| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Diffan |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 00:18:33
A few days ago over on ENworld someone posted the notes of the panel discussion of the new edition of D&D.
Here's what was said:
General Stuff
What are you calling the game? Official name is Dungeons & Dragons. When we're differentiating, we call it the fifth edition of D&D.
No announcements yet on other setting support in RPG products and novels.
Rodney's talking about changes from the playtest packet to the final game. Bonus actions - you only get one per turn. "Warlock and sorcerer are real things."
Warlock is a blend of 3E and 4E warlock. Has spell slots with scaling spells. Sorcerers use sorcery points, and can use metamagic to modify spells. Can convert spell slots to sorcery points and back. Wizard has more persistent ongoing spells, sorcerers and warlocks have more "fire and forget" spells.
Draconic sorcerer has transformational powers as well as dragon fear.
Talking now about different subclasses appeal to different edition playstyles - the Battlemaster fighter is an example.
Last three months have been polish. 900 changes made to the PH just from public feedback from alpha playtesters.
Mike on product releases. Starter set for Core+ WPN stores July 3, others on July 15. no character gen - Basic D&D for that. Basic D&D (out in July) going to have player info and rules at first, expanding to MM and DMG materials a little later on.
"PH, MM, and DMG are more like advanced versions of the game."
Mike wrote a sidebar on THAC0 for the DMG! DMG will be more like a "hackers guide" to the game.
Monster stat blocks will reference spells, but otherwise should be self contained. Mike walks into the audience to show an example stat block from the MM.
Mike talking about process of change for the game. Using constant specific feedback from the community to adjust. D&D will be more of a living game and a conversation rather than Wizards dictating what the game should be. Starting next spring, surveys will go out to assess how rules elements of the game are faring. Changes will be reflected in future products.
Trap discussion - traps are more narrative and situational rather than a proscribed challenge system. Examples in the DMG.
Five damage levels for traps in the DMG to help DMs determine trap deadliness for the tiers of play. Traps are treated more like hazards or terrain features rather than a monster.
High level gameplay should be faster due to bonus action rules and concentration mechanic for spells. Multiple things slowed down D&D high level play; addressing it from many subsystems. Esp. battlefield effect complexity.
If you want to play a less complex wizard, play one from Basic D&D. Great for a new player that wants a wizard.
Cantrips are like at-will spells, so casters will always feel like casters.
Downtime activities will be PH. More complex & optional downtime activities will be in DMG. Good way to spend gp. You can use downtime to find where magic items are, and adventures to obtain them. Downtime activities in the DMG create stories that can be seeds for adventures. Going on a crime spree, etc.
Crafting for magic items? It is an optional element that should appear in DMG. Must possess schematic or formula to craft.
Hoard of the Dragon Queen levels 1-8. Rise of Tiamat levels 9-15.
DMG has more optional stuff for combat. Flanking, using characters as weapons, friendly fire, lingering wounds, etc.
A few varieties for many characteristic monsters in the MM. Enough to help inspire the DM to create more variations.
Comment from the audience: Trapdoor's "Morningstar" demo is excellent. Great enhancement that focuses players on the game.
You can approach monster design from a mechanical perspective, or just build it narratively and then adjust numbers.
"Spoiler alert for the Starter Set: don't fight the dragon." - Rodney.
Adventuring is based more around the day. More forgiving for smaller groups.
Other starter adventures? The DMG will have Daggerford, including updates as a result of D&D Encounters play.
"How long is the Starter Set?" About 20 hours of play, give or take depending on your groups' style.
Beginning of the new edition design, R&D started w/ iconic adventures from all editions to influence the core of the game.
Adventures highlighted idea of the three pillars of game: exploration, interaction, combat.
"How many adventures?" Tyranny has two adventure products, Starter Set, DMG, and lots in D&D Adventurers League. More adventures in the future - products focused on story and driving campaigns, less of a "splatbook" approach.
"Minis?" Themed to adventures and story. There will be signature minis for the storyline, hitting the high notes. Minis use amongst players is about 50/50.
