Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!

[Craft (Cheese)]

Just split off a thread for it

But being inside a popular thread lots of people are always looking at is the only thing keeping these... "discussions" alive!

[Crow]

why would you even need to shoot that far to begin with?

Good question. Ask this guy.

[Draz74]

Well, the limitations on bow range are hardly the first time this thread has been derailed to a certain topic that should have been a separate thread ... but ...

But being inside a popular thread lots of people are always looking at is the only thing keeping these... "discussions" alive!

I dunno about that. I posted a bunch of comments on a recent article a little ways back, and no one has continued that discussion at all.

[J.Gellert]

What combos does 3E have that 2E did not? I understand Spell Compendium has lots of new spells, but 2E had its share of non-PHB spells as well. At high enough caster level, a 2E wizard could cast a 1st level save or die spell. (Chromatic Orb, the precursor to 3E Orb spells.) 2E also had spells that were the precursor to metamagic feats - Extend I, Extend II, Vocalize, Persistancy.

I mean obvious cheese like Divine Metamagic, Some well-known vestiges, and being a Necropolitan Tainted Scholar to get +infinity to all DCs.

Here's a secret: Save-or-dies aren't inherently bad. There, now it's out in the open, and everyone can breathe.

[Craft (Cheese)]

They're explicitly embracing the fluff that HP represent physical toughness and ability to turn a nasty blow into a glancing blow and plot armor. Not really revolutionary, but maybe the fact that they're acknowledging it openly means they'll implement this abstraction better than in past editions. (E.g. by making it so healing magic is more effective on high-level creatures than on low-level creatures, in terms of sheer quantity of HP.)

Percentage-based healing is *amazing*. Why didn't every game move toward it years ago? It's the best way to handle the problem of having to constantly spend more and more resources on getting effectively the same thing as you level up.

(I mean, let's say a swipe from a generic baddie of equal level knocks out 1/4th of the fighter's health, regardless of what level of play you're at. At level 1 you can deal with this with a first-level spell, but at level 15 you need a seventh-level spell to get the same result. Having Cure Light/Moderate Wounds restore 25% health no matter what would fix this problem and would make higher-leveled healing spells actually stronger, instead of just necessary to keep up with the number inflation.)

That said though, I read the article too and I didn't get the impression that's what they wanted to do with it at all. Would be nice though.

They're converting the sacred cow of "Hit Dice" (e.g. d10 for the fighter) into the new version of Healing Surges. Which, by implication, seems to indicate that they'll be adopting the 4e policy of "Hit Dice" not being used to determine new HP on level-up. Which is fine by me. They don't really give enough details about this new mechanic for me to form an opinion on whether it will be well done. Although I am a little annoyed that they've bumped the Wizard and the Rogue up to d6 and d8, respectively. (But maybe that's just me clinging to another sacred cow.)

You forgot the most important part! You don't have to spend hit dice to get healed with magical effects. This was basically complaint #1 when it came to 4E's healing surges.

[Draz74]

That said though, I read the article too and I didn't get the impression that's what they wanted to do with it at all. Would be nice though.

Well, they're obviously not going for a straight percentage. But it was ambiguous whether a higher-level character gets to roll more "Hit Dice" than a low-level character when they are both struck by a healing effect. I guess I was just mentally giving WotC the benefit of the doubt.

I guess we'll know in a couple days.

[MukkTB]

Lets hypothesize for discussion that there are 4 roles. Lets simplify things even further and declare that there are 4 levels of mastery of any role.
D - Incompetent: You physically cannot do that role.
C - Competent: You have the ability to fill the role barely.
B - Skilled: You are pretty good at the role.
A - Expert: You are top of the line in that role.

So one class could be ADDD. It fills its role very well and can't fill the others. You could build 4 classes ADDD, DADD, DDAD, DDDA, and have a 'balanced' party.

I would prefer a little more variety than that. How about BCCD? CCCC? As long as you don't sit AAAB next to BDDD you have some level of balance.

OR
I prefer a collection of characters with differing levels of breadth and depth with regard to roles. Balance only demands that each cover the same volume.

[2xMachina]

Personally, I prefer ACCD or so. BCCD means that ADDD exists somewhere, and that class would be absolutely boring for being unable to do anything but their One Trick.

[Tyndmyr]

Why is bow range even being discussed? I thought this was a thread on 5th edition not 4e sucks cause I can't shoot a bow 1 mile, and why would you even need to shoot that far to begin with?

Because something exists a mile away that you want to shoot?

Now, I only care in that maximum ranges(and other things) should be at least as high as people can achieve in real life. Is it necessary to allow builds that can fire an arrow literally as far as the eye can see? Not for many sorts of games. But some people might use it.

The thing is...it hasn't appeared to be a notable problem. Anybody picking up a comp longbow in D&D can fire 1100 feet, which is pretty far. Anyone. But archers being broken due to range isn't really a major complaint about 3.5. It appears to be something people just ignore if they aren't interested in it.

So, it makes sense to err on the side of allowing longer ranges.

