| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
 Posted - 14 Aug 2012 : 19:40:16
|
| Yeah, two-weapon fighting was something I thought that 3.x did well. I don't know what it was like in 4e though. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
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
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4467 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2012 : 20:00:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Yeah, two-weapon fighting was something I thought that 3.x did well. I don't know what it was like in 4e though.
It was pretty simple, anyone could dual-wield but one weapon needed the off-hand property and if you wanted to swing both in one turn you needed a specific two-weapon attack power to do it. 3 classes automatically received such powers (fighter, ranger, and barbarian). Outside of that, it's hard to dual-wield in one attack.
While I think this way was simple and easy, it was too restrictive. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2012 : 22:08:47
|
| Yeah, I was not a fan of 4e's version of two-weapon fighting. It is a static +1 bonus to damage if you take the feat. Otherwise, as Diffan explained, it is given support through classes. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4467 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2012 : 23:23:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Yeah, I was not a fan of 4e's version of two-weapon fighting. It is a static +1 bonus to damage if you take the feat. Otherwise, as Diffan explained, it is given support through classes.
Agreed, I don't think it should just be a static bonus to damage as that is very boring. But neither do I think it should unlock some ability to wield two weapons "magically" as it appears to come off with D&D:Next rules. There has to be a middle ground. 3E was close, but the penalities were just too ridiculous without the feat and even with it, it was penalizing flavor. So I believe a mix of 3E and 4E is preferred. Like I suggested earlier, I think using the feat Two-Weapon Fighting (which should require at least Dex 13) should perhaps provide the ability to attack twice per action. This, however, does have a bit of consequences and doesn't provide your ability modifier to the damage delt. You would still get any bonuses from magical enchantments and extra damage die like the Rogue's sneak attack or the Fighter's combat superority |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1272 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2012 : 01:54:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I think using the feat Two-Weapon Fighting (which should require at least Dex 13) should perhaps provide the ability to attack twice per action. This, however, does have a bit of consequences and doesn't provide your ability modifier to the damage delt. You would still get any bonuses from magical enchantments and extra damage die like the Rogue's sneak attack or the Fighter's combat superority
I agree. To me, limiting the kinds of weapons you can dual-wield would "balence" it. An average human, even with high Dex, can't dual-wield two claymores. To do something that fantastic should be a different feat, same requirements, but add in a minimum Strength requirement because they have to be strong enough to wield the larger weapon and be dexterous enough at the same time. And if you're limited to daggers, short swords, maces, smaller axes or hammers, the damage dealt is limited. |
- 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 |
Edited by - Delwa on 15 Aug 2012 01:55:39 |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
896 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2012 : 12:55:04
|
Ok, just went through the whole thing, but I haven't played it, and probably won't. I'll start by saying that while I'm skeptic, I can see how flatter math and lighter rules can improve the overall experience for most players.
Advantages/disadvantages
This mechanics simplifies a lot. It provides an opportunity to avoid having 5+ sets of bonus/penalties from spells and feats. However, statistically, I can't see how it will hold up at higher levels. A wizard has low chances to resist a grapple to begin with, sickening him first effectively halves his chances. This seems broken.
Check Mechanics
So, now we are back to attributes checks for everything. Including saving throws in this seems a bit overkill, but I can see how useful this will be for most skill checks. I like how a 15th level fighter will no longer be able to swim up a waterfall while apprentices watch with awe at his deity-like prowess. BUT, I don't like how currently all DCs are contained between 7 and 25. Remember that we roll d20s, so anyone has a 5% chance to get 20. It seems odd that a commoner has a 5% chance to break down an heavy iron door. And that is excluding the crit = automatic success rule, which would theorically allow anyone to perfom near impossible actions.
Attack Mechanics
It is weird how damage improves via maneuvres as level increases, but to-hit chance are almost the same. Right now, a rogue of any level with 16 dex has a 5% chance of hitting an opponent in heavy armor. A fighter with 16 Str would have a 10% chance. I cannot see how this can be fun. Also, a wizard has the same weapon attack bonus as a cleric or a rogue? wtf.
