lokiare's page

First, simulationism, I am perhaps unusual (very likely) but I don't have to think about it to notice when things don't jive between mechanics and the game world. For me saying that something costs x much because thats just the way the world is, is not good enough. It breaks immersion for me because I can innately see that it doesn't match with other aspects of the world.

It isn't a case of "well if you think about it..." for me it is as obvious as the color of the sky. Things need to be plausable and consistant even when following an alternate set of natural laws. DnD has some things that are not consistant, and such issues arise from focusing too tightly on mechanics and balance.

Second, ease of GMing. Most of those who said 4e was easy to GM claimed that it was the lack of any rules that made it so. Frankly this is just stupid, as any system is (or at least should be) a toolbox and nothing more. If ta GM wants to ignore certain tools, then that is precisely what they should do, but for some reason, some GM feel compelled to use the tools simply because they are there. I feel sorry for those GMs.

Truly, lacking a bunch of tools doesn't actually make 4e easier, it just makes certain GMs feel better and more free.

Third, magic problem solving. I don't think the system should be telling me whether magic should be solving problems or not. Personally I prefer magic to be an analogy to technology, only used with different methods.

Besides, if the system keeps everything plausible and consistant, then it is easier to manipulate to fit what you have in mind. For example, if it is common for travellers to use a ritual, then bandits, or at least mercs and assassins, probably have a way to nullify that ritual. Ta-da, sensical world and the GM still gets the surprise night raid.

Oh and just because we spent three weeks travelling doesn't mean it was encounters the whole way, but we did consider our resources, we made survival checks for food and water, depleted our trail rations, bunkered down for...

The problem here is that each world is different. So what you might consider non-nonsensical price wise in your world, might be perfectly logical in another world. In your world maybe commoners make up 90% of the economy, but in my world they only make up 40%, the rest is made up of artisans, royalty, and npc casters (who don't have combat spells, but instead focus on rituals to solve everyday problems for a small fee [cost of ritual + 10%]). It makes perfect sense in my world, but not in yours.

You are trying to get them to base the rules off of your world rather than on a baseline that can be deviated from. If in your world rituals are extremely rare, then increase the price and cost to use them.

For everyone else in this thread 4E actually has rules for improvisation on page 42 of the first DMG.

I use asmor.com for helping to pick magic items in a pseudo random fashion but am frustrated that it does not include any of the newer books having stopped adding magic items right about the point Darksun was put out.

Be nice if you could choose randomly among rares or exclude consumables as well so useful tools but I wish they where up to date and had a few more features.

Still since they are the best game in town in this department its better then nothing I suppose.

I'd do it myself, but I'm not so sure about the legality of it.

lokiare wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

I think one problem with that model would be the supplements. How would you write an adventure (for example) which had a focus on both quick combats against a horde of enemies (a la early editions) and complicated, tactical battles against single opponents?

Publishing supplements for a small segment of your fan base has been shown to be a failing model.

The supplement would be universal. It would say 3 goblin cutters, 2 goblin archers, and a goblin hexer. For 1e style games that would just be 5 goblins with funny names and a goblin leader.

The trick would be to use keywords and then define them differently based on the play style you want.

Using the same terms defined differently based on a "playstyle" would, I think, be confusing. Players going from one style of game / campaign to another would have very different expectations of the same terms. Unless the players are all familiar with however many definitions of the common terms there are and, essentially, are all as well versed as the GM in the rules...

I'd say skip the fancy terms and stick with "3 Goblins with short swords, 2 Goblin archers and one Goblin caster" (Shaman in 1E, etc.). Terminology is a barrier to understanding that RPGs have, inherently, in large quantities without adding yet more. You might have to define what type of casters Goblins have depending on your game, but everybody understands "shortsword" and "archer" regardless of "style".

Those are still just keywords, they are just more familiar, whether an 'archer' in a 1E or 2E style game just shoots arrows, or if in a 3.x style game 'archer' means multiple shots with a bonus to offset melee penalties, or in a 4E style game where 'archer' means +2 to attack as well as a special rechargeable power (5-6 on 1d6) to shoot everyone in a 15' cube or in a spy game meaning a very talented killer that is clueless in every other way. Its still just a keyword.

lokiare wrote:

Either way they failed. I haven't found a 4E fan yet that wants to play 5E over 4E as anything more than a 1 shot.

Well I guess I am a first for you then. I love 4e and am really looking forward to 5e. We haven't seen the advanced tactical module yet and I really look forward to seeing what it has to offer.

Unless 5E is completely different from the play test any kind of module they tack on will not provide enough balanced tactical options to make 5E worth playing for me.

They would have to redesign most of the classes from the ground up, giving non-casters as many options as casters (something like doubling their options each level to keep up. i.e. 3 at first 6 at second etc...etc...).

I just don't have your optimism for a product we haven't heard of or seen. I mean it might be different if they talked about it at all. The last I heard they were trying to tell us that 1E's facing would provide tactical options rather than making the game a dance fest as everyone dosedos around each other to get advantage from attacking backs. Other than that I haven't heard or seen anything on the subject.

I remember when they mentioned facing being part of the tactical module. The WotC forums erupted in anger and despair. Almost no 4E fans thought it was a good idea. A few people who didn't like or had never played 4E said they liked it and asked what the problem was, but anyone that has ever played Final Fantasy Tactics knows exactly what I'm talking about.

I take back No Goblins Allowed, you have to tip toe around there like you do at most sites with forums. You'll likely stumble and get some kind of reprimand before you get anything accomplished.

I'm actually hanging out at www.giantitp.com forums where they actually follow their own rules on moderation and they have enough traffic to make it a site I check daily.

For tools I use www.asmor.com they have some nifty tools. I use Fantasy Grounds to play, but their forums like many are low traffic and they don't really have a lot of conversations.

Oh, and a starter set, PHB, MM, DMG are confirmed now (at GAMA). Supposedly looks good, but nothing released from the show. First AP in Forgotten Realms called "Tyranny of Dragons". I could skip the starter set and the AP, but it's nice to know the big three. Apparently only 1 PHB this time with all the core goodies, the MM to have all the iconic monsters, and magic items etc. to be in the DMG. Source: EN World, right on the front of the news, no link provided, much speculation follows... :)

This part particularly worries me: "The “guiding light” through the design of 5e has been “What would Gary and Dave do?”"

from http://newbiedm.com/2014/03/19/dd-news-out-of-gama-trade-show/

What does that mean exactly? Does it mean that they will leave half of the game design process up to DMs and include many subsystems that contradict each other and have no math behind them or do they mean something entirely different?

I think one problem with that model would be the supplements. How would you write an adventure (for example) which had a focus on both quick combats against a horde of enemies (a la early editions) and complicated, tactical battles against single opponents?

Publishing supplements for a small segment of your fan base has been shown to be a failing model.

The supplement would be universal. It would say 3 goblin cutters, 2 goblin archers, and a goblin hexer. For 1e style games that would just be 5 goblins with funny names and a goblin leader.

The trick would be to use keywords and then define them differently based on the play style you want.

In what way can a new edition of D&D be designed to allow for all play styles?

My preferred method would be to take the things that all editions have in common:

Hit Points, AC, Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, Human, Elf, Half-Elf, Halfling, spells, d20+mods to beat a target number, experience points to level, beholders, displacer beasts, etc...etc...

