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.
A game where a one hit die trash mob can kill my level 15 heavily armored warrior with one hit may be more realistic, but that's not a game I'm going to play. What's the point of gaining levels if something that's a threat at 1st level is just as much of a threat at level 15? Especially since my character would have gained much during that rise to 15, where that wimpy goblin would be the same.
Every edition of D&D, most other RPGs, MMOs, video games, they've all done that: the critter that threatens you at level 1 isn't worth paying attention to at higher levels. I don't see how this is an issue.
I like it, myself. it saves the system itself from having to deal with 'level bloat'.
Several factors offset this - a higher level character can still deal more damage, be better at fighting, and kill opponents quicker. He/she will have better weapons and armor (and magic). They will have other (increased) skills to figure-out obetter ways to overcome adversity (climbing, swimming, building traps & snares, etc). They will have tougher companions and have access to more resources, and most of all, the will possess an 'aura of awesomeness'.
Which in MORPGs is called 'threat'.
level 1 PC walks into a level 10 monster lair and every monster in the place starts toward it. level 10 PC enters said lair and monster will only fight them when they are encountered (the normal way adventuring works).
Level 30 PC enters level 10 monster lair, and monsters start sneaking out the back door.
This is an obvious VG mechanic, but it can still apply in a realistic way. Suppose a level 5 rogue (and his band) encounters your level 10 PC - he sees your posture (stance), how you hold your sword, the armor you are wearing, etc... and instead of jumping you (and your friends), he says "forgive me sir, I thought you were someone else... good day to you".
A bunch hooligans who jump your party will start running for the hills after they see how easily you laid-open their friends throats. Even animal-intelligence creatures will sense when a fight is going badly, and scatter (unless you've managed to make them enraged).
'Fighting to the death' is a silly RPG/fantasy trope - normal creatures do not behave that way (unless cornered, or young are threatened). With the right kind of RPing, a system with very little HP leveling should work just fine.
EDIT: and make potions of healing common, cheap, and easily procured. Then if we go back to the 'deaths door' rule, you will have a few minutes after the encounter to pour one down your friends throat.
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
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.
Not really - I would think it would 12,000.
To go from one level to the next, multiply the level you are at by the level you are trying to attain, and multiple that by 1000.
1 x 2 x 1000 = 2000 2 x 3 x 1000 = 6000 3 x 4 x 1000 = 12,000 4 x 5 x 1000 = 20,000
And so on and so forth. With that kind of formula, you can even do the half-level thing (2 x 2.5 x 1000 = 5000 = new ability). Really no need for that, except maybe for multi-classing or some-such.
On the other hand, the next number could be 18,000 or even 24,000 (but I think that rate would increase the EP needed way to harshly). Without another number in the sequence, there isn't much to go on.
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
I like it, myself. it saves the system itself from having to deal with 'level bloat'.
Several factors offset this - a higher level character can still deal more damage, be better at fighting, and kill opponents quicker. He/she will have better weapons and armor (and magic). They will have other (increased) skills to figure-out obetter ways to overcome adversity (climbing, swimming, building traps & snares, etc). They will have tougher companions and have access to more resources, and most of all, the will possess an 'aura of awesomeness'.
Which in MORPGs is called 'threat'.
level 1 PC walks into a level 10 monster lair and every monster in the place starts toward it. level 10 PC enters said lair and monster will only fight them when they are encountered (the normal way adventuring works).
Level 30 PC enters level 10 monster lair, and monsters start sneaking out the back door.
This is an obvious VG mechanic, but it can still apply in a realistic way. Suppose a level 5 rogue (and his band) encounters your level 10 PC - he sees your posture (stance), how you hold your sword, the armor you are wearing, etc... and instead of jumping you (and your friends), he says "forgive me sir, I thought you were someone else... good day to you".
-Very unwieldy for D&D. It'd be on the DM to basically control the situation like that, and well, you know how the proficiencies of DMs are all not alike.
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
I will admit, I don't have a lot of experience with other gaming systems beside the 3E mechanic. I've DM'd for several years using 3.5, and XP has always been a headache for me. I like the version of XP shown in the playtest, it makes it easy for me. I'm not very good at math. Would it be feasible to propose a base XP ammount for a given creature, such as a goblin, and then a given number of XP for any class levels added? Eg, base creature is 300xp, every additional level of training is worth... 10 xp? It would scale the XP, but make it simple. I see what's being said on both sides here, and for my playstyle, I have no issue with the current system, and 3.5's system, while a headache for me, is something I wouldn't call a deal breaker if they reverted to that.
- Delwa Aunglor I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus
quote:Originally posted by Bluenose 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.
