Results 1,141 to 1,170 of 1486
-
2012-07-27, 08:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Location
- Washington
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
well, looking at the mechanics, first, they use the old style roll a die as a saving throw, rather then having saving throws behave like armour class, I also like that the monsters appear to be closer in mechanics to players, which is both useful for if a dm wanted to advance a monster, by granting it levels in a class, and also makes it easier to build your own, if they end up adding rules for it, it could also make monster PCs a possibility eventually.
I also like how the spells work so far, as it reduces the chance of 15 minute workday spellcasters.
I also like the new currency as well(not sure if it's against the NDA to mention it, though it was also in 2E so it's probably fine), as it's fun to have more varieties.Last edited by Togath; 2012-07-27 at 08:51 PM.
Meow(Steam page)
[I]"If you are far from this regions, there is a case what the game playing can not be comfortable.["/I]
-
2012-07-27, 10:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
-
2012-07-27, 11:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Location
- Washington
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
well, aye, that too, but I meant mechanically it's a lot like 3.0, 3.5 or pathfinder, style-wise it's somewhat like 2E and possibly like 1E(the only edition I haven't read much about yet)
I really hope they decide to keep the stat layout for monsters, as it's both; easy to use, and also looks fairly neat, and reminds me of 2ELast edited by Togath; 2012-07-27 at 11:53 PM.
Meow(Steam page)
[I]"If you are far from this regions, there is a case what the game playing can not be comfortable.["/I]
-
2012-07-28, 11:00 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
That's why I specified that it would happen if no magic was involved. I still assume that in a D&D universe, physics is the same when magic is not involved. Maybe you don't, in which case your games would have different expectations from mine, hence our disagreement. Maybe Wizards doesn't, in which case the game will end up supporting different physics.
Because you gain more abilities as you level up that can prevent enemies from hitting you without just inflating the numbers. Great warriors don't survive combat because they can endure dozens of wounds; they survive because they have mastered the art of combat and always know where to position themselves to avoid attacks and where to strike their opponents. Sure, that can be simulated using attack bonuses and more hit points, but I find it more interesting when it's done through abilities.
Of course, it all comes down to what those numbers symbolize. Do hit points cover attacks that miss but exhaust you anyway, or are they reduced only when you are actually wounded? Does your attack bonus increase your accuracy or is it something more abstract? I personally prefer the numbers to be what they literally are; it's called HIT points, so they should change only when you are HIT, and I prefer that my characters take a realistic number of hits before they can no longer continue fighting.Dubhshlaine, Elf Mage, in Eberron D&D 4e
DM for Feiticeiro's Ergodic Dungeon (Always Open!), In-Game
-
2012-07-28, 11:18 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
This creates a lack of clarity about what matters and what does not, because when I look at one entry, the game provides me with one set of rules, and when I look elsewhere, the game provides me with an entirely different set of rules.
What the fireball looks like has no mechanical effect on the range, blast radius, damage, or damage type.
It's not relevant to the decisions of when, how, where, and against whom to use a fireball.
More follows...
SpoilerBasically, instead of empowering the players to play the game they want to play, you're advocating for a system which creates meaningless limitations for the players, and then puts the responsibility for lifting that limitation on the player's ability to convince their DM. That kind of limitation serves no real purpose. So why have it?
"You can't do it, unless you can, and only when the DM says so, and the DM can always change it, even if he can't, and you have no options except to leave the game."
As for hastily written, absolutely. It should have been blast, not burst, and then it would need a range. Unless fireball is suddenly an AoE centered on the caster.
Good thing D&D has never had hastily written or poorly worded rules before! This sort of thing will never happen!
By definition, if you are not changing mechanics, and making a purely cosmetic alteration, then it does not change mechanics.
Your point is good, except that D&D mechanics do not model the fluff. Oracle_Hunter's point about how the mechanics make commoners more familiar with Abyssal creatures than with bears, for example. Or how magic is described as hard to learn, but it actually takes no more experience to gain a level of wizard than anything else. So when players are told that the world works one way in theory, but they see how it works another in practice, all that default fluff becomes questionable -- suddenly, players don't know how the world works. Do mechanics trump fluff? Does fluff trump mechanics? Do peasants know about bears? If so, why does the knowledge skill work differently for players than for peasants?
Incidentally, rules as guidelines solves this problem with a little bit of thought. It might be that hard to know stuff about bears, but experience with the real world tells us that those with hands on experience with things that often require advanced knowledge otherwise, can perform those things as if a learned person. Consider how much math and physics goes into calculating how to throw a ball at a target, and then realize that even a 5 year old is pretty damn good at it, even without advanced trig under their belts.
Really? Play much 1e or 2e? Because it sure looks more like 1e to me than anything else.