Put all that into a 'core' then build off that core for specific play styles. Like having a 'classic' play style that includes save or die, mostly DM fiat, very few additional rules, etc...etc...

Then you could build the D&D you want by stacking modules on top of each other.

My question is this: If they plan on releasing the start set in 2 months, does that mean they are pretty much done testing it and its gone to the printer?

Does this mean the starter set will have many rules changes between then and the PHB release?

I, for one, will be happy if the price of RPGs increases to a level more representative of their cost to produce and minuscule demand. RPG professionals aren't paid enough, in my view. The only realistic way that's going to change is if prices go up.

Or, you know, the hobby starts to actually advertise and goes mainstream.

1. The rare use of the (dis)advantage mechanic that couldn't be traded for something else, and only represents an extreme advantage or disadvantage.

2. The concentration mechanic.

3. Faster combat.

Simple. I can put together a much longer list. However those things are already in 5E so there is no point in discussing them. I'm pointing out the things that are not in 5E or that are in 5E that need to be made optional or taken out. Things like vancian casting and LFQW.

Woo nice! Three people dictating my opinion to me.

Being a Jerk is subjective. To some pointing out facts, numbers, and quotes is 'being a jerk' to others liking the color purple is being a jerk.

@HitDice
Nice try. I have never said and will never say that 5E is horrible in every way, or even most ways. However I will maintain that they aren't doing what they said they would. Which is a fact. I will also maintain that for the "balanced tactical options" play style 5E does not deliver. I'll also add that this is the time to complain about it, not 5 months after release.

@LazarX
I'm not claiming my opinion is truth. Every claim I put forward can be tested and proven true or false. That makes it a fact. Are you denying that there are people out there that seek out "balanced tactical options"? If not then what I am posting is actual fact.

@Sebastian
If they want me to leave I'm sure they'll let me know. Until then, I'm going to continue to post facts, numbers, and quotes that show 5E is definitely falling short of its design goals. Like I said before it doesn't matter what they call it or what rules they set up. I could set up rules that you can't eat pie without urinating on it. It doesn't mean pie is meant to be eating with urine. Forums are for discussing things and stifling that discussion in any way makes a forum not worth the server cost its hosted on. I don't personally care if they use words like 'jerk' to describe people that have legitimate concerns with the industry or specific products from their competitors. If they ask me to leave I'll simply go somewhere else where open discussion is allowed and where we might actually further a discussion and solve problems instead of patting each other on the back and telling each other how awesome everything is as the walls and ceiling falls in on us.

@Kryzbyn
I have issues with quite a few people. Some of them are employees of WotC, but mostly they are managers or people that have no business being in certain positions and only managed to get those positions because of the massive lay offs that took place. To me being the last one standing after 90% of the staff is laid off is not a badge to tote around.

Seriously. If you want to talk openly about 5E then lets talk. Their latest article on the Warlock should concern people. All their spells are at maximum level. That means if they have more spells than 2 at any given time they will be more powerful than other casters and extremely unbalanced. You thought it was bad when a Wizard could cast fireball every encounter, now Warlocks can cast fireball nearly every encounter at 10d6 damage. Imagine if they have 5+ spells at max level. They will be the top tier class putting everything to shame. Factual legitimate concern. Not my opinion. You run the math at any level with 3 spell slots at max spell level. Then throw on their ability to cast certain low level spells at-will. You are talking about a monster.

Go look up the definition of 'forum' you won't find the word enjoyment in it anywhere. If your marriage is based on enjoyment it won't last through the hard times. You might seek out enjoyment as a side effect, but marriage is about love and commitment whether there is enjoyment or not.

Thus forums are for discussion, whether there is enjoyment all around or serious talk seeking answers to questions. Because that is their purpose, to discuss things.

This isn't my opinion. Its the definition of s forum. I'd copy and paste it here for clarity, but I'm on my phone.

There are more important things than enjoyment. Like getting to the truth or having a consensus on a subject.

Discussing things and finding new knowledge should be a goal that overrides 'enjoyment'. You can find enjoyment all over the internet (Don't search for any terms that amount to affection for animals, you won't like the result...or maybe you will). Forums are for discussing things, and while people derive enjoyment from discussing things sometimes, that's not the primary purpose of forums, which is again, to discuss things.

If you are unable to discuss things in a forum because it might impinge on someone elses enjoyment, then the forum is not fulfilling its primary purpose, to discuss things, and therefore is worthless and useless.

13th age is warmed over 3.5E with some of the ideas of 4E. Its not really all that balanced or filled with tactical options.

It looks like this forum died though. Which is why its not my main posting area.

I'm liking www.giantitp.com forums, but there's only one thread about 5E. I'll check out RPG.net, but it looks like they are like the rest when it comes to having an opinion. They put 'enjoyment' above having a real discussion.

No wonder the world is descending into mediocrity.

Well first off large creatures have higher con and str in 5e so it will automatically be harder. If we need it to be harder than that we can add a point to the DC for each size category difference which would pretty much make anything a couple categories larger effectively impossible.

For example if a large size ogre with a str mod of +4 were pushed and knocked prone by a fighter they would have a 1 in 6 chance.

A dragon of huge size with a str bonus of +4 would be impossible without some kind of bonus to the roll.

Then the tactical module could simply increase the Fighters die size to d8 or d10.

The way you would test balance is to run a simulation of various combat encounters 4,000 times. You would tally up the remaining hp of the party, whether they won or lost, how much resources they used and then you would repeat but swap out one of the maneuvers for a different one. Then compare the numbers from each set of simulations to see if they were similar.

Most of this could be done with a computer program. There are many prototyping programs that are used like this in game programming to run these kinds of simulations.

Yes, it's for the most part balanced. you might restrict action denial to a higher level and create a lesser one the take away reactions. I personally haven't tested these in play, but I would assume WotC would.

It is as balanced as any of the spell caster classes and their spells. the fighter has to choose to do it again each round, where the wizard casts the spell once and it lasts as long as they concentrate. That's a good trade off for a daily slot.

It also only affects a single target per the fighters attack, so at most they will be able to get 8 at level 20 using action surge as spending all their dice.

Okay OP, going back to how you would fix the game. I'm wondering a bit more what you have in mind for "balanced tactical options." For instance with something like the gladiator path, how many maneuver type options do you think would be suitable choice at level up to make it interesting? I agree that right now there aren't really enough to a player real options to weigh or decisions to make. You also claimed that a lot of the moves were basically useless, so what would be some examples of maneuvers that would useful?

I would say a choice of one each level from a pool would be fine. maybe only on levels where they don't get any other choices. which is about every two to three levels right now.

well the one that let's you disengage and move half your speed should be changed to move your full speed to make it competitive.

The push back and knock down one should be combined.

They could add one where the fighter causes enough pain to give the target disadvantage for a round.

maybe add one that on success caused the target to lose their next action, on a failure it would cause them to lose their reaction.

They could give the fighter a leap attack that would allow them to move to the other side of their opponent without taking an OA.

Another could be a bull rush combined with normal damage, but the d6 would indicate the number of 5 feet squares they are pushed.

another one could be a running attack that allows then to move half their speed and attack a number of enemies they move past based on the d6 roll.

They could have one where they impose disadvantage to all ranged attacks that pass through their threatened range.

I could come up with hundreds of these, and it wouldn't resemble 4e mechanically in the least.

I don't understand where the OP is coming from, really I don't.

