Final Playtest packet play through

[Lokiare]

I had a few people absent from my 4E game, so we decided to fire up 5E and start playing it from the final play test packet. One of the few I haven't personally play tested.

My players chose a Monk and a Arcane Archer Cleric (since the arcane archer feat doesn't specify wizard or cleric spells). We started at level 4 and I ran them through the opening adventure "Murder in Baldur's Gate" that is available from the WotC website from awhile back.

The things we noticed right away. One of the 2 HD murderers was able to take off half the hp of the Cleric in a single hit (they had 19 hp from rolling). The Cleric had previously imbued their arrows with all their slots of inflict wounds so 4 level 1 and 3 level 2 inflict wounds arrows. Due to not maxing out wisdom the DC of the Clerics saves was 12. The monk had a similar DC due to their scores. The monk chose the Wind Riposte for their maneuver and both of them used all their ki points / spell slots casted on arrows in the single fight with the crossbow murderers. This was due to even though they were hitting the crossbow murderers got a save on top of having a miss chance. So half the time the players missed and the other half they made their saves. After about 3/4 of the battle (which was taking as long as 4E battles because we used a grid) my players basically quit and said they want nothing to do with 5E.

The crossbow murderers had a 60% chance of making any save the players could throw at them and they had about a 35% chance of being missed by the players. This means the chance of actually landing a hit and the secondary effect was around 45%. Less than half a chance of a success. Level 1 crossbow murderers against level 4 characters! Not only that the hp issue was glaring. The players rolled a little low on their hp and ended up nearly getting one shotted by the level 1 mobs (and the mobs were per the module only shooting half their bolts at the party). If they had taken the default hp at each level they would have been at 31 instead of 19 hp but that's about 3-4 level 1 mob hits from death.

The conclusion I come to from this is that 5E is aimed at a very particular play style known as fantasy vietnam. This play style is all about rocket tag combat and first strikes (which the adventure automatically gives to the enemies). Its about the randomness of the dice and not about the choices you make. People who enjoy winning because of the choices they make rather than the random roll of the dice will not like 5E.

[1337 b4k4]

How did your thugs save 60% of the time? The best they have is a +1 to STR saves. At DC 12 from your cleric, the thugs should have only made their saves 40% of the time. And even when they made those saves, inflict wounds would have still dealt half damage. Additionally, while yes, the thugs had half cover in the windows, did you also account for your players having 3/4 cover in the crowd?

[obryn]

MiBG left me with a positive impression after reading it, but a very negative one after playing it. It's just not a very good adventure for the type of thing D&D - Next, included - is good at.

[INDYSTAR188]

MiBG left me with a positive impression after reading it, but a very negative one after playing it. It's just not a very good adventure for the type of thing D&D - Next, included - is good at.

Could you expand on this please? I generally agree with your opinions and am interested in your reasonings for saying that. Particularly, what were you thinking was good about the read-through and what about the playtest left you with a negative impression?

[da_chicken]

Personally I'm wondering how two 4th level characters both managed to roll 1, 1, 1 for their Hit Dice.

He says 31 hp is the average they'd have gotten if they took the average rolls. Clerics and Monks get 8 HP at level 1, 5 at subsequent levels. That's 8 + 5 + 5 + 5 = 23, leaving 8 from Con meaning they both have a +2 Con modifier.

He also says they both have 19 hp. Four levels of +2 Con = 8. First level is always maxed, so that's another 8. 19 - 16 = 3. You had two players roll 3 on 3d8? You should go buy a lottery ticket, you had a 1 in 262,144 chance for that to happen.

And, yes, Lokaire, if you're 4th level you can expect to survive about 4 hits before being killed. If the average attack deals 1d8+3 and an average Hit Die is 1d8+3, how many hits do you think a 4 HD character is going to take before dropping?

[1337 b4k4]

Could you expand on this please? I generally agree with your opinions and am interested in your reasonings for saying that. Particularly, what were you thinking was good about the read-through and what about the playtest left you with a negative impression?

I can't speak for Obryn, but reading through the adventure, I can see where this would be one that people don't like. The adventure relies fairly heavily on everything being completely out of control and some railroading (you can't save the Duke, and you can't stop the summoning of Bhaal). When the snipers show up, you're given exactly 3 rounds to deal with them and you might have to move up to 180 ft to engage them in melee (60 feet in the crowd, 30 feet upstairs all of it difficult terrain), which if you want to dispatch them is probably a good idea since they have 50% cover otherwise. After 3 rounds, the next phase (and more combatants) show up. 3 rounds later, the next phase begins. It's very clearly meant to give a feeling of complete chaos and a lack of control in a game where having control is a key component to winning fights. If you want your players (or your players want) to feel like big damn heroes, this adventure will not make them feel that way. This particular adventure was clearly designed to make your players feel like they barely survived certain death. In all, not a great adventure for showing off a new system.

[Kurald Galain]

I must say WOTC has quite the reputation for picking/writing horrible adventures for the first demonstration of a new system.

[Sartharina]

I must say WOTC has quite the reputation for picking/writing horrible adventures for the first demonstration of a new system.

And yet, Reclaiming Blingdenstone (An even earlier 5e playtest module) is absolutely awesome.

As for the 19 hit points thing - I think the game needs to emphasize that it works best with "Average" hit points per level - the hit dice mechanic, like the set of 6 3d6 Stats, is a "Sacred Cow" of D&D, and part of what made 4e feel like "Not D&D" (Though not a bad RPG).

[obryn]

Could you expand on this please? I generally agree with your opinions and am interested in your reasonings for saying that. Particularly, what were you thinking was good about the read-through and what about the playtest left you with a negative impression?
1337_b4k4 got a lot of it. Also, despite the choice of which faction to go with, there's still quite a railroad. Still, it comes across as very impressive. It's fairly deep and detailed, giving you a good idea of the city.

My problems with it were threefold:

(1) As a demonstration of a new system, it failed. The adventure is so system-less, you could have run it using Yahtzee rules and it would have mostly functioned. Talky/thinky stuff is important, but frankly, so is interaction with the game's rules.
(2) There's not nearly enough Dungeons (that is, exploring dangerous environments) or Dragons (facing off against dangerous enemies).
(3) It quickly turns into a write-your-own adventure. By the midpoint, I was thinking, "Gosh, what an interesting series of events for my players to ... um ... watch unfold around them?" I was improvising new stuff, like ghoul fights and such, which is fine but not really what I paid $30 for.

I left the adventure knowing very little about why I'd want to run Next. And keep in mind - around that time, August I think, I saw some germs of good ideas in the most recent playtest doc and was actually excited to give it a try. That excitement pretty much fizzled by the end of it, and I think I would have been much better off running a more traditional adventure.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

And yet, Reclaiming Blingdenstone (An even earlier 5e playtest module) is absolutely awesome.

As for the 19 hit points thing - I think the game needs to emphasize that it works best with "Average" hit points per level - the hit dice mechanic, like the set of 6 3d6 Stats, is a "Sacred Cow" of D&D, and part of what made 4e feel like "Not D&D" (Though not a bad RPG).

Reclaiming Blingdenstone was pretty awesome, though what I liked the most was it was a dungeoncrawl, with the videogame element of having NPCs in your dungeon crawl.

Like in FF where you are going through a dungeon or whatever and you run across a moogle or Oaka or another merchant that happens to be selling items or there to offer advice or just chat.

Makes the dungeoncrawl feel more involved with the world, like yeah the party is the heroes but there are other people in the world who might show up you know?

[Sartharina]

When my group ran Reclaiming Blingdenstone, aside from a few zones, we didn't treat it as a dungeon crawl (Partially because it was over a chat client) - at least not what I usually think of as Dungeon Crawl (Mapping, paying attention to room size and minutia, etc) - Sure, it was underground, but we treated it more like an overworld with restricted pathways. We had the 'secure' areas making up the 'central town" (And a few gates), tunnels were pretty much like wilderness travel, and the other chambers were essentially Points of Interest. Instead, it was a fun adventure of exploration, politics, cool fights, puzzles (Okay, so I didn't like the chain of deals, and the game didn't have any advice for how to handle the players causing a riot in the big city-place by going all murderhobos of justice on it)

Also - I'm glad Obryn clarified what he meant by it feeling "Systemless", because I was thinking on the matter. Had it been "It doesn't feel any different if you're using OD&D, AD&D, 2e, 3e, or 4e" rules, that would have been a bonus - it means that the system is still D&D (Something that a lot of people feel 4e failed). However, if running it with World of Darkness, Savage Worlds, GURPS,

And contrary to most of captpike's arguments, D&D isn't and cannot be a "A generic fantasy system for everyone for all playstyles out-of-the-box". There are two reasons for such a misconception, though:
1. D&D was the first TTRPG, so almost all other RPGs tend to be defined by their similarities and contrasts to it. There are a few very niche systems that aren't, and most are new.
2. Before D&D, every fantasy story was pretty unique and stand-alone. D&D mashed them all together and codified Fantasy - it's not a Generic Fantasy, it's a Kitchen Sink fantasy that can be pared down or filled in more.
3. Because D&D was the first RPG system, it didn't have any real defining features until competitors came along with their own offshoots - and so the 'core experience" D&D Next has to reiterate and double-down on to stand as its own system is "ALL THE THINGS!", ranging from rules-light heavily-houseruled crazy nonsense fun to overly-codified strict-by-RAW by-the-books munchkinry, and gritty fantasy of desperate murderhobos trying to steal treasure from monsters they can't beat without heavy preparation to sprawling heroic adventures where mighty warriors defeat hordes of goblins and kill gods and right wrongs, and dragons range from loathsome worms that come in packs to majestic demigods of incredible power.

[Lokiare]

Personally I'm wondering how two 4th level characters both managed to roll 1, 1, 1 for their Hit Dice.

He says 31 hp is the average they'd have gotten if they took the average rolls. Clerics and Monks get 8 HP at level 1, 5 at subsequent levels. That's 8 + 5 + 5 + 5 = 23, leaving 8 from Con meaning they both have a +2 Con modifier.

He also says they both have 19 hp. Four levels of +2 Con = 8. First level is always maxed, so that's another 8. 19 - 16 = 3. You had two players roll 3 on 3d8? You should go buy a lottery ticket, you had a 1 in 262,144 chance for that to happen.

And, yes, Lokaire, if you're 4th level you can expect to survive about 4 hits before being killed. If the average attack deals 1d8+3 and an average Hit Die is 1d8+3, how many hits do you think a 4 HD character is going to take before dropping?

Yes, I mentioned it was extreme bad luck, however I did show the math for the average hp. It is extremely swingy. The play style my group likes best is where player choices and tactics determine outcomes. 5E is more about rolling high on dice or finagling the DM into giving you advantage or letting you do things.

The main problems I saw right away was that if you have low level characters fighting low level monsters in an equal fight (about what the xp chart says makes an average encounter) then you have chances for people to die before they even act.

Then if you have high level characters going against the appropriate amount of low level creatures you have just as much chance of dying from a few extra attacks. So you might survive a round or two, but that's about it.

The other problem I saw is the binary feel to saves. Most spells/maneuvers are set up to where you either pass or fail and either do something or nothing happens. The Cleric got lucky and dealt half damage on the Inflict Wounds spells they hit with, but because of their miss chance with the trap option of the arcane archer feat, they lost out on several half damages from the spells. The monsters rolled well on their saves so the monk literally did nothing. He would spend a ki point to try to do the Wind Riposte, but they passed the check and nothing important happened. They got pushed back a few feet and simply moved up and attacked on their turn again.

Overall I remain with my previous conclusion: 5E is for a very narrow play style that does not include "Obstacle course as fun" which is the play style my group uses.

[1337 b4k4]

The play style my group likes best is where player choices and tactics determine outcomes. 5E is more about rolling high on dice or finagling the DM into giving you advantage or letting you do things.

It sounds to me like your player choices and tactics did determine the outcome. Unless you left something out, your players chose to engage ranged enemies with cover at range as opposed to trying to neutralize the advantages that cover gave your opponents. That made your fight against those ranged enemies very difficult. Your cleric also chose to trade range on the spells they had for better hit chances. For example, had your cleric chosen to retain one hold person spell, they would have been able to take a a creature out of the fight. At least until they made their save.



The Cleric got lucky and dealt half damage on the Inflict Wounds spells they hit with, but because of their miss chance with the trap option of the arcane archer feat, they lost out on several half damages from the spells.

Out of curiosity, why do you call arcane archer a "trap option"? You still get the normal damage from the arrow and you get the spell effects. Yes, you add a miss chance to the spells, but in exchange, you increase the range of your spell by 100% or more. For example, your cleric could have imbued the arrows with "cause fear" which normally has a 10ft range but would instead have been able to be launched into the windows and affected any enemies within 10ft of the impact point instead.

[captpike]

Out of curiosity, why do you call arcane archer a "trap option"? You still get the normal damage from the arrow and you get the spell effects. Yes, you add a miss chance to the spells, but in exchange, you increase the range of your spell by 100% or more. For example, your cleric could have imbued the arrows with "cause fear" which normally has a 10ft range but would instead have been able to be launched into the windows and affected any enemies within 10ft of the impact point instead.

were I to guess I would say because you need to pass two rolls for your spell to work.

even if both have good chances to work the odds that it will work is not good, and you are vulnerable to creatures with good AC or with a good save in what your attacking.

even PF learned this and all the ranged touched stuff (or most) does not have a save in addition to the attack roll

[1337 b4k4]

were I to guess I would say because you need to pass two rolls for your spell to work.

even if both have good chances to work the odds that it will work is not good, and you are vulnerable to creatures with good AC or with a good save in what your attacking.

even PF learned this and all the ranged touched stuff (or most) does not have a save in addition to the attack roll

But that's only true if you choose a spell that requires a save. Nothing about arcane archer required the choice of inflict wounds.

[da_chicken]

I would say Arcane Archer is a trap at low level. There are very few spells below 3rd level that I'd consider worthwhile on any spell list for use with Arcane Archer (touch spells like darkness, chill touch, et al being exceptions). I would also say that dumping your entire spell pool into arrows is also hugely risky. That's eggs and baskets all around.

Overall, I'd say his players rolled uniquely poorly for hit points, then the cleric selected a high risk build, played it in a high risk manner, and the party continued to roll very poorly and the DM rolled well. I would expect the game to feel like rocket tag in this situation.

Beyond that I'd say your players got in to combat and found it to be *gasp* incredibly dangerous when things go wrong.

To me that sounds like a good combat with bad luck, but I recognize others might prefer more of a safety net.

[captpike]

But that's only true if you choose a spell that requires a save. Nothing about arcane archer required the choice of inflict wounds.

it's still a trap option "sure you can use any spell.....but the ones with saves are all but worthless"

the least they should do is clearly label this. after all feats are huge deals, spending one on something and finding out you would have been better off with nothing is not good

also there is no real reason they cant say either "any spell cast on an arrow automatically hits/the target fails their save" or "you roll to hit with the arrow only the spell".

there is no reason to make you roll twice to do the same action. it takes too much time, it can screw with the math, and it adds a level of system mastery that is not good (knowing that two 60% chances to hit=bad odds of hitting)

[Chaosvii7]

MiBG left me with a positive impression after reading it, but a very negative one after playing it. It's just not a very good adventure for the type of thing D&D - Next, included - is good at.

Personally I loved MiBG(granted, 4e, but we basically didn't do combat) because I ran it with one other person at my store, where we basically did nothing but roleplay for two and a half hours. I was a Tiefling Bard and my friend was a Swordmage(I think he was elven). We mostly ran errands, talked our way through things, and did really fun sets of skill challenges. I will admit that the plot was a little all over the place - We actually killed all of the assassins in the Game Day adventure so the Duke didn't die, but he still ended up disappearing, which basically constituted the same plot(I wouldn't call that an oversight myself, but maybe don't name your Encounters season after something that is actually played out in an encounter, but can be prevented by a party of 3rd-level characters. :smalltongue:). We managed to stop the riot and the bombs and become heroes of Baldur's Gate, and still had to fight at the end(which was tough as nails because after 11 weeks we'd forgotten how to do conventional combat. :smalltongue:) I liked it because the way we played it gave it more flavor and brought a lot more life into it - a lot of the fights were optional and even when we were down a third player the two of us talked our way through it all well and good, and it felt really rewarding to still be adventurous without having to pick fights like a gang of murderhobos.


it's still a trap option "sure you can use any spell.....but the ones with saves are all but worthless"

the least they should do is clearly label this. after all feats are huge deals, spending one on something and finding out you would have been better off with nothing is not good

also there is no real reason they cant say either "any spell cast on an arrow automatically hits/the target fails their save" or "you roll to hit with the arrow only the spell".

Yes and no? They don't have to spell every possible tactic out for you - They should definitely remind you that "If an Arcane Archer fires an arrow that has a spell which requires a saving throw to affect it's target, then the target of the arrow must also succeed on the saving throw associated with the spell for it to take effect", but they shouldn't say "By the way, if you want to use this arrow don't bother with saving throws because it makes using this feat harder!"

I however would not mind Arcane Archer turning a spell into a ranged attack, but if that were the case I'd want it to eliminate the arrow aspect so all you'd be doing is turning spells into attacks. That'd actually be a big boon to gish builds, because their attack bonuses can scale a little better than saves can, but there'd have to be a somewhat fair limiting factor to it because it does give spells another aspect, because attacks do scale better than saving throws in this edition.

[Sartharina]

Does an arcane archer HAVE to dump all his spells into arrows?

[captpike]

Yes and no? They don't have to spell every possible tactic out for you - They should definitely remind you that "If an Arcane Archer fires an arrow that has a spell which requires a saving throw to affect it's target, then the target of the arrow must also succeed on the saving throw associated with the spell for it to take effect", but they shouldn't say "By the way, if you want to use this arrow don't bother with saving throws because it makes using this feat harder!"

I however would not mind Arcane Archer turning a spell into a ranged attack, but if that were the case I'd want it to eliminate the arrow aspect so all you'd be doing is turning spells into attacks. That'd actually be a big boon to gish builds, because their attack bonuses can scale a little better than saves can, but there'd have to be a somewhat fair limiting factor to it because it does give spells another aspect, because attacks do scale better than saving throws in this edition.

they are putting a feat in the game that under a large number of circumstance is worse then useless. then they should spell those out with as much clarity as possible. "harder" is ok, but Turning a spell that will work 60% of the time to one that will only work 36% (60% chance to hit, 60% chance to save) of the time is different.
that should be spelled out clearly, with the math layed out.

or they could fix it of course.

using arcane archer has to be a net gain in most cases, otherwise its a waste of a feat. simply turning a spell into a ranged attack is not enough, its a sidegrade not an upgrade. it might even be worse because you have to put them in arrows, so you don't have the flexibility you use to have.

also keep in mind the feat would have to work form those who always put all their spells into arrows, and those who only put two or three into arrows. different playstyles and all that.

[Thrudd]

Does an arcane archer HAVE to dump all his spells into arrows?

Of course not. That was a poor decision on the part of the player. At the expense of an unsuccessful adventure, the group has discovered something which is tactically inefficient and/or a feat which wasn't really play-ready (it is a playtest packet, afterall). Reading the rules and thinking about it for a minute would have also allowed the player to reach that conclusion, but sometimes people are just enamored of a concept so much that they ignore the rules and the math until it is too late.

[da_chicken]

they are putting a feat in the game that under a large number of circumstance is worse then useless. then they should spell those out with as much clarity as possible. "harder" is ok, but Turning a spell that will work 60% of the time to one that will only work 36% (60% chance to hit, 60% chance to save) of the time is different.
that should be spelled out clearly, with the math layed out.

or they could fix it of course.

using arcane archer has to be a net gain in most cases, otherwise its a waste of a feat. simply turning a spell into a ranged attack is not enough, its a sidegrade not an upgrade. it might even be worse because you have to put them in arrows, so you don't have the flexibility you use to have.

also keep in mind the feat would have to work form those who always put all their spells into arrows, and those who only put two or three into arrows. different playstyles and all that.

Inflict Wounds is a phenomenally bad choice of a spell for Arcane Archer. The spell is already range 25 feet, and it offers a save. It's precisely the wrong spell to use. You want single target spells that don't offer a save, or area effect spells.

The true power of the feat is not from the ability to increase the range of the spell, it's from the ability to get multiple spells off. For example, if you have both Archery Mastery and Arcane Archer as a Mage, you can prepare multiple arrows with fireball. Since you have Archery Mastery, you're able to fire two arrows in a single attack.

The feat itself is fairly loosely worded. It just says when the arrow hits that you "resolve the effects of the spell". If we're talking acid arrow, do I have to roll another attack? I wouldn't think so, but what about single target spells with saves then? It's also not clear if you actually have to fire the arrows, or if you just imbue them. Creating a quiver of fireball arrows that your party Fighter uses to rain death down upon the enemy seems fairly powerful. Giving one fireball arrow to everybody in the entire party also seems potentially too good. I question if that's what the design intent is.

The more I read the feats, the more I see them as very hit and miss still and many of them are badly templated. I'm a little worried we won't see them cleaned up for final release.

[1337 b4k4]

it's still a trap option "sure you can use any spell.....but the ones with saves are all but worthless"


And where by "worthless" you mean "works exactly the same way it did in 4e" right? Because pretty much exactly how spells like "sleep" worked in 4e. You roll once to hit and get a minor effect (in 4e, it was slow, in this it's actual damage) and then you roll again to get the effect you really want (sleep).


That doesn't mean I couldn't see altering it so that any creature hit by the arrow in question automatically fails their save, but that would need to be balanced by losing the spell if you miss with the arrow, which would probably have some odd side effects with area of effect spells.

[Sartharina]

they are putting a feat in the game that under a large number of circumstance is worse then useless. then they should spell those out with as much clarity as possible. "harder" is ok, but Turning a spell that will work 60% of the time to one that will only work 36% (60% chance to hit, 60% chance to save) of the time is different.
that should be spelled out clearly, with the math layed out.

or they could fix it of course.

using arcane archer has to be a net gain in most cases, otherwise its a waste of a feat. simply turning a spell into a ranged attack is not enough, its a sidegrade not an upgrade. it might even be worse because you have to put them in arrows, so you don't have the flexibility you use to have.

also keep in mind the feat would have to work form those who always put all their spells into arrows, and those who only put two or three into arrows. different playstyles and all that.

It is a net gain - it allows you to pack two actions into a single one. It allows you to apply a spell at a much greater range than you normally could. And, if you hit with the arrow, you also do full arrow damage. He just made a bad choice - and even then, it wasn't a complete waste. If the arrow hits, they get to save against it as though they were shot with an arrow, then had a spell cast on them.

And for your last point - no, no they don't. A person who wants to put all their spells into arrows can choose spells that aren't as functional without the range or damage of an arrow.

[captpike]

And where by "worthless" you mean "works exactly the same way it did in 4e" right? Because pretty much exactly how spells like "sleep" worked in 4e. You roll once to hit and get a minor effect (in 4e, it was slow, in this it's actual damage) and then you roll again to get the effect you really want (sleep).


That doesn't mean I couldn't see altering it so that any creature hit by the arrow in question automatically fails their save, but that would need to be balanced by losing the spell if you miss with the arrow, which would probably have some odd side effects with area of effect spells.

there is a reason spells like sleep were rare in 4e. they also tend to be area spells (so if you save it for 2-3 creatures odds are it will work once) and you always get something out of it. mainly slow.

the purpose of the spell sleep is NOT to make everything it attacks unconscious its to slow everything in the area. then you have a chance to make some targets unconscious.

when you are an arcane archer and you put a spell on an arrow most of the time you will do nothing with it. you would need a 70% to hit, then a 70% chance for the target to fail their save to even have an even chance for spells with saves.

its only a net gain to use the feat if the target fails their save after being hit. and if they don't fix the math that will happen so rarely that the feat itself will be a trap option.

the purpose of the feat is to allow the "arcane archer" playstyle to exist, one of the most basic things to do this is to let you put all your spells in your arrows and then have you be more powerful then you were before you did it.

[1337 b4k4]

there is a reason spells like sleep were rare in 4e. they also tend to be area spells (so if you save it for 2-3 creatures odds are it will work once) and you always get something out of it. mainly slow.

Just about every spell (and for that matter effect) in 4e worked the same way. Roll to attack and then your opponent gets to save for the condition.


the purpose of the spell sleep is NOT to make everything it attacks unconscious its to slow everything in the area. then you have a chance to make some targets unconscious.

Seems like they should have named it "drowsy" then...



when you are an arcane archer and you put a spell on an arrow most of the time you will do nothing with it. you would need a 70% to hit, then a 70% chance for the target to fail their save to even have an even chance for spells with saves.

You do realize that a large chunk (if not the majority) of spells in the playtest that give your opponent a save still have an effect on save right? Even Lokaires cleric should still have been doing 1d6 + (3d8|4d8)/2 damage on a save. That's hardly worthless.



the purpose of the feat is to allow the "arcane archer" playstyle to exist, one of the most basic things to do this is to let you put all your spells in your arrows and then have you be more powerful then you were before you did it.

Lokaire's cleric was dealing on average (assuming every thug made their save every time, and they only used 1st level slots for the inflict wounds) 6.5 extra damage per shot, for a total average of 10 damage per arrow. How is that not by definition more powerful than the arrow alone (1d6) or the spell alone (3d8/2) (http://anydice.com/program/3db9)? And for the record, those thugs have 9 HP which means on average, the cleric should have been one shotting them, and from time to time requiring 2 arrows. By comparison, shooting arrows alone, the cleric would need about 3 rounds on average to dispatch each thug, and slinging spells alone would need 2.

[captpike]

Lokaire's cleric was dealing on average (assuming every thug made their save every time, and they only used 1st level slots for the inflict wounds) 6.5 extra damage per shot, for a total average of 10 damage per arrow. How is that not by definition more powerful than the arrow alone (1d6) or the spell alone (3d8/2) (http://anydice.com/program/3db9)? And for the record, those thugs have 9 HP which means on average, the cleric should have been one shotting them, and from time to time requiring 2 arrows. By comparison, shooting arrows alone, the cleric would need about 3 rounds on average to dispatch each thug, and slinging spells alone would need 2.

if you did not run out of spells yes. but given how inaccurate they are now you would be better off firing the spells and arrows separately.

if you have 10 spells, and normally 6 of them would have full effect then when you put them in arrows only 3 would have full effect. I don't see that as being worth it in the long haul.
if you know you were only going to be doing one fight sure.

in short if they want arcane archer to work they need to either take away the attack roll or the save. having both causes too many issues.

[1337 b4k4]

if you did not run out of spells yes. but given how inaccurate they are now you would be better off firing the spells and arrows separately.

Other than the whole multiple rounds thing. If (as Lokaire stated) the thugs are dealing 1/4 - 1/2 your HP with successful hits, you want whatever is going to take the least number of rounds to dispatch your enemies. If you have more cover or more HP and can soak some damage then you would choose to cast your spells individually. In other words, your choices and tactics matter. Choosing to imbue your arrows with spells is not always the best choice for every situation and every spell, which is exactly as it should be, otherwise we'd hear no end of complaining about how arcane archer is a required feat for any self respecting wizard / cleric and a feat tax.



if you have 10 spells, and normally 6 of them would have full effect then when you put them in arrows only 3 would have full effect. I don't see that as being worth it in the long haul.
if you know you were only going to be doing one fight sure.

Sure, if you're going to use only spells that give you opponent a save, and you're going to be fighting within the normal range of the spell in question then yes, putting all of your spells on the arrows is a bad idea. Your choices make a difference, which includes knowing which choices for a given scenario are bad choices. In other news, equipping your sword of eternal flame while going up against fire elementals is also a bad idea.



in short if they want arcane archer to work they need to either take away the attack roll or the save. having both causes too many issues.

It works just fine. Lokaire's players made bad tactical choices. The feat selection wasn't the issue.

[Thrudd]

Also, lest everyone forget, the purpose of a playtest is to try things out and report back about what worked and what didn't. It purposefully included things that may have had bad math, that had never been tried out, and unrefined concepts that they wanted to gauge people's responses to. WoTC acknowledged that they hadn't even started working on "the math" yet as of the last playtest, they were going to do that in-house afterwards.

I would say this was a successful playtest, had it been reported to the designers as was asked. Clearly, there is interest in the "arcane archer" concept. They would see that there's someone who wants arcane archer to work, but found something might need to be tweaked in the math or the language of the feat to make it perform the way they expected. Negative results in an experiment are as important as positive ones. The only way this was a waste was if the play testers did not actually report the results of their experiment to the designers. Even if the only feedback was "this wasn't enough like 4e and we didn't like it", it would have impacted the direction of the game's design if enough people had said that early enough.

