|
Ratpick, it sounds like you and I would get along great in a gaming group (even after we got on opposite sides of a rules argument).
That being said...
I don't have an DM-vs-the-players mentality. But I do have a take-your-lumps approach to things. If a player does something stupid and gets his character killed, oh, well. That's what fresh character sheets are for.
Yeah, I don't ascribe to an adversial DMing mentality either, but I agree with you entirely: PCs shouldn't be molly-coddled and if a player decides to do something stupid, they should suffer the consequences.
This approach to hit points and healing is.... Frankly, I have to repeat myself. It's pathetic.
I have an image of kindergartners sitting around my table with fingers in their noses.
This, however, I disagree with: giving the PCs at least a small amount of self-healing alleviates the need for a focused healer PC (like what most Clerics end up being in many editions of the game). The amount of HP recovered during a short rest is, at least on paper, very small, and accounts for a very small amount of the resource (Hit Points) to be doled out during the day.
I'm also alright with long rests refreshing you back to full hit points PROVIDED the game gives us some rules to stop players from taking long rests in dungeons. The playtest documents do address this to an extent (in a short paragraph titled "Random Encounters") but then provide no rules for random encounters or wandering monster checks. This is a major oversight, in my opinion, because some DMs are going to be running the playtest adventure with lots of leeway for the PCs to rest up in the dungeon, while some are not.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm alright with a limited amount of self-healing for all characters, because it fixes the "someone needs to play a Cleric" problem, but at the same time I think players should always, in a dungeon environment, shy away from taking long rests because "MONSTERS ARE GOING TO KILL US IN OUR SLEEP!"
You also seem like a cool guy, even though we disagree on this one point. :)
To reiterate my entire point:
Cheap Death = bad
Death Because of Stupidity = okay
Small amount of self-healing + inflated hit points at first level = less of a chance of Cheap Death.
|
|
Maybe tomorrow I'll rant about rogues getting a d6 per level on sneak attacks.
Oh, that I completely agree with. It's balls to the walls insane, especially with small rogues being able to hide behind their larger comrades. Then again, we don't know yet how damage scales at higher levels.
Also, the damage only applies when you're hiding. Hiding in combat takes an entire turn by the rules, so you could theoretically only sneak attack every other turn.
But again, even that might be too much, but we won't know until we know how much damage in general scales.
|
|
In general I'm not in favor of rules for wandering monsters. Possible encounters should be based on what's in the area and what's likely to be moving around or patrolling, not on a generic random chart.
Ah, yes, of course. I also think that wandering monster encounters should match up to the dungeon at play, because otherwise it gets silly.
Otherwise, I think it's too much of a hassle for the DM to know and keep track of all the different monsters that may or may not be moving around the dungeon. Because of this, I think that wandering monster checks and random encounter charts appropriate to the environment (because if your dungeon is mainly filled with orcs there's no need for "SUDDENLY 1d4 GELATINOUS CUBES OUT OF NOWHERE!!!" [even though that's really awesome too]) make the dungeon environment more organic and also make it easier on the DM. If the DM only has to roll a die to see if wandering monsters appear and not refer to a separate spreadsheet, it's just more fluid and simple.
|
|
Regarding Sneak Attack, you have to remember that iterative attacks may be gone. The die per level will probably even this out.
I'm pretty sure they've implied that multiple attacks in general are gone, except maybe for Fighters. Can't recall.
But yeah, this is one of those things where we'll just have to wait and see.
I posted this in another thread, but I think this part really belongs here instead.
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.
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.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With respect Gorbacz if anyone is trying to start something out of nothing, anything and everything it's you. It's almost like your dissapointed that some on this board dare to like what they see in the 5E playtest document. That and not being angry or wanting to go after Wotc with pitchforks and torches. So your thinking "that's not good at all time to start some sort of anti-5E revolution on the boards". Which thankfully much cooler heads have prevailed so far. This mught change when the final product is released. Maybe I'm wrong but when one of your post is "why are people not angry with 4E being incompitable" well we have better things to do. I think slowly the D&D gamign community is getting tired of edition wars and people who go out of their way to start them.
