I finally got a download that worked.
After looking over the materials, I have to say, they certainly didn't kill any sacred cows.
If anything, it seems like they took a minor step back, reverting some of the mechanics from 4e to more 3e/PF style, like bringing back Vancian casting. It seems like they've made it so Arcane casting is prepared and Divine casting is spontaneous, but that could just be the test classes. No idea if the sorcerer is going to be coming back.
Daily powers and such are still there, unfortunately, including the completely nonsensical daily powers for martial characters.
It doesn't seem like it has any sort of actual skill system, though, at least that I can discern. But I'm not sure, because the playtest materials are kind of sparse. It's extremely light on non-combat stuff, which is kind of like 4e, it seems.
The guide for DMs has a section about how if a player delivers a brilliant speech in character and then you roll her charisma check and she fails miserably, you should probably just ignore the dice. To me this is about the worst possible approach. If the speech was really that good, you probably should never have rolled at all, or, if the speech was good but the roll was bad, a "Yes, but..." outcome seems to introduce far more interesting possibilities.
I do kind of like the way "Advantage" works, where it skews your likely outcomes high without actually being a concrete bonus that you have to meticulously track.
... oh, and for some reason, you get DR for being drunk. :huh:
So, those are my initial thoughts... what do all of you think? :yumm:
I can't download the damn thing - it keeps coming up with "Bad Request" messages.
Looking over the rules, I would say the game looks like a mix of 3.5 and 4E, taking the best parts of both and and making a good system.
I'm going to give it a shot here in the coming days, I'll tell you guys how it goes!
You had me at "DR for being drunk."
Ran through several encounters with a few players. Have consumed all content so far. Seems like late 2e and late 3.0 more than anything, though minimal showings from 1e and 3.5 inspired content exist. 4e's aesthetic and "elegance" have been largely extricated, though some vestiges and lexicon remain. Am happy to answer questions, and will conclude with the thought that while I'm not revolutionized or even impressed, I'd now before willing to write for WotC over Paizo if the chance arose, than any time since 4es launch.
Armor is really messed up. If you've got any kind of Dex bonus, light armor seems to always be the best. Medium armor is never good for anything as far as I can tell.
Pelor Cleric should wear studded leather instead, as he ends up with the same AC and is half price; or spend 25 gp more and buy a chain shirt and get a higher AC, while weighing 5 lbs less. The Fighter can also save 25 gp and 15 lbs and end up with the same AC by buying a chain shirt.
I don't see how you can differentiate between 3.0 and 3.5. The only difference between the two was a tightening of rules and giving classes more stuff.
To me, D&D Next still has a ton of 4E elements in it. Look at magic, it no longer has quadratic progression, it is completely linear. You can be healed out of combat by spending Hit Dice (which are just like Healing Surges except more random). Themes and Backgrounds have been retained and expanded upon.
AEUD is gone but that had largely been excised from D&D once Essentials started.
___
As for armor, well that's the way it has always been to some extent. If you had a good DEX, you would almost always stick to light armor. Still, the half-DEX/no-DEX deal is really putting the kibosh on medium and heavy armor. Only Plate and Adamantine look viable (since they offer more protection than a Chain Shirt coupled with a moderate DEX mod).
I think Medium Armor and (especially) Heavy Armor need to have some kind of balancing mechanic, like Damage Reduction to make up for the potential lack of AC. Personally, I think they also need a bump in how much armor they are providing by at least +1.
In general, I think Armour as DR works pretty well, it just adds a little extra math. Pathfinder has some Armour as DR house rules that convert 3.5 armour into DR-based armour - I haven't tried them out but I'm increasingly impressed with Pathfinder as a heroic fantasy system these days (running a Planescape game right now using Pathfinder).
Quote from: sparkletwistIf the speech was really that good, you probably should never have rolled at all, or, if the speech was good but the roll was bad, a "Yes, but..." outcome seems to introduce far more interesting possibilities.
This is an excellent point, and a great way of handling cludgy social mechanics! Do you have any examples of "yes but..." social scenarios?
I haven't much been able to look at the 5E playtest, but from what I've read of the various praises and complaints, I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I like the sound of returning to older iterations of the game because it appeals to my days of yore where only a worn PHB, DMG, MM, and several torn character sheets were all I carried with me (I know, I know, I'm still a youngster compared to many). On the other, I can't help but sympathize to those who are complaining about this "return to the past." I've never been a huge fan of Vancian spellcasting, so I can't help but wonder why they'd return to that awkward system except to appeal to the "grognards" of the gaming community which, to me, is designing for the wrong reasons. Sure, I get the business behind drawing an older crowd, but I'm not convinced the cludgy system of spellcasting was worth pitching in; make a
good system that appeals to the older crowd, don't just rehash the old. Granted, this is a playtest, so I'm by no means ready to spout fire and brimstone at it. I actually have high hopes for this!
Is the fighter still a big dumb meat stick? I never understood why when a player picked a spellcasting class they got to play in Harry Potter world (big flashy spells and cool effects), but if you grab a fighter or any other mundane class, you're stuck in Middle Earth (perhaps with the exception of the monk, which wants to be in a cheap kung fu movie but even fails at that).
Quote from: Steerpike
In general, I think Armour as DR works pretty well, it just adds a little extra math. Pathfinder has some Armour as DR house rules that convert 3.5 armour into DR-based armour - I haven't tried them out but I'm increasingly impressed with Pathfinder as a heroic fantasy system these days (running a Planescape game right now using Pathfinder).
PF is a great system. If I may add something, I also think PF is an example of how not to do 5E. PF has a lot of its own issues, many of which are just carried over from 3.5 (PF is still a vast improvement, however), but in my opinion, 5E needs to break the bonds of being bogged down by appealing to older systems and make a good, sleek design, not just 4.5E or 2.5E or whatever.
As an aside, I love that they're pushing to make grid combat optional; I completely agree that the grid breaks immersion more often than not.
Not only are they going back to pre-4e-style Vancian spellcasting, they're going back to the rather stupid AD&D convention of, "you memorize the spell, and once you cast it, it magically disappears from your memory." Why? I have no idea. Maybe it just goes with their whole thing of randomly reintroducing stupid old 2e things so that it "feels more like D&D" or something-- like, seriously, why are we rolling for HP again?
As far as I can tell, the star of the playtest classes is the Cleric. He's pretty good at wading into combat, especially since BAB is gone so his attack rolls aren't going to be that much worse than a Fighter's. Plus, he can heal, turn undead, and whatever. The Fighter has some twice a day (yes, they kept daily powers for martial characters, which also annoys me) ability where he can make an extra attack-- the Cleric, on the other hand, has a spell that lets him summon a magic hammer that goes around automatically making extra attacks for one minute, so, effectively, for that entire fight.
Meanwhile, the Rogue wins the LVP award, with feats that "grant" abilities to do things the rules already say that you can do, like get Advantage when attacking from a hidden position. :?:
Quote from: sparkletwist
Not only are they going back to pre-4e-style Vancian spellcasting, they're going back to the rather stupid AD&D convention of, "you memorize the spell, and once you cast it, it magically disappears from your memory." Why? I have no idea. Maybe it just goes with their whole thing of randomly reintroducing stupid old 2e things so that it "feels more like D&D" or something-- like, seriously, why are we rolling for HP again?
Yeesh, they reintroduced rolling for HP? Yikes...
QuoteAs far as I can tell, the star of the playtest classes is the Cleric. He's pretty good at wading into combat, especially since BAB is gone so his attack rolls aren't going to be that much worse than a Fighter's. Plus, he can heal, turn undead, and whatever. The Fighter has some twice a day (yes, they kept daily powers for martial characters, which also annoys me) ability where he can make an extra attack-- the Cleric, on the other hand, has a spell that lets him summon a magic hammer that goes around automatically making extra attacks for one minute, so, effectively, for that entire fight.
Meanwhile, the Rogue wins the LVP award, with feats that "grant" abilities to do things the rules already say that you can do, like get Advantage when attacking from a hidden position. :?:
Daily powers on a fighter are a big no-no for me. Maybe in some stylized anime/DBZ D&D mashup, but fighters "forgetting" how to do their moves in the middle of the day just irks me. Also, when you have to shape your setting to the system mechanics so that they make sense, then it's probably time to look at a new system.
Quote from: sparkletwist
Not only are they going back to pre-4e-style Vancian spellcasting, they're going back to the rather stupid AD&D convention of, "you memorize the spell, and once you cast it, it magically disappears from your memory." Why? I have no idea. Maybe it just goes with their whole thing of randomly reintroducing stupid old 2e things so that it "feels more like D&D" or something-- like, seriously, why are we rolling for HP again?
As far as I can tell, the star of the playtest classes is the Cleric. He's pretty good at wading into combat, especially since BAB is gone so his attack rolls aren't going to be that much worse than a Fighter's. Plus, he can heal, turn undead, and whatever. The Fighter has some twice a day (yes, they kept daily powers for martial characters, which also annoys me) ability where he can make an extra attack-- the Cleric, on the other hand, has a spell that lets him summon a magic hammer that goes around automatically making extra attacks for one minute, so, effectively, for that entire fight.
Meanwhile, the Rogue wins the LVP award, with feats that "grant" abilities to do things the rules already say that you can do, like get Advantage when attacking from a hidden position. :?:
vancian magic, which I do not personally use but I understand where it comes from, has been part of D&D since the very, very beginning. 0D&D, AD&D, Hoilmes, Metzer, 2e, etc. Same as rolling for HP. Same as rolling for stats. Does not make these things great, but they were very much part of all the early editions of the game.
I like some things they are doing, and I think making more rules optional is good. I agree with you guys about the 'at wil' abilities, and the cleric actually seems to be playing like the clerics of old.
Quote from: Weave
Daily powers on a fighter are a big no-no for me. Maybe in some stylized anime/DBZ D&D mashup, but fighters "forgetting" how to do their moves in the middle of the day just irks me. Also, when you have to shape your setting to the system mechanics so that they make sense, then it's probably time to look at a new system.
Daily powers for Martial classes are fine. The designers just need to reiterate that a Daily power is actually a really complex set of maneuvers that requires the enemy to be in just the right position to pull off. Getting both of those factors in place happens rarely in combat, you'd be lucky to get it once or twice a day, if you were lucky.
Sure I'd prefer it if Martial classes only had encounter and at will powers but it isn't like Daily powers are that unrealistic.
_____
As for rolling HP... Yuck. Hate it. But it is easy to House Rule away. I never once rolled for HP in 3.5, my group always took Max HP. This will be no different.
______
In general, I wish they would make the 5E Wizard a blend of the 3.5 Wizard and Sorcerer with the 4E Wizard tossed in. What I mean is, a Wizard should be allowed to prepare x number of spells per day BUT have the versatility to cast Y spells per day. Meaning he can prepare (using 3.5 as a reference) Fireball, Blink and Phantom Steed as his 3rd level spells. Throughout the day, he can cast a total of two 3rd level spells in any combination he prefers (2 fireballs, a fireball and a blink, a blink and a phantom steed, etc.). Finally, add in minor magic spells that can be cast at will.
To me, that system would be best. It gives you breadth (the number of spells prepared), depth (the ability to cast your prepared spells as you see fit) and length (your minor magic helps you to stay relevant for the duration of the day).
However, if this were implemented, then Fighters need a serious over haul. Encounter powers would be the logical solution.
____
The Cleric is too powerful. He's basically a Fighter with Spells. If you want to be a fighty type, there's really no reason NOT to go Cleric. It is simply the better option.
_____
Also, what is the point in playing a Human?
_____
Quote from: Elemental_ElfDaily powers for Martial classes are fine. The designers just need to reiterate that a Daily power is actually a really complex set of maneuvers that requires the enemy to be in just the right position to pull off.
Eh, a contrived explanation for a dissociated mechanic doesn't really help. At least, it doesn't help me much. Even if they did reiterate that, I personally would still be complaining. :grin:
Quote from: Elemental_ElfAs for rolling HP... Yuck. Hate it. But it is easy to House Rule away. I never once rolled for HP in 3.5, my group always took Max HP. This will be no different.
I fully support not rolling HP. However, I think you really should take average, not maximum (e.g., for a d6 hit die, you'd get 3 HP on odd levels and 4 HP on even levels) otherwise it starts doing bad things to the CR system and the amount of HP that the system "expects" you to have vs. what you're really going to be going into the fight with.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfI wish they would make the 5E Wizard a blend of the 3.5 Wizard and Sorcerer with the 4E Wizard tossed in. What I mean is, a Wizard should be allowed to prepare x number of spells per day BUT have the versatility to cast Y spells per day. Meaning he can prepare (using 3.5 as a reference) Fireball, Blink and Phantom Steed as his 3rd level spells. Throughout the day, he can cast a total of two 3rd level spells in any combination he prefers (2 fireballs, a fireball and a blink, a blink and a phantom steed, etc.). Finally, add in minor magic spells that can be cast at will.
That would be a really powerful, versatile Wizard. It'd make the Sorcerer pretty much obsolete, but, then again, there was no such thing as a Sorcerer in the old days so depending on how oldschool they want to be, maybe that isn't an issue. I kind of like the idea, but I have a feeling that it would throw game balance out the window-- not just with Fighters, as you have observed, but with every other class, too.
Quote from: sparkletwist
Eh, a contrived explanation for a dissociated mechanic doesn't really help. At least, it doesn't help me much. Even if they did reiterate that, I personally would still be complaining. :grin:
it isn't a perfect explanation but at least is reasonable. Like I said, I would prefer it if Fighters just had Encounter Powers and At Wills.
Quote from: sparkletwistI fully support not rolling HP. However, I think you really should take average, not maximum (e.g., for a d6 hit die, you'd get 3 HP on odd levels and 4 HP on even levels) otherwise it starts doing bad things to the CR system and the amount of HP that the system "expects" you to have vs. what you're really going to be going into the fight with.
I've never had a problem with it but, then again, my group has always gone for more of a cinematic approach than a gritty reality approach. :)
Quote from: sparkletwistThat would be a really powerful, versatile Wizard. It'd make the Sorcerer pretty much obsolete, but, then again, there was no such thing as a Sorcerer in the old days so depending on how oldschool they want to be, maybe that isn't an issue. I kind of like the idea, but I have a feeling that it would throw game balance out the window-- not just with Fighters, as you have observed, but with every other class, too.
Baring the at wills, they did this in 3rd edition with the Spirit Shaman. The class was fun to play (but a bit gimped for other reasons).
The balancing mechanic would be that the Wizard could not prepare as many spells as he could if he was a 3.x style wizard. The versatility to cast any spell you prepared is balanced by having fewer spells prepared.
Well if they did this for the Wizard, left the cleric alone and boosted the power of the Fighter and Rogue, I think the system would work out.
X/day non-magical things are weird to me, but then again, I don't like daily anything. 2/day might as well be 1/encounter. Then again, as was pointed out to me by an oldschool gamer friend of mine, X/day allows you to blow everything on one fight if you have to. I just don't like that it lets you blow everything on one fight if you don't have to.
So, people think WotC should focus on making a streamlined, elegant system rather than doing stuff a certain way "because it's DnD"?
It's a class-and-level system. It always will be, otherwise what appeal does it have over GURPS/BRP/SW/Whatever else? Class-and-level systems are not elegant. Okay, that's a gross generalisation, but I've never seen anything that doesn't have some degree of clunkiness to it while still being class-based.
The way I see it, the best they can do is try to make it fun. It's not going to be elegant, it's not going to be "realistic." But it might still be a blast to play. And I like rolling for HP.
That said I know basically nothing about the new DnD other than what you've all posted in this thread :P
Quote from: Kindling
So, people think WotC should focus on making a streamlined, elegant system rather than doing stuff a certain way "because it's DnD"?
It's a class-and-level system. It always will be, otherwise what appeal does it have over GURPS/BRP/SW/Whatever else? Class-and-level systems are not elegant. Okay, that's a gross generalisation, but I've never seen anything that doesn't have some degree of clunkiness to it while still being class-based.
The way I see it, the best they can do is try to make it fun. It's not going to be elegant, it's not going to be "realistic." But it might still be a blast to play. And I like rolling for HP.
That said I know basically nothing about the new DnD other than what you've all posted in this thread :P
Just because you and I have never seen a class and level system without some degree of clunkiness doesn't mean they shouldn't try ;). 4E did away with Vancian casting as a class and level system, so why take a step backwards and reincorporate it if not solely to appeal to the older masses? I get that WotC is a business and is looking to draw in different crowds, but when designing a system I'd hope they wouldn't constrain themselves to the "sacred cows" of D&D for the sake of appeal rather than system functionality.
What does look more promising is the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic, and, honestly, the removal of Base Attack Bonus, which only bogged things down at higher levels and made turns last way too long (especially when you've got those 6-armed demons with swords and whips and claws and junk, or in the case of anyone taking the Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree).
You're absolutely right about making it fun. I'm harping on Vancian casting and Fighter dailys because they're the only real things I've seen thus far, but I don't think these, personally, would make or break 5E for me.
Of course the idea is to make it fun.
However, to me (and quite a few others), a big part of that "fun" that the system can provide (as opposed to the GM, other players, setting, and such) is having an elegant system where the math makes sense. I understand there will always be some clunkiness to class/level systems, but if the game rules feel smooth and consistent, and each class brings some unique and hopefully numerically balanced offerings, I feel like that part of it will work out. So far, of course, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Quote from: Weave
Just because you and I have never seen a class and level system without some degree of clunkiness doesn't mean they shouldn't try ;). 4E did away with Vancian casting as a class and level system, so why take a step backwards and reincorporate it if not solely to appeal to the older masses? I get that WotC is a business and is looking to draw in different crowds, but when designing a system I'd hope they wouldn't constrain themselves to the "sacred cows" of D&D for the sake of appeal rather than system functionality.
Why take a step back? Because Pathfinder is the best selling RPG on the market right now. Regardless of how elegant and nice 4E was, it simply did not sell as well as D&D should have (i.e. being the sole, undisputed king of RPGs).
Quote from: Weavethe removal of Base Attack Bonus, which only bogged things down at higher levels and made turns last way too long (especially when you've got those 6-armed demons with swords and whips and claws and junk, or in the case of anyone taking the Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree).
BAB that grants additional attacks hasn't been a part of a WotC game since Star Wars Saga. Let me tell you, it is indeed a change for the best. All those extra attacks were so needless and, to a large extent, pointless.
Quote from: Elemental_Elf
BAB that grants additional attacks hasn't been a part of a WotC game since Star Wars Saga. Let me tell you, it is indeed a change for the best. All those extra attacks were so needless and, to a large extent, pointless.
I remember reading somewhere (possibly on these very forums) someone once say something along the lines of "if you're rolling more than twice in for each character each round, it's too much"
I'm not sure I agree in every case, but I do think its a good guideline for basic "standard attack" type action resolution. Maybe if you're trying to pull off some crazy stunt or a more involved combat manoeuvre more than two throws of the dice is cool, but if you're just hitting stuff with other stuff, surely to-hit and to-damage or some kind of equivalent should be the end of it. . .
Quote from: Kindling
Quote from: Elemental_Elf
BAB that grants additional attacks hasn't been a part of a WotC game since Star Wars Saga. Let me tell you, it is indeed a change for the best. All those extra attacks were so needless and, to a large extent, pointless.
I remember reading somewhere (possibly on these very forums) someone once say something along the lines of "if you're rolling more than twice in for each character each round, it's too much"
I'm not sure I agree in every case, but I do think its a good guideline for basic "standard attack" type action resolution. Maybe if you're trying to pull off some crazy stunt or a more involved combat manoeuvre more than two throws of the dice is cool, but if you're just hitting stuff with other stuff, surely to-hit and to-damage or some kind of equivalent should be the end of it. . .
I completely agree with the sentiment.
Rolling for more than 2 attacks a turn really slows the game down, especially if all the attacks have different bonuses.
In the Star Wars Saga game I run IRL, one of the Jedi has taken all of the feats necessary to have 4 really good attacks each and every turn. No one else in the party comes close to that many attacks. As a DM I often feel bad for the other characters who only have 1 or 2 attacks during combat. It feels like they receive less face time, which I think is a shame.
4E cures that problem by giving players many less options of attacking more than once per turn. The most common means around this restriction is to spend an action point (which are only gained after every other encounter) or choose a class that has ways of attacking twice (like the Ranger).
I, personally, believe each player at the table should be granted a certain amount of "screen time" per round of combat and that generally means the less rolling, the better.
Hey, look at this (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120528).
Quote from: Mike MearlsThe spell rules should look familiar to 3E fans. The big change here is in the spell description. We wanted something that was fun to read, so we decided to fall back on plain language rather than a formal stat block. You read through the spell and do what it says under its effect. That's it.
Fun to read!
Forget about having all the spell information available at a glance so that players and GMs could quickly grab the spell and know exactly what it did because all the mechanical information was right there. This is actually one thing 4e did semi-right, having the concise little statblocks for everything, but I guess it wasn't
fun to read.
Quote from: Kindling
So, people think WotC should focus on making a streamlined, elegant system rather than doing stuff a certain way "because it's DnD"?
I'd prefer that the baseline of D&D keep being D&D. Class and level, hitpoints without extra doo-dads, etc. all make sense for D&D. My highest priorities be that D&D be easy to learn and play right away, and that it should be easy to extend the game and use it for whatever.
If I want something more realistic, more tactical, or to emulate some specific sub-genre of fantasy, that stuff is out there.
That said I've got high hopes for the "modular" approach if they can pull it off right.
Quote from: sparkletwist
Hey, look at this (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120528).
Quote from: Mike MearlsThe spell rules should look familiar to 3E fans. The big change here is in the spell description. We wanted something that was fun to read, so we decided to fall back on plain language rather than a formal stat block. You read through the spell and do what it says under its effect. That's it.
Fun to read!
Forget about having all the spell information available at a glance so that players and GMs could quickly grab the spell and know exactly what it did because all the mechanical information was right there. This is actually one thing 4e did semi-right, having the concise little statblocks for everything, but I guess it wasn't fun to read.
I would prefer it if spell effects were short and there was a separation between the effect and the description. However, I can tell you from experience, people *hate* that. They want everything to be blended together or else the fantasy doesn't feel real.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfI can tell you from experience, people *hate* that. They want everything to be blended together or else the fantasy doesn't feel real.
Why? This makes no sense to me.
I'm not saying get rid of the fluff. I'm just saying that it's probably good if there's some sort of statblock that gives the crunch at a glance, so when a player is trying to pick what spell to cast, or has actually cast it and the DM needs to quickly be reminded how it works, all the pertinent mechanical information is right there. How is that not a plus?
Quote from: beejazz
Quote from: Kindling
So, people think WotC should focus on making a streamlined, elegant system rather than doing stuff a certain way "because it's DnD"?
I'd prefer that the baseline of D&D keep being D&D. Class and level, hitpoints without extra doo-dads, etc. all make sense for D&D. My highest priorities be that D&D be easy to learn and play right away, and that it should be easy to extend the game and use it for whatever.
If I want something more realistic, more tactical, or to emulate some specific sub-genre of fantasy, that stuff is out there.
That said I've got high hopes for the "modular" approach if they can pull it off right.
I'm in a similar place. I don't need d&d to be other games.
And I also hope they do create a very baseline version with add on options to 'create' d&d with different foci.
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: Elemental_ElfI can tell you from experience, people *hate* that. They want everything to be blended together or else the fantasy doesn't feel real.
Why? This makes no sense to me.
I'm not saying get rid of the fluff. I'm just saying that it's probably good if there's some sort of statblock that gives the crunch at a glance, so when a player is trying to pick what spell to cast, or has actually cast it and the DM needs to quickly be reminded how it works, all the pertinent mechanical information is right there. How is that not a plus?