[navar100]

Lets hypothesize for discussion that there are 4 roles. Lets simplify things even further and declare that there are 4 levels of mastery of any role.
D - Incompetent: You physically cannot do that role.
C - Competent: You have the ability to fill the role barely.
B - Skilled: You are pretty good at the role.
A - Expert: You are top of the line in that role.

So one class could be ADDD. It fills its role very well and can't fill the others. You could build 4 classes ADDD, DADD, DDAD, DDDA, and have a 'balanced' party.

I would prefer a little more variety than that. How about BCCD? CCCC? As long as you don't sit AAAB next to BDDD you have some level of balance.

OR
I prefer a collection of characters with differing levels of breadth and depth with regard to roles. Balance only demands that each cover the same volume.

Every class should have an A. The A is what makes the class fun. I think the ideal is for every class to be ABCD - A for the fun, B for the interesting secondary abilities, C for not being totally screwed when out of your element, D for why you need a party member who has A in that. Everyone being ABCD means everyone has their place to shine, and it's ok for a given two classes shine in the same area but in different ways, when they eventually publish the 4! + 1th class. :) In the meantime, it's also ok for one class to be AB in two roles where another class is BA or one class be ABCD where another is ADCB and so forth.

[Seerow]

Lets hypothesize for discussion that there are 4 roles. Lets simplify things even further and declare that there are 4 levels of mastery of any role.
bD - Incompetent: You physically cannot do that role.
C - Competent: You have the ability to fill the role barely.
B - Skilled: You are pretty good at the role.
A - Expert: You are top of the line in that role.

So one class could be ADDD. It fills its role very well and can't fill the others. You could build 4 classes ADDD, DADD, DDAD, DDDA, and have a 'balanced' party.

I would prefer a little more variety than that. How about BCCD? CCCC? As long as you don't sit AAAB next to BDDD you have some level of balance.

OR
I prefer a collection of characters with differing levels of breadth and depth with regard to roles. Balance only demands that each cover the same volume.

The option of more granularity is why I like the idea of feats for specialization. Imagine for example a character gets 11 feats over the course of his career, and it takes 6 of those feats to get effectively A rank. Now you can keep investing in that same role if you want, just getting that much better at it. Or you can branch out to the others for some more versatility. If you -really- wanted to you could go the jack of all trades route and not have anything up to 6 or more, but doing so would probably make you too unfocused and weak.

Every class should have an A. The A is what makes the class fun. I think the ideal is for every class to be ABCD - A for the fun, B for the interesting secondary abilities, C for not being totally screwed when out of your element, D for why you need a party member who has A in that. Everyone being ABCD means everyone has their place to shine, and it's ok for a given two classes shine in the same area but in different ways, when they eventually publish the 4! + 1th class. :) In the meantime, it's also ok for one class to be AB in two roles where another class is BA or one class be ABCD where another is ADCB and so forth.

Honestly the biggest problem with this is how hard it is to define what a given rank is, and make sure a class gets it. What makes the difference between the different ranks for each role? How do you know the difference between a B rank Defender and an A rank Defender? What about a controller? Striker and Healer you can probably pinpoint because it's mostly about numbers, but even there that level of finesse is hard to accomplish. How do you make sure that the A rank strikers are a step above the B rank ones? How bad is a D rank supposed to be? Should -anyone- actually be that terrible at doing something as basic damage? If not, how do you define a top tier striker?

It's a messy tangle.

[lesser_minion]

Because something exists a mile away that you want to shoot?

Now, I only care in that maximum ranges(and other things) should be at least as high as people can achieve in real life. Is it necessary to allow builds that can fire an arrow literally as far as the eye can see? Not for many sorts of games. But some people might use it.

I agree that 60m is too short a range, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the designers ruling that a certain shot is forbidden when it's really just ridiculously hard.

You can get an arrow 400m. That doesn't mean that you can fire a longbow accurately at that range. That's the entire point. The effective range of a longbow in a D&D combat is vastly shorter than that.

As far as your personal experiences are concerned, they are rather different to the real deal. An authentic longbow is harder to shoot accurately than anything you're likely to come across on a range, let alone a LARP; and D&D longbows can be harder still.

[Tyndmyr]

I agree that 60m is too short a range, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the designers ruling that a certain shot is forbidden when it's really just ridiculously hard.

You can get an arrow 400m. That doesn't mean that you can fire a longbow accurately at that range. That's the entire point. The effective range of a longbow in a D&D combat is vastly shorter than that.

As far as your personal experiences are concerned, they are rather different to the real deal. An authentic longbow is harder to shoot accurately than anything you're likely to come across on a range, let alone a LARP; and D&D longbows can be harder still.

I have and shoot a handmade longbow, so, no.

If you don't buy my experiences, wiki has all manner of citations for longbows. Such as that by order of Henry VIII, no practice range was to be less than 220 yards in length.

The only reasonable conclusion is that a 60 meter limit is substantially too short.

[lesser_minion]

If you don't buy my experiences, wiki has all manner of citations for longbows. Such as that by order of Henry VIII, no practice range was to be less than 220 yards in length.

