| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
 Posted - 29 May 2012 : 04:33:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bluenose
That's the official rule. Page two of the Wizard's character sheet, under "Casting a Spell".
Thanks, missed that in the initial reading.
Well we started the Playtest packet with 3 people (2 players and myself as DM) in which two people played 2 characters and I played one as DMPC (got the Cleric of Pelor). As I felt the intended purpose for this Playtest was to get feedback on the mechanics of the game such as Combat and Exploration, I'll stick to those topics.
Opinions of the DM:
Not as easy as 4E: but I'll explain. The first thing that jumped out at me is the direction-less aspect of the adventure. Of course, this is specifically intended "even says so in the adventure" but I felt that wasn't a good point. Since all my players and myself are all from 3E and after era, I like adventures to have some plot points, not just "hey, there's some bad guys so lets go kill them!" They provide some motivation, but I wasn't really motivated by them.
The second thing that was rather difficult is the basic information for the small encounters. I know, people feel that dungeons shouldn't be just designed for specific leveled group with balanced encounters every time, and there should be randomness in their power level (to keep the PCs on their toes). But as the DM, I should be aware of how difficult the battle is going to be before I send my PCs in.
After the first two fights (Kobolds both times) my PCs were kicking around the rubbish of the Kobold's refuse when they were amubsed by a ton of Cave Rats and a Dire Rat (Cool, right?) Wrong. They placed 18 (18!!) Cave rats in a 9x9 room and a Dire Rat to boot. So what I did, since there wasn't any suggestions, was to group the rats into 3 medium-sized squares of 6 for space reasons. But then the ridiculousness starts, as the XP is calculated for each individual rat, not like a swarm or something more steamlined. Instead we got 18 rats attacking, and because the mechanic said they have Advantage due to the close proximity of other rats, the rolls talled 36d20 per turn for their attacks (dropping the lowest, of the two). And with each successful attack (1 point of damage), the PC has to make a successful Constitution modifier or take an additional points of damage. But really, that's not the part that truely bothered me, it was the fact that the PCs could only attack 1 rat per turn which screamed to me that this is a good time for the Wizard to use Burning Hands. It would've been nice to put that in a suggestion box for the DM (that this encounter is supposed to drain the PCs of their more potent spells).
The last thing that I had an issue with is the Adventure encounters and their monster listing. We got AC, attack mods/damage, and HP. In a game with other things to factor in like speed, special abilities, ability scores (which now work as Saving Throws), those should be listed too. Personally, I hate having to switch back and forth between Monster Manuel and Adventure and back to the Monster Manuel and then to the PHB for a spell some NPC has listed, then back to the adventure. It becomes tedious.
Player's opinions
A lot of the same, but different: One concern is the lack of skills, as it makes it harder for a PC to know what's an available action and what's not. Having the list of Skills (even if you don't put ranks into them) gives a PC the ball-park undestanding of what one can do and the mechanics-as-physics that plays into it. This is certainly the case when your unsure of where your Ability scors are going to come into play, or which ones for that matter. Some might favor the un-codified rules, putting the power in the DM's hand to adjucate what/how things might work, but we think a little more solidarity wouldn't be too bad.
A more defined action economy is requested. We knew in 3E and 4E that you got a Move, a Standard, and Minor actions. In 4E, they made it easy to switch them around such as sacrificing your Standard action for Two Moves and a Minor or sacrificing your Standard and MOve for 3 Minor actions (keeping 3 spells going, for example). In DDN, it's unclear if you can move twice in lieu of an attack.
My concern as a Cleric, healing as a non-standard action is missing. Something that I truely loved about 4E was the ability to heal and so something else. Or if I'm healing on a turn as thing whole thing i'm doing, then it BETTER be worth it. Perhaps, it's just because of the Playtest and those things are still in production, but I liked the ability to heal a friend and hit an orc in the face with my mace. Now, it's an Either/OR type scenario and I just am NOT a fan. So in the heat of battle, my group had better be going in full-tilt in the HP department because there's a good chance they won't be coming out alive if I'm too far back to heal anyone. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
Edited by - Diffan on 29 May 2012 13:51:18 |
 |
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2012 : 14:14:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Opinions of the DM:
are all from 3E and after era, I like adventures to have some plot points, not just "hey, there's some bad guys so lets go kill them!" They provide some motivation, but I wasn't really motivated by them.
After the first two fights (Kobolds both times) my PCs were kicking around the rubbish of the Kobold's refuse when they were amubsed by a ton of Cave Rats and a Dire Rat (Cool, right?) Wrong. They placed 18 (18!!) Cave rats in a 9x9 room and a Dire Rat to boot. So what I did, since there wasn't any suggestions, was to group the rats into 3 medium-sized squares of 6 for space reasons. But then the ridiculousness starts, as the XP is calculated for each individual rat, not like a swarm or something more steamlined. Instead we got 18 rats attacking, and because the mechanic said they have Advantage due to the close proximity of other rats, the rolls talled 36d20 per turn for their attacks (dropping the lowest, of the two). And with each successful attack (1 point of damage), the PC has to make a successful Constitution modifier or take an additional points of damage. But really, that's not the part that truely bothered me, it was the fact that the PCs could only attack 1 rat per turn which screamed to me that this is a good time for the Wizard to use Burning Hands. It would've been nice to put that in a suggestion box for the DM (that this encounter is supposed to drain the PCs of their more potent spells).
Some Player concerns:
Lack of skills makes it harder for a PC to know what's an available action and what's not. Having the list of Skills (even if you don't put ranks into them) gives a PC the ball-park undestanding of what one can do and
In DDN, it's unclear if you can move twice in lieu of an attack.
I truely loved about 4E was the ability to heal and so something else. Or if I'm healing on a turn as thing whole thing i'm doing, then it BETTER be worth it. but I liked the ability to heal a friend and hit an orc in the face with my mace. Now, it's an Either/OR type scenario
Just a few random thoughts from the above post:
Well the Caves of Chaos are renowned for their evil humanoid population so surely at least one motivation is to clense them of that evil and protect the Keep on the Borderands? trying not to be picky here and n0t intended at you Diffan but the DM needs to be setting up the 'quest' to get the PC's involved for the first time even if it is only that the local Baron wants those pesky humanoids killed/driven off.
Rats: I am loving the rats, all of them in a confined space crawling and biting and scratching the pc's as they desperately try to shake them off - awesome. I think we need to move beyond the squares and facing etc of 3.X onwards and look at it in another way, the rats will not be nicely lined up in a row, but actually attached to the PC's, makes the room size problem go away.
