D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread [Archive] - Page 6

Draz74

2012-07-30, 07:20 PM

Not to be snarky, but are there, really? I don't think I've ever met one.

Sure.

In my experience (which is admittedly a shaky sample size, which probably shouldn't be used to draw conclusions about the demographic as a whole), they tend to be the same segment of players who don't particularly enjoy combat. They're there to roleplay, rather than to play a tactical wargames (whereas most of us on this forum prefer a mix of both).

... which does raise the question as to whether the "super simple" class for these people should be the Fighter archetype, as opposed to, say, the Rogue. But like I said, limited sample size, probably shouldn't draw conclusions.

(Would people like that be better off playing some other RPG system rather than D&D? Probably. But D&D is easier to get a playgroup together for, since it's more well-known.)

In my opinion it's FAR easier to take a complex system and make it simple via a module, than it is to make a complex system a module.
Really? :smallconfused: This general statement immediately baffles me. It runs entirely contrary to my experience.

I mean if you have the complex option as core, writing a module to make it simple is as easy as saying "Take the average value of your combat superiority dice and apply it as a flat bonus to all damage rolls". Now you have an ultra simple fighter. It's weaker, but no options is ALWAYS weaker than options.
Not always. I mean, for a 3.5e example, try comparing a Truenamer to a Hulking Hurler ... at Level 8. One strong option is better than a big pile of nigh-useless options. But this is all a sidetrack ... my point is, it is possible (although very difficult) to balance power vs. versatility, in spite of what many optimizers have been led to believe by their 3.5e experience.

But sure. This is doable.

On the other hand, starting with a simple fighter, a module would need to include the combat superiority mechanic, and tons of options for that mechanic.
True ... but what's wrong with that? I mean, it seems like more work when you're just looking at the task of writing the module, but it's really not any more work overall. Because your previous idea involved writing "tons of options" in the original non-module ruleset.

Having an optional module taking up far more room that the main class is backwards imo.
So you're saying 3.5e Core would have been better off including Incarnum from the get-go, rather than making it an optional rules module (aka splatbook) that could be added and integrated in by groups who were interested? :smallconfused:

Seerow

2012-07-30, 07:27 PM

So you're saying 3.5e Core would have been better off including Incarnum from the get-go, rather than making it an optional rules module (aka splatbook) that could be added and integrated in by groups who were interested? :smallconfused:

Incarnum wasn't an option for a class, it was its own subsystem. What you are asking for is like saying that the Incarnate be released by default without Essentia, and only have one soulmeld that is preselected at level 1 and scales with him, then making the ability to get more soulmelds and assigning essentia an optional module.

obryn

2012-07-30, 07:28 PM

Actually, this entire disagreement is a simple difference in playstyle. NPCs aren't "monsters" or "encounters". They are actors in a world, and if it brings them into hostile contact with the PCs, then so be it.
Again, none of this is incompatible with building them using the 4e NPC rules. It's certainly how NPCs work in my own games, and I'd say it's supported via the rule-set.

-O

obryn

2012-07-30, 07:30 PM

Not to be snarky, but are there, really? I don't think I've ever met one.
Yep; I have one in my own group. She wants a fairly simple character with just a few moving parts. The Essentials-style 4e classes have been great for her. Right now she has a halfling scout/jaszt dancer, which is a fun little acrobatic charging cannonball of death.

-O

Oracle_Hunter

2012-07-30, 07:41 PM

You might have missed a certain page in the DMG. 2e is actually quite clear on how to calculate XP values for opponents.
Since you asked, 1 HD is equal to "one step" on the XP table. If you have a monster with 1 HD and no other specials or anything it would give 15 XP. Add another HD and the monster is now at 35 XP. Its very easy actually.

Does it always provide "accurate" amounts of XP? No, but with systems as complex as D&D this is hardly possible.
A simple look at the MM could tell you how little that sort of guideline helps when designing monsters. It completely leaves out all manner of tactically important concerns: big damage attacks, save or dies, spell levels, immunities -- the list goes on. Trying to design monsters along these "rules" and you may as well be designing them without.

Which, rather, was the point of my previous post :smallamused:

ImperiousLeader

2012-07-30, 07:51 PM

The addition of the slayer type-fighter in Essentials was a godsend for me, I often have a casual player show up with little interest in playing anything more complicated ... some don't even bother using the stances the class provides. They really just want to attack and see if they hit, then roll damage. Between the Slayer and inherent bonuses ... I can stat up a playable PC in 5 minutes that will work for a first-timer, at any level.

So, yes, there is a need for a simple fighter in 5e, and I'd like to see one. The Combat superiority mechanic sounds good. Will wait and see what it's like in practice.

Kerrin

2012-07-30, 07:56 PM

I must be be looking at this in too simple a manner.

If a DM prefers to use the PC building rules to make NPCs and monsters, then they can do so.

If a DM prefers to use the separate and streamlined monster / NPC building rules, then they can do so.

In most of the games I have DMed over the years the monsters and NPCs I have built are not necessarily bound by either types of rules. I just give them whatever they need for the purpose they are serving.

1337 b4k4

2012-07-30, 08:05 PM

In my opinion it's FAR easier to take a complex system and make it simple via a module, than it is to make a complex system a module.

I have to echo the above poster. This statement runs counter to my own experiences and my intuition as well. While there are some examples of this being relatively easy, usually the problem with taking a complex system and removing pieces to make a simpler system is that the system as a whole often relies on core assumptions about those pieces to work properly, such that it's more a large interconnected house of cards than a truly modular system. Some pieces you can remove just fine, but other pieces bring down the whole system or require the removal of other pieces.

This is like programing. Sure it's quicker and easier to build a giant monolithic system without encapsulation and message passing and objects and rules (well, to a point) but its much much harder to then break that system down and remove chunks and parts when you need to. On the other hand, if you do the extra work up front to build a truly modular system, adding, removing and changing parts is not only easier, but much less likely to break things, because there are less assumptions built in.

Seerow

2012-07-30, 08:20 PM

I have to echo the above poster. This statement runs counter to my own experiences and my intuition as well. While there are some examples of this being relatively easy, usually the problem with taking a complex system and removing pieces to make a simpler system is that the system as a whole often relies on core assumptions about those pieces to work properly, such that it's more a large interconnected house of cards than a truly modular system. Some pieces you can remove just fine, but other pieces bring down the whole system or require the removal of other pieces.

This is like programing. Sure it's quicker and easier to build a giant monolithic system without encapsulation and message passing and objects and rules (well, to a point) but its much much harder to then break that system down and remove chunks and parts when you need to. On the other hand, if you do the extra work up front to build a truly modular system, adding, removing and changing parts is not only easier, but much less likely to break things, because there are less assumptions built in.

I see people giving reasoning like this a lot, but game design is not programming. What is the base and what is optional does matter, because optional things by necessity won't get the support necessary to maintain a complex system.

As an example of removing a complex system in favor of something simple in an actual game: The spell-less Ranger/Paladin variants. They all sucked relative to having spells (because even a crappy casting progression gives far more versatility than anything simple could hope to provide), but are a perfect example of how you take a subsystem out of a class and replace it with something simpler.

On the other hand, you NEVER see a class start out simple and add on a whole resource system and large set of abilities to use with it. And even if something like that was done, since it's an optional addition rather than the baseline class, it would inevitably see less play (due to DMs claiming it's overpowered since a complex system is better than a simple one, and the simple one is core), and receive less support from the developers meaning fewer options for Fighters to use.

Seriously, show me one example of an ACF that provides a complex subsystem in place of a simple feature. It isn't something that actually happens in game design, and there are reasons for that. It may be more elegant to make the simple the baseline, but it isn't something that will actually work well in practice.

Edit: Just to give something else to think about, imagine if Vancian Spellcasting was an optional module in 3.5. Can you imagine having one system that covers 2 chapters and 40-50% of the page count of the book, being optional? Do you think if it was optional, and covered only 10 pages or so instead, it would have gotten half the later supplemental support? Heck no.

What I am looking for out of Combat Superiority (or whatever other system they go with for mundanes) is a system that is comparable in terms of complexity and options to spellcasting for mundanes. That is something that is straight up not going to be possible as an option, because they can't dedicate that kind of space to optional rules.

Knaight

2012-07-30, 08:38 PM

Seriously, show me one example of an ACF that provides a complex subsystem in place of a simple feature. It isn't something that actually happens in game design, and there are reasons for that. It may be more elegant to make the simple the baseline, but it isn't something that will actually work well in practice.
I can point you at several systems, of varying base complexity, which have entire subsystems that can be bolted on. GURPS is the most obvious example, but it is by no means the only one.

Seerow

2012-07-30, 08:43 PM

I can point you at several systems, of varying base complexity, which have entire subsystems that can be bolted on. GURPS is the most obvious example, but it is by no means the only one.

I haven't played GURPS so I could be wrong here, but as I recall was not a class based system, but was instead made with the intent you could bolt anything on to anything (sort of like the Generic Classes 3.5 variant, but more in depth). In that sense, everything was optional for a given class, but no given subsystem would be published that is going to be considered just optional.

It's like apples and oranges when compared to trying to take a system, and make it optional just for a single class in a D&D-style game.

Edit: The other point to consider is balance. Remember, options > not options. Sure there are rare exceptions where every single one of your pile of options is crap (truenamer), but I don't think anyone desires to see Wizards and other classes with options nerfed to that point. It is much easier to balance everyone at the baseline with a similar number of options. You can choose to make that point "No options" where the Wizard gets Magic Missile and the Fighter gets sword swing, or you can make that point lots of options where Wizards get lots of spells and Fighters get lots of cool maneuvers. Making one class inherently much weaker than another is not an option that is going to fly for a game that wants to be balanced, even if balance can in theory be achieved through other optional modules. Whatever baseline the game chooses to go with, it needs to be consistent in following that, not having classes all over the place.

Knaight

2012-07-30, 09:28 PM

I haven't played GURPS so I could be wrong here, but as I recall was not a class based system, but was instead made with the intent you could bolt anything on to anything (sort of like the Generic Classes 3.5 variant, but more in depth). In that sense, everything was optional for a given class, but no given subsystem would be published that is going to be considered just optional.

Most of the given subsystems are just optional. Strictly speaking, the entire combat subsystem is optional, and certainly the various things you can bolt on to it (e.g. the subsystems introduced in GURPS Martial Arts) are optional. Magic is even more blatant, as there are several different magic systems that one can choose to include or not include. The system is modular from the ground up, as are several other systems.

kyoryu

2012-07-30, 09:44 PM

Most of the given subsystems are just optional. Strictly speaking, the entire combat subsystem is optional, and certainly the various things you can bolt on to it (e.g. the subsystems introduced in GURPS Martial Arts) are optional. Magic is even more blatant, as there are several different magic systems that one can choose to include or not include. The system is modular from the ground up, as are several other systems.

The difference is that the game really works when the game as a whole either has the modules bolted on, or doesn't.

The most obvious example is basic/advanced combat. It wouldn't work well to have half of the players in a game using the Basic rules, and half using the Advanced rules. Which is kind of what 5e is promising, if I'm correct.

Craft (Cheese)

2012-07-30, 09:47 PM

The difference is that the game really works when the game as a whole either has the modules bolted on, or doesn't.

The most obvious example is basic/advanced combat. It wouldn't work well to have half of the players in a game using the Basic rules, and half using the Advanced rules. Which is kind of what 5e is promising, if I'm correct.

That's not it at all. Players don't choose what rules they're using, the DM does. Everyone at the table plays by the same rules in 5E.

1337 b4k4

2012-07-30, 09:55 PM

I see people giving reasoning like this a lot, but game design is not programming.

So pick another analogy. A business that is lean and modular is better able to handle changes in the industry, even if it means more up front work getting the module to work together.

Computer hardware has long since been about offloading specific tasks to modular devices rather than doing it in a monolithic master (see GPUs, Sound Cards, dedicated FPUs etc), even if it means more hardware cost.

Or as noted, just look at GURPS, a system who's every single aspect is more or less a module, with hundreds of optional source books. And GURPS as a whole (just the core rule book) is a massively more complex system than D&D has ever dreamed of being, even including everything 4e tries to do.

Incidentally, this also makes GURPS a lousy first choice RPG if you don't realize it's all optional. GURPS never really makes it explicit up front that everything in the book is more or less optional, and you can ignore any one part and it doesn't make a lot of difference. So if D&D is to succeed with modularity, and especially given their plans to include a bunch of modules right out of the box, they need to be explicit about the modularity in the beginning of the book.

What is the base and what is optional does matter, because optional things by necessity won't get the support necessary to maintain a complex system.

This just simply isn't true by default. If it take X resources to manage and support a complex system, there is no law of nature which prevents the application of that same X resources to supporting a simple system and the bolt ons. Now it does mean that an unpopular or DOA bolt on is likely to be dropped sooner rather than dragged kicking and screaming along with the system (AD&D psionics for example), but that's not a bad thing, because if it turns out the idea of that bolt on was popular enough, the resources that were being spent on that one can be turned towards forming a better replacement, rather than patching something already broken.

Yes, for a given level of complexity, it will take less resources to maintain a single monolithic complex system than it will to maintain a flexible modular system, but that goes back to the number of built in assumptions, that then cause the whole thing to break down when you start slicing out chunks.

Just to give something else to think about, imagine if Vancian Spellcasting was an optional module in 3.5. Can you imagine having one system that covers 2 chapters and 40-50% of the page count of the book, being optional?

Not only can I imagine it, I would love it. To have a simple workable spell system up front, with lots of options for customizing the spell system would be great, a thousand times better than requiring anyone who wants to be a cleric or a wizard to parse half the rule book to understand their spells.

Do you think if it was optional, and covered only 10 pages or so instead, it would have gotten half the later supplemental support? Heck no.

Given how much people complain that casters in 3.5 were so vastly overpowered (and how the splat books just made it worse) it seems to me this would have been unequivocally a good thing.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-07-30, 11:33 PM

Wow, that was longer than I thought. Reply spoilered for length.

So pick another analogy. A business that is lean and modular is better able to handle changes in the industry, even if it means more up front work getting the module to work together.

Computer hardware has long since been about offloading specific tasks to modular devices rather than doing it in a monolithic master (see GPUs, Sound Cards, dedicated FPUs etc), even if it means more hardware cost.

To continue with the computer metaphor1, it's not the case that a complex game system is a monolithic computer and a simple system is a bunch of modules, and it's hard to make the monolith modular but easy to make the modules monolithic. Obviously you don't want to couple different parts of the game so tightly that you can't swap out modules, and I don't think anyone's suggesting that "complex" should mean "very interconnected" and "simple" mean "very independent." Rather, the simple/complex division being talked about in this case--being able to take the variables in the Combat Superiority system and just "set and forget" them to simple values--is closer to customizing an operating system.

Let's take Windows for an example. There are a ton of people who don't muck around with Windows settings, or even install anything themselves; they're the "email and Google only" users who might maybe possibly have someone change their desktop backgrounds for them but otherwise leave everything on the factory defaults. On the other extreme end are power-users who tweak everything from colors and appearance to registry settings and everything in between. It is absolutely trivial to take the incredibly complex, incredibly customizable Windows OS and make it simple enough for your grandmother to use2--in fact it requires literally zero effort to do so once it's installed--because you can hide all of the complexity and difficulty "under the hood" so as not to scare off the less tech-savvy.

However, if you want to start with a nice, simple, one-size-fits-all interface and try to bolt on complexity as you go, there is no way in Baator you can start with a grandma desktop and end up with a hardcore gamer rig with any reasonable amount of time or effort. What's more, if you really do want to streamline the base experience, you're not leaving any API hooks to build from, so you really can't expect to go from a grandma desktop to really anything else without massive amounts of rewriting.

For a more explicitly D&D example, take the matter of falling damage, lava, and other hazards. There have been a few bazillion-page threads on EnWorld about whether such hazards should deal scaling or static damage, have saves, etc. or just be "death, no save" traps. Most people over there are arguing based on "realism" or balance or whatever, but what we're concerned about is extensibility. If you start off with a certain baseline like Lava does 2d6 damage on contact, 20d6 per round for immersion, or something a lot more complicated based on saves and level and distance and all, or even something basic like "lava does a bunch of fire damage when you're close to it," you can go a lot of places with that. You can add damage, decrease damage, change from flat to scaling or proportional damage, change the range it works at, add more thresholds, and a lot more. You as a DM have a good handle on how lethal Xd6 damage is, how hard it is to make a DC Y save, etc. for your party and can adjust accordingly. In fact, if you want to make it insta-death, it's trivial to do that, and you can tell what kind of effects your change will have.

If you start with "lava and falling kill you automatically," though, not only is that a lot harder to tweak (you can't make damage as gradual, differentiate effects, etc.) but it gives you nothing to work with. Is falling more or less deadly than lava, thematically? Are there any protections that work against lava? Are superhuman creatures less susceptible to the effect? It's a version of the "human scale" problem in 3e, where a bunch of rules are written assuming Medium creatures (using "Large" instead of "one size larger" in some cases, assuming 5-foot spaces for 5-foot steps, etc.)--the less granular or precise your rules, the harder it is to adapt them to unusual cases, and in a world where there are things made of fire, being able to tell how they interact with lava is kind of important.

As well, there is an important difference between an "everything is modular" system like GURPS and a "modules are variant options" system like D&D3. If everything is modular, the game doesn't assume that you're using a particular magic system, for instance, or even that you're using any magic system at all; everything is self-contained and interchangeable. However, in a D&D-style system where you have a certain assumed baseline explicitly stated by the designers that includes things like "the wizard is Vancian" and "the rogue relies on skills," you can't hot-swap other systems in to replace Vancian casting or skills as easily because the assumptions tie those subsystems more tightly into other parts of the rules. Anyone who has tried to run a psionics-only game has probably had to deal with the kind of effects you lose out on without Vancian casters; trying to use a 3e-style skill system in 4e or vice versa isn't a plug-and-play venture at all.

So if you're going to have those default assumptions and baselines (and every system does, even GURPS has a core mechanic and consistent attributes and health and such) and want to make it modular, you benefit from a more complex base system because there are more hooks for new modules and variants and it's either to drop or ignore things than to make up new things. If you have to choose between the 3e or 4e alignment system4, starting with the 3e version gives you several benefits: you can use CG, CN, LN, and LE mechanically, as with the many variant paladins; you can map the 3e alignments to the 4e alignments without much loss of generality; you have more granularity in the options ('apathetic' TN encompasses Unaligned, but Unaligned doesn't encompass the 'strongly balanced' TN); and so forth. If a 3e group wants to use 4e alignments, they can just decide that, for example, CG = G, LE = E, LN = CN = U, and go from there, but if a 4e group wants to use 3e alignments5 there's a lot more tweaking and decision-making involved to split their 5 alignments into 9.

So, tl;dr6: I completely agree with Seerow that, given the choice between either making a simple base system for the players who like simple classes and trying to bolt on complicated subsystems for players who like complex classes later or making a (reasonably) complex base system with newbie-friendly "default options" to try to accommodate both from the start, the latter approach is both better from a modular design perspective and more sustainable and elegant from a game lifespan perspective.

1 Not trying to conflate software design and RPG design or anything as Seerow suggested, I just like the metaphor.

2 No offense intended to any computer-literate grandmothers reading this. Please don't pwn me.

3 Yes, the devs claim that absolutely everything will be interchangeable, but (A) certain things like classes and levels and such can't really be changed out or it stops being the same game and (B) given their articles I have little confidence in their understanding of modular design.

4 I know some people don't want either one, but for the sake of argument we want to use one of the two.

5 Setting aside for the moment that 4e alignment doesn't do anything mechanically; just assume we're trying to implement similar mechanics and flavor for each system.

6 I'm using footnotes in a post on RPG design. I need serious help.

huttj509

2012-07-31, 01:01 AM

That's not it at all. Players don't choose what rules they're using, the DM does. Everyone at the table plays by the same rules in 5E.

That's been my impression as well. Something like where 2E's "variant rules" blocks might be gathered into a lump called "gritty module" or something, instead of being spread out. The idea being to make it clear "if you want to add _______ to your game, or change its style to _________, use these rules." An example of this could be a module designed to add more tactical combat rules, while the base rules work better for "theater of the mind" play than something with opportunity attacks galore.

This is why I really want to see some actual examples of how it would be presented, to make sure we're all thinking of similar things when discussing.

Zombimode

2012-07-31, 01:33 AM

A simple look at the MM could tell you how little that sort of guideline helps when designing monsters. It completely leaves out all manner of tactically important concerns: big damage attacks, save or dies, spell levels, immunities -- the list goes on. Trying to design monsters along these "rules" and you may as well be designing them without.

Which, rather, was the point of my previous post :smallamused:

Uhm, do you have seen the table :smallconfused:? Because every single point you raised is on this table. Big damage is +1; save or dies range from +2 to +3, depending on the specific type; spell levels are worth +1 for 1st and 2nd level, and +2 for anything above (which is bullcrap, but hey, its there); different kinds of immunities are listed separately and range from +1 to +2 and there is a generic "special defense" for +1.

Figuring out the XP value for any monster using those guidelines is actually pretty easy.

Camelot

2012-07-31, 09:23 AM

Perhaps. But I still get the impression that the designers could have done a trial, and that they might have been surprised.

Also, note that rulers are pretty commonplace, cost orders of magnitude less than the D&D books, and are cheaper than graph paper. Not requiring extra accessories to play can be a noble goal, but I don't think anyone would consider having to have a ruler on hand to be a credible disadvantage to a game.

Using rulers with several miniatures on the table would be a nightmare for me, and make combat go even slower than it does now. It would, however, be simple to change the rules of 4e to fit using a ruler. Change every mention of a square to 5 feet, and proceed. The designers may not have suggested it, but that doesn't mean it's not an option.

My problem with those people? There's the Spectator class I homebrewed up, just for them. Now they don't have to worry about anything! Why lump people who want to play a non-gish melee character and people who really want to play the spectator into the same group?

(And, really, I'd be perfectly fine with alienating that audience. D&D can't be all things to all people, and it shouldn't try. People who don't actually want to be playing a roleplaying game are as good a choice as any to ignore.)

I have a member of my group who plays as simple a character as possible, mechanically. She loves to make complex characters, with rich backstories and plenty of opportunities for character development. However, the rest of my group prefers having interesting combat and puzzles more than roleplaying conversations, or at least like to have a balance among them. Should we alienate our friend just because she doesn't have a very tactics-oriented mind, and has a hard time grasping the rules? She definitely wants to play a roleplaying game, but if she tries to play anything more complicated than a slayer in 4e, her turns become so slow that it becomes not fun for the other players. When she has her simple character, everyone's happy.

I don't mind making up my own homebrew, but I was glad when Essentials came out, because it made things simpler for those who wanted that. I hope that 5e has a similar range of complexity from the getgo.

jseah

2012-07-31, 09:40 AM

Again, none of this is incompatible with building them using the 4e NPC rules. It's certainly how NPCs work in my own games, and I'd say it's supported via the rule-set.
Oh, of course it is not incompatible since the NPC rules can do nearly everything and mimicking a PC class is trivial.
But I want my NPCs to be people, just like the PCs.

Or put it another way, PCs aren't special because everyone is just like them. (I note that this is probably another place where our styles differ; most of my campaigns have the PCs be relatively normal citizens (with one game being an exception))
Addition: Heroes, to me, get made after they're done; and not something inherent to them. The kid who slays the dragon isn't a hero. He's just a plucky kid who's good with a sword (or bow, or magic, or...). PEOPLE make him into a hero.

Uhm, do you have seen the table :smallconfused:? Because every single point you raised is on this table. Big damage is +1; save or dies range from +2 to +3, depending on the specific type; spell levels are worth +1 for 1st and 2nd level, and +2 for anything above (which is bullcrap, but hey, its there); different kinds of immunities are listed separately and range from +1 to +2 and there is a generic "special defense" for +1.
Teleportation? Movement restriction abilities?
Action economy?
Illusions (as in ability to make people see false information)? Information gathering abilities?

The effects of those range from nearly zero to game breaking, depending on the situation and strength (as well as opponent's defenses against it).

Come to think of it, if I GM 4E, the daily and encounter power list will probably rise dramatically in number and flexibility. (not just for wizards, I have no qualms about giving fighters explicit magic)
Adding some dailies that are free and fast ritual casting could be an option... hmm... *writes it down*

obryn

2012-07-31, 09:53 AM

I was glad when Essentials came out, because it made things simpler for those who wanted that. I hope that 5e has a similar range of complexity from the getgo.
Agreed 100%. The Essentials classes, in my mind, made 4e a pretty complete system. Before those books, I had a player join a Level 17 campaign... I threw a Ranger at him and said, "just twin strike every round and you'll be at 80% efficiency." He learned, but it was a relatively steep curve.

If the E-style classes had been around back then, I wouldn't have needed to do that.

Or put it another way, PCs aren't special because everyone is just like them. (I note that this is probably another place where our styles differ; most of my campaigns have the PCs be relatively normal citizens (with one game being an exception))
Addition: Heroes, to me, get made after they're done; and not something inherent to them. The kid who slays the dragon isn't a hero. He's just a plucky kid who's good with a sword (or bow, or magic, or...). PEOPLE make him into a hero.
When I want to run a game where the PCs are kind of average joes, going from commoner to (maybe) hero, I'll run WFRP2e. I think it's way better suited for that playstyle than any version of D&D is. :smallsmile: (Also, fwiw, it's a phenomenal system in general.)

If I'm running D&D, "normal person" is not what I'm looking for. I want the PCs to start out as ... well, novice adventurers, going out to make their fortune. Not bakers & blacksmiths. And any asymmetry between their capabilities and the capabilities of the people around them is kind of irrelevant... A D&D game is seen through the lens of the PCs; I'm the only one who gets to step out of that perspective.

