| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 25 May 2012 : 02:25:23
Ok, I thought I'd see if folks had comments already on the new Playtest document.
Anyone?
I would comment, but I think WotC is so swamped with requests from folks trying to download that I can't get it yet!  |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 03 Sep 2012 : 21:25:05
Only three of the hoped-for four players showed up for our playtest. Nobody picked the sorcerer or the warlock; we ended up playing a couple of thugs (fighter and cleric) and a charlatan (a cleric who follows the Left Handed God).
I liked the setup for character creation. It was cool how you could pick a base class and then differentiate with schemes and backgrounds that led to equal parts rules-coolness (i.e. the mechanics unique to your character) and character visualization.
Before we knew it we were grave robbers who’d just got out of prison and were tasked with the community service job of clearing out a warren of cultists, in order to receive a deferred sentence.
The mechanics that stood out the most: expertise dice; making a Con save after going negative HP to stabilize, Attacks of Opportunity.
I liked the Expertise Dice because it allowed our fighter to parry lots of damage he would otherwise receive. It definitely made him last longer in the fight, which was cool compared to how fighters got shredded in the first playtest.
I liked how Attacks of Opportunity were set up. They almost encouraged you to move around your opponents, but never out of their threatened area, which was good because I was able to maneuver and get sneak attacks when my two buddies threatened the same foe.
Me and the cleric fell in the BBEG fight, but the Fighter and his Expertise Dice kept on trucking. We stabilized (thank you rules for Con score equaling how negative you can go on HP before you die from raw damage) and sat back as the DM and the Fighter (who was one hit away from falling) went five rounds of back-and-forth missing each other before the Fighter finally scored a hit and dumped his expertise dice in for extra damage to finish the boss off.
I wasn’t too keen on the rules for healing. Sure they made it easy to get back into the thick of things, but it still seemed a little too generous. Also, I liked that turning undead is a spell, but it kind of sucked for the cleric because he basically spent his turns maintaining his turn spell while we did the hack and slash work.
Looking forward to the next playtest. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 03 Sep 2012 : 18:52:53
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So it's been almost 2 and a half weeks since the Playtest came out and added two more classes: The sorcerer and the warlock. So what are some thoughts of those who've read it/played it? Ideas on the new class structure or perhaps a possibility of modular spellcasting (ie. Vancian Sorcerers, Spell-Point Wizards) or perhaps likes/dislikes of some detailed mechanic (like Feats/Specialities or Backgrounds)?
I don't mind the addition of the Spell-Point casters. 3.E Had an option for that in Unearthed Arcana that my group has tweaked and used alongside Vancian casters with little trouble, so I don't see why it should be a problem in DnDNext.
Admittedly, I'm no numbers monkey. It could be broken as all get out and I won't notice until someone else points it out to me. All I see is a simple to use system that would work for me. I wouldn't mind someone like Diffan breaking it down and pointing out the errors and weaknesses so that when a player comes along that wants to break my game (and make it less fun for the other PCs,) I have enough of a heads up. And I do appreciate the criticism that's been offered so far.
As far as balance goes, it doesn't seem to break anything and appears to play well at the table. The spell-point style is just another way for them to roll out another "non-vancian" class to appease a portion of the fan-base. The problem is, fans don't want alternative spellcasting classes, they want to swap the system independant of the class. So I could use spell-points with a Wizard or Encounter-based for a Sorcerer. Not, if I want spell points, here's the Sorcerer (and only the sorcerer) to placate that style.
quote:
What I really didn't like about the Sorcerer was the way the Sorcerer's background was seemingly hardwired into the Class' Mechanics.
What if I don't want to play a Sorcerer with a Draconic (or any) heritage? What if I want to play someone who's simply naturally gifted at casting a few spells and can do so without a spellbook or pact? Can you create a Sorcerer background for that without breaking the game? It seemed to me that the changes that happen to the character when she's spent X number of spellpoints is a mechanic intended to balence the Class, and if I want a Character that doesn't undergo any changes, but is simply able to cast by sheer natural gift, I can't do that without unbalancing something.
And while I hate the "well they're coming out with more bloodlines later down the road", that isn't good enough. So what I do is just reflavor the mechanics to fit my style. An example I made for the Sorcerer is not Dragon-blooded, but Undead-fused. Spells were Cause Fear and Arc Lightning plus I reflavored the sorcerer powers to Zombie Strength and Lich Bones. When I run out of "Will", instead of gaining dragon-like claws my arms tone stone-white and their cold attacks seem to leech the life from your enemies. By taking the Aura of Souls feat, it even furthers the feeling of a Necromancer. Same thing could be done with practically anything.
But I'm sure you can change things and see how they function, being overpowered is more in the eyes of the beholder (no pun intended). So fiddle with the system, heck TRY to break it and see what you can do. It's always fun to mess with things espically when |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 03 Sep 2012 : 18:04:00
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
What I really didn't like about the Sorcerer was the way the Sorcerer's background was seemingly hardwired into the Class' Mechanics.
What if I don't want to play a Sorcerer with a Draconic (or any) heritage? What if I want to play someone who's simply naturally gifted at casting a few spells and can do so without a spellbook or pact? Can you create a Sorcerer background for that without breaking the game? It seemed to me that the changes that happen to the character when she's spent X number of spellpoints is a mechanic intended to balence the Class, and if I want a Character that doesn't undergo any changes, but is simply able to cast by sheer natural gift, I can't do that without unbalancing something.