DM's fiat time, rather than making 36 rolls I would assign 3 - 4 rats per character and make 2 attack rolls at +4 (to simulate them attacking from every side), and deal normal rat bite damage. Now if the players just wants one attack and stab them with their dagger fine, however if the players says I drop to the floor and roll around I'd give them one attack roll and do 1d3 damage per rat attached to that PC if the to-hit roll was a success and if not the rats would be dislodged and move away rather than get squashed - its a much better way to deal with small vermin quickly and rewards clever thinking from the player. Of course a burning hands would be be an excellent choice of spell here and easily toast at least three quarters of the rats, I wouldn't bother with saving throws or an attack roll just say it happens and the remaining 4 or 5 flee. Re the saving throw from the rat bites - easy peasy, just get the players to note how many times they were bitten during the encounter and make the saving throws after the event, so as the adrenaline wears off from the characters the sickness/disease/rat venom starts to work on the characters and they become faint/dizzy/sweating etc (i.e. lose another 2 hps). As a DM you need to keep things simple and keep the game moving, by constantly asking for (not so important) rolls it slows the game down. I would of course make the player roll if the dire rat bit them and the 'rat venom' effect would take place straight away as the dire rat is a 'major' NPC in this combat.
Skills: this is a major difference between old school players and new school players. In old school play you didn't need a list of skills you described what you wanted to do and the DM said yes/no/make a str/dex/con check etc, essentially the players and DM's used their imagination to try things out and make decisions based on what was described, by using their common-sense. By codifying actions and skills numerically in 3.x & 4th it has reduced the player/DM interaction and become simply "I roll my DC check of XX to tumble past the ogre" (for instance). Part of the DM's role is to encourage players to think creatively, so there is nothing wrong in saying, Fred/Freda its your turn how do you want to climb the cliff? - by asking a leading question it prods the player into describing the action required. Players shouldn't need a ballpark figure about their climbing score they should realise that to climb the cliff they need rope and pitons and it is best to climb the shallow dry bit, not the wet very steep vertical bit.
I would certainly give two moves in place of a move and attack, seems a sensible call to me and is one in all edition of the game since AD&D.
Choices: glad to see them back, I am not a fan of a player or NPC having multiple actions in a turn (like moving and healing and attacking the orc). Am glad its an either/or choice as it encourages player skill in deciding the best thing to do, rather than the lazy design philosophy of you can do everything you want all the time and so the player doesn't need to think about anything as they can do everything. Players don't learn anything if they can always succeed, sometimes they need to fail to 'grow and develop' their character and recognise that they will not 'win' every time they go adventuring and that there are consequences to the choices that they make as players.
I know this is not the modern view of gaming in any form, whether RPG's, consoles or even monopoly with its quick dice that 'speeds up play' (sigh). I guess its because I am older that I prefer a one or two goes/turn style of play in D&D that means everyone's turn is dealt with quickly and efficiently and they are not making 4 or more attacks/per round at decreasing chances to hit (with attendant adding up to see what AC they hit), plus making another roll to confirm the crit, plus all the extra d6's for fire and frost and bane effects et al on their hits and having to add up multiple dice. All of these things slow down the game and for me combat actions should be quick, with the back and forth nature of fighting with weapons dealt with quickly and people getting injured/dying quickly as well, no more 400+HP dragons please with ridiculous AC's that take all night to kill and bog down the game in a long drawn out combat. I would hope that in D&D next they would scale down the rampant stat/AC/HP inflation we have seen in 3.x and 4, though I suspect that player feedback may make this a pipedream.
Cheers
Damian |
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 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2012 : 15:33:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
Just a few random thoughts from the above post:
Well the Caves of Chaos are renowned for their evil humanoid population so surely at least one motivation is to clense them of that evil and protect the Keep on the Borderands? trying not to be picky here and n0t intended at you Diffan but the DM needs to be setting up the 'quest' to get the PC's involved for the first time even if it is only that the local Baron wants those pesky humanoids killed/driven off.
Which is pretty much what I did. We were a bit short on time due to the holiday festivities and other stuff, so I could only cram about 2 hours in and it was like "Look, there are caves to the west that have been reportedly been occupied by humanoid creatures. And there have been recent attacks of passers-by on the road. Could you check it out?" And we went from there.
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
Rats: I am loving the rats, all of them in a confined space crawling and biting and scratching the pc's as they desperately try to shake them off - awesome. I think we need to move beyond the squares and facing etc of 3.X onwards and look at it in another way, the rats will not be nicely lined up in a row, but actually attached to the PC's, makes the room size problem go away.
Except it was 18 individual rats, all with individual HP, AC, attacks, and so forth. If the wizard did use Burning Hands, it would've required 18 different saving throws. That's just silly. Instead, they should've had them as a Swarm (which does the same thing, but simplifies the rolls/attacks/damage, into 1 coheisive unit). It would've been easier to run as DM and still remained a challenge to PCs. You mention moving away from square/grid/facing things that 3E and 4E went into but I'm not going to supplant those visual aids just because it's not what some others want to do. I got a pretty big collection of miniatures and tokens for D&D and I should be encouraged to use them if I see fit. And that means some consideration for my style of gaming as well. I dont' need everything done in squares (like in 4E) and I don't need facing rules. But if your going to try to do 18 tiny monsters in a 15 ft. room and expect PCs to also fight there, swarm rules are the way to present that (as they occupy player's squares) instead of 18 separeate beasts.
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
DM's fiat time, rather than making 36 rolls I would assign 3 - 4 rats per character and make 2 attack rolls at +4 (to simulate them attacking from every side), and deal normal rat bite damage. Now if the players just wants one attack and stab them with their dagger fine, however if the players says I drop to the floor and roll around I'd give them one attack roll and do 1d3 damage per rat attached to that PC if the to-hit roll was a success and if not the rats would be dislodged and move away rather than get squashed - its a much better way to deal with small vermin quickly and rewards clever thinking from the player. Of course a burning hands would be be an excellent choice of spell here and easily toast at least three quarters of the rats, I wouldn't bother with saving throws or an attack roll just say it happens and the remaining 4 or 5 flee. Re the saving throw from the rat bites - easy peasy, just get the players to note how many times they were bitten during the encounter and make the saving throws after the event, so as the adrenaline wears off from the characters the sickness/disease/rat venom starts to work on the characters and they become faint/dizzy/sweating etc (i.e. lose another 2 hps). As a DM you need to keep things simple and keep the game moving, by constantly asking for (not so important) rolls it slows the game down. I would of course make the player roll if the dire rat bit them and the 'rat venom' effect would take place straight away as the dire rat is a 'major' NPC in this combat.