(Also, I think you might be exaggerating how powerful level 1 4e characters are... You might be shocked at the high lethality rate at low levels - up until about 6th or 7th, things can easily get dicey.)

-O

Oracle_Hunter

2012-07-31, 10:02 AM

Come to think of it, if I GM 4E, the daily and encounter power list will probably rise dramatically in number and flexibility. (not just for wizards, I have no qualms about giving fighters explicit magic)
Adding some dailies that are free and fast ritual casting could be an option... hmm... *writes it down*
You might want to actually run vanilla 4e first before trying to "fix" it :smalltongue:

Basically, a lot of your "fixes" misunderstand how 4e is put together and operate on incorrect assumptions on how things work in practice. As a rule, it is really easy to mistake how it works "on paper" and how it works "in practice" -- which is one reason why I find actual 5e Playtesters invaluable in discussions about 5e. I like theoretical discussions as much as the next guy but seeing how things work in practice (and figuring out why they do) always has to trump it.

N.B. This is not an appeal to the "Perfect DMs / Perfect Players" fallacy since the why things work out a given way is often the most telling. When I see games run without regard to the rules (or relying heavily on the "DM Fiat" clauses) that tells me the underlying rule is broken somehow even if, in play, everyone just works around it.

For the 4e example, this is Skill Challenges: a fine mechanic, but in implementation it never works as laid out in the rules. I'd like to see it in 5e, since iterative mechanics are a nice fix on d20 variability issues, but it needs to be completely reworked to be useful.

Ashdate

2012-07-31, 10:18 AM

Come to think of it, if I GM 4E, the daily and encounter power list will probably rise dramatically in number and flexibility. (not just for wizards, I have no qualms about giving fighters explicit magic)
Adding some dailies that are free and fast ritual casting could be an option... hmm... *writes it down*

Not to spoil your fun, but have you tried DMing 4e? I ask because you seem to want to really redesign how the game is run, and I'm not sure if that comes from personal experience, or some imagined flaws with the system.

Fights can take a long time because characters are (overall) more complicated than they were in 3.5 (certainly wizards and clerics are easier, but everything else is more complex). In fact, I find the quickest turns to be my monsters, since (despite controlling more than one), they're much simplier!

Instead of a fighter/paladin/ranger having one option for attacking things with a sword, they likely have 5 or more. Adding more complexity to the characters (combat wise) is something I would steer you away from; standard non-essentials classes already approach what I would consider the point of diminishing returns in terms of more abilities = more flexibility.

If you make monsters/NPCs more complex as well as make PCs more complex, I think you're asking for trouble.

To Oracle Hunters point, I would like to see "reworked" skill challenges in 5e too; I tried out the "Obsidian" skill challenge house rules for 4e last game and they worked better than I thought they would.

5e's challenge is that the skill reductionism to "base stats" could go either way; regardless, fixing the skill DCs are going to be necessary first so a high roll on a d20 doesn't become so crucial.

Siegel

2012-07-31, 10:21 AM

Using rulers with several miniatures on the table would be a nightmare for me, and make combat go even slower than it does now. It would, however, be simple to change the rules of 4e to fit using a ruler. Change every mention of a square to 5 feet, and proceed. The designers may not have suggested it, but that doesn't mean it's not an option.

I have a member of my group who plays as simple a character as possible, mechanically. She loves to make complex characters, with rich backstories and plenty of opportunities for character development. However, the rest of my group prefers having interesting combat and puzzles more than roleplaying conversations, or at least like to have a balance among them. Should we alienate our friend just because she doesn't have a very tactics-oriented mind, and has a hard time grasping the rules? She definitely wants to play a roleplaying game, but if she tries to play anything more complicated than a slayer in 4e, her turns become so slow that it becomes not fun for the other players. When she has her simple character, everyone's happy.

I don't mind making up my own homebrew, but I was glad when Essentials came out, because it made things simpler for those who wanted that. I hope that 5e has a similar range of complexity from the getgo.

Well you could play a game that is Not DnD. Suprising idea i know. What else could there be...

obryn

2012-07-31, 10:38 AM

Well you could play a game that is Not DnD. Suprising idea i know. What else could there be...
So the solution to having one player at a table who's not mechanically inclined, sitting with a bunch of other players who are, is ... to play something else? Instead of use something that works perfectly well and makes everyone happy?

-O

1337 b4k4

2012-07-31, 11:26 AM

So the solution to having one player at a table who's not mechanically inclined, sitting with a bunch of other players who are, is ... to play something else? Instead of use something that works perfectly well and makes everyone happy?

<sarcasm>
Oh come now, it's quite clear that it doesn't make everyone happy. There's plenty of nerd rage to be had when you mix simple classes into their tactical miniatures game. It doesn't matter that it makes your group happy, having mechanically simple classes is clearly doubleplusunfun, and if you're playing D&D with them you're clearly Doing It Wrong.
</sarcasm>

Kerrin

2012-07-31, 11:36 AM

But I want my NPCs to be people, just like the PCs.
Use the PC rules to make your NPCs if that's what you prefer.

WotC is not going to issue a Wanted poster for you if you do ... or are they? :smallcool:

huttj509

2012-07-31, 11:43 AM

<sarcasm>
Oh come now, it's quite clear that it doesn't make everyone happy. There's plenty of nerd rage to be had when you mix simple classes into their tactical miniatures game. It doesn't matter that it makes your group happy, having mechanically simple classes is clearly doubleplusunfun, and if you're playing D&D with them you're clearly Doing It Wrong.
</sarcasm>

And obviously being the simple class is what the fighter's FOR.

I think we should have simple classes. I think we should have complex classes. I do NOT think that the split should be along magic/mundane lines. Ideally, if you wanted to play a concept, you could do it either complex or simple.

3E didn't really get complex fighter-type until ToB, a bit late in the system. The starting intent was for complexity to come in build rather than play, from the feat trees, but it didn't work out that way.

4E didn't really get simple until Essentials. Judgment on if this was too late after release is YMMV.

I think trying to include simple and complex of the same archetype in the starting book might feel a bit repetitive, but in order to accommodate preferences might be the best move.

kyoryu

2012-07-31, 12:01 PM

And obviously being the simple class is what the fighter's FOR.

I think we should have simple classes. I think we should have complex classes. I do NOT think that the split should be along magic/mundane lines. Ideally, if you wanted to play a concept, you could do it either complex or simple.

I think there's also degrees of simplicity. See, when I think "simple Fighter", I think 1e/2e, where the only real option a Fighter had in combat (mechanically defined, not subject to DM whim, that is), was "hit the orc." Even if there were no orcs there, and you were fighting kobolds, you had to hit the orc. It was a weird time.

The 4e Essentials fighters were simpler than the pre-Essentials ones, sure, but they still had more choices and options than a 1e fighter. I could buy someone wanting to play an Essentials-type Fighter, but going back to the 1e style "hit the orc" fighter would be, I think, a poor decision.

What would be ideal for a "simple" class is one that could operate at a reasonable degree of efficiency, but had more knobs to tweak so that you could grow "into" the class over time if you so chose.

huttj509

2012-07-31, 12:15 PM

Use the PC rules to make your NPCs if that's what you prefer.

WotC is not going to issue a Wanted poster for you if you do ... or are they? :smallcool:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/huttj/automotivator1.jpg

jseah

2012-07-31, 12:20 PM

@Kerrin:
My GM tried that and I liked the effect, so I plan to do that if I ever GM 4E. In particular, I liked it enough as well when I do it in 3E that I think 5E ought to explicitly support NPCs being made with PC rules.

Probably not monsters, but one cannot have all the cake to yourself. =X

Not to spoil your fun, but have you tried DMing 4e? I ask because you seem to want to really redesign how the game is run, and I'm not sure if that comes from personal experience, or some imagined flaws with the system.
Also to Oracle Hunter:
True, I admit I haven't actually run 4e, although I have played it. From the player's side of the table, I found that the things I would expect my players to do (and tools/rules to guide them) were missing. The executive summary is, I found 4E combat to be chess. Really *really* complicated chess, but you don't get to do much more than maybe take away a tile.

I talked about running 4E with my friends at one point. I did get to the planning stage of a setting (upon which I was lacking a number of effects I really wanted my NPCs to have), but due to RL reasons, the thing never happened.

There are and still may be (I dropped 4E somewhere after Adventurer's Vault was released, so they might have fixed it since then) some significant gaps in the PC abilities. Even in the realm of combat, which 4E focuses on. I shall mention the lack of complex out of combat stuff only in passing. (rituals are too simple and inflexible; also too weak)
--long long rant here--In particular, I found both positive and negative status effects to be weak, except the healing types, and nearly pointless except in the exact situation they fit. (upon which they become useful, but not more than that)
Movement powers have incredibly transient effects and if some of them didn't bundle an attack, would be worse than useless.
Terrain-type powers (essentially a status effect on the ground instead of on creatures) are also likewise lackluster except for the fogs, which had some interesting uses.

But in summary, the things I found wrong with conflict in 4E is the lack of lasting significant* advantages that each side could aim for and hold. Combat was pretty much a very complex chess game with dice, the most advanced tactics we could think of to apply was,
"If I go here, and do X power, that might allow the monster to attack the wizard. He's still at full hp, he can take one hit, but afterwards, we'll be surrounding the monster on favourable terrain..."
- Of course, when you do that, expecting the monster to not attack, the GM sees the bait and decides to take it and rolls a crit... =D

There is little real tradeoff, most of the decisions are a matter of simple analysis of your and enemy's future opportunities with risk/reward factoring in somewhere.

I prefer conflict, tactical combat in particular, to contain multiple dimensions and each of them to contribute significantly to the results. This means that players have to think about their weapons, the immediate area, the wider conflict and information.
When assaulting or defending a castle (I know I know castles are a bad idea), knowledge of the layout, the layout itself, knowing where enemies are and what they are doing, as well as what they are likely to do in certain situations, what you know and don't know, what your enemies know and don't know,
should all factor into every fight within its walls. EDIT: and players and NPCs should have methods to influence some or all of them, during a fight or in preparation.

When 4E combat starts, most of that goes flying out the window or grants CA for one round (surprise). The most important threat I can think of to the players' poor preparation is that they end up fighting the entire garrison at once. Which is a pretty bad situation to be in, but there is nearly nothing other than numbers.
Unfair decided-before-first-attack battles are basically impossible unless you're fireballing minions, which indicates that Advantages-to-be-gained are not significant enough or do not stack enough or aren't there in the first place. Not saying that those battles should occur all the time, but them being possible at all is important.

EDIT2:
The effects of those range from nearly zero to game breaking, depending on the situation and strength (as well as opponent's defenses against it).
To clarify here, I meant that the GM could give NPCs some of these abilities since NPCs can be given apparently anything.
Of course, if your players can't teleport through walls, then you probably shouldn't have enemies who can.
...
I'm not explaining myself well here, am I?

Chalk it up to "its too simple!" but keep in mind that simply making it more complex in terms of additional power choices doesn't do anything to solve that problem.
There needs to be more "game". Broadening the spheres that characters can influence is my attempt at doing that. As to whether that'll actually work out remains to be actually tested.

obryn

2012-07-31, 12:30 PM

I think we should have simple classes. I think we should have complex classes. I do NOT think that the split should be along magic/mundane lines. Ideally, if you wanted to play a concept, you could do it either complex or simple.
In 4e, the Elementalist from Heroes of the Elemental chaos finally filled this void. And it's an outstanding class - a very capable striker even with its limited scope. I'd love to play one.

4E didn't really get simple until Essentials. Judgment on if this was too late after release is YMMV.
As a 4e fan, I wish Essentials had been the first release, rather than late in the system. I think it would have been a much cleaner release to have the normal AEDU classes come later (but not too long later). I'm glad we eventually got the options, though. Better late than never.

-O

jseah

2012-07-31, 12:45 PM

When I want to run a game where the PCs are kind of average joes, going from commoner to (maybe) hero, I'll run WFRP2e. I think it's way better suited for that playstyle than any version of D&D is. :smallsmile: (Also, fwiw, it's a phenomenal system in general.)
<...>
(Also, I think you might be exaggerating how powerful level 1 4e characters are... You might be shocked at the high lethality rate at low levels - up until about 6th or 7th, things can easily get dicey.)
Playstyle difference. Even my entire "4E combat is too simple" post can be boiled down to two simple words.

Playstyle difference.

I played an L1 introductory short, started L5 in campaign going to L10. If that's what you call high lethality... =(
Until you stand a 50% chance of losing life and limb unless you were prepared, that's not high lethality. If players could charge into battle, every even battle that is, for 5 levels, and still stand a >80% chance of being alive, I call that safe.

Kurald Galain

2012-07-31, 12:59 PM

(Also, I think you might be exaggerating how powerful level 1 4e characters are... You might be shocked at the high lethality rate at low levels - up until about 6th or 7th, things can easily get dicey.)

That's not my experience at all. Level 1 may be risky if you play encounters that are several levels higher, and there are some risks to not having a leader at the table, but otherwise I've seen extremely little character death, or risk thereof, in four years of gameplay.

Let's face it, the game is built on the assumption that player characters gain experience mainly (though not exclusively) through combat, and generally against higher-level opponents. Since resurrection is not available at low levels, this means that if combat was truly dangerous to characters, they would only rarely make it to moderate levels.

kyoryu

2012-07-31, 01:10 PM

Until you stand a 50% chance of losing life and limb unless you were prepared, that's not high lethality.

That's a very different style game, one where what's really encouraged is preparation and planning, and not fighting itself - in a system like that, you should really know that you're going to win before you even engage.

That's a playstyle that 3.x just flat-out supports better than 4e. I don't think that particular playstyle was really an objective of 4e, and I'm frankly not sure it *should* be an objective of 5e. (Not that there's anything wrong with it, I just suspect (meaning - no data) that it's relatively niche).

obryn

2012-07-31, 01:12 PM

That's not my experience at all.
Fair enough. It is mine.

Let's face it, the game is built on the assumption that player characters gain experience mainly (though not exclusively) through combat, and generally against higher-level opponents. Since resurrection is not available at low levels, this means that if combat was truly dangerous to characters, they would only rarely make it to moderate levels.
{{scrubbed}}

As I mentioned before, if I hadn't implemented a few get-out-of-death-free cards at the start of the campaign, everyone in my group (except one) would have lost at least 1 character before 8th level. Naturally, the optimization levels will vary across groups; I'd consider my group fairly mid-range for this.

Now, by mid-paragon, things are not so dicey. I had two near-deaths a few sessions back, but no actual deaths in a few levels.

-O

kyoryu

2012-07-31, 01:14 PM

Now, by mid-paragon, things are not so dicey. I had two near-deaths a few sessions back, but no actual deaths in a few levels.

-O

Seems like the encounters a particular DM throws at the party would impact this significantly.

Also, how cutthroat the enemies are played. Do they go for a coup de grace given a chance? Do they AoE where unconscious characters are? How much time do people have to stabilize downed characters?

obryn

2012-07-31, 01:41 PM

Seems like the encounters a particular DM throws at the party would impact this significantly.

Also, how cutthroat the enemies are played. Do they go for a coup de grace given a chance? Do they AoE where unconscious characters are? How much time do people have to stabilize downed characters?
Ummm... I think it's more that, by this level, the PCs have considerably more resources to handle Level+0, +1, +2, and higher encounters. It's one thing when you're level 5, with two dailies, two (three w/ themes) encounter powers, 1 utility power, and a pair of at-wills. It's another at Paragon when you have 3+ dailies, 4-5 encounters, and a handful of utility powers along with your paragon path features and a decent collection of magic items and/or boons. Monsters just don't get better in those ways.

In my own game, monsters are indiscriminate with their AoEs. It's wherever's best. By paragon, Coup de Grace is a trap option for most monsters.*

Take your average fragile striker or leader, with 91ish HPs. Common damage expressions for a 15th-level monster are around 2d10+12 (or in that neighborhood), or 32 damage on a crit. If you need to get to -45 or so at best, odds are good you're wasting your action because any healing will wtill start from 0 and make it so that damage basically never happened. If they have more than this, you're even more likely to waste your round.

It's usually better for intelligent enemies to start targeting the leader if possible. With that said, intelligent enemies in my games sometimes make use of it, as do hungry ones who view the PCs mostly as a food source. :smallsmile:

I think by mid-Paragon, the actual encounter level needed to reasonably challenge a party is around Level+2 with balanced terrain; maybe L+0 with strongly monster-favorable terrain. L+4-5 is hard, and L+6-8 or so is TPK potential.

-O

Kurald Galain

2012-07-31, 01:54 PM

Seems like the encounters a particular DM throws at the party would impact this significantly.
Probably, but I've found that paragon characters have so many "panic buttons" that it's very hard to seriously challenge a party with decent tactics.

Also, how cutthroat the enemies are played. Do they go for a coup de grace given a chance? Do they AoE where unconscious characters are? How much time do people have to stabilize downed characters?
These questions assume that characters fall unconsious in the first place. Yes, that does happen, but not commonly, and generally the leader will bring them back up quickly afterwards. I've never seen stabilization come up above level 3 or so: combat will simply be over before a character has the time to run out of death saves.

jseah

2012-07-31, 02:30 PM

That's a very different style game, one where what's really encouraged is preparation and planning, and not fighting itself - in a system like that, you should really know that you're going to win before you even engage.

That's a playstyle that 3.x just flat-out supports better than 4e. I don't think that particular playstyle was really an objective of 4e, and I'm frankly not sure it *should* be an objective of 5e. (Not that there's anything wrong with it, I just suspect (meaning - no data) that it's relatively niche).
This was just a comment on what I would consider high lethality.

I don't actually run high lethality games all that often unless it's some challenge run. (I made a challenge arena-like once in 3E, where the lowest OP character was a shadow jumping infinite-crit-chaining monster. Note, *lowest* OP. It had a 80% death rate per challenge. XD Later, the "champion" character who never got to play had a time taken to cast buffs of about 3 IG days and a description of the procedure about a page long)

But to initiate a combat against equally matched opponents in the style I run means to risk death 50% of the time... if it was an arena battle, which basically never happens anyway. That is what it means to be equally matched. (EDIT: and obviously the point is to make the fight as unequal as possible)

I don't particularly make enemies try to kill downed characters (unless the PCs keep healing downed guys), but they WILL focus fire and they WILL nova. NPCs built to fight will have sensible fighting builds, not random classes thrown together. They use PC tactics just like PCs... use PC tactics.

It's just that I like to run campaigns with a PC/NPC blind ruleset. No special treatment.

Stubbazubba

2012-07-31, 02:43 PM

That's not it at all. Players don't choose what rules they're using, the DM does. Everyone at the table plays by the same rules in 5E.

I can't find it right now, but I do recall a designer describing their vision of a 5e group as a bare-bones Fighter with just Abilities, BAB, Saves, and Equipment playing in the same group as a Fighter with all that + Feats, Skills, Combat Maneuvers, etc. I'll keep looking for it.

Kurald Galain

2012-07-31, 02:48 PM

obryn

2012-07-31, 03:29 PM

These questions assume that characters fall unconsious in the first place. Yes, that does happen, but not commonly, and generally the leader will bring them back up quickly afterwards. I've never seen stabilization come up above level 3 or so: combat will simply be over before a character has the time to run out of death saves.
It's all about different optimization levels. For a higher-op party, the above will be true.

In my own group, nobody's particularly high-op, because that often depends on equipment they just don't have access to. (I'm running Dark Sun with inherent bonuses; the items they get usually add to breadth more than enhancing their specialization.) Everyone's built pretty solidly using their powers and feats, with inherent bonuses and a few magic items unrelated to any wishlists. Tactics vary; they generally focus-fire well, unless I'm making that difficult. We have characters go unconscious in about three out of four battles, though getting to 2 death saves or a few points from negative bloodied is not nearly as common as it used to be.

We've had PCs triggering second winds for other PCs pretty often with Heal checks, and at least one person takes their Second Wind in most encounters. So yeah - I'd say experience varies heavily between tables.

-O

Oracle_Hunter

2012-07-31, 05:53 PM

Uhm, do you have seen the table :smallconfused:? Because every single point you raised is on this table. Big damage is +1; save or dies range from +2 to +3, depending on the specific type; spell levels are worth +1 for 1st and 2nd level, and +2 for anything above (which is bullcrap, but hey, its there); different kinds of immunities are listed separately and range from +1 to +2 and there is a generic "special defense" for +1.

Figuring out the XP value for any monster using those guidelines is actually pretty easy.
OK, you made me actually dig out my AD&D DMG (2nd Edition) and look at the table (p. 69).

It's total crap. How can you defend this? "Possesses Magic Items usable against PCs = +1 HD," "Invisible At-Will = +1 HD," "Level 2 or Lower Spells (e.g. Aid, Magic Missile) = +1 HD," "Level 3 or greater spells (e.g. Fireball, Wish) = +1 HD." This is exactly what I was talking about: rules that give you no actual guidance on how much XP a monster should be worth. It's telling you that a Hobgoblin who can cast Fireball is worth just as much XP as one that can cast Wish or one that can become Invisible At Will.

At least I'm glad I wasn't unfairly maligning TSR-era RPGs :smallbiggrin:

1337 b4k4

2012-07-31, 06:48 PM

I can't find it right now, but I do recall a designer describing their vision of a 5e group as a bare-bones Fighter with just Abilities, BAB, Saves, and Equipment playing in the same group as a Fighter with all that + Feats, Skills, Combat Maneuvers, etc. I'll keep looking for it.

Zack S. (who was hired by WotC though to what end he really hasn't said) postulated on such a system for his Type V posts (google them if you want, his site is usually NSFW). And either he or Jeff Rients I believe actually sat down and ran a game session with each player using a different rules system (some not even D&D) and stated that with the right DM tools and a bit of tweaking, it actually could be quite doable.

That said, I can think of a couple of ways to make it work. Building off the posts from Zack, you essentially want to build a system where the mechanically simple classes get a pretty standard flat bonus progression. For the complex classes, they get the better options at the expense of that progression. For example if a basic fighter gets a + to HP, BAB and Saves every level, a "complex" fighter might trade away one or more of those pluses to instead gain access to powers.

Another option would be to concede what early D&D recognized long ago, which was more powerful classes should advance slower. Give each class their own experience progression and have the simpler classes level faster than the complex classes. Heck if you do it right, that makes having the simple / medium / complex classes built into the book really easy because you can have different tiers of classes to group together (and add or remove as modules) and you don't necessarily have to worry that a level 10 basic fighter and a level 10 complex fighter are of equal power because they shouldn't be. Perhaps a level 5 complex fighter should be able to hold their own in battles that would take a level 8 or 9 simple fighter, and that's perfectly OK as long as it's given up front that comparing levels across classes and tiers is not possible, and that you should rather compare total XP values to get an idea of the relative powers.

kyoryu

2012-07-31, 08:21 PM

Yora

2012-08-01, 05:21 AM

obryn

2012-08-01, 08:34 AM

In 4e, essentials fighters and regular ones seem to do okay at the same table.
Absolutely. It's why people who insist on calling the Essentials releases an "edition" baffle me. :smallsmile:

-O

Camelot

2012-08-03, 09:39 AM

Well you could play a game that is Not DnD. Suprising idea i know. What else could there be...

Oh, we do. I play D&D 4e, Star Wars Saga, Dragon Age RPG, Solar System, Microscope, Pathfinder, D&D 5e (playtest and when it comes out), several games I've made up myself, and that's just the roleplaying games. There's also Munchkin, Settlers of Catan, Magic: the Gathering, Wrath of Ashardalon, Diplomacy...

When I want to play a different game, I play it. Each of them are unique, and I like each of them for different reasons. Certain players don't like other games, but D&D is one we can all agree on, because it has varying levels of complexity at the same table. 5e sounds like it's trying to improve on that.

I think we should have simple classes. I think we should have complex classes. I do NOT think that the split should be along magic/mundane lines. Ideally, if you wanted to play a concept, you could do it either complex or simple.

I agree. I made a Essentials style class for the sorcerer that had the simplicity of the Slayer but with ranged magical attacks and it worked fine. The fighter's Combat Superiority can, in theory, be used for either simplicity (using your dice for more damage every turn) or complexity (using your dice for maneuvers and stunts) without needing two different subclasses. That's a 5-foot step forward for D&D.

Ziegander

2012-08-06, 10:03 AM

Update on the "incoming" second playtest packet: https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120806

obryn

2012-08-06, 10:07 AM

Update on the "incoming" second playtest packet: https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120806
It seems like a game my group and I will have more fun playtesting than the last one, at least!

And it makes for a good excuse to have people over for D&D an extra night. So I'll be looking forward to it.

-O

Ranting Fool

2012-08-06, 10:15 AM

Update on the "incoming" second playtest packet: https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120806

ooooooooooooooo :smallbiggrin:

Dublock

2012-08-06, 11:04 AM

From my point of view:

It looks like they are taking the feedback and doing something with it. Although I do admit I hope I see more progress then what is listed not really changes but stuff they didn't have in the first set of material.

Ziegander

2012-08-06, 11:58 AM

Although I do admit I hope I see more progress then what is listed not really changes but stuff they didn't have in the first set of material.

Agreed. When I evaluated the first playtest packet I was positive that there were a lot more rules that we just weren't being shown. However, after reading this latest article, I'm starting to wonder if that's really all they've got at this point...

Menteith

2012-08-06, 12:02 PM

Wait and see until we get a comprehensive list to the changes. They've changed more than the big topics that they discussed in the article, and we don't have the specifics of those changes anyway. I feel that the changes they've mentioned are positive changes, and am optimistic about the next rules update.

1337 b4k4

2012-08-06, 12:32 PM

Agreed. When I evaluated the first playtest packet I was positive that there were a lot more rules that we just weren't being shown. However, after reading this latest article, I'm starting to wonder if that's really all they've got at this point...