DMG has options for creating your own skills.
Bonds, traits, and flaws drive roleplaying.
Tension between flavor and mechanics: The core books lean a little more towards flavor.
Player could pull apart the subsystems to hack the game a bit.
There was also a DM panel, which followed.
From the DM panel: Anything that lets you create things will be in the DMG
How to play videos are on the way, probably after launch.
Demons - locked in the Nine Hells. Need mortals to help release them.
DMG has planar information.
Exploration focuses on learning about the world. There is structure you can use to aid presenting exploration in rules.
Game blends all 3 pillars - combat, exploration, and interaction. Each class has ways to speak to all of those pillars.
The game is faster, more balanced, and more flexible.
Game leans more on the DM making judgment calls. Once you understand difficulty of tasks, it speeds play considerably.
Alignment exists, but has no mechanical impact. Focus on personality traits, bonds, and ideals.
Personality options in Basic D&D. More in the PH.
Eldritch knight is a fighter subclass with spell casting. You can stack spellcaster levels if you multiclass with wizard
If you wanted to build a swordmage, multi fighter (eldritch knight) / wizard (abjurer) would be good.
Tyranny of Dragons set in the Sword Coast in the Realms.
So..... what are everyone's thoughts?
|
| 26 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Irennan |
Posted - 19 Apr 2015 : 12:14:32
IMO it would be less math than subtracting DR from any damage received (or multiplying it by 1-0.RD%). IME players are very good at keeping track of what benefits them, and it would be easier in systems where there isn't much round-by-round tracking to do.
An alternative could be to have the extra hp pool completely replenish each X rounds, if remembering that every single round is a problem.
Determining how many hp would be restored each round is the real issue, because it would depend on how much damage the armor was crafted to block -or dampen- in average over a brief period of time. For example, X ''average soldier's'' consecutive strikes over 1 round. So we could roughly take that average damage -or a % of it (depending on what we want a ''blocked attack'' to be, since hp aren't meant to be same as ''meat'')- and have it regenerate each round (the maximum pool would be larger than that, maybe assuming that the armor can safely block X strikes, but with some margin of tolerance, just in case). |
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Apr 2015 : 04:43:37
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
I'm really hoping for an Armor as Damage Reduction module in the near future.
You could make rules forarmor as DR that are roughly equivalent to armor as AC.
1 extra point in AC basically means that enemies have 5% less chance to hit you. If we consider probability as the same as frequency, then a % reduction of the chance to be hit would be the same as a % reduction of the average damage taken.
Then +X AC would be the same as +5*X% damage reduction (for example heavy armor would grant 8*5 40% DR). This is kinda slow, but you could round weird% to easy ones, like 20 (light armor), 33(medium armor), 50(heavy armor) -damage would be reduced by 1/5, 1/3 or 1/2.
You would also likely want to set a cap for how much damage armor could be able to absorb, or make some attacks bypass/reduce armor (maybe even a lower cap, for example you could say that any attack cannot deal less than -say- 5 damage).
This system is very rough tho, idk how it would work with the rules.
I was thinking about simulating the armor-RD relation by having it increase the hp of the wearer. Basically it would add an amount of hp (perhaps a RD% of the basic hp -for example +3AC become +15% hp-) that would ''replenish'' or ''recharges'' of a given amount each round (or each X rounds), to ease calculations. What do you think about this?
An interesting concept. You'd have to get the math down on replenishing the HP, however I think that's a lot more round-by-round paperwork most people are willing to do. It's going to be imperative that you maintain the correct amount or it becomes sort of broken. For example, if I'm wearing plate mail and it replenishes 15 HP every other turn and I forget for 3 or 4 rounds, I've seriously under-cut the armor's importance. And not only that but a LOT of DMs I know like to keep a pretty general tally on player's HP. By it being round-by-round, that's going to make such jobs increasingly harder. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 18 Apr 2015 : 14:41:12
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
I'm really hoping for an Armor as Damage Reduction module in the near future.
You could make rules forarmor as DR that are roughly equivalent to armor as AC.