Thank you
I would like to see a bit more XP between the levels, to give the players a chance to learn a thing or two about the game and enough wriggle room for the DM as well.
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
quote:Originally posted by Bluenose 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.
Thank you
I would like to see a bit more XP between the levels, to give the players a chance to learn a thing or two about the game and enough wriggle room for the DM as well.
Cheers
Damian
BINGO! How in the Nine Hells can a character learn all the different facets of the game if they are 5th level before they even got to try out all the aspects of 1st level!!!
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.
Not really - I would think it would 12,000.
To go from one level to the next, multiply the level you are at by the level you are trying to attain, and multiple that by 1000.
1 x 2 x 1000 = 2000 2 x 3 x 1000 = 6000 3 x 4 x 1000 = 12,000 4 x 5 x 1000 = 20,000
And so on and so forth. With that kind of formula, you can even do the half-level thing (2 x 2.5 x 1000 = 5000 = new ability). Really no need for that, except maybe for multi-classing or some-such.
On the other hand, the next number could be 18,000 or even 24,000 (but I think that rate would increase the EP needed way to harshly). Without another number in the sequence, there isn't much to go on.
I have a small bet on with a friend of mine about the formula. He thinks it'll go your way (so do I, actually, but his certainty annoyed me). I claim that the totals are cumulative, but that you require twice as much XP each level to go up another level. So it doesn't really matter what the total number of XP you will need to reach a level is, but how many more you need on top of your existing total. So:
At level N, to get to the next level you need 1000XP x 2^(n-1) Level 1 to 2, requires 1000XP x 2^(2-1) = 2000XP Level 2 to 3, another 1000XP x 2^(3-1) = 4000XP; this is on top of the XP you needed to reach level 2.
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.
Anyone else get the Playtest Survey in their email? What did you think about the questions?
Well, I thought the first batch of questions was... dunno if quaint is the right word. Obviously tailored to players more than DMs and since I haven't participated in a D&D game as a player for over a decade... well
After two weeks of playtesting the new rules, my group and I have decided to discontinue the Playtest for the time being. I'll keep up with the current design aspects and the how the rules change and adapt, but my group won't be returning to the Caves of Chaos nor that particular set of basic rules. From our two weeks, my group discussed a lot in terms of fun, options, character/monster design, encounter design, healing, class features, themes/backgrounds, spells, special abilities, combat rules, and Improvisation (by far, the biggest area of discussion). Our conclusion was that we would rather spend our limited weekly time playing a game we enjoy (4E, v3.5, or Pathfinder).
This was a pretty hard decision for me, to be honest. As a big fan of 4E and the mess of Edition wars that occured from that, I knew the amount of complaining and arguing that would ensue with the design changes NOW was going to be big. I knew the best way to approach these arguments is with information and knowledge and to help dissude any false-hoods disguised as Truths. So as I see I'm probably going to be in the minority (heh, again) I want to go into discussions about DDN with a clear understanding of the rules-as-written.
First, let me explain some aspects that my group liked about DDN:
HPs, Death Saving throws, and Hit Die: These are all aspects that reflect 4E design, so it's not hard to see the enjoyment of these aspects in the game. I like Death Saving throws because, even at 0 or fewer HP, death isn't almost a certain thing. You do have a chance beyond 3E/4E's 5% to recover. HP is highter at low levels, thus eliminating a lucky shot killing your character in the first round of combat. And Hit Die is just another way of saying "Healing Surge" but with some materials required.
At-will Magic (well....sorta): At-will magic has been implemented since the later stages of D&D development. In v3.5 we saw Reserve Feats. In Pathfinder, Cantrips are usable all the time. And in 4E each class gets nifty, unique tricks that can be used all day long. Carrying over this element into DDN seems like a no-brainer. The problem we had with At-Wills in DDN was the relative boredom of it's options. A Wizard gets Magic Missile, Ray of Frost, and Shocking Grasp. 2/3 of these options are only slightly useful over the course of several battles, so the Wizard is left spamming Magic Missile. Same applies to Clerics and their radiant lance spell. Increasing the spell list makes things more versatile and keeps it exciting.
Spells as Rituals and Magic Items: I think one major flaw with 3E, v3.5, and Pathfinder is that as Spellcasters advance in level, so too does their spell slots. This is further broadened by wands, staffs, and scrolls that make for a battery of magic at their disposal. One solution (something DDN is using) is making scoll-usage supplant prepared/un-used spell slots. So a Wizard could have Comprehend Languges and when the time is right, use that instead of a prepared spell they've gained earlier in the day. Rituals as spells means less memorization for spells that have very little usage in Combat.
