I think I should elaborate on my position why I think advantage/disadvantage is actually preferable to simple modifiers: Advantage/Disadvantage makes it so that a highly trained character gets more mileage out of advantage.
I'm don't think I'm understanding your point here. You're saying a highly trained character has a better chance if he gets to roll twice with no modifiers then if he only got to roll once and add his modifiers too the roll?
which advantage? the new roll twice mechanic? not that it matters. If an untrained and trained character have the same advantage (irregardless of them being either roll twice or pluses) the the training isn't worth anything in this situation.
Okay.. wait what? I'll confess statistics isn't my strong suit. But this doesn't look right. If the Dc is 15. That means you have a 6 in 20 chance of success. or a flat 30% chance. If you have a +2 bonus to the roll you now need a 13 or better on the D20 which is a 8 in 20 chance or 40%.
Um no I don't think so. The +2 = 10%. and that's it.
okay wait no, the die rolls aren't linked. You roll a d20, you've got a +2 you need a 15, you have a 40% chance of success. You roll it a second time.. You're still only at 40% chance.
this is starting to remind me of this
Okay, i wouldn't call it faking, but I get your point in that you can't just stack mods if there are no mods and you can only roll twice. But that seems to over simplify all situations into granting the same "Advantage/Disadvantage" rather then being more representative of the situation. As someone else pointed out.
^ here here.
You know what I don't understand. Considering how different 4th edition is from this "next" and how different it was from 3rd. Why they feel the need to kill off previous editions and can't just support both. I can understand maybe not printing new material for older editions in book format. But maintaining the edition on the web should be easy enough.
actually If i recall correctly, it was shortly after they announced 4th edition that they started up that Gleemax nonsense and had everyone move to new forums.
I posted this in another thread, but I think this part really belongs here instead.
I'm really mixed on the short rest stuff. At lower level it seems fine, but two strong once you level up perhaps.
The fighter doing damage on a miss is cheese.
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
There are a lot of people who won't trust them no matter what (tries to avoid looking at anyone in particular) and knee-jerk but then that's just life and this board. And Paizo have certainly played their hand well to date.
Why would you ever trust them? They lied to our face. Not two weeks before 4th edition was announced (and well into development) their employees were on their own boards swearing up and down that there were no plans yet for a 4th edition. Their claim to fame was a card game designed to be addictive. Trust? why on earth would you ever? I can see liking their products, but trust them? really?
Now as for the play test. I'm finding there are too many rules missing to make a judgement call on the game as a whole. But individually:
The advantage/disadvantage stuff is just going to result in more die rolls. Oh I'm A/D I have to roll twice (and there are a lot of spells, abilities and monsters that inflict this).
Backgrounds and Themes: These smell like cookie cutter builds that remove options from players. "Oh well i'm a 5th level guardian so I get this power" and really sounds like a way for them to sell more booster packs.. I mean books.
No skill points to choose. Your background dictates them. More over-simplification/cookie cutter that I don't care for.
I need to take a second look but it seems like the pcs deal out way more damage then the monsters. I also can't tell if they have removed HD for monsters so you have a formula to vary Hp or just left that off for now.
The goblin king does not sound like david bowie.
Scott Betts wrote:
No it doesn't
Scott Betts wrote:
Yes it is, unless you're just running away to end it.
Scott Betts wrote:
totally your unfounded and unproven opinion
Scott Betts wrote:
No he isn't
Scott Betts wrote:
No it isn't
Scott Betts wrote:
No actually you turned it into that when you came into the thread and got on your soap box. This was about how an article for 5th edition was all about nerfing wizards.
Scott Betts wrote:
Why do you think you have the right to tell us how to play this game? It's really offensive the way you run your mouth insisting we are doing it wrong if we don't play the way you think we should.
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Well schedule and cost. Those maps and words cost money when you are in the printing business.
Really? how about said library has a creature that lives there and wanders about every so often. He's too tough for the party to take on. You have to avoid him. Now you have to navigate the area and find the item while avoiding said creature.
edit.. or what DSXMachina said :)
The point is there should be no formula of actions that the players can rely on to "win" the game. The point of DnD is creativity. The pcs should not know how many encounters there will be before they can rest or even get back to town. Trying to force the game into such a formula is what 4th edition did in a way. It's just a unnecessary restriction on creativity and a way for other people to tell you , you're doing it wrong.
