W E Ray wrote:
So a CE Anti-Paladin and a LG Paladin walk into a bar...
How is that working for the group?
Aren't these already covered by spell research? Acid Ball = Fire Ball but with acid damage rather than fire? Actually if I was GM and you agreed to theme ALL 'fire' spells as 'acid' I would just let you have it.
Sign up to the WotC D&DN playtest - might be what you are after and people might be willing to play it - 'cos it is new and therefore better...'. I too have found that 2e D&D was a pinnacle of D&D-like RPGs even now in the sea of modern games. But also like you PF is really the only game in town - while way better than I found 3.5e, 2e is still my one true love...
The Burning Wheel is a fantastic game from Luke and we have played it for a while now. Given the quality and care that Luke puts into his games backing this was a no-brainer for me. Like the wonderful people at Paizo, Luke is willing to take the time to answer emails etc.
judas 147 wrote:
The elf sword thing is just a 'new' take on what has been in D&D since 1e.
I agree that WotC need to step up and engage their market. Another 4e PR nightmare and it might be time to see if the designers can pull a 'Paizo' and go independent and get the brand rights to D&D. Hasbro are not nice customers when it comes to IP however...
It doesn't matter so much about new or old, but D&DN has to provide a different type of play to PF (Paizo do that so well) and 4e (which lets face it wasn't a block buster).
I think everyone agrees that new be default doesn't mean good. I find D&DN to be rather new when compared to 1e/2e but not so new compared to the d20 system. For someone who had only played 4e it would be completely new. Vantage point matters in this case.
For me D&DN looks rather new, the saving throws, the new combat progressions, way spells like interchangeable slots, expertise dice, adv./dis. etc. I like the way it from the outside looks like a classic car, but lift the hood and we fine a very modern sleek engine. As of the latest play test it allows me to tell the stories I like to tell better than 3e/4e/PF - I am a 'story telling' DM where physical combats, while exciting, rarely make up a focus of my campaigns. Likely stems from my time playing 'old school' White Wolf games (well except Werewolf...).
So for me the new is I can once again play the type of D&D I like but get to use the learning's of the last 13 years in terms of stream lined d20 mechanics. D&DN is my cake I get to have and eat. Well until the crunch-bridge at WotC release a playtest that requires 3D printed play environments that only suit 14" figures to play any combats 'devolving' D&D into a Skirmish Tabletop Wargame (again). I say devolving as D&D was originally Gygax's attempt to make a skirmish game that moved away from the tabletop and into the mind. I guess that is why (and grognards will beat me now) I liked 2e so much, it seemed the logical next step in removing tabletop elements from the D&D RPG. And then there was 3e, hmmmm, followed by 3.5e... Good one guys.
So what I mean by D&DN = 2e isn't I find them mechanically similar just they are played in the same fashion. I personally am very comfortable with that play style.
Ultimately we will all decide if we like the 'new' D&D and vote with our wallets. Until the 'miniatures boardgame'* element reenters D&DN they have my vote.
* I would be over the moon if they added a optional section to cover miniature battles, just not core rules. Like 'classic' Battletech where it was designed for Hex-play but they had an Inches-play optional section.
I guess I take it back about 5e doing anything original. IT doesn't even have that now and it's less interesting than that edge system.
Why does it have to be original? Why can't it be taking the best bits of the last 39 years and make a game? 4e was FULL of original ideas and it wasn't as well received as WotC had hoped - hence Pathfinder was born and we are play testing D&DN.
My current take on D&DN is 2e feel with a d20-lite mechanics. My personal opinion is that we have a 400 pound-mechanic Gorilla d20 game called Pathfinder, WotC don't need to release another on the market.
@kmal2t => Can I ask what you don't get out of the current Pathfinder game that you think D&DN should have? This isn't a trap question, honesty where does Pathfinder fail for you?
For me Pathfinder fails to be simple fun, its brain wrecking and at times amazingly frustrating. Combats take a long time and require a battle mat to truly carry out. I'll play in a game but I hate GMing it. D&DN to date lets me DM again without thinking the players are out to get me - as in personally find gaps in my System Mastery to exploit.
How similar is Adv/Disadv. to the Edge?
Like a very simple version of that system. No modifiers just roll 2d20 and either take the lowest or highest. No stacking and Adv. cancels a Dis. independent of the number of each - e.g. 2 x Adv. is still cancelled by 1 x Dis. Simple and quick.
The consequence is a lot of the time the modifiers (stats/class etc) never change making play very fast and character sheets don't end up with multiple lines of 'if I attack with feat A, feat B, feat C, two weapons' or worse players trying to quickly work out 5 or 6 attacks and the correct modifiers on the fly as I have had players do in 3.5e/PF.