Is 4e a more balanced tactical game than other (previous) editions? I suppose it is, conceding that you are in fact making a statement of fact.

If I want to play a balanced tactical game, I'd play Drang nach Osten

I don't want to play Drang nach Osten

If you do not want to play 5e

Don't play 5e

Why is it so important for you to prove that 5e is not going to be the game it might be, which, I suppose in the big picture sense of the word, is just another version of a game a lot of us like to play?

And you keep going back to, "it isn't fulfilling the promise that the designers said it would fulfill." And to that I say, well, duh, but then again, I don’t concern myself with what the designers are promising me, I will concern myself with what the product is when it is released for me to buy (and I will buy it, even if only to put it on the shelf in my dining room where every other edition of D&D that I own going back to 1976 now rests).

I really don’t understand why it surprises you that you have been banned for having this kind of discussion.

Edit: Oh, and I think this is a great place to discuss 5e, I just don't think it is a good place to argue about it.

I do concern myself with what the designers said it would do. If a person says "I'll pay you back for this $5 you are lending me. I expect them to pay me back. Not come back a year later and say 'too bad.'."

Likewise when a company goes on and on about how they want to make a game for all play styles and for all players of D&D. I kind of want them to do that. Also you should note that many of those quotes are from this or last month as in they are still espousing that they want that to happen.

I don't understand how people can have a problem with that. Its like they have this dissonance that affects their cognitive ability to experience things like that. Its like someone is slapping another person while saying "I'm not slapping you." and the other person getting slapped is like "Ok, I guess they aren't slapping me."

Discussions involve facts, numbers, and quotes and try to sway people from one side to another. They aren't based around patting each other on the back and agreeing all the time.

lokiare wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

Except that the fireball is a power, so it's actually on a cooldown (the arrow, as a consumable, isn't). And it has the arcane keyword, which changes how the wizard prepares the power. And it uses a different stat for attack and damage. And it doesn't rely on the use of a weapon. I could go on. Hopefully you get the point.

Powers can appear superficially similar. That doesn't mean they actually are similar.

It's basically a side issue, but martial powers and caster powers are far more similar than they were in earlier versions of D&D. An exploding arrow may have been a bad example, but most of each still follow the convention of Attack roll, some damage and a condition or other effect. Sure, the keywords are different and the stats are different, but they still have very similar approaches.

At least in the original Core 4E rules. I haven't looked deeply in years.

That's not a bad thing, necessarily. It's just a different approach.

So if casters spell didn't roll for attack, but instead the targets rolled a kind of 'save' it would be ok? Because that is a super easy house rule to make.

Yep, I totally see why you were banned elsewhere and I am done with this discussion. You are deliberately misrepresenting what was said. No one said that it wasn't "OK" for casters to use attack rolls. It was only pointed out the similarity between caster abilities and martial abilities.

Nice. Not what I said or did, but still nice. They pointed specifically to making attack rolls and I asked in a completely neutral voice whether swapping the attack roll for a 'save' would solve the problem. I did this because if that's all that holds people back from liking 4E, they could do a 4.5E where you have the option of having the target roll saves instead of the caster rolling attacks. I'm working toward a solution for a better game. I see others are here only to get offended.

Also you asked what DA has to do with anything. The reason I brought up the video games at all is because you asked why I would say 4E feels like a video game. Because when I've tried 4E I've gotten the same game play experience as I get when I play a video game. I have an entirely different experience when playing other systems.

Well, first "MMO's" are a specific and unique sub-set of the group "video games" which have very specific mechanics to them.

Second, by your own definitions I could say that all editions of D&D feel like MMO's. I'm not saying you are wrong or anything, just that the information you are giving isn't helpful.

If you instead said "I don't like the 4E power recharge mechanics or the way healing surges allow healing during the day." Then it would be a lot more helpful for the discussion.

I mean what would you do if I said "<insert your preferred edition> feels like a diablo clone.". That kind of stuff just isn't helpful. Because diablo clones have quite a few things about them and we can't read your mind on what parts you are referring to or even whether its a good thing or a bad thing.

Apparently you want to voice the things you don't like about 5E but if anyone says they don't like 4E they get slammed with a wall of text stating why they are just wrong. You aren't interested in discussing the topic honestly and with an open mind you are interested in proselytizing converts and I'm not interested in your anti-5E sermons.

I never said you were wrong. I asked you to clarify an ambiguous statement. When you did, I noted that it could be applied to any edition of D&D, so maybe you need to clarify more and get down to the details of why you don't like 4E. Or we can go back on topic and find a place for me to hang out other than here so you don't have to see my posts anymore.

I'm also not anti-5E. I want 5E to be a game we can all play. Unfortunately it is failing at one of its first and best design goals "To allow all play styles."

I mean if WotC came out and said 5E would be a so-so early edition retro clone, if that's not your thing, don't bother to play it. I would have been like "Ok, cool, see you at 6E". They didn't though. They claimed it would allow all play styles and they want all players of D&D past and present to want to play it. Since that's the case I'm critiquing it with their own goals in mind.

I'm sorry if I offended you in any way. I'm simply seeking out the best way to discuss the game.

Scott Betts wrote:

Except that the fireball is a power, so it's actually on a cooldown (the arrow, as a consumable, isn't). And it has the arcane keyword, which changes how the wizard prepares the power. And it uses a different stat for attack and damage. And it doesn't rely on the use of a weapon. I could go on. Hopefully you get the point.

Powers can appear superficially similar. That doesn't mean they actually are similar.

It's basically a side issue, but martial powers and caster powers are far more similar than they were in earlier versions of D&D. An exploding arrow may have been a bad example, but most of each still follow the convention of Attack roll, some damage and a condition or other effect. Sure, the keywords are different and the stats are different, but they still have very similar approaches.

At least in the original Core 4E rules. I haven't looked deeply in years.

That's not a bad thing, necessarily. It's just a different approach.

So if casters spell didn't roll for attack, but instead the targets rolled a kind of 'save' it would be ok? Because that is a super easy house rule to make.

Scott Betts wrote:

PatientWolf wrote:

No it feels like an MMORPG with each class having a number of abilities which have basically cool down timers.

Cool down timers have been in D&D forever. See: spells which return each day, rages that are usable once per fight, dragon's breath that recharges in a certain number of rounds, etc.

Quote:

Some can be used at will, some only once per encounter, etc... Healing surge is the equivalent of "Quick Heal" in Dragon Age.

Which isn't an MMORPG.

Quote:

The class abilities may be called by different names like "Spells" or "Fighting Maneuvers" (I am not familiar enough to know the actual names) but that is just window dressing because they all function exactly the same way mechanically.

Except that they don't function the same way mechanically.

Quote:

So like in Dragon Age II

Which still isn't an MMORPG.

Quote:

my archer may be able to shoot an exploding arrow

Exploding arrows in 4e are consumable items. Not powers.

Quote:

and then has to wait for the cool down and my mage may throw a fireball which accomplishes effectively the same thing only the window dressing is different.

Except that the fireball is a power, so it's actually on a cooldown (the arrow, as a consumable, isn't). And it has the arcane keyword, which changes how the wizard prepares the power. And it uses a different stat for attack and damage. And it doesn't rely on the use of a weapon. I could go on. Hopefully you get the point.

Powers can appear superficially similar. That doesn't mean they actually are similar.

Yes I know the examples I provided aren't MMORPGs but 4E feels to me like one of those games but you are playing with other people instead of solo. So it feels somewhat like an MMORPG to me.