Right, and those are great ideas. But the point of a Playtest is to take the rules at face-value for criticism and feedback. As the Rules as Written, it doesn't flow very well. As a DM, I shouldn't have to make those sorts of calls just to make the combat flow better. I would reward a character who would think of that, which is really awesome, but attacking with a weapon/spell should be just as viable an option. When I saw 18 rats, I read it as 18 different opponents with separate stats (the XP reward reaffirms this with the total). What I did was allow attacks to deal 1/2 damage, and each point of damage killed on rat. Still, swarm mechanics would've just been better in this situation, clumping it into a more stronger creature but simplified rules for easy, quick play.
You mention adding a +4 bonus or whatnot to the rolls of the rats, but that's not how Advantage works nor is it an aspect they're trying to provide with DDN. Advantage specifically says roll two d20's and take the better of the two. As a swarm, its cool and imposes a nasty Disease (which is simplified as extra damage, no long lasting effects). But as 18 separate rolls with disease (so a possible 18d6 in disease damage), it became ridiculous. Espically with the Fighter having to roll for each creature's disease.
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
Skills: this is a major difference between old school players and new school players. In old school play you didn't need a list of skills you described what you wanted to do and the DM said yes/no/make a str/dex/con check etc, essentially the players and DM's used their imagination to try things out and make decisions based on what was described, by using their common-sense. By codifying actions and skills numerically in 3.x & 4th it has reduced the player/DM interaction and become simply "I roll my DC check of XX to tumble past the ogre" (for instance). Part of the DM's role is to encourage players to think creatively, so there is nothing wrong in saying, Fred/Freda its your turn how do you want to climb the cliff? - by asking a leading question it prods the player into describing the action required. Players shouldn't need a ballpark figure about their climbing score they should realise that to climb the cliff they need rope and pitons and it is best to climb the shallow dry bit, not the wet very steep vertical bit.
I think this is something that is just so drastic in change from the earlier gamer and the newer gamers. The removal of "DM may I" aspect of the game. As a player, I hate it because I feel that the DM has absoulte control over everything I do and that any action I take isn't really in my hands. As a DM, I hate it because I hate granting permission for every single action and then making an decision as to what Ability it'll work off of, what penalties it'll work off of, and describe the multitudes of differences from one piece of mountain siding than onther 200 feet further down. As a DM, I find this tedious. When I player is privy to this information, they can make better judgements instead of asking the DM to describe the scenery to a "T". So if a PC sees the distance of a 10 ft. pit trap, their first thought might be to jump over it. That's an impressive leap that they may not know they can make. By them having prior knowledge (looking at the Athletics/Jump/whatever skill and the rules in the PHB), they can guestimate that it'll be too hard to make with that action. That knowledge works in favor of reducing out-of-character dialoge with the DM.
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
I would certainly give two moves in place of a move and attack, seems a sensible call to me and is one in all edition of the game since AD&D.
That was my same way I felt, felt it worked better.
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
Choices: glad to see them back, I am not a fan of a player or NPC having multiple actions in a turn (like moving and healing and attacking the orc). Am glad its an either/or choice as it encourages player skill in deciding the best thing to do, rather than the lazy design philosophy of you can do everything you want all the time and so the player doesn't need to think about anything as they can do everything. Players don't learn anything if they can always succeed, sometimes they need to fail to 'grow and develop' their character and recognise that they will not 'win' every time they go adventuring and that there are consequences to the choices that they make as players.
I'm not sure I understand why the act of healing an ally (even minorly) and being able to contribute to the combat = "winning" or "I can do everything" attitude? In 4E the cleric had the ability to heal his friend with a swift prayer (a minor action) but it was twice a battle. If you spend them unwisely such as on the wrong PC or hold on to them for too long then the end result is the same. I always saw the ability to minorly heal a buddy during battle (as a quick action) as something used in dire straights. It migth be just enough to hold your friend together for another round. But I'm also of the opinion that healing isn't proactive in the least, at least as a standard action. If it IS a standard action, at least let that spell mean something. A roll of 1 on a d8 for a full-round action is just so sad that I might as well not have done it in the first place.
Of course, not everyone is going to have this view, and I respect that. So we need to come up with a solution that allows people to play either way. Perhaps an optional rule that clerics can take instead of the Turn Undead Channel Divinity ability? Having the option to cast a minor spell that heals 2 or 3 HP but has a limit to once or twice per battle (and yes, it practically mirrors 4E's Healing Word power) would be nice.
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
I know this is not the modern view of gaming in any form, whether RPG's, consoles or even monopoly with its quick dice that 'speeds up play' (sigh). I guess its because I am older that I prefer a one or two goes/turn style of play in D&D that means everyone's turn is dealt with quickly and efficiently and they are not making 4 or more attacks/per round at decreasing chances to hit (with attendant adding up to see what AC they hit), plus making another roll to confirm the crit, plus all the extra d6's for fire and frost and bane effects et al on their hits and having to add up multiple dice. All of these things slow down the game and for me combat actions should be quick, with the back and forth nature of fighting with weapons dealt with quickly and people getting injured/dying quickly as well, no more 400+HP dragons please with ridiculous AC's that take all night to kill and bog down the game in a long drawn out combat. I would hope that in D&D next they would scale down the rampant stat/AC/HP inflation we have seen in 3.x and 4, though I suspect that player feedback may make this a pipedream.
Cheers
Damian
Actually, I agree with what your saying here. I too am fed up with Dragons having 900 HP and players having to make tons of iterative attacks per turn with scaling bonuses (it was a MESS!) and all that stuff. I like simple, quick combat that can be fun yet decisive. And even though I only played 3E/v3.5 and 4E where these are the norm and inflated numbers is common-place, the option to play a different style is fun too. It's why I REALLY want to get back to playing E6, as the numbers don't inflate after 6th level. Where magic is strong, scary, and powerful but not so broken that it ends eno****er and supplants other party members. I think DDN is trying to do this too, as they've said as much in their Legends and Lore articles.
I guess the cleric thing is just something specific that I grew very fond of in 4E and I hate to see it go. I might just make up my own Homebrew spell (that is a minor action and heals 3 HP) once per battle. Which would mean I have to amp Cure Light Wounds to 1d8 + Wisdom modifier for HP. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2012 : 16:02:20
|
1st Level Spell: Healing Motes
This spell creates a number of motes of golden light equal to the wisdom modifier of the caster which dance about the caster. Once per round (as a swift action which does not distract from the clerics normal actions), the caster can direct one of these motes to land on any target within 20 feet with no chance of missing. This mote will deliver healing to living targets equal to 3 Hit Points of curative magic. Should one of the motes be directed to land upon an undead creature, that being will take 3 points of damage.
