| Author |
 Topic  |
|
coach
Senior Scribe
USA
479 Posts |
 Posted - 26 May 2012 : 04:39:35
|
seems WotC sees that Pathfinder popularity has exploded maintaining/tweaking the 3.5 ruleset so mostly they are going back to 3.X elements with hints of 1e/2e and a smidge of 4e
they couldn't have admitted 4e was a disaster anymore even if they came out and stated it, this DnD Next is a rewind to 3.X yet simplifying it
of course we could say we told you so but...
the MMO feel is gone, feels like DnD again
thanks WotC, it takes guts to admit you were wrong and you have done so |
Bloodstone Lands Sage |
Edited by - coach on 26 May 2012 04:40:52 |
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2012 : 05:12:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by coach
seems WotC sees that Pathfinder popularity has exploded maintaining/tweaking the 3.5 ruleset so mostly they are going back to 3.X elements with hints of 1e/2e and a smidge of 4e
From what I've gathered on numerous threads of other sites (including WotC) are the streamlined aspects, coupled with simple math, and a linear aspect to character design all points to signs of pre-3rd Edition. Actually, one of 3E's biggest claims to popularity (questionable, I know) is their robust Skill system. Which is practically devoid so far in D&D:Next. Further, we have no Base Attack bonus to speak of NOR do we have a compiled Saving Throw system (3E's other popular change to Fort/Ref/Will). What attributes of D&D:Next, aside from some designer's implications of a 3E-style Multiclass system, are taken from 3E? Maybe how the monsters are written in their stat block. But really, I just don't see that much. If anything, I think 4E found a lot more stuff back-ported into D&D:Next than anything in 3E.
There are skills, but they're even more streamlined in D&D:next and not even a Training system that 4E had, and no ranks of 3E/PF what-so-ever. Melee-based guys don't do anything really that interesting, which I guess could be harkened back to 3E. The Advantage/Disadvantage is clearly retained (at least, started there) from 4E's "Combat Advantage" catch-all mechanic. Long and Short rests are another 4E thing as are Rituals. In D&D:next, your allowed to "self-heal" via a Healer's Kit to spend your hit-die. You roll your HD and add your Con-modifier to regain that many HP. Once you've spent all your HD, you have to make a Long Rest before regaining anything. So a 1st level Fighter (d12) can expend his One HD, roll a d12 and add his Con for added HP. Wait......yep that's another 4E thing (but we called them Healing Surges).
Other 4E aspects: Familiars added bonuses and lack of penalty for them dying. Death Saving Throws made it, yet another 4E mechanic. Non-lethal damage being a viable option instead of taking penalties, like in 3E. Attack spells now use the abiility modifier that increases spellcasting for the class, something 3E had a few feats for (Zen Archery, I'm looking at you) but was a staple point in 4E.
EDIT: Completely forgot that Backgrounds and Themes (as a conduit for mechanics) have 4E written all over them. Backgrounds sort-of existed in 3E, but it was just flavor for the most part where as Backgrounds for 4E laid the ground work for a Skills delivery system. And themes have been popular in 4E for over 2 years as interesting, non-class related features. Which is practically what Feats were though 3E and 4E are both to blame for adding so many class-centric feats to the system as to make them almost required in character builds.
quote:
Originally posted by coach
they couldn't have admitted 4e was a disaster anymore even if they came out and stated it, this DnD Next is a rewind to 3.X yet simplifying it
of course we could say we told you so but...
the MMO feel is gone, feels like DnD again
Really? So 4E was Wrongbadfun and apparently no one liked it. If it felt like an MMO, it was probably because your group played it as such. And really, if it was such a disaster then why are so many elements being incorporated into the new system? We're promised a modular game where we'll get non-magical based Maneuvers and I pretty much will hold them to that (or make them myself, who knows?).
quote:
Originally posted by coach
thanks WotC, it takes guts to admit you were wrong and you have done so
Except, they weren't wrong. A certain amount of people didn't like it and they were supplanted by ONE company that just re-hashed rules they previously made. Pathfinder didn't really make any great strides in mechanics or game-theory or game design. They polished up some rough parts of a decade old system, something the parent compnay got lambasted for just 5 years prior. Don't get me wrong, I think Pathfinder is a great game with some awesome Adventure Paths, but I'll never consider it as anything more than an extention to 3E. It still has most of 3E's flaws (or things I preceive as flaws). |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
Edited by - Diffan on 26 May 2012 05:20:45 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2012 : 05:45:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
You and I seem to be opposed, Diffan.