So acting suprised that about the lack of angry reaction should be no surprise. They said a new edition was coming from the start. It would be different and it would be playtested. So no surprises unlike 4E. So Wotc was upfront for once. Great for a more moderate gamer like myself. Not so great for those who se hate for Wotc is set in adamantium.
|
|
I think fighters might well be getting an ability that will give them iterative attacks, maybe as one of the themes.
Just looked over the Bestiary. That Slayer Fighter Theme ability to do Str bonus damage even if you miss is even more ridiculous than before, when you take kobolds into account.
"You missed the kobold, but since you have an 18 Strength, the wind from your axe cut him in half."
NIMG.
Bear in mind that the Wizard also has Magic Missile, which deals 1d4+Int damage, as an at-will. So, as far as the Wizard is concerned, it's one dead kobold per turn, if they want to play it that way.
If they went away from the 4E monster statblocks I'm thinking they aren't paying attention to thier audience. Even the most rabid 4E haters I know love the 4E monster stat blocks. If there is anything that has universal appeal they are seeking out of everything from 4th, the Monster Manual layout is probably it.It's not universal. One of the things I hated most about 4e was the different rules for monsters & NPCs & especially the monster stat blocks. I vastly preferred the detail provided by 3.x.
I think the separate rules issue is a different topic*, however I'm curious about your view on statblocks. Have you seen the approach taken in the beginner box? I think they are comparable to 4E's efficient presentation - do you find them equally distasteful? I vastly prefer short and sharp stat blocks for reference together with a half page or so of flavor material/tactics and so forth and I don't really understand the aversion (assuming flavor material is available somewhere).
..
* If i had to would guess I'd speculate that D&D:Next is going to have different rules for building monsters from PCs given that's the norm for non 3.x editions and they're occasional comments about ease of preparation/speed of play.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why should those that stuck with 3.5 in the form of Pathfinder even care?
I can only speak for myself but as much as I love Pathfinder as a game and Paizo as a company, there's still the fact that I have had a 20-year long D&D history before 4E put an end to my customer relationship with D&D. So while I certainly won't stop supporting Paizo/PF, there's still the wish that D&D Next will be a form of D&D I also will care about.
Bear in mind that the Wizard also has Magic Missile, which deals 1d4+Int damage, as an at-will. So, as far as the Wizard is concerned, it's one dead kobold per turn, if they want to play it that way.And this is just as bad. Especially since the mechanic in 4E was magic missile at-will, but the caster had to roll an attack roll to hit with it.
As I've said before, anything the PCs would squawk about if the monsters used it is not acceptable for a PC to use.
And believe me, the PCs would squawk about automatic damage of ANY kind.
Many people I know were disappointed when MM required an attack roll in 4th edition. Nobody(not literally) really cared about the autohit in 3rd edition. The SoD's got a lot more attention.
|
|
Here is a quote about it, but not the quote I was thinking of:
We actually went back and played every major edition of D&D and used those experiences to help narrow down the absolute core elements of the game. If you removed those elements, it’s not D&D. Our list includes the six abilities, classes, levels, hit points, Armor Class, and a few other things. In many ways, the list creates the shared language that links the editions.
I think if that's all you had, you might not have a game system.
|
|
With respect Gorbacz if anyone is trying to start something out of nothing, anything and everything it's you. It's almost like your dissapointed that some on this board dare to like what they see in the 5E playtest document. That and not being angry or wanting to go after Wotc with pitchforks and torches. So your thinking "that's not good at all time to start some sort of anti-5E revolution on the boards". Which thankfully much cooler heads have prevailed so far. This mught change when the final product is released. Maybe I'm wrong but when one of your post is "why are people not angry with 4E being incompitable" well we have better things to do. I think slowly the D&D gamign community is getting tired of edition wars and people who go out of their way to start them.
So acting suprised that about the lack of angry reaction should be no surprise. They said a new edition was coming from the start. It would be different and it would be playtested. So no surprises unlike 4E. So Wotc was upfront for once. Great for a more moderate gamer like myself. Not so great for those who se hate for Wotc is set in adamantium.
