Uchawi's page

Uchawi wrote:

If you like ToTM that is great, but then details are not as important.

This is interesting to me - in my experience, it's the other way around (although maybe I mean something different than you by "details").

We seem to pay much more attention to the idiosyncracies of the environment we're in when we steer clear of the mat. Once we start drawing things out, the room details almost start to be irrelevant. I found that when we played with a grid (in PF and 4E) all we focussed on was the squares - who's in range of whom? Who's flanking who? Who has cover? Can I make it across the room to cut off the mage's escape?...and so forth.

Even if the DM drew in tables, barrels, chandeliers or what have you, we never tried swinging/pushing/flipping or otherwise interacting with them - we just asked if they were difficult terrain.

I never considered my imagination dumbed down when playing on a grid versus strictly ToTM, but the grid provides a frame of reference; so everyone's imagination starts to synchronize versus being farther apart. I guess getting used to either format you will start to make assumptions based on what is drawn or how the DM presents information. That is just a trap everyone falls into once you settle in for the long haul. If the DM mixes it up (grid or ToTM) then you will always be second guessing yourself and your assumptions.

With any edition of D&D you can role play and use tactics, strategy, etc. but the difference between specific editions is depth of choice and reward for system mastery. It is like comparing sports at the elementary school level, versus high school, versus college. I am sure I could come up with a lot of different analogies. And with any use of tactics or strategy the accuracy of the results is the difference between success and failure, so that is where a grid comes into play. I have used a grid since I started playing D&D with the blue box and forward.

If you like ToTM that is great, but then details are not as important.

As with any other game, it just depends on what you want out of it, and how much effort you want to put into it. So 5E is very abstract and tends to simplify things, where Pathfinder reaches the pinnacle of complexity, and 4E is somewhere in between.

I have not found a perfect D&D, but each version, including Pathfinder has different strengths and weaknesses.

The biggest gap in balance is flexibility of choice in D&D, with the exception of 4E, the caster is supreme. But for a fantasy setting, most will accept the limits of mundane/martial classes.

I would ask do you intend to DM or play? As a DM you are free to choose whatever system you want as long as you have time, money and interest. As a player, the choices are more restricted and most likely you will be limited to the more popular game systems.

When I moved away from D&D, there was always a couple DMs in our group that was willing to play the new system. So I benefited on both sides of the table.

Moon Cycles

http://www.dlnexus.com/fan/rules/11899.aspx

I guess it makes sense if the traditional message board is becoming obsolete. But I am not one of the followers to get full on board with facebook, twitter, or tumblr. Maybe that is more of a statement for a specific age group, and the influx of young players to 5E.

I could also see it as a way to control the message, where they only post announcements via third parties, but have no official mechanism to critique the company.

I doubt 5E players with flock to the Paizo board and agree Enworld is the best candidate.

It is not considered true 5E, but maneuvers from the playtest for martial classes to replace feat chains. Then feats could be neutral choices for all classes. I would also port over rituals for all classes, but I would probably stick with straight vancian system to keep spells simple.

The only other thing is attacks and save based effects for all classes.

The key is to mix up encounter challenges so it is hard for the players to predict the story pacing, so in that sense I develop an appropriate level encounter that may encompass multiple rooms, or create the same encounter above the characters levels. The same applies for single rooms, areas, regions, etc. A true sandbox in my mind is a roller coaster ride. You never know what is around the next corner.

I like a mix of combat and utility for all classes, and the worse classes to me are the ones that may specialize at combat but have very little utility or vice versa. One thing all classes (players) can do is roleplay, choose equipment, gain magic items, etc. So what I prefer is the mechanical structure for every class to be flexible.

Going Nova in any edition of D&D is a problem, but more so with systems like 3E because the sub-systems and choices for classes vary greatly. It is harder for the DM to predict overall party power.

And on that account, I would never want to be a public DM, in reference to hind sight, second guessing, etc. So on that front I can admire Chris. Even if I may disagree on specific approaches or rulings.

I did not see much value in the DMG, so I did not buy it. What I expected was more along the lines of an option book like unearthed arcana. If 5E is the DMs edition, then offer options to expand it or add depth.

I see the benefits of action specificity that even extends into concepts like damage types, power sources, roles, etc. where you have discrete sections of the game defined. Then when you modify it, it cascades to rules that fall under the same scope or you are free to ignore it.