[Fwiffo86]

it's still a trap option "sure you can use any spell.....but the ones with saves are all but worthless"

the least they should do is clearly label this. after all feats are huge deals, spending one on something and finding out you would have been better off with nothing is not good

also there is no real reason they cant say either "any spell cast on an arrow automatically hits/the target fails their save" or "you roll to hit with the arrow only the spell".

there is no reason to make you roll twice to do the same action. it takes too much time, it can screw with the math, and it adds a level of system mastery that is not good (knowing that two 60% chances to hit=bad odds of hitting)

*snickers* I love Arcane Archer for this very reason. Its a benefit, but its not guaranteed. You get to increase the range of any spell (touch on up), but at the risk of missing. That is an even trade. Taking out the save throw consideration entirely when you compare it. You may see what I'm talking about.

But if your problem is that spells having save throws are all but worthless, come, lets play a game where you don't get a save throw against my fireball. I don't need to roll to hit, just pick where it explodes and you take damage. I like this method of thinking. What works for Arcane Archery should work for normal spells.

[captpike]

Also, lest everyone forget, the purpose of a playtest is to try things out and report back about what worked and what didn't. It purposefully included things that may have had bad math, that had never been tried out, and unrefined concepts that they wanted to gauge people's responses to. WoTC acknowledged that they hadn't even started working on "the math" yet as of the last playtest, they were going to do that in-house afterwards.

I would say this was a successful playtest, had it been reported to the designers as was asked. Clearly, there is interest in the "arcane archer" concept. They would see that there's someone who wants arcane archer to work, but found something might need to be tweaked in the math or the language of the feat to make it perform the way they expected. Negative results in an experiment are as important as positive ones. The only way this was a waste was if the play testers did not actually report the results of their experiment to the designers. Even if the only feedback was "this wasn't enough like 4e and we didn't like it", it would have impacted the direction of the game's design if enough people had said that early enough.

the worrisome part is that the problem with requiring two rolls to do something is something they should have know about. its like the gish issue. they seam to be making the same mistakes over again.

[Fwiffo86]

the purpose of the spell sleep is NOT to make everything it attacks unconscious its to slow everything in the area. then you have a chance to make some targets unconscious.


Then the spell should have been named "SLOW" and has no unconscious effect. When I cast SLEEP, I'm attempting to put something to sleep, not slow it down. I want it stopped, and prevented from taking actions. Period. Slowing sounds like a "sorry they made their save, here, we feel bad for you, so they get slowed instead, because we don't want you to feel like you did nothing this turn" sort of mentality.

[captpike]

*snickers* I love Arcane Archer for this very reason. Its a benefit, but its not guaranteed. You get to increase the range of any spell (touch on up), but at the risk of missing. That is an even trade. Taking out the save throw consideration entirely when you compare it. You may see what I'm talking about.

But if your problem is that spells having save throws are all but worthless, come, lets play a game where you don't get a save throw against my fireball. I don't need to roll to hit, just pick where it explodes and you take damage. I like this method of thinking. What works for Arcane Archery should work for normal spells.

having a save is fine, having an attack roll is fine. having both means you have almost no chance of the spell going off.

the problem is that arcane archer cant just be a sidegrade, it must be a not small upgrade in almost all cases to be worth a feat. feats are big deals in 5e, much bigger then 3e or 4e.

[Kurald Galain]

Then the spell should have been named "SLOW" and has no unconscious effect. When I cast SLEEP, I'm attempting to put something to sleep, not slow it down. I want it stopped, and prevented from taking actions. Period. Slowing sounds like a "sorry they made their save, here, we feel bad for you, so they get slowed instead, because we don't want you to feel like you did nothing this turn" sort of mentality.

Obviously. A spell named "sleep" should put people to sleep, a spell named "fireball" should produce a ball of fire, and a spell named "finger of death" should kill people outright. I don't see what's so difficult about that. None of this "technically but not really" stuff please.

[da_chicken]

Obviously. A spell named "sleep" should put people to sleep, a spell named "fireball" should produce a ball of fire, and a spell named "finger of death" should kill people outright. I don't see what's so difficult about that. None of this "technically but not really" stuff please.

Now, now, clearly finger of death kills only one finger. It's deadly because it might be gangrenous! You could die of blood poisoning.

[hellmonkeyd2]

My players have a bard using Arcane Archer plus Thunder Wave and Sound Burst. That way even if he misses it stands to reason the spell would still go off wherever the arrow lands. My wizard player even worked with me to create a warmage feat that allows for medium armor and a melee equivalent spell delivery system.

for anyone who happens to be interested in it: the feat grants light armor prof., martial weapon prof., and melee spell delivery.

[obryn]

the worrisome part is that the problem with requiring two rolls to do something is something they should have know about. its like the gish issue. they seam to be making the same mistakes over again.
Why, exactly, do you think they didn't know this?

It seems obvious to me. It's a great option for some spells (those without a save), and a way to get a lot of extra distance on others (but at a cost).

[unwise]

Personally, the way we play Arcane Archer is probably a bit more PC friendly.

1) If you miss with the arrow, the spell is not expended if it targetted one person, you need to go and pick up the arrow and you can use it again.
2) You can un-attune an unused arrow and get the spell slot back, but it takes a little while. We did not like the feel of an arcane archer effectively losing out on their utility abilities.
3) If you miss with the arrow, we just randomly determine where it went. An AE spell will still likely go off an hurt people. A fireball that hits the wall behind somebody is still effective. Same with Darkness etc.

I think that having to go and pick up your arrow again at the end of hte fight is a fine price to pay for the extra damage and range of a 1 target spell. The fact that AEs go off regardless, I really don't see the issue with missing more with an arcane archer.

We found that the extra damage from the arrow attacks was more of a consideration than even the range. Out 'archer' was a halfling who enruned stones with the spells and hurled them at the enemies. This worked well with his halfling reroll for the really important spells.

In effect though, the party only ever wanted the guy to use Silence and Darkness; they are sneaky buggers.

[captpike]

Why, exactly, do you think they didn't know this?

It seems obvious to me. It's a great option for some spells (those without a save), and a way to get a lot of extra distance on others (but at a cost).

if they knew about that issue that means they want arcane archer to be a sidegrade. that you have to have good system master to not use in such a way as to not make it a downgrade. not an upgrade even though it costs something very important.

that means they either don't want feats to be important (contray to what they have said, and the system says), or they don't want that feat to be good (they want trap feats).

I guess its possible but that would mean they actively want the game to fail.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Personally, the way we play Arcane Archer is probably a bit more PC friendly.

1) If you miss with the arrow, the spell is not expended if it targetted one person, you need to go and pick up the arrow and you can use it again.
2) You can un-attune an unused arrow and get the spell slot back, but it takes a little while. We did not like the feel of an arcane archer effectively losing out on their utility abilities.
3) If you miss with the arrow, we just randomly determine where it went. An AE spell will still likely go off an hurt people. A fireball that hits the wall behind somebody is still effective. Same with Darkness etc.

I think that having to go and pick up your arrow again at the end of hte fight is a fine price to pay for the extra damage and range of a 1 target spell. The fact that AEs go off regardless, I really don't see the issue with missing more with an arcane archer.

We found that the extra damage from the arrow attacks was more of a consideration than even the range. Out 'archer' was a halfling who enruned stones with the spells and hurled them at the enemies. This worked well with his halfling reroll for the really important spells.

In effect though, the party only ever wanted the guy to use Silence and Darkness; they are sneaky buggers.


Please tell me that an enemy Arcane Archer be able to pick up the arrow and fire it back :smalltongue:

Could be fun...

[1337 b4k4]

Personally, the way we play Arcane Archer is probably a bit more PC friendly.

1) If you miss with the arrow, the spell is not expended if it targetted one person, you need to go and pick up the arrow and you can use it again.
2) You can un-attune an unused arrow and get the spell slot back, but it takes a little while. We did not like the feel of an arcane archer effectively losing out on their utility abilities.
3) If you miss with the arrow, we just randomly determine where it went. An AE spell will still likely go off an hurt people. A fireball that hits the wall behind somebody is still effective. Same with Darkness etc.


The feat states the spell only dissipates on an attack that hits and that AE spells don't need to hit a creature to fire. So 1 is already in the feat, and 3 is largely there. So these all seem perfectly reasonable. The only real thing is the discrepancy between an AR spell that goes off on a miss and the non AE spell that doesn't.


if they knew about that issue that means they want arcane archer to be a sidegrade. that you have to have good system master to not use in such a way as to not make it a downgrade. not an upgrade even though it costs something very important.

Knowing that turning a spell from a guaranteed hit to a ranged attack will reduce the chance of hitting with the spell is now considered "good system mastery"? Really?

[captpike]

Knowing that turning a spell from a guaranteed hit to a ranged attack will reduce the chance of hitting with the spell is now considered "good system mastery"? Really?

you would have to know how the math for two attack rolls work, most people would hear "70% chance to hit, 60% chance for them to fail their save" and think the math is on their side...it is not

it is in fact so not on their side that for a great many spells it would be better to not use the feat.

if that is their goal they need to spell it out so you don't have people taking the feat and hurting their character for it.

although even if it was made as clear as possible it is still too weak for a feat in 5e.

[obryn]

if they knew about that issue that means they want arcane archer to be a sidegrade. that you have to have good system master to not use in such a way as to not make it a downgrade. not an upgrade even though it costs something very important.

that means they either don't want feats to be important (contray to what they have said, and the system says), or they don't want that feat to be good (they want trap feats).

I guess its possible but that would mean they actively want the game to fail.
You are really stretching here.

I mean, look. I get being skeptical about Next. Lord knows I am, and so are probably 90%+ of the posters here. But Arcane Archer = "actively wanting the game to fail?" Come on.

[unwise]

A friend just told me about a funny game he had. The Arcane Archer also had Archery Mastery. He would use the "two attacks at -5" to lay down two AE spells in the one turn. I imagine things like Web + a damaging one could be funny. Being hit by two Fireballs a turn would be pretty nasty too at higher levels.

A multi-class Fighter/Mage AA would get a second attack and be able to do this sort of thing without the (otherwise pretty crappy) Archery Mastery feat. Normally you really want to spend two spells a turn, but a controlling spell plus a damaging one can be pretty nice together. A Firewall/Web/Grease + Stinking Cloud/Cloud of Death/Flame Sphere etc.

In the game he mentioned, the bard did a minor illusion and a great bluff/intimidate to make enemies think he was going to swallow their souls. The hidden AA then fired off Darkness and Silence. Imagine being confronted by a spectre like creature that says it will devour your soul, then being completely encased in silence and darkness. Terrifying to say the least.

[captpike]

You are really stretching here.

I mean, look. I get being skeptical about Next. Lord knows I am, and so are probably 90%+ of the posters here. But Arcane Archer = "actively wanting the game to fail?" Come on.

that is why I dont think they knew how the math would work out, because there is no reason to know it would be that screwed up and still keep it.

[Sartharina]

having a save is fine, having an attack roll is fine. having both means you have almost no chance of the spell going off.

the problem is that arcane archer cant just be a sidegrade, it must be a not small upgrade in almost all cases to be worth a feat. feats are big deals in 5e, much bigger then 3e or 4e.

30% is not "Almost no chance" (Because it's only half the chance the spell would have had otherwise), and it doesn't make the arrow any less painful.

And it is still strictly an upgrade on any spell that doesn't require a save.

Also - you're completely overlooking the fact that it can combine two or three, four, or five actions into one (Cast a spell, attack, and secondary attack, and any split attacks with Archer Mastery).

A better idea might be to have the spell still go off if it misses by less than 5 - While the arrow doesn't hurt you, it either made contact with your armor/weapon/shield or got too close and allowed the spell to discharge into you.

And - they've stated they don't care if the math works in the packets they gave us. That's not what we're testing. What we were testing is whether it feels right or wrong that someone hit by a magical arrow should be able to resist the spell.

I know I'd be pissed as hell if my High-CON, moderately-poor AC fighter with advantage and proficiency with Constitution Saves got hit by an Arrow imbued with Petrifying Touch and wasn't permitted to make a saving throw to resist it, given that under normal circumstances my character would have had a 0% chance of being affected by that spell.

[captpike]

30% is not "Almost no chance" (Because it's only half the chance the spell would have had otherwise), and it doesn't make the arrow any less painful.

And it is still strictly an upgrade on any spell that doesn't require a save.

Also - you're completely overlooking the fact that it can combine two or three, four, or five actions into one (Cast a spell, attack, and secondary attack, and any split attacks with Archer Mastery).

A better idea might be to have the spell still go off if it misses by less than 5 - While the arrow doesn't hurt you, it either made contact with your armor/weapon/shield or got too close and allowed the spell to discharge into you.

And - they've stated they don't care if the math works in the packets they gave us. That's not what we're testing. What we were testing is whether it feels right or wrong that someone hit by a magical arrow should be able to resist the spell.

I know I'd be pissed as hell if my High-CON, moderately-poor AC fighter with advantage and proficiency with Constitution Saves got hit by an Arrow imbued with Petrifying Touch and wasn't permitted to make a saving throw to resist it, given that under normal circumstances my character would have had a 0% chance of being affected by that spell.

if the playtest was done without a mind to the math then it was in fact not, a real playtest. the math plays too much into the feel of the game for them to test anything without at least trying to get the math right.

either or is fine, but requiring both screws up the math for single target spells. and it can easily be broken for multi-target spells if you can get more spells off then you otherwise could. or combo spells like grease and fireball

yes you can put stuff like fireballs on them, if you can fire off multiple arrows then its just broken. gogo all my spells all at once.

[Envyus]

Dear god this is your stupidest complaint yet. It's a risk vs reward thing get that through your head. The only reason it did not work for this example was due to poor planning, choice of spells and luck.

It has benefits and downsides while and certain spells work better for it then others. This is all that needs to be said about it. This tangent is pointless.


if the playtest was done without a mind to the math then it was in fact not, a real playtest. the math plays too much into the feel of the game for them to test anything without at least trying to get the math right.


Ugh as said before they almost never changed the math and when they did it was just to make the concept work better. It was a real play test but the math had nothing to do with it as we were not testing math we were testing concepts. Hell another team entirely was working on the math when the playtest was done.

[Lokiare]

And where by "worthless" you mean "works exactly the same way it did in 4e" right? Because pretty much exactly how spells like "sleep" worked in 4e. You roll once to hit and get a minor effect (in 4e, it was slow, in this it's actual damage) and then you roll again to get the effect you really want (sleep).


That doesn't mean I couldn't see altering it so that any creature hit by the arrow in question automatically fails their save, but that would need to be balanced by losing the spell if you miss with the arrow, which would probably have some odd side effects with area of effect spells.

Sleep in 4E was an encounter ender. That is why it required two saves. Normally a save in 4E is 55% chance to successfully save. There are few if any modifiers to saves in 4E. So once you hit them (70% chance) there was a 50% chance that the target was totally out of the encounter. That's about a 31.5% chance of being knocked out of the game with a single 1st level daily spell for each creature that got hit. If you hit 4 creatures that means at least one of them would become unconscious (and thus a coup de' grace target) about 71% of the time, and around 2-3 of them would be slowed. The spell worked completely as intended.

My fix would be that hit or miss, they still have to make the save against the spells effects. If you miss, you just don't get the arrow damage.


Just about every spell (and for that matter effect) in 4e worked the same way. Roll to attack and then your opponent gets to save for the condition.

Not even close. If you hit with a spell, unless they used some kind of reactionary power they would take the effect of the spell for at least one round. They would then roll their 55% chance to succeed saving throw to remove the effect. For instance if a Wizard cast Greek Fire on the target and caused "ongoing 5 damage (save ends)" then at the start of the targets turn they would take the 5 damage and at the end of their turn they would roll to see if it got removed. The average time for an effect like this is between 1-3 rounds.


Seems like they should have named it "drowsy" then...



You do realize that a large chunk (if not the majority) of spells in the playtest that give your opponent a save still have an effect on save right? Even Lokiare's cleric should still have been doing 1d6 + (3d8|4d8)/2 damage on a save. That's hardly worthless.



Lokaire's cleric was dealing on average (assuming every thug made their save every time, and they only used 1st level slots for the inflict wounds) 6.5 extra damage per shot, for a total average of 10 damage per arrow. How is that not by definition more powerful than the arrow alone (1d6) or the spell alone (3d8/2) (http://anydice.com/program/3db9)? And for the record, those thugs have 9 HP which means on average, the cleric should have been one shotting them, and from time to time requiring 2 arrows. By comparison, shooting arrows alone, the cleric would need about 3 rounds on average to dispatch each thug, and slinging spells alone would need 2.

You forgot to factor in miss chance. The player was playing a Cleric, so they had to split their wis/dex scores instead of maxing out wis like normal. So that they had a decent chance to hit with the bow. So they were not very optimized.


Dear god this is your stupidest complaint yet. It's a risk vs reward thing get that through your head. The only reason it did not work for this example was due to poor planning, choice of spells and luck.

It has benefits and downsides while and certain spells work better for it then others. This is all that needs to be said about it. This tangent is pointless.



Ugh as said before they almost never changed the math and when they did it was just to make the concept work better. It was a real play test but the math had nothing to do with it as we were not testing math we were testing concepts. Hell another team entirely was working on the math when the playtest was done.

Its a trap option, because without running a lot of math calculations you won't know whether its good or not. You won't know that its high risk / high reward. Most people reading the feat would think 'cool I can extend the range of my spells' instead of 'Well I'll have to make an attack roll at 60% chance then on top of that the target will have to make a 40% failure chance saving throw. That means my spells will have a 24% chance of succeeding. Hmmm. I don't like those odds, I'm going to choose a different feat.' That just does not go through the average players head when they read Arcane Archer.

[1337 b4k4]

You forgot to factor in miss chance. The player was playing a Cleric, so they had to split their wis/dex scores instead of maxing out wis like normal. So that they had a decent chance to hit with the bow. So they were not very optimized.

Not really. The point was to calculate the damage on a hit. The arcane archer does better. As for chances of missing or not, the arcane archer has the same chances of missing as a regular archer, so they're strictly better than the regular archer. On the other hand, if you're within range of the spell normally, the full caster has a guaranteed hit, but lower damage output.




Its a trap option, because without running a lot of math calculations you won't know whether its good or not. You won't know that its high risk / high reward. Most people reading the feat would think 'cool I can extend the range of my spells' instead of 'Well I'll have to make an attack roll at 60% chance then on top of that the target will have to make a 40% failure chance saving throw. That means my spells will have a 24% chance of succeeding. Hmmm. I don't like those odds, I'm going to choose a different feat.' That just does not go through the average players head when they read Arcane Archer.

You don't need to do any math to know it's a trade off. All you have to do is know that spells (rarely) require an attack roll, and that ranged attacks always require an attack roll. Therefore, turning a spell into a ranged attack by definition reduces the chances of your spell having any effect at all. After that however, the spell still has the same odds of having the same effect. There's no need to calculate the chance of getting a full success with the spell because it's largely irrelevant. The question at hand is whether adding a miss chance is a good risk to take in order to use a spell at this moment. If you're within the spells range, the answer is always "no". If you're outside the spells normal range, the answer is "It depends on the risks and rewards of getting into range vs spending spells that may or may not go off." And again, can we stop with the "24% chance of succeeding" crap. Almost every spell that allows a save also provides effects on a successful save. Your spell still succeeds if it hits.

[Fwiffo86]

if they knew about that issue that means they want arcane archer to be a sidegrade. that you have to have good system master to not use in such a way as to not make it a downgrade. not an upgrade even though it costs something very important.

that means they either don't want feats to be important (contray to what they have said, and the system says), or they don't want that feat to be good (they want trap feats).

I guess its possible but that would mean they actively want the game to fail.

How is gaining the ability to do something you could not do previously not an upgrade? Your opinion of effectiveness is not what I am asking about. Could you imbue non-magical arrows with spells before? No. Take the feat and now you can. That is an upgrade. Your character now has another ability to use. Am I missing something?

I get the impression your problem is that you think it is less effective than it should be. Considering its wide utility, I think you are looking at it very narrowly. What spells can be added to an arrow? Any of them. That is alot of utility. Need to buff the fighter but can't get to him? - Imbue an arrow and shoot him. (he can take it). Massive cure spell imbued on an arrow. Sure you take 1d6 damage, but you're being healed 8d6+16 instead. How about imbuing arrows and setting them up in traps? the Arrow trap now takes on a whole new meaning when they are Entangle arrows and fireball arrows. Not to mention ballista arrows. Think of the new ways you can siege the castle when all of the arrows come with either rock to mud or disintegration? These are just a few of the things I have thought of. Like I said before... you gain something you didn't have before. That is an upgrade, not a side-grade.

------- EDIT -------

Before anyone jumps on me about "You have to hit the fighter to heal them". Remember that AC is a character's representation of defending themselves. A function of Armor, footwork, and defensive maneuvers that would burn game time if figured out in each minute detail. There is no reason that a fighter who knows he is about to be healed by a healing arrow wouldn't allow himself to be hit. Making the hit roll easier. Assuming he is not defending himself, I see no reason NOT to give him AC 10-12 at that time.

Other uses for Arcane Archer (note, these are likely to change) Bombs. How about I take that Holy Water vial (splash damage) and throw it, imbued with Curse? Look, two or three monsters are cursed instead of just one?

I just thought of this, but I don't have the feat directly in front of me. Does it say anything about it having to be ammunition that's imbued? If not, who is to say you can't imbue a dagger? or a sword for that matter? Sure, it fires the spell on the first hit, maybe even the first attack, but the is a spell added to your attack.

Why not imbue an arrow, and GIVE IT to the Fighter? Nothing says it has to remain in your possession? Load up half your spells into arrows, and hand them out to the people who actually have a good chance to hit something?

[Job]

Well, from the perspective of consistency you are (at least for spells like inflict) using the arrow as a proxy for the typical spell delivery method. So it at least make sense that you don't get to land the spell if you don't land the arrow. By that same token -if- you land that arrow the spell ought to be that much more effective, what better way to deliver wounding magic than a wound.

Why not give disadvantage on the saving throws for single target spells delivered via an AA arrow?

[1337 b4k4]

Other uses for Arcane Archer (note, these are likely to change) Bombs. How about I take that Holy Water vial (splash damage) and throw it, imbued with Curse? Look, two or three monsters are cursed instead of just one?

I just thought of this, but I don't have the feat directly in front of me. Does it say anything about it having to be ammunition that's imbued? If not, who is to say you can't imbue a dagger? or a sword for that matter?

The feat specifically refers to arrows, though given that they presumably intended it to work on crossbows as well it needs to work on bolts. Were I running the game, I'd probably allow that to extend to all things under "ammunition" but I'm not sure I'd allow it to go as far as being applicable to melee weapons. I suppose it would all depend.

[Chaosvii7]

that is why I dont think they knew how the math would work out, because there is no reason to know it would be that screwed up and still keep it.

It isn't screwed up, it's working exactly as intended. Believe it or not, Arcane Archer-based things like this have almost always worked like that since the old days. You put a spell into an arrow, you nock and fire it, it hits the target and the spell effect resolves. Spell already has tremendous range? Don't put it in an arrow, nobody's forcing you to.

As somebody pointed out, Inflict Wounds in Next already has a range. That alone is actually pretty generous considering that the Cure Wounds line is still touch-based. If the player wanted to imbue it into an arrow that's their choice.

It's nobody's fault that his imbuing the arrow with Inflict Wounds wasn't as optimal as him simply casting it within 25 feet. If you want concise wordings, that's fine, but that's how the feat was intended to work and - speaking from my knowledge of Arcane Archers from previous editions - always has worked. You're not expected to know everything about the game, but it's necessary to read everything carefully to best understand how it functions. Thankfully they've sunken into the idea of more precise keywords than in 3.5(where something could be defined four times differently and all taken to mean the same thing), but it's still up to the players to understand that adding an attack roll on top of a saving throw is a hit or miss depending on how well they can shoot and how powerful their spell is to resist, but there's the guaranteed benefit of being able to fire it from a safe range(especially with touch-range spells).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The feat specifically refers to arrows, though given that they presumably intended it to work on crossbows as well it needs to work on bolts. Were I running the game, I'd probably allow that to extend to all things under "ammunition" but I'm not sure I'd allow it to go as far as being applicable to melee weapons. I suppose it would all depend.

You would make the magus/hexblade/duskblade/swordmage into a feat... I'm ok with that.

Logically why couldn't you imbue melee weapons if you can imbue ranged ammunition? Or at least have a sister ability that can do that if you take it?

[Job]

It isn't screwed up, it's working exactly as intended. Believe it or not, Arcane Archer-based things like this have almost always worked like that since the old days. You put a spell into an arrow, you nock and fire it, it hits the target and the spell effect resolves...

it's still up to the players to understand that adding an attack roll on top of a saving throw is a hit or miss depending on how well they can shoot and how powerful their spell is to resist, but there's the guaranteed benefit of being able to fire it from a safe range(especially with touch-range spells).

I don't disagree that the feat is working as intended. However 'it being consistent with the game mechanics' and 'it being a good option' don't always overlap.

Players need to consider the consequences of adding another accuracy check, no doubt. But this play-test feedback would seem to indicate that the exchange for extended range was not always worth it in term of raw mechanical impact. Do we actually have more feedback that shows the probability space taking into account better gear and spells yield interesting and effective combination even given the multiplication of failure.

[1337 b4k4]

You would make the magus/hexblade/duskblade/swordmage into a feat... I'm ok with that.

Logically why couldn't you imbue melee weapons if you can imbue ranged ammunition? Or at least have a sister ability that can do that if you take it?

Oh I agree, largely there's no logical difference between imbuing an arrow and a sword, but from a mechanical / practical standpoint I'm not sure it makes sense. Let's say you imbue your sword with darkness or fireball. You swing your sword and connect. Now you're either standing in the middle of darkness with your enemy in melee range, or you've just blown yourself to bits with a fireball. So obviously the spell selection is limited for what's practical to imbue on a melee weapon. So now let's examine the case where you imbue it with something less AE, like inflict wounds. You connect, the spell goes off, and now you're back to a plain sword. With ammunition, you in theory have imbued more than one shot.

That said, as we agree, there's no real logical difference, and if a player wanted to do something like that, I'd probably still allow it anyway provided they understood the dangers of using AE spells in melee.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Oh I agree, largely there's no logical difference between imbuing an arrow and a sword, but from a mechanical / practical standpoint I'm not sure it makes sense. Let's say you imbue your sword with darkness or fireball. You swing your sword and connect. Now you're either standing in the middle of darkness with your enemy in melee range, or you've just blown yourself to bits with a fireball. So obviously the spell selection is limited for what's practical to imbue on a melee weapon. So now let's examine the case where you imbue it with something less AE, like inflict wounds. You connect, the spell goes off, and now you're back to a plain sword. With ammunition, you in theory have imbued more than one shot.

That said, as we agree, there's no real logical difference, and if a player wanted to do something like that, I'd probably still allow it anyway provided they understood the dangers of using AE spells in melee.

3.5 had spell storing weapons, do it like that or... Just a base rule that adjusts your spells. Fireball would turn into a 20 ft cone.

Make it where you can imbue your weapon multiple times (up to Int/Wis/Cha mod) per day with spells/spells slots. You can take these slots back too but it takes longer to retrieve. Perhaps, you give the weapon X slots. Throughout the day you may add spells to those slots (you lose these slots for your own casting) or take them from the weapon but it takes time.

Not sure how one should do it but there are many ways to get this done.

This way you have a mechanic that puts spells into your weapons, takes time, and could have different rules than ammunition. Ammunitions are tiny and it doesn't take as much effort to imbue them with magic but larger objects, metals and such, need more time for the magic to soak into it? You can still do it but it is like filling up a glass versus filling up a pool when you only have a 500 ml bottle to pour water.

[captpike]

It isn't screwed up, it's working exactly as intended. Believe it or not, Arcane Archer-based things like this have almost always worked like that since the old days. You put a spell into an arrow, you nock and fire it, it hits the target and the spell effect resolves. Spell already has tremendous range? Don't put it in an arrow, nobody's forcing you to.

As somebody pointed out, Inflict Wounds in Next already has a range. That alone is actually pretty generous considering that the Cure Wounds line is still touch-based. If the player wanted to imbue it into an arrow that's their choice.

It's nobody's fault that his imbuing the arrow with Inflict Wounds wasn't as optimal as him simply casting it within 25 feet. If you want concise wordings, that's fine, but that's how the feat was intended to work and - speaking from my knowledge of Arcane Archers from previous editions - always has worked. You're not expected to know everything about the game, but it's necessary to read everything carefully to best understand how it functions. Thankfully they've sunken into the idea of more precise keywords than in 3.5(where something could be defined four times differently and all taken to mean the same thing), but it's still up to the players to understand that adding an attack roll on top of a saving throw is a hit or miss depending on how well they can shoot and how powerful their spell is to resist, but there's the guaranteed benefit of being able to fire it from a safe range(especially with touch-range spells).

if its working as intended then they don't want arcane archers in the game.

having only a 27% chance of spells going off when you use your arrows means you will waste your spell most of the time. you would have been better off just using the arrow then saving the spell for later.

its the game's job to provide enough information to make informed decisions. arcane archer does not do that. it does not say that putting a spell with a save on it its a waste of a spell. it does not tell you the math. this is NOT something that most people will see and go "well of course I don't put anything with a save on it in an arrow" most people would be more likely to go "awesome I can put spells in my arrows to get more damage, hay inflict wounds would world awesome there, its a good damaging spell"

the problem is that its is not intuitive that if you need to hit twice, and you have good chances to do so both times you still will probably not hit twice. this is not be made clear in the feat and it will cause more then a few people who take the feat to wind up realized they wasted a feat because they took it at face value. meaning they wanted to be an arcane archer, rather then a character who puts a few spells into arrows (never ones with saves) and is otherwise a caster.

and again its a FEAT meaning its a huge character defining deal. 90% of the time when it is used it has to be a strait upgrade, not a sidegrade (I can do more damage, but I pay a spell slot, some flexibility in spell choice, and I am not likely to get the spell off). if this were 4e or 3e it might be ok, but feats are more valuable in 5e.