Flatter math: This is something I totally agree with. I like my bonuses to really mean something in the game. A small percentage every once in a while is....bleh. Also, I like the idea of distancing progression with magical items. Keeping both separeate is something that is great as a general rule.
Now....the bad (there's quite a few things, so I'll touch on the biggest)
Class blandness: Say what you want about the 4E Fighter, at least he had Options. These options were great, broad, useful 99% of the time, and provided great cinematic effects. The Fighter represented in the DDN Playtest was nothing but Swing, swing, swing. Granted, he was a Slayer, but even the 4E Slayer had more options. His class features were non-existant except that he could carry more stuff than anyone else....yay. This blandness is further illustrated in the Rogue and the design apathy that appeard to go into it. "The Rogue can use Thieves tools" ......well duh.
Skills, or more precisely the lack of them: In DDN, you get a few skills you gain bonuses to (sort of like in 4E) but no list to see an overall picture (like in 3E, PF, and 4E). Instead, the simple bonuses are what your really good at and everything else will be strictly dictated by your Ability modifier, a d20 roll, and a DM set DC. If you want to craft something, you'll need your DM's permission to attempt the action AND the DM will determine what Ability score(s) will be needed to achieve the required DC (set by the DM). IF you want to jump across a 10-ft. pit, you're going to have to guesstimate how hard that is (so far, without references to the task's difficulty) and then hope you have a Strength score high enough to make most DCs the DM will place.
Resource Management is now the purview of Spellcasters again: Something I liked about 4E was that we all had some resource management with our characters. This meant that certain aspects of our class might be poweful, but restrictive. In DDN, this right is normally reserved only for spellcasters. Fighters get some resourcing abilities....but it's so paltry compared to other Editions that I don't think I'd be worried about using it.
Lack of Teamwork: Say what you want about 4E, but at least you knew your role and were given great was of fullfilling it. In DDN, it just seems like the characters didn't have anything that bound them together to work like a team. The Cleric of Moradin fought on the front lines but couldn't do anything to help his allies behind them. The Fighter killed things and.....killed some more things. The Rogue hid in combat half the time so he could do Sneak Attack damage the other half. The Wizard was too cautious about spending their big spells and so spammed Magic Missile. The Cleric of Pelor kept his spells in check until they could be used to cast Cure Light Wounds (thoughts of using any other spell weren't even considered).
Improvisation: This is probably the deal breaker for us. Keep in mind that my players come from a predominantly 3E-4E background and improv is something that's quite alien to us. When even told that they could use their Ability scores as a way to do interesting things their response was "But how?" When I explained "Contests" they just cringed. With nothing codified, nothing set in stone, no basis to begin with, and all DM fiat it was a real turn off. They felt it was a lazy aspect on the designers not to put such rules in. I intoned that it's the design that these aspects be made by the group/DM to fit their needs. Their response "Isn't that why we pay them?"
There's more, but I'm stressed for time. I hope the game becomes a great success and I can pilfer it for awesome ideas and even play a few games of it. But it's just not shaping up to be a game we invision we'll play.
There's more, but I'm stressed for time. I hope the game becomes a great success and I can pilfer it for awesome ideas and even play a few games of it. But it's just not shaping up to be a game we invision we'll play.
I'm really at a loss Diffan...I thought you would be one of the voices here that helped shape things...
These are only the very first rules put out...and who is to say they will look anything like this at the end?
There's more, but I'm stressed for time. I hope the game becomes a great success and I can pilfer it for awesome ideas and even play a few games of it. But it's just not shaping up to be a game we invision we'll play.
I'm really at a loss Diffan...I thought you would be one of the voices here that helped shape things...
These are only the very first rules put out...and who is to say they will look anything like this at the end?
I think that that is rather unfair. Diffan has been rather forthcoming about his like of the E6 system, just as I have been of Pathfinder. I do not think that they can realistically expect to gain back all the fans that they alienated with 4E. Most of us have spent the past 4 years finding new systems that we actually like to pour our time and money into. Now, if 5e has harvestable parts, I might look into purchasing the core rulebooks (or at least the Player's Handbook) . And if they start churning out quality Realms accessories (which I totally expect them to do with Ed at the helm instead of on the sideline) I will definitely do everything in my power to purchase those. But as to my actual system that I expect and intend to keep my loyalty with Paizo because they have earned that which WotC so casually discarded with the advent of 4E and the 4E Realms.
One, two! One, two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
There's more, but I'm stressed for time. I hope the game becomes a great success and I can pilfer it for awesome ideas and even play a few games of it. But it's just not shaping up to be a game we invision we'll play.
I'm really at a loss Diffan...I thought you would be one of the voices here that helped shape things...