I'm personally all for forcing a mage to use up his spell slots on spells - even the utility sorts of spells which are "useless" in combat. Certainly a PC mage could memorize magic missile (4), flaming sphere (2), fireball (2) and be more potent in terms of rolling damage dice. But I don't believe every challenge should involve combat (especially at low levels!) and there's plenty of spells like invisibility, levitate, dispel magic, and fly which are versatile both in and out of combat. If alarm is not "worth" a spell slot, it is only because the spell is poorly written or poorly applied. I would actually think the vast majority of spells should be noncombative in nature, since wizards as a class are (or at least used to be) generally known as bookish nerdy wimps instead of as mighty battlemages who blast their way to power and knowledge across the smoldering corpses of enemy armies.
I'm pretty sure it has to do with me coming into D&D in the very late stages of 2E/AD&D and mostly all my experience with 3E, v3.5, Pathfinder, and 4E. If I'm going to play a Wizard, I know that I'll need to be versatile (it's why they're given Scribe Scroll at 1st level in 3E) but I also like to feel that I'm contributing to the action in an adventure. If, at 1st level, my spells are Alarm, Disguise Self, and Sleep there really isn't anything I'll be doing that'll help my comrades out if we go dungeon delving. Sleep will help and maybe disguise self will help us past come guards but when the initiative die rolls, I want options that'll be useful in the combat-phase. So instead of preparing Alarm, I take Burning Hands or Obscuring Mist or Ray of Enfeeblement. But the ability to use Alarm as a 10-minute ritual requiring GP and materials is something that still helpful while not impacting my ability to help my allies.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Multiple Attribute Dependency ... well, fighters and wizards are entirely opposite extremes. It makes sense for only the most extraordinary individuals (with highest stats) to be able to excel superhumanly at both careers simultaneously. A fighter and thief have some overlap, like a body-builder and gymnast would, but a fighter and wizard are more akin to an athlete and physicist. I'm not at all saying it's impossible for people to excel at anything they want, and I'm sure examples of athletic physicists can be found ... but most people don't have exceptional strength and exceptional dexterity and exceptional constitution and exceptional intelligence, so most people who become fighter/mages are just not going to be able to do it as well as they could pursue a multiclass combo which has better overlap or synergies.
I was actually thinking of the classes that are designed from level 1-30 for the "Gish" style. The Duskblade, Bard, Cleric, Swordmage, Bladesinger, etc. are all classes that rely on melee (or ranged) attacks because they're designed to be in melee-combat. This makes them reliant on Str, Con, and Dex. Yet they also need a 'Mental' stat to fuel their magic side, which helps make fuel spell attacks, saves, and memorization/spell slot availability. The answer in 3E was to limit what Ability scores you really needed, usually dropping Strength to 10 because Dex can be used with light weapons and it also helped Reflex, Initiative, AC, and Skills. Strength just helped skills and weapon damage (which is supplanted to another score via feats).
Then, in 4E, they just went along with allowing a class to use another Ability Score for their attacks. A Swordmage or Bladesinger uses their Intelligence for melee-attacks, a Paladin could use his Charisma, a Cleric can use his Wisdom, and so forth. For some (like myself) it was a blessing because I didn't have to stretch my character so thin. My cleric spells would be good and I wouldn't be half-bad in melee. But for others, it broke verisimilitude or some ideal of 'realism' in the game. I just didn't put that much stock into that sort of thing. I know it's a game, I know that it has gamist elements, and I know that I like playing a game that I'm not severly penalized for doing the job designed for the class. I think what frustrates me the most is how strange some people are. They're willing to think in abstract terms when it comes to HP, Armor, Magic, etc. but won't budge on things like using Charisma for an attack or the ability to swing with every single ounce of Strength as a 1/day effect.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
It's all just preference. I personally disfavour the modern notion that wizards are blasters, that everybody and anybody can multiclass into anything they like, that fighter/mage combinations of any sort should be commonplace, and that everybody should have "balanced" stats with a healthy bunch of bonuses in everything they do.
I agree with you that Wizards shouldn't be just blasters. Even in 4E, Blasting wizards are really really under-par mechanics wise. They're far better using their spells that hinder monsters's abilities, push them off cliffs, control the environment, etc. Yet when it comes down to the round-by-round approach of the game, I don't want to sit there and contemplate the usage of my spells (taking 10 minutes to figure out what to do) against 3 goblins and then deciding that they're not worth my spells and shooting a crossbow. I really won't go back to wizard/sorcerers using crossbows in lieu of spells. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2012 : 07:09:37
|
| I think I understand what you're saying about little mages using throwing daggers and crossbows to have any hope of "participating" effectively in combat. I suppose the difference is that I view a 3rd-level mageling as a 3rd-level hero, somebody who's already a bit extraordinary and superhuman compared against the masses. I don't see that 3rd-level character is just grinding his way up to "real" levels where he can be properly epic. In short, I don't see D&D characters as being equivalent to characters in, say, WoW or Diablo, merely doing what they have to do to survive up until they reach higher levels where their pwning dominance can begin to emerge - they're not just warm bodies tagging along to leech xp and accumulate gear. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2012 : 11:05:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I think I understand what you're saying about little mages using throwing daggers and crossbows to have any hope of "participating" effectively in combat. I suppose the difference is that I view a 3rd-level mageling as a 3rd-level hero, somebody who's already a bit extraordinary and superhuman compared against the masses. I don't see that 3rd-level character is just grinding his way up to "real" levels where he can be properly epic. In short, I don't see D&D characters as being equivalent to characters in, say, WoW or Diablo, merely doing what they have to do to survive up until they reach higher levels where their pwning dominance can begin to emerge - they're not just warm bodies tagging along to leech xp and accumulate gear.