Pathfinder has done a good job of this with the different bloodlines available for their sorcerer (but no spell points, which I like). You can even choose the Arcane bloodline which pretty much only gives you cool abilities without changing you physically. I kind of wish that WotC would pay attention to some of the things that Paizo did really right, instead of only relying on what they have done in the past (this is my perception, not necessarily fact). Part of making a better product is paying attention to what your biggest competitors are doing right. |
| Delwa |
Posted - 03 Sep 2012 : 15:34:02
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So it's been almost 2 and a half weeks since the Playtest came out and added two more classes: The sorcerer and the warlock. So what are some thoughts of those who've read it/played it? Ideas on the new class structure or perhaps a possibility of modular spellcasting (ie. Vancian Sorcerers, Spell-Point Wizards) or perhaps likes/dislikes of some detailed mechanic (like Feats/Specialities or Backgrounds)?
I don't mind the addition of the Spell-Point casters. 3.E Had an option for that in Unearthed Arcana that my group has tweaked and used alongside Vancian casters with little trouble, so I don't see why it should be a problem in DnDNext.
Admittedly, I'm no numbers monkey. It could be broken as all get out and I won't notice until someone else points it out to me. All I see is a simple to use system that would work for me. I wouldn't mind someone like Diffan breaking it down and pointing out the errors and weaknesses so that when a player comes along that wants to break my game (and make it less fun for the other PCs,) I have enough of a heads up. And I do appreciate the criticism that's been offered so far.
What I really didn't like about the Sorcerer was the way the Sorcerer's background was seemingly hardwired into the Class' Mechanics.
What if I don't want to play a Sorcerer with a Draconic (or any) heritage? What if I want to play someone who's simply naturally gifted at casting a few spells and can do so without a spellbook or pact? Can you create a Sorcerer background for that without breaking the game? It seemed to me that the changes that happen to the character when she's spent X number of spellpoints is a mechanic intended to balence the Class, and if I want a Character that doesn't undergo any changes, but is simply able to cast by sheer natural gift, I can't do that without unbalancing something. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 03 Sep 2012 : 14:46:19
I didn't know they ha put new content, I'll have to check it out. I probaby won't have the time this week though. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 30 Aug 2012 : 06:37:30
So it's been almost 2 and a half weeks since the Playtest came out and added two more classes: The sorcerer and the warlock. So what are some thoughts of those who've read it/played it? Ideas on the new class structure or perhaps a possibility of modular spellcasting (ie. Vancian Sorcerers, Spell-Point Wizards) or perhaps likes/dislikes of some detailed mechanic (like Feats/Specialities or Backgrounds)?
|
| Kilvan |
Posted - 19 Aug 2012 : 23:43:02
Agreed
And yes, my attack math was completely off, don't know what happenned there... I agree completely with your annoyance over letting too much decision factor to the DM. Rules should be solid enough to set correct DCs 95% of the time by themselves IMO. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 18 Aug 2012 : 14:55:06
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Advantages/disadvantages
This mechanics simplifies a lot. It provides an opportunity to avoid having 5+ sets of bonus/penalties from spells and feats. However, statistically, I can't see how it will hold up at higher levels. A wizard has low chances to resist a grapple to begin with, sickening him first effectively halves his chances. This seems broken.
As far as what disadvantage and advantage provides, it statistically is equivalent to a +4/-4 modifier on rolls. A lot of threads over on the Wiz-bro site suggest using the modifiers if one doesn't like the advantage roll. But I'll go so far as to agree that the Adv/DisAdv mechanic should be used sparingly and for really important elements, not every round, every turn, every player, etc... It's grown that way and I don't think it's a good thing IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Check Mechanics
So, now we are back to attributes checks for everything. Including saving throws in this seems a bit overkill, but I can see how useful this will be for most skill checks. I like how a 15th level fighter will no longer be able to swim up a waterfall while apprentices watch with awe at his deity-like prowess. BUT, I don't like how currently all DCs are contained between 7 and 25. Remember that we roll d20s, so anyone has a 5% chance to get 20. It seems odd that a commoner has a 5% chance to break down an heavy iron door. And that is excluding the crit = automatic success rule, which would theorically allow anyone to perfom near impossible actions.
The idea behind the range of 7-25 directly has to do with Bounded Accuracy, in which flatter math will play a big part in. Also, you have to factor in DM elements as well. A Commoner who attempts to swim up a waterfall should, by default, fail 100% of the time if the DM decrees that it is so. This is that DM-Fiat power stuff I had addressed with some concern with. While this specific example is ok IMO, again it's something that should be used sparingly. Also, why is the DM even putting Commoners up against Iron Doors or puting any real spotlight on them in the first place?
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Attack Mechanics
It is weird how damage improves via maneuvres as level increases, but to-hit chance are almost the same. Right now, a rogue of any level with 16 dex has a 5% chance of hitting an opponent in heavy armor. A fighter with 16 Str would have a 10% chance. I cannot see how this can be fun. Also, a wizard has the same weapon attack bonus as a cleric or a rogue? wtf.