I found 4E could handle most fantasy settings, except for worlds or stories with intricate high level magic with detailed spells. In theory magic rituals could fill the gap, but there is a lot of work to be done on that front. The rest of what 4E can or can not do is often compared to other D&D editions and specific mechanics that are offered. A lot of bias comes into play depending on what version of D&D you weaned your teeth on.

Uchawi wrote:

I hope it has something to deliver class ability for martial characters, similar to spells, where each class may create a toolbox of abilities to help define the character and/or specialization. Then feats can be added as an additional layer to add more specialization, or ability any class may use.

Woot? Have you looked at the PHBS.

Warder

Woot? If you are referencing the Players Handbook, then I would want something similar to battlemaster maneuvers added to every martial class. It was presented in the early playtest, so it would be a shame to abandon it.

I hope it has something to deliver class ability for martial characters, similar to spells, where each class may create a toolbox of abilities to help define the character and/or specialization. Then feats can be added as an additional layer to add more specialization, or ability any class may use.

I am of the same mind, where a specific class for a race is fine, but it is too limited to make a race a class without any other choices.

I would guess maybe 1 or 2 quarters, as Paizo has the upper hand on the business approach overall. You also have to consider new gamers will move to a more advance/complex product over time, so 5E will feed Pathfinder sales. And Paizo has diversified into other areas that will also be fed by fantasy RPGs in general.

And from my standpoint and experience so far, 5E does not offer enough to be different, while at the same time trying to carry the baggage of multiple editions. So any initial high volume sales will taper off because there is not way it can cater to such a diverse group of D&D players.

I see 5E as being too simple, and Pathfinder being too complex. But I do believe it will be easier to remove choices from a game like Pathfinder, or even just playing with the core set of books like PHB, MM, or DMG, then trying to add complexity to 5E. With the later, bounded accuracy, advantage/disadvantage, or other mechanics that are simple but cover a wide range of modifiers will make it hard to add any detail to the game. Unless you don't care about any sense of balance (which I realize is a polarizing topic). From my perspective there is not a version of D&D that meets the sweet spot of controlling complexity at the table. Therefore, you have to make some trade offs regardless of the version of D&D, Pathfinder, or similar game, you want to play that uses D20.

And from a 5E perspective, it is a new game, so it does have the advantage of being something different, but I am afraid it will also have less mileage on the tires before the table gets bored with it.

I see it more as a precedent, in regards to letting players modify feats and how far do you take it. With feats being so broad (macro feats versus micro), you have to be careful about changes stepping on class niches. So if a feat is also covered by class ability, then do you let the class be modified as well. How do you deal with feats with ability requirements, etc.?

I tried Pathfinder as a DM and player and did not like it. I will try 5E as a DM and player to see if I do like it.

I will give it a try. But the system that peeks the most interest from my standpoint is 'The Strange'. I am a firm believer that an RPG that spans multiple genres, that is able to produce content similar to Paizo or WOTC (if they get back on track) will be the future. But I also think that a class based system is key, so if GURPS or even Savage worlds did the same thing, I would be in Nirvana.

I hope 5E builds in expected behaviors in the rules and does not leave it too open ended for sub-systems to be added. That is one thing that 4e did that made it easy to DM. Once you understood the rules and action economy, the rest was simple. I am not stating 4E didn't have problems in those areas, but overall it was much easier to pick up and run a game.

I also hope subclasses can be adjusted for complexity, instead of one subclass being simple and the other complex. I want to make the choice or running a simple gladiator or complex one. If I like the subclass, I don't want to be locked into one play style.

And finally, I want variety for martial characters in reference to maneuvers or abilities. Once I played 4E, there is no going back to the simple fighter.

I like fluff that creates examples, or generates ideas, and in reference to rules the fluff should remain neutral or support the mechanic. Contradicting the mechanics is not a good situation. Also if the fluff adds stuff the mechanic does not appear to support creates the awkward situation where you are left guessing and most the time results in arguments.

That is why I place the focus on rules being consistent and clear, over balance, because no one is going to agree on what level of balance is appropriate. It does not mean balance should be ignored, but consitency and clarity goes a long way to help resolve disputes.

I do like balance to a degree, but consistency is even more important, so rules don't end up contradicting or ignoring each other.