1 extra point in AC basically means that enemies have 5% less chance to hit you. If we consider probability as the same as frequency, then a % reduction of the chance to be hit would be the same as a % reduction of the average damage taken.
Then +X AC would be the same as +5*X% damage reduction (for example heavy armor would grant 8*5 40% DR). This is kinda slow, but you could round weird% to easy ones, like 20 (light armor), 33(medium armor), 50(heavy armor) -damage would be reduced by 1/5, 1/3 or 1/2.
You would also likely want to set a cap for how much damage armor could be able to absorb, or make some attacks bypass/reduce armor (maybe even a lower cap, for example you could say that any attack cannot deal less than -say- 5 damage).
This system is very rough tho, idk how it would work with the rules.
I was thinking about simulating the armor-RD relation by having it increase the hp of the wearer. Basically it would add an amount of hp (perhaps a RD% of the basic hp -for example +3AC become +15% hp-) that would ''replenish'' or ''recharges'' of a given amount each round (or each X rounds), to ease calculations. What do you think about this? |
| The Masked Mage |
Posted - 30 Jun 2014 : 15:00:00
or, if you REALLY want to end the debate, permanently - give him/her their way - then let them fall down a trap into a vat of acid and die. I've found that such lessons seldom need to be taught more than once. |
| Demzer |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 16:50:54
Maybe i'm just unlucky with players but figuratively slapping someone in the face with the rulebooks is the easiest, simplest, surest way to shut up any argument in mere seconds.
Whereas going down the rabbit hole of interpretations always leads to arguments that waste everyone's time.
So, from my perspective, having alignment rules fixed in place is a plus. Mind you, it's not game-breaking and it will not dictate whether i switch to 5e or not, but it's one of those little things that add up and end up tipping the scale one way or another. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 14:24:17
quote:
I'm really hoping for an Armor as Damage Reduction module in the near future.
You could make rules forarmor as DR that are roughly equivalent to armor as AC.
1 extra point in AC basically means that enemies have 5% less chance to hit you. If we consider probability as the same as frequency, then a % reduction of the chance to be hit would be the same as a % reduction of the average damage taken.
Then +X AC would be the same as +5*X% damage reduction (for example heavy armor would grant 8*5 40% DR). This is kinda slow, but you could round weird% to easy ones, like 20 (light armor), 33(medium armor), 50(heavy armor) -damage would be reduced by 1/5, 1/3 or 1/2.
You would also likely want to set a cap for how much damage armor could be able to absorb, or make some attacks bypass/reduce armor (maybe even a lower cap, for example you could say that any attack cannot deal less than -say- 5 damage).
This system is very rough tho, idk how it would work with the rules. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 12:53:26
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
Having someone play a paladin like a psycho killer and then giving them an easy way out of the mess and an excuse to argue with the DM because "there are no rules about losing class features" is way more disruptive at the table then an once-in-a-lifetime discussion about the morality of torturing demons.
Where as I believe your psycho-killer LG Paladins are probably a once-in-a-lifetime thing as well. There's no excuse for arguing with the DM, which was my biggest mistake in my situation. I should've known right from the bat that the game just wasn't my style and left. But I was bullheaded and pressed on because I felt I was correct. And that's where I find most of these No-Alignment restriction Paladin arguments boil down to. In my experience, it's far more the case that a player feels or thinks they're playing their character "correctly" but, due to poor wording, writing, or interpreting of the RAW AND personal bias the DM feels obligated (or delights) to remove powers and effects based on THEIR readings, not the players or a shared / mutual understanding.
Since AD&D 2e and through 3rd I've witness a few DM-forced Catch 22s put in there ON PURPOSE so the Paladin would fall as the DM felt it told a better story or to challenge the player or (in the case of my situation) the DM didn't like Paladins to start and punished me for choosing that class. Never have I seen someone grab a LG Paladin then go do some crazy, Chaotic Evil stuff and parade around the fact that the rules can't disqualify him from doing it. Most people who want to play that sort of Paladin just play a Paladin of Chaos, Slaughter, Tyranny, or a Blackguard and don't bother with the whole "slapping alignment in the face" thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
We can all lie to ourselves and think only mature and serious players play D&D but the truth is every gaming table has someone jumpy about the rules or plainly disrespectful of the DM. Leaving the DMs open to attack over something like this is ... not smart.
