PDA

View Full Version : 6/2/14 Escapist Interview with Mike Mearls



Psyren
2014-06-04, 10:37 AM
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/11554-Inside-the-Launch-of-the-New-Dungeons-Dragons-With-Designer-Mike-Mearls

A lot of this retreads old ground - however there are some expanded insights around things like their OGL plans, the role of the three core books vs. Basic D&D, the rationale for making FR the new core setting, the way the Basic classes are set up (blaster wizard, healer cleric etc.), and their plans for presenting monster abilities.

Here's the OGL quote in full to spark discussion:



Bolding: What's the kernel of an idea on what an OGL or licensing may look like?

Mearls: I don't want to go into too much detail because a lot of things are up in the air, but I will say that when 3rd Edition launched in 2000 there was this land rush mentality, and I think it makes sense from a business perspective. If you're a third party publisher you want to make sure you're the first to the market. Well, in their rush, you end up with people designing their adventure without the DMG. I was one of those guys. We want all the resources available, we want all the materials available, we want people to have been playing the game. We also want the audience to be informed.

I'll use the magic as an example - we want the audience to be informed and know that if anyone does anything that lets you have two concentration spells at once they've broken the game. You can't have cloudkill and hold person at the same time. Now, in your home game, you can do whatever you want. We just want everyone to know how the game works and want everyone to know what's out there in the system and what we learned from playtests before we turn everything loose.

@ Person_Man if he reads this - Mearls' first paragraph seems to echo your sentiments on 3rd-party publishers exactly.

But wait, what's this about Hold Person and Cloudkill needing concentration now? What?

pwykersotz
2014-06-04, 12:26 PM
Whenever possible though we tried to give creatures unique abilities. When you look back at 3rd Edition it tried to default to spells. I don't want to say we're doing the opposite, but when it's a unique ability it's faster for us to say "This creature can hurl an area attack that is a burst of fire" instead of saying "This creature can cast fireball." So for instance the Beholder has eye rays, and it says "Here's what happens when when it zots you with its eye rays now make a save" instead of referring to a spell. We tried to use spells only when it's clear that the monster is a spellcaster - like here's an NPC Wizard. There's an appendix on quick-building NPCs. Those creatures will typically use spells. There's a sample acolyte - a divine spellcaster - with a few quick spells.

I like this. The only concern would be a lack of standardization. For example, if your staff reflects fireballs and the Balor uses an 'almost but not quite' fireball, that might be disappointing. Hopefully they'll move all such things away from specifics, and the item will instead reflect a certain amount of 'fire'.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-04, 03:35 PM
I like this. The only concern would be a lack of standardization. For example, if your staff reflects fireballs and the Balor uses an 'almost but not quite' fireball, that might be disappointing. Hopefully they'll move all such things away from specifics, and the item will instead reflect a certain amount of 'fire'.

What they need to do is model 4e powers with their keywords.

If an ability has the *burst* and *fire* keywords then you can reflect the spell. Perhaps the balor's spell has different effects than a standard fireball.

Heck, some balors may even have a keyword (Piercing) which pierces through reflect items and effects.

Also I would love to see a FF type spell called reflect that is worthless (spell turning was too specific).

Edit. Perhaps all demons get "Hell Fire" which is a 10' Burst within 30 feet (+10 ft per ranking above low demon)

Low Demons: base Hell Fire Keyword.
Moderate Demons: Hell Fire Keyword + Keyword
Higher Demons: Hell Fire Keyword + Keyword + Keyword

Then home brewing demons can be quite easy. First keyword is normally fire? Well I want an ice demon so switch fire with cold. Second keyword could be dazing or perhaps concusive (push 10 feet).

Edit 2: Or would it be Abyss fire?

Millennium
2014-06-04, 04:13 PM
I like this. The only concern would be a lack of standardization. For example, if your staff reflects fireballs and the Balor uses an 'almost but not quite' fireball, that might be disappointing. Hopefully they'll move all such things away from specifics, and the item will instead reflect a certain amount of 'fire'.
I'm tentatively with you on this. There's a lot of potential for rules-lawyering here that could really mess things up.

On the other hand, it's also possible that they've gone all SOLID (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID) on us. It's no secret that D&D has been taking more and more things from video games in recent years, so maybe it can yank some useful principles from the way those games are written. I'm thinking of dependency inversion in particular: if they're both stated to be flame burst effects, then an equivalent staff to the one you mentioned would block flame burst effects. Or maybe you want a staff that only blocks fireball-like things, but not all flame burst effects: this hypothetical system would let you specify that without having to go through the rigamarole of saying that it "blocks things like fireball, except for X, Y, and Z)."

Chaosvii7
2014-06-05, 05:26 AM
What they need to do is model 4e powers with their keywords.

If an ability has the *burst* and *fire* keywords then you can reflect the spell. Perhaps the balor's spell has different effects than a standard fireball.

Heck, some balors may even have a keyword (Piercing) which pierces through reflect items and effects.

I actually would not mind a keyword system for things like that; It works relatively well for monster categorizations(so long as every knowledge skill has an even number of types that it has under it for when you need to roll to learn about a creature, which for the most part they do), so giving it an ability that isn't named fireball but has keywords that it shares with Fireball are fine.

I definitely wouldn't mind going through the trouble of homebrewing monster attacks and spells to better align with this or a similar system if it can provide more synergies like that.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-05, 07:04 AM
I actually would not mind a keyword system for things like that; It works relatively well for monster categorizations(so long as every knowledge skill has an even number of types that it has under it for when you need to roll to learn about a creature, which for the most part they do), so giving it an ability that isn't named fireball but has keywords that it shares with Fireball are fine.

I definitely wouldn't mind going through the trouble of homebrewing monster attacks and spells to better align with this or a similar system if it can provide more synergies like that.

If you modeled monsters after 4e at least you will have something from that edition in Next :smalltongue:

If you have a keyword system like this, but more flexible than 4e's, you could essentially have a "build ability" rules and could have extensive guidelines on how to homebrew monsters.

Don't like certain keyword? You can always drop them out for a different set. Want to mix things up in the middle of combat when a new for arrives and the party has killed a few of the same type? Change out a couple keywords and their ability could change enough to keep PCs on their toes.

Heck this could even make an interesting monster who uses chaos magic to randomly determine the keywords for their spells. (Totally going to make this at some point :p)

Psyren
2014-06-05, 03:02 PM
I like this. The only concern would be a lack of standardization. For example, if your staff reflects fireballs and the Balor uses an 'almost but not quite' fireball, that might be disappointing. Hopefully they'll move all such things away from specifics, and the item will instead reflect a certain amount of 'fire'.

It'll be more than disappointing, it'll cause arguments I'd say. So if a vampire controls you with its gaze, will it refer to dominate or will they reprint all that bloody text about performing acts against your nature and getting another save? Can a 5e Vampire dominate a 5e Paladin? If a 5e medusa turns you to stone, will 5e Break Enchanment remove it? Or will they just go the 4e route and have it wear off on its own/not really turn you to stone? etc.

I think this is another bad idea on their part.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-05, 03:36 PM
It'll be more than disappointing, it'll cause arguments I'd say. So if a vampire controls you with its gaze, will it refer to dominate or will they reprint all that bloody text about performing acts against your nature and getting another save? Can a 5e Vampire dominate a 5e Paladin? If a 5e medusa turns you to stone, will 5e Break Enchanment remove it? Or will they just go the 4e route and have it wear off on its own/not really turn you to stone? etc.

I think this is another bad idea on their part.

Yeah, I don't like it either. It'll likely end up with dozens of similar-sounding and slightly-different abilities, just for the sake of being different. The game doesn't benefit from having half a dozen almost-the-same fire blast attacks, it just slows down gameplay.

pwykersotz
2014-06-05, 03:38 PM
It'll be more than disappointing, it'll cause arguments I'd say. So if a vampire controls you with its gaze, will it refer to dominate or will they reprint all that bloody text about performing acts against your nature and getting another save? Can a 5e Vampire dominate a 5e Paladin? If a 5e medusa turns you to stone, will 5e Break Enchanment remove it? Or will they just go the 4e route and have it wear off on its own/not really turn you to stone? etc.

I think this is another bad idea on their part.

Just as mentioned above though, if it's parceled out to actual keywords it would avoid a lot of the reprinting and allow a powerful amount of flexibility without sacrificing clarity. That's a big 'if' but I have hope.

Psyren
2014-06-05, 04:45 PM
4e and Legend tried the keyword thing though, and it really hamstrings your monster design. Let's look at 4 classic "manipulator" monsters - Aboleth, Dryad, Succubus and Vampire for instance.

For starters, 4e removed the charmed condition completely, thus Dryads don't get it at all. The closest they come to manipulating enemies is by disguising themselves as comely elves, which doesn't do squat in combat. The design of the 4e dryad was... *ahem*.... "updated" to reflect their new status as melee bruisers since that's all they have left.

Only certain Aboleths can enslave, and it's pretty pathetic now - they have to daze you first, then dominate (only one creature at a time, save ends) and only then can they enslave - which is actually a damaging attack, which they have to kill you with in order to take control of you. Then they can target someone else and repeat the entire process.

Succubi have a watered down charm that can keep one enemy from attacking them and lets it stand in the way of foes. A single swing from an ally breaks it and it takes her two hits to land. They also have a 1-round dominate

Vampires too can only dominate one foe at a time (compare to Vurkon holding off an entire army of mooks by forcing them to fight one another.)


And what does dominate allow those three former masterminds to do? Not much - they can make you move and use at-wills. Without suggestion or charm, Dryads can't even do that much. It's just sad.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-05, 05:09 PM
4e and Legend tried the keyword thing though, and it really hamstrings your monster design. Let's look at 4 classic "manipulator" monsters - Aboleth, Dryad, Succubus and Vampire for instance.
Yes, keywords are the wrong approach here. Keywords promote using abilities that are slightly but not substantially different: they'll have the same standard effect but slightly different damage, range, and so forth. There must be room for monsters with unique abilities; on the other hand, if a monster's ability is "create a ball of fire", then there's no reason why this should be different from every other ball of fire in the game.

NoldorForce
2014-06-05, 05:11 PM
All of those effects you speak of above are "plot magic" to some degree or another, and honestly shouldn't really be attacks on as large a scale as they have been previously. Also, keywords are amazing for assisting with SOLID (linked above), particularly the Interface Segregation Principle. ("Many client-specific interfaces are better than one general-purpose interface.")

Psyren
2014-06-05, 06:58 PM
All of those effects you speak of above are "plot magic" to some degree or another, and honestly shouldn't really be attacks on as large a scale as they have been previously.

But the alternative - a manipulator/controller monster incapable of doing so effectively in a fight, the most likely time for it to fall back on such abilities - is patently ridiculous.

And dominate isn't the only ability that got watered down into keyword form. No more incorporeal vs. gaseous vs. ethereal etc - now we just have "insubstantial" (half-damage, even from purely physical and mundane attacks) and "phasing" (you can move through creatures and obstacles but have to end in an empty square for some reason.) No more teleporting in a direction, now you have to see your destination. Staggered is gone, folded into dazed, and now enemies can still act even if you daze them. Sickened and Nauseated are gone, and with them a lot of monsters that were once terrors to fight. And so on.

obryn
2014-06-05, 07:08 PM
Yeah, I don't like it either. It'll likely end up with dozens of similar-sounding and slightly-different abilities, just for the sake of being different. The game doesn't benefit from having half a dozen almost-the-same fire blast attacks, it just slows down gameplay.
It doesn't slow it down at all if you just spell it out in simple terms. "20' diameter, 6d6 damage, Dex save 13" and "10' diameter, 8d6 damage, Dex Save 14" are frankly the same amount of information as "40' diameter, 5d6 damage, Dex Save 13 for half" ... Which should be listed in the stat block anyway, if the monster's literally casting fireball, to save on reference time.


4e and Legend tried the keyword thing though, and it really hamstrings your monster design. Let's look at 4 classic "manipulator" monsters - Aboleth, Dryad, Succubus and Vampire for instance.

For starters, 4e removed the charmed condition completely, thus Dryads don't get it at all. The closest they come to manipulating enemies is by disguising themselves as comely elves, which doesn't do squat in combat. The design of the 4e dryad was... *ahem*.... "updated" to reflect their new status as melee bruisers since that's all they have left.

Only certain Aboleths can enslave, and it's pretty pathetic now - they have to daze you first, then dominate (only one creature at a time, save ends) and only then can they enslave - which is actually a damaging attack, which they have to kill you with in order to take control of you. Then they can target someone else and repeat the entire process.

Succubi have a watered down charm that can keep one enemy from attacking them and lets it stand in the way of foes. A single swing from an ally breaks it and it takes her two hits to land. They also have a 1-round dominate

Vampires too can only dominate one foe at a time (compare to Vurkon holding off an entire army of mooks by forcing them to fight one another.)

And what does dominate allow those three former masterminds to do? Not much - they can make you move and use at-wills. Without suggestion or charm, Dryads can't even do that much. It's just sad.
This is part and parcel to the "no one-hit kills" philosophy of the game, which extends to control conditions. 1-round dominates, in play, can swing an entire combat without making the player sit on their hands for the session. It shifts the action economy very strongly, whether it's done against the PCs or monsters.

It's unrelated to using keywords in monster stat blocks, except tangentially. It does demonstrate the wide variety of dominate-like effects you can create with a small set of conditions, though.

(And Aboleths sadly suffer from MM1-itis. Like so many of the monsters in MM1, particularly Paragon-tier and higher that never got revised, they're terribly designed.)

captpike
2014-06-05, 07:27 PM
ya my first advise to any new 4e DM is to buy the MM3 and never even look at MM1.

it also should be noted that its easier to look at "range:50ft(10sq), area:20ft(4sq), ref save: 15, 4d6+5 fire damage" then to have to look up fireball every time you need to use it.
same goes for all other spells. it just slows the game down, and increases the need for system mastery

Psyren
2014-06-05, 09:48 PM
This is part and parcel to the "no one-hit kills" philosophy of the game, which extends to control conditions. 1-round dominates, in play, can swing an entire combat without making the player sit on their hands for the session. It shifts the action economy very strongly, whether it's done against the PCs or monsters.

"I made you use an at-will against your team last round! The entire combat is disrupted!" :smalltongue:

It's just pathetic. Succubi and Aboleths are supposed to be capable of pulling the strings that make entire organizations dance, in some cases entire countries.

And I did bring up other keywords where they shoved square pegs into round holes in the name of standardization. A wraith is NOT supposed to be as vulnerable as a fleeing gaseous vampire but that's exactly what they did.

I wouldn't know what's in the other MMs as I gave up on 4e before I could read them sadly.


It doesn't slow it down at all if you just spell it out in simple terms. "20' diameter, 6d6 damage, Dex save 13" and "10' diameter, 8d6 damage, Dex Save 14" are frankly the same amount of information as "40' diameter, 5d6 damage, Dex Save 13 for half" ... Which should be listed in the stat block anyway, if the monster's literally casting fireball, to save on reference time.

See I'm fine with them listing some more stuff in the statblock besides the save DC. But honestly the system mastery is part of the fun. I remember the first time I saw the word "flamestrike" and instantly knew how it worked and where best to put it.

obryn
2014-06-05, 10:43 PM
"I made you use an at-will against your team last round! The entire combat is disrupted!" :smalltongue:

It's just pathetic. Succubi and Aboleths are supposed to be capable of pulling the strings that make entire organizations dance, in some cases entire countries.

And I did bring up other keywords where they shoved square pegs into round holes in the name of standardization. A wraith is NOT supposed to be as vulnerable as a fleeing gaseous vampire but that's exactly what they did.

I wouldn't know what's in the other MMs as I gave up on 4e before I could read them sadly.



See I'm fine with them listing some more stuff in the statblock besides the save DC. But honestly the system mastery is part of the fun. I remember the first time I saw the word "flamestrike" and instantly knew how it worked and where best to put it.
I'm super uninterested in Edition War Part 8,349. If you doubt that taking a combatant out of the mix for 25% of it can swing things, I don't know what to tell you.

An Aboleth's ability to control hordes of mucus zombies or run a criminal enterprise isn't contained within the 4e stat block, where the purpose is an engaging conflict. Rest assured, said aboleth can have his snot zombies - he's just not likely to zombify the fighter in one shot.

As for the flame strike thing, memorizing spell lists isn't fun to me at all, so to each their own. But figuring out tactics is outside that rote memorization, with direct and functional stat blocks.

captpike
2014-06-05, 10:45 PM
"I made you use an at-will against your team last round! The entire combat is disrupted!" :smalltongue:

it can be yes, one side just lost an attack, one side gained one. how is dominate fun if it means "sorry joe your not playing anymore, give me your character sheet. go play Xbox for an hour."



It's just pathetic. Succubi and Aboleths are supposed to be capable of pulling the strings that make entire organizations dance, in some cases entire countries.

And I did bring up other keywords where they shoved square pegs into round holes in the name of standardization. A wraith is NOT supposed to be as vulnerable as a fleeing gaseous vampire but that's exactly what they did.

I wouldn't know what's in the other MMs as I gave up on 4e before I could read them sadly.


did you honestly think it would be ok to have creatures with at-will mass dominates that last forever? how would that be fun? the DM casts the spell and the party dies.

your looking at 4e through the lens of 3e. a wrath in 4e does what it does. if you think it should be more powerful then make it so. but saying "its suppose to be X because it was in 3e" makes no sense.



See I'm fine with them listing some more stuff in the statblock besides the save DC. But honestly the system mastery is part of the fun. I remember the first time I saw the word "flamestrike" and instantly knew how it worked and where best to put it.

the problem is how long it takes for this to happen. I don't to want to DM for six months before I don't have to page through the PHB to find out what creatures do.

the creature's stat block should have all I need to know about it to run it in combat.

and alot of creatures should have powers that don't act like PC powers do. some things like a mass dominate I might see a reason to give a NPC, but should never be in the hands of a PC.

Psyren
2014-06-06, 12:31 AM
did you honestly think it would be ok to have creatures with at-will mass dominates that last forever? how would that be fun? the DM casts the spell and the party dies.

What on earth are you talking about? None of the creatures I listed can do that.



your looking at 4e through the lens of 3e. a wrath in 4e does what it does. if you think it should be more powerful then make it so. but saying "its suppose to be X because it was in 3e" makes no sense.

No, I'm looking at it in terms of what an iconic monster should be able to do. Dryads, Succubi and Vampires have been around long before any edition of D&D. Having multiple patsies is the bread and butter of the latter two in fiction while the former should be able to win fights without actually fighting.



the problem is how long it takes for this to happen. I don't to want to DM for six months before I don't have to page through the PHB to find out what creatures do.

There's an app for that - in fact, that is in my opinion the much better direction to go, modernizing the game to make it easier without gutting what makes it good.



and alot of creatures should have powers that don't act like PC powers do. some things like a mass dominate I might see a reason to give a NPC, but should never be in the hands of a PC.

On this much we agree, monsters should have unique abilities. But keywords move them away from that and more towards standardizing all abilities regardless of who is using what. It encourages trimming down what abilities can do (since you want to fit everything in the statblock) and lazy copy-pasting (such as, say, making a keyword called "insubstantial" and applying it to anything that makes you remotely non-solid instead of maintaining the much more organic/nuanced separations between gas, incorporeal, ethereal etc.)

captpike
2014-06-06, 12:45 AM
No, I'm looking at it in terms of what an iconic monster should be able to do. Dryads, Succubi and Vampires have been around long before any edition of D&D. Having multiple patsies is the bread and butter of the latter two in fiction while the former should be able to win fights without actually fighting.

anything that happens outside of combat has no reason to be in the statblock. if they are capable of Dominating mulitble PCs for the combat then they would just win any fight without being chalanged, hardly something the PCs should fight.




There's an app for that - in fact, that is in my opinion the much better direction to go, modernizing the game.

while I agree that is alot of cool stuff that could be done with apps and whatnot. they should not require it to play the game however. or to play in a practical manor. there really is no reason to have to look anywhere but the MM if I want a creature.



On this much we agree, monsters should have unique abilities. But keywords move them away from that and more towards standardizing all abilities regardless of who is using what. It encourages trimming down what abilities can do (since you want to fit everything in the statblock) and lazy copy-pasting (such as, say, making a keyword called "insubstantial" and applying it to anything that makes you remotely non-solid instead of maintaining the much more organic/nuanced separations between gas, incorporeal, ethereal etc.)
it depends how broad keywords are and how they are used.

if keywords are like [fireball] and that means its an area burst of fire damage, then that could cause issues because every [fireball] power would feel the same.
however if instead you have things like [burst]: area attack not centered on you, [fire] a damage type and [far range] the range. then it could work because you could arrange them in different ways.

it also is worth noting they should not just just the keywords and call it a day. its ok to have a power or feature give [keyword], plus something else, or to say something like "insubstantial against all but radiant attacks".

in your insubstantial example. a vampire in gas form or wrath could also have [phasing], as well as a fly speed. a vampire in gas form could also have DR or regen.

keywords are just touchstones, you can always adjust them in powers

Psyren
2014-06-06, 01:39 AM
anything that happens outside of combat has no reason to be in the statblock. if they are capable of Dominating mulitble PCs for the combat then they would just win any fight without being chalanged, hardly something the PCs should fight.

They can control muiltiples but not with a single action. It causes a raising of the stakes over time. It causes tactical considerations if you have multiple weak-willed people in the party.

Say a Vampire gets the drop on you in 4e. He dominates one guy. That's pretty much it for his signature ability.
But in 3e/PF, the remaining guys have to avert their eyes or back away while the high-will PCs move in instead. A class that can protect multiple allies at once - like a Paladin - suddenly becomes much more valuable. It's an ongoing danger and a very different fight.


while I agree that is alot of cool stuff that could be done with apps and whatnot. they should not require it to play the game however. or to play in a practical manor. there really is no reason to have to look anywhere but the MM if I want a creature.

It's not required - it's a matter of convenience rather than need.



however if instead you have things like [burst]: area attack not centered on you, [fire] a damage type and [far range] the range. then it could work because you could arrange them in different ways.