How does that sound? I know this spell could also be used to heal much more than a Cure Light Wounds spell...but it only does so very slowly. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1288 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2012 : 19:53:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
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?
[/quote]
Quite honestly I am really not putting too much analysis on the fighter at this point. I am dreaming of what I hope he can do. Nothing seems a solid in the fighter at this point.
In regards to the extra attack, D&D has always had 'powers'. It is not the powers that bothered me as much as the AEDU. I can't remember any fighter powers/abilities/thingies that let them do a mundane trick X/DAY, (they might be there, I just can't remember).
I have not really thought of the 2/day action for the fighter yet, and to be honest I think I just glanced over it. It is a direction though at this point, and I think the extra attack 2/day is clumsy.
Fighter Dailies themselves did not bother me, some of them could be appropriate. I did not like the AEDU across the board. I did come to appreciate how the action economy worked with powers.
In my opinion, say we have fighters as adequate as a PATHFINDER fighter, (I know many hope for more adwquate, but I'll stick with this for now), if that is the case, I do not think ANY of his powers should be dailies, and should maybe be at wills, but have certain effects tied to them.
If we are abandoning the equal damage output of all classes, so that yes the lighting bolt will do more damage, but this Myrmidion can use Tide of Iron whenever he wants, I think that would be progress.
Maybe we make a fighter beefy power like an instant kill that is resource intensive. Maybe this would be close to a daily. I don't know how it would be implemented. Maybe this could only be done a set number of times per day. I don't know. If they bring Fighter Dailies back though that won't break the game for me.
I think generally fighters should have maneuvers that they can spend at will within the allowed actions. |
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1288 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2012 : 19:58:29
|
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.
Right and there you go. Maybe the instant kill is done at disadvantage because he leaves himself open, kind of like casting a spell. Maybe some are situational like knocking someone into a wall, and causing them to be prone for a round or two.
I think there are great oppurtunities to make the fighter SIMPLE and VERY RObust. Show a new player, you swing normally, but here are your tricks. |
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3746 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2012 : 20:58:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Well, in short, designers. There was a HUGE pressure in the 3e days to get things EXACTLY RIGHT.
-As they should, as that's their job. I see a huge difference between doing something 'exactly right' because it's your job, and you're showcasing your product, and doing something 'exactly right' because you're a loser who is sitting at home on a Friday night making up monsters that follow every single nuanced detail.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
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.
-Why would you, to begin with (asides for maybe showing off, etc.)?
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
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.
-I do the same thing, when I'm making up NPC things that I'm posting online, or whatever. There's a big difference between being formal (whipping up stuff for fun) and casual (throwing together the basics I need to run a game, and winging what I don't have if it comes up). In the armed forces, they have parade uniform and battle dress uniforms for different occasions for reason. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 29 May 2012 21:02:09 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2012 : 21:18:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I do the same thing. If you look at my Forgotten Realms NPC Generator thread and 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.
-I do the same thing, when I'm making up NPC things that I'm posting online, or whatever. There's a big difference between being formal (whipping up stuff for fun) and casual (throwing together the basics I need to run a game, and winging what I don't have if it comes up). In the armed forces, they have parade uniform and battle dress uniforms for different occasions for reason.
Except that those stats are aspects that come up in a game. Skills could be take or leave, just using the bits that really matter (ie. could be used in combat) but everything else: HP, Feats, Magical Items and their properties correctly added in, HD, immunities, Resistances, class features, racial features, Spell-Like Abilities, Spells and the correct allotment and DC (and attack modifiers), etc.... All of these things can be used in combat against a group of PCs and that's the way they were presented to people via the books.
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-As they should, as that's their job. I see a huge difference between doing something 'exactly right' because it's your job, and you're showcasing your product, and doing something 'exactly right' because you're a loser who is sitting at home on a Friday night making up monsters that follow every single nuanced detail.
Ignoring the insult, the case being is that it shouldn't have to get like that, either by the designers nor people who enjoy homebrewing their NPCs/Monsters. For one, the 3E stat blocks are TOO long and actually hold less information in them than ones in 4E. For one, a stat block should be designed to simulate what that monster might do or represent them in combat. Nothing else. Secondly, 3E stat blocks require cross-referencing so many other products, it's a bit tedious. Drow of the Underdark sport multiple NPCs/Bad-guys with class levels in many 'Complete Series' books and your lucky if you get a small footnote on a special ability or magical item. And spell.....it's a complete mess. What they should do for DDN is stat out one or two (or possibly a few more for really high-up NPCs) spells/powers/whatever in the block that are common tactics and, if so desired, put in a footnote to use other aspects found in X,Y,Z product for more customization. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2012 : 22:57:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
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?
Quite honestly I am really not putting too much analysis on the fighter at this point. I am dreaming of what I hope he can do. Nothing seems a solid in the fighter at this point.
In regards to the extra attack, D&D has always had 'powers'. It is not the powers that bothered me as much as the AEDU. I can't remember any fighter powers/abilities/thingies that let them do a mundane trick X/DAY, (they might be there, I just can't remember).
I have not really thought of the 2/day action for the fighter yet, and to be honest I think I just glanced over it. It is a direction though at this point, and I think the extra attack 2/day is clumsy.
Fighter Dailies themselves did not bother me, some of them could be appropriate. I did not like the AEDU across the board. I did come to appreciate how the action economy worked with powers.
Ah, well that makes things a bit more clear. SO it wasn't even the AEDU system per-se OR that it applied to Fighters specifically, but that it was the driving mechanic behind ALL classes that put you off. Well being put that way, I can understand that opinion much better. There were a few X/Day abilities in 3E (stunning fist being one) and really, any ability with the (Ex): tag had a LOT of daily resource management. Which is why I had a hard time understanding people's frustration with the Daily and Encounter powers of Martial players.
[quote]Originally posted by Mournblade
In my opinion, say we have fighters as adequate as a PATHFINDER fighter, (I know many hope for more adwquate, but I'll stick with this for now), if that is the case, I do not think ANY of his powers should be dailies, and should maybe be at wills, but have certain effects tied to them.
If we are abandoning the equal damage output of all classes, so that yes the lighting bolt will do more damage, but this Myrmidion can use Tide of Iron whenever he wants, I think that would be progress.
