New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 10 of 50 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718192035 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 300 of 1486
  1. - Top - End - #271
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Ziegander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Pabrygg Keep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    "given an infinitely large space to maneuver in".

    also known as "refer to Roy leading the spiked chain guy off the cliff".
    It doesn't have to be an infinitely large space, nor in a straight line. You could run around a room in circles doing this.
    Homebrew


    Other Stuff
    Spoiler
    Show
    Special Thanks: Kymme! You and your awesome avatarist skills have made me a Lore Warden in addition to King of Fighter Fixes!

  2. - Top - End - #272
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegander View Post
    It doesn't have to be an infinitely large space, nor in a straight line. You could run around a room in circles doing this.
    This is called kiting in MMOs*, and it doesn't really have anything to do with the fighter/tank, and can be done with only the squishy and the enemy. In many cases, even with free Spring Attack for all, it could make things trickier for the beatstick to position properly in order to hit the enemy.


    * No, I am not gonna say "D&DN is more videogamey!"
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

    Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity

  3. - Top - End - #273
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Seerow View Post
    See I disagree. A DM can be mediocre but still run a fun game with a well-defined system, but when put into a situation where he has to make ALL of the decisions, the game is terrible. Most DMs are not game designers and don't want to be. For DMs who do want to be game designers, mother may I and open ended rules are great. For anyone else, they lead to a bunch of meaningless arguments and bad feelings that could have been avoided with a better ruleset.
    I wouldn't even go that far. I accept DMs have to make judgment calls from time to time, but I don't care how much experience a DM has. I should not need to read his mind of what he likes to do stuff. DMs with experience could even be more stubborn in their ways and give arbitrary penalties or fiat refusals if I want to do something they don't like.

    It should come with the territory to have trust in the DM you play with not to be Il Duce, but experience has shown me the rule influence DM behavior. 2E rules tend to be restrictive, stressing what player characters can't do. As a result, "Il Duce" DMs (Killer, Dictator, I am god, etc.) were plentiful. 3E rules tend to be open-ended, stressing what player characters can do. As a result, DMs became more accomodating and worked with their players to make the game fun instead of dictating everything. I don't play 4E, so I don't have 4E playing experience, but I do know the rules continued the open-ended theme. Il Duce DMs still exist, but now-a-days they are frowned upon as opposed to accepted status quo of the pre-3E era. I don't want 5E to have the DM decide everything for fear of the return to power of the Il Duce DMs.

  4. - Top - End - #274
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by tuggyne View Post
    This is called kiting in MMOs*, and it doesn't really have anything to do with the fighter/tank, and can be done with only the squishy and the enemy.
    Yep. Well, 4E breaks down when people try kiting strategies, so it would be nice if 5E could handle it.

    Come to think of it, 5E doesn't have a charge mechanic either, so the bad guy can't just move+charge the wizard. On the other hand, bad guys tend to have higher movement than wizards.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  5. - Top - End - #275
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Ziegander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Pabrygg Keep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Now that I think about it, I don't know why you would ever play anything other than a ranged character. Unless Bad Guy always has better movement speed than PC. A Wizard with Magic Missile can just about kill anything, with no risk at all, as long as he starts far enough away from it.
    Homebrew


    Other Stuff
    Spoiler
    Show
    Special Thanks: Kymme! You and your awesome avatarist skills have made me a Lore Warden in addition to King of Fighter Fixes!

  6. - Top - End - #276
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Clawhound View Post
    As for DM's making decisions or using Rule 0 too often, what is too often?

    I don't mean that as a philosophical question. How often is often? I'm happy with 80/20. That may be too frequent for you.

    As in so many things D&D, we have different tolerances for running off the rails. I happen to enjoy running off the rails, so a high frequency of ad-hocing suits me. The same isn't true for the next person.

    I am going to predict, based on the comments of the designers, that the "core" game will be a very loose game. The DM will be required to make frequent Rule 0 judgements. I don't think that any feedback will change this direction as their surveys over the last year indicated that the general player base preferred this direction before they chose it.