And I'm okay with that but blasts are literally the lowest common denominator when it comes to spellcasting. There's a reason I keep referring to dominate - it's a much more complex effect for both players and DMs to adjudicate than a simple [fire][burst][range]. It's something you either have to refer back to a detailed spell for, or dumb down so much that it becomes largely pathetic (and, along with it, all the iconic monsters that rely on it), all so it can fit in one or two sentences for people who don't want to turn a few pages in a sourcebook. And again, this is the same problem Legend ran into with its own monster design. How far do you water down a Vampire before it stops feeling like a Vampire? Both of those systems found the answer to that question, and I worry that 5e will as well.



in your insubstantial example. a vampire in gas form or wrath could also have [phasing], as well as a fly speed. a vampire in gas form could also have DR or regen.

Phasing isn't sufficient either because it just lets you move through things while in transit. No hiding in walls or floors, no letting arrows or swords pass through you, no hit-and-runs from a solid object or larger creature etc. Gaseous form also has limitations that Phasing does not like being unable to enter liquid.

captpike
2014-06-06, 01:56 AM
They can control muiltiples but not with a single action. It causes a raising of the stakes over time. It causes tactical considerations if you have multiple weak-willed people in the party.

Say a Vampire gets the drop on you in 4e. He dominates one guy. That's pretty much it for his signature ability.
But in 3e/PF, the remaining guys have to avert their eyes or back away while the high-will PCs move in instead. A class that can protect multiple allies at once - like a Paladin - suddenly becomes much more valuable. It's an ongoing danger and a very different fight.

no reason you cant have an dominate that is used for often then once an encounter.
you could make an aura or do some kind of softer dominate (controling the PCs move action ect). or have a dominate aura.
more then a few Lv10+ creatures in 4e have a minor action dominate power that can only effect one target at at time.

the problem with your PF scenario is that all it is does is tell some players they cant pay during that fight.
its not really tactical all it dies is say who is allow to help in the fight.



It's not required - it's a matter of convenience rather than need.

true, but the convenience of having everything you need in a stat block is huge. there is no real reason not to do it.



And I'm okay with that but blasts are literally the lowest common denominator when it comes to spellcasting. There's a reason I keep referring to dominate - it's a much more complex effect for both players and DMs to adjudicate than a simple [fire][burst][range]. It's something you either have to refer back to a detailed spell for, or dumb down so much that it becomes largely pathetic (and, along with it, all the iconic monsters that rely on it), all so it can fit in one or two sentences for people who don't want to turn a few pages in a sourcebook. And again, this is the same problem Legend ran into with its own monster design. How far do you water down a Vampire before it stops feeling like a Vampire? Both of those systems found the answer to that question, and I worry that 5e will as well.

the point of keywords is to have them be the literally the lowest common to make spells out of.

so you can make any spell out of them, rather then have to spend half a page per spell detailing while new mechanics, or spelling out all the ways its slightly different from something that is known.



Phasing isn't sufficient either because it just lets you move through things while in transit. No hiding in walls or floors, no letting arrows or swords pass through you, no hit-and-runs from a solid object or larger creature etc. Gaseous form also has limitations that Phasing does not like being unable to enter liquid.

if anything could do those things they would just win with no contest, so why include them?

if you had to have them you could say:

Gaseous form: insubstantial, phasing (can stay in solid objects, but can't enter liquid ones), and fly 6.

this also means I don't have to look up Gaseous form in the PHB when I run a vampire, its right where it belongs in the MM.

Psyren
2014-06-06, 08:32 AM
the problem with your PF scenario is that all it is does is tell some players they cant pay during that fight.

Not true, depending on what the monster does with them they get another save, and their allies can break them free or even ward them ahead of time as well. If you know you're storming a vampire's castle of mindflayer's lair, you prepare accordingly - tactics don't have to only happen during combat. This makes the game a richer simulation overall.


true, but the convenience of having everything you need in a stat block is huge. there is no real reason not to do it.

I told you the reason against it - it forces you to either gut monsters to remove complicated abilities entirely, or gut the keywords down to easy-to-remember 2-sentence blurbs. 4e Dominate is certainly easy to remember: "1 round/save ends, direct target's MMS, can only use their at-wills". But that efficiency comes at the cost of really hampering what the dominator can actually do compared to prior editions, and 5e looks poised to make the same mistake.



the point of keywords is to have them be the literally the lowest common to make spells out of.

And that's fine when your most complicated spell is fireball, but one of the benefits of playing tabletop is that we can evolve beyond such basic mechanics. This is part of the reason people believe 4e feels "video-gamey" - they are attempting to articulate something they know is there but can't quite put their finger on, namely the simplifying of the mechanics such that a computer could easily adjudicate all of them.



if anything could do those things they would just win with no contest, so why include them?

That's nonsense - plenty of monsters can do those things in 3e/PF and they aren't even that challenging for the level you face them. A single ghost-touch weapon or even the lowly magic missile negates most of this. So that is no excuse.

obryn
2014-06-06, 08:55 AM
On this much we agree, monsters should have unique abilities. But keywords move them away from that and more towards standardizing all abilities regardless of who is using what. It encourages trimming down what abilities can do (since you want to fit everything in the statblock) and lazy copy-pasting (such as, say, making a keyword called "insubstantial" and applying it to anything that makes you remotely non-solid instead of maintaining the much more organic/nuanced separations between gas, incorporeal, ethereal etc.)

And I'm okay with that but blasts are literally the lowest common denominator when it comes to spellcasting. There's a reason I keep referring to dominate - it's a much more complex effect for both players and DMs to adjudicate than a simple [fire][burst][range]. It's something you either have to refer back to a detailed spell for, or dumb down so much that it becomes largely pathetic (and, along with it, all the iconic monsters that rely on it), all so it can fit in one or two sentences for people who don't want to turn a few pages in a sourcebook. And again, this is the same problem Legend ran into with its own monster design. How far do you water down a Vampire before it stops feeling like a Vampire? Both of those systems found the answer to that question, and I worry that 5e will as well.

And that's fine when your most complicated spell is fireball, but one of the benefits of playing tabletop is that we can evolve beyond such basic mechanics. This is part of the reason people believe 4e feels "video-gamey" - they are attempting to articulate something they know is there but can't quite put their finger on, namely the simplifying of the mechanics such that a computer could easily adjudicate all of them.
Lumping these three together, because they're pretty much all the same thing.

And I'll state it simply - I'm one of "those people." I absolutely cannot be bothered to turn a few pages in a sourcebook when I'm running a monster. I prefer keeping it simple on my end. If a designer can't boil an ability's effect down into a few sentences and some basic descriptors, it doesn't belong in a stat block.

To be clear - this is not to say that every ability needs to boil down to some combination of 12 different effects; idiosyncratic abilities are just dandy, when used judiciously. But they must remain simple to adjudicate without the need to reference external sources during play.

For example - by and large, the differences between gas/incorporeal/ethereal/etc. aren't interesting. They aren't worth the overhead of keeping them separate, when a simple bit of flavor text and a functional description can fit the bill. Otherwise, you end up with bloated rule-sets with four different levels of "feeling sick" and three different levels of "getting scared" instead of focusing on what exactly happens when those conditions apply. It's extra detail for detail's sake. Complexity to satisfy an overbearing drive to simulation that I simply don't share.

I want to be able to pick up and play without digging through a smartphone app, rulebooks, etc. I did it the other way for literally decades and have zero interest in going back. Books are best used between-session, not within-session. If that's the approach WotC is taking to 5e monster design, then good on them and I'm glad to see it.

Person_Man
2014-06-06, 09:09 AM
@ Person_Man if he reads this - Mearls' first paragraph seems to echo your sentiments on 3rd-party publishers exactly

Yup. If you're going with an Open License strategy, you want 3rd party publishers and your fan community to make a ton of stuff for your game as early and often as possible, because it drives additional sales of your core product. That's the whole point. When a game gets released is when 3rd party publishers make the most money and establish themselves with the customers. On the flip side, since Hasbro has adopted a strategy of cycling through new editions rapidly (3.0->3.5->4E->Essentials->5E, a new edition or half edition every 2-4 years) there is no way that they will ever risk creating more Pathfinder like competitors. Thus if there isn't an OGL when 5E is released, there is not going to be an OGL for it ever. Mearls is basically admitting that there's not going to be a true OGL, though I'm sure they'll eventually come out with some tortured mechanism with the word Open in it to appease people. Interestingly enough, when I posted this on the WotC forum (http://community.wizards.com/forum/dd-next-general-discussion/threads/4093976), 2/3 of the people there freaked out, and no one had a rationale for why they would release an OGL in 2015, other then "hey let's trust them and stop spreading fear you jerk."



RE: Key Words

I think key words and good game design. I do not need or want 100 slightly different varieties of the same thing. And it's a good idea to combine things that have the same effect, even if they have different fluff. Advantage/Disadvantage is much better then 100 slightly different and hard to remember numerical penalties.

But I also don't want 1 and only 1 version of each power/ability. There's a happy medium somewhere in between, where you have sufficient variety of Key Words, but not so many that you're splitting hairs between them. Alternatively or in addition, you can add a "plot power" key word that player's don't have access to.

For example, I think it's a good idea to have a Charmed key word and a Dominated key word, so that any player or monster that uses Charmed or Dominated has a consistent effect, and you can write consistent and useful support and defensive abilities tied to those key words.

But what if it's really important to you as a designer that your Vampire Lord to have a super Dominate ability that goes above and beyond the effects of the Dominated key word (and not just jiggering with the duration, Saving Throw, range, etc)? Well, you can either add a new key word, like Enslaved or Controlled, and now whenever you want a monster with Vampire Lord level of domination you use that Key Word. And you just enforce some reasonable limit, so that you have 3-5-ish "I control you" abilities and not dozens. Or you can create a Mythic key word, which allows the designer an exception to the key words. For example:

Vampire Lord's Stare: Range 30 Feet, Charisma vs Charisma, Save Ends. Gaze, Dominate, Mythic: When successful, the Vampire Lord's Stare allows the Vampire complete control over the target and all of their actions for the duration of the effect, above and beyond the normal Dominate effect. However, it still counts as a Gaze and Dominate effect for all other effects, such as as immunities and resistances.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-06, 09:22 AM
I told you the reason against it - it forces you to either gut monsters to remove complicated abilities entirely, or gut the keywords down to easy-to-remember 2-sentence blurbs. 4e Dominate is certainly easy to remember: "1 round/save ends, direct target's MMS, can only use their at-wills". But that efficiency comes at the cost of really hampering what the dominator can actually do compared to prior editions, and 5e looks poised to make the same mistake.

There's no reason you can't run a hybrid, which is sort of what they said they were going to do with 5e. They mentioned that some monsters will still reference a particular spell, but that they (and others) would also have things that are completely spelled out in the stat block. Frankly speaking, other than saving space, spelling everything out in the MM is exactly what they should be doing, even if it means reprinting very wordy spells. There's no reason adventures and stuff can't have shorter keyword / spell name based stat blocks in the middle of the text, but your MM should have everything in it you need to run the monster. Then each individual DM can choose what it is they want. If you have basic keywords / spell names, DMs with high levels of system mastery can use the reduced stat blocks and pull from memory and less experienced DMs will have everything they need right in front of them without multitudes of switching.




Not true, depending on what the monster does with them they get another save, and their allies can break them free or even ward them ahead of time as well. If you know you're storming a vampire's castle of mindflayer's lair, you prepare accordingly - tactics don't have to only happen during combat. This makes the game a richer simulation overall.

...

That's nonsense - plenty of monsters can do those things in 3e/PF and they aren't even that challenging for the level you face them. A single ghost-touch weapon or even the lowly magic missile negates most of this. So that is no excuse.

These both also highlight a design question that has been answered in different ways across the D&D editions:

Should there be monsters that are generally unbeatable with a frontal assault? And more specifically, should there be monsters that would be pushovers save for one or two abilities that make frontal assaults a deadly idea? In early editions of D&D, the answer to this question was yes, and these monsters were indicated with asterisks by their HD. Take for example, the humble Ghoul of basic D&D, a simple monster 2HD, 6AC, claw/claw/bite for 1d3 each. This should be an easy enough monster for any level 2 party. Yet these monsters make even high level PCs make a break for it if they're unprepared because a Ghoul will paralyze (unless you're an elf) any creatures Ogre size or smaller who fail their saving throws. Sure, one Ghoul might not be too bad, but they appear in groups of up to 6. That's a bad day for party who's only tactics are frontal assault tactics.

By 3e, the Ghoul is still a formidable foe, but it's paralysis has been reduced to a few rounds rather than turns, it's 3 attack sequence has been made a full round attack and the save is easier (DC 12, which for comparison except for demihumans was not the equivalent saving throw until around level 10 for most classes in Basic D&D).

By comparison, in 4e (assuming this (http://tools.dungeonmastering.com/monstercards/shared/13187) is valid because I don't have my 4e books handy), while the Ghoul has much more HP it's also now listed as a level 5 monster and while it still "immobilizes" with every attack, players can save for that every round, and being 4e, it's a DC 10 save.

So by 4e, we've taken a monster that started out as something you didn't want to engage in a frontal assault when you could help it and turned it into a monster that was possible to engage in a frontal assault. It's still a better tactic not to, but it seems pretty clear that one of the intents of 4e design was that every monster would be engageable and defeatable by way of the core power combat system.

Incidentally, in the last playtest packet, the Ghoul still paralyzes on a successful attack but gets two attacks. The save is back to DC 12 but like 4e, players can save every turn. They're listed as a level 3 challenge.

As I said, this is something of a design decision. Personally, I like having monsters that are "beyond" the core combat system, but I can certainly see the arguments against having them, especially as much as D&D has become a "hack and slash" sort of game.

Edit
----------------


Yup. If you're going with an Open License strategy, you want 3rd party publishers and your fan community to make a ton of stuff for your game as early and often as possible, because it drives additional sales of your core product. That's the whole point. When a game gets released is when 3rd party publishers make the most money and establish themselves with the customers. On the flip side, since Hasbro has adopted a strategy of cycling through new editions rapidly (3.0->3.5->4E->Essentials->5E, a new edition or half edition every 2-4 years) there is no way that they will ever risk creating more Pathfinder like competitors. Thus if there isn't an OGL when 5E is released, there is not going to be an OGL for it ever. Mearls is basically admitting that there's not going to be a true OGL, though I'm sure they'll eventually come out with some tortured mechanism with the word Open in it to appease people.

While I agree that we likely won't see "The" OGL again, I think you're vastly overestimating the importance of having the 3pp license in place ahead of time and I think you're also reading a bit much into the delay in discussing the license. While I'm sure there's still internal battles going on about what the license will have or won't have, given their publishing schedule, we shouldn't expect any such license until at least november when the last core book comes out. Open the licensing up too early (especially with something as wide open as the OGL) and your DMG and MM are competing with 3pp products that were pushed out rapidly to fill the demand caused by the publishing schedule. Additionally, if they are planning online tools and those tools are scheduled for an early next year release, I can certainly see wanting to wait until you have those tools nailed down before opening up your license as well because both the book products and your online tools are likely to be affected by the terms.

As far as the importance of having open access to the license and product early on here, as I said, I think you're overestimating the importance. Plenty of products have been released with little or no early dev access and still built a considerable 3pp ecosystem (see for example, the iPhone)

obryn
2014-06-06, 09:53 AM
As I said, this is something of a design decision. Personally, I like having monsters that are "beyond" the core combat system, but I can certainly see the arguments against having them, especially as much as D&D has become a "hack and slash" sort of game.
As for me, it depends. :smallsmile:

There's a couple of ways to handle this. Some, I think are great. Some I think aren't.

* You can use high-level monsters that are effectively beyond the players' abilities, either due to world-appropriateness or plot reasons.
* You can use "you must be this tall to enter," either by requiring +X weapons or something like silvered weapons for a werewolf.
* You can straight-up make monsters a strategic or tactical challenge by making them a definite bad idea to engage head-on (moreso than ghouls, see wights in 1e).

I tend to think the first is okay as long as it's communicated well, the second is iffy, and the third is great so long as you're using them appropriately. If the idea is that you don't want to face wights, you should never just open a door and see a bunch of wights, or be ambushed by a group of wights, or whatever, because that violates the spirit of their intended challenge (said challenge being "don't fight these guys.")

What I don't care for is along the lines of, "This is winnable so long as the spellcasters have the right spells prepared, but not otherwise."

Arbitrarious
2014-06-06, 12:01 PM
Regarding Keywords: I like them because they can actually give you more leeway creatively. My DM loves custom power and abilities that don't always interact with the rules in standard ways and it can sometimes cause somethings to not work correctly in relation to them. To that end, if powers had keywords applied, even if the standard keywords don't support the sum total of the power, it means it can interact better with the existing rules, with more things supporting it and more things taking it into account. Will some powers be exceptions that require more details in their information block? Yes, absolutely. But let's be honest, a lot more powers will be able to be made entirely with keywords. There are a huge number of fodder monsters out there after all.

Person_Man
2014-06-06, 12:14 PM
As far as the importance of having open access to the license and product early on here, as I said, I think you're overestimating the importance. Plenty of products have been released with little or no early dev access and still built a considerable 3pp ecosystem (see for example, the iPhone)

I'm not saying that there won't be some kind of licensing agreement. There will be something, some publishers will support it and make some money. I'm saying that the point of an Open Source system is to have an evergreen core product that's supported by 3rd parties for a long period of time, and Hasbro has instead adopted a strategy of rapidly cycling through new core products, so it's highly unlikely that Hasbro will ever adopt an Open Source system ever again, or receive third party supported to the degree that they did with the OGL.

Here's my logic:


2000: 3rd edition released, at the same time as OGL
2003: 3.5 edition released
2008: 4th edition released, at the same time as GSL
2010: Essentials (basically a reworked 4E) released
2014: 5th edition released. If they wanted to support evergreen core 5E products for 10+ years, they would release a 5E OGL now, to gain maximum 3rd party and fan support for it.
2015: Some kind of 5E licensing agreement projected to be released. It's not going to be an OGL, because if it was an OGL, they'd be setting up their next Pathfinder-like competitor for 5.5 and 6E.
2016 or 2017: 5.5 edition likely to be released
2020 or 2021: 6th edition likely to be released

captpike
2014-06-06, 12:17 PM
Not true, depending on what the monster does with them they get another save, and their allies can break them free or even ward them ahead of time as well. If you know you're storming a vampire's castle of mindflayer's lair, you prepare accordingly - tactics don't have to only happen during combat. This makes the game a richer simulation overall.

tactics happen during combat, strategy outside of it.

nor should the game assume you know what you are facing before you face it. it should work if your jumped by one. knowing what and when your fighting something should help, but not be written into how creatures work.

a creature that either knocks out half the party at the fight, or requires you know you are fighting him before hand is badly written.



I told you the reason against it - it forces you to either gut monsters to remove complicated abilities entirely, or gut the keywords down to easy-to-remember 2-sentence blurbs. 4e Dominate is certainly easy to remember: "1 round/save ends, direct target's MMS, can only use their at-wills". But that efficiency comes at the cost of really hampering what the dominator can actually do compared to prior editions, and 5e looks poised to make the same mistake.

you keep assuming that keyword are all or nothing, that if I have a "dominate" keyword every use of dominate must only follow that.

again you can have dominate aura's on your vampires if you want, or have a dominate+ condition if you want.



And that's fine when your most complicated spell is fireball, but one of the benefits of playing tabletop is that we can evolve beyond such basic mechanics. This is part of the reason people believe 4e feels "video-gamey" - they are attempting to articulate something they know is there but can't quite put their finger on, namely the simplifying of the mechanics such that a computer could easily adjudicate all of them.

if that is how your keyword system works then then you failed.

the reason to break it down as far as you can is so you can make comipicated spells be simple in play. 4e did this alot. it looks simple but it is not.

most 3e combat spells are as complicated as 4e ones when you get down to the bare mechanics. the difference is that 4e striped away everything that was not needed, the spells are bare mechanics, and they don't repeat themselves except when needed.
the text in spells is shorter not because they are simpler, but because they give only the needed information in the shortest way possible.



That's nonsense - plenty of monsters can do those things in 3e/PF and they aren't even that challenging for the level you face them. A single ghost-touch weapon or even the lowly magic missile negates most of this. So that is no excuse.
then it serves no purpose.
if something is unkillable, unless you have or do something easy and cheap then why make it unkillable? what purpose does it serve to say "this wrath cant be effected by normal weapons" when everyone in the party has either magic or magic weapons?

1337 b4k4
2014-06-06, 01:25 PM
I'm not saying that there won't be some kind of licensing agreement. There will be something, some publishers will support it and make some money. I'm saying that the point of an Open Source system is to have an evergreen core product that's supported by 3rd parties for a long period of time, and Hasbro has instead adopted a strategy of rapidly cycling through new core products, so it's highly unlikely that Hasbro will ever adopt an Open Source system ever again, or receive third party supported to the degree that they did with the OGL.


Where we disagree is that you think Hasbro will maintain this product cycle, I don't think they can (although I agree with you they might try). In this day and age, with the OGL already letting 90% of the game out, and the abundance of free / cheap rules systems, plus the ever expanding communities and on-line support systems, I don't think you can sustain a business model selling RPG rules anymore. At least not reselling a set of core rules, even with substantial changes. I just don't think the market will bear it much longer. Look at the number of people who are put off by the $50 price tag per book for the new edition here. And I've already covered how that may not be an "outrageous" price for the product. It's only going to get worse for publishers as publishing and shipping costs go up. I mean, if this pattern keeps up, by 2020, we'd be talking close to $100 / book. Even if the economy picks way up and wages skyrocket, I don't see them capturing the younger markets at $300 for a game set. Selling rules isn't going to be the business of the future, at least not in its present form. Going forward, WotC needs to monitize the system on incremental purchases and updates. Sure they will probably always sell some core books, and sure I expect them to release new "versions" but I also expect those to be more like B/X to BECMI than 3e to 4e. They'll be cleanups and patches, not whole new systems. With that in mind, they need some sort of license which will sustain interest in the existing rules sets over time. Basically if you think about it this way, the OGL put D&D back on the map. The new license doesn't need to do that, it needs to sustain D&D instead. I don't know that they'll opens the whole system up like they did with the OGL, but I strongly suspect that in order to accomplish the goal of sustaining D&D, they'll go with something more open than the GSL was.



nor should the game assume you know what you are facing before you face it. it should work if your jumped by one. knowing what and when your fighting something should help, but not be written into how creatures work.