Maybe we make a fighter beefy power like an instant kill that is resource intensive. Maybe this would be close to a daily. I don't know how it would be implemented. Maybe this could only be done a set number of times per day. I don't know. If they bring Fighter Dailies back though that won't break the game for me.
I think generally fighters should have maneuvers that they can spend at will within the allowed actions.
I think something along the lines of "If a Fighter drops an opponent to less than 5 HP, it automatically dies" Sort of like a Deathstroke ability. And I'll concur that I think maneuvers can give the Fighter a LOT of aspects aside from "move, swing, move, swing" that we saw with the playtest. And there will also be quite a few different Themes we'll see that will make up a lot of Direction on where to go. The Playtest Fighter is definitly a "slayer" in that he doesn't hold a candle for defense but his offensive capabilities are pretty impressive.
I also like the idea of brining back Stances. Some benefit for a basic attack that adds a little "umpf" at the end of a swing. Which I don't see a problem implementating as Character's gain levels.
Also, I'd like to just mention that the "All classes dealing the same damage" belief held by a lot of people in regards to 4E is sort of a gross generalization for classes and their role. Yes, classes of the same role often deal approx damage output when compared to other classes within that role. A Fighter's at-will will probably deal the same range of damage as the Paladins' at-will ability. But this shift widely as you branch to other "Roles". The Paladin and Fighter might be doing comparable damge to a single target, but the Rogue is dealig far more with his attacks (adding in Sneak Attack) and the Ranger is just dominating the feats in the Damage department. The wizard, OTOH, doesn't deal massive amounts of damage and instead effects multiple targets at once, often with crippling penalties. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3746 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2012 : 02:53:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Except that those stats are aspects that come up in a game. Skills could be take or leave, just using the bits that really matter (ie. could be used in combat) but everything else: HP, Feats, Magical Items and their properties correctly added in, HD, immunities, Resistances, class features, racial features, Spell-Like Abilities, Spells and the correct allotment and DC (and attack modifiers), etc.... All of these things can be used in combat against a group of PCs and that's the way they were presented to people via the books.
-Nobody complains about HP, AC, Attacks, Magical Items, Spells/Spell-like Abilities/Natural Powers, and similar basic things because they're the bare minimum needed to run a basic encounter with an enemy. You can't run it if you don't have the monster's HP, or know how much damage it does, or what it's AC is. Skills and feats, the things that can be take or leave like you say, are the minutia that people gripe about using, precisely when it's take or leave, hence the disconnect, and my point.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Ignoring the insult, the case being is that it shouldn't have to get like that, either by the designers nor people who enjoy homebrewing their NPCs/Monsters. For one, the 3E stat blocks are TOO long and actually hold less information in them than ones in 4E. For one, a stat block should be designed to simulate what that monster might do or represent them in combat. Nothing else. Secondly, 3E stat blocks require cross-referencing so many other products, it's a bit tedious. Drow of the Underdark sport multiple NPCs/Bad-guys with class levels in many 'Complete Series' books and your lucky if you get a small footnote on a special ability or magical item. And spell.....it's a complete mess. What they should do for DDN is stat out one or two (or possibly a few more for really high-up NPCs) spells/powers/whatever in the block that are common tactics and, if so desired, put in a footnote to use other aspects found in X,Y,Z product for more customization.
-Cross referencing other books for spells/classes/feats is outside the scope of what I am talking about, as comparing and contrasting 3e and 4e stat blocks. I am agreeing with you, that stat blocks don't need to have information like skill points, or even feats, for certain monsters. That said, in 3e, they were there- fine. Assuming one is (a) not a designer who has to follow the rules to the 'T' in officially published products or (b) making up formal, detailed (N)PC characters, in what way is anyone beholden to use everything presented, causing them to have to gripe over it? If this Desert Centipede stat block has 3 skills related to things that will never be relevant to an encounter that involves the PCs stumbling into it's nest and them killing it- Appraise, Swim, and Sense Motive, let's say- in what way am I required to write down and use that information in the fight? This is where I say, people need to just use their common sense and stop complaining over silly things, or actually taking the time to utilize said silly things.
-Whether or not creating enemies independent from making up PCs is better or worse (aspects of both, in reality, I would assume), is not my point. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2012 : 23:16:13
|
| Make sure you guys provide feedback to WotC once they release the first questionares. This is how we can influence and help shape the game. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2012 : 23:40:06
|
I've started my list...but honestly I don't see many problems at this stage. I understand others do, but I don't see how some of the concerns voiced so far have even been brought to light to critique.
The ONLY problem I still have a major bone to pick is with XP. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2012 : 05:11:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
The ONLY problem I still have a major bone to pick is with XP.
Really? What's wrong with the XP system? We've fought 3 battles in which one was almost a TPK and they've only gained 1/10th the XP amount to level 2.
I've found a few things that I'm going to put into the Playtest Report. Here's a few:
•De-codifying & Ambiguous Rules: The first thing I noticed was the lack of a full Skill List (or any list, what so ever). We got some benefits to Skills via the Background, but that's sorta un-helpful if you don't know really what their application is. And then it hit me, a purposeful ambiguous skill list so players go back to "ROLE-Playing" *facepalm*. Ok, call me a 3E/4E fanboi but I really liked a lot of the codified rules for Players. I never saw them as limitations for what I could do, but instead saw it as a way to keep things on the level. That meant the DM too. If I saw a 10-ft. pit , I knew (judging from my modifiers) that I had a pretty good chance of jumping or not. With DDN, I can guesstimate and roll 1d20 + Strength and possibly another modifier (if I'm trained in that). And the DM arbitrates if I made it or not (or even if I could attempt to do it in the first place). This doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. There's literally no transparency with the rules. And to make matters worse, with out the PCs knowing a gist of what the DC's look like, it's completely under the DM's discretion to keep the DCs as written, or make them up as they go. At least in 3E/4E when a DM did this, it was noticable by the whole group.
•Improvisation: These rules need addressing. With no idea of what you can or can't do, skies the limit. And for some, this might be a great boon to play. No more sticking to specific rolls, die, penalties, and such and such. They just describe what they do, the DM decides if it's possible, assigns specific checks they have to make, and hope for the best. OR the DM could decide that it's not possible and your idea is squashed. And here we start with the PC vs. DM mentality. At least with a codified system, it keeps the DM honest. Additionally, I can see other problems arise like a DM saying ok to one form of Improvisation and No to another that will cause strive within a group. Meaning, the rules change as the DM's mood does. Gee, what great fun.