    I also see no change in the basic d20 mechanic occurring, and so the game will keep all its flaws.

    D&D also has a large house rule and homebrew community. By large, I mean staggeringly large. They are designing rules that feed that community. That means publishing the sparsest game possible that can still be called D&D.

    This is all to remember that the designers are not trying to design the game "right". They are trying to publish a game that makes money by appealing to their fan base.
    Good question, and I think the answer is inherently subjective. Perhaps like "pron", too much can't be defined but you'll know it when you see it. You can start with how frequent and why the DM needs to. A circumstantial event where two or more rules seem to conflict or cause confusion that happens once in a blue moon is acceptable. If a player needs to ask the DM whether he can do something once per combat on average, that's way too much. Players should be encouraged to have outside the box thinking and a player doing such every combat will ask the DM the question. However, such a question should really be restated as the player wants to do something and is only asking for the "cost" (modifier to the roll, you need a feat to do that, you need a class ability to do that, etc.). If the player has no ink on paper letters and numbers to reference for even basic things, thus he needs to ask "mother may I", that is lazy game design and giving too much power to the DM. Still, subjective.

  7. - Top - End - #277
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    Sure. But what we were talking about is how grid-based combat doesn't necessarily add tactical depth, for instance if it lacks OAs and has free Spring Attack.
    It still involves spatial maneuvering, and there are elements of space controlling even without OAs. Plus, given that move-attack-move also includes numerous ways to attack from behind cover at range and get back behind it, I'd be very surprised if tactics didn't come up.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

    I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.
    -- ChubbyRain

    Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.

  8. - Top - End - #278
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Plenty of games where kiting is sub-optimal, or even downright suicidal. Maybe we should take inspiration from those?

  9. - Top - End - #279
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Fatebreaker View Post
    *shrug* I don't mind a game which tells me that players are different or better than non-players. Exalted and 4e both go about it in very different ways, but they're up front and honest about it. And I don't mind a game where players are exactly like everyone else, except for how they happen to have a real-life puppeteer. L5R does this rather well.

    I do mind a game which... isn't clear on the subject. 3.x, for example, had PC classes cost the same XP as NPC classes, with no special requirements to pick a PC class. So why would anyone choose an NPC class? It just makes me picture a world full of muddy li'l tykes going "Golly gee, I sure hope I grow up to be a commoner!"
    You misunderstood the whole point of NPC classes. The PCs are the special ones. The fighter has the training, i.e. feats. The warrior just has the basic anyone can pick up a club. The wizard has the training, i.e. spell progression to level 9. The adepts only practice at Hogwarts. They don't go to the Department of Mysteries to fight Death Eaters to put into practice what they learn. Divine adepts just take care of their tribe and don't need to know more than they do. The NPC classes are not there for players to take. They are just a quick reference guide if for whatever reason a commoner needs to engage in the combat the PCs are in. For the DM to determine class abilities and features for every commoner is madness. The NPC classes with their levels is just so the DM has something handy to use commensurate with the level of the PCs. The BBEG and their Lieutenants still have PC classes like always. They're the BBEG and Lieutenants because they have that training. If the DM wants a commoner to have a PC class he's more than welcome to. The NPC classes are just there for when the DM doesn't want to get into such detail for whatever reason. They are a tool, not a template for the gameworld.

  10. - Top - End - #280
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by navar100 View Post
    You misunderstood the whole point of NPC classes. The PCs are the special ones. The fighter has the training, i.e. feats. The warrior just has the basic anyone can pick up a club. The wizard has the training, i.e. spell progression to level 9. The adepts only practice at Hogwarts. They don't go to the Department of Mysteries to fight Death Eaters to put into practice what they learn. Divine adepts just take care of their tribe and don't need to know more than they do. The NPC classes are not there for players to take. They are just a quick reference guide if for whatever reason a commoner needs to engage in the combat the PCs are in. For the DM to determine class abilities and features for every commoner is madness. The NPC classes with their levels is just so the DM has something handy to use commensurate with the level of the PCs. The BBEG and their Lieutenants still have PC classes like always. They're the BBEG and Lieutenants because they have that training. If the DM wants a commoner to have a PC class he's more than welcome to. The NPC classes are just there for when the DM doesn't want to get into such detail for whatever reason. They are a tool, not a template for the gameworld.
    Except the way gaining class levels is described is that, upon reaching adulthood, the character immediately gains 1st level in any class of their choosing. Doesn't say anything about having to roleplay out a training process or a decade-long apprenticeship, you just pick the class and you instantly get the features.