Absolutely not. If you get jumped by a gorram ancient dragon unprepared, you should barring extreme luck or deus ex machina be destroyed, because ancient dragons are dangerous. There should absolutely be monsters in the game that are only defeatable if you have for warning and planning.

captpike
2014-06-06, 01:42 PM
Absolutely not. If you get jumped by a gorram ancient dragon unprepared, you should barring extreme luck or deus ex machina be destroyed, because ancient dragons are dangerous. There should absolutely be monsters in the game that are only defeatable if you have for warning and planning.

then you don't need stat blocks or rules for them. and if its not something you need rules or a stat block for its not WotC's concern its the DMs.

DM: "you see a ancient dragon behind you"
PC: "we run"
DM: "you all die"

see? no need for any rules or stat blocks. not to mention that that changes from one campain to another, no reason to lock down in hard RAW that dragon=unkillable for all games after all.

however if you make the creatures like that "can only be hurt by a wooden sword, inscribed with the name of the dread god Bob" then that is a plot device and therefor should be added by the DM.

the problem is that if you add plot devices to the RAW like that then it will require houseruling to have them work, in some cases it might be a huge amount. or require the DM to be more savvy then the game should assume him.
it also could cause issues if the game say requires magic weapons to hurt undead, so the hp of undead is partly determined by how may PCs should have weapons. this makes it more finicky to change.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-06, 01:59 PM
Where we disagree is that you think Hasbro will maintain this product cycle, I don't think they can (although I agree with you they might try). In this day and age, with the OGL already letting 90% of the game out, and the abundance of free / cheap rules systems, plus the ever expanding communities and on-line support systems, I don't think you can sustain a business model selling RPG rules anymore. At least not reselling a set of core rules, even with substantial changes.
Well, it's still working fine for the software market, so Hasbro may be taking their cues from that.

captpike
2014-06-06, 02:06 PM
also 4e was quite profitable, about as much as can be expected all things considered and that was how it made most of its money.

I do think at the least they should find some good point between the 3e and 4e method though.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-06, 02:17 PM
then you don't need stat blocks or rules for them. and if its not something you need rules or a stat block for its not WotC's concern its the DMs.

DM: "you see a ancient dragon behind you"
PC: "we run"
DM: "you all die"


I ... what ... I don't ...

There are literally no words for this. No words to describe the depths to which you will go to completely and utterly twist and miss a point if it's an argument you don't agree with. What you are literally saying here is that if it is impossible (or extremely unlikely) for a group to defeat an enemy that ambushes them, that there is no reason ever at all to include any stats or rules for handling the case where they aren't ambushed or have things planned out. That's completely asinine.


Well, it's still working fine for the software market, so Hasbro may be taking their cues from that.

I'm not so sure it is though. Adobe and Microsoft are both switching to subscription models for their software. Microsoft is almost ready to start giving windows away for free. Apple has already started giving their OS away for free (and a good chunk of their software) and switched entirely to the App Store model. F2P gaming may have caught on with the mobile market, but games had been heading in that direction for a while. Heck, World of Warcraft is now free to play, and their original business model was selling you the game and then selling you access to the game. No, I strongly suspect that TTRPGs are going the way of the razor blade. Give away the game and sell the extras.

captpike
2014-06-06, 02:29 PM
I ... what ... I don't ...

There are literally no words for this. No words to describe the depths to which you will go to completely and utterly twist and miss a point if it's an argument you don't agree with. What you are literally saying here is that if it is impossible (or extremely unlikely) for a group to defeat an enemy that ambushes them, that there is no reason ever at all to include any stats or rules for handling the case where they aren't ambushed or have things planned out. That's completely asinine.



if I am running a fight that "barring extreme luck or deus ex machina" will TPK the party then why would a stat block be needed? you fight it, you die. no dice, no rules needed.

not to mention that that is why the level mechanic exists, no reason some creatures should be able to go around it.

EDIT: also, it helps you point not at all to simply say "your stupid and your point is stupid" if there is a big obvious reason I am wrong say it, anything else just wastes time.

captpike
2014-06-06, 02:47 PM
Yeah, you go ahead and continue to completely ignore the whole "ambush vs prepared and planned attack" part that sets up the whole argument. Keep fighting that strawman, he's bloodied now.

Well, I figured with it being so big and obvious I wouldn't have to say it, especially since you've been carrying on about the point in another thread.

You're wrong because not everyone plays the game the same way you do and encoding your way of doing things would unnecessarily restrict other ways of playing the game for no purpose other than satisfying your own personal tastes in the game.

if you only need a stat block when you jump him under ideal conditions then the stat block should assume that is the case.

if a creature need X to beat it, or even have a chance its a plot device and should be up to the DM.

its really really easy to make a creature unkillable. don't like how silver has no effect on a werewolf? easy add "unless touched by silver once per 30sec he gains 100hp per round" to his stat block.

no reason to have it on the default stat block, it will cause issues with new DMs who don't understand that NOT having silver will mean a TPK. and it makes it easier to change to suit your setting and needs.

again the game needs to work for EVERYONE not just those who think dragons should work the way you think they should.

obryn
2014-06-06, 02:59 PM
if you only need a stat block when you jump him under ideal conditions then the stat block should assume that is the case.

if a creature need X to beat it, or even have a chance its a plot device and should be up to the DM.

its really really easy to make a creature unkillable. don't like how silver has no effect on a werewolf? easy add "unless touched by silver once per 30sec he gains 100hp per round" to his stat block.

no reason to have it on the default stat block, it will cause issues with new DMs who don't understand that NOT having silver will mean a TPK. and it makes it easier to change to suit your setting and needs.

again the game needs to work for EVERYONE not just those who think dragons should work the way you think they should.
I don't think that's what he's arguing for...

Dublock
2014-06-06, 02:59 PM
Heck, World of Warcraft is now free to play, and their original business model was selling you the game and then selling you access to the game.

One issue with WoW, Free to Play is horrible.

Its only free to play up to level 20. That is horrible to add in WoW to this conversation.

Can't participate in Pet Battles.
Can't chat in channels other than say and party.
Can't whisper another character unless they add you to their friends list.
Can't create or join guilds, invite players into a party, or create calendar invitations.
Can't disable experience gains.
Can't trade, mail, or use the Auction House.
Can't use voice chat or Real ID.
Can't use value added services (character transfers, faction changes, etc).

You can reach level 20 in only a few hours with little feel of the actual game.

PVP does start at level 10, but its really unbalanced, more so if you are F2P as odds are you don't have heirloom gear, gear you can only get at much higher levels and more powerful then anything you can reasonably get.

You only just starting to get core class abilities and interesting dungeons. You can start random dungeons at level 15.

Quests at least did get better for 1-20 due to the Cata update, but nothing really great.

You miss Raiding and Arena, the top content for PvE and PvP players completely. If you seriously play WoW for months, you do one or the other and Free to Play can't at all.

There is no evidence that I have seen that would indicate a change away from this from Blizzard's point of view. They have said that they only need a few million to be profitable given their model. (I don't have the source handy, I can find it later if you want)


I do agree that the overall sediment is changing towards a Free to access type model in many ways in the current culture.

Honestly I do think that is what they are trying to do. Free PDF, cheap Starter kit, and then the full price books that you can optionally get. If they succeed or not is a different matter, but they are trying it. I do know my group is much more likely to try 5E due to it being free. If we spend buy them as much as we did for 4E, who knows.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-06, 03:14 PM
I don't think that's what he's arguing for...

No it's not. But at this point it's just not worth it. I'd rather have discussions (and arguments for that matter) with people who will argue in good faith.

Incidentally, apparently "delete with message" on a post doesn't actually leave a message behind.


One issue with WoW, Free to Play is horrible.

Oh sure. I never said they were doing it right. :smalltongue:



I do agree that the overall sediment is changing towards a Free to access type model in many ways in the current culture.

Honestly I do think that is what they are trying to do. Free PDF, cheap Starter kit, and then the full price books that you can optionally get. If they succeed or not is a different matter, but they are trying it. I do know my group is much more likely to try 5E due to it being free. If we spend buy them as much as we did for 4E, who knows.

Yeah, that's sort of why, along with their "back to the roots, a game for everyone" talk, and their opening up of their back catalog, that I think they're going that route. I suspect WotC sees that selling rules sets isn't going to be a sustainable business model for much longer either. In a way, it's really amusing. They did the OGL and the SRD and a lot of folks thought that was cool and demanded the same from other publishers. Now that it's something a lot of RPGs do (or something similar), WotC has to do something similar to compete and it's changed the market such that WotC won't be able to sustain a pre-OGL business model.

BTW, the word you wanted was "sentiment". Unless you were making a hidden analogy of the market to dirt and rocks suspended in moving water, which I suppose could sort of work, in which case, well done.

Lokiare
2014-06-06, 03:16 PM
I think they are just going to make it where you can release free stuff and house rule all you want, but if you want to make actual commercial products for D&D they will just have you pay a $50+ license fee and then force you to follow a GSL like license. The OGL like license will only be for free products.

Psyren
2014-06-06, 03:21 PM
RE: Key Words

I think key words and good game design. I do not need or want 100 slightly different varieties of the same thing. And it's a good idea to combine things that have the same effect, even if they have different fluff. Advantage/Disadvantage is much better then 100 slightly different and hard to remember numerical penalties.

But I also don't want 1 and only 1 version of each power/ability. There's a happy medium somewhere in between, where you have sufficient variety of Key Words, but not so many that you're splitting hairs between them. Alternatively or in addition, you can add a "plot power" key word that player's don't have access to.

Your own post showcases the difficulty of hitting that medium. Charmed, Dominated, Controlled, Enslaved, Mythic/Epic versions... Once you have that many, you force the DM to do the very thing the keywords were supposed to get away from doing, i.e. flip pages to the glossary every time they come up. But if you don't have that granularity you get homogenous and/or truncated monster design.

I don't think the efficiency gains from a keyword approach will outweigh the loss in iconic abilities.



* You can use high-level monsters that are effectively beyond the players' abilities, either due to world-appropriateness or plot reasons.
* You can use "you must be this tall to enter," either by requiring +X weapons or something like silvered weapons for a werewolf.
* You can straight-up make monsters a strategic or tactical challenge by making them a definite bad idea to engage head-on (moreso than ghouls, see wights in 1e).

You're missing the third option, the one 3.5 and especially PF went with, which is a variation on option 2. "Being *this* tall helps, but even if you're not you can win." DR ranges from 5-15 in 3.5/PF, so that Werewolf can definitely be taken down even by mundanes without a silver weapon - you're just going to have to put some elbow grease into your power attacks so he feels the blows. And in PF, your archer may not have silver arrows but he can pick up Clustered Shots. Not to mention enhancement bonuses beating DR anyway, and werewolves having no defense at all against magic, both blasting or control, other than their saving throws.

Similarly, being immune to dominate/negative levels can help you fight a Succubus, but even if you're not it's not a guaranteed TPK - and again, PF has the edge here because negative levels are less painful.


tactics happen during combat, strategy outside of it.

Whatever you call it, the point is that the abilities of the monster are making your approach more complex, as they should.



you keep assuming that keyword are all or nothing, that if I have a "dominate" keyword every use of dominate must only follow that.

again you can have dominate aura's on your vampires if you want, or have a dominate+ condition if you want.

Not saying you can't customize them totally but there is still a baseline. In 4e that baseline is "dominate lets a creature move another creature or activate its at-wills, not both." This is too weak for an Aboleth (a true puppetmaster) and too strong for a Dryad (who merely beguiles foes rather than controlling them directly) so already they were forced to redesign their square peg monsters to fit the keyword round hole. Then you get to keywords like slowed (speed becomes 2, never mind if the target was a snail or an Olympic sprinter before being affected, you're still at 2) and Weakened (doesn't matter if what weakened you was a physical poison, for some reason even nonphysical damage like Psychic is also affected) etc. It's all silly and immersion-breaking.



then it serves no purpose.
if something is unkillable, unless you have or do something easy and cheap then why make it unkillable? what purpose does it serve to say "this wrath cant be effected by normal weapons" when everyone in the party has either magic or magic weapons?

They do? What about low-level parties that need to rely on short-duration magic weapon spells or oils? What about animal companions or summons? What about projectile weapons with limited ammunition? What about monsters in the same area as mechanical traps? There are all sorts of consideration (strategic AND tactical) that you're glossing over here.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-06, 03:28 PM
I think they are just going to make it where you can release free stuff and house rule all you want, but if you want to make actual commercial products for D&D they will just have you pay a $50+ license fee and then force you to follow a GSL like license. The OGL like license will only be for free products.

That's an extremely likely scenario, but it will be interesting to figure out how they'll handle the existence of the OGL in that case (or whether they'll bother at all). Think of it this way, the OGL released so much that they could make Pathfinder. There's just about nothing a 3pp could want to make for Next commercially that wouldn't in theory be covered under the OGL and the same copyright laws (at least in the US) that make retroclones legal.

The only things I can think of are things that directly hook to official settings, and using the D&D / d20 trademarks. Even then if someone with deep pockets wanted to challenge it, they might be able to challenge the compatibility clauses in the OGL on the grounds that US trademark law allows for comparative and compatibility use.

Sartharina
2014-06-06, 03:30 PM
But the alternative - a manipulator/controller monster incapable of doing so effectively in a fight, the most likely time for it to fall back on such abilities - is patently ridiculous. The reason they got rid of Manipulation/Control effects like that in 4e has nothing to do with keywords, and is more a result of them realizing that it's NOT FUN to have to sit through combat while the DM controls your character and makes him kill your party. It's also why they changed "Save or Die" effects into "Save or Suck" effects instead - it's not fun to not play the game, and I actually prefer it when "Save or Dies" are instead "Save or Take Damage+Suck, Special Effect (Such as Petrification/disintegration) if it kills you."


Yes, they are going to 'reprint' a lot of text in abilities to make modifications. That's a good thing - it means you don't need three books to run a single monster - everything you need to know is in the monster's entry. Furthermore, you don't need precisely defined 'keywords' when normal words do a better job.

captpike
2014-06-06, 03:51 PM
Your own post showcases the difficulty of hitting that medium. Charmed, Dominated, Controlled, Enslaved, Mythic/Epic versions... Once you have that many, you force the DM to do the very thing the keywords were supposed to get away from doing, i.e. flip pages to the glossary every time they come up. But if you don't have that granularity you get homogenous and/or truncated monster design.

I don't think the efficiency gains from a keyword approach will outweigh the loss in iconic abilities.

the problem becomes that every stat block has to be at least a page long just to define the powers of the creature. you not only have to say "3d6 damage and dominated" but you have to define what that dominated does, how it is slightly different then the other dominates in the game. and hope it does not cause confusion.

nor of course do keywords mean you have to lose your iconic abilities. you may have to rename some stuff. the low level creature that in 3e used a weak dominate now dazes, and maybe slows. the high level creature who had a powerful dominate now can dominate multiple creatures with a negative to the save, and might even be able to do more then just take one standard action.







Whatever you call it, the point is that the abilities of the monster are making your approach more complex, as they should.

Not saying you can't customize them totally but there is still a baseline. In 4e that baseline is "dominate lets a creature move another creature or activate its at-wills, not both." This is too weak for an Aboleth (a true puppetmaster) and too strong for a Dryad (who merely beguiles foes rather than controlling them directly) so already they were forced to redesign their square peg monsters to fit the keyword round hole. Then you get to keywords like slowed (speed becomes 2, never mind if the target was a snail or an Olympic sprinter before being affected, you're still at 2) and Weakened (doesn't matter if what weakened you was a physical poison, for some reason even nonphysical damage like Psychic is also affected) etc. It's all silly and immersion-breaking.

there is no fundamental reason that slowed has to mean a certain thing, other then "can't move fast now". its just that your adjusted to a certain system.

even if you wanted to have weaken work that way you could easily do so. "your weakened for the purposes of physical damage"

and it means you don't have to redefine weakened every time its used in a power. and if something is found to be wrong with it you can just fix it once not 100s of times.



They do? What about low-level parties that need to rely on short-duration magic weapon spells or oils? What about animal companions or summons? What about projectile weapons with limited ammunition? What about monsters in the same area as mechanical traps? There are all sorts of consideration (strategic AND tactical) that you're glossing over here.
[/SPOILER]

"must be this tall to play" does not make anything more complex.

its just saying who is allowed to help, and for how long.

something like "after being hit with a physical melee from flank hit bob the almighty takes double damage on ranged attacks" or "joe the gnome gains 4AC when he has an ally to stand next to and hide" changes tactics and everyone is still useful.

saying "well sorry guys I only had 3 magic arrows, I will go rest behind this tree while you finish the fight" is not tactical, its just the game telling who you that your not allow to help anymore.

Person_Man
2014-06-06, 03:53 PM
I'm not so sure it is though. Adobe and Microsoft are both switching to subscription models for their software. Microsoft is almost ready to start giving windows away for free. Apple has already started giving their OS away for free (and a good chunk of their software) and switched entirely to the App Store model. F2P gaming may have caught on with the mobile market, but games had been heading in that direction for a while. Heck, World of Warcraft is now free to play, and their original business model was selling you the game and then selling you access to the game. No, I strongly suspect that TTRPGs are going the way of the razor blade. Give away the game and sell the extras.

Time will tell. It all depends on how much money Habro makes on this edition, and what they consider to be success. Any edition of D&D will make several million dollars, even if you released a new edition every other year, because it's the largest RPG out there. But Hasbro wants $50-100 million a year. They didn't get that with 3.0/3.5, otherwise they wouldn't have dropped the OGL for 4E. They didn't get it for 4E, otherwise they'd have just kept printing 4E books. We'll see whether or not they get it with 5E, and what their response to it will be.


One issue with WoW, Free to Play is horrible.

Its only free to play up to level 20. That is horrible to add in WoW to this conversation.

Can't participate in Pet Battles.
Can't chat in channels other than say and party.
Can't whisper another character unless they add you to their friends list.
Can't create or join guilds, invite players into a party, or create calendar invitations.
Can't disable experience gains.
Can't trade, mail, or use the Auction House.
Can't use voice chat or Real ID.
Can't use value added services (character transfers, faction changes, etc).

You can reach level 20 in only a few hours with little feel of the actual game.

PVP does start at level 10, but its really unbalanced, more so if you are F2P as odds are you don't have heirloom gear, gear you can only get at much higher levels and more powerful then anything you can reasonably get.

You only just starting to get core class abilities and interesting dungeons. You can start random dungeons at level 15.

Quests at least did get better for 1-20 due to the Cata update, but nothing really great.

You miss Raiding and Arena, the top content for PvE and PvP players completely. If you seriously play WoW for months, you do one or the other and Free to Play can't at all.

There is no evidence that I have seen that would indicate a change away from this from Blizzard's point of view. They have said that they only need a few million to be profitable given their model. (I don't have the source handy, I can find it later if you want)


I do agree that the overall sediment is changing towards a Free to access type model in many ways in the current culture.

Honestly I do think that is what they are trying to do. Free PDF, cheap Starter kit, and then the full price books that you can optionally get. If they succeed or not is a different matter, but they are trying it. I do know my group is much more likely to try 5E due to it being free. If we spend buy them as much as we did for 4E, who knows.

I think that the World of Warcraft comparison o 5E is a good one. Give away something free that allows new players to try it out, but that something is really garbage. I expect the free D&D Basic to be similar.

4 races and 4 classes with almost no character creation decisions to make besides fluff? That's nothing like the D&D game that anyone currently plays. That's basically just a board game.

Millennium
2014-06-06, 03:54 PM
The reason they got rid of Manipulation/Control effects like that in 4e has nothing to do with keywords, and is more a result of them realizing that it's NOT FUN to have to sit through combat while the DM controls your character and makes him kill your party. It's also why they changed "Save or Die" effects into "Save or Suck" effects instead - it's not fun to not play the game, and I actually prefer it when "Save or Dies" are instead "Save or Take Damage+Suck, Special Effect (Such as Petrification/disintegration) if it kills you."
You're right on this one. Manipulation isn't fun when applied to the players (for more than a single action or two, anyway). This is why they got rid of it. It has nothing to do with keywords.


Yes, they are going to 'reprint' a lot of text in abilities to make modifications. That's a good thing - it means you don't need three books to run a single monster - everything you need to know is in the monster's entry. Furthermore, you don't need precisely defined 'keywords' when normal words do a better job.
The fact that they're having to reprint text in abilities means that their keyword concept is badly designed. It may well have represented a failed attempt at going SOLID, but it is exactly that: a failed attempt, rather than a reflection on keywords as a whole. Precisely defined keywords, when done properly, do a far better job of explaining the basics of an effect, while "normal words" handle only what makes that attack unique. It cuts down on space, and more importantly, it's less error-prone. It's a shame that Wizards didn't design their particular implementation very well, but that means Wizards did it badly, not that keywords are bad.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-06, 03:59 PM
The reason they got rid of Manipulation/Control effects like that in 4e has nothing to do with keywords, and is more a result of them realizing that it's NOT FUN to have to sit through combat while the DM controls your character and makes him kill your party. It's also why they changed "Save or Die" effects into "Save or Suck" effects instead - it's not fun to not play the game, and I actually prefer it when "Save or Dies" are instead "Save or Take Damage+Suck, Special Effect (Such as Petrification/disintegration) if it kills you."

Slight correction, it's not fun when they're used against you. They're quite fun when you're the player. I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I (and my group was) when we first tried using "Sleep" in 4e. It's just bleh. I get that being "sleeped" by your enemies is no fun, but I would rather that they solve the issue with judicious allocation of such abilities and a separation of monster and PC powers rather than nerfing them all.

Sartharina
2014-06-06, 04:06 PM
Slight correction, it's not fun when they're used against you. They're quite fun when you're the player. I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I (and my group was) when we first tried using "Sleep" in 4e. It's just bleh. I get that being "sleeped" by your enemies is no fun, but I would rather that they solve the issue with judicious allocation of such abilities and a separation of monster and PC powers rather than nerfing them all.