Working on the assumption that they are serious about wanting to build a sort of Rosetta Stone version of D&D, it's absolutely critical that they get the basic core of the system right. Spending extra time on that now will improve things considerably in the future. Especially if they can define and stick to hard lines between what is intended for the core and what can and should go into modules.

AgentPaper

2012-08-06, 10:47 PM

Anyone want to give the playtest adventure a spin? I can DM if needed.

Togath

2012-08-06, 10:50 PM

it sounds like it could be interesting, though I've never done a pbp game before

AgentPaper

2012-08-06, 10:59 PM

We wouldn't be able to do it PbP because of the NDA. I'd rather do it via Skype or something similar, either the IM side or voice chat, whatever everyone prefers. (I'm fine with either)

Togath

2012-08-06, 11:14 PM

I dont actually have anything like what you were describing, can you think of any other options/, if not, that's OK, but it did sound fun

AgentPaper

2012-08-06, 11:20 PM

I dont actually have anything like what you were describing, can you think of any other options/, if not, that's OK, but it did sound fun

Well, Skype (http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/home) is free and pretty easy to use/install, but basically any kind of instant messaging or voice-chat system would be fine.

Yora

2012-08-06, 11:42 PM

Togath

2012-08-06, 11:47 PM

do you know of any free things like "skype"?, Looking at the wikipedia page for skype is sounds insecure, or at least annoying(as according to the wikipedia page for it) it cant have it's updating turned off(and I've disabled auto updates for all other programs on my computer).
I'm not really familiar with communication programs released within the past 10 years, so my knowledge is limited to house phones and email, so any suggestions for things that would work for running a 5E playtest game are welcome.
edit: ah, so there is a type of pbp that's allowed, but how do you do pbp without it being public?

AgentPaper

2012-08-07, 12:14 AM

I don't really like the PbP format anyways, mostly because it's so slow. Skype is free as I said, and yes it's not perfect, but personally I haven't had any trouble with it, and once we're done you can always uninstall it.

Also, I just checked, there is an option in the settings to turn off automatic updates.

Togath

2012-08-07, 12:16 AM

Ah, I'll try skype then

obryn

2012-08-07, 12:17 AM

We wouldn't be able to do it PbP because of the NDA. I'd rather do it via Skype or something similar, either the IM side or voice chat, whatever everyone prefers. (I'm fine with either)
Here's the current response on that...

http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/dndnextfaq

Q: Can I run an online game via email, Skype, Google Hangout or a play-by-post forum?

A: Yes, you may run online games via Skype, Google Hangout or play-by-post forum provided you to do not post or upload any transcripts from your playtest, upload any playtest materials and make sure that all members of your group have signed up to playtest through the official playtest sign up process.

It was limited at first, but they eased back.

-O

Knaight

2012-08-07, 12:27 AM

Anyone want to give the playtest adventure a spin? I can DM if needed.

I'm potentially interested in a Skype game. PM me the details.

AgentPaper

2012-08-07, 12:29 AM

I'll just throw up my skype info here, just contact me there if you're interested:

Skype Name: agent1paper

Togath

2012-08-07, 12:56 AM

Ok, I think i've signed up for skype now, with the username; xalafu

Ziegander

2012-08-07, 04:12 AM

I would be interested in a PbP game, personally, if anyone decides to run it.

AgentPaper

2012-08-07, 10:48 AM

Still got room for 1-3 more people. Turns out there's a new revision of the playtest rules coming out soon, so we'll be waiting until that comes out before we start, probably starting this weekend.

Edit: Made a post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=252116)in the recruitment forum, so as to stop cluttering here.

Yora

2012-08-09, 01:06 PM

jseah

2012-08-09, 01:36 PM

Has there been any official statement about gelantinous cubes and skeletons not having an Int score, and the gray ooze and giant centipede not having a Cha score?

That would appear as an error to me.
Why would that be an error? I don't see why mindless oozes and skeletons should have intelligence at all.

Unless you mean they have intelligence scores and that WotC should remove them.

Yora

2012-08-09, 02:03 PM

But one ooze has Int and no Cha, and another ooze has Cha and no Int.
If this inconsistency is deliberate, they might have explained what the difference between the two is.

jseah

2012-08-09, 02:29 PM

Ah, I see. That does need some justification.

Draz74

2012-08-10, 01:57 PM

Ziegander

2012-08-10, 04:14 PM

Meh. Sounds to me like the obvious errors in the Armor table: "Things that we're obviously going to correct, but we just haven't focused on this part of the rules yet, so they're still in super-last-minute-rough-draft form."

Yeah. They really don't have anything ready for the game yet except what we saw last playtest packet and what we're about to see for the next one (I would expect it within two weeks at the most). It's kind of sad.

Camelot

2012-08-10, 07:02 PM

I don't mind waiting. Better to come out with the game in 2014 than to publish a bad game.

Dublock

2012-08-11, 05:41 PM

I don't mind waiting. Better to come out with the game in 2014 than to publish a bad game.

Completely agree with that statement.

I know we don't want to spam this thread, but if someone can make sure they post about how the Skype game went after its done as I am sure I am not the only one who wants to read about it :)

AgentPaper

2012-08-11, 06:17 PM

I'll be posting a full report on the WotC site, so I can just cross-post that here as well.

Some initial thoughts after reading through and preparing for the game:

First off, I can definitely feel the "back to basics" approach. The rules are much simpler and easier to grok than any edition I've seen, though that only includes 3.5 and 4E, admittedly. There are a lot less useless numbers to keep track of, like Willpower/Reflex/Fortitude, and no absurdly long skill list to keep track of.

Character creation seems like it could be a lot of fun, and actually even more open-ended than 3.5, since race has actually significant effects instead of tiny little useless things. Background is also very cool, and for us provided a great starting point to build our characters around.

Theme is another big one, and seems to provide a lot of really big abilities that really shape how your character plays. The Guardian, for example, can use a shield to protect allies, or stop enemies in their tracks. The Healer on the other hand, is able to craft potions, and helps you get the most of all of your healing effects

All of this allows you to build a balanced team with different roles, but doesn't force each class into a specific role. For example, the Cleric in the module has the Guardian theme, which makes him the de-facto tank, whereas the Fighter has the Slayer theme, making him a great beatstick. You could just as easily swap those themes around, and have the Fighter go for a more traditional meatshield approach.

I could even see a Fighter taking the Healing background and serving as a sort of combat medic, using the rules for healing kits and short-rest healing to keep their party healthy, which means the cleric doesn't just have to be a heal-bot. Is this the most optimal way to play? Probably not, but it absolutely would work, unless mid-combat healing is significantly more important than it is in, say, 3.5.

Knaight

2012-08-12, 02:15 AM

I'll be posting a full report on the WotC site, so I can just cross-post that here as well.

I'll probably post my impressions as well, once the game is done. There are a few sessions to go though, so for now I'll just say this - we're having a lot of fun, and we have had surprisingly little interaction with the actual system so far. It's a good group. The mechanics are also mostly okay, but there are a few glaring issues so far. The Reaper effect has some ambiguity, and could really use some pinning down in regards to acceptable targets. Advantage and Disadvantage are feeling far too limited, as situations where things should be adding up don't appear far too often even in the default module. It's a much lighter system though, and I for one am loving it.

Yora

2012-08-12, 04:50 AM

I don't mind waiting. Better to come out with the game in 2014 than to publish a bad game.

though I doubt that will happen. you cant have a lame duck edition for over two years. especially as a publicaly owned company.

Gamgee

2012-08-12, 08:20 AM

5th edition is looking better and better.

Loki_42

2012-08-12, 10:42 AM

5th edition is looking better and better.

Wait, are people getting the new packets? I don't have anything, but they did that stilted release last time.

Dienekes

2012-08-12, 11:19 AM

Wait, are people getting the new packets? I don't have anything, but they did that stilted release last time.

Nah if there were new packets there would be a lot more hubbub around here. But Wizards have released some information and answered some questions that many folk think is going in the right direction. Also they've implied new packets will be coming soon, folks here estimate in the next week or two.

Yora

2012-08-12, 05:07 PM

on the 16th starts gencon. I expect the monday after that.

Knaight

2012-08-13, 01:33 AM

I'm hoping it's soon. There are a few things that need to be answered (starting with better attack bonus breakdowns, because having to try and reverse engineer the system if you ever pick up a weapon not listed on your character sheet is nonsense) for the game I'm currently in, and I'd certainly like to see the general advances they've made.

Zombimode

2012-08-13, 02:01 AM

So far it is very probable that the new fighter is one of the contents of the next playtest package. I really hope that we also get one of the other "fighting"-classes in the same package as a point of reference.
First to see, if the Fighter is really the best man for the job, as advertised.
And second, to see if other fighting classes are still up to the job.

Togath

2012-08-13, 02:10 AM

hopefully it'll be stronger then the current one, in the playtest campaign I'm currntly participating in the cleric(the healer spec one) is easily out damaging the fighter(and also doing more damage then my wizard), while also having good armour and hp, hopefully the cleric will change a bit, as it's starting to look somewhat like a 3.5 cleric.

AgentPaper

2012-08-13, 02:17 AM

Togath

2012-08-13, 02:53 AM

ah, that makes more sense

Meltheim

2012-08-13, 02:55 AM

(As the pew pew pew cleric in the skype game) I totally feel like I'm doing more damage, but I think that's based solely on the 2 encounters (ranged, primarily) and the Fighter only had the crossbow. We'll see how things go as we move forward though.

Knaight

2012-08-13, 11:44 AM

Actually, the fighter does a lot more damage (2d6+7 vs 1d8+4) than the cleric, it's just that the cleric's spell is ranged, so it is easier to shoot it around, rather than needing to close into melee. There also appears to be no rules for charging yet, which makes it harder to get into melee in the first place, even in relatively small areas.

On the other hand, Reaper has been proving useful even at range ever since I started using javelins (+6 to hit 1d8+5, miss 3) instead of that worthless crossbow (+4 to hit 1d8+4, miss 1), and in the last fight against three bugbears where I was actually able to enter melee the fighter killed all three of them. I do think the fighter could use a bit of a boost, but I also think that part of the problem is that the default equipment load out is just terrible. The light crossbow is a very weak weapon, and we know that the Fighter could have swapped out the light crossbow for the heavy (which outranges it, is strength based, and is generally a superior weapon for the fighter) and chainmail for the chain shirt, with literally no loss of AC.

Excession

2012-08-13, 05:40 PM

The new playtest is out now.

Fighter Combat Superiority is in, and the fighter chooses a Fighting Style that gives them some of their manoeuvres to use those CS dice.

Opportunity attacks are back, and are triggered when you leave an enemy's reach.

Being Surprised now prevents you from taking actions in the first round of combat.

Themes are now called "Specialties". Character creation rules are included. Medium armour lets you use your Dex mod, but only up to +2. Heavy armour reduces your speed and gives Disadvantage to stealth.

Huh, the Katana is in as a base weapon. Incoming fan boys and nerd rage? :smallwink:

AgentPaper

2012-08-13, 05:40 PM

New packet is out! You should have an e-mail, or be getting one shortly. I don't know if they sent all of them out at once or not.

I'll provide some thoughts once I've read through it.

Craft (Cheese)

2012-08-13, 05:50 PM

Well hey, they seem to have fixed the distribution errors they suffered last time. Getting the packet was totally painless.

Wargor

2012-08-13, 06:36 PM

I need to convince my group to test it, really liking the look of it right now. Not sure why but it feels properly old school, takes me back to my Basic DnD days. *Nostalgias everywhere*

Knaight

2012-08-13, 06:45 PM

I'm currently reading the documents. That said, there are a few major things that stand out. The first is that they've made some progress on system elements, and that we are finally seeing some underpinnings. The second is that they appear to be continuing with their less desirable traditions - rolled stats are the default again, WotC fluff continues onward in its trademark style, their understanding of medieval equipment is as good as ever. More specifically, the fluff is atrocious and an exercise in using a lot of words to say very little, and they still haven't abandoned their practice of completely absurd weapon weights (6 pound one handed weapons? 25 pound two handed weapons? Really?).

Janus

2012-08-13, 06:45 PM

Too bad my friend who would have totally played this with me is in, well, med school right now. :smallsigh:

I notice that the monsters have been changed to stat blocks, with no information on background, ecology, etc.
Really, really hope the final product isn't that bare bones. :smalleek: It's the crazy fluff that makes the 2e Monstrous Manual so freaking awesome!

Menteith

2012-08-13, 06:51 PM

WotC fluff continues onward in its trademark style, their understanding of medieval equipment is as good as ever. More specifically, the fluff is atrocious and an exercise in using a lot of words to say very little....

I wouldn't mind it if the fluff wasn't mechanically expressed. Stuff like "Thieves' Cant" (all Rogues have a secret language, shared between a criminal underground) doesn't make sense for every Rogue, and restricts characters pretty randomly (all Rogues need to be criminal/familiar with the criminal underworld, at minimum). Was hoping to get away from stuff like that. Will report more after I finish reading through it.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-08-13, 06:51 PM

[...]and they still haven't abandoned their practice of completely absurd weapon weights (6 pound one handed weapons? 25 pound two handed weapons? Really?).

To be fair, equipment "weight" has supposedly been intended to represent bulkiness as well from 3.0 on, so that you can sort-of represent that, say, a 3-pound sword is more annoying to carry in your backpack than a 3-pound metal disk without having to take size, shape, and density into account for encumbrance. Not that that makes it any more accurate, it just gives the devs a good excuse for ignoring weight-related complaints for so long. :smallwink:

Knaight

2012-08-13, 07:00 PM

I wouldn't mind it if the fluff wasn't mechanically expressed. Stuff like "Thieves' Cant" (all Rogues have a secret language, shared between a criminal underground) doesn't make sense for every Rogue, and restricts characters pretty randomly (all Rogues need to be criminal/familiar with the criminal underworld, at minimum). Was hoping to get away from stuff like that. Will report more after I finish reading through it.

Read the Race fluff in particular. It's embarrassingly bad, though refluffing it is also incredibly simple. On other topics, some of the skill names need serious work, particularly the ones related to perception.

On other topics, I do think they need to rethink how class feature like powers are distributed, as some of them make a lot more sense in background. For instance, Thieves' Cant makes a lot more sense attached to the Thief background (and even more sense as part of an optional feat, but I'm not getting into that).

Flickerdart

2012-08-13, 07:21 PM

25 pound two handed weapons? Really?
Halflings weigh about 25 pounds, don't they? This is an important precedent for a melee weapon to make.

Ashdate

2012-08-13, 07:24 PM

I'm really glad they getting BACK TO BASICS. No more of that "Dragonborn" and "Tiefling" junk! Three different kinds of elves is more like it! /sarcasm

Dublock

2012-08-13, 07:41 PM

That thief language should be in the background.

I like the backgrounds and Specialties so far. They are not perfect but they are looking like something I could use in the game. (Am I the only one that thought when reading the Bounty Hunter "Oblivion, Dark brother hood campaign setting").

I do like the fact that they did add in character creation and looked at the equipment and armor although I admit I only did a quick glance and assumed since they mentioned it in the summary.

I am happy to see the skill bonuses due to leveling back (not sure if its called that but thats what it is). I didn't like 4E version and this looks more like it.

Also Multi-classing can be interesting, looks more like 3.5e judging on character creation.

Janus

2012-08-13, 08:06 PM

Read the Race fluff in particular. It's embarrassingly bad,
In how many editions have we been told that elves are slow to make friends and even slower to forget them? I'm a little tired of seeing that line.

Craft (Cheese)

2012-08-13, 08:14 PM

They've actually taken several steps backwards from 4E as far as I'm concerned. Humans actually had something of a distinct character in 4E but now they're back to being "The boring generic guys."

Dublock

2012-08-13, 08:25 PM

They've actually taken several steps backwards from 4E as far as I'm concerned. Humans actually had something of a distinct character in 4E but now they're back to being "The boring generic guys."

I agree but to be honest I think they will change it if we provide that feedback, they seem to be listening and its the first real iteration of character creation/races.

Togath

2012-08-13, 09:34 PM

Knaight

2012-08-13, 10:25 PM

Have they added sunder rules yet?, In the last session of the playtest campaign I tried to smash open a chest with magic missiles, but it was ruled I only broke the potions inside for some reason, and somehow left the outside intact.

They had them last time, in the form of a vague strength check. Given the way they handle DCs, I'm actually okay with this, though I'd personally rule for an Intelligence check when sundering with a spell.

Togath

2012-08-13, 11:35 PM

Ah, though it does seem odd to have an ability check determining if you cna break something, rather then giving the tchest/cahin/door hit points, as it seems like enough blows with hammer, or burning the thing could damage it. How was whether or not you could break something handled in 4E?

Oracle_Hunter

2012-08-13, 11:40 PM

How was whether or not you could break something handled in 4E?
Poorly.

WotC does not do a good job of figuring out object damage rules for whatever reason.

Togath

2012-08-13, 11:45 PM

Oracle_Hunter

2012-08-13, 11:49 PM

Ah, that would explain it, and, aye, I also feel that wotc hasn't done a very good job with rules for breaking things, which has always seemed odd to me, as it seems like it could be fun to have more detailed rules for that sort of thing
My work around was making all melee attacks auto-crits (but no boosts like Sneak Attack or Crit-triggered powers) and giving all objects Damage Resistance based on material. It worked alright when it needed to be used but it was a kludge and completely ignored WotC's "vehicle" rules.

Also: PA D&D Next Podcast Part 2 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120813)

Meltheim

2012-08-14, 02:03 AM

Have they added sunder rules yet?, In the last session of the playtest campaign I tried to smash open a chest with magic missiles, but it was ruled I only broke the potions inside for some reason, and somehow left the outside intact.

This is actually specifically addressed in the module. Mishandle the chest and potions break. Don't worry too much.

The-Mage-King

2012-08-14, 03:27 AM

Any word on running pbp games for the playtest? Out of curiousity.

Zombimode

2012-08-14, 03:53 AM

Just flipping through the Bestiary. Although there is stuff I like, the Exp values are all over the place. It looks like there were different methods used for calculating the exp values. As is, the exp values are pretty unusable.

Togath

2012-08-14, 04:05 AM

Any word on running pbp games for the playtest? Out of curiousity.

I'm not sure if anyone is running a pbp, but there is a skype campaign (I'm currently playing the first playtest document's wizard)going on currently(just entered and nearly had a few party members die in one of the caves, after fighting either some hobgoblins or some bugbears, I wasn't 100% sure which, they may also have been orcs)

The-Mage-King

2012-08-14, 04:08 AM

I'm not sure if anyone is running a pbp, but there is a skype campaign (I'm currently playing the first playtest document's wizard)going on currently(just entered and nearly had a few party members die in one of the caves, after fighting either some hobgoblins or some bugbears, I wasn't 100% sure which, they may also have been orcs)

Ah, so it's allowed by the terms? Good to know.

Togath

2012-08-14, 06:50 AM

Just took a look at the 2nd playtest packet, and it makes me wonder, who wrote it, and what was he thinking?, It’s worse then if you gave a blind monkey a typewriter, and as far as I see it anyway, it's like they learned little, or, nothing from any of the previous editions, the wizard for example gets only about 1-2 non blasting spells per spell level(why would someone want to play a blaster wizard?, or did they make resistances to damage less common?):smallsigh:, and the fighter mostly just as bonus feats as class features(why cant the do something like the warblade?):smallsigh:, and they seemed to have hired an idiot to write fluff for races(why did they even feel the need to add fluff for them?, they were fine as they were):smallsigh:.
Do they listen to feedback(if they do, then i might start sending them emails with my veiw that they classes are too plain, and they've added excess fluff)?, it's like they've never taken a look at optimization threads detailing 3.5 or pathfinder.
It mostly frustrates me that hosuerules are required to really have fun with the system, and it hasn't even been released yet(or is this how most playtest games are?, i've never actually seen an in progress one until this one)

Dublock

2012-08-14, 07:01 AM

Zombimode

2012-08-14, 08:02 AM

It mostly frustrates me that hosuerules are required to really have fun with the system, and it hasn't even been released yet(or is this how most playtest games are?, i've never actually seen an in progress one until this one)

See, I think this is actually a big issue. It's a common problem with any kind of open-betas: a large chunk of the audience has no experience whatsoever with testing material, or the process, goals and methods of testing in general, as well as the kind of actually useful feedback.
Open betas are always a risk for the developers because of false expectations of the audience.

In essence, you shouldn't be frustrated that an unfinished product is in fact unfinished.

Instead, concentrate on what is actually there and try to judge it with the available information. Always keep in mind, that we dont look at the full picture. Ie. we can not judge, how the Fighter fighter prowress faires in comparsion to the Barbarians, because we have no information on that class.

It surprises me that they bothered with fluff text for the races. I haven't read it because this is not a "how to you like the fluff"-playtest, but if its really that bad, thats usefull feedback.

Some dicussion on your points:

the wizard for example gets only about 1-2 non blasting spells per spell level(why would someone want to play a blaster wizard?, or did they make resistances to damage less common?)

Yeah, spell list as is could be a bit more varied. But I wouldn't worry about it until its clear that we look at a supposedly complete list.
I hadn't the time to go through the spells in detail. How are the spells on their own? Any glaring mistakes?

and the fighter mostly just as bonus feats as class features(why cant the do something like the warblade?)

Strange that you got this perception. In the new playtest, the fighters main classfeature is actually an unique mechanic. In fact, the fighter does not gain any more feats that other classes.
The lists of fighting styles so far isn't all that wide. Also, I'm not sure if the fighter chooses one style at level 1 and no other over the course of the 5 levels, or if he gets an additional fighting style at level 3 and level 5.
If its the later, the fighter grows to be an extremely flexible warrior. If its the later, the narrowness of the fighter would be a point of my critique.
In any case, the Fighting Styles are actually something akin to the maneuvers.

Edit: Something to add on my own:
HP are back to max.HD at 1st level plus (HD + 0.5) per level + con mod*level.
I don't think that I like this choice. The widely fluctuation HP over the course of the levels were always something I didn't like with D&D. And I think it goes a bit against the course of reducing the power difference of levels that is otherwise present in D&D Next.
Thoughts on this?

Dienekes

2012-08-14, 08:43 AM

So looking through it briefly now and a few things caught my eye.
1) a lot of seemingly empty levels. Which isn't exactly a bad thing, I guess, but it seems weird.

2) Skills: On the very first page on Backgrounds we get this:

When you attempt a task or action that involves a skill in which you are trained, you use your skill modifier in place of your ability modifier.

Training: A skill has an underlying ability. Your modifier when making checks using that skill equals 3 + the ability modifier associated with the skill

So is it skill modifier or skill modifier+ability modifier? Make up your mind.

3) Armor is weird. For normal armors we get Leather in light, studded leather and scale in medium, and ring, chain, banded, splint, and plate in heavy. So things really got jumbled up, and Splin and Banded are the exact same thing. That just seems lazy. Medium armor again seems pretty dumb, since your dex is maxed at +2 so for the same cost as Dragon scale you could get Plate for an additional +1 to your AC. Overall it seems disappointing still, and as it stands this would be the first thing I'd personally homebrew to fix.

4) Weaponry weights, always funny. Actually I had some hope here. Katana's 3 lbs that is within the realm of realism. Good job. Bastard sword... 10 lbs. Are you serious? They were .5-1 lb heavier than katanas at most. No one could swing a 10 lb one-handed axe and make it useable. And it doesn't make sense for it to be "encumbrance" instead of weight either since both swords just jut out from your hip the same way, and if anything the axe would be easier to carry than the sword, and the longspear would be one of the hardest to carry around without annoyance and that only has a weight of 5.

Yora

2012-08-14, 08:50 AM

Are specializations the same as traits?

Menteith

2012-08-14, 09:02 AM

Yeah, spell list as is could be a bit more varied. But I wouldn't worry about it until its clear that we look at a supposedly complete list. I hadn't the time to go through the spells in detail. How are the spells on their own? Any glaring mistakes?

Thoughts on spells in general;

- I wish that spells scaled with caster level to some degree. If I understand it right, a level 1 Cleric and a level 20 heal the same amount casting Cure Light Wounds, which seems odd to me.

- The spell descriptor layout isn't defined as much as I'd like, and some pretty key information is missing from some of the spells. For example, Web doesn't seem to have a duration - Web currently lasts forever. Many other spells have key information somewhat hidden inside their decriptions; I wish for a small summation of the mechanics of the spell at the top, just for speed of reference and clarity (Range, School, Duration, etc).

- There are random spells that can't be resisted. Sleep doesn't allow for a Save/Resisted Check/Attack Roll - it simply knocks out people. Why can't spells like Silence be resisted?

- Also, it looks like it's way too easy for Wizards to target every single stat, and they'll be able to hit a character's lowest one most of the time without a problem. The difficulty for a saving throw increases with the Wizard's level and Int mod, but that Fighter's Wisdom is probably always going to be rubbish. Saving throws don't scale beyond a dump attribute, and spell DCs scale with both level and a Wizard's primary stat.

- The Cure line heals living targets and does nothing to undead, but the Inflict line hurts living and heals Undead. Pretty easy fix, but weird right now.

- I feel like there are too many damage types. Sort of a commentary in general, but the limited spells in the playtest alone can cause thunder, radiant, necrotic, poison, force, lightning, holy, unholy, cold, acid, and fire damage. Maybe it's just me, but that seems a bit much.

Yora

2012-08-14, 09:05 AM

I wish that spells scaled with caster level to some degree. If I understand it right, a level 1 Cleric and a level 20 heal the same amount casting Cure Light Wounds, which seems odd to me.
But on the other hand, weapon attacks stay the same all the time. This is exactly the quadratic-wizard problem that is dealt with here. The current form might be a bit blunt, but I think it's a good start how else spells can become more efficient over time than to have all of them grow at a uniform pace.