If I understood the complaint, I would explain it... People I talk to absolutely hate the way 4E handled spells. They said there was no flavor text (even though there was) and the effect text was "boring to read." I really don't understand the complaint but apparently enough people felt that there was a problem and WotC is now correcting it.
Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: Elemental_ElfI can tell you from experience, people *hate* that. They want everything to be blended together or else the fantasy doesn't feel real.
Why? This makes no sense to me.
I'm not saying get rid of the fluff. I'm just saying that it's probably good if there's some sort of statblock that gives the crunch at a glance, so when a player is trying to pick what spell to cast, or has actually cast it and the DM needs to quickly be reminded how it works, all the pertinent mechanical information is right there. How is that not a plus?
If I understood the complaint, I would explain it... People I talk to absolutely hate the way 4E handled spells. They said there was no flavor text (even though there was) and the effect text was "boring to read." I really don't understand the complaint but apparently enough people felt that there was a problem and WotC is now correcting it.
I did find reading the 4EPHBs to be boring, but ... I didn't have to slog through a class's spells to read the class and get an idea of the class in 3E. I could read the Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard and get an idea for the class without reading through their spells. In fact, it was many moons later that I actually read through the entirety of the spell descriptions: I only read those we needed, and I loved the spell lists with their quick descriptions.
I think a fair compromise would be to have the flavor text at the top of a 4E style spell card go into the kind of detail that the 3E/5E spells do, then have a block for the rules text at the bottom. I thought the 3E spells were well written enough, but they did cause far more debates at the table than 4E spells did.
I guess the reason this bothers me so much is that the approach they're taking to the spell system seems to be a microcosm for the approach they're taking to the design of the system in general. So far, it doesn't seem to have any clearly-defined system for skill use or performing combat maneuvers. Instead, the players and the DM are basically encouraged to just make some stuff up. It replicates the 4e problem of out-of-combat actions being rather loosely defined. Again... just make some stuff up. Now, they're talking like they want to dispense with statblocks for spells, which I find hard to believe won't lead to them being more ill-defined, and lead to more making stuff up.
Now, I'm not opposed to making stuff up, to a point-- it is the point of playing an RPG after all. But, if at every turn, the game just says "make some stuff up," then why bother with written rules at all? You can just make stuff up. And no, having a rulebook that's "fun to read" doesn't matter if it doesn't actually tell you how to adjudicate anything.
Here here sparkle. I think I'm going to be going back to my 4E rewrite, at least to keep busy.
Quote from: Elemental ElfIf I understood the complaint, I would explain it... People I talk to absolutely hate the way 4E handled spells. They said there was no flavor text (even though there was) and the effect text was "boring to read." I really don't understand the complaint but apparently enough people felt that there was a problem and WotC is now correcting it.
To me, a great part of the charm and whimsy of D&D sprang from the spells and spell descriptions, the plethora of strange little utility spells and spells that could be applied with great creativity in different situations, the spells that were just plain weird (Rope Trick?! Antiplant Shell?? WTF?). 4E reduced all that to a collection of powers. Sure, that may make more sense from a balance perspective and an ease of reading perspective, but to me at least it dumbed down the game a vast amount, drained the spellcasting classes of their quirky flavour and pizazz, and homogenized everything, so that all the classes were more like variations on a theme. There's flavour text to 4E spells but it's brief and there just aren't that many spells compared to the enormous trove of weirdness of 3.X.
It's like the cosmology. They simplified everything in 4E, smushed everything together, homogenized stuff (Elemental Chaos crams together the Abyss, Limbo, and the Inner Planes, while Shadowfell is like the Plane of Shadow, Negative Energy Plane, and Pandemonium). The Greet Wheel was so much weirder, richer, and charmingly nonseniscal than the simplified and largely dumbed-down cosmos of 4E. The Great Wheel made less sense, but that was part of its glorious absurdity. Like, Bytopia and Acheron are bizarre, but I'm just glad they're there!
Part of this may be rose-tinted goggles and nostalgia, but I honestly prefer the unique oddity of 3.X with all its variegated lopsidedness, sacred cows, perversity, and detail to 4E's more rational but (IMO) boring approach.
EDIT: Frankly, flavour-wise, AD&D has all later editions beat, for my 2cp. Hence why I'm GMing Planescape using Pathfinder rules...
Quote from: XeviatI think I'm going to be going back to my 4E rewrite, at least to keep busy.
That is quite the monumental task in itself. :D
Maybe you should start with something covered by the OGL instead, though, so that you can at least have "ownership" over what you create.
Quote from: SteerpikeTo me, a great part of the charm and whimsy of D&D sprang from the spells and spell descriptions, the plethora of strange little utility spells and spells that could be applied with great creativity in different situations, the spells that were just plain weird (Rope Trick?! Antiplant Shell?? WTF?). 4E reduced all that to a collection of powers.
A lot of people feel that way. I do, too, really. 4e seems to lack a certain 'charm' that earlier editions had, and I think it's largely because its powers became rather bland. However, I really think that you're comparing apples to oranges, here. I don't see any reason why crunch presented in a systematic, consistent, and easy-to-reference manner necessarily precludes the sort of zany, whimsical, and quirky powers that you (and I!) miss. No matter how out-there the power is, it's going to interact with the rules in some way, and that way is going to hopefully involve concepts that someone who knows the rules is already familiar with, to avoid the need to design a bunch of little subsystems that aren't used outside of one spell. Like, ultimately, a spell is probably going to have some sort of school and/or elemental association, a range, a duration, maybe need a saving throw, targets, and whatever. There are all kinds of common factors to how a spell interacts with the system that are useful to have at a glance. There's no reason that any spell, even the crazy ones, can't still present that stuff in a consistent and easy to read manner... except that the people responsible for designing this edition didn't feel like bothering to do the hard work of crunching the crunch, so to speak, that would have to be included in each and every stat block. It's far easier to just say, "make something up!"
Quote from: sparkletwistI don't see any reason why crunch presented in a systematic, consistent, and easy-to-reference manner necessarily precludes the sort of zany, whimsical, and quirky powers that you (and I!) miss... There's no reason that any spell, even the crazy ones, can't still present that stuff in a consistent and easy to read manner.
That's an excellent point: 3.X might have done a better job at making its spells a bit more mechanically balanced and readable. This is basically why I prefer Pathfinder's "revise, refine, reshape, tweak, expand" approach to 4E's "gut, cut, scrap, homogenize, simplify" approach.
Quote from: Steerpike
Quote from: sparkletwistI don't see any reason why crunch presented in a systematic, consistent, and easy-to-reference manner necessarily precludes the sort of zany, whimsical, and quirky powers that you (and I!) miss... There's no reason that any spell, even the crazy ones, can't still present that stuff in a consistent and easy to read manner.
That's an excellent point: 3.X might have done a better job at making its spells a bit more mechanically balanced and readable. This is basically why I prefer Pathfinder's "revise, refine, reshape, tweak, expand" approach to 4E's "gut, cut, scrap, homogenize, simplify" approach.
I do think you are both right here.
There was no reason to continualy homogenize the internal game quirks that were derived from the rules but were not part of the core mechanics, such as certain spells, abilities, restrictions, etc, when they changed editions. Maybe they need to change some rules to make the game smoother or more balanced or whatever, One does NOT preclude the other,
The problem was mostly that the spells were all essentially the same with a few numerical differences: damage, area or duration. They didn't allow themselves to have spells with effects which weren't already on the condition list or could be described with dice rolls.
Quote from: CrowThe problem was mostly that the spells were all essentially the same with a few numerical differences: damage, area or duration.
Are you talking about 4E, or 3.x? I started writing a post about 3.x but maybe you were criticizing 4th...
Whatever the case, there
were a lot of redundancies in 3.x, though there are lots of ways to escape that trap with damage-dealing spells, and the better 3.x spells manage this.
Take Chaos Hammer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/chaos-hammer)vs. Searing LIght (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/searing-light): two spells that deal 1d8 damage for every 2 levels but which couldn't feel more different. In addition to different areas of effect, level, domain association, and duration, one spell zaps anything but is particularly good at finishing off powerful undead, while the other only works properly against creatures of a certain type and carries a slow effect. You use one to snipe individual Wraiths, Bodaks, undead boss-monsters, etc and the other to clear out rooms full of Orcs, slowing them so that archers etc can pick them off or whatnot.
Of course, dispensing with a spell stat-block would only
aggravate redundancy issues, in a sense, since there's less and less to differentiate spells. You either have way too many redundant spells, or your actual spell list dwindles to like a dozen broad effects.
It was about 4E. With 4E, the numbers were often the most important, with fluff coming in second (and last). With 3.x they were given (almost) equal priority.
This goes hand in hand with the accusations that the game (4E) was essentially a MMORPG since every spell had to conform to the underlying rules structure, just like everything in an actual MMORPG has to conform to the programmed framework. You can't make a telekinesis spell if there is no physics engine, for instance. 4Es rules were simply too restrictive for elaboration.
Incidentally, telekinesis and other open-ended spells (e.g. prestidigitation) are favorites of mine, because they rely on player creativity and ingenuity. They are tools you use to bring about consequences, rather than consequences in and of themselves. While it's been a while since I looked at 4E, I seem to recall that this was another thing they were lacking.
EDIT: Unfortunately for 3.x, Vancian spellcasting has a tendency to punish the player for ecletic (and situation-specific) spell choices. The focus on balance and combat, combined with the low number of spells, meant to compensate for their relatively high power level, leads to all but the bravest players clinging to their magic missiles and fireballs for dear life, rope tricks be damned.
Yeah, that's a good point, although I think the Sorcerer helped in that regard. I think a lot of spell preparation logic is connected directly the GM style - so a GM who runs an action heavy game is going to encourage blaster mages instead of telekineticists.
Today there was a survey. While I understand that they're not going to be able to get rigorous mathematical analysis out of the impressions of a bunch of random people on the internet, I have no idea how these survey answers are supposed to help anyone figure out anything. The entire thing is based on how 'satisfied' you are with different aspects of the game, without really any clue what that's supposed to mean, and without opportunity to provide clarification, save for a bunch of comment fields which you know won't be read by anyone who can actually do anything useful with them. I mean, shameless powergamer are going to be "very satisfied" with something that's grievously overpowered, but that doesn't really mean anything-- and I don't think it's a particularly good reason to not rebalance the overpowered thing, but the survey won't include that kind of depth. I'm not convinced they're actually paying much attention to the results, anyway.
By the way, I was right (http://www.thecbg.org/index.php/topic,209631.msg216612.html#msg216612). Look at this (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120531):
Quote from: Mike MearlsSo, here's our goal: We want to make it easy for a DM to improvise and use the rules as guidelines. DMs who want more specific rules can lean on the examples we give in this document for the different typical actions to guide them. We don't want, for instance, to create a rule that says that climbing the side of a glacier is a DC 18 check, and if you fail you fall. We'd rather give DMs good guidelines for picking DCs, and we also want to introduce concepts such as hazards and requirements to make checks. Then, by showing DMs how to apply these tools, such as when climbing glaciers, we hope to allow them to really own their campaigns and take on the referee part of the DM's duties, rather than relying on the book to do so.
They are going for "
Just make stuff up!" But hey, I bet it's really fun to read.
I should probably just sign up to get the playtest materials myself, but having literally NO ONE I can play with under their rules for actually playtesting, it seems kind of pointless, so I will just ask here.
You guys said that they removed the BAB. What are they using in its place to determine attack success or failure? I always thought that attacks worked basically the same as a skill, except that your ranks were pre-set by your class. The opponent's Armor Class was the DC for the roll. I always thought it would make sense to take away the standard attack progression, and give all characters more skill points per level, letting them choose how much to put into their attacks. Classes that had had slower progressions would treat it as "cross class." This would work for 3.x, but not for Pathfinder, which changes skill progression a little.
But most GMs who want to run social-heavy games wouldn't dream of running D&D, it's a viscious cycle of supply and demand :D
I think the key element to pay attention to in that quote is the mention of how they are introducing "hazards and requirements". Now this might just be wishful thinking, but that seems to imply they are rethinking how long (and dull) tasks, like climbing a glacier, can be redesigned to become an interesting part of the game. Just giving a glacier DC wouldn't really aid anyone, so I think they are on the right track, now they just need to find the right solution.
That being said, I hope there is more to this than just a few guidelines on how to pick a DC...
Where do you actually get the playtest?
Quote from: Seraphine_HarmoniumYou guys said that they removed the BAB. What are they using in its place to determine attack success or failure?
You add your ability modifier plus what it calls "weapon or magic training" to get your bonus. The playtest fighter has an attack bonus of +6: a strength bonus of +3, so I figure the other +3 of that comes from this "weapon training." The playtest document doesn't explain it though. It's not like BAB, because it doesn't scale by level-- at least, it doesn't increase in the three levels that they give you for the playtest. So I'm not sure what the story is behind the other +3 of the bonus.
Quote from: Superfluous CrowWhere do you actually get the playtest?
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx
Scroll down to "Start playtesting now."
Quote from: Superfluous Crow
EDIT: Unfortunately for 3.x, Vancian spellcasting has a tendency to punish the player for ecletic (and situation-specific) spell choices. The focus on balance and combat, combined with the low number of spells, meant to compensate for their relatively high power level, leads to all but the bravest players clinging to their magic missiles and fireballs for dear life, rope tricks be damned.
Except DD spells were always a poor choice for spell slots.
I got to try this last weekend a bit. We did an encounter, not sure if it was the module or not. I (poorly) played the elf wizard, but only got one spell off before an ambush undid me. Magic missile is the most amusing spell in the playtest - unlimited casts, no prep required. 'Tis fun for some pew pew.
The advantages mechanic is interesting and easy to remember. I'm with Sparkletwist though; the package was not very concrete about most of it. We just kind of D20 + Bonus for skills (as expected). Pretty sure that's what they're going to have for a mechanic, at least. We all assumed it did not include ability score modifiers.
Oh, as an aside: Does the Elf really have 16HP at the beginning, and the dwarf 17? I did not get much of a chance to read the packet - spur of the moment playtest called right as I got off work the night after I got the rules. I was rather confused, as nothing my 3.5 oriented mind saw measured out to 16.
Still on the fence about much of the system, being as I skipped 4th ed completely. Makes me unqualified to formulate an opinion regarding its improvements. I'm also purely GURPS these days, so I'm obviously a complete crackhead. We're trying to get another afternoon in to play.
M.
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: Seraphine_HarmoniumYou guys said that they removed the BAB. What are they using in its place to determine attack success or failure?
You add your ability modifier plus what it calls "weapon or magic training" to get your bonus. The playtest fighter has an attack bonus of +6: a strength bonus of +3, so I figure the other +3 of that comes from this "weapon training." The playtest document doesn't explain it though. It's not like BAB, because it doesn't scale by level-- at least, it doesn't increase in the three levels that they give you for the playtest. So I'm not sure what the story is behind the other +3 of the bonus.
In 4E, you received an attack bonus from weapons to help simulate how accurate they were. I think this is where the +3 is coming from.
That's weird. So, what you never improve at fighting? Are warrior classes permanently at "STR mod+3" while everyone else is at "STR mod"? That seems to really screw over anyone who a) isn't one of the warrior classes, and b) has a penalty as their STR or DEX mods.
Unless I am either misunderstanding, or Wizards isn't providing enough information.
If it never improves, how would they compensate for the insane ACs of things like Dragons, or the almighty Tarrasque?
By DD do you mean damage-dealing? Because I read it as "D&D spells" which seemed to be very much of an oxymoron :D
Huh, I don't think I've ever had a wizard in my party who didn't prep fireball, but oh well. Although we all know transmutation is the awesomest school.
I can't imagine them diverging from D20 resolution. That's a sacred cow if there ever was one.
Hm, so will the monster AC be scaled down to match with the lower attack bonus or will players have to rely on skills/maneuvers and a plethora of magic items? (EDIT: simultaneous post with S_H)
I think a lot of the progession will hinge on acquiring new awesome maneuvers. So while wizards and fighters have the same "base", fighters can use a maneuver to massively boost their melee attack. This actually makes a fair amount of sense, mechanic-wise.
Quote from: Superfluous CrowHuh, I don't think I've ever had a wizard in my party who didn't prep fireball, but oh well.
Tarim didn't :P.
well, okay heart-ripping > fire, but then again, calling Cadaverous Earth D&D is a stretch even if they both use D20. :P
My point was of course that there are some staple spells (or at least spell categories) which every wizard who wants to hold his own in the progressively tougher battles will have to pick up. At least, the game does little to encourage obscure spell choices.
Cadaverous Earth is, if I remember from when I was last real active, one of the best settings I've read here.
When I DM'd and our spellcasters lasted long enough to get up in spells, Glitterdust was the usual go-to. I think he only ever prepped Fireball for kicks - it was usually better just to Glitterdust everyone and hew through them.
M.
I think fireball is kind of overrated, personally.
That's the same level you get fly, haste, major image, stinking cloud, summon monster III... need I go on? :D
Anyway, about the hit rolls. I think everyone gets some sort of bonus, because the Wizard has a Str of 8 (-1 penalty) but a +1 to hit. So, maybe warriors get a +3, non-warriors get a +2, or something. I honestly don't know, and the playtest doesn't provide the information, really. It seems like the goal was to prevent the attack rolls from growing quickly and ridiculously, and instead providing more boosts damage. As long as a sense of meaningful growth is still provided, I think this is probably not a bad way to go.
I still don't understand why the elf has only one less hitpoint than the dwarven cleric.
M.
Finally got around to downloading the playtest. While I only really skimmed it, I couldn't help but notice that WotC seemed to be more open to qualitative rather than quantitative descriptions of skills and abilities. E.g. stonecunning now gives the dwarf the ability to always gauge his depth and find his way, while the moradin knight theme gives the character free room and board in any place where his knighthood is known and respected.
While social skills like the latter can have repercussions, I still think these two examples hint at a step in the right direction.
The farther they get from 'encounter-centric', the happier I will be.
Vreeg, what's the concern with 'encounter-centric' design over 'daily-centric' or 'adventure-centric'. I have always felt that encounter-centric design, especially when concerning combats, allowed for the game to be more balanced. Even in 3E, with the Psionics system and my MP system, I was already looking into cutting the points down to 1/4th and giving those out for each fight. It ensures that no one out-shines the rest. It ensures that no one novas and then calls it a day, thus dictating the pacing of the adventure. It also makes it easier for the DM to design a challenging encounter; I'm one of the furthest things from an antagonistic DM, but I am still disappointed when a fight I had meant to be challenging ends up being an anti-climactic cake-walk.
Extending the encounter-centric design to out of combat scenes was simply a next step in design as far as I was concerned. It's how scenes in action and adventure movies are played out, which inspire many gaming-isms. Scenes out of Indiana Jones, especially.
Now, this doesn't mean that my ideal system would have everything involved in the encounters. I love little incidental abilities. But I really don't like vancian/daily spells; the only strength I can see for them is the ability to design a fight that is meant to tax the players to their fullest capabilities. The flavor of daily vs. encounter for magic refreshing is entirely mutable (it all depends on how long it takes to prepare your spells/gather your mana/pray to your god in your story).
I'm curious about your thoughts, because I'm always looking to improve things.
So, there's a new playtest packet out.
Anyone got it yet? What are your thoughts?
They've added character creation rules to this one. I rather dislike them. Humans are still the "generic" and "versatile" race; it's enough of a D&D trope I guess I should probably be used to it, no matter how stupid it is. Of course, humans get +2 to one stat and +1 to all the others, while all the other races just get +1 to some stat, so humans are both generic and awesome, I guess.
You also get a +1 for picking certain classes as your "first class", which, if it's using 3e style multiclassing, is probably going to lead to weird and dumb situations where it's better to take one class before the other. They should probably either use something closer to 4e style multiclassing or drop the idea. Since the attack bonuses come off a weird table and don't look much like BAB I have no idea how that's supposed to work with multiclassing either.
Medium armor has gone from inferior in all cases to mostly superior, unless your Dex is 18 or something. And since their recommended character creation has gone back to rolling stats (which I also hate, of course) or using a crappy array, with no rules given for point-buy, that means almost nobody using those rules is going to have a Dex of 18.
I'll rant about more once I've read more, I'm sure. :grin:
The weapon/armor table is more balanced (if you assume a more forgiving point buy situation than the standard array, in which only a human rogue could get an 18 Dex); the only imbalance in the armor table is that a light armored character will have higher AC than the heavy armor character once they've gotten a few Dex bumps from leveling.
The Fighter looks fun to play now. The Rogue's sneak attack damage is way to high now that there is a way to get sneak attack without giving up an action (Thug rogue and his fighter and cleric friend can swarm someone).
Spell HP thresholds were changed to targeting max HP instead of current HP. This turns them into openers for taking out the trash, instead of finishers. Dislike that change.
Skills were recoupled with specific ability scores; I liked the idea of separating this permanent attachment.
And I still hate the Human. The toughest human is tougher than the toughest dwarf; I don't like it. Maybe if the human got +1 to all stats, and the demi-humans got +2 to 1 stat, I'd be more fine with it. I'd rather the human get some comparable abilities, instead of just a bump to everything.
Oh, and a halfling or elf rogue could have a Dex of 18 at 4th level; just to point that out, using the point buy.
As for the class bonus to a stat; it's not really abusable. Classes get their attack stats, Con, and a thematic stat as favored stats for the most part (rogue doesn't get Con). I'm worried about everyone going for the Con bonus, since Con mod adds to each level's HP again.
Oh, and the fixed HP is better than random HP; I don't see anyone rolling for HP with the option to take 1/2+1 (especially the Wizard; want to roll 1d4 or take 3?).
And the healing/damage from Channel Divinity seems woefully weak.
I think this is a sizable upgrade from the previous iteration.
Still hate the monster stat blocks but Mearls said that was going to change in a different packet released down the road. So oh well.
I like the Troll's regeneration. I think their HP is on the low side, most especially when you consider rogues can deal 1 [w] + 6d6 a turn and Fighters 1 [w] + 2d8. Assuming the Rogue is using a Short Sword and the Fighter a Bastard Sword, then on average, the two will be dealing 39 damage(14.5 for the Fighter and 24.5 for the rogue) before you even factor in ability modifiers. That's 60% of the Troll's HP gone in one turn!
But then I realized how dealing damage to it is kind of pointless unless it is Acid or Fire. The Wizard has 2 good spells for this - Fireball and Melf's Acid arrow. Together they deal 44.5 damage. So it would take 2 Melf's Acid Arrows and the Fireball to bring the troll's max HP below his suggested HP of 66. That takes at least 3 turns and assumes the Wizard successfully hits the troll (and/or the Troll fails his saves).
In that time, the Troll gets 2 Claw Attacks (5.5 Damage each) and 1 Bite Attack (8.5 damage) for a total of 18.5 Damage. Assuming he hits with every attack, then he will deal 55.5 damage over the course of the 3 turns it takes the Wizard to down the Troll. A Fighter is only going to have a minimum of 34 HP.
How are the PC's supposed to beat this thing without seeing a character die? In 4E a troll's regeneration simply stopped when he was hit with Acid or Fire damage. This "Next" version will just get right back up even if the PC's knock it to 0 with non-Acid, non-Fire attacks.
Then I saw the bit about the troll dieing if he takes fire or acid damage and he is at 0 HP.
But then I was left with the idea of the "cheap shot" that PC's could do - knock the troll to 0 HP, then smack it with a torch.
That seems very anti-climactic to me.
I like the idea behind the mechanics of the Troll but they need refinement.
The knock it to 0 HP and drop an alchemist fire on it was the tactic used in Baldur's Gate 2 and the Icewind Dale games. Seems like they took it. On it's surface, I liked the way it worked. Now you have me thinking about it.