I think that's being a bit unfair. How does 'wanting to contribute in combat via magic' equate to Diablo or WoW? I'm not saying a 1st level wizard has to be all-powerful or super awesome or blast demons away with a mere cantrip, though I do like to participate every round when combat is happening. Sometimes that means casting a powerful offensive spell or a great buff spell or a spell that dispels the bad guys magic or maybe a minor spell that deals a little bit of damage and has an effect or any number of factors.
I don't feel that At-Will magic takes anything away from how special magic is. I think that wizards should have reliable spells to defaul to when they don't feel their more powerful spells are needed in a particular encounter. I'd rather not waste my time with weapons that I'm barely proficient with just to "save" my spells for the real bad-guys that are possibly further in the adventures (like that's not meta-gaming). |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2012 : 13:29:52
|
I suppose you're right, it does seem unfair. The third level mage armed with a crossbow is, in effect, about the same thing as a first level fighter.
I suppose it depends a lot on how and where the party adventures ... if their primary source of earned xp comes from foes defeated in combat then it makes sense for them to "build" and measure their abilities in terms of combat. If they instead focus on roleplaying, politics, and typical non-combat questing (fetch the item, deliver the item, find the hidden NPC, etc) then versatile utility spells or thiefy skills can really shine. Some players thrive on these elements, others swear and curse their lame DM ... all preference. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Bluenose
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
134 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2012 : 13:44:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I'm not sure some will agree, but I'm seeing quite a bit from "Basic" D&D and original AD&D in this game!
Even the monster descriptions of the humanoids goes quite a bit back to the days of AD&D!
I'm a sucker for hints of nostalgia!
Rules Cyclopedia sprang to mind for me on my first read-through. BD&D rewritten for the D20 system would seem a legitimate description.
@ Ayrik
Measuring characters not just on how they perform in combat, the Fighter gets nothing - literally nothing - that doesn't come from their background or theme out of combat. The Wizard gets any spell they know, with the ability to use it as a ritual without having to spend a spell slot on it. The rogue gets some pretty nice skills. The Cleric doesn't seem to get much more than the Fighter, as unless I'm missing it their spells aren't rituals. And I'll note that having played through a bit of this solo, just to test things out, the Fighter really isn't that good at fighting compared to the Cleric of Moradin. The wizard is really good at ending fights, too, although the other Cleric (of Pelor) was also able to do lots of damage with his magic. |
These, in the day when heaven was falling,
The hour when earth's foundations fled,
Followed their mercenary calling
And took their wages and are dead.
Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2012 : 17:47:25
|
To me (and I've been playtesting it for months now), DnD Next feels like a mixture that is primarily 2e, with some innovations and concepts from 3e and 4e and a nostalgic 1e streak. But then, I came to D&D primarily in 2nd edition, so it's no surprise that's what D&D *is* in my mind. That this version appeals to that is a good thing, I think.
What's the rationale behind having monsters function like PCs? I mean, sure, I concur that it's a cool thing to see monsters cast spells that look like spells PCs use (the lich fireballs the party, the satyr casts a sleep spell with his pipes, etc). There's something iconic and fun about that, especially when you as PCs then get to find the evil wizard's spellbook and learn some of those abilities for yourself.
But I don't see how making monsters "exactly like PCs" helps the game. If anything, it just makes monsters infinitely harder to build. In 1e and 2e, no one had a clue how to build monsters--they were just creatures that did cool or crazy things. Sometimes they might be similar to PCs (the orcs or goblins have a superficially similar fighting style), but sometimes they're radically different (balors, dragons, the tarrasque, etc) with their own mechanical systems.
In the name of "balance," 3e made an attempt to have everything conform to the same mechanical set of rules. It's cool in theory for a monster to develop through hit dice or character levels and take the same feats as PCs (with a few "monster-specific" feats thrown into the mix), making every monster inherently customizable using the same lego set. But the trouble with that was when it got complicated. If you had a monster concept that didn't fit the expectations, it could be really, really difficult to try and create it. I don't fondly remember 12 hours of game prep for one high-level encounter. As a designer, creating a dragon statblock or a monster with class levels stat block (forget about prestige classes!) was one of the least fun parts of 3e.