These are only the very first rules put out...and who is to say they will look anything like this at the end?
Your correct, we don't know what the end product will be. But I think the framework of the problems (IMO) are the ground work for the system. This game is attempting to prize itself on modularity. That modularity comes not from them, but from each individual DM and his group. Some people might love this, as it allows DMs to really taylor how the game works and fits the best possible solution for their idea of a great game. Me, I have no need for wishy-washy rules that change drastically from one group to another. Lets take this exmaple I posted on the WotC forums:
"Why I don't personally like Improv style games is that it's just too reliant on DM moods. That and the rules can change based on each individual's perception of the situation. Lets take something simple for an example; Bull Rushing a Kobold off a cliff."
DM 1 to Player: "I see your Strength score is twice that of the Kobolds. You can Bull Rush him off the cliff with no roll" = Auto-success.
DM 2 to Player: "Move into the monsters square and make a Strength vs. Strength Contest. If you win, you push him 5-ft." = Simple mechanic involving the same score.
DM 3 to Player: "Move into the monsters square but if you Charge (ie. move 10 feet), you gain Advantage with your Roll. Make a Strength vs. either the Kobolds' Strength or Dexterity score (which ever's higher). If you win, you push him. If you loose, you remain in the spot adjacent to the Kobold. A win of 5 or more pushes the Kobold an additional 5-ft. If you win by 10 or more, you knock him prone. If you fail by 5 or more, you fall prone. If you fail by 10 or more, you miss and go over the ledge". = Difficlut yet precise mechanics
DM 4 to Player: "Move and attack the Kobold. If you hit, make a Strength vs. Strength Contest with Advantage. If you succeed, he is knocked off the ledge." = varied mechanics based on attack.
DM 5 to Player: "Move and attack the Kobold. If you hit, he makes a Strength saving throw DC = 5 + damage done or is knocked off." = Uses a Saving Throw mechanic.
This is just ONE situation that can have huge degrees of complexity and variables. And I'd say that these are all within the options presented in DDN. Perhaps you like one but HATE the others. Or maybe you hate all of them. It doesn't matter because what the DM rules is absolute. There is no basis except "Use your imagination, hope to have a understanding and clear-headed DM, and make sure it meets very simple parameters". I just don't like this free-form style of gaming.
After two weeks of playtesting the new rules, my group and I have decided to discontinue the Playtest for the time being. I'll keep up with the current design aspects and the how the rules change and
Diffan thanks for the comprehensive post about DnDN and how you and your group have experienced it.
Apart from the at will magic missiles every round and the clerics lance of faith prayer thingy you have actually inspired me to go and download the playtest documents and try them out, as everything that is a negative for you and your group sounds like a positive to me.
I must say that when they announced DnDN I was sceptical of the assurances that they were reaching out to players of all editions. I suspected that we would see more of a mix of 3.x and 4E than anything else with even more of an emphasis on the MMORPG side of current gaming preferences however, if it is how you described it I am quite interested now as it sounds just like the kind of 'new and shiny' game I can run for the kids (even though it takes its cues from B/X, AD&D, Castles and Crusades and even Lamentations of the Flame Princess).
Cheers
Damian
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
After two weeks of playtesting the new rules, my group and I have decided to discontinue the Playtest for the time being. I'll keep up with the current design aspects and the how the rules change and
Diffan thanks for the comprehensive post about DnDN and how you and your group have experienced it.
Apart from the at will magic missiles every round and the clerics lance of faith prayer thingy you have actually inspired me to go and download the playtest documents and try them out, as everything that is a negative for you and your group sounds like a positive to me.
I must say that when they announced DnDN I was sceptical of the assurances that they were reaching out to players of all editions. I suspected that we would see more of a mix of 3.x and 4E than anything else with even more of an emphasis on the MMORPG side of current gaming preferences however, if it is how you described it I am quite interested now as it sounds just like the kind of 'new and shiny' game I can run for the kids (even though it takes its cues from B/X, AD&D, Castles and Crusades and even Lamentations of the Flame Princess).
Cheers
Damian
I'm glad I helped inspire you! The game isn't bad at all and were I a fan of Improvisational games where your imagination fuels mechanics, then I'd be having a blast. But I like hard-coded rules. I like knowing that the DCs in the game are pretty consistant througout play experiences across the board. For example, I could play in my group and jump over a 15-ft. pit and know I'd need to beat X-DC. And that stunt would have the same DC at a Gen-Con event, with the Group at the Mall, with another Group my friend runs, etc... With DDN, there's no reason those DCs wouldn't change every single time or that I could even perform the stunt in the first place. To me, it's the inconsistantcy that is the real problem.
