if you can just convince the DM in person...

RAAAAAARGH!

Venser

2012-05-24, 12:11 PM

This was given as a help to those that asked
http://ow.ly/b7Fkc

The thread is here
http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/323644-playtest-has-begun-6.html

Still now working :(

I get a security warrning an when I click proceed it says bad request error

Anecronwashere

2012-05-24, 12:17 PM

Still now working :(

I get a security warrning an when I click proceed it says bad request error

same here.

Is it a location issue? are there any other Aussies on here that have got the test?

noparlpf

2012-05-24, 12:19 PM

I don't know if it's location-based. I'm in the USA (New York) and I've been getting all the errors.

hamlet

2012-05-24, 12:20 PM

Hmmm . . . interesting. Seems that WOTC lives up to their record of bad network and computer problems and infuriating the customers.

I'm still waiting for the email from them with the download link.

Jerks.

DogbertLinc

2012-05-24, 12:21 PM

So, someone put all the playtest files on google docs. Just like teh Character Builder, pirating is the most efficient way to get WotC's product.

I just hope whatever money drawing gimmick 5e has, it's more competent than the Builder.

Anecronwashere

2012-05-24, 12:32 PM

My googlefu has failed me, what do I search for that google doc?
Just to read while WOTC gets around to actually launching those playtests

How hard is it to:
1. Set up a site to send playtesters too for confirming
2. set up a second site to send after-confirmation testers
3. include downloadable pdfs in the 2nd site
4. send emails to all the playtesters.

WOTC should hire pirates to do this part, they have XP with putting up downloads in mere hours.

noparlpf

2012-05-24, 12:34 PM

Check out the blog "Sword and Board".

So far WotC isn't impressing me much with their ability to make things work at all. I hope "D&D Next" isn't also subject to their inability to make things work.

DogbertLinc

2012-05-24, 12:35 PM

Considering this is supposed to be a "public" playtest, they should have have it for download on the D&D Next page and require an account to view.

Rather, there's this nonsense involving asking Customer Service or it. Also, I feel really sorry for the CustServ people, I really do.

Orsen

2012-05-24, 12:48 PM

Wizards knows the number of people signed up for these play tests right? So shouldn't they have been prepared for the increased traffic and had extra staff ready to deal with any technical issues?
I'm sitting here waiting for my second e-mail so I can start downloading so I've just got my fingers crossed it'll go smoothly.

hamlet

2012-05-24, 12:52 PM

I doubt they realized they needed to plan around the increased trafffic.

If they're anything like any other significant company, "plan" is not defined the way normal humans would.

And if you're like me, you'll wait at least 2 hours before you get your 2nd email. I'm still waiting.

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-24, 12:54 PM

Someone please make a motivator

5E Dwarfen Fighter
Breaking the action economy by level two. Twice a day.

I freaking LOVED that.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-24, 12:54 PM

I doubt they realized they needed to plan around the increased trafffic.

Actually doing that would cost a boatload of money for what amounts to 1 day. They would need to buy more servers and then have them sit in dust.

Just wait a couple of days.

noparlpf

2012-05-24, 12:55 PM

My second email took two hours, and the link was still broken! Even after they said they'd fixed it.

Swooper

2012-05-24, 12:59 PM

Managed to download it thanks to a googledocs link someone posted in the official thread over on wizards.com. Not sure what to think of this yet, will post again when I've had time to digest it. There's definitely both good and bad stuff in here...

Anecronwashere

2012-05-24, 01:00 PM

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-24, 01:01 PM

I found a link on zee twitter.

Welknair

2012-05-24, 01:02 PM

Since I signed up early, I was in the first batch of e-mails. Sadly, I'm at a location where the Wizards site is blocked. I trecked out to a nearby unprotected wi-fi and connected up. CAPTCHA. It wouldn't accept any of my captcha codes, and locked my account after around my tenth attempt. Now I won't be able to look at it until this evening. :smallfrown:

Clawhound

2012-05-24, 01:09 PM

Same here. I won't have a chance until the kid's in bed. She magically knows if daddy is interested in something, which usually results in me watching a marathon of My Little Pony. (Great show, btw. Kids get all the best shows these days.)