4e let you make your own rules. In 4e, you could have a concept of what a particular monster is supposed to do, and you were free to craft it to fit your specifications. You could easily simulate PC powers (i.e. fireballs, sleep spells, etc.), simply by making the abilities do that thing. Or you could create radically different powers with different expectations and cool, unique effects. The power was back in your hands, and it made monster design SO much more fun. Not to mention that one can bang out 4e monsters in a fraction of the time.
So generally speaking, it's good to have the "choice" about constructing monsters that fit PC builds, as well as monsters that don't. 3e didn't give you that choice, while 4e did. I hope D&D Next is able to maintain that choice, and so far, what I've seen/heard, I'm optimistic.
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" |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2012 : 18:09:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
But I don't see how making monsters "exactly like PCs" helps the game. If anything, it just makes monsters infinitely harder to build.
Aye it much better to just make things up (normally on the fly) what more do folks need but AC, HP, to hit bonus and whatever nifty ability (if any) they care to give the critter?
I too got fed up with the 3.x mentality of making monsters like PC's in terms of class levels and feats et al - it took too long for how long they sometimes lasted and I spent too much time on crunch and not enough on lore.
Keep it simple and make the game fun and quick
Just my thoughts
Cheers
Damian
ps If it is like the old red box (ahhh takes me back), with what sounds like the Castles and Crusades saving throw system (each stat saves against different attacks) rather than the nonsense fort/ref/will and an easy to run combat system that doesn't require minis and a grid and 48 rules on what provokes AOO and doesn't mean that everyone has 4 or more goes each every combat round with multiple feats/manoeuvres/at wills to choose from, then I might, just might spend some cash and run it for mine and friends children who are just at that age when they want to play what their mummy and daddy does. |
So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005 |
Edited by - crazedventurers on 26 May 2012 18:11:54 |
|
|
|
coach
Senior Scribe
USA
479 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2012 : 19:00:05
|
""
""Except, they weren't wrong. A certain amount of people didn't like it and they were supplanted by ONE company that just re-hashed rules they previously made. Pathfinder didn't really make any great strides in mechanics or game-theory or game design. They polished up some rough parts of a decade old system, something the parent compnay got lambasted for just 5 years prior. Don't get me wrong, I think Pathfinder is a great game with some awesome Adventure Paths, but I'll never consider it as anything more than an extention to 3E. It still has most of 3E's flaws (or things I preceive as flaws).""
i agree, Pathfinder is living off WotC former ruleset ... they didn't do anything themselves other than recognizing that the market didnt want the drastic changes |
Bloodstone Lands Sage |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3746 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2012 : 21:12:56
|
-It seems like everyone is seeing whatever incarnation of the rules that they like the most as the blueprint that these new ones are following. Makes me laugh.
-Question: Who, when getting to writing down monster stats for a game, actually used every single stat, as instructed in the rules regarding character/monster/whatever else creation? I never felt beholden to calculate my Desert Centepede's Swim ability, because it's not swimming in the middle of the desert. I never calculated my Beholder's Climb ability because it can float and doesn't need to climb. I never ensured that my Level 6 Bugbear enemies had the proper chain of fighting feats, because nobody is checking and if I want it to happen, DM fiat. People complain about this, and really, it's a lot of BS if you ask me (both the pro side and the con side)- people need to use a little common sense. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerűn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerűn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2012 : 22:05:26
|
A reminder that the first playtest is a snapshot of a small subset of the rules. The game is so much in its infancy that it's unfair to judge it as a complete system. People who are being dramatic about the material should consider all of this when reading it. WotC could use some better messaging in this regard, though.
The jab at 4e, Coach, was a poor play, and misinformed. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2012 : 22:09:03
|
I'm actiually looking forward to this, from all I'm hearing here. 
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I'm not sure some will agree, but I'm seeing quite a bit from "Basic" D&D and original AD&D in this game!
Even the monster descriptions of the humanoids goes quite a bit back to the days of AD&D!
I'm a sucker for hints of nostalgia!
You have me drooling in anticipation now...
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by coach
ok i got the download ... i didnt use the email from wizards i went to this link and cliked on the link in the OP
http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29135447/Packet_Download_Issues_and_Work_Arounds!_(IMPORTANT)?pg=1
None of this works for me - was I supposed to sign up for something first?
You have to have a wizards account, then go here to sign up for the playtest. Then they should send you an email eventually with a link to the playtest packet.
Thanks Hawkins.
The old E-Mail with my account is defunct (because I had to change Internet providers), and changing the E-Mail address associated with your account turned out to be a nightmare (requiring you to contact customer service), so I had to just go ahead and create a new account.
Now I'm just awaiting my instructions... do they self-destruct after 10 seconds?  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 26 May 2012 22:13:05 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 27 May 2012 : 03:15:44
|
My first impressions have left me with a quiet sense of confidence.
It's obvious, even from this very limited exposure, that there is still a great deal of love for this game coming from both Wizards' in general, and the designers involved, specifically.