Various Mechanics
The only resistance mechanic that works is the one in 3.X, with a flat buffer. Saying that all creatures with resistance to fire reduces damage by 50% makes no sense. It means that such a creature will burn if it touches a candle, but will save a ton of damage if set on fire. DR is the same. I like how critical hits are back to natural 20s only. Crits in 3.5 were ridiculous. Not a fan of 8 hours sleep = full heal, but a more realistic variant is presented as well.
Spells
I liked spells that scaled with levels, it made low level spells efficient at higher levels. Now, a fireball will be mediocre by level 10, and probably never seen again at level 15. Then again, IIUC he can regain a used spell by resting 1 minute per spell level right? At least he can go all out with his spells most of the time.
Specialities
As of now, no customization is possible after 1rst level. You have a simple line of feats and that's that. I expect this to change, otherwise it is going to be a big problem for me.
Background
I do not like how some abilities have unclear ruling. A thug can perform minor crimes without repercussions. Where's the line? Can he go to the same tavern 3x/day without ever paying? I know how a DM always has a final say on limits, but rules should give clear default borders.
I guess we'll see, but as of right now, I'm not hyped for the next version. |
Edited by - Kilvan on 18 Aug 2012 12:56:32 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4467 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2012 : 14:55:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Advantages/disadvantages
This mechanics simplifies a lot. It provides an opportunity to avoid having 5+ sets of bonus/penalties from spells and feats. However, statistically, I can't see how it will hold up at higher levels. A wizard has low chances to resist a grapple to begin with, sickening him first effectively halves his chances. This seems broken.
As far as what disadvantage and advantage provides, it statistically is equivalent to a +4/-4 modifier on rolls. A lot of threads over on the Wiz-bro site suggest using the modifiers if one doesn't like the advantage roll. But I'll go so far as to agree that the Adv/DisAdv mechanic should be used sparingly and for really important elements, not every round, every turn, every player, etc... It's grown that way and I don't think it's a good thing IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Check Mechanics
So, now we are back to attributes checks for everything. Including saving throws in this seems a bit overkill, but I can see how useful this will be for most skill checks. I like how a 15th level fighter will no longer be able to swim up a waterfall while apprentices watch with awe at his deity-like prowess. BUT, I don't like how currently all DCs are contained between 7 and 25. Remember that we roll d20s, so anyone has a 5% chance to get 20. It seems odd that a commoner has a 5% chance to break down an heavy iron door. And that is excluding the crit = automatic success rule, which would theorically allow anyone to perfom near impossible actions.
The idea behind the range of 7-25 directly has to do with Bounded Accuracy, in which flatter math will play a big part in. Also, you have to factor in DM elements as well. A Commoner who attempts to swim up a waterfall should, by default, fail 100% of the time if the DM decrees that it is so. This is that DM-Fiat power stuff I had addressed with some concern with. While this specific example is ok IMO, again it's something that should be used sparingly. Also, why is the DM even putting Commoners up against Iron Doors or puting any real spotlight on them in the first place?
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Attack Mechanics
It is weird how damage improves via maneuvres as level increases, but to-hit chance are almost the same. Right now, a rogue of any level with 16 dex has a 5% chance of hitting an opponent in heavy armor. A fighter with 16 Str would have a 10% chance. I cannot see how this can be fun. Also, a wizard has the same weapon attack bonus as a cleric or a rogue? wtf.
I think you have the math a bit wrong here Kilvan. A Fighter with a Strength 16 and his to-hit bonus would equate to a +6 vs. AC. A character with standard heavy armor (chainmail + shield) has an AC of 17. So that's a 45% chance of hitting. Yet I doubt we'll see many 16's in a character's primary attack stat. Using the standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 of 25 pts) and say.....being Human could net you a 18 in Strength, which makes attacks against heavy armored individuals at 50%.
