Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
D&D 5E
Jan 26, 2012 17:26:05 GMT -6
Post by Azafuse on Jan 26, 2012 17:26:05 GMT -6
Here, here and here some information from the D&D XP Seminar Charting the Course: An Edition for all Editions. A lot of encouraging things: - The art will be harken back to the good old days - Flexibility will be key to gameplay - Old-school randomness will make a comeback - and so on. I've particularly appreciated 2 statements from Monte Cook: - instead of increasing attack bonuses, give higher level characters more interesting things to do - Moving away from looking at a character sheet for options, to limitless options (to make players more creative in game)
|
|
rleduc
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 75
|
Post by rleduc on Jan 26, 2012 20:09:46 GMT -6
Thank God someone realized you can have a brand identity without slavishly uniform art design. That alone is worth celebrating.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 27, 2012 10:40:36 GMT -6
Post by kesher on Jan 27, 2012 10:40:36 GMT -6
Azafuse, I really appreciate your continuing to update this thread! Exalt!
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 27, 2012 11:13:40 GMT -6
Post by kesher on Jan 27, 2012 11:13:40 GMT -6
This is awesome.
|
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
D&D 5E
Jan 27, 2012 14:44:34 GMT -6
Post by Azafuse on Jan 27, 2012 14:44:34 GMT -6
Thank you, Kesher. ;D Another update, from The Trollish Delver. This is more focused on magic, talking about the return of the Pseudo-Vancian Magic System: old school magic plus at-will powers as feats (or so it seems).
|
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
D&D 5E
Jan 29, 2012 17:09:21 GMT -6
Post by Azafuse on Jan 29, 2012 17:09:21 GMT -6
Update mainly focused on Skills/Abilities: - stats are going to be capped again to a limit - stat modifiers are going to be granted both from race and class - if you wanna perform an action (usually ruled by the skill system in 3E or 4E) you automatically perform it if the scene is "relaxed/unstressed" - Saving Throws are going to be more focused on the single ability (not so different from C&C ones according to what I've understood) - Designers said if you wanna escape from a grapple you can save with your Dex or other ways - characters are going to have themes (noble, commoner, etc.) granting some kind of skill bonus - if you going to roll on a skill but you don't have that skill, simply test the key ability - goods/equipments are going to be valued in silver pieces - customizable monsters "on the fly" (adding a particular feature on the spot won't change the challenge rating and will grant an additional amount of XP) - wizards are going to be "vancian", but Designers talked about using different systems for other spellcasters - some 4E rituals are going to have very rare components, pretty quest-worthy - introduction of weapons classes (bows, axes, swords)
This should be all they said (I hope I've missed nothing too important).
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Feb 2, 2012 6:09:46 GMT -6
Post by rabindranath72 on Feb 2, 2012 6:09:46 GMT -6
All interesting stuff! Looking forward to it.
Just a few notes: - 4e already has a partially Vancian system, i.e. daily. Actually, this is more Vancian than previous versions, since you can only memorise one instance of a given spell, as it seems reading Vance's tales.
- 4e already has weapon classes, though they are not directly associated to game effects.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Feb 2, 2012 7:17:55 GMT -6
Post by llenlleawg on Feb 2, 2012 7:17:55 GMT -6
- 4e already has a partially Vancian system, i.e. daily. Actually, this is more Vancian than previous versions, since you can only memorise one instance of a given spell, as it seems reading Vance's tales. True enough, but it looks and feels a lot less Vancian (whether in the strict sense of Vance's tales or in the extended sense as used by Gygax and more generally to allude to the classic D&D system for spellcasters) in light of at-will and encounter spells. I have little interest in a battle of semantics, but I suspect that having a spellcaster partially required to prepare spells, while in generally having much of his magic repertoire available repeatedly throughout the day, is a significant enough difference to suspect that the presence of daily powers does not a Vancian system make. On the plus side, and a positive note, it will be a way to ease 4e players into seeing how the Vancian system can work in ways and terms familiar to them.
|
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
D&D 5E
Feb 2, 2012 8:34:53 GMT -6
Post by Azafuse on Feb 2, 2012 8:34:53 GMT -6
Encounter Powers are simply Vancian Spells memorized multiple times (or at least they are if you have 2-3 encounters at day): if you do too much encounters you increase the difference, otherwise it's the same thing (except At-Will Powers, of course).
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Feb 2, 2012 11:49:11 GMT -6
Post by llenlleawg on Feb 2, 2012 11:49:11 GMT -6
I think I see where you are going with this, but that depends on an "encounter economy" which feels unlike old-style spell selection. After all, since all spells were "dailies" in classic Vancian style, it was not only uncommon, but actually unwise, to have too many multiply prepared spells. Unless you knew what you were facing and had a specific plan for a specific goal, it behooved you to have a variety of spells, each usable only once. This had the added feature of reducing the MUs (and cleric's) use of spells in every combat (unless the MU had a wand of magic missiles!). Still, since "spell slots" are a zero sum game, the decision to have knock or detect invisibility means the decision not to have web, and the decision to have fly or phantasmal forces means not to have fireball. Encounter powers allows a reliable and reliably recurring MU response from encounter to encounter.
Please note, if you like 4e play, I am not in any way trying to disparage it. My point is just that, in this regard (i.e. MUs and spell selection) it calls for such a different play style and series of assumptions (e.g. "encounters per day") from OD&D and AD&D that I am not sure that the two are comparable.
Your experience, of course, may differ!
|
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
D&D 5E
Feb 3, 2012 1:52:48 GMT -6
Post by Azafuse on Feb 3, 2012 1:52:48 GMT -6
Don't worry, what you're saying is true: basically 4E Magic doesn't look Vancian, but it becomes if you do the right mixture of exploration/roleplaying/encounters (kinda house-ruled but still pretty vancian).
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Feb 5, 2012 18:35:20 GMT -6
Post by murquhart72 on Feb 5, 2012 18:35:20 GMT -6
A silver-standard economy? Some faith in humanity is restored
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 30, 2013 6:35:26 GMT -6
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 30, 2013 6:35:26 GMT -6
So, I downloaded the latest 5E package to take another look... To my eye it's looking more like a blend of 3E and 4E each time I download the latest package. I guess it makes marketing sense that Wizards primarily want to win over the 3E (and Pathfinder) and 4E players, but I can't shake the feeling that a huge opportunity is slipping away. Or has already passed by. What happened to all that talk of "roots" and "back to basics"? And keeping a lid on the numbers and stats? I'm sure 5E will be very neat and Wizards will sell lots of pretty books. But I'm disappointed that it's shaping up to be another iteration of the tiresome "character builds" game, and greatly saddened that genuinely inspirational game called "Dungeons & Dragons" will be lost to another generation. On the other hand, I guess it's great news for the retro-clones
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 30, 2013 7:23:17 GMT -6
Post by llenlleawg on Jan 30, 2013 7:23:17 GMT -6
The thing is, the playtest packets are showing us, in a narrow way, what the designers want to focus on. In light of the recent articles on the WotC website, the presumption will be the that "basic" form of the game will not revolve around "builds", but will rather use classic-looking forms of the main classes and races. It will be the "standard" (and "advanced") options and modules that will pull back the veil and allow for customization. I get the feeling that they are trying to make sure that the basic forms will be more or less reproducible as one of a set of "standard" options, such that a player who is using a basic class and one using a customized one can play together. The advanced rules they have admitted will not be designed to see how well they work together, but only how well each one works with the basic and standard expressions. What does that mean? I think it means that a good deal of the 3e/4e blend you are seeing is their attempt to try out some standard or advanced options right now, which may mean that they are getting a better sense of what the basic game will be. I suspect that old schoolers who want to try the game out will be more inclined to play using the basic options for the most part. Or, I could be altogether mistaken...
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 30, 2013 8:48:39 GMT -6
Post by funkaoshi on Jan 30, 2013 8:48:39 GMT -6
No I think you're right. They've said the play test packets are there to test out new ideas. New character classes have popped in and out of packets, new ways to handle spell casting, etc. I think they've more or less settled on their 'core' rules. That stuff doesn't seem to fluctuate much.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 31, 2013 5:59:23 GMT -6
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 31, 2013 5:59:23 GMT -6
Mmmmmmmm, that's all perfectly reasonable. But still. Having selections of PC backgrounds, traits, skills, (optional) feats, schemes, maneuvers, and whatever else undoubtedly makes it a builds game. Whether you choose to play the "stock build" or to devise your own build, you'll be aware of some of the other choices. It will be very hard for some players to stick to the stock builds. Tinkering with the other options is exactly what they're for, after all. This will be especially so if the stock builds are mediocre compared to custom builds (which seems likely if Wizards want to motivate us to buy their splat books full of new options). The meanest thing about offering "all those choices" is they actually limit what most players will consider to just those choices. Whereas if it were left wide open, then players would be limited only by their own imaginations. But let's assume I'm wrong about all that. I'm good at being wrong Here's a few casual observations from the latest package: XP required to achieve levels is dramatically less -- only 250 XP to reach 2nd level. I don't mind that in itself, but the implication is that players will level up faster, and hence add their optional feats and extra ability points sooner. I'm less keen on that. Players will whiz past "hero" status (2,000 odd XP to reach 4th level) and settle into their rhythm around 8th to 12th level, say. There's nothing wrong with that -- if it's what you want -- but what I don't like is the number and size of modifiers that are stacking up along the way. Look at the new barbarian class, for example. By 9th level (38,000 XP, still in his early-mid career) has +5 martial damage, +6 rage damage, +5d6 martial damage dice, and probably +4 strength bonus (assuming he "only" has 18 strength). So with a greataxe he can hit for 1d12 + 5d6 + 4 + 5 + 6 = 21-57 hit points damage -- excluding his feats and his magical items. With those I imagine he may well be edging up toward 30-90 hit points of damage instead. With a hit. It's berserk, and it only causes other numbers in the game to escalate in order to compensate. Why can't they keep hit points and damage under control? They've kept AC and to hit adjustments to a reasonable range, after all. They must be aware that excessive accounting during play can detract from the gaming experience, and so they must be doing it intentionally. One can only guess that it must be due to some adolescent "bragging rights" marketing phenomenon. You use your ability scores and their modifiers to interact with the game world in three basic ways: checks, attacks, and saving throws. See the “Ability Scores” section for details on each ability and for how an ability’s modifier is determined.
We already saw this with 3E and 4E. Result: Players are obsessed with ever higher modifiers, and thus ever higher ability scores. Low ability scores become "unplayable". Note that ability scores are given up to 21 (with +5 adjustment), with a trailing "And so on...". Implication: ability scores really get that high. And if your scores aren't that high, you ain't doing it right. Go think of a better build. also... you can assign a standard set of scores to your character’s abilities: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.
12 is apparently considered the average ability score. What young gamer is going to roll up stats for an average of 10.5 when he can have 12 instead? also... Ability score are incremented by level, with +10 ability pips added by level 20. I.e., 1/2 ability pip per level. Not counting wishes, magic items, and other stuff that might happen during play. Old school alternative: Competency is class-based rather than ability-score based. Adjustments due to ability scores are minimal, so high scores are rarely "necessary", and low scores can be just as interesting as high ones. The DM commonly asks you to use Wisdom when you make a check to determine whether someone is lying, spot a hidden creature, discern a creature’s mood...
Old school alternative: The player decides whether he believes someone is lying. The player tells the ref he's looking for the hidden creature. The player discerns the creature's mood from the ref's description/tone of voice and acts appropriately. The DM commonly asks you to use Charisma when you make a check to negotiate a truce, calm a wild animal, deliver an inspiring speech, or deceive someone. Player: [cracks open a can of beer] "I negotiate a truce". DM: [rolls a die and adds a bunch of modifiers] "ok, you succeed.". Player: [Takes a slug of beer] "Then I deliver an inspirational speech." DM: "Umm, what do you tell them?" Player: "I tell 'em I've got 22 charisma." [belches loudly]. DM: [rolls a die and adds modifiers] "Umm, whadayou know? Another success.". And these snippets from the DM's Guidelines are genuinely concerning... When you design an adventure, you call the shots. At the same time, you’ll usually want to design adventures that aren’t too easy, or too deadly, for your players.
Building a combat encounter is a matter of choosing threats appropriate to the characters
don’t force the characters into three tough fights in a row or send monsters to close off the dungeon behind them after they’ve already fought their way through four average encounters. Keep the adventurers’ need to rest in mind as you set up your adventures.
Sage advice for a most lackluster kind of gaming; that with minimal risk. Take away the risk and what are we left with? Ah! Just the reward -- cool! We won't ever die, we'll get boat loads of loot, and we'll level up super fast, and we'll be friggin' aaawwwesome dude! I'm sure it isn't quite that bad, but it certainly seems that the DM's role has been relegated from the "impartial referee" to the "benevolent entertainer". His job is apparently to set up encounters that the players can win. That right there is denying the players (and the DM!) the richest reward that Dungeons & Dragons has to offer
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 31, 2013 10:24:59 GMT -6
Post by kesher on Jan 31, 2013 10:24:59 GMT -6
WotE, I always appreciate your opinions! I agree, especially in those last quotes, it assumes a standard approach to each encounter--hey, we should fight our way through like some doomed commando team. Just 'cause it's a "combat encounter", doesn't mean you have to treat it like a combat encounter as a player. At least not in what I would consider to be the core spirit of the game. If I were running a newer edition of the game, I'd be inclined to put those three tough "fights" right in a row, and if characters decide to fight their way through, well, they'd find out that they can indeed die... To be fair, I've seen, in other 4e books, especially the DM's Guide 2, a lot of awesome suggestions about how to play a different game than the one described above. And, in fact, if you read the introduction to the Isle of Dread in the packet, it does a pretty good job of explaining how to run a sandbox game. However, much of the playtest document does seem focused towards the type of play typified by the quotes above. I'm still interested to see the final product...
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 31, 2013 10:48:46 GMT -6
Post by llenlleawg on Jan 31, 2013 10:48:46 GMT -6
Admittedly, those of us who post here will tend to be less sanguine about the D&D Next project. However, I think that "ways" may be a little harder on it than it deserves.
(1) True, options are there to be used. The desire to use them will vary from table to table. Since 2000, no version of the game published by WotC could possibly fail to have some kind of "build" and avoid impossible backlash from 3e and 4e fans who, admittedly, represent 12 years now of D&D players (not more than the TSR years, but not inconsiderable). To the extent that these options are more or less equal, and presented as options, and to the extent that at any given table, the DM might say "we're using the basic rules" or "we're sticking with the standard options", I don't quite see what's so bad. After all, I don't imagine every old school game allowed monks or assassins, or psionics, or other options provided by the supplements, although admittedly some options (like variable damage for monsters and weapons and different hit die types for character classes) became so hardwired that people forgot that these were presented as options.
(2) The question about XP is, I think, impossible to solve. It should be possible, without committing to 5 years of weekly gaming, to make reasonable full use of the experiences open to a given character. Indeed, it should take less. 9th level spells ought to exist to be used, and to use them, one should have a high level. Likewise, really powerful monsters should be able to be fought, but to fight them, one should have a high level. This means that, without handwaiving (i.e. let's just say you all went up 8 levels), regular, but less often than weekly, play should allow a player to work up to the higher levels. I'm not saying the numbers I right, but I am saying I "get" what this is all about.
(3) re: the barbarian. In many ways, I think you are right. I think I understand the motive behind "damage dice". For a long time, it was oddly MUs/wizards who could really dish out damage, not fighters. Indeed, taking on, say, giants or dragons without an MU's firepower (literally) was generally foolish. This seems, however, backwards, and for two reasons. First, fighters should be feared for their power in combat, and that should remain true in high levels against high hit die monsters (who themselves dish out a lot of damage). Second, in line with the earliest spell list, MUs should not generally be dishing out lots of damage. A few spells, fine, but in the LBBs these must wait until the 3rd level (i.e. when the MU is already 5th level). MUs should overcome foes in ways other than dishing out damage.
That said, you are quite correct. These martial damage dice are crazy, especially for classes, like barbarian and rogue (i.e. thief) who basically don't use those dice as an economy for anything else (in which case blowing them all on damage prevents their doing something else). If it's any comfort, there are many people on the WotC forums who are worried about this mechanic, especially at higher levels. So, I'd say the implementation is not right, although I think I know what they are trying to do, and I think what they are trying to do is worthwhile.
It may also be worth noting that, in the example feats and magic items presented so far, there really aren't ways to boost damage output in insane ways.
(4) Ability scores: Again, I sympathize with your perspective re: the relative unimportance of scores over class and level. Even so, the "12 as average" is mathematically a feature of the 4d6 and drop one, and that has been around since AD&D rolled around, when even Gygax himself thought that PCs needed several high scores. True, a 12 meant less in 1979. Even so, that display given above is more or less what one might expect by the 4d6 drop one method (indeed, it probably ought to have a 16 rather than a 15).
I think, however, that the score increases are not as out of control as you suggest. True, by level 20, a PC gets a total increase of +10. However, this is at best a +5/+5, since characters gain +1 to two scores every fourth level. So, admittedly, it is possible for a player to have a score of 26 by 20th level, if he were a human who rolled an 18, added 2 for being human, added one from his class (i.e. 21 at 1st), and then added one each time he could. (Demihumans or whatever they're called now can only get up to 25.) Is this crazy? Sure, but it's also unlikely.
Where I agree with the worry is whether the designers presume that players must "max out" some ability, and design monsters, etc. accordingly.
(5) I think the beer-drinking negotiator is unfair. It is possible to play that way. Sure, but I doubt most people do, even in the more recent versions of the game. Your example reminds me of an example in an old Ravenloft product, Feast of Goblyns. The point was to contrast a supposedly "average" D&D session with the "rich, evocative" style of play supposedly necessary for Ravenloft, but apparently not necessary for anyone else. The comparison is invidious in both cases. For one, 4e DMs are likely to require players to say what it is they are doing, even to say what it is they say in a negotiation, and use those details accordingly to know how or even whether to adjudicate a skill roll. For the other, OD&D could be just as boring and mechanical if it wanted to be. After all, do many high charisma characters actually roleplay charismatically, or are they allowed their morale bonuses without memorizing the St Crispian speech from Henry V?
(6) Finally, I think you are misreading the DM advice. Note, it says that players should not be forced into multiple fights, e.g., or that it should keep the PCs' levels in consideration, not so that it will be easy or success assured, but that it be *neither* too easy nor too hard. Older modules gave suggested level for characters for just this reason, so this is hardly new to D&D Next. Nothing in the passages you cited suggests to me "minimal risk" is the goal, that the characters won't ever die, etc. Some playtesters have noted with refreshment the real risk they encountered with the new rules. YMMV, of course.
(7) I will agree that the shift to "benevolent entertainer" seems unhappily the rhetoric of the new-style DM, but oddly the widely lionized Chris Perkins at least seems to prefer the "impartial referee" approach, at least in his columns on WotC.
In short, while overall I find the bits and pieces we now have both still rough and too "buildy" to look so attractive, I am still confident that a basic version of the rules might be attractive, and with a heavy DM hand and not-too-needy set of players, even a judicious allowance for options may be called for. Even Gary, in a happy moment, anticipated monster characters as totally OK!
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 31, 2013 10:51:00 GMT -6
Post by llenlleawg on Jan 31, 2013 10:51:00 GMT -6
Here's the silly bit from Feast of Goblyns:
A typical AD&D® game encounter: DM: You hear monsters in the hall outside your room, they seem to be trying to open the door. Tim: I leap to the door and prepare to attack it with my sword if it enters. Bonnie: I load my heavy crossbow and aim it at the door. DM: The door bursts open and a wolfwere charges into the room! Tim: I swing at it. My attack roll is an 18, I hit! Let's see, I did 8 points of damage to it. Bonnie: I let fly my quarrel. Drats! Only an 8, I missed. DM: The werewolf attacks Tim's character with a snarl, doing 4 points of damage. etc.
A RAVENLOFT campaign encounter: DM: Make a Constitution check for your sleeping characters. Tim: I made it. Bonnie: Darn, I failed. DM: Tim, you wake up in the middle of a nightmare in which you were being chased through dark groping woods by a huge wolf. (Now switching to a whisper) In fact, it seems as though you can still hear the hot breath of the wolf behind you. As you listen, it becomes clear that the panting is real. Although you can't see the door to your small dark room, you can hear a slow deep drawing of breath outside it in the hallway (the DM mimics the sound). In the quiet of the night, you hear a faint scratching sound at the base of the door, and the hair on the back of your neck stands up. What do you do? Tim: I quietly slip out of bed, unsheathe my sword and wake Bonnie's character. DM: (rolling dice) Your bed creeks as your weight rolls off of it. The scratching and breathing both stop. Tim: I try to grope out in the dark where I think my companion is sleeping and tap her with the flat of my sword. DM: Bonnie, your character wakes up in the middle of an identical nightmare. You feel your subconscious mind screaming at you that there is danger so loudly that it almost hurts. Your infravision picks up Tim's character as a dark red form squatting in the middle of the floor holding out his sword over your head, he looks scared. As you begin to stir, you notice that whiffs of hot air, a faint red in your infravision, are seeping under the dark form of the cool door. Just then the handle begins to slowly turn. Tim, your character can hear the door knob turning. Bonnie: I reach into my boot and pull out my dagger +2. Tim: I creep to beside the door with my back to the wall and prepare to defend myself against whatever comes into the room. DM: The knob stops turning as the slack in lock mechanism is taken up. Whatever is out there has discovered that the door is locked, but you hear only silence. Bonnie: I step out of bed with my back to the far wall and listen. DM: (Suddenly yelling out loud, "Roaaaaaar," and acting out the scene as he describes it) A huge hairy arm the size of your upper leg crashes through the wall. You see long razor sharp claws on the end of a wicked looking furry hand. It rips at your character's neck, Tim. (The monster's attack roll is made, but it misses) It tears your shirt collar off and scrapes its claws along your exposed throat. Your neck stings from the cruel scratch, but you seem to take no damage. Tim: I step back and look through the hole to see what it is. DM: A giant wolf-like head stares back at you. It rests atop a huge hairy body which looks vaguely humanoid. Its keen eyes lock onto yours for and instant, making your heart contract as a spurt of fear clutches you. Bonnie: I put away my dagger and grab for my battle axe. DM: Suddenly, the entire wall bursts into fragments as the creature leaps through it-nimbly landing on its two back paw-like feet. Plaster from the ceiling showers down in various sized chunks and temporarily blocks your vision. Then the massive being cocks one wicked looking arm upward as it poises to strike your character again. You can smell the stench of rotten flesh upon its breath.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Feb 7, 2013 0:47:47 GMT -6
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 7, 2013 0:47:47 GMT -6
llenlleawg, I exalt you for your enthusiasm, your energy, and your uncommon courtesy! I too want 5E to be great; which is why I needed to share my concerns with other interested parties. Allow me to reply, belatedly, to your points above: (1) I can say no more to this than did Zeraser recently: That's an interesting question: Was/is the purpose of supplemental materials to expand the game or circumscribe it? I think in a way it points to the conundrum that 4e made explicit: Giving players and DMs a wealth of specific options - classes, spells, etc. - actually makes it harder for them to imagine their own, just as giving the fighter a lengthy list of maneuvers she can execute every turn makes it harder for her to imagine inventing an off-the-wall move instead. Naturally I'm happy to marshal all of these observations in service of my conviction that the path to an ideal D&D lies through eliminating rules and options, not adding more. (2) Regarding XP, I have no problem with altering the pace of advancement. I'd suggest they might provide slow, medium, and fast paced XP options, for players who want to spend more of their game time at levels 1-7, 8-13, and 14-20 respectively. (3) We seem to be in agreement that grossly exaggerated damage figures ultimately hurt the game. (4) Getting higher ability scores growth is not a problem, per se. Gaining ability score increases by drinking from a blessed pool, wearing a magical helm, being on the receiving the spell of strength, wishing to be as fit as an Ox, and so on, are all perfectly legitimate and rewarding parts of the game. These could instantly raise ability scores to 18. And curses could likewise drop them to 3. The main point of different is that the players do not dictate these things -- they must risk something to gain them. What is a problem, IMHO, is how ability scores grow in 5E. In addition to the above, PCs gain ability points simply by their players choosing a race, or a class, or any other build feature, and then again as they level up. This means ability score increases are assumed. Adventure designers have to cater for maxxed ability scores lest their adventures be too easy for the players who opt for maxxed scores (and let's face it, why wouldn't you?). And alas, the very same adventures will therefore be too hard for the non-maxxed players. Folks who played Dungeons & Dragons Online (a 3E based game) observed this effect in all its glory: Fighter types that didn't have AC 60 and +50 to hit just didn't cut it in the high-end adventures. Go home and start over. (5) The beer drinking negotiator was a bit over the top, I admit. My point was that a player with a big +15 modifier is more prone to relying on his die rolls. He expects to succeed. Meanwhile, a player who has a mere +1 adjustment is more likely to consider the possibility of not succeeding at a die roll, and hence he is more likely to "talk his way around it" without resorting to a die roll at all. (6 and 7) I hope my concerns are ill founded and you are proved right
|
|
rleduc
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 75
|
Post by rleduc on Feb 7, 2013 7:29:22 GMT -6
I've frankly just gotten too old to deal with any kind of build or power/feats mechanic a la Magic the card game or 4E. Buffs upon buffs upon buffs make my head spin. I could barely play, let alone ref. if there is no option to strip this out of the game utterly, then I'm sticking with older editions. 1e is sufficiently Byzantine for me.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Sept 24, 2013 10:46:05 GMT -6
Just started looking at the final play-test packet, and I will immediately state that I LOVE the character sheet design. It is awesome.
So far, so good...
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Sept 24, 2013 11:46:39 GMT -6
Post by jeffb on Sept 24, 2013 11:46:39 GMT -6
I thought I liked the sheet too, it looks cool. In practice the group did not much care for it.
They dropped many things from the game over the course of the playtest I really liked, and they are doing some things outside the rules (mainly putting a stranglehold on variety, and pushing branding of the D&D fluff and aesthetic into a single vision) that have totally turned m eoff in recent months. The last few playtests I ran were pretty humdrum. I did not feel at the table it offered any marked improvements over other editions. Pathfinder or 4e or C&C have already done most of what constitutes as "new" in NEXT. It reminds me of a simplified 3e., which I have done myself already.
I will wait until it releases and also see what kind of adventure support it gets before I write it off.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Sept 24, 2013 15:01:29 GMT -6
Hm. I read through a few of the documents over lunch, and am beginning to think your analysis is pretty spot-on.
I'd love to hear a bit more about what you liked that's been dropped, and what you mean by a "stranglehold on variety".
We only played a session with the very first iteration of the rules, and it was pretty fun at that point...
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Sept 24, 2013 17:01:52 GMT -6
Post by jeffb on Sept 24, 2013 17:01:52 GMT -6
There have been a ton of things over the many packets. But I loved martial dice in its original incarnation, and most recently fields of lore (they went back to a more general skill system).
As for the second part, they know it is hard to protect rules, so they are introducing tons of "story content", that they want to utilize for differentiating D&D from WoW for example. Cosmologies, monster lore, races, setting, etc. It is all being "harder coded" into the core game to make sure that the " D&D experience" is uniform, regardless of what media you find it in...CRPGs, MMOs, P&P, novels, comics, etc. They are also essentially creating the new look of the game with the software company they are working with for the next big FR CRPG...the art direction for that game will filter down to the P&P game. If you ever read the articles by Jon Schindehette (sp) over @ WOTC, you can find all the hubub there.
It is all about the branding.
|
|
machpants
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Supersonic Underwear!
Posts: 259
|
D&D 5E
Sept 24, 2013 18:06:04 GMT -6
Post by machpants on Sept 24, 2013 18:06:04 GMT -6
It is pretty hard to get a handle on what is happening, IMO, the packets have changed significantly. And it is a long time til release who knows what it will look like then. I'll reserve all judgement til I have the PHB and DMG in my hands.
|
|