[pwykersotz]

if its working as intended then they don't want arcane archers in the game.

having only a 27% chance of spells going off when you use your arrows means you will waste your spell most of the time. you would have been better off just using the arrow then saving the spell for later.

its the game's job to provide enough information to make informed decisions. arcane archer does not do that. it does not say that putting a spell with a save on it its a waste of a spell. it does not tell you the math. this is NOT something that most people will see and go "well of course I don't put anything with a save on it in an arrow" most people would be more likely to go "awesome I can put spells in my arrows to get more damage, hay inflict wounds would world awesome there, its a good damaging spell"

the problem is that its is not intuitive that if you need to hit twice, and you have good chances to do so both times you still will probably not hit twice. this is not be made clear in the feat and it will cause more then a few people who take the feat to wind up realized they wasted a feat because they took it at face value. meaning they wanted to be an arcane archer, rather then a character who puts a few spells into arrows (never ones with saves) and is otherwise a caster.

and again its a FEAT meaning its a huge character defining deal. 90% of the time when it is used it has to be a strait upgrade, not a sidegrade (I can do more damage, but I pay a spell slot, some flexibility in spell choice, and I am not likely to get the spell off). if this were 4e or 3e it might be ok, but feats are more valuable in 5e.

The math may not be completely intuitive, and they may have never spelled it out, but have you considered the crazy optimization gold mine it would become if it stripped a save away, or else made it so you didn't need to roll an attack to be hit with weapon damage? 3.5 cracks wide open under such flippant disregard for systems that are there for a reason.

Now, if it HAD to be powered up, I like the earlier suggestion of giving the target Disadvantage on their saving throw.

[Fwiffo86]

if its working as intended then they don't want arcane archers in the game.

having only a 27% chance of spells going off when you use your arrows means you will waste your spell most of the time. you would have been better off just using the arrow then saving the spell for later.

its the game's job to provide enough information to make informed decisions. arcane archer does not do that. it does not say that putting a spell with a save on it its a waste of a spell. it does not tell you the math. this is NOT something that most people will see and go "well of course I don't put anything with a save on it in an arrow" most people would be more likely to go "awesome I can put spells in my arrows to get more damage, hay inflict wounds would world awesome there, its a good damaging spell"

the problem is that its is not intuitive that if you need to hit twice, and you have good chances to do so both times you still will probably not hit twice. this is not be made clear in the feat and it will cause more then a few people who take the feat to wind up realized they wasted a feat because they took it at face value. meaning they wanted to be an arcane archer, rather then a character who puts a few spells into arrows (never ones with saves) and is otherwise a caster.

and again its a FEAT meaning its a huge character defining deal. 90% of the time when it is used it has to be a strait upgrade, not a sidegrade (I can do more damage, but I pay a spell slot, some flexibility in spell choice, and I am not likely to get the spell off). if this were 4e or 3e it might be ok, but feats are more valuable in 5e.

So, what I'm taking from this is that you want every aspect and possible use of a feat listed, removing any possibility of creative thinking or use. Thus eliminating the very thing that separates TTRPGs from VRPGs? I'm sorry, but I cannot get behind that thinking, no matter the argument. If you take away my ability to say "Hey, I wonder if this works?" and then try it, I have absolutely no desire to play that game. I play TTRPGs because the rules are NOT set in stone. Every situation has unique possibilities. Every die roll has a possible outcome.


THE FOLLOWING IS AN OPINION!

I get the impression you would prefer... Fighter has 75% chance to Hit. When he hits, he deals 8 damage. The Rogue has a 65% chance to hit. When he hits, he does exactly 17 damage. The Cleric heals exactly 15 hit points. The wizard casts fireball, dealing exactly 14 points of fire damage. The enemies have exactly 10 hit points. Combat would last (x) rounds, players will win. Xp reward: x experience.

What is the point of Dice rolling? Where is the challenge? Where are the dire circumstances that force players to come up with brilliant on the spot plans? All your math is doing, is killing that for me. I can't speak for anyone else, but boiling everything down to math, and using that as your determination on if its good or not, is not viable for me. Not because I don't understand it. But because I do.

PCs should fail sometimes. PCs should die sometimes. PCs should know that its a dangerous life, and sometimes you survive through wit, planning, and flat out luck. If you build encounters based on completely unnecessary statistics, your PCs will stomp everything unless you abjectly decide to kill them. This is not a good DM style, and a terrible method to judge a game.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Now, if it HAD to be powered up, I like the earlier suggestion of giving the target Disadvantage on their saving throw.

Ouch, that would hurt no matter what the math says.

Another option to show how casters can mess up non-casters like the Fighter.

How about the save for the spell be changed to Str or Dex save but the target can't gain advantage against it (but doesn't auto have disadvantage against it).

This way it represents a character getting hit by an arrow dodging or pushing the arrow away before the spell can effect them. Like if someone stabs you with a syringe, and you are quick or strong enough to make sure they don't have a chance to push the plunger down on the syringe?

If you fail that then you don't get another save for the effect.

Or you can allow the magic to hit you, and you get the normal save.

Essentially you get to choose when to try to resist the spell and you get one action against it.

Obviously this rule would be for targeted spells in an arrow such as Inflict spells.

Hmm this needs worked on.

[pwykersotz]

Yeah, some option like that. The thing you don't want to do is introduce an option to allow a fundamental game defense to be bypassed automatically.

[1337 b4k4]

having only a 27% chance of spells going off when you use your arrows means you will waste your spell most of the time. you would have been better off just using the arrow then saving the spell for later.

Except, barring the few spells that have no effect on a successful save, your chances of a spell going off aren't 27%. They're whatever you hit chance is. Your spell goes off on a successful hit. The likelihood of your opponent saving does nothing to chance the chance of the spell going off.

[captpike]

The math may not be completely intuitive, and they may have never spelled it out, but have you considered the crazy optimization gold mine it would become if it stripped a save away, or else made it so you didn't need to roll an attack to be hit with weapon damage? 3.5 cracks wide open under such flippant disregard for systems that are there for a reason.

Now, if it HAD to be powered up, I like the earlier suggestion of giving the target Disadvantage on their saving throw.

what would be hurt if it said "the target of your arrow automatically fails the save against any spell cast from the arrow"

all your doing is trading the save for an attack roll, two things that should be equivalent.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Yeah, some option like that. The thing you don't want to do is introduce an option to allow a fundamental game defense to be bypassed automatically.

Well I wouldn't say bypassed but more of redirected. For some people getting the hell away from the effect is easier than resisting the effect.

Like a boxer who is 300 lbs versus a boxer who is 200 lbs. The smaller guy will dodge hits because he can't take the force as well and the bigger guy will absorb and resist the hits.

I would actually like to see spells offer more options on defenses. Fireballs should be able to be dodged or endured (damage ignored) just like a Paralyzation effect should be able to be dodged (wis or cha save) or ignored (Con save).

Get dominated by a monster and failed your wis/cha save to dodge the effect? Well when he monster tells you to kill your friends you should get a con save to stop your body from slaughtering your party. Mind and body aren't two separate systems, sometimes D&D forgets that.

[captpike]

So, what I'm taking from this is that you want every aspect and possible use of a feat listed, removing any possibility of creative thinking or use. Thus eliminating the very thing that separates TTRPGs from VRPGs? I'm sorry, but I cannot get behind that thinking, no matter the argument. If you take away my ability to say "Hey, I wonder if this works?" and then try it, I have absolutely no desire to play that game. I play TTRPGs because the rules are NOT set in stone. Every situation has unique possibilities. Every die roll has a possible outcome.


THE FOLLOWING IS AN OPINION!

I get the impression you would prefer... Fighter has 75% chance to Hit. When he hits, he deals 8 damage. The Rogue has a 65% chance to hit. When he hits, he does exactly 17 damage. The Cleric heals exactly 15 hit points. The wizard casts fireball, dealing exactly 14 points of fire damage. The enemies have exactly 10 hit points. Combat would last (x) rounds, players will win. Xp reward: x experience.

What is the point of Dice rolling? Where is the challenge? Where are the dire circumstances that force players to come up with brilliant on the spot plans? All your math is doing, is killing that for me. I can't speak for anyone else, but boiling everything down to math, and using that as your determination on if its good or not, is not viable for me. Not because I don't understand it. But because I do.

PCs should fail sometimes. PCs should die sometimes. PCs should know that its a dangerous life, and sometimes you survive through wit, planning, and flat out luck. If you build encounters based on completely unnecessary statistics, your PCs will stomp everything unless you abjectly decide to kill them. This is not a good DM style, and a terrible method to judge a game.
so you wont allow logic to sway you? are you honestly saying that even if I make perfect sense, you will ignore me?

you seam to have a problem with reading what I wrote, for your sake I will clear it up more.

the feat is not clear about where it can be used in a way that would be useful. it does not say "not useful in any spell that is not worth casting even if the target fails their save"

they also seam, for no logical reason, to think that anyone use does use a spell with a save through an arrow should be punished. and they are not even doing so in a clear way "you take a -2 on all attacks made through this arrow" they are forcing you to make two rolls to determine if the spell works, making it LOOK like you have the odds in your favor when you don't.

I am all for PCs making choices, but they should be informed, the system should not pull a bait and switch with them. "sure you can be an arcane archer...but only with certain spells, and we will let you flail around while you figure that out"


Except, barring the few spells that have no effect on a successful save, your chances of a spell going off aren't 27%. They're whatever you hit chance is. Your spell goes off on a successful hit. The likelihood of your opponent saving does nothing to chance the chance of the spell going off.

so? you still are having much much less of an effect with your spell then you should.

it would still be better most of the time to not put the spell in the arrow.

[pwykersotz]

what would be hurt if it said "the target of your arrow automatically fails the save against any spell cast from the arrow"

all your doing is trading the save for an attack roll, two things that should be equivalent.

The problem is the synergy. Optimize yourself to never miss a ranged attack (easier due to bonded accuracy) then hit the opponent with a save or lose that has been stripped of its save, and you have an insta-win with every shot.

[captpike]

The problem is the synergy. Optimize yourself to never miss a ranged attack (easier due to bonded accuracy) then hit the opponent with a save or lose that has been stripped of its save, and you have an insta-win with every shot.

how is that different from just optimizing your save?

[pwykersotz]

how is that different from just optimizing your save?

It's traditionally easier. I don't expect that there will be as many magic items that grant +2 to your spell DC as there are +2 to attack. Also, it breaks down walls between the different forms of attack and defense, and if there are just a few more options like it (there certainly will be in books to come), then the defenses don't mean anything anymore. Having a low AC doesn't just mean you risk sword death, it means you risk everything. It becomes necessary to optimize ALL defenses so that you can have any at all. The first is already seen. The second is fairly easy to see coming.

[Ryuujin]

I am honestly surprised that someone is arguing that Arcane Archer is bad. I could see some argument about whether or not it is broken, but not that it is weak. It is the strongest feat in the game. Part of this is the lack of restriction on who can fire your arrows, but even without that it would still be the strongest feat, particularly if you look for methods that let you fire more than one arrow in a round.

Yes putting a ranged single target spell on an arrow is kind of pointless, though if the arrow hits it will still probably do more than arrow or spell by itself and thus still be better than most feats/options. But where it really excels is on things that have no save, or things that affect an area.

Fire a couple arrows of Fireball and you basically cast multiple Fireballs in a single round, with the chance at adding some arrow damage as well.

[captpike]

It's traditionally easier. I don't expect that there will be as many magic items that grant +2 to your spell DC as there are +2 to attack. Also, it breaks down walls between the different forms of attack and defense, and if there are just a few more options like it (there certainly will be in books to come), then the defenses don't mean anything anymore. Having a low AC doesn't just mean you risk sword death, it means you risk everything. It becomes necessary to optimize ALL defenses so that you can have any at all. The first is already seen. The second is fairly easy to see coming.

if its alot easier to raise your attack then to raise your save then the game has failed. there is no reason one would be easier to raise then the other.

so? it makes AC matter more, it should be of equal value to your saves.

[Fwiffo86]

Captpike,

Obviously I have been unclear. Let me rephrase my statement.

If everything is equal, then there is no need for options. Only the Die roll determines success or failure.

I understand your math. I do. And I understand your points. But everything sounds to me like you are saying "If the math doesn't work, why bother?" And quite frankly, that makes me feel bad.

Perhaps you have a different vision of D&D than I do. I grew up on it. It was valiant warriors rescuing damsels in distress, fighting off invading hordes to protect the kingdom, being granted land for rescuing a visiting dignitary's son. Yes the system is imperfect, but its point is to get your imagination going, at least to me. You see math. I see characters. You see calculations, I see a combat that is chaotic at best, unpredictable at worst. Your math, robs me of my imagination, my ability to change the rules to make the story more exciting and dramatic. To me, you are so mired in rules that do or do not, you have forgotten the maybe. Maybe this will be neat to try? Maybe this will swing the battle to our favor? Maybe not? But I'm going to try anyway.

That is what I am trying to say to you. I cannot express it any more clear than that.

Btw - You are, without a doubt, the most entertaining person I have talked to about any of this. I am not attacking you, just trying to make you understand why I invalidate math. Because when push comes to shove, story trumps math.

[captpike]

Captpike,

Obviously I have been unclear. Let me rephrase my statement.

If everything is equal, then there is no need for options. Only the Die roll determines success or failure.

I understand your math. I do. And I understand your points. But everything sounds to me like you are saying "If the math doesn't work, why bother?" And quite frankly, that makes me feel bad.

Perhaps you have a different vision of D&D than I do. I grew up on it. It was valiant warriors rescuing damsels in distress, fighting off invading hordes to protect the kingdom, being granted land for rescuing a visiting dignitary's son. Yes the system is imperfect, but its point is to get your imagination going, at least to me. You see math. I see characters. You see calculations, I see a combat that is chaotic at best, unpredictable at worst. Your math, robs me of my imagination, my ability to change the rules to make the story more exciting and dramatic. To me, you are so mired in rules that do or do not, you have forgotten the maybe. Maybe this will be neat to try? Maybe this will swing the battle to our favor? Maybe not? But I'm going to try anyway.

That is what I am trying to say to you. I cannot express it any more clear than that.

Btw - You are, without a doubt, the most entertaining person I have talked to about any of this. I am not attacking you, just trying to make you understand why I invalidate math. Because when push comes to shove, story trumps math.

good math in an RPG is like good music in a movie, done right its invisible, it helps everything else be more awesome. done poorly it grates, it distracts it gets in the way.

for example if, roughly speaking, all level 1 spells are of equal power then I can just pick what ones I think are coolest, or fit my character. if they are not, if some are outright overpowered or all but worthless, then I can just do that if I want to be able to still be effective to have an effect in the fight. I have to know the system well, and most of the "options" are not really options.

bad math can hurt character options. the classic example is a 3e fighter. if I want to build a fighting man who is able to take on anything the world throws at him, has killed dragons and is sought after by half the world, then the math in 3e gets in the way.
I cant make that character past a certain level. at level 15 it would fall apart, I might call myself awesome and important to the party but I would be neither.

[Kurald Galain]

See, we were playtesting, and then I cast a fireball right in the middle of the party and this killed all my teammates and we TPK'ed. Clearly there is something wrong with the Fireball spell in this game... :smallbiggrin:

[Millennium]

if its alot easier to raise your attack then to raise your save then the game has failed. there is no reason one would be easier to raise then the other.

That doesn't make any sense.

[1337 b4k4]

so? you still are having much much less of an effect with your spell then you should.

it would still be better most of the time to not put the spell in the arrow.

It's only better during the times that you're within normal range of the spell or can safely get in range. In that case, it's always better to be casting the spell directly because spells always hit. This isn't advanced calculus here, it's the basic mechanics of the game.

[captpike]

That doesn't make any sense.

why should a save be easier or harder to raise then you attack? they fullfuil the same function in the game. favoring one or the other will only cause issues.

and of course if they are kept on the same level you can switch them out without over or under powering something.

[pwykersotz]

why should a save be easier or harder to raise then you attack? they fullfuil the same function in the game. favoring one or the other will only cause issues.

and of course if they are kept on the same level you can switch them out without over or under powering something.

Maybe that's how it SHOULD work in an optimal setting, but it doesn't appear that's how it WILL work. Especially for the simple reason that AC is arrived at through a different calculation than a saving throw. That base inequality will forever keep them separate.

On a different scale though, the game works super well the way your describing if you distill D&D to a pure combat system. But then you want people who play archtypes. Say you build to be frail but strong of will. Whelp, you were just denied your force of will because someone hit you with an arrow. The system may be balanced overall the way you suggest, but the free trading of ac/saves can easily nuke character concepts.

[captpike]

Maybe that's how it SHOULD work in an optimal setting, but it doesn't appear that's how it WILL work. Especially for the simple reason that AC is arrived at through a different calculation than a saving throw. That base inequality will forever keep them separate.

On a different scale though, the game works super well the way your describing if you distill D&D to a pure combat system. But then you want people who play archtypes. Say you build to be frail but strong of will. Whelp, you were just denied your force of will because someone hit you with an arrow. The system may be balanced overall the way you suggest, but the free trading of ac/saves can easily nuke character concepts.

the math for each works differently but if its done well it can still be close enough to work. I would even say if they CAN'T do it they need to find new jobs, it is a very easy and basic thing to do.

why would it hurt concepts? your strong willed character was not hit in his will, he had an arrow hit him and deliver the spell in a way that bypassed his defenses.

no different then someone who has a high fort, and when steping on poisen or having a glob of it thrown at him he can easily resist it, but when its put on a sword and he is cut he is hurt by it.

[Fwiffo86]

Question:

At which point does Arcane Archer break? Is it requiring an attack roll? Is it the spell save that's required for some spells? For squishing two different things together into one action, I think that is worth a feat.

How is this broken? Explain it to me. I don't want a calculation. I want a reason OTHER than your spell effectiveness is x%. Let me hear a different argument for once. If it can be argued that this feat is broken because of a reason that isn't math, I will acquiesce.

[pwykersotz]

the math for each works differently but if its done well it can still be close enough to work. I would even say if they CAN'T do it they need to find new jobs, it is a very easy and basic thing to do.

why would it hurt concepts? your strong willed character was not hit in his will, he had an arrow hit him and deliver the spell in a way that bypassed his defenses.

no different then someone who has a high fort, and when steping on poisen or having a glob of it thrown at him he can easily resist it, but when its put on a sword and he is cut he is hurt by it.

That's the thing I'm saying, there's nothing wrong with your method if you distill this to a pure combat game. But that's not the game they are designing. To a certain extent I agree with you. Defenses can be bypassed. Chinks in the armor can be exposed. But these stats and checks have meaning out of combat. D&D is about WHO you play as much as it is about HOW you play. If you trivialize the distinction between the different defenses and offenses by making them interchangeable, it turns back into what it was long ago before Arneson and Gygax, before you cared about the character. A coldly logistical war game that manages resources to win.

Bypassing the characters will or strength or fortitude is cutting the knees of that character concept because the player doesn't get to showcase part of what makes them unique and interesting.

[captpike]

Question:

At which point does Arcane Archer break? Is it requiring an attack roll? Is it the spell save that's required for some spells? For squishing two different things together into one action, I think that is worth a feat.

How is this broken? Explain it to me. I don't want a calculation. I want a reason OTHER than your spell effectiveness is x%. Let me hear a different argument for once. If it can be argued that this feat is broken because of a reason that isn't math, I will acquiesce.

that is like saying I should prove my car is slow without using math.

its broken because you will waste your spells too often, because the game is made around using either an attack roll or a save, requiring both makes the spells much less likely to work.


That's the thing I'm saying, there's nothing wrong with your method if you distill this to a pure combat game. But that's not the game they are designing. To a certain extent I agree with you. Defenses can be bypassed. Chinks in the armor can be exposed. But these stats and checks have meaning out of combat. D&D is about WHO you play as much as it is about HOW you play. If you trivialize the distinction between the different defenses and offenses by making them interchangeable, it turns back into what it was long ago before Arneson and Gygax, before you cared about the character. A coldly logistical war game that manages resources to win.

Bypassing the characters will or strength or fortitude is cutting the knees of that character concept because the player doesn't get to showcase part of what makes them unique and interesting.

when it comes down to it, allowing arcane archers to work is more important then having it be possible to pump your will high and say your "strong willed"
and again, its not like you cant just say "the arrow had the spell inside it, its not the same as a wizard cast the spell for 30ft away"

keep in mind they could always do the opposite and have only the save, ignoring your AC completely. that also would work.

or the best way would just be to scrap the feat and make it a class so you can give arcane archers their own spells that don't require changing to work.

[pwykersotz]

when it comes down to it, allowing arcane archers to work is more important then having it be possible to pump your will high and say your "strong willed"
and again, its not like you cant just say "the arrow had the spell inside it, its not the same as a wizard cast the spell for 30ft away"

keep in mind they could always do the opposite and have only the save, ignoring your AC completely. that also would work.

or the best way would just be to scrap the feat and make it a class so you can give arcane archers their own spells that don't require changing to work.

Maybe so on that last one. It would certainly be more elegant.

[Envyus]

that is like saying I should prove my car is slow without using math.

its broken because you will waste your spells too often, because the game is made around using either an attack roll or a save, requiring both makes the spells much less likely to work.


You keep ignoring that lots of spells don't need save or that they will do stuff if it they miss or are saved. Like Fireball for example.

You will not waste your spells as long as you don't use them stupidly. Its not broken at all.

[captpike]

You keep ignoring that lots of spells don't need save or that they will do stuff if it they miss or are saved. Like Fireball for example.

You will not waste your spells as long as you don't use them stupidly. Its not broken at all.

that is not how the feat is worded. if it said "you may only do this with spells without a save" or even "you should rarely if ever use spells that have saves with this feat" that would be one thing. but that is not how it is worded

having a feat that breaks when you use some spells, but not others. and the feat does not tell you this is bad design and for too many players would be nothing but a trap option.

[Envyus]

that is not how the feat is worded. if it said "you may only do this with spells without a save" or even "you should rarely if ever use spells that have saves with this feat" that would be one thing. but that is not how it is worded

having a feat that breaks when you use some spells, but not others. and the feat does not tell you this is bad design and for too many players would be nothing but a trap option.

This is not advanced ****. It is common sense that it is higher risk when there are saves involved. The reason to take the feat is to increase spell range and deal more damage upon hitting something with the arrow holding the spell.

Nothing is broken some choices are just better then other choices.

[captpike]

This is not advanced ****. It is common sense that it is higher risk when there are saves involved. The reason to take the feat is to increase spell range and deal more damage upon hitting something with the arrow holding the spell.

Nothing is broken some choices are just better then other choices.

no it is not, when most people look at "60% chance to hit, 60% for them to fail their save" they don't think "damn that means the odds are very much against me" they think "not bad, most of the time it should work"

when I look at a feat it should be as clear as they can make it what it does and how useful it is. they should not obscure it like they did here.

and again, left as is its not worth a feat. and they could just change to to only needing a save or only needing to hit. there IS NO REASON WHATSOEVER to leave it as is.

[Lokiare]

So, what I'm taking from this is that you want every aspect and possible use of a feat listed, removing any possibility of creative thinking or use. Thus eliminating the very thing that separates TTRPGs from VRPGs? I'm sorry, but I cannot get behind that thinking, no matter the argument. If you take away my ability to say "Hey, I wonder if this works?" and then try it, I have absolutely no desire to play that game. I play TTRPGs because the rules are NOT set in stone. Every situation has unique possibilities. Every die roll has a possible outcome.


THE FOLLOWING IS AN OPINION!

I get the impression you would prefer... Fighter has 75% chance to Hit. When he hits, he deals 8 damage. The Rogue has a 65% chance to hit. When he hits, he does exactly 17 damage. The Cleric heals exactly 15 hit points. The wizard casts fireball, dealing exactly 14 points of fire damage. The enemies have exactly 10 hit points. Combat would last (x) rounds, players will win. Xp reward: x experience.

What is the point of Dice rolling? Where is the challenge? Where are the dire circumstances that force players to come up with brilliant on the spot plans? All your math is doing, is killing that for me. I can't speak for anyone else, but boiling everything down to math, and using that as your determination on if its good or not, is not viable for me. Not because I don't understand it. But because I do.

PCs should fail sometimes. PCs should die sometimes. PCs should know that its a dangerous life, and sometimes you survive through wit, planning, and flat out luck. If you build encounters based on completely unnecessary statistics, your PCs will stomp everything unless you abjectly decide to kill them. This is not a good DM style, and a terrible method to judge a game.


Yeah, some option like that. The thing you don't want to do is introduce an option to allow a fundamental game defense to be bypassed automatically.

We distil everything down to the averages because as the other poster said, the underlying math of the game is the game. For example:

Player "I run up the stairway railing and dive at the drow assassin before he can get away and try to hold him down."

DM1 "Ok, roll a balance check to see if you fall of the railing onto the group of people on the stairs or even worse of the side where you will take damage. Because its particularly difficult and narrow I'm giving you disadvantage so you have a 20% chance of success. Then because you were balancing before you dove at the assassin I'm giving you disadvantage on your attack roll to start a grapple. Then you have to make an opposed strength roll to see if you can hold him down. That means your total chance of success is around 5%."

DM2 "Cool, make an attack roll with advantage to see if you grapple the guy down and keep him from moving because of your forward momentum. You have around an 80% chance of success."

(sarcasm)I guess the math doesn't affect the feel of the game then does it?(/sarcasm) Difficult math doesn't make it where you will try awesome things. It makes it where you will fail at those awesome things and eventually learn not to try them. Where good math makes it where you will try those kinds of things.

There's also the idea of making something look good, when it turns out half the time it isn't. If they had put a "Note: Because some spells will require an attack roll and a saving throw, the chance of these spells being successful is very low. This feat is best used with area spells or with spells that don't allow a save." then the player would have known not to pick saving throw spells and to lean toward AoE spells instead. There was no note, so the player took the spells they wanted.


Captpike,

Obviously I have been unclear. Let me rephrase my statement.

If everything is equal, then there is no need for options. Only the Die roll determines success or failure.

I understand your math. I do. And I understand your points. But everything sounds to me like you are saying "If the math doesn't work, why bother?" And quite frankly, that makes me feel bad.

Perhaps you have a different vision of D&D than I do. I grew up on it. It was valiant warriors rescuing damsels in distress, fighting off invading hordes to protect the kingdom, being granted land for rescuing a visiting dignitary's son. Yes the system is imperfect, but its point is to get your imagination going, at least to me. You see math. I see characters. You see calculations, I see a combat that is chaotic at best, unpredictable at worst. Your math, robs me of my imagination, my ability to change the rules to make the story more exciting and dramatic. To me, you are so mired in rules that do or do not, you have forgotten the maybe. Maybe this will be neat to try? Maybe this will swing the battle to our favor? Maybe not? But I'm going to try anyway.

That is what I am trying to say to you. I cannot express it any more clear than that.

Btw - You are, without a doubt, the most entertaining person I have talked to about any of this. I am not attacking you, just trying to make you understand why I invalidate math. Because when push comes to shove, story trumps math.

The problem you are seeing is that there is some kind of wall between story and math where you have to give up one for the other. When in fact the opposite is true. Without good math there can't be a good story. As I demonstrated above, which story is better? The clever fighter that captured the assassin or the not so clever fighter that fell off the side of the stairs and took 2d10 damage from the fall? What happens when that not so clever fighter tries those things over and over and over and fails nearly every time? That's not a good story unless you like slap stick comedy.


See, we were playtesting, and then I cast a fireball right in the middle of the party and this killed all my teammates and we TPK'ed. Clearly there is something wrong with the Fireball spell in this game... :smallbiggrin:

Nope, because it was obvious what would happen if you cast fireball in the middle of your party. Its not obvious what happens when you use the Arcane Archer feat with spells that require a save and hit a single target.


Question:

At which point does Arcane Archer break? Is it requiring an attack roll? Is it the spell save that's required for some spells? For squishing two different things together into one action, I think that is worth a feat.

How is this broken? Explain it to me. I don't want a calculation. I want a reason OTHER than your spell effectiveness is x%. Let me hear a different argument for once. If it can be argued that this feat is broken because of a reason that isn't math, I will acquiesce.