As for the exploding arrows I was using a Dragon Age example to try and exemplify what I was talking about. I don't know how exploding arrows work but I do know that there are abilities for different classes...

Well that's the main difference between our classifications of the different editions. Mine isn't based on feel. You can test each of the things I listed and say "yes, that's true" or "no, that isn't true".

Is 4E a more balanced tactical option filled game than previous editions. Yes, you can verify this by counting options and running math to see which options are balanced in other editions and come to a decent answer. Now some people don't care about balance, that's not what I'm claiming though. I'm claiming that 4E has more balanced tactical options on level up and from round to round that other editions (which holds true for everyone except the casters at high level for the first half of the day, but then they have less and less options until they completely run out).

Is 2E and 1E simpler than 4E and 3E. Yes, a mathematical analysis of the number of steps to do any given action or sequence of actions will show that 1E and 2E are in fact simpler.

2E has more options than 1E but less options than 3E. You can sit there and count the options and see its true.

3E has more customization than any other edition. You can sit there and count the ways to customize 3E (and multi-classing is a big part of this) and see that it is true that 3E is more customizable. In 1E you can get 1-2 classes on a single character. In 2E you can get 2-3 on a single character. In 3E you can have up to 20 different classes. In 4E you can have a max of 3-4 classes (4 being the hybrid bard with two feat multiclasses)

When I say play style. I'm saying the things you can do in X edition but not in the others.

I'm not saying you are wrong in feeling an edition is an MMO or that your classification system isn't a way to do it, I'm saying its not really testable and is based more on opinion than on facts, numbers, and quotes.

lokiare wrote:

I've also explained how they could easily please us all, by designing the game a certain way.

I've also provided quotes that back up the idea that 5e is intended to replicate all the different play styles.

WOTC's promise to support "all play styles" was basically a fluff statement of goals as opposed to a feature set. After all what does the statement really mean? Is all play styles refer to story, i.e. action, drama, comedy? Setting? High or Low Fantasy? One could say that supporting all of this is enough to qualify as supporting "all play styles".

Number crunching however is a different kettle of fish. Once you make certain choices, you're going to close off others. class level system vs point based abilities. Point buy generation vs random rolls. There is no such animal as a system that's going to please everyone, and if that's what WOTC meant, I can only assume that the statement was drawn up by a Hasbro PR flack who understands nothing about gaming and gamers. Trying to serve all masters in game design is a guaranteed route to failure.

I agree with most of this, they may have intended something else, but then in all their articles they talk about X being from the Y edition play style. Which is a weird way to communicate it. My take though is that based on their articles they actually mean the play styles of each edition, especially when from the quotes I posted they say things like the first 2 levels replicate the 1E/2E play style. Its pretty hard to misinterpret that.

They could generate a system that pleases everyone. I've explained over and over how to do that. Do I have to create it myself and then post it here to get people to understand?

You are probably right, some middle manager somewhere in Hasbro probably told them to make a game that appealed to everyone that's ever played D&D or they would get fired, and Mearls and crew, just nodded their heads and started brushing up their resumes, and buying as much time as humanly possible to collect their pay checks. That's just speculation though.

lokiare wrote:

I never put forth my opinion as the only correct one. I do put forth quotes, facts and numbers though.

I also don't want the game to be only my way. That's something you are assuming about my posts.

I've also explained how they could easily please us all, by designing the game a certain way.

I've also provided quotes that back up the idea that 5e is intended to replicate all the different play styles.

Can you post quotes or facts or numbers that might give me a reason to change my mind?

Except that a lot of these quotes, facts, and numbers have more than one interpretation.

In all the quotes your provided, my reading of what they meant for playstyle wasn't "4E, 3E, 2E, and 1E", it was rather "rules light narrative" versus "heavy codification of rules" or "Combat heavy" versus "Other styles of game"

No where in the quotes do they state playstyles = editions, and indeed I think you could run some version of all those playstyles I mentioned in any edition, although with varying success.

Ultimately they seem to be going for simplification of rules, and actually presenting all the rules necessary for a 4E, 3E, 2E, and 1E style caster in a single book (not to mention all the other classes), would lead to a book that make the core book for Pathfinder look like an informational pamphlet.

My reading of "allow all playstyles" has always been that there would be a chassis of a game which would feature additional models to allow more complexity in certain areas.

That's actually not accurate. In several of the links they equate play style to edition. In one they do it implicitly. They say the first 2 levels is like the 1E/2E play style. In another they state that if you played the 4E Sorcerer you will like the 5E sorcerer. Equating it to a play style choice by inference.

The problem with the simplicity argument is that it falls flat when you examine what they have. 5E is only slightly less complex than 3.5E and certainly not as simple as 4E (with is extremely simple but uses that simplicity to build lots of choices), 2E (which is simple, but allows the use of options), or 1E (which is simple in that it has fewer rules than the other numbered editions).

They did some things right. Namely they tried to remove the math at play time and push it back to preparation (they haven't fully succeeded), but its not more complex than 2E. If they wanted simple they need to go back and read the B in BECMI.

lokiare wrote:

I'm not sure I understand you when you say 4E has an MMORPG feel? Do you mean it feels automated, has good art, quests are 'go fetch' simple, or do you mean it feels balanced like an MMO.

Instead of saying it has an MMORPG feel, can you be more precise?

No it feels like an MMORPG with each class having a number of abilities which have basically cool down timers. Some can be used at will, some only once per encounter, etc...

Wait, so 3E, 2E, and 1E were like MMORPGs too since they all included 'recharge timers' because fighters had attacks that recharged every six seconds, wizards had spells that recharged every 24 hours, etc...etc...

Actually without a short or extended rest in 4E nothing recharges. I have yet to see an MMO that does this (you can kind of squint at DDO and say it does this if you count the camps mid-dungeon.)

So all editions of D&D are like MMO's in this respect.

Healing surge is the equivalent of "Quick Heal" in Dragon Age. The class abilities may be called by different names like "Spells" or "Fighting Maneuvers" (I am not familiar enough to know the actual names) but that is just window dressing because they all function exactly the same way mechanically.

All editions had this, there was just a tax of buying/creating healing potions or wands to limit it. Instead 4E just limits it by number of surges per character.

So other editions are like MMO's in that you pop potions or healing wands all day.

So like in Dragon Age II my archer may be able to shoot an exploding arrow and then has to wait for the cool down and my mage may throw a fireball which accomplishes effectively the same thing only the window dressing is different.

Except the 4E classes don't work that way. The 'cool' down is a 5+ minute rest that can't be interrupted with anything strenuous like combat.

I'd like to see the encounter where the wizard sits down and starts reading his spell book for 50 rounds, saying "Hold em off guys. I'll have fire ball ready again in 5 minutes."

So 4E is like an MMO in pretty much the way every edition is like an MMO, ok, got it...

I'm not sure I understand you when you say 4E has an MMORPG feel? Do you mean it feels automated, has good art, quests are 'go fetch' simple, or do you mean it feels balanced like an MMO.

Instead of saying it has an MMORPG feel, can you be more precise?

lokiare wrote:

Lots of stuff

In every one of your quotes WotC is using the term "play style" to denote various mechanical elements. Notice they repeatedly refer to these elements as tools to be swapped out as desired depending the type of game you want to play. However, in not one quote do they use the word EQUALLY. They are not using it in the sense you do in the quote below:

lokiare wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong:

1E play style - DM as master arbitrator with rulings on the fly made up and dictates the abilities of the characters based on their class and race.