Quote from: Xeviat
The knock it to 0 HP and drop an alchemist fire on it was the tactic used in Baldur's Gate 2 and the Icewind Dale games. Seems like they took it. On it's surface, I liked the way it worked. Now you have me thinking about it.
Magical fire sounds great. Getting Torch Slapped, does not. :)
Quote from: XeviatThe weapon/armor table is more balanced (if you assume a more forgiving point buy situation than the standard array, in which only a human rogue could get an 18 Dex);
In other words, it works fine, but only if you assume that you're using rules different from the ones that are actually provided. :P
Quote from: XeviatThe Fighter looks fun to play now. The Rogue's sneak attack damage is way to high now that there is a way to get sneak attack without giving up an action (Thug rogue and his fighter and cleric friend can swarm someone).
The Rogue is definitely quite powerful now. Considering the previous iteration was next to useless, they probably felt the need to do something-- did they take it too far? Perhaps. I'm not wild about the fighter, though. He gets more abilities but I also think his life is rougher; his HP is down while monster damage is up. For the guy who's supposed to be on the front lines, that's a bad thing. For example, a lucky orc can one-shot him, now.
Quote from: XeviatI'd rather the human get some comparable abilities, instead of just a bump to everything.
That would require giving humans some specific niche rather than making them the "versatile" and "adaptable" race. I like that idea but D&D never has.
Quote from: XeviatAs for the class bonus to a stat; it's not really abusable. Classes get their attack stats, Con, and a thematic stat as favored stats for the most part (rogue doesn't get Con). I'm worried about everyone going for the Con bonus, since Con mod adds to each level's HP again.
I wasn't concerned about abuse, really, so much as being a trap option. As you've pointed out, Con is very useful-- so taking a class that can get Con and then taking Rogue seems to be superior to taking Rogue and then that other class.
Quote from: XeviatOh, and the fixed HP is better than random HP; I don't see anyone rolling for HP with the option to take 1/2+1 (especially the Wizard; want to roll 1d4 or take 3?).
I don't like rolling for HP, so I'm fine with it, but I don't see why they even keep the option around except as a sacred cow.
I know people that absolutely love rolling everything. HP, ability scores, etc. They *hate* being told to use Arrays/point buy and taking a static number of HP.
What are your guy's feelings about how the Cleric's mechanics are very much tied to his Domain? Like how the Sun Cleric doesn't have the same weapon or armor proficiencies as the War Cleric? From a fluff stand point, it makes sense but from a game stand point, I'm unsure.
So, hey, look at the dates on the last posts before mine. The D&D Next guys have been at this for over a year now and they're still at the "hey, these mechanics would be kind of cool, let's try this" stage. That's like a homebrew pace of development... and doesn't inspire much confidence at all.
Anyway, here's the latest "innovation." (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130722)
So now D&D Next characters will have aspects ideals and flaws that can be compelled used in some vague way* for fate points inspiration, which lets you get various mechanical bonuses on rolling dice.
* Maybe the actual rules go into more detail than just "the DM arbitrarily chooses when to give it to you," like an actual system like invoking or compelling or something. Or maybe they don't. I have no idea what they're even doing anymore and I don't think they do either. I actually like the mechanic, but, due to precedent so far, I'm not at all convinced at this point they'll be able to implement it competently.
I love the direction Next is going in, it really seems to be encapsulating the best essences of previous editions and distilling them down into a better all around game.
I've often used carrots like this "inspiration" to get players to think more like their characters would. In previous editions, it would be bonus XP, actions points, lower DC's, etc. I like the idea of a more codified system as it will push players who are perhaps not the best roleplayers into doing more roleplaying, which can only lead to a better all around game. It could be seen as a cudgel but, some times, cudgels are necessary.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfI like the idea of a more codified system as it will push players who are perhaps not the best roleplayers into doing more roleplaying, which can only lead to a better all around game.
I like the idea of a more codified system, too. However, what they presented (at least in that article) just isn't anything that seems like a codified system. The sense I got was them basically saying "the DM awards these whenever." That sounds more like someone's hastily constructed house rule. You'd think that for a published rule set they'd have some actual and defined triggers and mechanics-- and if they did have these things, you'd think they'd want to tease them a bit in their article, instead of seeming vague and annoying people like me.
I just don't see how they're going to accomplish anything good with this pace and style of development.
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: Elemental_ElfI like the idea of a more codified system as it will push players who are perhaps not the best roleplayers into doing more roleplaying, which can only lead to a better all around game.
I like the idea of a more codified system, too. However, what they presented (at least in that article) just isn't anything that seems like a codified system. The sense I got was them basically saying "the DM awards these whenever." That sounds more like someone's hastily constructed house rule. You'd think that for a published rule set they'd have some actual and defined triggers and mechanics-- and if they did have these things, you'd think they'd want to tease them a bit in their article, instead of seeming vague and annoying people like me.
I just don't see how they're going to accomplish anything good with this pace and style of development.
Next has to walk a fine line between staying traditional and changing things. D&D is not known as a system that rewards roleplaying, so the designers need to tread carefully.
Mike Mearls' job is focused on setting up the big picture and the tone of the whole line, rather then getting into the fiddly bits of the system.
I don't know if you listen to the Podcasts or the (nearly weekly) gaming sessions but Mike has teased this concept a few times. My guess is that he didn't want to reveal any mechanics until they had been tested thoroughly internally and in the closed Beta. My guess is that these RP mechanics will be revealed in the next Playtest Packet.
Personally, I think the biggest issue is going to be balance. You don't want a system that is too easy to metagame but you also don't want a system that is all DM fiat.
What I'd be interested in how they create the system.
So let's say a Thief likes to rob from the rich. So if he sees a near-do-well noble walking down the street, would the Thief be given advantage on his Thievery check to cut the noble's coin purse?
That's easy enough to adjudicate.
What if the Ranger is sworn to slaying Undead. Does he always get advantage on attacks against Undead, or only against Big Bad Undead? Perhaps that is too general? Yeah, probably. We need to delve into the world a bit, so he despises Death Lord Blueberry Waffle and would only get "inspired" when he confronts the Death Lord. I'd wager the Ranger would even be inspired when trying to convince the King of the threat that Death Lord Blueberry Waffle posses.
I'm with sparkletwist on the pace bit. If there's any real risk that I'll finish my homebrew before they finish Next, I take that as a bad sign.
My guess is that they already have the bulk of the game fairly well codified, all that's left is tightening up the math of the system and deciding which rules will be apart of the core game and which rules will be apart of the modular/extra rules. We, the public, are never given a truly good idea of where that line will fall because we are being used as guinea pigs to test out variant rules as well as math and expectation tweaks.
My guess is that D&D Next will be released next summer, a few months before GenCon, with the first official supplement being sold at that con. If that is the case, then WotC needs to be completely done with the system some time around January (which includes formatting and editing).
With that in mind, my guess will be that we will see 1 or 2 more packets, probably focusing more heavily on the variant rules than anything else.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfMy guess is that they already have the bulk of the game fairly well codified, all that's left is tightening up the math of the system and deciding which rules will be apart of the core game and which rules will be apart of the modular/extra rules.
This just came out today (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130729). :ill:
This is beyond just "tightening up" the basic math. They're still trying to figure out the core concepts like "what bonus should I end up with at 20th level" and "what should my DCs be." They're also positing a total growth of bonuses of +5 over 20 levels, which seems absurdly small relative to the kind of growth in capabilities that D&D players have kind of gotten accustomed to, and more than likely leads to all sorts of mathematically untenable situations. If HP is the only thing that grows, then everything either turns into a boring slugfest or save-or-lose becomes king depending solely on how good save DCs are... and it seems like the saving throws don't grow very fast.
If they still haven't figured basic math stuff like this out, I have no idea what is in the book that they are selling for $30 of actual money (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/20130524) at Gen Con next month.
As someone who likes fiddling with systems and has used a decent amount of math in my life, it really worries me that they seem to be taking the math as almost an afterthought. To me that's the main thing to decide, it's VERY easy to add on flavour and characters after the math is solid. The way they went about means they have to keep revising the same stuff over and over. Just comes across as inefficient.
Quote from: Llum
As someone who likes fiddling with systems and has used a decent amount of math in my life, it really worries me that they seem to be taking the math as almost an afterthought. To me that's the main thing to decide, it's VERY easy to add on flavour and characters after the math is solid. The way they went about means they have to keep revising the same stuff over and over. Just comes across as inefficient.
Personally, I figured out procedural stuff somewhat separately from the core math (for example I decided that I wanted active defense and wound mechanics before deciding precisely what my damage vs DR would be, and decided roughly how skills would work before deciding the precise bonus from training). But the math also ought to be goal oriented. I waffled back and forth for a bit on my ability mod and skill training values, but I always knew I wanted the worst and best possible totals within a ten point range of each other.
It's been a long time since I felt Next had a clear set of goals for the numeric bits to really serve. And without that the best they can do is luck into something that works well enough.
EDIT: As usual, I'm peeved that low level spells get low DCs and high level spells get high DCs. I prefer flat saves/attacks on most spells, and the reverse arrangement on enchantments and fight-enders.
Interesting article there, sparkletwist. I'd be more troubled, but I don't really care much about "official" D&D these days, so seeing this stuff doesn't worry me, really.
Some thoughts on specific things...
Quote from: Mike MearlsWe want to focus on growing hit points, rather than attack or saving throw bonuses (or DCs), as the way we reflect growing character power.
This seems like a strange way to go, to me. Scaling hit points are probably the least plausible thing in D&D, and lots and lots of variant rules/hacks (E6, Wounds and Vigor, lowering the Massive Damage Threshold, etc) specifically address the "TOO MANY HP!" issue. It seems to me that attack rolls (i.e. your accuracy with a weapon) would be the most obvious candidate to have scale, since it represents training and experience with a weapon. Likewise one would assume that things like skill and saving throw DCs should scale a lot to represent the diverse array of challenges characters could face.
Quote from: MMKeeping numerical bonuses under control means that the gaps between characters don't grow too large. Since the gap doesn't grow too large, you don't have to rely on system mastery—your mastery of how to manipulate the game system—to make an effective character. You can make a better character (character optimization is fun for many gamers) but it isn't an "I win!" card.
Since AC, attack, and saving throw numbers don't grow too much, low-level monsters can still hit and damage you (though for a smaller portion of your hit points) as you reach higher levels.
I can get behind this sentiment. It addresses one of 3.X's bigger problems, and suggests a return to the vulnerability and lethality that marked D&D in days of yore, although bloating HP could just make this weird. Who knows whether the execution will work at all in practice.
Quote from: MMSaving throws against effects that take you out of the fight, like a ghoul's paralysis, mess up monster scaling. A ghoul is equally deadly to a 3rd- or 17th-level fighter. If either one blows a saving throw, the fighter is out of the battle.
This sets off warning lights in my head. It smacks heavily of the scaling obsession that bugs me in 4E, in which large amounts of time and energy and spent fretting about whyat constitutes an appropriate challenge and what kind of standardized treasure such a challenge should reward and blah blah blah this is not how I have ever decided on which monsters to use. If they start taking out abilities like this to make the scale prettier it's going to suck. In previous editions, a ghoul is not equally deadly to a 3rd and 17th level fighter because the 17th level fighter not only has higher saving throws, they should have the resources (gold, hirelings, access to wizards) to get a few potions of Remove Paralysis (and someone to force it down their mouth). Plus the 17th level fighter probably has sufficient AC/initiative to one-shot the ghoul before it touches them. So if their changes to the way abilities scale results in the culling of such iconic abilities as a ghoul's paralysis... that sucks.
Quote from: MMWe're pushing the DCs used by player character casters down a bit and factoring effective spell level into the equation. Thus, a high-level wizard has lower saving throw DCs for weaker spells and higher ones for stronger ones
This is exactly how spell DCs worked in 3.X... I approve, basically, but it's hardly an innovation.
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: Elemental_ElfMy guess is that they already have the bulk of the game fairly well codified, all that's left is tightening up the math of the system and deciding which rules will be apart of the core game and which rules will be apart of the modular/extra rules.
This just came out today (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130729). :ill:
This is beyond just "tightening up" the basic math. They're still trying to figure out the core concepts like "what bonus should I end up with at 20th level" and "what should my DCs be." They're also positing a total growth of bonuses of +5 over 20 levels, which seems absurdly small relative to the kind of growth in capabilities that D&D players have kind of gotten accustomed to, and more than likely leads to all sorts of mathematically untenable situations. If HP is the only thing that grows, then everything either turns into a boring slugfest or save-or-lose becomes king depending solely on how good save DCs are... and it seems like the saving throws don't grow very fast.
If they still haven't figured basic math stuff like this out, I have no idea what is in the book that they are selling for $30 of actual money (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/20130524) at Gen Con next month.
I read that very differently. What I see is the designers trying to gauge our reaction and seeing where we expect to be at 20th level.
One of the stated goals with Next is to simplify the game to the point where you do not need complex class builds or a Christmas tree magic items to be effective. One of the ways the designers are doing this is by sticking to bounded accuracy (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604). Players cannot go above an 18 (or is it 20 now?) in an ability score. They do not need magic items to be successful. They do not gain bonuses to attacks as consistently as they had in previous editions. They've gone on record as saying a +1 Sword is just as meangingful and useful to a player at level 1 as it is at level 20 (compared with older editions where a +1 Sword becomes vender trash quite quickly).
What this means is that monsters are always going to be a threat to player characters but they will not be as deadly of a threat. So at Level 1 if you fight an Orc, he is a SERIOUS challenge. At 20th level, that single Orc can still hit and wound you but that wound isn't very serious. However, if you get a whole horde of Orcs attacking you, suddenly you really do have a big threat on your hands.
What this does it allow the DM to keep using all of the monsters in the monster manual, just altering their numbers to give a challenge.
To be honest, I'm happy that Higher Level's mechanics are not set in stone considering how badly 2E, 3E and 4E all failed to deliver a quality game at those levels.
Having actually run adventures with Next, I will freely admit it is a much deadlier system than 3.5 and especially 4E. However, encounter design - once you wrap your head around it - is pretty gosh darn fun. My Level 2 PC's defeated a Troll (who could have easily one shotted even the Fighter) in combat by using sound tactics (do not engage, run away and shoot it with fire!).The system is also very easy to adjust monster abilities up or down, or even give them class levels.
Also, due to the fact that the system does not use complex board game tactics in the way 3.5 and 4E did, combats just zip by at blinding speeds, even when you have really complex encounters.
Setting scaling on the damage/hp side as opposed to the bonus/DC side can work, theoretically. I have less of an issue with vanilla hp than I do with the way they often double between levels 1 and 2 (instead of, say, between 1 and 10). But if I'm reading this right, they want check modifiers to scale only about 6 points between the minimum and maximum levels. That's pretty low. I can see reducing it to around 10 or 15, but 6 is taking it a little far.
I'm not surprised to see that save-based fight-enders aren't scaling in the same way that hp do. This can be a feature or a bug if you know it's there and know how to use it (for example, by deliberately making some monsters into a "flatter" challenge that's tough no matter what level you are) but what bothers me here is that anyone was surprised at this outcome.
Quote from: Steerpike
This seems like a strange way to go, to me. Scaling hit points are probably the least plausible thing in D&D, and lots and lots of variant rules/hacks (E6, Wounds and Vigor, lowering the Massive Damage Threshold, etc) specifically address the "TOO MANY HP!" issue. It seems to me that attack rolls (i.e. your accuracy with a weapon) would be the most obvious candidate to have scale, since it represents training and experience with a weapon. Likewise one would assume that things like skill and saving throw DCs should scale a lot to represent the diverse array of challenges characters could face.
Hit points are just as much a measure of accuracy as actual modifiers to your attack roll. Your hits are causing more damage, which means you are striking more vital areas and/or keeping your enemy off guard.
Quote from: SteerpikeI can get behind this sentiment. It addresses one of 3.X's bigger problems, and suggests a return to the vulnerability and lethality that marked D&D in days of yore, although bloating HP could just make this weird. Who knows whether the execution will work at all in practice.
Next's HP isn't being exaggerated or bloated. Its basically the same progression as 3.x.
Quote from: SteerpikeThis sets off warning lights in my head. It smacks heavily of the scaling obsession that bugs me in 4E, in which large amounts of time and energy and spent fretting about whyat constitutes an appropriate challenge and what kind of standardized treasure such a challenge should reward and blah blah blah this is not how I have ever decided on which monsters to use. If they start taking out abilities like this to make the scale prettier it's going to suck. In previous editions, a ghoul is not equally deadly to a 3rd and 17th level fighter because the 17th level fighter not only has higher saving throws, they should have the resources (gold, hirelings, access to wizards) to get a few potions of Remove Paralysis (and someone to force it down their mouth). Plus the 17th level fighter probably has sufficient AC/initiative to one-shot the ghoul before it touches them. So if their changes to the way abilities scale results in the culling of such iconic abilities as a ghoul's paralysis... that sucks.
This set off warning bells because the designers taped themselves playing Next and a Ghoul wrecked face. So obviously abilities that take you out of combat need to be worked on, which is true of any edition. The difference was that the Ghouls were a low level threat for rather than a higher level one. The PCs could easily eliminate the Ghouls in one or two hits but one or two failed saving throws messed up combat. The Designers were not expecting the Ghouls to be that large of a threat, that's all Mearls is referring to.
Quote from: Steerpike
This is exactly how spell DCs worked in 3.X... I approve, basically, but it's hardly an innovation.
It represents a big shift of policy for Next.
Quote from: SteerpikeI'd be more troubled, but I don't really care much about "official" D&D these days
Me too. Especially with the mess they've (and by "they" I mostly mean "Mike Mearls") made of D&D Next.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfOne of the stated goals with Next is to simplify the game to the point where you do not need complex class builds or a Christmas tree magic items to be effective. One of the ways the designers are doing this is by sticking to bounded accuracy.
Bounded accuracy doesn't actually do anything useful. If your attack bonuses don't really grow and enemy's defenses don't really grow either, it's essentially the exact same situation as 4e where everything improves in lock-step, only instead of them all getting a +5 to match my +5 nobody has gained much of anything. You don't feel any real sense of improvement.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfWhat this does it allow the DM to keep using all of the monsters in the monster manual, just altering their numbers to give a challenge.
I understand the idea of wanting to make monsters relevant longer, but I think there's a certain point when a regular old orc just isn't a threat any more. It helps to solidify a sense of growth, like, you've made it to the "Paragon Tier" or whatever they're going to call it.
Anyway, if nothing
really improves, the only way you can actually fight more guys is by increasing HP ridiculous amounts... or by using a ton of equipment to boost your attacks and defenses, since you won't be getting much of anything from your levels. And then we're back to Christmas tree land.
Quote from: Elemental ElfHit points are just as much a measure of accuracy as actual modifiers to your attack roll.
Is damage scaling heavily too? The article stressed HP was the thing that would increase - it didn't mention damage, although maybe damage scales as well? I can see the argument made for increased
damage representing greater accuracy (although it makes more sense inuitively for more damage to mean "a heavier hit" as opposed to "a more accurate hit"), but HP doesn't represent accuracy - it can represent the ability of a character to defend themself/parry/reduce the accuracy of their opponent, but those aren't the same thing.
Quote from: Elemental ElfNext's HP isn't being exaggerated or bloated. Its basically the same progression as 3.x.
Though as you know I'm a fan of 3.X>4E, I think the upper levels of HP in 3.X are pretty bloated as it is. When nothing else is increasing but HP, that kind of makes the problem worse. As I noted, a *lot* of hacks/house-rules for 3.X were about
decreasing HP or making characters more vulnerable.
Quote from: Elemental ElfThis set off warning bells because the designers taped themselves playing Next and a Ghoul wrecked face. So obviously abilities that take you out of combat need to be worked on, which is true of any edition
This doesn't surprise me given the changes they've made - if attack rolls, defence, and saves don't scale very much, a monster (even a low-level one) with an ability like paralysis is going to be much, much scarier than it would be in a system where either a) a high-level character would almost never be hit by the monster, and b) your character's saves are high and so the monster's ability doesn't function. If your defence and saves increase only minimally... yeah that's a problem. Ghouls and the like were always scary in previous editions, although I'm not sure that's
really a bad thing.
Quote from: Elemental ElfHaving actually run adventures with Next, I will freely admit it is a much deadlier system than 3.5 and especially 4E.
That does sound pretty promising.
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: Elemental_ElfOne of the stated goals with Next is to simplify the game to the point where you do not need complex class builds or a Christmas tree magic items to be effective. One of the ways the designers are doing this is by sticking to bounded accuracy.
Bounded accuracy doesn't actually do anything useful. If your attack bonuses don't really grow and enemy's defenses don't really grow either, it's essentially the exact same situation as 4e where everything improves in lock-step, only instead of them all getting a +5 to match my +5 nobody has gained much of anything. You don't feel any real sense of improvement.
It does quite a few things that are useful.
1) It makes monsters a threat to PCs over the course of a much larger percentage of the game without adjusting stat blocks.
2) It removes a barrier to entry (i.e. a very large, fiddly bit of the Math).
The improvement you have is through new spells, new class abilities, the progression of a story and occasionally a new magic item. You don't need to have the system give you all of that PLUS huge bonuses to hit, PLUS massive increases to your spell DCs PLUS allowing your abilities to increase to super human proportions PLUS more magic items.
Quote from: sparkletwistQuote from: Elemental_ElfWhat this does it allow the DM to keep using all of the monsters in the monster manual, just altering their numbers to give a challenge.
I understand the idea of wanting to make monsters relevant longer, but I think there's a certain point when a regular old orc just isn't a threat any more. It helps to solidify a sense of growth, like, you've made it to the "Paragon Tier" or whatever they're going to call it.
There is that point, it's called 5th level. A single Orc is no longer a threat because his damage output per turn isn't that big of a threat vs. your HP total and the amount of damage you throw around. The difference is that there will never be a situation where one character can stand against a hode of Orcs and only worry about lose a handful of HP when one or two of them crits.
Quote from: sparkletwistAnyway, if nothing really improves, the only way you can actually fight more guys is by increasing HP ridiculous amounts... or by using a ton of equipment to boost your attacks and defenses, since you won't be getting much of anything from your levels. And then we're back to Christmas tree land.
The amount of damage you deal increases as you level.
Quote from: Steerpike
Quote from: Elemental ElfHit points are just as much a measure of accuracy as actual modifiers to your attack roll.
Is damage scaling heavily too? The article stressed HP was the thing that would increase - it didn't mention damage, although maybe damage scales as well? I can see the argument made for increased damage representing greater accuracy (although it makes more sense inuitively for more damage to mean "a heavier hit" as opposed to "a more accurate hit"), but HP doesn't represent accuracy - it can represent the ability of a character to defend themself/parry/reduce the accuracy of their opponent, but those aren't the same thing.
Spells deal more damage and classes have ways of dealing more damage through class abilities.
I'll grant you +'s to hit are more intuitive but they also carry with them the burden of making monsters progressively weaker. If I am a 20th level character and I have a +15 bonus to hit base on top of a +5 weapon on top of my +7 ability score, then any monster not designed to challenge me will either be used in horde tactics or wind up completely obsolesced (most likely the latter since even in horde formations, they pose little threat). You shouldn't have to throw out 5/6ths of a monster manual just because you leveled up.
More damage does represent better accuracy because you are hitting more vital locations and sloughing off more HP and the targets own inability to defend himself. You just have to look at the opposite of your example.
I'm not saying it's perfect but the problem that plagued previous editions was that there were too many moving parts when it came to combat, which made balance or even predictability at different levels very difficult to attain without being completely homogenous.