Arcane archer breaks when the players misses 2/4 times and the spell doesn't have full effect 2/5 times which means that the spell was completely wasted 4/5 times instead of the normal 2/5 times.

In a sentence:

Player "Why am I so ineffective in combat?"

In other words just because you don't see how the math affects the game, doesn't mean the math doesn't affect the game.

[Envyus]

no it is not, when most people look at "60% chance to hit, 60% for them to fail their save" they don't think "damn that means the odds are very much against me" they think "not bad, most of the time it should work"

when I look at a feat it should be as clear as they can make it what it does and how useful it is. they should not obscure it like they did here.

and again, left as is its not worth a feat. and they could just change to to only needing a save or only needing to hit. there IS NO REASON WHATSOEVER to leave it as is.

They don't look at 60% anything as the common person won't look at the odds.

[captpike]

They don't look at 60% anything as the common person won't look at the odds.

then they will get infective characters, who then don't know they they are ineffective.

its a trap option and by definition they are bad.

[Lokiare]

then they will get infective characters, who then don't know they they are ineffective.

its a trap option and by definition they are bad.

Exactly. They will think "that sounds cool." Throw it on their character and get frustrated because they aren't as effective as the other guy with the exact same build minus the arcane archer feat (they opted for a boost to Cha by 1 point instead)

[pwykersotz]

We distil everything down to the averages because as the other poster said, the underlying math of the game is the game.

Oh, I understand. I was not taking issue with the math used. I believe I gave due credit to the execution in my original posts. I was taking issue with the idea.

[1337 b4k4]

Its not obvious what happens when you use the Arcane Archer feat with spells that require a save and hit a single target.

It's absolutely obvious. By trading guaranteed hit for non guaranteed hit, you lower your chances of hitting. By trading a guaranteed miss for a non guaranteed hit, you increase your chances of hitting. The problem is you and captpike are both looking at Arcane Archer from the standpoint of "compared to casting the same spell directly". That clearly isn't how Arcane Archer is supposed to be used, and frankly anyone should be able to look at it and realize this fact. If you are within the standard range for the spell, Arcane Archer is always strictly worse because you're trading a guaranteed hit for a chance to miss with no added benefit (unless you really want an extra 1d6 damage to one target).

Arcane Archer is clearly supposed to be used at long ranges, outside the standard spell range and in that case it is always strictly better because your choice is "out of range, therefore can't hit with the spell at all" or "imbue arrow, now have a chance to hit what could previously not be hit". That the spell still requires a save is irrelevant because without the feat, you couldn't get the spell off at all.

[captpike]

It's absolutely obvious. By trading guaranteed hit for non guaranteed hit, you lower your chances of hitting. By trading a guaranteed miss for a non guaranteed hit, you increase your chances of hitting. The problem is you and captpike are both looking at Arcane Archer from the standpoint of "compared to casting the same spell directly". That clearly isn't how Arcane Archer is supposed to be used, and frankly anyone should be able to look at it and realize this fact. If you are within the standard range for the spell, Arcane Archer is always strictly worse because you're trading a guaranteed hit for a chance to miss with no added benefit (unless you really want an extra 1d6 damage to one target).

Arcane Archer is clearly supposed to be used at long ranges, outside the standard spell range and in that case it is always strictly better because your choice is "out of range, therefore can't hit with the spell at all" or "imbue arrow, now have a chance to hit what could previously not be hit". That the spell still requires a save is irrelevant because without the feat, you couldn't get the spell off at all.

simply increasing the range of spells is not worth a feat, even in 4e with the number of feats you get it would hardly be worth it.

it also needs to make that clear, otherwise it will just trap people who end up making their character worse then if they had taken nothing.

and of course when I think "arcane archer" I don't think "wizard who uses his bow to get more range" I think "someone who combines archery and magic to do things neither could do by themselves" and I doubt I am alone in that.

[1337 b4k4]

and of course when I think "arcane archer" I don't think "wizard who uses his bow to get more range" I think "someone who combines archery and magic to do things neither could do by themselves" and I doubt I am alone in that.

Ok, so duplicate the Arcane Archer without the feat. If you can't, then I guess an Arcane Archer can do things that neither could do by themselves.

[Envyus]

then they will get infective characters, who then don't know they they are ineffective.

its a trap option and by definition they are bad.

No for the most part they will chose spells that will actually work. You don't need to know the percentage to know how to make a good character.

Seriously your complaints about this feat are so nit-picky and the feat would only be ineffective if someone did not read the feat at all and or always made the worst choices with it.

[captpike]

No for the most part they will chose spells that will actually work. You don't need to know the percentage to know how to make a good character.

Seriously your complaints about this feat are so nit-picky and the feat would only be ineffective if someone did not read the feat at all and or always made the worst choices with it.

if they read the feat, then make the intuitive choice of "I want to do more damage, I will pick the best single target damage spells" then it breaks.

also even if I am wrong, and its only true 10% of the time it still is worth them at least putting a note at the bottom about how to use the feat correctly.



Ok, so duplicate the Arcane Archer without the feat. If you can't, then I guess an Arcane Archer can do things that neither could do by themselves.

I was talking more about what a better goal should be for an "arcane archer", I think a class with its own powers would be better then a slightly moded [insert caster class here]

I also hope that this feat does not stop the class being made because "there already is a feat, we don't need the class"

[1337 b4k4]

I was talking more about what a better goal should be for an "arcane archer", I think a class with its own powers would be better then a slightly moded [insert caster class here]

I also hope that this feat does not stop the class being made because "there already is a feat, we don't need the class"

I'm not entirely sure "arcane archer" is strong enough (or for that matter, generic enough) to justify it's own class. A general combat caster class, sure, but "arcane archer" would be better off as a subclass in that instance.

[captpike]

I'm not entirely sure "arcane archer" is strong enough (or for that matter, generic enough) to justify it's own class. A general combat caster class, sure, but "arcane archer" would be better off as a subclass in that instance.

meh its more broad then the 3e paladin was. "your a champian of one of this small sub-set of gods"

if they really wanted to I am sure you could make an arcane archer class with its own spell list and everything. so long as they don't do what 3e did and give the wizard every arcane ability ever.

[Millennium]

then they will get infective characters, who then don't know they they are ineffective.

its a trap option and by definition they are bad.

Except that they won't get ineffective characters. They might get characters that can't Rambo their way through everything in sight, but you know what? They won't care. They're every bit as effective at what characters are really for.

[captpike]

Except that they won't get ineffective characters. They might get characters that can't Rambo their way through everything in sight, but you know what? They won't care. They're every bit as effective at what characters are really for.

and the ones who do what is intuitive and put single target spells with saves in them?

in the least the problems need to be spelled out so everyone who takes the feat knows what they are getting into when they take the feat.

[A Stray Cat]

and the ones who do what is intuitive and put single target spells with saves in them?

They learn from their mistakes?

[Envyus]

and the ones who do what is intuitive and put single target spells with saves in them?

in the least the problems need to be spelled out so everyone who takes the feat knows what they are getting into when they take the feat.

No you don't. Most of their fans are not 5 year olds they have decent understanding.

[captpike]

No you don't. Most of their fans are not 5 year olds they have decent understanding.

the fact that 60% chance to hit+60% chance to fail save=36% chance for your spell to work is not intuitive.

and again even if I am wrong, and only 10% of everyone who looks at the feat don't see it, adding one or two lines is worth it.



They learn from their mistakes?

and if they built their character around it? from the items they have to the spells they picked?

more then reason enough to add a disclaimer

[obryn]

and if they built their character around it? from the items they have to the spells they picked?

more then reason enough to add a disclaimer
This level of hand-holding is absurd. I'm on board with not offering "trap" options like 3e Toughness. Arcane Archer isn't a trap option; it's an option which requires some tactical thought.

Putting a disclaimer here would be like adding one to 4e's Lasting Frost and Wintertouched saying, "Warning: Kinda useless if you don't make a lot of Cold attacks."

[captpike]

This level of hand-holding is absurd. I'm on board with not offering "trap" options like 3e Toughness. Arcane Archer isn't a trap option; it's an option which requires some tactical thought.

Putting a disclaimer here would be like adding one to 4e's Lasting Frost and Wintertouched saying, "Warning: Kinda useless if you don't make a lot of Cold attacks."

in that case its obvious, it gives a small flat bonus to cold attacks.

being able to put any spell in an arrow, not being told that accurate attack+accurate spell=almost certain to miss spell is not something most people will get at a glance.

in the case of arcane archer its not, it lets you do things that often will make you worse. perfect example is the first post.

[A Stray Cat]

and if they built their character around it? from the items they have to the spells they picked?

more then reason enough to add a disclaimer

Then we call a timeout and do some retconning? It's not even wasted time if the player learned from it. And check this out: one or two of the players might not see the poor build choices, but there'll be someone at the table that will know this construct and spell choice is going to make for not much fun. There's nothing wrong with players coaching players.

People have demonstrated that this feat can be combined with proper spells to make it work. Dwelling on the exact way to break it and then proclaiming that it's broken through and through seems like disingenuous trolling.

Admittedly, I have never opened a 4th edition book, but I doubt there were any such disclaimers in there. I can't imagine that it was because the system was perfect.

[captpike]

Then we call a timeout and do some retconning? It's not even wasted time if the player learned from it. And check this out: one or two of the players might not see the poor build choices, but there'll be someone at the table that will know this construct and spell choice is going to make for not much fun. There's nothing wrong with players coaching players.

People have demonstrated that this feat can be combined with proper spells to make it work. Dwelling on the exact way to break it and then proclaiming that it's broken through and through seems like disingenuous trolling.

Admittedly, I have never opened a 4th edition book, but I doubt there were any such disclaimers in there. I can't imagine that it was because the system was perfect.

there is in fact a disclaimer. one of the few ways to make a worthless character is the hybrid system (sort of a balanced gestalt) it basically says "warning, while you can make good characters using this system, if you do it poorly you could make a worthless one"

also the feats and powers in 4e were made to be as understandable as possible, they were made to be transparent. if something did X it said it as clearly as could be written

if a feat can work, but often won't do anything then it should say that. "warning if you used this feature with a single target spell that allows a save then it will hurt your accuracy alot"

[Chaosvii7]

if a feat can work, but often won't do anything then it should say that. "warning if you used this feature with a single target spell that allows a save then it will hurt your accuracy alot"

It will always work as intended, even when you're not using it. The feat does as it is written at all times. It mentions that the spell takes effect after being hit by the arrow. Anybody who reads that feat should say "Okay, I hit them with the arrow and then the spell takes effect."

That's what it does. The saving throw has nothing to do with it. The attack roll is mentioned in the feat. If the saving throw has to be made as the part of the spell, it's working exactly as written and as interpreted.

[A Stray Cat]

So why do you think they won't do such a thing for this? (As silly as some of us view the notion..) In 2nd edition, which is where my group and I have been encamped since the 80s, there weren't many options to do this sort of thing, but rolling to hit OR giving a saving throw would have been preferred every time to having to go through both. And it stands out even without number crunching.

[1337 b4k4]

meh its more broad then the 3e paladin was. "your a champian of one of this small sub-set of gods"

if they really wanted to I am sure you could make an arcane archer class with its own spell list and everything. so long as they don't do what 3e did and give the wizard every arcane ability ever.

Sure, but you'll find I'm one of those people that think that paladin should be subsumed as a subclass of Fighter (or Cleric). I've gone on at length before about how half the problem with the Fighter class is that we've taking all of it's sub-schticks and made whole classes out of them. The Paladin is more of the same.


the fact that 60% chance to hit+60% chance to fail save=36% chance for your spell to work is not intuitive.

Again, though you're doing the wrong comparison and you're ignoring that the spell almost always works even with the save. The feat is never intended to be used when you're in the normal range of the spell because it is always a strictly worse option. Every spell in the game always goes off and hits when you cast it. Many offer chances of saves this is true, but the spells always go off and always affect their intended targets. If you choose to use Arcane Archer while in the normal range for the spell, you have made an objectively and obviously inferior choice. There is no secret math or extra system mastery required. All you need to know is that if you trade a guaranteed hit for an uncertain hit, you decrease your chances of hitting.

Arcane Archer is clearly intended to be used at range. So the 36% chance of getting a full spell effect (and let us not forget the 60% chance of getting an effect at all) is up from a 0% chance. That's strictly an improvement.


Edit
---------

I missed this one earlier:



Arcane archer breaks when the players misses 2/4 times and the spell doesn't have full effect 2/5 times which means that the spell was completely wasted 4/5 times instead of the normal 2/5 times.


Just to be clear here, is your assertion now that a spell that doesn't get its full effect when cast a "completely wasted" spell? I just want to make sure we're on the same page here: you think that if a spell has the potential to do 8d8 damage, that if it only does 8d8/2 damage that it was "completely wasted"?

[Fwiffo86]

Just to be clear here, is your assertion now that a spell that doesn't get its full effect when cast a "completely wasted" spell? I just want to make sure we're on the same page here: you think that if a spell has the potential to do 8d8 damage, that if it only does 8d8/2 damage that it was "completely wasted"?

That is my understanding of Captpike's position, yes.

----Edit

My Arcane Archer Feat position: Anytime a character would gain something they could not do before is a gain. Regardless of its effectiveness. The ability to imbue arrows with spells and hand them to other people is a gain. (I don't care about hit effectiveness)

Descriptions are provided to explain how it works. Descriptions that explain ever possible detail of its use are time consuming, and a waste of resources which would only serve to increase the price of the game in the first place. (players are smart and can think for themselves about how to use a spell, they don't need hand holding to show them the way. The DM has final say. This rule is immutable)

Math is math. You need a system to work. Math is your rules. What should be the target for reasonable success? 60-75% seems good to me. That should be attainable by any character built exactly as provided by the game. (This is a baseline concept. When you change the baseline, you change the whole calculation, at your own risk. No, no one needs to be told this in the description, see above)

A feat is a feat. You take them to get something you do not have already, or to further customize your character into the ideal character you want. Any feat taken is something your character could not do before you took the feat. That is character growth. Everything has flaws. Accept it.

[captpike]

Again, though you're doing the wrong comparison and you're ignoring that the spell almost always works even with the save. The feat is never intended to be used when you're in the normal range of the spell because it is always a strictly worse option. Every spell in the game always goes off and hits when you cast it. Many offer chances of saves this is true, but the spells always go off and always affect their intended targets. If you choose to use Arcane Archer while in the normal range for the spell, you have made an objectively and obviously inferior choice. There is no secret math or extra system mastery required. All you need to know is that if you trade a guaranteed hit for an uncertain hit, you decrease your chances of hitting.

Arcane Archer is clearly intended to be used at range. So the 36% chance of getting a full spell effect (and let us not forget the 60% chance of getting an effect at all) is up from a 0% chance. That's strictly an improvement.


if the name of the feat instead was "Extended spell range" or something, or if it even said "you trade accuracy for greater range" rather then hiding it I would be ok with it. but that is not what it says.


That is my understanding of Captpike's position, yes.

----Edit

My Arcane Archer Feat position: Anytime a character would gain something they could not do before is a gain. Regardless of its effectiveness. The ability to imbue arrows with spells and hand them to other people is a gain. (I don't care about hit effectiveness)

Descriptions are provided to explain how it works. Descriptions that explain ever possible detail of its use are time consuming, and a waste of resources which would only serve to increase the price of the game in the first place. (players are smart and can think for themselves about how to use a spell, they don't need hand holding to show them the way. The DM has final say. This rule is immutable)

Math is math. You need a system to work. Math is your rules. What should be the target for reasonable success? 60-75% seems good to me. That should be attainable by any character built exactly as provided by the game. (This is a baseline concept. When you change the baseline, you change the whole calculation, at your own risk. No, no one needs to be told this in the description, see above)

A feat is a feat. You take them to get something you do not have already, or to further customize your character into the ideal character you want. Any feat taken is something your character could not do before you took the feat. That is character growth. Everything has flaws. Accept it.

in theory yes everything new you can do is a gain.

but that only works for things like arcane archery if you have good system mastery. you need to know enough of the math to know you can't just put any spell in the arrows, you have to use certain ones. if you don't have this level of system master you will in fact be worse off then before.

and again its not worth a feat as is, feats are big deals they should net you huge gains, not sidegrades like this.

and of course if the system is made to give you 60-75% accuracy it should not break that just because you took a feat.
if spells with saves are made to always have an effect, even if you save, then they should not change that just because you took a feat.

your all acting like adding "this feat is best used with spells that don't have a save, having to both hit the target and make the saving means such spells are unreliable when on arrows" is a big deal.
given how feats in 5e have to work (very important, character defining, often the only way to customize your character) this kind of thing should be common.

[Fwiffo86]

if the name of the feat instead was "Extended spell range" or something, or if it even said "you trade accuracy for greater range" rather then hiding it I would be ok with it. but that is not what it says.

in theory yes everything new you can do is a gain.

but that only works for things like arcane archery if you have good system mastery. you need to know enough of the math to know you can't just put any spell in the arrows, you have to use certain ones. if you don't have this level of system master you will in fact be worse off then before.

and again its not worth a feat as is, feats are big deals they should net you huge gains, not sidegrades like this.

and of course if the system is made to give you 60-75% accuracy it should not break that just because you took a feat.
if spells with saves are made to always have an effect, even if you save, then they should not change that just because you took a feat.

your all acting like adding "this feat is best used with spells that don't have a save, having to both hit the target and make the saving means such spells are unreliable when on arrows" is a big deal.
given how feats in 5e have to work (very important, character defining, often the only way to customize your character) this kind of thing should be common.

Actually, you missed my point. Any feat that gives you something you could not do before is a gain. That's it. There is no commentary on how effective it is. It is character growth. Period. Math is irrelevant to this concept. Either you have, or you do not have. If you need a math explanation.... No feat = 0, Feat = 1. That is a gain. I am not discussing what someone thinks of the feat. I am stating its a growth in the character.

Please stop assuming that we are discussing the same things at all times. You point is clear. You are unwilling to devil's advocate your own words. It's all good. You have your opinions, I have mine.

[1337 b4k4]

if the name of the feat instead was "Extended spell range" or something, or if it even said "you trade accuracy for greater range" rather then hiding it I would be ok with it. but that is not what it says.


You do realize the feat tells the players all of this right? It's right there in the text "... the next time the imbued arrow hits a creature with an attack..." and subsequently "... if you imbued a spell that has an area, the creature does not need to be hit for the spell to take effect ..."

The very text of the feat explains both that you may miss (the first quote) and that area spells are more effective (the second quote). Yes, it requires critical reading skills. I think it's ok that the book assumes the players are capable of making middle school level deductions.

And lastly, you're not trading accuracy for greater range because your spell can not get that range at all, full stop. If you do not have the arcane archer feat, your chances of inflicting wounds at any distance past 25 feet is 0%. By taking Arcane Archer you don't trade anything away since you had nothing before and now you're gaining something.

[Sartharina]

And if you're using a bow at ranges of less than 30 ft, you suck at being an archer.

And yet, even with short-range spells packed onto arrows that are used at point-blank range, you deal significantly greater Burst Damage with Inflict Wounds through arrows than Inflict Wounds alone (Arrow damage is not trivial)

[captpike]

Actually, you missed my point. Any feat that gives you something you could not do before is a gain. That's it. There is no commentary on how effective it is. It is character growth. Period. Math is irrelevant to this concept. Either you have, or you do not have. If you need a math explanation.... No feat = 0, Feat = 1. That is a gain. I am not discussing what someone thinks of the feat. I am stating its a growth in the character.

Please stop assuming that we are discussing the same things at all times. You point is clear. You are unwilling to devil's advocate your own words. It's all good. You have your opinions, I have mine.

are you honestly making the point that the power level of feats does not matter? that its ok and even a good thing if some are overpowered and some are useless?

[Fwiffo86]

are you honestly making the point that the power level of feats does not matter? that its ok and even a good thing if some are overpowered and some are useless?

That is exactly what I am saying. Everything SHOULDN'T be equal on purpose. Things should be useful in situations. Other things should be useful in other situations. That's why you have multiple things to choose from. Everything equal is equivalent to everything is the same. Why bother having multiple options?

Example Fun Time---

Lets say you are in the woods hunting deer. You have a Rifle and a Grenade. Lets also assume that these two things deal about the same amount of hit point damage. Which do you use?

Do you use the grenade?
Maybe if you want to pick up bits and pieces out of the trees and try and piece together enough to eat.

Do you use the Rifle?
Probably, does the same damage, and leaves most of the deer intact so you can eat, and maybe get a pair of shoes out of it.

Just because X does the same damage as Y, or has the same accuracy and hit percentage, doesn't mean they are balanced or equal. This is a concept that isn't covered by extraneous calculations and is the heart of player tactics, ingenuity, and thinking.

[Job]

Maths:

http://i.imgur.com/oKAE1kf.png
http://i.imgur.com/BIuXzyy.png


Overall something on the order of 30% reduction in damage output.

[obryn]

are you honestly making the point that the power level of feats does not matter? that its ok and even a good thing if some are overpowered and some are useless?
Your error is in thinking that there's only one axis on which to evaluate feats. People here have repeatedly demonstrated ways in which Arcane Archer is not useless and is not a trap option. It requires tactical thought to play well, but so do many things in D&D.

[captpike]

That is exactly what I am saying. Everything SHOULDN'T be equal on purpose. Things should be useful in situations. Other things should be useful in other situations. That's why you have multiple things to choose from. Everything equal is equivalent to everything is the same. Why bother having multiple options?

Example Fun Time---

Lets say you are in the woods hunting deer. You have a Rifle and a Grenade. Lets also assume that these two things deal about the same amount of hit point damage. Which do you use?

Do you use the grenade?
Maybe if you want to pick up bits and pieces out of the trees and try and piece together enough to eat.

Do you use the Rifle?
Probably, does the same damage, and leaves most of the deer intact so you can eat, and maybe get a pair of shoes out of it.

Just because X does the same damage as Y, or has the same accuracy and hit percentage, doesn't mean they are balanced or equal. This is a concept that isn't covered by extraneous calculations and is the heart of player tactics, ingenuity, and thinking.

not in all situations no, but feats should roughly be equal in power. otherwise you will have feats no one will take, feats that will overpower characters. I would rather be able to pick cool feats without having to worry that I will accidentally made the game so easy it wont be fun anymore, or make myself so useless I might as well not be there.

to use your example, what if it was instead you had a grenade and a rocket launcher, and the rocket launcher did more damage, had more range and was cheaper?
so in every situation the rocket launcher was better? that would take away a player choice, every time he would pick a rocket launcher.

making feats equal means you instead have an equal choice, so you do get to pick between two things, instead of the system telling you what is better.


Your error is in thinking that there's only one axis on which to evaluate feats. People here have repeatedly demonstrated ways in which Arcane Archer is not useless and is not a trap option. It requires tactical thought to play well, but so do many things in D&D.

the problem is that its both, its both too powerful in some ways (it lets you cast multiple spells at the same time, beyond the normal limit) or it can be worse then useless if you just use it intuitively.

it needs to be normalized, or at least enough info needs to be given to make it clear how to correctly use it.

[Fwiffo86]

not in all situations no, but feats should roughly be equal in power. otherwise you will have feats no one will take, feats that will overpower characters. I would rather be able to pick cool feats without having to worry that I will accidentally made the game so easy it wont be fun anymore, or make myself so useless I might as well not be there.

to use your example, what if it was instead you had a grenade and a rocket launcher, and the rocket launcher did more damage, had more range and was cheaper?
so in every situation the rocket launcher was better? that would take away a player choice, every time he would pick a rocket launcher.

making feats equal means you instead have an equal choice, so you do get to pick between two things, instead of the system telling you what is better

Ok, I see your point. I do. However, in my example, a rocket launcher is an even WORSE idea than the grenade, simply because it does more damage. You're hunting to eat, not scare every creature in the forest so you starve to death.

Ultimately my argument boils down to this. Just because a feat is evaluated one way, such as giving spells a second roll does not mean that when evaluated another way, adding range to any spell, that it is inherently bad due to math.

Speaking of math.... here is how to stat out die rolls properly. 27% effectiveness is inaccurate. And that is being kind. Pulled from here http://www.random.org/analysis/

"When discussing single numbers, a random number is one that is drawn from a set of possible values, each of which is equally probable. In statistics, this is called a uniform distribution, because the distribution of probabilities for each number is uniform (i.e., the same) across the range of possible values. For example, a good (unloaded) die has the probability 1/6 of rolling a one, 1/6 of rolling a two and so on. Hence, the probability of each of the six numbers coming up is exactly the same, so we say any roll of our die has a uniform distribution. When discussing a sequence of random numbers, each number drawn must be statistically independent of the others. This means that drawing one value doesn't make that value less likely to occur again. This is exactly the case with our unloaded die: If you roll a six, that doesn't mean the chance of rolling another six changes."

[obryn]

the problem is that its both, its both too powerful in some ways (it lets you cast multiple spells at the same time, beyond the normal limit) or it can be worse then useless if you just use it intuitively.

it needs to be normalized, or at least enough info needs to be given to make it clear how to correctly use it.
This seems, to me, to be the relatively benign kind of mastery. That of learning how to make the best use of your character's capabilities.

What you're suggesting would be like putting warning labels on most 4e Rogue Encounter 3 Exploits, "Warning: You should really take Low Slash instead!"

[captpike]

Ok, I see your point. I do. However, in my example, a rocket launcher is an even WORSE idea than the grenade, simply because it does more damage. You're hunting to eat, not scare every creature in the forest so you starve to death.

Ultimately my argument boils down to this. Just because a feat is evaluated one way, such as giving spells a second roll does not mean that when evaluated another way, adding range to any spell, that it is inherently bad due to math.

Speaking of math.... here is how to stat out die rolls properly. 27% effectiveness is inaccurate. And that is being kind. Pulled from here http://www.random.org/analysis/

"When discussing single numbers, a random number is one that is drawn from a set of possible values, each of which is equally probable. In statistics, this is called a uniform distribution, because the distribution of probabilities for each number is uniform (i.e., the same) across the range of possible values. For example, a good (unloaded) die has the probability 1/6 of rolling a one, 1/6 of rolling a two and so on. Hence, the probability of each of the six numbers coming up is exactly the same, so we say any roll of our die has a uniform distribution. When discussing a sequence of random numbers, each number drawn must be statistically independent of the others. This means that drawing one value doesn't make that value less likely to occur again. This is exactly the case with our unloaded die: If you roll a six, that doesn't mean the chance of rolling another six changes."

its not that hard, 60(percent chance of hitting the target)*0.6(chance of them failing the save)=36%

[Job]

its not that hard, 60(percent chance of hitting the target)*0.6(chance of them failing the save)=36%

This is true, but it's not a reduction in damage of 64%. 40% of the time you will do no damage, and 60% you will do more than the spell would do on its own. Depending on how well you can hit the target and what you value (i.e. retention of spells, damage per round, range of engagement) you will have different desires. see below (now with prof. bonuses!)

http://i.imgur.com/sMzhtOQ.png

On a target with 15 AC and a +1 con save, the difference is only 1.5 damage. And since the Spell alone is invariant on AC, it's demonstrably better in many cases, such as when you know you have advantage on ranged attacks. Furthermore you can retrieve unspent arrows.

Even with the worst usage we are not to far off, weak maybe, but not trap levels.

[Fwiffo86]

its not that hard, 60(percent chance of hitting the target)*0.6(chance of them failing the save)=36%

Attack rolls
3,15,19,19,9,3,15,1,16,17,5,2,7,10,20,7,20,17,18,4 (12 hits = 60%)

Saves for successful hits
11,19,4,12,15,15,11,3,1,7,2,3 (8 fails = 66%)

Hey look! I proved your math calculation!
.60*.66 = 39.6%

Except, it doesn't actually work that way statistically. No matter how many times you hit. The target has the same chance of failing the save. The are mutually exclusive things. Yes, you only access the roll to save "IF" you hit successfully. That doesn't change the effectiveness of the spell. All that does is leave up to a random chance, if you "decide to cast" the spell in the first place. You could easily argue that any spell has a 30% chance to succeed by the same calculation.

Decide to Cast spell = 50%
Chance to fail save = 60%

.5*.6= 30%

So when comparing spells with save against spells with saves on arrows, you have a greater chance of succeeding by attacking with an arrow, because the arrow casts when it hits, taking the decision out of your hands.

Added-----

Because I know you will:

.5*.6*.6 = 18% if you attempt to make the argument to attempt and attack roll or not. The decision phase vs arrow and non-arrow is on the hit, not deciding to attack with the arrow. Essentially Arrow chance to cast 100%, Player chance to cast 50% is what is being compared.

[Job]

Attack rolls
Because I know you will:

.5*.6*.6 = 18% if you attempt to make the argument to attempt and attack roll or not. The decision phase vs arrow and non-arrow is on the hit, not deciding to attack with the arrow. Essentially Arrow chance to cast 100%, Player chance to cast 50% is what is being compared.