I think you have the math a bit wrong here Kilvan. A Fighter with a Strength 16 and his to-hit bonus would equate to a +6 vs. AC. A character with standard heavy armor (chainmail + shield) has an AC of 17. So that's a 45% chance of hitting. Yet I doubt we'll see many 16's in a character's primary attack stat. Using the standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 of 25 pts) and say.....being Human could net you a 18 in Strength, which makes attacks against heavy armored individuals at 50%.
As for the wizard's weapon progression, I think it's fine. Clerics and Rogues need bumped a bit higher. Wizards should get +2 for the first 5 levels and Rogues and Clerics should et +2/+2/+3/+3/+3 progression.
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Various Mechanics
The only resistance mechanic that works is the one in 3.X, with a flat buffer. Saying that all creatures with resistance to fire reduces damage by 50% makes no sense. It means that such a creature will burn if it touches a candle, but will save a ton of damage if set on fire. DR is the same. I like how critical hits are back to natural 20s only. Crits in 3.5 were ridiculous. Not a fan of 8 hours sleep = full heal, but a more realistic variant is presented as well.
I hadn't read the resistance mechanics yet, but it seems to be about "par" with what 4E did. Resistance does not mean immunte to X degree and besides, how much damage does a candle do? A 50% reduction in damage is easier to swing in battle and less strain on the math of the game. I too like Crits to be back to just 20's (with maybe a very small, yet specific instances where it can be achieved with lower rolls).
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Spells
I liked spells that scaled with levels, it made low level spells efficient at higher levels. Now, a fireball will be mediocre by level 10, and probably never seen again at level 15. Then again, IIUC he can regain a used spell by resting 1 minute per spell level right? At least he can go all out with his spells most of the time.
I'm not sure how it works, having only really looked at the wizard from the first packet, but I was under the impression that it's possible to incrase the damage of such spells by expending higher level spell slots. So plugging a 3rd level fireball into say, a 6th level slot would increase the damage by +3d6? I could very well be mistaken though.
What I hate is the memorization time of spells as a minute scale. It's far easier for me to just say "Ok, take an hour to regain your spells." as this is easier to do in the story than having the wizard specifically calculate how long it'll take.
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Specialities
As of now, no customization is possible after 1rst level. You have a simple line of feats and that's that. I expect this to change, otherwise it is going to be a big problem for me.
As far as I know, Specialities are pre-build packages of feats that are designed so that, instead of ala-carté selection, you can simplify it to an arch-type with minimal diving into the rules. However, I'm 99% certain that you can build it however you want and forego the whole Specialty/grouping aspect. So if you want to take Two-Weapon Fighting, Rapid Shot, and then Guardian or something like that, you could do so. Feat's don't seem to have a prerequisite level in their description either, which further's this belief.
I tend to think of it like that big section in the Player's Handbook 2 (3rd Edition) which had a similiar pre-package element that was designed to help people make good selections based on what they wanted to do.
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Background
I do not like how some abilities have unclear ruling. A thug can perform minor crimes without repercussions. Where's the line? Can he go to the same tavern 3x/day without ever paying? I know how a DM always has a final say on limits, but rules should give clear default borders.
I guess we'll see, but as of right now, I'm not hyped for the next version.
Some additional clarification definitly needs included and this is something that a player should talk to his DM about if none exist. Perhaps it doesn't need to be heavily codified but a general understanding of what minor crimes are and how much one can push the envelope should be discussed. If someone is a pick-pocket every day, chances are they're going to get caught and players should know that willy-nilly bending of the rules will get you into hot water sooner or later.
And while I did run a bit counter-point to a lot of your posts Kilvan, I generally agree with you about your impression of the next iteration of Dungeons and Dragons. It's a very strange system for me because one half really really really pleads with me to enjoy it and try it out and have a lot of fun. But the other half really really really despises specific elements of the sytem that are blatant attempts to re-capture the 2nd/1st edition style, 90% of which I left behind for good reason. For exmaple, I completely ditest the idea that plate armor costs 5,000 gp. It's appaling to me that, as a fighter, I'm automatically regulated to chainmail and a shield for the forseeable X-levels. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 18 Aug 2012 : 12:55:04
Ok, just went through the whole thing, but I haven't played it, and probably won't. I'll start by saying that while I'm skeptic, I can see how flatter math and lighter rules can improve the overall experience for most players.
Advantages/disadvantages
This mechanics simplifies a lot. It provides an opportunity to avoid having 5+ sets of bonus/penalties from spells and feats. However, statistically, I can't see how it will hold up at higher levels. A wizard has low chances to resist a grapple to begin with, sickening him first effectively halves his chances. This seems broken.
Check Mechanics
So, now we are back to attributes checks for everything. Including saving throws in this seems a bit overkill, but I can see how useful this will be for most skill checks. I like how a 15th level fighter will no longer be able to swim up a waterfall while apprentices watch with awe at his deity-like prowess. BUT, I don't like how currently all DCs are contained between 7 and 25. Remember that we roll d20s, so anyone has a 5% chance to get 20. It seems odd that a commoner has a 5% chance to break down an heavy iron door. And that is excluding the crit = automatic success rule, which would theorically allow anyone to perfom near impossible actions.