    So why the *hell* would anyone pick Commoner?

  11. - Top - End - #281
    Orc in the Playground
     
    EvilClericGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by navar100 View Post
    You misunderstood the whole point of NPC classes. The PCs are the special ones.

    -snip-
    Except that there is no reason why this is so. An NPC class is no different than a PC class in terms of entry requirements or experience point cost. It's the same, just worse. There is no reason in game for why player characters get to choose a PC class, except that they have a person behind them, puppeteering them. That breaking sound you just heard? That was my suspension of disbelief. My games don't have to be realistic -- but they do have to be internally coherent and internally consistent.

    If I want to create a narrative which makes sense, that narrative is heavily strained by a mechanical divide between "characters who have players" and "character who don't have players" which is not supported by a narrative divide as well.

    Exalted tells the players straight up that they are special, and then makes this true in both a mechanical and narrative sense. The player, in some ways, is the exaltation alighting upon their character. The character is special in a way which makes sense both within the context of the people in the game-world and the people around the table.

    On the other side of the coin, L5R tells the players that, yes, the story may be about them, but they are mechanically no different from anyone else. They will have to earn that spotlight!

    But in 3.x? A player is just... well, better, and for no good in-game reason. It creates a world where most everyone, when presented with a range of options, chose the worst possible options for no good reason. Nothing would stop a warrior from picking fighter, expert from picking rogue, or so on and so forth. Heck, anything is better than commoner, so why would anyone pick that class?

    Think of any movie where a character receives special treatment because they just happen to be a main character... but there's no reason for them to be a main character. Some game systems are that movie. This is, in general, a Bad Thing, because there's no advantage to doing it that way. It just strains credibility for no good reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese) View Post
    Except the way gaining class levels is described is that, upon reaching adulthood, the character immediately gains 1st level in any class of their choosing. Doesn't say anything about having to roleplay out a training process or a decade-long apprenticeship, you just pick the class and you instantly get the features.

    So why the *hell* would anyone pick Commoner?
    Precisely.
    "Inveniam viam aut faciam -- I will either find a way, or I shall make one."

    Class Balance

  12. - Top - End - #282
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Fatebreaker: Would it be better for you if NPC classes didn't exist, and classless NPCs were designed just as having a racial hit die, or maybe something like 4e where they get a few arbitrary bonuses, but still no class?

    In such a scenario, actually gaining a class level would be the thing that sets the PCs apart. It's not a case of "Everyone has a class, these people just picked wrong", it's more along the lines of "Only a very rare and special few people have the talent and experience to gain a class level in the first place"


    Alternatively, what if NPC classes were like 3 levels long, and were described as effectively level 0? I've seen some homebrew on these boards for something similar, where basically NPC classes represent the average person, but by the time you gain a real class level, those NPC levels are irrelevant. (Going this route people who like really low powered gritty games could play through this tier, with their characters struggling to survive to hit level 1)
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  13. - Top - End - #283
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2009

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese) View Post
    Except the way gaining class levels is described is that, upon reaching adulthood, the character immediately gains 1st level in any class of their choosing. Doesn't say anything about having to roleplay out a training process or a decade-long apprenticeship, you just pick the class and you instantly get the features.

    So why the *hell* would anyone pick Commoner?
    This would make sense if you assume that upon reaching adulthood a creature advancing by class levels is actually (that is in-universe) presented with a menu of classes where it can freely choose.