I'm finding that with my read-thru of the material, I'm starting to see that Wizards and the D&D Next development team are trying very hard to take the solid fundamentals of all their previous Game Editions, and attempt to consolidate them into something even more supportive of multiple play-formats.
Unlike most other scribes who have commented so far, I wasn't expecting 5e, or anything even resembling 5e D&D, to be a vast departure from what's come before -- like we experienced with 4e D&D when compared to past editions of the game. My feelings about what I've read so far of the Next material, seems to suggest that Wizards' are confident enough to take what most have loved about the previous rule-sets, add a few little odd quirks, and present a grounded system that brings forth the great powers both DMs and players can utilise to create the game they "really want."
Ultimately, I feel that this is a strong first step in the right direction. I'm honestly willing to believe that Wizards' will take what the FEEDBACK sessions from the worldwide communities of playtests will generate, and work toward building an RPG system that once again takes to the forefront of fantasy roleplaying games.
It's a first step, as I said, but I can also see this being the first step toward something good. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 27 May 2012 : 06:19:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Question: Who, when getting to writing down monster stats for a game, actually used every single stat, as instructed in the rules regarding character/monster/whatever else creation? I never felt beholden to calculate my Desert Centepede's Swim ability, because it's not swimming in the middle of the desert. I never calculated my Beholder's Climb ability because it can float and doesn't need to climb. I never ensured that my Level 6 Bugbear enemies had the proper chain of fighting feats, because nobody is checking and if I want it to happen, DM fiat. People complain about this, and really, it's a lot of BS if you ask me (both the pro side and the con side)- people need to use a little common sense.
Well, in short, designers. There was a HUGE pressure in the 3e days to get things EXACTLY RIGHT.
And yes, there are people out there. I was like that when I played 3e regularly, but now when I go back to it, I create monsters that "make sense" and don't show my statblocks to players.
I agree about the appeal to common sense, but as an audience, gamers are not known for their common sense about such things. The gamer is famous for exactness, and there is a certain cachet attached to being "right." And don't get me started on RAW arguments.
I personally don't think you should have to refer to the PHB to run a monster. In 2e, most of the rules are printed in the book, though you might occasionally need to look up a spell. In 3e, you might be looking up skill uses, feats, spells, etc. In 4e, everything is there for you. This is more like what monsters should be like.
If monster construction is, from the beginning, free of the restrictions of PC mechanics and easy to accomplish, it gives you a lot more time for cool innovation and fun stuff.
Cheers
P.S. This is NOT to bash 3e, which is a great system and a great game. I'm merely pointing out that the trend in monster design has been toward making it easier and allowing more innovation. This is where DnD-Next should go, I think. |
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" |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3290 Posts |
Posted - 27 May 2012 : 08:07:27
|
| Meh. I will stick with Pathfinder and Golarion. I will check out the new edition and the 5E Realms. Carry on... |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
Posted - 27 May 2012 : 10:57:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Question: Who, when getting to writing down monster stats for a game, actually used every single stat, as instructed in the rules regarding character/monster/whatever else creation? I never felt beholden to calculate my Desert Centepede's Swim ability, because it's not swimming in the middle of the desert. I never calculated my Beholder's Climb ability because it can float and doesn't need to climb. I never ensured that my Level 6 Bugbear enemies had the proper chain of fighting feats, because nobody is checking and if I want it to happen, DM fiat. People complain about this, and really, it's a lot of BS if you ask me (both the pro side and the con side)- people need to use a little common sense.
Well, in short, designers. There was a HUGE pressure in the 3e days to get things EXACTLY RIGHT.
And yes, there are people out there. I was like that when I played 3e regularly, but now when I go back to it, I create monsters that "make sense" and don't show my statblocks to players.
I agree about the appeal to common sense, but as an audience, gamers are not known for their common sense about such things. The gamer is famous for exactness, and there is a certain cachet attached to being "right." And don't get me started on RAW arguments.
I do the same thing. If you look at my Forgotten Realms NPC Generator thread here, I've pretty much tried to get as close to perfect as possible. 3E monster design slowly turned into a craft, which still takes a while to get right espically at really high levels. I think this guy----->CR 40, - “Hu'Jaran” Male Efreeti sorcerer 20/ epic 3/ fatespinner 4/ archmage 5 took the better part of 2 hours to complete because of all the mechanics, templates, increasing HD for being a monster, naming items with creativ flair, and all that. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 27 May 2012 : 12:20:19
|
I get a much more basic D&D fell from this than anything even remotely 1st or 2nd edition. The key here is going to be whether the designers can restrict themselves from adding a billion skills/feats/classes on top of the basic mix and keep the game simple (as it was intended).