As for the wizard's weapon progression, I think it's fine. Clerics and Rogues need bumped a bit higher. Wizards should get +2 for the first 5 levels and Rogues and Clerics should et +2/+2/+3/+3/+3 progression.
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Various Mechanics
The only resistance mechanic that works is the one in 3.X, with a flat buffer. Saying that all creatures with resistance to fire reduces damage by 50% makes no sense. It means that such a creature will burn if it touches a candle, but will save a ton of damage if set on fire. DR is the same. I like how critical hits are back to natural 20s only. Crits in 3.5 were ridiculous. Not a fan of 8 hours sleep = full heal, but a more realistic variant is presented as well.
I hadn't read the resistance mechanics yet, but it seems to be about "par" with what 4E did. Resistance does not mean immunte to X degree and besides, how much damage does a candle do? A 50% reduction in damage is easier to swing in battle and less strain on the math of the game. I too like Crits to be back to just 20's (with maybe a very small, yet specific instances where it can be achieved with lower rolls).
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Spells
I liked spells that scaled with levels, it made low level spells efficient at higher levels. Now, a fireball will be mediocre by level 10, and probably never seen again at level 15. Then again, IIUC he can regain a used spell by resting 1 minute per spell level right? At least he can go all out with his spells most of the time.
I'm not sure how it works, having only really looked at the wizard from the first packet, but I was under the impression that it's possible to incrase the damage of such spells by expending higher level spell slots. So plugging a 3rd level fireball into say, a 6th level slot would increase the damage by +3d6? I could very well be mistaken though.
What I hate is the memorization time of spells as a minute scale. It's far easier for me to just say "Ok, take an hour to regain your spells." as this is easier to do in the story than having the wizard specifically calculate how long it'll take.
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Specialities
As of now, no customization is possible after 1rst level. You have a simple line of feats and that's that. I expect this to change, otherwise it is going to be a big problem for me.
As far as I know, Specialities are pre-build packages of feats that are designed so that, instead of ala-carté selection, you can simplify it to an arch-type with minimal diving into the rules. However, I'm 99% certain that you can build it however you want and forego the whole Specialty/grouping aspect. So if you want to take Two-Weapon Fighting, Rapid Shot, and then Guardian or something like that, you could do so. Feat's don't seem to have a prerequisite level in their description either, which further's this belief.
I tend to think of it like that big section in the Player's Handbook 2 (3rd Edition) which had a similiar pre-package element that was designed to help people make good selections based on what they wanted to do.
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Background
I do not like how some abilities have unclear ruling. A thug can perform minor crimes without repercussions. Where's the line? Can he go to the same tavern 3x/day without ever paying? I know how a DM always has a final say on limits, but rules should give clear default borders.
I guess we'll see, but as of right now, I'm not hyped for the next version.
Some additional clarification definitly needs included and this is something that a player should talk to his DM about if none exist. Perhaps it doesn't need to be heavily codified but a general understanding of what minor crimes are and how much one can push the envelope should be discussed. If someone is a pick-pocket every day, chances are they're going to get caught and players should know that willy-nilly bending of the rules will get you into hot water sooner or later.
And while I did run a bit counter-point to a lot of your posts Kilvan, I generally agree with you about your impression of the next iteration of Dungeons and Dragons. It's a very strange system for me because one half really really really pleads with me to enjoy it and try it out and have a lot of fun. But the other half really really really despises specific elements of the sytem that are blatant attempts to re-capture the 2nd/1st edition style, 90% of which I left behind for good reason. For exmaple, I completely ditest the idea that plate armor costs 5,000 gp. It's appaling to me that, as a fighter, I'm automatically regulated to chainmail and a shield for the forseeable X-levels. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
896 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2012 : 23:43:02
|
Agreed
And yes, my attack math was completely off, don't know what happenned there... I agree completely with your annoyance over letting too much decision factor to the DM. Rules should be solid enough to set correct DCs 95% of the time by themselves IMO. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4467 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2012 : 06:37:30
|
So it's been almost 2 and a half weeks since the Playtest came out and added two more classes: The sorcerer and the warlock. So what are some thoughts of those who've read it/played it? Ideas on the new class structure or perhaps a possibility of modular spellcasting (ie. Vancian Sorcerers, Spell-Point Wizards) or perhaps likes/dislikes of some detailed mechanic (like Feats/Specialities or Backgrounds)?