The reason for this is the disparity in power between a DM and a player, and one of the reasons PC/NPC equivalency/transparency is not a good idea for game design. A player has just a single character - if he gets hit with Sleep/Petrify, he's out of the game until he can integrate a new character into the party. If the DM loses a Goblin to Sleep, he still has 6 more to play with.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-06, 04:08 PM
it's NOT FUN to have to sit through combat while the DM controls your character and makes him kill your party.
On the other hand, it's hilarious to roleplay being mind controlled and to make tactical decisions against your team for a round or two, if the DM can trust you not to take advantage of that. Being dominated is much more fun than being stunned.

Also, note that the main problem with having to "sit out" a round is that rounds take such a long time. If a combat round can be resolved in a minute (and combat lasts 10 to 12 rounds) then being stunned for one or two rounds is not a big deal. However, if a combat round takes 15-20 minutes to resolve (and combat lasts 3 to 4 rounds) then being stunned for one or two rounds is very boring. My conclusion is not so much that stunning is a bad mechanic, but that 4E combat takes too long.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-06, 04:09 PM
The reason for this is the disparity in power between a DM and a player, and one of the reasons PC/NPC equivalency/transparency is not a good idea for game design. A player has just a single character - if he gets hit with Sleep/Petrify, he's out of the game until he can integrate a new character into the party. If the DM loses a Goblin to Sleep, he still has 6 more to play with.

Sure and I get that. My point was that 4e's solution of "just get rid of it" was a bad solution. Recognizing that PCs and Monsters serve different roles, and building the game around that is a much better idea.

Edit
--------------

Also, everything Kurald just said.

Psyren
2014-06-06, 04:16 PM
The reason they got rid of Manipulation/Control effects like that in 4e has nothing to do with keywords, and is more a result of them realizing that it's NOT FUN to have to sit through combat while the DM controls your character and makes him kill your party. It's also why they changed "Save or Die" effects into "Save or Suck" effects instead - it's not fun to not play the game, and I actually prefer it when "Save or Dies" are instead "Save or Take Damage+Suck, Special Effect (Such as Petrification/disintegration) if it kills you."

It's not a binary situation of "either don't get hit or lose control of your character for the whole fight." That's why things like the "against your nature" clause exist, or running up to tap said ally with Protection From Evil, or avoiding the gaze at all costs or pumping your saving throws etc. Again, tactics.


the problem becomes that every stat block has to be at least a page long just to define the powers of the creature. you not only have to say "3d6 damage and dominated" but you have to define what that dominated does, how it is slightly different then the other dominates in the game. and hope it does not cause confusion.

nor of course do keywords mean you have to lose your iconic abilities. you may have to rename some stuff. the low level creature that in 3e used a weak dominate now dazes, and maybe slows. the high level creature who had a powerful dominate now can dominate multiple creatures with a negative to the save, and might even be able to do more then just take one standard action.

A creature who is dazed and slowed can still try to kill you while one who was charmed before would not. There is still a big difference between the two - especially for a creature who is physically weak and thus even vulnerable to a dazed and slowed opponent, like a Dryad (who incidentally would likely have these abilities and thus care about the difference.)


there is no fundamental reason that slowed has to mean a certain thing, other then "can't move fast now". its just that your adjusted to a certain system.

even if you wanted to have weaken work that way you could easily do so. "your weakened for the purposes of physical damage"

and it means you don't have to redefine weakened every time its used in a power. and if something is found to be wrong with it you can just fix it once not 100s of times.

But you have to define what is fast, and slowed how much. Half speed sounds good, but then you can speed up with certain powers and cancel it out - should that be allowed? Does it apply only to your movement, or when allies move you? How about enemies?

"Weakened for the purposes of physical damage" does not save much real estate over "your physical attacks deal half damage" defeating the purpose of the keyword system.




saying "well sorry guys I only had 3 magic arrows, I will go rest behind this tree while you finish the fight" is not tactical, its just the game telling who you that your not allow to help anymore.

"I only had 3 magic arrows, throw me a magic oil/magic weapon spell so I can ready more."
"I only had 3 magic arrows, let me pull out my magic dagger that does less damage but still allows me to contribute."
"I only had 3 magic arrows, but

And you addressed just one point among many. Traps are a big deal, the ghost/wraith can lurk in that area without fear of the giant blades and trap doors that the party is subject to and it is in fact logical for him to do so. Buffing natural attacks is generally harder, especially on companions who require their own gear expenditure.

captpike
2014-06-06, 04:28 PM
"I only had 3 magic arrows, throw me a magic oil/magic weapon spell so I can ready more."
"I only had 3 magic arrows, let me pull out my magic dagger that does less damage but still allows me to contribute."
"I only had 3 magic arrows, but

And you addressed just one point among many. Traps are a big deal, the ghost/wraith can lurk in that area without fear of the giant blades and trap doors that the party is subject to and it is in fact logical for him to do so. Buffing natural attacks is generally harder, especially on companions who require their own gear expenditure.

first the game should NEVER encourage a class to act against the archetype that the class represents. if I am an archer then the game should never put me in a situation where my best bet is to use my dagger.

also the same problem exists, I must have X to help in a fight, once I no longer have any X I am worse then worthless.

the problem with allowing phases to let you stay in walls and stuff is that, even in 3e and 4e type movement, they could just hit you then hide where you cant attack them. in 5e they can all move out of the wall, attack, move into wall, every round.

Sartharina
2014-06-06, 04:29 PM
On the other hand, it's hilarious to roleplay being mind controlled and to make tactical decisions against your team for a round or two, if the DM can trust you not to take advantage of that. Being dominated is much more fun than being stunned.

Also, note that the main problem with having to "sit out" a round is that rounds take such a long time. If a combat round can be resolved in a minute (and combat lasts 10 to 12 rounds) then being stunned for one or two rounds is not a big deal. However, if a combat round takes 15-20 minutes to resolve (and combat lasts 3 to 4 rounds) then being stunned for one or two rounds is very boring. My conclusion is not so much that stunning is a bad mechanic, but that 4E combat takes too long.Sitting out a round is one thing. Sitting out a combat (Which most charm/compulsion effects do) is another.


It's not a binary situation of "either don't get hit or lose control of your character for the whole fight." That's why things like the "against your nature" clause exist, or running up to tap said ally with Protection From Evil, or avoiding the gaze at all costs or pumping your saving throws etc. Again, tactics.[/QUOTE]I can mostly agree here, except the Pumping Saving Throws part (At least like 3.5's "Cloak of Resistance or GTFO") - However, abilities that grant temporary boosts/second chances to saving throws do count.

Sartharina
2014-06-06, 04:35 PM
first the game should NEVER encourage a class to act against the archetype that the class represents. if I am an archer then the game should never put me in a situation where my best bet is to use my dagger.So English Longbowman up and smack them with a really huge hammer instead. And, backup weapons are part of the archetype. Sorry, but it's NOT true that a class should never be forced to operate at less than optimal capacity - in fact, the most interesting and memorable encounters tend to be those that a character has to struggle to get themselves into their optimal position (If you're an archer, make those 3 magic arrows count!), or improvise when forced out of their comfort zone. And, something I like about 5e is that you don't completely suck when forced out of your comfort zone, due to the constrained math.


also the same problem exists, I must have X to help in a fight, once I no longer have any X I am worse then worthless.

the problem with allowing phases to let you stay in walls and stuff is that, even in 3e and 4e type movement, they could just hit you then hide where you cant attack them. in 5e they can all move out of the wall, attack, move into wall, every round.1. No, you're not "Worse than worthless" - at the very least, you're an extra bag of HP they have to wail through :smalltongue: There are lots of options available to everyone, not just the ones you're built around.

2. Which is where OAs and readied actions come into play.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-06, 04:47 PM
Sitting out a round is one thing. Sitting out a combat (Which most charm/compulsion effects do) is another.

I hardly think it's true that most compulsion effects do that, no. For example, even 3E's Hold Person allows a save every round.

Aside from that, there's Dispel Magic. There's a reason why it's considered a must-have spell.

captpike
2014-06-06, 04:53 PM
So English Longbowman up and smack them with a really huge hammer instead. And, backup weapons are part of the archetype. Sorry, but it's NOT true that a class should never be forced to operate at less than optimal capacity - in fact, the most interesting and memorable encounters tend to be those that a character has to struggle to get themselves into their optimal position (If you're an archer, make those 3 magic arrows count!), or improvise when forced out of their comfort zone. And, something I like about 5e is that you don't completely suck when forced out of your comfort zone, due to the constrained math.

I am ok with no being able to use my optimal move, not being able to do anything near what my character was made to do for long periods of time is not the same.

I don't want to play my character for 3 rounds then do nothing, I want to play him every round.

if I build a archer then I don't want to walk into a fight where I am told "sorry you cant use your bow" just as if I am a wizard I don't want to walk into a fight in a room with anit-magic.






1. No, you're not "Worse than worthless" - at the very least, you're an extra bag of HP they have to wail through :smalltongue: There are lots of options available to everyone, not just the ones you're built around.

2. Which is where OAs and readied actions come into play.
the party has to protect you, but you can't help in any way, yes you are worse the worthless.

they would never take OAs, they can move wherever they want when in the walls.

and you only have one ready a round, and if your melee they would just avoid those who ready. even if on average three PCs hit the targets, they would be able to attack anyone they want, and could dictate how the entire fight would go.

they all pop out at once and go after one guy, then do the same every round till he dies. they might lose some of them, but its hard to imagine a 5e fight with creatures with that kind of phaseing where you don't lose at least one PC.


I hardly think it's true that most compulsion effects do that, no. For example, even 3E's Hold Person allows a save every round.

Aside from that, there's Dispel Magic. There's a reason why it's considered a must-have spell.

so you have to have an arcane caster in your party, and hope he has that spell now, and hope that he considers his standard action less important then you are.

Sartharina
2014-06-06, 05:25 PM
Having "Dispel Magic" be a 'must-have' spell is a bad design, because it dramatically reduces player choice (Dispel magic or Bust).


I am ok with no being able to use my optimal move, not being able to do anything near what my character was made to do for long periods of time is not the same.

I don't want to play my character for 3 rounds then do nothing, I want to play him every round.

if I build a archer then I don't want to walk into a fight where I am told "sorry you cant use your bow" just as if I am a wizard I don't want to walk into a fight in a room with anit-magic.A wizard has tools to get around anti-magic. What you're saying isn't even that restricting, though. It's like a wizard who prepares nothing but HP threshold spells complaining that he can't do anything to contribute until the enemies are brought down low enough to be affected. You have options, but refuse to acknowledge or use them. There is no "Archer" class - you're probably a Fighter or Ranger with a Bow. You still have proficiency with melee weapons, and due to how Finesse works in this game, you still do decent damage with decent accuracy with them. Heck, if you have TWO daggers, you can go to town dual-wielding them without penalty for even more pain, even if you don't have the feat or combat style.


the party has to protect you, but you can't help in any way, yes you are worse the worthless.You don't need any protection except for your last HP. Until then, you get to be a meatshield.


they would never take OAs, they can move wherever they want when in the walls.

and you only have one ready a round, and if your melee they would just avoid those who ready. even if on average three PCs hit the targets, they would be able to attack anyone they want, and could dictate how the entire fight would go.

they all pop out at once and go after one guy, then do the same every round till he dies. they might lose some of them, but its hard to imagine a 5e fight with creatures with that kind of phaseing where you don't lose at least one PC.Imagine harder, then.

Everyone has the power to dictate how an entire fight will go. If they're melee units, they eat AOs. If they're not, they eat OAs from the melee guys who ready a charge against them when they come out of phase. If you phase into a wall, you still eat an OA because it happens when you leave the threatened area and are treated as being part of that.

That said, it probably would be a good idea for the rules to restrict changing mediums of travel like this to once per round.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-06, 05:31 PM
Having "Dispel Magic" be a 'must-have' spell is a bad design, because it dramatically reduces player choice (Dispel magic or Bust).
You're getting away from the point, which was:


the main problem with having to "sit out" a round is that rounds take such a long time. If a combat round can be resolved in a minute (and combat lasts 10 to 12 rounds) then being stunned for one or two rounds is not a big deal. However, if a combat round takes 15-20 minutes to resolve (and combat lasts 3 to 4 rounds) then being stunned for one or two rounds is very boring. My conclusion is not so much that stunning is a bad mechanic, but that 4E combat takes too long.

captpike
2014-06-06, 05:41 PM
A wizard has tools to get around anti-magic. What you're saying isn't even that restricting, though. It's like a wizard who prepares nothing but HP threshold spells complaining that he can't do anything to contribute until the enemies are brought down low enough to be affected. You have options, but refuse to acknowledge or use them. There is no "Archer" class - you're probably a Fighter or Ranger with a Bow. You still have proficiency with melee weapons, and due to how Finesse works in this game, you still do decent damage with decent accuracy with them. Heck, if you have TWO daggers, you can go to town dual-wielding them without penalty for even more pain, even if you don't have the feat or combat style.

no its not, if I build my character to be an archer I should be able to use my bow in 99% of circumstances, just as a wizard should be able to use magic in 99% of circumstances, and a shapeshifter should be able to shapeshift in 99% of circumstances.

I don't have to have to either A) devote resources to a playstyle I don't want to do, just so in 20% of fights I wont be worthless or B) be worthless in those circumstances because I did not devote resources to it.

and of course to support that (that everyone has to be able to do two very different things well) it means they would have to put that into the game. put in non-magic stuff for a wizard to do, non ranged weapon stuff that ANY ranged weapon character to do, regardless of stats.



You don't need any protection except for your last HP. Until then, you get to be a meatshield.

first I don't want to be forced to be a very very bad meatshield, might as well not be there.

secondly if I cant or wont be a meatsheild I am still worthless.



Imagine harder, then.

Everyone has the power to dictate how an entire fight will go. If they're melee units, they eat AOs. If they're not, they eat OAs from the melee guys who ready a charge against them when they come out of phase. If you phase into a wall, you still eat an OA because it happens when you leave the threatened area and are treated as being part of that.

That said, it probably would be a good idea for the rules to restrict changing mediums of travel like this to once per round.
they should yes, but with the broken phasing they dont.

how would something that can go through every solid surface every provoke an OA? they can go around and under everyone.

even if one does, it would never be more then one.
you are fighting 5 ghosts, at the start of every round one phases out of the wall and everyone who readyied attacks go after them the other 4 come up from behind the guy in the back and kills him. then goes back into the floor.

even if you tried to huddle togeather you would have to cover the tops of your heads somehow

if might not let them win, but the PCs would be hard pressed to not have at least 1 PC die.

obryn
2014-06-06, 05:56 PM
You're getting away from the point, which was: the main problem with having to "sit out" a round is that rounds take such a long time. If a combat round can be resolved in a minute (and combat lasts 10 to 12 rounds) then being stunned for one or two rounds is not a big deal. However, if a combat round takes 15-20 minutes to resolve (and combat lasts 3 to 4 rounds) then being stunned for one or two rounds is very boring. My conclusion is not so much that stunning is a bad mechanic, but that 4E combat takes too long.
No, I don't think that's the case at all. Regardless of the time a round takes (and IME low-level 3e is faster than low-level 4e, while mid-level 3e is even with it and high-level 3e takes significantly longer), the design decision was made at the outset of the edition as part of the game's overall goals.

4e doesn't deprotagonize the PCs; rightly or wrongly, that's the goal. You, the player, are there to play a game. You should be able to play the game, and your character should be able to be a protagonist (rather than a bystander) in most conflicts. Even if 4e rounds took 30 seconds each, the design decision would be the same. As a general rule, a single hit or effect should not take you out of the action - in combat or out of it. Long-lasting Dominates and Stuns do, which is why they're not seen until higher levels where every PC has picked up a power or feat to reduce them.

Lokiare
2014-06-07, 09:12 PM
No, I don't think that's the case at all. Regardless of the time a round takes (and IME low-level 3e is faster than low-level 4e, while mid-level 3e is even with it and high-level 3e takes significantly longer), the design decision was made at the outset of the edition as part of the game's overall goals.

4e doesn't deprotagonize the PCs; rightly or wrongly, that's the goal. You, the player, are there to play a game. You should be able to play the game, and your character should be able to be a protagonist (rather than a bystander) in most conflicts. Even if 4e rounds took 30 seconds each, the design decision would be the same. As a general rule, a single hit or effect should not take you out of the action - in combat or out of it. Long-lasting Dominates and Stuns do, which is why they're not seen until higher levels where every PC has picked up a power or feat to reduce them.

When you get taken out of 4E, you are saying "I should have done this" or "I shouldn't have done that.", not "well those dice just don't like me" which is one of the reasons a lot of people find 4E enjoyable over other swingy games like 3E or 5E.

Envyus
2014-06-08, 04:35 PM
When you get taken out of 4E, you are saying "I should have done this" or "I shouldn't have done that.", not "well those dice just don't like me" which is one of the reasons a lot of people find 4E enjoyable over other swingy games like 3E or 5E.

Don't include 5E in this statment as it has not come out yet and you don't know if it's going to be swingy.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-08, 05:15 PM
When you get taken out of 4E, you are saying "I should have done this" or "I shouldn't have done that.", not "well those dice just don't like me" which is one of the reasons a lot of people find 4E enjoyable over other swingy games like 3E or 5E.

I can point you to several players who say the exact opposite. For example, forum regular Saph has stated,


Once you get to moderate levels of skill, 4e combat isn't really very tactical. There's a very basic level of tactics built into it (get combat advantage, focus fire, etc) but once you've learnt that, there isn't much else. In the end this was what really made me lose interest: I noticed that in the long run, whether we got lucky or unlucky on the rolls made far more difference than how smart we played.

The two most prominent players in my area (both of which DM and are involved in the WOTC charop boards) will regularly blame the outcome of combat on poor dice rolls. So these people find 3E enjoyable over swingy games like 4E, and I'm not sure yet in which category 5E falls.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-08, 05:24 PM
When you get taken out of 4E, you are saying "I should have done this" or "I shouldn't have done that.", not "well those dice just don't like me" which is one of the reasons a lot of people find 4E enjoyable over other swingy games like 3E or 5E.

To be honest, I think the same things in OD&D too. When I get turned to stone by the Medusa I say "I should have taken measures to avoid looking at the medusa". When I get paralyzed by a ghoul, I think "I shouldn't have engaged the ghoul in close quarters contact". When I fall down the pit trap, I think "I should have brought a 10ft pole to tie a halfling to".

Edit
------------------------------



The two most prominent players in my area (both of which DM and are involved in the WOTC charop boards) will regularly blame the outcome of combat on poor dice rolls. So these people find 3E enjoyable over swingy games like 4E, and I'm not sure yet in which category 5E falls.

Yeah, 4e certainly has it's swings. A fight goes very differently if all your encounter powers miss. 50/50 saves also have a tendency to feel very swingy (even though in many circumstances, it's probably better odds than in other editions)

obryn
2014-06-08, 08:13 PM
The two most prominent players in my area (both of which DM and are involved in the WOTC charop boards) will regularly blame the outcome of combat on poor dice rolls. So these people find 3E enjoyable over swingy games like 4E, and I'm not sure yet in which category 5E falls.

Yeah, 4e certainly has it's swings. A fight goes very differently if all your encounter powers miss. 50/50 saves also have a tendency to feel very swingy (even though in many circumstances, it's probably better odds than in other editions)
The problem is that "swinginess" has different meanings.

4e is not "rocket tag"; a single failed save or hit attack roll will rarely make or break a combat. This is in contrast to 3.x/PF which get increasingly rocket-taggy as levels increase. So in this sense - the sense of absolute combat outcome - 4e isn't that swingy at all. There's no one-hit-kills in 4e.

However, when it comes to good vs. bad saves in 3.x, one could be almost an auto-succeed while the other(s) are auto-fails. 3e's not swingy at all, in this sense. On the other hand, each individual attack in 4e has somewhere around a 60%ish chance to connect, absent good tactics, buffs, etc. So any individual attack in 4e is pretty swingy.

It's all about where you prefer your swing, I suppose, because neither you nor Lokiare are wrong, you're just using the words differently.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-08, 08:20 PM
4e is not "rocket tag"; a single failed save or hit attack roll will rarely make or break a combat. This is in contrast to 3.x/PF which get increasingly rocket-taggy as levels increase. So in this sense - the sense of absolute combat outcome - 4e isn't that swingy at all. There's no one-hit-kills in 4e.

However, when it comes to good vs. bad saves in 3.x, one could be almost an auto-succeed while the other(s) are auto-fails. 3e's not swingy at all, in this sense. On the other hand, each individual attack in 4e has somewhere around a 60%ish chance to connect, absent good tactics, buffs, etc. So any individual attack in 4e is pretty swingy.

Good point.

So it would appear that 5E's latest playtest combines 3E's swinginess of "one failed roll drops you out of combat" with 4E's swinginess of "all rolls have about a 60% chance to succeed". That's got to be, for the lack of a better word, interesting.

Sartharina
2014-06-08, 08:49 PM
If you don't want to risk an outcome, don't take the risk. 4e tried making the risks feel 'safe'.

Don't think of getting into a fight with a cockatrice with a high fortitude as "A 90% chance of not getting petrified" - it's instead "A 10% chance of getting petrified" - is any action with that kind of risk worth the effort/action?

Person_Man
2014-06-09, 02:07 PM
Based on playing lots and lots of tabletop combat/rpg games, in my personal opinion, the elements of fun tactical combat are:



Choice: Each Player's turn is consequential. You make big meaningful choice, and those choices have an immediate important impact. (And conversely, you avoid game mechanics that require lots of small sometimes not consequential choices, like Iterative attacks, Minor Action bloat, fiddly modifiers, "trap options," and mechanics that encourage the player to take the same sequence of actions most combats, etc). Your choice of movement on the battlefield is also highly consequential. Terrain/traps/weather/walls/cover/etc is essentially an ally or an enemy based on where you area positioned, and can be unique-ish for each combat as you Explore the dungeon/world/map/etc. (And conversely, you avoid game mechanics that hand wave movement or otherwise make your position on the battlefield or the battlefield itself meaningless).


