PDA

View Full Version : Newsflash: 5E pages leaked



Pages : [1] 2

Kurald Galain
2014-06-10, 08:22 AM
In what was no doubt an intentional marketing move on their part, WOTC has leaked a few pages from the upcoming PHB and Starter set.

The starter set's book (http://media.wizards.com/images/dnd/products/Starter_Ex1_ToCth.jpg) has 32 pages, six of which cover combat and eleven of which cover spells and spellcasting. Of note is that it has a four-page equipment section, which looks like this (http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=62090&d=1402390959) and which contains tools, goods, and pack animals. It feels similar to the equivalent lists in 2E and 3E, not so much like the very concise one in 4E. Of note is that it doesn't have the much-maligned sunrods, and that it refers to characters having proficiency with lock picks and playing cards. The book does not appear to have skills.

The starter set has five pregens (dwarf cleric, human axe fighter, human archer fighter, elf wizard, and halfling rogue) and goes up to level 5. It does not have rules for character creation; I think I saw a rumor about that, but the content summaries from both WOTC and Enworld show that they just aren't there. It does have a limited spell list (https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/10390297_10152451697266071_5098959702772151335_n.j pg) up to level 3, of course.

Then there's this page (http://www.enworld.org/newsimages/phb_big_version.jpg) from the PHB which shows some details of the Sorcerer class and the fluff for the Warlock. Notably, the sorcerer has a wild surge mechanic (an optional rule from 2E's Tome Of Magic that gives each spell you cast a 5% chance of having something utterly random happen, raging from random butterflies and Flumph summons, to free fly/resurrect/teleportation spells, to triggering a Fireball targeted on you).

The basic set (i.e. the free PDF) has 96 pages compared to the 320 in the PHB, and this basic set contains approx five spells per spell level (presumably that means five arcane plus five divine), and predictably contains none of the optional/modular content. Basic also has no feats, and I'm surprised to learn it doesn't have half-elves. I'm less surprised that it doesn't have the somewhat-controversial gnomes or tieflings, though.

Finally, someone made a graph of attack bonus progression (http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=62026&d=1401896309) comparing the various editions, for what it's worth.

pwykersotz
2014-06-10, 09:00 AM
Interesting...Warlocks have hand-to-hand combat, eh? Was that in 4e, or is this new?

obryn
2014-06-10, 09:04 AM
Interesting...Warlocks have hand-to-hand combat, eh? Was that in 4e, or is this new?
It was something that became more and more common during 4e, both with a very popular At-Will called Eldritch Strike and the Hexblade class from Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms.

I'm 99% sure there were some melee options for the warlock in 3.x, though, too.

pwykersotz
2014-06-10, 09:10 AM
There were a couple melee options, yeah. Eldritch Claws being popular. I also notice a typo in the Wild Magic table. 57-58 is instead 57-5. An unfortunate range, considering it changes your alignment. And 61-62 is 61-6, which makes you shout. Then 23-24 is 23-2, turning your skin blue. I take it this means that if you roll an 8, a fireball detonates on you, your skin turns blue, you shout when you speak, AND your alignment randomly shifts. Wild magic scares me. :smalltongue:

StabbityRabbit
2014-06-10, 09:17 AM
Does anybody else find the art on the warlock page to be ugly? The picture's staff also makes it very, very hard to read "incatiable thirst". WOtC really needs to work on its spelling.

da_chicken
2014-06-10, 09:19 AM
Interesting...Warlocks have hand-to-hand combat, eh? Was that in 4e, or is this new?

No, the 4e Warlock was primary ranged, IIRC. You could make a 3.5e melee Warlock with Eldritch Glaive from Dragon Magic. That made your Eldritch Blast into a melee weapon, allowing you full attacks against touch AC.

I think they're trying to carve a niche between Bard, Druid, Cleric, Wizard, and Sorcerer that is suitable for an arcane caster that still makes sense.

The PHB image with the Wild Surge table and the Warlock introduction is from Mike Mearls' twitter. He posted it last week, I think.

da_chicken
2014-06-10, 09:31 AM
Does anybody else find the art on the warlock page to be ugly? The picture's staff also makes it very, very hard to read "incatiable thirst". WOtC really needs to work on its spelling.

It looks like "insatiable" to me. Look at the "s" in "drives" or "thirst" on the next line. The "s" is messed up there, too. Or at the first line of the page "With a pseudodragon..." and the "s" looks like an "a". JPEG photos of computer screens don't seem to work very well. I mean, you can't even read the page numbers.

Many people on rpg.net mentioned the staff picture. I think it's due to the fact that it looks like the staff is upside down and the first picture posted there is a smaller version of the same image, then you realize the hand is turned out, and then you're confused by the point of view. It's like she's part Rakshasa (http://www.dandwiki.com/w/images/thumb/c/ce/Rakshasa_Noble.png/360px-Rakshasa_Noble.png).

Chaosvii7
2014-06-10, 09:50 AM
No, the 4e Warlock was primary ranged, IIRC.

Essentials introduced the Hexblade Warlock, whose pacts gave them melee weapons that they wielded. They were mostly strikers, but they were really fun. I've played every kind of 4e Hexblade, and they can pull their weight.

IIRC Mike Mearls' article on the D&DNext Warlock mentioned the Pact of The Sword, which gave Warlocks melee options and will probably make it reminiscent of the 3e Hexblade. Except, you know, fun. :smalltongue:

StabbityRabbit
2014-06-10, 09:53 AM
It looks like "insatiable" to me. Look at the "s" in "drives" or "thirst" on the next line. The "s" is messed up there, too. Or at the first line of the page "With a pseudodragon..." and the "s" looks like an "a". JPEG photos of computer screens don't seem to work very well. I mean, you can't even read the page numbers.

Many people on rpg.net mentioned the staff picture. I think it's due to the fact that it looks like the staff is upside down and the first picture posted there is a smaller version of the same image, then you realize the hand is turned out, and then you're confused by the point of view. It's like she's part Rakshasa (http://www.dandwiki.com/w/images/thumb/c/ce/Rakshasa_Noble.png/360px-Rakshasa_Noble.png).

The hand positioning isn't whats bothering me. It's the entire arm. Seriously compare her arm length in proportion to her body to an average human. Maybe it's the fact that her clothes obscure her body shape, but to me it looks like they messed up their proportions. In addition to that her face looks messed up too. Maybe its the low res, but between the dead eyes and the messed up lips she looks like an alien. Maybe that's the price of star pact: you end up looking weird and alien like her.

On my screen pseudodragon looks like pneudodragon.

Millennium
2014-06-10, 11:14 AM
For all that changes between editions of D&D, it's comforting to know that a few things will always remain constant. For example, the quality of the artwork.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-10, 11:25 AM
Does anybody else find the art on the warlock page to be ugly? The picture's staff also makes it very, very hard to read "incatiable thirst". WOtC really needs to work on its spelling.

I kinda see her (?) With googly eyes... It makes it better I think...

I wish they would mix in some 2e art style with their 3e/4e style. I like the look of the fighter (or paladin) in my 2e book, he can really rock that stache.

How long will it take to find art directly used in an older edition?

Stray
2014-06-10, 12:30 PM
The hand positioning isn't whats bothering me. It's the entire arm. Seriously compare her arm length in proportion to her body to an average human. Maybe it's the fact that her clothes obscure her body shape, but to me it looks like they messed up their proportions. In addition to that her face looks messed up too. Maybe its the low res, but between the dead eyes and the messed up lips she looks like an alien. Maybe that's the price of star pact: you end up looking weird and alien like her.


Last time warlock showed up in the playtest they had bit of fluff that choice of patron affects appearance of a character, so it might be it. Also, she might be nonhuman, and distorted proportions may show that she is a gnome for example. I don't know if WotC has shown how gnomes in 5th edition would look like, but long time ago they mentioned in their articles that they will try to avoid gnomes and halflings looking like shrunk down humans that need other objects for scale.

RedWarlock
2014-06-10, 12:52 PM
Yeah, pretty sure this one's proportions for the head and limbs make it to be a halfling. It reminds me of the concept art from last year.

And as for the spelling issues, you're looking at a photo of an LCD screen at an imperfect angle. OF COURSE some pixels would be messed up.

Person_Man
2014-06-10, 12:56 PM
Having a random chance of accidentally killing everyone in your party with a deadly "Rod of Wonder" core class ability is a terrible idea.

Felhammer
2014-06-10, 01:01 PM
Wild Magic Surge looks like FUN!

I am totally going to play a Sorcerer.

Do we have any specifics on what Sorcery Points are? With a roll of 99-00, you regain them all.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-10, 01:18 PM
Wild Magic Surge looks like FUN!

I am totally going to play a Sorcerer.

Do we have any specifics on what Sorcery Points are? With a roll of 99-00, you regain them all.

If you can be immune to your own spells I agree with you (fireball centered on you? Awesome). However if you aren't immune to your own spells then I agree more with Person Man...

Wild Magic can be fun, but killing your party or yourself is not. Isn't that the main problem with barbarian rage or fighter's poor will save?

pwykersotz
2014-06-10, 01:24 PM
I'd bet money it's not available until the damage they mention is trivial.

StabbityRabbit
2014-06-10, 01:26 PM
Last time warlock showed up in the playtest they had bit of fluff that choice of patron affects appearance of a character, so it might be it. Also, she might be nonhuman, and distorted proportions may show that she is a gnome for example. I don't know if WotC has shown how gnomes in 5th edition would look like, but long time ago they mentioned in their articles that they will try to avoid gnomes and halflings looking like shrunk down humans that need other objects for scale.

So in order to show a character is short they get gorilla arms? That's one way to show shortness I guess.

I really hope she only looks that way because of patron choice. If that's not it then I am staying far, far away from whatever race she is.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-10, 01:52 PM
Wild Magic Surge looks like FUN!

I am totally going to play a Sorcerer.

Do we have any specifics on what Sorcery Points are? With a roll of 99-00, you regain them all.

I doubt the Wildlock will be any more dangerous than the Wildmage from 2nd edition. And probably about as consistently effective.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-10, 02:00 PM
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see the Warlock's proportions as being out of bounds. If we assume that the point just below the gold disk on her side is her hip line (which seems reasonable given the positioning of the pouch) then the mid-point of her forearms is at hip level, which is pretty much how my arms line up.

pwykersotz
2014-06-10, 02:03 PM
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see the Warlock's proportions as being out of bounds. If we assume that the point just below the gold disk on her side is her hip line (which seems reasonable given the positioning of the pouch) then the mid-point of her forearms is at hip level, which is pretty much how my arms line up.

So you're saying you're a Warlock... :smalleek:

Kurald Galain
2014-06-10, 02:04 PM
Having a random chance of accidentally killing everyone in your party with a deadly "Rod of Wonder" core class ability is a terrible idea.

Oh, it's hilarious for the player running this character, and twice as much for the DM. For the rest of the group, not so much though.

StabbityRabbit
2014-06-10, 02:15 PM
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see the Warlock's proportions as being out of bounds. If we assume that the point just below the gold disk on her side is her hip line (which seems reasonable given the positioning of the pouch) then the mid-point of her forearms is at hip level, which is pretty much how my arms line up.

The arm holding the gold disk is bent, and yet it comes down further than the arm holding the staff. Not only is it bent, but it's also further away. It should look a little higher up than her other arm which is fully extended, and closer. But it doesn't, so just imagine what it looks like fully extended.

I suppose I should've just said gorilla arm. Oh well, hindsight of an eagle and all that.

Felhammer
2014-06-10, 02:17 PM
If you can be immune to your own spells I agree with you (fireball centered on you? Awesome). However if you aren't immune to your own spells then I agree more with Person Man...

Wild Magic can be fun, but killing your party or yourself is not. Isn't that the main problem with barbarian rage or fighter's poor will save?


Having a random chance of accidentally killing everyone in your party with a deadly "Rod of Wonder" core class ability is a terrible idea.

Check out the table, there are really only three effects that could hurt the party (confusion centered on you, everyone within 30 takes 1d10 damage, random creature becomes poisoned). Most of the others are benign to beneficial.

Friv
2014-06-10, 02:54 PM
Check out the table, there are really only three effects that could hurt the party (confusion centered on you, everyone within 30 takes 1d10 damage, random creature becomes poisoned). Most of the others are benign to beneficial.

I'm going to counter-argue that.

The table has three effects that are guaranteed to be a big problem for your party (fireball, necrotic damage, and confusion). There are another six effects [you having a sudden alignment shift, a giant fog cloud appearing around you, everyone on both sides turning invisible, a random person near you being poisoned, everyone next to you being blinded, and giving flight to a random creature] that could be good or bad for the party depending on the situation, and could potentially wreck a party in the wrong situation. There are another two effects that harmlessly (to you) remove you from the fight entirely for an action, giving the enemy a chance to beat on your friends while you take a nap, three options that summon potentially dangerous creatures to the field, and one that could turn you into a sheep.

That can easily be twelve options out of fifty that are serious disasters in the middle of a fight. Depending on how often wild surges happen, that's really frustrating for the people who didn't want to play the chaos mage.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-10, 03:02 PM
Come to think of it, this is actually clever on WOTC's part.

The four classical roleplayer archetypes are The Real Man, The Real Roleplayer, The Loonie, and The Munchkin (no offense to anyone, that's just what they're called; just google them for examples). Arguably neither 3E nor 4E catered to The Loonie archetype much, and this would have cost WOTC market share. No, a chaos mage has no place in certain serious fantasy campaigns, but it works fine in e.g. a beer-and-pretzels game.

(note also that while few effects are detrimental during combat, plenty more are hazardous during a social or stealth mission...)

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-10, 04:18 PM
Hmmm I can possibly think of a way to fix this wild sorcerer problem.

Non-Lethal damage.

Anytime a wild surge would hurt the Sorcerer or allies she may make a charisma saving throw versus DC 8. Upon a save all allies gain advantage on any save they make due to the spell or effect from the wildsurge.

All damage from wildsurge is non-lethal damage.


Thus a Sorcerer uses wildsurge and oopse, fireball centered on himself. The party rogue is standing next to the sorcerer... The sorcerer gets a DC 8 cha save to try and reign in the surge.

Pass: Ally gets advantage on saving throw to dodge the fire damage.

Fail: Ally gains a saving throw as normal for that PC.

Pass/Fail: The fireball's damage is non-lethal fire damage.

Note: The sorcerer can't give himself advantage with this save. Effects that aren't damage only last 1 round when an ally fails a save, passing negates the effect.

It is still dangerous as it can knock someone out or lead to death or a bad situation but wild surge isn't a completely "screw you" effect to the party.

Needs put together better but yeah, that's my thoughts on making wildsurge or chaos magic into a usable non-party hating mechanic.

Though I now want to play a group of sorcerers...

Kurald Galain
2014-06-10, 04:25 PM
It is still dangerous as it can knock someone out or lead to death or a bad situation but wild surge isn't a completely "screw you" effect to the party.

I'm afraid you're missing the point. A wild sorcerer is completely intended to be the occasional "screw you" to the party. That's what wild sorcerers are for. Some groups love that, and the groups that don't should simply not play this particular subclass. Because if you tone it down, the former group won't like it any more, and the latter group still won't use it.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-10, 05:26 PM
I'm afraid you're missing the point. A wild sorcerer is completely intended to be the occasional "screw you" to the party. That's what wild sorcerers are for. Some groups love that, and the groups that don't should simply not play this particular subclass. Because if you tone it down, the former group won't like it any more, and the latter group still won't use it.

I know damn well the point of it, at least in relation to aaome people's point of view on the matter. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I like wild magic/chaos magic and guess what, I don't think it has to screw over other people to use it.

Actually, wild magic doesn't have to be based on potentially screwing the party over unless you make it that way. There are plenty of ways to make wild magic and not have such a narrow view on it.

But guess what, I was offering up a solution to fix a huge design problem in a class (potentially since we haven't seen the final design... Something like what I wrote may already be an optional rule). One that perhaps I might use or someone else may use.

And if someone doesn't want to use something I suggested then they don't have to, I'm not forcing it down their throat.

So don't tell me what I do or don't understand.

Edit

With your interpretation the ONLY time someone can play a wild blood sorcerer is when everyone at the table, DM and players, agree it is ok. If not, then there will always be someone not happy because they got screwed over by random chance to the point it lost them a character. I'm saying that if you make it in such a way that you hinder the party, but not completely screw over the party, then you could play this class in any game. So adding in a mechanic that allows a player to reign back any horrible consequence of rolling dice is a good thing, if they so choose to use it.

Actually it is like if the Fighter had a chart that said "every time you roll a 1 on the attack roll you hit an ally instead of the target". Horrible design. But if you gave players the option to deal non-lethal damage (or Str mod damage) instead... They can keep it the way the class says or modify it with an optional rule.

INDYSTAR188
2014-06-10, 05:28 PM
I'm afraid you're missing the point. A wild sorcerer is completely intended to be the occasional "screw you" to the party. That's what wild sorcerers are for. Some groups love that, and the groups that don't should simply not play this particular subclass. Because if you tone it down, the former group won't like it any more, and the latter group still won't use it.

I agree and furthermore there seem to be plenty of beneficial effects as well. I might have this as my first PC, in a serious game or not. My Rogue buddies always get us into trouble and sometimes the wizard hits us in his AoE. *Shrug* I think it's a cool idea.

Felhammer
2014-06-10, 05:32 PM
I'm afraid you're missing the point. A wild sorcerer is completely intended to be the occasional "screw you" to the party. That's what wild sorcerers are for. Some groups love that, and the groups that don't should simply not play this particular subclass. Because if you tone it down, the former group won't like it any more, and the latter group still won't use it.

Agree 100% with this assessment.

The point is to be wild and crazy, which is fun! I cannot wait to play a Wild Sorcerer now. So much fun! :smallbiggrin:

da_chicken
2014-06-10, 05:53 PM
For all that changes between editions of D&D, it's comforting to know that a few things will always remain constant. For example, the quality of the artwork.

Hey, now the 2e picture of the Invisible Stalker is fantastic.


Having a random chance of accidentally killing everyone in your party with a deadly "Rod of Wonder" core class ability is a terrible idea.


Wild Magic Surge looks like FUN!

I am totally going to play a Sorcerer.

And there we have the perennial reactions to Wild Magic.

FWIW, I'm guessing Wild Magic is just one path the Sorcerer gets.

Lokiare
2014-06-10, 05:54 PM
Further narrowing 5E down to those that like 2E style screw the party effects. Not exactly a good idea. Its also in the PHB meaning its a 'core' class.

For the person above that asked what sorcerer points are, they talked about them in an article. They are points that the sorcerer can spend when they cast a spell to enhance it, much like casting a spell in a higher level slot sometimes increases damage.

Stubbazubba
2014-06-10, 06:15 PM
Further narrowing 5E down to those that like 2E style screw the party effects. Not exactly a good idea. Its also in the PHB meaning its a 'core' class.

Nothing stopping any table from saying, "No wild sorcerers."

Seriously, haven't you and captpike been ragging on WotC for not giving the options for more magic items, different power levels, etc.? And now you throw eggs when they actually include some niche playstyle you don't like? They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

What I'm saying is you need to stop, because I'm starting to feel bad for WotC, and I don't really want to.

captpike
2014-06-10, 06:18 PM
Nothing stopping any table from saying, "No wild sorcerers."

Seriously, haven't you and captpike been ragging on WotC for not giving the options for more magic items, different power levels, etc.? And now you throw eggs when they actually include some niche playstyle you don't like? They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

What I'm saying is you need to stop, because I'm starting to feel bad for WotC, and I don't really want to.

the simple solution of course is to include a way to play a non-wild sorcerer, or at least a non-suicidal one.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-10, 06:20 PM
Nothing stopping any table from saying, "No wild sorcerers."

Seriously, haven't you and captpike been ragging on WotC for not giving the options for more magic items, different power levels, etc.? And now you throw eggs when they actually include some niche playstyle you don't like? They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

What I'm saying is you need to stop, because I'm starting to feel bad for WotC, and I don't really want to.

Why not instead of saying "No" to wild sorcerers they instead say "Yes, if you use this option that doesn't screw the rest of us over"?

Everyone saying wild magic HAS to screw over the party has such a narrow view on class features. It is like saying "To be a Fighter you have to drag the party down and not pull your weight".

Envyus
2014-06-10, 06:33 PM
the simple solution of course is to include a way to play a non-wild sorcerer, or at least a non-suicidal one.

Well it's an optional class feature and almost non of the **** on that table is suicidal so you got your wish.

Lokiare
2014-06-10, 06:59 PM
Nothing stopping any table from saying, "No wild sorcerers."

Seriously, haven't you and captpike been ragging on WotC for not giving the options for more magic items, different power levels, etc.? And now you throw eggs when they actually include some niche playstyle you don't like? They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

What I'm saying is you need to stop, because I'm starting to feel bad for WotC, and I don't really want to.

Trap options are just as bad if not worse than no options and destroying the party 5% of the time means:



Round

Chance of Destroying party at least once



1

05.00%



2

09.75%



3

14.26%



4

18.54%



5

22.62%



6

26.49%



7

30.16%



8

33.65%



9

36.97%



10

40.12%



11

43.11%




You get the point. If each combat is around 5-6 rounds long, then you have around a 40% chance of a tpk every 2 combats with a wild mage in the party. Eventually those odds are going to catch up to you. Eventually you will get a TPK from a party member and just at wild speculation based on the above numbers I'd say its almost certain by level 4 or so. Once again "it sounds cool" is not a good design theory. I guess this supports the play style where people enjoy watching their characters die in odd ways, but I'm betting that play style is a very small group of people and that can be accommodated in a different way.


Well it's an optional class feature and almost non of the **** on that table is suicidal so you got your wish.

Its likely to be 1 out of 4 main sub-classes found in the PHB and it has no warnings on it. If they put something like "Note: If you play a wild mage your party is extremely likely to all die at least once by level 5 because of the wild magic surges." then I would be fine on it, because only people that like that kind of play style would choose it. As it is now, its a trap options.

Stubbazubba
2014-06-10, 08:22 PM
As it is now, its a trap options.

Wow, and you divined all the nuance and context of this one table how again? For all you know this roll could be made once per encounter, or once per mid combat spell slot refresh. It could be level based, it could be only when you cast certain particularly powerful spells. There are all kinds of ways to contextualize this chart which don't involve random TPKs. You have simply chosen, in tried and true Lokiare fashion, to choose the worst possible scenario and run with it. Now I'm not saying that WotC haven't done with this what you say they have, I'm just saying your analysis didn't even leave open the possibility that this chart may not work the way you assume it does. I say there is at least an even chance that it is more reasonable than that.

Now I know your response is going to be that WotC has proven over and over again that they are as deaf and dumb and blind as you say they are and that you have PROVEN their track record of incompetence so you are justified in always assuming the worst. And I'm not saying you're wrong or that we need to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm saying there is evidence before your very eyes that some people find a higher chance of random TPK exciting for a light, beer and pretzels game, and you are telling those people either that they're dumb for not wanting to play long-form campaigns where the odds here will catch up to you, or that they don't exist because there's no market for that play style. The OSR happened, where were you?

Furthermore, there is little evidence that suggests any of these effects would lead to a TPK just by being rolled. They might complicate a scenario to one degree or another, but to say that they will of a necessity lead to TPKs in a vacuum is just disingenuous. Yeah, it's a possibility, but not the way you're saying it would be. On top of assuming the worst, you are grossly exaggerating the effect of these rules.

Stubbazubba
2014-06-10, 08:31 PM
the simple solution of course is to include a way to play a non-wild sorcerer, or at least a non-suicidal one.

No one here is assuming this is the default sorcerer. It's most likely an optional class feature, as was the original feature its riffing off of.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-10, 08:33 PM
the simple solution of course is to include a way to play a non-wild sorcerer, or at least a non-suicidal one.

There is. Treat all results that harm the party as "re-roll" problem solved.

obryn
2014-06-10, 08:48 PM
What I'm saying is you need to stop, because I'm starting to feel bad for WotC, and I don't really want to.
Ditto. There's a line where it stops being reasonable criticism and turns into some combination of edition warring and/or fear-mongering.

For example, where in the world are you getting the idea that a Wild Sorcerer TPKs the party 5% of the time they roll on this table? There's a 2% chance of a Fireball centered on yourself; cast as a 3rd level spell, I'm going to assume this is typical 5d6 damage, save for half. First off, the targets include the bad guys. Second of all, you're the only party member guaranteed to be in the blast. Third of all, average damage for this (with a strong central tendency) is 17.5 damage; call it 18. Saving, that's 9 points of damage. Not even at 1st level is this a probable TPK.

Envyus
2014-06-10, 08:57 PM
There is. Treat all results that harm the party as "re-roll" problem solved.

That's pointless as there is only like 3 rolls that harm the party. None of which can tpk them unless they were super unlucky.

Also the last time wild surge was in the game it only had a 10% or chance to activate and it will likely be the same here.

captpike
2014-06-10, 09:25 PM
There is. Treat all results that harm the party as "re-roll" problem solved.

just so long as that is in the PHB, as a player option when you pick the wild sorcerer, not in the DMG, or as a "ask the DM" thing.

and of course it should be spelled out how wrong it can go as well, so the PC can make an informed choice. "warning: if you chose the hurt-the-party option on average you will kill your party ever X many encounters." or "you WILL hurt your party, maybe even kill them with a fireball or somthing"

1337 b4k4
2014-06-10, 09:45 PM
and of course it should be spelled out how wrong it can go as well, so the PC can make an informed choice. "warning: if you chose the hurt-the-party option on average you will kill your party ever X many encounters." or "you WILL hurt your party, maybe even kill them with a fireball or somthing"

You know. At a certain point the game has to assume that the players are capable of reading the book and drawing inferences that a middle school student could draw. If you pick "class of wild unpredictable power" and said class has a table of "stuff that goes wrong" and one of those things is "big badaboom!", it's perfectly reasonable to assume that your player can intuit that "big badaboom" will harm the party too if they're in the way.

obryn
2014-06-10, 10:02 PM
"warning: if you chose the hurt-the-party option on average you will kill your party ever X many encounters." or "you WILL hurt your party, maybe even kill them with a fireball or somthing"
OH MY GOD THIS ISN'T EVEN TRUE, THOUGH.

Is this some kind of guerilla marketing? Because it's working. I LOVE NEXT NOW. Holy cow, it is the best game ever. I can no longer handle the cognitive dissonance of telling you and Lokiare you're making terrible arguments while frankly disliking the game myself, and I am now 5e's biggest fan. I have now pre-ordered the PHB and it's all thanks to you. I simply can't be on the same side of this argument as you anymore.

Sincerely,

The New Huge Next Fan

EDIT:http://i.imgur.com/Y5hSA8q.jpg

Felhammer
2014-06-10, 11:34 PM
There is so much deliciousness in that Wild Mage chart. Imagine the look on the King's face when you conjure a Modron in court? Awesome. Better yet, imagine how awesome it would be to conjure forth a Unicorn - a being of pure good - in the middle of an intense combat against a really evil guy? Imagine, while in a dungeon, getting you wind up rolling the "cannot get intoxicated for 1d4 weeks: effect then heading back into the dwarven hold to celebrate. So sad! Imagine the faces of the patrons in the tavern when a dense fog rolls in because you went wild when casting a charm spell? Sweet!

There is just so much fun in that table. I literally cannot wait to play now!

And to those who do not like the sub-class, then ban it. Banning one singular sub-class is not going to ruin your game.


OH MY GOD THIS ISN'T EVEN TRUE, THOUGH.

Is this some kind of guerilla marketing? Because it's working. I LOVE NEXT NOW. Holy cow, it is the best game ever. I can no longer handle the cognitive dissonance of telling you and Lokiare you're making terrible arguments while frankly disliking the game myself, and I am now 5e's biggest fan. I have now pre-ordered the PHB and it's all thanks to you. I simply can't be on the same side of this argument as you anymore.

Sincerely,

The New Huge Next Fan

EDIT:http://i.imgur.com/Y5hSA8q.jpg

I am right there with you! I per-ordered the book at my LGS! :smallbiggrin:

pwykersotz
2014-06-11, 07:33 AM
Heh, I'm further gone.

http://i.imgur.com/g80fj0S.png
http://i.imgur.com/XmHjCkO.png

Stubbazubba
2014-06-11, 08:31 AM
just so long as that is in the PHB, as a player option when you pick the wild sorcerer, not in the DMG, or as a "ask the DM" thing.

and of course it should be spelled out how wrong it can go as well, so the PC can make an informed choice. "warning: if you chose the hurt-the-party option on average you will kill your party ever X many encounters." or "you WILL hurt your party, maybe even kill them with a fireball or somthing"

Let this be a cautionary tale, Playgrounders: captpike is what happens when one smart guy (and that's sincere!) with a lot of self-confidence (Lokiare) posts what sounds like a really convincing argument, and then that gets picked up. Now the "deadliness" of the Wild Sorcerer table is a fossilized meme that is totally inaccurate. It's like the vaccine scare for D&D.