That's not the argument,

The decision phase occurs when the caster determines which spells (if any) he or she will place on their arrows. The decision to pre-load spell on the arrows in contrast to having them prepared on the mage/cleric and ready to cast. The argument then is that on a round-by-round basis the unity or the arrow is less than, or so rarely greater than, the normal spell you are unable to justify the cost of the feat.

[1337 b4k4]

or it can be worse then useless if you just use it intuitively.

Explain to me how the intuitive use of the feat is to trade a guaranteed hit for a an uncertain hit. Ignore the "save spell" vs "non save spell" thing for a second here. You are saying here that the intuitive use of this feat is to look at you spell casting list and look at your archery skills and look at this feat and say:

"Self, I'm awful sick of knowing that every spell I cast will hit the target with 100% accuracy. Therefore, self, we shall intentionally hobble ourselves by instead placing our spells on arrows and make our chance to hit with the spell something less than 100%."

[Lokiare]

You do realize the feat tells the players all of this right? It's right there in the text "... the next time the imbued arrow hits a creature with an attack..." and subsequently "... if you imbued a spell that has an area, the creature does not need to be hit for the spell to take effect ..."

The very text of the feat explains both that you may miss (the first quote) and that area spells are more effective (the second quote). Yes, it requires critical reading skills. I think it's ok that the book assumes the players are capable of making middle school level deductions.

And lastly, you're not trading accuracy for greater range because your spell can not get that range at all, full stop. If you do not have the arcane archer feat, your chances of inflicting wounds at any distance past 25 feet is 0%. By taking Arcane Archer you don't trade anything away since you had nothing before and now you're gaining something.

I think the misunderstanding here is that most people have critical reading and critical thinking skills. See if 30% of people have critical reading skills (those that actually learned something in high school) and 20% of people have critical thinking skills (those that actually took critical thinking classes in college and actually learned the info) then only 6% of the population have the skills required to read this feat and understand its shortcomings. This is the same kind of misunderstanding that makes this feat a trap feat (Note: I pulled those numbers out of the air, but you can probably do the same math with real statistics and get similar results).

What we are saying is its not immediately obvious what the short comings of the feat are unless you have a level of system mastery that only rabid forum goers tend to have.


That is exactly what I am saying. Everything SHOULDN'T be equal on purpose. Things should be useful in situations. Other things should be useful in other situations. That's why you have multiple things to choose from. Everything equal is equivalent to everything is the same. Why bother having multiple options?

Example Fun Time---

Lets say you are in the woods hunting deer. You have a Rifle and a Grenade. Lets also assume that these two things deal about the same amount of hit point damage. Which do you use?

Do you use the grenade?
Maybe if you want to pick up bits and pieces out of the trees and try and piece together enough to eat.

Do you use the Rifle?
Probably, does the same damage, and leaves most of the deer intact so you can eat, and maybe get a pair of shoes out of it.

Just because X does the same damage as Y, or has the same accuracy and hit percentage, doesn't mean they are balanced or equal. This is a concept that isn't covered by extraneous calculations and is the heart of player tactics, ingenuity, and thinking.

At the point you said "everything SHOULDN'T be equal on purpose" is the point I'm calling you out as just trolling us. Everything being equal is literally the holy grail of game design and development. Unless you mean that it shouldn't be homogenized or some other meaning. Every feat should be about equally useful in an equal number of situations with no un-obvious side effects or traps. That doesn't mean you can't have a feat that worthless half the time and really nice the other half like say the cantrip feat which allows you to learn a few cantrips and use them X times per day (or whatever it is). That is situationally useful and is powerful when used in very narrow specific situations. Something like heavy armor master which just gives a +1 to AC is more broadly applicable but is also weaker. Its net effect is the same though when compared with the cantrip feat. However neither feat has trap options or side effects that aren't obvious. We aren't even talking about comparing damage numbers here. We are comparing the effectiveness of the outcomes when you swap these two feats.


Ok, I see your point. I do. However, in my example, a rocket launcher is an even WORSE idea than the grenade, simply because it does more damage. You're hunting to eat, not scare every creature in the forest so you starve to death.

Ultimately my argument boils down to this. Just because a feat is evaluated one way, such as giving spells a second roll does not mean that when evaluated another way, adding range to any spell, that it is inherently bad due to math.

Speaking of math.... here is how to stat out die rolls properly. 27% effectiveness is inaccurate. And that is being kind. Pulled from here http://www.random.org/analysis/

"When discussing single numbers, a random number is one that is drawn from a set of possible values, each of which is equally probable. In statistics, this is called a uniform distribution, because the distribution of probabilities for each number is uniform (i.e., the same) across the range of possible values. For example, a good (unloaded) die has the probability 1/6 of rolling a one, 1/6 of rolling a two and so on. Hence, the probability of each of the six numbers coming up is exactly the same, so we say any roll of our die has a uniform distribution. When discussing a sequence of random numbers, each number drawn must be statistically independent of the others. This means that drawing one value doesn't make that value less likely to occur again. This is exactly the case with our unloaded die: If you roll a six, that doesn't mean the chance of rolling another six changes."

Yeah, as to the math part, no. That is incorrect because we aren't evaluating individual numbers we are evaluating whether a roll gets under or over a specific number. Mathematically you can see that here http://anydice.com/program/3de0 what you are talking about is on the normal button. If you hit the at least or at most buttons you'll see how it changes the chances drastically. Not only that you have to roll over a specific number on the dice (determined by bonuses and penalties and the originally desired number) to even have access to the second roll. So that cuts your chances down drastically. This is what we are talking about when we say it isn't obvious. You either have to know probability math pretty well or you have to have an intuitive understanding of the game.

The feat can be used to great effect after about level 7 or so when you start getting area spells, up to that point though it hobbles your character. Effectiveness wise you are almost better off just giving up a turn to move into range than to use arrows to carry your spells.

My preferred fix is to say the spell hits whether the arrow hits or not and resolve it as normal. Arcane archer already has the restriction of having to pick your spells ahead of time and assign them to slots, something the cleric and wizard don't have to do normally. So the trade off there is you have to pick the right spells ahead of time and you can't recover your spells after you cast them into an arrow to trade them for another spell. So the trade off would be spell slot preparation in exchange for an slightly extended range for the effect. Instead of trap option until 7th level unless you use spells like bless that you could do anyway with a slightly longer range.

Its not that its that bad, its that the player immediately realized they had fallen into a trap option and until they got an extended rest they couldn't remedy it, and their character concept was totally destroyed. They wanted to be an arcane archer (ranged damager), not an arcane blesser (ranged buffer). If it had a warning label on it the player probably would have picked different spells or gone with a different build altogether.

[1337 b4k4]

I think the misunderstanding here is that most people have critical reading and critical thinking skills. See if 30% of people have critical reading skills (those that actually learned something in high school) and 20% of people have critical thinking skills (those that actually took critical thinking classes in college and actually learned the info) then only 6% of the population have the skills required to read this feat and understand its shortcomings. This is the same kind of misunderstanding that makes this feat a trap feat (Note: I pulled those numbers out of the air, but you can probably do the same math with real statistics and get similar results).

What we are saying is its not immediately obvious what the short comings of the feat are unless you have a level of system mastery that only rabid forum goers tend to have.

Or you know... you're literate. Look I know that you think everyone who disagrees with you is an irrational idiot, but D&D does not (and should not) assume the same about its players. The game does not need to be written to a 1st grade reading level level.

[Fwiffo86]

At the point you said "everything SHOULDN'T be equal on purpose" is the point I'm calling you out as just trolling us. Everything being equal is literally the holy grail of game design and development. Unless you mean that it shouldn't be homogenized or some other meaning.

My understanding of this discussion is that the Arcane Archer Feat is a trap because it reduces your supposed spell effectiveness. Due to you having a chance to miss your target, that reduces the effect of the spell. And that it doesn't put this into direct words in the feat description. Did I miss anything?

My counter to that is the usefulness of a Feat is situational and subjective. Judging something solely on one credential is a bad move. Yes, I agree that requiring a hit roll mathematically seems to make the spell less effective. But that is not my only credential. A feat is useful here. But not there. Period. That makes it unequal. That makes it unbalanced. If you have the wrong tool for the job, you have the wrong too.

It seems to me that many people are just hung up on the math. You want feats and abilities, and rolls, to all be universally good and beneficial. You want something that can be used in every situation, with supreme effectiveness, and then you complain that your players can't be challenged enough because either they stomp on their encounter, or it rolls over and dies. Where is the challenge? Where is the danger? Where is the chance of failure? If everything a character has is useful in all situations, you can't surprise them with something unexpected because they have a tool to use to combat it.

I may be singular in this but I also trust that most people who pay attention can puzzle out if this feat is useful to them or not. Players don't need their hands held and have page long descriptions or warning labels on these things. As I said before, doing so would increase the price of the game, the development time, and generally result in players feeling like the game designers think you are to simpleminded to figure this out for yourself.

Math is great. Its a good indicator. It is not the end all be all deciding fact. Yes a system needs math to operate. But it is nothing more than a tool to resolve something instead of leaving it up to a single person deciding yes or no.

[Job]

...Effectiveness wise you are almost better off just giving up a turn to move into range than to use arrows to carry your spells.

Demonstrate this, don't just say it.

[eastmabl]

Demonstrate this, don't just say it.

That's not possible, because context is required to discuss movement vs. attack.

Unfortunately, that's what most of the thread is lacking. Math is helpful and telling, but it doesn't do a lick of good without the context. There will be times where putting a spell in an arrow is going to make a good bit of sense, and other times where it will be sub-optimal. Part of tactical acumen involves figuring out when it is wise and when it's foolish to be putting your spells into arrows.

[Lokiare]

Or you know... you're literate. Look I know that you think everyone who disagrees with you is an irrational idiot, but D&D does not (and should not) assume the same about its players. The game does not need to be written to a 1st grade reading level level.

Nope sorry. Please quit telling me what my opinion is. I think that people are all idiots at the same time they are all geniuses, only in different fields at different times. I think that on the subject of playing 1E I would be out of my depth, but if we are talking about 2E I nearly had the core rules for that game memorized (its been awhile though).

Writing D&D to a 1st grade reading level would be awesome. It would allow the game to be accessible to everyone that passed the first grade rather than people that can guesstimate probability math in their heads. It would actually be a massive improvement and increase the demographic considerably.


My understanding of this discussion is that the Arcane Archer Feat is a trap because it reduces your supposed spell effectiveness. Due to you having a chance to miss your target, that reduces the effect of the spell. And that it doesn't put this into direct words in the feat description. Did I miss anything?

Yes. You missed one important thing. It doesn't flat out tell that you lose spell effectiveness. If it did that I would have no problem with it at all.

"This feat may cause single target spells with saving throws to be much less effective due to the lowered chance of getting the spell off and failing the save. For example if you cast inflict wounds into an arrow and then fire it at your opponent and have a 60% chance of hitting the opponent with the arrow and your inflict spell has a 40% chance of being fully effective then you have a 24% chance of actually getting the full effect of the spell."

That at the bottom would be all it takes to pull Arcane Archer out of the trap option pile and back into an A list feat for casters.


My counter to that is the usefulness of a Feat is situational and subjective. Judging something solely on one credential is a bad move. Yes, I agree that requiring a hit roll mathematically seems to make the spell less effective. But that is not my only credential. A feat is useful here. But not there. Period. That makes it unequal. That makes it unbalanced. If you have the wrong tool for the job, you have the wrong too.

The problem is you can make feats that are situational that come up at the same general frequencies. For instance if you made a feat that allowed you to gain +1d6 damage against prone creatures and another feat that allowed you to gain a +2 to attack versus slowed creatures, then they would be around equal because slow and prone come up at about the same frequency (if you have a wizard in the party and 5E assumes you do so...) now if slow doesn't come up as frequently as prone then it loses balance. That's not the real problem with Arcane Archer though. The problem with arcane archer is that unless you know probability math, you aren't going to see when its ineffective or super effective. Thus its a trap option and not a 'bad feat'


It seems to me that many people are just hung up on the math. You want feats and abilities, and rolls, to all be universally good and beneficial. You want something that can be used in every situation, with supreme effectiveness, and then you complain that your players can't be challenged enough because either they stomp on their encounter, or it rolls over and dies. Where is the challenge? Where is the danger? Where is the chance of failure? If everything a character has is useful in all situations, you can't surprise them with something unexpected because they have a tool to use to combat it.

I may be singular in this but I also trust that most people who pay attention can puzzle out if this feat is useful to them or not. Players don't need their hands held and have page long descriptions or warning labels on these things. As I said before, doing so would increase the price of the game, the development time, and generally result in players feeling like the game designers think you are to simpleminded to figure this out for yourself.

Math is great. Its a good indicator. It is not the end all be all deciding fact. Yes a system needs math to operate. But it is nothing more than a tool to resolve something instead of leaving it up to a single person deciding yes or no.


Demonstrate this, don't just say it.

Actually you can distil anything down to the math and tell how good or bad it is. Many people here do it wrong though. What you have to do to get a real idea of whats going on is to simulate about 4000 combats using the feat and then 4000 combats using other feats that are supposed to be comparable then you compare the outcomes: how many average hit points remain at the end of the encounter on each character (percentage wise), how many rounds the average combat was, how many average resources were expended, etc...etc...

No one is willing to do that though. The methods that get used around here where we run the math can be used to point out glaring flaws it won't catch all problems, but it does point out the big ones.


That's not possible, because context is required to discuss movement vs. attack.

Unfortunately, that's what most of the thread is lacking. Math is helpful and telling, but it doesn't do a lick of good without the context. There will be times where putting a spell in an arrow is going to make a good bit of sense, and other times where it will be sub-optimal. Part of tactical acumen involves figuring out when it is wise and when it's foolish to be putting your spells into arrows.

Actually context is not needed.

The arcane archer feat extends the range of spells right? So if you are using it you are using it at range, otherwise its completely worthless. If you are using it at range is it more effective than simply taking a round to walk into regular spell range of your target? not with single target spells with saves. Its all straight forward.

[obryn]

Actually you can distil anything down to the math and tell how good or bad it is. Many people here do it wrong though. What you have to do to get a real idea of whats going on is to simulate about 4000 combats using the feat and then 4000 combats using other feats that are supposed to be comparable then you compare the outcomes: how many average hit points remain at the end of the encounter on each character (percentage wise), how many rounds the average combat was, how many average resources were expended, etc...etc...

No one is willing to do that though. The methods that get used around here where we run the math can be used to point out glaring flaws it won't catch all problems, but it does point out the big ones.
No, you can't. This will only give you "empty room" effectiveness.

[Lokiare]

No, you can't. This will only give you "empty room" effectiveness.

No this will give you the effectiveness of each feat in relation to other feats. No one said anything about an empty room. You can fill the room with whatever you want or just use random rooms from adventures over the years. Now it won't tell you how effective the feat is compared to improvisation, but then nothing can (unless of course your improvisation rules are balanced like page 42 of the 4E DMG). The best you can do is balanced feats with each other and leave the role playing and unknown unknowns alone.

[Envyus]

Writing D&D to a 1st grade reading level would be awesome. It would allow the game to be accessible to everyone that passed the first grade rather than people that can guesstimate probability math in their heads. It would actually be a massive improvement and increase the demographic considerably.


No that would be stupid. Also just to tell you next to nobody bothers with guessing probability in this game which is something you don't seem to understand.

[obryn]

No this will give you the effectiveness of each feat in relation to other feats. No one said anything about an empty room. You can fill the room with whatever you want or just use random rooms from adventures over the years. Now it won't tell you how effective the feat is compared to improvisation, but then nothing can (unless of course your improvisation rules are balanced like page 42 of the 4E DMG). The best you can do is balanced feats with each other and leave the role playing and unknown unknowns alone.
Tell me the mathematical effectiveness of the elf's ability to ignore difficult terrain while shifting.

Tell me the mathematical effectiveness of a climb speed.

Not everything boils down to d20 rolls. Something like Power Attack can be mathed out. Something situational or tactical in nature can't. We can say that flight is superior to climb, or stun is superior to daze, but what about long range slow?

This does not excuse bad design, mind you. But this sort of ability is not subject to pure mathematical analysis.

[Lokiare]

No that would be stupid. Also just to tell you next to nobody bothers with guessing probability in this game which is something you don't seem to understand.


Tell me the mathematical effectiveness of the elf's ability to ignore difficult terrain while shifting.

Tell me the mathematical effectiveness of a climb speed.

Not everything boils down to d20 rolls. Something like Power Attack can be mathed out. Something situational or tactical in nature can't. We can say that flight is superior to climb, or stun is superior to daze, but what about long range slow?

This does not excuse bad design, mind you. But this sort of ability is not subject to pure mathematical analysis.

Give me 400 play testers willing to test 10 encounters each and I'll pick random encounters from all the various material from 1E to 4E and record their results and get back to you with a solid number on its rating on a scale of 1 to 100. Seriously this is how things should be tested, but no one does that.

[unwise]

One interesting thing I noticed from the discussions here is that people care a lot more about missing with a spell-arrow than I think I do. For me, it would be losing the spell slot for the day that annoys me. Being able to miss with the arrow, then pick it up again after the encounter is fine with me. The extra chance of not applying the effect that I want when I want is something I'm OK with given the extra damage and utility that Arcane Archer offers. It would annoy me a great deal to not be able to regather the arrow though, which leads to some interesting choices about when to fire and how much effort to go to to regather the missed arrow.

I suspect that changes a great deal at higher level though, when some save-or-suck spells start getting very nasty indeed and people tend to rely on them more. This happens around the same time that the Wizards lack of relative combat ability starts to show through more and is the same time that the added damage of a longbow arrow becomes rather uninspiring. I can imagine a lot of higher level Mages being pretty keen to put the bow away.

I wonder if things might not be helped a great deal by the arrow becoming +1 per spell level (or two) put into it . So a high level Arcane Archer's arrows are more accurate and more damaging, helping to keep the arrow itself less of a liability for landing the spell and more of a help for damage. At least as a DM, if you found this being an issue, it would not be hard to create a magic bow with that effect.

[da_chicken]

One interesting thing I noticed from the discussions here is that people care a lot more about missing with a spell-arrow than I think I do. For me, it would be losing the spell slot for the day that annoys me. Being able to miss with the arrow, then pick it up again after the encounter is fine with me. The extra chance of not applying the effect that I want when I want is something I'm OK with given the extra damage and utility that Arcane Archer offers. It would annoy me a great deal to not be able to regather the arrow though, which leads to some interesting choices about when to fire and how much effort to go to to regather the missed arrow.

I suspect that changes a great deal at higher level though, when some save-or-suck spells start getting very nasty indeed and people tend to rely on them more. This happens around the same time that the Wizards lack of relative combat ability starts to show through more and is the same time that the added damage of a longbow arrow becomes rather uninspiring. I can imagine a lot of higher level Mages being pretty keen to put the bow away.

For me, I'd almost universally be using area affect spells. Even if we're talking about spells that use concentration and thus can't be combined (I'd love to fire web into cloudkill, but they both require concentration) the area spells always go off. You're just adding the bonus of being able to fire an arrow at the same time for free damage, potentially additional range, potentially the ability to cast where or when you otherwise could not (from silence for example). The ability to put hold person or inflict wounds on the arrow is pretty low on my list. I'm certain the same people who wouldn't realize that single target spells are bad are the same people who likely don't think beyond fireball or sound burst.

Ultimately, though, I'm not participating in this discussion because the feat is too poorly worded currently, so I don't see the point of debating it. It lists areas that are symmetrical about the target (sphere, cylinder, cloud) leaving doubt about behavior of non-uniform or non-symmetrical area spells like cones or lines. How does thunderwave (or burning hands) work, for example? Is the arrow's target the center of the cube, or is it offset behind the target? It doesn't specify who fires the arrow, which leads to fairly ridiculous outcomes at high level with hirelings. It says "resolve the effects of the spell" and then doesn't even specify if that includes an attack roll for the spell if it has one. All the feats are poorly worded. They list -5 penalties in several of them when it's likely you'd just have disadvantage now. It's clear that feats were not fleshed out or templated well, so I'm not particularly inclined to debate the nuances of any of them.

[EvanWaters]

Death to Feats.

Seriously, they have always caused problems because the designers never specifically decided what space they occupy. What ARE they? They've encompassed "nifty heroic stunts" like Cleave or Craft Wondrous Item, basic armor and weapon proficiency, bonuses to various skills, extra HP- it's a mess, and that's why they're never properly balanced and that's why traps remain.

They're design spackle, basically.

[da_chicken]

Death to Feats.

Seriously, they have always caused problems because the designers never specifically decided what space they occupy. What ARE they? They've encompassed "nifty heroic stunts" like Cleave or Craft Wondrous Item, basic armor and weapon proficiency, bonuses to various skills, extra HP- it's a mess, and that's why they're never properly balanced and that's why traps remain.

They're design spackle, basically.

Feats are modular class features that allow players to customize their character class within limits. I thought that was obvious. It's even more obvious in 5e, since they're exactly replacing the Ability Score Improvement class feature. It's taking this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#otherClassVariants) to the generic extreme and then not assigning a default ability.

In 3.x and 4e they're supposed to be lower powered than standard class features because you have to design them with the idea that characters with the most to gain will take them and maximize their use. In 5e, since you're trading actual class features for them (and trading one of the most powerful class features in the game) feats can be more powerful. As powerful as most standard class features. The game was essentially built with players taking by default what amounts to the best feat possible.

Character customization like this is wildly popular, and is generally considered a design feature. I doubt it's going anywhere, particularly because it sells books.

[EvanWaters]

But "modular class features" is so broad a category that you inevitably end up with a long shopping list that grows even longer when supplements start coming out. This makes it harder to sort through and compare and contrast to pick out trap options and the like. To say nothing of feat chains and prerequisites.

If you want character generation to be at all speedy you can't have 90-something seemingly-equal-but-not-quite class abilities available to everyone.

[Kurald Galain]

But "modular class features" is so broad a category that you inevitably end up with a long shopping list that grows even longer when supplements start coming out. This makes it harder to sort through and compare and contrast to pick out trap options and the like. To say nothing of feat chains and prerequisites.

Indeed. What works better is giving a class a shortlist of modular features for that class, such as 3E's warlock invocations, or PF's oracle mysteries. That at least keeps it manageable.

[obryn]

Indeed. What works better is giving a class a shortlist of modular features for that class, such as 3E's warlock invocations, or PF's oracle mysteries. That at least keeps it manageable.
Also: 4e powers.

Though as with all modular features, as the list grows, it becomes more and more unwieldy and becomes less and less advantageous over feats.

The worst offender in the "giant list of crap" problem, IMO, was Star Wars Saga Edition where you had gigantic pick-lists of Feats (some with weird prereqs and chains), and then had to turn around and choose from a gigantic pick-list of Talents (some with weird prereqs and chains).

13th Age does an interesting thing with feats, IMO. Almost all of them directly modify one of a class's features in a specific way. This makes them very easy to sort and track.

[emeraldstreak]

I had a few people absent from my 4E game, so we decided to fire up 5E and start playing it from the final play test packet. One of the few I haven't personally play tested.

My players chose a Monk and a Arcane Archer Cleric (since the arcane archer feat doesn't specify wizard or cleric spells). We started at level 4 and I ran them through the opening adventure "Murder in Baldur's Gate" that is available from the WotC website from awhile back.

The things we noticed right away. One of the 2 HD murderers was able to take off half the hp of the Cleric in a single hit (they had 19 hp from rolling). The Cleric had previously imbued their arrows with all their slots of inflict wounds so 4 level 1 and 3 level 2 inflict wounds arrows. Due to not maxing out wisdom the DC of the Clerics saves was 12. The monk had a similar DC due to their scores. The monk chose the Wind Riposte for their maneuver and both of them used all their ki points / spell slots casted on arrows in the single fight with the crossbow murderers. This was due to even though they were hitting the crossbow murderers got a save on top of having a miss chance. So half the time the players missed and the other half they made their saves. After about 3/4 of the battle (which was taking as long as 4E battles because we used a grid) my players basically quit and said they want nothing to do with 5E.

The crossbow murderers had a 60% chance of making any save the players could throw at them and they had about a 35% chance of being missed by the players. This means the chance of actually landing a hit and the secondary effect was around 45%. Less than half a chance of a success. Level 1 crossbow murderers against level 4 characters! Not only that the hp issue was glaring. The players rolled a little low on their hp and ended up nearly getting one shotted by the level 1 mobs (and the mobs were per the module only shooting half their bolts at the party). If they had taken the default hp at each level they would have been at 31 instead of 19 hp but that's about 3-4 level 1 mob hits from death.

The conclusion I come to from this is that 5E is aimed at a very particular play style known as fantasy vietnam. This play style is all about rocket tag combat and first strikes (which the adventure automatically gives to the enemies). Its about the randomness of the dice and not about the choices you make. People who enjoy winning because of the choices they make rather than the random roll of the dice will not like 5E.


Sums up how I expect the majority of 5E players to feel in the beginning.

See, the counter to "swingy" systems is risk management. However, 5E's risk management is counterintuitive to players of the older editions.

As a result, it'll take time before it is adopted throughout the community.

[INDYSTAR188]

Also: 4e powers.

Though as with all modular features, as the list grows, it becomes more and more unwieldy and becomes less and less advantageous over feats.

The worst offender in the "giant list of crap" problem, IMO, was Star Wars Saga Edition where you had gigantic pick-lists of Feats (some with weird prereqs and chains), and then had to turn around and choose from a gigantic pick-list of Talents (some with weird prereqs and chains).

13th Age does an interesting thing with feats, IMO. Almost all of them directly modify one of a class's features in a specific way. This makes them very easy to sort and track.

I'm getting ready to start playing a Sagas game and everyone keeps telling me to map out my character a head of time so that I don't accidently become unqualified for something I was hoping to take. I'm still super excited though, the game looks like loads of fun and I've heard great things about it.

[Person_Man]

Or you know... you're literate. Look I know that you think everyone who disagrees with you is an irrational idiot, but D&D does not (and should not) assume the same about its players. The game does not need to be written to a 1st grade reading level level.

While I agree that D&D doesn't need to be written for a 1st grade reading level, I would argue that the core rules should be relatively easy to understand, and that within the core rules there should be no "trap options" because not everyone is good at math, and many players don't even consider math when making a decision (they just do what "feels right" for their character).

I work with adult education training programs for living, and the level of reading and math comprehension in this country is far worse then most people believe. 20%ish of Americans over the age of 18 are functionally illiterate (depending on how you define it), including many people who have nominally graduated from high school. Only 50%ish of Americans age 25+ have taken some college classes (including community college and vocational education) and only 30%ish of Americans have completed a 4 year degree or higher.

Being a large book, by default (and unlike board games, where rules can be dirt simple and passed down by tradition or verbal instructions) they're not going to be able to sell D&D to children under the age of 10ish and the functionally illiterate. But presumably, WotC wants to sell D&D to as many people as possible, including young (age 12ish) children. That mean's their ideal level of reading and math comprehension for the core rules is probably around an 8th grade reading level.

We may want to core rules to be the Lord of the Rings, but if they want it to be a widely popular game, WotC should write it on the same level as the Hunger Games. Otherwise, it will be relegated to an increasingly niche market.

[1337 b4k4]

We may want to core rules to be the Lord of the Rings, but if they want it to be a widely popular game, WotC should write it on the same level as the Hunger Games. Otherwise, it will be relegated to an increasingly niche market.

I don't event think I want that much. I simply don't think that the rules need to talk down to their players. Kids are smart and flexible, adults less so, but with more experience to pick up on nuance. In either case, I don't think our society has fallen so much that the level of prose used for AD&D or BECMI is beyond people.

[Person_Man]

I don't event think I want that much. I simply don't think that the rules need to talk down to their players. Kids are smart and flexible, adults less so, but with more experience to pick up on nuance. In either case, I don't think our society has fallen so much that the level of prose used for AD&D or BECMI is beyond people.

Fair enough. Can you give me some examples of where any of the 5E play test rules (which I have plenty of problems with for different reasons) "talk down to their players"? Because I agree with the overall sentiment that the rules should be flexible and nuanced, but dislike it when the true implications of a rule are hidden from inexperienced players.

For example, in 3.0/3.5 rules Toughness is a trap option for anyone who isn't playing in a 1st level only game. It could have been fixed by simply removing all of the small fiddly modifiers from the game, or by making it scale. But nowhere does it say "Hey player you should only take this Feat in this very limited circumstance," and 3.0/3.5/PF is filled with such options, and I don't think that such options are good for the game or the players.

[1337 b4k4]

Fair enough. Can you give me some examples of where any of the 5E play test rules (which I have plenty of problems with for different reasons) "talk down to their players"? Because I agree with the overall sentiment that the rules should be flexible and nuanced, but dislike it when the true implications of a rule are hidden from inexperienced players.

As far as I know, I don't think they really do. I was more responding to Lokaire's opinion that the rules for Arcane Archer should say "Hey player, this feat means you have to make an attack roll to get a spell to hit. Since your spells auto-hit when you're within the normal spell range, you shouldn't really every use this feat to replace normal range spell attacks. If you do, you will be playing with a strictly worse option than firing the spell on its own. Also, spells that don't require saving throws would generally be the most optimal spells to put on your arrows."