Quote from: SteerpikeQuote from: Elemental ElfNext's HP isn't being exaggerated or bloated. Its basically the same progression as 3.x.
Though as you know I'm a fan of 3.X>4E, I think the upper levels of HP in 3.X are pretty bloated as it is. When nothing else is increasing but HP, that kind of makes the problem worse. As I noted, a *lot* of hacks/house-rules for 3.X were about decreasing HP or making characters more vulnerable.
[/quote]
A 20th level Barbarian with 18 CON in Next is only going to have a guaranteed average of 225 HP or a max of 320 HP. That sounds like a lot but a Dragon can Multi-Attack (1 Bite and 2 Claws). If the Dragon hits with all three attacks, then he is going to eliminate a guaranteed average of 73 HP, or a Max of 117.
At average damage and average HP, it would only take the Dragon 3 turns to knock the Barbarian to 6 HP.
Sounds like a tough fight but one where the Barbarian has a an advantage.
Until you realize that Dragon is only Level 13.
The Dragon alone is an average difficulty encounter for an 11th level party.
So let's look at a level 11 Barbarian. He will have an average of 126 HP. If the Dragon hits with all three attacks, then he has eliminated 57% of the Barbarians HP in one turn.
HP bloat isn't an issue because monsters are dealing solid damage with each hit.
Quote from: SteerpikeQuote from: Elemental ElfThis set off warning bells because the designers taped themselves playing Next and a Ghoul wrecked face. So obviously abilities that take you out of combat need to be worked on, which is true of any edition
This doesn't surprise me given the changes they've made - if attack rolls, defence, and saves don't scale very much, a monster (even a low-level one) with an ability like paralysis is going to be much, much scarier than it would be in a system where either a) a high-level character would almost never be hit by the monster, and b) your character's saves are high and so the monster's ability doesn't function. If your defence and saves increase only minimally... yeah that's a problem. Ghouls and the like were always scary in previous editions, although I'm not sure that's really a bad thing.
I very much agree. Ghouls should be scary. I'm just hoping the designers don't change the entire system to accommodate this fact that they were surprised by one encounter (which is what it feels like since now DC's and saves are going to scale).
Quote from: SteerpikeQuote from: Elemental ElfHaving actually run adventures with Next, I will freely admit it is a much deadlier system than 3.5 and especially 4E.
That does sound pretty promising.
The system is in rough shape right now but the core ideas are all very sound and fun. They jst need to figure out which rules will be core and which will be optional and how they want to balance higher levels).
Quote from: Elemental_ElfIt makes monsters a threat to PCs over the course of a much larger percentage of the game without adjusting stat blocks.
Like I said, I'm not sure if this is even a good thing. If you spend the whole game "just fighting orcs," a chance to feel growth is eliminated.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfIt removes a barrier to entry
What does this even mean?
Quote from: Elemental_ElfYou don't need to have the system give you all of that PLUS huge bonuses to hit, PLUS massive increases to your spell DCs PLUS allowing your abilities to increase to super human proportions PLUS more magic items.
In that article I linked, Mike Mearls literally says that he doesn't want saving throws to increase a lot, and then somewhere else he mentions that it's a problem that a ghoul affects a level 17 fighter more than it ought to relative to a level 3 fighter because the level 17 guy misses his save-or-lose too often. Does he seriously not understand that these things are
linked?
Quote from: Elemental_ElfA single Orc is no longer a threat because his damage output per turn isn't that big of a threat vs. your HP total and the amount of damage you throw around. The difference is that there will never be a situation where one character can stand against a hode of Orcs and only worry about lose a handful of HP when one or two of them crits.
How big of a horde, though? Since your defense hardly increases, your ability to deal with a horde only increases as fast as your HP does. This can lead to pretty underwhelming results, especially if you have to kill each enemy individually. Doing that also would make combat take a lot longer.
If they really wanted to make monsters challenging in hordes at a higher level, they should've just let them get substantial attack bonuses for attacking in groups. Then AC and defense and whatever could actually grow but a horde of orcs would actually still be a challenge... but you'd cut them down a group at a time so the combat wouldn't take forever.
Quote from: sparkletwistLike I said, I'm not sure if this is even a good thing. If you spend the whole game "just fighting orcs," a chance to feel growth is eliminated.
D&D is traditionally pretty resource based, and this solution sort of fits in that dungeon crawling and resource attrition paradigm. Being able to handle a horde is qualitatively different from being able to handle a one on one fight. HP/damage scaling is a better fit than attack/AC scaling if you're worried about pushing orcs off the RNG. And it sounds like that's the kind of thing they're afraid of. A 6 point spread is insanely conservative on that front, but I can at least see the reasoning behind the concept.
QuoteHow big of a horde, though? Since your defense hardly increases, your ability to deal with a horde only increases as fast as your HP does. This can lead to pretty underwhelming results, especially if you have to kill each enemy individually. Doing that also would make combat take a lot longer.
The flipside is that if you can take each individual orc down in one hit instead of two or three if your damage is scaling, and that can speed these big fights along. It may or may not be enough, depending on application, but it's at least there.
QuoteIf they really wanted to make monsters challenging in hordes at a higher level, they should've just let them get substantial attack bonuses for attacking in groups. Then AC and defense and whatever could actually grow but a horde of orcs would actually still be a challenge... but you'd cut them down a group at a time so the combat wouldn't take forever.
I'm not convinced pushing enemies off (or nearly off) the RNG with levels and pushing them back on the RNG with an additional rule is strictly necessary in this particular case.
The real problem that remains with high level fights against low level hordes is in the number of actions and turns necessary. Representing what have traditionally been multiple attacks as area attacks could be hugely helpful. But that's kind of drifting off topic.
QuoteIn that article I linked, Mike Mearls literally says that he doesn't want saving throws to increase a lot, and then somewhere else he mentions that it's a problem that a ghoul affects a level 17 fighter more than it ought to relative to a level 3 fighter because the level 17 guy misses his save-or-lose too often. Does he seriously not understand that these things are linked?
There's really just no excusing this one though.
Quote from: beejazzI'm not convinced pushing enemies off (or nearly off) the RNG with levels and pushing them back on the RNG with an additional rule is strictly necessary in this particular case.
The real problem that remains with high level fights against low level hordes is in the number of actions and turns necessary. Representing what have traditionally been multiple attacks as area attacks could be hugely helpful. But that's kind of drifting off topic.
Right, it would take a long time to take out a whole horde. Even with one-shots, it'd be like facing a huge number of minions in 4e, and that could still get tedious.
That's why I still like the idea of representing the horde as a single abstract unit that gets bonuses and such. You're right it's sort of a hack, but it seems preferable to (and more mathematically sound than) the weird thing they're actually doing, where they expect you to fight a horde anyway and nobody's sure if the math even works out right to let you do that.
D&D isn't and has never been built to handle mass combats. I agree with sparkletwist that some sort of "horde hack" is pretty much necessary if you want to deal with
very large numbers of enemies.
Quote from: Elemental ElfThe difference is that there will never be a situation where one character can stand against a hode of Orcs and only worry about lose a handful of HP when one or two of them crits.
While this is true, I don't see why adopting the opposite scale - scaling HP very gradually/minimally while increasing attack, defence, and saving throws more dramatically over time - wouldn't have the same result. It makes more sense intuitively, and still allows low-level units to be dangerous. The hypothetical warrior facing down a horde of Orcs is going to be able to mow through them more or less untouched... unless one gets a very lucky hit and basically drops him.
But they're not going to do that, and I'm almost certainly not going to buy D&D Next unless it's hailed as the best thing in gaming since the twenty sided die, so it's all a bit academic.
Too lazy to thresh.
@Sparkle: No one said you would just sit around fighting Orcs. They are there if the DM wants to use them, without resorting to creating new statblocks with class levels (3.5) or new statblocks of new tribes with brand new powers (4).
Mearls has come out repeatedly and said that the game is too byzantine and arcane to draw in new gamers. That having to buy three huge core rule books or one massive 300 page tome is intimidating. That the math and mechanics in the core game should be relatively simple and easy to learn. That even high level D&D characters should not require system mastery to be effective. All of those aspects (number of books, size of books, size of core rules, and the math behind the system) have served as barriers of entry into the game. D&D can be wondrously complex but it cannot be that way at the front door. The game must be simple and engaging from the get go. That (among other reasons) is why D&D is going to a modular system. The core will be stripped down and simple, while DM's add in rules to make the game more complex.
The current saving throws are too weak because characters are not saving as often as they should against weaker spells. The obvious fix is to increase everyone's save value however, the designers don't want to end up with a system where you constantly save against the low level spells, so the bonus has to be just right.
I know, idiotic way to design a system. Believe me, I see that. They should have gotten the numbers down pat before building everything else.
Hordes would be some where around 12, I think.
I agree HP as the only means of increasing power is a weird concept and probably too simplified. It's hard to defend WotC in that regard. Scaling attack/defense/saves is the easier system to design.
@Steerpike: If you dramatically scale up attack/Defense/Saving Throws, then the Orc you fought at first level is no longer a challenge after 10 levels, let alone 19 because his attack/Defense/Saving Throws did not scale with yours. Even a horde of Orcs isn't a challenge because they cannot surmount your improved defense.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfThat (among other reasons) is why D&D is going to a modular system. The core will be stripped down and simple, while DM's add in rules to make the game more complex.
This just can't function with their current approach and pace of development. In order to have any chance of a working modular system, they would have to have gotten the core math down quite a long time ago, so they were actually sure what they were bolting all the different modules and other optional parts onto. (I have my doubts about the efficacy of the "modular system" even if they did manage to produce a solid core in a timely fashion... but it's a moot point, because they didn't!)
Quote from: Elemental_ElfEven a horde of Orcs isn't a challenge because they cannot surmount your improved defense.
Hence a "horde hack" for handling group attacks. :grin:
Quote from: Elemental Elf@Steerpike: If you dramatically scale up attack/Defense/Saving Throws, then the Orc you fought at first level is no longer a challenge after 10 levels, let alone 19 because his attack/Defense/Saving Throws did not scale with yours. Even a horde of Orcs isn't a challenge because they cannot surmount your improved defense.
I disagree, and here's why. I'm going to basically assume 3.X/Pathfinder rules except where noted (i.e. minimally scaling HP).
Firstly, there's no reason you can't add class levels to the Orcs (unless the system arbitrarily prevents that), which would let them scale perfectly and allows the DM to keep using monsters throughout the campaign; monster advancement rules work the same way for creatures who wouldn't have class levels. But let's ignore that solution, since it doesn't support my specific point, that a system where HP scaled minimally but attack and the like scaled rapidly would allow low-level creatures to remain a threat throughout the game.
Secondly, in a system with dramatic HP scaling but low scaling of everything else, a single Orc still isn't any threat to a 10th level fighter - it's goint to knock out a very small number of his impressive hit points before getting butchered. For one thing, if HP are pushed as a hyper-abstract representation of a warrior's ability to defend himself, the result of this combat doesn't really make sense. The fighter kills the Orc, but his ability to defend himself in subsequent combats later that day is reduced? That's... kind of weird. It's sort of the same beef I have with once-per-encounter or daily martial powers. A hyper-abstract conception of HP doesn't fit well at all with the description of Cure or Inflict spells, either. The evil cleric hits you with an inflict spell... debilitating your skills at parrying? The saintly healer prays to the gods above and lays her hand upon your brow... and you feel as if you now you can turn more severe blows into glancing ones?
I assume, though, you weren't talking about a single Orc, but about a "horde."
So let's say we have a system where attack bonuses, saving throws, and even defence scale fairly dramatically (I'd be inclined to have defence scale semi-gradually, but whatever), but HP scales minimally. Like, let's say you start with what your class's hit die would be plus your Con, but only get +1 HP per level, perhaps +2 if you're a real bruiser. So a 10th level Fighter is going to have something like 20-30 HP, maybe a little more if he has a great Constitution. There are lots of other ways to make characters vulnerable, like lowering the massive damage threshold, but nevermind them, let's just assume a low-scaling HP. Even a 20th level fighter is only going to have around 50 HP under this system if we're generous and give him +2/level, only around 30 if we go for +1/level.
So let's throw our fighter against a "horde" of Orcs. We'll be conservative and make it 12.
At least in 3.X/Pathfinder, a natural 20 always hits, regardless of AC. With 12 Orcs, there's a pretty decent chance one of them will eventually roll a natural 20 even if our Fighter is slowly picking them off. "Standard" Orcs usually have javelins, dealing around 4-10 damage. If just one of the Orcs manages to get a natural 20 before the fighter closes to melee, they've just taken out roughly 15-30% of the Fighter's HP.
In melee, things are even better for our greenskinned friends. If just one Orc manages to score a natural 20, they're going to deal 6-12 damage, or 20-40% of the Fighter's HP (assuming he has 30 maximum).
Now a skilled Fighter might be able to take out a couple of Orcs per round, but he has to first close to melee. In Pathfinder, even your basic CR 1/3 Orcs also have Ferocity, which lets them fight on under 0 HP, so our Fighter has to fully kill an Orc before it can stop attacking him (this ability might be overpowered in a system with such low HP, however, so it might be good to remove it).
If even a couple of the Orcs manage a natural 20 - which, over a few rounds of combat, the odds favour - the Fighter is in
big trouble, probably losing somewere between 40-80% of his meagre HP. If one of the Orcs got really, really lucky and managed a critical hit things are looking dire indeed.
This is all before we factor in any tactics. In melee, the Orcs are going to have flanking, and there's nothing stopping them from using aid another to further boost their attack rolls. Your average Orc with flanking and two Orcs successfully aiding him has +11 to hit (+5 normally, +2 flanking, +4 from the Aid Anothers). Even a 10th level Fighter might get hit with that attack roll.
The Orcs almost certainly know the environment better than our fighter. They can try to lead him into traps - maybe 12 Orc javelin-hurlers are standing behind a spiked pit trap. They can try to use the terrain against him. 12 Orcs in a small room or a narrow corridor where the fighter can close quickly might have trouble with the armoured hulk. 12 Orcs with a healthy javelin supply standing up on an archer's gallery looking down on the fighter below are going to feel much safer. If there are 12 Orcs on a balcony with a healthy javelin supply, a few flasks of oil, and a torch or two, things are going to get toasty. 12 Orcs with javelins on a clifftop with a cave entracce nearby in case a hasty retreat is needed, who can roll boulders down on the heavily armoured fighter as he tries to climb up to them, are just laughing.
So I don't see why scaling HP slowly but scaling everything else drastically makes our 10th level Fighter "immune to Orcs." He's skillful with a sword, has heavy armour, and knows how to use it to his advantage, so he's going to hit a lot and be hit rarely, just like a skilled warrior would in reality. But if a javelin or sword-thrust manages to catch him off-guard he's still in trouble. He
might be able to take them all out without taking a scratch... or a couple of unlucky rounds could leave him near-dead.
And that's before we throw in a couple of first level Orc rogues, sorcerers, and barbarians. Or equip them with greataxes instead of falchions. Or decide to give them an Ogre or two as allies. Or mount a couple of the Orcs on Dire Wolves or Dire Boars. Or Dire Bats. Or throw in some Goblin fodder or archers for support. Or give the Orcs fungal combat drugs that boost their Strength. Or poison all of their weapons. Or give them caltrops (which ignore armour and shields). Or barbed caltrops. Or poisoned, barbed caltrops. Or have them attack the characters while they're resting and the fighter doesn't have his armour on.
Quote from: SteerpikeSo I don't see why scaling HP slowly but scaling everything else drastically makes our 10th level Fighter "immune to Orcs." He's skillful with a sword, has heavy armour, and knows how to use it to his advantage, so he's going to hit a lot and be hit rarely, just like a skilled warrior would in reality. But if a javelin or sword-thrust manages to catch him off-guard he's still in trouble. He might be able to take them all out without taking a scratch... or a couple of unlucky rounds could leave him near-dead.
The horde discussion may be side-tracking us somewhat.
Let's get back to a standard-ish classic dungeon for a moment. By default, a good dungeon is linear and has both tough and easy fights. Tough and easy are, in a lot of ways, more about resource management than they are about actual risk. Fighting a crapload of orcs (in one fight or in many) presents an obstacle by wearing you down so that when you get to the bigger, riskier stuff, you no longer have the hp or spell slots you once did.
The problem with whiff orcs as opposed to ping orcs is that whiffing for 0hp usually has no attrition while pinging for 2-5% of hp has some attrition. The question isn't necessarily whether the orcs can beat you adequately, it's whether they consistently do enough that the encounter feels like a significant event and not a waste of time. The same question scales down a bit to the round-by-round as well. Rolling twenty orc attack rolls and having one kill the crap out of you while the other do nothing can feel kind of weird (in this extreme hypothetical with attack/ac scaling only).
Modified monsters should have a pretty minimal bearing on this discussion since that's an addition to DM prep load. We're talking baseline game here, sans time-consuming fixes.
Quote from: beejazzLet's get back to a standard-ish classic dungeon for a moment. By default, a good dungeon is linear and has both tough and easy fights. Tough and easy are, in a lot of ways, more about resource management than they are about actual risk. Fighting a crapload of orcs (in one fight or in many) presents an obstacle by wearing you down so that when you get to the bigger, riskier stuff, you no longer have the hp or spell slots you once did.
The problem with whiff orcs as opposed to ping orcs is that whiffing for 0hp usually has no attrition while pinging for 2-5% of hp has some attrition. The question isn't necessarily whether the orcs can beat you adequately, it's whether they consistently do enough that the encounter feels like a significant event and not a waste of time. The same question scales down a bit to the round-by-round as well. Rolling twenty orc attack rolls and having one kill the crap out of you while the other do nothing can feel kind of weird (in this extreme hypothetical with attack/ac scaling only).
This is an interesting point. I'm not sure I'd agree that dungeon-delving should be about resource management, or rather not
just about resource management. Resource management is a big part of it, but it seems to me that problem solving and tactics should be as big a part of the experience - making judgment calls about when to fight and when to run, when to use stealth and when to rush in with spells blazing, setting up traps and ambushes for opponents, exploring the terrain and learning layouts, puzzling out the patrol patterns and routines and habits of the dungeon-dwellers, learning the dungeon's factions (are the hobgoblins and the kuo-toa at war? can they be pitted against one another? does the iron golem attack only humanoids, or will it attack magical beasts as well?), figuring out creative ways to tackle difficult opponents, roleplaying with potential allies, etc. If it's just about attrition and wearing down your hp till you reach a point to rest, rinse, and repeatr isn't that kind of tedious?
I would also
completely disagree that a good dungeon is linear (!). Old school dungeons from the early editions of the game - the most paradigmatic, "classic" dungeons - are far, far from it. Take the Caves of Chaos (http://www.theweem.com/images/cavesofchaos/caves_of_chaos_large.jpg) from the Keep on the Borderlands, the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mapofweek/May2006/03_MAWMay2006_72_ppi_h4043g3.jpg) and its Dungeons (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mapofweek/May2006/04_MAWMay2006_72_ppi_4yj4.jpg), the sprawl of the Forbidden City (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5VsdK2b3AGM/TpgnE6WhV-I/AAAAAAAAAEM/RBawF79wtsE/s1600/the-forbidden-city-clear.jpg), or the meandering halls of In Search of the Unknown (http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i169/timoteob/B1LowInk.png). I'd argue that the quintessential dungeon is a non-linear space with multiple paths through it, usually inhabited by multiple factions of creatures. A well-designed dungeon encourages exploration, creativity, and a thoughtful approach on how to proceed. A dungeon that's basically a series of basically sequential rooms, some with stronger monsters and some with weaker, is not well-designed at all IMO.
Quote from: beejazzModified monsters should have a pretty minimal bearing on this discussion since that's an addition to DM prep load. We're talking baseline game here, sans time-consuming fixes.
I suppose, but a system can make it easier or harder to modify monsters, and I'd argue that making it easier to modify them (like by providing stats for monsters with class levels, or providing easy mechanics for quick advancement) makes the game better, while cutting down on prep. And I'd claim that the "baseline game" should
include a consideration of things like tactics, monster pairings, terrain, and the like, rather than eschewing it.
QuoteThis is an interesting point. I'm not sure I'd agree that dungeon-delving should be about resource management, or rather not just about resource management. Resource management is a big part of it, but it seems to me that problem solving and tactics should be as big a part of the experience - making judgment calls about when to fight and when to run, setting up traps and ambushes for opponents, exploring the terrain and learning layouts, puzzling out patrol patterns and the routines of the dungeon-dwellers, figuring out creative ways to tackle difficult opponents, etc. If it's just about attrition and wearing down your hp, isn't that kind of tedious?
My larger point is that attrition is how all those small tactical challenges fit into a larger strategic framework, not that all things work by way of attrition. Attrition is just a great way to maintain a wide array of outcomes for those tactical engagements between 1: You are fine and dandy and 2: You are dead. Moreover, the strategic framework modifies how and when people can approach various tactical challenges. You may want to tackle or avoid a given challenge based on how fresh or run-down your resources currently are. Conversely, without the attrition, it's pretty much pitting your level vs theirs regardless of when or how you have approached the rest of the dungeon.
Attrition isn't the only way to do a D&D-style game (with the leveling and what not) nor is it the only way to do a dungeon crawl, but it's the core of D&D's particular formula. Straying too far from it is risky from a branding perspective.
QuoteI would also completely disagree that a good dungeon is linear (!). Old school dungeons - the paradigmatic, "classic" dungeons! - are far, far from it. Take the Caves of Chaos from the Keep on the Borderlands, the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief and its Dungeons, the sprawl of the Forbidden City, or the meandering halls of In Search of the Unknown. I'd argue that the quintessential dungeon is a non-linear space with multiple paths through it, usually inhabited by multiple factions of creatures.
I actually just mistyped that one. But yeah, the larger point I was after was that older D&D wasn't so much about the individual fights as it was about the aggregate. There would be loops and ambushes (or wandering monsters) from unexpected directions, in addition to the cases where the party is expected to self-select challenges. In a risk-based (as opposed to attrition-based) framework, these sorts of challenges can either kill PCs or feel like a waste of time, with less wiggle room in between. And this can be even worse than a strictly risk and encounter based formula in a framework where the party can select their encounters.
QuoteI suppose, but a system can make it easier or harder to modify monsters, and I'd argue that making it easier to modify them (like by providing stats for monsters with class levels, or providing easy mechanics for quick advancement) makes the game better, while cutting down on prep. And I'd claim that the "baseline game" should include a consideration of things like tactics, monster pairings, terrain, and the like, rather than eschewing it.
Terrain and equipment sure, but piling class or monster levels on a thing still seems like something else in practice. Baseline orcs either stay relevant or don't. Giving them class levels makes them not baseline orcs, so saying that you can give them class levels seems about as relevant as saying the party can fight a giant squid instead.
Quote from: beejazzMy larger point is that attrition is how all those small tactical challenges fit into a larger strategic framework, not that all things work by way of attrition. Attrition is just a great way to maintain a wide array of outcomes for those tactical engagements between 1: You are fine and dandy and 2: You are dead. Moreover, the strategic framework modifies how and when people can approach various tactical challenges. You may want to tackle or avoid a given challenge based on how fresh or run-down your resources currently are. Conversely, without the attrition, it's pretty much pitting your level vs theirs regardless of when or how you have approached the rest of the dungeon.
Attrition isn't the only way to do a D&D-style game (with the leveling and what not) nor is it the only way to do a dungeon crawl, but it's the core of D&D's particular formula. Straying too far from it is risky from a branding perspective.
Fair enough, I'll agree with that. I guess my larger point was that so long as we're drastically messing with scaling, I'd rather mess with the HP scaling than the attack/defence scaling. There's still be attrition in a game with minimal scaling for HP, and in fact the importance of attrition for things like healing spells, healing potions, wands of cure and the like would be greatly heightened.