Person_Man
2014-06-11, 10:56 AM
For the record, I think that having a crazy Wild Mage that has a mix of dangerous and beneficial options is a good idea, because there are obviously players and DMs who like that play style. I just don't think it should be a core option, because there are also players and DMs like me who hate it when another player screws over the party by playing a Frenzied Berserker or "I'm a Paladin thus everyone in the party must follow my definition of Lawful Good" or something like this Wild Mage.

The core rules should be relatively balanced and free of "trap" and "screw you guys this is what I enjoy playing" options. Those options should be in supplements, and then the DM can let them in or not let them in at their descretion. But banning some part of core is rarely done, and forcing DMs to ban some part of core to play the default style of D&D (fully cooperative non-broken gameplay) is a bad game system design choice. Leaking this decision is an even worse idea, because there are plenty of old DMs like me who will look at it as distrust the D&D Next rules before they're even released because of it.

Seperately, I would encourage people not to pre-order D&D Next (or any product). Let the product come out, let people review it, browse through it at a game store, try the free Basic version, and then if the rules are solid and you want to play the game you should buy it. You gain nothing by ordering it early other then having the book a few days earlier. Any discount from pre-ordering can be made up by buying a used copy or just waiting for a sale or price cut. But buying the product early encourages cruddy product design (because Hasbro gets your money regardless of the final quality of the product), and discourages an OGL.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-11, 11:17 AM
For the record, I think that having a crazy Wild Mage that has a mix of dangerous and beneficial options is a good idea, because there are obviously players and DMs who like that play style. I just don't think it should be a core option, because there are also players and DMs like me who hate it when another player screws over the party by playing a Frenzied Berserker or "I'm a Paladin thus everyone in the party must follow my definition of Lawful Good" or something like this Wild Mage.
I wholeheartedly agree with that; I've been using the same argument to point out that the ha-ha-steal-from-party-members Kender or similar slapstick races shouldn't be in the PHB1 either, or for that matter controversial weapons like arquebuses and spiked chains.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-11, 11:32 AM
I wholeheartedly agree with that; I've been using the same argument to point out that the ha-ha-steal-from-party-members Kender or similar slapstick races shouldn't be in the PHB1 either, or for that matter controversial weapons like arquebuses and spiked chains.

I would take it a step further and allow rules for a wild mage to be played in either type of group by giving the option to play the wild sorcerer but not be a "Lol screw the party" every so often but more of a "Lol I'm fricken annoying".

Heck add in more fluff related items that affect the sorcerer or other players on a social level (like giving someone a looong nose or super bushy Monarch eyebrows) nothing that effect mechanics unless the option is taken before hand (like above).

This not only allows people to use the wild sorcerer in any setting but also will introduce that sort of mechanics to more people and more people may like it or perhaps people will find a better mechanic to represent wild magic.

I would like to see more options given to players than to DMs. DMs have enough to deal with.

pwykersotz
2014-06-11, 11:35 AM
Seperately, I would encourage people not to pre-order D&D Next (or any product). Let the product come out, let people review it, browse through it at a game store, try the free Basic version, and then if the rules are solid and you want to play the game you should buy it. You gain nothing by ordering it early other then having the book a few days earlier. Any discount from pre-ordering can be made up by buying a used copy or just waiting for a sale or price cut. But buying the product early encourages cruddy product design (because Hasbro gets your money regardless of the final quality of the product), and discourages an OGL.

But I want it now! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9EBhaULToU)

I remain unconvinced that Hasbro would change their policies based on lack of pre-orders. I do agree that pre-orders enable them in various bad habits though.

Unfortunately, the main reason why I will not heed your wise advice is the same reason I sometimes grab a McDonald's cheeseburger for lunch instead of a nutritionally balanced meal. It's easy, it's now, and I don't have to think too hard about it. It's a triviality that makes me happy.

captpike
2014-06-11, 11:42 AM
that is about the only reason I care about basic, it will be awsomely convenent to see if I like it there. if I do want to play it I will just buy the book (presuming the PHB really does have all the stuff a player needs, rather then just some like they have been hinting)

Felhammer
2014-06-11, 12:08 PM
For the record, I think that having a crazy Wild Mage that has a mix of dangerous and beneficial options is a good idea, because there are obviously players and DMs who like that play style. I just don't think it should be a core option, because there are also players and DMs like me who hate it when another player screws over the party by playing a Frenzied Berserker or "I'm a Paladin thus everyone in the party must follow my definition of Lawful Good" or something like this Wild Mage.

All of this can easily be solved by the DM just saying no. No, you cannot be a Wild Mage because it does not fit with the way I like to have fun. No, you cannot be a Paladin because it comes with too much baggage. No, you cannot be a Halfling who steals from the party because that isn't fun for everyone else. One little word is all you need to say to eliminate that which you do not like from the game. Just because you do not find those archetypes interesting/fun does not mean other people feel the same. Why limit their fun by forcing them to buy another book when you can just say no?


The core rules should be relatively balanced and free of "trap" and "screw you guys this is what I enjoy playing" options. Those options should be in supplements, and then the DM can let them in or not let them in at their descretion. But banning some part of core is rarely done, and forcing DMs to ban some part of core to play the default style of D&D (fully cooperative non-broken gameplay) is a bad game system design choice. Leaking this decision is an even worse idea, because there are plenty of old DMs like me who will look at it as distrust the D&D Next rules before they're even released because of it.

A DM can and should ban anything he thinks will be disruptive to the style of story he wants to tell. It is his world and his game, he has to do what he feels is best to foster a fun atmosphere. Warforged and Dragonborn will (presumably) be in the PHB, do you honestly believe those two races will not be banned in many games?

We need to shed ourselves of this mentality that the players are entitled to everything ever printed by WotC.



Seperately, I would encourage people not to pre-order D&D Next (or any product). Let the product come out, let people review it, browse through it at a game store, try the free Basic version, and then if the rules are solid and you want to play the game you should buy it. You gain nothing by ordering it early other then having the book a few days earlier. Any discount from pre-ordering can be made up by buying a used copy or just waiting for a sale or price cut. But buying the product early encourages cruddy product design (because Hasbro gets your money regardless of the final quality of the product), and discourages an OGL.

If you are buying from a big chain retailer, sure, you gain nothing except time when you pre-order. However, you are really helping your local game shop if you pre-order because they have finite budgets and cannot order enough books to meet demand if no one pre-orders yet everyone buys the book at launch. That means lost sales for the store that they are likely to not get back, which really hurts valuable local business that every gamer should be visiting on a regular basis.

obryn
2014-06-11, 12:08 PM
Yeah, for the record I personally can't stand Wild Mages and haven't liked them since their introduction in 2e's Tome of Magic, despite (because of?) having several in my 2e games over the years. (As a note, the early part of the 2e era overlapped with high school for me, so yeah.) That 2e "wild surge" spell - the one that does nothing but force a roll on the chart - was worthless, overused, and ultimately boring in play. Oh, and the 2e Wild Mage's Wand of Wonder special feature was insanely busted.

Moving on to today, I hate the idea of a class which needs to keep a percentile table of "ho-ho-so-funny" events sitting by them at all times, and the whole thing reeks of WotC trying too hard.

HOWEVER.

This pre-order is for a few reasons. (1) I'll be getting it eventually anyway, and (2) to make a point. That's worth $30 to me, easily. I don't care at all about an OGL (and think pre-orders are irrelevant to its existence), I think the idea that it sends a "message" is spurious, and I want to be informed instead of ignorant when I'm discussing it.

Sartharina
2014-06-11, 12:10 PM
Nothing on that Wild Surge table is a guaranteed TPK.

You have a small chance of hindering your party every time the chart procs. You also have a commensurate chance of dramatically hindering your enemies, or saving the party from Certain TPK.

Also - that table summons flumphs. It's the greatest thing ever.

captpike
2014-06-11, 12:19 PM
Nothing on that Wild Surge table is a guaranteed TPK.

You have a small chance of hindering your party every time the chart procs. You also have a commensurate chance of dramatically hindering your enemies, or saving the party from Certain TPK.

Also - that table summons flumphs. It's the greatest thing ever.

I must admit killing a boss via summoned flumph would be epic.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-11, 12:43 PM
Nothing on that Wild Surge table is a guaranteed TPK.

You have a small chance of hindering your party every time the chart procs. You also have a commensurate chance of dramatically hindering your enemies, or saving the party from Certain TPK.

Also - that table summons flumphs. It's the greatest thing ever.

Obviously summon flumph is wild magic version of Feather Fall...:smallwink:

Sartharina
2014-06-11, 12:57 PM
My biggest issue with the table, though, is how it says the creatures are 'Controlled by the DM" - I hope there are guidelines somewhere for how the DM's supposed to handle these - are they supposed to be helpful DM-controlled summons? Or new enemies on the field? Or are they supposed to be funny-looking obstacles that run around the battlefield confused about what the heck's going on?

Felhammer
2014-06-11, 01:00 PM
My biggest issue with the table, though, is how it says the creatures are 'Controlled by the DM" - I hope there are guidelines somewhere for how the DM's supposed to handle these - are they supposed to be helpful DM-controlled summons? Or new enemies on the field? Or are they supposed to be funny-looking obstacles that run around the battlefield confused about what the heck's going on?

I assume you would look in the Monster Manual and look at the creature's default personality. A Unicorn is going to help good guys, where as a Modron may act more as a weird hindrance.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-11, 01:04 PM
My biggest issue with the table, though, is how it says the creatures are 'Controlled by the DM" - I hope there are guidelines somewhere for how the DM's supposed to handle these - are they supposed to be helpful DM-controlled summons? Or new enemies on the field? Or are they supposed to be funny-looking obstacles that run around the battlefield confused about what the heck's going on?

Hey let's stay with the theme, sometimes they are helpful and sometimes they are out to kill you. That's the fair way to do it.

Person_Man
2014-06-11, 03:42 PM
All of this can easily be solved by the DM just saying no.

We need to shed ourselves of this mentality that the players are entitled to everything ever printed by WotC.


I disagree entirely. WotC needs to shed itself of the mentality that it can just print game breaking core rules (like Kender, mandatory Paladin alignment that effects the entire party, Polymorph, etc) and depend on DMs to fix it.

This is particularly important for new players and DMs, who may not be able to discern when to say no or how to avoid options put forward by WotC that are potentially game breaking for the wrong group (Kender, Paladin restrictions, Polymorph, Wild Mage, etc). For example, I started playing 1st edition D&D when I was 12 years old. And I was not a particularly intelligent or mature 12 year old. Young Person_Man (Person_Boy?) struggled for months trying to figure out how to play the game, and it took me years to figure out how to be a half decent DM. That shouldn't be the default learning curve for the core rules.

Again, I want to reiterate that I fully support lots of supplements with all sorts of crazy options and modules that support a wide variety of different play styles and settings. I just feel that the core rules should not include any such hidden traps.

INDYSTAR188
2014-06-11, 05:21 PM
Its likely to be 1 out of 4 main sub-classes found in the PHB and it has no warnings on it. If they put something like "Note: If you play a wild mage your party is extremely likely to all die at least once by level 5 because of the wild magic surges." then I would be fine on it, because only people that like that kind of play style would choose it. As it is now, its a trap options.

By this logic you should have seen this in the 3.X PHB "Note: If you play a non-spellcaster in 3.X it is extremely likely that your character will struggle to contribute effectively after 5th level."

I think what they really need are rules to clarify how often and when the 'wild' magic activates and you have to roll on the table. For all we know there IS that distinction but Mearls didn't have his screen on that page of the PHB.



My biggest issue with the table, though, is how it says the creatures are 'Controlled by the DM" - I hope there are guidelines somewhere for how the DM's supposed to handle these - are they supposed to be helpful DM-controlled summons? Or new enemies on the field? Or are they supposed to be funny-looking obstacles that run around the battlefield confused about what the heck's going on?


I think there probably will be but maybe Wizards thinks the DM should just make a judgement based on the decision. It would be impossible for WotC to anticipate every situation and contingincy that a creature is summoned by 'wild' magic. At some point you have to let the party and the DM resolve the sitatuion, but hopefully there are some base guidelines to work off of. I think modron are the LN mechanical things right? How interesting that a chaotic effect would summon them, how would you handle that in your game? Unicorn are strongly good-aligned aren't they? What if an evil 'wild' sorcerer was trying to summon them? I like the idea that I, as the DM, could have a chance to have that wildcard pop up in the middle of an encounter (be it fighting, skills check/skill challenge type, etc).

Also, everyone keeps talking about how bad the negative effects are but nobody is really discussing the potential good effects. There are some pretty cool things that could happen for the party too.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-11, 05:56 PM
I think what they really need are rules to clarify how often and when the 'wild' magic activates and you have to roll on the table.

These are the 2E rules, which I'm pretty sure they'll be mimicking. First, any spell cast has a 5% chance of triggering a surge. And second, a level 1 spell exists which automatically triggers a surge (and of course, any player who likes Wild Mages will be using this spell a lot).

Psyren
2014-06-11, 06:51 PM
How long will it take to find art directly used in an older edition?

That's always a fun activity.


Oh, it's hilarious for the player running this character, and twice as much for the DM. For the rest of the group, not so much though.

I'm not sure it'll be hilarious for the player when they lose their ability to speak, become a potted plant/sheep, have to sit on the Astral Plane for the rest of the fight (rolling on the encounters table no doubt), blind/poison their allies, turn bright blue permanently or teleport next to the enemy's melee. Sigh.


All of this can easily be solved by the DM just saying no. No, you cannot be a Wild Mage because it does not fit with the way I like to have fun. No, you cannot be a Paladin because it comes with too much baggage. No, you cannot be a Halfling who steals from the party because that isn't fun for everyone else. One little word is all you need to say to eliminate that which you do not like from the game. Just because you do not find those archetypes interesting/fun does not mean other people feel the same. Why limit their fun by forcing them to buy another book when you can just say no?

You shouldn't have to say no to core. Core is intended for everyone.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-11, 08:31 PM
That's always a fun activity.

I did like how the Swordsage became a Rogue Paragon Path in 4e...

Sartharina
2014-06-11, 08:50 PM
Something interesting about the Wild Mage is that it represents a decoupling of Level and Ability, which 5e has several of (Of course, it's not the only RPG to do this.) Part of that might be from the limitations of the tabletop environment, though.

Ideally, a Wild Mage could still have access to a table like that, but its swing and extent of effect would increase with level as the character becomes a greater conduit for raw, unchecked magical potential fluff-wise, and in-game wise, allow higher-level enemies greater ability to handle lucky rolls on the table (a Level 5 Magic Missile can 1-shot a level 3 Orc Lieutenant, yet will hurt but not destroy a level 11 Death Knight), and higher-level parties are more capable of surviving/mitigating unlucky rolls ("Fireball on myself" will obliterate a level 1 party, but will only inconvenience a higher-level one). Unfortunately, making a list of wild surge for every level would take a lot of paper space.

Dr.Starky
2014-06-11, 09:56 PM
Also - that table summons flumphs. It's the greatest thing ever.Oh my god yes why aren't more people rejoicing at the return of flumphs.

D&D has now realized that it is not too "mature" for flumphs, which is unambiguously good.

Lokiare
2014-06-12, 02:57 AM
Wow, and you divined all the nuance and context of this one table how again? For all you know this roll could be made once per encounter, or once per mid combat spell slot refresh. It could be level based, it could be only when you cast certain particularly powerful spells. There are all kinds of ways to contextualize this chart which don't involve random TPKs. You have simply chosen, in tried and true Lokiare fashion, to choose the worst possible scenario and run with it. Now I'm not saying that WotC haven't done with this what you say they have, I'm just saying your analysis didn't even leave open the possibility that this chart may not work the way you assume it does. I say there is at least an even chance that it is more reasonable than that.

Now I know your response is going to be that WotC has proven over and over again that they are as deaf and dumb and blind as you say they are and that you have PROVEN their track record of incompetence so you are justified in always assuming the worst. And I'm not saying you're wrong or that we need to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm saying there is evidence before your very eyes that some people find a higher chance of random TPK exciting for a light, beer and pretzels game, and you are telling those people either that they're dumb for not wanting to play long-form campaigns where the odds here will catch up to you, or that they don't exist because there's no market for that play style. The OSR happened, where were you?

Furthermore, there is little evidence that suggests any of these effects would lead to a TPK just by being rolled. They might complicate a scenario to one degree or another, but to say that they will of a necessity lead to TPKs in a vacuum is just disingenuous. Yeah, it's a possibility, but not the way you're saying it would be. On top of assuming the worst, you are grossly exaggerating the effect of these rules.

Yes and all this does is push it back a few levels. The chance of a TPK rises at an exponential rate. So at levels 1-2 you might not get these effects, but by the time you are level 5, 7, or 9 or whatever based on the math you will have a 99% chance of it happening. Its the same reason they don't put crit hit and fumble tables in the core game anymore. They realized that if you have a chance of death, no matter how small, it always favors the enemies because if an enemy dies, so what. If a player dies there goes X hours of investment in the character, and due to the way statistics works eventually you won't win out against the odds.


OH MY GOD THIS ISN'T EVEN TRUE, THOUGH.

Is this some kind of guerilla marketing? Because it's working. I LOVE NEXT NOW. Holy cow, it is the best game ever. I can no longer handle the cognitive dissonance of telling you and Lokiare you're making terrible arguments while frankly disliking the game myself, and I am now 5e's biggest fan. I have now pre-ordered the PHB and it's all thanks to you. I simply can't be on the same side of this argument as you anymore.

Sincerely,

The New Huge Next Fan

EDIT:http://i.imgur.com/Y5hSA8q.jpg

I personally don't care what you do, but likely you'll be kicking yourself later on when you realize 5E is as broken as 3E and a lot less fun because it doesn't even do what 3E did very well (which is realistic fantasy world and flexibility)


Let this be a cautionary tale, Playgrounders: captpike is what happens when one smart guy (and that's sincere!) with a lot of self-confidence (Lokiare) posts what sounds like a really convincing argument, and then that gets picked up. Now the "deadliness" of the Wild Sorcerer table is a fossilized meme that is totally inaccurate. It's like the vaccine scare for D&D.

Except this meme is true and based on probability math and science. Nothing wrong with a factually correct meme getting started. Also vaccines are actually not that good. They are only good when the alternative is death or debilitation: http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

"The success of the City of Leicester, England was remarkable in reducing smallpox mortality substantially compared to the rest of England and other countries by abandoning vaccination between 1882 and 1908 [see more below]." from the linked article.

There are other studies that have been done where they found that if you get some vaccines after a few years you are actually more susceptible to the virus it was meant to stop, because of how the body internalizes the immunity into the DNA and anti-bodies of offspring through their mothers. If you want more info I can point you to some good sources with studies that back everything up with facts and science.


But I want it now! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9EBhaULToU)

I remain unconvinced that Hasbro would change their policies based on lack of pre-orders. I do agree that pre-orders enable them in various bad habits though.

Unfortunately, the main reason why I will not heed your wise advice is the same reason I sometimes grab a McDonald's cheeseburger for lunch instead of a nutritionally balanced meal. It's easy, it's now, and I don't have to think too hard about it. It's a triviality that makes me happy.

Well, you'll be kicking yourself later when you are dying of cardiovascular disease and you'll be unhappy for longer than you were happy when you got the cheeseburger. The same will happen with the pre-order.


By this logic you should have seen this in the 3.X PHB "Note: If you play a non-spellcaster in 3.X it is extremely likely that your character will struggle to contribute effectively after 5th level."

Yep, I totally agree. That would have saved quite a few people who played 3.X quite a bit of heart ache.


I think what they really need are rules to clarify how often and when the 'wild' magic activates and you have to roll on the table. For all we know there IS that distinction but Mearls didn't have his screen on that page of the PHB.

I think there probably will be but maybe Wizards thinks the DM should just make a judgement based on the decision. It would be impossible for WotC to anticipate every situation and contingincy that a creature is summoned by 'wild' magic. At some point you have to let the party and the DM resolve the sitatuion, but hopefully there are some base guidelines to work off of. I think modron are the LN mechanical things right? How interesting that a chaotic effect would summon them, how would you handle that in your game? Unicorn are strongly good-aligned aren't they? What if an evil 'wild' sorcerer was trying to summon them? I like the idea that I, as the DM, could have a chance to have that wildcard pop up in the middle of an encounter (be it fighting, skills check/skill challenge type, etc).

Also, everyone keeps talking about how bad the negative effects are but nobody is really discussing the potential good effects. There are some pretty cool things that could happen for the party too.

I'd be fine with a warning about how other players might feel about playing with a wild mage and how it might lead to TPKs on occasion. Better yet put it in an Unearthed Arcana style book that comes out some time after the core rules.

Composer99
2014-06-12, 08:09 AM
I shan't go into further detail here since it is bordering on off-topic, but relying on an anti-vaccine crank website which has been shown to engage in outright fabrication, misrepresent CDC/WHO/other public health organizations, and the like, to make your point about D&D strikes me as very counter-productive.

obryn
2014-06-12, 08:20 AM
I personally don't care what you do, but likely you'll be kicking yourself later on when you realize 5E is as broken as 3E and a lot less fun because it doesn't even do what 3E did very well (which is realistic fantasy world and flexibility)
No, because when I discuss a game, I like to actually be informed about what I'm talking about.


Except this meme is true and based on probability math and science. Nothing wrong with a factually correct meme getting started. Also vaccines are actually not that good. They are only good when the alternative is death or debilitation: http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

"The success of the City of Leicester, England was remarkable in reducing smallpox mortality substantially compared to the rest of England and other countries by abandoning vaccination between 1882 and 1908 [see more below]." from the linked article.

There are other studies that have been done where they found that if you get some vaccines after a few years you are actually more susceptible to the virus it was meant to stop, because of how the body internalizes the immunity into the DNA and anti-bodies of offspring through their mothers. If you want more info I can point you to some good sources with studies that back everything up with facts and science.
You probably also believe in chemtrails, right? But hey, at least we know you're perfectly happy to speak authoritatively about things other than 5e that you're totally ignorant about. :smallbiggrin:

Millennium
2014-06-12, 09:45 AM
My biggest issue with the table, though, is how it says the creatures are 'Controlled by the DM" - I hope there are guidelines somewhere for how the DM's supposed to handle these - are they supposed to be helpful DM-controlled summons? Or new enemies on the field? Or are they supposed to be funny-looking obstacles that run around the battlefield confused about what the heck's going on?
Any half-decent DM already knows the answer to questions like this. Creatures that randomly appear on the battlefield with no set behavior act in whatever way would make things most interesting at the moment.

Depending on the situation, that will change. A party that had been faring poorly might find itself gaining some unexpected (and very temporary) allies, because dead parties aren't interesting. If they're too overmatched even for these creatures to be of much help, they might at least distract the enemies, giving the PCs a chance to get away. Or if the party had a clear upper hand, then these creatures might throw an unexpected wrench in the works, because no-challenge fights aren't interesting. Maybe the session has just had a couple big downers, and some comic relief is in order. There are even more exotic possibilities, some of which depend not only on in-game events, but out-of-game ones.

Adapting to situations that change rapidly, and in unexpected ways, is a baseline DM skill. This is not something that merely separates the greatest DMs from the decent ones: it is a question of basic competency. Wizards is calling on the DM to do something here that any DM should be able to do.

Psyren
2014-06-12, 11:42 AM
By all the forum gods, let's not bring vaccination into this.


Oh my god yes why aren't more people rejoicing at the return of flumphs.

Because PF has had them for years? (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/aberrations/flumph) :smalltongue:


Any half-decent DM already knows the answer to questions like this. Creatures that randomly appear on the battlefield with no set behavior act in whatever way would make things most interesting at the moment.

Here's my issue. Why modrons? A "Wild Mage" sounds chaotic, so modrons would at best be unfriendly, and might even outright attack. That just seems like a middle finger, very much like the potted plant thing.

While I'm on the topic, how the hell are they doing alignment anyway? Is it still that godawful linear "Lawful-Good-Is-Best-Good" scale from 4e?

CyberThread
2014-06-12, 12:14 PM
leak for cleric spells...sorry I didin't read all the pages if this has been posted already

http://i.imgur.com/7Sd4zQ5.jpg

Envyus
2014-06-12, 12:19 PM
Yes and all this does is push it back a few levels. The chance of a TPK rises at an exponential rate. So at levels 1-2 you might not get these effects, but by the time you are level 5, 7, or 9 or whatever based on the math you will have a 99% chance of it happening. Its the same reason they don't put crit hit and fumble tables in the core game anymore. They realized that if you have a chance of death, no matter how small, it always favors the enemies because if an enemy dies, so what. If a player dies there goes X hours of investment in the character, and due to the way statistics works eventually you won't win out against the odds.


This is the stupidest argument about this yet. If they go the 2nd ed route that means there is a 5% chance of a wild surge activating and if you bothered to look at the table (Which I don't think you did.) you would see that none of the stuff on there could cause at TPK at level 5. It could inconvenience people at level 5 but not kill the party. And no there is not a 99% chance of it killing the party.

Sartharina
2014-06-12, 12:21 PM
By all the forum gods, let's not bring vaccination into this.



Because PF has had them for years? (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/aberrations/flumph) :smalltongue:



Here's my issue. Why modrons? A "Wild Mage" sounds chaotic, so modrons would at best be unfriendly, and might even outright attack. That just seems like a middle finger, very much like the potted plant thing.

While I'm on the topic, how the hell are they doing alignment anyway? Is it still that godawful linear "Lawful-Good-Is-Best-Good" scale from 4e?
It wasn't "Lawful Good is Best Good" in 4e - Good was Best Good. Lawful Good was Kinked Good.

Envyus
2014-06-12, 12:24 PM
leak for cleric spells...sorry I didin't read all the pages if this has been posted already

http://i.imgur.com/7Sd4zQ5.jpg

And Wizard spells.

I am reminded about Lokiare's rant about Mirror Image and Grease. Both do not appear to be in the core game.




While I'm on the topic, how the hell are they doing alignment anyway? Is it still that godawful linear "Lawful-Good-Is-Best-Good" scale from 4e?

The nine alignment axis.

Felhammer
2014-06-12, 12:32 PM
You shouldn't have to say no to core. Core is intended for everyone.

Everyone also includes playstyles that are perhaps not to your liking.

You can ban anything you want as a DM if you do not think it fits your world. If I am playing Dark Sun, then there are no Divine casters. If I am playing a very serious Lord of the Rings style game, then no Wild Mages. If I am playing a muggle-free world, then any class that is not a caster will be banned.

The PHB game should be as broad and all encompassing as possible.

Sartharina
2014-06-12, 12:37 PM
Also, player's handbook is not "Core". D&D Basic is "Core".

Felhammer
2014-06-12, 12:42 PM
Also, player's handbook is not "Core". D&D Basic is "Core".

Very valid point! :smallcool:


I disagree entirely. WotC needs to shed itself of the mentality that it can just print game breaking core rules (like Kender, mandatory Paladin alignment that effects the entire party, Polymorph, etc) and depend on DMs to fix it.

This is particularly important for new players and DMs, who may not be able to discern when to say no or how to avoid options put forward by WotC that are potentially game breaking for the wrong group (Kender, Paladin restrictions, Polymorph, Wild Mage, etc). For example, I started playing 1st edition D&D when I was 12 years old. And I was not a particularly intelligent or mature 12 year old. Young Person_Man (Person_Boy?) struggled for months trying to figure out how to play the game, and it took me years to figure out how to be a half decent DM. That shouldn't be the default learning curve for the core rules.

Again, I want to reiterate that I fully support lots of supplements with all sorts of crazy options and modules that support a wide variety of different play styles and settings. I just feel that the core rules should not include any such hidden traps.


I have only met a handful of people who started the game with all brand new people. Of those that did, none started an epic campaign that lasted for years. Most (myself and my original party included) played a handful of adventures, switched characters and learned the system as we played. Real trial by fire stuff.

In that time, we definitely learned what did and did not work, and could extrapolate out how certain classes would play as they leveled up as well as the story restrictions the game placed on them.