The free-form aspect of the game with the "make it up as you go" mentality heavily rewards a Player's "out of the box" thinking or player's who have natural talent to be persuasive or has a natural knack to get people to see their Point of View. IF you don't have these natural characteristics and don't really feel being specifically cleaver all the time, Improv-style games are NOT for you. This doesn't mean that I think smart players should be penalized, but codified rules help mitigate how far they could strech their improvisation.
•DM Empowerment: From my experiences as DM, going as far back as 2005, I can say I've learned a lot. I started DMing with 3E and it naturally progressed to 4E (where I had a blast). But then I come back to this and I say.....'ugh'. A player ask "How do I know if I can jump over the table the Kobolds are using as cover?" I flip through the pages and see.......DM Arbitration. So now I'm put in the spotlight on someone's fun. Naturally I let them with a simple check, but it was a clear illustration of the "DM, May I?" aspect we saw pre-3E. Needless to say, I don't like it and espically as a DM. Because of this, I now have to judge each situational action they do because they have to ask. They don't know if they can jump onto a rope and run across the span of a Great Hall. They don't know if their chances of succeeding in a Bluff can by-pass some ordinary guards. They don't know the consequences for Tumbling past an Ogre as he strikes. Their lack of information now puts stress on me, the DM, to get everything right and makes for a bunch of Book Keeping. No thanks.
•Healing: Coming from 4E, to see healing reduced to what we currently have it is, well bad. It's not necessarily the fact that I get to roll a whopping 1d8 for my Cure Light Wounds spell, it's the fact that it's my whole action to possibly cure 1 HP of damage. Now, the Cleric of Pelor has a feat that allows him to heal Max on healing, which is good, but for any other cleric......not happenin'. They need some sort of ability to heal "on the fly". It doesn't have to heal a LOT and it doesn't have to be at-will (I'll take 1 per battle). Dalor Darden had a great example of a Spell, but I think they need to take it further. Possibly the ability to Use a cure spell via Channel Divinity, which has a set duration?
•Monsters: Their stat blocks are bad, and their implementation into adventures is even worse. Since all saves are directly related to Ability scors, those need to be in the small stat blocks. Since they can use specific PC spells, THEY need to be in the stat blocks. I don't (repeat, DON'T) want to cross reference 3 different books just so I know how to play and deploy monsters.
Ok, now that might seem hard and a lot of gripes, but I fully understand that this is a Playtest and that the game might look largely different a year down the road. Perhaps a lot of these concernts can be addressed with "Fixes" in optional rules? And this is, in no way, hindering my desire to see DDN succeed, I just think the games needs a lot of spit-shine to make it right.
|
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2012 : 13:11:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
The ONLY problem I still have a major bone to pick is with XP.
Really? What's wrong with the XP system? We've fought 3 battles in which one was almost a TPK and they've only gained 1/10th the XP amount to level 2.
That is my point: xp needs to be scaled in some way to reflect the severity of encounters and not just a flat rate. Everything else in D&D gets scaled...so why shouldn't experience be done in the same way?
Why should a single goblin be worth 100 xp? Is a party of four players going to have a problem with one goblin usually?
It just plays into "Party = sneaky assassins" to me. All they have to do is "creep" around and pick off a stray monster here and there with little effort and then they level.
If instead, the party only gets minimal experience for easy encounters and (conversely) maximum experience in encounters where things result in a near TPK...then that is a good learning curve for awarding experience.
I don't know about you, but I'm not "gaining experience" in a batting cage...I'm gaining experience actually being at bat against a tough pitcher.
EDIT:
It isn't that I don't have suggestions/constructive criticism...it is that my MAJOR CONCERN is in how experience is awarded. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
Edited by - Dalor Darden on 31 May 2012 13:12:33 |
|
|
|
Bakra
Senior Scribe
628 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2012 : 15:44:23
|
I don’t have the playtest rules with me. Is the goblin worth 100 xp per player? Or is it worth 100xp divided among the players?
I don’t see the problem with “Party = sneaky assassins” If the players decided on the ‘Assassin Creep’ method. Let them do it. This isn’t a video game where they can ‘farm’ an area but a tabletop game. The players have to interact with the DM. The DM tells them ‘sure go ahead’ or ‘no you can’t do this at the moment’. And if they got the go ahead then they still have to roll dice for results.
|
I hope Candlekeep continues to be the friendly forum of fellow Realms-lovers that it has always been, as we all go through this together. If you don’t want to move to the “new” Realms, that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with either you or the “old” Realms. Goodness knows Candlekeep, and the hearts of its scribes, are both big enough to accommodate both. If we want them to be.
(Strikes dramatic pose, raises sword to gleam in the sunset, and hopes breeches won’t fall down.)
Enough for now. The Realms lives! I have spoken! Ale and light wines half price, served by a smiling Storm Silverhand fetchingly clad in thigh-high boots and naught else! Ahem . .
So saith Ed. <snip>
love to all,
THO
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36896 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2012 : 15:46:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
The ONLY problem I still have a major bone to pick is with XP.
Really? What's wrong with the XP system? We've fought 3 battles in which one was almost a TPK and they've only gained 1/10th the XP amount to level 2.
That is my point: xp needs to be scaled in some way to reflect the severity of encounters and not just a flat rate. Everything else in D&D gets scaled...so why shouldn't experience be done in the same way?
Why should a single goblin be worth 100 xp? Is a party of four players going to have a problem with one goblin usually?
It just plays into "Party = sneaky assassins" to me. All they have to do is "creep" around and pick off a stray monster here and there with little effort and then they level.
If instead, the party only gets minimal experience for easy encounters and (conversely) maximum experience in encounters where things result in a near TPK...then that is a good learning curve for awarding experience.
I don't know about you, but I'm not "gaining experience" in a batting cage...I'm gaining experience actually being at bat against a tough pitcher.
EDIT:
It isn't that I don't have suggestions/constructive criticism...it is that my MAJOR CONCERN is in how experience is awarded.
PCs will always be able to do something like that... But after a while, it's just not worth it. That's why you scale up by making foes tougher, and/or by adding more of them. Either option provides for more XP. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2012 : 16:19:58
|
I guess my problem is that I let PCs move about more freely. I don't say "Ok, today we are going through the Haunted Halls of Eveningstar...you are now at the keep..."
My players will have a backstory that is mutual in how they come together...and then I will start them somewhere that gives them access to various adventures; but I don't force them down a road.