It is hard to argue in favor of 4E, when WOTC has moved on to 5E. That will always be thrown in your face, regardless of the innovations 4E made. Basically, WOTC lost its way in regards to what makes D&D successful, and the rules is only one part. Where they failed with 4E, is not playtesting it, or releasing a steady stream of adventures, versus splat books with more options. In addition, they tried to change the direction of 4E with essentials, and fragmented their own player base. And there are areas in 4E that were begging for attention to close some of the rifts like rituals and martial practices, but they failed to deliver on a concept that had merit if executed properly.

It is dice averaging, which does not play very well with flat bonuses, especially if you remove it from the game. The math and expectations change. I also like discrete modifiers to add distinction to the game by adding them up. It gets more interesting when you add skill dice to the mix (more dice averaging).

So overall I like it used in a limited fashion on the high end of DC or AC. So maybe any time the situational modifiers exceed +/- 5 then use it. There are also issues of stacking advantage and disadvantage when one is greater than the other, and there is also the pet peeve of mulitple creatures that have advantage/disadvantage and rolling for each one.

And finally, does that mean if the 4E Avenger class exists in the game, then 4D20 will be used :)

4E is great from a uniformed rules perspective and expected behaviors in reference to roles, class, themes, races, powers, skills, conditions, etc. Rules were isolated and build upon each other. But it went to far in locking choices down to class, like removing mulitple attacks, or offering variance of choice like the essentials mage versus the 4e wizard. And where it had great potential with rituals, martial practices and alchemy sections, nothing was done to make those systems more robust. So Essentials should have been an effort to expand 4E, instead of pulling back to a more simplified format. It is my preferred system overall to date for the ease of developing adventures as a DM.

I could accept different rates of measurement as a module, but for simplicity just standardize them for now, although I do find it comical that they drop units of measurement from 4E to go back to explicit measurements in 5E; like it was some type of improvment. But that is splitting hairs. It is good they are going back to include narratives in 5E, as it was baffling why they dropped that heritage from 4E, when it could have handled it easily. They did the hard part on focusing on the underlying mechanics to improve the game overall.

As to a world, it would be refreshing to create new one, but that would be a tall order in comparison to their current challenges. I would be happy if they released Greyhawk again. If they focus on Forgotten Realms they are just going to open up alot of old wounds.

I am still on the fence with advantage/disadvantage, but it is a novel concept to increase your chances of hitting, without granting to many bonuses or subtractions for an individual hit to make it auto success or fail. I believe this is in the system to keep bounded accuracy in place, where defenses and hit rates don’t scale up like 4E, and keep more of a traditional approach of certain creatures and armors always having a relative defense or hit that does not change dramatically.

As to being combat focused versus role playing, I do not think it will have a problem with either, but it definitely is a step away from 4E power structure, only a dozen skills, and needing a grid. With ability rolls determining the majority of skills, it will cover more role playing situations that are not bound by a rigid skill system that is tied to classes.

I am not convinced on expertise dice, on par with my reservations with advantage/disadvantage, since they are new mechanics.
I wish they would keep rituals distinct and separate from spells, so they can be used to cover some of the classics like wish outside of combat.

I will have to look at the healing rules in details, as I believe they are attempting to maintain the classic mechanisms of healing at the end of the day, while addressing some of the more random healing elements that drive me up a wall since they create a road block to further advance the story. It is feasible to have classic healing all the way to 4E methods of healing, just by offering some optional rules or variation of healing for the DM to control.

I am also not in the camp of the rogue, or similar classes like bards, being the skill monkeys, especially if areas like trap finding are limited to specific classes. But I don't like the concept of skill monkey in general.

Anyone is going to have a heart attack if they rigidly subscribe to a specific version of D&D, without making any types of compromise. But with those individuals, they are probably playing the edition of D&D they prefer and won’t be influenced by the release of 5E.

All I can do is continue to make comments on the WOTC boards, and wait.

To be honest I rarely paid attention to who writes or develops the rules or adventures starting with 4E, or Pathfinder, and going all the way back to 1E. There is only so many ways to re-package D&D, and all the hard work has been done. If Monte stayed, then those that don't like 4E would most likely find another reason not to like 5E. I always thought it was odd bringing him on, when he appears to be fixated on older editions of the game and never supported 4E. The idea behind D&D Next is to bridge the generations of the game, and truely, that will be very hard to accomplish with everyone drawing lines in the sand and digging trenches.