It does not take a genius to divine the fact that Wild Mage is designed for chaotic hilarity. Once glance at the table should tell you that, one adventure would definitely tell you that. The same thing with the Paladin's code of conduct. One look at it and it is easy to see how that would affect the party.

Maybe that isn't for you and your group but I can assure you, it definitely fits into the way other groups play.

If D&D Next is all about supporting many different playstyles, then we have to become (re-)accustomed to the concept that not everything in the game will appeal to us. That is a good thing. It means everyone will find something to love in the game.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-12, 12:46 PM
leak for cleric spells...sorry I didin't read all the pages if this has been posted already

http://i.imgur.com/7Sd4zQ5.jpg

Huh, disadvantage while within 5 feet of a hostile creature... Love it and have used this in 3.P/4e to replace AoO.

Works quite well in 3.P, giving advantage to the target on their saving throws and speeds the game up since there is no casting defensively from what we used.

I love that you can use a spell that makes a cone, line, sphere, or cube depending onthe spell. Should be less arguments about "too videogamey" and such :smallsigh:.

Huh, no universal school?

Also, why are they showing spells up to third level? Unless on the next pages you get to see cleric/wizard 4-6 and then another page that has cleric/wizard 7-9? If so then there is only two lists and everyone takes from those lists...

I hope there is a spell-less Ranger, Paladin, and Bard options eventually.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-12, 12:59 PM
Everyone also includes playstyles that are perhaps not to your liking.

You can ban anything you want as a DM if you do not think it fits your world. If I am playing Dark Sun, then there are no Divine casters. If I am playing a very serious Lord of the Rings style game, then no Wild Mages. If I am playing a muggle-free world, then any class that is not a caster will be banned.

The PHB game should be as broad and all encompassing as possible.

Or instead of banning things you just refluff them to fit your world. DMs should never ban mechanics unless the mechanics actually hurt party or are borked.

Mechanics aren't what is out of place, just the fluff. In all of those examples if you just refluffed the class you can work just fine.

Darksun and the player wants to play a cleric? Refluff as a psionic warrior of some sort who prays to a deity that doesn't exist or just doesn't care.

Wild mage in LotR? The player is crazy due to the ring/another cursed item... Sometimes they do random stuff for what seems to be no apparent reason. Their other personality gets loose and performs some magic. Perhaps the player doesn't know yet that he is cursed? The wild magic comes and goes and the players just does t get it...

Muggle-free world? Well if we actually had Ex abilities worth a damn you could just refluffed the Fighter to be using internal magic.

Game mechanics should be up to the player, with very little ability for the DM to say "no" because all it takes is refluff and you can make ANY class fit into any world.

(Not really aimed at you, just in general I hate how DMs ban mechanics because of fluff reasons... Like 3.5/PF Psionics)

Sartharina
2014-06-12, 01:04 PM
And I strongly disagree with everything Spawn of Mobo just said - Fluff and Crunch shouldn't be completely divorced concepts, and fluff shouldn't be able to be changed on a whim. Rules governing how the world works are rules governing how the world works, regardless of the firmness/numberiness of the rule. A houserule is a houserule.

Person_Man
2014-06-12, 01:10 PM
While I'm on the topic, how the hell are they doing alignment anyway? Is it still that godawful linear "Lawful-Good-Is-Best-Good" scale from 4e?

I would be shocked if they didn't return to the classic 9 alignments or something very close to it. (Maybe throw in "Unaligned" for unintelligent and mindless creatures). Mechanically and thematically, 5E appears to be 2E + 3.5E + Advantage/Disadvantage. I honestly can't point to anything in the system which is a carry over from 4E, which is weird. I never liked 4E, but it had a lot of legitimate and worthwhile mechanics worth considering. WotC might recapture some of the old school, 3.5, and PF crowd, but it feels like they're leaving the 4E fans out in the cold.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-12, 01:20 PM
And I strongly disagree with everything Spawn of Mobo just said - Fluff and Crunch shouldn't be completely divorced concepts, and fluff shouldn't be able to be changed on a whim. Rules governing how the world works are rules governing how the world works, regardless of the firmness/numberiness of the rule. A houserule is a houserule.

You don't divorce them. And if you have a specific world then it isn't on a whim. Most people who make their own world don't do so on a whim (one would hope). If they do come up with it on a whim then I'm sure they put effort into it later.

You can come up with the same mechanics with different fluff. Fluff can help you make mechanics and I'm sure that is how most design processes go, fluff then crunch.

However, if what a DM has a problem with is fluff then don't scrap the entire class. That is like saying "I don't like this car because it's red, let's junk this car".

When instead what you can do is change the color of the car. What effects does the color of the car have on your driving experience (well flames down the side obviously make you faster...)? Nothing. If the engine and the rest of the parts work then the color of the car won't effect your ability to drive said car.

Same thing with crunch and fluff. Give me one good reason how refluffing a class to fit your game effects the mechanics or the world? If a player wants to use specific mechanics then why say no when it is extremely easy to change the fluff? What would you rather they play something they don't like or perhaps not play at all? Why not make new fluff that is also worthy of the same mechanics?

I've seen many of new and experienced players walk away from tables because they really wanted to try certain classes and DMs would deny that because of fluff. I personally know a handful of people who wanted to try D&D but was forced to play other classes than they wanted to try and got turned off from the game because of it (" why would I play a TTRPG where someone else gets to force me to play something I don't want to?").

It is really bad for the game that people do this a lot.

Besides, all the broken things in D&D are mechanical, not fluff. Want to ban broken mechanics? Go ahead, but there is no such thing as broken fluff (I'm sure there is BAD fluff though haha).

(Cue someone finding fluff that breaks 3.P/4e...)

Millennium
2014-06-12, 01:22 PM
Everyone also includes playstyles that are perhaps not to your liking.

You can ban anything you want as a DM if you do not think it fits your world. If I am playing Dark Sun, then there are no Divine casters. If I am playing a very serious Lord of the Rings style game, then no Wild Mages. If I am playing a muggle-free world, then anyone class that is not a caster should be banned.

The core game should be as broad and all encompassing as possible.

This, and it's one of the best things about 5E. For all the whining about 5e "catering to a narrow playstyle", the fact is that 5e has actually broadened the field by ceasing to treat a single playstyle as the default. In so doing, they've also created a system that most people -including the build-centric types- will houserule a little bit, but no more than most playstyles have already been doing with 5e's predecessors since The Beginning.

Stubbazubba
2014-06-12, 04:19 PM
Yes and all this does is push it back a few levels. The chance of a TPK rises at an exponential rate. So at levels 1-2 you might not get these effects, but by the time you are level 5, 7, or 9 or whatever based on the math you will have a 99% chance of it happening. Its the same reason they don't put crit hit and fumble tables in the core game anymore. They realized that if you have a chance of death, no matter how small, it always favors the enemies because if an enemy dies, so what. If a player dies there goes X hours of investment in the character, and due to the way statistics works eventually you won't win out against the odds.

That's true of playing the game at all, though. There's always a chance of TPK, every single combat. Increasing it by some rounding error percentage, balanced out by having far more beneficial effects on that table than harmful ones, is not turning the game into any more of a statistical gauntlet than it already is. You are being completely disingenuous, you have not displayed any comprehension of what is actually on the table or what those effects actually do, and you are imputing qualities to this mechanic that fly in the face of the mechanic's history with no basis whatsoever for believing that it will be like that except I H4T3 W1ZERDS!!! Try harder.

Assuming arguendo that there is a 5% chance of a freaking TPK when you roll on this chart, and assuming that 5e Wild Magic sticks to the 2e equation and you have a 5% chance of rolling on the table for each spell cast (i.e. a 1/400 chance of TPK per spell cast), you have a 50% chance of rolling one of these alleged TPKs after 277 spells. Assuming you cast on average 1 spell/round and that each combat lasts an average of 4 rounds, that means in your 64th combat, you will have an even chance to have never rolled a "TPK" effect or to roll one once. Now bring in the fact that these alleged TPK effects are nothing of the sort, and the equation now reads that after 64 combats, you will have an even chance to have rolled a "complication" either never or once. From the table it is evident that there are more beneficial/neutral effects than harmful ones, so for that marginally increased risk you get a net benefit of some kind, which might even save you from a TPK you would otherwise be facing. Yeah, something annoying could happen, yeah something a little harmful could happen, but you could also get a huge boost, and that third one is far more likely than the second or first. I don't see this really being a trap option, especially when resurrection effects are generally available to PCs fairly early on. You are wildly over-estimating the risks here. Even your "probability math and science" don't support your irrational conclusions.

Re: Vaccines




Also vaccines are actually not that good. They are only good when the alternative is death or debilitation

...Yes...which is only every disease we vaccinate for (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/photo-all-vpd.htm).


http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

How adorable! You link to a freaking wordpress blog that shows a bunch of graphs reproduced from other for-profit anti-vaccine sources that claim to get them from actual statistical sources but don't point to any publicly-available raw data. Better yet, they exclusively show correlation, and by repeating it enough have convinced you it must be causation. You and I both know that's not how it works. And what's with the random timetables being represented? Century-long data was the only one that looked good enough? Graphs are so easy to manipulate. Untested, non-medical answers as to how health improved over time in various communities carries no weight next to the gold standard of peer-reviewed scientific research. This forum post (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunking-vaccine-myths.3076/) primarily pulls its info from peer-reviewed journals and organizations of licensed experts, and it talks about the graphs and many other erroneous claims or arguments used to "support" the anti-vaccine movement. I realize it's not a Nature article itself, but it pulls all the relevant data (which is publicly accessible and peer-reviewed) together.

The meme of vaccines being dangerous or ineffective is also wrong and has been debunked by actual experts, not anonymous wordpress bloggers, countless times. You are irresponsibly recirculating vicious lies, lies that cost lives (http://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-anti-vaccination-movement-leads-to-disease-outbreaks-120312), and establishing a track record you don't want following you. Look up both sides, have all the information in front of you, don't just trust one side's assurances of "science" and "math." The other side has a huge system in which scientists are supposed to rip apart each other's faulty work, and that's just not happening, even with the hundreds and thousands of scientists and doctors involved. Now, there are conspiracy-theory possibilities for why all these people seem to find the same results, but I have seen zero evidence for any of those theories. I have no reason to disbelieve the scientific consensus on vaccines, let alone enough evidence to believe some blog's alternative theory.

This is all I'm going to say about this.

Lokiare
2014-06-12, 04:26 PM
I shan't go into further detail here since it is bordering on off-topic, but relying on an anti-vaccine crank website which has been shown to engage in outright fabrication, misrepresent CDC/WHO/other public health organizations, and the like, to make your point about D&D strikes me as very counter-productive.

It was one of the first sites I found that used facts, studies, and science to debunk the whole vaccine thing. Feel free to do your own research and find out for yourself how vaccines are mostly about making money and hardly at all about protecting the public. How about the study they did that proves taking a flue vaccine makes you more susceptible to the flue a year or two later? Go check that one out. While your at it, verify the facts the article present rather than claiming that the website doesn't amount to anything. That's like me saying nothing you have ever said is true because of that one time you said something that was factually false about 4E, so no one should listen to you. Saying things like that are pure nonsense. Evaluate the data not the one speaking it.


No, because when I discuss a game, I like to actually be informed about what I'm talking about.


You probably also believe in chemtrails, right? But hey, at least we know you're perfectly happy to speak authoritatively about things other than 5e that you're totally ignorant about. :smallbiggrin:

I believe in facts, science, and quotes. Here try this on for size: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lKcWtSi-d0

then check this out and make up your own mind: http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmospheric-geoengineering-weather-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails/20369

to say things like this don't exist because the idea is shocking is to say that facts don't exist because you don't believe people can do evil things. Basically you are trying to contradict the facts with your personal incredulity.

Also nice try on trying to defame your opponent rather than deal with the facts, quotes, and math they bring up, shows how honest of a debater you are.


Any half-decent DM already knows the answer to questions like this. Creatures that randomly appear on the battlefield with no set behavior act in whatever way would make things most interesting at the moment.

Depending on the situation, that will change. A party that had been faring poorly might find itself gaining some unexpected (and very temporary) allies, because dead parties aren't interesting. If they're too overmatched even for these creatures to be of much help, they might at least distract the enemies, giving the PCs a chance to get away. Or if the party had a clear upper hand, then these creatures might throw an unexpected wrench in the works, because no-challenge fights aren't interesting. Maybe the session has just had a couple big downers, and some comic relief is in order. There are even more exotic possibilities, some of which depend not only on in-game events, but out-of-game ones.

Adapting to situations that change rapidly, and in unexpected ways, is a baseline DM skill. This is not something that merely separates the greatest DMs from the decent ones: it is a question of basic competency. Wizards is calling on the DM to do something here that any DM should be able to do.

The problem I have with this statement is it starts out with "Any half-decent DM already knows..." Yep, half-decent DMs can run a game of monopoly and make it feel like a good game of D&D, but the rest of us and those that are new and less experienced can't do that. No game should be designed around "good DM's" like 5E seems to be. It leaves out anyone that is not a good DM, instead they should be designed around inexperienced and new DMs and strive not to stifle or limit "Good DM's"

1337 b4k4
2014-06-12, 04:40 PM
The problem I have with this statement is it starts out with "Any half-decent DM already knows..." Yep, half-decent DMs can run a game of monopoly and make it feel like a good game of D&D, but the rest of us and those that are new and less experienced can't do that. No game should be designed around "good DM's" like 5E seems to be. It leaves out anyone that is not a good DM, instead they should be designed around inexperienced and new DMs and strive not to stifle or limit "Good DM's"

WotC has already addressed (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140609) how they plan to handle this duality of "material for quality DMs vs material for new DMs", and frankly I think it's a much better solution than inflating the book with warnings that any 6th grader could intuit with a bit of reading. To whit:


We decided early on that any materials likely to be used only once had to be eliminated from the set or kept to a minimum. One example would be a tutorial that teaches the rules through a scripted adventure. And in deciding that such a tutorial is something we didn’t want, we were able to think about how that kind of resource would be much better suited to other media—such as online video. Because we’re giving players the opportunity to learn the game without investing any money in it (with our move to make Basic D&D a free download), a new player who downloads the rules can then make use of video tutorials that provide a much better experience of how D&D works. This approach would be like packaging a master DM like Chris Perkins in every Starter Set.

Lokiare
2014-06-12, 04:41 PM
That's true of playing the game at all, though. There's always a chance of TPK, every single combat. Increasing it by some rounding error percentage, balanced out by having far more beneficial effects on that table than harmful ones, is not turning the game into any more of a statistical gauntlet than it already is. You are being completely disingenuous, you have not displayed any comprehension of what is actually on the table or what those effects actually do, and you are imputing qualities to this mechanic that fly in the face of the mechanic's history with no basis whatsoever for believing that it will be like that except I H4T3 W1ZERDS!!! Try harder.

Assuming arguendo that there is a 5% chance of a freaking TPK when you roll on this chart, and assuming that 5e Wild Magic sticks to the 2e equation and you have a 5% chance of rolling on the table for each spell cast (i.e. a 1/400 chance of TPK per spell cast), you have a 50% chance of rolling one of these alleged TPKs after 277 spells. Assuming you cast on average 1 spell/round and that each combat lasts an average of 4 rounds, that means in your 64th combat, you will have an even chance to have never rolled a "TPK" effect or to roll one once. Now bring in the fact that these alleged TPK effects are nothing of the sort, and the equation now reads that after 64 combats, you will have an even chance to have rolled a "complication" either never or once. From the table it is evident that there are more beneficial/neutral effects than harmful ones, so for that marginally increased risk you get a net benefit of some kind, which might even save you from a TPK you would otherwise be facing. Yeah, something annoying could happen, yeah something a little harmful could happen, but you could also get a huge boost, and that third one is far more likely than the second or first. I don't see this really being a trap option, especially when resurrection effects are generally available to PCs fairly early on. You are wildly over-estimating the risks here. Even your "probability math and science" don't support your irrational conclusions.

It increases the deadliness of an already extremely deadly game. I get how some people will like that. The same people that will bet their life savings on a single roll of the dice. Nothing wrong with that.

Personally for my play style (and the vast majority of 4E players) this is simply another reason not to buy the product. It doesn't have any warnings that this could cause very bad things to eventually happen. Also thanks for showing the math that the bad things will happen 50% around level 5ish (64 combats divided by 12 per level equals 5.33_) so that by the time you hit level 9 or so it will have happened 99% chance.


Re: Vaccines

...Yes...which is only every disease we vaccinate for (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/photo-all-vpd.htm).

No sorry, flu and many things we vaccinate for are not deadly. Not only that alternatives to vaccines for flu exist that are much more effective like simply taking vitamin D supplements during winter months or when you will be out of the sun for long periods of time.


How adorable!

I could say "how adorable!" before my refutation, but I don't sink to trying to paint my opponent as an imbecile while simultaneously trying to discredit their sources rather than the information they provide. But that's just me.


You link to a freaking wordpress blog that shows a bunch of graphs reproduced from other for-profit anti-vaccine sources that claim to get them from actual statistical sources but don't point to any publicly-available raw data. Better yet, they exclusively show correlation, and by repeating it enough have convinced you it must be causation. You and I both know that's not how it works. And what's with the random timetables being represented? Century-long data was the only one that looked good enough? Graphs are so easy to manipulate. Untested, non-medical answers as to how health improved over time in various communities carries no weight next to the gold standard of peer-reviewed scientific research. This forum post (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunking-vaccine-myths.3076/) primarily pulls its info from peer-reviewed journals and organizations of licensed experts, and it talks about the graphs and many other erroneous claims or arguments used to "support" the anti-vaccine movement. I realize it's not a Nature article itself, but it pulls all the relevant data (which is publicly accessible and peer-reviewed) together.

The meme of vaccines being dangerous or ineffective is also wrong and has been debunked by actual experts, not anonymous wordpress bloggers, countless times. You are irresponsibly recirculating vicious lies, lies that cost lives (http://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-anti-vaccination-movement-leads-to-disease-outbreaks-120312), and establishing a track record you don't want following you. Look up both sides, have all the information in front of you, don't just trust one side's assurances of "science" and "math." The other side has a huge system in which scientists are supposed to rip apart each other's faulty work, and that's just not happening, even with the hundreds and thousands of scientists and doctors involved. Now, there are conspiracy-theory possibilities for why all these people seem to find the same results, but I have seen zero evidence for any of those theories. I have no reason to disbelieve the scientific consensus on vaccines, let alone enough evidence to believe some blog's alternative theory.

This is all I'm going to say about this.

The problem is things like the polio vaccine killed many people that took it and induced diseases in others. It was one of those trade offs where you take a chance either way so it was a vaccine that was worth the risk.

It isn't that I don't believe in vaccine science itself. I do. Its that the science is not really used, instead they make cheap vaccines that are harmful and force them on people for profit. If they made clean vaccines from human blood of survivors of the various diseases, then it would work better and its even possible that it would add to our genetic code instead of getting thrown out like current ones do.

Basically a better alternative would be like they did in ancient times which was to not have c-section births (which stops the baby from picking up immunities from going through the birthing canal) and to encourage nursing (which passes on the mothers immunities) so that things like the flu wouldn't need vaccinations and vaccinations would be reserved for actual deadly diseases. They could also slow down the schedule of vaccines or even do tests to see if the vaccines given are likely to cause a negative effect on the individual so that those that it won't affect can get the vaccines and those that it will affect can choose not to or can use alternative means.

The charges you levy against that website are incorrect. Most biological population science is done based on correlation. Its the only way we can infer anything from that kind of research. Just look up a less controversial topic on the subject and you'll see. That's how that kind of science is done.

If you want to discuss this in detail start a thread in the science sub-forum and send me a link in a PM and I'll be glad to show you the facts.

Edit: for proof I haven't had a vaccine since I was a child and I haven't gotten the flu in around 16 years due to taking vitamin C & D and generally eating healthy. You have to think of it like this the medical companies are businesses not charities. What do businesses do above all else? make money. Would they sell a nearly worthless potentially deadly (even if it is a very low chance) thing to make money? The answer is of course yes, every business does from baby formula makers (who kill around 1-2% of their customers babies each year) to toy makers (who through accidents also kill children in a small percentage). The thing that's going on here is that most people don't think companies and individuals capable of this kind of thing when they've been proven over and over that they are in fact capable of it.

obryn
2014-06-12, 05:06 PM
I believe in facts, science, and quotes. Here try this on for size: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lKcWtSi-d0

then check this out and make up your own mind: http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmospheric-geoengineering-weather-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails/20369

to say things like this don't exist because the idea is shocking is to say that facts don't exist because you don't believe people can do evil things. Basically you are trying to contradict the facts with your personal incredulity.

Also nice try on trying to defame your opponent rather than deal with the facts, quotes, and math they bring up, shows how honest of a debater you are.
Oh my word, you DO believe in chemtrails! Holy cow. Now tell us about how 9/11 was a false flag! :smallbiggrin: I will just direct you here (http://contrailscience.com/) in the fullness of knowledge that no degree of actual science and no number of facts will do anything to convince you otherwise. Because conspiracy theories don't rely on evidence; they're immune to evidence. That's how we end up with normal atmospheric pheonomena involving water vapor turning into a terrible conspiracy.

Lokiare, this just really makes it clear where you're coming from on ... gosh, just about everything ... because you're applying the same conspiracy theory illogic to WotC and roleplaying games.

e:


Basically a better alternative would be like they did in ancient times which was to not have c-section births (which stops the baby from picking up immunities from going through the birthing canal) and to encourage nursing (which passes on the mothers immunities) so that things like the flu wouldn't need vaccinations and vaccinations would be reserved for actual deadly diseases.
No and no. C-section births have nothing to do with immunities, and breast milk doesn't pass along any sort of immunity to, say, measles or pertussis. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having new outbreaks of measles and pertussis. By this logic, there should have been no deaths from disease in the middle ages, seeing that (1) every baby was breast fed, and (2) c-sections were exceedingly rare. Unless you want to argue that medieval europe had no disease epidemics, this is prima facie absurd.

Lokiare
2014-06-12, 05:40 PM
Oh my word, you DO believe in chemtrails! Holy cow. Now tell us about how 9/11 was a false flag! :smallbiggrin: I will just direct you here (http://contrailscience.com/) in the fullness of knowledge that no degree of actual science and no number of facts will do anything to convince you otherwise. Because conspiracy theories don't rely on evidence; they're immune to evidence. That's how we end up with normal atmospheric pheonomena involving water vapor turning into a terrible conspiracy.

Lokiare, this just really makes it clear where you're coming from on ... gosh, just about everything ... because you're applying the same conspiracy theory illogic to WotC and roleplaying games.

e:


No and no. C-section births have nothing to do with immunities, and breast milk doesn't pass along any sort of immunity to, say, measles or pertussis. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having new outbreaks of measles and pertussis. By this logic, there should have been no deaths from disease in the middle ages, seeing that (1) every baby was breast fed, and (2) c-sections were exceedingly rare. Unless you want to argue that medieval europe had no disease epidemics, this is prima facie absurd.

Wait is that a personal attack? I think it is.

No what this shows is that I'm looking at evidence, facts, science, and math and making an opinion based on those rather than what you personally believe and no matter how incredulous you might be to the idea of it being true. If you want to discuss it start a thread in the science section and I'll post my evidence and you can post yours. Then we can discuss them.

See you use the word conspiracy theory, but you don't actually know what it means because you are referring to another meme. A conspiracy theory is a THEORY about two or more people that conspire together to do some act, usually nefarious in nature.

What I'm presenting is facts where scientists admit to geo-engineering using plane exhaust. You are simply not looking at the evidence. They've been doing this stuff for years and OPENLY ADMITTING IT. There is no theory at all in it.

The same with the vaccine information. I'm presenting facts where they show that vaccines are harmful and that without vaccines diseases can be prevented from spreading. You seem rather interested in painting me as some kind of loon rather than disputing the evidence I present. This is called defamation of character and is a key tactic by those that can't refute an argument to try to win ignorant people over to their cause.

As to the birth info maybe you need to brush up on your science a bit: http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancyblog/2012/02/benefits-of-a-vaginal-birth/

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892025

At this point I have to ask if you even know about the subjects of which you talk? Again start a thread and send me a PM in the science sub-forum if you want to discuss this further. I'll gladly participate. However this is getting extremely off topic.

Overall you should take a look at some information about productive discussions too while you're at it: http://www.flc.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~inouen/debating_in_english_text.pdf its meant for a japanese class, but it explains in detail what to avoid such as trying to destroy your opponents credibility by insulting them.

Stubbazubba
2014-06-12, 05:48 PM
Well, I've learned a couple things today. The biggest is that we have a science sub-forum. Carry on.

Edit:

You have to think of it like this the medical companies are businesses not charities. What do businesses do above all else? make money.

I'm just going to point out that the same is true of the people selling books and adspace on blogs about how bad vaccines are. The only difference is 1) they are subject to no regulation whatsoever, and 2) they have no adversarial process of correction. Medicine actually has both of these going for it. Let me throw in "science, facts, cold hard evidence" and other words you seem to associate with strength of argument.

Lokiare
2014-06-12, 05:50 PM
Well, I've learned a couple things today. The biggest is that we have a science sub-forum. Carry on.

:smallsmile: Yep they created it just for arguments like these that crop up: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?62-Mad-Science-and-Grumpy-Technology

obryn
2014-06-12, 05:53 PM
Wait is that a personal attack? I think it is.
Then report it.

I think it shows a pattern of illogic, which applies just as well to your arguments re: Next.


What I'm presenting is facts where scientists admit to geo-engineering using plane exhaust. You are simply not looking at the evidence. They've been doing this stuff for years and OPENLY ADMITTING IT. There is no theory at all in it.
Did you even look at the link I posted?


The same with the vaccine information. I'm presenting facts where they show that vaccines are harmful and that without vaccines diseases can be prevented from spreading. You seem rather interested in painting me as some kind of loon rather than disputing the evidence I present. This is called defamation of character and is a key tactic by those that can't refute an argument to try to win ignorant people over to their cause.

As to the birth info maybe you need to brush up on your science a bit: http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancyblog/2012/02/benefits-of-a-vaginal-birth/

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892025

At this point I have to ask if you even know about the subjects of which you talk? Again start a thread and send me a PM in the science sub-forum if you want to discuss this further. I'll gladly participate. However this is getting extremely off topic.

Overall you should take a look at some information about productive discussions too while you're at it: http://www.flc.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~inouen/debating_in_english_text.pdf its meant for a japanese class, but it explains in detail what to avoid such as trying to destroy your opponents credibility by insulting them.
Breast milk does indeed provide some immunity.

I'm asking you to explain how, please, it is sufficient when it was the sole method of feeding infants for most of human history, and yet disease spreads.

I also think it's kinda funny that you're posting an NIH link. Please, look up the NIH's views on vaccines. :smallbiggrin:

Envyus
2014-06-12, 06:03 PM
It increases the deadliness of an already extremely deadly game. I get how some people will like that. The same people that will bet their life savings on a single roll of the dice. Nothing wrong with that.

Personally for my play style (and the vast majority of 4E players) this is simply another reason not to buy the product. It doesn't have any warnings that this could cause very bad things to eventually happen. Also thanks for showing the math that the bad things will happen 50% around level 5ish (64 combats divided by 12 per level equals 5.33_) so that by the time you hit level 9 or so it will have happened 99% chance.


Oh god you are becoming unbearable. 5% chance of wild surge and there are 3 harmful options in the table. Hey we are level 9 and we had a bad wild surge once it did 1d10 damage to 2 of us at level 5. Man that is the worst thing. It does not up the deadliness at all given that there are far more beneficial stuff on the table then negative.

Also the warning that there are risks are on the goddamn table you just have to read it.

Also Probability does not mean will happen. I bet if you played a wild sorcerer the super rare bad effects will have nothing to do with you guys if you ever TPK.

Lokiare
2014-06-12, 06:15 PM
Then report it.

I think it shows a pattern of illogic, which applies just as well to your arguments re: Next.


Did you even look at the link I posted?


Breast milk does indeed provide some immunity.

I'm asking you to explain how, please, it is sufficient when it was the sole method of feeding infants for most of human history, and yet disease spreads.

I also think it's kinda funny that you're posting an NIH link. Please, look up the NIH's views on vaccines. :smallbiggrin:

Yep, because if you have an opinion I don't agree with, nothing you say can ever be correct. Which means I can just flat out call you a liar every time you post now based on your own standard. Nicely done, you have just invalidated your own existence on this forum using your own logic. I couldn't have done it better myself.