I find it funny that the rules somehow "protect" DMs from disrespectful players or jerk players. People who disrupt the game will do so regardless of what rule is thrown at them. These sorts of people are better dealt with by just asking them to leave. Further I don't see how it makes it better for those who DO take the game seriously to limit the role-playing potential of other aligned Paladins based on some fear of "that guy showing up".
I also think it's important to point out that Alignment still exists. It's in the game. Alignment-based rules will, most likely, be a "thing" you can opt into OR (as DM) can implement into the game. This actually requires the DM to get in and modify the campaign to his/her liking. But modifying the game has been pretty much what the designers have been preaching since the very first few weeks of a new Edition about 2 years ago. Each game isn't going to look exactly like someone else and each will probably have some modifications layered on for that group to get the sort of feeling they desire.
I think a LOT of people will be out-right banning the Tiefling, Dragonborn, Warlock, Battlemaster path of the Fighter, Inspirational / non-magic healing, Hit Die heaing, changing natural healing to a much less significant degree (1 HP per day or 1 HP per level per day etc.) as well as limiting what spells Mages can cast, what paths Clerics or Druids can take, and even implementing hard-coded Alignment mechanics on the Barbarian, Druid, Monk, Paladin, even Ranger or Sorcerer and Warlock.
I myself will be changing the Healing system (Wounds & Vitality) and I'm really hoping for an Armor as Damage Reduction module in the near future. I'll also be adding "Magic Marts" to my games and adding in exotic races like the Warforged. I'll allow heavy customization of spells and effects as well as how players represent their characters (a player wants to play a Warforged like Pacific Rim, where it's operated by two gnomes working inside the body) and stuff like that.
Basically the game will have ways to make it your own IF you feel the desire to do so. That's the only way the designers can meet the goal of modular AND inclusive. |
| Demzer |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 10:37:45
Having someone play a paladin like a psycho killer and then giving them an easy way out of the mess and an excuse to argue with the DM because "there are no rules about losing class features" is way more disruptive at the table then an once-in-a-lifetime discussion about the morality of torturing demons.
We can all lie to ourselves and think only mature and serious players play D&D but the truth is every gaming table has someone jumpy about the rules or plainly disrespectful of the DM. Leaving the DMs open to attack over something like this is ... not smart. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 06:35:33
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
*sigh* Alignments have never been a forced trope, they've always been a guideline... Not going back to the nine alignments is not a selling point for me.
Well it's sorta forced when your class says "hey, act outside of this very finite set of rules and interpretations and lose your class features." Either way, alignment will remain in the 9-point system, there just arent game mechanics that reference them.
So the DM has no rules to strip class features when a character acts against class rules? If a class has no alignment feature how can they act outside them in the first place?
Not only that, but part of the flavor of the character class is that it abides by certain restrictions. Paladins, being based on the legendary types like King Arthur, should be expected to abide by similar codes of behavior. You're not sticking with the character archetype if killing captured prisoners or enjoying a quiet evening of torturing enemies is your gig.
Last time I checked people weren't making Lawful Good Paladins and then going out to burn down orphanages or torturing people for fun. Considering that "morality" is subjective* it can cause table disturbances to the point of people leaving over such differences. So in order to avoid those possible scenarios, they left out Alignment restrictions from the Core rules. But it shouldn't be a problem to put them in if that's what you want to have in your campaign. It just doesn't force everyone into the same sort of campaign that others like.
*I say it's subjective because sometimes the lines between "Good" and "Evil" are obscure. In a specific scenario I was apart of, a DM and I became pretty loud and disruptive at his game when he stripped my Paladin of all his powers because I had to extract information from a Demon about a ritual that would claim the lives of many villagers. I used torture techniques like holy water and other various holy / divine objects to hurt the being into telling me the information.