If you are going to be a lead designer, or any type of developer for 5E, and have a vested interest, then you are going to need a flack jacket and a thick skin just to make it through the play test. With a little bit of faith, an ear to the forums, and a bit of luck, perhaps 5E will meet it's intended purpose.

Taking 10 percent profit is like an investment for the group, you have to show the returns on such an investment to keep the groups interest. Just stating you are taking 10 percent based on an organizational belief will not fly with most players, if you do not take the effort to explain how is benefits the group.

I am more pesimistic on WOTC's attitude on making the content available for players or third parties, versus the system itself. I prefer 4E over every edition of D&D, and PF. However the powers that be had little faith in the product and will develop 5E.

I think it is more important to have a viable virtual table top and offline character builder, and adventures to support both, to see any success in the future. Face it, with the complexity of today's games, and the limited amount of players around the neighborhood, the game is crying for a virtual environment, but at the same time they need to make the game available for those that play at home, and third parties, without getting religious on the copy right protection.

I am trying 4E and fantasy grounds at the moment which is decent, but it could be so much better with a dedicated rule set that is accessible to players and DMs.

Implement a system for 4E where healing surges are gained back at a set rate, like 1 every 2 hours. Then you can add in other things like food and disease that may adjust the rate of recovery. Then remove the mechanic that all the healing surges are recovered at the end of an extended rest. You can add other things in like critical that cause additional effects, if that is not enough.

It is all about scope and what classes can do in reference to each other in the broad scheme of the game. It is easy to focus in on one class, but overall a good game will review what each class brings to the table. So if spell casters, and range attackers, can deal alot of damage at a distance, then martial types that rely on weapons, should be able to tear up range attackers when close. If range attackers can develop better defenses against martial types, then the reverse should hold true. How you go about what each class has access to will add variety, but the scope of each class must be used as a reference. Therefore, there has to some unified mechanics that apply to all classes.

I would be perfectly content to go away from artificial limits like encounter or dailys powers, and instead use a resource like healing surges or something similar to drive all combat, utility, or other abilities. These can be regained over time.

However, what I am afraid of is one system to handle martial classes, versus ranged attackers, versus spell users, etc. that introduces a set of sub-systems to make things more complicated than necessary.

Technically the vancian comparison of 4E versus older editions is scale, or amount of choices. Regardless if they develop classes based in 1E/2E versus 4E, they should not continue to replace lower level powers with higher level powers currently present in 4E. That was one of the features of 4E that did not make sense. They would be better off limiting the amount of feat choices.

And people that like 4E will continue to play 4E, as the bigger issue in my mind is how 5E handles copyrights, in reference to digital content. In other words, 5E could be an awesome revision, but if I can not own the PDF or computer ulilities, then good luck getting my money.

I am not convinced there is a problem with the current license with 4E, versus not being receptive to third party developers and earning a certain level of trust. That has more to do with the company, but having a popular game with help.

You also needs roles from the developer standpoint, to make the AI or encounter interesting and challenging versus just a random selection of targets. And whatever criteria is used, the trinity will re-invent itself, albeit under a new guise. Realistically, there is only so much a character can do in regards to attacks, defenses, and resistances.

5E matters if they develop a rule set (game) that is successful, then promote the use of the rule set by third parties by providing the appropriate channels or tools. If 5E sells, then third parties will want to take advantage of it to sell their own ideas. If you want to limit yourself to OGL specific content, then you may miss out on an opportunity.

Technically 4E uses a form of vancian, but in a very limited sense, if you exclude encounter powers. The focus behind considering re-introducing it most likely addresses offering characters more choices, as 4E went to the opposite side of the spectrum to limit them. I agree the next version of D&D needs to offer more choices, but I would also address the daily limit mechanic, as that is an artificial barrier. I would prefer a manage resource available to each character to determine how many spells, powers, etc, are used, such as healing surges, or something similar that could be regained throughout the day, to make adventuring more dynamic.

The goal of any RPG is to be successful based on popularity, or by the failure of other games. I think everyone agrees 4E was not a smashing success, so either WOTC ignores that lesson, or embraces it to review what can be improved. Since WOTC owns the D&D license, there is no reason they can not look at every version of D&D. Where WOTC went a little to far with 4E to abandon previous editions of D&D, Paizo did not do enough to remove the failings of 3.5. So I will call it even, until I see the next version of D&D.