    But if you ask me thats a rather silly assumption to make

    Stuff like this seems to come up a lot lately.
    I have the feeling that most of those problems arise from the view that the 3.5 rules are meant to be an accurate description of the laws and mechanics of any given setting. Which I think is not their (probably intended) purpose.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegander View Post
    Now that I think about it, I don't know why you would ever play anything other than a ranged character. Unless Bad Guy always has better movement speed than PC. A Wizard with Magic Missile can just about kill anything, with no risk at all, as long as he starts far enough away from it.
    Hm, isn't double moving an option? If it is, most creatures eventually WILL reach the kiter.

  14. - Top - End - #284
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese) View Post
    So why the *hell* would anyone pick Commoner?
    Because some characters fail their intelligence check

    Well anyway, as I recall the only reason NPC classes exist is because of the arbitrary level-based skill cap. Since a level-1 character can only have four ranks in e.g. craft (smithing), for a village blacksmith to be remotely competent he has to be reasonably high level. And to avoid blacksmiths upstaging the PCs, he has to be high level in a crappy class. There would have been a more elegant fix for this, but this is what the design team chose.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zombimode View Post
    Hm, isn't double moving an option? If it is, most creatures eventually WILL reach the kiter.
    5E doesn't allow double moving, so far.
    Last edited by Kurald Galain; 2012-06-12 at 04:04 AM.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  15. - Top - End - #285
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Clawhound's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    MD
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Why pick commoner?

    Because the game for them is Farmhands and Fields.

    D&D is meant to be an interesting game for adventurers. However, it utterly fails at being an interesting farm simulator, or for that matter, fails at being an interesting small business simulator. That's OK, though, even thought it breaks immersion for me.

    I assume the we only see a subset of the world's rules. We see the ones that are useful for adventuring. What we don't see are the rules for non-adventuring. Presumably, most people do a cost-benefit analysis and determine that they would rather be commoners.

  16. - Top - End - #286
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Aidan305's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Belfast, NI
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    5E doesn't allow double moving, so far.
    I believe you can use your action to Hustle, which allows you to move up to your speed.

  17. - Top - End - #287
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Eric Tolle's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Right here
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    I seem to recall this argument from a prior thread. Are there any examples of systems that successfully implement a "zone" system?
    Aside from FATE, original Traveller used a zone system for combat. Given the military nature of many Traveller campaigns, you can see that zones can work in something besides artsy indie games.

    Then again, the zones system never appeared in an earlier version of D&D, and it doesn't involve "using your imagination", so there's no way 5E will use it.
    "Conan what is best in life?"
    "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, to sell them inexpensive furniture you can assemble yourself with an Allen wrench. And meatballs."
    "Meatballs. That is good!"

  18. - Top - End - #288
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    The gameworld actually does revolve around the PCs. No PCs, no game. Revolve around, not cater to. PCs get to be classes because they are PCs. Call it tautology all you want, it just is by existence and definition. NPCs are just filler. Particular ones have more importance than others. The class and abilities of Farmer #5 are irrelevant. He's just some guy the DM mentioned in background but the players decided to talk to. The players may like him and take an interest in his happiness. For roleplaying reasons they involve themselves with the farmer and the farmer involves himself with the PCs. Since his importance level has increased quadratically, the DM can decide for himself by fiat whether he has an NPC class, is a "retired" PC class, or whether he even has levels at all and is just a one HD human who knows how to farm. Farmer #2 was also mentioned in background filler but for whatever reason the PCs never engage in any conversation with him or have any interaction at all. He was scenery. The class of Farmer #2 is irrelevant and unnecessary to know, except perhaps if the DM elevates him by fiat to be a new villain because he is a competitor to Farmer #5 and doesn't like his competitor has new powerful friends, i.e. the PCs.