2E play style - Gritty down to earth with powerful casters at high levels and powerful non-casters at early levels. Options and sub-systems abound.

3E play style - Customizability is master here. Codification of rules and systems by which the DM tells a story with the players.

4E Play style - Balanced tactical options and choices at each level and during each round of play.

You are neither wrong nor right. That is your interpretation of each of those games. How you perceived them as intended to be played. That view is no more right than anyone else's interpretation. My view of each:

1E - Rules Light system very narrative
2E - Rules Heavy system (all those options you mentioned) still narrative
3E - Rules Heavy system with a tactical table top tactical war gaming feel
4E - Rules Heavy system intended for tactical combat simulation in fantasy world with an MMORPG feel

That's strange as RAW 1E has lots of rules and assumes the use of miniatures and comes off as a very tactical game. Not balanced in the slightest, but very tactical.

You should have a read of the 1E PHB and DMG some time. Its an eye opener.

I never put forth my opinion as the only correct one. I do put forth quotes, facts and numbers though.

I also don't want the game to be only my way. That's something you are assuming about my posts.

I've also explained how they could easily please us all, by designing the game a certain way.

I've also provided quotes that back up the idea that 5e is intended to replicate all the different play styles.

Can you post quotes or facts or numbers that might give me a reason to change my mind?

I think their intention was to try to distill the "essence of D&D" by looking at all the editions, searching for common elements that link them together and then taking some of the best parts of each edition to make the core of the new edition. I'm not sure exactly how well they've succeeded, and I'm in no position to make that call until I've seen and played the finished version of the new edition (even then you'll probably need to wait a while for them to release additional content- you probably remember people griping a lot when 4e came out that it wasn't a "complete" game because the phb didn't include gnomes or a barbarian class etc.. but now all that stuff is in the game). I can tell you that they have reprinted the core books from each edition in the past year or so, which means in a way they have supported the "play style of each edition" (as you put it) since you can buy any of the past editions you want. Since they are putting pdfs from all editions back online for sale you also have content support for any edition you choose to play.

I agree, their "intent" was to try to distill the essence of D&D, but I feel they failed. There is quite a lot that all the editions have in common, but they didn't focus on those, instead they tried to make a kind of frankenstein monster out of the most liked parts of each edition.

As I said above in another post, they really could have pared down the core to the things that all editions have in common and then layer on through modules the different parts of each edition. The problem is they didn't.

I would be perfectly happy if they released 5E and then started putting out new supplements and rules updates for each edition from 0E to 4E to 5E. I doubt that will happen though.

I have an eery feeling that they will put out 5E, and then Hasbro will clean house and keep 5E as an 'eternal' edition kind of like Monopoly hasn't changed in 20 years.

I don't think they are thinking of play style quite the same way you are. Each edition can have many different play styles depending on the group that is playing it. For example you might a have one group that runs a combat heavy game (hack and slash) or a game that features more role play and intrigue or one that deals a lot with exploration or investigation etc... Currently I think that each version of D&D can accommodate any of the play styles I just listed, but some probably do certain ones better than others.

They've talked about it both ways. I can dig up more quotes if you want. They are pretty clear that they mean more than the content, but the way you play and what you seek out of the game.

None of the examples you provided spell out that they plan to provide the same level of tactical combat options in the same manner that 4e does it. Borrowing certain mechanics from a certain edition (like passive perception or ongoing damage or recharge numbers for certain monster abilities) isn't the same as emulating a play style.

And no one is asking for the same number of options as 4E or even 3E. What we are asking for is the option of having balanced tactical choices on level up and each round of play. I understand that borrowing mechanics isn't emulating a play style, you understand that too, but WotC doesn't seem to understand that as they state several times that X mechanic supports Y play style as they did for the 1st and 2nd level where they claim it supports the 1E and 2E play style. As I said, they don't really understand what constitutes the play styles of the different editions.

I think the best you can hope for is seeing a bunch of subclass builds or path options for each of the martial classes that provide maneuver type abilities/exploits somewhat like how they're developing the gladiator path and a rules module for tactical combat that gives more explicit rules for grid combat and attacks of opportunity and the like. More expansive attack of opportunity rules combined with maneuvers that let you do things like knock targets prone will make those kind of moves more useful and provide PCs with more tactical decisions. Whether they end up doing all that or not I'm not sure, and even if they do I doubt that will possibly match up with the combo options martial characters in 4e can get with all the powers they can choose from (both in combat and when creating their characters). If you think what I described above might cut if for you then you may end up liking the game, assuming they eventually get all that kind of content out. Otherwise you're probably better off with 4e since that system works pretty good for the most part, and has a enough content to keep a gaming group going for the next 50+ years. Just hope they don't shut down the character builder and online compendium as those are nearly essential for playing that edition.

The best I can hope for is for them to try to do what they said they would, which is to create a game that allows everyone to play their play styles. I agree though that it is a faint hope and not likely at this point to happen. I will work toward it however until they say the books have hit the printers.

The problem with things like the Gladiator path is that you don't get to choose it until level 3. Then after that there are no more choices. You just get things at level up. We want to have choices on each level up. Then we want those choices to inform choices that we get on each round of each encounter. That's something that isn't happening. The choices we get from the Gladiator path are not real choices. In almost every instance (barring rare corner cases) it is best to simply attack and take the extra damage as I've explained in other posts. Its what's called a non-choice. You can do something that is less useful or you can do something more useful. Which are you going to do? Normally you will do the more useful thing.

Also I've been over this. You cannot layer the balanced tactical play style on top of an unbalanced (even if its more balanced than 3E) system like they have now. No combination of modules will do it when the fundamental core is at odds with the play style.

As to 4E requiring DDi and the character builder. That is nonsense. I've been playing for years now with access to most of the books and my group doesn't use DDi or the character builder. We use Fantasy Grounds, and just read the books to create characters. Its not really that hard unless you are jumping into a high level character from scratch, but even then its just grabbing powers and feats at each level. During play its pretty simple too, very little needs to be looked up.

From http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140224

"In addition to the draconic sorcerer, we've designed another sorcerer option that should be familiar to anyone who used the 2nd Edition Tome of Magic or who played a 4th Edition sorcerer. Here's a hint: if you play this kind of sorcerer, be sure to keep your percentile dice close by. If you're playing another character with this type of sorcerer in your party, you might want to always be ready to take cover. When this sorcerer casts a spell, you never know what might happen."

Oh look, they want to emulate the 4E sorcerer. Sounds like a play style attempt to me (I haven't seen it yet, but if it looks like their other attempts it will probably miss the point.)

From http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140210
"Several times, we took a stab at introducing hard and fast rules for allowing characters to automatically succeed at certain types of checks. These rules sounded great, and in the hands of some DMs, they played well at the table. Unfortunately, they didn't mesh with all play styles. On top of that, the rules tended to break down in any situation in which the party would have a single specialist deal with a check."

Notice the emphasis on meshing with different play styles. This probably didn't mesh with the balanced tactical play style because an auto-win is not a tactical choice. It obviates any other choices and thus turns into a non-choice. That may not be what they thought, that is just my opinion.