Now, given time WotC might come out with a set of hard rules and say "Ok, Bull Rush requires X and Y to gain Z result. This isn't by any means 'Official', but it's the we'er going to go with at Gen-Con events". And I'd be way more willing to play with those set parameters.
I guess it comes down to one thing: A Smar player vs. Playing your character smart. One relies solely on one's own Imagination and ability to think quickly on their feet and outside the box. The other identifies the codified rules as the world and thinks within those boundaries for a solution. I'm definitly in the latter group as I like to find solutions that can be found within the boundaries of my character sheet. I'm not a good Improv. guy and I do have a hard time thinking outside the box. Ergo, DDN doesn't really seem to be the kind of game that I'll either be good at nor enjoy as greatly as 3E, PF, or 4E.
@ Dalor Darden: I'll still be adding my own 2cp to the discussions about DDN and at least trying to influence the game into a direction that I think will allow me to enjoy the game. But my group just didn't really like it and I think it's unfair that I keep them playing something that they really don't enjoy. One player in my group who's played every edition of the game said that it just feels like a new shiney AD&D/2E and we're both on the same page that we HATE that edition. If DDN is trying to emulate that style/gameplay experience of 2E then I see no reason why I'm going to magically change my opinion because some rules of 4E found their way in.
I love 4e. It's a great system and it's given me a lot of freedom. That said, the resource management portion of the game has made me cringe since it came out. This was recently re-highlighted for me with the release of Diablo 3. In 4e, you have to obtain better gear as you level, just as in this game, and the math makes it impossible to do otherwise (unless using the optional inherent bonus rules).
I think 4e is on the cusp of being a great system, but the media surrounding it caused it to get trashed publicly. It's a shame. I think it's a serviceable game system.
DDN is not complete, by any stretch. In fact, I'm convinced they want to change it. They want to evolve it based on feedback. I have to keep myself from getting personally angry at some of the other comments on the internet about how the game is or is not. It's not a game yet, really. It needs people to go in, break it apart, and send in what they find to WotC. Diffan, you're doing a good job. I hope that you're not just putting this stuff here, and are giving it to WotC via their submission forms.
I love 4e. It's a great system and it's given me a lot of freedom. That said, the resource management portion of the game has made me cringe since it came out. This was recently re-highlighted for me with the release of Diablo 3. In 4e, you have to obtain better gear as you level, just as in this game, and the math makes it impossible to do otherwise (unless using the optional inherent bonus rules).
I think 4e is on the cusp of being a great system, but the media surrounding it caused it to get trashed publicly. It's a shame. I think it's a serviceable game system.
Agreed, which is why I'm devoting more time in furthering 4E on more fronts, meaning more conversions from previous editions (spells into powes/Rituals) as well as Prestige Classes into Paragon Paths, etc... You mentioned the inherent bonuses and I think that's one of my favorite aspects to be used in 4E. I don't like having to worry about having a +3 weapon or +3 armor when going into an adventure or cave.
quote:Originally posted by Matt James
DDN is not complete, by any stretch. In fact, I'm convinced they want to change it. They want to evolve it based on feedback. I have to keep myself from getting personally angry at some of the other comments on the internet about how the game is or is not. It's not a game yet, really. It needs people to go in, break it apart, and send in what they find to WotC. Diffan, you're doing a good job. I hope that you're not just putting this stuff here, and are giving it to WotC via their submission forms.
I've been trying to post a lot over on the Wiz-Bros boards and also reply to their feedback forms. I just wish there was more to provide feed-back on. I thought the adventuer Caves of Chaos didn't help facilitate character options nor did it provide the DM on the "Why or Whats" of testing. More transparency is needed at the Playtest phase, not a cavalier attitude of "here ya go, play and enjoy!" I think that was the biggest mistake so far, giving us rules for us to just play around wth instead of being more critical and showing more validity.
Basically, the playtest should have had different problems that the PCs were build to have solutions to. A sort of hand-holding is good in this particular scenario because we don't know what they're testing. How do you test the Figher aside from throwing monsters at him? How does he know he can use Improv-esque moves like Disarm, Tripping, Bull Rush without at least a little bit of guidance? Espically for new gamers? The adventure throws 18 monsters at the PCs, so is this done to test endurance? Multiple monsters encounter?To deplete the Mage's AoE spell slots? What?
I think he picks out a lot of the pitfalls and benfits of an improvisational-led campaign. Might give you a deeper perspective on the topic and how this could work. If you've come out of 3.x and 4e iterations then I think a game without such a strong rules framework is going to look daunting.