Seriously though, refute the facts presented and quit trying to defame the source of the arguments. At best if you think the source is bad it means you should look carefully at what is presented for problems. You should not dismiss it out of hand. This is know as the Ad Hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) fallacy and is looked down upon in debates.


Oh god you are becoming unbearable. 5% chance of wild surge and there are 3 harmful options in the table. Hey we are level 9 and we had a bad wild surge once it did 1d10 damage to 2 of us at level 5. Man that is the worst thing. It does not up the deadliness at all given that there are far more beneficial stuff on the table then negative.

Also the warning that there are risks are on the goddamn table you just have to read it.

Also Probability does not mean will happen. I bet if you played a wild sorcerer the super rare bad effects will have nothing to do with you guys if you ever TPK.

That's fine you enjoy risk taking. My play style does not.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-12, 06:19 PM
Note that 4E also has a wild/chaos sorcerer, and that this sorcerer has an at-will power, available straight from level one, that's an energy bolt that has a 50% chance of passing on to a second creature, 25% chance of bouncing to a third, and so on. This spell explicitly targets creatures, not enemies, so it will occasionally fry one of your party members.

Granted, the odds against this chaos bolt causing a TPK are astronomical, but then the odds of 5E's wild surge causing TPK through summoning a stampede of wild flumphs are also incredibly low. Many people just love options that have both a risk and a reward, not just a plain reward with never any negative consequences.

Stubbazubba
2014-06-12, 06:22 PM
This is know as the Ad Hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) fallacy and is looked down upon in debates.

Lok, this isn't a debate. There is no judge, there are no points. You need to calm down. Maybe go outside or something.

Envyus
2014-06-12, 06:24 PM
That's fine you enjoy risk taking. My play style does not.

Who said I like risk taking. This is not my type of class but it is a good class and it's table is fine. It's not a trap as there is barely any risk and just by looking at the table you can see said risk. Also this game has risk taking by it's nature every single die roll is taking a risk.

Also have you looked at the wild surge table because if you did you would see how there is very little risk in it.

Psyren
2014-06-12, 06:50 PM
Also, player's handbook is not "Core". D&D Basic is "Core".

So the core cleric is a healbot, the core wizard is a blaster... feh.


Everyone also includes playstyles that are perhaps not to your liking.

You can ban anything you want as a DM if you do not think it fits your world. If I am playing Dark Sun, then there are no Divine casters. If I am playing a very serious Lord of the Rings style game, then no Wild Mages. If I am playing a muggle-free world, then any class that is not a caster will be banned.

The PHB game should be as broad and all encompassing as possible.

5e Core is FR, not Dark Sun (which is a textbook "advanced setting" anyway, due to its lethality and restrictions like the ones you mentioned) so I'm not sure how that even enters into the discussion.

But my problem here is that I actually agree with your last statement. Which is why I think randomly party-screwing or just plain confusing surge mechanics have no place in it. Take the magic missile one for instance, what do you do if there are no enemies around, or you can't see/target them? Are you forced to shoot yourself or a party member? Are the height/age changes permanent, and do they stack if you get them multiple times? (Particularly relevant if you land on 00 and potentially get them multiple times in the same encounter.) When you revert from potted plant form after being smashed, are you dead? If you're underground, and there is rock everywhere, can the random teleport send you outside the dungeon/across the continent/into the ocean? And so on. I just don't think these are questions that have any place in such a core simple book.

obryn
2014-06-12, 06:54 PM
Yep, because if you have an opinion I don't agree with, nothing you say can ever be correct. Which means I can just flat out call you a liar every time you post now based on your own standard. Nicely done, you have just invalidated your own existence on this forum using your own logic. I couldn't have done it better myself.

Seriously though, refute the facts presented and quit trying to defame the source of the arguments. At best if you think the source is bad it means you should look carefully at what is presented for problems. You should not dismiss it out of hand. This is know as the Ad Hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) fallacy and is looked down upon in debates.
...no.

That's quite simply not even remotely what I said. Nor am I attacking your person. I am saying that the same pattern of conspiracy thinking that colors your approach to such absurd things as "chemtrails" may also indicate an illogical, conspiracy-theory bent about WotC.

It's like how I predicted chemtrail belief when I found out you were an antivaxxer. Conspiracy theories breed conspiracy theories, and if you fall for one, odds are you'll fall for more. Your take on WotC has been ... paranoid ... quite regularly, and I'm pointing out a pattern of behavior. We've seen it before with your conviction that you were banned from ENWorld, RPGnet, and WotC's forums due to the your opinions instead of your behavior.

You can assert that this is an attack on you, personally, if you'd like. But I'm saying that if I have a question about designing skyscrapers, I'm not going to ask a 9/11 truther; I'm going to ask a guy who designs skyscrapers. I'm pointing out that your logic is nowhere near as rock-solid as you think it is, and further that pointing out logical flaws to you is as unlikely to change your views as this (http://contrailscience.com/) will convince you that "chemtrails" are ridiculous.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-12, 08:08 PM
It increases the deadliness of an already extremely deadly game. I get how some people will like that. The same people that will bet their life savings on a single roll of the dice. Nothing wrong with that.

Personally for my play style (and the vast majority of 4E players) this is simply another reason not to buy the product. It doesn't have any warnings that this could cause very bad things to eventually happen. Also thanks for showing the math that the bad things will happen 50% around level 5ish (64 combats divided by 12 per level equals 5.33_) so that by the time you hit level 9 or so it will have happened 99% chance.


This probably feels like I'm picking on you, and its not intended. But this post is questionable. How do you know that the majority of 4e players will do this? How can you possibly make this claim? And you have made it repeatedly.

Lokiare
2014-06-12, 09:30 PM
Lok, this isn't a debate. There is no judge, there are no points. You need to calm down. Maybe go outside or something.

Its a discussion, leading to a mutual understanding of a topic. If we don't follow the basic rules of debate it'll just devolve into an argument. Anyone that discusses things should follow the basic rules. With things like clear communication and avoiding attacking the arguer or the source of their data. Unless of course your goal is to 'win' the discussion and not come to a mutual understanding of the subject at hand. In that case Ad Hominem away.


...no.

That's quite simply not even remotely what I said. Nor am I attacking your person. I am saying that the same pattern of conspiracy thinking that colors your approach to such absurd things as "chemtrails" may also indicate an illogical, conspiracy-theory bent about WotC.

It's like how I predicted chemtrail belief when I found out you were an antivaxxer. Conspiracy theories breed conspiracy theories, and if you fall for one, odds are you'll fall for more. Your take on WotC has been ... paranoid ... quite regularly, and I'm pointing out a pattern of behavior. We've seen it before with your conviction that you were banned from ENWorld, RPGnet, and WotC's forums due to the your opinions instead of your behavior.

You can assert that this is an attack on you, personally, if you'd like. But I'm saying that if I have a question about designing skyscrapers, I'm not going to ask a 9/11 truther; I'm going to ask a guy who designs skyscrapers. I'm pointing out that your logic is nowhere near as rock-solid as you think it is, and further that pointing out logical flaws to you is as unlikely to change your views as this (http://contrailscience.com/) will convince you that "chemtrails" are ridiculous.

No. Again all you are doing is calling me mentally insane (a personal attack), and then backing it up with a lot of Ad hominem attacks and not refuting any evidence I've presented. Again we are disrupting this thread with this conversation if you want to continue it start a thread in the science sub-forum and send me a PM with a link. I'll gladly debate the facts with you in a thread dedicated to it. In fact you probably shouldn't have dropped the highly polarizing vaccine comment in the first place that started this into a thread that had nothing to do with it.

Conspiracy Theories don't exist in the context you are using those words. I've already shown where you are incorrect on that one you keep coming back to that though. Should I call you a mindless sheep that believes anything the media tells you (because that's the only place that repeats the conspiracy theory meme like its a real thing). No, I shouldn't Ad Hominem you like that. I should attack your facts, like I did. So please quit Ad Hominem me and the sources I put forward as if it has any bearing on the facts, because it doesn't.

obryn
2014-06-12, 10:28 PM
In fact you probably shouldn't have dropped the highly polarizing vaccine comment in the first place that started this into a thread that had nothing to do with it.
I didn't; look upthread.


Conspiracy Theories don't exist in the context you are using those words. I've already shown where you are incorrect on that one you keep coming back to that though. Should I call you a mindless sheep that believes anything the media tells you (because that's the only place that repeats the conspiracy theory meme like its a real thing). No, I shouldn't Ad Hominem you like that. I should attack your facts, like I did. So please quit Ad Hominem me and the sources I put forward as if it has any bearing on the facts, because it doesn't.
Saying that your belief structure is broken is not a personal attack. Saying that chemtrails are crazy and dumb is not a personal attack. Saying that the anti-vax movement is provably dangerous and irresponsible is not a personal attack, especially with the measles and pertussis outbreaks in we're getting now. And I've given you direct evidence that refutes your non-evidence on chemtrails point by point.

But yes, this is definitely way far off topic, so I'm done.

Millennium
2014-06-13, 08:39 AM
Wait is that a personal attack? I think it is.

No what this shows is that I'm looking at evidence, facts, science, and math and making an opinion based on those rather than what you personally believe and no matter how incredulous you might be to the idea of it being true.
You're close -so close- but you've got it backwards. What you're really doing is formulating an opinion you would like to be true, possibly initially based on fragmentary and incomplete information but more likely based on pure, unadulterated pathos or ethos. Then you cherry-picking facts to support it.

What I'm presenting is facts where scientists admit to geo-engineering using plane exhaust. You are simply not looking at the evidence. They've been doing this stuff for years and OPENLY ADMITTING IT. There is no theory at all in it.
Except that it's not what's actually going on. A small number of scientists have indeed floated the possibility that one might be able to perform geoengineering using jet contrails (not exhaust; contrails are a different phenomenon). The idea has, however, been abandoned. You'd need far too many jets to have any significant effect.

The same with the vaccine information. I'm presenting facts where they show that vaccines are harmful and that without vaccines diseases can be prevented from spreading.
Except that the facts do not show this. You've picked one or two tidbits from studies that, when taken in total, show the exact opposite of what you claim.

It is true that maternal antibodies do provide a degree of immunity, for a limited time. This is why they don't give MMR, for example, to babies under a year old: at those ages, maternal antibodies tend to overwhelm the vaccine and render it ineffective. But that immunity does not last forever, or even for very long. Continuing with the MMR example, the reason they try to give it as close to a year old as possible is that by that point, the effect of maternal antibodies is already too weak to overwhelm the vaccine.

You seem rather interested in painting me as some kind of loon rather than disputing the evidence I present.
We can't dispute what isn't there. The studies you cite do not constitute evidence for your claims: in fact, when not cherry-picked, they actually disprove your claims. You've done basically all of the work for us already; why should we waste time and bandwidth linking to the places you've already linked to?

I do not like it when people say that their opposition isn't thinking clearly. Western culture cherishes clarity of thought above almost anything else: it's seen as an essential (and vitally important) trait of humanity itself. In that context, claiming that someone isn't thinking clearly rises almost to the level of outright dehumanization, and at the very least it constitutes fighting words. Because of that, its use should be reserved for very serious and grave matters, and yet you've already used it inappropriately on numerous occasions. Even despite my reservations, I have been sorely tempted to use it more than once in this thread alone.

If you want to know why people on this board and others find it so difficult to take you seriously, this, right here, is why. Your views, at least as expressed in your writing, are almost indistinguishable from self-parody, and this is a red flag: we call it Poe's Law. If you do not want people to think you are a lunatic, you're going to have to learn how to stop throwing those flags.

Stubbazubba
2014-06-13, 10:58 AM
Its a discussion, leading to a mutual understanding of a topic. If we don't follow the basic rules of debate it'll just devolve into an argument. Anyone that discusses things should follow the basic rules. With things like clear communication and avoiding attacking the arguer or the source of their data. Unless of course your goal is to 'win' the discussion and not come to a mutual understanding of the subject at hand. In that case Ad Hominem away.

You posted formal debate rules. Should we form teams and take timed turns, too?

Listen, this forum has rules. If you think someone's violating them, report them. If you think they're inadequate, post in the Board Issues forum. Do not start policing conversations of your own initiative, especially when you are just as guilty of ad hominem here.


No. Again all you are doing is calling me mentally insane (a personal attack), and then backing it up with a lot of Ad hominem attacks and not refuting any evidence I've presented.

Obryn and I both posted links that specifically address the, ahem, "facts" your links had. You didn't even click on them. I read enough of your link to know what it was talking about and why it was suspicious, and then I posted a link with relevant information directly responding to some of that information. You ignored it and continue to insist that we refuse to address your "facts" when we did just that. Everything you've posted has been wrong. Your assertion that flu is not deadly is boldly ignorant (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5933a1.htm). Obryn said breastfeeding doesn't give immunity to measles or pertussis and you cite information about breastfeeding in general with no reference to either measles or pertussis*. You aren't even reading what we're posting, instead you keep addressing strawmen, lying outright about the facts, or grand-standing with your juvenile insistence on the accuracy of your opinions because of "facts, math, science, and evidence." Don't you dare preach to us about decorum and discussion etiquette when you have given precisely zero evidence that you are even debating in good faith. I made a 7-word reference to vaccines that was at least minimally relevant to what was going on in the discussion and later spoiler tag-ed my one response to keep it out of the main view of the conversation. You decided to post whole paragraphs about it with no regard for the thread in general. Your conduct has been consistently combative, dismissive, and self-righteous, but you're crossing more lines here.

*Corrected below

obryn
2014-06-13, 12:00 PM
Obryn said breastfeeding doesn't give immunity to measles or pertussis and you cite information about breastfeeding in general with no reference to either measles or pertussis. L

I was a bit glib out of frustration. Breast milk does, indeed, seem to convey some measure of protection. But it's not sufficient and it's not as effective, long term, as modern medicine.

There is a reason fewer people die of disease today. There's a reason smallpox has been wiped out. There's a reason controllable diseases are having resurgences in areas with low vaccination rates. These are not imaginary.

da_chicken
2014-06-13, 01:26 PM
HEY LOOK GUYS ANOTHER PAGE WAS "LEAKED". (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140612)

obryn
2014-06-13, 01:37 PM
HEY LOOK GUYS ANOTHER PAGE WAS "LEAKED". (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140612)
OMG THE LEAKER WORKS FOR WOTC.

Also, did anyone else notice the rules text about making ranged attacks, next to the spell lists? If you're in melee when you make a ranged attack, you have disadvantage. Which is nice; I think that's a pretty good idea.

da_chicken
2014-06-13, 01:45 PM
Also, did anyone else notice the rules text about making ranged attacks, next to the spell lists? If you're in melee when you make a ranged attack, you have disadvantage. Which is nice; I think that's a pretty good idea.

Yeah, I think that's a good one. I know they didn't want to use attacks of opportunity as the punishment. This seems like a good compromise. I suppose the fact that you can't get double disadvantage will result in weird situations (like no additional penalty firing at an adjacent creature affected by blur) but honestly I think I'm okay with the simplicity of it.

Dublock
2014-06-13, 02:13 PM
I do agree, I like the disadvantage and it being simple for the core rules. I won't mind seeing a more advantage rule set for this in a separate module.

Job
2014-06-13, 02:20 PM
Woo, on topic,

Also agreed; a bow ,even at close range, is still a "threatening" weapon to one extent or another just not very effective.

StabbityRabbit
2014-06-13, 03:41 PM
I seem to agree with general opinions. Disadvantage seems like a very elegant way of letting ranged people know melee is a bad idea.

CyberThread
2014-06-13, 10:53 PM
meh , are we breaking rules by posting "leaked" images, we get warnings for posting the wealth by level table in 3.5 forum, they gonna hit us here now also?

obryn
2014-06-13, 10:57 PM
meh , are we breaking rules by posting "leaked" images, we get warnings for posting the wealth by level table in 3.5 forum, they gonna hit us here now also?
These are official "leaks." So ... no.

Psyren
2014-06-15, 01:34 AM
How does advantage/disadvantage work exactly? The playtest thread back in the old subforum got really clogged with bickering.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-15, 03:46 AM
How does advantage/disadvantage work exactly? The playtest thread back in the old subforum got really clogged with bickering.

Ad means you roll twice and pick the best, disad means you roll twice and take the worst.

The controversial part here is that they don't stack. For example, shooting a bow while threatened (i.e. adjacent to an enemy) gives you disad, but so does shooting a bow at long range, or shooting a target that has cover. This means that shooting a faraway covered target while you're threatened (triple disad) isn't any harder than shooting normally while threatened (single disad). Also, one source of ad counters any number of disads, and vice versa.

pwykersotz
2014-06-15, 07:27 AM
I'm intrigued that the sidebar that describes necromancy says 'energies that manipulate life or death', and evocation can 'channel positive energy to heal wounds'. Does this mean that resurrection will be under necromancy and cure will be under evocation?

da_chicken
2014-06-15, 07:51 AM
I'm intrigued that the sidebar that describes necromancy says 'energies that manipulate life or death', and evocation can 'channel positive energy to heal wounds'. Does this mean that resurrection will be under necromancy and cure will be under evocation?

That matches my playtest packet, so probably yes.

obryn
2014-06-15, 09:54 AM
The controversial part here is that they don't stack. For example, shooting a bow while threatened (i.e. adjacent to an enemy) gives you disad, but so does shooting a bow at long range, or shooting a target that has cover. This means that shooting a faraway covered target while you're threatened (triple disad) isn't any harder than shooting normally while threatened (single disad). Also, one source of ad counters any number of disads, and vice versa.
Yeah, the question there is ... how much will this actually appear in play? The designers took the position that this will be rare enough that a simpler rule would be preferable to a more ... "accurate", I guess, if that's even a term that makes sense when you're talking about dice mechanics ... rule.

Personally, I think they made the right call. If you didn't have various +X's to rolls, then counting advantage/disadvantage would be okay. But since we have two axes of complexity now, you'd have to get your +/- modifiers straight, then count the sources of advantage/disadvantage. With the simpler rule, you know once you hit one of each you're done and can stop looking.

I would be stunned if "Modifying Advantage and Disadvantage" didn't appear as either a sidebar in the PHB or a section in the DMG, though.

da_chicken
2014-06-15, 12:07 PM
Yeah, the question there is ... how much will this actually appear in play? The designers took the position that this will be rare enough that a simpler rule would be preferable to a more ... "accurate", I guess, if that's even a term that makes sense when you're talking about dice mechanics ... rule.

Personally, I think they made the right call. If you didn't have various +X's to rolls, then counting advantage/disadvantage would be okay. But since we have two axes of complexity now, you'd have to get your +/- modifiers straight, then count the sources of advantage/disadvantage. With the simpler rule, you know once you hit one of each you're done and can stop looking.

I'm ashamed to admit my first thought reading this was, "What's an axe of complexity and why is dual wielding them a reason for concern?"

I think they've made a general design decision that play should not be interrupted to consult the books as much as possible. To get the rules out of the way of the game, so to speak. I like it.

In my 3e game I'm running a Barbarian with pounce. Tracking charge, power attack, rage, and iterative attacks alone gets cumbersome. I have the attack sequence with the same weapon written down 4 or 5 different ways on my character sheet. I'm certain I get the math wrong at least once an encounter.


I would be stunned if "Modifying Advantage and Disadvantage" didn't appear as either a sidebar in the PHB or a section in the DMG, though.

Hm. I could see that or possibly a "Understanding Advantage and Disadvantage" sidebar where they tell you why it works like it does and why you shouldn't screw with it.

Lokiare
2014-06-15, 06:54 PM
I'm ashamed to admit my first thought reading this was, "What's an axe of complexity and why is dual wielding them a reason for concern?"

I think they've made a general design decision that play should not be interrupted to consult the books as much as possible. To get the rules out of the way of the game, so to speak. I like it.

In my 3e game I'm running a Barbarian with pounce. Tracking charge, power attack, rage, and iterative attacks alone gets cumbersome. I have the attack sequence with the same weapon written down 4 or 5 different ways on my character sheet. I'm certain I get the math wrong at least once an encounter.

5E doesn't alleviate this at all. It still has a huge list of combat actions anyone can take that have 2-3 steps to them that no one is going to remember. It also has spells that read like 3E spells. So casters are going to have this same problem. Every time they cast a spell they are going to have to look it up, unless of course they memorize the list (like I did in 2E).


Hm. I could see that or possibly a "Understanding Advantage and Disadvantage" sidebar where they tell you why it works like it does and why you shouldn't screw with it.

How could they do that? That would require that they understand why they did it. I mean "we had a whim and it seems to have been popular." is probably not going to reassure the players and DMs.

obryn
2014-06-15, 07:38 PM
It also has spells that read like 3E spells. So casters are going to have this same problem. Every time they cast a spell they are going to have to look it up, unless of course they memorize the list (like I did in 2E).
Well, of course. If you don't have to pause play for 10 minutes to flip through the PHB and read a long spell description and then quibble over the fine details of the wording, it doesn't feel like D&D! :smallsigh:

da_chicken
2014-06-15, 09:49 PM
5E doesn't alleviate this at all. It still has a huge list of combat actions anyone can take that have 2-3 steps to them that no one is going to remember. It also has spells that read like 3E spells. So casters are going to have this same problem. Every time they cast a spell they are going to have to look it up, unless of course they memorize the list (like I did in 2E).

You're confusing having multiple things to do slowing the game down with having to do nearly the identical thing repeatedly with slightly different math from an abundance of modifiers and nuance of combat mechanics. Your attack bonus is unlikely to change in the middle of combat except to gain advantage or disadvantage. Iterative attacks in 5e all have the same attack bonus as well. Even spell DCs are unlikely to change in the middle of combat.

I don't like having to roll d20+18/d20+13/d20+18 the first round for 2d6+14, and then roll d20+18/d20+13/d20+18/d20+18 for 2d6+10 the second round because I got hasted but couldn't power attack, and then d20+22 for 2d6+10 the third round because I moved into a flanking position. That math is incredibly easy to mess up. It's all this "+2-1-1+2-2" crap. I'm not looking forward to getting my third attack. AFAICT, there's much less of that in 5e.

Edit: As far as the spell issue, I'd point out that 4e is almost certainly far worse with respect to that issue than any other edition of the game ever. The only reason it's not a significant issue at the game table is because of computer aid: the Character Generator builds a character sheet complete with power cards for you. I'd submit that once you're looking at more than 2 book sources, you're essentially required to have the computer aid or to write your own power cards. I'd argue that without the Character Generator or equivalent that players would either: find the game unplayable, never use powers as written, spend time flipping through books every turn, or greatly increase their own prep time by writing their own power cards.


How could they do that? That would require that they understand why they did it. I mean "we had a whim and it seems to have been popular." is probably not going to reassure the players and DMs.

:smallsigh:

Lokiare
2014-06-16, 02:47 AM
You're confusing having multiple things to do slowing the game down with having to do nearly the identical thing repeatedly with slightly different math from an abundance of modifiers and nuance of combat mechanics. Your attack bonus is unlikely to change in the middle of combat except to gain advantage or disadvantage. Iterative attacks in 5e all have the same attack bonus as well. Even spell DCs are unlikely to change in the middle of combat.

I don't like having to roll d20+18/d20+13/d20+18 the first round for 2d6+14, and then roll d20+18/d20+13/d20+18/d20+18 for 2d6+10 the second round because I got hasted but couldn't power attack, and then d20+22 for 2d6+10 the third round because I moved into a flanking position. That math is incredibly easy to mess up. It's all this "+2-1-1+2-2" crap. I'm not looking forward to getting my third attack. AFAICT, there's much less of that in 5e.

5E has plenty of that from cover and concealment to various minor modifiers granted by spells and conditions. You have the exact same problem. Especially using your example spell "Haste". You gain a bonus action which overrides your classes bonus action which can have cover and concealment granting -2 +2. Then of course there is things like mirror image where you have to roll a d6 to see if an image was hit or not after rolling your attack roll. Which could have been avoided by simply saying "anyone attacking the target of this spell has disadvantage on their attacks. if one of the disadvantage rolls hits, an image is canceled out but the attack is still a miss. If disadvantage is canceled the attacker can perceive which image is real and attacks only the target of the spell and not an image."

Just a note, but in 4E there is only -2/+2 for concealment/cover and -5/+5 for total concealment and full cover (or whatever the specific terms are). Very rarely a power might grant a bonus or penalty to attacks or a bonus or penalty to AC or defenses, but it was usually once per encounter for a round or once per day for an encounter. So 4E is already ahead of 5E on that curve.


Edit: As far as the spell issue, I'd point out that 4e is almost certainly far worse with respect to that issue than any other edition of the game ever. The only reason it's not a significant issue at the game table is because of computer aid: the Character Generator builds a character sheet complete with power cards for you. I'd submit that once you're looking at more than 2 book sources, you're essentially required to have the computer aid or to write your own power cards. I'd argue that without the Character Generator or equivalent that players would either: find the game unplayable, never use powers as written, spend time flipping through books every turn, or greatly increase their own prep time by writing their own power cards.



:smallsigh:

Nope. Wrong again. 4E had clear and concise wording so it was easy to remember what a power did and you have everything laid out in an easy to read format which made taking a turn much faster than any spell caster in previous editions. You also had fewer choices in 4E than a level 5 caster through about paragon (1-20), then fever choices than a level 7 caster through the rest of the game (21-30). So there were fewer powers/spells to read through. Also many groups play without the support of any kind of character building software. My entire group plays without it. We us fantasy grounds with compendium scrapes, but we still have to look through each feat/power/spell/trait/feature one by one because FG doesn't have a decent search capability. We do fine. We even have a campaign (currently on hold) that is at level 16 and we didn't have a single complaint about that kind of complexity. Making assumptions about an edition without some kind of facts to go on, is not a good thing. It starts hurtful memes that aren't true. (before you say that I'm doing that to 5E, I'm not. I'm basing my entire 5E opinion on the facts at hand and that opinion will change as more facts are revealed.)

Also, you'll still have to have your power cards in 5E. Every complex class feature, racial trait, and spell is going to have to be put on the character sheet because they are every bit as complex as 4E's features, traits, and spells/powers. Otherwise you'll be flipping through books every round of combat.

obryn
2014-06-16, 08:41 AM
I wrote up power sheets. Way better than power cards.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-16, 10:05 AM
An interesting tidbit from a recent interview (http://www.enworld.org/) is that "Monster stat blocks will reference spells, but otherwise should be self contained." We've had a lengthy debate about this on the forums here; it turns out that WOTC finds it acceptable to just print a spell name in the MM and require the DM to look it up in another book.

The core books lean more towards flavor than towards mechanics, and the game itself leans more on the DM making judgment calls. The DMG is described as a "hacker's guide" and contains several optional mechanics, including crafting, flanking (!), friendly fire, and creating your own skills. However, downtime mechanics are in the PHB. There are also rules for traits and flaws, apparently in the PHB; there is also a gish in the form of the eldritch knight, which is a subclass of fighter.

Also interesting is the statement that "Starting next spring, surveys will go out to assess how rules elements of the game are faring. Changes will be reflected in future products." In other words, they're planning for a 5.5 (or, as the case may be, a 5.1 and 5.2).

And we have a "leaked page" of equipment lists (http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=62106&d=1402524129&stc=1). This should look very familiar to anyone who played earlier editions of D&D, but it's notable that it emphasizes the difference between slash/pierce/bludgeon attacks, and that there are no exotic or reach weapons listed. I'm happy to report that there are no double swords or spiked chains either. Also, bow ranges are up to ten times what they were in 4E, and are measured in feet rather than squares; WOTC reports that only about half of their players use battlemaps, so apparently 5E will support but not require those.

obryn
2014-06-16, 10:25 AM
An interesting tidbit from a recent interview (http://www.enworld.org/) is that "Monster stat blocks will reference spells, but otherwise should be self contained." We've had a lengthy debate about this on the forums here; it turns out that WOTC finds it acceptable to just print a spell name in the MM and require the DM to look it up in another book.
He said pretty much the opposite very recently. Unless the "monster" is an actual spellcasting NPC, they will have a completely self-contained stat block. So a Beholder's eyes won't say "Casts Cause Serious Wounds"; it will be along the lines of "4d8 necrotic damage; con save for half" or something. However, a Dark Acolyte will note that it casts Cause Serious, Bless, Holy Vestments, etc.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-16, 10:31 AM
An interesting tidbit from a recent interview (http://www.enworld.org/) is that "Monster stat blocks will reference spells, but otherwise should be self contained." We've had a lengthy debate about this on the forums here; it turns out that WOTC finds it acceptable to just print a spell name in the MM and require the DM to look it up in another book.