I've read the Wikipedia article. It does nothing to hurt my point. Shooting at a target on a range (larger than a person; not moving) is far easier than shooting at an enemy in a D&D-style fight.

Also, remember that D&D archers can use bows with a draw weight far higher than the original longbow -- I'd imagine that a Str 18 longbow would have pretty close to a 300lb draw weight, for example.

Percentage-based healing is *amazing*. Why didn't every game move toward it years ago? It's the best way to handle the problem of having to constantly spend more and more resources on getting effectively the same thing as you level up.

If I had to guess, it's partly to make it easier to come up with higher-level spell effects, and partly because in certain games, having to spend more and more resources on getting what amounts to the same thing is considered a desirable feature.

[Kaiyanwang]

You can get an arrow 400m. That doesn't mean that you can fire a longbow accurately at that range. That's the entire point. The effective range of a longbow in a D&D combat is vastly shorter than that.

That's why I posted that feat. The system allows you to specialize and get that accuracy for that distance (just, as I indirectly commented, too late).

Is the "too late" the part we need to fix.

And yes, discuss about how ranged weapons work among edition is pertinent in a discussion about editions.

[Craft (Cheese)]

So, playtest starts tomorrow. Anyone interested in starting up some PbP playtest games? (Assuming the terms allow that, which they probably won't.)

[holywhippet]

I think range increments like in 3rd edition are a good start to how to handle ranged weapons but they don't go far enough. Hitting a stationary target at the range of the bow is possible, but really tricky and you'd want to take some time to aim. Hitting a moving target? That would be extremely difficult, unless your target was moving in a direct line at the same speed in which case it would just be very difficult.

If anything, I think the precise shot feat is more questionable than anything else. You wouldn't expect either combatant in melee to be moving around a lot so shooting from the side wouldn't be much of a problem. On the other hand, shooting from behind your ally should be near impossible. Shooting from behind the enemy shouldn't risk hitting your ally by very much as they are covered by their opponent.

[DrBurr]

That's why I posted that feat. The system allows you to specialize and get that accuracy for that distance (just, as I indirectly commented, too late).

Is the "too late" the part we need to fix.

And yes, discuss about how ranged weapons work among edition is pertinent in a discussion about editions.

This isn't a discussion about editions though this is a thread about 5th edition, our hopes fears and dreams of what this game will be, not lets argue about bows cause I liked how they use to be

So, playtest starts tomorrow. Anyone interested in starting up some PbP playtest games? (Assuming the terms allow that, which they probably won't.)

I can't wait hoping to set up a second weekly game with my group for it so far Tuesdays are looking good

[Loki_42]

So, playtest starts tomorrow. Anyone interested in starting up some PbP playtest games? (Assuming the terms allow that, which they probably won't.)

If the terms allow it, I'm game.

[Scowling Dragon]

I hpe the terms allow it.

Im also game

[Maxios]

I'm in, if the Terms of +1 Rules allow it.

[50Copper]

{Scrubbed}

[Tvtyrant]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I think this is kind of a simplification. An RPG is fundamentally a game, which means that the center of it has to be having fun. All of the mechanical perfection in the world doesn't make a game good if no one wants to play it.

If people didn't have fun, then the game has problems. Calling them idiots doesn't change the fact that the game failed them on some level. And calling someone an idiot for having what is in this case different tastes isn't exactly helpful in achieving...Anything.

[Anecronwashere]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

4E fixed Health using Percentages yes.
Then broke it by running Magical Healing (and every other healing) of an expendable pool tied to the character.

4E has it's good and bad points, just like every other edition, simply because it broke the things it tried to fix and the things they fixed weren't broken.
They made the classes feel all samey, put all the good stuff in Rituals then made them take too long and cost too much, etc.

If anyone is an idiot it's you for not seeing the oppositions side, something you must do to be a good debater

[lesser_minion]

The problem with range increments is that range doesn't simply make things a little harder -- it compounds just about everything that might make your shot harder, including things you can't actually change like imperfections in your equipment.

I don't think it's unreasonable to require characters to use mythic equipment to make a mythic shot.

As for melee and precise shot, no, melee characters are in near-constant motion. If they aren't, they present an easy target to their opponent. This is why grid-based combat fails. It not only gives you unnecessary detail, it gives you wrong unnecessary detail.

[Scowling Dragon]

Hey I like grid combat. It makes all those little bonuses matter. It also helps imagine the combat in my head.

A wrong details does not meen that we should abolish all details. It means that the details should be fixed.

[king.com]

So, playtest starts tomorrow. Anyone interested in starting up some PbP playtest games? (Assuming the terms allow that, which they probably won't.)

Im actually particularly interested in this playtest. I've never actually played any version of D&D beyond the most simplistic of and will be interested to see how this explains itself to someone with nothing to go on.

[Anecronwashere]

Have the playtesters already gotten their acceptance notifications or do I still have a chance
:crosses fingers:

[Scowling Dragon]

When and how are we actualy getting the playtest material?

[Kurald Galain]

When and how are we actualy getting the playtest material?

How: digitally.

When: officially today, but no official news has been posted about this yet.