Controlled Randomness: Luck/randomness creates uncertainty, and uncertainty can create more excitement. But it should not be the primary factor, otherwise unlucky players feel screwed or feel like they're playing roulette. To fix this issue, the game should include some sort of Fate/Action point mechanic or other method to decrease uncertainty somehow (Advantage/Disadvantage), so that player's can have a pool of "luck" they can spend when it's really important for them to do so or can improve their luck by making smart choices, and risk averse players can optimize this so as to minimize uncertainty. (And conversely, the game should avoid mechanics where you can optimize your to-hit or Saving Throws or anything else to the point where they automatically success 95%ish of the time).


Limited Resources: Hit points, spells/powers/fate points/etc) should be limited, and should only be replaced at the end of a "chapter" or "when you return to town" or some similar demarcation. First, this can make choice more consequential. If you get hit by a monster, it means something, and it's not just a temporary annoyance until someone uses their unlimited or extremely low cost healing on you. Second, it makes your choices in exploration more important. If your DM decides to use traps and/or environmental hazards, players need to make smart choices to avoid or bypass them, or they have fewer resources available for combat. Third and most importantly, when done correctly, it can encourage players to try out different tactics in combat. (As opposed to all/most abilities being "at-will" - which encourages players to spam the same thing repeatedly).


So in my assessment so far, D&D Next appears is going in the right direction with "big" and consequential Actions, and the math (so far) feels like you succeed a most of the time but can't rig the system to succeed all of the time. But movement is mostly meaningless due to default move/action/move and the Goblin Conga Line problem. And the resource management feels terrible, in that every non-spell casting class encourages you to spam with "I attack" over and over again with minor variations, and hit points are easily replenished if you have a cleric but basically irreplaceable if you don't have a cleric.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-09, 02:14 PM
Don't think of getting into a fight with a cockatrice with a high fortitude as "A 90% chance of not getting petrified" - it's instead "A 10% chance of getting petrified" - is any action with that kind of risk worth the effort/action?

That's nice in theory, but it doesn't work if the adventure is a railroad and the cockatrice is a non-optional encounter. And frankly, almost all adventures printed or sanctioned by WOTC are railroads of this kind, and this is what novice DMs take their pointers from. So it's very likely that there'll be adventures where you have to fight a cockatrice whether or not you think it's worth the risk, and if your character randomly gets petrified, well, tough.

pwykersotz
2014-06-09, 02:20 PM
That's nice in theory, but it doesn't work if the adventure is a railroad and the cockatrice is a non-optional encounter. And frankly, almost all adventures printed or sanctioned by WOTC are railroads of this kind, and this is what novice DMs take their pointers from. So it's very likely that there'll be adventures where you have to fight a cockatrice whether or not you think it's worth the risk, and if your character randomly gets petrified, well, tough.

I don't know how it would be possible, but I wish there was a mechanic to keep a Player useful even if they were turned to stone or killed. I hate removing the threat of death, but I hate having players check out.

I avoid this with charm and dominate by letting the player stay in control, but telling them what their new 'perspective' is and having them work within it, balancing attacking or coercing their friends with 'how can i spin this to be a good thing?' Death, petrification, and the others are more difficult to conceive of as a challange for the player though. Maybe I should start giving control of a hostile NPC to a dead party member? Though that would be hard against single opponents. Still, 'gain control of the monster that killed you' is kinda cool.

Basically, my opinion is that the game should have multiple mechanics to keep the players engaged in what is going on. In a team game, sometimes you lose one of your pieces. That should happen. What shouldn't happen is sitting on your hands.

captpike
2014-06-09, 02:34 PM
that is one of the reasons why such things should not be intimidate, they should take a round or two to come to full effect. and allow powers a chance to break them.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-09, 02:35 PM
I don't know how it would be possible, but I wish there was a mechanic to keep a Player useful even if they were turned to stone or killed. I hate removing the threat of death, but I hate having players check out.

I avoid this with charm and dominate by letting the player stay in control, but telling them what their new 'perspective' is and having them work within it, balancing attacking or coercing their friends with 'how can i spin this to be a good thing?' Death, petrification, and the others are more difficult to conceive of as a challange for the player though. Maybe I should start giving control of a hostile NPC to a dead party member? Though that would be hard against single opponents. Still, 'gain control of the monster that killed you' is kinda cool.

Basically, my opinion is that the game should have multiple mechanics to keep the players engaged in what is going on. In a team game, sometimes you lose one of your pieces. That should happen. What shouldn't happen is sitting on your hands.

The best way to make save or die effects is to (if you want them in your game) make them 1 save and on a fail you keep going with a penalty until the end of the encounter.

So you get hit by the Medusa stone glare? Damn your body is starting to harden up (disadvantage on attacks or saves?) but your adrenaline or whatever fluff you want to use keeps it at bay. Kinda like people who get seriously injured but keeps going and going... Until the danger passes and then they fall unconscious or die. Perhaps you turn to stone when you hit 0 HP or the encounter ends, whichever one comes first?

This keeps the player in combat, gives people save or die, and make a it pretty dramatic. After battle your character will start to slowly turn to stone, giving him or her time to say good bye... You could do this with a multitude of effects, even death effects could work this way.

Slay Living
Xd6 damage, fort save (Str or Con) or be killed.

When you are hit by the attack and fail a save it deals Xd6 damage. If you still have HP left you can take ongoing damage each round till you hit 0 and die. Healing and temp HP can be a buffer. When you hit 0 or the encounter ends (whichever one is first) you die.

This keeps players in that boss battle and gives them a heroes death scene at the end if they can endure until then.

I think it needs some work but Save or Die shouldn't mean instant rejection from playing.

pwykersotz
2014-06-09, 02:46 PM
Not bad. Any ideas for how those would be applied to death by hp damage?

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-09, 03:19 PM
Not bad. Any ideas for how those would be applied to death by hp damage?

I didn't think of using this system for that but... I could think of something after work.

Let me get back to you.

Sartharina
2014-06-09, 03:22 PM
That's nice in theory, but it doesn't work if the adventure is a railroad and the cockatrice is a non-optional encounter. And frankly, almost all adventures printed or sanctioned by WOTC are railroads of this kind, and this is what novice DMs take their pointers from. So it's very likely that there'll be adventures where you have to fight a cockatrice whether or not you think it's worth the risk, and if your character randomly gets petrified, well, tough.If the cockatrice is a non-optional encounter, find a way to take it down without getting into petrification range. And, neither Blingdenstone nor even the Mines of Madness had them be non-optional. Also - there's always the choice of the hero saying "This life is too dangerous" and retiring (There's a reason most people aren't adventurers, and it's not simply lack of skillset) Of course, for this reason, I do like mechanics that give player characters ways to 'rig' fate in their favor.


As for the suggested SoD change - I'd rather not. If petrification is supposed to be death, petrifying attacks should either be high-damaging attacks that petrify on 0 HP (Making it more lethal/harder to come back from, but not shortcutting combat), or something that applies a debuff and 'kills' at the end of the next round (Giving a one-round 'grace period' to for last-minute salvation or a last hurrah) - unpetrification would leave the player at 0 HP in the former case (Stable but disabled), while restoring the latter case to previous functionality.

I have no problems with players screwing up and getting themselves or another killed, then having to sit out the rest of the combat, especially with how fast combat is in 5e. At low levels, that time can be used to get back up. If anything, I'd like for combat to be designed the opposite way - if you go down, you're out, but if your team wins, it's easier for you to get back up again instead of having to re-roll.

pwykersotz
2014-06-09, 03:30 PM
I have no problems with players screwing up and getting themselves or another killed, then having to sit out the rest of the combat, especially with how fast combat is in 5e. At low levels, that time can be used to get back up. If anything, I'd like for combat to be designed the opposite way - if you go down, you're out, but if your team wins, it's easier for you to get back up again instead of having to re-roll.

I have no problem with this either, in fact, my campaigns are fairly lethal. But keeping everyone playing as much as possible is, I think, a good goal to have. Even if it's not their own character.

Person_Man
2014-06-09, 03:36 PM
The best way to make save or die effects is to (if you want them in your game) make them 1 save and on a fail you keep going with a penalty until the end of the encounter.

+1

I love the idea of progressive Save or Lose/Die effects. Even if it only takes 2 rounds to fully effect a PC or monster, that's 1 full round where the target can make a choice to try and kill their attacker, flee, or activate a special ability/item/tactic to counter the effect.

The only down side that I can think of is the book keeping and stacking issues. A boss monster might have 4+ such status effects in place when fighting savvy PCs. So the trick is to make some sort of rule that prevents them from stacking. Maybe give them a Key Word like "MAGIC" or "DOOM" or "ONGOING" whatever, where you can't be effected by a ONGOING penalty/effect until the previous one has taken it's course, or the DM has the leeway to impose whichever one is most severe and you get a Disadvantage to your Saves, or something.



If the cockatrice is a non-optional encounter, find a way to take it down without getting into petrification range. And, neither Blingdenstone nor even the Mines of Madness had them be non-optional. Also - there's always the choice of the hero saying "This life is too dangerous" and retiring (There's a reason most people aren't adventurers, and it's not simply lack of skillset) Of course, for this reason, I do like mechanics that give player characters ways to 'rig' fate in their favor.

+1 to this as well. In 1st/2nd ed, a big part of the game was Exploration. Dungeons were big, and gp = xp. So in most cases, there were multiple paths to your goal, if an encounter with a trap or monster was "required" then there were multiple ways to defeat them, and there was nothing wrong with "we've run out of healing potions and gotten the most gold we're going to get without dying, so let's retreat back to town, rest, restore hit points/spells, and maybe come back if we want to later, knowing that the denizens of the dungeon will be better prepared for us next time..." It may not have been the most "heroic" thing to do, but it was often the intelligent thing to do, and it often made for interesting roleplaying.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-09, 04:59 PM
When you are reduce to 0 HP you are still active, though severely injured. You can never obtain advantage with attack rolls, skill checks, or saving throws.

If you take damage enough to bring your current HP score down to negative (your) con score then you are dying with no hope of survival (unless a raise dead/resuruction or similar magic is used on you). The only thing keeping you going is your adrenaline and will to protect your loved ones or something you cherish.

At the end of the encounter, or at the end of your 6th turn after you start dying (randomly chose 6... For no real reason) you immediately die. You may take a full set of actions on your last turn. Healing magic of any kind (except resurrection ) doesn't work on you while you are dying, you are already too far gone.


So at 0 HP you are "Severely Injured": Can't ever gain advantage. Healing magic works normal for you.

Negative Con Score: You are dying and way too far for basic magic and will need a raise dead or resurection magic to stop your death. You still can never gain advantage.

So no saving throws, no passing out and laying there like a wuss, and no being left out of the game. But best of all, you get to try and be a badass one last time before you die or as you are dying.

:Note: This is a rough draft off the top of my head. It isn't perfect but I think it is workable... Maybe 1/2 Level + Con Mod for when you die? Hmm :


As a feat you could change the stipulation that normal healing works on you when you reach Negative Con Score 1/day + 1/8 levels... Or something like that... Super powerful Ex ability or whatever. Call it something like... " Can't Stop Me".

Edit: Dealing with non-lethal damage and KO'ing a creature.

While at negative hit points all non-lethal damage becomes lethal damage.

When you have hit points = nonlethal damage you gain the "Severely Injured" status. During this time new non-lethal damage is now converted into lethal damage.

It takes a lot more to kill someone with non-lethal damage but it can be done. This makes non-lethal damage not as great of an option unless you want to debuff the target (never gaining advantage on attacks, saves, or skills) before finishing it.

Monsters don't play by these rules, unless they are BBEG of course. Normal monsters aren't special enough.

KO: You may KO a creature in 4 ways.

1: Attacks while creature is unaware and perform a maneuver (chokehold?).

2: Spells

3: When the target is taking lethal damage from nonlethal source. You may perform a maneuver (chokehold?) even when the target is aware of you.

4: When you deal enough damage to kill the target but want it alive. You may KO the target instead.

EvanWaters
2014-06-14, 11:55 PM
+1

I love the idea of progressive Save or Lose/Die effects. Even if it only takes 2 rounds to fully effect a PC or monster, that's 1 full round where the target can make a choice to try and kill their attacker, flee, or activate a special ability/item/tactic to counter the effect.

The only down side that I can think of is the book keeping and stacking issues. A boss monster might have 4+ such status effects in place when fighting savvy PCs. So the trick is to make some sort of rule that prevents them from stacking. Maybe give them a Key Word like "MAGIC" or "DOOM" or "ONGOING" whatever, where you can't be effected by a ONGOING penalty/effect until the previous one has taken it's course, or the DM has the leeway to impose whichever one is most severe and you get a Disadvantage to your Saves, or something.




+1 to this as well. In 1st/2nd ed, a big part of the game was Exploration. Dungeons were big, and gp = xp. So in most cases, there were multiple paths to your goal, if an encounter with a trap or monster was "required" then there were multiple ways to defeat them, and there was nothing wrong with "we've run out of healing potions and gotten the most gold we're going to get without dying, so let's retreat back to town, rest, restore hit points/spells, and maybe come back if we want to later, knowing that the denizens of the dungeon will be better prepared for us next time..." It may not have been the most "heroic" thing to do, but it was often the intelligent thing to do, and it often made for interesting roleplaying.

Not everyone wants to play Subterranean Fantasy Vietnam, though. This is supposed to be a game for all sorts of D&D players, and people started straying from the original "avoid combat whenever possible" model pretty early on.

Psyren
2014-06-15, 01:55 AM
first the game should NEVER encourage a class to act against the archetype that the class represents. if I am an archer then the game should never put me in a situation where my best bet is to use my dagger.

It shouldn't happen regularly by any means, but there should indeed be situations where a go-to strategy may not be ideal. That encourages critical thinking and problem solving. For instance, if you're an archer and you get grappled, entangled or especially swallowed, then having a dagger or claws are indeed a good option at that point.

What the game should do is not punish you by making your contingency plans all run totally counter to your build. For instance, an archer whose only option for backup melee was a greatsword might rightly feel cheated, because those two weapons are thematically and mechanically at odds with one another. But thanks to the "light weapons" category, you can use the same stat (Dex) to hit with both and a dagger makes sense as a backup. In addition, the dagger is usable in situations where your bow is not (including, again, being grappled or swallowed, to cut through some ropes, when a bow might be too ostentatious etc.) and thus further makes sense as a backup weapon.


also the same problem exists, I must have X to help in a fight, once I no longer have any X I am worse then worthless.

There can be segments of a fight where you are off-balance/suboptimal without being worthless. For example, being swallowed you may not do as much damage to the monster as you could with your bow, but then again slicing your way out of its belly is hardly not contributing at all. (In fact, from inside you are actually more likely to hit as its AC is greatly reduced. You may end up being the one to kill it from in there.)


the problem with allowing phases to let you stay in walls and stuff is that, even in 3e and 4e type movement, they could just hit you then hide where you cant attack them.

I don't know how 4e would handle this, but 3e had readied actions. You can whack/zap someone coming out of a wall just fine.




I don't want to play my character for 3 rounds then do nothing, I want to play him every round.

Most combat doesn't last much longer than 3 rounds anyway.


if I build a archer then I don't want to walk into a fight where I am told "sorry you cant use your bow" just as if I am a wizard I don't want to walk into a fight in a room with anit-magic.

These are hardly comparable. A wizard in AMF can't do anything at all. An archer who has to switch to a dagger (or simply tumble away) still has high Dex to do so successfully.



the party has to protect you, but you can't help in any way, yes you are worse the worthless.

You keep saying "can't help" - just because you don't know how to play a class in that situation doesn't mean there is nothing that can be done.


and you only have one ready a round, and if your melee they would just avoid those who ready.

This is called metagaming. Unless the monster/ghost can read minds to know who is readying.

Also, guess what - by forcing them to avoid certain party members, you are still dictating the enemy's actions. Tactics.



they all pop out at once and go after one guy,

(1) that doesn't mean every ally in reach can't focus fire the first one to pop out before it can get off its attack.
(2) If they're trying to focus fire down one PC, maybe he should do the smart thing and move?



so you have to have an arcane caster in your party, and hope he has that spell now, and hope that he considers his standard action less important then you are.

I don't know how your group plays, but in mine keeping everyone alive is priority 1. If your casters really don't care about the other members of the party that much why are you adventuring with them?

Person_Man
2014-06-16, 09:32 AM
Not everyone wants to play Subterranean Fantasy Vietnam, though. This is supposed to be a game for all sorts of D&D players, and people started straying from the original "avoid combat whenever possible" model pretty early on.

True, but I think there's a balance in somewhere in between Subterranean Fantasy Vietnam (always avoid combat if possible because it's deadly, places a high premium on ambushes, and it's result's can be very random) and 4E (it's assumed that player's will walk directly into every combat, combat is a long and grindy).

Ideally, there would be some sort of "slider" where a DM could increase or decease the deadliness of combat, and the randomness of results. I think that those "sliders" are Healing Surges (the total amount each player can heal each day) and Proficiency Bonuses (bonuses gained from being a higher class level). Increase Healing Surges and players can be less careful in their Exploration and less concerned about traps and environmental hazards or going back to town to rest. Increase Proficiency Bonuses to make success against lower level monsters more likely and less dangerous.

captpike
2014-06-18, 04:57 PM
It shouldn't happen regularly by any means, but there should indeed be situations where a go-to strategy may not be ideal. That encourages critical thinking and problem solving. For instance, if you're an archer and you get grappled, entangled or especially swallowed, then having a dagger or claws are indeed a good option at that point.

What the game should do is not punish you by making your contingency plans all run totally counter to your build. For instance, an archer whose only option for backup melee was a greatsword might rightly feel cheated, because those two weapons are thematically and mechanically at odds with one another. But thanks to the "light weapons" category, you can use the same stat (Dex) to hit with both and a dagger makes sense as a backup. In addition, the dagger is usable in situations where your bow is not (including, again, being grappled or swallowed, to cut through some ropes, when a bow might be too ostentatious etc.) and thus further makes sense as a backup weapon.

my archer is not a high dex character who sometimes uses a bow he is an ARCHER, that is what he does and who he is. sure once in a blue moon he may have to use a dagger, but no more then that.



There can be segments of a fight where you are off-balance/suboptimal without being worthless. For example, being swallowed you may not do as much damage to the monster as you could with your bow, but then again slicing your way out of its belly is hardly not contributing at all. (In fact, from inside you are actually more likely to hit as its AC is greatly reduced. You may end up being the one to kill it from in there.)

sure as long as these are uniform (as in you put anyone there and they lose their ability to do what they do most of the time) and very rare its fine.

what would not be fine, for example, would be to add huge penalties to archer that don't exist elsewhere else. so that there are a large number of situations where you cant use bows in practice.

or to have casting when adjacent to an enemy incur disadvantage, but using a ranged weapon not do so.



I don't know how 4e would handle this, but 3e had readied actions. You can whack/zap someone coming out of a wall just fine.

sure the first guy. then the other 5 come put and kill the poor guy in the back.

and that is if the ghosts are stupid enough to come out in a place that the melee PCs can reach



Most combat doesn't last much longer than 3 rounds anyway.

most is not good enough



These are hardly comparable. A wizard in AMF can't do anything at all. An archer who has to switch to a dagger (or simply tumble away) still has high Dex to do so successfully.

I am not talking about stats, I am talking about the reason I rolled up a character. if I roll up an archer then I want to use a bow (or crossbow or whatever) I DON'T want to run up in melee, doing half the damage at half the accuracy that I should have because I am using a backup weapon for which I don't have the feats or items that I do my main weapon.

its exactly like anti-magic. the wizard's thing is magic, mine is archery.
a character who is focused on using a bow should have to go into melee just as often as a wizard who is focused on using long range spell should.



You keep saying "can't help" - just because you don't know how to play a class in that situation doesn't mean there is nothing that can be done.

if you build a class to do X, with a little Y and you can't do X or Y then your worthless. you might be able to block a square or something but that would be it.

this is why anti-magic is bad, it tells entire classes they are not allowed to play.




This is called metagaming. Unless the monster/ghost can read minds to know who is readying.

Also, guess what - by forcing them to avoid certain party members, you are still dictating the enemy's actions. Tactics.


not really, they avoid the reach to melee character, hardly metagaming, not that avoiding anyone who looks like they are ready to lunge for an attack is metagameing anyway



(1) that doesn't mean every ally in reach can't focus fire the first one to pop out before it can get off its attack.
(2) If they're trying to focus fire down one PC, maybe he should do the smart thing and move?

moving only helps if they live. if 6 ghosts pop out (even with the first one dieing to readies) and attack the most hurt/weakest one in the group he will die.

and of course they can easy do this where the melee people cant attack them, being as they can fly and phase.



I don't know how your group plays, but in mine keeping everyone alive is priority 1. If your casters really don't care about the other members of the party that much why are you adventuring with them?
what if they are close to a TPK and you know that the person on the group is worthless in the current fight? I don't want my players to have to meta game this stuff, I what their characters to have a good non-meta reason to want to pick up dying characters.

this is like the issue fighters have in 3.x. the players may want to have the person who is playing the fighter get a equal cut of loot and credit, but past a certain level there is no non-meta reason to do so.



True, but I think there's a balance in somewhere in between Subterranean Fantasy Vietnam (always avoid combat if possible because it's deadly, places a high premium on ambushes, and it's result's can be very random) and 4E (it's assumed that player's will walk directly into every combat, combat is a long and grindy).

Ideally, there would be some sort of "slider" where a DM could increase or decease the deadliness of combat, and the randomness of results. I think that those "sliders" are Healing Surges (the total amount each player can heal each day) and Proficiency Bonuses (bonuses gained from being a higher class level). Increase Healing Surges and players can be less careful in their Exploration and less concerned about traps and environmental hazards or going back to town to rest. Increase Proficiency Bonuses to make success against lower level monsters more likely and less dangerous.

4e does not assume this, you could play 4e like you play 2e if you want, the difference is that you have a choice.
if your playing a game where every combat is going to be deadly (as opposed to only ones the DM wants to be are) then you have no choice if you want to live you must avoid all fights you can.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-18, 06:58 PM
I am not talking about stats, I am talking about the reason I rolled up a character. if I roll up an archer then I want to use a bow (or crossbow or whatever) I DON'T want to run up in melee, doing half the damage at half the accuracy that I should have because I am using a backup weapon for which I don't have the feats or items that I do my main weapon.

this is why anti-magic is bad, it tells entire classes they are not allowed to play.