From the same:
"If one thing links the examples I've talked about here, it's that the rules for a tabletop RPG can have implications for the game that go beyond their specific mechanics. I've talked before about how a big part of our goal for the playtest was digging down into the rhythm and flow of the rules—the feel that rules produce at the table. We saw consistent feedback in favor of quick resolution, speedier game play, and an emphasis on risks and rewards—all of which became our focus for the evolution of Dungeons & Dragons."

You'll notice none of that contradicts the balanced tactical options play style.

From http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140127

"The exploration rules have been reworked to make them easier to use at the table. We've brought back the concept of passive perception from 4th Edition to cut down on the number of die rolls and to speed up play. A character's passive perception is the result of rolling 10 on a Wisdom (Perception) check. Your character sheet will have a space to note this, making it a value you calculate once and then use as needed."

Oh look another play style choice from 4E.

From http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140120

"Every DM has a different style and unique ideas for a campaign, and the first two levels of that campaign give you a chance to set the ground rules for your game. For one DM, those levels might be a sort of weeding-out process, with only the luckiest or most cunning characters reaching 3rd level after many sessions of play. Another DM might see those beginning levels as a chance for the characters to become familiar with important elements of the campaign—for example, the powerful guilds that rule over a massive city standing at the confluence of a dozen major trade routes."

He talks about multiple styles here and how the early levels allow for different styles. I don't agree with that as the early styles remove tactical choices and options, but they seem to believe it allows multiple play styles.

"On the other hand, you might want to just sit down and bash some monsters. Though all of these tools can prove useful to your game, we believe that the ability to ignore certain tools is just as important as the tools themselves. Our general approach is to keep the core as simple as possible, so that complexity and options come into the game only when a group is ready and eager for them. The rules are like a concierge, ready to help as much or as little as you want. There are as many styles of D&D play as there are players, and the rules should exist first and foremost as a tool for the group, not a constraint."

They literally spell it out here where they say the rules and options should allow for many play styles.

Here http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140113 they talk about the 1E and 2E play style. Then tell the rest of us to skip levels 1 and 2. However for a lot of us we are already losing 10 levels and losing another 2-3 levels on top is not a good thing because we enjoy the choices when we level up our characters.

You can go over the rest on your own. Its all through the articles. They fully intend for everyone to be able to play their own play styles.

Its my opinion that they simply don't know what the play style of 4E is and they think they can replicate it from bits and pieces, not realizing that it wasn't what the pieces were, but how they interacted that created the play style. This is the folly of 5E. They are basing their design on faulty assumptions.

Correct me if I'm wrong:

1E play style - DM as master arbitrator with rulings on the fly made up and dictates the abilities of the characters based on their class and race.

2E play style - Gritty down to earth with powerful casters at high levels and powerful non-casters at early levels. Options and sub-systems abound.

3E play style - Customizability is master here. Codification of rules and systems by which the DM tells a story with the players.

4E Play style - Balanced tactical options and choices at each level and during each round of play.

Does 5E meet those? It kinda meets the 2E style and somewhat allows for some of the customizability of 3E. It is slightly more balanced than 3E but not as much as 4E.

In other words instead of adding options to allow for everyone to cobble together the game they want they kind of just threw everything in a pot and stirred it. Some things don't mix though. The 'survive early levels to become a powerful casters ruling over the non-casters' doesn't mesh with 'all classes are equally powerful but in different ways' and when they mix you get 'casters are a little more powerful than non-casters after about level 5, non-casters have to use cheap tricks to measure up and lose all flexibility'

To me it would be like adding chocolate, and liver to a vegetable stew. All that's going to happen is that you anger the different groups of people that like chocolate, liver, or vegetables.

Of course the solution would be to boil the core game down to what all editions have in common. Things like:

Armor Class
Hit Points
prepared spells
weapon proficiencies
armor proficiencies
classes
races
etc...etc...

Believe it or not there are many similarities like Wizards having the least hit points and fighters and barbarians having the most with rogues and clerics in the middle.

There is enough to make a simple game, onto which you can add things you like.

For the 1E and 2E groups you could add a list of spells that have drawbacks like haste which ages you a year or causes a system shock check. Or polymorph that causes the target literally lose themselves and become the creature.

For 3E groups you could add feats and spell modules that have less side effects.

For 4E groups you could add feats and powers modules that add in balanced tactical based feats and powers.

They didn't go this way though and we are where we are...

I think that the Gladiator path for the fighter was supposed to be a glimpse of how they might tackle more tactical type martial builds and deal with combat maneuvers and such. However, if that is their template, I agree that it's a bit of joke compared to the options you have with a 4e martial character.

I agree. You don't get any choices on level up (you just automatically get 3 maneuvers). You don't really have any good choices over just attacking with the maneuvers themselves until the highest levels (proning is worthless except in rare corner cases, pushing them away or moving away from them is also equally worthless when its 1/2 your move speed, especially in a TotM game. Which is what you get at 1st level.).

Fighter "I use my push maneuver to push the goblin away from me." rolls dice "yes, I succeeded."

DM "Ok, your turns over now its the goblins turn. He walks over to you and bites your knee."

or

Fighter "I use my proning maneuver to knock the goblin down." rolls dice "yes, I succeeded."

DM "Ok, the goblin spends 10' of its movement to stand up and bite you in the knee."

At that point the Fighter player is probably thinking "I think I'll just attack and add the damage next time."

lokiare wrote:

Well, they said it over and over in relation to what they were creating, so I'm pretty sure meant they were adding it to the play test and not in some future module. Of course even if they meant that it would require a near full rewrite of the game in the module to accomplish that. So it doesn't make sense there either way.

The most probable explanation is they didn't really know what the 4E play style was and thought adding a few window dressings from 4E would replicate the style, when the style is more about how the parts of 4E interacted, rather than any single part.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but if I were to accept your premise I think a far more probable explanation would be that they know their own game, they just think the 4E crowd are more likely to come on board anyhow.

Either way they failed. I haven't found a 4E fan yet that wants to play 5E over 4E as anything more than a 1 shot.

My goal is to give them every chance to fix the situation, so that when 5E goes on sale and gets less money than 4E did, they won't have anyone to blame but themselves.

It could sell awesome to 1E and 2E fans, but if it fails to get the 3E and 4E fans or just fails to get the 4E fans, it will be a financial failure.

lokiare wrote:

Not only was it promised, its on record. Go read the L&L articles where they repeat over and over that they want to include all play styles from all editions. You people are fighting facts with incredulity, it doesn't work that way.

Its also very possible to layer options on top of what all editions have in common:

Roll 1d20 add bonuses and penalties and try to beat a set number.

Fighters are good with weapons and armor (usually some kind of static bonus).

Rogues are good at stealth, larceny, traps, and locks and do more damage when they surprise opponents.

Clerics heal, turn undead, and are moderately good with weapons and armor.

Wizards cast powerful limited spells which they prepare ahead of time.

That describes each class from every edition including 4E.

It would be no problem to layer on 1E spells or 4E powers. It would be easy to put 1E to 3E static bonuses and weapon specialization onto fighters or to layer on a power system similar to 4E.

The same for the other classes.

However that's not what they did. They instead started with 2E as a base and are trying to layer 4E on top and it just doesn't work.

Presuming that's all true, what do you hope to achieve by discussing it? It seems to me the horse has bolted - it wont be the last time marketting information sent out prior to a product's release didnt match up to what was actually delivered.