Attack Mechanics
It is weird how damage improves via maneuvres as level increases, but to-hit chance are almost the same. Right now, a rogue of any level with 16 dex has a 5% chance of hitting an opponent in heavy armor. A fighter with 16 Str would have a 10% chance. I cannot see how this can be fun. Also, a wizard has the same weapon attack bonus as a cleric or a rogue? wtf.
Various Mechanics
The only resistance mechanic that works is the one in 3.X, with a flat buffer. Saying that all creatures with resistance to fire reduces damage by 50% makes no sense. It means that such a creature will burn if it touches a candle, but will save a ton of damage if set on fire. DR is the same. I like how critical hits are back to natural 20s only. Crits in 3.5 were ridiculous. Not a fan of 8 hours sleep = full heal, but a more realistic variant is presented as well.
Spells
I liked spells that scaled with levels, it made low level spells efficient at higher levels. Now, a fireball will be mediocre by level 10, and probably never seen again at level 15. Then again, IIUC he can regain a used spell by resting 1 minute per spell level right? At least he can go all out with his spells most of the time.
Specialities
As of now, no customization is possible after 1rst level. You have a simple line of feats and that's that. I expect this to change, otherwise it is going to be a big problem for me.
Background
I do not like how some abilities have unclear ruling. A thug can perform minor crimes without repercussions. Where's the line? Can he go to the same tavern 3x/day without ever paying? I know how a DM always has a final say on limits, but rules should give clear default borders.
I guess we'll see, but as of right now, I'm not hyped for the next version. |
| Delwa |
Posted - 15 Aug 2012 : 01:54:02
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I think using the feat Two-Weapon Fighting (which should require at least Dex 13) should perhaps provide the ability to attack twice per action. This, however, does have a bit of consequences and doesn't provide your ability modifier to the damage delt. You would still get any bonuses from magical enchantments and extra damage die like the Rogue's sneak attack or the Fighter's combat superority
I agree. To me, limiting the kinds of weapons you can dual-wield would "balence" it. An average human, even with high Dex, can't dual-wield two claymores. To do something that fantastic should be a different feat, same requirements, but add in a minimum Strength requirement because they have to be strong enough to wield the larger weapon and be dexterous enough at the same time. And if you're limited to daggers, short swords, maces, smaller axes or hammers, the damage dealt is limited. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 14 Aug 2012 : 23:23:22
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Yeah, I was not a fan of 4e's version of two-weapon fighting. It is a static +1 bonus to damage if you take the feat. Otherwise, as Diffan explained, it is given support through classes.
Agreed, I don't think it should just be a static bonus to damage as that is very boring. But neither do I think it should unlock some ability to wield two weapons "magically" as it appears to come off with D&D:Next rules. There has to be a middle ground. 3E was close, but the penalities were just too ridiculous without the feat and even with it, it was penalizing flavor. So I believe a mix of 3E and 4E is preferred. Like I suggested earlier, I think using the feat Two-Weapon Fighting (which should require at least Dex 13) should perhaps provide the ability to attack twice per action. This, however, does have a bit of consequences and doesn't provide your ability modifier to the damage delt. You would still get any bonuses from magical enchantments and extra damage die like the Rogue's sneak attack or the Fighter's combat superority |
| Matt James |
Posted - 14 Aug 2012 : 22:08:47
Yeah, I was not a fan of 4e's version of two-weapon fighting. It is a static +1 bonus to damage if you take the feat. Otherwise, as Diffan explained, it is given support through classes. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 14 Aug 2012 : 20:00:18
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Yeah, two-weapon fighting was something I thought that 3.x did well. I don't know what it was like in 4e though.
It was pretty simple, anyone could dual-wield but one weapon needed the off-hand property and if you wanted to swing both in one turn you needed a specific two-weapon attack power to do it. 3 classes automatically received such powers (fighter, ranger, and barbarian). Outside of that, it's hard to dual-wield in one attack.
While I think this way was simple and easy, it was too restrictive. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 14 Aug 2012 : 19:40:16
Yeah, two-weapon fighting was something I thought that 3.x did well. I don't know what it was like in 4e though. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 14 Aug 2012 : 17:45:39
Downloaded and reviewed bits and pieces of the new Playtest. Mostly the races and classes with a bit of the How-To rules. Some thoughts:
•Races: I enjoyed that they dismissed the idea of adding back in racial penalties. Races now get a +1 bonus to one stat based on sub-race (*sigh*). And I'm enamored of bring back in sub-races either, which is kinda lame to tie them into mechanical differences.
For the most part, the races seemed balanced thought I hate the rule that lightfoot halflings can hide behind bigger creatures than themselves, which to me says other's can't do this (ie. a Human hiding behind a huge stone giant). Also, humans are the most powerful but at the same time, the most boring races in the bunch. As most races receive a +1 bonus to one stat, humans get a +2 bonus to one stat PLUS a +1 bonus to everything else. So using the standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 = 25 point-buy) a Human would have 17, 15, 14, 13, 11, 9 = 36 points!!). Yet that's all they receive. I'd rather just have a +2 bonus to 1 stat and maybe a +1 bonus to trained skills or perhaps a bonus feat or something more traditional.