Afterwards, I lost all my powers, but the villagers was saved. We argued about the morality of what my character did. I claimed it was for the betterment of the people which was good. He said torture, regardless against an ultimate force of evil such as a Demon is evil regard. I claimed that I didn't think so, especially when there are lives at stake. We then got into real-world events and it was downhill from there.
The point is, Alignment can be a contentious subject that is either better left outside the game's core mechanics and added in as a DM sees fit rather than a hard-coded rule to hold over player's heads.
Further, Catch-22s were used quite often when I played AD&D 2e and
If the alignment restrictions are removed, you could conceivably have a multiclass paladin/druid/assassin character. And that's not a selling point for me.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
But my greater objection is that alignment wasn't an issue in earlier editions. Some people didn't understand that alignments were guidelines, sure -- but that's their failure, not a failure of the system. Removing the system altogether, rather than clarifying it a bit, is dumbing down the game. They're catering to people who don't understand something, rather than explaining it better and leaving it alone for the people who do.
I think Alignment was more problematic than perhaps you are aware of. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 05:00:06
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
*sigh* Alignments have never been a forced trope, they've always been a guideline... Not going back to the nine alignments is not a selling point for me.
Well it's sorta forced when your class says "hey, act outside of this very finite set of rules and interpretations and lose your class features." Either way, alignment will remain in the 9-point system, there just arent game mechanics that reference them.
So the DM has no rules to strip class features when a character acts against class rules? If a class has no alignment feature how can they act outside them in the first place?
Not only that, but part of the flavor of the character class is that it abides by certain restrictions. Paladins, being based on the legendary types like King Arthur, should be expected to abide by similar codes of behavior. You're not sticking with the character archetype if killing captured prisoners or enjoying a quiet evening of torturing enemies is your gig.
If the alignment restrictions are removed, you could conceivably have a multiclass paladin/druid/assassin character. And that's not a selling point for me.
But my greater objection is that alignment wasn't an issue in earlier editions. Some people didn't understand that alignments were guidelines, sure -- but that's their failure, not a failure of the system. Removing the system altogether, rather than clarifying it a bit, is dumbing down the game. They're catering to people who don't understand something, rather than explaining it better and leaving it alone for the people who do. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 04:40:26
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
There wasn't a "Detect Evil" spell in the playtests. Paladins received a feature called Divine Sense which allows you to sense Celestial, Fiendish, and Undead creatures near you.
As for Alignment based class restrictions, it was thoroughly rejected by the majority of playtesters. First they started with a Lawful-only Monk. And it was rejected. Then they moved onto a Lawful-Only Paladin and Oaths determined Good, Neutral, Evil and it was rejected. Case in point, forced alignment tropes weren't liked by those who playtested the game and the designers decided to keep's Alignment's game-based mechanics out of the core rules.
Can they be added into the game by a DM? Sure, I'd think anyone could add them in quite easily IMO. And I believe that they'll most likely have rules and guidelines for DMs to put them in if they so choose.
I recall they claim it had a larger play test base then 4th Edition, however I wonder if designers cooked the books some to make alignment too difficult or restrictive.
I'm not sure. The alignment requirements for the early Monk and Paladin were nothing as specific as the ones in say....3E so I think it's more or less the concept rather than the rules functions.
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Lawful only Monk always had problems as there were evil monks (or anti-Monks) that could match power.
I don't see how there's a difference considering Lawful Evil is a thing?
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
As to "Lawful-Only Paladin and Oaths determined Good, Neutral, Evil and it was rejected." this itself strikes me as odd, Lawful Neutral almost should not be able to exist. The Oaths of course provide a restriction to character generation and changes, no problem becoming a failed Paladin type thing, because there is no such thing as evil.
I have no idea what your talking about? Lawful Neutral is definitly a "thing". Further Oaths didn't remove the ability to become Evil. It would just alter the Oath you took (or force you to swear a new Oath).