I'd still argue that attrition forms only a part of D&D "dungeon crawl formula" if you look at things historically and consider the TSR days as strongly (or more so) than the Wizards days, though. The inherent deadliness of early editions - the plethora of save-or-die effects, vampires that drained levels like nobody's business, the fact that additional hit points became severely limited after around 10th level in early editions, level caps, the sometimes extreme xp requirements for gaining levels - speaks to this.
To be clear, I wasn't actually arguing for 1-2 hp/level as some kind of ideal, I was just using it as an example that low-level creatures could still be dangerous to high-level characters with scaling attack/defence so long as hp scaling was toned down. My personal preference would probably be somewhere in-between the bloated hit point totals of 3.X and the severe days of yore.
Quote from: beejazzI actually just mistyped that one. But yeah, the larger point I was after was that older D&D wasn't so much about the individual fights as it was about the aggregate. There would be loops and ambushes (or wandering monsters) from unexpected directions, in addition to the cases where the party is expected to self-select challenges. In a risk-based (as opposed to attrition-based) framework, these sorts of challenges can either kill PCs or feel like a waste of time, with less wiggle room in between. And this can be even worse than a strictly risk and encounter based formula in a framework where the party can select their encounters.
Fair enough! I'd still claim that on average D&D has been a mixture of risk and attrition, but "risk" is the wrong word, really. The deadliness of earlier editions isn't just about creating a sense of risk, it's to encourage problem-solving and creativity and planning.
Quote from: beejazzTerrain and equipment sure, but piling class or monster levels on a thing still seems like something else in practice. Baseline orcs either stay relevant or don't. Giving them class levels makes them not baseline orcs, so saying that you can give them class levels seems about as relevant as saying the party can fight a giant squid instead.
I see your point. It doesn't feel quite the same, but I get what you're saying. I guess to me the best solution is where "baseline" - i.e. Orcs who happen to be 1st level warriors as opposed to some other character class - can stay relevant while also providing opportunities to upgrade creatures easily.
On traps and other high-risk elements, they do follow a different paradigm from the standard combat system. Monsters you sometimes engage and sometimes avoid or bypass. Traps you basically want to avoid at all costs. And yeah, some monsters were more like traps on legs than things that could be fit into the standard combat paradigm.
Risk vs attrition might not be the most appropriate words, but I think you understand what I'm getting at. Maybe I should've left it at whiff orcs and ping orcs.
I think you brought up some goods points. Fighting the "ping" orcs offer a pretty predictable outcome - you're going to lose X amount of your hp, which is going to make later encounters harder and put a strain on your resources, and so the ping orcs function really well as a minor challenge in a sequence of variable challenges. Fighting the "whiff" orcs is inherently unpredictable and kind of scary, because you might be fine or you might end up dead or severely wounded. Arguably this makes them a more interesting encounter on their own, but less useful as part of a series of encounters. It poses an interesting design decision. I'd say the ping approach is much more in line with recent editions of D&D, while the whiff approach smacks more of the old school to me.
What I was trying to get at is that with the ping orcs, it seems to be players'd more likely to just kinda charge in, take a few hits, and move on, because while the orcs are going to chip away at your hp it's going to be by a pretty manageable amount. With the whiff orcs, because things might go south if you get unlucky, you're forced to think really carefully about how you engage, like maybe trying to lure the orcs away one by one or sniping a few from afar or charming an owlbear and sicking it on them.
For D&D, I like a mix of ping orcs and traps/trap monsters. Orcs are the bread and butter. Medusas, undead, and the like are the mad gamble. Also the specific availability of healing has a lot to do with how meaningful attrition can actually get. If a short rest between fights refreshes everything (extreme example, I know) then individual fights are limited to that fine/dead dichotomy I mentioned before.
For not-D&D I'll tend to do things much differently, of course. In homebrew, I'm cool with the whiff/kill orcs, the between fight hp healing (where there are also harder to heal wounds), the larger attack/defense scaling mitigated by an active defense mechanic, and so on. But I'm explicitly designing a game where a fight has to be able to stand alone because I very frequently run something more mystery-ish, often with a single fight in the middle to end of the session.
Different mechanics for different kinds of games and all that.
I think you can easily combine "Wiff" and "Ping" enemies in a single dungeon. Variety is the spice of life after all.
Some times its fun to just walk in and slaughter a room full of bandits, while other times it's fun to trick the two heads of the Ettin into hating one another and thus by pass the threat.
Good dungeons have both elements and more.
However, I think the idea of the bypassing challenges is often a more advanced skill because people are so accustomed to video games where you can only do what the designers intend for you to do (which is often just fighting).
----
I suppose if I were designing D&D Next, here are the questions I would ask myself:
- What kind of campaigns will this game easily support in the core game?
- How powerful are 20th level characters (in generalities)?
- How Powerful are 1st level characters (in generalities)?
- How often should an optimized level 20 character accomplish a very difficult task?
- At 20th level, what is to the total bonus an optimized character can have?
- How often should a level 1 character accomplish a very difficult task?
- At 1st level, what is the minimum bonus a character should have?
Once you answer all these questions, you have the core of the game finished.
The mechanical questions are the easiest to answer, especially if we assume we are going for a bounded accuracy type system where DC are the same for every character, rather than a scaling list of DC ala 4E and 3.5.
Let's say that you want a 20th level character to accomplish a difficult task 75% of the time and a level 1 character 25% of the time.
Without modifiers, the 20th level character should be failing on a roll of 5 or lower, while a 1st level character would fail on a roll of 15 or lower.
Without modifiers, the range of success would be between 6 and 16.
Let's say that you want to cap modifiers at +15 for 20th level characters.
So a DC 20 would become a difficult task for a 20th level character (i.e. the highest possible number you can roll and still fail when adding your modifiers).
If a Level 1 Character needs to roll a 16 to succeed, then he needs a +4 to defeat a DC of 20.
So a character should start off with a +4 to perform tasks and at the end of the game be capped at a +15.
Over the course of a character's career he needs to be given +11 points to make sure he can succeed 75% of the time at a difficult task at level 20 (i.e. 15-4 = 11).
Then you just have to work out how often a character gets a new modifier point based on how likely you think they should be able to accomplish a difficult task.
Quote from: Elemental ElfThe mechanical questions are the easiest to answer, especially if we assume we are going for a bounded accuracy type system where DC are the same for every character, rather than a scaling list of DC ala 4E and 3.5.
This isn't really how I saw skill DCs as functioning, in 3.5 at least. It's not that the DCs scaled, it's that tough things were always tough to do and easy things were always easy. Picking a crude lock is easy and picking a master lock is hard; there was no rule that high level characters had to encounter only high level locks, or that low level characters can only encounter low level ones. The DCs were always the same for every character. It's just that there was a wide range of challenges characters could take on, and only the very skillful could tackle the toughest challenges. When Mearls says, for example, that "we can say that breaking down an iron-banded wooden door is a DC 17 check, and that can live in the game no matter what level the players are," I completely agree... but that's how it
always was, at least in 3.X/Pathfinder. Wooden doors didn't suddenly become harder to break down when characters levelled. It makes me wonder what kind of whacky games people were playing; nothing that I ever read in any 3.X/Pathfinder rulebook suggested you should arbitrarily change the DCs of tasks as players levelled.
Quote from: Steerpike
Quote from: Elemental ElfThe mechanical questions are the easiest to answer, especially if we assume we are going for a bounded accuracy type system where DC are the same for every character, rather than a scaling list of DC ala 4E and 3.5.
This isn't really how I saw skill DCs as functioning, in 3.5 at least. It's not that the DCs scaled, it's that tough things were always tough to do and easy things were always easy. Picking a crude lock is easy and picking a master lock is hard; there was no rule that high level characters had to encounter only high level locks, or that low level characters can only encounter low level ones. The DCs were always the same for every character. It's just that there was a wide range of challenges characters could take on, and only the very skillful could tackle the toughest challenges. When Mearls says, for example, that "we can say that breaking down an iron-banded wooden door is a DC 17 check, and that can live in the game no matter what level the players are," I completely agree... but that's how it always was, at least in 3.X/Pathfinder. Wooden doors didn't suddenly become harder to break down when characters levelled. It makes me wonder what kind of whacky games people were playing; nothing that I ever read in any 3.X/Pathfinder rulebook suggested you should arbitrarily change the DCs of tasks as players levelled.
Oops, yeah you're right. I should correct myself, the scaling was just for 4E. 3.PF had DC's high enough as to bar low level characters from accomplishing a given task.
The 4E system assumed that you would be delving into increasingly more complex and powerful dungeons, so their scaling DC made sense as "... Of course a Goblin-made door was less sturdy and less resilient than a Gnoll-made one, which is obviously made of inferior materials when compared to an Azer-made fireironrock door, which is incomparable to the double-reinforced Angelic Songtanium gate!"
Should mundane (i.e. non-magical) classes really exist in D&D?
Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Should mundane (i.e. non-magical) classes really exist in D&D?
Should magical classes be an option for PCs in D&D might be a better question, given that at least two of the game's major inspirations (Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings and the pulpish work of Robert E Howard and Fritz Leiber and company) place it firmly in the category of NPC/villain only.
In Lovecraft (another big source for D&D) magic-users are almost always baddies. There are a few magic-user protagonists in Vance, and even Cudgel learns the odd spell, but mostly they're mundanes. In Moorcock, though, there are quite a few magic-users, Elric being an obvious one.
Wizards-era D&D is far less interested in D&D's literary forebears, though. As I said in the other thread, I think 4th edition is emulating video games (specifically/especially World of Warcraft): forgiving health system, cooldowny-type powers, everyone gets their magic stat-boosting loot, cartoonish look, etc. Everyone and their dog has magic in that stuff.
I heard that maybe Vancian magic might sorta be back maybe kinda though? So maybe-just-maybe some of the old literary influences might trickle in...
Of course if we look back to D&D's literary roots, the fact that a Dungeon became the main play area is also a bit odd given how few Dungeons were really present in early fantasy literature.
So I think it is safe to assume D&D has moved beyond its own literary roots.
Plus, I think designers would really struggle to make more than a handful of classes if Magic was non present (Fighter, Rogue, magic-less Ranger, Warlord, Barbarian...?).
Regardless, what do you guys think the default magic level should be in the new edition of D&D?
Quote from: Steerpike
Wizards-era D&D is far less interested in D&D's literary forebears, though.Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Of course if we look back to D&D's literary roots, the fact that a Dungeon became the main play area is also a bit odd given how few Dungeons were really present in early fantasy literature.
So I think it is safe to assume D&D has moved beyond its own literary roots.
I agree entirely with both of these statements and think you're both absolutely right - I just wanted to make the point that it makes just as little sense to ask if all spellcasters should be removed as to ask if all non-magic users should.
Quote from: HippopotamusDundee
Quote from: Steerpike
Wizards-era D&D is far less interested in D&D's literary forebears, though.Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Of course if we look back to D&D's literary roots, the fact that a Dungeon became the main play area is also a bit odd given how few Dungeons were really present in early fantasy literature.
So I think it is safe to assume D&D has moved beyond its own literary roots.
I agree entirely with both of these statements and think you're both absolutely right - I just wanted to make the point that it makes just as little sense to ask if all spellcasters should be removed as to ask if all non-magic users should.
Very true, however, from a flavorful standpoint, it would make class design easier if mundane classes had some kind of de-facto magic (like Chi) to do cool things. It would also make game balance much, much simpler.
The opposite is true as well.
It's simply hard to make a completely mundane character feels as if he is on par with a character who can kill people with a single word of summon hordes of angels.
Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Quote from: HippopotamusDundee
Quote from: Steerpike
Wizards-era D&D is far less interested in D&D's literary forebears, though.Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Of course if we look back to D&D's literary roots, the fact that a Dungeon became the main play area is also a bit odd given how few Dungeons were really present in early fantasy literature.
So I think it is safe to assume D&D has moved beyond its own literary roots.
I agree entirely with both of these statements and think you're both absolutely right - I just wanted to make the point that it makes just as little sense to ask if all spellcasters should be removed as to ask if all non-magic users should.
It's simply hard to make a completely mundane character feels as if he is on par with a character who can kill people with a single word of summon hordes of angels.
I'd like to disclaim that I'm not entirely serious with the following suggestion, but what if spells took twice as long to cast (standard actions replace free actions, rounds replace standard actions, etc.) and could not be interrupted without serious risk once begun and furthermore what if regardless of how much or how little the hitpoint system scaled by level as a whole, spellcaster hitpoints scaled either dramatically slower or even
not at all.
One sort of balance could then be seen as achieved in that while yes, the wizard can summon a horde of angels, it takes him meaningful amounts of time to do it during which he is unable to defend himself and only a single opening for an attack is needed to kill him (50% or more of the time).
Just a random thought - would this achieve a better balance?
Quote from: Elemental ElfOf course if we look back to D&D's literary roots, the fact that a Dungeon became the main play area is also a bit odd given how few Dungeons were really present in early fantasy literature.
I disagree. A small handful of examples (the great majority of these are totally subterannean but a couple are highly dungeon-like above-ground structures):
Tolkien: The Troll-Hole. The Goblin Caves. The Wood Elf Dungeons. The dungeons of Dol Guldur. The Lonely Mountain. The barrows. The Mines of Moria. Cirith Ungol. The Paths of the Dead. Angband. Utumno. Nargothrond.
Leiber: the rat-infested underground city below Lankhmar. The subterannean kingdom of Quarmall. Sunken Simorgyan. Many weird towers and caves.
Lovecraft: the underground city of the Elder Things. The Underworld of the Dreamlands. The Ghoul-tunnels beneath Boston. R'lyeh. The underground city below Exham Priory. The tunnels of Red Hook. The subterannean vaults of the Yith. The castle of the Outsider. The Great Pyramid of Giza and the caverns below. The Martense burrow. Pretty muchy every other Lovecraft story involves a creepy basement, tomb, tunnel, or subterranean and/or sunken city.
Howard: the Halls of Horror. The Tower of the Elephant. The catacombs of Xuchotill. More ruined fortresses than one can count, frequently monster-infested.
Lewis: Underland and the Dark Castle, Bism, the Sunless Sea, etc. It has Gnomes/Svirfneblin and Salamanders and a creepy sleeping giant, plus an evil shape-shifting sorceress.
I can't be bothered to look them up but Ashton-Smith's work is replete with tombs, necropolises, forbidden cities, catacombs, and Martian caverns.
Vance doens't have too many dungeons, although there are some weird abandoned museums and palaces and such in The Dying Earth, and a lot of crazy wizards' mansions.
Also the entire Hollow Earth subgenre, i.e. Pelludicar, The Coming Race, Journey to the Center of the Earth, etc.
If you count Lewis Carroll, all of Wonderland takes place underground. Indeed, the original title to the thing (the hand-made version Dodgson gave to Alice Liddell as a Christmas present) was
Alice's Adventures Under Ground.
Quote from: HippopotamusDundeeJust a random thought - would this achieve a better balance?
Not really. It would make the spellcasters more dependent on having protection from the mundane classes... but I don't think it's a good solution to even more deeply entrench the Fighter's role of "meatshield for the Wizard." That's not to say that protection isn't a useful and valuable niche for the party, but the thing about being the tank is that it's passive-- you're just the guy the monsters beat up on so they don't beat up on the fragile party members that are actually doing things.
You, the tank, don't get to do much of anything. Out of combat, the lower HP and longer casting times of the Wizard don't matter at all, and that's where the Fighter really needs more flexibility and capability. I think part of the problem is that somehow "being good at doing things" sort of became a protected niche for the Rogue, where it should really just be something all mundane classes get to help to put them on par with the versatility of casters.
This is why I think high-level fighters should have strongholds and armies and such. This should be how it works at high levels:
Wizard: I have Limited Wish, Control Weather, TIme Stop, and Teleportation Circle prepped. I control space and frikkin time.
Cleric: I have True Resurrection, Mass Heal, Holy Word, and Implosion prepped. I control frikkin life and death.
Fighter: I can chop things in two with my sword. Also, these guys (gestures to the army of 1000 spearmen and archers behind him).
I see what you're getting at, but I think your comparison breaks down even in your own words. You're comparing the guys who control "space and time and life and death" with the guy who... has 1000 people who are good at killing things with mundane weapons. That's great if you need a lot of things stabbed in a hurry, but it really just entrenches the Fighter's one niche and doesn't give him that much additional utility.
I'll grant that it might help with knowledge-type stuff if he can ask his men if they know anything, and does give a measure of battlefield control... but it kind of strains verisimilitude that the Fighter's troupe could follow him into a cramped dungeon, though, while meanwhile the Wizard can cast legend lore or black tentacles wherever he needs to. I have no idea at all what the "1000 mundane badasses" are supposed to do, meanwhile, against an ethereal foe or with a wall of force or one of the numerous other problems that the Fighter cannot solve no matter how many of him there are.
I wouldn't say army-leading should be the fighter's only shtick, but I think it would help; and, really, is dungeon-delving that common an adventuring occupation at the very high levels? And, of course, in the cramped dungeon, the fighter could always bring along his trusty lieutenants/cohorts, his elite knights or whatnot. A lot of high-level adventures can involve things like large invading armies, huge monsters, planar incursions, and other "epic" stuff where armies could be involved. Giving the fighter the option of becoming a military leader and working out some proper mass combat mechanics would definitely give fighters a major niche, and there's plenty of precedent for this sort of thing being a significant part of D&D (not to mention tremendous precedent in fiction and history for fighter-types of repute leading armies).
I'm totally fine with giving more skills to the fighter, but I still see the rogue as being the "skills guy," at least when it comes to thieving stuff. Like, if the fighter can now be as stealthy as the rogue, pick locks as well as the rogue, find and disable traps as well as the rogue, and pick pockets as well as the rogue, there's just not that left that makes the rogue unique. Sneak attacks, I guess. Like, maybe the fighter's skillset should revolve around making weapons or tactics or riding horses or something, in the same way that the wizard's skillset revolves around arcane knowledge and spellcraft, or the ranger's around woodcraft and tracking.
EDIT: I'd also argue that having armies and a stronghold gives the fighter a lot of "utility." With his forces, the fighter can effectively accomplish several goals simultaneously. Soldiers can take objectives, perform scouting and reconaissance, set traps for enemies, raid enemy villages, go on sneak attacks, etc - a whole host of interesting military manuevers beyond just fighting pitched battles. A stronghold would not only form a great headquarters for the party, it could be a superb plot generator - refugees could seek succour there, the fighter might be called upon to arbitrate disputes, you could have murder mysteries, problems with supplies, sieges, hidden tunnels, all sorts of fun. While the spellcasters produce their crazy effects the fighter's player would be making rolls for military engagements, leadership, thinking up inspiring speeches, leading troops on the field, conducting diplomacy, deciding what to do with enemy hostages - all manner of stuff.
Quote from: Steerpikeis dungeon-delving that common an adventuring occupation at the very high levels?
Ok, well, delving into wherever they're going. Actually, the Fighter can't cast
overland flight or
plane shift or whatever to get to the "high level adventure location," either, so that's something else he can't do.
Quote from: SteerpikeGiving the fighter the option of becoming a military leader and working out some proper mass combat mechanics would definitely give fighters a major niche
Eh. When it comes right down to it, the ability is "commanding 1000 guys," or whatever. How is that even a class feature? Higher level characters are practically rolling in money, so why can't any of them just
hire these guys?
And if the answer is "he's better at commanding them" then you have to explain how the Fighter is better at "making people like him and want to follow him" than some random Sorcerer-- who, in addition to all the stuff that arcane spellcasting can do that the Fighter just can't-- probably has a Charisma in the 20's by now. Because, you know, that's what Charisma actually is
for, even before it was the stat that Sorcerers used for casting.
Quote from: SteerpikeI still see the rogue as being the "skills guy," at least when it comes to thieving stuff.
I agree with you about the "thieving stuff" skills, but the problem is that the Rogue is regarded as "the guy who gets to have skills" which puts a big cramp on the Fighter (and every other mundane class's) noncombat effectiveness. Like, I don't see it infringing on the Rogue's niche at all to give the Fighter more skill points in general and maybe let him get good at Perception, UMD, and other useful skills. Maybe some way to make class skills like Intimidate more useful by letting him tie them to Str instead of random stats he probably dumped, too.
Edit to reply to your edit:
Quote from: SteerpikeA stronghold would not only form a great headquarters for the party, it could be a superb plot generator - refugees could seek succour there, the fighter might be called upon to arbitrate disputes, you could have murder mysteries, problems with supplies, sieges, hidden tunnels, all sorts of fun.
While this is true, having a stronghold seems to be a function of "having means" rater than "being a fighter." Like I said above, at the higher levels, everyone has money, so there has to be some reason why the Fighter would be uniquely qualified to receive this place.
For that matter, the high level Wizard (or Witch, or whatever) can cast
create demiplane. How is that not an even more awesome headquarters for the party?
Quote from: sparkletwistActually, the Fighter can't cast overland flight or plane shift or whatever to get to the "high level adventure location," either, so that's something else he can't do.
Well, yeah, although Plane Shift brings like 8 people with you. Gate stays open for quite awhile too.
Quote from: sparkletwistEh. When it comes right down to it, the ability is "commanding 1000 guys," or whatever. How is that even a class feature? Higher level characters are practically rolling in money, so why can't any of them just hire these guys?
And if the answer is "he's better at commanding them" then you have to explain how the Fighter is better at "making people like him and want to follow him" than some random Sorcerer-- who, in addition to all the stuff that arcane spellcasting can do that the Fighter just can't-- probably has a Charisma in the 20's by now. Because, you know, that's what Charisma actually is for, even before it was the stat that Sorcerers used for casting.
There're two solutions here. One is that, well, fighters need Charisma now, instead of just Strength and Con; hardly revolutionary, as many classes (Rangers, Paladins, Bards, even the Rogue) have several stats they need. The other would be that a fighter's feats of arms provide leadership bonuses of some kind. The next would be a tactics and army-building skill-set and a set of class abilities that other classes wouldn't have access to, or wouldn't be given as many advantages in. So, yes, anyone can go hire some mercenaries, but the fighter inspires them, commands them well, would give them bonuses when accomplishing certain tasks, etc. There would be a Tactics skill of some kind that the fighter makes to aid his troops - mechanics like that. Plus you could give leadership/command feats as bonus feat options.
Quote from: sparkletwistLike, I don't see it infringing on the Rogue's niche at all to give the Fighter more skill points in general and maybe let him get good at Perception, UMD, and other useful skills. Maybe some way to make class skills like Intimidate more useful by letting him tie them to Str instead of random stats he probably dumped, too.
I'd be fine with boosting the fighter's skill points up to 4+Int or something, for example. Sure, why not.
Quote from: sparkletwistWhile this is true, having a stronghold seems to be a function of "having means" rater than "being a fighter." Like I said above, at the higher levels, everyone has money, so there has to be some reason why the Fighter would be uniquely qualified to receive this place.
Sure anyone could buy it, but the fighter might be especially capable of operating and maintaining it, using it to train martial troops, knowledgeable of how to defend it in a siege, etc. A castle's not just a big house, after all, it's a militrary installation. The fighter is essentially a military kind of character in the way that the wizard is essentially a scholarly kind of character, the cleric is essentially ecclasiastical, the rogue is essentially criminal, etc, so to me it makes sense that a high-level fighter would do things high-up military people and warriors of renown tend to do, i.e. lead armies and rule castles. It just seems like a nice alternative to saying "OK FIGHTERS ARE MAGIC NOW," which rubs me the wrong way. D&D is not Exalted.