...
well, aye, that too, but I meant mechanically it's a lot like 3.0, 3.5 or pathfinder, style-wise it's somewhat like 2E and possibly like 1E(the only edition I haven't read much about yet)
-
2012-07-28, 11:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
Knowledge checks are supposed to model individual knowledge in 3.5e tho, whether it be for an adventurer, farmer, monster, or god. This is because there is an assumption that everything in the world is playing by the same "rules" (i.e. some combination of racial factor, class selection, and level adjustment). As skills are determined (usually) by some combination of level, intelligence, class, and racial hit dice, the system is attempting (no matter how badly) to emulate what a character (be they peasant or wizard) can or can not do.
It's sillyness like that why I prefer the 4e assumption that NPCs and Monsters play by their own rules (although there are certain things that are shared); it cuts down preperation time, and if I want an NPC who is really good at Streetwise, I can simply pick a number and say he has it, without needing to justify it as him being a level 7 Rogue.
-
2012-07-28, 01:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
Knowledge checks are supposed to model individual knowledge in 3.5e tho, whether it be for an adventurer, farmer, monster, or god. This is because there is an assumption that everything in the world is playing by the same "rules" (i.e. some combination of racial factor, class selection, and level adjustment). As skills are determined (usually) by some combination of level, intelligence, class, and racial hit dice, the system is attempting (no matter how badly) to emulate what a character (be they peasant or wizard) can or can not do.
Knowledge represents a study of some body of lore, possibly an academic or even scientific discipline.
...
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).
...
An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).
Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help.
It's sillyness like that why I prefer the 4e assumption that NPCs and Monsters play by their own rules (although there are certain things that are shared); it cuts down preperation time, and if I want an NPC who is really good at Streetwise, I can simply pick a number and say he has it, without needing to justify it as him being a level 7 Rogue.
But seriously, I much prefer well written guidelines to a heavy mechanically robust rules system for stuff like this.
-
2012-07-28, 02:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Location
- Washington
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
I personally view it as being somewhat like pathfinder(which is a good thing, as it means 3.5 stuff may end up somewhat compatible with 5E), in how close it is to 3.5, as least if I'm understanding the mechanics correctly(which from the comments in this thread, i may or may not not be)
1st: are spells expended via spell slots or simply never expended?
2nd: there is a skill system same as the previous 3 editions and pathfinder, correct?
3rd: weapons work the same way(roll 1d20+modifier against AC, and certain rolls can cause critical hits), correct?(I wasn't 100% sure, as I didn't see anything mentioning critical hits, which seems like an odd thing to not include)
I do hope that they decide to balance the classes better then 3.5 did, and that they eventually add an srd like with 3.5, d20 modern, or like pathfinder's srdLast edited by Togath; 2012-07-28 at 02:10 PM.
Meow(Steam page)
[I]"If you are far from this regions, there is a case what the game playing can not be comfortable.["/I]
-
2012-07-28, 02:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
This is exactly the problem.
SpoilerOn one hand we have Monster Knowledge Checks which are used "to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities" -- a wonderfully fluffy turn of phrase that refers to nothing in the rules. Is it a "special power" that Bears attack with claws? If no, is that a "really easy" question (DC 10)? What if it were an Owlbear? Or a Tarrasque? Are those all DC 10s? Most importantly is the identify portion of this rule: you need to make a Monster Knowledge Check to be able to identify (i.e. name) a monster but what is a monster? Bears are listed under the "Monster (Animal)" heading of the SRD after all. What about cows -- they're not listed at all. Of course Cats are listed under Monsters (Animals) and, with at least 1 HD, no Commoner untrained in Nature could "identify" one.
The other hand lies in the poor design of NPC Classes. Trained skills are supposed to be the "common" skills known by members of that Class and yet Commoners -- the "farmer" class -- have no Knowledge skill whatsoever. This means they can only answer "really easy questions" about plants and animals and not "basic" ones. Where to draw the line?
Finally, note how your assumptions change on what is "common knowledge" based on other fluff concerns. I would wager you wouldn't say that a city-bound Commoner could treat knowledge of farm animals as a "really easy question" but does that mean that fluff influences knowledge DCs? Does a Wizard get to roll a DC 10 when asked about Wizarding Schools but a Rogue would need to roll a DC 15? There is literally no provision for this sort of thinking in the rules and this lack of guidance leads to equally valid arguments on all sides.
In short, you're "pretty clear to me" is not universal and is in fact fought-against by the way the rules are written. I'm not saying my interpretation is right, but it is easy to see how someone reading the rules could get a different impression. This is exactly the issue with unclear rules and the need for precision.Lead Designer for Oracle Hunter GamesToday a Blog, Tomorrow a Business!
~ Awesome Avatar by the phantastic Phase ~Spoiler
Elflad
-
2012-07-28, 02:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
Especially when you are looking to gain NPC allies or make connections?
It's often a good idea to know what the people in the setting are generally capable of.
I might also note that in roughly half the games I have run, I have found need to stat up random NPC people mid-game, giving them plausible abilities that could be made with the level system and so on.