4e does not assume this, you could play 4e like you play 2e if you want, the difference is that you have a choice.
if your playing a game where every combat is going to be deadly (as opposed to only ones the DM wants to be are) then you have no choice if you want to live you must avoid all fights you can.

What? I'm sure I misintereted this. It appears that you are saying that your character shouldn't be challenged with a situation that temporarily deprives you of you chosen weapon. Or that a spellcaster shouldn't be challenged with a situation that temporarily in deprives them of their spells.

More importantly they shouldn't because you built a character to do something all the time or you won't have any fun.

Am I misunderstanding this?

captpike
2014-06-18, 07:10 PM
What? I'm sure I misintereted this. It appears that you are saying that your character shouldn't be challenged with a situation that temporarily deprives you of you chosen weapon. Or that a spellcaster shouldn't be challenged with a situation that temporarily in deprives them of their spells.

More importantly they shouldn't because you built a character to do something all the time or you won't have any fun.

Am I misunderstanding this?

no a wizard should NEVER be a place where they cant use any spells. no mater how long the day is, no mater who they are facing. should they sometimes fight people that they don't have the ideal spells for? sure. should they not always be the most important person in the party? for sure.
when you take away a spellcaster's spells you are not challenging them, you are turning them off, telling them they are not allowed to play and to go home.

the same goes for every other archetype, from archer to rogue, to fighter. there are times when they should not be as effective or have to do what they do differently, but it should not be more then that.

I don't want to see ANY creatures that get to tell entire class's shtick "NO U". nor do I want to see any sub-systems punish some more then others for no good reason (I am looking at you bow and crossbow rules in PF)

Fwiffo86
2014-06-18, 08:28 PM
no a wizard should NEVER be a place where they cant use any spells. no mater how long the day is, no mater who they are facing. should they sometimes fight people that they don't have the ideal spells for? sure. should they not always be the most important person in the party? for sure.
when you take away a spellcaster's spells you are not challenging them, you are turning them off, telling them they are not allowed to play and to go home.

the same goes for every other archetype, from archer to rogue, to fighter. there are times when they should not be as effective or have to do what they do differently, but it should not be more then that.

I don't want to see ANY creatures that get to tell entire class's shtick "NO U". nor do I want to see any sub-systems punish some more then others for no good reason (I am looking at you bow and crossbow rules in PF)

First... Archer is not a class (except in 4e I'm guessing here) its a Warrior who chooses to use a bow as his favored weapon.

Second... So you are taking the position that the Wizard, devoid of his spells stops being able to move, pick up objects, fire crossbows, push buttons, breath, problem solve etc. Is this correct? Because all of this would make him less effective than normal, which falls into the category of


there are times when they should not be as effective or have to do what they do differently, but it should not be more then that

How is taking away spells, different than taking away your Archer Warrior's bow? Both are now forced to use methods they are not accustomed to, and thus less effective. Please elaborate on the difference.

captpike
2014-06-18, 09:33 PM
First... Archer is not a class (except in 4e I'm guessing here) its a Warrior who chooses to use a bow as his favored weapon.

Second... So you are taking the position that the Wizard, devoid of his spells stops being able to move, pick up objects, fire crossbows, push buttons, breath, problem solve etc. Is this correct? Because all of this would make him less effective than normal, which falls into the category of



How is taking away spells, different than taking away your Archer Warrior's bow? Both are now forced to use methods they are not accustomed to, and thus less effective. Please elaborate on the difference.

an archer is a character concept, it could be a seeker (4e class) a ranger, a fighter, or whatever. its just the first such concept that came to mind thatoften gets the shaft (pardon the pun)

if 5e is anything like previous editions a wizard using a crossbow is so ineffective that he might as well not be there.

I may have been unclear, my point was that an archer without a bow is the same as a wizard without magic.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-18, 10:00 PM
no a wizard should NEVER be a place where they cant use any spells. no mater how long the day is, no mater who they are facing.

...

when you take away a spellcaster's spells you are not challenging them, you are turning them off, telling them they are not allowed to play and to go home.

So Vaarsuvius vs Black Dragon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html) should never have happened? That seems like that would put a significant cramp in people's games who have playstyles different from yours.

captpike
2014-06-18, 10:46 PM
So Vaarsuvius vs Black Dragon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html) should never have happened? That seems like that would put a significant cramp in people's games who have playstyles different from yours.

were it a game (rather then a comic) yes, its should not happen. anti-magic is not good design, it was only put into the game becuase casters were too powerful, if they are balanced with everyone else then anti-magic stops being needed.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-18, 10:58 PM
Possible answer, yes. However, I think Anti-magic areas, effects, weapons, etc. were put into place to provide challenges that you can't solve with magic.
Just like you can't solve every problem by hitting it with a sword. Different concept, different challenges.

captpike
2014-06-18, 11:03 PM
Possible answer, yes. However, I think Anti-magic areas, effects, weapons, etc. were put into place to provide challenges that you can't solve with magic.
Just like you can't solve every problem by hitting it with a sword. Different concept, different challenges.

you should not need antimagic for that. if they need to use anti-magic just so they can have casters not solve everything they need to relook at the entire system and think about toning down casters

Lokiare
2014-06-18, 11:22 PM
First... Archer is not a class (except in 4e I'm guessing here) its a Warrior who chooses to use a bow as his favored weapon.

Second... So you are taking the position that the Wizard, devoid of his spells stops being able to move, pick up objects, fire crossbows, push buttons, breath, problem solve etc. Is this correct? Because all of this would make him less effective than normal, which falls into the category of

They fire crossbows like level 0 characters and thus are near worthless. Its better economically for the Wizard to simply stand back and do nothing at that point because they are incurring the loss of the cost of the crossbow bolts for little or no benefit. Basically a Wizard without spells is a commoner. At low levels (1-4) this might be ok. At mid to high levels, this is not ok. Its like those annoying quests in MMO's where you have to guard the NPC through a dangerous area for very little reward. Except the Wizard becomes the NPC. All the things you mention that a Wizard can do if they run out of spells can be done by a hireling or NPC that happens to be in the party.


How is taking away spells, different than taking away your Archer Warrior's bow? Both are now forced to use methods they are not accustomed to, and thus less effective. Please elaborate on the difference.

There is not difference. They are both too harsh of a nerf. I mean it might be fun once in a long while, but then you'd have to put the party through a 'magnetic' cave so the non-casters get the same feel of being worthless.

Lokiare
2014-06-18, 11:31 PM
So Vaarsuvius vs Black Dragon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html) should never have happened? That seems like that would put a significant cramp in people's games who have playstyles different from yours.

Yes, in a game that is about tactical options it should not happen. There is a play style where it should happen though, that fantasy vietnam style I mentioned that 5E appears to be catering to. I bet they will have that spell in 5E now that you mention it.

My take is that anti-magic should be a massive bonus to saves or automatically make saves, so that it is very difficult and weakens the caster, but does not turn them into a commoner with a crossbow.

Just like entering a 'magnetic' cave where all metal object cling to the floor, walls, and ceiling doesn't completely disable non-caster, but instead makes them choose non-optimal weapons and armor (quarterstaff, stone weapons, stone or wooden armor).

Now a 'gravity' cave would be closer to anti-magic. Where everyone has to run around in a loin cloth because they can hardly move around and where swinging your arms to attack is nigh on useless because of getting -5 and disadvantage together. Where only casters have a chance in combat. Where the monsters grew up inside so they have found ways to deal with it (microscopic deposits of float stone in all their muscles) and act like regular monsters. That is the equivalent of saying 'you can't cast spells' to a caster like a Wizard.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-18, 11:44 PM
They fire crossbows like level 0 characters and thus are near worthless. Its better economically for the Wizard to simply stand back and do nothing at that point because they are incurring the loss of the cost of the crossbow bolts for little or no benefit. Basically a Wizard without spells is a commoner. At low levels (1-4) this might be ok. At mid to high levels, this is not ok.

I thought we were discussing 5e, where the play test games we had (that being the games I participated in, and then ran), the mages were using their crossbows with equal to or just under the effectiveness of the rogue and bard. Cause you know... bounded accuracy, similar stat point totals, proficiency with the weapon (prof bonus to attack rolls)etc., at all tested levels. Unless you are discussing a different edition, then I only sort of agree with you. But then, we are talking about combat only. Because combat is the most important aspect of a RPG.


Its like those annoying quests in MMO's where you have to guard the NPC through a dangerous area for very little reward. Except the Wizard becomes the NPC. All the things you mention that a Wizard can do if they run out of spells can be done by a hireling or NPC that happens to be in the party.

I would also like to point out, that any character can do those things without having to hire an NPC. This is irrelevant information.



There is not difference. They are both too harsh of a nerf. I mean it might be fun once in a long while, but then you'd have to put the party through a 'magnetic' cave so the non-casters get the same feel of being worthless.

How often it is happening or should happen is not the issue. No one has brought up anything resembling frequency. The issue is simply, is it right or wrong to take away a bow or spells from a character temporarily. And should monsters be able to use an ability to prevent an "archetype" character from using his/her abilities temporarily. My vote is yes, because that makes them challenging. Disagree if you want. It changes nothing.

captpike
2014-06-19, 12:01 AM
How often it is happening or should happen is not the issue. No one has brought up anything resembling frequency. The issue is simply, is it right or wrong to take away a bow or spells from a character temporarily. And should monsters be able to use an ability to prevent an "archetype" character from using his/her abilities temporarily. My vote is yes, because that makes them challenging. Disagree if you want. It changes nothing.

its not a challenge, that imply's they can still do something worthwhile. they cant.

if all you can do is what a level 0 commoner can do then why are you even playing? why are you doing anything but hiding?

Fwiffo86
2014-06-19, 12:13 AM
its not a challenge, that imply's they can still do something worthwhile. they cant.

if all you can do is what a level 0 commoner can do then why are you even playing? why are you doing anything but hiding?

Please read this..... again.....


I thought we were discussing 5e, where the play test games we had (that being the games I participated in, and then ran), the mages were using their crossbows with equal to or just under the effectiveness of the rogue and bard. Cause you know... bounded accuracy, similar stat point totals, proficiency with the weapon (prof bonus to attack rolls)etc., at all tested levels. Unless you are discussing a different edition, then I only sort of agree with you. But then, we are talking about combat only. Because combat is the most important aspect of a RPG.

Lokiare
2014-06-19, 01:43 AM
I thought we were discussing 5e, where the play test games we had (that being the games I participated in, and then ran), the mages were using their crossbows with equal to or just under the effectiveness of the rogue and bard. Cause you know... bounded accuracy, similar stat point totals, proficiency with the weapon (prof bonus to attack rolls)etc., at all tested levels. Unless you are discussing a different edition, then I only sort of agree with you. But then, we are talking about combat only. Because combat is the most important aspect of a RPG.



I would also like to point out, that any character can do those things without having to hire an NPC. This is irrelevant information.



How often it is happening or should happen is not the issue. No one has brought up anything resembling frequency. The issue is simply, is it right or wrong to take away a bow or spells from a character temporarily. And should monsters be able to use an ability to prevent an "archetype" character from using his/her abilities temporarily. My vote is yes, because that makes them challenging. Disagree if you want. It changes nothing.


Please read this..... again.....

I'm not sure which play test you played with, but the last play test had Wizards not getting proficiency bonus to weapons, and even if they did, it was still a measly +2 to +3 for most of their career unless they pumped dexterity up to insane levels, they are still going to about the same as a commoner. The difference is non-caster classes get higher bonuses, have the right stats to get +3 to +5 and get multiple attacks per round. A crossbow wielding Wizard has to spend one round reloading the crossbow and then the next round firing it like a less than level 1 fighter. I'm not sure how you can conclude that it makes up for not having spells. The math just says its horrible.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-19, 03:49 AM
A wizard who has ran out of spells for the day or is in an anti-magic zone and who thinks that now all he can do is ping things with a crossbow is just not being creative enough.

Envyus
2014-06-19, 06:22 AM
I'm not sure which play test you played with, but the last play test had Wizards not getting proficiency bonus to weapons, and even if they did, it was still a measly +2 to +3 for most of their career unless they pumped dexterity up to insane levels, they are still going to about the same as a commoner. The difference is non-caster classes get higher bonuses, have the right stats to get +3 to +5 and get multiple attacks per round. A crossbow wielding Wizard has to spend one round reloading the crossbow and then the next round firing it like a less than level 1 fighter. I'm not sure how you can conclude that it makes up for not having spells. The math just says its horrible.

It's not supposed to be as good as the magic its a last resort. If his magic was turned off by an Anti Magic field or somthing then he has to think of a way around that. While he could cross bow and deal a tiny bit of damage with some luck a better idea would be to get out of the Anti Magic field and think of a more creative way to use magic. Like using it to blast a boulder so it will fall on the enemy as Anti magic won't protect them from that.

Millennium
2014-06-19, 07:50 AM
if your playing a game where every combat is going to be deadly (as opposed to only ones the DM wants to be are) then you have no choice if you want to live you must avoid all fights you can.
Combat is dangerous. It should be dangerous. When munchkins figure out ways to make it not-dangerous, that's a bug, not a feature. There are two kinds of heroes -the kind that do dangerous things, and the kind that sidestep dangerous things in awesome ways- but danger is the common thread. The PCs are heroes, and if they're not getting put into danger, then something is seriously wrong.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-19, 08:27 AM
I'm not sure which play test you played with, but the last play test had Wizards not getting proficiency bonus to weapons, and even if they did, it was still a measly +2 to +3 for most of their career unless they pumped dexterity up to insane levels, they are still going to about the same as a commoner. The difference is non-caster classes get higher bonuses, have the right stats to get +3 to +5 and get multiple attacks per round. A crossbow wielding Wizard has to spend one round reloading the crossbow and then the next round firing it like a less than level 1 fighter. I'm not sure how you can conclude that it makes up for not having spells. The math just says its horrible.

Obviously we have different packets.

My copy:

-Wizards have simple weapon proficiency.
-All character classes gain at least some sort of weapon proficiency, allowing them to use a weapon of that sort with their proficiency bonus to attack rolls.
-All characters types have the same proficiency bonus bell curve. The base prof bonus is the same for every class.
-Wizards are always limited to one action per round. (do not gain additional bonus actions as a class feature)
-Crossbows can be fired once per round, regardless of additional attacks. You no longer spend movement actions to reload (3e example), you are simply prevented from firing more than once per round.

So, yes. Wizards will deal minimal damage. And there chance to hit is not as impressive as say, the fighter, who wields +3 Str +3 prof = +6 to hit (magical modifiers ignored due to anti-magic field). But that still leaves you with +3 prof +2 Dex = +5 to hit. Hmmm, that seems useful to me.

And as far as commoners - I seem to remember someone complaining that 5e commoners are just as effective in combat as characters and using an army of commoners to slay dragons. So the argument about them being useless seems contradictory and irrelevant.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-19, 08:40 AM
Obviously we have different packets.

My copy:

-Wizards have simple weapon proficiency.
-All character classes gain at least some sort of weapon proficiency, allowing them to use a weapon of that sort with their proficiency bonus to attack rolls.
-All characters types have the same proficiency bonus bell curve. The base prof bonus is the same for every class.
-Wizards are always limited to one action per round. (do not gain additional bonus actions as a class feature)
-Crossbows can be fired once per round, regardless of additional attacks. You no longer spend movement actions to reload (3e example), you are simply prevented from firing more than once per round.

So, yes. Wizards will deal minimal damage. And there chance to hit is not as impressive as say, the fighter, who wields +3 Str +3 prof = +6 to hit (magical modifiers ignored due to anti-magic field). But that still leaves you with +3 prof +2 Dex = +5 to hit. Hmmm, that seems useful to me.

And as far as commoners - I seem to remember someone complaining that 5e commoners are just as effective in combat as characters and using an army of commoners to slay dragons. So the argument about them being useless seems contradictory and irrelevant.

The big one for a long time was something like "how many commoners does it take to kill Asmodeus" or something like that.

Whoever the BBEG was, it could be done. Which is both good and bad for the system.

Good: You may be a hero but you will never be immune to an army. You can walk into abcrowd and kick butt but your butt will be handed to you if you get into a fight with an army. This makes it very realistic, sometimes pure numbers win the battle.

Bad: Why play non-casters if commoners are just as good as the non-casters? Casters will at least have magic.

captpike
2014-06-19, 10:47 AM
So, yes. Wizards will deal minimal damage. And there chance to hit is not as impressive as say, the fighter, who wields +3 Str +3 prof = +6 to hit (magical modifiers ignored due to anti-magic field). But that still leaves you with +3 prof +2 Dex = +5 to hit. Hmmm, that seems useful to me.

And as far as commoners - I seem to remember someone complaining that 5e commoners are just as effective in combat as characters and using an army of commoners to slay dragons. So the argument about them being useless seems contradictory and irrelevant.

commoners should be useless, if they are not then why even hire PCs? why not just get 10 farmers and kill the dragon?
the fact they are not now is a bug not a feature, and it will hopefully be fixed before the game comes out.

also keep in mind that damage is binary, its useless until you kill your target, until then it worthless. for example if a target has 100hp and a crossbow wizard does 10 damage and the fighter does 40, then after two fighter hits it wont matter if the hits it or not. it will take a third real hit before it dies.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-19, 11:02 AM
commoners should be useless, if they are not then why even hire PCs? why not just get 10 farmers and kill the dragon?
the fact they are not now is a bug not a feature, and it will hopefully be fixed before the game comes out.

I am not rehashing an argument from a previous thread. You say bug and needs fixing. I say differently. Neither here nor there.


also keep in mind that damage is binary, its useless until you kill your target, until then it worthless. for example if a target has 100hp and a crossbow wizard does 10 damage and the fighter does 40, then after two fighter hits it wont matter if the hits it or not. it will take a third real hit before it dies.

[40+10]+[40+10]=100. If both characters hit, its down in 2nd round. Not third. Try again.

captpike
2014-06-19, 11:10 AM
I am not rehashing an argument from a previous thread. You say bug and needs fixing. I say differently. Neither here nor there.



[40+10]+[40+10]=100. If both characters hit, its down in 2nd round. Not third. Try again.

so 50 or 60, and of course you have to keep in mind that a wizard with crossbow will not be very accurate.

this problem only gets worse as damage inflates, and this is bound to happen because of bounded accuracy (because damage is the only way to scale anyone) when your doing 10% of the damage of everyone else then it will only rarely matter if you hit at all.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-19, 11:23 AM
commoners should be useless, if they are not then why even hire PCs? why not just get 10 farmers and kill the dragon?
the fact they are not now is a bug not a feature, and it will hopefully be fixed before the game comes out.


Because 10 farmers won't kill the dragon. And 100 farmers are expensive to hire, train and deploy compared to hiring a couple of thrill seeking adventurers. It's the same reason that even though guerrilla and peasant forces have been used to good effect historically, nations still form regular armies and hire mercenaries.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-19, 11:26 AM
so 50 or 60, and of course you have to keep in mind that a wizard with crossbow will not be very accurate.

As defined above, there is a 5% discrepancy between the Wizard's accuracy, and the Fighters Accuracy. Or more if you compare similar weapons. Granted it was STR vs DEX. But when both are say DEX then I'm willing to say short of a DEX based fighter, the Wizard will be more accurate than the fighter. Since ranged weapons don't deal STR modifier damage, they will be roughly the same damage.


this problem only gets worse as damage inflates, and this is bound to happen because of bounded accuracy (because damage is the only way to scale anyone) when your doing 10% of the damage of everyone else then it will only rarely matter if you hit at all.

*shrugs* your belief is different than mine. I tend to believe 10% additional damage, is 10% faster you will drop the thing. Resulting in 10% less incoming effects/damage. But if 10% isn't significant to you thats fine.

Millennium
2014-06-19, 11:53 AM
Bad: Why play non-casters if commoners are just as good as the non-casters? Casters will at least have magic.
Because commoners aren't "just as good as the non-casters". You might be able to hire an army of commoners to pull down Grendel by sheer numbers, but first you'll have to find an army large enough, then you'll have to hire it, and even when and if they win, they'll take such heavy losses in the process that you won't have enough left to handle the threat when Grendel's mother comes along.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-19, 12:06 PM
Because commoners aren't "just as good as the non-casters". You might be able to hire an army of commoners to pull down Grendel by sheer numbers, but first you'll have to find an army large enough, then you'll have to hire it, and even when and if they win, they'll take such heavy losses in the process that you won't have enough left to handle the threat when Grendel's mother comes along.

But put that commoner in an adventure ring party. Give them feats and items and within the system you could have a decent non-caster party member. Probably make him an archer or something...

I'm not saying that is how I want it, just how it seems to be working out, or could work out.

I do like the idea of 100-1000 commoners killing a dragon...
Keeps things in check, specially the PCs. Get to big for your britches and the world can take you out. It has been a while since that was possible, that PCs could be put in check by the world.

Envyus
2014-06-19, 01:50 PM
Plus the average person will be terrified of big monster and not want to fight it. They are just plain not as effective.

Lokiare
2014-06-19, 04:09 PM
As defined above, there is a 5% discrepancy between the Wizard's accuracy, and the Fighters Accuracy. Or more if you compare similar weapons. Granted it was STR vs DEX. But when both are say DEX then I'm willing to say short of a DEX based fighter, the Wizard will be more accurate than the fighter. Since ranged weapons don't deal STR modifier damage, they will be roughly the same damage.



*shrugs* your belief is different than mine. I tend to believe 10% additional damage, is 10% faster you will drop the thing. Resulting in 10% less incoming effects/damage. But if 10% isn't significant to you thats fine.