With that option available to my players, the current trend of XP sucks. I don't know exactly how to explain what I'm trying to get across here...suffice it to say that it is more open in my games and players aren't FORCED to fight tougher opponents...if they want to run about the Goblin Marches assassinating lone goblins I want to let them do that without them gaining five levels just killing goblins again and again! |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36896 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2012 : 16:47:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I guess my problem is that I let PCs move about more freely. I don't say "Ok, today we are going through the Haunted Halls of Eveningstar...you are now at the keep..."
My players will have a backstory that is mutual in how they come together...and then I will start them somewhere that gives them access to various adventures; but I don't force them down a road.
With that option available to my players, the current trend of XP sucks. I don't know exactly how to explain what I'm trying to get across here...suffice it to say that it is more open in my games and players aren't FORCED to fight tougher opponents...if they want to run about the Goblin Marches assassinating lone goblins I want to let them do that without them gaining five levels just killing goblins again and again!
Well, the point I was making is that even if your PCs decided to kill every goblin in the Realms, after a few levels, the return on the investment goes down. At first, it may take 20 goblins to gain a level... But then the next level takes 30 goblins. And the one after that, 50. And so on. Yes, someone could conceivably go from level 1 to level 20, only killing goblins -- but they'd have to kill so many of them that most players would give up and go for tougher opponents, ones that would give more XP. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2012 : 16:51:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I guess my problem is that I let PCs move about more freely. I don't say "Ok, today we are going through the Haunted Halls of Eveningstar...you are now at the keep..."
My players will have a backstory that is mutual in how they come together...and then I will start them somewhere that gives them access to various adventures; but I don't force them down a road.
With that option available to my players, the current trend of XP sucks. I don't know exactly how to explain what I'm trying to get across here...suffice it to say that it is more open in my games and players aren't FORCED to fight tougher opponents...if they want to run about the Goblin Marches assassinating lone goblins I want to let them do that without them gaining five levels just killing goblins again and again!
Ah, I think I understand. It's the fixed XP amount with no relation to PC level (right?). Now, I've been far out of the loop when it comes to Monster XP in pre-3E, but using 3E rules, a Monster's CR would drop pretty drastically as PCs level, to a point where they got nothing for killing Goblins at say....13th level. Now, they get 100 XP for killing Goblins at 13th level. But the flip side is, it'd take a TON of goblins to even amount to any significant traction on the XP table for high-level adventurers.
I don't think it really has to do with how your DM, because the PCs (of any level) can wander into a Dragon's cave and that dragon being extreamly dangerous and worth 25,0000 XP would probably just eat them and "roll new characters". So it's my understanding that most PCs roll with the understanding that, as they level they take on new and stronger challenges. To a 10th level PC, clearing out a Goblins' nest is hardly worth the effort, espically when there's a Trolls nest 30 miles to the north in a Bog that threatens the very lively hood of those people.
From the math, I think it goes as follows:
Monster with Depreciating XP means a static amout of XP required for PCs to level. Or at least, the numbers only slighty increase over a 20th level career.
Monster static XP means a larger amount of XP for the PCs to level. So from 10th to 11th might be the different of 15,000 XP (or 150 goblins!) |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2012 : 17:31:43
|
Ok guys...seriously; can none of you see the problem with Goblins being ALWAYS worth 100 xp? Here ya go:
Handlebar Mustache the wizard sits one day to peer into his Crystal Ball and view the town of Mudville. "Holy mother of Mitra! Mudville is getting ready to be attacked by a Goblin Horde!"
Handlebar quickly grabs his handy-dandy wand of fireballs and teleports to Mudville to make sure his friend and former adventuring companion Ironthews McTalldwarf (now a retired blacksmith in Mudville) isn't slaughtered by the horde!
Now mind you, Handlebar is only a 9th level wizard...not some vastly powerful arch-mage at all...but the fella is prepared! He has his Wand of Fireballs with 34 charges, his various scrolls of thwarting village mob attacks (vs Weapons, Arrows and etc), magical ring or two; and if it gets REALLY nasty, well ol' Handlebar has minor wands he can fall back on like a Wand of Sleep, a Wand of Goblin-chomping and etc.
Do you guys want to know what happens when the horde of 500 goblins comes to Mudville? Think on that a second....
Yeah, that is 50,000 XP walking around in fireball range of a well prepared 9th level wizard. I know..."But the goblins probably have high level NPCs with them!"
Sure they do...but ol' Handlebar isn't after the big'uns...he is going to run around with his thrice-damned Improved Invisibility, his Fly spell, his Dimension Door, his Blink and etc. making life a living nightmare of flaming inferno for the goblins!
I'm not even saying that he will kill a 100 of them...but even if he kills 50 or so of the little sonsabitchniz, he has just netted himself a square 5,000 xp for little effort on his part.
Don't even get me started if Handlebar actually instead goes to get his mentor: High-Mage of the Realm Doozalpoof! |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36896 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2012 : 17:59:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Ok guys...seriously; can none of you see the problem with Goblins being ALWAYS worth 100 xp? Here ya go:
No, I don't see it. The XP amount represents, in part, how much of a threat they are and thus how tough it is to kill them.
So if you don't soup them up with character levels, then yeah, a goblin is going to remain a relatively weak foe.
Putting them on a sliding scale, dependent on the level of the person fighting them, causes a lot of problems, particularly with logic.
Example 1: Goblin A and Goblin B are brothers. Level 15 Paladin takes on Goblin A, while his squire, a Level 3 Warrior, takes on Goblin B. Does it make any sense for these two goblins, identical in every way, to be worth different amounts of XP?
Example 2: The MMO Variation, as I think of it. Goblins in Zone A appear to be wholly identical to Goblins in Zone B. But everything in Zone A is keyed for characters up to level 10, while everything in Zone B is keyed for characters from levels 11-20. So similar terrain types, right next to each other, have the same critters, but the critters are tougher in one of those areas. That's also nonsensical.
So nope, I don't see how having a set XP amount for a particular critter is any kind of issue. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2012 : 18:05:45
|
Actually, I think Dalor just gave a great example of why Wizards are overpowered in 3E
But we're also making the assumption that the Goblins don't have shamans, brutes, elites, higher level warriors, or anything but level 1 XP 100 goblins. And if there were 500 Goblins, I think a wizard is still restrained under the Action Economy rules. There's only so many actions he can take in a round while the goblins swarm over the wall of Mudville (might if I take that town name, BTW?) |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36896 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2012 : 19:07:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Actually, I think Dalor just gave a great example of why Wizards are overpowered in 3E
Not really. A 2E wizard could do that, and a powerful fighter can do similar damage in any edition. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2012 : 19:09:41
|
Experience is what you LEARN...not what something is worth.