50Copper

2012-05-24, 01:13 PM

Advantage/Disadvantage is the equivalent, mathematically, of a +5 or a -5 to hit.

That will be the single thing every OP build will include at all times.

Bad idea if it's handed out like candy. Worse idea if it isn't.

Conundrum

2012-05-24, 01:13 PM

I found a link on zee twitter.

Any tips on how to find said link?

noparlpf

2012-05-24, 01:15 PM

I got the Sword&Board Blog pirate and am looking through the basics.
Right now a coupe things jump out

1. I freakin Love Advantage/Disadvantage. Maybe if we had an exponential rate of dice gains we could make an Advantage/Disadvantage Stacker?
Each extra dice takes more effort making it a specialized role
2. Improvise needs limits. Give us some examples or DCs to base our Improvs off or we get impossible rolls and too-easy rolls.
3. Hidden seems good.

Anyone wanna pitch in if they have the test yet? (if not google Sword and Board blog)
ideas, demotivators like above, rules recommendations?

#1: I think it's a decent idea, but should definitely scale with level/feats/whatever. One of my biggest problems with D&D mechanics is that a beginner and an expert have the same chances of automatically failing/succeeding at something. Even more so when the guys who taught you how to play houseruled natural 1/20 to apply to skills, too.

Same here. I won't have a chance until the kid's in bed. She magically knows if daddy is interested in something, which usually results in me watching a marathon of My Little Pony. (Great show, btw. Kids get all the best shows these days.)

Kids get all the best shows since forever.

Kurald Galain

2012-05-24, 01:18 PM

Advantage/Disadvantage is the equivalent, mathematically, of a +5 or a -5 to hit.

Yes. And that's a good thing, because it means that good tactics and ideas will actually make a big difference.

50Copper

2012-05-24, 01:19 PM

noparlpf

2012-05-24, 01:29 PM

I like how hit points are gained. It means I can build a wizard that's as bulky as the fighter if I so desire.

Can't wait to have the physical durability of the Hulk AND the arcane might of Dr. Strange.

You need to put your highest stat into Con instead of Int, then. And you'll still probably have lower HP than the fighter. Doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

Knaight

2012-05-24, 01:40 PM

Yes. And that's a good thing, because it means that good tactics and ideas will actually make a big difference.

A huge difference. I love it already.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-24, 01:41 PM

I like the spell descriptions being more thorough. Like charmed people remember being charmed.

I don't see any spells that are enchanced by increasing level though.

Welknair

2012-05-24, 01:47 PM

I don't see any spells that are enchanced by increasing level though.

Check Magic Missile.

bokodasu

2012-05-24, 01:47 PM

I won't have a chance until the kid's in bed. She magically knows if daddy is interested in something, which usually results in me watching a marathon of My Little Pony. (Great show, btw. Kids get all the best shows these days.)

I'd be in the same boat, except my kids are at Grammy's for the night. Insert maniacal laughter here! (Except for the fact that I'm behind a firewall for the next half hour, and then off the Internet entirely for the next six so I won't be able to download it until right before bed anyway. Sigh.)

Re: the server issues, yes, it would be very expensive to stand up a bunch of servers for a 1-2 day traffic surge and then have them sit idle for the next six months. That's why there are entire companies devoted to doing that for you, for a relatively reasonable cost. (You only pay for the time you're using the servers; the one we use can have us set up within a couple of hours, and decomission within an hour.) WotC is looking pretty amateur here.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-24, 01:50 PM

Check Magic Missile.

By expending higher levels. Not BY level. Magic missile is the only spell that scales with level.

Also, check out the medusa. Genuis method against save or suck.

Take a large penalty for not looking at the medusa or roll a save to save or stone.

Seems like a solid thing.

Maxios

2012-05-24, 01:51 PM

I just got the email! Will post first impressions!