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
This clearly also a good time to get rid of more deities as deities of Law are no longer required, luck clearly neither good nor evil and somehow Lolth becomes not evil along with Bane and others that for some no alignment reason WotC decide to keep.
I'm no stranger to sarcasm....
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Well as already indicated I was not target market, I just fear what the target market might be now.
Probably the majority of people who took the time to playtest the material and give their thoughts on the game. Which, I presume, is a mix of people who aren't married to certain concepts or "sacred cow" to the point of dismissing an entire edition based off a few modular features.
*shrugs*
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
*sigh* Alignments have never been a forced trope, they've always been a guideline... Not going back to the nine alignments is not a selling point for me.
Well it's sorta forced when your class says "hey, act outside of this very finite set of rules and interpretations and lose your class features." Either way, alignment will remain in the 9-point system, there just arent game mechanics that reference them.
So the DM has no rules to strip class features when a character acts against class rules? If a class has no alignment feature how can they act outside them in the first place?
Why does the DM need rules to do that? Can't they just say "hey, that's way out of line for what it says on your character sheet. You can no longer do X, Y, or Z..."
Further, why would only certain classes be subject to such "stripping"? |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 04:23:16
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
*sigh* Alignments have never been a forced trope, they've always been a guideline... Not going back to the nine alignments is not a selling point for me.
Well it's sorta forced when your class says "hey, act outside of this very finite set of rules and interpretations and lose your class features." Either way, alignment will remain in the 9-point system, there just arent game mechanics that reference them.
So the DM has no rules to strip class features when a character acts against class rules? If a class has no alignment feature how can they act outside them in the first place? |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 04:19:27
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
*sigh* Alignments have never been a forced trope, they've always been a guideline... Not going back to the nine alignments is not a selling point for me.
In some ways alignment should likely exist, just no magic or classes to be able to promote, detect or fight for Balance, Law, Chaos, Evil or Good (Though the Evil vs. Good was always somewhat subjective in the first place). |
| Diffan |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 04:13:41
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
*sigh* Alignments have never been a forced trope, they've always been a guideline... Not going back to the nine alignments is not a selling point for me.
Well it's sorta forced when your class says "hey, act outside of this very finite set of rules and interpretations and lose your class features." Either way, alignment will remain in the 9-point system, there just arent game mechanics that reference them. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 04:01:16
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
There wasn't a "Detect Evil" spell in the playtests. Paladins received a feature called Divine Sense which allows you to sense Celestial, Fiendish, and Undead creatures near you.
As for Alignment based class restrictions, it was thoroughly rejected by the majority of playtesters. First they started with a Lawful-only Monk. And it was rejected. Then they moved onto a Lawful-Only Paladin and Oaths determined Good, Neutral, Evil and it was rejected. Case in point, forced alignment tropes weren't liked by those who playtested the game and the designers decided to keep's Alignment's game-based mechanics out of the core rules.
Can they be added into the game by a DM? Sure, I'd think anyone could add them in quite easily IMO. And I believe that they'll most likely have rules and guidelines for DMs to put them in if they so choose.
I recall they claim it had a larger play test base then 4th Edition, however I wonder if designers cooked the books some to make alignment too difficult or restrictive.
Lawful only Monk always had problems as there were evil monks (or anti-Monks) that could match power.
As to "Lawful-Only Paladin and Oaths determined Good, Neutral, Evil and it was rejected." this itself strikes me as odd, Lawful Neutral almost should not be able to exist. The Oaths of course provide a restriction to character generation and changes, no problem becoming a failed Paladin type thing, because there is no such thing as evil.
This clearly also a good time to get rid of more deities as deities of Law are no longer required, luck clearly neither good nor evil and somehow Lolth becomes not evil along with Bane and others that for some no alignment reason WotC decide to keep.
Well as already indicated I was not target market, I just fear what the target market might be now. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 03:52:16
*sigh* Alignments have never been a forced trope, they've always been a guideline... Not going back to the nine alignments is not a selling point for me. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 03:26:05
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
What's the point of saying alignment doesn't have a mechanical impact? It didn't before, unless there was a relevant spell or effect in play, or unless a class had an alignment restriction.