Quote from: sparkletwistFor that matter, the high level Wizard (or Witch, or whatever) can cast create demiplane. How is that not an even more awesome headquarters for the party?
Well, that's true, at super high levels that's totally a possibility. Although it might be less useful for other reasons, like as a strategic bastion that controls an area of territory, for example.
EDIT: This style of high-level play could easily be extrapolated to the other classes to a certain degree - for example a high-level Rogue might be given abilities that help with the running of a thieves' guild, the high-level Cleric might be given abilities that help with the running of a temple or cathedral, the mage an academy of magic, the paladin an order of holy knights, etc. Or not, I don't know. It would certainly impart a different feel to high level play than the sort of gonzo/superhero quality that it is usually associated with.
Quote from: SteerpikeWell, yeah, although Plane Shift brings like 8 people with you. Gate stays open for quite awhile too.
That lets the Fighter be brought along, but it doesn't actually let the Fighter independently solve any new problems.
Quote from: SteerpikeOne is that, well, fighters need Charisma now
No, taking a class that already has severe problems and adding MAD to it is hardly a solution.
Quote from: SteerpikeThe other would be that a fighter's feats of arms provide leadership bonuses of some kind. The next would be a tactics and army-building skill-set and a set of class abilities that other classes wouldn't have access to, or wouldn't be given as many advantages in. So, yes, anyone can go hire some mercenaries, but the fighter inspires them, commands them well, would give them bonuses when accomplishing certain tasks, etc.
All that really does is make the mundane guys the Fighter can hire better than the mundane guys that any other class can hire. It still does nothing to address the issue that "1000 mundane guys good at stabbing people" simply can't handle a lot of high level threats, while meanwhile spellcasters have all kinds of means at their disposal beyond just "hiring some guys." I mean, for one thing, Wizards have all the
summon monster and
planar binding and whatever spells, so they could just conjure up a creature to do whatever they needed done without having to bother hiring anyone anyway.
Quote from: SteerpikeThe fighter is essentially a military kind of character in the way that the wizard is essentially a scholarly kind of character, the cleric is essentially ecclasiatical, the rogue is essentially criminal, etc, so to me it makes sense that a high-level fighter would do things high-up military people and warriors of renown tend to do, i.e. lead armies and rule castles.
You're right, and this is essentially more a problem with the D&D system and setting conceits. It is kind of handwaved in the major settings, I think (with Eberron being a possible major exception) but the fact is that D&D magic is so gonzo that D&D-style social organization often couldn't really exist.
Quote from: sparkletwistYou're right, and this is essentially more a problem with the D&D system and setting conceits. It is kind of handwaved in the major settings, I think (with Eberron being a possible major exception) but the fact is that D&D magic is so gonzo that D&D-style social organization often couldn't really exist.
Perhaps this is a good argument for reigning in gonzo magic, at least just a bit. Personally I either go for a super-gonzo setting (Planescape) or I tend to rule that high-level casters are
extraordinarily rare.
Quote from: sparkletwistIt still does nothing to address the issue that "1000 mundane guys good at stabbing people" simply can't handle a lot of high level threats, while meanwhile spellcasters have all kinds of means at their disposal beyond just "hiring some guys." I mean, for one thing, Wizards have all the summon monster and planar binding and whatever spells, so they could just conjure up a creature to do whatever they needed done without having to bother hiring anyone anyway.
Can a high-level demon or elemental (or whatever) fight entire armies (well, some of them maybe, but not most...)? Can it hold a garrison, manning all of the battlements at once? Can it occupy a large territory for an extended period? Can it patrol borders? Can it gather information from the locals without freaking them out so badly they run in terror? Can it protect a village from a mass attack? It might be able to help do some of these things, but there are lots of things that happen in epic fantasy that require manpower, or that large numbers of trained troops are the best solution for. Gandalf is great when you run into a Balrog but at Helm's Deep you need Theoden and his men, or Eomer and his Rohirrim, to keep the people of Rohan safe against 10000 Uruk-Hai. Gandalf might be useful against the Nazgul but you need Faramir and his scouts to keep the borders of Gondor secure from the constant depredations of Mordor.
Quote from: sparkletwistNo, taking a class that already has severe problems and adding MAD to it is hardly a solution.
Maybe not, but I'm sure there are other ways of handling it, and I don't see why some degree of multiple attribute dependency is really that big of a problem, especially if you modify character generation procedure in light of it.
EDIT: I merely raise the stronghold/army angle as one possibility. I certainly don't think it's the only way to make a high-level fighter interesting. I'm also enjoying how this thread is sort of becoming a general brainstorm for tweaking/improving D&D :P.
Quote from: SteerpikePerhaps this is a good argument for reigning in gonzo magic, at least just a bit.
I agree. When spellcasters can do "basically everything" it becomes rather difficult to carve out a niche for everyone else. That said, I still do contend that Fighters do need a power-up that takes them beyond the realm of the merely mundane when they reach high level-- something on the order of ancient myths, wuxia, or whatever, that lets them do super-powered things, just flavored appropriately to let them still feel "martial."
Quote from: SteerpikeCan a high-level demon or elemental (or whatever) fight entire armies (well, some of them maybe, but not most...)? Can it hold a garrison, manning all of the battlements at once?
Well, since you asked, I think there are a fairly large number of abilities that D&D monsters can gain at even middle CRs that just crush mundanes, no matter how many of them there are. For example, a purely mundane force is absolutely powerless against anything incorporeal or with "DR over9000/magic." They are also severely limited against anything with flying and invisibility or a lot of overlapping resistances to the kinds of damage they're likely to be dealing; if we're playing them realistically at all, they will probably be utterly demoralized long before they're able to do any real damage.
However, that's not even really the point. The point is that when facing a "high level threat," the Wizard has the following options:
A) Deal with it directly by dealing damage to it. (i.e., blasting)
B) Cast a save-or-whatever spell to circumvent the problem.
C) Summon a creature with unique special abilities that can deal with the issue.
D) Cast a powerful and rather generic problem-solving spell like
wish.
E) Hire some guys to deal with it.
The Fighter basically has A and E on that list, without all the other stuff. His problem solving ability at high levels becomes basically a strict subset of the Wizard's. And that's no fun.
Quote from: Steerpiketo keep the people of Rohan safe against 10000 Uruk-Hai.
But it was Saruman (i.e., a high level Wizard) that made those Uruk-Hai in the first place. :grin:
Quote from: SteerpikeI don't see why some degree of multiple attribute dependency is really that big of a problem, especially if you modify character generation procedure in light of it.
I'd say MAD is a fairly big problem if we assume "standard D&D character creation." If we're not, of course, that objection goes out the window, but that's a pretty big change to make!
QuoteBounded accuracy doesn't actually do anything useful. If your attack bonuses don't really grow and enemy's defenses don't really grow either, it's essentially the exact same situation as 4e where everything improves in lock-step, only instead of them all getting a +5 to match my +5 nobody has gained much of anything. You don't feel any real sense of improvement.
I agree that the progression becomes false and non-empowering. It is my understanding that one of the goals of Next is to focus attention on on aspects of levelling up that are different (say class features or spell lists) than the +1 ad naseum that has plagued traditional rp-gaming for some years.
QuoteI understand the idea of wanting to make monsters relevant longer, but I think there's a certain point when a regular old orc just isn't a threat any more. It helps to solidify a sense of growth, like, you've made it to the "Paragon Tier" or whatever they're going to call it.
This, totally, this.
QuoteAnyway, if nothing really improves, the only way you can actually fight more guys is by increasing HP ridiculous amounts... or by using a ton of equipment to boost your attacks and defenses, since you won't be getting much of anything from your levels. And then we're back to Christmas tree land.
There are more ways than simply HP++++. Modifying the area of attacks, for instance, which might come from a class feature rather than an item.
QuoteHaving actually run adventures with Next, I will freely admit it is a much deadlier system than 3.5 and especially 4E.
Totally agree
QuoteThe difference is that there will never be a situation where one character can stand against a hode of Orcs and only worry about lose a handful of HP when one or two of them crits.
Lame. One of my least favorite aspects of the game. I beleive it results from the ideolopgical struggle between old-school Gygaxian dungeon fantasy and new-school Sandersonian high fantasy playing out in mechanics. I do think that one dude at 20th level (or even maybe 12th) should be able to stand against a horde of orcs with no fear. It's a preference thing for me and I hope it isn't hard coded into the end rules one way or the other.
QuoteThat's why I still like the idea of representing the horde as a single abstract unit that gets bonuses and such. You're right it's sort of a hack, but it seems preferable to (and more mathematically sound than) the weird thing they're actually doing, where they expect you to fight a horde anyway and nobody's sure if the math even works out right to let you do that.
Word. 13th Age or Spycraft style.
QuoteI know, idiotic way to design a system. Believe me, I see that. They should have gotten the numbers down pat before building everything else.
Fools!
Jaerc, I edited your post to use quote tags instead of... whatever it it was you were doing. :grin:
Why can't my Level 20 Fighter be as bad ass as Beowulf?
I don't really understand why people insist on making a Fighter "Mister Realistic Average Joe Soldier" when he's surrounded by wizards who can blast away continents, clerics who can heal whole armies and Druids who can shapeshift into Hydras.
Why does the Fighter have to be realistic? Why can't he be just as bad ass as the other classes?
I don't mean in the same vein (i.e. magical) but give him his own brand of awesome that fits the class' motif.
I want to be Leonidas and Gilgamesh, not a meatshield or mere hanger-on for the really cool characters.
It depends on the game's core conceit: do we want the game's classic archetypes to A) remain interdependent throughout their advancement, B) begin interdependent but develop diverse and liberating competencies as they advance, or C) be consistently complementary but self-sufficient?
In 3E, Fighters were A while Wizards were B. This is a legitimate structuring, but it leads to an unhappy situation where a Fighter and a Wizard, both maximising their class abilities, are playing two completely different high-level games. This is problematic for the game itself but more importantly for the players at the table who are now by necessity making unequal contributions.
The problem is not that they are A, B or C specifically, but that they are different. Dungeons and Dragons in A is like a high fantasy heist series: everyone's a specialist and they seek out other specialists to round out their collective skillset before they venture underground and steal all your shit. B begins similarly, but by mid-game everyone gets their own spin-off. Importantly, both are very sensitive to class selection: it all falls apart without carefully crafted synergy.
In C everybody can accomplish pretty much anything they need to to complete an adventure (meaning on the one hand that some familiar challenges simply aren't ubiquitous, like locked doors; or that everybody knows how to pick locks). They simply face less intense opposition than they would in a party. Here, it's perfectly legit to have four-of-a-kind fighters or monks-full-of-bards.
Alas, I discovered pretty early on that since there were no rules for running up a dragon's spine in mid-flight and stabbing it through the brain, Dungeons and Dragons' core design ethos was totally flawed. It promises one style but delivers another. I want my fighting dude to go mano a mano with a pit fiend while meteors are slamming down all around and turning the world to lava.
Quote from: EEI want to be Leonidas and Gilgamesh, not a meatshield or mere hanger-on for the really cool characters
Gilgamesh, maybe. Beowulf and Leonidas are utter scrubs by comparison.
Quote from: Steerpike
*long list of examples*
Ah but many of those are just side-venture locations that spice up the monotony of overland travel, endemic war and politicking. D&D, especially in the early days, was all about the Dungeon as the main area for adventure with everything else serving as a backdrop to those adventures. It's backwards when compared to the literature that inspired D&D (and in many ways, backwards to the way stories are written even today). I wasn't saying there were no dungeons in literature but the idea of the "Dungeon Crawl" as the means by which the protagonists experience the majority of the world while "on camera" is definitely not inspired by the fantasy literature of the day.
I recall reading not so long ago a statement by someone at the RPG.net forums essentially saying that the conceptual-level problem with D&D Fighter class is that it's niche is to be "the combat guy" in a game where every class is expected to be able to shine in combat, in one way or another.
The only way this concept could work is if Fighters were substantially superior in combat compared to every other class throughout all levels. Which is simply not the case now even at lower levels. Not to mention that with D&D being as heavily focused on combat as it is, it's practically a requirement that all classes are at least somewhat balanced for it.
the issue is balancing the game on the combat plane. as long as threy do that, there will be these issues
Quote from: Ghostman
I recall reading not so long ago a statement by someone at the RPG.net forums essentially saying that the conceptual-level problem with D&D Fighter class is that it's niche is to be "the combat guy" in a game where every class is expected to be able to shine in combat, in one way or another.
The only way this concept could work is if Fighters were substantially superior in combat compared to every other class throughout all levels. Which is simply not the case now even at lower levels. Not to mention that with D&D being as heavily focused on combat as it is, it's practically a requirement that all classes are at least somewhat balanced for it.
Having a fighter be substantially better at fighting would make sense, logically, but it would be unsatisfying for play groups that want everyone to be participating on the same the level both in and out of combat (another big problem with the 3.X fighter to me was how little he or she could do out of combat).
Maybe one solution is to make things like paladin a subclass of fighter, so the players chooses varying specialties, and no vanilla fighter remains at high level.
Or eliminate the Fighter...
Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Or eliminate the Fighter...
While I can't say I ever liked the name, per se, fantasy stories are replete with warriors, many of which do not fit the D&D conception of paladins or rangers. So were the fighter eliminated, there would still need to be something else in its place.
The Warblade (from 3.x).
Fighter, with its reliance on mundane combat, just doesn't have a "high level" mode. If Fighter was a 5 level class and after that you had to multiclass or PrC into something else, it might actually work; it would work even better if it had more synergy with the Bo9S classes that you might want to take to continue your "martial badassery" build.
Quote from: Elemental ElfI don't mean in the same vein (i.e. magical) but give him his own brand of awesome that fits the class' motif.
For the record, I'm totally cool with the fighter-as-Beowulf thing. If that's what you meant by making the fighter "magical" I'm totally for it :grin:
Quote from: Elemental ElfAh but many of those are just side-venture locations that spice up the monotony of overland travel, endemic war and politicking. D&D, especially in the early days, was all about the Dungeon as the main area for adventure with everything else serving as a backdrop to those adventures. It's backwards when compared to the literature that inspired D&D (and in many ways, backwards to the way stories are written even today). I wasn't saying there were no dungeons in literature but the idea of the "Dungeon Crawl" as the means by which the protagonists experience the majority of the world while "on camera" is definitely not inspired by the fantasy literature of the day.
Fair enough - I was just pointing out that dungeons and dungeon-like environments were very prominent in early fantasy. Yes, of course, D&D ramps it up, partly because it's a game rather than fiction.
I will contend that a surprising number of esarly fantasy works really
are dungeon crawls, though.
The Hobbit really is a dungeon crawl, and almost every important scene takes place in a dungeon - the only major encounters that don't are at Bag End, Rivendell, and Beorn's House (I guess maybe the Mirkwood spiders too... I'm counting the Battle of Five Armies since it takes place on/in the Lonely Mountain, which is really the center of the whole thing). The most important scenes (Bilbo finding the Ring; everything around Smaug) take place in or around dungeons. In
Lord of the Rings the climax of the first book takes place in Moria and the climax of the second in Cirith Ungol. Lots of the
Silmarillion's tales are dungeon crawls too, especially the balls-out awesome tale of Beren and Lúthien as they literally descend into a dark lord's dungeon (Angband) to steal his treasure (a Silmaril) fighting werewolves as they go.
At the Mountains of Madness is just a big, creepy dungeon crawl, as is a big part of
The Silver Chair, and many Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser and Conan stories are all about expeditions to forbidden cities or ruins. There are plenty of fantasy works that don't have dungeons, but the subterannean environment is very prominent. Arguably this is some kind of archetypal myth, trackable back to Inanna's descent into the underworld (cast in a certain light, Sumerians invented the dungeon crawl). Beowulf has Grendel's mother's cave, Orpheus descends into the Greek Underworld, Alice falls down the rabbit hole.
I will grant that dungeons play a more central role in D&D than they do in fantasy literature as a whole, I just think that early dungeons are also pretty clearly inspired by fantasy literature.
Quote from: sparkletwistIf Fighter was a 5 level class and after that you had to multiclass or PrC into something else, it might actually work; it would work even better if it had more synergy with the Bo9S classes that you might want to take to continue your "martial badassery" build.
That's a really interesting idea, and in practice I've found this is often how it works anyway, even without a formal 5th level cap. The concept of a 5-10 level "starter-class" - sort of the opposite of a prestige class - is quite cool.
Quote from: Matt Larkin (author)
Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Or eliminate the Fighter...
While I can't say I ever liked the name, per se, fantasy stories are replete with warriors, many of which do not fit the D&D conception of paladins or rangers. So were the fighter eliminated, there would still need to be something else in its place.
I think this is an interesting point, because at first gloss I nodded because it is just an obvious and common-sensical statement of fact. But then I stopped and actually tried to think of an example and found it rather difficult to do so.
Most of Robert E. Howard's characters are more Barbarian (Bran Mak Mourn, Kull of Atlantis) or Rogue (Conan) or even Paladin (Solomon Kane, sort of), Fafhrd and Gray Mouser both have aspects of Barbarian/Ranger and Rogue respectively, Elric has obvious spellcasting aspects - even in Lord of the Rings Boromir is about the only straight-up fighter in the entire book.
I dunno - maybe the answer here is to say that you can't just be 'the guy who's good at combat' but that you have to chose an archetype of 'guy who's good at combat + other things'. Fighter becomes a descriptor more like 'Spellcaster' or 'Magic-user' and Steerpike's Warlord/Commander coexists alongside the Barbarian and non-magic Ranger and Paladin.
Conan is an interesting example. In most stories he is unmatched in physical combat while also being an accomplished thief. He's stealthy, with a keen tactical mind and depths of fulminating barbarian brutality. I wouldn't say he's more Rogue than Fighter: in fact, Howard stresses his battle prowess as much as if not more than his stealthiness. If anything, Conan is a perfect example of Antiheroic self-sufficiency. He can kill, threaten and sneak his way out of trouble.
Which makes sense. The ambush is the oldest trick in the book. Only the victim wants a fair fight. If you can cow your enemy into submission, all the better. But Fighters don't even get Sneak. Even if they did, they can't afford Survive, Endurance, Heal, Intimidate and Notice as well. Those are all tactical essentials if you want to be a successful murder hobo.
Again, characters like Conan are't "muticlassed". They simply display the kinds of competencies you'd expect of people who reliably mete out and survive violence. D&D emulates this poorly.
Quote from: Theopteryx
Conan is an interesting example. In most stories he is unmatched in physical combat while also being an accomplished thief. He's stealthy, with a keen tactical mind and depths of fulminating barbarian brutality. I wouldn't say he's more Rogue than Fighter: in fact, Howard stresses his battle prowess as much as if not more than his stealthiness. If anything, Conan is a perfect example of Antiheroic self-sufficiency. He can kill, threaten and sneak his way out of trouble.
I wouldn't say he was more Rogue (or Barbarian, for that matter) than Fighter either, I just think he is a perfect example of the fact that there are very few examples of straight D&D Fighters in the literature in question and that losing the Fighter and working on doing more with Barbarians, Rogues, Rangers, Warlords, etc. might well emulate that self-sufficiency and skill-base better.
Quote from: Theopteryx
Again, characters like Conan are't "muticlassed". They simply display the kinds of competencies you'd expect of people who reliably mete out and survive violence. D&D emulates this poorly.
I think you're absolutely right and that your point is well-made - I'm not suggesting that multi-classing is the answer, rather that the Fighter as a class is not only broken but doesn't represent the literature particularly well and could perhaps be replaced with various archetypal classes representing the flavors of murder-hobos and more realistic warrior-types.
Hence why I said one solution might be folding different archetypes back into the fighter (or warrior would be a better name), with various subclasses--ranger, paladin, barbarian, marshall, warlord, whatever. Paladins, rangers, and barbarians (in D&D) all carry with them some inherent fluff and abilities those wishing to emulate certain fantasy and mythological heroes may not wish to emulate.
We have to consider a player who wants to play someone like Achilles, but may not wish to be burdened with the fluff that seems to come with the Barbarian. Boromir was another example, like Hippo mentioned. Lan in Wheel of Time--you could argue he's a ranger, right up until it comes to casting spells and having animal companions. If we look at Arthurian characters, some could be paladins, but others don't fit that bill as well. In a Song of Ice and Fire there are a number of fine warriors, most of which have no semblance of magic or supernatural fluff.
Now it could be argued D&D, being so infused with wizard-power, is simply not a setting to support some of these archetypes... But if the signature fantasy RPG is incapable of supporting classic examples of warriors from fantasy and mythology, that's a problem for me. The fighter/fighting man has always been a part of D&D, and for a reason.
Admittedly, the system I've been designing is classless anyway, but that wouldn't work in D&D.
Quote from: Theopteryx
Conan is an interesting example. In most stories he is unmatched in physical combat while also being an accomplished thief. He's stealthy, with a keen tactical mind and depths of fulminating barbarian brutality. I wouldn't say he's more Rogue than Fighter: in fact, Howard stresses his battle prowess as much as if not more than his stealthiness. If anything, Conan is a perfect example of Antiheroic self-sufficiency. He can kill, threaten and sneak his way out of trouble.
Which makes sense. The ambush is the oldest trick in the book. Only the victim wants a fair fight. If you can cow your enemy into submission, all the better. But Fighters don't even get Sneak. Even if they did, they can't afford Survive, Endurance, Heal, Intimidate and Notice as well. Those are all tactical essentials if you want to be a successful murder hobo.
Again, characters like Conan are't "muticlassed". They simply display the kinds of competencies you'd expect of people who reliably mete out and survive violence. D&D emulates this poorly.
This was one of the reasons I went skill based. One of them.
It's always been a good game to play archetypes, but a lousy game to have cross-competency.
A new play test packet has been released!
Lots and lots of changes. The classes are all much more developed in this packet and the style/formatting is looking more and more real, as it were.
The Fighter is very cool now. Not only does he start off with a highest (for lack of a better term) BAB (+2, where as everyone else is max +1) but he gets cool abilities like Second Wing (once per day he can gain back 1/2 his HP) and Action Surge (once per day get an extra action). He also gets iterative attacks (up to three at level 11). I was impressed with the idea of the Fighter attacking 4 times in a round (3 Attacks + Action Surge) until someone pointed out that the wording for Action Surge gives the Fighter an extra action - and his three attacks are considered "an action", so that means the Fighter could attack 6 times in a single round! Unlike 3.5, the iterative attacks are not hit with negatives, they are made at your full BAB. Amazing!
Every class is coming with Paths (though some call it by different names) that essentially are little packets of fluff-tied-with-crunch that help individualize your character and give him a place in the world. Each path comes with a few unique abilities that tie into the fluff. For example the Fighter's paths are Gladiator (think Spartacus (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCLyLBrugD0)style combat), the Knight (think Knight in 3.5 (complete with bonuses on CHA checks) and Warrior (the most generic, gaining bonuses to crits and awareness checks). The cool thing about these Paths is that, it seems to me, it would be fairly easy for WotC to release new Paths, thus eliminating the burning need to release a ton of new classes (like in 3.5 how we wound up with the Fighter, the Knight and 2 Samurai, all of whom are just Fighters with a bit of fluff and mechanical specialization).
We all know how important Knowledge checks can be. Well, in this playtest packet, every single character specializes in 2 areas of knowledge from the following list:
Cultural
Forbidden
Hobbyist
Magical
Military
Natural
Planar
Political
Religious
Subterranean
Trade
Your specialization allows you to take a minimum 10 (even if you roll below a 10) on any Intellect check made in your area of expertise. I think this is a great way of giving every character a chance to feel as if they can be apart of the spot light, even if they aren't particularly smart.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, the Wizard has been renamed the Mage.
