| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
 Posted - 27 Jan 2012 : 17:15:33
|
So this is the second day of the D&D Experience (mini-convention deal), any news yet on the new rules of 5E?
I know they were going to do some limited playtesting.
Anyone in attendance have the scoop?
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2012 : 20:41:37
|
There's been some talk of it HERE and also some on RPG.net.
From what I took of the talk, the modular approach is heavy for character building and DMing tools. A Fighter can be as simple (like 1e/2e) or as complex (3e/4e) as a player wishes without breaking balance. I also heard they're doing away with the ever-increasing number crunch for leveling up. Meaning that Orcs you defeat at 1st level might still be a problem when your nearing 9th or 10th level. That, to me, makes it a little more realistic (which I thing is good).
EDIT: Oh, there was talk that there will be a D&Dnext Warlord class (woot!!)
|
Edited by - Diffan on 27 Jan 2012 21:17:47 |
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2012 : 21:24:19
|
Two more items I found floating:
Monte: "The play session that I envision with the fighter and wizard fighting together is that the figher is always better than the wizard. The fighter hits someone for 12 damage and then the wizard hits someone for 4, and the wizard wishes he was a fighter. Then that happens again on the second round, and the wizard feels the same way again. But then on the third round the wizard whips out his fireball and does 16 or 20 damage total and the fighter goes ahh, I wish I was a wizard. I want each class to shine and to have reasons to want to play that class."
And
Magic items no longer part of essential progression mathematics.
•"We're running with the idea that magic items are special and not bound to character progression."
•Magic items are possible, but difficult to create by PCs.
•Not balancing the classes based on the expectation of magical items.
So Vancian system is back.....well sorta and they're de-coupling magical item bonuses/items from a required player progression. |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2012 : 22:17:31
|
Wow, interesting. I've been hunting different sites and not finding much, but one thing I heard was that they're making playtesters sign NDAs. How weird is that? You'd think they'd want to take advantage of viral advertising.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2012 : 22:22:35
|
MONTE SAVED MY GAME!
(too early? heh, yeah) 
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jan 2012 : 02:06:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Wow, interesting. I've been hunting different sites and not finding much, but one thing I heard was that they're making playtesters sign NDAs. How weird is that? You'd think they'd want to take advantage of viral advertising.
I had heard that at first it wasn't NDA, then it was. Then it's only NDA for the earliest playtest and then future playtests won't be NDA. I think they're unsure of how much to release this early on. Keep in mind that it's in the earliest stages with modular systems becoming strong as it goes on (at least, IMO).
I think the Playtest I signed up for won't be NDA, i mean how could it be with such a HUGE influx of people signing up for it? It'd be really impossible to make it NDA with that.
Just my 2-cents.
PS. while I'm not a huge fan of Monte and some of this ideas strike me as a$$ backwards, I hope he gets enough insight from 4E to not just shove all of it's merits under the rug. From the comments I've read, my nerd-rage over D&Dnext is slowly coming down to a slight simmer. |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jan 2012 : 02:18:13
|
| When is the playtest you signed up for starting? |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jan 2012 : 02:44:12
|
Play test was always NDA, in part because it often offers more then one option. Further of course, no designer would want their prefect design being accessible to competition.
Oh I do suppose, some limited play test might not require an NDA, things like weapon damage vs. amour system tests. Things like this already exist, tests of those nature is just to see how balanced combat works. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jan 2012 : 11:10:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
When is the playtest you signed up for starting?
I haven't received a confirmation E-mail yet, so still waiting. |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jan 2012 : 17:51:30
|
Diffan, that link you posted is very interesting reading. Lots of tidbits, and people are speculating all over the place. I think I'm most surprised about the little tiny things (from my perspective) that really seem to seriously offend or discourage people. I can't imagine studying the math that closely, it's just amazing to me.
As for my NDA comment on playtesting, I should've probably been more specific. I'm signed up for a playtest (same as Diffan, I think), but an NDA wasn't mentioned for that; and it's still in the future. What I heard was that the playtesters at the D&D Experience / convention were probably required to sign NDAs because this was more of an "alpha" (as opposed to the "beta" which Diffan and I signed up for in the future).
But then they are offering seminars on the "big plan" where some of the major designers are discussing specific elements... I guess I just don't understand their intent, except that they seem to want a lot of control over what, and when, things get revealed.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 15:22:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Diffan, that link you posted is very interesting reading. Lots of tidbits, and people are speculating all over the place. I think I'm most surprised about the little tiny things (from my perspective) that really seem to seriously offend or discourage people. I can't imagine studying the math that closely, it's just amazing to me.