We each cater to our own preferences when playing D&D, by choosing a version or set of game rules. So we already use the theoretical 5E to some degree by making a choice at the gaming table. The trick is to find a common ground to expand on when looking at the 1E, 2E, 3E, and 4E. Where I would prefer using 4E as the baseline and expanding on ideas from previous versions, others would prefer WOTC remove features found in 4E and going back to previous editions. But above all else, the most important aspect of a new edition is how to present it, and WOTC is already on a short leash.

Get rid of the consider system, ala previous MMOs like everyquest, or DOAC, so you never know who you are going to run into (know the general level of a player). And secondly, make damage scale, but don't allow high level characters to be untouchable via AC, resistances, or anything else. That will booster lower level characters grouping together to keep the high level griefers in check, and foster a community at the same time. However, that goes against the grain of D&D or Pathfinder in regards to saving throws, AC, etc. All that works great in PvE, but it adds to the griefing in PvP.

I had thought about that, but how often is a DM truely able to adapt on the fly without a map/encounters/NPCs already developed? A DM needs something in order to act on the fly. A video game can also have a set of tools or references to act on the fly. Even if you consider terrain, a game could provide details and paths a DM would never consider or be capable of performing.

Having your own personal world that is seperate from others, in regards to house rules is a good point, as I doubt a video game will be that flexible.

I got off the buy everything that was released bandwagon with the release of 3.5, but it was already getting that way with 3E. So I will never make it a habit again to buy books I will rarely use, especially as a player. It will also take some time for WOTC to demonstrate they are consistent, and won't change directions again too soon.

I want a game that is somewhere between Pathfinder and 4E, but with an emphasis of removing as many sub-systems as possible. Which as this point should be fairly easy since so many editions of D&D and/or deriviatives exist at this point. At least if they continue using D20 and common mechanics associated with all the versions currently released.

But the game itself is only half the battle, as they need to re-think their approach to digital copy rights. The main focus should be to get the system out, and then concentrate on products that promote play and release adventures and/or supplements that keep the imagination flowing.

In the end, Pathfinder people will be happy to continue to play Pathfinder, and I will be interested in 5E if it keeps the same design premise of 4E, but relaxes it a bit, to add in additional complexity or flavor.

You will discover hybrids will develop that take the best of both, so the definition of a video game versus tabletop will be a moving target as technology catches up. The biggest difference would be paying staff in a video game to run an encounter. That would be the biggest barrier to remove the lines defining both, unless you can incorporate community support, and some type of reward or incentive to keep these people contributing to the world or game.

4E killed to many sacred cows, or more importantly lost some common sense in regards to previous editions that speak of the feel of the game. Where people may accept the new class roles and power structures, it was the little things that were on edges of the rule system, that did not sit well. For example, martial powers crossing the line into the realm of magic abilities, or certain classes being too limited in comparison with the old classes, or just too simplistic. But the real problem is the third party developers having a sense of being abandoned, whether that is 100 percent true or not.

The structure overall of 4E is sound, and is headed in the right direction. But the customers were treated like ...

I dont care if you are playing RPGs or online games, it will come down to understanding each class and defining roles. Whether it is a close proximity to WoW, or other games, is up to the developer. Or if they keep the roles loosely defined, then the players will do their best to create their own via specific class builds, and most likely bring in the trinity.

In addition, you have protected content (instances) versus open. I actually prefer the old days of EQ when there was competition for resources as long as you had enough people mustered at the appropriate time, but they also had instances for certain events. This takes the elements of PvP into PvE, but also guarantees content will continue to the be developed. The focus of PvP should be to balance the classes from the ground up in cosideration of fighting other players and keeping a sense of balance. But I want a game the focuses on content, versus having a limited world, and expect PvP to keep people interested, as you cater to one audience.

The tumbleweeds and distant feelings is dependent on what system you prefer in the long term, but I agree it would be great to continue to play the RPG you prefer. With OGL, that may be answered for those that like previous editions of D&D. I had the same feeling with GURPS, once it started to take to much time to manage. So maybe just a small flame remains since everything has settled down a bit.