Yora

2012-08-14, 09:08 AM

Has there been any official statement about gelantinous cubes and skeletons not having an Int score, and the gray ooze and giant centipede not having a Cha score?

That would appear as an error to me.
Apparently, nonabilities have been scrapped entirely for now. Which might not been have the worst idea. I think this is actually something unique to 3rd Edition that is found in no other system I know off.
But we havn't seen any incorporeal creatures yet, let's see how they'll be dealing with that.

TomPliss

2012-08-14, 09:25 AM

3) Armor is weird. [...] Medium armor again seems pretty dumb, since your dex is maxed at +2 so for the same cost as Dragon scale you could get Plate for an additional +1 to your AC. Overall it seems disappointing still, and as it stands this would be the first thing I'd personally homebrew to fix.
Except you won't have proficiency in heavy ?
By the way, wasn't there something about armor penalty to magic ?

- I feel like there are too many damage types. Sort of a commentary in general, but the limited spells in the playtest alone can cause thunder, radiant, necrotic, poison, force, lightning, holy, unholy, cold, acid, and fire damage. Maybe it's just me, but that seems a bit much. I think there are the same in 4e (didn't play another D&D)...
They may try one of each spell school, as it will be easier for GMs to give those spells to monsters if they actually are here...

Menteith

2012-08-14, 09:36 AM

But on the other hand, weapon attacks stay the same all the time. This is exactly the quadratic-wizard problem that is dealt with here. The current form might be a bit blunt, but I think it's a good start how else spells can become more efficient over time than to have all of them grow at a uniform pace.

Damage from weapons ramps up at later levels (Sneak Attack, Expertise Die). While the weapon damage stays the same, hitting someone with that weapon is going to do increasingly more. This just means that people wouldn't have a use for many low level spells.

Siegel

2012-08-14, 09:48 AM

meh meh meh

nothing new to see here

obryn

2012-08-14, 10:59 AM

I'll be honest - this looks a lot more like a game I'd be interested in. Lots of changes for the better.

It's still obviously a playtest, so typos and errors are expected.

The spell descriptions and monsters are a bit neater, the backgrounds and specialties make more sense, and the Fighter and Rogue have been dragged back out of obscurity. We can also see the shape of the system a little clearer - Yes, you do get bigger bonuses to attack, for example.

-O

kenjigoku

2012-08-14, 11:04 AM

Seerow

2012-08-14, 11:30 AM

Does anyone else see this as a problem.

High Elf - Fighter
Magic Missile (Racial)
Protector Fighter focus Longsword (Has improved dmg for being an elf)

End result
-Within 100 ft I have a guaranteed 1d4+1 damage attack.
-Best Armor based AC possible, reducing my need for DEX
-Since I have MM I do not need to worry about using a bow, but if I do use one (vs low AC enemies) my damage is bumped up 1 die.
-I have the best longsword damage possible for a PC.

So
STR High
CON High
DEX (almost unneeded)
INT (Can be low, get a +1 from high elf either way)
WIS (unneeded)
CHA (unneeded)

I'm not sure why that's a problem. Your Longsword at level 1 is +6 1d10+3 damage. Your ranged attack is 1d4+1 damage, auto hit.

Your stats are:
Str: 16
Con: 14
Int: 14
Dex: 12
Wis: 10
Cha: 8

You could instead go:

Human Fighter
Sharpshooter or Duelist Style
Str: 9 (don't need it at all)
Dex: 18
Con: 15
Int: 14
Wis: 13
Cha: 11

Your AC falls right between Ringmail and Chainmail. Your rapier is +7, 1d6+4. Your longbow is +7, 1d8+4, and your initiative is 4 points higher than the str fighter. And you can still pick up the guardian theme (using rapier + shield) and be just as good at defending allies as the Protector Fighter, because you only get 1 reaction per round anyway, so the Prot Fighter wouldn't be able to use both. In exchange you have either significantly better ranged attacks, or the ability to use the Dodge action while still dealing damage, blowing the Str Fighter's AC out of the water. In both cases you gain extra mobility from the Shift ability.

Average damage comparisons against 14 AC:

Str based Elf
Melee:
+6 1d10+3+1d6
5%: 19
60%: 12
35%: 0

Average: 8.15 damage

Ranged:
100%: 1d4+1

Average: 3.5 damage

Dex Based Human
Melee:
+7 2d6+4
5%: 16
65%: 11
30%: 0

Average: 7.95 damage

Ranged:
+7 1d8+4+1d6
5%: 18
65%: 12
30%: 0

Average: 8.7 damage

You could eek out a bit more damage as a strength based human using a heavy weapon (getting you up to 1d12+4+1d6, with the +7 to hit bonus), but at the cost of sacrificing ranged weapon damage (your only real option is the handaxe, which will deal 1d4+4), and sacrificing AC (you're no longer using a shield, meaning the dex fighter matchers your AC even if you spend 8x more gold on chainmail), and you are still slower than him.

Dex is still the god stat here.

AgentPaper

2012-08-14, 12:06 PM

You could eek out a bit more damage as a strength based human using a heavy weapon (getting you up to 1d12+4+1d6, with the +7 to hit bonus), but at the cost of sacrificing ranged weapon damage (your only real option is the handaxe, which will deal 1d4+4), and sacrificing AC (you're no longer using a shield, meaning the dex fighter matchers your AC even if you spend 8x more gold on chainmail), and you are still slower than him.

Dex is still the god stat here.

You can use a Throwing Axe, which would be 1d6+str. Or if you're a dwarf, 1d8. A dwarven warrior would definitely want to be strength-based, since all of the hammers/axes are strength weapons only.

oxybe

2012-08-14, 12:21 PM

i got a strange email last night, about a certain play test.

as i was afflicted by a bit of "still can't get to sleep" i decided to open it up as a bit of late night reading to do me in (i'm not saying the play test literally bored me to sleep, anything would have worked to finish me off in my state).

it was slightly less boring a read then the first play test. as i said, i will admit i read this late at night and only really got to read the fighter & rogue pregen and character creation for the moment.

it doesn't look too promising.

fighter has "a lot" of options but once he picks a line he seems locked in. the combat dice mechanic seem neat but most look to be mainly circumstancial rather then truly at-will abilities. the recharge should also be changed to end of turn rather then the start, this way you can chose to react and lose your next turn's action rather then lose your turn's action and hopefully react.

rogue was... meh... on first glance. i'll really need to look over him some more but one thing stood out: thieves' cant? really? in proper class design space rather then a background?

i'll note that i haven't even begun to look at the spell list. if this is the future of the hobby, i'm glad i'm getting out of it. it really doesn't seem to be going anywhere i care for.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-08-14, 12:22 PM

The Wizard only getting a few non-blaster spells is something that I like because more utility spells means more likely to be broken like 3.5. All the top tier had spells and options to do anything and occasionally everything. The more they limit options the more likely they can lessen the gap between spell casters and melee. If its just damage in different forms it is a lot easier to balance out.

The problem here is that the utility spells are what many people like about the wizard, myself included--I've made far more illusionist and utility wizards than I have blasters and controllers, personally, in 1e, 2e, and 3e. When most of the utility was moved into rituals in 4e, there was a pretty big outcry, and effects in the "noncombat" schools like enchantment, illusion, divination and necromancy are precisely those schools that got either bad support, late support, or no support in 4e. If 5e wants to please both the AD&D/3e people who really liked those kinds of spells and the 4e people who liked not having the wizard overshadow the rogue out of combat, they should be handling those spells first to get them right.

Fireball hasn't changed much since they dropped the volumetric calculations, lightning bolt doesn't bounce anymore but otherwise works the same, and so forth, but building a new edition from the ground up is exactly the time to make knock, alter self, comprehend languages, and such play well with other classes in a fun yet more balanced fashion. We don't really need to playtest multiple Xd6 blasting spells yet again, but we do need to test how, say, illusions and enchantment interact with stealth and negotiation.

Yes, wizards in previous editions have had a spell for everything, but being able to do fun stuff out of combat doesn't mean you need to be able to do everything out of combat. The problem in 3e was that individual spells were broken and the wizard could learn all of them; fix the individual spells and cap the number known (either hard cap like the 3e sorcerer or expanding cap like the 1e wizard) and that would go a long way toward fixing the problem.

AgentPaper

2012-08-14, 12:38 PM

Knaight

2012-08-14, 12:53 PM

i'll note that i haven't even begun to look at the spell list. if this is the future of the hobby, i'm glad i'm getting out of it. it really doesn't seem to be going anywhere i care for.
Lets not conflate D&D 5e with the future of the hobby. Electronic publishing has ensured that D&D 5e is only a small part of the future of the hobby, along with a huge amount of independent games from small companies, including some very good games for very cheap. The hobby is not moving towards D&D 5e, and it has never really moved towards anything in particular, what it does is grows out, expanding in numerous directions at once.

You can use a Throwing Axe, which would be 1d6+str. Or if you're a dwarf, 1d8. A dwarven warrior would definitely want to be strength-based, since all of the hammers/axes are strength weapons only.

Dwarven Weapon Focus adds +1 to damage on average. Because humans can get 18 strength instead of 16, they get an equivalent +1 with anything, and +1 to hit on top of it relative to a dwarf. Their stats are also better across the board (except for Con), though the Hill Dwarf increasing HD is nice, and the sensory advantage is also quite solid. Plus, even with all of this dexterity appears to be a bit of an overpowered stat, though being able to get 1d12+4 on melee attacks when using strength is certainly nice.

I'd also note that all reach weapons are strength based currently, and if reach is anywhere near as nice as it was in 3.5 (so far it isn't, reach doesn't apply to AoOs) that could make Strength a more viable stat.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-08-14, 01:03 PM

I suspect they have a lot of damage spells exactly because those are easy to make. I'm sure they're working on making the utility spells balanced, but they're trying to focus on other aspects of the playtest right now, so throwing in a bunch of untested spells that could easily break the game doesn't sound like a good idea. Rather, I'd expect a more concentrated "spell" push, where they release a playtest aimed specifically at trying to balance all the more complex spells.

I suppose after the way they botched ray of frost last time it's a good idea to hold off on anything too complex so we can see how classes play without broken spells, but I don't think there are going to be enough playtest rounds to hold off on the complex spells for a later round; the longer WotC puts them off, the fewer playtest cycles they have to fix them and get more feedback afterwards.

Camelot

2012-08-14, 01:41 PM

I'm guessing that we're supposed to update the Caves of Chaos and continue playing that adventure? Or are we encouraged to make up our own now?

Knaight

2012-08-14, 01:45 PM

I'm guessing that we're supposed to update the Caves of Chaos and continue playing that adventure? Or are we encouraged to make up our own now?

The first is probably intended. I'll have some information on how well that actually works Saturday. That said, they could probably use testing for how easy it is to design adventures, and can almost certainly use testing on how improvisation friendly D&D 5e is.

Draz74

2012-08-14, 01:47 PM

Also: PA D&D Next Podcast Part 2 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120813)
So, I listened through this and there were a few interesting tidbits that weren't already obvious to me. Foremost among these was the info that "only daily powers will provoke saving throws." (Later softened to allow that encounter-limited abilities might provoke saves too.) Apparently this is a "streamlining" feature to "speed up" the game, since apparently saving throws take a long time compared to attacks. :smallconfused:

This helps alleviate concerns about six different saves vs. just one ability score that determines Save DCs. (But it's not enough IMO, since Wizards tend to have a LOT of "daily abilities" to draw from.)

But on the other hand, it makes me more concerned about whether warrior types will really have a proper ability to provoke saves, since they don't tend to be given a lot of daily abilities. For example, I thought bull rush and trip were going to be things that provoke Strength Saves. So, what, bull rush and trip are 1/encounter things now? :smallannoyed:

The other major revelation in the podcast is that they're planning to introduce "traditions" into the Wizard class, which will be subclasses just like the other classes get (Domains, Fighting Styles, and Schemes). I'm not sure what traditional D&D things they're planning to include in Traditions, other than the obvious Wu Jen. I hope Traditions don't have as far-reaching effects as Domains ... like a pre-determined package of Spells Prepared ...

So in the current draft, there are actually basically three things you need to choose to determine your character's combat build: class, sub-class, and specialty. In some ways, I actually think this has the potential to make for an elegant game, if it's done right. For example, if a Fighter with the right Fighting Style and Specialty can make an excellent Warlord, Swashbuckler, etc., without a need for separate classes for those archetypes. On the other hand, the three-wide design space kind of shoots WotC's stated goal of super-duper-simple character creation for newbies in the foot.

Ah, so it's allowed by the terms? Good to know.
Yeah, they softened their stance on this a while ago.

Are specializations the same as traits?
Traits are minor non-combat, non-skill abilities granted by backgrounds. Specializations are packages of feats.

Thoughts on spells in general;

- I wish that spells scaled with caster level to some degree. If I understand it right, a level 1 Cleric and a level 20 heal the same amount casting Cure Light Wounds, which seems odd to me.
They've talked about the possibility that spells will scale, not with caster level, but with spell slot used. So the L20 Cleric's spell will be different, but only if he uses a higher-level slot for it. I don't know if they're going to stick with that idea or not.

It strikes me as a good solution game-design-wise, but awkward if it involves using tons of book space to add additional details to every spell. The Spells chapter already represents a silly-disproportionate fraction of the rules. :smallyuk:

- Also, it looks like it's way too easy for Wizards to target every single stat, and they'll be able to hit a character's lowest one most of the time without a problem. The difficulty for a saving throw increases with the Wizard's level and Int mod, but that Fighter's Wisdom is probably always going to be rubbish. Saving throws don't scale beyond a dump attribute, and spell DCs scale with both level and a Wizard's primary stat.
Yup.

- I feel like there are too many damage types. Sort of a commentary in general, but the limited spells in the playtest alone can cause thunder, radiant, necrotic, poison, force, lightning, holy, unholy, cold, acid, and fire damage. Maybe it's just me, but that seems a bit much.
This is kind of a part of the rules that has to be expanded from the get-go, rather than expanded gradually through splatbooks and subsystems. So that things like resistances are judged properly in their power.

Apparently, nonabilities have been scrapped entirely for now. Which might not been have the worst idea. I think this is actually something unique to 3rd Edition that is found in no other system I know off.
Mutants & Masterminds has it too, for what it's worth. Oh, and 2e D&D did it as well.

I'll be honest - this looks a lot more like a game I'd be interested in. Lots of changes for the better.
Yeah, there's a lot of things I'm still not loving about 5e -- especially the focus on ability scores in general, which I'm pretty sure isn't going to change -- but they're definitely improving it a lot from playtest package to playtest package.

Does anyone else see this as a problem.

STR High
CON High
DEX (almost unneeded)
INT (Can be low, get a +1 from high elf either way)
WIS (unneeded)
CHA (unneeded)
I'm not liking the dependency levels of ability scores in general. Especially not the return to "everybody needs CON as their second-highest stat."

This example doesn't strike me as much worse than any other build.

the recharge should also be changed to end of turn rather then the start, this way you can chose to react and lose your next turn's action rather then lose your turn's action and hopefully react.
Interesting ...

but one thing stood out: thieves' cant? really? in proper class design space rather then a background?
True dat.

Knaight

2012-08-14, 02:02 PM

So in the current draft, there are actually basically three things you need to choose to determine your character's combat build: class, sub-class, and specialty. In some ways, I actually think this has the potential to make for an elegant game, if it's done right. For example, if a Fighter with the right Fighting Style and Specialty can make an excellent Warlord, Swashbuckler, etc., without a need for separate classes for those archetypes. On the other hand, the three-wide design space kind of shoots WotC's stated goal of super-duper-simple character creation for newbies in the foot.

Sub Class, Background, and Specialty are all optional mechanics. I'm actually fine with this, as it is a fairly elegant way to allow customization of complexity (which is sorely lacking elsewhere, such as in the equipment system, but whatever). That said, you don't appear to gain anything by not taking a Sub Class, Background, or Specialty, which undercuts the design goal of mixing detailed characters with not detailed characters within a class.

oxybe

2012-08-14, 02:05 PM

this is an example of play over 4 turns between different refresh times.

refresh at start of turn

Fighter Turn 1 :
-points refresh
-do i deal more damage or save it? save it for this turn & attacks.

Monster Turn 1 :
-swings at fighter, misses
-fighter wastes his saved up point

Fighter Turn 2 :
-points refresh
-do i deal more damage or save it? use it this turn & attacks.

Monster Turn 2 :
-swings at fighter, misses
-fighter's point not wasted

Fighter Turn 3 :
-points refresh
-do i deal more damage or save it? use it this turn & attacks.

Monster Turn 3 :
-swings at fighter, hits
-fighter can't use his point

Fighter Turn 4 :
-points refresh
-do i deal more damage or save it? saves it this turn & attacks.

Monster Turn 4 :
-swings at fighter, hits
-fighter uses his point to negate some damage
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
refresh at end of turn:

Fighter Turn 1 :
-guess i should deal more damage. uses it this turn & attacks.
-points refresh

Monster Turn 1 :
-swings at fighter, misses
-fighter doesn't have to use saved up point

Fighter Turn 2 :
-guess i should deal more damage. uses it this turn & attacks.
-points refresh

Monster Turn 2 :
-swings at fighter, misses
-fighter doesn't have to use saved up point

Fighter Turn 3 :
-guess i should deal more damage. uses it this turn & attacks.
-points refresh

Monster Turn 3 :
-swings at fighter, hits
-fighter uses his point to negate some damage

Fighter turn 4
-guess i don't have a point to use, normal attack.
-points refresh

Monster Turn 4 :
-swings at fighter, hits
-fighter decided to not use his point to negate some damage, keeping it for next turn

it's a small difference when read, but IMO makes a rather large difference in play.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-08-14, 02:10 PM

So, I listened through this and there were a few interesting tidbits that weren't already obvious to me. Foremost among these was the info that "only daily powers will provoke saving throws." (Later softened to allow that encounter-limited abilities might provoke saves too.) Apparently this is a "streamlining" feature to "speed up" the game, since apparently saving throws take a long time compared to attacks. :smallconfused:

This helps alleviate concerns about six different saves vs. just one ability score that determines Save DCs. (But it's not enough IMO, since Wizards tend to have a LOT of "daily abilities" to draw from.)

But on the other hand, it makes me more concerned about whether warrior types will really have a proper ability to provoke saves, since they don't tend to be given a lot of daily abilities. For example, I thought bull rush and trip were going to be things that provoke Strength Saves. So, what, bull rush and trip are 1/encounter things now? :smallannoyed:

From the looks of it, fighter abilities are requiring the expenditure of CS dice rather than allowing saves. A generic bull rush maneuver via eventual combat maneuver rules or Improvise might be a Str/Str contest or require a Str save, but the fighter's Push ability is just "spend a die when you hit, push a guy 10 feet," no save required. It seems to be a compromise between the 4e-style "add a push rider to your attack with no extra rolls" and the pre-4e-style "anyone can bull rush, but fighters with X ability do it better."

If that's what the devs meant, that some abiliities just let you decide to do something instead of "roll attack, provoke AoO, roll Str check, enemy rolls a save, etc.," I can get behind that. A potential problem with that approach, of course, is that you have the same issue with pushing and tripping and such that you did with 4e, where you can push/prone/etc. creatures without regard for their size, strength, or other factors; I'd at least like to see lip service paid to the idea that it's hard to push back something bigger and stronger than it is to push something smaller and weaker.

The other major revelation in the podcast is that they're planning to introduce "traditions" into the Wizard class, which will be subclasses just like the other classes get (Domains, Fighting Styles, and Schemes). I'm not sure what traditional D&D things they're planning to include in Traditions, other than the obvious Wu Jen. I hope Traditions don't have as far-reaching effects as Domains ... like a pre-determined package of Spells Prepared ...

Remember in the early 4e previews when they had the Emerald Griffon and similar fluffy feats that ended up as Astral Fire and such after the major backlash? My guess is that traditions will either end up on the fluffy end like that (wu jen, stormlord, diabolist, etc.) or on the functional end like traditional schools (beguiler/dread necro/warmage style plus some pyromancy/summoning/etc. classifications). It's a good concept, but I'd have to see the implementation first.

So in the current draft, there are actually basically three things you need to choose to determine your character's combat build: class, sub-class, and specialty. In some ways, I actually think this has the potential to make for an elegant game, if it's done right. For example, if a Fighter with the right Fighting Style and Specialty can make an excellent Warlord, Swashbuckler, etc., without a need for separate classes for those archetypes. On the other hand, the three-wide design space kind of shoots WotC's stated goal of super-duper-simple character creation for newbies in the foot.

The suggested subclass and suggested specialty would definitely help newbies without making the overall structure too simple; it's essentially like giving a 2e newbie the basic fighter to play with and introducing kits and weapon specialization later.

Draz74

2012-08-14, 03:00 PM

Incidentally, the game seems to be moving more and more in a pro-re-fluffing direction. The podcast talks about how drawing and sheathing weapons -- including switching between them -- has become basically the job of the players to come up with appropriate fluff for, with the simplified action economy.

Likewise, the Human race's mechanics require a bit of re-fluffing -- at least, if they're going to make any sense to me at all. I mean, I'm definitely not going to be happy about a non-refluffed version of "Humans get +1 to all ability scores." That would imply that the average human is as agile as a lightfoot halfling, as strong as a half-orc, as tough as a hill dwarf, as intelligent as a high elf, etc. (Plus even better, in one of the six ability scores.) Which is patently ridiculous.

The humans only make sense if you refluff them as "they're not actually as strong/intelligent/etc. as their ability scores would indicate; but they treat those scores as being higher because they basically just get a +1/2 racial bonus on all ability checks because of their luck/determination/whatever."

Now, there's nothing wrong with refluffing fundamentally. But it's not a traditional thing for D&D to embrace ... and frankly, if I'm going to play an RPG where it's up to the players to make their character's mechanics make sense like this, I'd rather play Legend or Risus or something.

Sub Class, Background, and Specialty are all optional mechanics.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sub-Classes aren't optional.

it's a small difference when read, but IMO makes a rather large difference in play.
Agreed. My "interesting." comment was just indicating that I hadn't considered the difference yet, and that I'll need to mull it over for a while before I decide which version I like better. :smallsmile:

From the looks of it, fighter abilities are requiring the expenditure of CS dice rather than allowing saves.
Yes, that appears to be the direction they're headed. Which I don't love, even though I feel like the CS dice mechanic has some potential. It leads to fluff problems like you mention, where targets of differing Strength are equally easy to push around.

This also means that Paladins/Berserkers/etc. won't be able to do things like bull rushes very effectively (since they don't have CS dice), unless they have separate class abilities of their own that enable such maneuvers. If they do, that could actually be OK -- I'm fine with Fighters being the only class who are able to be good at all combat maneuvers, as long as Monks can be good at Tripping, Berserkers can be good at Bull Rushing, etc.

Remember in the early 4e previews when they had the Emerald Griffon and similar fluffy feats that ended up as Astral Fire and such after the major backlash? My guess is that traditions will either end up on the fluffy end like that (wu jen, stormlord, diabolist, etc.)
Hmmm, refresh my memory. All I remember about those feats' mechanics is that one of them allowed you to avoid friendly fire with your AoE spells.

or on the functional end like traditional schools (beguiler/dread necro/warmage style plus some pyromancy/summoning/etc. classifications).
Would seem more likely if there weren't a Necromancer Specialty in the latest packet.

The suggested subclass and suggested specialty would definitely help newbies without making the overall structure too simple; it's essentially like giving a 2e newbie the basic fighter to play with and introducing kits and weapon specialization later.

Yeah, it's not too crazy. But it's more complex than it was before they decided that every class should have subclasses.

I guess my real concern about the three-width build structure is that there will be some Sub-Classes and some Specialties that overlap too much, i.e. cover the exact same archetype/concept, but with wildly different mechanics. That would be very not-elegant.

TomPliss

2012-08-14, 03:05 PM

fighter hit dice & refresh at end/start of turn [...]
it's a small difference when read, but IMO makes a rather large difference in play. So I'm the only one who think it's normal ?

I mean, you play a fighter who focus on defending your mates, why would you attack better when your enemy misses ?

obryn

2012-08-14, 03:22 PM

So I'm the only one who think it's normal ?

I mean, you play a fighter who focus on defending your mates, why would you attack better when your enemy misses ?
Because they missed and they are out of position, allowing you to capitalize on their error.

End of Turn is great - but it's also significantly more powerful than Start of Turn. It's a good suggestion, but IMO it will depend on whether Combat Superiority as-is seems kinda strong or kinda weak.

-O

Knaight

2012-08-14, 03:29 PM

So I'm the only one who think it's normal ?

I mean, you play a fighter who focus on defending your mates, why would you attack better when your enemy misses ?

If they aren't going to hit anyways, you have a nice opening. From recent experience - I was recently in a skirmish which involved a shield line holding a gate, while I was behind the shield line with a short spear (6' 6"). I spent a lot of time intercepting a big glaive that would have done serious damage to the shield wall, before it picked up the sort of momentum needed to make blocking difficult. If the glaive guy was going to miss anyways, I could have gone for a lunge that left me out of position to block a glaive strike.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-08-14, 03:52 PM

Now, there's nothing wrong with refluffing fundamentally. But it's not a traditional thing for D&D to embrace ... and frankly, if I'm going to play an RPG where it's up to the players to make their character's mechanics make sense like this, I'd rather play Legend or Risus or something.

Yeah, I think it's important to note that while D&D has always encouraged re-fluffing and homebrewing, there has generally always been default fluff to be refluffed from, with the devs trying to make things make sense even if their explanations occasionally suck. Leaving things at "humans get +1 to stuff, up to you to explain why" doesn't sit well with me either.