Because such "mechanics" do not exist as core components in the game. However it's pretty easy to incorporate and I'm pretty certain there will be side bars to such as that in the DMG.
So does that mean that there is no "detect evil" in the core rules, or no alignment restrictions on classes or anything like that? Because I don't see how this is an improvement...
There wasn't a "Detect Evil" spell in the playtests. Paladins received a feature called Divine Sense which allows you to sense Celestial, Fiendish, and Undead creatures near you.
As for Alignment based class restrictions, it was thoroughly rejected by the majority of playtesters. First they started with a Lawful-only Monk. And it was rejected. Then they moved onto a Lawful-Only Paladin and Oaths determined Good, Neutral, Evil and it was rejected. Case in point, forced alignment tropes weren't liked by those who playtested the game and the designers decided to keep's Alignment's game-based mechanics out of the core rules.
Can they be added into the game by a DM? Sure, I'd think anyone could add them in quite easily IMO. And I believe that they'll most likely have rules and guidelines for DMs to put them in if they so choose.
|
| Kentinal |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 03:06:46
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
By all obvious observations it appears that the next edition just isn't targeted at you. Its cool though as no one is forcing you to switch and you're probably better off just sticking to the version you do enjoy.
*nods* However you did ask for "thoughts" of the posting and so I provided a few quick ones.
It is hard to see me as a target for sales of the New World view WotC brought to the product. 5th Edition however did announce plans to somehow be all Edition inclusive. Not that I could see that occurring. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 03:01:51
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
What's the point of saying alignment doesn't have a mechanical impact? It didn't before, unless there was a relevant spell or effect in play, or unless a class had an alignment restriction.
Because such "mechanics" do not exist as core components in the game. However it's pretty easy to incorporate and I'm pretty certain there will be side bars to such as that in the DMG. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 02:54:47
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
What's the point of saying alignment doesn't have a mechanical impact? It didn't before, unless there was a relevant spell or effect in play, or unless a class had an alignment restriction.
Because such "mechanics" do not exist as core components in the game. However it's pretty easy to incorporate and I'm pretty certain there will be side bars to such as that in the DMG.
So does that mean that there is no "detect evil" in the core rules, or no alignment restrictions on classes or anything like that? Because I don't see how this is an improvement...
If that's not what they are saying, then I'm still lost, wondering why they made a point of noting the absence of something that wasn't there to begin with... |
| Diffan |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 02:29:26
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
General Stuff
Warlock is a blend of 3E and 4E warlock. Has spell slots with scaling spells. Sorcerers use sorcery points, and can use metamagic to modify spells. Can convert spell slots to sorcery points and back. Wizard has more persistent ongoing spells, sorcerers and warlocks have more "fire and forget" spells.
I've liked this idea from the get-go. :D Although I've always seen Sorcerer and Warlock as similar enough mechanically, that I thought the background might be all that differentiates (pact vs bloodline)
I've always felt both classes were pretty distinct in mechanical and flavor terms with 3E and 4E. I was actually concerned with 5E as most of the classes all share a similar spell-list and felt that there wouldn't be enough distinguishing features between the Mage, Sorcerer, and Warlock. However I think they've stumbled upon something that might work. I'm hoping for the best here.
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
quote:
Trap discussion - traps are more narrative and situational rather than a proscribed challenge system. Examples in the DMG.
Five damage levels for traps in the DMG to help DMs determine trap deadliness for the tiers of play. Traps are treated more like hazards or terrain features rather than a monster.
Does "Narrative" mean there's no set "Disable Device" check to disarm a found trap, you actually are expected to find the way the trap was made and attempt a roll?
I really don't know what they mean by narrative of traps. Maybe there will be options for both a mechanic (Disable Device or Dexterity ability check) and narrative way to overcome traps? I don't use traps regularly so I'm not really sure how it'll play out.