Your link is just to the top level, but as Obryn just said, this is contrary to what he said a week ago in the Escapist interview: (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/11554-Inside-the-Launch-of-the-New-Dungeons-Dragons-With-Designer-Mike-Mearls.3)



Mearls: ... We tried whenever possible that within the stat block we give you everything you need to run the monster. So when you're referring to it you don't have to do much flipping back and forth. There are some spells for monsters, but we tried to make those fairly straightforward spells like fireball that you wouldn't necessarily have to check the Player's Handbook or basic D&D to use.

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

Bolding: That feels like more of an 80s Basic D&D approach, with each creature having its own special abilities.

Mearls: Yeah. We also want to make sure that we're not using spells as something abstract. If something is casting fireball we want to be clear that it's actually casting the spell fireball.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-16, 10:43 AM
Your link is just to the top level, but as Obryn just said, this is contrary to what he said a week ago in the Escapist interview: (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/11554-Inside-the-Launch-of-the-New-Dungeons-Dragons-With-Designer-Mike-Mearls.3)

There's no contradiction; your quote literally affirms that WOTC finds it acceptable to just print a spell name in the MM and require the DM to look it up in another book. Obviously that doesn't apply to monsters that don't cast spells in the first place.

obryn
2014-06-16, 10:58 AM
There's no contradiction; your quote literally affirms that WOTC finds it acceptable to just print a spell name in the MM and require the DM to look it up in another book. Obviously that doesn't apply to monsters that don't cast spells in the first place.
The main point being, as I understood it, monsters won't cast spells, as a general rule. Unless it's "Well, this guy's an actual Human Wizard, so..."

Psyren
2014-06-16, 10:59 AM
My issue though is that if they're going to send you off to another book anyway for the spellcasting monsters - which is nearly every outsider and dragon past a certain level AFAIK, not to mention iconic monsters like liches and mindflayers - why not simply reference spells in the Su abilities where it could be appropriate too? Bringing up Vampires again - will their dominate gaze work like the spell or not?

This is what sparked my earlier argument in the interview thread - either they have to water down/simplify non-spell abilities so they can fit in the stat block (as they did with 4e vampire's dominate), or they'll just toss them entirely (as they did with the 4e dryad's charm/suggestion.)

Using the Beholder example, I'm fine with simple stuff like "Laser Eye - Line [12], 5d8 Fire Reflex 18 Half" or whatever. But if the center eye still fires an antimagic cone then we need the AMF rules. Or they do like 4e and abolish that entirely, reducing the center eye to a simplistic save vs. daze.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-16, 11:08 AM
This is what sparked my earlier argument in the interview thread - either they have to water down/simplify non-spell abilities so they can fit in the stat block (as they did with 4e vampire's dominate), or they'll just toss them entirely (as they did with the 4e dryad's charm/suggestion.)

That's a good question. Given that the designers have said that 5E relies more on DM judgment calls, I conjecture that they'll concisely write down a vague or open-ended ability and let the DM take it from there. Expect table variation.

Psyren
2014-06-16, 11:43 AM
And because I missed this earlier...


Ad means you roll twice and pick the best, disad means you roll twice and take the worst.

The controversial part here is that they don't stack. For example, shooting a bow while threatened (i.e. adjacent to an enemy) gives you disad, but so does shooting a bow at long range, or shooting a target that has cover. This means that shooting a faraway covered target while you're threatened (triple disad) isn't any harder than shooting normally while threatened (single disad). Also, one source of ad counters any number of disads, and vice versa.

Ugh. I was actually thinking "hey, this is both cool and simple" right up until I read the part about one advantage nullifying all disadvantages and vice-versa, as well as multiple disadvantages being no more hindering than just one. So if I'm firing a bow underwater fending off a shark in melee range at an opponent who is partially hidden behind a rock during a rainstorm, I have the same chance to hit as if I were firing at that same rock on land with a clear sky?

Millennium
2014-06-16, 11:49 AM
This is what sparked my earlier argument in the interview thread - either they have to water down/simplify non-spell abilities so they can fit in the stat block (as they did with 4e vampire's dominate), or they'll just toss them entirely (as they did with the 4e dryad's charm/suggestion.)
Except that it's not a binary either/or. They did indeed water some things down in 4e, but this was not some kind of inherent requirement imposed on them by the concept of using keywords: they just had a bad ontology. They need to fix the ontology, not ditch keywords.

Using the Beholder example, I'm fine with simple stuff like "Laser Eye - Line [12], 5d8 Fire Reflex 18 Half" or whatever. But if the center eye still fires an antimagic cone then we need the AMF rules. Or they do like 4e and abolish that entirely, reducing the center eye to a simplistic save vs. daze.
Or antimagic becomes a keyword, which the beholder's eye and AMF both cite. In the beholder's case it's "antimagic, cone 60 feet", while the AMF spell is "antimagic, spread 25 feet" (or whatever the actual measurements are). Neither ability gets watered down in any way, but the stat block is still self-contained.

Like I said before, it all comes down to ontology design. D&D has actually always had a keyword system of sorts, in the form of descriptors, but the first few editions had very little rhyme or reason to them, and so many designers just plain ignored them. Most players don't even know that keywords are there, and it's tough to blame them with how little and how badly they're used. With 4e, Wizards got more serious about keywords, and things improved somewhat, but they still didn't really have keywords right. 5e represents another chance to do it properly.

Dublock
2014-06-16, 11:54 AM
So if I'm firing a bow underwater fending off a shark in melee range at an opponent who is partially hidden behind a rock during a rainstorm, I have the same chance to hit as if I were firing at that same rock on land with a clear sky?

Yes.

Why I like it for simplicity for the basic rules, but why I want something a bit more...complex with some optional rules.

Jasdoif
2014-06-16, 11:57 AM
Ugh. I was actually thinking "hey, this is both cool and simple" right up until I read the part about one advantage nullifying all disadvantages and vice-versa, as well as multiple disadvantages being no more hindering than just one. So if I'm firing a bow underwater fending off a shark in melee range at an opponent who is partially hidden behind a rock during a rainstorm, I have the same chance to hit as if I were firing at that same rock on land with a clear sky?To be fair, here, this means there's no need to keep track of how many ways you've gotten advantage or disadvantage. Getting (dis)advantage seventy-three times has the exact same effect as getting it once, so there's no reason at all to track down the other seventy-two as long as you can remember one way. If the intent of (dis)advantage is to get rid of tracking a multitude of miscellaneous modifiers, this is certainly a way to accomplish that.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-16, 11:59 AM
Yes.

Why I like it for simplicity for the basic rules, but why I want something a bit more...complex with some optional rules.

I don't see how adding two clauses of "but it doesn't stack and one A counters any number of D" makes the rule simpler. It strikes me as more intuitive and elegant to simply write that each "advantage" adds one die. Aside from that, rolling three dice because you're just that awesome, or rolling four DA dice and making it anyway strikes me as very cool in gameplay.

pwykersotz
2014-06-16, 12:13 PM
I'd rather have it be that when you stack the advantages and disadvantages together, the one with the bigger pile is the one you take. So in Psyren's example, you'd have disadvantage. One advantage wouldn't cancel 8 disadvantages. On the other hand, if you had 3 disadvantages and 4 advantages, you'd have advantage on the shot.

I'm not sure if I like stacking rolls for multiple advantages/disadvantages or not. On the one hand, it's REALLY hard to miss because you have the high ground, they're flat-footed, you've taken your time, etc...but on the other, it seems a bit clunky. I suppose it depends on how likely it is that they end up stacking beyond 3 in either direction.

Surrealistik
2014-06-16, 12:15 PM
I'm stoked to see the Spirit Guardians + Spiritual Weapon + Sanctuary wombo combo alive and well in that Cleric leak (unless they substantially changed those spells); used that to effortlessly break a couple of overleveled and otherwise bull**** encounters during the Alpha playtest.

obryn
2014-06-16, 12:31 PM
Ugh. I was actually thinking "hey, this is both cool and simple" right up until I read the part about one advantage nullifying all disadvantages and vice-versa, as well as multiple disadvantages being no more hindering than just one. So if I'm firing a bow underwater fending off a shark in melee range at an opponent who is partially hidden behind a rock during a rainstorm, I have the same chance to hit as if I were firing at that same rock on land with a clear sky?
I think the designers would say something along the lines of, "Yeah, but how often will that really come up and make a difference?"

With that said, I'm 99% sure it will be a modular rule, so...


I don't see how adding two clauses of "but it doesn't stack and one A counters any number of D" makes the rule simpler. It strikes me as more intuitive and elegant to simply write that each "advantage" adds one die. Aside from that, rolling three dice because you're just that awesome, or rolling four DA dice and making it anyway strikes me as very cool in gameplay.
It's vastly simpler, in play, to do things the way 5e's doing it.

Your way, you're tracking two different axes of bonuses and penalties. You're worrying about the +/- modifiers to the die rolls, and then worrying about +/- numbers of dice. (Or ... adding Disadvantage dice, too?) This is not how you cut down on fiddliness in-game. Look at Psyren's example above and imagine running through those scenarios at the table, going through and counting the sources of Disadvantage and (maybe) Advantage. It's slow and it drags the game down.

Next's way, you have four possibilities: Baseline, Any Number of Advantages, Any Number of Disadvantages, and Any Number of Advantages AND Disadvantages. The moment you know that, you're done. That's simple and elegant. It's not (again, I hate this word in this context) "accurate" but it's workable, easy enough, and moves gameplay along.

I think they made the right call, in other words. If there were no such thing as floating +/- modifiers to die rolls, then yeah, stack Adv/Disad all day long. But tracking both in detail? No way.

obryn
2014-06-16, 12:39 PM
My issue though is that if they're going to send you off to another book anyway for the spellcasting monsters - which is nearly every outsider and dragon past a certain level AFAIK, not to mention iconic monsters like liches and mindflayers - why not simply reference spells in the Su abilities where it could be appropriate too? Bringing up Vampires again - will their dominate gaze work like the spell or not?
I expect there will be very few actually-spellcasting monsters.

Sure, I expect Liches will be more or less like Wizards, but if you have (say) a Vrock, I doubt he'll be casting Chaos Hammer. No idea on Dragons, but again - it'd surprise me if casting spells was involved by default. (As opposed to, X% of dragons of Y Age Category can cast spells, if you feel like it.)

If there are a lot of actually-spellcasting monsters, expect me to be running off to a different game. I super-duper dislike referencing spell lists in play, and I'm only grudgingly okay with Liches and Dark Acolytes being explicitly spellcasters. (Basically, it means running and building NPC enemies is a higher order of complexity than running monsters. I'm not loving that, but I can live with it if it's not very common.)

Surrealistik
2014-06-16, 12:48 PM
There are lots of spellcasting monsters, at least if my playtest is anything to go by.

Psyren
2014-06-16, 01:06 PM
Except that it's not a binary either/or. They did indeed water some things down in 4e, but this was not some kind of inherent requirement imposed on them by the concept of using keywords: they just had a bad ontology. They need to fix the ontology, not ditch keywords.

Or antimagic becomes a keyword, which the beholder's eye and AMF both cite. In the beholder's case it's "antimagic, cone 60 feet", while the AMF spell is "antimagic, spread 25 feet" (or whatever the actual measurements are). Neither ability gets watered down in any way, but the stat block is still self-contained.

Like I said before, it all comes down to ontology design. D&D has actually always had a keyword system of sorts, in the form of descriptors, but the first few editions had very little rhyme or reason to them, and so many designers just plain ignored them. Most players don't even know that keywords are there, and it's tough to blame them with how little and how badly they're used. With 4e, Wizards got more serious about keywords, and things improved somewhat, but they still didn't really have keywords right. 5e represents another chance to do it properly.

But if the keywords get too complex, then they become like spell descriptions are now, i.e. you have to pick up the book they're in to reference them. And we're right back to square one.


To be fair, here, this means there's no need to keep track of how many ways you've gotten advantage or disadvantage. Getting (dis)advantage seventy-three times has the exact same effect as getting it once, so there's no reason at all to track down the other seventy-two as long as you can remember one way. If the intent of (dis)advantage is to get rid of tracking a multitude of miscellaneous modifiers, this is certainly a way to accomplish that.

Which is verisimilitude sacrificed at the altar of ease again - i.e. what 4e tried. Not that this is truly a bad thing - 4e found its niche and its fans - but I don't think their goal with 5e was for 4e to be a direct competitor.


I'd rather have it be that when you stack the advantages and disadvantages together, the one with the bigger pile is the one you take. So in Psyren's example, you'd have disadvantage. One advantage wouldn't cancel 8 disadvantages. On the other hand, if you had 3 disadvantages and 4 advantages, you'd have advantage on the shot.

I'm not sure if I like stacking rolls for multiple advantages/disadvantages or not. On the one hand, it's REALLY hard to miss because you have the high ground, they're flat-footed, you've taken your time, etc...but on the other, it seems a bit clunky. I suppose it depends on how likely it is that they end up stacking beyond 3 in either direction.

The problem with your approach is that even if they don't stack, you still have to tally them up to find out which stack wins (ad or disad) and I think that's what they want to get away from. Because if you're going to the trouble of tallying them up you may as well have them stack at that point.


I think the designers would say something along the lines of, "Yeah, but how often will that really come up and make a difference?"

At least two of those are very common situations (firing while something is trying to get in your grill, and firing at someone in cover.)

Millennium
2014-06-16, 01:21 PM
But if the keywords get too complex, then they become like spell descriptions are now, i.e. you have to pick up the book they're in to reference them. And we're right back to square one.
That's why it's important to design your ontology well: to prevent that from happening.

When 1e and 2e were being designed, they probably didn't give much consideration to the idea of descriptors as an ontology, which is part of why they didn't work so well as one. 3e shows some initial steps toward organizing the mess, but they didn't really go far enough. 4e did considerably better, but as you point out, it is far from perfect.

Designing a good ontology is surprisingly difficult. Although the Paizo folks didn't want to alter 3e too much by messing with its ontology, they did try their hand at ontology-building with the wordcasting system, and it shoes some holes of its own: they didn't fare much better than Wizards. But the advantages that a good ontology can bring to the system make it worth continuing to try.

obryn
2014-06-16, 01:33 PM
At least two of those are very common situations (firing while something is trying to get in your grill, and firing at someone in cover.)
Sure, but they come up combined less of the time.

Still, rare or not, there's a huge ease-of-play gain in just stopping counting once you have at least one source of advantage, disadvantage, or both.

da_chicken
2014-06-16, 03:42 PM
And because I missed this earlier...

Ugh. I was actually thinking "hey, this is both cool and simple" right up until I read the part about one advantage nullifying all disadvantages and vice-versa, as well as multiple disadvantages being no more hindering than just one. So if I'm firing a bow underwater fending off a shark in melee range at an opponent who is partially hidden behind a rock during a rainstorm, I have the same chance to hit as if I were firing at that same rock on land with a clear sky?

I think the game relies on the DM to say to the player, "No, sorry, that's an impossible shot since the opponent moved and you can't see him well enough to tell his position apart from a medium size rock," or, "OK, sure, that's a Fire Monolith so it's not that unreasonable that you could aim and shoot at the 200 foot tall pillar of living fire."

DMs already make judgement calls about situations like this in every game. NPC interactions, NPC combat decisions, setting DCs, determining treasure, etc. are all things DMs do that, regardless of how concrete the guidelines are, end up being subjective decisions of the DM's creativity. Therefore, all we're quibbling about is whether the rules should be codified and less flexible, or if they should be more subjective and adaptable. 5e is deciding that they can't codify every situation, so they will only give general guidelines and rules that encourage a faster tempo of play. This sacrifices the realism of the simulation in corner cases, but gains ease of play.

TLDR: Yes, advantage/disadvantage is quick and dirty.

da_chicken
2014-06-16, 03:47 PM
At least two of those are very common situations (firing while something is trying to get in your grill, and firing at someone in cover.)

In the playtest, cover doesn't use advantage or disadvantage. Cover grants actual AC and Dex save bonuses (+2 for half and +5 for 3/4) for attacks that come from a direction the cover could conceivably block. It actually makes cover fairly nasty, as an entrenched enemy is very difficult to dislodge without magic or force of numbers. But, honestly, that's kind of realistic.

Kind of (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr2GeWiDrdY).

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-16, 04:02 PM
I'd rather have it be that when you stack the advantages and disadvantages together, the one with the bigger pile is the one you take. So in Psyren's example, you'd have disadvantage. One advantage wouldn't cancel 8 disadvantages. On the other hand, if you had 3 disadvantages and 4 advantages, you'd have advantage on the shot.

I'm not sure if I like stacking rolls for multiple advantages/disadvantages or not. On the one hand, it's REALLY hard to miss because you have the high ground, they're flat-footed, you've taken your time, etc...but on the other, it seems a bit clunky. I suppose it depends on how likely it is that they end up stacking beyond 3 in either direction.

Poker Chips, poker chips will make this a less clunky mechanic.

You could actually write on them and say what sort of advantage or disadvantage it gives someone... Like "concealment" or "impossible shot". Have each chip have a keyword that explains why that have that advantage/disadvantage.

I had one that I gave out to players that said "Rule of Cool/Advantage" for when people did really cool things (like jumping off the cabin and onto the deck of a flying ship to ragecharge a flying monster).

I wouldn't do multiple rolls, it seems counter productive to the idea of making 5e streamlined and simple.

Lokiare
2014-06-17, 07:47 AM
He said pretty much the opposite very recently. Unless the "monster" is an actual spellcasting NPC, they will have a completely self-contained stat block. So a Beholder's eyes won't say "Casts Cause Serious Wounds"; it will be along the lines of "4d8 necrotic damage; con save for half" or something. However, a Dark Acolyte will note that it casts Cause Serious, Bless, Holy Vestments, etc.

So basically they didn't learn anything from 4E where all you need is the stat block to play a monster, humanoid caster or not. One more tally against 5E.


My issue though is that if they're going to send you off to another book anyway for the spellcasting monsters - which is nearly every outsider and dragon past a certain level AFAIK, not to mention iconic monsters like liches and mindflayers - why not simply reference spells in the Su abilities where it could be appropriate too? Bringing up Vampires again - will their dominate gaze work like the spell or not?

This is what sparked my earlier argument in the interview thread - either they have to water down/simplify non-spell abilities so they can fit in the stat block (as they did with 4e vampire's dominate), or they'll just toss them entirely (as they did with the 4e dryad's charm/suggestion.)

Using the Beholder example, I'm fine with simple stuff like "Laser Eye - Line [12], 5d8 Fire Reflex 18 Half" or whatever. But if the center eye still fires an antimagic cone then we need the AMF rules. Or they do like 4e and abolish that entirely, reducing the center eye to a simplistic save vs. daze.

The main thing is a lot of the spells take up a lot of space. The reason they don't do that is because they don't have the concise short keyword filled 4E spells. If they did that a monster block would still be very small. Which is shorter and easier to read and understand to you?

4E:
Daily * Arcane, Fire, Implement
Standard Action; Area burst 3 within 20 squares
Target: Each creature in burst.
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: 3d6+ intelligence modifier damage.
Miss: Half damage.

or

5E:
Fireball Mag
3rd‐level evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range:100 feet
Duration: Instantaneous
Choose a point within range. A streak flashes from your pointing finger to that point and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20‐foot‐radius cloud centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 6d6 fire damage on a failed save, and half as much damage on a successful one.
The fire damages objects in the area and ignites flammable objects that are not being worn or carried.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each level above 3rd.
Material Components: A tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur.

I don't know about you but to me the 4E one is smaller and easier to understand. Not only that it fits in a monster stat block very easily.


And because I missed this earlier...



Ugh. I was actually thinking "hey, this is both cool and simple" right up until I read the part about one advantage nullifying all disadvantages and vice-versa, as well as multiple disadvantages being no more hindering than just one. So if I'm firing a bow underwater fending off a shark in melee range at an opponent who is partially hidden behind a rock during a rainstorm, I have the same chance to hit as if I were firing at that same rock on land with a clear sky?

Yep. Also if you have one advantage it nullifies your 50 disadvantages. In the early play test it didn't affect magic users. So magic users ran around intoxicated for some DR.


I think the designers would say something along the lines of, "Yeah, but how often will that really come up and make a difference?"

With that said, I'm 99% sure it will be a modular rule, so...


It's vastly simpler, in play, to do things the way 5e's doing it.

Your way, you're tracking two different axes of bonuses and penalties. You're worrying about the +/- modifiers to the die rolls, and then worrying about +/- numbers of dice. (Or ... adding Disadvantage dice, too?) This is not how you cut down on fiddliness in-game. Look at Psyren's example above and imagine running through those scenarios at the table, going through and counting the sources of Disadvantage and (maybe) Advantage. It's slow and it drags the game down.

Next's way, you have four possibilities: Baseline, Any Number of Advantages, Any Number of Disadvantages, and Any Number of Advantages AND Disadvantages. The moment you know that, you're done. That's simple and elegant. It's not (again, I hate this word in this context) "accurate" but it's workable, easy enough, and moves gameplay along.

I think they made the right call, in other words. If there were no such thing as floating +/- modifiers to die rolls, then yeah, stack Adv/Disad all day long. But tracking both in detail? No way.


I've heard this modular talk all through the play test, but then they pointed out things they thought were modular like the rules about healing surges...er...recoveries...er..hit dice and it was a tiny optional rule about when you can use them and how fast they come back. That's what they call modularity. I don't think a lot of people are going to happy when they get their hands on 5E. Also they still have the +/- modifiers so you have to deal with that on top of the ridiculousness that is disadvantage and advantage.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-17, 08:06 AM
The main thing is a lot of the spells take up a lot of space. The reason they don't do that is because they don't have the concise short keyword filled 4E spells. If they did that a monster block would still be very small. Which is shorter and easier to read and understand to you?

The first one is easier to understand for gamist players, the second is easier to understand for simulationist or narrativist players. Remember how the most prominent complaint against 4E was how unrealistic it is? WOTC appears to have learned from that, and improved accordingly.

Person_Man
2014-06-17, 08:16 AM
RE: Advantage/Disadvantage

Prediction: Within the next 9 months, they are going to publish a core book or supplement with a class ability, feat, or low level spell that grants Advantage for a very easily fulfilled condition. When that occurs, builds that use that ability/feat/spell will become the baseline for optimization, since you will essentially always have Advantage or negate all Disadvantages in most circumstances.

The idea of eliminating all (most?) fiddly modifiers with the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic is great. I hate fiddly modifiers. The problem is that they don't strictly define what grants Advantage/Disadvantage, that 1 Advantage cancels all Disadvantages, and that the modifier is so comparatively large (between +2 and +5, depending on the DC) that it has a huge impact on whether you succeed or fail.

It's very weird that the basic underlying math of the final version of the game hasn't been made 100% public and playtested to death. Because if they don't get it right, the entire system will fail once they start publishing supplements, and any artificial balance that comes out of playtesting and balancing the core classes/feats/spells (as opposed to the core math) will collapse.



The first one is easier to understand for gamist players, the second is easier to understand for simulationist or narrativist players. Remember how the most prominent complaint against 4E was how unrealistic it is? WOTC appears to have learned from that, and improved accordingly.

I agree with this statement, but don't see why we can't do both. You can have Key Words for most things, have special abilities for things that don't fit the mold, take the time to write 2 sentences of non-cruddy fluff text for each ability/spell/feat/etc, and don't write reams of duplicative abilities/feats/spells.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-17, 08:24 AM
The main thing is a lot of the spells take up a lot of space. The reason they don't do that is because they don't have the concise short keyword filled 4E spells. If they did that a monster block would still be very small. Which is shorter and easier to read and understand to you?

4E:
Daily * Arcane, Fire, Implement
Standard Action; Area burst 3 within 20 squares
Target: Each creature in burst.
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: 3d6+ intelligence modifier damage.
Miss: Half damage.

or

5E:
Fireball Mag
3rd‐level evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range:100 feet
Duration: Instantaneous
Choose a point within range. A streak flashes from your pointing finger to that point and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20‐foot‐radius cloud centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 6d6 fire damage on a failed save, and half as much damage on a successful one.
The fire damages objects in the area and ignites flammable objects that are not being worn or carried.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each level above 3rd.
Material Components: A tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur.


The 5e one is much more clear an evocative about what the spell actually does than the 4e one. But the big thing is, there's no reason we can't have a hybrid. There's literally no reason why you couldn't have the 5e description in the core spell list and then in monster stat blocks write out:

4th Level Fireball
Casting Time: 1 Action
Duration: Instant
Range: 100'
Effect: 20' radius, cloud of fire
Damage: 7d6
Save: Dex, half damage



It's very weird that the basic underlying math of the final version of the game hasn't been made 100% public and playtested to death. Because if they don't get it right, the entire system will fail once they start publishing supplements, and any artificial balance that comes out of playtesting and balancing the core classes/feats/spells (as opposed to the core math) will collapse.

Sounds like a very good reason for them to have no announced and released a 3pp supplement license yet.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-17, 08:32 AM
I agree with this statement, but don't see why we can't do both. You can have Key Words for most things, have special abilities for things that don't fit the mold, take the time to write 2 sentences of non-cruddy fluff text for each ability/spell/feat/etc, and don't write reams of duplicative abilities/feats/spells.
Yes, I agree with that.


Prediction: Within the next 9 months, they are going to publish a core book or supplement with a class ability, feat, or low level spell that grants Advantage for a very easily fulfilled condition. When that occurs, builds that use that ability/feat/spell will become the baseline for optimization, since you will essentially always have Advantage or negate all Disadvantages in most circumstances.
Further prediction: this will happen in the PHB1 (based on the fact that some of the playtest classes had precisely such an ability already).

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-17, 08:38 AM
The 5e one is much more clear an evocative about what the spell actually does than the 4e one. But the big thing is, there's no reason we can't have a hybrid. There's literally no reason why you couldn't have the 5e description in the core spell list and then in monster stat blocks write out:

4th Level Fireball
Casting Time: 1 Action
Duration: Instant
Range: 100'
Effect: 20' radius, cloud of fire
Damage: 7d6
Save: Dex, half damage


I don't see how the 5e one could be more clear than the 4e one, if you know the keywords (easy) then they say pretty much the same thing except the 4e one was more direct and to the point.

However I like the hybrid solution and would love to see the middle ground.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-17, 08:48 AM
I don't see how the 5e one could be more clear than the 4e one, if you know the keywords (easy) then they say pretty much the same thing except the 4e one was more direct and to the point.

However I like the hybrid solution and would love to see the middle ground.

The advantage of such a middle ground is that it allows WOTC to publish the same abilities with much less page count (or, conversely, more and more varied abilities on the same page count).

Why is that? Well, going just from the PHB1 (in either 2E, 3E, or 5E), wizards can cast Fireball; sorcerers can also cast Fireball; and clerics with the fire domain can also cast Fireball. It's found in the chapter on spells, and it's the same Fireball every time.
Conversely, in 4E, wizards cast Fireball; but warlocks cast Flameball which is basically the same but with slightly different numbers, and sorcerers cast Blazeball which is the same only from charisma, and then wizards have a separate Fireball that's an encounter power (fire burst), and yet another Fireball that's an at-will (scorching burst, gotta love that thesaurus), and even a fourth Fireball that's the same but higher level and deals a bit more damage. So where 2E/3E/5E have a slightly longer description for the spell, 4E wastes page count by printing the same power six or more times. And that's just an example; there are so many fighter powers that are a copy/paste of rogue powers, or warlord powers, or fighter powers of a different level; and so forth.

Conciseness is just better design than repetitiveness.

Millennium
2014-06-17, 10:31 AM
The first one is easier to understand for gamist players, the second is easier to understand for simulationist or narrativist players.
This is simply not true. Especially not for simulationists, who have been using ontologies for even longer than the gamists have. But even narrativists appreciate the ability to get past the standard stuff quickly and move on to what actually makes the attack unique, be that crunch or fluff.

The only catch is that the ontology has to be well-designed, which Wizards' previous attempts have not. Here's another attempt at a hybrid stat block:

Fireball
Type: Spell [Evocation] (Level 3)
Target: Point (range 100')
Effect: Instantaneous, Area (Cloud, radius 20'), Damage (fire 3d6 + 1d6/level), Save (Dex, half-damage)
Components: Verbal, Somatic (point at the target), Material (bat guano, sulfur)
A crimson streak flashes from your pointing finger to the target, and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame.