•Classes: To be fair, I only gave it a quick look through but there are some significant improvements from the 1st playtest packet. One thing that sticks out that I am NOT a fan of is the semi-style BAB/THAC0 system they've got going. It's not as elegant as 4E's +1/2 level to attacks (which is preferrable over a hodge-podge of bonuses across the classes) but it's not as moronic as the scaling of BAB/THAC0. Still, the Rogue could use a bump a little bit more after 3rd level or so. As it stands, the Fighter gets +3/+3/+3/+4/+4 to weapon attacks (I believe) while the Rogue gets strait +2's for the first 5 levels. I think a +2/+2/+2/+3/+3 would be a better fit IMO.
- Fighter: Combat Superiority is a decent mechanic that I enjoy recharges every turn. They also get interesting combat specialization which I'll get into later when I have the packet in front of me. They added in maneuvers and I'm pretty pleased with them. They won't ever hold up to 4e's powers, but I'm willing to compromise.
- Rogue: Sneak attack isn't as limited IMO with this version and seeing it scale the way it does puts a smile on my face. I haven't read through all the Rogue stuff yet but they get some interesting class features that allow automatic Advantage every so often.
- Cleric: I don't mind that Turn Undead is a spell nor do I mind that, while it's always prepared, it takes up a spell slot to use becuase it's very situational and you can do it more times per day. What I don't like is that they get NO armor proficiencies except what's based on their Domain. They should have.....something, anything, there besides none. OR at least in that part of the description, put "See Domains" and no "None" because this, to me, implies that there might be some clerics that actually receive none and that's a horrid idea. Additionally, the Domains are so screwy with their benefits that I couldn't see anyone play a "Sun" cleric with their domain support. Sun clerics get prof. with light/medium armor and they have an ability to glow with light for 20 ft. In that radius, they can deal X-damage to creatures within that radius. I read that as to mean "ANY CREATURE" in that radius, including the cleric and his allies. That's stupid. If they put in there "Enemies" then it'll be a bit better. The War domain cleric is by far more versatile and plain better mechanically as they get proficiency with all martial weapons, all armor and shields and when they use their Channel Divinity power, they can attack in the same round as well.
- Wizard: I didn't read up as much on this as I would've like but for the most part, it seems unchanged from the Playtest. They get spells and cantrips and spellbooks. They get NO benefits after 1st level except additional spells and they have the same spell attack progression as a Fighter. Very bland IMO.
• Rules: I haven't gone into much of the rules, but there are a few things of note in the overall design of the game that are concerns for me.
- HP: Hit points in the 1st playtest were based on a HD + Con score, with a minimal mark-up as you level. Now, it's back to the abysmal HD + Con modifier, which means your lucky to have a Wizard over 4 hp at 1st level . Additionally, with all the talk about the Bounded Accuracy article, it appears that monsters (and supposedly players) are supposed to deal more damage as they level instead of bonus to hit/AC increase a lot. So with minimal HP, this means 1-shot kills could be very very frequent. I don't like this from a DM point of view.
- Two Weapon Fighting: As it stands, it's plain old bad. The feat stats that you can attack with two (finessable) weapons in 1 turn. All damage deal is halved. So, to me, your requiring a finite resource (feats) for the ability to attack with crappy damage that someone who doesn't spend a feat on can do the same thing with a two-handed weapon. Basically your putting penalties on flavor and that's just bad game design. And it's not like the Rogue can add his full Sneak Attack die (1/round) as icing on the cake as that's halved two as is the same with Fighter's Combat Superority die.
My solution, require that one weapon be finessable (meaing "light") and don't add the ability score onto the attack. So you can take the feat Two-Weapon Fighting and make two attacks with one action, dealing 1d8 (longsword) plus 1d6 (shortsword) and possibly some additional damage die via Sneak Attack and Combat Superiority. The damage will probably be a bit higher than someone with a two-handed sword but that's the point of Feats, gaining something for a resource.
- Opportuinity Attacks/Disengagement: The first part is pretty solid, allowing a creature a Reaction attack against anyone who moves into or through a threatened square. But the Disengagement rules are silly, allowing you to spend your action to not provoke an OA (opportuinity attack). What this does is allow the infamous Shift + Move of 4e. Basically you spend your action moving away from the Fighter and then move into the wizard's (or someone a Fighter might be trying to protect) threatened area, thus negating any reason for having OA's. Instead, removing the disengaging rules would pretty much solve the problem all together. OR, require the Disengagment rules to effectively reduce your speed to 10' and the monster still gets his action (which could be used to make a ranged attack for example). |
| Delwa |
Posted - 14 Aug 2012 : 16:44:04
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Just got an email stating that a new playtest packet is ready. Here is the link from my email. You will need to re-register (this is an attempt on their part to make downloading it more easy, and it worked).
Downloaded and viewed. I'm ok with most of it. The only things I don't really like are not "deal breakers," per se.
I don't like having Find and Disable Traps lumped into one skill. I prefer to have them seperate. Just because I spotted a trap shouldn't mean I automatically know how to disable it.
The other thing is the Cleric's Chanel Divinity abilty. I like the change from Turning Undead in 3.5 (never played 4E enough to compare) but I dislike it being a single target only. I can see lower level Clerics only being able to target a single creature. This could be fixed by either a domain making the ability an area effect a certain number of times per day, or a higher level class ability making Chanel Divinity into an area effect.