So far, I am not a big fan of the healing system. It is way too liberal and really is going to take a lot of the risk out of the game (full healing after a long rest, whatever happened to 2hp/day). I am also not sure that I like that they doubled the spell progression from 1st/2nd, as the availability of spells is going to have a direct impact on the DM's design of encounters, but I guess I was one of those who never felt like my 2nd level (2nd editon) mage was useless when he exhausted his spells for the day. Finally, the XP amounts are still way out a whack and keep with the recent video game like level progression speed.
I guess at the end of the day, I am still not convinced that there is any reason for me to switch form 1st/2nd edition, but I will keep an open mind. |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1288 Posts |
Posted - 27 May 2012 : 18:00:23
|
I am LOVING THIS. I like the Next playtest. Though I did not adopt 4e, there were elements I liked.
I don't like how powers are done in 4e with their own "rules" for each power. I do like how powers weave into the 4e action economy. So there will be little action economy it appears. I also did not like the AEDU structure. My vision for fighter, is that he has tricks he ALWAYS can do, instead of tricks just once a day or encounter. Maybe they are not as powerful as spells, but the fighter never runs out of resources. Some might mimic spells like a strike that stuns all in front of him for a round. I am now most excited to see what they do with the fighter.
One thing that has me concerned, is a lack of a spell interruption mechanic. Am I missing something? Is it JUST disadvantage? Because that is really not a spellcaster interruption mechanic. I can't find what happens to a caster when they are damaged. I want to see the interruption mechanic occur across the round, so that maybe if the mage is hit, his chances of casting are reduced. I will accept other things as good as well, but it seems like a hit on a mage having to make a CON check would be good. With no concentration skill, this is a serious good detriment. It will also make mages focus on defense spells.
I want to see a fighter that can do things like tide of iron, which really was just a fighter with a cleave feat, but give him a way to do it without a feat.
I love the skill system. It hearkens back to the simplicity of Nonweapon proficiencies but this time it makes sense. The Pathfinder skill system is problematic when a blacksmith who practices his entire life is not as good at blacksmithing as the fighter who is epic level.
I like the nod to simplicity again. I realized after playing my Marvel Mutants and Masterminds Campaign that I wanted simplicity again. Simply it was a pain in the arse to stat up Marvel Heroes in M&M. Then I bought Margaret Weiss' MSH game. This did not cut it for me, it is just too arbitrary and not robust enough, though it IS interesting. The forward in Margaret Weiss' game by Jeff Grubb rekindled an idea. So what did I do? I dug out my old TSR Marvel Superheroes and have come to appreciate how adequate it was. It is absolutely all you need for a supers game. Most of all it is SIMPLE and Robust. These past years I blew it off as the 'system I played in middle school', so I wasn't looking at it for what it can actually DO.
I learned a lesson from this. That maybe I don't need the complexity of simulationism. In all honesty, breaking out Marvel Superheroes feels like I took a step FORWARD.
And there is a very active online community for it.
I like the direction Next is going. I like At wills for casters, and I think I like the turn undead from what I can see. I am excited, and ANXIOUS now for the next phase.
Good job WOTC. |
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
Edited by - Mournblade on 27 May 2012 18:03:15 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 27 May 2012 : 19:07:38
|
I haven't finished my read-through, but I really like the 'feel' they are going for. I will echo Sage's sentiments.
Except that I thought it was going to be more of a 4.5e - I was surprised to see them step back from 4e, and I like that they were willing to go that route - its gives me some renewed confidence.
I haven't felt this inspired to run a game since 3e first hit the shelves. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Mumadar Ibn Huzal
Master of Realmslore
1338 Posts |
Posted - 27 May 2012 : 22:02:12
|
| Interesting thread in a way... I haven't read the article being discussed, but kinda enjoyed the reviews. What occurs to me reading all the posts is that everyone seems to find his/her own preferred/memorable incarnation of the D&D game in these new rules - which could be called an achievement on the part of WotC since there was the talk about making the new system ´compatible´ with previous editions from the start of 5E... |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2012 : 00:42:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
I don't like how powers are done in 4e with their own "rules" for each power. I do like how powers weave into the 4e action economy. So there will be little action economy it appears. I also did not like the AEDU structure. My vision for fighter, is that he has tricks he ALWAYS can do, instead of tricks just once a day or encounter. Maybe they are not as powerful as spells, but the fighter never runs out of resources. Some might mimic spells like a strike that stuns all in front of him for a round. I am now most excited to see what they do with the fighter.
In a modular system, I really hope they develope some interesting and tactical maneuver (and call them maneuvers, not "powers") that can be used by Fighters and even some other classes as well. But seeing as the game is still far into it's infancy I don't think we'll see things until the tail end of Playtest if it even makes that part at all. Hopefully they'll have some options directly from Launch.