.
For my part (though I only followed the playtest in the early stages) I agree with PH Dungeon - I think the "enable all playstyles" goal was about the game eventually, not the game on release. It's not terribly important though - it's a safe bet that people picking up D&D:Next when it is released will be disappointed if they expect to be able to replicate the feel of all preceding editions with it.

Well, they said it over and over in relation to what they were creating, so I'm pretty sure meant they were adding it to the play test and not in some future module. Of course even if they meant that it would require a near full rewrite of the game in the module to accomplish that. So it doesn't make sense there either way.

The most probable explanation is they didn't really know what the 4E play style was and thought adding a few window dressings from 4E would replicate the style, when the style is more about how the parts of 4E interacted, rather than any single part.

Not only was it promised, its on record. Go read the L&L articles where they repeat over and over that they want to include all play styles from all editions. You people are fighting facts with incredulity, it doesn't work that way.

Its also very possible to layer options on top of what all editions have in common:

Roll 1d20 add bonuses and penalties and try to beat a set number.

Fighters are good with weapons and armor (usually some kind of static bonus).

Rogues are good at stealth, larceny, traps, and locks and do more damage when they surprise opponents.

Clerics heal, turn undead, and are moderately good with weapons and armor.

Wizards cast powerful limited spells which they prepare ahead of time.

That describes each class from every edition including 4E.

It would be no problem to layer on 1E spells or 4E powers. It would be easy to put 1E to 3E static bonuses and weapon specialization onto fighters or to layer on a power system similar to 4E.

The same for the other classes.

However that's not what they did. They instead started with 2E as a base and are trying to layer 4E on top and it just doesn't work.

P.H. Dungeon wrote:

The public playtest is done and the game isn't out yet.

As I understand from my RPGA friend Les, D+D Next is now in closed beta.

Yes, and ask him if there has been significant changes to allow a more balanced tactical play style. He'll tell you, 'no' there have not been significant changes, just number fluctuations and bug fixes.

lokiare wrote:

A lot of people keep saying, "You can't judge it till it comes out," but we've been given no indication that things are going differently than in the playtest.

Some of us enjoy playing by the rules of the current playtest packet, though.

Some of us don't. The problem lies in their promise to include all play styles, which hasn't materialized, and which they aren't talking about.

P.H. Dungeon wrote:

What do you do to layer "1e style" over Pathfinder and 4e?

Ignore a lot of the subsystems, basically. We've never shifted from "the DM decides" paradigm really (no matter what system we play), so when it comes time to knock people off ledges, climb walls or research new spells we don't generally go by what's in the rules. A quick, plausible judgement on the DM's part is superior to a slower resolution according to the rules as far as I'm concerned.

That's nice, but in 4E they reduced it down to an attack roll or skill check against a defense. Its about as simple and fast as you can get.

lokiare wrote:

Well, in reality they could start with a well balanced game and then add a module that adds in all the brokenness of past editions on top and you would have your game with a single module (with spells like Wish, Evard's Tentacles, metamagic feats, etc...etc...) and I would have my game by adding the tactical module (which would add tactical options on level up and every round of the game to each class), and we would both get the game we want, however they have not even hinted at anything like that, so it probably won't happen.

Maybe. I'm not much good at game design, so I dont really have much right to an opinion.

Nonetheless, based on general principles, I think it's better to identify whatniche you want to fill and then do it well rather than try and be all things to all people. It seems to me that they made a deliberate effort to target the OSRIC crowd rather than the 4E crowd with the base system of D&D:Next.

Maybe there's a hypothetical base system which could give you and I a game we'd both like to play (with tweaks), but I'm skeptical. I dont know how indicative my tastes are, but part of the reason I like the older editions is because magic > mundane, because 1st level magicusers need protection and luck to stay alive before they become very useful and because you can die with a single, unlucky roll.

They didn't do that though. They claimed (and still in recent articles claim) that 5E should replicate all the major play styles of all the editions and it doesn't even come close to emulating any play styles outside of a narrow 2.5E to 3.5E play style.

And you can't really layer the 1E or 4E style on top of what we've seen. As I said before they would have to really simplify the system before that would be possible.

1E relies almost entirely on DM judgment calls along with ability checks. The DM through storytelling and fiat enforce roles on the players (like monsters stopping at the fighter, when rules wise they can literally run right past and gank the casters). Casters get vancian spells, and Rogues get backstab and a small chance to disable traps, open locks, etc...etc...

4E relies almost entirely on balanced tactical choices on level up as well as from round to round. These choices when used well can turn the tide of an encounter in the players favor and there is a lot of synergy between classes and their abilities. Everything from at-will, encounter, and daily powers, healing surges, magic items, class features, racial traits, etc...etc... all are balanced tactical choices.

You can't really layer that on top of what we've seen of the 2E/3E Frankenstein creature that is 5E.

They have talked extensively about making the game modular. They've repeatedly stated that they want to keep the core version of the rules fairly simple so that it has an easy bar of entry for new players and will appeal to gamers who prefer more rules lite rpgs, and so that you can run sessions/combats that can play fairly quickly and don't get bogged down in tactical issues the way 3.5/4e can. We'll see how successful they are with that. They have also stated that though that version of the game will be the default/core version they plan to release later supplements that will allow players who want more tactical game play to add those types of elements onto the game. From what I've gathered they feel it is much easier to add additional rules and options to a simple base system than to try and reduce options later (can't put the genie back in the bottle type thing).

I would bet that 6 months to a year after the new version of D&D is released they will put out some sort of combat/tactics book that adds a bunch more rules for maneuver and tactical combat, as well as options for martial characters so that players can build characters that are a bit closer to 4e style martial characters. If the new core is their big 2014 GenCon release something like that might be their 2015 summer release. Of course this is just speculation.

The problem is 5E is no more simple than 3E, and its less streamlined than 4E. From what we've seen and what they've said they aren't really meeting any of those goals. As soon as you start to add things to 5E it becomes exponentially complex. So what really happens is we just end up with a weird frankenstein 3.5/4E monster.

If they really kept the game simple, then sure they could stack 2E, 3E, or even 4E on top with no problem, unfortunately that simplicity would look something like this:

Fighter:+1 to attack and +2 to damage. level 5, extra attack, level 10 extra attack, level 15 extra attack.

Cleric: Turn Undead (make undead flee if you roll above their HD). Heal 1x day per 3 levels, bless 1x a day per 5 levels.

Wizard: magic missile at-will, every 2 levels choose one of the following: sleep, web, fireball, haste, etc...etc... you can cast each one 1x a day.

Rogue: If a target isn't aware, you deal an extra 1x damage per 3 levels on a successful attack. Afterward they are aware of you. +2 to open locks, disable traps, and sneak.

That's not what we have though. We have extreme complexity with multiple things you gain at each level (but no real choices after 3rd). (dis)advantage is thrown around like candy. We have the complexity of vancian casting on most if not all the casters. Casters have spells that instantly end combats (or turn them into mop ups), etc...etc...

You could easily build 3.5E off of what you have now, but 4E would require 1/2 of the game to fundamentally change for it to happen.

I'm also not wanting a 4E clone. I simply want a game that has balanced tactical options on level up and during every round. We can't build that on the base of 5E.

lokiare wrote:

Most importantly I offer suggestions on how to remedy the problems so that we can all get a game that we want to play out of it.

I dont think anyone should be stopped from saying what they want. However, I personally think this is fundamentally impossible (the most obvious example being that you like balanced games and I like unbalanced games - there just isnt a way to accomodate such mutually inconsistent positions within the same game).