Other than that, I'm still happy with the rules as I see them. I love the Advantage/Disadvantage system. It's so much easier than having to remember what situations give a +2 or +4 or +6 bonus to a roll.
I like what they did with armor proficiencies with Clerics; making their proficiency tie to their domains. It gives a good reason for a healer/loremaster to just be a robed man vs a plate-wearing think tank.
I'm not sure how I feel about the Fighter. Fighter has never been a class I focued a lot of attention on as a PC, so I don't have a strong opinion there. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 14 Aug 2012 : 16:17:00
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Here are some things they can put back in the game:
Magical Aging Causes
casting alter reolity spell 3 years
casting gate spell 5 years
casting limited wish spell 1 year
casting restoration spell 2 years
casting resurrection spell 3 years
casting wish spell 3 years
imbibing a speed potion 1 year
under a haste spell 1 year
Put penalties like that in the game...you don't have certain things getting spammed in adventures!
You put magical aging in and there will just be those who start flitting from body to body all the time, or developing spells to steal longevity. Granted those options won't be easy to do, but they'll happen. Plus, certain of those spells have been easily toned down to the point they don't need those penalties and they still reflect the core idea. Still, yes, there are some things that might warrant giving up some of one's own life (for instance, true resurrection), and in those instances it does make some sense. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 14 Aug 2012 : 00:15:11
Just got an email stating that a new playtest packet is ready. Here is the link from my email. You will need to re-register (this is an attempt on their part to make downloading it more easy, and it worked). |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 13 Jun 2012 : 19:14:11
Here are some things they can put back in the game:
Magical Aging Causes
casting alter reolity spell 3 years
casting gate spell 5 years
casting limited wish spell 1 year
casting restoration spell 2 years
casting resurrection spell 3 years
casting wish spell 3 years
imbibing a speed potion 1 year
under a haste spell 1 year
Put penalties like that in the game...you don't have certain things getting spammed in adventures! |
| Markustay |
Posted - 13 Jun 2012 : 04:01:28
I would have gone completely the other way myself - nearly static HP and increase in combat effectiveness.
However, it doesn't look bad, and I will be play-testing it this weekend. Thats more of a chance then I ever gave 4e.
Worst case scenario is that a simpler system is easier for me to tweak. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 08 Jun 2012 : 20:47:01
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Vague impressions of limited use follow.
The move to 'flat maths' in combat and spells, with apparently no level-based advancement of to-hit probability, seems very drastic. I could have done with some flattening, but they seem to be going all the way and using hit points to differentiate. This continues the inflation of hit points (at both low and high levels) that I seriously dislike aesthetically, though it may turn out to work fine.
I'm also surprised by magic missile (or spellbolt or battlestrike in the Realms) demoted to an at-will cantrip: more than most spells, in the legendry of the game I see learning to cast it as a landmark of apprenticeship.
I'm not sure they're going to do away with an increase of numbers all together, just not the scale we're used to. 2E and 3E both used the THAC0/BAB system that went up based on class, 4E used the +1/2 level method. Both rose the numbers pretty darn high over a 20-level peroid. Perhaps NEXT will only increase it +5 or so (+1 at every 5 levels?) This would still mean that DCs can relatively remain static and your not instant-winning them 6 character levels in. I think it also makes more sense realistically.
Take your level 1 city guard, I don't think he'd have a hard time hitting a dragons. Doing enough damage to him before the dragon eats him or melts him into a pool of lava is another matter all together. With the HP expressions going much higher, it means that monsters are much more durable yet not outright invincible as they once were. It also helps fuel the reasoning as to why Dragons and other large monsters don't just take over cities. Even enough pesants with pitch forks and courage can drastically hurt and maim Dragons.
As for at-will magic missile, it's that the whole point of apprenticeship? Being able to master the lowest of lowly arcane spells for general use? That's always been my definiton of Cantrips, and why they kept them at-will. I just hope they have other options aside from that and the other two combat* ones.
*I use this term loosely. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 08 Jun 2012 : 17:01:27
Vague impressions of limited use follow.
The move to 'flat maths' in combat and spells, with apparently no level-based advancement of to-hit probability, seems very drastic. I could have done with some flattening, but they seem to be going all the way and using hit points to differentiate. This continues the inflation of hit points (at both low and high levels) that I seriously dislike aesthetically, though it may turn out to work fine.
I'm also surprised by magic missile (or spellbolt or battlestrike in the Realms) demoted to an at-will cantrip: more than most spells, in the legendry of the game I see learning to cast it as a landmark of apprenticeship. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 08 Jun 2012 : 15:06:14
quote:
Originally posted by Eli the Tanner
Hey Diffan,
Monte Cook recently posted a rather illuminating article on the very issue you seem to be wrestling with in your playtests.
http://montecook.livejournal.com/254395.html
I think he picks out a lot of the pitfalls and benfits of an improvisational-led campaign. Might give you a deeper perspective on the topic and how this could work. If you've come out of 3.x and 4e iterations then I think a game without such a strong rules framework is going to look daunting.