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
One thing that has me concerned, is a lack of a spell interruption mechanic. Am I missing something? Is it JUST disadvantage? Because that is really not a spellcaster interruption mechanic. I can't find what happens to a caster when they are damaged. I want to see the interruption mechanic occur across the round, so that maybe if the mage is hit, his chances of casting are reduced. I will accept other things as good as well, but it seems like a hit on a mage having to make a CON check would be good. With no concentration skill, this is a serious good detriment. It will also make mages focus on defense spells.
As of now, there are no Opportuinity Attacks (or even reactive actions, unless it's a "Readied Action"). So I guess a bad-guy could rush up to the wizard and hold his swing in check until the wizard starts casting. From the Wizard Class Design article, they did state they'll have Spell Interruption but it won't cost you the spell, just the action and HP for attempting it. I think the quick mechanic of Disadvantage works well (for now) in this situation, though I don't know how that works with spells that just invoke a Saving Throw (like Sleep) and Disadvantage for the caster?
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
I want to see a fighter that can do things like tide of iron, which really was just a fighter with a cleave feat, but give him a way to do it without a feat.
I love the skill system. It hearkens back to the simplicity of Nonweapon proficiencies but this time it makes sense. The Pathfinder skill system is problematic when a blacksmith who practices his entire life is not as good at blacksmithing as the fighter who is epic level.
I like the nod to simplicity again. I realized after playing my Marvel Mutants and Masterminds Campaign that I wanted simplicity again. Simply it was a pain in the arse to stat up Marvel Heroes in M&M. Then I bought Margaret Weiss' MSH game. This did not cut it for me, it is just too arbitrary and not robust enough, though it IS interesting. The forward in Margaret Weiss' game by Jeff Grubb rekindled an idea. So what did I do? I dug out my old TSR Marvel Superheroes and have come to appreciate how adequate it was. It is absolutely all you need for a supers game. Most of all it is SIMPLE and Robust. These past years I blew it off as the 'system I played in middle school', so I wasn't looking at it for what it can actually DO.
I learned a lesson from this. That maybe I don't need the complexity of simulationism. In all honesty, breaking out Marvel Superheroes feels like I took a step FORWARD.
And there is a very active online community for it.
I like the direction Next is going. I like At wills for casters, and I think I like the turn undead from what I can see. I am excited, and ANXIOUS now for the next phase.
Good job WOTC.
I agree with everything else you've said  (though Tide of Iron pushes a target, Cleaving Strike works like Cleave ). I think the only thing I find hypocritical is daily mechanics for the Fighter (and other non-spellcsating clsases). A common complain of 4E was the AEDU system, like you mentioned Mournblade, and how it broke some 4th wall in terms of simulationism vs. abstraction (or gamist elements) and yet, what do we see at 2nd level for the DDN Fighter? An ability that, 2/day allows him to use a second action on his turn. 9/10 times this will be an extra attack (which is cool, i guess) but where's the outcry? What is the difference between what the DDN Fighter does at 2nd level and a Fighter utilizing a Daily attack in 4th Edition? |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2012 : 02:16:45
|
One thing I'm REALLY hoping for is that they can find a way for Fighters and other non-spellcasters to have abilities that are not limited in the number of times per day they can use them. It is silly on top of silly when a fighter can't do something more than once a day or once per encounter.
If they could find some sort of system for them it would be good...without causing spell-casters to be "nerfed" alongside it. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2012 : 03:28:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
One thing I'm REALLY hoping for is that they can find a way for Fighters and other non-spellcasters to have abilities that are not limited in the number of times per day they can use them. It is silly on top of silly when a fighter can't do something more than once a day or once per encounter.
If they could find some sort of system for them it would be good...without causing spell-casters to be "nerfed" alongside it.
This is where they need to look back at the Tome of Battle and it's recovery mechanic. I know, it sounds a bit "game-y" so they should stick clear of terms like recharge, energize, boost, or even recover. In the ToB the Warblade could regain all his used maneuvers by taking a turn in just making 1 attack. No move or minor or changing his stance or any of that. This worked out well because he's recovering his maneuvers in lieu of making a Full-attack action or a move and attack action.
These, however, aren't in DDN as of yet. So perhaps to refocus his senses and 'revitalize' his unique techinques he can't do anything in a round but make one attack with disadvantage? This would facilitate the image of making a superfluous strike to push back a foe or keep them engaged even though the true intent is just to take a breath and focus again on your technique. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2012 : 06:54:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
One thing I'm REALLY hoping for is that they can find a way for Fighters and other non-spellcasters to have abilities that are not limited in the number of times per day they can use them. It is silly on top of silly when a fighter can't do something more than once a day or once per encounter.
If they could find some sort of system for them it would be good...without causing spell-casters to be "nerfed" alongside it.
This is where they need to look back at the Tome of Battle and it's recovery mechanic. I know, it sounds a bit "game-y" so they should stick clear of terms like recharge, energize, boost, or even recover. In the ToB the Warblade could regain all his used maneuvers by taking a turn in just making 1 attack. No move or minor or changing his stance or any of that. This worked out well because he's recovering his maneuvers in lieu of making a Full-attack action or a move and attack action.