Burning Hands
Type: Spell [Evocation] (Level 1)
Target: Point (range 5')
Effect: Instantaneous, Area (Cone, length 15'), Damage (fire 1d4/level), Save (Dex, half-damage)
Components: Verbal, Somatic (face your hands toward the target)
The space in front of you bursts into a fan of fire.

Hellfire blast
Type: Spell-like [Evocation] (3/day)
Target: Point (range 100')
Effect: Instantaneous, Area (Cloud, radius 20'), Damage (fire 10d6), Save (Dex, half-damage)
Components: Somatic (look at the target)
The demon glares briefly, and the spot he looks at erupts into a sickly green inferno.

The three stat blocks are self-contained, but brief: I can fit two of them into the default textarea. There is a little repetition, based on what makes them different from a standard attack or generic spell, but it covers the basics. I don't intend the ontology here to be complete, but it should nevertheless be easy enough to pick up on.


Remember how the most prominent complaint against 4E was how unrealistic it is? WOTC appears to have learned from that, and improved accordingly.
Indeed they have, but this has nothing to do with the size or nature of the stat blocks. For that matter, if I'm reading the description of the cloud keyword right, we've still got square fireballs.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-17, 10:35 AM
The advantage of such a middle ground is that it allows WOTC to publish the same abilities with much less page count (or, conversely, more and more varied abilities on the same page count).

Why is that? Well, going just from the PHB1 (in either 2E, 3E, or 5E), wizards can cast Fireball; sorcerers can also cast Fireball; and clerics with the fire domain can also cast Fireball. It's found in the chapter on spells, and it's the same Fireball every time.
Conversely, in 4E, wizards cast Fireball; but warlocks cast Flameball which is basically the same but with slightly different numbers, and sorcerers cast Blazeball which is the same only from charisma, and then wizards have a separate Fireball that's an encounter power (fire burst), and yet another Fireball that's an at-will (scorching burst, gotta love that thesaurus), and even a fourth Fireball that's the same but higher level and deals a bit more damage. So where 2E/3E/5E have a slightly longer description for the spell, 4E wastes page count by printing the same power six or more times. And that's just an example; there are so many fighter powers that are a copy/paste of rogue powers, or warlord powers, or fighter powers of a different level; and so forth.

Conciseness is just better design than repetitiveness.

Oh, I've always been in favor of getting rid of repetition within each Power Source/Role Abilities in 4e. I don't play over 10 level anymore because of this also.

I've been tinkering around with taking powers from each source and allowing any class to pick them up. Refluff them and do a few other things...

This way you will have Fireball on any striker/secondary striker list without having fireball, flameball, fire strike, and divine flame drop kick as the same spell but different name...

However with keywords, you can make the addition and subtraction of keywords part of each class.

Martial Striker wants fireball? Well their keywords are [Martial], [Fire], and [Weapon]. That weapon isn't their sword but a bomb that deals fire damage (molatov cocktail) a la Last of Us or whatever. If they MC into a caster class they could replace [weapon] with arcane or divine.

As a martial striker you could add your Ranger Quarry or Sneak Attack to this damage.

I feel I'm doing this explanation a disservice haha.

So I'm all in favor of chopping down the fat, but keep the good things 4e did along with the wording of 3e and I think everyone could be happy. The hybrid above hit it pretty well.

obryn
2014-06-17, 10:50 AM
The advantage of such a middle ground is that it allows WOTC to publish the same abilities with much less page count (or, conversely, more and more varied abilities on the same page count).

Why is that? Well, going just from the PHB1 (in either 2E, 3E, or 5E), wizards can cast Fireball; sorcerers can also cast Fireball; and clerics with the fire domain can also cast Fireball. It's found in the chapter on spells, and it's the same Fireball every time.
Conversely, in 4E, wizards cast Fireball; but warlocks cast Flameball which is basically the same but with slightly different numbers, and sorcerers cast Blazeball which is the same only from charisma, and then wizards have a separate Fireball that's an encounter power (fire burst), and yet another Fireball that's an at-will (scorching burst, gotta love that thesaurus), and even a fourth Fireball that's the same but higher level and deals a bit more damage. So where 2E/3E/5E have a slightly longer description for the spell, 4E wastes page count by printing the same power six or more times. And that's just an example; there are so many fighter powers that are a copy/paste of rogue powers, or warlord powers, or fighter powers of a different level; and so forth.

Conciseness is just better design than repetitiveness.
It's not the same power, though. They're different in substantive and game-important ways that are rooted in the system's mechanics and goals to minimize cross-referencing. As a very quick example:

Fireball's a Daily Wizard 5 (and pretty bad); it's an area burst 3 within 20 squares (so covers a 7x7 area), attacks Int vs. Reflex and deals 4d6+Int fire damage (and half on a miss).

Scorching Burst is an At-Will Wizard 1; it's much smaller, an area burst 1 (so 3x3) in 10, attacks Int vs. Reflex, and deals 1d6+Int fire damage (and it's pretty bad, again).

Apart from the basic of "some area of fire and attack vs. reflex" these cannot be more concise within the system. Saying, for Scorching Burst, "See the Fireball, but it's at-will and only an Area Burst 1 in 10" is ridiculously convoluted when simply printing the spell as-is makes for less cross-referencing and more ease when making a character from the books.

Person_Man
2014-06-17, 11:23 AM
I've been tinkering around with taking powers from each source and allowing any class to pick them up. Refluff them and do a few other things...

Yeah, my ideal class system is something close to the Tome of Battle:


All Powers are organized into Pathways/Schools/Disciplines or whatever you want to call them.
Powers are divided into levels (just like 3.5 spells), 1st though 9th level.
Each class has access to at least one unique Pathway, plus a number of shared Pathways that multiple classes get access to. (Just as in Tome of Battle only Crusaders get access to Devoted Spirit, but multiple classes get access to Stone Power).
Each Class has a package of starting Feat and Pathway options, so that there is some choice built in, but you're choosing off of a small/balanced list.
Each class has a unique way of accessing Powers. Wizards memorize, Fighters can just smack at will, Paladin's use Crusader divine inspiration, Barbarians have a Rage mechanic, and so on. More restrictive methods have a greater number of Pathway options and have a larger pool of Powers they can choose from each Encounter. So the Fighter may only be able to Ready 3 Powers at first level, but he can use them at will, and change them out with a Short Rest. Wizard can Memorize 6 Powers at first level, but he's stuck with his choices and can only use each Power once before he needs to take a Short Rest to Memorize new ones. Or whatever variety of setups seem to create balance AND diversity of play styles.
Magical/psionic stuff that doesn't fit into balanced Powers are put into Rituals, which can be accessed with Feats, and require some kind of material components (such as finding the right spell/scroll/book, gp, xp, whatever, with rules which allow the DM can make Rituals easier or harder to use, and/or limit it to certain classes or situations). Magic using classes get Ritual Feats as part of their default starting Feat package options.
Other more "universal" Powers and other stuff that doesn't seem to fit can also be put into Feats, with whatever level requirements or other pre-reqs are required for balance/diversity. That way if you want every class to be able to access something, they can.
All Powers scale and minimize duplication (Cure Wounds heals XdY hit points per level, you don't need 6 different Cure spells with the same action type, range, etc). If you want to give X class Y Power, just give them access to that Pathway.
Follow something like Tome of Battle rules for multi-classing. You gain access to a greater variety of Pathways, but their progression is delayed somewhat. So a Fighter 3 has access to higher level Powers then a Fighter 1/Wizard 2, but a Fighter/Wizard has access to both sets of Pathways.


Anyone should feel free to steal any component of that idea entirely if you want to for homebrew work. This whole "being married, raising a child, and having a career" thing has seriously cut into my D&D time.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-17, 11:36 AM
It's not the same power, though. They're different in substantive and game-important ways that are rooted in the system's mechanics and goals to minimize cross-referencing. As a very quick example:

Fireball's a Daily Wizard 5 (and pretty bad); it's an area burst 3 within 20 squares (so covers a 7x7 area), attacks Int vs. Reflex and deals 4d6+Int fire damage (and half on a miss).

Scorching Burst is an At-Will Wizard 1; it's much smaller, an area burst 1 (so 3x3) in 10, attacks Int vs. Reflex, and deals 1d6+Int fire damage (and it's pretty bad, again).

Apart from the basic of "some area of fire and attack vs. reflex" these cannot be more concise within the system. Saying, for Scorching Burst, "See the Fireball, but it's at-will and only an Area Burst 1 in 10" is ridiculously convoluted when simply printing the spell as-is makes for less cross-referencing and more ease when making a character from the books.

It is less of the spells within each class and more of comparing spells between each class.

Why do Sorcerers, Wizards, Warlocks, and Clerics need different spells that do the same thing. As a player I may want to call it something different (Loki's Flame) but for the mechanics of the game and ease of use, having one spell that can be renamed or refluffed makes more sense.

SouthpawSoldier
2014-06-17, 12:06 PM
Salient points and interesting ideas.

This^ reminds me much of aspects of Legend (ruleofcool dot com). Each class has an underlying theme and different approach to abilities, with multiple trees that each offer certain feats, spells, etc at each level.

obryn
2014-06-17, 12:10 PM
It is less of the spells within each class and more of comparing spells between each class.

Why do Sorcerers, Wizards, Warlocks, and Clerics need different spells that do the same thing. As a player I may want to call it something different (Loki's Flame) but for the mechanics of the game and ease of use, having one spell that can be renamed or refluffed makes more sense.
Well, for starters, there's no such Sorcerer power as Blazeball and no such Warlock power as Flameball because Kurald is either misremembering or made them up, so there's that. :smallbiggrin: And very, very few powers between classes actually do the same thing except at the trivial level.

After that? Even when there's some similarity, there's more than a few reasons.

(1) As I've said, it cuts down on cross referencing, which is an actual stated goal of 4e design, so even if the powers really were identical (which as I've pointed out they're not), reprinting them would be the correct call. See Healing Word, for example, which is intentionally reprinted for every class it appears in.

(2) Apart from the italicized flavor text, which is mutable, every word in a power's block means something, from keywords to attack bonuses to defenses to damage and so on; if you change one of those things, you change the power. Even the class and name of the power are important for rules decisions, for abilities like "All of your Warlock attacks gain +Dex to damage."

(3) Because the alternative is even worse. See the example about Scorching Burst. Having multiple annotations about changing the attack stat, damage dice, range, area, keywords, and so on just clutters up a stat block. The absolute closest spells I can think of are (coincidentally!) the Wizard's Daily 5 Fireball and their Encounter 7 Fire Burst. What economy is actually gained by putting in the Encounter 7 list "Fire Burst - Just like Fireball, but Encounter, it's an Area Burst 2 in 20, and only deals 3d6+Int damage." Not only aren't you saving much space, you're making it unnecessarily complicated on the player side and muddling up the spell's levels, damage, etc. And if you use something like Elemental Admixture to add Cold to your Fireball, does it mean anything for Fire Burst?

Compared to a miniscule (and hypothetical!) loss of page count, and given how 4e's power structure is organized and implemented, none of these are worth the trouble.

As a quick Edit: This does not preclude other ways to construct a game somewhat similar to 4e wherein shared powers would make logical sense. But 4e isn't that game.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-17, 12:11 PM
Yeah, my ideal class system is something close to the Tome of Battle:


All Powers are organized into Pathways/Schools/Disciplines or whatever you want to call them.
Powers are divided into levels (just like 3.5 spells), 1st though 9th level.
Each class has access to at least one unique Pathway, plus a number of shared Pathways that multiple classes get access to. (Just as in Tome of Battle only Crusaders get access to Devoted Spirit, but multiple classes get access to Stone Power).
Each Class has a package of starting Feat and Pathway options, so that there is some choice built in, but you're choosing off of a small/balanced list.
Each class has a unique way of accessing Powers. Wizards memorize, Fighters can just smack at will, Paladin's use Crusader divine inspiration, Barbarians have a Rage mechanic, and so on. More restrictive methods have a greater number of Pathway options and have a larger pool of Powers they can choose from each Encounter. So the Fighter may only be able to Ready 3 Powers at first level, but he can use them at will, and change them out with a Short Rest. Wizard can Memorize 6 Powers at first level, but he's stuck with his choices and can only use each Power once before he needs to take a Short Rest to Memorize new ones. Or whatever variety of setups seem to create balance AND diversity of play styles.
Magical/psionic stuff that doesn't fit into balanced Powers are put into Rituals, which can be accessed with Feats, and require some kind of material components (such as finding the right spell/scroll/book, gp, xp, whatever, with rules which allow the DM can make Rituals easier or harder to use, and/or limit it to certain classes or situations). Magic using classes get Ritual Feats as part of their default starting Feat package options.
Other more "universal" Powers and other stuff that doesn't seem to fit can also be put into Feats, with whatever level requirements or other pre-reqs are required for balance/diversity. That way if you want every class to be able to access something, they can.
All Powers scale and minimize duplication (Cure Wounds heals XdY hit points per level, you don't need 6 different Cure spells with the same action type, range, etc). If you want to give X class Y Power, just give them access to that Pathway.
Follow something like Tome of Battle rules for multi-classing. You gain access to a greater variety of Pathways, but their progression is delayed somewhat. So a Fighter 3 has access to higher level Powers then a Fighter 1/Wizard 2, but a Fighter/Wizard has access to both sets of Pathways.


Anyone should feel free to steal any component of that idea entirely if you want to for homebrew work. This whole "being married, raising a child, and having a career" thing has seriously cut into my D&D time.

This is pretty much what my friends I and I was working on before life separated us to different states.

I would like to actually do this full scale at some point.

RedWarlock
2014-06-17, 02:41 PM
The advantage of such a middle ground is that it allows WOTC to publish the same abilities with much less page count (or, conversely, more and more varied abilities on the same page count).

Why is that? Well, going just from the PHB1 (in either 2E, 3E, or 5E), wizards can cast Fireball; sorcerers can also cast Fireball; and clerics with the fire domain can also cast Fireball. It's found in the chapter on spells, and it's the same Fireball every time.
Conversely, in 4E, wizards cast Fireball; but warlocks cast Flameball which is basically the same but with slightly different numbers, and sorcerers cast Blazeball which is the same only from charisma, and then wizards have a separate Fireball that's an encounter power (fire burst), and yet another Fireball that's an at-will (scorching burst, gotta love that thesaurus), and even a fourth Fireball that's the same but higher level and deals a bit more damage. So where 2E/3E/5E have a slightly longer description for the spell, 4E wastes page count by printing the same power six or more times. And that's just an example; there are so many fighter powers that are a copy/paste of rogue powers, or warlord powers, or fighter powers of a different level; and so forth.

Conciseness is just better design than repetitiveness.

The fact that they had exclusive power lists is an ENTIRELY separate issue from whether they use keyword-heavy power text or not. We could have easily had a 4e where martials all shared one list, maybe with subset-restricting keywords (like [sneaky] for rogues, [agile] for rangers, and [heavy] for fighters) that excluded parts of the shared lists, with pretty much the exact same effect in the end.

I really think the whole keyword vs spell-name-reference is entirely a war of scale, it's all about how much mechanics is put into a keyword. Fireball is a whole mechanic outright, with a specific level-reference, set range, damage, etc, where as long-burst-[fire] Xd6 is a collection of keywords that make up the same info.

Millennium
2014-06-17, 03:00 PM
I really think the whole keyword vs spell-name-reference is entirely a war of scale, it's all about how much mechanics is put into a keyword. Fireball is a whole mechanic outright, with a specific level-reference, set range, damage, etc, where as long-burst-[fire] Xd6 is a collection of keywords that make up the same info.
And when you're trying to make a flexible system that doesn't immediately break under extension (first-party, third-party, or homebrew), keywords win. They make a little more work for the designer, because you have to make sure your ontology is clean, but the win for the players is clear.

Envyus
2014-06-17, 04:53 PM
So basically they didn't learn anything from 4E where all you need is the stat block to play a monster, humanoid caster or not. One more tally against 5E.


No they have. All will be like that unless they are an Caster. As lots of people like how Casters work and making them into normal monsters weakens them. If you want a quick reference to what they do write it down. Because for the most part they are doing what you want.

But you won't like it no matter what it does.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-17, 05:49 PM
I really think the whole keyword vs spell-name-reference is entirely a war of scale, it's all about how much mechanics is put into a keyword.
Of course.

Stubbazubba
2014-06-17, 07:52 PM
This whole "being married, raising a child, and having a career" thing has seriously cut into my D&D time.

Agreed. Every hour I spend on games at all--which mostly devolves to tinkering on homebrew because I could never commit to a recurring game--is an hour I have to make up somewhere else. Usually it comes out of sleep. *Sigh*

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-17, 09:09 PM
Agreed. Every hour I spend on games at all--which mostly devolves to tinkering on homebrew because I could never commit to a recurring game--is an hour I have to make up somewhere else. Usually it comes out of sleep. *Sigh*

Aaaaannnd this is one of the reasons why my wife and I decided never to have kids. While others have to wake up or work around a kid's achedule to game... We can do pretty much anything we want. Being a grown adult with no kids is fricken amazing :). No drunken little monkeys getting into anything to ruin my day (my nephews were essentially little drunken monkeys).

Felhammer
2014-06-18, 12:29 AM
Aaaaannnd this is one of the reasons why my wife and I decided never to have kids. While others have to wake up or work around a kid's achedule to game... We can do pretty much anything we want. Being a grown adult with no kids is fricken amazing :). No drunken little monkeys getting into anything to ruin my day (my nephews were essentially little drunken monkeys).

But you will never have the joy of sharing D&D with your own children and ushering them into the deep pool of nerddom.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-18, 05:02 AM
But you will never have the joy of sharing D&D with your own children and ushering them into the deep pool of nerddom.

Good, I can share it with others and not have to put up with all the other stuff that comes along with kids. I don't need my own to pass along nerdom.

Plus I can be a "buys the toy that makes the noise" uncle or friend of the family ... One of the original trolls :smallbiggrin:

Psyren
2014-06-18, 08:31 AM
This^ reminds me much of aspects of Legend (ruleofcool dot com). Each class has an underlying theme and different approach to abilities, with multiple trees that each offer certain feats, spells, etc at each level.

I was okay (not thrilled, but okay) with Legend classes. Where it really fell apart for me was monsters, because they were basically forced to go the 4e route of watering down iconic abilities to hammer a square peg monster concept into a round hole ability track.

This post from Lanaya about the Legend vampire (addition in green by me for clarity) summed up my problems with their monster design:


No it doesn't [let you play a vampire]. Legend lets you play a character with the following abilities:

- Bite attack that drains health
- Fly without provoking attacks of opportunity, at later levels you scare people by moving through them
- Immunity to fear, bleeding and being intimidated in combat
- Confuse nearby enemies and stop them from attacking you
- General penalties on pretty much everything to nearby enemies
- Fast healing
- Instant resurrection once per scene

That's a character with some vampire-ish abilities and a few random abilities with nothing to do with vampirism, who lacks many defining features of vampires. Vulnerability to sunlight and turning other people into vampires by draining their blood are the two most important and iconic vampiric traits. A character with the vampire track will have a shadow and a reflection. Garlic and holy symbols have no power over them. The track is named 'vampire', but mechanically it isn't one.

Job
2014-06-18, 11:11 AM
Which is shorter and easier to read and understand to you?

4E:
Daily * Arcane, Fire, Implement
Standard Action; Area burst 3 within 20 squares
Target: Each creature in burst.
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: 3d6+ intelligence modifier damage.
Miss: Half damage.

or

5E:
Fireball Mag
3rd‐level evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range:100 feet
Duration: Instantaneous
Choose a point within range. A streak flashes from your pointing finger to that point and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20‐foot‐radius cloud centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 6d6 fire damage on a failed save, and half as much damage on a successful one.
The fire damages objects in the area and ignites flammable objects that are not being worn or carried.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each level above 3rd.
Material Components: A tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur.

The 4e one is shorter, but not easier to read or understand.

The 4e spell barely communicates any pertinent information at all. All I receive is a jumble of interchangeable key words and a damage statistic, not what the spell does or represents in the game world. With the 5e spell I know this is a burst of fire that produces a low sound emanating from the location my character pointed too. In addition to how another creature in the game world sees it, and that the fireball actually acts like fire in some ways igniting and burning objects. Even the specific type of magic involved.

In 4e it might as well be pixies that I pull out of the fey-wild that inexplicably explode into shrapnel that bizarrely deal fire damage and miraculously becomes ethereal to non-intelligent object (unless that object is a construct).

And as for Advantage. I'll roll two dice over the stack of modifiers any day. Even going back to 3.5 was a relief. Any player can become very proficient at taking them all into account, but less experience players (or those not always paying close attention) will have a more difficult time.

My 4e fighter for example had different modifiers for his to hit and damage depending on if the attack was, basic, a power, had CA, was against my mark, was an opportunity attack, was subject to a buff I cast, was subject to any number of buffs/debuffs other characters had provided (sometimes on a round-by-round, or attack-by-attack basis), the result of and action point, or made under a condition effecting me.

Millennium
2014-06-18, 11:19 AM
The 4e one is shorter, but not easier to read or understand.

The 4e spell barely communicates any pertinent information at all. All I receive is a jumble of interchangeable key words and a damage statistic, not what the spell does or represents in the game world. With the 5e spell I know this is a burst of fire that produces a low sound emanating from the location my character pointed too. In addition to how another creature in the game world sees it, and that the fireball actually acts like fire in some ways igniting and burning objects. Even the specific type of magic involved.
All of which, except possibly the school of magic, is self-evident from the spell's name.


In 4e it might as well be pixies that I pull out of the fey-wild that inexplicably explode into shrapnel that bizarrely deal fire damage and miraculously becomes ethereal to non-intelligent object (unless that object is a construct).

And leaving yourself open to the question of why that power is even called fireball.

Job
2014-06-18, 11:32 AM
All of which, except possibly the school of magic, is self-evident from the spell's name

"Self-evident" to you and me? maybe. To new players? less so. Does the 4e fireball make sound? Why does the 4e fireball not damage objects if it is fire?


And leaving yourself open to the question of why that power is even called fireball.

Yes, my point exactly, you can put virtually any name on the 4e fireball and justify it (Exploding Pixie) while the 5e spell would make no sense with the identical change. The 4e spell has no character, no substance.

Person_Man
2014-06-18, 11:36 AM
This^ reminds me much of aspects of Legend (ruleofcool dot com). Each class has an underlying theme and different approach to abilities, with multiple trees that each offer certain feats, spells, etc at each level.

I'm a big fan of Legend for a lot of reasons. I have minor quibbles here and there, but it has two big drawbacks for me:

1) With the marriage/kid/career "problem" I don't get to game nearly as regularly as I used to. So if we're playing anything, it's D&D, Wings of War, Heroclix, a board game, or something else we all know, and not some entirely new RPG system. This is a big problem with small press or homebrew systems in general. (For example, I have a ton of love and respect for Fax's d20R efforts, but have yet to have an opportunity to use any of it in a game).

2) What Psyren said. I like standardization and Key Words and think that they should be used for the bulk of abilities, but I think they went a bit overboard for my personal taste. Standardized Fireball is good. Standardized fantastic signature abilities and narrative abilities (things that change the direction of the story, rather then having a discrete effect on another creature) need to be different somehow. I think it can be solved by simply creating a separate (and potentially optional) Iconic/Mythic Power slot(s). It might make balance harder, but it would allow a DM and players far greater flexibility for game design.



This is pretty much what my friends I and I was working on before life separated us to different states.

I would like to actually do this full scale at some point.

I'd be interested in being part of this effort, so let me know if you do. Once 5E is released, if it has any large glaring problems with the math or doesn't support certain play styles, the community should start working on a heavily play tested OGL kludged 5E fix, which could borrow heavily from many classic D&D rule elements, but couldn't use anything trademarked under 5E. (We could use the basic mechanics for ability scores, classes, saves, magic items, feats, and anything else in the OGL, but couldn't use the newest 5E versions of any of them).

Talking to the Legend people would probably be a good idea, since they've already got a nifty system that accomplishes a ton of great things, and they might be interested in a Legend 2.0 at that point. After all, they took most of the best elements of 3.5 and some of the best elements of 4E, no reason they shouldn't adopt whatever the best elements of 5E are, after we figure out what they are.

Jacob.Tyr
2014-06-18, 12:55 PM
OH MY GOD THIS ISN'T EVEN TRUE, THOUGH.

Is this some kind of guerilla marketing? Because it's working. I LOVE NEXT NOW. Holy cow, it is the best game ever. I can no longer handle the cognitive dissonance of telling you and Lokiare you're making terrible arguments while frankly disliking the game myself, and I am now 5e's biggest fan. I have now pre-ordered the PHB and it's all thanks to you. I simply can't be on the same side of this argument as you anymore.

Sincerely,

The New Huge Next Fan

EDIT:http://i.imgur.com/Y5hSA8q.jpg
I'm just now catching up with this subforum but I had to stop here. I love you, Obryn. This made my day.

StabbityRabbit
2014-06-18, 01:05 PM
Plus I can be a "buys the toy that makes the noise" uncle or friend of the family ... One of the original trolls :smallbiggrin:

As an older brother to a toddler, I've been waiting for an opportunity to ask this question for a long time.

Is your kind related to Satan, or do you just carry out his wishes?:smallwink:

1337 b4k4
2014-06-18, 03:03 PM
So Mearls just posted a preview of the Fighter pre-gen from the starter set:

http://ow.ly/i/5X4Jr

Something we haven't seen yet: Saving Throw Proficiencies

Millennium
2014-06-18, 03:15 PM
So Mearls just posted a preview of the Fighter pre-gen from the starter set:

http://ow.ly/i/5X4Jr

Something we haven't seen yet: Saving Throw Proficiencies
The wording's a little strange. That might mean "all saving throws" and "skills you're proficient in" as opposed to "saving throws you're proficient in" and "skills you're proficient in." Tarzan need antecedent.

Either that, or being proficient in a saving throw might just mean, in 3e-style terms, that it's one of your good saves.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-18, 03:19 PM
The wording's a little strange. That might mean "all saving throws" and "skills you're proficient in" as opposed to "saving throws you're proficient in" and "skills you're proficient in." Tarzan need antecedent.

Either that, or being proficient in a saving throw might just mean, in 3e-style terms, that it's one of your good saves.

It says things you are proficient in are marked with a filled in circle. Two of the saving throws (STR / CON) have the filled in circle. They're almost definitely talking about specific saving throws that you get proficiencies in.

Edit:
---------

It also explains why the STR and CON saving throws are +2 (the proficiency bonus) higher than the relevant attribute modifiers.

Millennium
2014-06-18, 03:27 PM
It says things you are proficient in are marked with a filled in circle. Two of the saving throws (STR / CON) have the filled in circle. They're almost definitely talking about specific saving throws that you get proficiencies in.

Edit:
---------

It also explains why the STR and CON saving throws are +2 (the proficiency bonus) higher than the relevant attribute modifiers.

Yeah, that would make sense. Still doesn't explain how one gets proficiencies in saves, though.

Another thing I hadn't seen before: a slot for EP in the space between SP and GP in the money section. Have they brought back electrum pieces?

Psyren
2014-06-18, 03:34 PM
LN, huh? So it seems we're returning to the 9-point alignment scale.

Wait, what? Fighter 2 gets you an extra standard action 1/encounter? Guess that dip is going to be more popular than ever.


Yeah, that would make sense. Still doesn't explain how one gets proficiencies in saves, though.

Probably just by being a fighter. Wouldn't those two translate to a fort save in 4e terms?

Kurald Galain
2014-06-18, 03:46 PM
Yeah, that would make sense. Still doesn't explain how one gets proficiencies in saves, though.
By class; it's the equivalent of how fighters in 3E have a "stong" fort save whereas wizards have a "strong" will save. I suspect there'll be feats that give proficiency as well.



In 4e it might as well be pixies that I pull out of the fey-wild that inexplicably explode into shrapnel that bizarrely deal fire damage and miraculously becomes ethereal to non-intelligent object (unless that object is a construct).
You are quite correct, and what you write is similar to the default fluff of several actual 4E powers. This is either a big strong point of 4E or one of its biggest weaknesses, depending on whom you ask.

da_chicken
2014-06-18, 03:59 PM
Save proficiency isn't new. It's exactly how it worked in the final playtest.

The only difference is that the character has a +2 proficiency bonus at level 1 insead of +1, but that was revealed earlier, too. Note that the proficiency bonus increases at level 5. That suggests they just slid the scale up two levels (1-4 +2; 5-8 +3; 9-12 +4; 13-16 +5; 17-20 +6) as some have speculated.

The chainmail isn't slowing him down.