I also suspect that anyone here who has taken up 4e, but continues to put up with some of the comments thrown around here because they also like Paizo stuff, is likey to be fairly open-minded and looking at the relative merits, rather that having a spasm of knee-jerkism. As Jeremy suggests, there are probably some people who maybe haven't been as exposed to the previous edition wars who, on other boards, are busy fulminating right now. But here, the pointless negativity of the previous edition war has, for those on the receiving end, made such activities much less fun or novel. Plus WotC's general handling of it is much better.
|
|
Bear in mind that the Wizard also has Magic Missile, which deals 1d4+Int damage, as an at-will. So, as far as the Wizard is concerned, it's one dead kobold per turn, if they want to play it that way.I think fighters might well be getting an ability that will give them iterative attacks, maybe as one of the themes.
Just looked over the Bestiary. That Slayer Fighter Theme ability to do Str bonus damage even if you miss is even more ridiculous than before, when you take kobolds into account.
"You missed the kobold, but since you have an 18 Strength, the wind from your axe cut him in half."
NIMG.
Actually, that's one dead MINION per round. A typical lvl 1 non-minion kobold in 4e has probably 25 to 30 hit points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many people I know were disappointed when MM required an attack roll in 4th edition. Nobody(not literally) really cared about the autohit in 3rd edition. The SoD's got a lot more attention.It isn't the autohit that I have a problem with. It's the fact that it's an autohit spell that can be cast at will. It costs the character nothing but an action to inflict damage on an opponent who has absolutely no chance to avoid it. Just like the fighter ability that inflicts damage even when the character misses.
Players invariably protest when monsters do things like this. So PCs shouldn't be able to do it, either.
I see now. In that case MM should be moved up so it is limited in use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why should those that stuck with 3.5 in the form of Pathfinder even care?I can only speak for myself but as much as I love Pathfinder as a game and Paizo as a company, there's still the fact that I have had a 20-year long D&D history before 4E put an end to my customer relationship with D&D. So while I certainly won't stop supporting Paizo/PF, there's still the wish that D&D Next will be a form of D&D I also will care about.
Your quoting me completely out of context here.
The context was why should people who play Pathfinder care enough to throw a fit about 4E books not being compatible with 5E?
Bear in mind that the Wizard also has Magic Missile, which deals 1d4+Int damage, as an at-will. So, as far as the Wizard is concerned, it's one dead kobold per turn, if they want to play it that way.And this is just as bad. Especially since the mechanic in 4E was magic missile at-will, but the caster had to roll an attack roll to hit with it.
As I've said before, anything the PCs would squawk about if the monsters used it is not acceptable for a PC to use.
And believe me, the PCs would squawk about automatic damage of ANY kind.
There definitely can be auto damage against the PCs. Heck last session I ran the PCs faced off with Dretch that had aura's that did damage if they where adjacent to the Dretch and if they killed one it exploded for auto damage as well.
I mean there was definitely b$~@%ing and moaning about this but not 'The DM is cheating' type b%@~*ing more like 'godammit we need to figure a way to kill these guys at range' b@~!#ing.
I see now. In that case MM should be moved up so it is limited in use.Since there are errors in the playtest documents (the fighter's axe does 2d6, but the axe in the book does 1d12, for example), I'm wondering if this is just a mistake. The "roll to hit" might have been removed from magic missile in the document, but they forgot to bump it to 1st level when they did it.
Highly improbable. Magic Missile in 4E was eventually errata'd to be an auto hit spell 'in order to make it more like traditional D&D'. If Mike Mearl's cared so much about Magic Missile 'being true to its roots' that he changed a perfectly functional power just for flavor reasons in 4E it seems unlikely that he reversed course here.
On the other hand I think your making a mountain out of a mole hill here. I've played with auto hit spammable Magic Missile for around a year and a half know and its pretty much a non issue.
Any time spent on some optimization thread will soon make it clear that the action economy is pretty darn close to the be all and end all of everything. Thus this is the type of power that is really good at very low level but pretty much never gets used again after that because its just such a sub optimal way for the Mage to be spending his turn.