  19. - Top - End - #289
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Out of curiosity, what sort of modules would most excite you as a player about D&D Next? What parts of the game do you think will be most subject to change?
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  20. - Top - End - #290
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Jerthanis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Tempe, Arizona
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    Out of curiosity, what sort of modules would most excite you as a player about D&D Next? What parts of the game do you think will be most subject to change?
    Something higher level, so we can see how more iconic and interesting monsters fight. So far we have essentially HP bags that attack with mundane weapons and aside from bosses (which have one or two powers), have no special attacks or powers.

    I'd like to see how Dragons, Liches, Beholders, Displacer Beasts, Blink Dogs, Illithid, Troglodytes, Vampires, and Giant Squid are going to work... how numbers scaling is going to interact with higher levels.

    I've also been thinking about all the mundane information people could use to make their fantasy worlds really come alive. Information on horsemanship and horse breeding, historical castles, how fuedalism works, hunting and jousting as sport (and other leisure activities appropriate to a fantasy world)... these elements would really help to make me feel like they were interested in actually going with the idea of a realistic and reactive world, rather than just saying "other tribes will reinhabit areas the PCs have cleared" and so on.
    A review of the best scifi/fantasy book you will have read, and a review of the even better sequel.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle_Hunter View Post
    You do your avatar proud

    Member #29 of the Tin-foil Hat Alliance

  21. - Top - End - #291
    Orc in the Playground
     
    EvilClericGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Seerow View Post
    Fatebreaker: Would it be better for you if NPC classes didn't exist, and classless NPCs were designed just as having a racial hit die, or maybe something like 4e where they get a few arbitrary bonuses, but still no class?

    In such a scenario, actually gaining a class level would be the thing that sets the PCs apart. It's not a case of "Everyone has a class, these people just picked wrong", it's more along the lines of "Only a very rare and special few people have the talent and experience to gain a class level in the first place"
    I was happy with 4e's approach, for a variety of reasons:

    1) Most NPCs aren't going to be important outside of their five minute screen time where they show up and engage in some hilarious violence, so it's not important to know all the nuts and bolts of how they got their particular abilities.

    2) NPCs could have abilities which were suitable for them. A militia captain, for example, might have an ability along the lines of, "When militia captain is bloodied, all militia within five squares get +1 to hit and +10 temporary hit points." That sort of ability is the kind of thing that's good for a militia captain, but not really the sort of ability which fits most class-characters. Sure, that militia captain isn't an adventurer with classes, but you still feel like he spent his life developing abilities which were suitable for his lifestyle.

    3) As you say, the "class or no class" divide makes PCs special because they have classes, not because everyone had the chance to choose a PC class and instead decided to be pants-on-head retarded by picking commoner. Joe Commoner, sitting in the tavern and grousing about how "he coulda been a contender" is pathetic in 3.x, because he really could have been a contender, but in 4e, he's the town loudmouth who never really had a shot.

    Is it the best approach? I'm not even sure what the best approach is in my own mind, so I couldn't say. Exalted works for Exalted, L5R works for L5R, and 4e works for 4e. But it had enough going for it to not break my suspension of disbelief, because it didn't ask me to ignore that the vast majority of people in the world had deliberately made terrible life choices.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seerow View Post
    Alternatively, what if NPC classes were like 3 levels long, and were described as effectively level 0? I've seen some homebrew on these boards for something similar, where basically NPC classes represent the average person, but by the time you gain a real class level, those NPC levels are irrelevant. (Going this route people who like really low powered gritty games could play through this tier, with their characters struggling to survive to hit level 1)
    I've honestly never considered this. I'd be curious to see how it actually plays out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zombimode View Post
    This would make sense if you assume that upon reaching adulthood a creature advancing by class levels is actually (that is in-universe) presented with a menu of classes where it can freely choose.

    But if you ask me thats a rather silly assumption to make

    Stuff like this seems to come up a lot lately.
    I have the feeling that most of those problems arise from the view that the 3.5 rules are meant to be an accurate description of the laws and mechanics of any given setting. Which I think is not their (probably intended) purpose.
    The problem with this line of thinking is that it starts to ask some pretty awkward question about fundamental elements of D&D3.x.