Count me in for the Adv./Dis. McLovin' it. Agreed it is overused a little, but in general while DMing a game it is a great wee mechanic. Far faster than remembering (or looking up) numerous modifiers.
What Jeff said.
When testing anything you want focus, asking for feedback on say the Paladin and having every second person comment on the Sorcerer (for example) wouldn't' be very helpful.
As mentioned, it is not the complete game and likely won't be until we are asked to buy the final product.
How many people still play the Pathfinder Beta compared to the production Pathfinder Core Rules 5th printing?
We are using the piecemeal release from WotC to try out classes that some of our players wouldn't have played usually. So far we haven't encountered any game breakers, a few weird things, but nothing fatal. After playing Pathfinder we are finding it less hard on the brain and kinder to the DM. Sometimes GMing Pathfinder feels like the players challenging the GMs 'game mastery' as the goal of the game.
If your wanting a more complete game feel perhaps wait until they release a 'beta' version (assuming they do).
I have played since the first release and I wouldn't focus too much on what isn't in the playtest. Instead try what is in the playtest. Other stuff will be released in due course.
We are finding the new system the best we have played since 2e AD&D.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Ah, true the 'effect' has a bell curve but the dice rolls themselves don't. I was getting slightly confused and thinking we were comparing a multi-die added together mechanic with this 2 rolls choose highest.
We aren't discussing flat vs bell curve. Not sure how that crept in, it in the context of the Adv./Dis. mechanic completely and utterly irreverent.
What we have found is that even with combat being TotM that players and GM's would make every effort to gain advantage or put the enemy at a disadvantage because in equal fight it did have a big effect. For example why would a player continue to fight downhill from someone after round one unless stuck in place?
Perhaps at the start we did find what you found, honesty I have forgotten, but now after so much play I find the players tend to look to cancel out any advantages. One disadvantage cancels any number of advantages - and vice versa.
I guess you could house rule a flat +2/-2 for having Adv./Dis. and stick to 1d20?
We are finding D&DN less prone to optimal builds owning the game (aka 3.5e/PF).
I really must ask again kmal2t, have you used the mechanics in play and found they changed the game in a way you and your players weren't happy with? Reading a rule and deciding you don't like it is very different from playing the rules and finding it has negative consequences in game.
But by taking the highest (say) you shift the expected outcome - and in a non-linear fashion (see your own table). If I need 11+ to succeed on 1d20 that is 50%, but it is 75% if you allow me to roll 2d20 taking that highest. These %'s do not hold true at say needing 14+. That is what we mean by non-linear (i.e. not constant 5% increments) in this case. Bell curves have nothing to do with this, as you point out, and they aren't the crux of the argument I make as to why I like the Adv./Dis. system IN PLAY.
PS: I assume you mean 2d6 for rolling 7's, 3d6 would be 10-11 (the average 1e characters stats...)
Steve Geddes wrote:
That pretty much is the clearest example of the reason why the Adv./Dis. mechanic isn't linear and shouldn't be linear I have read - ever.
I did and it reads like 'A' doesn't work like 'B' so therefore 'A' is not a good system.
My point was that just because historically d20 employed ONLY a flat system that it means that is the only system that could work in a d20 system. True it is effectly a new sub-system and for some reason sub-systems (i.e. 1e/2e) were wrong and bad and only people with PhD's could understand them. It was much better to produce a bland system of d20 + modifiers and attempt to shoe horn everything into this system. Hmmm, me thinks my repressed anger at what the soulless d20 system did to my hobby is leaking out...
From GMing this version of D&D I have found the system fun, fast, and workable. That is what counts for me.
Skills are still the cake and Advantages are but the icing.
Again in how many of your D&DN sessions have you found this mechanic to have been game breaker?
we would use one of the d6 systems like rolling 3d6 and give him like a +10 as he's more likely to perform in a higher range.
Let's look at the 'd6 system';
d6 (ala WEG, e.g. Star Wars): To do something you roll a number of d6 equal to the skill plus stat. Modifiers are by adding or subtracting dice. So Mr Bolt may have 12d6 sprint and I may have 3d6. Even giving me a 2d6 advantage will not greatly increase my chances - but if I was at 12d6 also then going to 14d6 would potentially help a lot more. But there is still a chance that Bolt will trip or fall and I'll win even with my 3d6.
This method of modifying outcomes has also been used in Blue Planet V2, against it works in game quite well. My point being this approach isn't something new and wacky that WotC have thrown into the game. I think they did so completely on purpose and as long as the word Bonus and Advantage aren't confused you'll see it is a nice addition. So BONUS does not equal ADVANTAGE from a mechanics point of view. They act in very different ways and would be used in different situations.