Yes, that appears to be the direction they're headed. Which I don't love, even though I feel like the CS dice mechanic has some potential. It leads to fluff problems like you mention, where targets of differing Strength are equally easy to push around.

I have mixed feelings about those abilities. The parts I like about them are that WotC isn't afraid to let fighters do damage and a combat maneuver with the same action, and that they're not putting usage limits on them (at least so far); if you know how to knock someone over, you can keep doing that.

On the other hand, the lack of logical constraints that makes a Str 8 wizard and a Large horse equally easy to knock over is not a good thing in my book, and I'm not a fan of the lack of customizability. 3e fighters might not have had all that many options, but at least they could pick and choose what they got, whereas currently you have you have to be one particular sort of fighter to be good at knocking people over and a different particular sort of fighter to be good at tumbling. Unless they're going to provide other, more selectable class abilities, they really need to open things up a bit more...and honestly, most of those abilities don't seem to be worth an entire level's worth of ability slots as it stands.

This also means that Paladins/Berserkers/etc. won't be able to do things like bull rushes very effectively (since they don't have CS dice), unless they have separate class abilities of their own that enable such maneuvers. If they do, that could actually be OK -- I'm fine with Fighters being the only class who are able to be good at all combat maneuvers, as long as Monks can be good at Tripping, Berserkers can be good at Bull Rushing, etc.

You're assuming they'll be separate classes. If paladin is a subclass of fighter and berserker is a specialty, they'd have access to CS dice as well. Given the three-tier setup they have, I wouldn't be too surprised if that's the way they're going. In fact, that's how 2e worked on a big-picture level with the class/subclass/kit structure, and that's how I've been structuring my 3e revamp to try to give some of the more niche classes and mechanics a way to exist (thanks for making me look unoriginal, WotC! :smallannoyed:), so it's definitely doable. I just don't know if WotC has the guts to stick with that instead of their usual "release a bazillion classes" model.

Hmmm, refresh my memory. All I remember about those feats' mechanics is that one of them allowed you to avoid friendly fire with your AoE spells.

I don't really remember the specifics myself, you could probably find it in the Wayback Machine, but the gist was that there were a bunch of traditions with fluffy names with no D&D traction (mostly Adjective Noun names), and they gave various benefits like shaping spells to turn bursts into lines or avoid allies in AoE, or combining energy types for different damage types or extra status effects, and so forth. They were perfectly functional feat chains except for the fact that they were very heavily tied into the game world and people didn't like that at all. If they did a more generic version of that for 5e involving thematic abilities instead of functional ones, where you have a "stormlord" tradition (all about lightning, thunder, fogs, and such) instead of an "evoker" and a "diabolist" tradition (all about summoning devils, granting devil traits, and such) instead of a "conjurer," it could work out fairly well.

Would seem more likely if there weren't a Necromancer Specialty in the latest packet.

There's a difference between school specialists and the full-list 3e casters, though. The schools are more about your abilities' theme while the full-list casters are also about playstyle, which is what I was getting at with the thematic/functional distinction. Take the beguiler, for example: it's often used as a shorthand for an illusion/enchantment specialist, but if you look at its actual class abilities it has a few different schticks. For one, it gains benefits for surprising/ambushing its targets; for another, it doesn't just get illusions and enchantments, it gets spells from other schools themed around nonlethal takedowns and immobilization. Similarly, the dread necromancer is about controlling tons of minions and gaining undead traits, not just casting necromancy spells, and the warmage is about metamagic and becoming an armored caster in addition to blasting things. If they were turned into specialties and divorced from their spell lists, they'd be better termed something along the lines of "sneaky caster"/"minion-mancer"/"close-combat wizard" more than beguiler/dread necro/warmage, of course.

So you could have an "illusionist" specialty that's basically the 1e illusionist, and you could also have a "beguiler" specialty which could support an illusion/enchantment focus or could, say, be added to a blaster wizard to give a DC boost to a ray of frost fired from ambush and add a short-term blinding rider to a fireball, and they could both co-exist just fine. That's really the kind of thing I'd like to see from a specialty more than just "guy who casts X kind of spell."

I guess my real concern about the three-width build structure is that there will be some Sub-Classes and some Specialties that overlap too much, i.e. cover the exact same archetype/concept, but with wildly different mechanics. That would be very not-elegant.

The easy solution to that is to simply not publish a [class/subclass/specialty] if its theme is already covered by one of the other two. :smallwink:

Overlap shouldn't really be a big problem, since the size of a given concept's implementation should depend on what the concept is itself. The 4e barbarian has a bunch of different things going on conceptually while the one real schtick of the 3e barbarian is rage, barring a few ACFs, and the only thing that really makes the 3e wilder different from a psion is the lack of discipline powers and the wild surge, so a barbarian class/subclass (4e barbarian style) could exist alongside a berserker specialty (3e barbarian style) easily enough, or a psion class/subclass alongside a wilder specialty.

Starbuck_II

2012-08-14, 04:07 PM

Does anyone else see this as a problem.

STR High
CON High
DEX (almost unneeded)
INT (Can be low, get a +1 from high elf either way)
WIS (unneeded)
CHA (unneeded)

Dex save for grease or balancing, you don't want to fall inb a pit trap, do you?
Not to mention Dragom breath/fireball.
Wis for will saves like Sleep/Command.

Seerow

2012-08-14, 04:41 PM

Dex save for grease or balancing, you don't want to fall inb a pit trap, do you?
Not to mention Dragom breath/fireball.
Wis for will saves like Sleep/Command.

The problem with this is that since every stat is used for a save now, the stat being usable for a save is no longer an argument for keeping it high. Whatever you're boosting in its place will be just as important to you.

So sure, you may be more vulnerable to sleep, but in exchange your more resistant to stinking cloud, or bull rush, or whatever.

Dienekes

2012-08-14, 04:47 PM

Actually, while every stat can be a save, I checked through the spells and they only seem to target Will, Dex, and Con so, that's pretty good so far.

Dublock

2012-08-14, 04:52 PM

If they placed a hard cap on spells and fixed the major problem spells I would be happy.

You're assuming they'll be separate classes. If paladin is a subclass of fighter and berserker is a specialty, they'd have access to CS dice as well. Given the three-tier setup they have, I wouldn't be too surprised if that's the way they're going.

That I would enjoy. I don't know if they could stick to it either. Also that would impact multi-classing as well.

I am not worried about overlapping yet.

I honestly think the fluff is mostly just to have it in there and they have a team working on it but decided its not worth it for the playtest to have actual fluff so people focus on the mechanics. At least, this is what I am really hoping.

Starbuck_II

2012-08-14, 05:02 PM

Knaight

2012-08-14, 05:08 PM

So, any idea while the Pregen they give out is only "Hiding" Rogue?
Why not give us two pregens of each class?
a. "hiding" rogue: 2 E and 4E type
b. "Flanking" rogue: 3.5 type

I perfer B because it means if you have enough guys helping you flank, you get sneak attack. You don't need to hide and snipe like A.

I mean, the class PDF document had both if you make a character, but they decided to only give A path.

There's not much point in having too many pregens, and several from each class is overkill. Given that they seem to expect 5 players, I'd rather they had at least 6, but now that character creation is visible that isn't really a problem.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-08-14, 05:24 PM

Actually, while every stat can be a save, I checked through the spells and they only seem to target Will, Dex, and Con so, that's pretty good so far.

All of the current spells, that is. When they were discussing 6-stat saves originally (and they might have this in the playtest packet, I don't have access right now to check), they mentioned that you'd probably use Str saves for movement-related effects, Int for "puzzle-related" effects (for lack of a better term), and Cha for morale-related effects. If and when telekinesis and black tentacles (Str), illusions and confusion effects (Int), and fear and charm effects (Cha) are (re)introduced, the stats will probably be a lot more even in terms of number of effects targeting them.

Yora

2012-08-14, 05:35 PM

Touch AC is now a Dexterity saving throw. I like that.

So, any idea while the Pregen they give out is only "Hiding" Rogue?
Why not give us two pregens of each class?
a. "hiding" rogue: 2 E and 4E type
b. "Flanking" rogue: 3.5 type

I perfer B because it means if you have enough guys helping you flank, you get sneak attack. You don't need to hide and snipe like A.

I mean, the class PDF document had both if you make a character, but they decided to only give A path.
Though personally, I think that turns the rogue into a warrior class, and the game should have a thief class.

Excession

2012-08-14, 06:43 PM

All of the current spells, that is. When they were discussing 6-stat saves originally (and they might have this in the playtest packet, I don't have access right now to check), they mentioned that you'd probably use Str saves for movement-related effects, Int for "puzzle-related" effects (for lack of a better term), and Cha for morale-related effects. If and when telekinesis and black tentacles (Str), illusions and confusion effects (Int), and fear and charm effects (Cha) are (re)introduced, the stats will probably be a lot more even in terms of number of effects targeting them.

Fear and charm spells already exist. Cause Fear, Charm Person, Command and Suggestion all use a Wisdom save. Mirror Image and Silence, the only illusions I found, allow no save at all.

With the spells presented so far, including charms and illusions, it just looks like Ref=Dex, Will=Wis, and Fort=Con. The weakness I see with this structure is that if your class uses Str, Int, or Cha as their primary stat you end up weaker than a class that uses Con, Dex, or Wis. If stats are going to be so important, it'd be nice if they were equally valuable.

Draz74

2012-08-14, 06:46 PM

I have mixed feelings about those abilities. The parts I like about them are that WotC isn't afraid to let fighters do damage and a combat maneuver with the same action, and that they're not putting usage limits on them (at least so far); if you know how to knock someone over, you can keep doing that.

On the other hand, the lack of logical constraints that makes a Str 8 wizard and a Large horse equally easy to knock over is not a good thing in my book, and I'm not a fan of the lack of customizability. 3e fighters might not have had all that many options, but at least they could pick and choose what they got, whereas currently you have you have to be one particular sort of fighter to be good at knocking people over and a different particular sort of fighter to be good at tumbling. Unless they're going to provide other, more selectable class abilities, they really need to open things up a bit more...and honestly, most of those abilities don't seem to be worth an entire level's worth of ability slots as it stands.
No disagreements here.

You're assuming they'll be separate classes. If paladin is a subclass of fighter and berserker is a specialty, they'd have access to CS dice as well. Given the three-tier setup they have, I wouldn't be too surprised if that's the way they're going.
I would. They got too much flak for the 4e PHB1 not having some of the "classic" D&D classes ... and in 5e, they're very concerned about preserving popular sacred cows. That includes the Paladin, Ranger, and Druid classes, at the very least. Probably Bard too. Others (Monk, Assassin, Psion ...) are more debatable.

Besides, the podcast gives us a very recent update: for a while they were leaning towards making the Warlock a sub-class of Wizard, but now they're back to planning on it as an independent class.

In fact, that's how 2e worked on a big-picture level with the class/subclass/kit structure, and that's how I've been structuring my 3e revamp to try to give some of the more niche classes and mechanics a way to exist (thanks for making me look unoriginal, WotC! :smallannoyed:), so it's definitely doable. I just don't know if WotC has the guts to stick with that instead of their usual "release a bazillion classes" model.
You're simplifying the 2e organization a bit. "Kits" were often more like PrCs than Specialties. And even if Paladin, Ranger, Druid, and Bard were officially toted as "variants" of the Fighter, Priest, and Thief classes, they were definitely treated de facto as separate classes.

As to the question of whether I'd like to see them go this route, it actually varies widely between archetypes.
I personally would have no problem with Druids being a subclass of Cleric (although I think Cleric should be renamed Priest). For example, a Druid is just a Cleric with the Animal/Plant/Weather Domain (or a Nature domain that takes some aspects from each), with a Specialty that grants an animal companion. (And several of the Animal Domain spells are shapeshift effects.)

On the other hand, I don't know if I could ever be satisfied with Ranger being absorbed into this kind of consolidated system. Ranger has too much rogue in it to be a viable Fighter subclass, too much magic (traditionally) too. Making it a Specialty doesn't work, because then it couldn't be combined with the Archer or Dual Wielder specialties. I guess it could be done as a Rogue sub-class. But I think making it independent works better.

Paladin is somewhere in between. What I'd really prefer for the Paladin is that it be an "Advanced Specialty" (or whatever they want to call it) for multiclassed Fighter/Clerics. But if it has to be available from Level 1 ... well, making it a separate class is ugly, because it would have to be better at fighting than the War Cleric, without making the War Cleric useless. Making it a Fighter Subclass ... just doesn't sit right, fluff-wise. Too magical. Making it a specialty makes it incompatible with other appropriate specialties, such as Guardian. I guess it could just be a re-fluff of the War Cleric, but that will lead to people complaining that their favorite class is "missing." And several of these options are missing the traditional connection the Paladin is supposed to have to Charisma.

and they gave various benefits like shaping spells to turn bursts into lines or avoid allies in AoE, or combining energy types for different damage types or extra status effects, and so forth.
Ah, so, kind of like various metamagic effects. I'd be ok with Traditions being something on that level.

where you have a "stormlord" tradition (all about lightning, thunder, fogs, and such) instead of an "evoker" and a "diabolist" tradition (all about summoning devils, granting devil traits, and such) instead of a "conjurer," it could work out fairly well.
See, my initial gut reaction is that those things would be better as Specialties rather than Traditions. I'd like to be able to put them on a Cleric or Warlock.

The easy solution to that is to simply not publish a [class/subclass/specialty] if its theme is already covered by one of the other two. :smallwink:

Even if WotC manages to resist that temptation, you'd better believe Sub-Class vs. Specialty will still be confusing to new players. "Wait, I thought Lurker was my Scheme. What do you mean it's my Specialty?"

Menteith

2012-08-14, 06:48 PM

I could see something like Maze requiring an intelligence check (which is already does in 3.5).

Starbuck_II

2012-08-14, 07:11 PM

Touch AC is now a Dexterity saving throw. I like that.

Though personally, I think that turns the rogue into a warrior class, and the game should have a thief class.

Yeah, it is up to player if he wants a Thief (hide/snipe) or a Rogue (flank and shiv) so I think the classes are fine, but I wish there was more Pregens.

Camelot

2012-08-14, 08:51 PM

Can anyone find where it says what your AC is when you're not wearing armor? I'm assuming 10 + Dex mod.

noparlpf

2012-08-14, 09:00 PM

I've barely skimmed things, but what I've noticed is Sneak Attack. That is a lot of damage. I guess it'll be harder to get Sneak Attacks in in 5e?

Can anyone find where it says what your AC is when you're not wearing armor? I'm assuming 10 + Dex mod.

Doesn't say in "How To Play", or under the Armour section in "Equipment", but I'm guessing 10+Dex too. Leather Armour is 11+Dex and that's the most basic armour now, so 10+Dex makes sense.
But it would be nice (for beginners) if they explicitly say that somewhere.

Starbuck_II

2012-08-14, 09:17 PM

I've barely skimmed things, but what I've noticed is Sneak Attack. That is a lot of damage. I guess it'll be harder to get Sneak Attacks in in 5e?

Doesn't say in "How To Play", or under the Armour section in "Equipment", but I'm guessing 10+Dex too. Leather Armour is 11+Dex and that's the most basic armour now, so 10+Dex makes sense.
But it would be nice (for beginners) if they explicitly say that somewhere.
True, but we better estimate it at 10+2x Dex till we know for sure. This is why monstrous creatures like trolls rarely wear armor :smallbiggrin:

2012-08-14, 09:31 PM

Dienekes

2012-08-14, 09:54 PM

So I just read the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. That made me chuckle. Kinda misses the point of picking up a second weapon don't it?

TheOOB

2012-08-14, 09:58 PM

The latest update makes me think I'd be willing to play it to give it a fair(er) shot, though I still don't see much that would make me want to play this instead of 4th edition at the moment. That's still a step-up from the last packet though, which I barely gave a second look to. One look at the fighter class from that made me put it away...

I still don't like how a lot of monsters are boring stat blocks with basic attacks, though. As a DM, one of my favorite things about 4th edition was the Adventure Tools program and making up monsters with various interesting powers and effects to mimic existing monsters in the books (typically with slight variations), but DnD Next just doesn't seem to have that. The monsters strike me as boring. And I really don't like so many of them using the same spell sets as players, though at least they're actually listing the effects of them in the stat block now so we don't have to flip back and forth between documents to see them. I'd really like to see more work put into the mechanical aspects of the monsters.

Do remember that D&D Next is still in what could be called Alpha development, and I wouldn't be suprised if the monsters in the playtest document are there because the game needs monsters to playtest. So far most of what is there seems to be focused around creating PC's, we'll be more monsters and tools for making monsters in the future.

Also remember that D&D next combat is supposed to be quicker, simpler, and more deadly. Most monsters don't have more than an attack or two and a special ability because they won't last long enough to do more. It is not only possible, but likely some monsters will be taken down in one or two hits, so only powerful or unique monsters need to have a list of powers that will last them more than a couple of rounds. Also it seems D&D Next is going for something between 3e and 4e in monster design. In 3e most monster powers were spell-like abilities, in 4e every monster had unique powers, now there seems to be a mix. I like monsters having spells, it makes them easier to design and make tactics, but unique abilities also keep things interesting.

So I just read the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. That made me chuckle. Kinda misses the point of picking up a second weapon don't it?

I think it's fine. While it's true TWF doesn't increase your damage output, it is not useless. First of all, you can attack two different targets a round, which could be very useful if you are fighting weak, low-hp foes. Second, if your weapons have different abilities, you could use them both, damage is halved, secondary effects of the attack are not. Third, even agienst a single foe, it gives you a sort of advantage. Since you roll two attack rolls, you are more likely to deal at least some damage, at the expense of having a chance of only doing half damage if the attack misses. Considering that randomness favors the NPC, having a more reliable chance of dealing damage can be beneficial(though it comes at the cost of no shield/heavy weapons).

Imagine if your party rogue had an ability that granted them advantage agienst any opponent hit by an ally. Considering how nasty Sneak Attack is, I would see TWF(or rapid shot) as a very valid way of increasing the odds of the rogue being able to sneak attack.

Starbuck_II

2012-08-14, 10:05 PM

TheOOB

2012-08-14, 10:10 PM

Speaking of monsters, Elites seem to have the ability to attack or cast sprels twice/turn.
Except the few who have monster buffing powers.

That sentence should read "Many elite monsters have the ability to make multiple attacks or take multiple actions on their turn". or "It is not uncommong for elite monsters to be able to attack multiple times in one turn". Your post seems to imply that is some kind of inherent quality of being elite, which it is not.

Starbuck_II

2012-08-14, 10:13 PM

That sentence should read "Many elite monsters have the ability to make multiple attacks or take multiple actions on their turn". or "It is not uncommong for elite monsters to be able to attack multiple times in one turn". Your post seems to imply that is some kind of inherent quality of being elite, which it is not.

Semantics, but yes, you are saying it clearer.

2012-08-14, 10:18 PM

Also remember that D&D next combat is supposed to be quicker, simpler, and more deadly. Most monsters don't have more than an attack or two and a special ability because they won't last long enough to do more. It is not only possible, but likely some monsters will be taken down in one or two hits, so only powerful or unique monsters need to have a list of powers that will last them more than a couple of rounds.

That's fine and all, but it still stifles me to see so many lines that list nothing but the amount of damage the attack deals. It strikes me as a step backwards, even if it is intentional.

And I should point out it's not that I want MORE abilities, I just want the abilities they have to be more interesting. I'm constantly seeing "melee attack - damage" and "ranged attack - damage" and that bothers me.

Also it seems D&D Next is going for something between 3e and 4e in monster design. In 3e most monster powers were spell-like abilities, in 4e every monster had unique powers, now there seems to be a mix. I like monsters having spells, it makes them easier to design and make tactics, but unique abilities also keep things interesting.

I understand that it's supposed to be more like 3E design, but that doesn't mean I have to like it :smallsmile:

Another thing that kind of worries me that I didn't see before is that the static values on many of the attacks seem rather small, and the dice rather big. That could make combat a bit more random luck-based than I'd like. I mean, I get that a certain amount of randomness is inherent in a system based on dice rolls, but given that all of the numbers in DnD Next are smaller, the damage between 3 damage and 12 damage (on a 1d10+2 attack for example) seems massive. That's at a glance though and maybe in play it works out better or maybe I need to think about it some more.

TheOOB

2012-08-14, 10:22 PM

Semantics, but yes, you are saying it clearer.

Semantics is important in a Roleplaying game, especially D&D. Game rules needs to be written like a legal document, that is to say they need to be written in a way as to leave no ambiguity as to their meaning. While it is true that a GM is allowed to, and encouraged to make any changes they wish to the rules, it is something that should be done intentionally. If the rules one DM uses are different from anthers, it should be because they decided to change something, not because they interpenetrated the rules differently.

Speaking of, here are a couple ambiguous/confusing things I noted while reading the play test documents. I could have just missed it, that is possible.

If someone gains spells from a source outside of a class, what is their magical attack/save DC

If a spellcaster makes a magical attack, do they add their magical attribute modifier to the attacks damage. The rules of play pdf implies yes, the spells and pregen character implies no.

Do you need a healer's kit to spend more than 1 hit die during a short rest. The resting rules imply no, the healer's kit rules imply yes. Also, does the healing knack feat make resting healing dice maximised even if you don't use a healer's kit?

If you want a silvered weapon, can you silver an exisiting weapon, or does the weapon need to be silvered at it's creation?

TheOOB

2012-08-14, 10:31 PM

That's fine and all, but it still stifles me to see so many lines that list nothing but the amount of damage the attack deals. It strikes me as a step backwards, even if it is intentional.

And I should point out it's not that I want MORE abilities, I just want the abilities they have to be more interesting. I'm constantly seeing "melee attack - damage" and "ranged attack - damage" and that bothers me.

I guess I don't know what your looking for. I don't recall a single monster in the playtest that doesn't have some sort of special ability, even if it's just a small boost when fighting in groups, or the ability to deal extra damage in exchange for a disadvantaged attack. Plenty of 4e monsters had attacks that didn't have special abilities attached to them, and plenty of Next monsters will have interesting abilities, we're just looking at the basic bare bones low level monsters they threw together for this.

That said, remember that one of the design goals is to get away from the long combats and huge ability lists of 4e. Both player's and monsters are not suposed to have stacks of cards representing their abilities anymore. A basic monster that is ment to be fought in groups should one have 1, maybe two minor special abilities to keep book keeping down to a minimum and allow for quick fights. If you want longer fights with more interesting monsters and powers, you can do that, you can even do that for every fight, but hour+ fights with forced movement and status effects flying around from everywhere should be a choice, not a baseline.

The fact is 4e plays less like an RPG, and more like a slow turn based tactical combat PC game. I don't want every combat to be a huge production. Sometimes I just want Orcs to try to hit the player with axes.

Seerow

2012-08-14, 10:35 PM

I think it's fine. While it's true TWF doesn't increase your damage output, it is not useless. First of all, you can attack two different targets a round, which could be very useful if you are fighting weak, low-hp foes. Second, if your weapons have different abilities, you could use them both, damage is halved, secondary effects of the attack are not. Third, even agienst a single foe, it gives you a sort of advantage. Since you roll two attack rolls, you are more likely to deal at least some damage, at the expense of having a chance of only doing half damage if the attack misses. Considering that randomness favors the NPC, having a more reliable chance of dealing damage can be beneficial(though it comes at the cost of no shield/heavy weapons).

Imagine if your party rogue had an ability that granted them advantage agienst any opponent hit by an ally. Considering how nasty Sneak Attack is, I would see TWF(or rapid shot) as a very valid way of increasing the odds of the rogue being able to sneak attack.

Problem is, TWFing/Rapid Shot explicitly halves all damage. At the same time, Combat Superiority and Sneak Attack both apply only once per round (as do all similar buffs for casters that I've noticed). This means that using Two Weapon Fighting is actually a damage loss to use. Even if you hit twice, you lost half your sneak attack damage in doing so.

So it is ONLY good for minion clearing, or for rider effects like push/prone. The first is pretty niche, and the second one is not what two weapon fighting has ever really been about, and is a pretty disappointing role for the style to fill. Both combined really isn't worth a feat given the drop in damage output accompanied with it. Really feels like it should have been a flurry option that was baked in that anyone could use.

Seerow

2012-08-14, 10:39 PM

Both player's and monsters are not suposed to have stacks of cards representing their abilities anymore.

If players aren't supposed to have stacks of cards representing their abilities, why does a Wizard have 30 potential spells known by level 5? Why are we looking at a progression that will end with spellcasters with over 30 spells per day?

I'm still seeing big stacks of abilities, just firmly in the hands of casters, at everyone else's expense.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-08-14, 10:42 PM

Fear and charm spells already exist. Cause Fear, Charm Person, Command and Suggestion all use a Wisdom save. Mirror Image and Silence, the only illusions I found, allow no save at all.

You know, you're right, I forgot about those. I also remember wondering why those didn't use Cha saves, since they were some of the exact examples used in one of the preview articles as to the sort of spells that would use Cha saves.

With the spells presented so far, including charms and illusions, it just looks like Ref=Dex, Will=Wis, and Fort=Con. The weakness I see with this structure is that if your class uses Str, Int, or Cha as their primary stat you end up weaker than a class that uses Con, Dex, or Wis. If stats are going to be so important, it'd be nice if they were equally valuable.

Yeah, if they're using just Dex/Con/Wis there's no benefit at all to doing 6-stat saves at all and they might as well go back to saves as derived stats.

I would. They got too much flak for the 4e PHB1 not having some of the "classic" D&D classes ... and in 5e, they're very concerned about preserving popular sacred cows. That includes the Paladin, Ranger, and Druid classes, at the very least. Probably Bard too. Others (Monk, Assassin, Psion ...) are more debatable.