I think any player with passing familiarity with the core system mechanic should be able to identify these things just by reading the feat description as written. I think that level of hand holding is talking down to the reader and in a large sense un-helpful once you're past the "WTF am I doing" stage.

[Fwiffo86]

Give me 400 play testers willing to test 10 encounters each and I'll pick random encounters from all the various material from 1E to 4E and record their results and get back to you with a solid number on its rating on a scale of 1 to 100. Seriously this is how things should be tested, but no one does that.

This is a good idea. Just a couple small changes.

1 - take 400 play testers into groups of 4 (100 groups - composed of the same class set up for all groups)

2 - select one scenario (not adventure) or combat to highlight what you are attempting to test out (feats, class abilities, spells, etc). Be sure all groups have the exact access and equipment. Play the same scenario 10 times.

3 - record results and player responses. including tactics, why they chose to do x vs. y.

This is the beginning of how you play test a system. It gets vastly more complicated than this. But you have a good idea here. And I support it.

[Kurald Galain]

I think any player with passing familiarity with the core system mechanic should be able to identify these things just by reading the feat description as written. I think that level of hand holding is talking down to the reader and in a large sense un-helpful once you're past the "WTF am I doing" stage.

Yes. I get the impression that the highly redundant power descriptions were part of the reason for the backlash against the 4.4 books, because of how redundant they were.

"Sometimes when you're in battle, you will want to swing your sword in an impressive and convoluted way, knowing that this will befuddle your foes and will make it easier for you to hit them quickly afterwards in the same combat.

Impressively Befuddling Sword Swing (utility level 2)
You swing your sword in an impressive and convoluted way, to befuddle your enemies.
Free action, melee range, one target.
Trigger: you swing your sword.
Effect: you befuddle your enemy, and it grants combat advantage until the end of your next turn."

[Person_Man]

As far as I know, I don't think they really do. I was more responding to Lokaire's opinion that the rules for Arcane Archer should say "Hey player, this feat means you have to make an attack roll to get a spell to hit. Since your spells auto-hit when you're within the normal spell range, you shouldn't really every use this feat to replace normal range spell attacks. If you do, you will be playing with a strictly worse option than firing the spell on its own. Also, spells that don't require saving throws would generally be the most optimal spells to put on your arrows."

I think any player with passing familiarity with the core system mechanic should be able to identify these things just by reading the feat description as written. I think that level of hand holding is talking down to the reader and in a large sense un-helpful once you're past the "WTF am I doing" stage.

OK, but instead of an unhelpful/redundant description (as Kurald describes) wouldn't it be even easier to just limit abilities/powers/feats/etc to truly helpful functions. In the case of the Arcane Archer, the ability could be written to be limited to spells with a to-hit roll (so that it's not adding an additional chance to miss). Or if the spell didn't require a to-hit roll, using the imbue ability could remove the need for a saving throw, arguably increasing the effectiveness of certain spells. Either way, players would rarely inadventantly screw themselves, as Lokiare's player apparently did.

Stated another way, I think we can all be in favor of smart writing and thorough play testing, and we can all be opposed to trap options. In D&D there's no benefit to writing trap options and putting them in the game for players with a high level of systems mastery to figure out and avoid while newbs are less effective for using them. D&D is a cooperative game, unlike Magic: The Gathering, where they purposefully pursue this strategy in order to sell more cards, and the competitive nature of the game encourages systems mastery.

Part of me wonders if this problem is unavoidable in any system with so many different sub-classes (or paths or prestige classes or kits). Instead of focusing on a smaller number of truly helpful abilities, the writers churn out such a large number of abilities/powers/spells/etc that some of them are bound to be lemons.

[Kurald Galain]

Part of me wonders if this problem is unavoidable in any system with so many different sub-classes (or paths or prestige classes or kits). Instead of focusing on a smaller number of truly helpful abilities, the writers churn out such a large number of abilities/powers/spells/etc that some of them are bound to be lemons.

Yes, definitely. Any system with a couple dozen or more options is going to have some options that are better than others, and the internet is quick to declare some of the weaker options "traps". Aside from that, there are options that just don't work together, and a designer can't account for all possible combinations.

That said, we should distinguish between feats that give a lacklustre benefit (e.g. "you gain +1 to damage against goblins"; both 3E and 4E have plenty of weak feats that aren't worth the page they're printed on), and feats feats that actively make your character worse (which are, thankfully, pretty rare).

[Lokiare]

This is a good idea. Just a couple small changes.

1 - take 400 play testers into groups of 4 (100 groups - composed of the same class set up for all groups)

2 - select one scenario (not adventure) or combat to highlight what you are attempting to test out (feats, class abilities, spells, etc). Be sure all groups have the exact access and equipment. Play the same scenario 10 times.

3 - record results and player responses. including tactics, why they chose to do x vs. y.

This is the beginning of how you play test a system. It gets vastly more complicated than this. But you have a good idea here. And I support it.

I suggested this at the beginning of the play test and they never chose to do it, with Mearls being a programmer by trade and everything (this is one of the main methods programmers use to balance games). It really saddens me when people without skills get promoted and people with skills get laid off.

[Fwiffo86]

I suggested this at the beginning of the play test and they never chose to do it, with Mearls being a programmer by trade and everything (this is one of the main methods programmers use to balance games). It really saddens me when people without skills get promoted and people with skills get laid off.

Without breaking the forum anonymity, how do you know this?

[1337 b4k4]

they never chose to do it

Facts not in evidence. We know that they have play testing other than the public play test.

[Kurald Galain]

Without breaking the forum anonymity, how do you know this?

I have no idea where he's coming from, but I find it rather silly that "one of the main methods programmers use to balance games" would start with "get 400 playtesters". Most programmers, even in big companies, don't have anywhere near that amount of playtesters (with four being a much more reasonable number), so obviously this cannot be a "main method".

[Millennium]

Without breaking the forum anonymity, how do you know this?
He doesn't. He's making it up, probably based on the way he wants to think World of Warcraft was tested.

I should probably apologize for using the W words, because 4e-opponents often use them to say nasty things about 4e players, and I have been as guilty of this as anyone else. However, I'm honestly not sure what other example I could have used. A staff of 400 disciplined playtesters may not sound like a lot when compared to the entire D&D fanbase, but from a business perspective it is unbelievably massive. This is not just a matter of budget: even if you used volunteers, you would still need to handle the logistics of managing them all, and that is a daunting task. Very, very few games (or other pieces of software, for that matter) have development teams with the capability to support an effort of that size: in all probability, WoW really is the only game big enough that it even could do things this way. And even they probably don't, because it just isn't a sane scale on which to do things.

In other words, I use WoW here because it is the most favorable possible interpretation of his assertion. If he was thinking of anything else, then the whole line of reasoning is outright absurd. At least with WoW it would technically approach plausibility, and so that's why I choose to believe he was thinking of that.

[Person_Man]

That said, we should distinguish between feats that give a lacklustre benefit (e.g. "you gain +1 to damage against goblins"; both 3E and 4E have plenty of weak feats that aren't worth the page they're printed on), and feats feats that actively make your character worse (which are, thankfully, pretty rare).

I agree with the sentiment, but I would quibble with this a little to say that there is a difference between lackluster (like 3.5 Weapon Focus) and situational (ie, something that only occurs rarely, like when you fight Goblins). I would argue that the game shouldn't bother with any lackluster/fiddly Feats/abilities/spells. I prefer a smaller number of more interesting, useful, and potent things. I don't need or want dozens of archetypes/subclasses/prestige classes or thousands of Feats and spells, since it inevitably leads to a higher percentage of garbage. And in situations where you have something that is situational, it should be even more awesome/interesting. If you have a Feat or racial ability called "Goblin Slayer" then it should allow you to slay goblins when you hit them (Save vs. Death, auto-crit, double damage, whatever).

[Kurald Galain]

I agree with the sentiment, but I would quibble with this a little to say that there is a difference between lackluster (like 3.5 Weapon Focus) and situational (ie, something that only occurs rarely, like when you fight Goblins). I would argue that the game shouldn't bother with any lackluster/fiddly Feats/abilities/spells. I prefer a smaller number of more interesting, useful, and potent things. I don't need or want dozens of archetypes/subclasses/prestige classes or thousands of Feats and spells, since it inevitably leads to a higher percentage of garbage. And in situations where you have something that is situational, it should be even more awesome/interesting. If you have a Feat or racial ability called "Goblin Slayer" then it should allow you to slay goblins when you hit them (Save vs. Death, auto-crit, double damage, whatever).

I love situational feats, but such feats need to be powerful to compensate for the fact that the appropriate situation doesn't come up too often. And WOTC doesn't really do that (at least, not in 3E or 4E), meaning that all situational feats I can think of are also fiddly and weak.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I love situational feats, but such feats need to be powerful to compensate for the fact that the appropriate situation doesn't come up too often. And WOTC doesn't really do that (at least, not in 3E or 4E), meaning that all situational feats I can think of are also fiddly and weak.

Add Paizo into that mix, they worked for WotC and have a product that is very much the same as 3.5.

What they could do, is make specific feats flexible. For 3.P/4e something like this works pretty well.

Favored Enemy (Feat)
Benefit: You train for 30 minutes and learn the weaknesses and tactics of a certain creature type. You gain a +2 bonus onattack and damage rolls against this type of creature.
Special: This may be taken multiple times. The effects do not stack but you may spend additional time (30 min per feat) to effect a different creature type.

Humanoids (small)
Humanoids (medium)
Humanoid (Larger)

Outsiders
Plants
Undead
Abberations
Vermin
(Add other types)

This makes the feat specific, useful, and flexible. You can't always take 30 minutes to change your study. Make sure if anyone has a Favored Enemy class feature that it is this flexible but easier to change the type and such.

[Kurald Galain]

Add Paizo into that mix, they worked for WotC and have a product that is very much the same as 3.5.
Sure. I see PF as the same game as 3E, anyway.


Favored Enemy (Feat)
Well, that's a pretty good feat, but it's not situational.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Sure. I see PF as the same game as 3E, anyway.


Well, that's a pretty good feat, but it's not situational.

It is when you are fighting goblins (humanoid small) and then their masters the Orcs (humanoid large +) show up. You don't have time to switch out your feat in the midst of battle.

It needs some work but you can have situational feats that are flexible. Being able to change feats from one situation to another keeps them situational... You just have to pick which situation you want to be good at.

Skill Focus
Benefit: Gain a +2 to two skills (increases like PF skill focus). You may train for 30 minute to apply this bonus to another two skills but you lose this bonus to the original skills chosen (unless you choose one or both again at some point).

You may take this feat multiple times but it doesn't stack, you can just choose an additional 2 skills to apply this bonus to.

Situational and flexible. The feat is flexible but the benefit is not.

[Kurald Galain]

If it works most of the time, then it's not "situational" in the general meaning of the term.

A good example of a situational power is Turn Undead. Whereas most enemies you fight (in most campaigns) won't be undead, it is nevertheless common enough to encounter undead that the ability is worthwhile; and against undead, it is very effective.

A bad example of a situational power is Turn Hippos (yes, there is a 3E feat that lets you turn hippos) because meeting hippos is too rare to bother spending a feat on.

[Lokiare]

Without breaking the forum anonymity, how do you know this?

Which part? Most of what I said is public knowledge from various websites like linked in if you are talking about the mearls thing. If you are talking about the play testing. They don't use 400 people. They use a simulator that checks each situation that comes up from a purely mechanical perspective and records the results. For instance if you have a game with tanks, jeeps, and infantry. The computer would check what happens when a group of tanks fights a group of jeeps. Then it would see what happens when jeeps fight infantry. Then it would see what happens when infantry fights tanks. There are usually many, many more variables to test though. They use automated programs to do this. D&D could do this to an extent, but because players can do things computers can't think of, it would be prudent to use real people. As the other poster in the other thread said, getting 400 people to volunteer to run 10 combats apiece would be easy. Especially at conventions or online. The number 4000 is significant because its what is needed to get a good statistical average to work with.


Facts not in evidence. We know that they have play testing other than the public play test.

Yes, something they call the 'friends and family' play test which uses their 'friends and family'. Again, please be informed about the subject matter we are discussing or at the least look into it before you start slinging personal attacks around.


I have no idea where he's coming from, but I find it rather silly that "one of the main methods programmers use to balance games" would start with "get 400 playtesters". Most programmers, even in big companies, don't have anywhere near that amount of playtesters (with four being a much more reasonable number), so obviously this cannot be a "main method".

They use computers to do it. D&D would need players for all the crazy things players try and DM's are forced to adjudicate. Also many companies use 20-40 play testers on average. I have no clue where you are getting 4 from. That wouldn't even be enough lead testers or QA to do any kind of real testing on a software project.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

If it works most of the time, then it's not "situational" in the general meaning of the term.

A good example of a situational power is Turn Undead. Whereas most enemies you fight (in most campaigns) won't be undead, it is nevertheless common enough to encounter undead that the ability is worthwhile; and against undead, it is very effective.

A bad example of a situational power is Turn Hippos (yes, there is a 3E feat that lets you turn hippos) because meeting hippos is too rare to bother spending a feat on.

The effect of the feat is very situation. The feat however is not. There is a huge difference. Feats should be flexible and the effects should be situational.

This can reduce trap options, feat taxes, and feats that are way to situation to be worth it. Change turn hippo into turn animal (type). You still have to pick a type that will be situational but you aren't stuck with that choice forever.

If you prepare Turn Bison and you run into Hippos you won't use your feat Turn Animal (Hippo). But if you are resting and change your feat to Turn Hippos and fight more hippos them you just changed the situation in which your situational feat works. If you run into more Bison then your turn animal feat won't help you. The feat is still a situational feat, only good in a certain situation, you just have more control over the situation.

It is like, putting feat retraining rules within the feats itself. Skill focus is a situational feat, if you retrain to another skill focus is it any less situational? No, you just have a new situation in which the feat works.

Power Attack, Deadly Aim, and Pirahna Strike could all be one feat. You can change it by training for 30 minutes to one of the others. However if you find yourself with Power Attack but need to go archery mode... You won't have the right situational effect to deal with the situation.

(God I hope that jersey shore dude doesn't read this, might blow his mind)

[Fwiffo86]

I think its clear that Loki does not approve of the way the 5e test packet played out. Which is fine. His group did not do well in a supplied module. Which is fine. Not everyone has the same experience. Nor does everyone share the same opinion. I see no reason not to just accept what he says with the proverbial grain of salt and move on.

On another note....

Which poster noticed that your group Loki suffered from bad tactical decisions I agree with. I doubt changes to a Feat can correct player decision making. You can theoretically argue that if they were properly informed, then they would not have made those decisions. But it can also be argued that as the DM, you could have said something to your players about their choices before hand. The actual argument is neither here nor there. Player error is not something that anyone can account for, or properly work to prevent.

As the adage goes: As soon as you make a fool proof machine, they make a bigger fool.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I think its clear that Loki does not approve of the way the 5e test packet played out. Which is fine. His group did not do well in a supplied module. Which is fine. Not everyone has the same experience. Nor does everyone share the same opinion. I see no reason not to just accept what he says with the proverbial grain of salt and move on.

On another note....

Which poster noticed that your group Loki suffered from bad tactical decisions I agree with. I doubt changes to a Feat can correct player decision making. You can theoretically argue that if they were properly informed, then they would not have made those decisions. But it can also be argued that as the DM, you could have said something to your players about their choices before hand. The actual argument is neither here nor there. Player error is not something that anyone can account for, or properly work to prevent.

As the adage goes: As soon as you make a fool proof machine, they make a bigger fool.

I'm not sure if it was player or DM error. You can't know everything that will happen and the DM can't tell you everything.

This isn't 3.5 you know :smallwink:

They were in a bad situation and none of their options could really help at all. That happens, it is a product of the setting and adventure. Sometimes there is no easy way to deal with a problem but rush in head first... However when a system markets options and tactics you should get options and tactics.

[Fwiffo86]

I'm not sure if it was player or DM error. You can't know everything that will happen and the DM can't tell you everything.

This isn't 3.5 you know :smallwink:

They were in a bad situation and none of their options could really help at all. That happens, it is a product of the setting and adventure. Sometimes there is no easy way to deal with a problem but rush in head first... However when a system markets options and tactics you should get options and tactics.

Agreed.

But I also consider the convention of the story being told. If the situation warrants putting players under pressure to raise the action/drama, and that causes problems, then shouldn't the adventure writer should be held accountable. Blaming the system is pointless and arbitrary.

Similar to saying, "here are a bunch of options, but for this adventure, you can only use this one." That's poor planning by the Author. Not the game system.

[1337 b4k4]

Yeah, realistically the problem at hand with the BiBG starting adventure is that the opening combat/scene is really supposed to be about making the players feel like everything is spiraling out of control, but it provides just enough distance between events (3 rounds, in a game where combat is quick and dirty) that the players think they're supposed to be handling the situation like Big Damn Heroes. In a way, the opening assault is like those old crappy quick time events from video games before developers figured them out. Where you're watching things happen to you and your character and can't do anything about it, so you sit back and watch and then all of a sudden it wants input from you right now or you will die.

Ideally, the snipers should have been written as an environment effect rather than distinct enemies. Since the only real way to dispense them is to get to their rooms, and most of the action and important stuff is happening outside and on the ground, the snipers are really a set piece. Roll a d6 (or for less frequency a d8) on their turn in the initiative order for as long as at least one sniper is alive. On a 1-5 a crowd member is hit, on a 6, choose a player randomly to be a target. Player makes a DEX save or is hit by an arrow. The snipers would have no real reason to start attacking the players by default and in that amount of chaos, they shouldn't be picked out as an obvious threat to the attackers until they start killing enemies.

[Millennium]

As the other poster in the other thread said, getting 400 people to volunteer to run 10 combats apiece would be easy. Especially at conventions or online. The number 4000 is significant because its what is needed to get a good statistical average to work with.
This is absurd. You really don't have any idea what it takes to playtest a game, do you?

[D-naras]

This is absurd. You really don't have any idea what it takes to playtest a game, do you?

Care to elaborate? I am genuinely interested in learning how a game and specifically a TTRPG is playtested.

[Lokiare]

Care to elaborate? I am genuinely interested in learning how a game and specifically a TTRPG is playtested.

They don't have any clue what they are talking about. To get a statistically sound average you need around 4000 results collated to show trends. You can look at the attendance of paid and free events about 5E in various conventions to see they could easily get the play testers.

Now a lot of companies can't get 400 people to run 10 encounter each or whatever so they go the route where they use many fewer people and end up with stuff that isn't properly tested. I'm pretty sure WotC is doing this now with their 'friends and family' internal play testers. I know this is likely because I was a part of their VTT test group which only included about 20-30 people. What's actually hilarious is that we submitted hundreds of bug reports to a private forum and WotC didn't fix hardly anything that was reported. I suspect the internal play test is going in a similar way.

[Fwiffo86]

Here is a sight that makes recommendations on determining sample size to accomplish testing. I would think that the same applies to RPG testing as well.
Lokiare is correct in that More is better, but your confidence level and desired outcome also determine your sample size. It isn't as easy as walking into an event and getting people to play scenarios.

http://www.qualtrics.com/blog/determining-sample-size/

The information is on the first page. Scroll down for the math. But the explanations are quite clear.

[Lokiare]

Here is a sight that makes recommendations on determining sample size to accomplish testing. I would think that the same applies to RPG testing as well.
Lokiare is correct in that More is better, but your confidence level and desired outcome also determine your sample size. It isn't as easy as walking into an event and getting people to play scenarios.

http://www.qualtrics.com/blog/determining-sample-size/

The information is on the first page. Scroll down for the math. But the explanations are quite clear.

Since we are trying to balance things and not get popularity info, we can ditch the demographic (our demographic is literally numbers and math).

This page you linked is for a single variable that doesn't affect other variables. What you need to do is count the number of variables and then multiply the percent value times itself for each variable counted. This gives you the actual number you would need.

What you linked is for surveys, not for determining balance between math problems. I bet Mearls and Co. made the same mistake.

Edit: look into probability statistics and probability math and it explains it much better.

[Kurald Galain]

Here is a sight that makes recommendations on determining sample size to accomplish testing. I would think that the same applies to RPG testing as well.
It is obvious that more testing is a good thing. However, it is also obvious that most gaming companies (board game and computer gane both) have nowhere near the resources to get a couple hundred testers for anything. Doing so is very much an outlier, not standard practice.

Small-scale testing has the advantage that you can watch people play and get more personal feedback; an issue with large-scale testing is that you need to be very careful what questions you ask and what you're letting them test, because otherwise you'll end up with a bunch of contradictory and useless data.

[Fwiffo86]

Since we are trying to balance things and not get popularity info, we can ditch the demographic (our demographic is literally numbers and math).

This page you linked is for a single variable that doesn't affect other variables. What you need to do is count the number of variables and then multiply the percent value times itself for each variable counted. This gives you the actual number you would need.

What you linked is for surveys, not for determining balance between math problems. I bet Mearls and Co. made the same mistake.

Edit: look into probability statistics and probability math and it explains it much better.

Or, you know, test for one thing (variable) at a time. And here, I'm not determining statistics. I'm determining the size of the test group. You are correct, different math is needed for data crunching. But once again, that is not what I'm talking about.

[Lokiare]

Or, you know, test for one thing (variable) at a time. And here, I'm not determining statistics. I'm determining the size of the test group. You are correct, different math is needed for data crunching. But once again, that is not what I'm talking about.

I don't know what you are talking about. I'm talking about testing individual abilities in comparison to other abilities that occupy similar design space. Like testing feats against each other to determine which feats are best. This requires you to test every combination of variables that could come up from class and race choice to weapon and armor choice to sub-class choice and on and on and on.

Basically if they had done the public play test correctly they could have easily done this, instead they just released an alpha and said 'give us some random feedback and fill out these biased and uninformative surveys done by an amateur'. Basically they squandered what was the deal of a life time.

[Fwiffo86]

So much hate in your post. Wow.
Any rate, I was just trying to be helpful. No worries.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So much hate in your post. Wow.
Any rate, I was just trying to be helpful. No worries.

You forgot the raspy voice and reference to the dark side...

Sorry, I couldn't help but think of Emporer Palpitine when reading your post.

A very nonchalant sort of Emporer Palpatine...

Edit: I originally read it like this

"So much hate in your post young Skywalker.
Wow, any rate, I was just trying to be helpful. No worries."

:smalltongue:

[obryn]

I don't know what you are talking about. I'm talking about testing individual abilities in comparison to other abilities that occupy similar design space. Like testing feats against each other to determine which feats are best. This requires you to test every combination of variables that could come up from class and race choice to weapon and armor choice to sub-class choice and on and on and on.

Basically if they had done the public play test correctly they could have easily done this, instead they just released an alpha and said 'give us some random feedback and fill out these biased and uninformative surveys done by an amateur'. Basically they squandered what was the deal of a life time.
Look, I'm all for clean design and proper playtesting, but you're basically setting the bar so high that no RPG company with an RPG company's budgets could ever hit it. It wouldn't be financially possible, because for this level of control and minimization of table differences, you would need to pay people to do it.

But let's say you did this. You got a rigorously controlled representative sample. You found feats that were picked by most (for example) Fighters. What do you do then? Weaken them? Strengthen others?

And once you do this, what do you do?

Oh, send it back out to playtesting to check again? Okay. Now you have a new Best Feat and a new Worst Feat, maybe the same as before and maybe different. So you balance it again. How do you find out if you did enough?

Oh, send it back out to playtesting to check again? Okay...

The problems are manyfold. First, you may not be measuring relative feat power. If a lot of people are picking Greatweapon Fighter ... well, maybe it's because they want to play Greatweapon Fighters, independent of system mastery reasons. Second, you have this delusion that somewhere, down the road, everyone should pick every feat about evenly, which is one hell of a high bar. I know that 4e - the best-balanced version of D&D in modern times - didn't even succeed here. Third, playtesters and actual game-players may have different motivations when the rubber hits the road.

Basically, you're concern trolling.

[Lokiare]

Look, I'm all for clean design and proper playtesting, but you're basically setting the bar so high that no RPG company with an RPG company's budgets could ever hit it. It wouldn't be financially possible, because for this level of control and minimization of table differences, you would need to pay people to do it.

But let's say you did this. You got a rigorously controlled representative sample. You found feats that were picked by most (for example) Fighters. What do you do then? Weaken them? Strengthen others?

And once you do this, what do you do?

Oh, send it back out to playtesting to check again? Okay. Now you have a new Best Feat and a new Worst Feat, maybe the same as before and maybe different. So you balance it again. How do you find out if you did enough?

Oh, send it back out to playtesting to check again? Okay...

The problems are manyfold. First, you may not be measuring relative feat power. If a lot of people are picking Greatweapon Fighter ... well, maybe it's because they want to play Greatweapon Fighters, independent of system mastery reasons. Second, you have this delusion that somewhere, down the road, everyone should pick every feat about evenly, which is one hell of a high bar. I know that 4e - the best-balanced version of D&D in modern times - didn't even succeed here. Third, playtesters and actual game-players may have different motivations when the rubber hits the road.

Basically, you're concern trolling.

The thing is you don't let them pick anything. You hand each group a slightly different set of pre-gens and then tell them to run 10 combats in various encounter locations and then ask them to keep notes about remaining hp, hit dice, ammo, how many died or went down, how many rounds the combat was, etc...etc... then you get the feedback and collate it and see which feats are more than a 10% increase up or down on those results and then nerf them a bit. If any feats are 10% under the curve you increase their power. You do have to go back and do it again after changes, but they had thousands of people over more than a year to test with. They could have easily done it by splitting the play test into groups and asking the play testers to do 10 combats with the pregens and recording the results. Then said go wild and do whatever after that until the next packet comes out. They really had an opportunity and wasted it.

[Fwiffo86]

The thing is you don't let them pick anything. You hand each group a slightly different set of pre-gens and then tell them to run 10 combats in various encounter locations and then ask them to keep notes about remaining hp, hit dice, ammo, how many died or went down, how many rounds the combat was, etc...etc... then you get the feedback and collate it and see which feats are more than a 10% increase up or down on those results and then nerf them a bit. If any feats are 10% under the curve you increase their power. You do have to go back and do it again after changes, but they had thousands of people over more than a year to test with. They could have easily done it by splitting the play test into groups and asking the play testers to do 10 combats with the pregens and recording the results. Then said go wild and do whatever after that until the next packet comes out. They really had an opportunity and wasted it.

Ok. Lets see how much you know.
How many people were there in the play test? Give me a number. (hint thousands is not a number)
How many of those people followed through on the reporting of their findings/gave feedback?
What did that feedback comprise of? Do you have examples?
Do you know how many in-house testers there were?
Do you know if they gave feedback? If so, what was it like?
How many people are directly responsible for game design and mechanics? (hint, not the reporting of those mechanics to the public)
Who makes the final decision on what goes into the game?
How does he/she decide what will be used and will not be used?

Given your penchant for declaring they wasted their opportunity, you must know something we do not. Can you answer any of the above questions?

[Lokiare]

Ok. Lets see how much you know.
How many people were there in the play test? Give me a number. (hint thousands is not a number)
How many of those people followed through on the reporting of their findings/gave feedback?
What did that feedback comprise of? Do you have examples?
Do you know how many in-house testers there were?
Do you know if they gave feedback? If so, what was it like?
How many people are directly responsible for game design and mechanics? (hint, not the reporting of those mechanics to the public)
Who makes the final decision on what goes into the game?
How does he/she decide what will be used and will not be used?

Given your penchant for declaring they wasted their opportunity, you must know something we do not. Can you answer any of the above questions?

All those questions can be easily answered by you going back and reading the Legends and Lore articles near the end of the play test. Mearls was quite proud of the number of surveys filled out. This is another of those well known facts that you don't seem to be clued into.

[Fwiffo86]

All those questions can be easily answered by you going back and reading the Legends and Lore articles near the end of the play test. Mearls was quite proud of the number of surveys filled out. This is another of those well known facts that you don't seem to be clued into.

Once again, you haven't answered the question, you have deflected it.

[Lokiare]

Once again, you haven't answered the question, you have deflected it.

No, I pointed out that you lack public knowledge. Go ahead and read the articles, I'll wait.

[Fwiffo86]

No, I pointed out that you lack public knowledge. Go ahead and read the articles, I'll wait.

Happily. Link please. Please pick the appropriate articles that answer my questions.

---Edit----

Nevermind. its really not that important. Nothing you say will change what is going to be released. You can argue and wail and dismiss its validity, but that won't change how the game actually ends up working. And it really isn't worth my time or effort to try and support or disprove your claims. I had hoped that you would step up and prove me wrong. *shrugs*

[captpike]

for any other company having 400+ testers might unreasonable, but we are talking about Wotc. there is no reason they cant do the proper testing.