Another way to think of it is imagine there is a pin balancing on the edge of a razor blade (very tricky to do...). If it is perfectly balanced then even one stray, say nitrogen molecule, could cause the pin to fall to the right or the left. Now if we repeat this but with the pin at a 30 degree angle to the left then it is unlikely (however not impossible) that a random molecular bump will cause the pin to flick over to the right. Gravity (cf a skill) wins almost certainly.
Your SKILL is your advantage as your SKILL goes up than this advantage does go up - the same fashion it always has since early 2000's. Now the ADVANTAGE mechanic is new knob that can be employed to present factors other than your SKILL. I works by changing a knife edge result dramatically (but not certainly) in favor of one party. Contests that are very easy or very hard will be more likely effected by your SKILL directly. In short being SKILLed is still better than standing up a hill.
Again in play since the first playtest this mechanic has not screwed up our games. Do you have an example where the mechanic derailed your playtest? I can list some examples of where that mechanic added suspense and comedy value in ours.
We found 'in our games' that players became more likely to attempt gauge an enemy or situation. Because as we are all saying an Advantage or Disadvantage can really effect an almost equal contest but isn't so important if you are obviously going to win (or lose).
Grrrr - will tidy up later...
And if we take a case of needing 18-20 to succeed.
1d20 = 15%
or if a 20 is required you have a 4.75% bonus or ~+1.
Sliding scale - +5 in the mid ranges turning a 50:50 event into a meaningful Advantage while not making the more difficult tasks too easy. If you are fixated on a linear system then true this is bad by the nature of being different - but I'm seeing a simple elegant solution to cut down on having numerous static dice modifiers.
Theory crafting is about averages. A single dice roll is a stochastic event. My point being if I have 20%, 40%, 60%, or 80% change of succeeding and at the table the d20 come up a '2' its a failure and that is independent of the 'probabilities'.
Basically however the system provides a scaled system that has at its extremes +/-5 (between 9-12 roughly) and +/-2 at low/high die rolls required. Not too shocking where compared to some of the static bonuses of even low level PF characters can have.
That aside, I think the system does exactly what it promises, an Advantage or a Disadvantage. And these actually matter. We (meaning my personal experience) find them rather exciting in play as they count enough to (as people have commented) swing the probabilities on a scale that modifiers do not. Then again think of PF things like +34 Tumble etc that make the d20 almost irrelevant. The only way to counter such big modifiers is to have large minuses.
What we really like is that Avd./Dis. don't actually change the target number, makes things simple and fast. If I have a target DC of 18 and +4 to my roll, it's very easy to work out I need 14+, either on 1d20 (neutral), 2d20 (highest) or 2d20 (lowest) - in all cases I still need a 14+. From an immersion point of view I have found as DM I can state "You are at a disadvantage" which means something mechanically but is far more in-game to say than "that'll be a -4 to hit".
Still horses for courses, the game ultimately won't suit all but we are having the best fun since 2e. Please note my long in the tooth group thought 3e/3.5e/4e sort of sucked, but for differing reasons. We played them because they were the game in town. D&DN really strikes us as 2e brought screaming and kicking into the 21st century.
Having played all the play tests to date and having used the system we have found that perhaps on paper (theory craft) you can come up with examples of the system being 'broken' that in play it sort of averages out. We still get fails to hit even with the advantage. The thing I like about it is that it shifts the probabilities but not by a set amount. But for us the major 'advantage' is it cuts down on modifiers which under 3.5e/PF get well out of hand.
Do I believe that adding +2 to a hit roll under 3.5e is any more an accurate reflection of actually hitting some with a sword than using the Advantage system - well nope, but in the later case it in play is faster to use and easy to explain to players.
I am really quite taken with the minimisation of modifiers in 5e. PF covers modifiers in buckets, I'm hoping that D&DN isn't just PF-lite.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Well you would have teleported if it wasn't for the Dimensional Anchor spell on you...
Even if you store you clone on ice, quoting the PRD, "A duplicate can be grown while the original still lives, or when the original soul is unavailable, but the resulting body is merely a soulless bit of inert flesh which rots if not preserved."
"Once the spell is cast, the duplicate must be grown in a laboratory for 2d4 months.
When the clone is completed, the original's soul enters it immediately, if that creature is already dead."
Emphasis mine. But it doesn't say that if you aren't dead at the completion of the clone that the stored clone can receive the soul at all. In fact the we I read it the only way the actual caster of the spell can have this work on themselves is if they use contingency clone & their own whole dead body is the spell component.