They did make it clear that all prior classes would be present "in some form," leaving the door open for that sort of thing. And as long as you can re-create your prior-edition character of class X, I don't think they'll get too much flak for having to write "Fighter (Paladin)" on their sheet instead of "Paladin." Particularly given that it worked that way in AD&D and that they at least have all the classes there somehow unlike with the 4e PHB.

Besides, the podcast gives us a very recent update: for a while they were leaning towards making the Warlock a sub-class of Wizard, but now they're back to planning on it as an independent class.

Hmm. Haven't listened to the podcast, thanks for the heads-up. I should do that.

You're simplifying the 2e organization a bit. "Kits" were often more like PrCs than Specialties. And even if Paladin, Ranger, Druid, and Bard were officially toted as "variants" of the Fighter, Priest, and Thief classes, they were definitely treated de facto as separate classes.

They were treated as separate classes, but paladins and rangers were still "as fighters, but with additional X," which is what subclasses basically are here. Being subclasses doesn't mean they have any less of an individual identity, it just means you can share mechanics and high-level function calls to simplify and unify things where you couldn't necessarily do that with entirely separate classes.

As to the question of whether I'd like to see them go this route, it actually varies widely between archetypes.
I personally would have no problem with Druids being a subclass of Cleric (although I think Cleric should be renamed Priest). For example, a Druid is just a Cleric with the Animal/Plant/Weather Domain (or a Nature domain that takes some aspects from each), with a Specialty that grants an animal companion. (And several of the Animal Domain spells are shapeshift effects.)

On the other hand, I don't know if I could ever be satisfied with Ranger being absorbed into this kind of consolidated system. Ranger has too much rogue in it to be a viable Fighter subclass, too much magic (traditionally) too. Making it a Specialty doesn't work, because then it couldn't be combined with the Archer or Dual Wielder specialties. I guess it could be done as a Rogue sub-class. But I think making it independent works better.

Paladin is somewhere in between. What I'd really prefer for the Paladin is that it be an "Advanced Specialty" (or whatever they want to call it) for multiclassed Fighter/Clerics. But if it has to be available from Level 1 ... well, making it a separate class is ugly, because it would have to be better at fighting than the War Cleric, without making the War Cleric useless. Making it a Fighter Subclass ... just doesn't sit right, fluff-wise. Too magical. Making it a specialty makes it incompatible with other appropriate specialties, such as Guardian. I guess it could just be a re-fluff of the War Cleric, but that will lead to people complaining that their favorite class is "missing." And several of these options are missing the traditional connection the Paladin is supposed to have to Charisma.

They could always do it like the Mass Effect class system, if you're familiar with that: one class for each source (Soldier/Adept/Engineer) and one hybrid for each combination (Vanguard/Sentinel/Infilltrator). So instead of having just Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric as the only superclasses, you also have a martial/divine mix class that paladins, blackguards, and similar are subclasses of (call it Cavalier for nostalgia's sake :smallwink:), a roguish/divine mix class for rangers, monks, and similar, and so forth. That gives you some of the benefits of the subclass system (having a smaller number of unique mechanics to unify classes, 10 in this case instead of 4) with some of the benefits of the classes-only system (being able to represent hybrid concepts well).

See, my initial gut reaction is that those things would be better as Specialties rather than Traditions. I'd like to be able to put them on a Cleric or Warlock.

Could go either way. Why are wu jen, sorcerer, shugenja, and favored soul separate caster classes instead of a set of ACFs for wizards or clerics? Why are swashbuckler and scout not just a set of bonus feats for the fighter or ACFs for the rogue? (Yes, I know Swashbuckler basically is a rogue ACF at this point with Daring Outlaw, but the point stands.) You could do a stormlord as a set of weather-themed modifiers, or as a full class with weather-themed spells and all, it just depends on how much they change the base class.

Starbuck_II

2012-08-14, 10:51 PM

Could go either way. Why are wu jen, sorcerer, shugenja, and favored soul separate caster classes instead of a set of ACFs for wizards or clerics? Why are swashbuckler and scout not just a set of bonus feats for the fighter or ACFs for the rogue? (Yes, I know Swashbuckler basically is a rogue ACF at this point with Daring Outlaw, but the point stands.) You could do a stormlord as a set of weather-themed modifiers, or as a full class with weather-themed spells and all, it just depends on how much they change the base class.

Agreed, Wu jen could be an Alternate class of Wizard to use a PF term.

Shugenja is special: it doesn't fit a Cleric or Wizard.

Favored Soul is an alternate of Cleric.

Spirit Shaman is an archetype of Druid easily.

Excession

2012-08-14, 11:03 PM

Speaking of monsters, Elites seem to have the ability to attack or cast sprels twice/turn.
Except the few who have monster buffing powers.

TWfing is useful if the weapons have special powers like Keen, flaming, poison, etc I guess.

The easiest way to make an elite monster in 4e is to double its hit points and give it a second standard action. Looks like they're stuck with that pattern.

For some reason, the monster stat blocks remind me of the cards from the old D&D Miniatures game. I should try some monster vs. monster skirmishes.

Jokes

2012-08-14, 11:04 PM

So it is ONLY good for minion clearing

And it isn't all that great for this. Rolling a 1 or 2 on a d6 with a +3 bonus is only 2 damage, which will leave most mooks still standing with 1 or 2 HP.

I'm liking that there is a Necromancer included straight up. But does anyone think it gamebreaking to allow a necromancers skeleton to auto-attack? I hated the "use your action for your companions action" economy of 4e, and the skelly seems pretty weak in combat.

2012-08-14, 11:10 PM

I guess I don't know what your looking for. I don't recall a single monster in the playtest that doesn't have some sort of special ability, even if it's just a small boost when fighting in groups, or the ability to deal extra damage in exchange for a disadvantaged attack. Plenty of 4e monsters had attacks that didn't have special abilities attached to them, and plenty of Next monsters will have interesting abilities, we're just looking at the basic bare bones low level monsters they threw together for this.

There aren't as many in this version of the package, though I think stuff like the zombie and skeleton qualifies, as their "traits" are more or less just "immune to charm" and have no influence on their attacks or general tactics.

That said, remember that one of the design goals is to get away from the long combats and huge ability lists of 4e. Both player's and monsters are not suposed to have stacks of cards representing their abilities anymore. A basic monster that is ment to be fought in groups should one have 1, maybe two minor special abilities to keep book keeping down to a minimum and allow for quick fights. If you want longer fights with more interesting monsters and powers, you can do that, you can even do that for every fight, but hour+ fights with forced movement and status effects flying around from everywhere should be a choice, not a baseline.

The fact is 4e plays less like an RPG, and more like a slow turn based tactical combat PC game. I don't want every combat to be a huge production. Sometimes I just want Orcs to try to hit the player with axes.

I think you're exaggerating the issue here. I generally favored simplicity in design for 4E monsters. But let's take a very basic monster, let's say, the kobold quickblade from the Monster Vault. It has exactly 3 powers (hardly a laundry list, those were supposed to be reserved for elites/solos though that didn't always get practiced), but they all emphasize the monster's role in the encounter--to be a highly mobile skirmisher. The basic attack has a built-in damage bonus for each square the kobold shifts, and as a move action it can shift 3 squares. As a minor action it can shift an additional square. It's very simple, a level 1 creature, but it can cause the PCs some frustration as they try to chase down the kobold harassing them and trying to get at the squishy wizard, especially if the kobold's allies are engaging or disabling the melee line.

Now let's take the level 1 kobold from the playtest. It has three abilities (or powers if you will) as well, the same numbers are the 4E creature. Actually the DnD next subject has one more if you count the trait but I think it's kind of a throwaway (kobold has disadvantage in light). Two of its abilities just deal damage, and its last one is a ability that allows it to give allies a small buff. I guess my problem with this monster is, in my mind, there's nothing particular defining about this monster or its role in a given encounter. The only tactic it encourages is swarm tactics specifically with other kobolds, which is admittedly something. It just doesn't speak to me on the same level, though. I don't feel like this kobold is interesting. It will run up to an opponent, hit or miss it once, and then die. Probably in one hit, given its HP pool of 3. I can't see it doing anything else. There are no tactical implications innate to the monster itself aside from generic swarm tactics for an incredibly minute benefit. And even then it's just for more damage, which sadly seems to be all that most of the common lot get. At least the 4E monster tried to combine its "more damage" trait with something that also made the kobold engaging in combat (high mobility).

Maybe I'm being unreasonable here, but I feel like there's something missing. A spark of life, or evidence the the monsters actually have tactics and are more than just roadbumps for the PCs. Personally, I'm of the opinion that even if a monster is only going to live for 1-3 rounds, I should still strive to make it memorable, or at least something unique about it.

Now, for example, the trap lord is is a pretty decent monster. I just feel like a lot of the monsters in this package are "filler" to filter around the 1-2 interesting monsters that will actually make up the encounter, while the "roles" in 4E gave me something more interesting to work with because I could specifically fit monsters into an encounter and have them work together to challenge the party in various ways, while this package feels more like there are a few monsters that you kill in 1-2 hits while getting to the big one, if there even is a big one.

Also, there's less emphasis on building encounters and I don't like that. I'll fully admit that I don't like the shift away from individual encounters in favor of the overall adventure, so there are probably gonna be a lot of design points in this system I don't agree with. Still, I do feel like I should give it a shot at least, so I can be fair in why I don't like it.

And yes, I am referring to the material in the playtest, an assurance that "there will be more in the future" doesn't do anything for me yet, I'll believe it when I see it :smallbiggrin:

AgentPaper

2012-08-14, 11:23 PM

@Nu:

All of that sounds great and all, but in practice, it ends up slowing down the pace of combat a lot. If your players are really into the tactical side of the game, then that could be a fine tradeoff, but for the basic monsters in the core rules, they want something simpler so that the groups that aren't focused on combat tactics can have quick, simple, and fun encounters without having to look through all sorts of alternate rules.

Also, even in a more combat-focused set, there needs to be "filler" encounters that don't really tax the players all that much, either mechanically or tactically. If all of your encounters require a lot of deep thought and planning, you're likely to burn out your players and your DM pretty fast. If instead you just reserve that kind of complexity for a few key encounters, then you make those encounters all the more memorable and exciting. If you really do want to have every encounter be a 2-hour tactics session, that's certainly something you should be able to accomplish through modules, but it shouldn't be the norm.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-08-14, 11:57 PM

So it is ONLY good for minion clearing, or for rider effects like push/prone. The first is pretty niche, and the second one is not what two weapon fighting has ever really been about, and is a pretty disappointing role for the style to fill. Both combined really isn't worth a feat given the drop in damage output accompanied with it. Really feels like it should have been a flurry option that was baked in that anyone could use.
Well, to be fair, the Two-Weapon Fighter in 4e could only hit different targets with his At-Will double-attack.

It is basically WotC's way of distinguishing TWF from your standard Striker -- and head off a lot of multi-attack shenanigans that invariably pop up. IMHO, not the worst idea they've had -- particularly if it is easy to stick riders on those attacks. I would very much like to play a Melee Controller :smallbiggrin:

obryn

2012-08-15, 12:36 AM

Knaight

2012-08-15, 12:49 AM

For sheer uselessness, it has nothing on the Slayer's "Glancing Blow" feat. So you can use your dice if you miss ... but only if you rolled a 10+. It seems, given the rules we're looking at right now, that a 10+ will almost always hit. The highest AC in the Bestiary is 17 for the Dark Priest. The dwarf fighter has a +6 to-hit, and the human has a +7.

This is particularly obnoxious as they had Reaper in the previous play test, and Reaper was working well as a feature.

TheOOB

2012-08-15, 01:20 AM

Problem is, TWFing/Rapid Shot explicitly halves all damage. At the same time, Combat Superiority and Sneak Attack both apply only once per round (as do all similar buffs for casters that I've noticed). This means that using Two Weapon Fighting is actually a damage loss to use. Even if you hit twice, you lost half your sneak attack damage in doing so.

So it is ONLY good for minion clearing, or for rider effects like push/prone. The first is pretty niche, and the second one is not what two weapon fighting has ever really been about, and is a pretty disappointing role for the style to fill. Both combined really isn't worth a feat given the drop in damage output accompanied with it. Really feels like it should have been a flurry option that was baked in that anyone could use.

Wow, you didn't read my post before you replied to it. While it is true TWF doesn't increase your damage(though it does increase the chance you'll do some damage at the cost of giving a chance to do reduced damage). There can be many effects carried by an attack that are not damage, which may make a TWF viable.

If players aren't supposed to have stacks of cards representing their abilities, why does a Wizard have 30 potential spells known by level 5? Why are we looking at a progression that will end with spellcasters with over 30 spells per day?

I'm still seeing big stacks of abilities, just firmly in the hands of casters, at everyone else's expense.

You're really not making any sense. First of all, not everyone wants a ton of abilities. One of the advantages of older editions was that if you wanted a complex class with a ton of abilities, you'd play a wizard or cleric, and if you wanted a more simple class you'd play a fighter or rogue. In 4e you didn't have that choice, you'd have stacks of cards no matter what you played as. Also keep in mind that spells are daily, and cover all manner of effects, not just combat abilities. A wizard can reduce their work load by preparing several copies of the same spells, and won't be using all 30+ of their spells as combat spells

@Nu:

All of that sounds great and all, but in practice, it ends up slowing down the pace of combat a lot. If your players are really into the tactical side of the game, then that could be a fine tradeoff, but for the basic monsters in the core rules, they want something simpler so that the groups that aren't focused on combat tactics can have quick, simple, and fun encounters without having to look through all sorts of alternate rules.

Also, even in a more combat-focused set, there needs to be "filler" encounters that don't really tax the players all that much, either mechanically or tactically. If all of your encounters require a lot of deep thought and planning, you're likely to burn out your players and your DM pretty fast. If instead you just reserve that kind of complexity for a few key encounters, then you make those encounters all the more memorable and exciting. If you really do want to have every encounter be a 2-hour tactics session, that's certainly something you should be able to accomplish through modules, but it shouldn't be the norm.

This

D&D has always been a combat focused game, having sprung from the loins of wargames, but not every campaign, and not ever adventurer or encounter needs to be combat focused itself. 4e was strongly combat focused, you're character had a laundry list of combat abilities and feats, and very little is the way of out of combat utility(even utility powers typically were combat powers, just non offensive ones).

Even a "simple" 4e combat encounter would last a long time due to high hp totals, healing surges, and even minions having activated abilities, and the book keeping could get annoying if you had to keep track of more than 3 or 4 foes or more than 1 or 2 types of foe in the same encounter.

D&D Next, like older editions, is giving you the option of making things easier. Of having combats that are quicker, easier, and simpler for book keeping. Instead of each encounter being a grand battle, there can be some simple skirmishes, where the question is not if the players will win, but how much of their resources will they have left over for the tough battles(with less hp, and all spells being daily, even quick encounters can take a toll of player resources, making them meaningful even if they are easy).

In Next, as a wizard, you have a choice that wasn't present in 4e. In 4e if an encounter was easy, you'd just win with your powerful encounter powers, but in Next you don't have encounter powers. A wizard is nothing without their spells, and their spells are daily. Do you solve the encounter quickly with a couple high level spells, saving the rest of your teams resources, or do you stick to your low level and minor spells, knowing that your team will take more injuries due to a prolonged fight.

Knaight

2012-08-15, 01:26 AM

You're really not making any sense. First of all, not everyone wants a ton of abilities. One of the advantages of older editions was that if you wanted a complex class with a ton of abilities, you'd play a wizard or cleric, and if you wanted a more simple class you'd play a fighter or rogue. In 4e you didn't have that choice, you'd have stacks of cards no matter what you played as. Also keep in mind that spells are daily, and cover all manner of effects, not just combat abilities. A wizard can reduce their work load by preparing several copies of the same spells, and won't be using all 30+ of their spells as combat spells.

There's really no reason to attach complexity to the type of character. As is, if you wanted a character to be both a simple class and a mage of some sort, you're out of luck. If you wanted a character to be both a complex class and a warrior of some sort, you're also out of luck. Given that 5e has optional mechanics explicitly built in to alleviate this problem, WotC should be able to avoid screwing it up by putting in big piles of spells.

AgentPaper

2012-08-15, 01:39 AM

There's really no reason to attach complexity to the type of character. As is, if you wanted a character to be both a simple class and a mage of some sort, you're out of luck. If you wanted a character to be both a complex class and a warrior of some sort, you're also out of luck. Given that 5e has optional mechanics explicitly built in to alleviate this problem, WotC should be able to avoid screwing it up by putting in big piles of spells.

I think the solution to this problem isn't to take away a ton of the wizard's toys, but rather to give the fighter more toys. This is what WotC did with 4E, and it worked out well, for many people.

However, 4E brought it's own problems, notably that not everyone wants to play really complex characters that have twenty different things to do in a turn, but would rather have a fighter that charges in, smashes stuff up, and has lots of fun.

In the past, this has unfortunately also meant that those players would be woefully inadequate when compared with the more complex classes, with the reasoning that if you work a lot to play a complex character, you should be awarded with higher effectiveness.

With 5E, they seem to be coming to the conclusion that 1) you should be able to play a simple fighter, 2) you should have the option to play a complex fighter, and 3) complexity doesn't need to be tied to effectiveness.

I think the key here is that complexity for the fighter is an option, and we aren't being given a ton of the really deep options for any of the classes yet. Combat Superiority seems to be a nod towards having even the basic fighter be somewhat complex. Most of the time, you probably just want to throw your CS dice at damage, but the abilities have niche purposes that you can also use them for. Importantly, though, none of them are so strong that you need to spend much time thinking about them except for the obvious times when they would be really nice.

Combat Superiority is also a very new mechanic, so it's to be expected that it's rough around the edges, to say the least. You should definitely give them feedback about what's good, what's not, but don't get turned off from the system just because they didn't get it 100% perfect from the start. (I don't know if any of you are doing this, but it can be hard to tell sometimes)

2012-08-15, 02:01 AM

All of that sounds great and all, but in practice, it ends up slowing down the pace of combat a lot. If your players are really into the tactical side of the game, then that could be a fine tradeoff, but for the basic monsters in the core rules, they want something simpler so that the groups that aren't focused on combat tactics can have quick, simple, and fun encounters without having to look through all sorts of alternate rules.

I don't have a problem with their intent to make combat flow faster, however, I still don't like the far less tactical and interesting monster design. When I look to the books and think, "how can I challenge my player characters in a fun manner," the DnD Next Monster book does not give me an easy answer.

The frustrating thing is that it is probably possible, there ARE some good monsters in there. But in 4E, having monsters focused towards a particular idea or concept--and also giving them "roles"--really helped me, as a DM, get into the mindset of "how should this monster work." But for an edition that is trying on a surface level to be more accessible, I think it's actually less so for the Dungeon Master!

Also, even in a more combat-focused set, there needs to be "filler" encounters that don't really tax the players all that much, either mechanically or tactically. If all of your encounters require a lot of deep thought and planning, you're likely to burn out your players and your DM pretty fast. If instead you just reserve that kind of complexity for a few key encounters, then you make those encounters all the more memorable and exciting. If you really do want to have every encounter be a 2-hour tactics session, that's certainly something you should be able to accomplish through modules, but it shouldn't be the norm.

"Filler" encounters that aren't taxing at all are actually more possible in an encounter-based design than in an adventure-based design, because "encounter powers" and more plentiful healing resources mean that an low-level encounter featuring primarily low HP monsters (like 4E minions) will hardly affect the party's resources at all.

D&D has always been a combat focused game, having sprung from the loins of wargames, but not every campaign, and not ever adventurer or encounter needs to be combat focused itself. 4e was strongly combat focused, you're character had a laundry list of combat abilities and feats, and very little is the way of out of combat utility(even utility powers typically were combat powers, just non offensive ones).

Even a "simple" 4e combat encounter would last a long time due to high hp totals, healing surges, and even minions having activated abilities, and the book keeping could get annoying if you had to keep track of more than 3 or 4 foes or more than 1 or 2 types of foe in the same encounter.

Minions shouldn't have triggered abilities very often, if they do then the DM was using the wrong minions or wasn't planning on having it be a "quick" encounter anyway. And it depends on what you mean by "long time," that actually varies a lot from group to group and level by level. But anyway, this thread is about DnD Next, so in order to relate it to that, let me just say that I cannot see an "easy" DnD Next encounter taking a whole lot less time than a DnD 4E encounter. If I had to guess it'd be the medium-to-hard ones where there's a larger difference in time taken. As a 4E DM, however, I still believe it is completely possible to run quick, simple 4E skirmishes, and if you want to you can even run it somewhat rules light to further cut back on time.

Honestly, I don't feel like DnD Next is giving me more options than I had before. You seem to be trying to push very hard that DnD Next is giving us something that wasn't there, but I'm not buying it.

In Next, as a wizard, you have a choice that wasn't present in 4e. In 4e if an encounter was easy, you'd just win with your powerful encounter powers, but in Next you don't have encounter powers. A wizard is nothing without their spells, and their spells are daily. Do you solve the encounter quickly with a couple high level spells, saving the rest of your teams resources, or do you stick to your low level and minor spells, knowing that your team will take more injuries due to a prolonged fight.

There is nothing fun, interesting, or desirable about a wizard sitting in the back and casting magic missile over and over. The fact that this is a choice is a negative thing, not a positive one.

Yora

2012-08-15, 02:16 AM

Does anyone know what an elite monster is?

XP for monsters seem to be completely random and arbitrary with the 1 HD Dark Cultist beeing being way above the 4 HD cultist. But still I wonder if elite is supposed tohave something to do with this.

DonEsteban

2012-08-15, 02:19 AM

Can anyone find where it says what your AC is when you're not wearing armor? I'm assuming 10 + Dex mod.
It's mentioned in "Character Creation", step 5.

I've barely skimmed things, but what I've noticed is Sneak Attack. That is a lot of damage. I guess it'll be harder to get Sneak Attacks in in 5e?

You get it once per round if you have advantage. How to get advantage is kind of hazy. Examples are, when you're hidden, deliver an opportunity attack, supposedly if someone uses the Help action for you, when the opponent is prone, stunned or similar, or whenever you DM sees fit. It's somewhat hard to judge how easy that is to get. Additionally, if you use the "Thug theme" of the Rogue class, you get sneak attack whenever you opponent is "flanked", i.e., threatened by two other friendly creatures.

Zombimode

2012-08-15, 03:46 AM

For example, Web doesn't seem to have a duration - Web currently lasts forever.

I think this may be intentional.

kyoryu

2012-08-15, 10:57 AM

"Filler" encounters that aren't taxing at all are actually more possible in an encounter-based design than in an adventure-based design, because "encounter powers" and more plentiful healing resources mean that an low-level encounter featuring primarily low HP monsters (like 4E minions) will hardly affect the party's resources at all.

That all depends on the purpose of "filler" encounters. If they're to just add another fight and exercise the mechanics, great.

Random encounters in old-school play were specifically there to put a pressure on players to move forward, rather than waste their resources not getting to the big pile of gold (remember, gold=xp in old-school games).

In more simulation-oriented play, they're there because, well, there's monsters between point A and point B, and you ran into some.

I have no idea what purpose they play in story-based games. Which is probably why most people running story-based games don't use them.

Of course, this gets to my kind of over-arching metapoint with 5e, which is that the first thing they need to do is figure out exactly what game they're making.

Seerow

2012-08-15, 10:58 AM

Wow, you didn't read my post before you replied to it. While it is true TWF doesn't increase your damage(though it does increase the chance you'll do some damage at the cost of giving a chance to do reduced damage). There can be many effects carried by an attack that are not damage, which may make a TWF viable.

I don't think you read MY post. TWF doesn't just fail to increase damage, it actually REDUCES the damage of any class that is likely to use it. Hell, my second paragraph even acknowledged that you can use TWFing with rider effects or for minion clearing, I just state that those effects aren't worth wasting a feat on.

You're really not making any sense. First of all, not everyone wants a ton of abilities. One of the advantages of older editions was that if you wanted a complex class with a ton of abilities, you'd play a wizard or cleric, and if you wanted a more simple class you'd play a fighter or rogue. In 4e you didn't have that choice, you'd have stacks of cards no matter what you played as. Also keep in mind that spells are daily, and cover all manner of effects, not just combat abilities. A wizard can reduce their work load by preparing several copies of the same spells, and won't be using all 30+ of their spells as combat spells

It doesn't matter how you spin it. Wizard: 30 spells that can be changed between daily. Right now a 5th level wizard has over a billion permutations of spells available to him. Fighter: 3 abilities that he chooses at level 1 that are then locked into place. That's without even looking at how effective the wizard options are vs the Fighter options. That is the kind of disparity of options we saw in 3rd edition.

And no, you shouldn't say "If you want a simple class, go play a Fighter". You should say "If you want a simple class, use this optional feature to make your class simple". That optional feature may be "Wizard trades out all of his spell slots for some souped up cantrips" or "Fighter gives up his combat superiority options and just gets a flat bonus to hit and damage", but in no case should you have a single class who by default has so few options.

And now I'm going to go on a tangential rant. We were sold Combat Superiority with the idea that it would be the Fighter's complex option, and someone who wants a simple fighter could just ignore those options and pump out extra damage each round. Instead what we've seen is Combat Superiority have half a dozen options that are variations on "deal more damage", a couple options that are "reduce damage", and a bunch of options that are "Do things that in previous editions anybody could do without wasting an ability slot on"

Seriously, Pushing people and knocking people prone shouldn't require wasting an ability slot. It should be something literally anyone can do for free. Glancing Blow shouldn't have ever been written. There is no reason Jab and Snap Shot should have been separate abilities. Cleave should be an active ability as opposed to a reactive one, where you spend dice to attack two enemies near you, because as is trying to use it will frequently result is wasting your dice for the turn.

The only ability out of the ones presented in the playtest packet that actually seemed interesting or added any sort of new option to the Fighter was Shift. And even that's just a sort of souped up 5ft step.