You are forgetting a few things. The fighter has a higher attack bonus because Strength is their primary stat and I believe they get a higher proficiency bonus. Then the fighter also gets multiple attacks per round where the Wizard does not. Then there is the reload time on the crossbow. All this adds up to a much bigger gap than you are willing to admit even at low level. When you get to high level its even worse. Then you look at most fighters weapons and realize that they average 1d10 to 1d12 which is even more damage. Then on top of that there are feats and class features that grant the Fighter advantage or bigger critical threat ranges. If you look at all the things that affect the fighter and wizard, then you know a wizard using a crossbow is near worthless. They would be better off hiding around the last bend so they don't have a chance of dying.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-19, 04:19 PM
You are forgetting a few things. The fighter has a higher attack bonus because Strength is their primary stat and I believe they get a higher proficiency bonus. Then the fighter also gets multiple attacks per round where the Wizard does not. Then there is the reload time on the crossbow. All this adds up to a much bigger gap than you are willing to admit even at low level. When you get to high level its even worse. Then you look at most fighters weapons and realize that they average 1d10 to 1d12 which is even more damage. Then on top of that there are feats and class features that grant the Fighter advantage or bigger critical threat ranges. If you look at all the things that affect the fighter and wizard, then you know a wizard using a crossbow is near worthless. They would be better off hiding around the last bend so they don't have a chance of dying.

Actually, if you were paying closer attention, we are comparing a wizard using a crossbow and a fighter using a crossbow. Which is limited to one shot per round (no matter the number of bonus attacks you get, look up its description, because of its reload time, you only get one shot per turn. This applies to all classes). So, both are firing once per round.

The proficiency bonus is the same for both the wizard and fighter of the same level. Doesn't matter what level that is.

They are both using dex (fighter is assumed to have Str as his main, not Dex, so Dex is sub to both) They have a roughly equal chance of hitting their target.

Ranged weapons do not gain bonuses to damage, so both combatants are dealing the same potential damage.

Same chance to hit, same damage, same attacks per round. They are equal in this scenario.

We are not calculating feats because the whole purpose of the discussion is two classes using something that they did not specialize in. The running assumption is that neither the fighter or the wizard have any collating feats. Please try to pay attention and please stop putting in more information than is actually being examined.

Lokiare
2014-06-19, 04:25 PM
Actually, if you were paying closer attention, we are comparing a wizard using a crossbow and a fighter using a crossbow. Which is limited to one shot per round (no matter the number of bonus attacks you get, look up its description, because of its reload time, you only get one shot per turn. This applies to all classes). So, both are firing once per round.

The proficiency bonus is the same for both the wizard and fighter of the same level. Doesn't matter what level that is.

They are both using dex (fighter is assumed to have Str as his main, not Dex, so Dex is sub to both) They have a roughly equal chance of hitting their target.

Ranged weapons do not gain bonuses to damage, so both combatants are dealing the same potential damage.

Same chance to hit, same damage, same attacks per round. They are equal in this scenario.

We are not calculating feats because the whole purpose of the discussion is two classes using something that they did not specialize in. The running assumption is that neither the fighter or the wizard have any collating feats. Please try to pay attention and keep up.

Why are you comparing that? That has no bearing on the conversation. The original thought was that an archer without the ability to arch is like a wizard without spells. So we found out that in comparison to a fighter (with their normal weapons and attack modes) a wizard is almost nothing, getting worse later on in levels. So an archer without the ability to arch is nearly worthless.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-19, 04:28 PM
Why are you comparing that? That has no bearing on the conversation. The original thought was that an archer without the ability to arch is like a wizard without spells. So we found out that in comparison to a fighter (with their normal weapons and attack modes) a wizard is almost nothing, getting worse later on in levels. So an archer without the ability to arch is nearly worthless.

Archer without bow = Warrior forced to use a weapon he is not specialized in.
Wizard using crossbow = Not able to use spells.

---Edit---

I am trying to point out that without their main chosen function, both classes are equal, not worthless. Now, change anything about this scenario, say give the fighter a bow instead of a crossbow, and his only advantage over the wizard becomes he has multiple attacks, because a crossbow limits the fighter just as it limits the wizard. That changes things, and the STR fighter becomes less inconvenienced by using a bow and keeping his multiple attacks at least.

This is basically a comparison of Proficiency modifier (which is the same for all classes) + Attribute modifier (Both using DEX which is not their main stat) = combat efficiency and how the two compare to each other.

Or if you prefer I can add this bit - Your claim that classes have individual proficiency modifiers (false according to my test packet), and that given equal circumstances (not using their ideal attack methods) the wizard is completely worthless are invalid for the reasons I have given above.

captpike
2014-06-19, 04:46 PM
*shrugs* your belief is different than mine. I tend to believe 10% additional damage, is 10% faster you will drop the thing. Resulting in 10% less incoming effects/damage. But if 10% isn't significant to you thats fine.

that is not how damage works.

if a target is at 89 of 100hp, and I do any amount of damage less then 11 then he stays up. if the fighter then does 20 then he dies.

the damage I did, and the action I spent doing it did nothing whatsoever. I might as well have danced aggressively for all the good I did.

damage only helps if it changes the number of actions the target gets, if your only doing 10% of the fighter's damage that is unlikely to happen.

Job
2014-06-19, 04:55 PM
If a target is at 89 of 100hp, and I do any amount of damage less then 11 then he stays up. if the fighter then does 20 then he dies.

damage only helps if it changes the number of actions the target gets, if your only doing 10% of the fighter's damage that is unlikely to happen.

How do I know its HP total? How do I know it's behavior?

Fwiffo86
2014-06-19, 04:56 PM
that is not how damage works.

if a target is at 89 of 100hp, and I do any amount of damage less then 11 then he stays up. if the fighter then does 20 then he dies.

the damage I did, and the action I spent doing it did nothing whatsoever. I might as well have danced aggressively for all the good I did.

damage only helps if it changes the number of actions the target gets, if your only doing 10% of the fighter's damage that is unlikely to happen.

ok, ok, i get it.

Damage is pointless until threshold. We all get it.

what happens if the fighter only does 7? What if he missed? You can't count on a hit. So to take the swing. Sure, in your example, the fighter dropped it. May have even actually killed it instead of just taking it to zero-zonk and starting death rolls. Your actions are not insignificant. But you don't want to see it that way. No reason to continue discussing it with you.

captpike
2014-06-19, 07:57 PM
ok, ok, i get it.

Damage is pointless until threshold. We all get it.

what happens if the fighter only does 7? What if he missed? You can't count on a hit. So to take the swing. Sure, in your example, the fighter dropped it. May have even actually killed it instead of just taking it to zero-zonk and starting death rolls. Your actions are not insignificant. But you don't want to see it that way. No reason to continue discussing it with you.

so your point is "your wrong, no I wont say why"?

if the fighter misses it still does not mater how much damage the wizard does, because the next real hit will kill the creature.

the less damage you do, the less likely it is to matter that you did it. your actions are only significant if they can in some way effect the outcome of the fight. this means your actions as a crossbow wizard wont be significant.

and its not a good idea for a system to encourage such things to exist anyway, if I roll a wizard I want to do MAGIC not use a crossbow. every round the system tells me I cant do magic is a failure of that system.

Millennium
2014-06-19, 09:06 PM
the less damage you do, the less likely it is to matter that you did it. your actions are only significant if they can in some way effect the outcome of the fight. this means your actions as a crossbow wizard wont be significant.
Are you saying that doing damage doesn't affect the outcome of the fight? Nothing matters except the KO? If you're not in the spotlight at every moment then you are worthless?

and its not a good idea for a system to encourage such things to exist anyway, if I roll a wizard I want to do MAGIC not use a crossbow. every round the system tells me I cant do magic is a failure of that system.
Every round you sit there whining about how your one and only go-to trick isn't working in this one encounter is your own failure as a role-player, not a problem with the system. You're playing heroes, and one of the defining characteristics of heroism is a refusal to lay down and die when your usual shtick isn't working. You find another way out of the mess, even if it's not in your comfort zone.

captpike
2014-06-19, 09:30 PM
Are you saying that doing damage doesn't affect the outcome of the fight? Nothing matters except the KO? If you're not in the spotlight at every moment then you are worthless?

no, your worthless if your damage did not decrease the number of attacks needed to kill the target. if a creature has 100hp and everyone else does 20dmg per hit to it, and you only do 5 then it will not mater if you hit because it will take the same number of hits to kill it.



Every round you sit there whining about how your one and only go-to trick isn't working in this one encounter is your own failure as a role-player, not a problem with the system. You're playing heroes, and one of the defining characteristics of heroism is a refusal to lay down and die when your usual shtick isn't working. You find another way out of the mess, even if it's not in your comfort zone.

I am not talking about a wizard speced into fireball not being able to use fire magic, I am talking about not being able to use magic at all.

that is something that the system should never do. if I am a heroic wizard I would hardly be heroic and awesome if my magic was near useless half the time. or if it was easily countered.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-19, 09:31 PM
Are you saying that doing damage doesn't affect the outcome of the fight? Nothing matters except the KO? If you're not in the spotlight at every moment then you are worthless?

Every round you sit there whining about how your one and only go-to trick isn't working in this one encounter is your own failure as a role-player, not a problem with the system. You're playing heroes, and one of the defining characteristics of heroism is a refusal to lay down and die when your usual shtick isn't working. You find another way out of the mess, even if it's not in your comfort zone.

Wait, so what is this Kingdom Hearts? Hit triangle to win, triangle, triangle... Anything else would be preposterous. Yeah I never understood people who thought classes should be one trick ponies.

Lokiare
2014-06-20, 07:02 AM
Wait, so what is this Kingdom Hearts? Hit triangle to win, triangle, triangle... Anything else would be preposterous. Yeah I never understood people who thought classes should be one trick ponies.

Point = Missed

Its the difference between a fire based Wizard having to use some unoptimized cold spells against a fire elemental and a fire based Wizard having to use a crossbow against that same fire elemental with resistance to physical damage and immunity to fire damage.

An archer without a bow who has spend every ability increase on dex or feats suddenly having to use a 1d4 dagger to fight off an enemy they would normally shoot with a bow is like the Wizard shooting a crossbow at the fire elemental.

A fighter on the other hand can pick up that same dagger and get 2-3 attacks with it as well as miscellaneous bonuses to attack and damage through class features because they are masters of weapons and armor. Heck totally disarmed they can grapple enemies or just stand in the way and go total defense and serve a purpose. A lightly armored archer with very few hp (because they have no con mod having put their best stats into dex) can't do that. They would be nearly worthless.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-20, 08:19 AM
Point = Missed

Its the difference between a fire based Wizard having to use some unoptimized cold spells against a fire elemental and a fire based Wizard having to use a crossbow against that same fire elemental with resistance to physical damage and immunity to fire damage.

An archer without a bow who has spend every ability increase on dex or feats suddenly having to use a 1d4 dagger to fight off an enemy they would normally shoot with a bow is like the Wizard shooting a crossbow at the fire elemental.

A fighter on the other hand can pick up that same dagger and get 2-3 attacks with it as well as miscellaneous bonuses to attack and damage through class features because they are masters of weapons and armor. Heck totally disarmed they can grapple enemies or just stand in the way and go total defense and serve a purpose. A lightly armored archer with very few hp (because they have no con mod having put their best stats into dex) can't do that. They would be nearly worthless.

Well hit triangle and you will beat each enemy without much problems, unless Dolnald wants to mess things up again...

But seriously, to expect that you always get to be optimized at all times and you can blow through encounters is ridiculous if you are playing a game such as D&D.

Like in Last of Us, if you play on easy mode you will almost always have the items needed to make things you want or to shoot people. However when you up the difficulty, making things a bit more... Well realistic isn't the right word but I'll go with it... Sometime you run out of an item or you just can't use your most optimal stuff. What would you do then? Just sit there and cry until you was given optimal stuff?

In your three points you are essentially saying that a Fighter is always useful and is the most versatile class while wizards and rangers suck if they lose one option at their disposal. You also assume that the wizard only has Blasty spells, hell even evocation wizards will pick up other spells, scrolls, and wands.

Your argument assumes the worst case scenario for two subjects and the best case scenario for the other.

But you know, I guess I'm old school. I like to be challeneged when I play d&d and not just hit triangle to win.

DM takes away my bow? Tumble in and use aid another to help the fighter, since the fighter is the main threat the enemy should attack him. If I can help the fighter seem more like a threat then I shouldn't get hit. If I'm a wizard (or any other character) and don't have a backup plan then that is my own damn fault for being so arrogant that I thought a one trick pony would work and that the DM would never think of challenging me.

Make sure your backup plan includes wands and scrolls and not crossbows if you hate crossbows so much. Or are backup plans not allowed because they aren't optimal?

Fwiffo86
2014-06-20, 08:37 AM
You are really arguing this? Ok then....

Previous example expanded....

Fighter does not have 2handed sword and is using crossbow.
Wizard is using crossbow.
This has been established to be more or less equal.

For fun and profit, lets break the crossbow rule, and allow the fighter to have his multiple attacks per turn. For simplicity sake, we will assign a damage of 8 hp per hit from the crossbow from both characters.

Assuming they have an equal chance to hit (proven earlier, see post above) lets say our old standby, 60%

Fighter (lets say he has all his multiple attacks via class abilities)
60% = 100% chance to deal the same damage of the wizard with one blow
60%*60% = 36% chance to deal double the damage of the wizard with two blows
60%*60%*60% = 21% chance to deal 3x the damage of the wizard with three blows
60%*60%*60%*60% = has a 12% chance to deal 4x the damage of the wizard with four blows

In this scenario, even given his multiple attacks per round, the fighter is only marginally more effective than the wizard. Again, this is both characters having to rely on something other than their main methodology. The fighter having lost his weapon of choice, and the wizard unable to access his spells. But as Captpike points out, 10-12% is meaningless, you might as well not be doing it at all.

You seem to be hung up on that if the wizard/warrior cannot use their (player selected) main option, then the character becomes worthless and should not be played. Which is fine. This indicates that you view D&D as nothing more than a series of combats strung together with the bare minimum of storyline. If that is your preferred play style, great! Run with it. No one is faulting you for that. We simply ask for the same courtesy when we look at the game in a completely different way than you. We are not dismissing you out of hand, we just don't agree with you. It is unlikely you will sway anyone's opinion with your established behavioral patterns.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-20, 08:51 AM
But you know, I guess I'm old school. I like to be challeneged when I play d&d and not just hit triangle to win.

DM takes away my bow? Tumble in and use aid another to help the fighter, since the fighter is the main threat the enemy should attack him. If I can help the fighter seem more like a threat then I shouldn't get hit. If I'm a wizard (or any other character) and don't have a backup plan then that is my own damn fault for being so arrogant that I thought a one trick pony would work and that the DM would never think of challenging me.

Quoted for truth. I know only few people who enjoy godmoding as a playstyle, most of them prefer a real challenge.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-20, 09:01 AM
Quoted for truth. I know only few people who enjoy godmoding as a playstyle, most of them prefer a real challenge.

I'll second that!

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-20, 09:37 AM
Quoted for truth. I know only few people who enjoy godmoding as a playstyle, most of them prefer a real challenge.


I'll second that!

Well if I had the ability to blush, I'm sure I would be looking weird right now.

:smallsmile:

obryn
2014-06-20, 09:45 AM
I'll note again - If I'm not challenging my players in my 4e game, I'm doing a bad job as a DM.

I get arguments about how you shouldn't deprotagonize PCs. I even agree with that basic philosophy! But I'm seeing it taken to ... weird ... extremes by captpike here.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-20, 09:50 AM
I'll note again - If I'm not challenging my players in my 4e game, I'm doing a bad job as a DM.

I get arguments about how you shouldn't deprotagonize PCs. I even agree with that basic philosophy! But I'm seeing it taken to ... weird ... extremes by captpike here.

Yup! One of the core jobs of a DM is to challenge players. Different groups will have a different level of challenge that they like.

Videogames I tend to play on normal, D&D I play on anything from normal to Gygax.

I'm on the fence of deprotagonization (haha) of players. You can go either way and do quite well, but both extremes are just as bad as each other.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-20, 10:13 AM
no, your worthless if your damage did not decrease the number of attacks needed to kill the target. if a creature has 100hp and everyone else does 20dmg per hit to it, and you only do 5 then it will not mater if you hit because it will take the same number of hits to kill it.

So since you're such a big fan of math, I decided to write a basic simulator. Here is the code (in python, feel free to try it for yourself)


from random import randrange

combats = 1000
monsterHP = 200
monsterAC = 17
fighterDie = 12
wizardDie = 6
wizardMod = 0
fighterMod = 5
fighterAttacksPerRound = 1
totalRoundsNoWizard = 0
totalRoundsWizardSecond = 0
totalRoundsWizardFirst = 0

def rollWizard():
result = randrange(wizardDie) + 1 + wizardMod
return result

def rollFighter():
result = randrange(fighterDie) + 1 + fighterMod
return result

def rollAttack():
return randrange(20) + 1

for i in range(0, combats):
roundCounter = 0
tempHP = monsterHP
while (tempHP > 0):
roundCounter += 1
for i in range(0, fighterAttacksPerRound):
if(tempHP > 0 and rollAttack() + fighterMod >= monsterAC):
tempHP -= rollFighter()

totalRoundsNoWizard += roundCounter

for i in range(0, combats):
roundCounter = 0
tempHP = monsterHP
while (tempHP > 0):
roundCounter += 1
for i in range(0, fighterAttacksPerRound):
if(tempHP > 0 and rollAttack() + fighterMod >= monsterAC):
tempHP -= rollFighter()

if(tempHP > 0):
if(rollAttack() + wizardMod >= monsterAC):
tempHP -= rollWizard()

totalRoundsWizardSecond += roundCounter

for i in range(0, combats):
roundCounter = 0
tempHP = monsterHP
while (tempHP > 0):
roundCounter += 1

if(rollAttack() + wizardMod >= monsterAC):
tempHP -= rollWizard()

if(tempHP > 0):
for i in range(0, fighterAttacksPerRound):
if(tempHP > 0 and rollAttack() + fighterMod >= monsterAC):
tempHP -= rollFighter()

totalRoundsWizardFirst += roundCounter


print ("Total Combats: " + str(combats))
print ("Monster Stats: HP: " + str(monsterHP) + " AC: " + str(monsterAC))
print ("Wizard Stats: Damage Die Size: " + str(wizardDie) + " Attack/Damage Mod: " + str(wizardMod))
print ("Fighter Stats: Damage Die Size: " + str(fighterDie) + " Attack/Damage Mod: " + str(fighterMod) + " Attacks per round: " + str(fighterAttacksPerRound))
print ("Total Rounds With Fighter Alone: " + str(totalRoundsNoWizard))
print ("Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking Second: " + str(totalRoundsWizardSecond))
print ("Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking First: " + str(totalRoundsWizardFirst))
print ("Average Rounds Per Combat :")
print ("Fighter Alone: " + str(totalRoundsNoWizard / combats))
print ("Wizard Second: " + str(totalRoundsWizardSecond / combats))
print ("Wizard First: " + str(totalRoundsWizardFirst / combats))



And here are some results:

First increasing AC for the monster

Total Combats: 1000
Monster Stats: HP: 200 AC: 10
Wizard Stats: Damage Die Size: 6 Attack/Damage Mod: 0
Fighter Stats: Damage Die Size: 12 Attack/Damage Mod: 5 Attacks per round: 1
Total Rounds With Fighter Alone: 22508
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking Second: 18534
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking First: 18514
Average Rounds Per Combat :
Fighter Alone: 22.508
Wizard Second: 18.534
Wizard First: 18.514

Total Combats: 1000
Monster Stats: HP: 200 AC: 12
Wizard Stats: Damage Die Size: 6 Attack/Damage Mod: 0
Fighter Stats: Damage Die Size: 12 Attack/Damage Mod: 5 Attacks per round: 1
Total Rounds With Fighter Alone: 25682
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking Second: 21409
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking First: 21523
Average Rounds Per Combat :
Fighter Alone: 25.682
Wizard Second: 21.409
Wizard First: 21.523

Total Combats: 1000
Monster Stats: HP: 200 AC: 15
Wizard Stats: Damage Die Size: 6 Attack/Damage Mod: 0
Fighter Stats: Damage Die Size: 12 Attack/Damage Mod: 5 Attacks per round: 1
Total Rounds With Fighter Alone: 32646
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking Second: 28035
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking First: 28316
Average Rounds Per Combat :
Fighter Alone: 32.646
Wizard Second: 28.035
Wizard First: 28.316

Total Combats: 1000
Monster Stats: HP: 200 AC: 17
Wizard Stats: Damage Die Size: 6 Attack/Damage Mod: 0
Fighter Stats: Damage Die Size: 12 Attack/Damage Mod: 5 Attacks per round: 1
Total Rounds With Fighter Alone: 39430
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking Second: 35812
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking First: 34798
Average Rounds Per Combat :
Fighter Alone: 39.43
Wizard Second: 35.812
Wizard First: 34.798


Basically, a wizard doing d6 damage with 0 for modifiers is worth 4 rounds of combat.

Now increasing attacks per round for the fighter:


Total Combats: 1000
Monster Stats: HP: 200 AC: 17
Wizard Stats: Damage Die Size: 6 Attack/Damage Mod: 0
Fighter Stats: Damage Die Size: 12 Attack/Damage Mod: 5 Attacks per round: 2
Total Rounds With Fighter Alone: 20375
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking Second: 18804
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking First: 19065
Average Rounds Per Combat :
Fighter Alone: 20.375
Wizard Second: 18.804
Wizard First: 19.065

Total Combats: 1000
Monster Stats: HP: 200 AC: 17
Wizard Stats: Damage Die Size: 6 Attack/Damage Mod: 0
Fighter Stats: Damage Die Size: 12 Attack/Damage Mod: 5 Attacks per round: 3
Total Rounds With Fighter Alone: 13579
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking Second: 12950
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking First: 12965
Average Rounds Per Combat :
Fighter Alone: 13.579
Wizard Second: 12.95
Wizard First: 12.965

Total Combats: 1000
Monster Stats: HP: 200 AC: 17
Wizard Stats: Damage Die Size: 6 Attack/Damage Mod: 0
Fighter Stats: Damage Die Size: 12 Attack/Damage Mod: 5 Attacks per round: 4
Total Rounds With Fighter Alone: 10242
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking Second: 10079
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking First: 10081
Average Rounds Per Combat :
Fighter Alone: 10.242
Wizard Second: 10.079
Wizard First: 10.081

Total Combats: 1000
Monster Stats: HP: 200 AC: 17
Wizard Stats: Damage Die Size: 6 Attack/Damage Mod: 0
Fighter Stats: Damage Die Size: 12 Attack/Damage Mod: 5 Attacks per round: 5
Total Rounds With Fighter Alone: 8331
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking Second: 8145
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking First: 8159
Average Rounds Per Combat :
Fighter Alone: 8.331
Wizard Second: 8.145
Wizard First: 8.159


Basically, increasing the number of attacks the fighter gets per round does decrease the utility of the wizard, but never below 0.