Very interesting changes. Guess I'll have to check out the full packet.
I like the areas of knowledge
Quote from: Elemental ElfEvery class is coming with Paths (though some call it by different names) that essentially are little packets of fluff-tied-with-crunch that help individualize your character and give him a place in the world. Each path comes with a few unique abilities that tie into the fluff. For example the Fighter's paths are Gladiator (think Spartacus style combat), the Knight (think Knight in 3.5 (complete with bonuses on CHA checks) and Warrior (the most generic, gaining bonuses to crits and awareness checks). The cool thing about these Paths is that, it seems to me, it would be fairly easy for WotC to release new Paths, thus eliminating the burning need to release a ton of new classes (like in 3.5 how we wound up with the Fighter, the Knight and 2 Samurai, all of whom are just Fighters with a bit of fluff and mechanical specialization).
These sound an awful lot like Pathfinder's Archetypes (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/classArchetypes.html). Not that there's anything wrong with that (I like Archetypes fine and I think they're great, in a class-system, at further distinguishing individual characters), although along with the ideals, flaws, and inspiration stuff which, as sparkletwist points out, seem very similar to Fate's Aspects, Compels, and Fate Points, it makes me feel a bit like the developers are lifting ideas from their competition - which given Wizards' hyper-guarded exclusivity towards its own mechanics these days seems a bit hypocritical.
For me, it makes me wonder what Next could really offer me that Pathfinder can't. Given how enormous a disappointment 4th edition was for me, Wizards has a
lot of ground to make up to win me back. Offering up a different version of Pathfinder's own mechanics isn't really a step in the right direction. I think, frankly, that
any new edition really needs to justify its own existence pretty fundamentally, otherwise it just feels like people are releasing a new edition to try and make everyone buy new player's handbooks and monster manuals and whatnot.
Quote from: Elemental Elf
For example the Fighter's paths are Gladiator (think Spartacus style combat), the Knight (think Knight in 3.5 (complete with bonuses on CHA checks) and Warrior (the most generic, gaining bonuses to crits and awareness checks).
I think the Gladiator mechanics for Combat Superiority and manoeuvres are so fundamentally solid and flexible that they should just be a core feature of the Fighter class - you describe a manoeuvre to the GM in fiction terms, they choose which Ability score it's targeting and pick an appropriate consequence (gain advantage, knock prone, reduce speed) from a set list.
For the first time in my D&D experience I am actually potentially excited by the thought of playing a Fighter, and that is saying something.
To be fair, WotC used the idea originally with Kits in 2E and Class Variants in the Unearthed Arcana and Player's Handbook 2 (and in an odd sense, the idea of sub-classes in AD&D 1st edition). IIRC, there were some other third party books from the 3.x era that had mechanics like Archetypes as well though I am totally flubbing on which ones (read way too many 3rd party 3.x books over the years).
5E Paths are baked right into the class, they are not an optional rule (in the way Archetypes are). It's not exactly a new mechanic or concept, just one that wasn't overly pushed in 3.x (which favored whole new classes over expanding existing ones (hence why we have 2 samurai, a Fighter and a Knight, all of which are - ostensibly - just builds of the same core class).
"Hyper-guarded exclusivity towards its own mechanics..."
Wait, what? Sure 4E wasn't added to the OGL but it did have a separate license that allowed 3rd party companies to make 4E compatible content (I actually own a few of the books). It's not like WotC went from the OGL to a completely closed system, it just shifted from an unregulated to an over-regulated mess.
I'm not sure what 5E will offer anyone because I don't know what the end product will be. It's really no different than me holding the Pathfinder's Alpha document and thinking, "Do I really need this in my life?"
From the looks of it, 5E will be a rules light system base (compared to 3.PF and 4E) and possess a solid ability for customization. The core classes will not be balanced in the same way 4E was but the gulf between the haves and the have-nots will definitely be much narrower than in 3.PF. The system will not rely on Magic Items the way 3.PF and 4E had (to the point where the Designers are saying you don't strictly need magic items to have a successful high level character). Minis and Boards are not a required element of the game. The game will focus much more heavily on Role Playing, as seen through flavorful in-class paths and Backgrounds (i.e. Themes from 4E).
To be honest however, WotC is kind of damned here because any great ideas they have will just be lifted out of Next and slapped into Pathfinder, so, really, until that game becomes as bloated or 3.x did and/or Pathfinder 2nd Edition is released, you probably won't have a reason to switch. And why should you? You're happy.
Having said that even if I wasn't into D&D 5E, as a fan of Campaign Settings, I would still buy any and all books WotC produced (which, apparently, will be a lot (Mearls is definitely hinting at a 2E AD&D era style focus on a plethora of amazing settings).
Quote from: HippopotamusDundee
Quote from: Elemental Elf
For example the Fighter's paths are Gladiator (think Spartacus style combat), the Knight (think Knight in 3.5 (complete with bonuses on CHA checks) and Warrior (the most generic, gaining bonuses to crits and awareness checks).
I think the Gladiator mechanics for Combat Superiority and manoeuvres are so fundamentally solid and flexible that they should just be a core feature of the Fighter class - you describe a manoeuvre to the GM in fiction terms, they choose which Ability score it's targeting and pick an appropriate consequence (gain advantage, knock prone, reduce speed) from a set list.
For the first time in my D&D experience I am actually potentially excited by the thought of playing a Fighter, and that is saying something.
Having talked with others online, I am in general agreement. WotC can make other cool mechanics for the Fighter but those Gladiator abilities are really sweet. I want that for every fighter.
Quote from: Elemental ElfWait, what? Sure 4E wasn't added to the OGL but it did have a separate license that allowed 3rd party companies to make 4E compatible content (I actually own a few of the books). It's not like WotC went from the OGL to a completely closed system, it just shifted from an unregulated to an over-regulated mess.
Well... this. You said it exactly: they went from unregulated (OGL) to very highly regulated (GSL). They literally went from having an open source system to an almost totally exclusive one. They went from encouraging creativity - spawning tons of adventures, supplementary books, and campaign settings - by letting other people utilize their rules-set to a completely closed rule-set in which they only give out select licenses, which come with a variety of provisos, strings, and prohibitions. There's a handful of 4E compatible third party books, but it's
nothing compared to the abundance of books that came ou for 3E from third parties. Some were terrible, but some were excellent. It was up to consumers, rather than Wizards, to decide which was which.
Quote from: Elemental ElfTo be honest however, WotC is kind of damned here because any great ideas they have will just be lifted out of Next and slapped into Pathfinder, so, really, until that game becomes as bloated or 3.x did and/or Pathfinder 2nd Edition is released, you probably won't have a reason to switch
I think this is very unlikely, unless said mechanics are fully compatible with 3.X/Pathfinder already, which also strikes me as very unlikely. Pathfinder's big shtick is compatability, and I'd wager that even if/when Pathfinder 2nd edition is released (at this point, there are only the very vaguest rumours) it'll be highly backwards-compatible. The developers at Paizo realize that people don't want to have to have hundreds of dollars of gaming products rendered obsolete every few years. Pathfinder didn't "lift" any ideas out of 4E (or perhaps it just didn't find any ideas worth taking?), so I find it fairly unlikely it'll start lifting mechanics from Next, especially if Next remains under the GSL, which seems probable.
Quote from: Elemental ElfMearls is definitely hinting at a 2E AD&D era style focus on a plethora of amazing settings
If this is true, this is really,
really good news! TSR produced some excellent settings in its twilight, and although the plethora of settings and campaign books probably didn't make sense from a business standpoint, some of TSR's campaign settings - Ravenloft and Planescape especially - are favorites of mine.
Quote from: Steerpike
Quote from: Elemental ElfWait, what? Sure 4E wasn't added to the OGL but it did have a separate license that allowed 3rd party companies to make 4E compatible content (I actually own a few of the books). It's not like WotC went from the OGL to a completely closed system, it just shifted from an unregulated to an over-regulated mess.
Well... this. You said it exactly: they went from unregulated (OGL) to very highly regulated (GSL). They literally went from having an open source system to an almost totally exclusive one. They went from encouraging creativity - spawning tons of adventures, supplementary books, and campaign settings - by letting other people utilize their rules-set to a completely closed rule-set in which they only give out select licenses, which come with a variety of provisos, strings, and prohibitions. There's a handful of 4E compatible third party books, but it's nothing compared to the abundance of books that came ou for 3E from third parties. Some were terrible, but some were excellent. It was up to consumers, rather than Wizards, to decide which was which.
The 4E license wasn't *that* restrictive when compared to the requirements for the d20 logo in 3.x. I think the market had largely realized the money wasn't in supporting WotC's game but in supporting their own systems and ideas, which we all know is the path to greater and more stable success (especially after the way WotC burned the 3rd party community by releasing 3.5).
Quote from: SteerpikeQuote from: Elemental ElfTo be honest however, WotC is kind of damned here because any great ideas they have will just be lifted out of Next and slapped into Pathfinder, so, really, until that game becomes as bloated or 3.x did and/or Pathfinder 2nd Edition is released, you probably won't have a reason to switch
I think this is very unlikely, unless said mechanics are fully compatible with 3.X/Pathfinder already, which also strikes me as very unlikely. Pathfinder's big shtick is compatability, and I'd wager that even if/when Pathfinder 2nd edition is released (at this point, there are only the very vaguest rumours) it'll be highly backwards-compatible. The developers at Paizo realize that people don't want to have to have hundreds of dollars of gaming products rendered obsolete every few years. Pathfinder didn't "lift" any ideas out of 4E (or perhaps it just didn't find any ideas worth taking?), so I find it fairly unlikely it'll start lifting mechanics from Next, especially if Next remains under the GSL, which seems probable.
Actually, a lot of Pathfinder was directly inspired by the Paizo guys taking the stated design principles of 4E and molding them into their version of D&D. This is why dead levels are relatively rare (compared to 3.x); casters have At Will spells; previously weak classes get cool stuff; skills being simplified, encounter crafting was made easier; races being more balanced (or rather, the really bad ones not sucking so hard); the shift away from daily to round based abilities (ala Bardic Music and Rage); the simplification of non-attack actions (like grapple, trip, etc.); etc.
I don't mean that Paizo will just uplift a sub-system whole hog, rather they will take the best sub-systems and Paizo-ify them for their game. :)
Part of me hates new editions (especially incremental editions (what WotC did with Star Wars was practically criminal) but there is no arguing the fact that the guys at Paizo have made the best selling RPG. I still find a lot of flaws in the system and those are tied to the fact that the system needs to be compatible with 3.5. I really think Paizo could design an amazing system if they could free themselves of the shackles of 3.5. I don't think it will happen soon but I do think it will be a larger change than the change from 3.5 to PF was (but they won't make the mistake of not including some kind of conversion guide (which, oddly enough, is a reason why a few of my friends refuse to play 4E (the lack of a conversion guide from 3.5 to 4E, that is)).
Quote from: SteerpikeQuote from: Elemental ElfMearls is definitely hinting at a 2E AD&D era style focus on a plethora of amazing settings
If this is true, this is really, really good news! TSR produced some excellent settings in its twilight, and although the plethora of settings and campaign books probably didn't make sense from a business standpoint, some of TSR's campaign settings - Ravenloft and Planescape especially - are favorites of mine.
I really want all of the settings updated, from Spelljammer, to FR, to Dragonlance, to Eberron, to Greyhawk, to Ravenloft, to Planescape, to Al-Qadim, to Kara-Tur, to everything else. I am going to buy every setting book just so I can delve into those worlds and allow my imagination to soar.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfThe 4E license wasn't *that* restrictive when compared to the requirements for the d20 logo in 3.x.
Maybe for the
logo or whatever, but the GSL was terribly restrictive compared to the OGL. In particular, it was restrictive enough that major 3rd party publishers from the 3rd Edition days found it egregious and did not jump on board. I mean, Pathfinder basically exists because Paizo couldn't stomach the GSL, for example. I can't really blame them, considering the amount of control over your product that the GSL gave WotC-- for example, you can't use words that the official 4e materials have defined one way to mean something else, and you can't do that even if your material used the word that way
first.
With the d20 stuff, if they revoked your "logo" rights or whatever, you could keep publishing anyway under the OGL. Under the GSL, they can just shut you down. A lot of companies didn't feel like taking that risk.
Quote from: Elemental ElfThe 4E license wasn't *that* restrictive when compared to the requirements for the d20 logo in 3.x. I think the market had largely realized the money wasn't in supporting WotC's game but in supporting their own systems and ideas, which we all know is the path to greater and more stable success (especially after the way WotC burned the 3rd party community by releasing 3.5).
Yeah, exactly what sparkletwist said. I'd disagree that 3.5 burned the third party community. 3.5 is almost totally backwards-compatible with any 3.0 product. A lot of 3.5's changes were in the specific wording of things; it didn't make sweeping changes. When I switched over to 3.5 I was totally able to keep using 3.0 sourcebooks and adventures. And 3.5 was published under the OGL as well, so third party publishers could easily switch over. The GSL is case-by-case: you have to pay Wizards and get a license for every book you make. You also have to basically drop publishing
anything for 3.5 or other stuff the OGL. This is what I meant by "hyper-guarded."
The reality is that the GSL is ludicrously restriuctive compared to the OGL. It smacks of corporate paranoia, greed, and the utmost contempt for players and publishers alike.
This old article (http://geek-related.com/2008/04/19/wizards-of-the-coast-declares-war-on-open-gaming/), published at the time of 4th edition's release, sums it up nicely. Here's another one (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1786/roleplaying-games/re-gsl) specifically discussing the "poison pill" clauses of the GSL. This article (http://trollsmyth.blogspot.ca/2008/04/gsl-vs-genie.html), also posted at around the same time, aptly predicts exactly how stupid a move the GSL was from a business perspective as well as a creative one.
Quote from: Elemental ElfActually, a lot of Pathfinder was directly inspired by the Paizo guys taking the stated design principles of 4E and molding them into their version of D&D. This is why dead levels are relatively rare (compared to 3.x); casters have At Will spells; previously weak classes get cool stuff; skills being simplified, encounter crafting was made easier; races being more balanced (or rather, the really bad ones not sucking so hard); the shift away from daily to round based abilities (ala Bardic Music and Rage); the simplification of non-attack actions (like grapple, trip, etc.); etc.
I'm
fairly sure that the Pathfinder people arrived at the decision to do things like remove dead levels more or less independently of 4th edition. There were obvious fiddly bits/problems with 3.5 that clearly needed tweaking. The system cleaves far, far closer to 3.5 than 4th edition in almost every respect; it's just a polished 3.5. Skills aren't hugely simplified much compared to 3.5, for example. It eschews the vast majority of 4e's changes - no healing surges, no encounter/daily powers, keeps vancian magic, keeps full mutliclassing, keeps a skill point system, etc etc. I'd argue it doesn't really borrow that many design principles from 4th; after all 4th's guiding design principle (stated or not) is clearly to emphasize a tactical miniature wargame. There might be a few very minor things from 4th that influenced Pathfinder, but the
whole point of Pathfinder is that it
isn't 4th edition.
I'd be happy if Paizo released new rules for stuff, but I'd much rather they just designed a totally new game rather than Pathfinder 2.0, and publish both. The great thing about Pathfinder is that it still works with the reams of material produced by Pazio, Wizards, and others for 3.X. If Paizo burned that bridge, they'd be taking a pretty big risk and would likely alienate a lot of fans who stuck with them over Wizards precisely because they kept things backwards-compatible.
Since we have no concrete information on any of this, speculation does seem premature, however.
Quote from: Steerpike
Quote from: Elemental ElfThe 4E license wasn't *that* restrictive when compared to the requirements for the d20 logo in 3.x. I think the market had largely realized the money wasn't in supporting WotC's game but in supporting their own systems and ideas, which we all know is the path to greater and more stable success (especially after the way WotC burned the 3rd party community by releasing 3.5).
Yeah, exactly what sparkletwist said. I'd disagree that 3.5 burned the third party community. 3.5 is almost totally backwards-compatible with any 3.0 product. A lot of 3.5's changes were in the specific wording of things; it didn't make sweeping changes. When I switched over to 3.5 I was totally able to keep using 3.0 sourcebooks and adventures. And 3.5 was published under the OGL as well, so third party publishers could easily switch over. The GSL is case-by-case: you have to pay Wizards and get a license for every book you make. You also have to basically drop publishing anything for 3.5 or other stuff the OGL. This is what I meant by "hyper-guarded."
The reality is that the GSL is ludicrously restriuctive compared to the OGL. It smacks of corporate paranoia, greed, and the utmost contempt for players and publishers alike.
Do other major publishers like White Wolf or Green Ronin allow anything more? I am unaware of it if any other major company allowed its game system to be freely developed for.
Green Ronin certainly does for at least some of their products.
Here (http://mutantsandmasterminds.com/licensing/)'s their licensing info on Mutants and Masterminds, for example. For both print publications and PDFs it's a totally free license used in conjunction with the OGL requiring no approval from Green Ronin whatsoever, useable by anyone. Freeport is published using Pathfinder, which is OGL. True 20 is obviously OGL.
I'm not sure about their stuff for A Song of Ice and Fire, DC universe, or Dragon Age, but there might be some serious limitations placed on them there due to other copyrights - i.e. it may be problematic to let people do their own stuff with ASoIaF roleplaying because it violates various trademarks, and the owners of the copyrights for those properties may have been reluctant to let Green Ronin allow open use of the rules even divorced from specific product identity.
Paizo, obviously, uses the OGL, and it's definitely a major publisher.
Frog God Games, who acquired Necromancer Games, uses the OGL.
Some of Mongoose Publishing's games are closed, but others, like Traveller, are open.
Goblinoid Games (who produce Labyrinth Lord, one of the biggest OSR systems) use the OGL.
Evil Hat, though not as big or old as some of the others, is likewise open.
I don't think White Wolf licenses many of their games, but on the other hand they never have. If Wizards of the Coast had never used any kind of open-game license the GSL wouldn't be nearly as upsetting.
Quote from: SteerpikeI don't think White Wolf licenses many of their games, but on the other hand they never have.
The thing about White Wolf is that pretty much everyone acknowledges they have (generally) awesome fluff and (generally) awful crunch. Anything you'd want to lift from them would be considered "Product Identity" and wouldn't be covered by the OGL anyway.
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: Elemental_ElfThe 4E license wasn't *that* restrictive when compared to the requirements for the d20 logo in 3.x.
Maybe for the logo or whatever, but the GSL was terribly restrictive compared to the OGL. In particular, it was restrictive enough that major 3rd party publishers from the 3rd Edition days found it egregious and did not jump on board. I mean, Pathfinder basically exists because Paizo couldn't stomach the GSL, for example. I can't really blame them, considering the amount of control over your product that the GSL gave WotC-- for example, you can't use words that the official 4e materials have defined one way to mean something else, and you can't do that even if your material used the word that way first.
With the d20 stuff, if they revoked your "logo" rights or whatever, you could keep publishing anyway under the OGL. Under the GSL, they can just shut you down. A lot of companies didn't feel like taking that risk.
Quote from: Steerpike
Quote from: Elemental ElfThe 4E license wasn't *that* restrictive when compared to the requirements for the d20 logo in 3.x. I think the market had largely realized the money wasn't in supporting WotC's game but in supporting their own systems and ideas, which we all know is the path to greater and more stable success (especially after the way WotC burned the 3rd party community by releasing 3.5).
Yeah, exactly what sparkletwist said. I'd disagree that 3.5 burned the third party community. 3.5 is almost totally backwards-compatible with any 3.0 product. A lot of 3.5's changes were in the specific wording of things; it didn't make sweeping changes. When I switched over to 3.5 I was totally able to keep using 3.0 sourcebooks and adventures. And 3.5 was published under the OGL as well, so third party publishers could easily switch over. The GSL is case-by-case: you have to pay Wizards and get a license for every book you make. You also have to basically drop publishing anything for 3.5 or other stuff the OGL. This is what I meant by "hyper-guarded."
The reality is that the GSL is ludicrously restrictive compared to the OGL. It smacks of corporate paranoia, greed, and the utmost contempt for players and publishers alike.
Any material generated with the d20 logo had to be 100% compatible with D&D and not include a few specific rules. If WotC altered the license (which it could do at will) the publisher had 30 days to cure the problem, which was retroactive to all previously published books under the license. WotC had the right to stop any publisher from putting that logo on their books. If WotC revoked your license, then you needed to recall
all of your books and
destroy them.
Since Game Mechanics are uncopywritable, you can easily produce compatible material for any edition of D&D, be it 1E AD&D or 4E. Kenzer & Company proved how successful you could be just by producing compatible material and not working under any license.
3.5 burned 3rd party publishers and precipitated the bottom falling out on the market. A mountain of publishers were born in the wake of the OGL, all of whom made hundreds of books. Then 3.5 came out. People didn't want to use material made for 3.0, so they stopped buying 3rd party material that wasn't designed with 3.5 in mind. Enough people thought this way that the bottom fell out of the market and hordes of companies went out of business. By the time 4E rolled around, most of the OGL material being made was honing in on the PDF market or being completely free via the owner's websites or were completely self-contained game systems (like Pathfinder).
Quote from: SteerpikeQuote from: Elemental ElfActually, a lot of Pathfinder was directly inspired by the Paizo guys taking the stated design principles of 4E and molding them into their version of D&D. This is why dead levels are relatively rare (compared to 3.x); casters have At Will spells; previously weak classes get cool stuff; skills being simplified, encounter crafting was made easier; races being more balanced (or rather, the really bad ones not sucking so hard); the shift away from daily to round based abilities (ala Bardic Music and Rage); the simplification of non-attack actions (like grapple, trip, etc.); etc.
I'm fairly sure that the Pathfinder people arrived at the decision to do things like remove dead levels more or less independently of 4th edition. There were obvious fiddly bits/problems with 3.5 that clearly needed tweaking. The system cleaves far, far closer to 3.5 than 4th edition in almost every respect; it's just a polished 3.5. Skills aren't hugely simplified much compared to 3.5, for example. It eschews the vast majority of 4e's changes - no healing surges, no encounter/daily powers, keeps vancian magic, keeps full mutliclassing, keeps a skill point system, etc etc. I'd argue it doesn't really borrow that many design principles from 4th; after all 4th's guiding design principle (stated or not) is clearly to emphasize a tactical miniature wargame. There might be a few very minor things from 4th that influenced Pathfinder, but the whole point of Pathfinder is that it isn't 4th edition.
Back in 2007-2009, I was deeply, deeply involved in the changes of editions. I spent a lot of time debating mechanical issues with fellow players and reading every scrap of information that fell out of the designer's mouths. Before I knew what 4E would become, I was in love with their design principles. What I was imagining in my head was a more balanced and fun version of 3.5. I never considered the idea that they were designing something whole cloth as I was stuck viewing everything through the lens of what I thought D&D was. Obviously 4E was not what people thought it was going to be, or at least I didn't. That's when I jumped on board with Paizo, they were giving me what I wanted - the same design principles but being applied to the game I already liked. Paizo didn't go as far as I would have liked but they still made a quality game.
Design Principles can be system neutral, or in the case of D&D-like games, edition neutral. Those design principles I stated apply equally to 4E and Pathfinder. It doesn't matter that the end products cleave closer or further to 3.5 because both game used the same principles to inform the kind of game they were designing.
Quote from: SteerpikeI'd be happy if Paizo released new rules for stuff, but I'd much rather they just designed a totally new game rather than Pathfinder 2.0, and publish both. The great thing about Pathfinder is that it still works with the reams of material produced by Pazio, Wizards, and others for 3.X. If Paizo burned that bridge, they'd be taking a pretty big risk and would likely alienate a lot of fans who stuck with them over Wizards precisely because they kept things backwards-compatible.