If we presume that the system will likely see to it that the vast majority of combats are over in 3-4 rounds then there is usually some way the wizard can be contributing more effectively on those very limited number of turns.
|
|
I also think that Magic Missile, while weak for a 1st-level spell, is just too much as an auto-hit cantrip that can be cast at will. Then again, the damage is negligible, even though it potentially kills one mook per turn.
Also, related to dealing damage on a miss: that's basically what dragon breaths and fireballs have done forever. I know it's different, but those are both abilities where players can take damage even though the attack "misses."
Furthermore, since hit points are abstract, the Fighter dealing damage on a miss can easily be described in a multitude of ways: because armor class factors in the armor worn by your enemy, the implication is that sometimes you'll miss an enemy because their armor blocked the blow. Then you just narrate that "Your strike was blocked by the enemy's armor, but because you're so awesome and strong you were able to push your axe through and kill that dude."
D&D has always been funny with AC and HP. A hit isn't always a hit, a miss isn't always a miss, and losing HP doesn't always mean losing precious meat that protects your organs.
|
|
I also suspect that anyone here who has taken up 4e, but continues to put up with some of the comments thrown around here because they also like Paizo stuff, is likey to be fairly open-minded and looking at the relative merits, rather that having a spasm of knee-jerkism. As Jeremy suggests, there are probably some people who maybe haven't been as exposed to the previous edition wars who, on other boards, are busy fulminating right now. But here, the pointless negativity of the previous edition war has, for those on the receiving end, made such activities much less fun or novel. Plus WotC's general handling of it is much better.
Good point. Just annoying as heck imo to see some posters trying to either get a reaction, disappointed they can't get one the first time and keep trying over and over again. Or take one bad thing. The Wotc legal document and make it like Wotc burned their house down and killed all their pets. Even then one could understand if 5E was not as well received. So far imo from what I can see many posters here like it. So it just seems like trying to a reaction for the sake of it.
We actually went back and played every major edition of D&D and used those experiences to help narrow down the absolute core elements of the game. If you removed those elements, it’s not D&D. Our list includes the six abilities, classes, levels, hit points, Armor Class, and a few other things. In many ways, the list creates the shared language that links the editions.
so in other words:
there will be a core book for 20+$
a new DM guide for 20+$
a new MM for another 20+$
then there will be a skills book for 15+$
and a feats book for 15+$
and an armoury for 15+$
then you can start playing
We actually went back and played every major edition of D&D and used those experiences to help narrow down the absolute core elements of the game. If you removed those elements, it’s not D&D. Our list includes the six abilities, classes, levels, hit points, Armor Class, and a few other things. In many ways, the list creates the shared language that links the editions.so in other words:
there will be a core book for 20+$
a new DM guide for 20+$
a new MM for another 20+$then there will be a skills book for 15+$
and a feats book for 15+$
and an armoury for 15+$then you can start playing
Actually, there will probably be a final public beta test phase with pretty much everything needed to run a game. Oh, and if the past two editions are any indication, there will be a free online package that you can download designed to let you try D&D out for free.
So, aside from unfounded cynicism, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.
|
In the spirit of this thread....
It sounds like 5e wants to be Castles & Crusades but hasn't figured itself out yet.
Well said, Scott.
I mentioned in another post that I believe there wouldn't be an OGL for 5E, but you've pointed out that there definitely will be an SRD, or at least its working equivalent.
Is that confirmed? Because I believe a 5E that isn't released under the OGL is a non-starter. Debates on whether the OGL was good or bad for D&D (or WotC, or for the hobby as a whole), while possibly interesting, are completely beside the point. The fact is that 5E will be released into an OGL world.
In my opinion, no closed system, no matter how mechanically superior, can ever put that genie back in the bottle.
|
|
I believe a 5E that isn't released under the OGL is a non-starter. Debates on whether the OGL was good or bad for D&D (or WotC, or for the hobby as a whole), while possibly interesting, are completely beside the point. The fact is that 5E will be released into an OGL world. No closed system, no matter how mechanically superior, can ever put that genie back in the bottle.Well said, Scott.
I mentioned in another post that I believe there wouldn't be an OGL for 5E, but you've pointed out that there definitely will be an SRD, or at least its working equivalent.