|
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
896 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2012 : 14:46:19
|
| I didn't know they ha put new content, I'll have to check it out. I probaby won't have the time this week though. |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1272 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2012 : 15:34:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So it's been almost 2 and a half weeks since the Playtest came out and added two more classes: The sorcerer and the warlock. So what are some thoughts of those who've read it/played it? Ideas on the new class structure or perhaps a possibility of modular spellcasting (ie. Vancian Sorcerers, Spell-Point Wizards) or perhaps likes/dislikes of some detailed mechanic (like Feats/Specialities or Backgrounds)?
I don't mind the addition of the Spell-Point casters. 3.E Had an option for that in Unearthed Arcana that my group has tweaked and used alongside Vancian casters with little trouble, so I don't see why it should be a problem in DnDNext.
Admittedly, I'm no numbers monkey. It could be broken as all get out and I won't notice until someone else points it out to me. All I see is a simple to use system that would work for me. I wouldn't mind someone like Diffan breaking it down and pointing out the errors and weaknesses so that when a player comes along that wants to break my game (and make it less fun for the other PCs,) I have enough of a heads up. And I do appreciate the criticism that's been offered so far.
What I really didn't like about the Sorcerer was the way the Sorcerer's background was seemingly hardwired into the Class' Mechanics.
What if I don't want to play a Sorcerer with a Draconic (or any) heritage? What if I want to play someone who's simply naturally gifted at casting a few spells and can do so without a spellbook or pact? Can you create a Sorcerer background for that without breaking the game? It seemed to me that the changes that happen to the character when she's spent X number of spellpoints is a mechanic intended to balence the Class, and if I want a Character that doesn't undergo any changes, but is simply able to cast by sheer natural gift, I can't do that without unbalancing something. |
- 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 |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2012 : 18:04:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
What I really didn't like about the Sorcerer was the way the Sorcerer's background was seemingly hardwired into the Class' Mechanics.
What if I don't want to play a Sorcerer with a Draconic (or any) heritage? What if I want to play someone who's simply naturally gifted at casting a few spells and can do so without a spellbook or pact? Can you create a Sorcerer background for that without breaking the game? It seemed to me that the changes that happen to the character when she's spent X number of spellpoints is a mechanic intended to balence the Class, and if I want a Character that doesn't undergo any changes, but is simply able to cast by sheer natural gift, I can't do that without unbalancing something.
Pathfinder has done a good job of this with the different bloodlines available for their sorcerer (but no spell points, which I like). You can even choose the Arcane bloodline which pretty much only gives you cool abilities without changing you physically. I kind of wish that WotC would pay attention to some of the things that Paizo did really right, instead of only relying on what they have done in the past (this is my perception, not necessarily fact). Part of making a better product is paying attention to what your biggest competitors are doing right. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
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
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4467 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2012 : 18:52:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So it's been almost 2 and a half weeks since the Playtest came out and added two more classes: The sorcerer and the warlock. So what are some thoughts of those who've read it/played it? Ideas on the new class structure or perhaps a possibility of modular spellcasting (ie. Vancian Sorcerers, Spell-Point Wizards) or perhaps likes/dislikes of some detailed mechanic (like Feats/Specialities or Backgrounds)?
I don't mind the addition of the Spell-Point casters. 3.E Had an option for that in Unearthed Arcana that my group has tweaked and used alongside Vancian casters with little trouble, so I don't see why it should be a problem in DnDNext.