It really depends on the type of dungeon doesn't it though? A simple open cave of 3 rooms, sure 5 encounters and done and out in an hour.
I think you are on to something here. It really goes back to the old speed factors for spells and weapons. Longer then 1 std. action casting time for some spells wouldn't be bad. It preserves the versatility of magic while allowing the skills to be more useful on a regular basis.But then again my groups always like speed factors for weapons too.
The other option, which wouldn't be horrid, is to make wands and scrolls simply have full round casting times.
Very true. There also wasn't a WBL table that would tell you, you were doing it wrong, if your pc had a +3 sword at 7th level.
Scott Betts wrote:
Where do you get this stuff from? Undermountain, Castle Ravenloft, Harrowstone, Dragon Mountain, The Tomb or Horrors, all say Hi just to rattle off a few. But then 4th edition is all about short encounters. So that makes more sense coming from you. But please... the statement that Dungeons are not huge environments is totally your opinion.
Sorry, nope, I still don't buy anything you are saying. The wizard losing his wand compared to the fighter losing his sword.. really? I can just pull out the wizard loses his spell book vs your sword.. now whose worse off?
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Come on now, this is just silly talk.If the wizard wants to cast mage armor and start flailing about with his staff then let him.
It's the same as the fighter trying to use Use Magic Device and zap stuff with a wand.
Again this mentality that this class must do this and that class must do that is not what this game is about. That line of thinking comes from computer games, not the historical rules of DnD that fostered your imagination.
DnD is not supposed to be a set of rules that regimented what you had to do, or how you had to play if you wrote down a specific class on your character sheet. THAT mentality is what brought us the obnoxiousness of roles, like striker, controller, tank, etc.
Now the concept of limiting magic items that replicate spell casting (scrolls and wands) isn't that terrible on paper. But I think it is already controlled by the DM well enough, simply by how much treasure you hand out. Scrolls and Wands are very expensive once you start getting into higher level spells. A 9th level character with a wand of fireballs (9th level-9d6) has 1/4 his entire wealth (if you are militant about the WBL tables-which I am not)invested in that wand. And when it's depleted it's gone! For the same price the melee can have a weapon with +3 worth of bonuses and it never runs out.
I don't see the problem here.
Yes you have a point. The problem is that, as with most things, those that scream the loudest and most often (no matter how much of a minority) have a tendency to be the ones that get heard. And are the ones developers wind up listening to. And therefor the ones that wind up getting the rules shaped they way they want.So unfortunately if you don't like something you have to raise your voice and make a fuss, even if it's obvious to the majority that the rules should be written one way. If they just assume it will, the minority crying for change will be the ones that get their way. And then you wake up one day and realize... where did my game go? This isn't what we wanted.
Scott Betts wrote:
What on earth.. where do you come up with this stuff?What level are you starting play at? 18th?
Arsenal of spells greater then any challenge? Really? You're keying your encounters wrong if the casters are able to memorize spells "far greater than any expected challenge" Never mind how they pulled off the ability to know what all the encounters are going to be in the adventure and prepare accordingly.
Huge surplus of gold that casters have? Dude.. what game are you playing? is it pathfinder? Between the cost of expensive components, the cost to scribe spells into spellbooks, the cost to make this wealth of magic items wizards supposedly have, the cost of making magic items for their party mates... most wizards I know are scraping every copper. Melee.. they find their flaming long swords in the treasure hoard. The wizard needs the gold.
I swear, sometimes I wonder if some of you actually play this game or just read the books.
Scott Betts: Every thing you said is an exaggeration or filled with assumptions, and not the way things actually play out on any sort of regular basis.
So you're saying that, as a DM, it is my responsibility to ensure than some force is propelling my party along at a breakneck pace, and that if I ever allow them to tackle a challenge at a pace they find comfortable, I am doing it wrong?
Is that what I said? really? Is that the only way you know of to keep the party from stopping to regain spells after every encounter? I'm so sorry for your players. I could come up with 5 ways in about 2 minutes. Your games must be so one dimensional. (see I can make assumptions too)
Diffan: that's why it's called magic, and that's why it is a limited resource for casters. If the wizard could do all the things you mentioned all day. That would be a problem. But for each one of those things he does he loses the ability to do something else. Sure he might cast invisibility and sneak ahead (though it's not like that makes you silent, since 1st edition you were better off casting it on your rogue buddy.) or drag the rock across the traps(did you as a DM really let that trick work more then a handful of times?), But then those spells are gone for the day. A smart wizard saves his spells for the beast at the end of said trap filled hallway otherwise he is going to be chucking darts at it when they finally get there.
Halleluiah someone who gets it!
I really feel like a lot of people look at the classes and insist on trying to balance them in a one encounter bubble. I think that really does a disservice to the game. It dumbs the game down and removes the complexity that has been inherent since the game was created. It also leads to trying to pigeon hole the classes. You're the striker, you're the tank, you're the healer and that's all you can be because you might step on the other classes toes. Bleck! That mentality is not the DnD I know. It's a different game entirely.
Wizards are supposed to be feared, magic is supposed to be terrifying. Trying to reduce the class down to the same level as the fighter or saying you can't deal damage as a caster, kills the wonder of magic. I'm not saying melee shouldn't be impressive. I think 3rd edition-pathfinder fixed the weakness of those classes dramatically with the introduction of feats. But that's enough, There is no need now to keep pushing this agenda that casters must suffer because too long were we melee classes forced to dwell in darkness!
But apparently Mike Mearls is not of this mindset as the article clearly points out.
yeah but if you read it closely, no offense intended, he doesn't care if it does. He's going to do what he thinks is best and those groups are out of luck.
Look... this post is a rant. I realize that. You've been warned.
This article here
I am sick and tired of these developers telling me that for the past 20 years I have been doing it wrong, not been having fun and that they know better then all of the developers that came before them. That only the players who played wizards at my table had fun in my games and that fighters and rogues cried themselves to sleep at night over the injustice of it all.
I am sick to death of this fighter fan base that was beat up by a wizard in kindergarten and has dedicated their life to getting revenge by nerfing(to use an mmo phrase) wizards into the ground.
It annoys me to no end that this mentality has crept into pathfinder (by the way blasting spells have suffered) to some extent and is proselytized on the boards here almost daily.
I'm tired of it. It's called resource management. Wizards spells are the most powerful in the game and should do more damage then melee attacks because they are limited in resource. Letting your players get away with 15 minute adventuring days so the melee characters never shine means you're doing it wrong as a DM NOT that the system is flawed.
But it's this mentality that has led to 4th level archers in pathfinder doing 30+ points of damage per round, every round, all day while a 4th level wizard is lucky if he can pull off a 15 point damage spell 2 or 3 times the entire day.
This entire article is nothing but a massive nerf to wizards.
Reduced number of spell slots.. spells don't scale with level..BUT hey you can cast cantrips all day!!
Haste is for fighters.. anyone else with a haste spell shouldn't get as many attacks as an unbuffed fighter... WTH... why does this sounds like SUMMMON FIGHTER I-IX should be the most powerful spell in the game?
The article has more examples of this.. grease to help the rogue. web to entangle the villain's horse but not the villain himself. Heaven forbid the wizard actually do something to win the encounter. That's everyone else's job. You should be happy we let you cast light. Not that it was necessary. The fighter just used a power and can see in the dark now silly wizard.
I grow weary of this. Leave the wizard alone or they aren't going to be worthy of the name for much longer!
We don't allow auto-resizing of weapons and armor.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Here's my problem with that. The other races are all longer lived.So the 17 year old human picks up a bow and is automatically better at it then the 80 year old elf, that has proficiency with the long bow because of his alleged 30+ years of training and racial affinity.
I'm not looking to change that though. That tidbit of warped verisimilitude has been around for decades.