The fact that all of the options are practically non options gets added on top of the fact that you only get 3, and you don't even get to pick and choose just adds insult to injury. A Fighter in 3.5 actually had more options than the Fighter in this playtest, because he at least got his feats on top of the baseline options like trip, disarm, and bullrush. A lot of the options may have been terrible, but so are the options the 5e fighter has now, he just gets even fewer of them. It's literally the worst of both worlds.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-08-15, 12:20 PM

And now I'm going to go on a tangential rant. We were sold Combat Superiority with the idea that it would be the Fighter's complex option, and someone who wants a simple fighter could just ignore those options and pump out extra damage each round. Instead what we've seen is Combat Superiority have half a dozen options that are variations on "deal more damage", a couple options that are "reduce damage", and a bunch of options that are "Do things that in previous editions anybody could do without wasting an ability slot on"

Seriously, Pushing people and knocking people prone shouldn't require wasting an ability slot. It should be something literally anyone can do for free. Glancing Blow shouldn't have ever been written. There is no reason Jab and Snap Shot should have been separate abilities. Cleave should be an active ability as opposed to a reactive one, where you spend dice to attack two enemies near you, because as is trying to use it will frequently result is wasting your dice for the turn.

The only ability out of the ones presented in the playtest packet that actually seemed interesting or added any sort of new option to the Fighter was Shift. And even that's just a sort of souped up 5ft step.

The fact that all of the options are practically non options gets added on top of the fact that you only get 3, and you don't even get to pick and choose just adds insult to injury. A Fighter in 3.5 actually had more options than the Fighter in this playtest, because he at least got his feats on top of the baseline options like trip, disarm, and bullrush. A lot of the options may have been terrible, but so are the options the 5e fighter has now, he just gets even fewer of them. It's literally the worst of both worlds.

I completely agree. As I mentioned in a previous post, they could easily combine all of the features a certain specialty gets and give that to you as one feature and I still don't think that would be all that powerful or interesting. Really, everything we've seen so far can be summed up as "Add extra attack given X condition," "Add X combat maneuver as a rider, no save," or "Add +/-X to your/your enemy's damage," which doesn't look like it addresses the complaint that lots of 4e powers are just damage+effect. I'm reminded of a post on RPG.net where someone wrote up a build-your-own-power system for the 4e fighter that managed to duplicate every single PHB1 fighter power in half a page, with the other half page for an explanation and a picture.

What I'd prefer to see would be a list of standard combat maneuvers as in previous editions and then a list of things you can do with CS dice. Any abilities mentioned would be melee-range and either single-target or personal, to keep things simple and to allow for expansion. Then, your specialty wouldn't grant you CS abilities, you'd have access to all of them, and specialties would do things like "Archer: You may use offensive CS abilities at range" or "Guardian: You may use defensive CS abilities on adjacent allies" or "Horde Slayer: You may spend one CS die when using an offensive CS ability to affect one additional enemy adjacent to both you and the primary target" or "Berserker: [Grant Barbarian rage-type ability] and you increase your CS dice by one step while in a rage" and so forth.

Madara

2012-08-15, 12:27 PM

I noticed the durations for many spells are quite large, which isn't exactly an improvement. Combat doesn't last 10 min(IC) so having my spell last 10 min is no different than 3 min, since they both last the whole encounter.

Also, I noticed they nerfed Ray of Frost a bit :smallbiggrin:

They listened!! :smallbiggrin:

Its proof that they really are listening to the playtests. Also, because of the way some of the wording for some of the specialties, certain races allow you to qualify for things without being a spellcaster. So you could have a Fighter with Undead servants.

I hope that when the actual game comes out, Gnomes are in the races. They skipped the Gnomes in 4e at first, and I don't see Gnomes in the playtest yet. Also, while Humans don't get the bonus feat, the ability boost is huge for them. Do you think they're still the best race?

Yora

2012-08-15, 01:19 PM

There are no half-elves either. It's 4 classes and the 4 most basic (because from middle earth) races.

obryn

2012-08-15, 01:39 PM

There's a ton of argument right now on whether Humans are too good, or on par with other races. There's also some folks who don't like the flavor of, for example, tough humans being tougher than dwarves. Or dextrous humans being more dextrous than elves.

Me? I don't mind it. I think it sounds about right, power-wise. And if it gives them a little edge? Good. I like my D&D humanocentric.

-O

Knaight

2012-08-15, 01:47 PM

There's a ton of argument right now on whether Humans are too good, or on par with other races. There's also some folks who don't like the flavor of, for example, tough humans being tougher than dwarves. Or dextrous humans being more dextrous than elves.

I have absolutely no issue with this, given that there are cases where other races still have the advantage. Perceptive humans are still nowhere near as perceptive as other races, as basically everyone else has much better senses. Tough humans are only equivalent to tough Hill Dwarves. So on and so forth.

2012-08-15, 03:03 PM

That all depends on the purpose of "filler" encounters. If they're to just add another fight and exercise the mechanics, great.

Random encounters in old-school play were specifically there to put a pressure on players to move forward, rather than waste their resources not getting to the big pile of gold (remember, gold=xp in old-school games).

In more simulation-oriented play, they're there because, well, there's monsters between point A and point B, and you ran into some.

I have no idea what purpose they play in story-based games. Which is probably why most people running story-based games don't use them.

Of course, this gets to my kind of over-arching metapoint with 5e, which is that the first thing they need to do is figure out exactly what game they're making.

My reply was to a specific kind of "filler" encounter, which was as I quote, "filler encounters that don't really tax the players all that much."

Of course, an encounter designed to be taxing should be, though I'm a bit unsure if it's a good idea to make an encounter that is both taxing and uninvolved. It seems to me to be more natural that brief encounters don't put much strain on the party's resources, while extended encounters do. Something that is brief and taxing strikes me as less of an encounter and more of maybe a trap, or some kind of natural disaster.

I'm just not liking how much we're having to sacrifice here to reach that point. I don't think this edition is very much catered to the DM anymore. I don't feel like DnD Next is designed in such a way that makes the DM's job easy or intuitive.

Knaight

2012-08-15, 03:07 PM

I'm just not liking how much we're having to sacrifice here to reach that point. I don't think this edition is very much catered to the DM anymore. I don't feel like DnD Next is designed in such a way that makes the DM's job easy or intuitive.

It looks easier to GM for me, simply because there are far fewer rules in play.

kyoryu

2012-08-15, 03:37 PM

My reply was to a specific kind of "filler" encounter, which was as I quote, "filler encounters that don't really tax the players all that much."

What would the purpose of a "filler encounter that doesn't tax the PCs" be, under any system?

TheOOB

2012-08-15, 04:34 PM

There is nothing fun, interesting, or desirable about a wizard sitting in the back and casting magic missile over and over. The fact that this is a choice is a negative thing, not a positive one.

Read posts before you reply to them please. I never said that a wizard is just going to use magic missile over and over, only that they may stick to minor and lower level spells, saving their big guns for the tougher encounters. As a 5th level wizard you can solve simple encounter quickly with a fireball, or you can use burning hands and mop up with magic missile and basic attacks. One choice leaves you without your best damage spell for a later encounter, one choice will likely cause more wounds to your team and make your other party members use more resources. It's not a choice of be cool or do nothing, it's a choice of how much power you want to save for later.

I think the solution to this problem isn't to take away a ton of the wizard's toys, but rather to give the fighter more toys. This is what WotC did with 4E, and it worked out well, for many people.

However, 4E brought it's own problems, notably that not everyone wants to play really complex characters that have twenty different things to do in a turn, but would rather have a fighter that charges in, smashes stuff up, and has lots of fun.

In the past, this has unfortunately also meant that those players would be woefully inadequate when compared with the more complex classes, with the reasoning that if you work a lot to play a complex character, you should be awarded with higher effectiveness.

With 5E, they seem to be coming to the conclusion that 1) you should be able to play a simple fighter, 2) you should have the option to play a complex fighter, and 3) complexity doesn't need to be tied to effectiveness.

I think the key here is that complexity for the fighter is an option, and we aren't being given a ton of the really deep options for any of the classes yet. Combat Superiority seems to be a nod towards having even the basic fighter be somewhat complex. Most of the time, you probably just want to throw your CS dice at damage, but the abilities have niche purposes that you can also use them for. Importantly, though, none of them are so strong that you need to spend much time thinking about them except for the obvious times when they would be really nice.

Combat Superiority is also a very new mechanic, so it's to be expected that it's rough around the edges, to say the least. You should definitely give them feedback about what's good, what's not, but don't get turned off from the system just because they didn't get it 100% perfect from the start. (I don't know if any of you are doing this, but it can be hard to tell sometimes)

The way to make weak classes more powerful is not to make them more complex. The game needs simple classes for more casual players, and complex classes for more hard core players. I like what they are doing with the 5e fighter. The expertise dice allows the fighter to have some cool tricks, while not being hard to play. The fact that they refresh quickly means that a casual player will never have to make the hard choice on if they use them or not, and casual players hate difficult choices. Depending on what fighting styles you pick, you may have an array of interesting abilities to spend your dice on, or you may just be able to make your numbers bigger. What's most important, however, is that even if a fighter is playing simply, and just has big numbers, they are useful, unlike say 3e fighters.

I defiantly think some classes should be more complex than others, and I like it when classes have the ability to alter how complex they are. That said, it's important to be flexible with flavor. As it stands in D&D Next, from most complex to least complex you have Wizard>Cleric>Rogue>Fighter. That is, the more magical you are, the more complex you are. There needs to be options for complex martial characters, and simple magic characters, though I think that is done best with new classes. 3e had the warlock, a simple arcane caster, and the warblade, a complex fighter, and I see no reason Next cannot do the same.

Dienekes

2012-08-15, 05:36 PM

Honestly, it's not the concept of Combat Superiority I think, or it's complexity. I think the idea of CS is actually a simple and elegant and could lead to something that's fun for both types of players.

Two problems I think need to be addressed, the first is that they need to say that advanced players can choose not to take a package and just pick the maneuver they want, and that the prepackaged ones are for those who don't feel comfortable with such options (on the same token, pre-packaged spells fo wizards is not a bad idea as long as the same statement is made). The second problem comes in the options presented aren't that interesting, at all. And they won't scale well. Now neither will spells, admittedly, but as it goes the Fighter will only have 12 or so options, while the Wizard will have around 60+ spells. Those dozen options need to scale.

Anyway what I would do.
Deadly Strike: Use a CS die to deal that damage directly to the target regardless of whether or not you hit.

This gets rid of the superfluous (and crappy) Glancing Blows, and is a general damage bonus for those who just want the simple option to lay the smack down.

On the same token
Protection: Use a CS die to reduce the damage taken by you or an ally within reach by the die result.

Cleave: Same, but gains Great Cleave after a few levels.

Knock Down/Push: Increase the size you can use the ability on as you level up. Yes, getting a no-save ability to push a dragon around is pretty good.

Shift: Increase the distance you can move as you level up.

Tumble: I don't think this should be a Fighter only ability to be honest. Tumbling Rogues are too much in my brain. However some ability to spend a CS to negate an AOO (or whatever they're calling it these days) would be useful

Breaker: Use a CS to either break an object that was being held by your target, or to break through the target you were attacking (if you were attacking a wall or something)

Precise Attack: Use a CS to gain Advantage against an opponent. As you gain levels you can allow your allies to also gain Advantage against that opponent until the start of your next turn.

Fearsome Blow: Use a CS to make the opponent Shaken. As you gain levels nearby enemies can also become Shaken.

Mark: Use a CS on an opponent, that opponent takes a penalty to attack if it attacks anyone but you. As you gain levels the penalty increases.

Crippling Strike: Use a CS on an opponent, that opponent gains Disadvantage on it's next attack.

Hamstring: Use a CS on an opponent, that opponent's Movement Speed reduces by 10, for a round. As you gain levels the penalty increases until the opponent cannot move.

And so on. Anyway I think these are simple and could be fun for the new player, and more of them could bring a lot of complexity for the advanced player.

2012-08-15, 05:56 PM

It looks easier to GM for me, simply because there are far fewer rules in play.

"Fewer rules" can make it harder in many situations, not easier. Fewer rules mean you have to make on-the-spot decisions more often. Fewer rules means there are fewer guidelines for building challenges for the players. I mean, the reason we HAVE rules in the first place is to make it easier for the DM and the players to make stuff, right? If "fewer rules" meant "easier to DM," then why have any rules at all? Just go freeform and have fun.

What would the purpose of a "filler encounter that doesn't tax the PCs" be, under any system?

I wouldn't know, I'm not the one who brought it up or presented it as desirable to have as an option.

Read posts before you reply to them please. I never said that a wizard is just going to use magic missile over and over, only that they may stick to minor and lower level spells, saving their big guns for the tougher encounters. As a 5th level wizard you can solve simple encounter quickly with a fireball, or you can use burning hands and mop up with magic missile and basic attacks. One choice leaves you without your best damage spell for a later encounter, one choice will likely cause more wounds to your team and make your other party members use more resources. It's not a choice of be cool or do nothing, it's a choice of how much power you want to save for later.

I simply used magic missile as an example because it was the most iconic minor spell. I could have said "magic missile or ray of frost" and it'd be more accurate, I suppose. It would require VERY specialized circumstances for any of the other minor spells to be useful.

I'm well aware of the mindset behind daily resources, so you don't have to explain it to me or sing their praises. I still think that taking away the encounter resources is anti-fun and a step backwards. And yeah, I did kind of hate the style of play that promoted wizards holding onto their good spells for more important encounters, and just stayed away from the battle and used a wand of magic missile or whatever to make some minor contribution to the battle.

Besides that, let's not talk about the 5th-level wizard. Let's talk about the 1st level wizard, because most campaigns will start at the 1st level. Three spells per day. I'm sorry, but eww. As soon as you run into a tough encounter and blow say two of your spells to push the party through (suppose one misses or is rendered ineffective), congrats, you get to be useless for the rest of the day. Oh, you have ONE spell, good luck with that. Enjoy your feather fall (why are offensive and utility spells taking up the same slots again?).

Unfortunately, an alternative wizard build, one that has "per-encounter" options, is not available, despite full casters completely eclipsing non-caster in terms of options. For a system that is praised by some as "letting you do what you want" I'm not finding what I want. The fighter's "options" barely even count (as has been pointed out, it basically amounts to "do a little more damage, cause enemies to do a little less damage, or maybe do push/trip an enemy unless they happen to be bigger than you in which case you're screwed). Heck, they're not even customizable, you're completely locked into a single path once chosen.

I guess if I had to summarize this edition as it currently exists in three words, it'd be "a step backwards."

TheOOB

2012-08-15, 06:09 PM

I simply used magic missile as an example because it was the most iconic minor spell. I could have said "magic missile or ray of frost" and it'd be more accurate, I suppose. It would require VERY specialized circumstances for any of the other minor spells to be useful.

I'm well aware of the mindset behind daily resources, so you don't have to explain it to me or sing their praises. I still think that taking away the encounter resources is anti-fun and a step backwards. And yeah, I did kind of hate the style of play that promoted wizards holding onto their good spells for more important encounters, and just stayed away from the battle and used a wand of magic missile or whatever to make some minor contribution to the battle.

Besides that, let's not talk about the 5th-level wizard. Let's talk about the 1st level wizard, because most campaigns will start at the 1st level. Three spells per day. I'm sorry, but eww. As soon as you run into a tough encounter and blow say two of your spells to push the party through (suppose one misses or is rendered ineffective), congrats, you get to be useless for the rest of the day. Oh, you have ONE spell, good luck with that. Enjoy your feather fall (why are offensive and utility spells taking up the same slots again?).

Unfortunately, an alternative wizard build, one that has "per-encounter" options, is not available, despite full casters completely eclipsing non-caster in terms of options. For a system that is praised by some as "letting you do what you want" I'm not finding what I want. The fighter's "options" barely even count (as has been pointed out, it basically amounts to "do a little more damage, cause enemies to do a little less damage, or maybe do push/trip an enemy unless they happen to be bigger than you in which case you're screwed). Heck, they're not even customizable, you're completely locked into a single path once chosen.

I guess if I had to summarize this edition as it currently exists in three words, it'd be "a step backwards."

And you still didn't read my post. Stop trying to put up a strawman of my argument and actually put some effort into reading comprehension before you try to refute something. I said minor or lower level spells. Fact, a wizard will gain 1 or 2 spells per day every level. Fact a wizard gains a new spell level every two levels. Fact a wizard will end up having many spells that, while not as powerful as their top level spells, are non the less useful. Just because a wizard doesn't go supernova and throw out their best spells, doesn't mean they don't have options.

By the way, have you ever played an older edition of D&D, even 3rd. 3 spells per day is enough to cast 1 spell per typical encounter in a day, and at level 1 your minor spells are powerful enough to be relevant when you run out better spells. And while most games start at level 1, few games stay there, by the time you're tired of your minor spells, you'll have plenty of new spells to cast. If your DM doesn't want players to resort to basic attacks and minor spells, he shouldn't start the campaign at level 1.

Further, why shouldn't "utility" spells be the same as attack spells. It's part of what makes a wizard fun, picking the spells for the situation at hand, playing the wizard you want. Unlike 4e, a character isn't just about how they kill monsters, there is more to an adventure than fighting. In 4e utility powers were few and far between, and most of them were still combat powers(just non offensive ones). Now a spellcaster can actually have real utility powers, and having them also gives a use for some of their lower level spells slots when their offensive spells are obsolete.

Also, you need to remember that this is a play test build, if it was a video game it would still be in early alpha. And no, there shouldn't be a per encounter wizard. Apart from the fact that such a build kind of goes agienst the design goal of Next(which is to get away from encounter based powers because they want a DM to define what an encounter is, not the players powers), the wizard a daily based spellcaster class. There is only 4 classes right now, and I can guarantee there will be more classes as time goes on, and not all of them will work the same as the currently existing classes.

1337 b4k4

2012-08-15, 06:34 PM

Ok first off, where the heck is this idea that the 12 listed cs options will be the only ones the fighter will ever have? If you want more options than that, be sure to include it in the feedback, but let's not pretend they've set this list in stone here. There's absolutely no reason to think that this is all there will ever be or that they're done. More likely they've built up a base and want to see how people like it as it plays out. No point in designing 30+ cs options only to scrap the whole system because it actually sucks when put on the table. And before you ask, the reason there are so many spells already is because they were already written before this play test even started.

Secondly, let's stop being disingenuous about our comparisons. There's nothing productive about saying a 20th level wizard will have 30 spells per day and then comparing that to the 1st level fighter with his 3 cs maneuvers. A more accurate comparison is the 1st level wizard with his 3 daily spells and the fighter with his 3 at will cs abilities. Sure, by level 5 it's 9 vs 5 but again daily vs at will. Also note that your fighter can take the magic user specialty giving him access to some magic as well. Also it reads to me like you can start stacking your cs abilities as you gain more dice. Consider the following at 5 th level ( the first multi die level):

Your magic user specialty fighter opens his turn by casting "magic missile" hitting a ranged foe. Then he spends one cs die to "jab" (casting spells is not a ranged attack per my reading of the combat section of the how to play document) jab lets him make a melee attack against an enemy with d8 damage (which is only worse than heavy weapons), finally your fighter spends his other cs die on either "deadly strike" for another d8 worth of damage or "knockdown" to inflict prone. That's pretty damn cool to me, and while the rules aren't explicit about you being able to do multiple cs actions in a single turn, it's absolutely consistent with the rues as written, and to my mind perfectly in the spirit of the ability.

Knaight

2012-08-15, 06:41 PM

"Fewer rules" can make it harder in many situations, not easier. Fewer rules mean you have to make on-the-spot decisions more often. Fewer rules means there are fewer guidelines for building challenges for the players. I mean, the reason we HAVE rules in the first place is to make it easier for the DM and the players to make stuff, right? If "fewer rules" meant "easier to DM," then why have any rules at all? Just go freeform and have fun.

That would be why we have rules, yes. That doesn't mean that having a bunch of rules doesn't weigh things down. I'm fine with on the spot decisions as long as there is a framework for them. For instance, D&D 5e has a qualitative scale for difficulties which corresponds to certain DCs. Whenever someone tries to do this, you can refer to this one scale. I'm fine with that. 3.x, meanwhile, has explicit DCs laid out for every single skill. That's either a pain in the rear to memorize, or something you need to check all the time. It's rules getting in the way.

You seem to be positing that rules are inherently linear, and that because having rules makes it easier at one point it must make it easier at all points. I don't think that this is a safe assumption, and would instead posit that it's probably closer to a bell curve, with a portion on the left chopped off. As a GM, my rules preference curve is a narrow one, that puts D&D 3.x a good two standard deviations to the right of my ideal rules spot, where freeform is about one to the left.

I'd characterize both 3rd and 4th editions as poster children in rules getting in the way, and 5e appears to be moving away from that. Good riddance to it, I'm in favor of a much lighter system as a GM. Qualitatively evaluating how difficult things are really doesn't add to my work load,

Seerow

2012-08-15, 07:30 PM

Ok first off, where the heck is this idea that the 12 listed cs options will be the only ones the fighter will ever have? If you want more options than that, be sure to include it in the feedback, but let's not pretend they've set this list in stone here.

I haven't seen anyone make that assumption. So I'm not sure where this is coming from at all.

However, what the current list of abilities does show is a parred down basic CS option list vs a parred down basic spell option list, and we see that favoring the casters 3:1. That's on top of the fact that the CS options are universally more bland and weaker than spells. It may not be all there is or ever will be, but it is showing where the developer mindset is as far as utility and power level, and that mindset is showing us abilities that are decidedly lacking. The fact that I would be happy to trade away the majority of my CS abilities to gain 2 cantrips at this point is a really bad sign.

There's absolutely no reason to think that this is all there will ever be or that they're done. More likely they've built up a base and want to see how people like it as it plays out. No point in designing 30+ cs options only to scrap the whole system because it actually sucks when put on the table. And before you ask, the reason there are so many spells already is because they were already written before this play test even started.

If the point is to test the CS as a system, then including worthwhile abilities would have made the test better. As is I could see a lot of feedback saying "This doesn't fix the fighter at all, it's still bland and boring" because of how the CS abilities have been handled.

Secondly, let's stop being disingenuous about our comparisons. There's nothing productive about saying a 20th level wizard will have 30 spells per day and then comparing that to the 1st level fighter with his 3 cs maneuvers. A more accurate comparison is the 1st level wizard with his 3 daily spells and the fighter with his 3 at will cs abilities. Sure, by level 5 it's 9 vs 5 but again daily vs at will.

The Wizard gains 3 spells every 2 levels. The Fighter gains 1 maneuver every other level. Also calling Deadly Strike and Parry options is really stretching incredulity, those are the equivalent of the Wizard's cantrips, but with less flexibility. So at level 1 you have 3 spells per day and 5 spells known vs 1 option. By level 5, it's 9 spells per day and a minimum 21 spells known vs 3 options. By level 20, it's 31 spells per day, and a minimum 85 spells known, vs 11 options.

The scaling is there for everyone to see, and leaves the fighter in the dust starting at very low levels.

Also note that your fighter can take the magic user specialty giving him access to some magic as well. Also it reads to me like you can start stacking your cs abilities as you gain more dice. Consider the following at 5 th level ( the first multi die level):

Your magic user specialty fighter opens his turn by casting "magic missile" hitting a ranged foe. Then he spends one cs die to "jab" (casting spells is not a ranged attack per my reading of the combat section of the how to play document) jab lets him make a melee attack against an enemy with d8 damage (which is only worse than heavy weapons), finally your fighter spends his other cs die on either "deadly strike" for another d8 worth of damage or "knockdown" to inflict prone. That's pretty damn cool to me, and while the rules aren't explicit about you being able to do multiple cs actions in a single turn, it's absolutely consistent with the rues as written, and to my mind perfectly in the spirit of the ability.

Great, the fighter picked up wizard abilities to do something interesting. Also very questionably rules legal (casting an attack spell not an attack? Okay). It's also still just a variant on deal damage, just from a different source. It's a different way of dealing damage, but it's still the same thing.

2012-08-15, 07:45 PM

And you still didn't read my post. Stop trying to put up a strawman of my argument and actually put some effort into reading comprehension before you try to refute something. I said minor or lower level spells. Fact, a wizard will gain 1 or 2 spells per day every level. Fact a wizard gains a new spell level every two levels. Fact a wizard will end up having many spells that, while not as powerful as their top level spells, are non the less useful. Just because a wizard doesn't go supernova and throw out their best spells, doesn't mean they don't have options.

By the way, have you ever played an older edition of D&D, even 3rd. 3 spells per day is enough to cast 1 spell per typical encounter in a day, and at level 1 your minor spells are powerful enough to be relevant when you run out better spells. And while most games start at level 1, few games stay there, by the time you're tired of your minor spells, you'll have plenty of new spells to cast. If your DM doesn't want players to resort to basic attacks and minor spells, he shouldn't start the campaign at level 1.

Further, why shouldn't "utility" spells be the same as attack spells. It's part of what makes a wizard fun, picking the spells for the situation at hand, playing the wizard you want. Unlike 4e, a character isn't just about how they kill monsters, there is more to an adventure than fighting. In 4e utility powers were few and far between, and most of them were still combat powers(just non offensive ones). Now a spellcaster can actually have real utility powers, and having them also gives a use for some of their lower level spells slots when their offensive spells are obsolete.

Also, you need to remember that this is a play test build, if it was a video game it would still be in early alpha. And no, there shouldn't be a per encounter wizard. Apart from the fact that such a build kind of goes agienst the design goal of Next(which is to get away from encounter based powers because they want a DM to define what an encounter is, not the players powers), the wizard a daily based spellcaster class. There is only 4 classes right now, and I can guarantee there will be more classes as time goes on, and not all of them will work the same as the currently existing classes.