Pfft, yea speculations run rampant with every little thing designers say. Some of the things the Devs say make me interested, yet others make me sake my head. For example, one "quote" from Monte was about how classes may get tagged with Common/Uncommon/Rare titles, possibly signifying their complexity and depth within the setting. Whether this is tied to mechanics wasn't expanded upon. Personally, I never felt they needed tags that said "Whoa, this class is difficult and requires a certain amount of attention to design/play, be forewarned". I also think it's a way for the rules to give DM's an out for disallowing certain classes they may not want to include or don't like. Assassins were considered "Rare", and thus DMs might see this and say, ok these guys are rare so don't even thinking about playing one.
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
As for my NDA comment on playtesting, I should've probably been more specific. I'm signed up for a playtest (same as Diffan, I think), but an NDA wasn't mentioned for that; and it's still in the future. What I heard was that the playtesters at the D&D Experience / convention were probably required to sign NDAs because this was more of an "alpha" (as opposed to the "beta" which Diffan and I signed up for in the future).
But then they are offering seminars on the "big plan" where some of the major designers are discussing specific elements... I guess I just don't understand their intent, except that they seem to want a lot of control over what, and when, things get revealed.
I agree with you. I think the Alpha-playtest will be NDA just to get their foot in the door (as it were). When we're given the Beta test, I'm sure there won't be an NDA. Much like Pathfinder's Beta was a downloadable piece, it could be done much the same instead of going to a specific, localized event. |
|
|
|
Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
762 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 19:40:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I hope he gets enough insight from 4E to not just shove all of it's merits under the rug.
What things would you like to be kept?
As you might be aware, I'm not fully au fait with 4th Edn. however, rituals intrigued me. I like the idea of some magic (clerical or arcane) requiring time and preparation. Incidentally, the Ritual Magic from Midnight 2nd Edition (pg 130) always struck me as interesting. As did the spell points idea. |
Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness
Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass. |
|
|
|
Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
762 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 19:52:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
From what I took of the talk, the modular approach is heavy for character building and DMing tools. A Fighter can be as simple (like 1e/2e) or as complex (3e/4e) as a player wishes without breaking balance.
I also heard they're doing away with the ever-increasing number crunch for leveling up. Meaning that Orcs you defeat at 1st level might still be a problem when your nearing 9th or 10th level. That, to me, makes it a little more realistic (which I thing is good).
This sounds interesting. I definitely like the idea that orcs are still a challenge in later stages. That makes sense to me. As you say, 'more realistic'.
Some of the other stuff you mention, especially magic items sounds good too.
This thread of EN World is interesting. Followed from the WotC link. |
Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness
Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 21:24:00
|
It seems they are addressing some of my dislikes with all iterations of D&D (and MORPGs as well) - that although your character should get better and better at killing his/her foes, the opposition should not find it significantly harder to kill them (aside from having better gear, and being harder to hit because of training).
A backstab to a sleeping foe should just as easily kill a level 100 PC as it would a level 1 PC. Thank God they are finally going to address this problem (other systems have, and they are usually considered 'hardcore'). Your 'defense' should only increase through your own ability to eliminate foes quickly and efficiently - not because you grow thicker skin at every level.
In other words,a lone drow should NOT be able to kill 1000 Orcs - its just STUPID.
3 cheers for Monte! |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2012 : 08:40:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
It seems they are addressing some of my dislikes with all iterations of D&D (and MORPGs as well) - that although your character should get better and better at killing his/her foes, the opposition should not find it significantly harder to kill them (aside from having better gear, and being harder to hit because of training).
A backstab to a sleeping foe should just as easily kill a level 100 PC as it would a level 1 PC. Thank God they are finally going to address this problem (other systems have, and they are usually considered 'hardcore'). Your 'defense' should only increase through your own ability to eliminate foes quickly and efficiently - not because you grow thicker skin at every level.
In other words,a lone drow should NOT be able to kill 1000 Orcs - its just STUPID.
3 cheers for Monte!
This sounds very good indeed... hopefully I'll hear something soon about the playtest. |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2012 : 09:05:24
|
| Sounds pretty good, the fighter Monte Cook describes is similar to my homebrew warrior (except there are no redundant classes like warlord, swordsage, cavalier etc., it's all one class). |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2012 : 14:19:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I hope he gets enough insight from 4E to not just shove all of it's merits under the rug.
What things would you like to be kept?
As you might be aware, I'm not fully au fait with 4th Edn. however, rituals intrigued me. I like the idea of some magic (clerical or arcane) requiring time and preparation. Incidentally, the Ritual Magic from Midnight 2nd Edition (pg 130) always struck me as interesting. As did the spell points idea.
Well were I to make a HUGE list, I think people might object a lot more. So to be realistic, I know I'd have to keep elements that work for both pro-4E people and might not matter to other edition fans. So my list might look like this:
Tier Play: While not having a strong involment with the mechanics, I think it's a great way to distinguish complexity of play. Playing in a Heroic tiered campaign lets players know that their quest will have the scope of a smaller area and might not have HUGE ramifications. Taking over a tyrant of a town might be a good example of this. I also think this makes Epic style campaigns easier to run for the rules play to this tier well.
Rituals/Martial Practices: As you said, Rituals make some of those more.....unique wizard spells more applicable to cast. For one, they don't take up precious spell slots. For another, it gives them a little more realistic flavor. Seeing into the future should be something more intricate than a 6-second spell. Martial Practices are sort of like Rituals that aren't magical. They take less time, seconds to minutes but it costs some vitality (healing surges in 4E). These range from running really long, lifting and holding something extreamly heavy to Feign Death and crafting magical items.
At-Will Spells/Powers: Nothing irks me more than having a wizard/sorcerer resort to mundane weapons to contribute because they don't want to waste spells. And no, cantrips don't count because of the pitiful 1d3 damage they do. And that's another thing, no more 1d3 rolls. Ever. Same can be said for the fighter. Nothing more boring that round after round "hitting things with a pointy stick". Give me options (aside from feats) that allow me to shove a bad guy or knock him to the ground or make him slowed or immobilized.
Playable Non-Standard Races: On thing that I thought was pretty awesome was the freedom of playing races like Goliaths, Shifters, Genasi, Drow, and Tieflings without heavy restrictions or penalties for "Cool". Should these be in the PHB or Core? No, I wouldn't go that far as I'm sure other more "standard" races take precident. But that doesn't mean that these options should be shunned or made difficult because they're not standard.
Abiilty scores fuel attacks: Another interesting thing I found with 4E is that each class uses a primary ability score for their attacks, be it magic Ranged or martial melee ones. A Cleric could use his Wisdom modifier with Mace attacks instead of being required to go with Strength. Or a Warlord could use his Strength modifier when making a Bow attack and not have to worry over-much about Dexterity. Swordmages can use their Intelligence when making a sword attack. For one, it cuts down on Multiple Attribute Dependency (MAD) and another, it keeps things a bit more simplistic. Take the 3E's Duskblade that needs high Strength for melee attacks, Intelligence for his Spell per day and Spell DCs, Constitution for good HP, and Dexterity for moderate AC. With point buy, this class often suffers at one or more of these areas to perform it's intended function.
Starting HP and static increase: really, no one wants to start a character with a miserable amount of HP. Maybe for some, this is a sacred D&D cow but starting with 5 HP just stinks. Starting with more doens't really change matter that much and I also like gaining X amount of HP per level instead of the random die rolls of previous years. A Fighter that rolls a 1-3 on a d10 for his first 3 levels of his career puts him at a HUGE disadvantage and doens't really make much sense.
Monster Design: I thought the plug-in-play approach was really cool for monsters in 4E. If I wanted a shaodwy monster that fought with two-weapons, could dance in shadows, and have cold-based ranged attacks I could do so without jumping through 10 different hoops to pull it off. Monsters playing by PC rules just to cater to some mis-guided attempt at simulationism isn't good design IMO.
I think those are really great rules that can be incorporated a lot of different ways that doesn't really break D&D's iconic history or "feeling".
|
Edited by - Diffan on 30 Jan 2012 15:47:37 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
|
|
Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
762 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2012 : 23:50:36
|
Thanks Diffan for your answers. Your comments about hp are spot on, although, if it was up to me, I'd do away with hit-points all together. I don't see why a 40 year old wizard should take more effort to kill than his 20 year old apprentice - assuming both have not and can not cast any spells and you have a big sword.
For me, I'd like a mechanic where a skilled fighter gets an increase in a defence value. The more he or she fights and trains they more better they are at defending. Or just have hit-points treated as stamina.
Anyway, it's late here, and I'm not making much sense (well even less). |
Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness
Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass. |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2012 : 07:37:46
|
After that transcript imo it doesn't sound promising anymore. I agree about the magic items, that's all.
Vancian style of spellcasting should be just one tradition of arcana available to wizards, among many others. Most fantasy worlds aren't like the Dying Earth. Makes a little sense that fireball has a static damage (~3e psionics), the evocation spells were the least overpowered. Clerics are not fighters, they should be like wizards with the faith power source (or paladins). You can't balance combat with social abilities, they should advance separately, that includes feats, skills etc., they'll always pick the combat option. And it seems that their goal is to have a great number of classes, that could only work if the classes are truly different, and if multi-classing doesn't include sacrificing levels. |
Edited by - Quale on 31 Jan 2012 07:39:12 |
|
|
|
ZeshinX
Learned Scribe
Canada
210 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2012 : 21:27:27
|
| A nicely compiled list of what is known about D&D's next iteration here: http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=dnd5e |
"...because despite the best advice of those who know what they are talking about, other people insist on doing the most massively stupid things."
-Galen, technomage |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2012 : 22:40:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Two more items I found floating:
Monte: "The play session that I envision with the fighter and wizard fighting together is that the figher is always better than the wizard. The fighter hits someone for 12 damage and then the wizard hits someone for 4, and the wizard wishes he was a fighter. Then that happens again on the second round, and the wizard feels the same way again. But then on the third round the wizard whips out his fireball and does 16 or 20 damage total and the fighter goes ahh, I wish I was a wizard. I want each class to shine and to have reasons to want to play that class."
For myself and my groups, we always had that in 2E and 3.x; arcane casters (apart from bards) were only played when the DM strongly hinted that a wizard or sorcerer might be useful given the nature of the campaign. For us, 4E just made us wonder "what's the difference?" and ask ourselves why they didn't remove the concept of character class from the game altogether.  |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2012 : 23:51:39
|
You know what I got out of that (transcript)?
You know how they have those personality-things, where you tell it your favorite color and it tells you what kind of person you are, or even those silly "What Star Wars character are you?" That kind of thing?
Well, I was just thinking about building a 'profiler' based-upon what a person's favorite class is. I found Bruce and Monte's choices 'appropriate', but was rather intrigued by Rob's.
Yeah, I know... I'm weird. I didn't even pay attention to the 5e discussion after that. 
EDIT: Now that I've read through the whole thing...
I think what they plan to do is give us a very basic rules-set, reminiscent of OD&D, where we have a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, & Mage (and possibly psion... but I still insist they need to change that to 'Mystic'). This will be the bare-bones, "lets kill stuff and get Phatt lewtz" rules (nothing wrong with that style of play - a lot of us started there).
Then in expansion-books ('Expert', etc), you will have the Fighter Variants, Mage variants, Rogue variants, etc, with some of the option you can take (like how PrCs work). Basically, it will work similar to how 'replacement abilities' worked back in 3e (can't remember what book that was in, but there was also at least one Dragon article). You give up an ability, and take a replacement - its really nothing new. These expansions will bring-in more of the RP rules and abilities (when they talk about "then maybe this other class is 80% damage/combat and 20% exploration").
So the 'Basic' guys can be all about combat. like 4e was (the rules, not how people actually ran their games), and they can add layers of RP with the ability-swaps (which should take the place of PrCs, which I always felt could have simply been replicated - much simpler - with 'Feat Trees'). Ergo, it seems to be, once agin, mre along the lines of how I always thought things should work (5e may be the system I hoped 4e would have been).
3e got a lot of things right, but I think the one thing they got wrong was scalability - people who wanted just a fun evening of swatting stuff couldn't really do that. 4e, on the other hand, did that well, but didn't cater to the 'immersion' crowd. 5e may be a great compromise, from what I'm hearing.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 01 Feb 2012 00:11:20 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 01 Feb 2012 : 01:17:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Two more items I found floating:
Monte: "The play session that I envision with the fighter and wizard fighting together is that the figher is always better than the wizard. The fighter hits someone for 12 damage and then the wizard hits someone for 4, and the wizard wishes he was a fighter. Then that happens again on the second round, and the wizard feels the same way again. But then on the third round the wizard whips out his fireball and does 16 or 20 damage total and the fighter goes ahh, I wish I was a wizard. I want each class to shine and to have reasons to want to play that class."
For myself and my groups, we always had that in 2E and 3.x; arcane casters (apart from bards) were only played when the DM strongly hinted that a wizard or sorcerer might be useful given the nature of the campaign. For us, 4E just made us wonder "what's the difference?" and ask ourselves why they didn't remove the concept of character class from the game altogether.
I really have no idea where you get this from. Even within the same Role, the classes are significantly different. Lets take the Swordmage (a Defender) who uses magic and weapons to defend his allies and compare it to the Weaponmaster (PHB Fighter) who uses specific weapon groups to defend his allies:
The Swordmage makes a magical link to his enemy that say, "Go ahead, attack my buddy and I'll be so far up your butt, you won't know what to do". He does this by selecting an enemy within 10 feet of him. So this opens up his options to attack other, possibly stronger enemies and offers a TON of mobility (for a defender). He also has options to throw his sword like a lightsabre, perform something akin to a 3E Whirlwind Attack (Sword Burst), and keeps a spellbook to write down his utility and Daily spells in. I also allow them to write down encounter spells as well and pick from a larger host of powers than what the book says.
Breaking down the Swordmage's marking mechanic: Mark an enemy within 10 ft. That enemy receives a -2 penalty to attacks that don't include you. IF he successfully makes an attack against an ally, you can instantly teleport to an adjacent square and make an attack against him. Now, I house ruled it to "when the enemy make an attack" instead of the requirement of actually hitting your ally. There is another version of this that allows you to soften the blow, negation X amount of damage the enemy does to your ally (probably the most powerful version).
NOW, compare this to the Fighter. First, the fighter can only mark enemies he attacks (note, attacks and not 'hits'). Second, he doesn't get any flashy ways of spreading this ability around. The Swordmage can mark Multiple enemies with certain spells. The fighter can, however, inflict specific conditions on enemies depending on the weapons he uses. Spears and Polearms often push people around (imagine that), Axes and Hammers often deal damage equal to your Con modifier (again, awesome for Dwarves), Heavy and Light blades often give you more AC, or might allow you extra attacks. It greatly depends on the weapons you use to effects that you enjoy.
Breaking down the Fighter's marking mechanic: A fighter marks any enemy he attacks. Multiple attacks means multiple marks and all marks impose the normal -2 penalty to attacks. As an Immediate Interrupt (meaning 1/turn), if a monster Shifts (ie, 5-ft step) or makes an attack that doesn't include the Fighter he can immediately make a Melee Basic Attack against that enemy. Another feature called Combat Superority gives Fighters an attack bonus equal to Widsom modifier to these attacks. If the attack is successful, the monster is stopped dead in his tracks.
So on one hand you have a very mobile, multi-marking guy who's ALL over the battlefield, throwing his sword, teleporting to aid his allies, and even shooting people with magic. On the other you have a more Stand-and-Fight warrior who punishes enemies who engage him yet keeping those enemies firmly rooted to the spot once they do. He specializes in weapons and uses various tactics to engage his foes.
Really, how do both of those classes that share the same role even come close to being the same? The only thing I see is that the rolls that govern such attacks are d20 + Ability modifier + weapon proficiency + Feat = Total vs. AC or some other defense.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
3e got a lot of things right, but I think the one thing they got wrong was scalability - people who wanted just a fun evening of swatting stuff couldn't really do that.
E6 my friend, E6. IF your not sure what this is.....it's gritty 3E with a strong lean towards awesome with a big dose of reality. Really, it's my preferred way to play that system and DM it as well. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 01 Feb 2012 : 05:59:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
<chop>
In other words,a lone drow should NOT be able to kill 1000 Orcs - its just STUPID.
Not even if said drow is worth a LOT of money to those who write and publish his adventures? Seriously? 
 |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 01 Feb 2012 : 16:23:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
<chop>
In other words,a lone drow should NOT be able to kill 1000 Orcs - its just STUPID.
Not even if said drow is worth a LOT of money to those who write and publish his adventures? Seriously?
Wait, lets be fair. Drizzt never faced 1,000 orcs at once. When he was overwhelmed in the river (a couple Dozen or more were attacking him), he was most assuredly dead if it weren't for the elven couple on Pegasi that saved him. It was just a fantastic title. The funny part is that, using 3E rules, he most assuredly COULD kill 1,000 ORCS. Each attack automatically hits on a 2 or better and deals enough damage due to feats, enchantment, and strenght to kill an Orc with a roll of 1. Making 6 attacks per round and with an AC of 23, he could make short work of 1,000 of them in no time. They, OTOH, have to roll a 19 to hit him which makes it very unlikely he'd die anytime soon.
Just saying.....
|
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 01 Feb 2012 : 17:01:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
<chop>
In other words,a lone drow should NOT be able to kill 1000 Orcs - its just STUPID.
Wait, lets be fair. Drizzt never faced 1,000 orcs at once. When he was overwhelmed in the river (a couple Dozen or more were attacking him), he was most assuredly dead if it weren't for the elven couple on Pegasi that saved him. It was just a fantastic title.
That's basically what I was going to say as well. That whole book was hit-and-run harrier style of fighting, where Drizzt would take out a few orcs at a time and scamper off to lick his wounds. Played with the actual rules, this wouldn't happen, as Diffan notes below...
quote:
The funny part is that, using 3E rules, he most assuredly COULD kill 1,000 ORCS. Each attack automatically hits on a 2 or better and deals enough damage due to feats, enchantment, and strenght to kill an Orc with a roll of 1. Making 6 attacks per round and with an AC of 23, he could make short work of 1,000 of them in no time. They, OTOH, have to roll a 19 to hit him which makes it very unlikely he'd die anytime soon.
I agree that this shouldn't happen in a novel, and didn't happen in Bob's. This is one of those points where the system just breaks down, and I for one am intrigued to see if 5e offers a solution.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 01 Feb 2012 17:26:36 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 01 Feb 2012 : 21:25:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Wait, lets be fair. Drizzt never faced 1,000 orcs at once. When he was overwhelmed in the river (a couple Dozen or more were attacking him), he was most assuredly dead if it weren't for the elven couple on Pegasi that saved him. It was just a fantastic title. The funny part is that, using 3E rules, he most assuredly COULD kill 1,000 ORCS. Each attack automatically hits on a 2 or better and deals enough damage due to feats, enchantment, and strenght to kill an Orc with a roll of 1. Making 6 attacks per round and with an AC of 23, he could make short work of 1,000 of them in no time. They, OTOH, have to roll a 19 to hit him which makes it very unlikely he'd die anytime soon.
Just saying.....
Except... that's not how it works in 3E. You forgot to take into account the degradation of subsequent attacks from the first. Yes, it's pretty easy for him to hit them. However, a 1 ALWAYS misses. So, three of his attacks hit 95% of the time. The other three hit 90%, 70% and 45% of the time. Meanwhile, the orcs surround him. That's eight orcs, all with flanking bonuses. So they actually only need 17 or better (meaning they have a 20% of hitting him). One in five orcs hit, dealing an average of 9 damage (not counting criticals, since their falchions have an 18-20 range). So, with 1000 orcs, that's about 14 hp damage around. With Drizzt's 124 hp, he's going to be toast in about 9 rounds. Even if he hits with every single swing of his sword, he still only takes out 54 orcs before he falls in battle.
Of course, his chances dramatically improve if he drops a globe of darkness himself and his opponents. Then, I'd put the orcs hit chances at 5% (natural 20), so one in 20 will hit, and only 80% of them will succeed from being in darkness. So 1 in 25 damage him. That's 9 points every three rounds. 42 rounds and he takes out (maximum, assuming he hits every time, and he misses 4%* due to the concealment from darkness) 242 orcs, then falls over, unconscious.
*miss chance is 20%, but he gets a re-roll from Blind-fight.
[edit: math mistakes] |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
Edited by - Ashe Ravenheart on 01 Feb 2012 21:42:39 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2012 : 07:22:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Wait, lets be fair. Drizzt never faced 1,000 orcs at once. When he was overwhelmed in the river (a couple Dozen or more were attacking him), he was most assuredly dead if it weren't for the elven couple on Pegasi that saved him. It was just a fantastic title. The funny part is that, using 3E rules, he most assuredly COULD kill 1,000 ORCS. Each attack automatically hits on a 2 or better and deals enough damage due to feats, enchantment, and strenght to kill an Orc with a roll of 1. Making 6 attacks per round and with an AC of 23, he could make short work of 1,000 of them in no time. They, OTOH, have to roll a 19 to hit him which makes it very unlikely he'd die anytime soon.
Just saying.....
Very true; he's just been my favourite target of ridicule ever since RAS killed off Wulfgar (who was originally intended to be the central "big hero" of the entire saga), and the fact that he survived the Spellplague and the time-jump when so many of Ed's characters did not, didn't help his cause in my eyes any.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I really have no idea where you get this from. Even within the same Role, the classes are significantly different. Lets take the Swordmage (a Defender) who uses magic and weapons to defend his allies and compare it to the Weaponmaster (PHB Fighter) who uses specific weapon groups to defend his allies:
We might have had a better opinion of the ruleset if we hadn't gone back to 3.5 or over to Pathfinder before any of the 4E splats came out. Our entire 4E experience was based on the PHB1, DMG1, and MM1. So, yes, compared to the options available in 3.5 (even without the class splats for that system; our DM didn't allow them because of so many broken classes, esp. in the later books), 4E seemed rather two-dimensional to us. Anyway, now that 5E's on its way, if I can find clearance-priced 4E splat books, I might pick them up to test the expanded system; it just wasn't something my group could justify spending further money on when we already had all our 3.x books, and a new game that was compatible with them (Pathfinder). |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
Edited by - Jakk on 02 Feb 2012 07:36:22 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2012 : 04:30:00
|
Two more things I found about DDXP:
Article: Initial Impressions of the New D&D:Next
and...
Article: DDXP 2012 Recap: Running the New D&D and Playing Games
my reaction.....sh!t
Lets pull the two quotes I found to be the most interesting and unsettling of the articles:
" •That same Paladin had previously charged a room full of stirges, and become close to death by blood loss, necessitating a several week recovery time back at the Keep."
WTF. Really, we're back to bed-rest for weeks before delving into dungeons that, no doubt, have replenished their losses during that time. This is a real head-scratcher for me. Now, maybe I'm taking it out of context. Maybe I'm imagining ghosts that aren't there or making more of something than it really is. Perhaps there wasn't a cleric or anyone in the party that could actually heal? Perhaps it's more of a role-play aspect, where it was a culmination of things and because he (the paladin) didn't have a lot to do, just said (meh, I'm just gonna stay in bed and rest up)? But I think it's far far worse than that. I have this gut feeling of them brining back Ability Score penalties, possibly no regain of HP after sleeping, or effects that actually require bed-rest for weeks because healing magic isn't available for that level or group.
And onto the next BS.....er...quote:
"Returning to the Theater of the Imagination
Player: “What do you mean I don’t have a dagger? Why didn’t they give me a dagger?”
DM: “If only you had just been to a blacksmith who could have sold one to you for that silver you’re carrying.”
Player: “…F$&k you.”
Two of the groups I had both went into the Caves of Chaos with very typical 4e empowerment. They had expectations about their capability and survivability. Both returned to the Keep bloodied, battered, and with a long shopping list of door-spikes, rope, poles, and crossbows. Both groups went out as 4e PCs the first time and old-school PCs the second. The entitlement they expected in the codified rules of 4e quickly transformed into the understanding that they would need to take hold of their own destiny. The world wouldn’t save them, they would have to save themselves, and the best weapons they had were their imaginations.
Once that transformation took place, the whole game changed. The antagonism between player and DM transformed into a true cooperative story. Described by Monte Cook as the core mechanic of the game, the players told the DM what they wanted to do and the DM told them whether they succeeded or not.
"
Again, I'd have to call out some MAJOR BS here. First, if a DM can't make an adventure or whatever challenging, it's not the rules or the playstyles.....it's the DM. And really, the entitlement thing is 1). offensive to anyone who actually knows how to play the game and 2). a reference to anyone who enjoys level 1 characters that don't suck. And the last bit about Monte saying something alone the lines of PCs ask the DM if they succeed and he says yes or no.....well why are there rules then? The whole affair with these articles just oozes "Meta-gaming" to the max and even supports it.
EDIT: Now, reading it again perhaps it's done this way to illustrate that the game really can function much like older styles (looks like 1e/2e....stuff) and if that's what the group wants, cool. I just hope (really do hope) that D&D:next offers way more than this. |
Edited by - Diffan on 04 Feb 2012 04:34:31 |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2012 : 04:38:10
|
Sounds like some of the "Change Marketing" they used during the 4E transition.
I wouldn't get too caught up in these impressions of playtesters, at least until I've had a chance to see the actual rules in action. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D 5E news from the D&D Experience?