    D&D is built on a class/level system. Each class has the same number of levels. Every level is equivalent in cost to the corresponding levels in any given class. If I pay 1,000xp to become a level 2 wizard, I could just as easily have paid 1,000xp to become a level 2 anything else. And base classes possess no entry-level requirements (though casters will not be able to cast certain spells without a corresponding ability score, which still does not prevent a character from taking the class). So when the cost and opportunity are equal, the power level of those classes should also be equal (because if not, suddenly xp is an unequal currency among the party, which gets into all sorts of nastier messes which, for the sake of brevity, we'll ignore for now).

    I'm not okay with monk and wizard being at opposite ends of the power spectrum, but I can at least say, "Well, they weren't deliberately made this way -- they were just implemented poorly." With NPC classes, the levels are distinctly and deliberately unequal, in spite of costing the same amount of xp to enter and having no particular mechanical advantage.

    This is not good game design. If you want NPCs to be less powerful than PCs, then they should be lower level. Once you create unequal levels, it undermines the entire point of an equivalent class/level system.

    It also starts asking whether classes are in-game constructs or meta-game constructs, and that is not a question D&D3.x really wants you to take too close a look at.

    Also, sidebar regarding intentions: In an interactive game, especially a tabletop one, the intentions of the designers are only relevant in evaluating how well the mechanics express those intentions.

    For example, if you create a My Little Pony RPG, and it has rules for spaceships but not for ponies, your intention is irrelevant, because however much you talk about how it's a pony game, there are still no rules for ponies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clawhound View Post
    Why pick commoner?

    Because the game for them is Farmhands and Fields.
    Even so, other classes would do that better. Better hit dice (wild animals or farming accidents can hurt, and let's not forget stray cats!), better saves (being sick as a farmer sucks), better abilities (more skill points! Or how about spells?), better everything is available, for the exact same cost as that commoner class.

    Quote Originally Posted by navar100 View Post
    The gameworld actually does revolve around the PCs.
    No. The game revolves around the PCs. The game world does not, until it is given a reason to. Having NPCs make the blatantly idiotic choice of an NPC class over a PC class when they are identical in terms of entry requirements means that the game world is full of blithering morons. Personally, my heroic fantasy does not involve me triumphing over profoundly stupid people.

    Put another way, when a game asks me to believe that "NPCs accept that they aren't the stars of the show, so they deliberately make themselves more vulnerable to calamity and less capable of living out their lives so you can feel special," then that game has lost whatever internally coherent narrative it claimed to create.
    "Inveniam viam aut faciam -- I will either find a way, or I shall make one."

    Class Balance

  22. - Top - End - #292
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Fatebreaker View Post
    No. The game revolves around the PCs. The game world does not, until it is given a reason to. Having NPCs make the blatantly idiotic choice of an NPC class over a PC class when they are identical in terms of entry requirements means that the game world is full of blithering morons. Personally, my heroic fantasy does not involve me triumphing over profoundly stupid people.

    Put another way, when a game asks me to believe that "NPCs accept that they aren't the stars of the show, so they deliberately make themselves more vulnerable to calamity and less capable of living out their lives so you can feel special," then that game has lost whatever internally coherent narrative it claimed to create.
    Nothing prevents you from giving every NPC in your gameworld PC classes. The DMG even has tables of such for quick reference, and you can switch around numbers on your own for variety. You need never, ever worry about Warriors, Experts, or Adepts existing. For other DMs, those classes exist as options to represent the less skilled NPCs who exist in their gameworld for whatever reasons those DMs prefer.

  23. - Top - End - #293
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Orange, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Tolle View Post
    Aside from FATE, original Traveller used a zone system for combat. Given the military nature of many Traveller campaigns, you can see that zones can work in something besides artsy indie games.

    Then again, the zones system never appeared in an earlier version of D&D, and it doesn't involve "using your imagination", so there's no way 5E will use it.
    If I'm not mistaken, the original d20 Star Wars game used something similar for ship combat if I'm understanding what "zone" means. Instead of moving the ships around, the ship stays still and all the other ships move in relation to it so it's always the center of focus. You speed up? Ships in front of you get closer and ships behind you get further away. Other ship speeds up? It gets closer if it's behind you or further if it's in front.