Whilst I think supporting multiple playstyles is an admirable and possibly achievable goal, if they're truly aiming for "a game everyone wants to play" I think they are doomed to fail.

As a practical, how-not-to-get-banned suggestion. Maybe you should word your critique in terms of "what I dont like" rather than "what is broken". Some people take umbrage when there is a perception of stating one's preferences as "how things should be".

Well, in reality they could start with a well balanced game and then add a module that adds in all the brokenness of past editions on top and you would have your game with a single module (with spells like Wish, Evard's Tentacles, metamagic feats, etc...etc...) and I would have my game by adding the tactical module (which would add tactical options on level up and every round of the game to each class), and we would both get the game we want, however they have not even hinted at anything like that, so it probably won't happen.

Hitdice wrote:

Scourge of the Sword Coast doesn't have stats for any system but Next, from what I've seen. The previous two Sundering adventures were systemless, with encounters in bolded text, so you knew what to look up when you downloaded the packet for your system of choice, whereas the most recent is sold with DDN stats right there in the book (well, pdf). I don't mean to quibble with you, I just think the first two were an effort to hook players of all three systems on the Sundering's story before switching to DDN only stats (D&D: Switcheroo)

I kind of doubt that WotC is going to produce three (or more) sets of of the same encounters for every adventure they publish; it just seems inefficient from a cost/profit perspective. On the other hand, I would absolutely love to live in a world where any D&D system could get published in Dungeon (D&D: Whichever), and think WotC could make beaucoup monies from a pdf that allowed conversion between the various additions (D&D: Rosetta).

I had figured they would have waited a bit longer when Murder and Baldur's Gate and Legacy of the Crystal Shard rolled out. Official launch isn't till August, so this felt like a sudden bait and switch, but no matter. You'd think since they sell the new stuff on RPGNow, you've have some extra conversions in the bundle too. As an Encounters DM,I'm kinda concerned because a whole 2 tables vanished after the store owner announced DDN only. Well, there went the 3.5 and 4.0/Essentials players...

I wish they continued multi-edition at least until the last adventure (which I believe would end somewhere around GenCon?) It seems easy enough to convert to 3rd edition, at least. I presume you could even reverse engineer it to 4th edition as well (without completely building from ground up). And even if it wasn't WPN approved, those players can use that "Sundering" app to change how the Realms will look (regardless of the rule set they use).

Personally, I've enjoyed DDN so far (despite the frustration I've had...

My deal is, if they were doing that wouldn't their articles reflect it? I mean wouldn't they say they were adding tactical options to the game for those that want it?

A lot of people keep saying 'you can't judge it til it comes out', but we've been given no indication that things are going differently than in the play test.

Flaws in a game system can be somewhat subjective. One person's flaws are another's features, as can be evidenced by the discussions in these very forums.

Now, if you're pointing out real flaws, such as faulty equations in the rules or missing entries in a table, that's okay. However, if you're trying to point out something that doesn't work for you, bear in mind it may well work out for others, and that the game may well be targeted at their playstyle rather than yours. Even if it makes the system unusable for you (e.g. balance issues), that doesn't necessarily indicate a flaw or a broken system.

A desire to make the system usable by more people is a good thing to promote, but consider when something may be better worded as "playstyle options" rather than "fixes".

Actually, since the design goal of 5E is to allow for the play styles of all editions, I was just pointing out how 5E failed to capture the 4E play style of tactical options on level up and tactical options on each round of play.

As I've said elsewhere, if 5E can give me tactical choices on level up and in each round of play in a balanced environment where no one choice is automatically better than all others all the time (or even most of the time), then I would love to play it.

However what we've seen and heard so far doesn't fit that bill.

So I point out things like how (dis)advantage can produce wonky math that is not obvious which is better trading it for something else or gaining it.

I point out how on level up very few classes have a lot of choices.

I point out how in combat certain choices are almost always better than others (this is painfully obvious with spell choices).

I point out the disparity between non-casters and casters.

Most importantly I offer suggestions on how to remedy the problems so that we can all get a game that we want to play out of it.

As a 4E fan, I don't see much that I enjoy in 5E. It really does lack the tactical choices from round to round for any classes but the casters. Even the casters can run out though, so that's also a problem. Once they run out though they only have their damaging cantrips (worthless for the most part) to spam for the rest of the day.

The Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, etc...etc... really have nothing to do.

The maneuvers they gave the Fighter are pretty much worthless. Proning does nothing especially if the target is adjacent to you. Getting advantage for free is nice, but for most creatures you will be fighting this means a bonus as small as +1. Moving half your speed without an OA might sound nice, but then the next round the creature just moves up to you and attacks again, so that one's pretty pointless. Drive Back and Hamstring have the problem of not doing anything for TotM players. Very rarely you might narrate that they get thrown into one of the Wizards walls of fire or stinking clouds, but for the most part its pointless.

For the barbarian raging has as many drawbacks as it has advantages. You can't make opportunity attacks so creatures can 'disengage' at will. Their reckless attack is a joke. It just speeds up the Barbarians death. While the barbarian gets advantage on a couple attacks, all the creatures attacking the barbarian get advantage. So its mathematically more efficient if you want to survive not to use it unless you are one on one and even then it just speeds up the combat between the barbarian and their opponent, no real advantage to it. Everything else is pretty much static mods or features that are not choices at all.

For the Rogue, sneak attack damage isn't too bad, except that the only scaling mechanism in 5E is hit points of monsters which means this damage will not be enough to keep up. The Fighter barely keeps up with 4 to 8 attacks per round with a high damage weapon. The Rogue will quickly fall behind. Most of the Rogues abilities are either auto-wins or static and not chosen. Both of which tested badly in the survey reports, which is strange because they went ahead and filled the rogue with them. Assassinate seems nice, but then you realize you can only use it once per encounter, and only if you surprise an enemy, making it a rare occurrence. Death Strike is vanishingly rare, because not only do you have to have a higher initiative and surprised your foe, they have to fail a saving throw against a relatively low DC (max 15).

Just so no one thinks this is a negative post:

I enjoy the rare use the (dis)advantage mechanic when used for truly catastrophic or overwhelming advantages and disadvantages.

I also enjoy the magic item system, where each item is personalized and feels unique.

I like that you can move attack move attack without any penalties.

I also like the bounded math to an extent. It's too bound for my taste, but better than the 4E 1/2 level math.

There are some good things to steal from 5E, but for the most part if it looks anything like the play test packets, I'm probably going to stick to 4E and wait for Paizo to make a 4E pathfinder product.

Does anyone know of a good forum site to discuss 5E and its relation to people that like or dislike it?

I'm having problems finding one that is active on a daily basis. Every time I find one, I start pointing out the flaws in the system in a polite non-edition warring way. I even explain how it could be fixed, but invariably every time I get some kind of ban for posting the truth.

So is there a forum somewhere that 5E is discussed on a daily basis based on its merits and not some kind of 'keep everything positive or else' broken mentality.

That mentality I mention above is what brought us 4E, then later Essentials, and the down hill slide of the game. I personally don't want to see that happen with 5E. I want 5E to be a game everyone can play, not just a few small groups of people.

Sorry no. Rules wise its worse than any other edition. The fact that it might be available in PDF format as well as dead tree format won't save it...

No Goblins Allowed