[Fwiffo86]

for any other company having 400+ testers might unreasonable, but we are talking about Wotc. there is no reason they cant do the proper testing.

Who says they didn't? I'm simply stating that perhaps their findings, were not to your liking. And because of this, you feel they didn't do their job properly.

[Kurald Galain]

for any other company having 400+ testers might unreasonable, but we are talking about Wotc. there is no reason they cant do the proper testing.

Yes. What we're responding to is someone's claim, earlier, that WOTC should have tested better because, or so was claimed "(1) hiring 400+ testers is standard operating procedure and (2) WOTC didn't do that".

This is hilarious twice because having that many testers is absolutely not standard, but WOTC did do it.

[captpike]

Who says they didn't? I'm simply stating that perhaps their findings, were not to your liking. And because of this, you feel they didn't do their job properly.

because if they had hired such testers and done their job, then they would not have had such big and obvious problems.

[obryn]

because if they had hired such testers and done their job, then they would not have had such big and obvious problems.
... You think WotC can afford to actually hire 400 playtesters. Huh.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

... You think WotC can afford to actually hire 400 playtesters. Huh.

captpike also seems to think that MORE MONEY + MORE PEOPLE = always the best results.

Even if they had 10,000 play testers the game could still have major problems due to faulty leadership, quality of play testers, and corporate politics.

I wouldn't be worried about the quantity of the playtesters but the quality.

[da_chicken]

... You think WotC can afford to actually hire 400 playtesters. Huh.

They did. They just paid them in D&D PDFs.

[obryn]

They did. They just paid them in D&D PDFs.
Yeah. I think it's fair to say that the signal would be pretty hard to separate from the noise, with their playtest. Not that they couldn't get anything from it - but for the kind of boring slogs Lokiare and captpike are talking about, they'd have needed a more controlled pool.

[da_chicken]

Yeah. I think it's fair to say that the signal would be pretty hard to separate from the noise, with their playtest. Not that they couldn't get anything from it - but for the kind of boring slogs Lokiare and captpike are talking about, they'd have needed a more controlled pool.

Definitely. Honestly, I doubt any TTRPG has been adequately playtested. IMX, the ones that break the least are just the ones that make advancement unreasonably difficult to accomplish so the math can't ever get to a point that it hasn't been tweaked to function properly.

If TTRPGs had the kind of budgets that AAA video games do it might be possible to work all the bugs out of the system, but I don't think I've ever seen an RPG that didn't break at the corners. You just have to pick a TTRPG with corners you don't mind breaking.

Now we just wait to see how long before someone cries, "Those aren't corners those are foundation blocks!"

[Lokiare]

Yes. What we're responding to is someone's claim, earlier, that WOTC should have tested better because, or so was claimed "(1) hiring 400+ testers is standard operating procedure and (2) WOTC didn't do that".

This is hilarious twice because having that many testers is absolutely not standard, but WOTC did do it.

Yeah, since I never claimed that hiring 400 testers is standard procedure, I said you test each variable in combination with the game 4,000 times. In games that aren't run by people and adjudicated by people you can automate this process with certain software tools, many companies do this and its standard procedure. http://www.ranorex.com/test-automation-tools.html and http://www.ranorex.com/support/user-guide-20/lesson-3-data-driven-testing.html found with a 3 second www.startpage.com search.

WotC let their testers run wild and do whatever and then asked about concepts and not numbers. They basically did the opposite of what would ensure a well done game (mathematically).


Yeah. I think it's fair to say that the signal would be pretty hard to separate from the noise, with their playtest. Not that they couldn't get anything from it - but for the kind of boring slogs Lokiare and captpike are talking about, they'd have needed a more controlled pool.

That's why you focus on those 400 people out of the thousands that did the surveys. You go through and disqualify any surveys that show signs that the players didn't follow the procedures. Also due to the way statistics work, the 'noise' gets filtered out automatically as their results get subsumed into the mass of people that did follow the procedure.

Also why do you consider it a boring slog? They could dress each scenario nicely and just call them one shots with pages of back story, artwork, and NPC plot and motivations. It would only be a slog, if they used the writers for 4E adventures (which they seem to be doing anyway).

[Fwiffo86]

Also why do you consider it a boring slog? They could dress each scenario nicely and just call them one shots with pages of back story, artwork, and NPC plot and motivations. It would only be a slog, if they used the writers for 4E adventures (which they seem to be doing anyway).

Boring slog is used in reference to players, not the scenario.

And why would they waste resources on dressing up, 4 characters and 20 orcs. Battle it out?

[obryn]

That's why you focus on those 400 people out of the thousands that did the surveys. You go through and disqualify any surveys that show signs that the players didn't follow the procedures. Also due to the way statistics work, the 'noise' gets filtered out automatically as their results get subsumed into the mass of people that did follow the procedure.

Also why do you consider it a boring slog? They could dress each scenario nicely and just call them one shots with pages of back story, artwork, and NPC plot and motivations. It would only be a slog, if they used the writers for 4E adventures (which they seem to be doing anyway).
If you're filtering 400 people out of your already non-random sample, picking a subset of that non-random sample which you deem to be "better playtesters" will not get you the sort of sample you're looking for.

I'll say again - you're concern trolling here. You're saying, "Gee, 5e would be SO MUCH BETTER if only it had followed this self-destructive and unreasonably burdensome path!"

[Lokiare]

If you're filtering 400 people out of your already non-random sample, picking a subset of that non-random sample which you deem to be "better playtesters" will not get you the sort of sample you're looking for.

I'll say again - you're concern trolling here. You're saying, "Gee, 5e would be SO MUCH BETTER if only it had followed this self-destructive and unreasonably burdensome path!"

Yeah, no. I'm not trolling anything. I'm pointing out a failing that is going to haunt them down the road when they release the game and the charop board finds a million broken bits because they decided not to use the thousands of play testers they had to test the math properly.

[Jacob.Tyr]

Well, this is an odd thread. I think the very fact that other people had drastically different experiences with the feat in question puts everything into a bit of perspective. Lokiare's players were new to the system and didn't think through all of their options, and they were let down by what they thought sounded cool. Other people thought through it more, and managed to figure out how the mechanics played together and made powerful characters using interesting tactics with the same choices of feat. Both of these people should, realistically, be able to play the game and have fun. A feat should be useful to a beginner and a more experienced player alike, although more experienced players should overall get more use out of everything just due to system mastery.

I really like the idea of disadvantage against a spell that is, literally, going off inside of you. That makes complete sense to me. That should totally be a thing.


On the Balance/Playtest issue, the idea of getting an n=4,000 with people is absurd. However, getting N=4,000 honestly seems ludicrously low for the number of options present. Realistically since every feat should be balanced around a +2, though, you could easily test feats by comparing them to simulations in a handful of situations for each feat vs a +2 in a character's prime stat. I don't think it'd be very hard to program the mechanics of the limited number of feats we have and come up with this comparison in multiple situations.

[emeraldstreak]

A large playtest could map the situation as of this moment.

However, several months down the road things will be different when CharOp builds gain wide traction.

Right now, most people try 5E as if it were a 3E or 4E. But it's not, and those approaches are suboptimal.

[JBPuffin]

I uh...I agree with Jacob.Tyr here, this is a freakin' bizarre turn of a thread. So...okay, from the top:

It began with a botched 5e session; whether it's players or system isn't for me to judge, but things didn't work out. I will say, though, that it sounds like a bit of both (DC 12 + "Inflict ALL the arrows" = ...*facepalm*) there. Either way, Lokiare came to report it, and did...sort of.

Here's where things broke down - rather than consider what was said, it appears that everything that didn't say "it's the system's fault" got blasted as stupid. Things get heated, and now lunacy has developed in the form of "they should have playtested it more!"...speaking of, oddly enough, a playtest packet.

I have to say, I'm biased here - 5e's not perfect, I can agree, but nothing else is either, so instead of just giving up on a system b/c of a bad playtest, fix it yourself. Find what went wrong (HP too low, rolling during character creation when you didn't have to, and monsters that kill level 4s at level 1 as easily as knives cut through cheese), do some research and see if there's something you and your players didn't know. It's not always about what the system does, but what you do. And, if it truly is the system, then tool it, like thousands of roleplayers before you, instead of resorting to my approach with certain video games ("Screw you, I'm gonna go play Pokemon" being a favorite of mine...) for a game that's literally about making it up as you go along.

That was my rant for the month. Thanks for letting me use it properly. Good day.

[EvanWaters]

I uh...I agree with Jacob.Tyr here, this is a freakin' bizarre turn of a thread. So...okay, from the top:

It began with a botched 5e session; whether it's players or system isn't for me to judge, but things didn't work out. I will say, though, that it sounds like a bit of both (DC 12 + "Inflict ALL the arrows" = ...*facepalm*) there. Either way, Lokiare came to report it, and did...sort of.

Here's where things broke down - rather than consider what was said, it appears that everything that didn't say "it's the system's fault" got blasted as stupid. Things get heated, and now lunacy has developed in the form of "they should have playtested it more!"...speaking of, oddly enough, a playtest packet.

I have to say, I'm biased here - 5e's not perfect, I can agree, but nothing else is either, so instead of just giving up on a system b/c of a bad playtest, fix it yourself. Find what went wrong (HP too low, rolling during character creation when you didn't have to, and monsters that kill level 4s at level 1 as easily as knives cut through cheese), do some research and see if there's something you and your players didn't know. It's not always about what the system does, but what you do. And, if it truly is the system, then tool it, like thousands of roleplayers before you, instead of resorting to my approach with certain video games ("Screw you, I'm gonna go play Pokemon" being a favorite of mine...) for a game that's literally about making it up as you go along.

That was my rant for the month. Thanks for letting me use it properly. Good day.

This is basically the Rule 0 fallacy- the idea that since you can alter a game's rules, broken rules aren't anything to complain about.

We're being presented with a product we're expected to pay money for. It better damn well work at least as well as others on the market.

[emeraldstreak]

This is basically the Rule 0 fallacy- the idea that since you can alter a game's rules, broken rules aren't anything to complain about.

We're being presented with a product we're expected to pay money for. It better damn well work at least as well as others on the market.


It's not Rule 0 fallacy when the game is fine and you happen to play atrociously gimped characters. We've never had any problems with any adventure, because we play 5E as a new edition of its own and not a 3 or 4 clone. Things that used to work don't anymore, and things that didn't work now do. Find them or wait for CharOp to make them popular.

[captpike]

if its not fun out of the box, playing straight RAW then I want no part of it. I have better things to do then fix someone else's game.

I may change the game to suit my needs later, but its one thing to streamline a good game, quite another to try fix a game that has fundamental flaws.

[emeraldstreak]

if its not fun out of the box, playing straight RAW then I want no part of it. I have better things to do then fix someone else's game.

I may change the game to suit my needs later, but its one thing to streamline a good game, quite another to try fix a game that has fundamental flaws.


what fundamental problems?

and to quote myself from 1 year ago http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?298465-D-amp-D-5th-Edition-XIII-An-Inherently-Unfinished-Product&p=15961732#post15961732

[Lokiare]

I uh...I agree with Jacob.Tyr here, this is a freakin' bizarre turn of a thread. So...okay, from the top:

It began with a botched 5e session; whether it's players or system isn't for me to judge, but things didn't work out. I will say, though, that it sounds like a bit of both (DC 12 + "Inflict ALL the arrows" = ...*facepalm*) there. Either way, Lokiare came to report it, and did...sort of.

Here's where things broke down - rather than consider what was said, it appears that everything that didn't say "it's the system's fault" got blasted as stupid. Things get heated, and now lunacy has developed in the form of "they should have playtested it more!"...speaking of, oddly enough, a playtest packet.

I have to say, I'm biased here - 5e's not perfect, I can agree, but nothing else is either, so instead of just giving up on a system b/c of a bad playtest, fix it yourself. Find what went wrong (HP too low, rolling during character creation when you didn't have to, and monsters that kill level 4s at level 1 as easily as knives cut through cheese), do some research and see if there's something you and your players didn't know. It's not always about what the system does, but what you do. And, if it truly is the system, then tool it, like thousands of roleplayers before you, instead of resorting to my approach with certain video games ("Screw you, I'm gonna go play Pokemon" being a favorite of mine...) for a game that's literally about making it up as you go along.

That was my rant for the month. Thanks for letting me use it properly. Good day.

If I have to fix lots of problems (and as of last count, it was about 1/3 of the entire game) then I might as well just make my own OGL spin off and try to make a little money off it, or better yet find a supported and slightly popular OGL clone that has fewer problems and play that instead.


if its not fun out of the box, playing straight RAW then I want no part of it. I have better things to do then fix someone else's game.

I may change the game to suit my needs later, but its one thing to streamline a good game, quite another to try fix a game that has fundamental flaws.

Exactly. House rules shouldn't have to be used to fix the game, they should be used to change the style of the world, and the rp parts. Kind of like if you were to house rule gunpowder into the game and have primitive muzzle loaded guns and things of that nature. That would be a house rule that changed the thematics of the game. If you house ruled that there was a 30% chance every time a player casts a level 5+ spell that it would fizzle and possibly roll on the wild magic table, that would be a thematic house rule.

Having to house rule Arcane Archer so that the spell hits anyway or when it hits the target gets disadvantage on the save, is a rules fix to balance the game. Something that should be implemented by the developers before release. Heck just a sentence warning at the bottom of the feat explaining that the chance of both hitting the target and the target failing the save are extremely low would be all that's needed. WotC obviously can't be bothered with either.

[archaeo]

If I have to fix lots of problems (and as of last count, it was about 1/3 of the entire game) then I might as well just make my own OGL spin off and try to make a little money off it, or better yet find a supported and slightly popular OGL clone that has fewer problems and play that instead.
You're right, that sounds like a totally logical thing to do. And yet, here we are, dozens hundreds of posts into yet another thread you started to tell everybody else why they're dumb for liking something you find so abhorrent.

[Arzanyos]

Lokaire, about the chance of a full Arcane Archer payoff with a spell with a save, I think you are over thinking it. Yes, 36% chance of success looks bad. However, if you translate that to a single d20 roll, it means that you have to roll a 13 or higher. 13 or higher on a d20 sounds a lot more reasonable, doesn't it? Also pertaining to Arcane Archer, you have to remember that even though it might not always be an upgrade over just casting the spell normally, a spell used with Arcane Archer will always be a strict upgrade over a normal arrow.

[Felhammer]

If I have to fix lots of problems (and as of last count, it was about 1/3 of the entire game) then I might as well just make my own OGL spin off and try to make a little money off it, or better yet find a supported and slightly popular OGL clone that has fewer problems and play that instead.

95.8% of all the posts you make on this message board are in the D&D 5e/Next forum, yet you dislike the direction the game is going in, abhor the system on a fundamental level and rail against it at every opportunity. I do not understand why you come here day in and day out to discuss a game you do not like, much less have those discussions encompass 95.8% of all the posts you make. You should find a game that better suits your personal playstyle and preferences. In fact, I want you to do just that. Stop railing against this game and find one that makes your heart sing and brings joy to your life. D&D Next (probably) will not be that game for you. That's alright. Not every edition needs to appeal to every single player. Some times our playstyles and preferences are simply the opposite of the kind of game/fun the edition wishes to provide.

I hope you are successful with your OGL clone. I just know there are plenty of good, solid players out there that feel the same way as you do. They are yearning for a game that appeals to them. Make the game you really want to play. :smallsmile:



A large playtest could map the situation as of this moment.

However, several months down the road things will be different when CharOp builds gain wide traction.

Right now, most people try 5E as if it were a 3E or 4E. But it's not, and those approaches are suboptimal.

This is also true of DM's as well. The game is an entirely different ball of wax compared to 3 and 4. Just as players must learn and adapt, so too must DMs.


The worst thing about Bounded Accuracy is people are not prepared for a world of non-AC defense superiority. There will be a lot of forum drama and PC corpses before the new meta sinks in.

Prophetic words indeed.


Lokaire, about the chance of a full Arcane Archer payoff with a spell with a save, I think you are over thinking it. Yes, 36% chance of success looks bad. However, if you translate that to a single d20 roll, it means that you have to roll a 13 or higher. 13 or higher on a d20 sounds a lot more reasonable, doesn't it? Also pertaining to Arcane Archer, you have to remember that even though it might not always be an upgrade over just casting the spell normally, a spell used with Arcane Archer will always be a strict upgrade over a normal arrow.

That is a great way to look at this issue. :smallsmile:

[captpike]

Lokaire, about the chance of a full Arcane Archer payoff with a spell with a save, I think you are over thinking it. Yes, 36% chance of success looks bad. However, if you translate that to a single d20 roll, it means that you have to roll a 13 or higher. 13 or higher on a d20 sounds a lot more reasonable, doesn't it? Also pertaining to Arcane Archer, you have to remember that even though it might not always be an upgrade over just casting the spell normally, a spell used with Arcane Archer will always be a strict upgrade over a normal arrow.

speaking for myself at least

yes 13 is too high. and keep in mind there is double the chance for disadvantage/advantage to work against you.

the math for saves and attack is (at least in theory) made that way for a reason. there is no reason to cut off that much accuracy unless you change other parts of the spell to balance it out. also spells have effects even on a save for a reason, this takes that way.
the best solution is to decouple the attack and spell. the spell goes off if you hit or miss with the arrow.

again a feat is a big deal, it can't just be a sidegrade, or a upgrade in the short term but a downgrade in the long term (putting a one target spell with a save on an arrow). it has to be an upgrade in almost all cases or its not worth a feat.
this would not be the case if feats were common, but they are not. they are rare and valuable, if a feat does not give you a big and obvious advantage its not worth getting.

[1337 b4k4]

again a feat is a big deal, it can't just be a sidegrade, or a upgrade in the short term but a downgrade in the long term (putting a one target spell with a save on an arrow). it has to be an upgrade in almost all cases or its not worth a feat.
this would not be the case if feats were common, but they are not. they are rare and valuable, if a feat does not give you a big and obvious advantage its not worth getting.

Except the feat is neither a sidegrade nor an upgrade in the short term and a downgrade in the long term. It just isn't. The feat allows you to do something you couldn't do before. Namely cast spells outside their nominal range, and add 1d6 damage to them from an arrow. The trade off for this extended range (that again, you did not have before and can not get any other way) is chance to miss (but not lose the spell). An arcane archer is strictly and in all cases better than a spell caster without arcane archer. Yes, if you take a spell that offers opponents a save and if you put that spell on an arrow and if you use that arrow within the normal range of that same spell then you have made a sub-optimal choice. However, this is like complaining that if you launch a fireball at a single 1HP sickly goblin, you've wasted all the damage potential of the spell. Yes you did and yes it's your fault for not thinking your tactics through.

[Felhammer]

speaking for myself at least

yes 13 is too high. and keep in mind there is double the chance for disadvantage/advantage to work against you.

the math for saves and attack is (at least in theory) made that way for a reason. there is no reason to cut off that much accuracy unless you change other parts of the spell to balance it out. also spells have effects even on a save for a reason, this takes that way.
the best solution is to decouple the attack and spell. the spell goes off if you hit or miss with the arrow.

again a feat is a big deal, it can't just be a sidegrade, or a upgrade in the short term but a downgrade in the long term (putting a one target spell with a save on an arrow). it has to be an upgrade in almost all cases or its not worth a feat.
this would not be the case if feats were common, but they are not. they are rare and valuable, if a feat does not give you a big and obvious advantage its not worth getting.

You are combining two actions into a single action. If you were not using the feat, then you would have to shoot an arrow one turn, then cast a spell the next. Combining the two abilities into one action is a big benefit, especially given the tighter controls WotC has put upon the action economy. Beyond that benefit, you are also increasing the range of your spells by a wide margin.

[captpike]

You are combining two actions into a single action. If you were not using the feat, then you would have to shoot an arrow one turn, then cast a spell the next. Combining the two abilities into one action is a big benefit, especially given the tighter controls WotC has put upon the action economy. Beyond that benefit, you are also increasing the range of your spells by a wide margin.

its not like an arrow is equal to a spell, it should be of course, but its not. its only a big benefit if the spell effects the target, which if the spell has a save is not going to be likely.
1d6 damage is not much, odds are that often it will not matter at all because of the binary nature of health.

were the spell to always effect the target I would agree, it would be a good upgrade. as it is if you put a spell in an arrow you lose flexibility of spell choice, when you use it and miss that spell is lost for the fight if it needs a save.

all they need to do to fix it is make the spells go off when you shoot the arrow regardless of your attack roll. you still lose flexibility in spell choice of course, but you no longer waste so many spells.

EDIT: really you think they made the economy tighter? action surge says hi

[Felhammer]

its not like an arrow is equal to a spell, it should be of course, but its not. its only a big benefit if the spell effects the target, which if the spell has a save is not going to be likely.
1d6 damage is not much, odds are that often it will not matter at all because of the binary nature of health.

were the spell to always effect the target I would agree, it would be a good upgrade. as it is if you put a spell in an arrow you lose flexibility of spell choice, when you use it and miss that spell is lost for the fight if it needs a save.

all they need to do to fix it is make the spells go off when you shoot the arrow regardless of your attack roll. you still lose flexibility in spell choice of course, but you no longer waste so many spells.

If an arrow and a spell are not equal, then why are you bothering with the arrow?

[Arzanyos]

Wait, if they made it so that the spell goes off whether you hit or missed with the arrow, than why is the arrow necessary? Wouldn't the feat just be "Extended Spell Range" or something? Besides, I stand by my theory that this is a feat for archers primarily, not for pure spellcasters.

[Jacob.Tyr]

Hey guys, how's it going?

[captpike]

Wait, if they made it so that the spell goes off whether you hit or missed with the arrow, than why is the arrow necessary? Wouldn't the feat just be "Extended Spell Range" or something? Besides, I stand by my theory that this is a feat for archers primarily, not for pure spellcasters.

that would be a more accurate name, even if they did not make that change.

ideally they would change it work with all ranged weapons, and make the spell go off regardless of the attack roll. this would allow a great many character build to work with it, and have the feat work very intuitively.

it may be meant for archers, but that hardly maters. what matters is how it can be used, not who the person who wrote it thought it would be used.

[Arzanyos]

Wait, how exactly would the spell going off regardless of the attack roll work? Would it just auto-hit the target, or would it go off wherever it lands? Because I think it already does the second one, and the first one makes no sense flavorwise.

Also, you say the feat should be changed so that it can work with more character concepts. However, the feat is designed to enable one specific concept: The Arcane Archer. Wait, I think Wotc was actually concept for once and named the feat that.

Lastly, if you want the feat to not be specific to archers, and not need the ranged attack to hit, and really just extend the spell's range, then I think what you actually need is a different feat. Because that's not what Arcane Archer is meant to do. It let's you put spells in your arrows! That's awesome!

[Lokiare]

95.8% of all the posts you make on this message board are in the D&D 5e/Next forum, yet you dislike the direction the game is going in, abhor the system on a fundamental level and rail against it at every opportunity. I do not understand why you come here day in and day out to discuss a game you do not like, much less have those discussions encompass 95.8% of all the posts you make. You should find a game that better suits your personal playstyle and preferences. In fact, I want you to do just that. Stop railing against this game and find one that makes your heart sing and brings joy to your life. D&D Next (probably) will not be that game for you. That's alright. Not every edition needs to appeal to every single player. Some times our playstyles and preferences are simply the opposite of the kind of game/fun the edition wishes to provide.

I hope you are successful with your OGL clone. I just know there are plenty of good, solid players out there that feel the same way as you do. They are yearning for a game that appeals to them. Make the game you really want to play. :smallsmile

I would love to, but WotC and Mearls keeps coming back and telling me 5E is for everyone and when I look at their articles and play tests and videos and interviews I'm like "are we talking about the same game here?". Like I said before, if they had said 5E would be a cleaned up 2.85 I would have been like "have fun with that" and moved on without saying a word. Instead they claim over and over and over that 5E is for all players of D&D and for all play styles. Sometimes even specifically citing 4E. So as long as they keep lying about that I'm going to keep observing that, no its not even close to the play style of 4E. Once it comes out and people start buying it I'm sure various forums are going to flood with angry users that are complaining about it because once again WotC is claiming that 5E is for everyone, when in fact it is for a very narrow play style.


You're right, that sounds like a totally logical thing to do. And yet, here we are, dozens hundreds of posts into yet another thread you started to tell everybody else why they're dumb for liking something you find so abhorrent.

Yep, never happened. I mean I post a lot here, but I never once said anyone was dumb for liking something I find abhorrent. Please quit painting me as if I'm a troll instead of the logical thinker that I am. What I'm trying to do is get rid of internet memes like "X edition is like a video game" and get to the actual detailed reason they dislike the edition so we can have a constructive conversation. For instance you might associate powers that recharge on a schedule other than daily or at-will as 'like a video games recharge structures where they recharge after X seconds'. However telling us X edition is like a video game doesn't convey that information. Instead you should clearly say something along the lines of "I don't like X edition because many of its powers/spells recharge after resting for 5+ minutes." then we can have an actual constructive conversation.


Lokaire, about the chance of a full Arcane Archer payoff with a spell with a save, I think you are over thinking it. Yes, 36% chance of success looks bad. However, if you translate that to a single d20 roll, it means that you have to roll a 13 or higher. 13 or higher on a d20 sounds a lot more reasonable, doesn't it? Also pertaining to Arcane Archer, you have to remember that even though it might not always be an upgrade over just casting the spell normally, a spell used with Arcane Archer will always be a strict upgrade over a normal arrow.

I thought it was lower. Lets see 40% chance to hit 30% chance to fail the save equals 12% chance of the spell having full effect and 40% chance of having a partial effect. If it was 60% chance to hit and 40% chance to fail the save then it would be 24% chance of the spell having full effect and 60% chance of a partial effect. So no, 12% to 24% is not acceptable for a spell that normally has full effect 30% to 40% of the time and at least partial effect 100% of the time. If you translate 12% and 24% to a single die roll you are looking at between 15 and 18 as the DC. That's insanely hard. If you cast 10 spells into arrows and use them, on average, you would have 1-2 arrows having full effect. 4-6 arrows would have no effect. 4-6 arrows would deal 1d6 damage.

And each arrow will be a downgrade over a normal spell by nerfing the expected chance of a full effect (or any effect at all). The sad part is this isn't immediately obvious. I mean someone without running the numbers might think "this will be less effective when using single target spells with saves", but they will not think "This will make single target spells with saves, nearly worthless". Which makes it a trap option.

There have already been several suggestions for this disadvantage on the save, auto-hit with the spell if you miss except for critical misses, a warning label on the feat, etc...etc...

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I would love to, but WotC and Mearls keeps coming back and telling me 5E is for everyone and when I look at their articles and play tests and videos and interviews I'm like "are we talking about the same game here?". Like I said before, if they had said 5E would be a cleaned up 2.85 I would have been like "have fun with that" and moved on without saying a word. Instead they claim over and over and over that 5E is for all players of D&D and for all play styles. Sometimes even specifically citing 4E. So as long as they keep lying about that I'm going to keep observing that, no its not even close to the play style of 4E. Once it comes out and people start buying it I'm sure various forums are going to flood with angry users that are complaining about it because once again WotC is claiming that 5E is for everyone, when in fact it is for a very narrow play style.



Yep, never happened. I mean I post a lot here, but I never once said anyone was dumb for liking something I find abhorrent. Please quit painting me as if I'm a troll instead of the logical thinker that I am. What I'm trying to do is get rid of internet memes like "X edition is like a video game" and get to the actual detailed reason they dislike the edition so we can have a constructive conversation. For instance you might associate powers that recharge on a schedule other than daily or at-will as 'like a video games recharge structures where they recharge after X seconds'. However telling us X edition is like a video game doesn't convey that information. Instead you should clearly say something along the lines of "I don't like X edition because many of its powers/spells recharge after resting for 5+ minutes." then we can have an actual constructive conversation.



I thought it was lower. Lets see 40% chance to hit 30% chance to fail the save equals 12% chance of the spell having full effect and 40% chance of having a partial effect. If it was 60% chance to hit and 40% chance to fail the save then it would be 24% chance of the spell having full effect and 60% chance of a partial effect. So no, 12% to 24% is not acceptable for a spell that normally has full effect 30% to 40% of the time and at least partial effect 100% of the time. If you translate 12% and 24% to a single die roll you are looking at between 15 and 18 as the DC. That's insanely hard. If you cast 10 spells into arrows and use them, on average, you would have 1-2 arrows having full effect. 4-6 arrows would have no effect. 4-6 arrows would deal 1d6 damage.

And each arrow will be a downgrade over a normal spell by nerfing the expected chance of a full effect (or any effect at all). The sad part is this isn't immediately obvious. I mean someone without running the numbers might think "this will be less effective when using single target spells with saves", but they will not think "This will make single target spells with saves, nearly worthless". Which makes it a trap option.

There have already been several suggestions for this disadvantage on the save, auto-hit with the spell if you miss except for critical misses, a warning label on the feat, etc...etc...

Well obviously they misspoke and must retract not only all their statements but the entire game because they forgot to add.