Personally I've found the playtest material quite promising and is exactly the sort of flexibility I was hoping the 'basic' rules would engender. The key I believe to bear in mind is that this is presumably going to be the 'moddable core' that Next is going to build around. Creating something where you can layer on whichever setting, ruleset or playstyle you have in mind whilst keeping a playable base system is rather tricky....and I'm glad to see they have gone down this route to that end (removing game elements is generally harder than adding them).
I still have a lot of critical points regarding the playtest material but I want to give the dice a bit more of throw before I wade in. Once I've done some more games with it I might post a more in-depth analysis.
-Is it really that hard to strike a middle ground between the rules explicitly detailing every step in a non-combat action, and winging it? Coming from the point of view as someone who doesn't use/understand properly maybe a third of 3e rules to begin with, I often find myself just randomly winging it, asking for random whatever rolls, so maybe I'm not the best judge, but...
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
I think he picks out a lot of the pitfalls and benfits of an improvisational-led campaign. Might give you a deeper perspective on the topic and how this could work. If you've come out of 3.x and 4e iterations then I think a game without such a strong rules framework is going to look daunting.
Personally I've found the playtest material quite promising and is exactly the sort of flexibility I was hoping the 'basic' rules would engender. The key I believe to bear in mind is that this is presumably going to be the 'moddable core' that Next is going to build around. Creating something where you can layer on whichever setting, ruleset or playstyle you have in mind whilst keeping a playable base system is rather tricky....and I'm glad to see they have gone down this route to that end (removing game elements is generally harder than adding them).
I still have a lot of critical points regarding the playtest material but I want to give the dice a bit more of throw before I wade in. Once I've done some more games with it I might post a more in-depth analysis.
Monte's pitfalls of a Improv-style game is where I have the hardest time accepting. I know that the game is still in it's earlies stages and it'll probably change pretty drastically withing the next 10 months or so (well, lets hope anyways). What I think needs to happen is to keep the Improv-style yet still define specific things within that mindset. I like having consistancy and with DDN, it's completely up to the DM to keep that consistancy within his game. So Bull Rushing has a defined mechanic, it should be that way across the board. But as we start to define specifics in terms of Action Economy, standardized DCs for Improv. actions........then how is that different than what we saw in 3E or 4E? And will DMs think this is taking away their power?
A modular system is great though, and I hope D&D can pull it off. From the Bounded Accuracy article, it mentions things that I really like about D&D and that particular direction they're taking the game. Yet un-codified rules for combat is a problem that needs addressing. And more options, espically for the Fighter and Rogue, because I feel they got the shortest end of the stick in terms of their abilities.
quote:Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Is it really that hard to strike a middle ground between the rules explicitly detailing every step in a non-combat action, and winging it? Coming from the point of view as someone who doesn't use/understand properly maybe a third of 3e rules to begin with, I often find myself just randomly winging it, asking for random whatever rolls, so maybe I'm not the best judge, but...
Non-combat action? Not at all. In combat actions...Yes. Coming from 4E, I pretty much wing all non-combat stuff because there's so little mechanics represented in it. For example, if you have the feat Alchemist (or theme) I'd pretty much allow you to make any sort of consumable item so long as it's near your level and you have the GP for it. I don't need complex math formulas to figure out anything else. But to have consistant rules regarding actions in combat is imperative to a good RPG.
The move to 'flat maths' in combat and spells, with apparently no level-based advancement of to-hit probability, seems very drastic. I could have done with some flattening, but they seem to be going all the way and using hit points to differentiate. This continues the inflation of hit points (at both low and high levels) that I seriously dislike aesthetically, though it may turn out to work fine.
I'm also surprised by magic missile (or spellbolt or battlestrike in the Realms) demoted to an at-will cantrip: more than most spells, in the legendry of the game I see learning to cast it as a landmark of apprenticeship.
The move to 'flat maths' in combat and spells, with apparently no level-based advancement of to-hit probability, seems very drastic. I could have done with some flattening, but they seem to be going all the way and using hit points to differentiate. This continues the inflation of hit points (at both low and high levels) that I seriously dislike aesthetically, though it may turn out to work fine.
I'm also surprised by magic missile (or spellbolt or battlestrike in the Realms) demoted to an at-will cantrip: more than most spells, in the legendry of the game I see learning to cast it as a landmark of apprenticeship.
I'm not sure they're going to do away with an increase of numbers all together, just not the scale we're used to. 2E and 3E both used the THAC0/BAB system that went up based on class, 4E used the +1/2 level method. Both rose the numbers pretty darn high over a 20-level peroid. Perhaps NEXT will only increase it +5 or so (+1 at every 5 levels?) This would still mean that DCs can relatively remain static and your not instant-winning them 6 character levels in. I think it also makes more sense realistically.