I agree completely. Whether I ever actually play the game rests almost entirely on whether it's released OGL. As I've stated elsewhere though, my gut tells me that Monte Cook left WotC over this very issue, and I'm not holding my breath for an OGL 5e.
Actually, there will probably be a final public beta test phase with pretty much everything needed to run a game. Oh, and if the past two editions are any indication, there will be a free online package that you can download designed to let you try D&D out for free.
So, aside from unfounded cynicism, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.
I resent the unfounded
PDFs are nice to try things out but at the gaming table I rather use a book
and that quote sounds much like a few more covers to carry:
Modularity = Modules = Books
The base premise given is to consolidate players of past editions, but please tell me: when has a new edition of anything ever helped with consolidating?
|
So I have the playtest and I'm not certain what I can and can not say about it, but I feel I can say this: From what I've read, it's pretty much a simplified 3.5. In fact it reminds me (again from what little there is) of Castles and Crusades.
You're not the only one to say that. My friend or two also in the playtest says its a stripped down 3.X
|
|
so in other words:
there will be a core book for 20+$
a new DM guide for 20+$
a new MM for another 20+$then there will be a skills book for 15+$
and a feats book for 15+$
and an armoury for 15+$then you can start playing
Actually, as far as they've implied, a lot of the so-called modular rules will actually be presented in the core rulebooks, but they will be marked as such that people realize that they don't have to play the game with all the options on.
The 3e DMG had a huge section of potential alternate rules, which I thought were awesome, but they were presented as such that no one would actually think that none of those alternate rules had to be in use, ever. That, I think, is what they're going for.
As for feats and skills, they are going to be in the Core, but they've also mentioned that for a truly old-school experience players will just be able to ignore those sections of the rules.
Other stuff they've implied is going to be in the core but presented as modular: character-building options for the Fighter (the current playtest Fighter is the most basic Fighter with none of the optional switches turned on), character customization outside of Themes and Backgrounds (apparently, Themes and Backgrounds are the default method of choosing skills and feats, with the option for allowing people to just choose their own skills and feats) and tactical combat (Which is in my opinion a pretty smart choice: as much as I dislike tactical, grid-based combat, I understand that a number of 3e and 4e players prefer it to more narrative-based combat).
EDIT: And now I see that Jerry Wright already said pretty much everything I tried to, but in a more concise form. :D
The 3e DMG had a huge section of potential alternate rules, which I thought were awesome, but they were presented as such that no one would actually think that none of those alternate rules had to be in use, ever. That, I think, is what they're going for.
ah, thanks for the clarification
I started with 3.5 so this bit of history is before my time."as far as they've implied" mmmm, ok
I'm willing to hedge my opinion till they managed to dissapoint you on this - call me a cynic if you want
maybe they'll even arrive in the 21st century and slap the OGL on D&D Next
I'm actually wondering why they don't take Pathfinder (which is published under OGL) and dissect it into modules, add the "good" 4e stuff as a module
and instead of trying to put out yet another D&D edittion make an addition to what is there.
and concentrate on selling adventure paths instead of making yet another set of fresh players feel ripped of for lack of support for a system they just invested their §§§ in.
They need to read more Pratchett:
instead of trying to increase the size of the piece they get from the cake*
they should take a smaller piece**
and try to enlage the cake***
* sales of core books - with yet another edition, which is yet again (advertised as) better than anything before
** sell adventure paths
*** add modules to OGL content to win players for D&D3.x for everything that runs under OGL
|
|
I'm actually wondering why they don't take Pathfinder (which is published under OGL) and dissect it into modules, add the "good" 4e stuff as a module
and instead of trying to put out yet another D&D edittion make an addition to what is there.
I really disagree, WotC need to start from the ground and build up, not try to unpick Pathfinder into discrete components that can then be used or omitted by players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really disagree, WotC need to start from the ground and build up, not try to unpick Pathfinder into discrete components that can then be used or omitted by players.I'm actually wondering why they don't take Pathfinder (which is published under OGL) and dissect it into modules, add the "good" 4e stuff as a module
and instead of trying to put out yet another D&D edittion make an addition to what is there.
Because the 'good stuff' in the PF rule set is simply the 3.5 rule set. They have that already.