  24. - Top - End - #294
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Orange, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by navar100 View Post
    Nothing prevents you from giving every NPC in your gameworld PC classes. The DMG even has tables of such for quick reference, and you can switch around numbers on your own for variety. You need never, ever worry about Warriors, Experts, or Adepts existing. For other DMs, those classes exist as options to represent the less skilled NPCs who exist in their gameworld for whatever reasons those DMs prefer.
    I used to mix them in my old 3rd Ed game. The former captain of the guard becomes the mayor as he grows older, so when the PCs meet him, he's a Fighter 6/Aristocrat 3.

    Personally, I think NPC classes should be just as useful as PC classes, just not useful in adventuring. No armor or weapon proficiencies, but far more skills of the non-useful types that PCs rarely take - appraise, wilderness lore, etc. Or social skills like bluff, sense motive/insight, that sort of thing. One thing I don't want to see, though, are NPC classes that are just neutered versions of the PC class like warrior was in 3.x I never used it because it served no purpose. Fighter did everything the warrior did and did it far better and they both had the same balance CR-wise. Why would I ever use the warrior class for an NPC when the fighter class gives me more punch and challenge for the players?

  25. - Top - End - #295
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2009

    Default Q&A w/Mike Mearls & Rob Schwalb on 5e @ Origins 2012

    https://vimeo.com/43880444
    apologies for shaky hand-held phone camerawork..

  26. - Top - End - #296
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by TheAbstruseOne View Post
    Personally, I think NPC classes should be just as useful as PC classes, just not useful in adventuring.
    Personally, I found the "NPC classes" in the 3.5 to be 100% useless. They were too much information to use on the fly (I would say that for all of the "quick" NPCs in the DMG). Yay for world building, boourns for speed of play.

    If I'm going to quick create NPCs, I want really simple guidelines. I think 5e can accommodate this fairly easy as is (assume if someone is a blacksmith they have a +1 bonus from a relevant stat and a +3 skill bonus). Give them enough hit points for whatever the story requires (do you want the PCs to save this character? They have enough HPs. Do you not care? The Ogre hits the innkeeper and crushes his skull).

    Templates for NPC fighters/rogues/etc. should be in the MM, not as "humans" but as simple templates (think 4e "sneak", "soldier", "controller" etc.) with a small list of simple race specific abilities to apply (i.e. duergar can use their "melee" ability as a ranged attack 1/encounter, because beard quills are stupid awesome).

  27. - Top - End - #297
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    NPCs really just need Hit Dice (in the 3rd Edition sense of the word). In 3rd Edition, that was the really complicated part, because that meant skill points and buying feats and stuff.
    In 5th Ed, there's no skill points and no base attack and no base saves, which should make creation of any NPCs and creatures a lot faster. Chose HD, chose ability scores, add some skill specializations and maybe a background and done.

  28. - Top - End - #298
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Siegel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    I swear, about 50% of what makes BW awesome is the little stuff like that that's applicable to just about any system.

  29. - Top - End - #299
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Nice narration of old-school gaming.

    I still have to try out the rules in a game, working on getting a session together, but in general feel there are some definite good things about what is included in the playtest, as well as a few things I'm more sceptical about. No AoO's is one of the latter, while doing away with a lot of feats (weapon finesse, spring attack for example) belong to the former.

    The one thing that really needs to be tested in the field is the skills and exploration system with (mostly) ability checks.

  30. - Top - End - #300
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    NJ
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Interesting. Though I'd argue that his description of Basic being "all dungeon no overland" just a bit unfair. It was simply that the rules did not concern themselves with overland travel as that was not the point of the rules, which was to govern the exploration of ancient places and the robbing blind thereof.

    Very interesting exercise, though.
    It doesn't matter what game you're playing as long as you're having fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •