|
I have often had an issue with X class must provide Y role. For instance making a spoony Bard is easy but making a really good fighty Bard without a good grasp on system mastery is difficult. I was very pleased to see these posted tweets on EN world today.
Q: How are you handling campaigns that may not have any traps or any social settings? Are you going to have the strong bard for example?
Rob: The bard as example, you may be in a campaign that's going to do more dungon crawling and not have a lot of social. There will be options that you can opt into where you can pick those combat relevant options in place of those social ones.
Q: I know you're trying to have a game where people can play what they want, and party balance works out and you don't need any particular class to play. How are you guys making this game so that something like three rogues could show up at a table and play?
Monte: A 3 rogue game sounds awesome. I don't want any class to be mandatory, but I do want options and events that make you really happy that X class is with you. For example, when fighting undead, you don't need a cleric, but you'll be happy if you have one. If you're out in the wilderness, you'll be happy that the druid is in your party.
Anyone else hear or read something they liked about DDN/5E lately?
|
Well, those comments are a bit short on detail. The first one makes me wonder. Given that D&D is a class-based system, how will the modularity work where you can swap out the social side of a bard, and still have him be a bard (for example)? What is essential bardiness, or indeed essential to other character classes?
As for the second, that should be less difficult as they have already achieved that in 4e.
|
|
Well, those comments are a bit short on detail. The first one makes me wonder. Given that D&D is a class-based system, how will the modularity work where you can swap out the social side of a bard, and still have him be a bard (for example)? What is essential bardiness, or indeed essential to other character classes?
As for the second, that should be less difficult as they have already achieved that in 4e.
To me it sounds like they are thinking about archetypes in the style that Paizo uses perhaps? I agree they are short little thoughts and I am interested to see where they go with them. Being able to customize class in different ways to fit different parties and campaigns is something I find highly desirable.
Now you say 4E achieved the second quote but is that true? I thought 4E didn't work with a three striker party? Can a rogue be a leader or a controller if they need to be? I ask these questions because I honestly dont know. I do recall several complaints on forums that you need at least 3 of the 4 roles(striker, leader, controller, defender) to play 4E. Taking such a hard line on roles has been something that kept me away from 4E. Have I been wrong in that assessment?
I like the idea of a player who loves fiddling with their character and customizing every facet sitting down to play with someone who'd rather spend ten minutes rolling up a character and maybe five minutes each time they go up a level.
It will suit our group (the differences there being a big reason behind us drifting from system to system over the years).
snipped a bit for length...
I thought 4E didn't work with a three striker party? Can a rogue be a leader or a controller if they need to be? I ask these questions because I honestly dont know. I do recall several complaints on forums that you need at least 3 of the 4 roles(striker, leader, controller, defender) to play 4E. Taking such a hard line on roles has been something that kept me away from 4E. Have I been wrong in that assessment?
Based on fairly extensive 4e experience, I'd say you've been slightly mislead rather than wrong.
A three striker party can work well in 4e. With halfway decent rolls and good initiative (which three rogues, for example, would have) they could take an encounter apart fast.
Such a party would hopefully have the sense to stock up on the potions and stay on good terms with the local healers, but their chances of survival wouldn't be bad.
You don't NEED three of the four to have an effective party. It's helpful, certainly - you'll be able to take on more in an adventuring day than an unbalanced party.
Same applies to any of the roles really, I think. An all defender party with no ranged attacker would get through with their high hp/surges. An all leader party would never be out of healing, but it would be slow going (they don't do as much damage). Possibly an all controller party would be the worst off, but with judicious building, quite possible.
In all those cases, you'd need to be canny with your tactics. 4e heavily rewards team play and the roles are written with that in mind. However, they're also written with "nobody is useless" in mind. Every class has a secondary stat with an potential secondary role, so in theory any party of any description should be able to cope. Might be interesting to experiment with that.
When it comes to ability scores in 4E is it pick 3 dump the rest?
Depends. Due to the way defenses are structured, three decent ability scores can get you a long way. Keep in mind, though, that some feats have ability score requirements, and you may find yourself wishing you'd put just one more point into Wisdom. Just something to keep in mind.
Are any of the classes MAD?
Not really. There are classes that have more than one primary ability, but the assumption is that you will pick one of its primary abilities and only select powers that use that ability (Warlocks, for instance, have both Constitution and Charisma as primary abilities, but as a Warlock you should focus on one of the two and ignore powers that use the other).
MAD? Sorry to be ignorant :)
As far as stats go, it varies. I'm not much of a power builder, and I'll admit that one of the things I most like about 4e (and which I hope makes it into D&DNext) is how robust the system is. You have to work fairly hard to build a truly useless PC.
I know there's a school of thought that says this kind of balance is for wusses, but I like being able to build using any race and class combo and have something vaguely functional. One of the most bizarrely effective characters I've seen in play was a pixie bard who charged headlong into battle screaming insults as his foes.
That said, you can power build if that's your bag. My son does this routinely, but we can still play and not end up with a terrible game balance with one character totally outshining the others.
MAD? Sorry to be ignorant :)
A term used for Multiple Attribute Dependency. A 3E paladin is a great example of this. They require a high Strength score because they're melee-oriented. They need moderate Constitution because they're up-front warriors that need lots of HP. They need a decent Wisdom modifier to fuel their spells per day/spell DC. And they need a mid- to high-Charisma score that fuels ALL of their other class features (Lay on hands, Divine Grace, Smite evil attack bonus). With a 28 standard point buy, they're sorely lacking in many areas and almost require them to have a default Dexterity 10, Intelligence 8.
The wizard, by contrast only needs Intelligence and possibly a little bit of Constitution and Dexterity. He can easily drop Strength and Charisma to 8 both and not have to worry over-much about Wisdom (most being around 10). That leaves 26 points for Int 18 (16 pts), Dex 14 (6 pts), Con 12 (4 pts). With rolling for ability scores, it gets even more "swingy".
As far as stats go, it varies. I'm not much of a power builder, and I'll admit that one of the things I most like about 4e (and which I hope makes it into D&DNext) is how robust the system is. You have to work fairly hard to build a truly useless PC.I know there's a school of thought that says this kind of balance is for wusses, but I like being able to build using any race and class combo and have something vaguely functional. One of the most bizarrely effective characters I've seen in play was a pixie bard who charged headlong into battle screaming insults as his foes.
That said, you can power build if that's your bag. My son does this routinely, but we can still play and not end up with a terrible game balance with one character totally outshining the others.
+1. I'll never understand one's interest in making a character that has absolutley no combat effectiveness in the game what-so-ever.
|
|
I appreciate the comments. I think its a good time to look at other editions and compare to see where the possible design can go with D&D:N. I am probably in the minority but my one wish is that all classes were MAD (multiple attribute dependent) I would like to see design that discourages dumping and SAD (single attribute dependent) pumping.
If you are interested in ability scores, skills, feats, etc for 5th edition, you need to read the transcript from today's seminar. The link has just been posted in one of the other threads in this forum. Very interesting stuff there, some which does not sound like any previous edition or like Pathfinder.
If you are interested in ability scores, skills, feats, etc for 5th edition, you need to read the transcript from today's seminar. The link has just been posted in one of the other threads in this forum. Very interesting stuff there, some which does not sound like any previous edition or like Pathfinder.
|
|
Thank you for the link Joana. I have to say I was pleased to read;
Monte:
A couple of days ago I talked a little bit about how we want the core mechanic of the game to be the interaction between the DM and the player. And one of the great tools for that is the ability score. So what we want is to empower DMs and players so that if you want to attempt to do something "I want to open the door" then the DM doesn' thave to even have you roll, he can just look, see you have a 17 strength and says "Yeah, you burst through that door". We want to get past some of the mundane rolls and not tie up a lot of table time with that and move on to the more interesting stuff and the table narrative.
Rob:
Earlier this week I had some players fighting some kobolds in the room. One of the guys wanted to jump over a pit, he had a 15 strength so I let him just do it - it wasn't that big of a jump and it sped up combat. It's very liberating to be able to do that kind of thing and just keep the flow going.
I do this anyways when I GM. I tend to have a fast and loose approach to rules in 3.5/PF. I try to follow RAW as best as possible but I don't feel beholden to the rules. I will bend or break them when I see fit. The approach they are taking here will take some of the heat off GMs like me and hopefully speed up play especially with the most stringent of rules lawyers. I like how about you?
Personally, that's probably the part I was most unenthused about. I had some very bad experiences with DM fiat in 2e, and one of the things I most loved about 3e was taking the decision out of the DM's hands and giving it to the dice.
I also don't like this bit about saving throws.
Rob: Right now, Cha is linked to saves for fear and charm effects. However, if you describe it well, you could use different stat. For example the big monster is grappling you, you might use dexterity to save and get out. But you can also have some other ways of getting out that grapple. Maybe there's a gem on that creature's head and you can make an intelligence saving throw to realize that if you mess with it, the creature would die and let you go.
Makes an Int check arbitrarily better than a Dex check. The Dex check gets you out of the grapple, but the Int check is an "I win" button that ends the encounter. Just caters to people who are comfortable with making crap up as they go along and awards the player's mental stats, like Int and Cha, rather than the PC's.
Sounds like they're definitely going for a "fast and loose" story-hour feel. Unfortunately, I much prefer a more codified feel that puts emphasis on the PC's stats rather than the player's.
|
|
Personally, that's probably the part I was most unenthused about. I had some very bad experiences with DM fiat in 2e, and one of the things I most loved about 3e was taking the decision out of the DM's hands and giving it to the dice.
I also don't like this bit about saving throws.
Rob: Right now, Cha is linked to saves for fear and charm effects. However, if you describe it well, you could use different stat. For example the big monster is grappling you, you might use dexterity to save and get out. But you can also have some other ways of getting out that grapple. Maybe there's a gem on that creature's head and you can make an intelligence saving throw to realize that if you mess with it, the creature would die and let you go.Makes an Int check arbitrarily better than a Dex check. The Dex check gets you out of the grapple, but the Int check is an "I win" button that ends the encounter. Just caters to people who are comfortable with making crap up as they go along and awards the player's mental stats, like Int and Cha, rather than the PC's.
Sounds like they're definitely going for a "fast and loose" story-hour feel. Unfortunately, I much prefer a more codified feel that puts emphasis on the PC's stats rather than the player's.
Yes I can see your concern. It appears much weight is being lifted off the rules and being put on the GMs shoulders. It really takes an experienced GM to make this work for everyone at the table. I play a lot of systems like Burning Wheel and the Dr.who RPG so im pretty used to the story hour style of gaming.
I wonder though how often or encouraged the Int save to end the encounter example above would be. I sometimes use this now in the form of a wisdom or Intel check to throw a bone to the players. That bone is usually "your tactics are failing try something else" and not "hey dummy simply doing this will win the fight." If this is the approach they better have plans for a damn good Game/Dungeon mastery guide some gamers are really going to need it. I see trouble ahead for organized play as well.
Personally, that's probably the part I was most unenthused about. I had some very bad experiences with DM fiat in 2e, and one of the things I most loved about 3e was taking the decision out of the DM's hands and giving it to the dice.
I also don't like this bit about saving throws.
Rob: Right now, Cha is linked to saves for fear and charm effects. However, if you describe it well, you could use different stat. For example the big monster is grappling you, you might use dexterity to save and get out. But you can also have some other ways of getting out that grapple. Maybe there's a gem on that creature's head and you can make an intelligence saving throw to realize that if you mess with it, the creature would die and let you go.Makes an Int check arbitrarily better than a Dex check. The Dex check gets you out of the grapple, but the Int check is an "I win" button that ends the encounter. Just caters to people who are comfortable with making crap up as they go along and awards the player's mental stats, like Int and Cha, rather than the PC's.
Sounds like they're definitely going for a "fast and loose" story-hour feel. Unfortunately, I much prefer a more codified feel that puts emphasis on the PC's stats rather than the player's.
I dont have anything more than feel, of course, but it seems to me they're very much focussed on winning the fans of 1st and 2nd edition back, rather than the 3.5/PF players. That's kind of what I think they should be aiming for, so it may well just be confirmation bias. Nonetheless, that's my impression from the snippets I've been reading.
Thank you for the link Joana. I have to say I was pleased to read;
Monte:
A couple of days ago I talked a little bit about how we want the core mechanic of the game to be the interaction between the DM and the player. And one of the great tools for that is the ability score. So what we want is to empower DMs and players so that if you want to attempt to do something "I want to open the door" then the DM doesn' thave to even have you roll, he can just look, see you have a 17 strength and says "Yeah, you burst through that door". We want to get past some of the mundane rolls and not tie up a lot of table time with that and move on to the more interesting stuff and the table narrative.Rob:
Earlier this week I had some players fighting some kobolds in the room. One of the guys wanted to jump over a pit, he had a 15 strength so I let him just do it - it wasn't that big of a jump and it sped up combat. It's very liberating to be able to do that kind of thing and just keep the flow going.I do this anyways when I GM. I tend to have a fast and loose approach to rules in 3.5/PF. I try to follow RAW as best as possible but I don't feel beholden to the rules. I will bend or break them when I see fit. The approach they are taking here will take some of the heat off GMs like me and hopefully speed up play especially with the most stringent of rules lawyers. I like how about you?
Sounds like a new approach to taking ten? I like it. Theres nothing that looks quite as silly as the strong as an ox fighter trying to burst through the door and then rolling a one. Err oops I must have been standing wrong.
From the ENworld seminar thingy, I saw several things I am all about(which many people are not, but whatever). Vancian spellcasting, Magic Items no longer tied to character progression, and 3E multiclassing style. I'm sold. Take my money, please.
|
Sounds like a new approach to taking ten? I like it. Theres nothing that looks quite as silly as the strong as an ox fighter trying to burst through the door and then rolling a one. Err oops I must have been standing wrong.
I like it as well. I kinda didn't like having to roll for *every...single...thing....* And as GM it's like i'm spending a 1/4 of the time at our table saying 'roll to do it'. But I do it anyway because that's whats built into the system. Actually it's a minor complaint, but if they got rid of that and made it simpler, I'd be happier. And yeah...having a barbarian with 20 Str roll a 1 to knock down a simple door....whatever....more than once that's happened and all my players just roll their eyes. Plus, i also agree that it puts the power back in the hands of the DM and away from the rules lawyers....I don't like rules lawyers in my games and have actually kicked a player out for being 'too rules-lawyery'. OK, he ripped another player's sheet out of their hands and was telling them what they were doing wrong that was the last straw, but he was irritating nonetheless.....I think i've gone off tangent here with this....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is not a rules-lawyer issue. That is a jerk issue. You can be one without being the other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly who is and isn't a rules-lawyer seems to vary depending on who you ask, but I think at it's heart it's anyone who knows the rules much better than you do, and has the gall to correct you when you're wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't go into details because of the NDA but I can say that if you are a fan of older school gaming, that approach seems to be very do-able in D&D Next.
I played at a table run by Bruce Cordell. Our table focused more on the "theater of the mind" type of play whereas Monte Cook ran a table right next to us and while I didn't see too much I'm under the impression his game was more tactically-oriented. The game ran fast and smooth and I saw lots that reminded me of older editions and little that reminded me of 4e.