" We are trying to make this game for everyone, except Lokaire, we know we can't please that specific person. For this reason we must pull all of our units and try again."

Everyone doesn't mean everyone, it just means most people. They want a game that, say if your friends were playing they could say "Hey Lokaire, come to our table for the night we could use a fighter" and you go, not because of any alliegence to the game or WotC but because your friends asked you to. And you play a fighter. And you know what, you are able to play the game similar to how you like it unless the group is playing a drastic different way (in which case that isn't the game's fault but the table just plays it a certain way). Making a game everyone can play doesn't mean making a game that everyone loves.

[Lokiare]

Well obviously they misspoke and must retract not only all their statements but the entire game because they forgot to add.

" We are trying to make this game for everyone, except Lokaire, we know we can't please that specific person. For this reason we must pull all of our units and try again."

Everyone doesn't mean everyone, it just means most people. They want a game that, say if your friends were playing they could say "Hey Lokaire, come to our table for the night we could use a fighter" and you go, not because of any alliegence to the game or WotC but because your friends asked you to. And you play a fighter. And you know what, you are able to play the game similar to how you like it unless the group is playing a drastic different way (in which case that isn't the game's fault but the table just plays it a certain way). Making a game everyone can play doesn't mean making a game that everyone loves.

I like how you single me out for your straw man. Yeah, my opinion of 5E is a common one you can find everywhere from 4E fans. Its based on the obstacle course style of fun and 5e doesn't provide that kind of fun, despite Mearls and Co. claiming otherwise, over and over and even recently.

A retraction would be nice, but just not saying it every other article and interview would also be nice.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I like how you single me out for your straw man. Yeah, my opinion of 5E is a common one you can find everywhere from 4E fans. Its based on the obstacle course style of fun and 5e doesn't provide that kind of fun, despite Mearls and Co. claiming otherwise, over and over and even recently.

A retraction would be nice, but just not saying it every other article and interview would also be nice.

Mostly because you are the loudest voice of people complaining that this game doesn't specifically suit YOU. Out of everyone that has problems with the system, you take things to the extreme like it is a personal vendetta against you. Like you are so special and WotC owes you something.

That is what you come off as, maybe I do too.

If you don't want used as an example, then don't speak the loudest. The loudest are always used as examples.

Also strawmen don't exist outside of debate team. This ain't high school debate club.

[archaeo]

Yep, never happened. I mean I post a lot here, but I never once said anyone was dumb for liking something I find abhorrent. Please quit painting me as if I'm a troll instead of the logical thinker that I am. What I'm trying to do is get rid of internet memes like "X edition is like a video game" and get to the actual detailed reason they dislike the edition so we can have a constructive conversation. For instance you might associate powers that recharge on a schedule other than daily or at-will as 'like a video games recharge structures where they recharge after X seconds'. However telling us X edition is like a video game doesn't convey that information. Instead you should clearly say something along the lines of "I don't like X edition because many of its powers/spells recharge after resting for 5+ minutes." then we can have an actual constructive conversation.

Being on a one-man crusade against "internet memes" sounds like some solid windmill tilting. I wish you the best of luck, because I'm done here.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Being on a one-man crusade against "internet memes" sounds like some solid windmill tilting. I wish you the best of luck, because I'm done here.

Lokaire is lucky this isn't any of the many other forums I've been on... Or his inbox would be filled with memes from across space, time, and the internet.

:smallbiggrin:

Not by me, just by everyone on the forums.

[da_chicken]

Also strawmen don't exist outside of debate team. This ain't high school debate club.

While true that this isn't high school debate, identifying when someone is trying to convince you of something using fallacious reasoning is important anywhere. You don't have to point out to them that their reasoning is flawed with a Latin phrase, but when you keep seeing the same invalid arguments made repeatedly it can be a sign of someone you don't want to discuss things with.

Logic policing is annoying, though, mainly because people tend to point out the fallacy and then don't contribute anything about the conclusion drawn from the invalid argument.

[Lokiare]

Mostly because you are the loudest voice of people complaining that this game doesn't specifically suit YOU. Out of everyone that has problems with the system, you take things to the extreme like it is a personal vendetta against you. Like you are so special and WotC owes you something.

That is what you come off as, maybe I do too.

If you don't want used as an example, then don't speak the loudest. The loudest are always used as examples.

Also strawmen don't exist outside of debate team. This ain't high school debate club.

Singling me out in the first place is a bad way to hold a discussion if you want it to go anywhere, especially when you misrepresent my position. After I call you out on it, it makes your position appear to be weaker. Then of course when I call you out on it you exaggerate and call my constructive criticism 'a personal vendetta against you'. This almost sounds like you are attacking a poster instead of their views. I think that's against the forum rules, if I recall correctly. Perhaps you should stick to attacking my actual arguments instead of me and straw men you erect out of nothing.

Straw men exist wherever people discuss things and are trying to come to a mutually beneficial understanding of the topic at hand. If you aren't here for that then you can safely put me on ignore, because that's my goal here.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Singling me out in the first place is a bad way to hold a discussion if you want it to go anywhere, especially when you misrepresent my position. After I call you out on it, it makes your position appear to be weaker. Then of course when I call you out on it you exaggerate and call my constructive criticism 'a personal vendetta against you'. This almost sounds like you are attacking a poster instead of their views. I think that's against the forum rules, if I recall correctly. Perhaps you should stick to attacking my actual arguments instead of me and straw men you erect out of nothing.

Straw men exist wherever people discuss things and are trying to come to a mutually beneficial understanding of the topic at hand. If you aren't here for that then you can safely put me on ignore, because that's my goal here.

Holy hell I laughed so fricken hard, thank you for that. I don't believe for one second that is why you are here, bit what I believe doesn't matter.

I'm not even one of the people who hates everything you say and have actually defended you, so why would I ignore you. You can't back up some of your more crazy statements and you are really bad at analogies (re:Hitler) but that isn't grounds to ignore someone. Your "debates" with the other members of this site are too fricken entertaining to ignore.

I used you as an example because you scream the loudest, get over yourself. Though I've noticed a trend, it seems that everyone that disagrees (no matter how little or by how much) with you on anything tends to misrepresent you or not understand you or what you are saying, and it is their fault.

I can either generalize (generalizing can be bad) my statement or use an example of someone from this very forum. Hmmm which one makes more sense?

Again, if you don't want to be used as part of an example then don't speak. It would be like if you complained that people quoted your words on the forum, but yet still posted on said forum. I want you to keep posting, seriously, I like it when someone ruffles the status quo.

But, and serious question here, are people not allowed to use people as specific examples? I wasn't aware that was a thing now.

[captpike]

Wait, how exactly would the spell going off regardless of the attack roll work? Would it just auto-hit the target, or would it go off wherever it lands? Because I think it already does the second one, and the first one makes no sense flavorwise.

Also, you say the feat should be changed so that it can work with more character concepts. However, the feat is designed to enable one specific concept: The Arcane Archer. Wait, I think Wotc was actually concept for once and named the feat that.

Lastly, if you want the feat to not be specific to archers, and not need the ranged attack to hit, and really just extend the spell's range, then I think what you actually need is a different feat. Because that's not what Arcane Archer is meant to do. It let's you put spells in your arrows! That's awesome!

you attack with your arrow, if you hit or miss the spell goes off.

your arrow may have bounced off the armor of the blackguard but that was close enough for your ray of frost to work.

yes the feat is made to make the arcane archer work, but why not also have it work with other concepts that are close. rather then needing 5 feats (arcane dagger master, arcane archer, arcane crossbowmen ect) you can just have one. its not like it would be overpowered given you can use more then one thrown weapon at at time (nor would you want to)

EDIT:
when I hear "a game for everyone" I think a game for all major playstyles of the last three editions (with less weight placed on 2e then 3e or 4e). that is the yardstick I judge Wotc by, and will until they admit they are NOT making a "game for everyone"

[SpawnOfMorbo]

EDIT:
when I hear "a game for everyone" I think a game for all major playstyles of the last three editions (with less weight placed on 2e then 3e or 4e). that is the yardstick I judge Wotc by, and will until they admit they are NOT making a "game for everyone"

The problem is, and this isn't meant to be disrespectful, but a game " for everyone" may not include you.

Or me, or even a chunck of their fan base.

A game that everyone can play can mean that it is simple enough to play it and with a little bit of fudging and manipulation then it will fit everyone a play style.

Don't take a company so literally even if that is what they want.

A game for all play styles of d&d can be 3.5, if you replace some rules with variant rules and some other options... You get 4e. You can also take 3.5 and reverse engineer it to become 2e. Add an option here, ignore an option there.

And besides, WotC pretty much said they don't care about the vocal minority and thus don't care about most of us on the forums and such. We aren't their target audience or market.

Well for the most part.

[captpike]

The problem is, and this isn't meant to be disrespectful, but a game " for everyone" may not include you.

Or me, or even a chunck of their fan base.

A game that everyone can play can mean that it is simple enough to play it and with a little bit of fudging and manipulation then it will fit everyone a play style.

Don't take a company so literally even if that is what they want.

A game for all play styles of d&d can be 3.5, if you replace some rules with variant rules and some other options... You get 4e. You can also take 3.5 and reverse engineer it to become 2e. Add an option here, ignore an option there.

And besides, WotC pretty much said they don't care about the vocal minority and thus don't care about most of us on the forums and such. We aren't their target audience or market.

Well for the most part.

the only logical way to judge them is on their merits, how well they succeed on their goals.

they have said they are making a game for all fans, a "game for everyone"
if they say at any point that "its not a game for everyone, just for 2e and 3e fans" then I will stop, but they have not. a game that is not for 4e fans is not a game for everyone, its hardly a game for most people.

you can't turn 3e into a balanced tactical game without destroying the core of what makes it 3e.

EDIT: what should I do? make up some random goals and see if the game meets them? I am not telepathic I have to have something to go on.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

the only logical way to judge them is on their merits, how well they succeed on their goals.

they have said they are making a game for all fans, a "game for everyone"
if they say at any point that "its not a game for everyone, just for 2e and 3e fans" then I will stop, but they have not. a game that is not for 4e fans is not a game for everyone, its hardly a game for most people.

you can't turn 3e into a balanced tactical game without destroying the core of what makes it 3e.

EDIT: what should I do? make up some random goals and see if the game meets them? I am not telepathic I have to have something to go on.

3e works just fine as a tactical game, I know many people who play it that way on a *gasp* battle map and everything. You can even balance the game by playing all tier 3s if you want. Hell, the system I started on, 2e, was taught to me as a tactical game. Of course I didn't really know what d&d was at all at the time. When I show up to play Pathfinder my DM friends know it is time to get their tactics on or I'll help my party destroy an encounter (in a good way)*.

Depending on how the game comes out you could be able to play 2e, 3e, or 4e style. Who knows. But one thing you need to remember is that WotC is not perfect and is not the word of a god. Design goals can change and focuses can bend. Perhaps the majority, who they listen to, said that they don't want the game tour way? Guess what, because their target audience is the majority they are making a game that everyone can play, everyone that is part of the majority.

Also, it kind of sucks that all of us on forums are part of the vocal minority in which WotC won't really listen to. Kinda makes you wonder why even be here talking about this when we won't be able to really change anything (unless we make a loooot of fake WotC accounts and take a loooot of surveys and such...).

Edit: I've been asked to join games just to teach players tactics, both new and old players. Tactics are fun :smallbiggrin:

[captpike]

in order for 3e to be tactical in the same way 4e is you would have to get ride of 2/3+ of the classes, so everyone is in the same tier. then you would have to get rid of all spells that can end an encounter by themselves (including all save or dies)

you would have to gut the system in other words. even that could have problems.

and yes design goals do change, when they say theirs have changed I will change how I comment on the game.

[Felhammer]

in order for 3e to be tactical in the same way 4e is you would have to get ride of 2/3+ of the classes, so everyone is in the same tier. then you would have to get rid of all spells that can end an encounter by themselves (including all save or dies)

you would have to gut the system in other words. even that could have problems.

and yes design goals do change, when they say theirs have changed I will change how I comment on the game.

In a tactical wargame, you can have a great disparity between different units' abilities. A great general uses what he is given and finds a way to win.

[Arzanyos]

I thought it was lower. Lets see 40% chance to hit 30% chance to fail the save equals 12% chance of the spell having full effect and 40% chance of having a partial effect. If it was 60% chance to hit and 40% chance to fail the save then it would be 24% chance of the spell having full effect and 60% chance of a partial effect. So no, 12% to 24% is not acceptable for a spell that normally has full effect 30% to 40% of the time and at least partial effect 100% of the time. If you translate 12% and 24% to a single die roll you are looking at between 15 and 18 as the DC. That's insanely hard. If you cast 10 spells into arrows and use them, on average, you would have 1-2 arrows having full effect. 4-6 arrows would have no effect. 4-6 arrows would deal 1d6 damage.

And each arrow will be a downgrade over a normal spell by nerfing the expected chance of a full effect (or any effect at all). The sad part is this isn't immediately obvious. I mean someone without running the numbers might think "this will be less effective when using single target spells with saves", but they will not think "This will make single target spells with saves, nearly worthless". Which makes it a trap option.

There have already been several suggestions for this disadvantage on the save, auto-hit with the spell if you miss except for critical misses, a warning label on the feat, etc...etc...

Oops, I was remembering captpike's hypothetical numbers from early in the thread.

But wait, what are you fighting that has AC high enough for you to miss 60% of the time, and makes it saves 70% of the time? I'd say that either it has some crazy external defenses, which you would need to think tactically to overcome, or it's just really big and tough and so Arcane Archer is a good plan, because it decreases your chances of getting hit. By the way, what do you think the average chances of hitting a monster should be, and what should be the average chances of that monster making a save? I want to see how "nearly worthless" Arcane Archer would be against your average monster.

As well, I don't think this feat should always be an upgrade over casting the spell normally. Because, if it has no drawback, even so little as, "you have to hit with the arrow for the spell to work" than every spellcaster ever would take it, because, hey, touch spells at 200 feet out.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

in order for 3e to be tactical in the same way 4e is you would have to get ride of 2/3+ of the classes, so everyone is in the same tier. then you would have to get rid of all spells that can end an encounter by themselves (including all save or dies)

you would have to gut the system in other words. even that could have problems.

and yes design goals do change, when they say theirs have changed I will change how I comment on the game.

Have you never played 3.5 tier 3? Or 3.5 E6? It really isn't that hard, and you don't gut anything.

They did say their goals have changed. They said that the majority is who they will listen to, not the vocal minority. You are part of the minority (like the rest of us) and thus not part of "everyone". For the most part anyways.

[Fwiffo86]

I would love to, but WotC and Mearls keeps coming back and telling me 5E is for everyone and when I look at their articles and play tests and videos and interviews I'm like "are we talking about the same game here?". Like I said before, if they had said 5E would be a cleaned up 2.85 I would have been like "have fun with that" and moved on without saying a word. Instead they claim over and over and over that 5E is for all players of D&D and for all play styles. Sometimes even specifically citing 4E. So as long as they keep lying about that I'm going to keep observing that, no its not even close to the play style of 4E. Once it comes out and people start buying it I'm sure various forums are going to flood with angry users that are complaining about it because once again WotC is claiming that 5E is for everyone, when in fact it is for a very narrow play style.

Your position is well known. Move on to the next thing.



Yep, never happened. I mean I post a lot here, but I never once said anyone was dumb for liking something I find abhorrent. Please quit painting me as if I'm a troll instead of the logical thinker that I am. What I'm trying to do is get rid of internet memes like "X edition is like a video game" and get to the actual detailed reason they dislike the edition so we can have a constructive conversation. For instance you might associate powers that recharge on a schedule other than daily or at-will as 'like a video games recharge structures where they recharge after X seconds'. However telling us X edition is like a video game doesn't convey that information. Instead you should clearly say something along the lines of "I don't like X edition because many of its powers/spells recharge after resting for 5+ minutes." then we can have an actual constructive conversation.

I believe the reasoning is the tone you use. Not the words. Many of your posts seem to be very "This is better than that", or insinuate dismissal shrouded in "IF they had said X, I would have moved on". This implies that you think you are doing us a favor by assaulting the discussion with your reasons for not liking X or Y. This is not the case for me, and I'm willing to bet several others.



I thought it was lower. Lets see 40% chance to hit 30% chance to fail the save equals 12% chance of the spell having full effect and 40% chance of having a partial effect. If it was 60% chance to hit and 40% chance to fail the save then it would be 24% chance of the spell having full effect and 60% chance of a partial effect. So no, 12% to 24% is not acceptable for a spell that normally has full effect 30% to 40% of the time and at least partial effect 100% of the time. If you translate 12% and 24% to a single die roll you are looking at between 15 and 18 as the DC. That's insanely hard. If you cast 10 spells into arrows and use them, on average, you would have 1-2 arrows having full effect. 4-6 arrows would have no effect. 4-6 arrows would deal 1d6 damage.

And each arrow will be a downgrade over a normal spell by nerfing the expected chance of a full effect (or any effect at all). The sad part is this isn't immediately obvious. I mean someone without running the numbers might think "this will be less effective when using single target spells with saves", but they will not think "This will make single target spells with saves, nearly worthless". Which makes it a trap option.

There have already been several suggestions for this disadvantage on the save, auto-hit with the spell if you miss except for critical misses, a warning label on the feat, etc...etc...

And yet you miss the fact that if you miss with the arrow, the spell isn't expended at all. You can go pick it back up, and reuse it without recasting it on the arrow. To me, that give all spells Advantage on the attack roll. I don't know about anyone else, but that is certainly worth a feat to me.

[captpike]

Oops, I was remembering captpike's hypothetical numbers from early in the thread.

But wait, what are you fighting that has AC high enough for you to miss 60% of the time, and makes it saves 70% of the time? I'd say that either it has some crazy external defenses, which you would need to think tactically to overcome, or it's just really big and tough and so Arcane Archer is a good plan, because it decreases your chances of getting hit. By the way, what do you think the average chances of hitting a monster should be, and what should be the average chances of that monster making a save? I want to see how "nearly worthless" Arcane Archer would be against your average monster.

As well, I don't think this feat should always be an upgrade over casting the spell normally. Because, if it has no drawback, even so little as, "you have to hit with the arrow for the spell to work" than every spellcaster ever would take it, because, hey, touch spells at 200 feet out.

I was being generous with 60% and 60% (also lazy).

personalty I would use something close to 4e numbers, so I would say 8-10 for PCs to hit, 10-12 for enemies to save.
so from 25%-36% in my ideal game. that is too low, when the game assumes you have 60%ish chance to get your spells and attacks off. and you even lose the effect you get on save.

its a feat, that means the drawback is it means you don't have other feats of equal power but different use, and of course you lost +1 to a stat.


In a tactical wargame, you can have a great disparity between different units' abilities. A great general uses what he is given and finds a way to win.

that is when you have alot of units, PCs dont. you have one, its hard to be tactical when the enemy wizard can tell you "your dead" with one spell.

[captpike]

And yet you miss the fact that if you miss with the arrow, the spell isn't expended at all. You can go pick it back up, and reuse it without recasting it on the arrow. To me, that give all spells Advantage on the attack roll. I don't know about anyone else, but that is certainly worth a feat to me.
yet for that fight the spell might as well be gone. also you MUST pick your spells when you put them in the arrow, losing alot of flexibility in spell choice.
a sidegrade sure, but an upgrade? not really




Have you never played 3.5 tier 3? Or 3.5 E6? It really isn't that hard, and you don't gut anything.

They did say their goals have changed. They said that the majority is who they will listen to, not the vocal minority. You are part of the minority (like the rest of us) and thus not part of "everyone". For the most part anyways.

having to only play a certain tier means you gut the game. it severely limits the options open to PCs.
same goes for E6, it takes a game of 20 levels and takes out 19 of them.

did they say specifically what minority they are talking about? "we are no longer making the game for 4e fans or their playstyle" for example? or did they just use vague marketing-speak that gives no useful information.

[Felhammer]

that is when you have alot of units, PCs dont. you have one, its hard to be tactical when the enemy wizard can tell you "your dead" with one spell.

That happens in other wargames too. If you are a grunt and you get hit with a Lascannon in 40k, you are dead.

If you know you are fighting a wizard, why are you not ducking behind cover, getting up in his grill, killing his minions, retreating to a more advantageous position, etc.? There is a wealth of tactically sound options out there for when you are fighting a superior enemy. Not all enemies can be defeated with the same tried and true tactics.

[Fwiffo86]

yet for that fight the spell might as well be gone. also you MUST pick your spells when you put them in the arrow, losing alot of flexibility in spell choice.
a sidegrade sure, but an upgrade? not really

What about the next fight? Can't use a spell again if its expended right? Which means you still have more resources to pull from. Sure your flexibility is gone, but then, spells I miss with aren't deducted from my spell resources is pretty huge.



having to only play a certain tier means you gut the game. it severely limits the options open to PCs.
same goes for E6, it takes a game of 20 levels and takes out 19 of them.

did they say specifically what minority they are talking about? "we are no longer making the game for 4e fans or their playstyle" for example? or did they just use vague marketing-speak that gives no useful information.

Hahahahah Tiers.... always thought that was amusing.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

having to only play a certain tier means you gut the game. it severely limits the options open to PCs.
same goes for E6, it takes a game of 20 levels and takes out 19 of them.

did they say specifically what minority they are talking about? "we are no longer making the game for 4e fans or their playstyle" for example? or did they just use vague marketing-speak that gives no useful information.

Actually, the options in tier 3 DND isn't all that limited. Sure the most broken stuff (tier 1 - 2 classes) are out but there are TONS of options available. I'm taking t that your answer is "no" to both parts.
.

They said the "vocal minority" which is a pretty nice way to say the people on forums and such. The ones that yell the loudest but don't really have the numbers to back them up. Between that and the fact you don't speak for a huge group of 4e fans, you are part of the vocal minority. You are not part of "everyone" because "everyone" is their target market, the majority.

I know it must hurt the ego, but you and I and everyone else part of the vocal minority are not part of "everyone".

[Arzanyos]

You can't count losing +1 to an attribute as a drawback. You don't lose anything, you just don't get an extra +1. Also, I wouldn't count, you can't get another feat as that much of a drawback, because the chances of there being a large amount of feats, all at the same power level, that do different things, and are all useful, is probably pretty low.

Okay, so you hit on, say, a 9, and your enemies save on an 11. That's 45% to hit, 50% to save. With Arcane Archer, 22.5% of full effect. So, equivalent to needing a 16-17 or higher on one roll. That's not good, but it's doable. And, if they make the save, you still get a partial effect. If you miss, the spell is not expended. And, if the spell is an area spell, you do hit regardless of the attack roll.

So really, for the average player, I'd say this feat is only a trap until they think, "huh, what if I put a Darkness/Fireball in here?" At best, they'll just imbue all the spells they know the first time they try out the feat, and know which ones work best.

[captpike]

Actually, the options in tier 3 DND isn't all that limited. Sure the most broken stuff (tier 1 - 2 classes) are out but there are TONS of options available. I'm taking t that your answer is "no" to both parts.
.

They said the "vocal minority" which is a pretty nice way to say the people on forums and such. The ones that yell the loudest but don't really have the numbers to back them up. Between that and the fact you don't speak for a huge group of 4e fans, you are part of the vocal minority. You are not part of "everyone" because "everyone" is their target market, the majority.

I know it must hurt the ego, but you and I and everyone else part of the vocal minority are not part of "everyone".

I have played 3.5, and if you only play tier 3 you also take out the classes below it. you cant play a fighter, or a rogue or a warlock ect.

I would hardly think "likes 4e's playstyle" to be so uncommon as to be worth ignoring.
and again they did not say that, they only said "vocal majority" which is so vague as be worthless. or it could mean "if your talking your not the majority so we will ignore you" and of course just because the "vocal majority" thought of something does not make it wrong or a bad idea.

nor is it always a bad idea to bend to the minority. for example if only 20% wanted a balanced game (and its not that low) then they should make it balanced because there is no downside to it.


You can't count losing +1 to an attribute as a drawback. You don't lose anything, you just don't get an extra +1. Also, I wouldn't count, you can't get another feat as that much of a drawback, because the chances of there being a large amount of feats, all at the same power level, that do different things, and are all useful, is probably pretty low.

Okay, so you hit on, say, a 9, and your enemies save on an 11. That's 45% to hit, 50% to save. With Arcane Archer, 22.5% of full effect. So, equivalent to needing a 16-17 or higher on one roll. That's not good, but it's doable. And, if they make the save, you still get a partial effect. If you miss, the spell is not expended. And, if the spell is an area spell, you do hit regardless of the attack roll.

So really, for the average player, I'd say this feat is only a trap until they think, "huh, what if I put a Darkness/Fireball in here?" At best, they'll just imbue all the spells they know the first time they try out the feat, and know which ones work best.

the opportunity cost of a feat is +1 to a stat, and the fact you don't have any other feat.

the point of feats is for them to be close in power, so you have a real choice rather then have trap feats like toughness. if they don't do this the game has in fact failed in a major way. just as if they make the game and it has the tier system from 3.5 they failed.

having to wait 2-3 combats before you get your spells off is not an upgrade its a downgrade. how is doing 1d6 damage to one target worth waiting that long for the spell to go off?

the feat can still work so long as they provide a warning to new players. it would be better to fix it, but if they label how its broken that would be better.

[Lokiare]

The problem is, and this isn't meant to be disrespectful, but a game " for everyone" may not include you.

Or me, or even a chunck of their fan base.

A game that everyone can play can mean that it is simple enough to play it and with a little bit of fudging and manipulation then it will fit everyone a play style.

Don't take a company so literally even if that is what they want.

A game for all play styles of d&d can be 3.5, if you replace some rules with variant rules and some other options... You get 4e. You can also take 3.5 and reverse engineer it to become 2e. Add an option here, ignore an option there.

And besides, WotC pretty much said they don't care about the vocal minority and thus don't care about most of us on the forums and such. We aren't their target audience or market.

Well for the most part.

We've debunked that 'vocal minority' stuff over and over. Its basic statistics. You can't know who is a vocal minority or vocal majority unless you do the surveys and no one has done a comparative survey between D&D forum goers and D&D non-forum goers. The WotC surveys were debunked to, they are pretty much self selecting.


Oops, I was remembering captpike's hypothetical numbers from early in the thread.

But wait, what are you fighting that has AC high enough for you to miss 60% of the time, and makes it saves 70% of the time? I'd say that either it has some crazy external defenses, which you would need to think tactically to overcome, or it's just really big and tough and so Arcane Archer is a good plan, because it decreases your chances of getting hit. By the way, what do you think the average chances of hitting a monster should be, and what should be the average chances of that monster making a save? I want to see how "nearly worthless" Arcane Archer would be against your average monster.

As well, I don't think this feat should always be an upgrade over casting the spell normally. Because, if it has no drawback, even so little as, "you have to hit with the arrow for the spell to work" than every spellcaster ever would take it, because, hey, touch spells at 200 feet out.

Cleric with a bow so they can use arcane archer with cause wounds spells. They did point buy and had to split Wisdom and Dexterity, so they had non-optimal stats. If it has a drawback then its less powerful than say Great Weapon Mastery which gives 3-4 bonuses and no penalties. Not only that, the penalties aren't directly apparent.


Have you never played 3.5 tier 3? Or 3.5 E6? It really isn't that hard, and you don't gut anything.

They did say their goals have changed. They said that the majority is who they will listen to, not the vocal minority. You are part of the minority (like the rest of us) and thus not part of "everyone". For the most part anyways.

Again who is the majority? The 74k people that enjoy 4E (minus the few people that joined the DDi group for some inconceivable reason)? The people on the forums? The people off the forums? Saying "we'll go with the majority" is meaningless unless they actually define it and show us how they make those determinations. If they are just going to ignore forum goers, they might end up with another Essentials. If they only listen to forum goers they might end up with a WoW expansion that wasn't well received.


Your position is well known. Move on to the next thing.



I believe the reasoning is the tone you use. Not the words. Many of your posts seem to be very "This is better than that", or insinuate dismissal shrouded in "IF they had said X, I would have moved on". This implies that you think you are doing us a favor by assaulting the discussion with your reasons for not liking X or Y. This is not the case for me, and I'm willing to bet several others.



And yet you miss the fact that if you miss with the arrow, the spell isn't expended at all. You can go pick it back up, and reuse it without recasting it on the arrow. To me, that give all spells Advantage on the attack roll. I don't know about anyone else, but that is certainly worth a feat to me.

What tone? I'm half smiling and in a jovial mood when I post. Do I need to start putting smileys after every post to show people I'm not being mean? Seriously. If you imagine me saying these things while smiling, they would probably go over much better. :smallsmile::smallsmile::smallsmile::smallsmile:

Edit: The arrow has a 50% chance of being destroyed (or more depending on the DM). 5E play test Equipment page 4:
"Ammunition. You can use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if you have ammunition to launch from the weapon. Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. At the end of the battle, you can recover half your expended ammunition by taking a minute searching the battlefield."