As do I, having played 2nd ed. for years. But this isn't really a question of power gaming from my perspective. It's about the fact that humans, through their extra feat, get to:
a.) be better then all of the races even at what are supposed to be the other races niches.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
So why should humans be exempt from sucking (as you put it) at level 1?
It is a little bit of a power creep. I can't argue that it isn't. But that extra feat at first level give humans a boost in power the other races don't get. And honestly open up a lot more cosmetically cool builds that the other races have to sit around and wait to pull off.
The human can be firing (be it ranged weapon or spell) into combat better then any elf. Never mind try using guns with the new rules as a non-human.
Which leads to the fact Humans can be wielding exotic weapons in general faster and better.
Is changing it really necessary? no not at all, there's just something that seems OP about that extra feat, or that makes my players pick human 8 times out of 10 because that extra feat lets them create a guy that fits the image in their head without having to wait until 5th level for it to not suck.
Flak: Yes the change I was leaning towards was granting everyone the extra feat humans get to compensate for the feat tax in a lot of trees.
I like Cheapy's trait idea but I am not sure that is enough and would like to hear some more ideas.
I'll go look at the alternate racial stuff for humans.
Personally I feel that the bonus feat humans get at first level is too powerful a racial perk. Specifically because there are too many feat chains that have some sort of feat tax. That extra feat is just too appealing if you are trying to make your pc fit a concept.
So, if the extra feat wasn't a human racial, what could Humans gain in return to keep them appealing as a choice?
Just my two cents..
Create a bloodline that incorporates the unarmed combat feats.
Armor of Earth (Like when Toph creates a shell around her)
Whip of Water (Katara's common attack)
A little more exotic
This is actually a topic my group has been discussing lately. And I would like to point out I have seen some of Raving Dork's blasting builds. And while they are impressive... it isn't until the mid-teen levels that they really become so. And they seem reliant on Fire based damage from what I recall (I could be totally wrong on that)
Sub level 12 is really what I would like to see him address. After all that's where most of the AP's dwell and where I think a lot of people's campaigns spend time.
Basically in our group the caster's spells are very weak compared to the melee. Our game last night was a good example.
Meanwhile our 5th level cleric cast a spell that required an attack role, granted a save and then wound up doing 9 points of damage.
The wizard cast Spontaneous Immolation (Dc-16) and through a failed save did 11 points of damage (that would have been 5 whole points! if the creature saved)
Then the ranger went and through feats and power attack did 17 points of damage with his Falchion.
The 5th level paladin was in a smite fest with and anti-paladin. They were trading blows that were on average doing 20-30 points of damage.
I really think one of the main problems with blasting/Evocation spells is that they are a limited resource compared to melee attacks. The limited resource should do a lot more damage or at least have the potential to than the usable all day melee swings/shots. Or be much harder to resist.
Not to be a smart-arse but:
Yes it's a fear effect. This is really just common sense people.
Do you really try to play this way? I can't imagine the legalese and minutia you must waste time arguing over in your games.
The players make the rolls for their skills in our games. I don't have the desire to book keep that much when I am dm'ing.
And there-in lies the problem with spell casters trying to deal damage with the current rules. On top of the impact of most damage dealing spells being greatly reduced by the increased amount of Hit points everything has.
Personally since spells are a finite resource they should be doing more damage then melee attacks which are reusable every round all day. OR the Dc's of spells should scale better with the level of the caster to at least make them harder to resist.
Personally I look at it this way. You're the DM, You're the one doing 95% of the work crafting the adventure, the story, the world, the encounters.
All the players have to do is show up with their character. They really should be the ones to bend their character concepts to match the adventure you are running and not the other way around.
Minor encounters here and there to appeal to their specialties are fine but major story arcs, I avoid.
war-ready person, well-fed, 5% chance of failure is a person terrible at their job...
I didn't realize all pc's were highly trained soldiers.
My games run under a different style. Where most of the posters here think that having the label PC makes the character automatically a hero, we don't subscribe to that philosophy.
So falling asleep on watch after a hard day of fighting I would usually set a fortitude DC of 15. A light day of travel: DC 5-10
I don't get it. Why are you concerned your players are dumping stats, or min maxing?