And I'll ask you to stop making assumptions. There is no need to be so patronizing, I do not believe I have acted in this way towards you. I assure you I am reading everything you say, I merely disagree, and for some reason you take that to mean I'm not reading your arguments. Try to calm down a bit. You really don't need to try and repeat the material that's already in the book, I can see it quite clearly (though, I wonder, did YOU read the playtest material? Example:)

3 spells per day is enough to cast 1 spell per typical encounter in a day

From the DM Guidelines document: "As a rule of thumb, you can figure that the characters will probably get through four average encounters, six or seven easy encounters, or two tough encounters before they have to take a long rest."

So unless you're fighting only tough encounters, I don't see 3 spells lasting you 1 per encounter being the norm. Not that "1 spell per encounter" is a good model in my book, and the minor spells are even weaker than the at-wills available in 4E, but that's beside the point.

I'll also ask you to not resort to accusations of a "strawman argument," especially not when you say something like "unlike 4e, a character isn't just about how they kill monsters." I mean, really? Are we going to resort to this childish debate again?

Yes, I played 3rd edition for quite some time before 4th edition even came out. My experience was that being a low-level level caster was dull and being a high-level caster made other classes irrelevant. And I'm seeing that mistake repeated here, though at least they can cast magic missile instead of shooting a crossbow now. About 3rd level it seems that things become better, but I don't really like that the first two levels are basically a crap-shoot. Incidentally I have other complaints in regards to this as well, such as the hit dice mechanic which seems to me to necessitate someone with the healer specialty, and even that doesn't really kick in until the 3rd level.

As for utility vs. attack, this was actually a common complaint I saw in 4E, that there should be more room for both. That the "utility powers" had some options that were useful out of combat, but overshadowed by combat-oriented options. Same for feats. It seems wizards did not take these complaints to heart, however, as they continue to make us choose between combat power and out-of-combat power. Odd, that in a model that is supposed to support "more than combat," you often need to choose which you'll devote a spell slot to. I would prefer a model where the two were made more separate, but again, that is my just opinion. It'd definitely make it simpler to create a character that is competent both in and out of combat (and isn't that a stated design goal, to make things simpler?).

Finally, as I have said before but apparently you were the one not reading, I am making my assumptions based on the playtest material because that is what we have in front of it. Assurances that "it's going to get better" don't hold much water with me until I see it, or at least see some indication that there's going to be something better down the line. I don't see any indication of a good or interesting encounter-based class yet, so I don't see any reason to believe there will be one, especially when, as you said, that conflicts with the design goals of DnD Next.

That would be why we have rules, yes. That doesn't mean that having a bunch of rules doesn't weigh things down. I'm fine with on the spot decisions as long as there is a framework for them. For instance, D&D 5e has a qualitative scale for difficulties which corresponds to certain DCs. Whenever someone tries to do this, you can refer to this one scale. I'm fine with that. 3.x, meanwhile, has explicit DCs laid out for every single skill. That's either a pain in the rear to memorize, or something you need to check all the time. It's rules getting in the way.

You seem to be positing that rules are inherently linear, and that because having rules makes it easier at one point it must make it easier at all points. I don't think that this is a safe assumption, and would instead posit that it's probably closer to a bell curve, with a portion on the left chopped off. As a GM, my rules preference curve is a narrow one, that puts D&D 3.x a good two standard deviations to the right of my ideal rules spot, where freeform is about one to the left.

I'd characterize both 3rd and 4th editions as poster children in rules getting in the way, and 5e appears to be moving away from that. Good riddance to it, I'm in favor of a much lighter system as a GM. Qualitatively evaluating how difficult things are really doesn't add to my work load,

The thing is that 4th edition also had a chart for improvised use of skills and abilities, there is a very handy chart with levels and DCs that corresponds to "easy," "medium," and "hard" tasks. In fact, such a chart is common in tabletop RPGs and is not unique to either 4th or DnD Next.

In any case, I was talking about monsters and encounter-building. The encounter-building rules detail how many monsters and how much XP the encounter should be worth, but they don't say anything about what kinds of monsters to use beyond those statistics. I believe that's problematic, because it either implies that the stated guidelines for DMs are insufficient for creating different kinds of encounters for the players, or that the monsters are so generic that it doesn't really matter what kind of monster you put there as long as it gives a certain amount of XP.

My assertion is that the addition of "monster roles" and gearing the abilities of monsters towards a particular theme or function made building challenging and/or more interesting encounters easier for the DM. And that I believe removing such things is a step backwards.

Knaight

2012-08-15, 07:58 PM

The thing is that 4th edition also had a chart for improvised use of skills and abilities, there is a very handy chart with levels and DCs that corresponds to "easy," "medium," and "hard" tasks. In fact, such a chart is common in tabletop RPGs and is not unique to either 4th or DnD Next.

Page 42 scales easy, medium, and hard by level, and is generally nonsense. Moreover, while this isn't anything unique to D&D, 5e is the first time this has actually happened (which means that D&D is catching up to where the industry as a whole was in 1980 in this regard, but whatever). However, that still makes a decent example regarding rules bulk as a negative in general, which was what was pertinent to the context.

2012-08-15, 08:15 PM

Page 42 scales easy, medium, and hard by level, and is generally nonsense.

And why is it nonsense? I've used it for scaling the DCs of skills in skill challenges and it has worked quite well (though of course I use the updated version found on page 126 of the Rules Compendium). It is necessary to scale by level in 4E because checks also scale by level, I don't see why that's a necessarily negative thing, though obviously if you cut out skills scaling by level then there's no need for the chart to do so.

Thanatos 51-50

2012-08-15, 08:47 PM

Just played a session as a Human Rogue using the Thug scheme and a quarterstaff. My front-line partners were a Slayer-themed Dwarf Fighter and an Elven War Cleric. They were very useful in standing next to something that was big and bad so that I could destroy it.

Quarterstaff Ninja one-shotted everything.

Ashdate

2012-08-15, 09:30 PM

Page 42 scales easy, medium, and hard by level, and is generally nonsense. Moreover, while this isn't anything unique to D&D, 5e is the first time this has actually happened (which means that D&D is catching up to where the industry as a whole was in 1980 in this regard, but whatever). However, that still makes a decent example regarding rules bulk as a negative in general, which was what was pertinent to the context.

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of the table. It was meant to give DMs who needed to improvize a difficulty check, and I think that's a useful thing for any DM to have.

Granted, the scaling DCs were completely unnecessary; they should have simply not scaled skills (and I think they ended up giving people a lot more negative an opinion of Page 42 than was warranted*), but as a quick and easy guide, they work wonderfully.

* as a note, I think the page 42 DCs of the DMG are a lot better than the ones in the rules compendium, really rewarding specializing, and in fact allow a lot more of the "don't use the dice" than I think even 5e hopes to accomplish.

1337 b4k4

2012-08-15, 09:54 PM

However, what the current list of abilities does show is a parred down basic CS option list vs a parred down basic spell option list, and we see that favoring the casters 3:1. That's on top of the fact that the CS options are universally more bland and weaker than spells. It may not be all there is or ever will be, but it is showing where the developer mindset is as far as utility and power level, and that mindset is showing us abilities that are decidedly lacking.

Well yes they are in a single instance weaker than the spells, that would be because they're at will abilities. I'm not sure why this is so controversial. The fighters get to be more regularly awesome at the expense of being nova, the wizard is nova at the expense of being below normal when they run out of resources.

If the point is to test the CS as a system, then including worthwhile abilities would have made the test better. As is I could see a lot of feedback saying "This doesn't fix the fighter at all, it's still bland and boring" because of how the CS abilities have been handled.

Sure, I can also see a lot of feedback that says "This is pretty damn cool, but it would be nice if XYZ." In fact thats not only the type of feedback I've seen so far, but it's far more useful than "The fighter is still bland and boring." In fact it seems to me that the groups actually play testing are providing that useful feedback, as opposed to the general grognarding and edition warring that is occurring on most of the forums.

Also calling Deadly Strike and Parry options is really stretching incredulity, those are the equivalent of the Wizard's cantrips, but with less flexibility.

You know, in 4e you did everything you could (especially as a rogue) to get combat advantage for the extra damage, and it was awesome. Now you give a (admittedly weakened) version of that ability to the fighter for free and at will and suddenly it's a mere "cantrip". You'll have to excuse me for saying so but I believe your biases are seriously clouding your judgement.

Also very questionably rules legal (casting an attack spell not an attack? Okay)

Nothing questionable about it. The how to play clearly differentiates between spell casting and attacking. Magic missile says nothing about making an attack, and jab says any action other than a melee or ranged attack.

It's also still just a variant on deal damage, just from a different source. It's a different way of dealing damage, but it's still the same thing.

Somehow I get the impression that even if the cs abilities were all battlefield controll, you still wouldn't be happy.

Seerow

2012-08-15, 10:14 PM

Well yes they are in a single instance weaker than the spells, that would be because they're at will abilities. I'm not sure why this is so controversial. The fighters get to be more regularly awesome at the expense of being nova, the wizard is nova at the expense of being below normal when they run out of resources.

The adventuring day is set up such that you have roughly 16 rounds of combat in a day. The Wizard is casting his dailies for more than half of that by level 5. That number will go up with level.

The Fighters deal a lot of single target damage. They do little else, really. What does this remind you of?

Sure, I can also see a lot of feedback that says "This is pretty damn cool, but it would be nice if XYZ." In fact thats not only the type of feedback I've seen so far, but it's far more useful than "The fighter is still bland and boring." In fact it seems to me that the groups actually play testing are providing that useful feedback, as opposed to the general grognarding and edition warring that is occurring on most of the forums.

The point is, you said if the mechanic doesn't work, they may scrap the mechanic rather than putting more work into fleshing it out. I'm pointing out that by showing off the mechanic with no interesting uses of it, you have the potential of seeing the mechanic get scrapped because the mechanic did not solve the problem it was intended to solve. It would have been better to have more interesting options from the get go than risk having a potentially good mechanic thrown away because it was under utilized with release.

You know, in 4e you did everything you could (especially as a rogue) to get combat advantage for the extra damage, and it was awesome. Now you give a (admittedly weakened) version of that ability to the fighter for free and at will and suddenly it's a mere "cantrip". You'll have to excuse me for saying so but I believe your biases are seriously clouding your judgement.

Cantrips are the go-to spells of Wizards now. Being compared to a cantrip does not mean useless, but it does mean it shouldn't be listed as an option when lining it up with daily abilities. Frankly, cantrips like Mage Hand and Ghost Sound are more interesting and generally useful than anything the Fighter gets. Even a Ray of Frost equivalent reducing movement speed would have been a huge step up for the playtest Fighter.

Somehow I get the impression that even if the cs abilities were all battlefield controll, you still wouldn't be happy.

And you would be correct. Because if it was all battlefield control, you'd still be lacking in other areas. The point is all about versatility. That is what complexity in options are meant to give. What makes the Wizard powerful isn't just battlefield control, it's his huge amount of versatility. While battlefield control is a part of that, it isn't all of it.

But seriously, even ignoring what we don't have, look at what we do have. We should not have to waste ability slots on things like push/prone, or disarm, or other basic combat maneuvers. In earlier editions of the game these were things anyone could attempt to do. Yet now the Fighter has to waste ability slots to get it. Snap Shot and Jab should be the same ability, why write up the same ability twice for melee and ranged, is it that broken for the Fighter to have flexibility to do both? Glancing Blow shouldn't have been put in at all as is. Tumble seems like it is completely useless. Maybe useful to set up flanking, but that's being held off until the tactical module. Protect is decent, but Protect, AoOs, and the Guardian Theme, all key off reactions, which are 1/round making Protect effectively superfluous, especially with dice regenerating at the start of your turn so to even try to use Protect, you have to risk letting your dice go to waste altogether.

Knaight

2012-08-15, 11:02 PM

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of the table. It was meant to give DMs who needed to improvize a difficulty check, and I think that's a useful thing for any DM to have.

Granted, the scaling DCs were completely unnecessary; they should have simply not scaled skills (and I think they ended up giving people a lot more negative an opinion of Page 42 than was warranted*), but as a quick and easy guide, they work wonderfully.

I know exactly what they were there for, but they broke consistency of the setting by centering it around the players. In basically every other game with something you could call a difficulty, certain things simply have a certain difficulty - very hard is always very hard. In 4e, it magically scales with the players, so that things get harder as you level up to keep uncertainty in, and you're just sort of supposed to cover this gaping hole in the system with fluff. It's a terrible mechanic as a result.

5e, meanwhile, avoids that problem. Becoming better at things means that one is more likely to succeed at them, not that they suddenly turn more difficult, but only when you're the one performing the task. D&D has finally caught up to where the rest of the hobby was in 1980.

Togath

2012-08-15, 11:28 PM

Thanatos 51-50

2012-08-15, 11:59 PM

Ar you trying to say it seems unreasonable to have scaling dcs?:smallconfused:

It's unreasonable that an epic-level Rogue needs to roll against a monstrous DC to pick the lock on the tavern door, whereas a Heroic-tier Rogue has to roll a much lower DC to pick the same lock.

Some people took "scale you DCs on skill checks" to mean just that, not that the super-duper amazing locked door that epic rogues generally run across have harder to pick locks and that a Heroic rogue wouldn't have a chance of picking one.

Like the advice to not stat up every NPC, and to only give stats to NPCs that were supposed to engage in combat was taken to mean that NPCs don't matter unless the PCs are killing them.

I swear, people intentionally (mis)interpret things like this.

Knaight

2012-08-16, 12:29 AM

It's unreasonable that an epic-level Rogue needs to roll against a monstrous DC to pick the lock on the tavern door, whereas a Heroic-tier Rogue has to roll a much lower DC to pick the same lock.

Some people took "scale you DCs on skill checks" to mean just that, not that the super-duper amazing locked door that epic rogues generally run across have harder to pick locks and that a Heroic rogue wouldn't have a chance of picking one.

Normal locks and such just sort of ceasing to exist doesn't make any sense either. Sometimes, capable people are going to encounter normal tasks and make mincemeat out of them, which 4e scaling doesn't appreciate.

2012-08-16, 12:47 AM

Normal locks and such just sort of ceasing to exist doesn't make any sense either. Sometimes, capable people are going to encounter normal tasks and make mincemeat out of them, which 4e scaling doesn't appreciate.

If that's the case, then they should just auto-succeed the check, and in fact, the DM shouldn't make the PC roll a check at all, if it's so far beneath them. That kind of situation isn't really what the chart is for.

If a 15th level rogue is cavorting around some dump of the town picking locks, why waste time making them roll at all? Doesn't seem like the kind of thing we need a system for.

obryn

2012-08-16, 12:52 AM

Normal locks and such just sort of ceasing to exist doesn't make any sense either. Sometimes, capable people are going to encounter normal tasks and make mincemeat out of them, which 4e scaling doesn't appreciate.
Sure it does, unless you're using it in a bizarre way.

That Tavern Lock in Hommlett is still a Moderate DC for a 1st-level character. Your epic-tier rogue can pick it with a chicken leg or a firm knock at that point.

The Next DC chart is just the 4e DC chart with the "level-appropriate" treadmill removed. Bounded accuracy and all that. It's mostly good for the same stuff, only now your fighter with 8 dex can pick locks pretty well because your DC range needs to stay exceptionally narrow to account for constrained bonus ranges.

-O

AgentPaper

2012-08-16, 01:59 AM

Actually, the fighter with 8 dex can't pick locks at all, because you're flat-out unable to pick locks unless you have the required training and tools.

TheOOB

2012-08-16, 02:54 AM

I know exactly what they were there for, but they broke consistency of the setting by centering it around the players. In basically every other game with something you could call a difficulty, certain things simply have a certain difficulty - very hard is always very hard. In 4e, it magically scales with the players, so that things get harder as you level up to keep uncertainty in, and you're just sort of supposed to cover this gaping hole in the system with fluff. It's a terrible mechanic as a result.

5e, meanwhile, avoids that problem. Becoming better at things means that one is more likely to succeed at them, not that they suddenly turn more difficult, but only when you're the one performing the task. D&D has finally caught up to where the rest of the hobby was in 1980.

One of my biggest problems with 4e was the number scaling. When every number scales up at the same rate, there effectively becomes no point in the numbers increasing by level at all. Next seems to get this. Your skills don't get better automatically with levels, and thus neither do DC's, which has the added effect of making DC's easier to calculate and make any bonuses you do get feel more meaningful.

The numbers that do go up with level, such as the attack bonus and spell save DC, go up at different rates for different classes. As time goes on the fighter gets better and better at fighting, while the wizard becomes more and more reliant on their magical abilities.

1337 b4k4

2012-08-16, 06:43 AM

We should not have to waste ability slots on things like push/prone, or disarm, or other basic combat maneuvers. In earlier editions of the game these were things anyone could attempt to do. Yet now the Fighter has to waste ability slots to get it.

So if the fighter shouldn't spend slots on reliably being able to push, prone, disarm and otherwise do control, and they shouldn't spend slots on dealing more damage or reducing damage, then what exactly should they be spending their ability slots on? And was there seriously an at will in 4e that allowed the fighter to prone his enemies on hit? I don't recall it.

Incidentally, I have to apologise for my tone in the last post, I think I was a bit to personal and accusatory and I shouldn't have been.

noparlpf

2012-08-16, 06:51 AM

If that's the case, then they should just auto-succeed the check, and in fact, the DM shouldn't make the PC roll a check at all, if it's so far beneath them. That kind of situation isn't really what the chart is for.

If a 15th level rogue is cavorting around some dump of the town picking locks, why waste time making them roll at all? Doesn't seem like the kind of thing we need a system for.

In 3.X, you don't even need to make a roll for a skill if your bonus is at least or higher than one less than the DC because it's impossible to fail at that point.

Kurald Galain

2012-08-16, 06:55 AM

And was there seriously an at will in 4e that allowed the fighter to prone his enemies on hit?
You can use any forced-movement at will plus the feat Polearm Momentum.

So anyway. First thoughts on the new playtest is that there are way too many knowledge skills, and they've still left out Perform and Repair. Boo. Channel Divinity is now just another healing spell and seems to be there only because they need some mechanic with that name. I like the new fighter mechanic, as well as grouping the feats in 'themes' to avoid choice paralysis. I don't like how a character gets only three skills in a fairly arbitrary grouping.

My main issues with the first playtest haven't been solved (i.e. that ability and skill modifiers are too low, making the resolution system too random; and that double (dis)advantage doesn't do anything; and that I don't like the hit dice mechanic).

Overall verdict is lacklustre. It looks decent enough, but it's still basically 3E with some tweaks, and I don't see why I should learn this instead of existing systems like 2E/3E/PF.

TomPliss

2012-08-16, 08:00 AM

You can use any forced-movement at will plus the feat Polearm Momentum. Yeah ...
You used polearms, with a feat with big requirements on 2 secondary stats, and still needed a push/slide 2sq ....

You see what I mean ?

obryn

2012-08-16, 09:01 AM

And was there seriously an at will in 4e that allowed the fighter to prone his enemies on hit? I don't recall it.
Yep. Knockdown Assault. It does very low damage, but it can be used on a charge. It makes a pretty good 3rd At-Will for a Human.

That's just a reliable, easy way to do it though. You can always improvise something with the DM if you didn't take the power. A warlord in my game last night pole-vaulted over a pile of dead elves to knock a defiler prone.

Actually, the fighter with 8 dex can't pick locks at all, because you're flat-out unable to pick locks unless you have the required training and tools.
Is that in the playtest? It looks to me like training just gives you a +3 to the check.

-O

Seerow

2012-08-16, 09:10 AM

So if the fighter shouldn't spend slots on reliably being able to push, prone, disarm and otherwise do control, and they shouldn't spend slots on dealing more damage or reducing damage, then what exactly should they be spending their ability slots on? And was there seriously an at will in 4e that allowed the fighter to prone his enemies on hit? I don't recall it.

Push, Prone, Disarm, and basically all of the other maneuvers that were available for free for anyone to use in 3.5 are things that should continue to be free. Now if like in 3.5, they require giving up basic weapon damage to use that way, I could see having a single CS ability that lets you use those basic maneuvers by spending a CS die in place of your weapon damage. So the Fighter is better at doing those things, but it definitely isn't worth multiple different abilities. 4e's restrictive power list was one of my complaints about the system, so I won't even bother trying to look up if it was possible in 4e.

I want to see abilities inflicting actual status effects on the target, comparable to spells of a level or two lower. I want to see cleave as an ability where you give up your die to attack two different enemies, rather than gambling when you try to use it. Later on I want to see things like Whirlwind Attack, or charge down a line and attack everyone within your reach on the way. I want to see the Fighter with the ability to spend dice for extra reactions so he can do more of his defendery-type stuff, because 1/round is pathetic. I'd like to see some self buffing. Both Cleric and Wizard can give themselves half cover with a spell, just as an example.

I want to see the Fighter getting utility abilities, stuff that is helpful out of combat as well as in it. As is the only way for a Fighter to have utility is go dex based and take the thief theme for those dex based thief skills. I I want to see extra mobility options, because mobility is extremely important to a melee character. I would even enjoy seeing the Fighter get some group buffing. The problem with these two things is they step on the toes of the Rogue and Warlord respectively.

But anyway, the point is that I want a much wider breadth of powers. Some of the abilities are okay. Shift is pretty decent mobility, I would have been happier seeing a couple more abilities along those lines. Jab/Snap Shot are cool, and open up some interesting possibilities, but should have been a single ability. I wouldn't have minded seeing Glancing blow rolled into that same ability as well (ie let you make a jab attempt if even if you make an attack and miss, so it's not quite auto damage but gives a much better odds of landing something each round). Having those three as separate abilities is horrible, because it's taking a pretty narrow concept and splitting it up into a bunch of weak abilities... in a system where you have very limited options.

Deadly Strike and Parry aren't horrible, but they are the default options that every fighter gets, and act as the fallback when other maneuvers aren't better. To me a Fighter getting those is equivalent to a Wizard getting cantrips, which is why I left both those and the cantrips out of the comparisons of abilities.

Protect, as mentioned before is a nice ability, some protection of allies going on, but requiring a reaction means it's competing against the ability to attack an enemy, the ability to impose disadvantage on an enemy attack, and the ability to stop an enemy from moving completely. And honestly out of those 4 options, blocking 1d8 damage is probably the weakest use of the reaction.

tl;dr: Maneuver selection in the packet is extremely limited, and the options range from really limited, to worse than a feat, to just terrible in their own right. In addition, the scope of powers provided is extremely limited, to the point where as a 5e fighter, I have fewer options available than a 3.5e Fighter. Given the 3.5 Fighter's history of being both weak and boring in terms of choices available, this is not a favorable comparison when we were told CS would be giving the Fighter more capability.

Incidentally, I have to apologise for my tone in the last post, I think I was a bit to personal and accusatory and I shouldn't have been.

No harm, no foul. I'm sorry if I put a little bite in my post in turn.

1337 b4k4

2012-08-16, 09:15 AM

You can use any forced-movement at will plus the feat Polearm Momentum.

Ok, but that's still burning an ability slot (and choosing a specific weapon), so not quite the same as what I was responding to (though I admit, my question should have been clearer).

First thoughts on the new playtest is that there are way too many knowledge skills, and they've still left out Perform and Repair. Boo.

Well, I'm not so keen on the Perform skill, but I definitely think they have way too many knowledge skills. For that matter, I'm generally of the opinion that knowledge skills are sort of useless for the game. A lot of it comes down to platy style, but it seems to me that if you can make a reasonable case for your character knowing something, then they should know it, no die roll required. I'm not so sure what having to roll dice to decide what and how much you know about something adds much to the game.

I don't like how a character gets only three skills in a fairly arbitrary grouping.

From listening to Mearls on the PA podcast, they seem to be planning on explicitly allowing players to pick and choose if they don't like the existing groups. Even if it wasn't explicitly in the rules, I imagine home brew themes would be one of the first things groups do.

You can always improvise something with the DM if you didn't take the power. A warlord in my game last night pole-vaulted over a pile of dead elves to knock a defiler prone.

Oh sure, you can always improvise, and I'm a big fan of it (hence my general dislike of rules for every conceivable scenario), but I was more responding to the assertion that in earlier editions, anyone could knock and enemy prone at any time and so having to "waste" a skill slot on that ability is somehow wrong and or broken.

Maneuver selection in the packet is extremely limited, and the options range from really limited, to worse than a feat, to just terrible in their own right. In addition, the scope of powers provided is extremely limited, to the point where as a 5e fighter, I have fewer options available than a 3.5e Fighter.

So really it seems that the issue is not that the CS thing sucks, or that you dislike it in general, it's that you feel the powers don't go far enough. Fair enough, and I can get behind that and in fact plan on having that be some of the feedback I send back as well. The big trick is balancing the system out. At will powers by definition should be weakish because you can use them repetitively, and making them too powerful runs a high chance of making them broken. And while it would be nice to see more than one reaction, to a degree, it makes sense you can only have one both for game speed and also because a round is only 6 seconds. How much reaction do you plan on doing in 6 seconds?

What would you think of the following:

In addition to a few more status inducing powers, and fixing the stupidity that is glancing blow and a few of the others, leave most of the powers relatively low powered as they are. In exchange, increase the number of dice available with a chart sort of like the wizard spell chart, but instead of spell levels, dice sizes (d4, d6, d8 etc), with a progression of maybe adding 1 die per level, and one size per 3-5 levels. Additionally, each ability has a "powered up" version of the ability that can be used, but such usage burns any CS dice you use until a long rest a la the vancian spells.

Additionally, allow fighters to spend their CS dice to take additional reactions at the cost of one die per additional reaction (in addition to the die spent on the ability).