Ability scores don't match 5e's point buy with Humans having +1 to all abilities, but it doesn't look like +1 to any two, either. Unless my math is wrong.

Noble is different, but that seems good. Retainers was probably OP.

Second Wind's short description seems to have lost the word "temporary" that was present in the playtest. I can't think that that is correct if it recovers on a short rest. However, we do see the use of the term "bonus action".

I don't see mount proficiency listed under tools, just gaming set.

Not sure if we've seen the specific call for passive Perception. That's a commonly used rule, IMX, though.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-18, 04:04 PM
So Mearls just posted a preview of the Fighter pre-gen from the starter set:

Iiinteresting...

Aside from some renamed skills, there is the much-needed return of Animal Handling and Perform skills, and the rarely-used Streetwise has been dropped. Dungeoneering and Endurance appear to be split into Survival, and for some reason Perception has been split into Perception and Investigate.

Or, from a PF point of view, Swim+Climb = Athletics, Perception is now split, Bluff+Disguise = Deception, Escape Artist and presumably Fly are folded into Acrobatics, Disable Device is probably folded into Sleight of Hand, the rarely used Appraise, Linguistics, Ride are gone, and there are no longer craft, profession, or UMD checks.

The only skill hampered by armor is stealth, so you can now run, jump, and climb just fine in full plate armor. Also interesting is that there are no con skills and only one str skill; almost everything is int/wis/cha.

Very nice that the sheet focuses on character traits right at the top; I've been using custom sheets that do that for years. Not so nice is the silly split between gold/silver/copper as well as electrum and platinum pieces, I've always found that pointless bookkeeping (and most adventurers are rich enough to not bother keeping track of coppers anyway). I still don't see the point of "hit dice" except that they apparently felt the need to shoehorn that term in somewhere.

Otherwise, AC, init, speed, alignment and so forth are as expected. Nothing new here, but then there's no reason for this to be changed either. I also note that the fighter gets zero interesting abilities for his first five levels, but then this is the easiest build for the starter package.

Person_Man
2014-06-18, 04:26 PM
So Mearls just posted a preview of the Fighter pre-gen from the starter set:

http://ow.ly/i/5X4Jr

Something we haven't seen yet: Saving Throw Proficiencies

Observations, some of which just confirms what we know from previous play tests:



Saving Throw proficiency makes sense given the overall setup. Though I'm guessing that some Saving Throws will be exceedingly common (Dex and Wis) and others will be exceedingly rare (Int and Cha), which potentially gives a buff to classes that get common Saving Throw proficiencies and nerfs to classes that don't, which probably isn't something they've play tested.


"Lawful Neutral" alignment basically confirms a return to the pre-4E 9 axis system. (Though they could still always slip in "non-aligned" or something similar if they wanted to).


Do I have to spend resources on Proficiency with "playing cards" that I could spend on something else that would be a lot more useful. (Or just choose a better Background or whatever without a BS proficiency).


Skill list will be debated to death, and looks a bit odd to me. How do I handle picking pockets, picking locks, disarming traps, etc? Why is Nature and Animal Handling two different things? Why does Perform exist as a Skill, since it's basically just a class ability for the Bard? Why is there a separation between Knowledge Skills (which are used rarely) and combat and exploration Skills (which are used often), thus giving a large disadvantage to characters who invest in one and not the other.


The ability score distribution looks terrible for a Fighter (Dex penalty, Cha bonus?) and has a lot of odd ability scores (which never occurs in a point buy situation unless you're an idiot). Is Mearls implying or encouraging random ability scores (3d6 et al), which has always been a terrible idea that destroys game balance.


12 hit points at first level means that you can absorb just 1 or 2 hits from an enemy before you die. 1d10 + Con bonus hit points per level means that you'll have a highly variable increase in power when you gain each level based on the result of 1 die roll. Yesh. That strongly supports the "Subterranean Fantasy Vietnam" play style at low levels (which was common in every edition prior to 4E), which makes low level combat very deadly and risky, with a strong emphasis on first strike and random outcomes (roll high you live roll low you die, on the first round). I would have strongly preferred something in the range of 30ish + Con bonus at first level + 5 hit points per each additional level, especially for the (ideally) non-squishy Fighter. This also means that Con is once against the 1st or 2nd most important attribute for all classes, since it's a primary determinant of your hit points, and hit points are the primary determinant of your survivability.


Disadvantage on Stealth while wearing Chainmail means that anyone who wants to use Stealth is probably going to have poor AC. Not sure how this will effect balance (especially if Stealth can reasonably be used effectively in combat) but it feels like it will be a big nerf to the Rogue.


Confirms the existence of the "Bonus Action." So now the Action Economy is Action, Bonus Action, Reaction, movement (which can be done both before and after your Action, and maybe before and after your Bonus Action), plus whatever spell or ability you have running from Concentration, plus Action Surge and any other ability that gives you an additional action. Yesh, this is terrible, and will be one of the first things that gets optimized to break game balance.


Depending on the multi-class rules, 2nd level Action Surge once per Encounter means that Fighter 2/Spellcaster X could be crazy. 2 spells + Bonus Action the first round of combat.


Fighting Style (Defense) and Improved Critical abilities confirms that small passive fiddly bonuses are remaining a part of the game, which I despise. Stacking such bonuses are the key to CoDzilla optimization, choosing the wrong bonuses are weak and/or trap options, and when they're situational they slow down combat and makes it more confusing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0034.html). Also, how is getting +1 to your critical threat range on par with getting additional spells when you gain a level?


Position of Privilege actually sounds like a fun and worthwhile Background ability. I hope that all of them are equally interesting.


Not sure why there is such a long fluffy description of what a Human is or the Background fluff on the character sheet. Seems like this should entirely be the purview of the player and DM. But I guess that because it's a pre-gen for the starter set, they wanted to give players a more fleshed out role to play. But that seems like it should be something that's separate from your choice of crunch, that should be in the rule book or on another sheet of paper so that you can mix and match between classes and fluff.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-18, 04:33 PM
Why is Nature and Animal Handling two different things?
Because one is a theoretical knowledge skill, and the other is diplomacy-but-for-animals.


Why is there a separation between Knowledge Skills (which are used rarely) and combat and exploration Skills
I'm not seeing any knowledge skills, which do you mean?


Is Mearls implying or encouraging random ability scores (3d6 et al), which has always been a terrible idea that destroys game balance.
I believe the default is to roll for stats, yes. Also good point about rolling for hit points, I hadn't seen that and strongly dislike it (even back in 2E we didn't roll for hit points or ability scores).

da_chicken
2014-06-18, 04:45 PM
Direct link to the image (http://static.ow.ly/photos/original/5X4Jr.jpg) so you don't have to choose between "thumbnail" and "low level font analysis" in ow.ly's terrible viewer.

captpike
2014-06-18, 05:32 PM
That's a good question. Given that the designers have said that 5E relies more on DM judgment calls, I conjecture that they'll concisely write down a vague or open-ended ability and let the DM take it from there. Expect table variation.

so they intend to make half a game, tell the DMs to make up the rest. they then will call this a feature...


"Self-evident" to you and me? maybe. To new players? less so. Does the 4e fireball make sound? Why does the 4e fireball not damage objects if it is fire?



Yes, my point exactly, you can put virtually any name on the 4e fireball and justify it (Exploding Pixie) while the 5e spell would make no sense with the identical change. The 4e spell has no character, no substance.

its not the systems job to RP for you.

YOU can decide how your fireball looks and acts in the game world not the system that way it works for everyone, not just those who want to use stock fireballs in the default way.


The first one is easier to understand for gamist players, the second is easier to understand for simulationist or narrativist players. Remember how the most prominent complaint against 4E was how unrealistic it is? WOTC appears to have learned from that, and improved accordingly.

ALL versions of D&D are equally unrealistic. some people think 4e is less realistic because they have gotten so used to their favorite version they have stopped seeing the ways it does not make sense anymore.

INDYSTAR188
2014-06-18, 05:59 PM
When you use concentration to sustain a spell does that take one of your actions or is that just free and means you cannot cast another spell that requires concentration? Do you get a bonus action every turn or how do you qualify for that? Is a reaction just a jumbled version of 4E's Immediate Reaction, Opportunity Attack, Immediate Interrupt?

Kurald Galain
2014-06-18, 06:05 PM
When you use concentration to sustain a spell does that take one of your actions or is that just free and means you cannot cast another spell that requires concentration?
The latter.


Do you get a bonus action every turn or how do you qualify for that?
Unknown, but it appears that characters have a limited amount of bonus actions. They appear to be the equivalent of encounter powers.


Is a reaction just a jumbled version of 4E's Immediate Reaction, Opportunity Attack, Immediate Interrupt?
Yes. Although I must say that having one kind of reaction is less jumbled than having IR, II and OA each being slightly different.

INDYSTAR188
2014-06-18, 06:13 PM
Unknown, but it appears that characters have a limited amount of bonus actions. They appear to be the equivalent of encounter powers.

The reason I ask is because Person_Man said this above:

Confirms the existence of the "Bonus Action." So now the Action Economy is Action, Bonus Action, Reaction, movement (which can be done both before and after your Action, and maybe before and after your Bonus Action), plus whatever spell or ability you have running from Concentration, plus Action Surge and any other ability that gives you an additional action. Yesh, this is terrible, and will be one of the first things that gets optimized to break game balance.


He makes it sound like you get to do all of this in one turn but really these are just all the possible options, right? I mean if you're a second level Fighter you get to (apparently) move, attack, move again, attack again, and whatever your bonus action is. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me, especially since we don't know what entails a bonus action (please correct me if that's wrong).

However, if you were a spellcaster who had 2 levels of Fighter you could potentially sustain a spell you had cast earlier (Grease for example), and then you could cast two Magic Missiles as your two actual actions, plus whatever a bonus action entails. Does that seem overpowered? It certainly could be I suppose but taken at face value I don't think it's unreasonable.

Is this the general understanding? Is there such a thing as 'minor' actions like in 4E? Could that be your bonus action?

Kurald Galain
2014-06-18, 06:23 PM
He makes it sound like you get to do all of this in one turn but really these are just all the possible options, right? I mean if you're a second level Fighter you get to (apparently) move, attack, move again, attack again, and whatever your bonus action is. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me, especially since we don't know what entails a bonus action (please correct me if that's wrong).
I don't think it's unreasonable per se. However, it is commonly understood for 4E that the best attack powers are either anything that gives you multiple hits on the same target for one standard action, or any attack that is a minor/free/immediate action, and these are the best by far. This is not complicated optimization or anything, taking off-action powers is as straightforward as maxing out your main attribute.

The implication for 5E is that these bonus actions and action surges are so much better than anything else available (bear in mind that this is the game that considers a +1 to hit an extremely powerful effect) that every vaguely-experienced player will want them. But this reduces character diversity, and slows down gameplay.

da_chicken
2014-06-18, 06:32 PM
When you use concentration to sustain a spell does that take one of your actions or is that just free and means you cannot cast another spell that requires concentration?

I would suspect it to be not an action. In the playtest, it's just something you maintain automatically until you voluntarily end it, cast another spell requiring concentration, lose consciousness, or are disturbed in a manner the DM says requires a save to maintain concentration (e.g., being grappled). Maintaining concentration is otherwise an action as much as holding a longsword is an action.


Do you get a bonus action every turn or how do you qualify for that?

I expect that it works like this: You get up to one bonus action per turn regardless of the source. By default, your character can't do anything with your bonus action. You may have a special class ability (Second Wind) or have a spell cast on you (haste) that grants you things you can do with a bonus action. If you have two or more things you can do with a bonus action, you may only select one of them to use that round for your bonus action.

So, this example Fighter could choose to use his bonus action for Second Wind or Action Surge. He cannot do both. Let's say he uses Action Surge the first round. The second round, he can elect to use Second Wind. If he does, he will no longer be able to use any bonus actions for the remainder of combat without external aid of some kind (magic most likely).

I expect it's effectively a renaming of "Swift Action" to get away from the idea that it's almost a free action, or an action taken at great speed, and renaming of "Minor Action" which does not connote an action you can't normally take. By making it an explicit "bonus", it discourages design from using it identically to a Minor or Swift action. It functions almost identically, but this makes it clear that the action is not just due to swiftness or simplicity of the action.

It may also mean that you can't use your Standard action for something that costs a bonus action. So the above Fighter couldn't Action Surge *and* Second Wind in the same turn even if he did nothing else.


Is a reaction just a jumbled version of 4E's Immediate Reaction, Opportunity Attack, Immediate Interrupt?

Yes. You probably get exactly one each round. I imagine a lot of 4e players will house rule Opportunity Attack actions back in.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-18, 09:29 PM
Ok so my big problem, and this is with the dev team mostly, is that they say in the Fighter's description "the most diverse class of characters in the worlds of Dungeon and Dragons".

I can't think of a single time in D&D history where the Fighter was ever the most diverse class, even the mighty 4e fighter wasn't the most diverse.

So that must mean they are talking only of 5e, which kinda scares me. If the Fighter will be the most diverse class then what the hell will magic be doing?

Or is this fluff just a straight out lie? Or perhaps they just don't see the problem with martial versus magic and we get 3.5 all over again because the devs just don't understand the underlying problem?

I know I'm making a mountain out of mole hills but damn, straight up calling the fighter the most diverse is pretty strange.

I'm actually leaning toward the dev team not understanding why the 3.5 fighter was so fricken bad based on the ability score bonuses that we can see. Or perhaps this is all a feint to get the internet all pissy to drum up more conversation?

Edit

Am I the only one that wants to see Kurald Galain's avatar in the form of an "&" to match D&D 5e?

da_chicken
2014-06-18, 09:56 PM
I would have to think they mean the pre 3E Fighter. 1E Fighters used to be able to use potions, protection scrolls, most rings, some wands, etc. They had the largest equipment draw in the game by a long shot. They had the best combat table, one of the best save tables (it starts mediocre but gains very quickly), and the hit points to survive encounters. They got numerous boosts from high ability scores which other classes could not take advantage of. They got iterative attacks, and have the "sweep" rule that allows them to whirlwind attack creatures with less than 1 hit die.

I'd also say the the class itself supports a lightly armored and a heavily armored character equally well (although, in early editions light armor is what you wore on your way to the shop to buy heavy armor). It supports a melee character using a shield or using a two handed weapon, or even using two weapons. It allows for a ranged character as well with a bow. Thieves had access to the weapons, and Clerics to the armor, and Magic-Users to the magic items... but Fighters could do it all in a lot of ways.

obryn
2014-06-18, 10:05 PM
I'm just glad they fixed Second Wind so it's no longer optimal to use it before you get knocked around at all.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-18, 10:07 PM
Ok so my big problem, and this is with the dev team mostly, is that they say in the Fighter's description "the most diverse class of characters in the worlds of Dungeon and Dragons".

I can't think of a single time in D&D history where the Fighter was ever the most diverse class, even the mighty 4e fighter wasn't the most diverse.


Technically, the fighter is the most diverse class. Any class that isn't Wizard or Cleric is more likely than not a derivative of Fighter. The problem of course is that they took all of the fighter's diversity and split them into classes. Imagine if instead of Barbarian and Ranger and Thief and Paladin and Cavalier and Rogue and on and on, we had one fighter class that had access to all of the individual components that make those classes unique. Imagine a half barbarian half thief without multiclassing. Sadly, one result of trying to make an iconic D&D game is that we're stuck with both all the classes that should be fighter sub-classes as full classes in their own right, and we're stuck with a "fighter" class that's just the leftover shell of the other sub-classes. Despite my general agreement with returning to D&D's icons, I really do think it would be better if they would just take the fighter class out behind the barn and put it out of it's misery.

INDYSTAR188
2014-06-18, 10:12 PM
Ok so my big problem, and this is with the dev team mostly, is that they say in the Fighter's description "the most diverse class of characters in the worlds of Dungeon and Dragons".

I can't think of a single time in D&D history where the Fighter was ever the most diverse class, even the mighty 4e fighter wasn't the most diverse.

So that must mean they are talking only of 5e, which kinda scares me. If the Fighter will be the most diverse class then what the hell will magic be doing?

Or is this fluff just a straight out lie? Or perhaps they just don't see the problem with martial versus magic and we get 3.5 all over again because the devs just don't understand the underlying problem?

I know I'm making a mountain out of mole hills but damn, straight up calling the fighter the most diverse is pretty strange.

I'm actually leaning toward the dev team not understanding why the 3.5 fighter was so fricken bad based on the ability score bonuses that we can see. Or perhaps this is all a feint to get the internet all pissy to drum up more conversation?

Edit

Am I the only one that wants to see Kurald Galain's avatar in the form of an "&" to match D&D 5e?

I took this to mean they were speaking from a role play perspective. A fighter is not defined by his class quite as much as some of the others. Fighters come from every tier of society and can be anything from a captain of guards to a high marshall of an army to a warrior king to a savage brute bandit. Compared to say, a bard, druid, cleric, wizard etc. That doesn't mean if you play a different class from fighter you are shoehorned into some very specific and defined background, but more or less the class defines (at least to a certain extent) your training and background. For a fighter the only thing they all have in common would be a training in warfare with various weapons and armours.

da_chicken
2014-06-18, 10:25 PM
I'm just glad they fixed Second Wind so it's no longer optimal to use it before you get knocked around at all.

Yeah, I just am not sure about how I feel about a Fighter potentially getting an extra dozen hit dice of healing a day. I mean, a Paladin gets level x 5 each long rest. A Life Cleric gets level x 5 every short rest to a max of half total HP. The Fighter gets 1d10 + level each short rest? Does something stop you from taking repeated short rests if you burn abilities out of combat? What am I missing? Does Second Wind actually use a hit die? I wouldn't exactly describe it as a "limited well of stamina" if you just get 1d10+level every hour you rest.

obryn
2014-06-18, 10:39 PM
Yeah, I just am not sure about how I feel about a Fighter potentially getting an extra dozen hit dice of healing a day. I mean, a Paladin gets level x 5 each long rest. A Life Cleric gets level x 5 every short rest to a max of half total HP. The Fighter gets 1d10 + level each short rest? Does something stop you from taking repeated short rests if you burn abilities out of combat? What am I missing? Does Second Wind actually use a hit die? I wouldn't exactly describe it as a "limited well of stamina" if you just get 1d10+level every hour you rest.
Well, this is pretty much unavoidable when you introduce self-healing without a limiting mechanic like 4e's healing surges were.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-18, 11:34 PM
I took this to mean they were speaking from a role play perspective. A fighter is not defined by his class quite as much as some of the others. Fighters come from every tier of society and can be anything from a captain of guards to a high marshall of an army to a warrior king to a savage brute bandit. Compared to say, a bard, druid, cleric, wizard etc. That doesn't mean if you play a different class from fighter you are shoehorned into some very specific and defined background, but more or less the class defines (at least to a certain extent) your training and background. For a fighter the only thing they all have in common would be a training in warfare with various weapons and armours.

Even if you took roleplay into account, the wizard blogs the fighter away. Though roleplay is a wash, any class can roleplay as any sort of character. Saying one class is more diverse in roleplaying than another is like saying 4e didn't allow roleplaying.

Conjuration specialist wizard in 3.5 could be any roleplay type that the fighter could be... Plus they have spells. Each conjuration specialist then needs to ban some other schools. Each combination of banned schools and chosen school is another option that makes the wizard more diverse. Then each chosen spell makes the wizard even more diverse by role play and mechanics.

4e changed things but from 1e to 3.P, the wizard (and most other spell casters ) wins out.

What about the Bard, isn't the jack of all trades archetype suppose to demonstrate the most diverse type of class?

But it doesn't matter, I just found it curious that the team decided on those words.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-18, 11:39 PM
Yeah, I just am not sure about how I feel about a Fighter potentially getting an extra dozen hit dice of healing a day. I mean, a Paladin gets level x 5 each long rest. A Life Cleric gets level x 5 every short rest to a max of half total HP. The Fighter gets 1d10 + level each short rest? Does something stop you from taking repeated short rests if you burn abilities out of combat? What am I missing? Does Second Wind actually use a hit die? I wouldn't exactly describe it as a "limited well of stamina" if you just get 1d10+level every hour you rest.

I actually like the Fighter being able to, over time, heal from battle. This shows just how badass the fighter really is.

Like John McClain, he had to atop every so often but he kept chugging along. Perhaps instead of 10000 HP he only had 20 but could keep going due to his endurance being so high (HP = endurance). That glass in the feet may have slowed him down but he was able to keep from bleeding out or feinting from blood loss.

Envyus
2014-06-19, 12:38 AM
Also we are only seeing one example of the Fighter here there is going to be more then one.

Lokiare
2014-06-19, 01:33 AM
The first one is easier to understand for gamist players, the second is easier to understand for simulationist or narrativist players. Remember how the most prominent complaint against 4E was how unrealistic it is? WOTC appears to have learned from that, and improved accordingly.


The 4e one is shorter, but not easier to read or understand.

The 4e spell barely communicates any pertinent information at all. All I receive is a jumble of interchangeable key words and a damage statistic, not what the spell does or represents in the game world. With the 5e spell I know this is a burst of fire that produces a low sound emanating from the location my character pointed too. In addition to how another creature in the game world sees it, and that the fireball actually acts like fire in some ways igniting and burning objects. Even the specific type of magic involved.

In 4e it might as well be pixies that I pull out of the fey-wild that inexplicably explode into shrapnel that bizarrely deal fire damage and miraculously becomes ethereal to non-intelligent object (unless that object is a construct).

And as for Advantage. I'll roll two dice over the stack of modifiers any day. Even going back to 3.5 was a relief. Any player can become very proficient at taking them all into account, but less experience players (or those not always paying close attention) will have a more difficult time.

My 4e fighter for example had different modifiers for his to hit and damage depending on if the attack was, basic, a power, had CA, was against my mark, was an opportunity attack, was subject to a buff I cast, was subject to any number of buffs/debuffs other characters had provided (sometimes on a round-by-round, or attack-by-attack basis), the result of and action point, or made under a condition effecting me.


"Self-evident" to you and me? maybe. To new players? less so. Does the 4e fireball make sound? Why does the 4e fireball not damage objects if it is fire?



Yes, my point exactly, you can put virtually any name on the 4e fireball and justify it (Exploding Pixie) while the 5e spell would make no sense with the identical change. The 4e spell has no character, no substance.

Where's the face palm smiley when you need it? I'll just refute this by pointing out its all based entirely on a lie.

from the 4E DMG1:

Object Immunities and Vulnerabilities
Usually, it doesn’t matter what kind of attack you make against an object: Damage is damage. However, there are a few exceptions. All objects are immune to poison damage, psychic damage, and necrotic damage. Objects don’t have a Will defense and are immune to attacks that target Will defense. Some unusual materials might be particularly resistant to some or all kinds of damage. In addition, you might rule that some kinds of damage are particularly effective against certain objects and grant the object vulnerability to that damage type. For example, a gauzy curtain or a pile of dry papers might have vulnerability 5 to fire because any spark is likely to destroy it.


So yeah. I'm sure you can find something about the sound too. I'm tempted to mention something about reading, but I'm not sure it falls within the forum rules so I won't.


By class; it's the equivalent of how fighters in 3E have a "strong" fort save whereas wizards have a "strong" will save. I suspect there'll be feats that give proficiency as well.


You are quite correct, and what you write is similar to the default fluff of several actual 4E powers. This is either a big strong point of 4E or one of its biggest weaknesses, depending on whom you ask.

Or we could, you know, actually read the 4E rules and realize all of that is already present.


I'm just glad they fixed Second Wind so it's no longer optimal to use it before you get knocked around at all.

A better fix would be to prevent its use until after you are at half hp or lower. As it is, you just heal whenever and don't need healing magic or potions.


Yeah, I just am not sure about how I feel about a Fighter potentially getting an extra dozen hit dice of healing a day. I mean, a Paladin gets level x 5 each long rest. A Life Cleric gets level x 5 every short rest to a max of half total HP. The Fighter gets 1d10 + level each short rest? Does something stop you from taking repeated short rests if you burn abilities out of combat? What am I missing? Does Second Wind actually use a hit die? I wouldn't exactly describe it as a "limited well of stamina" if you just get 1d10+level every hour you rest.

I hope it uses a hit dice, or maybe the fighter is meant to never be hurt?

Lokiare
2014-06-19, 01:35 AM
Also we are only seeing one example of the Fighter here there is going to be more then one.

Just keep on hoping and hoping and hoping. I want to see that look of crushed disappointment when 5E hits the shelves.

Knaight
2014-06-19, 01:59 AM
I'm actually liking the look of some of this. That's a fairly well designed character sheet (though I can easily think of better), having skills back is nice, the basic set is at least nice to have, though it's no SRD. The weapon table also looks pretty standard, with some nice changes. I miss reach weapons, but the weapon weights are getting towards reasonable instead of stupidly high, the exotic weapons are gone and good riddance, etc. That said, it is a bit sparse on things which are actually pretty essential - slings come to mind.

Envyus
2014-06-19, 06:29 AM
Just keep on hoping and hoping and hoping. I want to see that look of crushed disappointment when 5E hits the shelves.

Dear god your an *******. We already know there is another version of the fighter in game it was in the playtest packet. Also I doubt I will be disappointing as I like how it is going for the most part. It's not perfect but nothing is.

I am also tired of your pessimism to the point were you can't take anything at face value and have to interpret it in the worst way. Why just because the designers did something you did not like in the past (Because the reasons you dislike them has not been well explained other then "They earned the right for me to always say they are lying." Because I have not seen anything that says they are lying.

Millennium
2014-06-19, 07:28 AM
Where's the face palm smiley when you need it?
It feels weird being on the same side as you, but we seem to be together on this one. 4e's ontology was by no means perfect, but it represents a considerable improvement over what came before, and it can be improved further. They just need to get someone who really knows ontologies in on the staff to design their keywords: an information architect, perhaps. A librarian could do it too. Even a biological taxonomist might be able to work in a pinch: it's not the greatest fit field-wise, but the skills are similar enough that it would probably still represent an improvement. There's no shortage of role-players in any of these fields.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-19, 08:26 AM
Just keep on hoping and hoping and hoping. I want to see that look of crushed disappointment when 5E hits the shelves.

Well it has happen twice before, that is us getting different types of fighters. Took a bit of time but WotC has precedence.

3.5 fighter became the Warblade and then we got the 4e fighter.

Also this is why people don't like you. It isn't because you are a cynical person or a pessimist. It is because you get glee and happiness from other peoples misery. I like some of what you say and have disagreed with you at times.

But you seem to be giddy that 5e might fail, what do you work for Paizo?

Person_Man
2014-06-19, 08:56 AM
I'm not seeing any knowledge skills, which do you mean?

Arcana, History, Nature, Religion, and maybe Insight, Investigation, and Survival (depending on what they cover) are all Skills that you take to essentially "know stuff." Such knowledge Skills are sometime have an impact on combat ("What is this undead creature we're fighting, and what are it's weaknesses?") but that's usually not the case for experienced players (who have read the monster manual or fought such creatures in the past). In most cases, knowledge Skills exist to add texture to the characters and give them a few additional options for exploring and interacting with the game world.

They are distinct from Acrobatics, Athletics, Medicine, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth, which all let you "do stuff" - often in combat or to overcome a trap or environmental hazard.

Everything else is pretty much a social Skill, which basically helps you succeed at interactions with NPCs in various ways.

There are some blurred line (like using Intimidation as a Fear effect in combat, Perform is useless for anyone who isn't a Bard).

But I really dislike it when players have to choose between allocating resources between combat stuff and non combat stuff. Everyone should have X combat resources, and Y non-combat resources. If I want my Fighter to be a History buff because I love history, I shouldn't be worse of in combat because I didn't invest in Acrobatics. They should be in two different piles of resources, or they could consolidate the Skills so that each has meaningful combat and non-combat uses.



I believe the default is to roll for stats, yes. Also good point about rolling for hit points, I hadn't seen that and strongly dislike it (even back in 2E we didn't roll for hit points or ability scores).

Yup. In 1st/2nd ed, how you rolled your initial attributes and hit dice determined the power of your character (including what classes you could take). This appears to be a return to encouraging that terrible mechanic, which is an awful thing to put in front of new players.



He makes it sound like you get to do all of this in one turn but really these are just all the possible options, right? I mean if you're a second level Fighter you get to (apparently) move, attack, move again, attack again, and whatever your bonus action is. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me, especially since we don't know what entails a bonus action (please correct me if that's wrong).