Take your level 1 city guard, I don't think he'd have a hard time hitting a dragons. Doing enough damage to him before the dragon eats him or melts him into a pool of lava is another matter all together. With the HP expressions going much higher, it means that monsters are much more durable yet not outright invincible as they once were. It also helps fuel the reasoning as to why Dragons and other large monsters don't just take over cities. Even enough pesants with pitch forks and courage can drastically hurt and maim Dragons.
As for at-will magic missile, it's that the whole point of apprenticeship? Being able to master the lowest of lowly arcane spells for general use? That's always been my definiton of Cantrips, and why they kept them at-will. I just hope they have other options aside from that and the other two combat* ones.
Here are some things they can put back in the game:
Magical Aging Causes casting alter reolity spell 3 years casting gate spell 5 years casting limited wish spell 1 year casting restoration spell 2 years casting resurrection spell 3 years casting wish spell 3 years imbibing a speed potion 1 year under a haste spell 1 year
Put penalties like that in the game...you don't have certain things getting spammed in adventures!
Just got an email stating that a new playtest packet is ready. Here is the link from my email. You will need to re-register (this is an attempt on their part to make downloading it more easy, and it worked).
One, two! One, two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
Here are some things they can put back in the game:
Magical Aging Causes casting alter reolity spell 3 years casting gate spell 5 years casting limited wish spell 1 year casting restoration spell 2 years casting resurrection spell 3 years casting wish spell 3 years imbibing a speed potion 1 year under a haste spell 1 year
Put penalties like that in the game...you don't have certain things getting spammed in adventures!
You put magical aging in and there will just be those who start flitting from body to body all the time, or developing spells to steal longevity. Granted those options won't be easy to do, but they'll happen. Plus, certain of those spells have been easily toned down to the point they don't need those penalties and they still reflect the core idea. Still, yes, there are some things that might warrant giving up some of one's own life (for instance, true resurrection), and in those instances it does make some sense.
Just got an email stating that a new playtest packet is ready. Here is the link from my email. You will need to re-register (this is an attempt on their part to make downloading it more easy, and it worked).
Downloaded and viewed. I'm ok with most of it. The only things I don't really like are not "deal breakers," per se. I don't like having Find and Disable Traps lumped into one skill. I prefer to have them seperate. Just because I spotted a trap shouldn't mean I automatically know how to disable it. The other thing is the Cleric's Chanel Divinity abilty. I like the change from Turning Undead in 3.5 (never played 4E enough to compare) but I dislike it being a single target only. I can see lower level Clerics only being able to target a single creature. This could be fixed by either a domain making the ability an area effect a certain number of times per day, or a higher level class ability making Chanel Divinity into an area effect. Other than that, I'm still happy with the rules as I see them. I love the Advantage/Disadvantage system. It's so much easier than having to remember what situations give a +2 or +4 or +6 bonus to a roll. I like what they did with armor proficiencies with Clerics; making their proficiency tie to their domains. It gives a good reason for a healer/loremaster to just be a robed man vs a plate-wearing think tank. I'm not sure how I feel about the Fighter. Fighter has never been a class I focued a lot of attention on as a PC, so I don't have a strong opinion there.
- Delwa Aunglor I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus
Downloaded and reviewed bits and pieces of the new Playtest. Mostly the races and classes with a bit of the How-To rules. Some thoughts:
•Races: I enjoyed that they dismissed the idea of adding back in racial penalties. Races now get a +1 bonus to one stat based on sub-race (*sigh*). And I'm enamored of bring back in sub-races either, which is kinda lame to tie them into mechanical differences. For the most part, the races seemed balanced thought I hate the rule that lightfoot halflings can hide behind bigger creatures than themselves, which to me says other's can't do this (ie. a Human hiding behind a huge stone giant). Also, humans are the most powerful but at the same time, the most boring races in the bunch. As most races receive a +1 bonus to one stat, humans get a +2 bonus to one stat PLUS a +1 bonus to everything else. So using the standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 = 25 point-buy) a Human would have 17, 15, 14, 13, 11, 9 = 36 points!!). Yet that's all they receive. I'd rather just have a +2 bonus to 1 stat and maybe a +1 bonus to trained skills or perhaps a bonus feat or something more traditional.