Personally I've found the playtest material quite promising and is exactly the sort of flexibility I was hoping the 'basic' rules would engender. The key I believe to bear in mind is that this is presumably going to be the 'moddable core' that Next is going to build around. Creating something where you can layer on whichever setting, ruleset or playstyle you have in mind whilst keeping a playable base system is rather tricky....and I'm glad to see they have gone down this route to that end (removing game elements is generally harder than adding them).
I still have a lot of critical points regarding the playtest material but I want to give the dice a bit more of throw before I wade in. Once I've done some more games with it I might post a more in-depth analysis.
Monte's pitfalls of a Improv-style game is where I have the hardest time accepting. I know that the game is still in it's earlies stages and it'll probably change pretty drastically withing the next 10 months or so (well, lets hope anyways). What I think needs to happen is to keep the Improv-style yet still define specific things within that mindset. I like having consistancy and with DDN, it's completely up to the DM to keep that consistancy within his game. So Bull Rushing has a defined mechanic, it should be that way across the board. But as we start to define specifics in terms of Action Economy, standardized DCs for Improv. actions........then how is that different than what we saw in 3E or 4E? And will DMs think this is taking away their power?
A modular system is great though, and I hope D&D can pull it off. From the Bounded Accuracy article, it mentions things that I really like about D&D and that particular direction they're taking the game. Yet un-codified rules for combat is a problem that needs addressing. And more options, espically for the Fighter and Rogue, because I feel they got the shortest end of the stick in terms of their abilities.
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Is it really that hard to strike a middle ground between the rules explicitly detailing every step in a non-combat action, and winging it? Coming from the point of view as someone who doesn't use/understand properly maybe a third of 3e rules to begin with, I often find myself just randomly winging it, asking for random whatever rolls, so maybe I'm not the best judge, but...
Non-combat action? Not at all. In combat actions...Yes. Coming from 4E, I pretty much wing all non-combat stuff because there's so little mechanics represented in it. For example, if you have the feat Alchemist (or theme) I'd pretty much allow you to make any sort of consumable item so long as it's near your level and you have the GP for it. I don't need complex math formulas to figure out anything else. But to have consistant rules regarding actions in combat is imperative to a good RPG. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 08 Jun 2012 : 05:11:02
-Is it really that hard to strike a middle ground between the rules explicitly detailing every step in a non-combat action, and winging it? Coming from the point of view as someone who doesn't use/understand properly maybe a third of 3e rules to begin with, I often find myself just randomly winging it, asking for random whatever rolls, so maybe I'm not the best judge, but... |
| Eli the Tanner |
Posted - 08 Jun 2012 : 04:57:12
Hey Diffan,
Monte Cook recently posted a rather illuminating article on the very issue you seem to be wrestling with in your playtests.
http://montecook.livejournal.com/254395.html
I think he picks out a lot of the pitfalls and benfits of an improvisational-led campaign. Might give you a deeper perspective on the topic and how this could work. If you've come out of 3.x and 4e iterations then I think a game without such a strong rules framework is going to look daunting.
Personally I've found the playtest material quite promising and is exactly the sort of flexibility I was hoping the 'basic' rules would engender. The key I believe to bear in mind is that this is presumably going to be the 'moddable core' that Next is going to build around. Creating something where you can layer on whichever setting, ruleset or playstyle you have in mind whilst keeping a playable base system is rather tricky....and I'm glad to see they have gone down this route to that end (removing game elements is generally harder than adding them).
I still have a lot of critical points regarding the playtest material but I want to give the dice a bit more of throw before I wade in. Once I've done some more games with it I might post a more in-depth analysis. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 07 Jun 2012 : 19:37:39
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
I love 4e. It's a great system and it's given me a lot of freedom. That said, the resource management portion of the game has made me cringe since it came out. This was recently re-highlighted for me with the release of Diablo 3. In 4e, you have to obtain better gear as you level, just as in this game, and the math makes it impossible to do otherwise (unless using the optional inherent bonus rules).
I think 4e is on the cusp of being a great system, but the media surrounding it caused it to get trashed publicly. It's a shame. I think it's a serviceable game system.
Agreed, which is why I'm devoting more time in furthering 4E on more fronts, meaning more conversions from previous editions (spells into powes/Rituals) as well as Prestige Classes into Paragon Paths, etc... You mentioned the inherent bonuses and I think that's one of my favorite aspects to be used in 4E. I don't like having to worry about having a +3 weapon or +3 armor when going into an adventure or cave.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
DDN is not complete, by any stretch. In fact, I'm convinced they want to change it. They want to evolve it based on feedback. I have to keep myself from getting personally angry at some of the other comments on the internet about how the game is or is not. It's not a game yet, really. It needs people to go in, break it apart, and send in what they find to WotC. Diffan, you're doing a good job. I hope that you're not just putting this stuff here, and are giving it to WotC via their submission forms.
I've been trying to post a lot over on the Wiz-Bros boards and also reply to their feedback forms. I just wish there was more to provide feed-back on. I thought the adventuer Caves of Chaos didn't help facilitate character options nor did it provide the DM on the "Why or Whats" of testing. More transparency is needed at the Playtest phase, not a cavalier attitude of "here ya go, play and enjoy!" I think that was the biggest mistake so far, giving us rules for us to just play around wth instead of being more critical and showing more validity.