However, if you were a spellcaster who had 2 levels of Fighter you could potentially sustain a spell you had cast earlier (Grease for example), and then you could cast two Magic Missiles as your two actual actions, plus whatever a bonus action entails. Does that seem overpowered? It certainly could be I suppose but taken at face value I don't think it's unreasonable.

Is this the general understanding? Is there such a thing as 'minor' actions like in 4E? Could that be your bonus action?

So one of the big problems with 3.X/PF and 4E was the bloat of the action economy (how many actions each character and NPC or monster gets each round, and when and how they get them). There were many things that gave you extra actions, extra movement, Iterative attacks, attacks of opportunity, immediate/swift/minor actions, Summons, Animal Companions/Mounts/Familiars, free actions, lots of passive bonuses that require no action to use during combat, etc. It dramatically slowed down combat, made the rules very confusing for new players who tried to play at the same table as experienced players, and led to many game breaking (radically more powerful then other players at the same table) builds.

So one of the big openly stated design goals for 5E was to make each player's turn quick and consequential. Take one Action that had a big impact on combat, and then you're done. Don't even worry about movement or where you're standing on the battlefield, because you can move before and after your Action, so in most cases you can just assume you can be wherever you want to be.

However, once they started actually writing a bunch of class abilities, Feats, and spells, they discovered that there were a lot of things that they wanted to do that didn't fit neatly into this idea. So they just started kludging things on. And now they're basically back to the same problems we had in 3.X and 4E. And the Fighter, with his multiple attacks and Action Surge, is the perfect illustration of the action economy mess to come.

A real solution would be to come up with a balanced action economy, and then just stick to it. One Action, One Move, One Reaction, and one Concentration ability/buff. The end. If it doesn't fit into one of those actions, you can only do it if your DM allows it as a Free Action (talking, opening a door, etc). If you want to attack multiple creatures, make it consume the Reaction or Concentration, or resolve it with 1 die roll and compare it to their respective ACs.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-19, 09:01 AM
A real solution would be to come up with a balanced action economy, and then just stick to it. One Action, One Move, One Reaction, and one Concentration ability/buff. The end. If it doesn't fit into one of those actions, you can only do it if your DM allows it as a Free Action (talking, opening a door, etc). If you want to attack multiple creatures, make it consume the Reaction or Concentration, or resolve it with 1 die roll and compare it to their respective ACs.

This option sounds very similar to what our group was doing in 3e. I heavily support this methodology.

Lokiare
2014-06-19, 10:33 AM
Dear god your an *******. We already know there is another version of the fighter in game it was in the playtest packet. Also I doubt I will be disappointing as I like how it is going for the most part. It's not perfect but nothing is.

I am also tired of your pessimism to the point were you can't take anything at face value and have to interpret it in the worst way. Why just because the designers did something you did not like in the past (Because the reasons you dislike them has not been well explained other then "They earned the right for me to always say they are lying." Because I have not seen anything that says they are lying.

Seriously? After responding to every one of my posts in a negative way you are going to call me names? Wow. I think you need to take good long look in the mirror.

All my opinions are based on facts. Yours don't appear to be based on anything, because you never quote facts. So when I say keep on hoping, I mean you are not going to be pleased because of the facts I've presented. You haven't countered any of those facts.

People keep acting like the stuff they've shown us so far is not going to be 5E. I'm sorry, but they flat out said 5E is going to be very close to the play test packets. If you people are hoping for some radical change from what we've been shown, you are hoping in vain.

Psyren
2014-06-19, 10:41 AM
Depending on the multi-class rules, 2nd level Action Surge once per Encounter means that Fighter 2/Spellcaster X could be crazy. 2 spells + Bonus Action the first round of combat.

Indeed. As if Fighter wasn't a dip class before.


Position of Privilege actually sounds like a fun and worthwhile Background ability. I hope that all of them are equally interesting.

I disagree - I can just see the arguments already. "I belong in the cultist's basement." "I belong in the druid circle." "My drow belongs in the elven court." "my kobold belongs in the gnome's tavern." "The merchants give me a discount." "The suspicious street urchin wants to help us." etc. Okay, the cult example is hyperbole but regardless, this ability does not appear to account for dress, attitude, racial tensions, class prejudices (game, not social), politics, gender or any number of other social factors. Hopefully background abilities like these are given more fleshed out guidelines in the book.


Not sure why there is such a long fluffy description of what a Human is or the Background fluff on the character sheet. Seems like this should entirely be the purview of the player and DM. But I guess that because it's a pre-gen for the starter set, they wanted to give players a more fleshed out role to play. But that seems like it should be something that's separate from your choice of crunch, that should be in the rule book or on another sheet of paper so that you can mix and match between classes and fluff.

What I find more disturbing is how tightly they've tied it to FR fluff. I know that's the new core setting now (did they trash Greyhawk completely? You killed Pelor you bastards!) but I would prefer the setting fluff of a race be left to that setting's dedicated splat.



Or we could, you know, actually read the 4E rules and realize all of that is already present.

Uh, he was saying that is in 4e. :smallconfused:

Merlin the Tuna
2014-06-19, 10:47 AM
But I really dislike it when players have to choose between allocating resources between combat stuff and non combat stuff. Everyone should have X combat resources, and Y non-combat resources. If I want my Fighter to be a History buff because I love history, I shouldn't be worse of in combat because I didn't invest in Acrobatics. They should be in two different piles of resources, or they could consolidate the Skills so that each has meaningful combat and non-combat uses.I'd argue that the real problem here isn't that you need to make a choice between combat and non-combat value, but rather that the D&D framework makes it a total non-choice. It's a game built around a diverse, complex combat engine. Period. Multiple classes feature zero non-combat features, and at a glance even some generally non-combat features (Inspire Competence, Fascinating Performance) are still written to be related to getting in fights. The assumptions of combat in D&D are that (a) it's right around the corner at all times, and (b) it's the most mechanically complicated thing at all times. Combat abilities are always relevant as a result of (a) and tend to offer multiplicative value rather than additive because of (b).

There is definitely room for presenting players with a choice of taking a combat feature versus a non-combat feature, but you need to fundamentally adjust the framework of the game so that non-combat features are as valuable and as interesting as combat ones. Dungeon World does a great job of this by stripping out a ton of the mechanical complexity of combat while creating space for more interesting non-combat abilities. Here's an example of a Bard starting ability:
Charming and Open
When you speak frankly with someone, you can ask their player (ed: this includes the DM/NPCs) a question from the list below. They must answer it truthfully, then they may ask you a question from the list (which you must answer truthfully).

Whom do you serve?
What do you wish I would do?
How can I get you to ______?
What are you really feeling right now?
What do you most desire?

I think it goes without saying that this is much more interesting than having +5 to Bluff. Player agency is front and center, it's pretty clear what you can actually accomplish, and it stands out when you look at your character sheet. And knowing that combat in Dungeon World, while no less frequent than D&D, is way less focused on number crunching and attrition, it becomes a much more even choice to decide between taking an ability that ups your armor or one that adds more devious options to Charming and Open. Likewise, starting with the idea that even Fighters and Barbarians should have meaningful utility abilities means that you aren't giving all the cool tricks to Wizards and Clerics on top of their general combat effectiveness.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that Dungeon World is great and you should play it.

Related: I'm really disappointed that Bonds/Traits/etc. are so tacked on. I mean it's nice that they're giving them space on the front of the character sheet, but if you don't integrate them into play in a meaningful way, it's not going to do any more for the game than the token page or two in every previous PHB that says your character can have a fancy haircut or catchphrase in addition to being Neutral Good.

Job
2014-06-19, 10:50 AM
its not the systems job to RP for you.

Agreed, but to facilitate RP one ought to have a solid understanding of what the entities their characters are encountering entail. Having the default details are important for understanding how it interacts with the game world and other players.

Saying a spell deal 3d6 fire damage to objects and creatures (as it turns out I was mistaken p.272 4ePHB), is a bare minimum that fails to carry important details.

I'm suggesting it's inappropriate in an RPG to write half a superficial fluff description, tell the players to make up the rest. then call it a feature...

Merlin the Tuna
2014-06-19, 11:01 AM
I'm suggesting it's inappropriate in an RPG to write half a superficial fluff description, tell the players to make up the rest. then call it a feature.Depends entirely on the RPG. I'd agree in D&D since it uses a very board game-y approach, where the rules make it a point to thoroughly describe outcomes. (Slide 2 and daze until end of next turn. Push 30 ft if target is medium, 40 feet if small, 100 feet if tiny, 400 feet if diminuitive. 3d6 fire damage, 4d6 if he's soaked in oil, 3d8 if he's a Vampire, or 5d20 if he's a Werewolf under a full moon who has recently eaten broccoli.) But on the flip side, the biggest strength of RPGs is that you have an actual person present to run the game and determine outcomes for whatever crazy shenanigans the PCs are up to. If the system makes it a point to consistently defer to the DM, stuff like "3d6 fire damage in a 20ft space" is totally okay to damage items because the DM is expected to interpret the results of the action rather than just referee per the rules.

captpike
2014-06-19, 11:07 AM
Agreed, but to facilitate RP one ought to have a solid understanding of what the entities their characters are encountering entail. Having the default details are important for understanding how it interacts with the game world and other players.

Saying a spell deal 3d6 fire damage to objects and creatures (as it turns out I was mistaken p.272 4ePHB), is a bare minimum that fails to carry important details.

I'm suggesting it's inappropriate in an RPG to write half a superficial fluff description, tell the players to make up the rest. then call it a feature...

the problem is that if they define the fluff of fireball in the rules then that is all it will ever be. different players wont be able to change it to suit them.

if they supply some suggested fluff then you can take it or leave it.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-19, 11:15 AM
What I find more disturbing is how tightly they've tied it to FR fluff. I know that's the new core setting now (did they trash Greyhawk completely? You killed Pelor you bastards!) but I would prefer the setting fluff of a race be left to that setting's dedicated splat.

Well, it is a pre-gen character, designed to be played in the pre-gen adventure, set in FR, which ties directly into the ongoing living campaign, which is also set in FR. I would largely expect the pre-gen to be heavily tied to FR.

Job
2014-06-19, 11:18 AM
the problem is that if they define the fluff of fireball in the rules then that is all it will ever be.

Ah but there is the genius of it, If the 'fluff' is defined and includes all the pertinent information it will behave consistently in the game world and encourage creative use. For instance the visual and auditory display of the fireball is useful (or harmful) in an of itself.

And when you have well written spells they act as temples for players to make their own consistent spells and abilities or make minor alterations per DM approval.

da_chicken
2014-06-19, 11:20 AM
Well, it is a pre-gen character, designed to be played in the pre-gen adventure, set in FR, which ties directly into the ongoing living campaign, which is also set in FR. I would largely expect the pre-gen to be heavily tied to FR.

Mearls also said in his interview that they wanted the Starter Set to be completely ready to play out-of-the-box essentially like a board game. That means the Pre-Gens should be 100% fleshed out.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-19, 11:33 AM
What I find more disturbing is how tightly they've tied it to FR fluff. I know that's the new core setting now (did they trash Greyhawk completely? You killed Pelor you bastards!) but I would prefer the setting fluff of a race be left to that setting's dedicated splat.
:

Come now, we all know that the Burning Hate will never die. Pelor just wants you to think he is dead.

Psyren
2014-06-19, 12:06 PM
Well, it is a pre-gen character, designed to be played in the pre-gen adventure, set in FR, which ties directly into the ongoing living campaign, which is also set in FR. I would largely expect the pre-gen to be heavily tied to FR.

The character, yes. The race, no.


the problem is that if they define the fluff of fireball in the rules then that is all it will ever be. different players wont be able to change it to suit them.

if they supply some suggested fluff then you can take it or leave it.

I think suggested refluffs for spells is a "nice to have," i.e. something they can put in a splat, particularly a splat centered around magic like CArc or Arcane Power. In the core rules it would just take up space.


Mearls also said in his interview that they wanted the Starter Set to be completely ready to play out-of-the-box essentially like a board game. That means the Pre-Gens should be 100% fleshed out.

But those newer players are just likely to be confused by talk of "Calish-ite" and "Turmish." You're not going to be able to get them invested/gung-ho about the setting in a bare-bones volume like this, so don't even try. I would trim out everything after the word "legacy."

EDIT: *shakes fist at board filter*

1337 b4k4
2014-06-19, 12:29 PM
The character, yes. The race, no.

The race yes, in this instance. Think about what they're trying to accomplish with the starter set and pre-gens. They're trying to throw completely new players into a completely formed world. That involves giving them a lot of pre-generated material on things that would normally be put in the setting book or determined by the DM.

da_chicken
2014-06-19, 12:33 PM
But those newer players are just likely to be confused by talk of "Calish-ite" and "Turmish." You're not going to be able to get them invested/gung-ho about the setting in a bare-bones volume like this, so don't even try. I would trim out everything after the word "legacy."

EDIT: *shakes fist at board filter*

They don't have to be invested and gung ho. That paragraph is merely meant to introduce the place Humans hold in the Realms, and give a very brief overview of what your character would know (even if you don't). The idea is to give the character and the world some depth.

Nobody is going to say, "I don't understand. What's a 'Turmish'? I clearly can't play this game until I know." They will say, "Ok, so I'm from a place called Waterdeep in Neverwinter. Other Human areas are Turmish and Impiltur, and they're a different culture entirely. This doesn't tell me anything else about any of them, so I guess I will find out later." Just like nobody says, "The Lonely Mountain? Rivendell? Laketown? I've never heard of such places! I cannot suspend my disbelief in the face of such fabrications! We cannot watch this movie!/I cannot read this book!"

Psyren
2014-06-19, 01:34 PM
The race yes, in this instance. Think about what they're trying to accomplish with the starter set and pre-gens. They're trying to throw completely new players into a completely formed world. That involves giving them a lot of pre-generated material on things that would normally be put in the setting book or determined by the DM.

Conservation of detail. Unless the Basic Pre-Gen scenario is going to Rashemen/Calimshan, don't even mention them imo. They're better off putting that stuff in the PHB/DMG than in Basic.

@da_chicken: we actually went to Rivendell/The Lonely Mountain so hearing about them was of course relevant. I doubt whatever basic scenario is shipping with the pregens will have you trek the length and breadth of Faerun.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-19, 01:40 PM
Conservation of detail. Unless the Basic Pre-Gen scenario is going to Rashemen/Calimshan, don't even mention them imo. They're better off putting that stuff in the PHB/DMG than in Basic.

@da_chicken: we actually went to Rivendell/The Lonely Mountain so hearing about them was of course relevant. I doubt whatever basic scenario is shipping with the pregens will have you trek the length and breadth of Faerun.

Though I agree with you I happen to think they are baiting players.

What are these places and who are these other people?

I mean, it would be a bad way to do it, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was their thinking.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-19, 03:45 PM
Conservation of detail. Unless the Basic Pre-Gen scenario is going to Rashemen/Calimshan, don't even mention them imo. They're better off putting that stuff in the PHB/DMG than in Basic.

I feel like you're confusing "basic" D&D with the Starter Set. The pre-gen is part of the starter set, which includes an adventure set in FR and designed to segue into the main living campaigns. It can be supplemented with Basic D&D (the free PDFs) for accessing character creation and such, but the main purpose of the starter set is to jump players into the game with little up front effort. That includes spelling out their place in the world. And specifically Mearls and the rest have mentioned that one of the main goals with the starter set was to tie each pre-gen character into the world directly. They would have relationships to places and people mentioned. In this instance, given the goals of the starter set, adding campaign world material to the race and class descriptions is perfectly reasonable.

captpike
2014-06-19, 04:52 PM
Ah but there is the genius of it, If the 'fluff' is defined and includes all the pertinent information it will behave consistently in the game world and encourage creative use. For instance the visual and auditory display of the fireball is useful (or harmful) in an of itself.

And when you have well written spells they act as temples for players to make their own consistent spells and abilities or make minor alterations per DM approval.



I think suggested refluffs for spells is a "nice to have," i.e. something they can put in a splat, particularly a splat centered around magic like CArc or Arcane Power. In the core rules it would just take up space.


then they should just separate the fluff and crunch, those who want to know if a fireball is summoned on the spot, sent out as a pea that then blows up or whatever can look at the default fluff they provide. everyone else can just ignore it and make of their own.

when you combine the fluff and crunch like 3e spell descriptions do you cant do that, you would have to rewrite the entire spell to change anything about it.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-19, 05:27 PM
when you combine the fluff and crunch like 3e spell descriptions do you cant do that, you would have to rewrite the entire spell to change anything about it.

ok......

How do you rewrite fireball to change the fact that it has a 20' radius, deals fire damage, and happens instantly on spell completion? What about that needs to be changed? I'm not sure where you are going with this. Are you talking about what it looks like/sounds like in game? in 3e? Because I'm pretty sure there was a feat that allowed you to change anything about a spell that didn't include range, damage, AoE, saves, etc.

Themantics I think it was called. I remember the example being something like fireball can be changed to flaming skulls that explode if you want, making the DC check to counterspell harder.

I chose this because I think it lends itself to saying, these aspects of the spell really aren't terribly important, and can be modulated as you see fit. If you want purple flame fireballs, great! No need to rewrite the spell description, just tell your player that its purple. Want fireballs that sizzle from your hand and then explode when the spark gets to the required location, great! Still doesn't warrant a complete rewrite of the description, because the fact it deals damage at this range and in this area doesn't change. Unless you think somehow those things change based on the descriptions. I'm interested in how that would work.

captpike
2014-06-19, 08:53 PM
ok......

How do you rewrite fireball to change the fact that it has a 20' radius, deals fire damage, and happens instantly on spell completion? What about that needs to be changed? I'm not sure where you are going with this. Are you talking about what it looks like/sounds like in game? in 3e? Because I'm pretty sure there was a feat that allowed you to change anything about a spell that didn't include range, damage, AoE, saves, etc.

Themantics I think it was called. I remember the example being something like fireball can be changed to flaming skulls that explode if you want, making the DC check to counterspell harder.

I chose this because I think it lends itself to saying, these aspects of the spell really aren't terribly important, and can be modulated as you see fit. If you want purple flame fireballs, great! No need to rewrite the spell description, just tell your player that its purple. Want fireballs that sizzle from your hand and then explode when the spark gets to the required location, great! Still doesn't warrant a complete rewrite of the description, because the fact it deals damage at this range and in this area doesn't change. Unless you think somehow those things change based on the descriptions. I'm interested in how that would work.

why would you need a feat for that? if they had separated the fluff and crunch properly you could just say "I am a necromancer so my fireball is a skill that explodes" done

da_chicken
2014-06-19, 10:16 PM
why would you need a feat for that? if they had separated the fluff and crunch properly you could just say "I am a necromancer so my fireball is a skill that explodes" done

The point is that the existence of the feat proves that spell descriptions in 3e are not improperly separated. If they were improperly separated, the Spell Thematics (http://dndtools.eu/feats/players-guide-to-faerun--22/spell-thematics--2714/) feat could not have been created. The existence of the feat directly contradicts your claim that "when you combine the fluff and crunch like 3e spell descriptions do you cant do that, you would have to rewrite the entire spell to change anything about it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?355922-Newsflash-5E-pages-leaked/page8&p=17653087#post17653087)". If your claim were correct, the mechanics of the Spell Thematics feat would have had to reprint every spell description.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-19, 10:28 PM
The point is that the existence of the feat proves that spell descriptions in 3e are not improperly separated. If they were improperly separated, the Spell Thematics (http://dndtools.eu/feats/players-guide-to-faerun--22/spell-thematics--2714/) feat could not have been created. The existence of the feat directly contradicts your claim that "when you combine the fluff and crunch like 3e spell descriptions do you cant do that, you would have to rewrite the entire spell to change anything about it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?355922-Newsflash-5E-pages-leaked/page8&p=17653087#post17653087)". If your claim were correct, the mechanics of the Spell Thematics feat would have had to reprint every spell description.

One of the most useless feats since rules for that, without taking the feat, where in... I think the DMG?

Or I might be wrong.

da_chicken
2014-06-19, 10:57 PM
One of the most useless feats since rules for that, without taking the feat, where in... I think the DMG?

Or I might be wrong.

Definitely useless. I mean, I guess it's +1 caster level. Still pretty useless. I figure the feat was there for DMs who couldn't say "Yes" to any reasonable request, and to stop players from trying to get mechanical advantage from the "fluff is mutable" argument.

Felhammer
2014-06-20, 12:40 AM
The point is that the existence of the feat proves that spell descriptions in 3e are not improperly separated. If they were improperly separated, the Spell Thematics (http://dndtools.eu/feats/players-guide-to-faerun--22/spell-thematics--2714/) feat could not have been created. The existence of the feat directly contradicts your claim that "when you combine the fluff and crunch like 3e spell descriptions do you cant do that, you would have to rewrite the entire spell to change anything about it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?355922-Newsflash-5E-pages-leaked/page8&p=17653087#post17653087)". If your claim were correct, the mechanics of the Spell Thematics feat would have had to reprint every spell description.

That feat exists because there was a concerted effort at one time to codify what incantations were spoken, what hand gestures were used and how each spell specifically looked in Faerun. That feat is only for hardcore fans of the Forgotten Realms who actually care about that kind of stuff (and, to be fair, there are quite a few of them out there). This feat does not, nor should it ever, apply to 3.x as a whole.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-20, 08:12 AM
I was using Thematics as an example of parts of a spell description that don't actually matter, and can be changed however you want. It has nothing to do with what should or should not be applied to 3x. It specifically highlights the various things about spells that are mutable and don't require a spell description rewrite, nothing more.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-20, 08:21 AM
I was using Thematics as an example of parts of a spell description that don't actually matter, and can be changed however you want. It has nothing to do with what should or should not be applied to 3x. It specifically highlights the various things about spells that are mutable and don't require a spell description rewrite, nothing more.

Yup, but those rules are already in the DMG was my point. Which means by core rules you can do the same thing as that feat without taking the feat :smallbiggrin:

Craft (Cheese)
2014-06-20, 09:17 AM
Come to think of it, this is actually clever on WOTC's part.

The four classical roleplayer archetypes are The Real Man, The Real Roleplayer, The Loonie, and The Munchkin (no offense to anyone, that's just what they're called; just google them for examples). Arguably neither 3E nor 4E catered to The Loonie archetype much, and this would have cost WOTC market share. No, a chaos mage has no place in certain serious fantasy campaigns, but it works fine in e.g. a beer-and-pretzels game.

And I'd be absolutely fine with that if you clearly label the chaos mage option as "For silly Beer-And-Pretzel games only, could ruin your campaign otherwise" so you don't have new players showing up with one in a serious game (with a DM who doesn't know any better).

I think we both know WotC won't do this. Whether because they're actually ignorant of the problem, I cannot say.

Fable Wright
2014-06-20, 10:42 AM
Definitely useless. I mean, I guess it's +1 caster level. Still pretty useless. I figure the feat was there for DMs who couldn't say "Yes" to any reasonable request, and to stop players from trying to get mechanical advantage from the "fluff is mutable" argument.
See, the thing is, it's +1 caster level to 1 spell/level. That's actually really handy in e6 games, where it basically gives you a free Split Ray on Scorching Rays, and ticks up Resist Energy to 20 resistance. Caster level boosts to multiple spells without the same descriptor for a feat is actually really hard to get.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-20, 10:46 AM
And I'd be absolutely fine with that if you clearly label the chaos mage option as "For silly Beer-And-Pretzel games only, could ruin your campaign otherwise" so you don't have new players showing up with one in a serious game (with a DM who doesn't know any better).

I think we both know WotC won't do this. Whether because they're actually ignorant of the problem, I cannot say.

I seriously do not understand this sentiment that "random is only for silly games". Our whole hobby is built on random number generators and D&D in particular was built on random abilities, random spell availability, random encounters, random treasure and even random dungeon generation. Plenty of serious campaigns were run in those days and plenty continue to be run with randomness. Just because there is an element of danger and randomness that you can't plan and account for doesn't make a game any more or less serious than one without it.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-20, 11:17 AM
LOL: a recent column by WOTC reveals that permanent magical items are intended to be special and rare. And by "rare" we mean you should be expected to find one roughly every four hours, in addition to 1-3 consumables.

There are some interesting rules planned for 5E's organized play. First, instead of having a fixed gold reward, the total gold from a scenario is divided over all surviving characters. Second, if the loot contains a magic item, then that means one magic item, and the group has to decide which character gets it (note that organized play groups are not necessarily your friends or people you know; this is why earlier OP programs would let all participants purchase a copy of an item, instead of handing out a single one). And third, you can buy booster packs at the game store that will give you bonuses during play.

That's right, they're returning microtransactions to the game, after the much-derided collectible bonus cards they had for 4E.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-20, 11:43 AM
LOL: a recent column by WOTC reveals that permanent magical items are intended to be special and rare. And by "rare" we mean you should be expected to find one roughly every four hours, in addition to 1-3 consumables.

There are some interesting rules planned for 5E's organized play. First, instead of having a fixed gold reward, the total gold from a scenario is divided over all surviving characters. Second, if the loot contains a magic item, then that means one magic item, and the group has to decide which character gets it (note that organized play groups are not necessarily your friends or people you know; this is why earlier OP programs would let all participants purchase a copy of an item, instead of handing out a single one). And third, you can buy booster packs at the game store that will give you bonuses during play.

That's right, they're returning microtransactions to the game, after the much-derided collectible bonus cards they had for 4E.

Wait, what?

I don't know if this is genius or pisses me off to no end. On one hand if everyone can bring packages to the table then ok I can see that being neat and able to have more diverse character.

But on the other hand, giving people who have tons of money an unfair advantage even after everyone else already paid for core rules... Is just messed up. One of the reasons I don't play MtG (and other card games) is because if you have more money then you just flat out get better stuff.

I uh.. Yeah I need to look into this more.

But I'll be damned if I play 5e organize play, that just seems troublesome right there. But I wonder if they will open up all their content to org play or realize how broken their rules are and limit what can be used (coughpathfindercough).

1337 b4k4
2014-06-20, 11:58 AM
LOL: a recent column by WOTC reveals that permanent magical items are intended to be special and rare. And by "rare" we mean you should be expected to find one roughly every four hours, in addition to 1-3 consumables.

There are some interesting rules planned for 5E's organized play. First, instead of having a fixed gold reward, the total gold from a scenario is divided over all surviving characters. Second, if the loot contains a magic item, then that means one magic item, and the group has to decide which character gets it (note that organized play groups are not necessarily your friends or people you know; this is why earlier OP programs would let all participants purchase a copy of an item, instead of handing out a single one). And third, you can buy booster packs at the game store that will give you bonuses during play.

That's right, they're returning microtransactions to the game, after the much-derided collectible bonus cards they had for 4E.

This (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/news/advleague3) appears to be the article in question. Frankly, the system for distributing loot really doesn't seem all that bad/unfair to me. Treasure is divided in equal shares, and magic items either go to the player the whole group agrees should have it or goes to whoever wants it an has the lowest number of permanent magic items. Ties are resolved randomly. Isn't that basically how 90% of MMOs and other cooperative loot games work?

I didn't see anything in there about "boosters"

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-20, 12:02 PM
This (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/news/advleague3) appears to be the article in question. Frankly, the system for distributing loot really doesn't seem all that bad/unfair to me. Treasure is divided in equal shares, and magic items either go to the player the whole group agrees should have it or goes to whoever wants it an has the lowest number of permanent magic items. Ties are resolved randomly. Isn't that basically how 90% of MMOs and other cooperative loot games work?

I didn't see anything in there about "boosters"


5e is to videogamey for me! :smallfurious:

Lol first!

obryn
2014-06-20, 12:06 PM
That's right, they're returning microtransactions to the game, after the much-derided collectible bonus cards they had for 4E.
Could you post a link to that? Fortune Cards were incredibly dumb, but they were at least ignorable.

e: Yeah, I think that link was it.


I didn't see anything in there about "boosters"
Depends on what a "Faction Pack" is.

e: Looking in context, yes, it looks like Fortune Cards: The Return. Huh.

Felhammer
2014-06-20, 12:32 PM
Why do we really care about what loot distribution the public game uses? Any system they choose will be inherently bad because either one person gets the awesome talking shield (not a good solution as it can lead to hurt feelings) or everyone gets a carbon copy of the awesome talking shield (a fairer solution but unbelievably unrealistic). Public games should be used to do two things - bring new people into the hobby and allow players to network with each other. The end goal should be playing in a home campaign, not continuing on with the arbitrary and byzantine rules of a public game system (be that Living, Society or League).

Fortune cards are a nice idea but people go too far with it. I saw people buying whole booster boxes of them! All I could do was shake my head.