•Classes: To be fair, I only gave it a quick look through but there are some significant improvements from the 1st playtest packet. One thing that sticks out that I am NOT a fan of is the semi-style BAB/THAC0 system they've got going. It's not as elegant as 4E's +1/2 level to attacks (which is preferrable over a hodge-podge of bonuses across the classes) but it's not as moronic as the scaling of BAB/THAC0. Still, the Rogue could use a bump a little bit more after 3rd level or so. As it stands, the Fighter gets +3/+3/+3/+4/+4 to weapon attacks (I believe) while the Rogue gets strait +2's for the first 5 levels. I think a +2/+2/+2/+3/+3 would be a better fit IMO.
- Fighter: Combat Superiority is a decent mechanic that I enjoy recharges every turn. They also get interesting combat specialization which I'll get into later when I have the packet in front of me. They added in maneuvers and I'm pretty pleased with them. They won't ever hold up to 4e's powers, but I'm willing to compromise.
- Rogue: Sneak attack isn't as limited IMO with this version and seeing it scale the way it does puts a smile on my face. I haven't read through all the Rogue stuff yet but they get some interesting class features that allow automatic Advantage every so often.
- Cleric: I don't mind that Turn Undead is a spell nor do I mind that, while it's always prepared, it takes up a spell slot to use becuase it's very situational and you can do it more times per day. What I don't like is that they get NO armor proficiencies except what's based on their Domain. They should have.....something, anything, there besides none. OR at least in that part of the description, put "See Domains" and no "None" because this, to me, implies that there might be some clerics that actually receive none and that's a horrid idea. Additionally, the Domains are so screwy with their benefits that I couldn't see anyone play a "Sun" cleric with their domain support. Sun clerics get prof. with light/medium armor and they have an ability to glow with light for 20 ft. In that radius, they can deal X-damage to creatures within that radius. I read that as to mean "ANY CREATURE" in that radius, including the cleric and his allies. That's stupid. If they put in there "Enemies" then it'll be a bit better. The War domain cleric is by far more versatile and plain better mechanically as they get proficiency with all martial weapons, all armor and shields and when they use their Channel Divinity power, they can attack in the same round as well.
- Wizard: I didn't read up as much on this as I would've like but for the most part, it seems unchanged from the Playtest. They get spells and cantrips and spellbooks. They get NO benefits after 1st level except additional spells and they have the same spell attack progression as a Fighter. Very bland IMO.
• Rules: I haven't gone into much of the rules, but there are a few things of note in the overall design of the game that are concerns for me.
- HP: Hit points in the 1st playtest were based on a HD + Con score, with a minimal mark-up as you level. Now, it's back to the abysmal HD + Con modifier, which means your lucky to have a Wizard over 4 hp at 1st level . Additionally, with all the talk about the Bounded Accuracy article, it appears that monsters (and supposedly players) are supposed to deal more damage as they level instead of bonus to hit/AC increase a lot. So with minimal HP, this means 1-shot kills could be very very frequent. I don't like this from a DM point of view.
- Two Weapon Fighting: As it stands, it's plain old bad. The feat stats that you can attack with two (finessable) weapons in 1 turn. All damage deal is halved. So, to me, your requiring a finite resource (feats) for the ability to attack with crappy damage that someone who doesn't spend a feat on can do the same thing with a two-handed weapon. Basically your putting penalties on flavor and that's just bad game design. And it's not like the Rogue can add his full Sneak Attack die (1/round) as icing on the cake as that's halved two as is the same with Fighter's Combat Superority die.
My solution, require that one weapon be finessable (meaing "light") and don't add the ability score onto the attack. So you can take the feat Two-Weapon Fighting and make two attacks with one action, dealing 1d8 (longsword) plus 1d6 (shortsword) and possibly some additional damage die via Sneak Attack and Combat Superiority. The damage will probably be a bit higher than someone with a two-handed sword but that's the point of Feats, gaining something for a resource.
- Opportuinity Attacks/Disengagement: The first part is pretty solid, allowing a creature a Reaction attack against anyone who moves into or through a threatened square. But the Disengagement rules are silly, allowing you to spend your action to not provoke an OA (opportuinity attack). What this does is allow the infamous Shift + Move of 4e. Basically you spend your action moving away from the Fighter and then move into the wizard's (or someone a Fighter might be trying to protect) threatened area, thus negating any reason for having OA's. Instead, removing the disengaging rules would pretty much solve the problem all together. OR, require the Disengagment rules to effectively reduce your speed to 10' and the monster still gets his action (which could be used to make a ranged attack for example).
New 5e Playtest Document
Posted - 01 Jun 2012 : 20:01:19
. Additionally, with all the talk about the Bounded Accuracy article, it appears that monsters (and supposedly players) are supposed to deal more damage as they level instead of bonus to hit/AC increase a lot. So with minimal HP, this means 1-shot kills could be very very frequent. I don't like this from a DM point of view.