These, however, aren't in DDN as of yet. So perhaps to refocus his senses and 'revitalize' his unique techinques he can't do anything in a round but make one attack with disadvantage? This would facilitate the image of making a superfluous strike to push back a foe or keep them engaged even though the true intent is just to take a breath and focus again on your technique.
I like that...I'd support it for sure as long as the Fighter's abilities (while nearly endless) would be sure to still be held in balance with other classes.
I'm starting to like this "balance" business actually...if the proper mechanics can be had. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Bluenose
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
134 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2012 : 09:23:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by MournbladeOne thing that has me concerned, is a lack of a spell interruption mechanic. Am I missing something? Is it JUST disadvantage? Because that is really not a spellcaster interruption mechanic. I can't find what happens to a caster when they are damaged.
If a spellcaster is damager during a round, they have to make a Constitution check (DC 10) to be able to cast anything but a cantrip in their next turn. |
These, in the day when heaven was falling,
The hour when earth's foundations fled,
Followed their mercenary calling
And took their wages and are dead.
Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay. |
|
|
|
Eli the Tanner
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
149 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2012 : 15:49:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
In a modular system, I really hope they develope some interesting and tactical maneuver (and call them maneuvers, not "powers") that can be used by Fighters and even some other classes as well. But seeing as the game is still far into it's infancy I don't think we'll see things until the tail end of Playtest if it even makes that part at all. Hopefully they'll have some options directly from Launch.
Sounds like you'd be interested in something akin to Pathfinder's Combat Maneuvers. Letting fighters manipulate combat in much more tactical and imaginative ways...from throwing dust in eyes and moving enemies around, all the way to called shots.
I'd be very much in favour of something like that...it's taken my players awhile to embrace the options but it has added a lot more creativity to their actions. Having a simple mechanic like that makes adjudicating all these much easier as a DM too. It was this sort of thing I was kinda expecting from 5e...versatile mechanics. |
Moderator of /r/Forgotten_Realms |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2012 : 16:03:22
|
Having different "trees" available to fighters would be cool too. One could be the "Dirty Fighting" method, while another could be a more honorable fighting method, and etc.
This would give each player a different way of fighting to give them a wider range of "types" perhaps. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2012 : 16:14:19
|
The latest Legends and Lore article says that combat maneuvers will be addressed via Themes (so far, anyways) and that Fighter should be able to pick up more Themes at character generation. It also went on to talk about Racial benefits that work with weapons and classes.
For example, the Dwarf increases his HD to d12 when playing a Fighter even though the Fighter HD is normally d10. Same goes for the Warhammer the Cleric of Moradin pregen-character wields (being 1d10 instead of 1d8). I guess that's why the Greataxe might be using 2d6 stats instead of 1d12?
quote:
Originally posted by Eli the Tanner
Sounds like you'd be interested in something akin to Pathfinder's Combat Maneuvers. Letting fighters manipulate combat in much more tactical and imaginative ways...from throwing dust in eyes and moving enemies around, all the way to called shots.
I'd be very much in favour of something like that...it's taken my players awhile to embrace the options but it has added a lot more creativity to their actions. Having a simple mechanic like that makes adjudicating all these much easier as a DM too. It was this sort of thing I was kinda expecting from 5e...versatile mechanics.
Hmm, I can't access the PFd20SRD site from work but are they listed on there or is it a supplement only? And does it use the CMD/CMB mechanic? I actually liked the change from the rules of v3.5 to the CMB/CMD system. It's much more streamlined and easy to pick up. But I have to say, I'm a pretty big fan of the codified rules that help run the mechanics of 4E. And judging by the Spells of DDN, it looks like they're moving away from codified rules to a more simpler, common saying style. So instead of a block of bolded text and mechanical durations, distance, and players involved, it'll read easier. Perhaps the same can be done with Maneuvers. I also hope they bring back stances too, those were fun.
quote:
Originally posted by Bluenose
If a spellcaster is damager during a round, they have to make a Constitution check (DC 10) to be able to cast anything but a cantrip in their next turn.
Is that official or a suggestion? I'm away from the rules so I can't check, but it's a pretty decent solution. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Bluenose
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
134 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2012 : 20:55:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffanquote:
Originally posted by Bluenose
If a spellcaster is damaged during a round, they have to make a Constitution check (DC 10) to be able to cast anything but a cantrip in their next turn.
Is that official or a suggestion? I'm away from the rules so I can't check, but it's a pretty decent solution.
That's the official rule. Page two of the Wizard's character sheet, under "Casting a Spell". |
These, in the day when heaven was falling,
The hour when earth's foundations fled,
Followed their mercenary calling
And took their wages and are dead.
Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay. |
Edited by - Bluenose on 28 May 2012 20:56:44 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
New 5e Playtest Document