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
quote:
DMG has more optional stuff for combat. Flanking, using characters as weapons, friendly fire, lingering wounds, etc.
Using friends as weapons? I better keep this information under wraps. My PC's will go nuts. [:P ]
Hehe, yea I saw that too. But I think it's a great optional rule. The Fighter grabs the raging Halfling and hurls him at the dragon's head or the Wizard uses telekinesis to throw around a dervish fighter, lol. Sounds like fun.
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
quote:
You can approach monster design from a mechanical perspective, or just build it narratively and then adjust numbers.
This is awesome. I can't wait to see how this actually plays out.
Me too. One of the things I really started to dislike at the tail-end of 3E is that getting monsters or NPCs to do fun stuff was arbitrarily forced though the player-based rules. I don't want to have to give an Orc X-levels or a special feat just so he can dual-wield two battleaxes or that he has to have X levels to cast a particularly fun spell. Quick and fast rules are something that might make sand-box style games a lot of fun and quicker to run. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 01:51:10
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
What's the point of saying alignment doesn't have a mechanical impact? It didn't before, unless there was a relevant spell or effect in play, or unless a class had an alignment restriction.
Because such "mechanics" do not exist as core components in the game. However it's pretty easy to incorporate and I'm pretty certain there will be side bars to such as that in the DMG. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 01:45:39
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Warlock as a class is one reason I refused 4th Edition.
Mortals to release demons from from the Nine Hells (what they captive of the devils) does not inspire me much either.
Flaws balanced by traits has been explored before and never seen to work well.
Throwing away alignment almost clearly makes D&D a different game then Good vs. Order and*or Order vs. Chaos.
Might code real good as a computer game, however that has been done already.
OH I almost missed reply to this quote:
Player could pull apart the subsystems to hack the game a bit.
All Joy to the power gamer.
I see nothing here to get me to even consider playing 5th Edition.
By all obvious observations it appears that the next edition just isn't targeted at you. Its cool though as no one is forcing you to switch and you're probably better off just sticking to the version you do enjoy. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 01:38:48
What's the point of saying alignment doesn't have a mechanical impact? It didn't before, unless there was a relevant spell or effect in play, or unless a class had an alignment restriction. |
| Delwa |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 00:45:42
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
General Stuff
Warlock is a blend of 3E and 4E warlock. Has spell slots with scaling spells. Sorcerers use sorcery points, and can use metamagic to modify spells. Can convert spell slots to sorcery points and back. Wizard has more persistent ongoing spells, sorcerers and warlocks have more "fire and forget" spells.
I've liked this idea from the get-go. :D Although I've always seen Sorcerer and Warlock as similar enough mechanically, that I thought the background might be all that differentiates (pact vs bloodline)
quote:
Trap discussion - traps are more narrative and situational rather than a proscribed challenge system. Examples in the DMG.
Five damage levels for traps in the DMG to help DMs determine trap deadliness for the tiers of play. Traps are treated more like hazards or terrain features rather than a monster.
Does "Narrative" mean there's no set "Disable Device" check to disarm a found trap, you actually are expected to find the way the trap was made and attempt a roll?
quote:
DMG has more optional stuff for combat. Flanking, using characters as weapons, friendly fire, lingering wounds, etc.
Using friends as weapons? I better keep this information under wraps. My PC's will go nuts. [:P ]
quote:
You can approach monster design from a mechanical perspective, or just build it narratively and then adjust numbers.
This is awesome. I can't wait to see how this actually plays out. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 00:31:34
Warlock as a class is one reason I refused 4th Edition.
Mortals to release demons from from the Nine Hells (what they captive of the devils) does not inspire me much either.
Flaws balanced by traits has been explored before and never seen to work well.
Throwing away alignment almost clearly makes D&D a different game then Good vs. Order and*or Order vs. Chaos.
Might code real good as a computer game, however that has been done already.
OH I almost missed reply to this quote:
Player could pull apart the subsystems to hack the game a bit.
All Joy to the power gamer.
I see nothing here to get me to even consider playing 5th Edition.
|
|
|