Bad email-link. Damn :smallfrown:

noparlpf

2012-05-24, 01:55 PM

By expending higher levels. Not BY level. Magic missile is the only spell that scales with level.

Are we reading the same Magic Missile description? It looks to me like it scales by level the same as in 3e. Two 1d4+1 missiles at 3rd level, three at 5th, &c.

Also, check out the medusa. Genuis method against save or suck.

Take a large penalty for not looking at the medusa or roll a save to save or stone.

Seems like a solid thing.

It may not be solid, but your character will be when you fail your save. :b

The Dark Fiddler

2012-05-24, 01:55 PM

I'm not sure about how I feel about the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. It seems like it could be good, but if they throw it on everything it could easily go wrong, too.

I'm also wishing some of the spells let you choose what save to make. Hold Person feels like something you should be able to make a Strength save against, for example, but also something you can make a Wisdom save against.

And talking about saves, I'm kind of wishing that things like Charm Person and Command (where you're getting a will imposed on your own) allowed a Charisma save. If Charisma represents your force of personality, that seems like just to thing to resist having yours replaced by somebody else's, no?

And I guess I'm not to fond of the fact that the weapons are all very same-y. Though I do like the finesse weapons don't need a feat anymore, it appears, and that they also get Dexterity to damage.

noparlpf

2012-05-24, 01:58 PM

And talking about saves, I'm kind of wishing that things like Charm Person and Command (where you're getting a will imposed on your own) allowed a Charisma save. If Charisma represents your force of personality, that seems like just to thing to resist having yours replaced by somebody else's, no?

The one thing from 4e I liked was that Will saves get either your Wis or your Cha modifier.

So I'm checking out the Gelatinous Cube, because it's kind of integral to D&D, and they put a Con modifier of +5 for a score of 22.

Dienekes

2012-05-24, 01:59 PM

So far I like what I see, except the armor rules, they look kinda crap to be honest.

But besides that, looks fun and can't wait to try these out.

Orsen

2012-05-24, 02:00 PM

Well I got my e-mail and (surprise surprise), bad link. I tried the Sword and Board blog but that link was broken as well. Now I'm trying to find the googledoc. Fingers crossed...

Shades of Gray

2012-05-24, 02:02 PM

And talking about saves, I'm kind of wishing that things like Charm Person and Command (where you're getting a will imposed on your own) allowed a Charisma save. If Charisma represents your force of personality, that seems like just to thing to resist having yours replaced by somebody else's, no?

It's odd, especially since they mention charisma allowing you to resist dominations and compulsions in the ability score description section.

Maxios

2012-05-24, 02:02 PM

Well I got my e-mail and (surprise surprise), bad link. I tried the Sword and Board blog but that link was broken as well. Now I'm trying to find the googledoc. Fingers crossed...

If you find it, can you PM it to me?

Timeless Error

2012-05-24, 02:03 PM

Waiting for the second e-mail with the download link right now. Oh, the suspense!

hamlet

2012-05-24, 02:05 PM

Second email in. Link to download not working. Stupid stupid WOTC.

The Dark Fiddler

2012-05-24, 02:08 PM

So I'm checking out the Gelatinous Cube, because it's kind of integral to D&D, and they put a Con modifier of +5 for a score of 22.

See, a typo isn't THAT bad, but now that it's been brought back to mind...

So far I like what I see, except the armor rules, they look kinda crap to be honest.

Heavy armor does seem rather pointless, compared to either medium or light armor, as long as you have a decent (meaning non-negative) Dexterity.

Also, I can see Ray of Frost being ridiculous against solo-Melee types. Hit it, everybody attacks from range, hit it, everybody attacks from range, rinse, repeat.

Searing Light deals a whole lotta damage to undead... unless they really buffed enemies (can you tell I'm only on the spells right now?) it seems like any undead at low levels will get insta-killed.

Silence should allow a check of your casting stat rather than only ever an Intelligence check to keep casting.

I'm just using this thread as a deposit for what I find, now. Sorry, everybody.

Turn Undead says it can destroy undead, but I see nothing in the mechanics that would allow it.