Basically, the playtest should have had different problems that the PCs were build to have solutions to. A sort of hand-holding is good in this particular scenario because we don't know what they're testing. How do you test the Figher aside from throwing monsters at him? How does he know he can use Improv-esque moves like Disarm, Tripping, Bull Rush without at least a little bit of guidance? Espically for new gamers? The adventure throws 18 monsters at the PCs, so is this done to test endurance? Multiple monsters encounter?To deplete the Mage's AoE spell slots? What? |
| Matt James |
Posted - 07 Jun 2012 : 18:37:45
I love 4e. It's a great system and it's given me a lot of freedom. That said, the resource management portion of the game has made me cringe since it came out. This was recently re-highlighted for me with the release of Diablo 3. In 4e, you have to obtain better gear as you level, just as in this game, and the math makes it impossible to do otherwise (unless using the optional inherent bonus rules).
I think 4e is on the cusp of being a great system, but the media surrounding it caused it to get trashed publicly. It's a shame. I think it's a serviceable game system.
DDN is not complete, by any stretch. In fact, I'm convinced they want to change it. They want to evolve it based on feedback. I have to keep myself from getting personally angry at some of the other comments on the internet about how the game is or is not. It's not a game yet, really. It needs people to go in, break it apart, and send in what they find to WotC. Diffan, you're doing a good job. I hope that you're not just putting this stuff here, and are giving it to WotC via their submission forms. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 10:58:01
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
After two weeks of playtesting the new rules, my group and I have decided to discontinue the Playtest for the time being. I'll keep up with the current design aspects and the how the rules change and
Diffan thanks for the comprehensive post about DnDN and how you and your group have experienced it.
Apart from the at will magic missiles every round and the clerics lance of faith prayer thingy you have actually inspired me to go and download the playtest documents and try them out, as everything that is a negative for you and your group sounds like a positive to me.
I must say that when they announced DnDN I was sceptical of the assurances that they were reaching out to players of all editions. I suspected that we would see more of a mix of 3.x and 4E than anything else with even more of an emphasis on the MMORPG side of current gaming preferences however, if it is how you described it I am quite interested now as it sounds just like the kind of 'new and shiny' game I can run for the kids (even though it takes its cues from B/X, AD&D, Castles and Crusades and even Lamentations of the Flame Princess).
Cheers
Damian
I'm glad I helped inspire you! The game isn't bad at all and were I a fan of Improvisational games where your imagination fuels mechanics, then I'd be having a blast. But I like hard-coded rules. I like knowing that the DCs in the game are pretty consistant througout play experiences across the board. For example, I could play in my group and jump over a 15-ft. pit and know I'd need to beat X-DC. And that stunt would have the same DC at a Gen-Con event, with the Group at the Mall, with another Group my friend runs, etc... With DDN, there's no reason those DCs wouldn't change every single time or that I could even perform the stunt in the first place. To me, it's the inconsistantcy that is the real problem.
Now, given time WotC might come out with a set of hard rules and say "Ok, Bull Rush requires X and Y to gain Z result. This isn't by any means 'Official', but it's the we'er going to go with at Gen-Con events". And I'd be way more willing to play with those set parameters.
I guess it comes down to one thing: A Smar player vs. Playing your character smart. One relies solely on one's own Imagination and ability to think quickly on their feet and outside the box. The other identifies the codified rules as the world and thinks within those boundaries for a solution. I'm definitly in the latter group as I like to find solutions that can be found within the boundaries of my character sheet. I'm not a good Improv. guy and I do have a hard time thinking outside the box. Ergo, DDN doesn't really seem to be the kind of game that I'll either be good at nor enjoy as greatly as 3E, PF, or 4E.
@ Dalor Darden: I'll still be adding my own 2cp to the discussions about DDN and at least trying to influence the game into a direction that I think will allow me to enjoy the game. But my group just didn't really like it and I think it's unfair that I keep them playing something that they really don't enjoy. One player in my group who's played every edition of the game said that it just feels like a new shiney AD&D/2E and we're both on the same page that we HATE that edition. If DDN is trying to emulate that style/gameplay experience of 2E then I see no reason why I'm going to magically change my opinion because some rules of 4E found their way in.
|
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 10:37:47
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
After two weeks of playtesting the new rules, my group and I have decided to discontinue the Playtest for the time being. I'll keep up with the current design aspects and the how the rules change and
Diffan thanks for the comprehensive post about DnDN and how you and your group have experienced it.
Apart from the at will magic missiles every round and the clerics lance of faith prayer thingy you have actually inspired me to go and download the playtest documents and try them out, as everything that is a negative for you and your group sounds like a positive to me.
I must say that when they announced DnDN I was sceptical of the assurances that they were reaching out to players of all editions. I suspected that we would see more of a mix of 3.x and 4E than anything else with even more of an emphasis on the MMORPG side of current gaming preferences however, if it is how you described it I am quite interested now as it sounds just like the kind of 'new and shiny' game I can run for the kids (even though it takes its cues from B/X, AD&D, Castles and Crusades and even Lamentations of the Flame Princess).
Cheers
Damian |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 02:54:38
I wasn't attacking Diffan...I'm genuine in my regret that he won't be "helping" along with the discussion any longer is all.
I can understand his desire to use his time as he sees is better for him...I only lament it won't be in this playtest. |
|
|