Since we have no concrete information on any of this, speculation does seem premature, however.
There always comes a time when one must ditch a system and start a fresh. WotC did it at the right time with 2E (so, 10 years) and horribly mangled it with 4E (8 years if being generous, 5 years if being unkind). They are saying 5E will last 10+ years but we shall see. I hope PF lasts a good long while as well.
I wouldn't mind seeing Paizo create a Sci-Fi.
The best selling games since 2008 have been:
D&D: Not Open
Pathfinder: Open (OGL)
Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Death Watch/etc.: Not Open
Dragon Age: Not Open
Star Wars (FFG): Not Open
Iron Kingdoms: Not Open
Dungeon Crawl Classics: Open (OGL)
Marvel Heroic Roleplaying: Not Open
Shadowrun: Not Open
Mutants & Masterminds: Open (OGL)
Dresden Files: Open (OGL, Fate)
Warhammer: Not Open
World of Darkness : Not Open
Song of Fire & Ice: Not Open
Star Wars (WotC): Not Open
Exalted: Not Open
The OGL wasn't perfect, but it is still leaps and bounds ahead of the GSL. It's not without
any restrictions, but it lacks the sweeping impositions and aggressive, guarded clauses of the GSL.
Quote from: Elemental Elf3.5 burned 3rd party publishers and precipitated the bottom falling out on the market. A mountain of publishers were born in the wake of the OGL, all of whom made hundreds of books. Then 3.5 came out. People didn't want to use material made for 3.0, so they stopped buying 3rd party material that wasn't designed with 3.5 in mind. Enough people thought this way that the bottom fell out of the market and hordes of companies went out of business. By the time 4E rolled around, most of the OGL material being made was honing in on the PDF market or being completely free via the owner's websites or were completely self-contained game systems (like Pathfinder).
This is fair enough - I hadn't researched this as much and was unaware of just how much 3.5 hurt 3PP. Still, at least 3,5 was OGL, so at least 3rd party publishers could theoretically adapt, re-release their books, etc. I don't think it's fair to call Pathfinder "completely self-contained," however, because it's guiding principle is that it's fully useable with other 3rd edition material.
Quote from: Elemental ElfDesign Principles can be system neutral, or in the case of D&D-like games, edition neutral. Those design principles I stated apply equally to 4E and Pathfinder. It doesn't matter that the end products cleave closer or further to 3.5 because both game used the same principles to inform the kind of game they were designing.
I agree that principles can be system neutral, but I don't feel that Pathfinder and 4th edition share many design principles. The things you mentioned like at-will cantrips and a lack of dead levels strike me as specific mechanical choices rather than core design principles. Unless we go really broad, of course, and say that they share design principles like "this is a fantasy adventure role-playing game."
Quote from: Elemental ElfD&D: Not Open
Pathfinder: Open (OGL)
Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Death Watch/etc.: Not Open
Dragon Age: Not Open
Star Wars (FFG): Not Open
Iron Kingdoms: Not Open
Dungeon Crawl Classics: Open (OGL)
Marvel Heroic Roleplaying: Not Open
Shadowrun: Not Open
Mutants & Masterminds: Open (OGL)
Dresden Files: Open (OGL, Fate)
Warhammer: Not Open
World of Darkness : Not Open
Song of Fire & Ice: Not Open
Star Wars (WotC): Not Open
Exalted: Not Open
This is a very interesting list, though unsurprising. Note that the majority of the not-open games that sold well are tied closely to preexisting properties (Star Wars, Marvel, A Song of Ice and Fire, Warhammer), which by their nature aren't inclined to being open, because the system is being crafted with a particular (copyrighted) property/setting in mind. Amongst the more "general" or non campaign/setting-specific systems, like D&D, Pathfinder, Mutants and Masterminds, and Dungeon Crawl Classics, openness is much more common. This makes sense, and suggests that an open-source publishing model is better for setting-neutral systems (like D&D), whereas closed publishing is better for setting-specific systems.
The date you list (2008) is very telling too, since that's when 4th edition came out; the preponderance of setting-specific bestsellers suggests that Wizards' decision to adopt the GSL over the OGL may have shaped things in such a way that companies increasingly decided to go in for games connected to self-contained pre-existing properties, since trying to produce content for D&D would be problematic.
Quote from: Steerpike
The OGL wasn't perfect, but it is still leaps and bounds ahead of the GSL. It's not without any restrictions, but it lacks the sweeping impositions and aggressive, guarded clauses of the GSL.
Which is why I was focusing on the d20 Logo License, rather than OGL. The GSL is downright Totalitarian compared to the OGL. :)
Quote from: SteerpikeQuote from: Elemental Elf3.5 burned 3rd party publishers and precipitated the bottom falling out on the market. A mountain of publishers were born in the wake of the OGL, all of whom made hundreds of books. Then 3.5 came out. People didn't want to use material made for 3.0, so they stopped buying 3rd party material that wasn't designed with 3.5 in mind. Enough people thought this way that the bottom fell out of the market and hordes of companies went out of business. By the time 4E rolled around, most of the OGL material being made was honing in on the PDF market or being completely free via the owner's websites or were completely self-contained game systems (like Pathfinder).
This is fair enough - I hadn't researched this as much and was unaware of just how much 3.5 hurt 3PP. Still, at least 3,5 was OGL, so at least 3rd party publishers could theoretically adapt, re-release their books, etc. I don't think it's fair to call Pathfinder "completely self-contained," however, because it's guiding purpose is that it's fully useable with other 3rd edition material.
Theoretically they could, and many did but a majority could not jump the gap. Sad too, since many of those companies were really great.
What I meant by self-contained is that they are complete games independent of WotC's (or any other company's) products (compared to say releasing a book that just focuses on the culture of Gnolls and creates Spells, Feats, Sub-races and PrC's for that race).
Quote from: SteerpikeQuote from: Elemental ElfDesign Principles can be system neutral, or in the case of D&D-like games, edition neutral. Those design principles I stated apply equally to 4E and Pathfinder. It doesn't matter that the end products cleave closer or further to 3.5 because both game used the same principles to inform the kind of game they were designing.
I agree that principles can be system neutral, but I don't feel that Pathfinder and 4th edition share many design principles. The things you mentioned like at-will cantrips and a lack of dead levels strike me as specific mechanical choices rather than core design principles. Unless we go really broad, of course, and say that they share design principles like "this is a fantasy adventure role-playing game."
[/quote]
I was delving a bit into how the mechanics were designed. If I were to use over-broad terms, I would say "Allowing Spellcasters to contribute to a longer portion of the work day without being taxed by the spellcasting system, especially at low-levels." "Allowing mundane classes to feel as if they contribute to the adventure at high levels." "Ensuring a better balance between classes." "Simplifying how PCs interact with the non-combat world."etc. :)
Quote from: SteerpikeQuote from: Elemental ElfD&D: Not Open
Pathfinder: Open (OGL)
Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Death Watch/etc.: Not Open
Dragon Age: Not Open
Star Wars (FFG): Not Open
Iron Kingdoms: Not Open
Dungeon Crawl Classics: Open (OGL)
Marvel Heroic Roleplaying: Not Open
Shadowrun: Not Open
Mutants & Masterminds: Open (OGL)
Dresden Files: Open (OGL, Fate)
Warhammer: Not Open
World of Darkness: Not Open
Song of Fire & Ice: Not Open
Star Wars (WotC): Not Open
Exalted: Not Open
This is a very interesting list, though unsurprising. Note that the majority of the not-open games that sold well are tied closely to preexisting properties (Star Wars, Marvel, A Song of Ice and Fire, Warhammer), which by their nature aren't inclined to being open, because the system is being crafted with a particular (copyrighted) property/setting in mind. Amongst the more "general" or non campaign/setting-specific systems, like D&D, Pathfinder, Mutants and Masterminds, and Dungeon Crawl Classics, openness is much more common. This makes sense, and suggests that an open-source publishing model is better for setting-neutral systems (like D&D), whereas closed publishing is better for setting-specific systems.
[/quote]
Interesting point! I wonder if the thought behind creating a new system for an established campaign isn't partly due to the idea that you need something more unique to capture the feel of the property. Take Marvel for example. I have played d20 Super Hero games before but none quite capture the feel of Super Heroes quite as well as Marvel Heroic Role Playing. The system is very narrativist and rules light, allowing players to do crazy/weird/specific/cool things that a d20 based system really could not handle. The 40k RPGs too, do a great job of creating the feeling of playing in the 41st Millennium, from being just another nameless soldier (Only War) to being a nigh invincible god of war (Deathwatch).
Dragon Age, however, did not quite do this for me. The game feels very lethal (like DA:O on harder difficulties) but the mechanics are more open ended and rules light, which feels a bit contradictory when compared to the much more rigid mechanics that govern the video game.
When I was looking into A Song of Fire and Ice RPG, I was surprised to see that the current game was not the first. The first was actually a d20 based game. Sadly, the company went out of business after producing a handful of books (which was long before Game of Thrones became popular).
Quote from: Elemental ElfWhich is why I was focusing on the d20 Logo License, rather than OGL. The GSL is downright Totalitarian compared to the OGL.
My apologies - in the vitriolic throes of GSL-hate I misread your remarks. My bad!
Quote from: ibid.What I meant by self-contained is that they are complete games independent of WotC's (or any other company's) products (compared to say releasing a book that just focuses on the culture of Gnolls and creates Spells, Feats, Sub-races and PrC's for that race).
Gotcha gotcha - I see what you mean.
On the subject of design principles - OK, I see where you're coming from. I think that the differences in design principle are still pretty large between Pathfinder and 4th edition, but I will grant there are some similarities in terms of, for example, a desire for better balance between classes or getting more use out of low level spells. I'm just not convinced Pathfinder lifted/appropriated/adapted those things from 4th edition per se.
Quote from: Elemental ElfInteresting point! I wonder if the thought behind creating a new system for an established campaign isn't partly due to the idea that you need something more unique to capture the feel of the property. Take Marvel for example. I have played d20 Super Hero games before but none quite capture the feel of Super Heroes quite as well as Marvel Heroic Role Playing. The system is very narrativist and rules light, allowing players to do crazy/weird/specific/cool things that a d20 based system really could not handle. The 40k RPGs too, do a great job of creating the feeling of playing in the 41st Millennium, from being just another nameless soldier (Only War) to being a nigh invincible god of war (Deathwatch).
...
When I was looking into A Song of Fire and Ice RPG, I was surprised to see that the current game was not the first. The first was actually a d20 based game. Sadly, the company went out of business after producing a handful of books (which was long before Game of Thrones became popular).
I think this is exactly right - when you're dealing with a very specific property a unique system might make more sense. On the other hand, the GSL probably discouraged designers from adapting existing mechanics and made them veer towards custom-building their own (closed) systems. The fact that the first Ice and Fire RPG was d20 while the second is not, as you point out, is a good case in point. Had 4th edition kept the OGL, perhaps the publishers would have tried adapting it instead of building something from scratch (although given the specifics of the setting, it's a very poor match for 4th edition anyway, so maybe not).
Incidentally, the original Song of Ice and Fire rpg is really weird, in that it actually used two systems - d20 and a system called "Tri-Stat dX," both of which were offered up as alternatives. A very unusual approach to game design. One wonders whether this contributed to the book's failure, although I think it was mostly a case of bad timing.
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: SteerpikeI don't think White Wolf licenses many of their games, but on the other hand they never have.
The thing about White Wolf is that pretty much everyone acknowledges they have (generally) awesome fluff and (generally) awful crunch. Anything you'd want to lift from them would be considered "Product Identity" and wouldn't be covered by the OGL anyway.
Be that as it may, if the original criticism was not sharing crunch is mean-spirited, one can hardly claim "our crunch sucks so bad nobody wants it" as a defense--it would be irrelevant as to whether WW is mean-spirited or not. By which I mean to say, I think it an unfair criticism of any company, pen-and-paper or digital, that they not offer their material as open source. We may laud those that choose to do so, but it is hardly their responsibility to allow other companies open access to their system.
I think there are plenty of legitimate criticisms against the 4e design decisions, and in some cases against WotC in general, but this hardly seems a fair one to me.
Quote from: Matt Larkin (author)I think it an unfair criticism of any company, pen-and-paper or digital, that they not offer their material as open source. We may laud those that choose to do so, but it is hardly their responsibility to allow other companies open access to their system.
My criticism isn't that not sharing crunch and/or not openly licensing a game is intrinsically mean-spirited. It's that Wizards went from
being open source to being closed; they'd previously opened up their game to third party publishers and encouraged a lot of creativity, and then they made a change. I don't like that change. I think that change is to the detriment of the hobby I feel passionately about. What's more, I feel that change had ignoble motivations connected to greed and control. Some of the specifics of the GSL seek to exert drastic control over other companies in ways I find extremely distasteful. The sudden shift from one form of licensing to another, coupled with some of these restrictions, really pulled the rug out from under third party publishers. It feels to me like Wizards went from regarding such publishers as collaborators to regarding them as "people to give us money."
Of course Wizards are entitled to make money from their products and protect their product identity, but Paizo has proved you can do that while still retaining an "open source philosophy." Given that 3rd edition was written before Hasbro's takeover of Wizards of the Coast while 4th edition came out well after the takeover, I'd strongly speculate that the people at the top of Hasbro's corporate hierarchy - people who almost certainly care not a whit for gaming or the gaming community but only about profits - were ultimately the ones pulling the strings.
EDIT: Some of the revisions to the GSL have improved matters considerably, although it still leaves a tremendous amount to be desired, and by the time the revisions came out, the damage was pretty much done. The revisions are (I think) pretty clearly a frantic attempt to back-track on Wizards' part following the fallout from the GSL as originally written, although there may also have been some designers and other employees who fought back against the guys upstairs on this; we'lll probably never know the details. Still, companies can at least now publish 4E and 3E products simultaneously (although within specific books, you
must consider 4E's definition of terms of things like "Cleric," for example, the "official" definition).
I agree it's good to praise companies that do release their stuff "open source" or some other more permissive license, but I don't agree that it's unfair to criticize ones that don't. In short, while you see it as +1 or 0, I see it as +1 or -1. This is an ideological disagreement that is probably beyond the scope of the thread.
On the topic of White Wolf specifically, I see what you're saying, but I also think that part of the reason OGL d20 took off is that d20 was-- at least by the standards of RPGs in 2000-- a pretty solid and well constructed system. People might have still made stuff for D&D because D&D is D&D but I don't think there would've been a push to make d20 versions of all kinds of everything if the system was terrible.
Understanding short term money is easy, longer term sustainability is hard for many companies to understand.
It occurred to me that many in this debate may not have played, or at the very least, seen D&D next being played. WotC has produced a bunch of podcasts and videos of people actually playing the game. I have organized the various videos and podcasts and posted links to each.
Note many of these podcasts contain adult content (mostly profanity). So you have been forewarned.
Note: the latest podcasts are at the bottom and contain the most up-to-date rules.
Also Note: Acquisitions Incorporated is a long running series of podcasts that started just before 4E was released. They star Jerry Holkins and Mike Krahulik (from Penny Arcade), Scott Kurtz (from PvP), Wil Wheaton (series 2, 3, 5, as well as PAX 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp0PgnXXf_A), PAX 2011 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzIJemFtXXs) & PAX 2012) and Patrick Rothfuss (series 6). The Acquisitions Incorporated podcasts linked in this thread contain spoilers from the Acquisitions Incorporated podcasts that cam before. If you would like to start back at the beginning with their podcasts, go here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/podcasts.aspx).
Without further adieu, the list:
- Acquisitions Incorporated PAX 2012 (http://youtu.be/2knLHWucK1A)
- Mines of Madness pt. 1 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20130401), pt. 2 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20130405), pt. 3 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20130412), pt. 4 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20130419), pt.5 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20130426)
- Designer Playtest: Against the Slave Lords pt. 1 (http://youtu.be/K_2iyvdF_qo), pt. 2 (http://youtu.be/ra3CV3NeK_Q), pt. 3 (http://youtu.be/RPM_UD0d7V4)
- Mike Mearls' and Rodney Thompson's discussion about the "Against the Slave Lords": pt. 1 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20130705), pt. 2 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20130717), pt. 3 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20130723)
- Designer Playtest: The Lich-Queen's Beloved Pt. 1 (http://youtu.be/sjXF01pu97c)
- Acquisitions Incorporated: Ark of the Mad Mage pt. 2 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/AcqInc2013P1), pt. 3 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/AcqInc2013P2), pt. 4 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/AcqInc2013P4), pt. 5 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/AcqInc2013P5)
I spoke to someone who playtested it; he said it was essentially the same as 4E's combat system/style and he couldn't see much different in it. His description confused me. Certainly there has to be a decent amount of differences in the edition.
Quote from: Light Dragon
I spoke to someone who playtested it; he said it was essentially the same as 4E's combat system/style and he couldn't see much different in it.
It isn't even close at all. The base assumption in D&D Next is all theater of the mind, so the tactical/gridded combat that 4E thrived on is simply not present.
If anything Next is a lot like a very slimmed down version of 3.5 but without the board and a lot of the complex rules that bogged combat down in previous editions.
So it's like the 13th Age game in that respect? http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/05/20/13th-age-review-the-excellent-new-tabletop-game-from-the-lead-designers-of-3rd-and-4th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons/
QuoteAlong with all these story-game elements is a somewhat overhauled d20 combat system that's fast and loose and high-powered. In other words: Fun.
While 13th Age doesn't abandon miniatures (they're optional) it does abandon the grid. No counting little square boxes. This isn't a board game or a war game, it's an RPG, and the combat reflects this.
Quote from: Light Dragon
So it's like the 13th Age game in that respect? http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/05/20/13th-age-review-the-excellent-new-tabletop-game-from-the-lead-designers-of-3rd-and-4th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons/
QuoteAlong with all these story-game elements is a somewhat overhauled d20 combat system that's fast and loose and high-powered. In other words: Fun.
While 13th Age doesn't abandon miniatures (they're optional) it does abandon the grid. No counting little square boxes. This isn't a board game or a war game, it's an RPG, and the combat reflects this.
In some ways yes and in many ways no.
It's not OP the way 13th Age is in terms of damage. It feels far more like LotR in that respect. Everything has bounded accuracy, which means low level creatures are still a threat at higher levels (compared to other editions where a Goblin was not a threat past level 3 or so). The game drastically de-powers spellcasters compared to 3.5 but maintains (a version of) vancian casting. Classes can be built very simply (Mike Mearls had a 17th level Fighter completely contained on a memo pad) or hugely complex like in past editions. The game will be modular, allowing DMs to use add-ons to tailor the game into what they want to DM. Ability Scores are much more important as Ability Checks are very common. The difference between a character who is trained in a task and one who is not is noticible but it is not a stark difference compared to past editions.
Hey Elemental Elf, it seems those links aren't working for some reason, just to let you know.
The URLs were formatted badly. I fixed the links.
Anyway, at one point I tried to watch one of these. Mike Mearls showed up with some ridiculous immersion-destroying dwarf rapper called "MC Killzalot" or something like that, and wearing a steel top hat and steel tuxedo. I stopped watching at that point, figuring that if he cares that little about his game, why should I care at all?
Did that seriously happen or is your satire simply too oblique for me to understand?
Because that sounds very stupid.
That actually happened (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sjXF01pu97c#t=108).
The Design Playtests are not made to be immersive. They are just fun and goofy. In the Slave Lords one, some one ran a Cleric who was a Fruitarian.
If you want immersion, watch the Acquisitions Incorporated ones.
Quote from: sparkletwist
The URLs were formatted badly. I fixed the links.
Anyway, at one point I tried to watch one of these. Mike Mearls showed up with some ridiculous immersion-destroying dwarf rapper called "MC Killzalot" or something like that, and wearing a steel top hat and steel tuxedo. I stopped watching at that point, figuring that if he cares that little about his game, why should I care at all?
I think it's just different strokes. I've never gamed IRL with the right kind of people to get that immersion level to acceptable levels, even when everyone is trying really hard to do so. Going for laughter and light hearted-ness is always easier and, ofttimes, more enjoyable for everyone involved.
Also, to be fair, the MC stuff diminishes greatly as the podcast progresses to the point where the game becomes fairly serious and everyone roleplays really well (especially Mike and Chris).
I can understand that a game might be more focused on silly fun, but I also contend that immersion doesn't have to be "serious business," especially if the tone of the game is lighter. All you really have to do is have a character that isn't utterly stupid and doesn't completely obliterate any notions of genre and such. Essentially, I'm just hoping for characters you can play like someone who actually would live in the setting you're using.\
The other three players seemed to sort of get the idea, while meanwhile Mike Mearls was being "that guy." Why would you put that in a public video trying to show off your new system?
Quote from: sparkletwist
I can understand that a game might be more focused on silly fun, but I also contend that immersion doesn't have to be "serious business," especially if the tone of the game is lighter. All you really have to do is have a character that isn't utterly stupid and doesn't completely obliterate any notions of genre and such. Essentially, I'm just hoping for characters you can play like someone who actually would live in the setting you're using.\
The other three players seemed to sort of get the idea, while meanwhile Mike Mearls was being "that guy." Why would you put that in a public video trying to show off your new system?
The last playtest was DMed by Mike Mearls and was sillier than it was serious. I think there was just a miscommunication between him and Thompson (Mearls even admitted to missing a key email that would have helped tie his character more fully to the world).
Regardless, If you just skip forward a bit the session is really good.
I actually recently playtested Dndnext at a game store I play at, and I actually really had fun. We were playtesting a module for Forgotten Realms.
My sister was a Dwarven Fighter, my friend was a half-elf paladin (I got to call him out on all of his un-paladin behavior) and I got to play as a human monk.
We had a really cool DM, and he actually let me run on top of the panicking crowds heads and rescue a child. It was pretty cool of him to let me do it, even though I wasn't technically allowed to do things like that till about 3rd level or so. I got a 19 on my roll check though so there!
If you can't even run on top of peoples heads as a first level monk than that's not a very fun system IMHO :P
Quote from: Love of Awesome
I actually recently playtested Dndnext at a game store I play at, and I actually really had fun. We were playtesting a module for Forgotten Realms.
My sister was a Dwarven Fighter, my friend was a half-elf paladin (I got to call him out on all of his un-paladin behavior) and I got to play as a human monk.
We had a really cool DM, and he actually let me run on top of the panicking crowds heads and rescue a child. It was pretty cool of him to let me do it, even though I wasn't technically allowed to do things like that till about 3rd level or so. I got a 19 on my roll check though so there!
If you can't even run on top of peoples heads as a first level monk than that's not a very fun system IMHO :P
Actually a 19 is a really good roll in D&D. I would let you do cool stuff like that too!
Glad you had fun!
Were you adventuring in Baldur's Gate?
Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Quote from: Love of Awesome
I actually recently playtested Dndnext at a game store I play at, and I actually really had fun. We were playtesting a module for Forgotten Realms.
My sister was a Dwarven Fighter, my friend was a half-elf paladin (I got to call him out on all of his un-paladin behavior) and I got to play as a human monk.
We had a really cool DM, and he actually let me run on top of the panicking crowds heads and rescue a child. It was pretty cool of him to let me do it, even though I wasn't technically allowed to do things like that till about 3rd level or so. I got a 19 on my roll check though so there!
If you can't even run on top of peoples heads as a first level monk than that's not a very fun system IMHO :P
Actually a 19 is a really good roll in D&D. I would let you do cool stuff like that too!
Glad you had fun!
Were you adventuring in Baldur's Gate?
Yes, I think that's what it was... That's the one where the guys on stage, and a band of assassins stir up the crowd? Then a black cloud appears on stage, and then I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't play tested the module who wants to.