Of course, that's to be expected, the more attacks a single character gets in, the less effective any other individual character will be. To prove this point, we'll pretend the wizard can swing a d12 for damage and has the same +5 modifier the fighter has. Again, increasing attacks for the fighter:


Total Combats: 1000
Monster Stats: HP: 200 AC: 17
Wizard Stats: Damage Die Size: 12 Attack/Damage Mod: 5
Fighter Stats: Damage Die Size: 12 Attack/Damage Mod: 5 Attacks per round: 1
Total Rounds With Fighter Alone: 39638
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking Second: 19956
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking First: 20061
Average Rounds Per Combat :
Fighter Alone: 39.638
Wizard Second: 19.956
Wizard First: 20.061

Total Combats: 1000
Monster Stats: HP: 200 AC: 17
Wizard Stats: Damage Die Size: 12 Attack/Damage Mod: 5
Fighter Stats: Damage Die Size: 12 Attack/Damage Mod: 5 Attacks per round: 2
Total Rounds With Fighter Alone: 20064
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking Second: 13628
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking First: 13558
Average Rounds Per Combat :
Fighter Alone: 20.064
Wizard Second: 13.628
Wizard First: 13.558

Total Combats: 1000
Monster Stats: HP: 200 AC: 17
Wizard Stats: Damage Die Size: 12 Attack/Damage Mod: 5
Fighter Stats: Damage Die Size: 12 Attack/Damage Mod: 5 Attacks per round: 3
Total Rounds With Fighter Alone: 13501
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking Second: 10279
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking First: 10381
Average Rounds Per Combat :
Fighter Alone: 13.501
Wizard Second: 10.279
Wizard First: 10.381

Total Combats: 1000
Monster Stats: HP: 200 AC: 17
Wizard Stats: Damage Die Size: 12 Attack/Damage Mod: 5
Fighter Stats: Damage Die Size: 12 Attack/Damage Mod: 5 Attacks per round: 4
Total Rounds With Fighter Alone: 10359
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking Second: 8361
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking First: 8444
Average Rounds Per Combat :
Fighter Alone: 10.359
Wizard Second: 8.361
Wizard First: 8.444

Total Combats: 1000
Monster Stats: HP: 200 AC: 17
Wizard Stats: Damage Die Size: 12 Attack/Damage Mod: 5
Fighter Stats: Damage Die Size: 12 Attack/Damage Mod: 5 Attacks per round: 5
Total Rounds With Fighter Alone: 8397
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking Second: 7021
Total Rounds With Wizard Attacking First: 6993
Average Rounds Per Combat :
Fighter Alone: 8.397
Wizard Second: 7.021
Wizard First: 6.993


Notice that even with the massive increase in damage output, by 5 attacks per round, our wizard is still only good for saving 1 round of combat.

And this is with assuming the only thing you can think of to do as a wizard without access to your spells is attack once per round with a bow.

obryn
2014-06-20, 10:36 AM
And this is with assuming the only thing you can think of to do as a wizard without access to your spells is attack once per round with a bow.
Cantrips > Bow.

I'm a decent fan of Next's cantrips.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-20, 11:26 AM
Cantrips > Bow.

I'm a decent fan of Next's cantrips.

I would like to see Cantrip damage stay the same (for the most part) and as you use higher level spell slots the rider effects change or get more powerful.

Like...

Ray of Cold
Target: One creature or object, versus AC
Range: 30 feet
Hit: target takes 1d8 + Int mod damage and is slowed until the end of the targets next turn.

Higher spell slots:

1st: Slow lasts for two rounds

3rd: Slow lasts for 1 round and then (Con Save Ends)

5th: Target is immobilized for 1 round after that slowed for 1 round.

7th: Target is immobilized for 1 round after that target is immobilized (Con Save ends)

Or whatever. That's just something I threw together to get my point across. Cantrip that do only damage can increase damage but I want more interesting option with my Cantrip than MOAR POWER.

(Not that you specifically think damage should increase but there are ones that think all damage should raise).

D-naras
2014-06-20, 12:47 PM
Point = Missed

Its the difference between a fire based Wizard having to use some unoptimized cold spells against a fire elemental and a fire based Wizard having to use a crossbow against that same fire elemental with resistance to physical damage and immunity to fire damage.

An archer without a bow who has spend every ability increase on dex or feats suddenly having to use a 1d4 dagger to fight off an enemy they would normally shoot with a bow is like the Wizard shooting a crossbow at the fire elemental.

A fighter on the other hand can pick up that same dagger and get 2-3 attacks with it as well as miscellaneous bonuses to attack and damage through class features because they are masters of weapons and armor. Heck totally disarmed they can grapple enemies or just stand in the way and go total defense and serve a purpose. A lightly armored archer with very few hp (because they have no con mod having put their best stats into dex) can't do that. They would be nearly worthless.

How is the archer using a dagger (which gets both dex to attack and damage) different than a fire wizard being forced to use cold spells vs fire elementals? How is an archer getting less attacks with a dagger (since feats grant 1 extra attack at penalty) assuming that he gains extra attacks at all? How does the archer not have a Con modifier? Will the melee fighter not have a Con modifier as well? He also needs Str just like tha archer needs Dex and everybody needs Con. If anything, a focused archer should be harder to hit due to his high Dex, as well as go first due to a higher initiative. I assume that the archer is an actual combat class that gets d8 or higher hit die and a second attack at 8 just like everybody and not a spellcaster with a smaller HD and no extra attacks. So how does a warrior that focuses on ranged combat stop being a warrior when he can't fire a bow?

Fwiffo86
2014-06-20, 01:09 PM
Pretty sure you just opened the door for the argument, "when a wizard can't cast spells, he isn't a wizard" angle.

Should be interesting.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-20, 01:40 PM
Pretty sure you just opened the door for the argument, "when a wizard can't cast spells, he isn't a wizard" angle.

Should be interesting.

They aren't wizards anymore, they become Chaos Sorcerers... That is the penalty to the party and DM for putting the wizard in a situation in which he isn't optimized for...

(All kidding aside, I like the idea of Chaos magic I'm just not sure if I will like the implementation of it in D&D Next.)

Lokiare
2014-06-20, 05:33 PM
You are really arguing this? Ok then....

Previous example expanded....

Fighter does not have 2handed sword and is using crossbow.
Wizard is using crossbow.
This has been established to be more or less equal.

For fun and profit, lets break the crossbow rule, and allow the fighter to have his multiple attacks per turn. For simplicity sake, we will assign a damage of 8 hp per hit from the crossbow from both characters.

Assuming they have an equal chance to hit (proven earlier, see post above) lets say our old standby, 60%

Fighter (lets say he has all his multiple attacks via class abilities)
60% = 100% chance to deal the same damage of the wizard with one blow
60%*60% = 36% chance to deal double the damage of the wizard with two blows
60%*60%*60% = 21% chance to deal 3x the damage of the wizard with three blows
60%*60%*60%*60% = has a 12% chance to deal 4x the damage of the wizard with four blows

In this scenario, even given his multiple attacks per round, the fighter is only marginally more effective than the wizard. Again, this is both characters having to rely on something other than their main methodology. The fighter having lost his weapon of choice, and the wizard unable to access his spells. But as Captpike points out, 10-12% is meaningless, you might as well not be doing it at all.

You seem to be hung up on that if the wizard/warrior cannot use their (player selected) main option, then the character becomes worthless and should not be played. Which is fine. This indicates that you view D&D as nothing more than a series of combats strung together with the bare minimum of storyline. If that is your preferred play style, great! Run with it. No one is faulting you for that. We simply ask for the same courtesy when we look at the game in a completely different way than you. We are not dismissing you out of hand, we just don't agree with you. It is unlikely you will sway anyone's opinion with your established behavioral patterns.

Why would the Fighter use a crossbow? They would be better off using their hands and getting the full 6 attacks or picking up an improvised weapon or using an alternate weapon like a dagger, club, or short sword (over their primary long sword with shield or great sword/axe).


Well hit triangle and you will beat each enemy without much problems, unless Dolnald wants to mess things up again...

But seriously, to expect that you always get to be optimized at all times and you can blow through encounters is ridiculous if you are playing a game such as D&D.

Like in Last of Us, if you play on easy mode you will almost always have the items needed to make things you want or to shoot people. However when you up the difficulty, making things a bit more... Well realistic isn't the right word but I'll go with it... Sometime you run out of an item or you just can't use your most optimal stuff. What would you do then? Just sit there and cry until you was given optimal stuff?

In your three points you are essentially saying that a Fighter is always useful and is the most versatile class while wizards and rangers suck if they lose one option at their disposal. You also assume that the wizard only has Blasty spells, hell even evocation wizards will pick up other spells, scrolls, and wands.

Your argument assumes the worst case scenario for two subjects and the best case scenario for the other.

But you know, I guess I'm old school. I like to be challenged when I play d&d and not just hit triangle to win.

DM takes away my bow? Tumble in and use aid another to help the fighter, since the fighter is the main threat the enemy should attack him. If I can help the fighter seem more like a threat then I shouldn't get hit. If I'm a wizard (or any other character) and don't have a backup plan then that is my own damn fault for being so arrogant that I thought a one trick pony would work and that the DM would never think of challenging me.

Make sure your backup plan includes wands and scrolls and not crossbows if you hate crossbows so much. Or are backup plans not allowed because they aren't optimal?

Yep. I try to have a real fact filled argument and all my opposition can do is pull out straw men making up my opinions for me while knocking them down with insults. Typical.


Quoted for truth. I know only few people who enjoy godmoding as a playstyle, most of them prefer a real challenge.

Yep more of the same straw men of my opinion then knocking it down as if it were nonsense. It would be hilarious if you people weren't missing the point.

The fighter using a non-optimal weapon is still about 5x as useful as a Wizard without spells or an archer without a bow.

Archers are typically not build using high Con because they are meant to stay out of melee and never get hit. Melee fighters usually have a decent Con bonus because they are meant to stay in melee range and take hits (even if they are a damage dealing build, they still need to be able to take hits).

DM "you tumble in the aid the fighter and get hit with 3 opportunity attacks, you're dead, roll up another character."

Because wands and scrolls work in anti-magic zones (which is the only place a wizards spells don't work).

Just because some of us enjoy a different kind of difficulty (see "Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition" on sale for less than $10.00 now, for obstacle course like fun) does not mean that we are in God mode or hitting triangle. You don't see me calling 5E WoW because it uses random rolls to distribute magic items and insulting anyone that doesn't agree with me. You see me pulling out facts and math to dispute you. Please stop with the straw manning. If you don't fully understand my viewpoint ask me and I will gladly explain it in detail.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-20, 06:14 PM
Why would the Fighter use a crossbow? They would be better off using their hands and getting the full 6 attacks or picking up an improvised weapon or using an alternate weapon like a dagger, club, or short sword (over their primary long sword with shield or great sword/axe).



Yep. I try to have a real fact filled argument and all my opposition can do is pull out straw men making up my opinions for me while knocking them down with insults. Typical.



Yep more of the same straw men of my opinion then knocking it down as if it were nonsense. It would be hilarious if you people weren't missing the point.

The fighter using a non-optimal weapon is still about 5x as useful as a Wizard without spells or an archer without a bow.

Archers are typically not build using high Con because they are meant to stay out of melee and never get hit. Melee fighters usually have a decent Con bonus because they are meant to stay in melee range and take hits (even if they are a damage dealing build, they still need to be able to take hits).

DM "you tumble in the aid the fighter and get hit with 3 opportunity attacks, you're dead, roll up another character."

Because wands and scrolls work in anti-magic zones (which is the only place a wizards spells don't work).

Just because some of us enjoy a different kind of difficulty (see "Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition" on sale for less than $10.00 now, for obstacle course like fun) does not mean that we are in God mode or hitting triangle. You don't see me calling 5E WoW because it uses random rolls to distribute magic items and insulting anyone that doesn't agree with me. You see me pulling out facts and math to dispute you. Please stop with the straw manning. If you don't fully understand my viewpoint ask me and I will gladly explain it in detail.

Keep acting like this is high school debate and crying straw man all you want, I don't think anyone is buying it.

EvanWaters
2014-06-20, 06:22 PM
Keep acting like this is high school debate and crying straw man all you want, I don't think anyone is buying it.

Terms like "god mode" are pretty much strawmanning in reference to 4e.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-20, 09:07 PM
Terms like "god mode" are pretty much strawmanning in reference to 4e.

I have no clue what you are referencing at all.

captpike
2014-06-20, 10:19 PM
Keep acting like this is high school debate and crying straw man all you want, I don't think anyone is buying it.

if your unable to give a reason why you think he is wrong then you should just admit that he is right.

if your unwilling to do so, then don't waste everyone's time by posting.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-20, 11:04 PM
I am willing to give him that he is not wrong or right. I provided my example using the crossbow on purpose to demonstrate that all the base things make both characters equal. Same bonus to hit, same number of attacks, same damage potential.

I even went one step further and allowed the fighter multiple attacks and demonstrated that it is not as useful as initially conceptualized using math.

Instead of acknowledging what I was attempting to prove, the fact the warrior isn't using x instead is what people are focusing on. This proves to me that you take away only what you want from other posts. To me, that invalidates any argument or discussion we can have as what I am talking about will undoubtedly be ignored in lieu of furthering your own agenda. I refuse to continue participating.

captpike
2014-06-20, 11:43 PM
I am willing to give him that he is not wrong or right. I provided my example using the crossbow on purpose to demonstrate that all the base things make both characters equal. Same bonus to hit, same number of attacks, same damage potential.

I even went one step further and allowed the fighter multiple attacks and demonstrated that it is not as useful as initially conceptualized using math.

Instead of acknowledging what I was attempting to prove, the fact the warrior isn't using x instead is what people are focusing on. This proves to me that you take away only what you want from other posts. To me, that invalidates any argument or discussion we can have as what I am talking about will undoubtedly be ignored in lieu of furthering your own agenda. I refuse to continue participating.

the biggest problem with a bowless archer or a magicless wizard is not the mechanics, but the fact your forcing players to play characters other then they made.
if I made a caster I want to use magic, if I am playing an archer I want to use a bow. the system should not tell me I am not allowed to play my character. maybe I hate playing non-casters so I am playing a wizard. or I hate melee, so I am playing an archer.
this is true even if (somehow) a crossbow wizard was just as effective as a magic using one. and such a character had enough health and armor to survive in melee in a game with such low heath as 5e.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-20, 11:57 PM
the biggest problem with a bowless archer or a magicless wizard is not the mechanics, but the fact your forcing players to play characters other then they made.
if I made a caster I want to use magic, if I am playing an archer I want to use a bow. the system should not tell me I am not allowed to play my character. maybe I hate playing non-casters so I am playing a wizard. or I hate melee, so I am playing an archer.
this is true even if (somehow) a crossbow wizard was just as effective as a magic using one. and such a character had enough health and armor to survive in melee in a game with such low heath as 5e.

Oh cry me a river. Do you even read your own posts?

Well damn I guess spell slots aren't fair because the wizard can run out of them and then he won't be playing the character me made, someone that casts magic.

Knaight
2014-06-21, 01:49 AM
my archer is not a high dex character who sometimes uses a bow he is an ARCHER, that is what he does and who he is. sure once in a blue moon he may have to use a dagger, but no more then that.

...

I am not talking about stats, I am talking about the reason I rolled up a character. if I roll up an archer then I want to use a bow (or crossbow or whatever) I DON'T want to run up in melee, doing half the damage at half the accuracy that I should have because I am using a backup weapon for which I don't have the feats or items that I do my main weapon.

You do realize that actual historical archers - you know, the people the class is based on - routinely switched to melee weapons once in melee, on account of how bows don't really work in that context. This is before getting into how an archer in melee is suddenly not an archer and the concept is invalidated, which is abject nonsense.


no a wizard should NEVER be a place where they cant use any spells. no mater how long the day is, no mater who they are facing. should they sometimes fight people that they don't have the ideal spells for? sure. should they not always be the most important person in the party? for sure.

when you take away a spellcaster's spells you are not challenging them, you are turning them off, telling them they are not allowed to play and to go home.

the same goes for every other archetype, from archer to rogue, to fighter. there are times when they should not be as effective or have to do what they do differently, but it should not be more then that.
The fighter fights. The existence of noncombat content in a game means that they are doing things that aren't in their area of core competence (which would be fighting). The game routinely includes that. It's almost like the game is more interesting when people aren't constantly using their best skills over and over.

Though I will say that antimagic fields and the like are about the most tedious and hamhanded way to handle this sort of thing. That's along the lines of having the archer's quiver spontaneously combust for next to no reason.

captpike
2014-06-21, 02:28 AM
You do realize that actual historical archers - you know, the people the class is based on - routinely switched to melee weapons once in melee, on account of how bows don't really work in that context. This is before getting into how an archer in melee is suddenly not an archer and the concept is invalidated, which is abject nonsense.


The fighter fights. The existence of noncombat content in a game means that they are doing things that aren't in their area of core competence (which would be fighting). The game routinely includes that. It's almost like the game is more interesting when people aren't constantly using their best skills over and over.

Though I will say that antimagic fields and the like are about the most tedious and hamhanded way to handle this sort of thing. That's along the lines of having the archer's quiver spontaneously combust for next to no reason.

were D&D a game that was related to reality sure, you would have a point. it does not. "its not realistic" is the worst possible argument you can make for anything in D&D.

the fighter does not just fight, nor should he be the best at it. if he was then no one else would ever be needed. why get a wizard or a cleric or a rogue if the fighter was the best at everything in a fight?

everyone should have something to do in every pillar.


Oh cry me a river. Do you even read your own posts?

Well damn I guess spell slots aren't fair because the wizard can run out of them and then he won't be playing the character me made, someone that casts magic.


your right wizards should have more then daily powers, they should have at-wills (as should every class, of one sort or another) so that when the day gets long they can do something magic, something that is both useful and in keeping with the archetype of the class.

Knaight
2014-06-21, 03:31 AM
were D&D a game that was related to reality sure, you would have a point. it does not. "its not realistic" is the worst possible argument you can make for anything in D&D.

Try the entirety of the fantasy literature it's based on then. People having to do things they aren't actually good at is routine. It works just fine. Where it breaks down is if a particular part of the game takes an inordinately long time, and a character can't be involved in that part - in D&D this is combat, and having an outright noncombatant tends not to work. Still, in plenty of other systems noncombatants work just fine - they don't do much in fight scenes, though those can be pivotal moments for the character (almost like their struggles are more interesting than their easy successes), but they are short enough that it doesn't bench the player.

Lokiare
2014-06-21, 05:13 AM
I am willing to give him that he is not wrong or right. I provided my example using the crossbow on purpose to demonstrate that all the base things make both characters equal. Same bonus to hit, same number of attacks, same damage potential.

I even went one step further and allowed the fighter multiple attacks and demonstrated that it is not as useful as initially conceptualized using math.

Instead of acknowledging what I was attempting to prove, the fact the warrior isn't using x instead is what people are focusing on. This proves to me that you take away only what you want from other posts. To me, that invalidates any argument or discussion we can have as what I am talking about will undoubtedly be ignored in lieu of furthering your own agenda. I refuse to continue participating.

I pointed out that your starting assumptions were wrong, this completely invalidates any math you might use after that point. A fighter using a non-optimal weapon is not useless. An archer or Wizard without their favored tactics is nearly useless. Its also fine to include this in the game, occasionally to rarely, but doing it on a regular basis gets very tiring for certain play styles and fun types.

I've had these kinds of discussions with people on other forums. Most notably Dave on the WotC forum. We would both run the same math, but start with different assumptions and then he would try to tell me (and everyone else that would listen) that I was wrong and couldn't do math. Rather than examining where we got different results and why and trying to figure out how to reconcile the problems. In his case he though monsters would bunch up next to the fighter, but scatter when it was the wizard's turn so that the fighter could get 6+ attacks in on different creatures and the Wizard could only target 2-3 creatures in their burst spells.

You are making a similar assumption here. A fighter that is melee based is just going to charge up and either use an alternate weapon or pummel with their fists, both of which would be much more effective than an archer without a bow and a wizard without their magic.


Oh cry me a river. Do you even read your own posts?

Well damn I guess spell slots aren't fair because the wizard can run out of them and then he won't be playing the character me made, someone that casts magic.

Except as the other poster mentioned, they get at-will magic so the only way to strip a wizard entirely of spells would be something like an anti-magic shell or area. Which is like a ravenous pack of rust monsters to fighters.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-21, 07:45 AM
Except as the other poster mentioned, they get at-will magic so the only way to strip a wizard entirely of spells would be something like an anti-magic shell or area. Which is like a ravenous pack of rust monsters to fighters.

The point still stands though, you don't make a wizard to use Cantrip you make a wizard to cast spells. If you are only aloud to cast small spells and not the cool ones then the game is forcing you to play a character you didn't make.

Sometimes you have to go into an sub optimal situation using sub optimal items, information, tactics, or whatever. Because crap happens sometimes.

Batman had to Eal with his vision messing up when he faced the joker near the end of the second movie. A tool that he had that gave him advantage and allowed him to fight with his best abilities was stripped away. Batman wasn't qriten to just sulk and cry until the eyes sight was back on, he pushed on and tried his damnest to destroy Joker's plans. Without adversity all you get is a walk in the park, d&d isn't about walking in a park.

Rust monsters are pretty nasty but I always tend to keep a great club around for good measure. Then use the craft skill to make me some Rust Monster Armor after the fight :smallamused:

Roland St. Jude
2014-06-21, 08:05 AM
Sheriff: Locked for review. The impending release of a new edition is no excuse for violating the Forum Rules. Yet with each new release we lose posters who can't or won't keep it civil. Don't be one of those posters.