Admittedly, I'm no numbers monkey. It could be broken as all get out and I won't notice until someone else points it out to me. All I see is a simple to use system that would work for me. I wouldn't mind someone like Diffan breaking it down and pointing out the errors and weaknesses so that when a player comes along that wants to break my game (and make it less fun for the other PCs,) I have enough of a heads up. And I do appreciate the criticism that's been offered so far.
As far as balance goes, it doesn't seem to break anything and appears to play well at the table. The spell-point style is just another way for them to roll out another "non-vancian" class to appease a portion of the fan-base. The problem is, fans don't want alternative spellcasting classes, they want to swap the system independant of the class. So I could use spell-points with a Wizard or Encounter-based for a Sorcerer. Not, if I want spell points, here's the Sorcerer (and only the sorcerer) to placate that style.
quote:
What I really didn't like about the Sorcerer was the way the Sorcerer's background was seemingly hardwired into the Class' Mechanics.
What if I don't want to play a Sorcerer with a Draconic (or any) heritage? What if I want to play someone who's simply naturally gifted at casting a few spells and can do so without a spellbook or pact? Can you create a Sorcerer background for that without breaking the game? It seemed to me that the changes that happen to the character when she's spent X number of spellpoints is a mechanic intended to balence the Class, and if I want a Character that doesn't undergo any changes, but is simply able to cast by sheer natural gift, I can't do that without unbalancing something.
And while I hate the "well they're coming out with more bloodlines later down the road", that isn't good enough. So what I do is just reflavor the mechanics to fit my style. An example I made for the Sorcerer is not Dragon-blooded, but Undead-fused. Spells were Cause Fear and Arc Lightning plus I reflavored the sorcerer powers to Zombie Strength and Lich Bones. When I run out of "Will", instead of gaining dragon-like claws my arms tone stone-white and their cold attacks seem to leech the life from your enemies. By taking the Aura of Souls feat, it even furthers the feeling of a Necromancer. Same thing could be done with practically anything.
But I'm sure you can change things and see how they function, being overpowered is more in the eyes of the beholder (no pun intended). So fiddle with the system, heck TRY to break it and see what you can do. It's always fun to mess with things espically when |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2012 : 21:25:05
|
Only three of the hoped-for four players showed up for our playtest. Nobody picked the sorcerer or the warlock; we ended up playing a couple of thugs (fighter and cleric) and a charlatan (a cleric who follows the Left Handed God).
I liked the setup for character creation. It was cool how you could pick a base class and then differentiate with schemes and backgrounds that led to equal parts rules-coolness (i.e. the mechanics unique to your character) and character visualization.
Before we knew it we were grave robbers who’d just got out of prison and were tasked with the community service job of clearing out a warren of cultists, in order to receive a deferred sentence.
The mechanics that stood out the most: expertise dice; making a Con save after going negative HP to stabilize, Attacks of Opportunity.
I liked the Expertise Dice because it allowed our fighter to parry lots of damage he would otherwise receive. It definitely made him last longer in the fight, which was cool compared to how fighters got shredded in the first playtest.
I liked how Attacks of Opportunity were set up. They almost encouraged you to move around your opponents, but never out of their threatened area, which was good because I was able to maneuver and get sneak attacks when my two buddies threatened the same foe.
Me and the cleric fell in the BBEG fight, but the Fighter and his Expertise Dice kept on trucking. We stabilized (thank you rules for Con score equaling how negative you can go on HP before you die from raw damage) and sat back as the DM and the Fighter (who was one hit away from falling) went five rounds of back-and-forth missing each other before the Fighter finally scored a hit and dumped his expertise dice in for extra damage to finish the boss off.
I wasn’t too keen on the rules for healing. Sure they made it easy to get back into the thick of things, but it still seemed a little too generous. Also, I liked that turning undead is a spell, but it kind of sucked for the cleric because he basically spent his turns maintaining his turn spell while we did the hack and slash work.
Looking forward to the next playtest. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 03 Sep 2012 21:27:28 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
New 5e Playtest Document