I really don't think you can 'bank' clones for a rainy day.
Again 1e is a very different beast. Teleport, unless teleport without error may end in you killing yourself. Any close encounter with a fighter with multiple attacks results in you automatically losing initiative, no concentration rolls back then. Having INT 18 and being even able to cast 9th level spells wasn't a certainty (no point system back then). Not to mention you didn't automatically have access to every spell in the book just because you gained a level. They did have more save or die spells that is true. An archmage burning all of their spells takes 144 hours to recover those spells - that isn't including resting. I am not saying wizards in 1e weren't powerful, just they pale in comparison to their PF counterparts and have real weaknesses that actually mean something in game. So again under 3e/PF you are correct but under 1e I'm not so certain.
I'll assume that "Dragonlance is terrible" was meant to include a sentence where you state that this is your opinion?
If we look at Dragonlance based on 1e AD&D things don't look so good for the Wizards. The 3e+ concept of wake up and poof all your spells are back makes what you say true, but in 1e/2e you only had to be willing to sacrifice a few and they were dead meat. Wizards now have far more spells per day and get them back almost instantaneously compared with their 1e/2e counterparts.
Roleplaying doesn't stop combat but the GM can. That is what we are talking about. Mechanically it is better to focus all attacks on one player from all available foes. Once down move on to another player. Very much in the same way players would. A PC or critter on 1 hp does as much damage as one on full hp. The GM can make calls that can turn a potential TPK into an exciting combat - or not.
I do agree with what you are saying about taking a downed character hostage. The specific example however was a player that was not likely to survive another combat round so the GM had the enemy change targets at that point rather than finishing off the character and then changing targets. Common sense would say that taking out one set of actions is better than changing targets and leaving the severely wounded character up and running.
I think the right choice was made, killing characters isn't the point of the game, but is a consequence sometimes however.
And that was not at all what I did in any case. I simply shifted the enemy focus to a new target that had presented itself.
@Dragonmoon: Yes that example was non-PFS and really just meant as an example. Sorry for confusion/alarm it may have cuased.
@TriOmegaZero: By on the ropes, do you mean the Cleric was down (0 hp or less) or just likely to be DOA if they continued to be in the fight?
I have yet to kill any character in my organized sessions, and have played a number of the season 4 scenarios. My players are a range of optimizations, from totally to not at all. There have been close calls, and times I have deliberately backed off on weakened party members. (The most recent being in Fabric of Reality yesterday when the cleric was on the ropes.) I'm not seeing the same issue the OP is.
Backing off is the sign of an experienced GM. You in what some would term cheating gave the players a break. Thid is done when we keep in mind that it is an RPG and not a Us vs Them board game. I like leaving rolls as they lay but I've knocked off a few hundred hp's off critters if I thought the party was headed for a TPK.
I have also added hp's to bosses I thought wee turning to mush to quickly resulting in a boring fight.
As well as in 1e...
Individual initiative isn't used in 1e and it doesn't actually mean the same as the d20 concept of initiative. You can win initiative and still not act first in 1e.
No skills in reading arcane tomes and perhaps blind fighting - along with never actually opening your eyes. Just make something you like, optimisation in CoC won't increase you life span...
Steve Geddes wrote:
From OSRIC v2.2. It works really well, however, you do loose a lot of the subtle details from the full 1e AD&D system - but for new players this is countered by not being so darn confusing.
3. determine Initiative: After any surprise segments are resolved
We are about to start our first adevnture. Our party is a Human Monk, a Human Wizard, a Halfling Thief, and a Dwarf Fighter. I'm running T1 the Village of Hommlet.
Awesome! Interesting to have a Monk.
Did you remember to check for Psionics? Monk have one of the best chances thanks to their required minimum stats...
Learn on the job, it was the way of 1e. Coming from Holmes and then getting into 1e was a real shock way back when! My first character was a Druid - actually wanted a Paladin (sigh) but my stats while excellent (see Druid) I just wasn't Charismatic enough :(
I'll find a link I have on the initiative system as best guessed by those who spoke with Gygax and others. I also wargame and the full initiative system is rather complicated but has a really good feel to it.
In short Gygax changed things like the wind also. So you can not doing anything wrong as long as players are having fun. Back in high school we just went with both sides roll d6 and the highest goes first and ties were simultaneous for initiative. We never delved into what speed factors were for etc. However we did play the weapon 'to hit' adjustments. Many didn't but if you do they really add flavour to the weapons. In 1e why anyone would ever use a Crossbow is a mystery, but use the to hit adjustments and suddenly you find that when faced with armoured knights a Crossbow rules and a Longbow is better suited to shooting peasants. If you are a wargamer try the weapon to hit adjusts they just feel right.
We did play Gold = XP and never found it a problem, far less than any WBL as in PF for example.
I'm sure you will get lots of help on these forums, us old schoolers love retelling tales of our youth :)
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Are you suggesting that there should be multiple die rolls for social encounters? Are you afraid of accidentally failing because its only 1 roll? Cause I gotta tell you its pretty easy to make it dang near impossible to fail on most skill checks if you're actually devoting yourself to them, and you don't autofail on 1's.
In short I guess yes. As claymade mentioned a social combat can be as exciting as any other combat yet we are restricted greatly in what we can do. A few feats or even feat chains that specifically allow more interesting things to occur in social settings would be great. I am not saying +6, or any plus isn't really helpful, it is just very boring. Read Power Attack and the like and fighters can do something no one else without that feat can do.
It's not fear of rolling a '1' its just rolling a single skill check for something that might be the social equivalent of a Boss Fight seems, dull.
As claymade pointed out, would we be so excited about combat if sword battles were a single skill test, roll d20+mod. compare with enemy and the highest number kills or maims the other?
My point, if I was to have one, is that Bards and the like would be much more fun and characters not so focused on DPR if there was another type of combat. As much as I don't actually need to know how to fight with a chain to make a Trip-Fighter I won't need to know how win a debating contest to make a Bluff-Ranger (silly examples I know). Have a list of Social Combat options, for example from The Burning Wheel RPG (Avoid, Dismiss, Feint, Incite, Obfuscate, Point, and Rebuttal), means players wouldn't need to actually be able to be good verbal warfare.
Sure the single die roll works as a mechanic of course, but is it fun?
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
The point is Social 'skills' are one die affairs, Combat 'skills' are multitude. Claymade above said it far better.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
So a generic feat that could be equally applied to knitting is the 'face man' feat trump card?!
No one penalizes a fighter for not going into detail into how he swings his sword.
The rules do for you. The number of feats and rules that exist for ONLY combat exceed the rules on Social Combat by orders of magnitude. At my tables the fighting types tend to say using Feat X, Y, and Z I do a Full Attack etc during combat. What are my options with Bluff? Well it's saying I'm trying to use Bluff really isn't it...
Just scanned the Feats in the Core book and didn't find one feat to help me be 'the face' - perhaps someone will kindly point out any I missed.
Jester David wrote:
Only if the DM requires the player to say exactly what their character is saying, and that would be tricky at best. Intent + additional information could be presented as bullet points if wanted. You aren't roleplaying your stat you are roleplaying and then using your characters stats/skills to accomplish your intent.
For example (and using a Knowledge roll);
You come across a Guard named Malcolm in a village you used to live in. You ask the GM if you know anything about this guy that would help you distract him so your other party members can enter the town unseen, Knowledge (local) is rolled. You succeed in finding out the guy has a phobia of spiders (as decided then and there by the GM as a scene hook). So now you tell the GM you want to distract him using your Bluff skill by mentioning there is a big freak'n spider on this back. GM thinks ok +2 bonus to the roll.
That for me is much better than the player saying "I roll my Bluff skill to distract him" and the GM saying "Ok, he is distracted".
The older I get the more I remember such things in my roleplaying sessions. I think when I was younger big damage numbers (esp. Fireball) use to cool me out however.
I'm pretty sure no one is saying that they would expect that in game. I would become HUGELY uncomfortable having to roleplay a seduction interaction for example. But I would be ok clinically saying my intent and adding in bits of information I think would help my cause. Social interactions are very different beasts to combat interactions, combat boils down to a board game, social skills have much more scope and are the rolelplaying bit of a roleplaying game. Each person will have their own limits on how much they want to inject into the roleplaying part of the game and that is completely fine.
That is what I mean. I don't like when a players says "I'll bluff the monster." To which I would reply "How?" and they simply say "With my +23 Bluff skill" - that annoys me. I never ask for a novel length monologue, just intent and how they imagine it playing out. Then if they succeed we know what is going to happen (initial intent) and if they fail, well, they are mine... :) I rarely make social interactions a simple pass/fail, any social interaction that requires a dice roll must have something on the line. In combat it's pretty black & white, but sort of grey in the social area.
Baltzar Callinova wrote:
Unlike [Insert MMO Game of Your Choice Here] a real life human DM can roll with whatever party composition is put before them. Why RL-RPGs kick computer-RPGs butts. Ran a party of all Dwarf fighters once, wasn't a bad game at all. Would have sucked if it was an MMO-RPG however...