A 15th level anything shouldn't get nearly as much experience killing a goblin as a 3rd level anything...even if both goblins are twins.
First time someone tries to cook a large meal vs. a private chef cooking...who is learning more when it comes time to cook again?
As for my example...I stated that higher level goblins might be there; but that is even MORE xp...not the runts running around screaming bloody murder when they are lit on fire!
And yes, feel free to take Mudville.
This very discussion is my primary reason for not liking later editions of D&D: Experience Inflation.
It is the same in MMO games where the "Newbie Zones" now quickly get you to the high levels. While I like 3.x and 4e...I hate the xp progression.
I guess it is a problem for me because I hate experience all together sometimes...I like story better, combat and "rewards" (meaning xp and gold) are things that are second in my categories of an RPG.
Bleh! |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2012 : 19:20:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Experience is what you LEARN...not what something is worth.
A 15th level anything shouldn't get nearly as much experience killing a goblin as a 3rd level anything...even if both goblins are twins.
First time someone tries to cook a large meal vs. a private chef cooking...who is learning more when it comes time to cook again?
As for my example...I stated that higher level goblins might be there; but that is even MORE xp...not the runts running around screaming bloody murder when they are lit on fire!
And yes, feel free to take Mudville.
This very discussion is my primary reason for not liking later editions of D&D: Experience Inflation.
It is the same in MMO games where the "Newbie Zones" now quickly get you to the high levels. While I like 3.x and 4e...I hate the xp progression.
I guess it is a problem for me because I hate experience all together sometimes...I like story better, combat and "rewards" (meaning xp and gold) are things that are second in my categories of an RPG.
Bleh!
You could do what a lot of other DMs do and just reward the PCs with XP as you see fit. There are times in 3E and 4E that a really difficult encounter turns into a blood-bath the PCs stomp right through. And in those events, I normally skimp a bit on the XP. Vise-Versa, there are times when I think an encounter is going to be balanced or equal and the PCs escape through it by the skin of their teeth or though ingenunity. There, I reward more. And there are some DMs that decide when to level up PCs as they see fit. DDN seems to have the sort of flexability to allow that sort of thing. Forget XP all together and level up the group as the DM sees fit (like after a extreamly difficult encouter) or when the PCs get back to town after the adventure.
Alternatively, I've seen DMs track the XP themselves and award the PCs a new level when appropriate, but the PCs don't know how close they are which leads to less "Lets go to the closes cavern system and farm Goblins for some XP to level up!!" mentality. We joke about such things in our groups, but never do that. I also tend to round things up when they're really close. If a mid- to high-level PC is less than a 100 XP (give or take) to the next level, I'll just go ahead and level them up. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jun 2012 : 00:15:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Experience is what you LEARN...not what something is worth.
This very discussion is my primary reason for not liking later editions of D&D: Experience Inflation.
Is the XP tables in next 'fixed' like 3.x or is it more old school (doubling or so) every level? If it does double then it makes understanding the 100xp 'easier'. Of course I much prefer XP for GP as well as monsters and the old style of XP advancement for PC's rather than the 'you go up every 12 encounters' method that 3.x introduced.
Cheers
Damian |
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 |
|
|
|
Eli the Tanner
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
149 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jun 2012 : 01:09:14
|
Depriciating experience vs static experience.
Previously I had been in favour of the former. It seemed to make sense that as your level rose so should the experience you gained/learnt from fighting the same old goblins decrease. However of late I've kinda been seeing this as redundant if you have an ever increasing experience cap for your next level.
If you need twice as much experience to get from level 2-3 as you did to get from 1-2 then it works out just as if the goblin xp was halved. You either need to fight twice as many foes or foes twice as tough than the previous level. Seems much simpler and elegant way of handling it rather than re-calculating xp every level.
For an argument towards verisimilitude as Dalor seems to be looking then it is simply a question of 'worth'. At level 2 is 100xp (the aforementioned goblin) 'worth' the same as it was at level 1? In either case no. But that is not because the goblin has stopped being a challenge worthy of 100xp...but rather that something worth 100xp is simy not advancing your progress as quickly or efficiently.
Of course, at some point, we may well need to delinate when something ceases to be a meaningful challenge at all anymore (8 levels below you in 3.x for instance) but that can still be the case in either method.
Personally it appears six of one and half a dozen of the other, accuracy/balance-wise, but I'd prefer to whip out the old Otiluke's Razor and use the latter. Depreciating exp adds an unnecassary number of variables to calculate. |
Moderator of /r/Forgotten_Realms |
Edited by - Eli the Tanner on 01 Jun 2012 01:11:05 |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
896 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jun 2012 : 13:56:25
|
| I'm with Dalor on this one, at some points, goblins and the like doesn't bring you anything you didn't already have. In 3.x, if the monster is 8 CR lower than your ECL, you get no exp. I think that is fair and makes a lot of sense. |
|
|
|
Bluenose
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
134 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jun 2012 : 14:44:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
Is the XP tables in next 'fixed' like 3.x or is it more old school (doubling or so) every level? If it does double then it makes understanding the 100xp 'easier'. Of course I much prefer XP for GP as well as monsters and the old style of XP advancement for PC's rather than the 'you go up every 12 encounters' method that 3.x introduced.
Cheers
Damian
Level 2 is 2000xp; level 3 is 6000xp. That's all we know so far. If the next progression is 14000xp, then the formula is clear.
On the subject of xp, improvement, and learning. What can you learn from fighting a dragon? Presumably, you can learn what it's weak points are, what it does well, and that getting out of the way when it breathes fire is a good thing. Most PCs don't breathe fire, or have wings, claws and teeth. Effectively, they can learn about dragons form fighting a dragon, but nothing about fighting like a human/elf/dwarf. A goblin is humanoid, uses weapons and armour, just like most PCs. It might use tricks you can copy, defend itself in a way you can duplicate. Stuff that's actually more applicable to the way you fight than the things the dragon does. So, why shouldn't high-level characters learn from fighting goblins? |
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. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jun 2012 : 15:55:47
|
If anyting, Goblins should be a threat regardless of level. I like the idea that monsters, whether lowly Kobolds or mighty Dragons are a dangerous threat because battle (in general) is dangerous. Any goblin can effectively put a spear through your neck, and that's just as life-ending as a Dragon's tail falling on you or a Frost Giant cleaving you in twain.
If they make the Math "flatter", this is something we'll see. And I'm excited for it. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
New 5e Playtest Document