A number of my players' plans have hinged on X level spell being rare (due to nearly all NPCs being below class level 2X) or being able to easily find and talk to NPCs with certain abilities (craft smithing for one guy and 3rd level spells for another)
-
2012-07-28, 02:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
Which is why it is very important that the default fluff explanations for everything need to be setting independent.
Explaining the mechanics of spellcasting that results in certain crunch is setting independent. Saying that wizards need their fingers is setting independent (or at least has such a tiny effect that it can be worked in).
Putting things like Mage of the Arcane Order is bad, because positing the existence of some artifact and an entire organization of wizards around it is a setting thing.
Explaining the spells that make organizing wizards possible is not.
Which is just a matter of how you write it.
If you wrote the fluff explanation FIRST, then no such problems occur since your mechanics will model the fluff explanation.
Furthermore, the stated connection from specific fluff explanations to specific crunch rules tells you what you need to change if your setting mods those explanations.
EDIT: back when I had the conception of my magic system, I spent a year discussing and thinking about how magic would work before I wrote a single line of rules.
Mechanical sections only exist to be written AFTER I am able to explain how they end up that way.
I would contest this. The primary defining characteristic of a Character is the actions they take and decisions they make.
This part the rules should not touch, at least not if it is to be setting independent. EDIT: apart from telling you what you cannot do of course XD
But the fluff explanations and crunch models dictate the options and their balance. They tell you the results of actions and how things are done.
Having rules for culture is for setting books, having rules for how magic works is not. Without explaining a basic set of knowledge of how the world operates, there is no clarity, no predictability and no way to know anything.
And if a specific setting requires changing some fundamental rules of the world (like magic operation), then it has be reflected in the crunch provided with that setting.
What is needed is a baseline explanation that can accommodate many different usages and is flexible enough to support diverse settings with a minimum of modification.
But you cannot cover everything under the sun with the same explanation, and leaving out the explanation results in everyone taking their own assumptions and personal interpretations -> aka. chaos.
"You want your fire dragon spell? Hmm... this is how it is different from fireball, so this is how your spell will be different!"
-is quick and easy for a DM. Writing a couple of pages of explanation and what you forgot clash with their assumptions is neither quick nor easy.Last edited by jseah; 2012-07-28 at 02:40 PM.
-
2012-07-28, 02:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Meridianville AL
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
Hit dice were also supposed to make you independent of needing a cleric. 50 GP per kit, UNLESS you have the Cleric of Pelor who makes them in an hour for 25 GP each, and who also happens to be the only playtest character with a kit.
So at least in the playtest the healing kit succeeds in its design goal of making you not need a cleric IF and ONLY IF you have a specific subtype of cleric.
Great.... Is it just me or is this really just plain over the top stupid? I mean you can't even SEE sane and sensible from wherever they were standing when they came up with this one.
And what's IN a fifty GP healing kit? That's a nice chunk of change, it's not just a few bandages and the like or it would cost about 1% of that AND the significant skill (if any) would be required in use rather than manufacture.
Also if a character can routinely spend on hour making 25 GP worth of stuff into something that commonly retails for 50 GP then I think our heroes are in the wrong line of work, who needs to loot monsters when you can earn more faster and safer back in town.
The whole idea fails on so many levels. Just say "you spend five minutes tending your wounds and that lets you recover encounter powers and spend your healing surges" like fourth edition did.
-
2012-07-28, 02:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
Finally, note how your assumptions change on what is "common knowledge" based on other fluff concerns. I would wager you wouldn't say that a city-bound Commoner could treat knowledge of farm animals as a "really easy question" but does that mean that fluff influences knowledge DCs? Does a Wizard get to roll a DC 10 when asked about Wizarding Schools but a Rogue would need to roll a DC 15? There is literally no provision for this sort of thinking in the rules and this lack of guidance leads to equally valid arguments on all sides.
This is exactly the issue with unclear rules and the need for precision.
Especially when you are looking to gain NPC allies or make connections?
It's often a good idea to know what the people in the setting are generally capable of.
-
2012-07-28, 02:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
I was deliberately taking it seriously though. I do think we need a "Creature Modelling" ruleset that gives a base for how all creatures work in general. Which is then modified per race.
Why should NPCs have special rules when players cannot also access the same abilities they can, especially if they are of the same race?
If you can't fit this into a level system, then don't have a level system.
-
2012-07-28, 05:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
Fair enough, but this isn't a praise of 5E because, by all indications, these abilities won't exist.
The skill system in 3.X was designed solely to simulate adventurers in adventuring situations. And honestly it only really works passably at that. It completely falls apart and becomes unusable when you apply it to other contexts.Last edited by Craft (Cheese); 2012-07-28 at 05:30 PM.
-
2012-07-28, 06:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
I'd like to counter with 4e which is notable for both using legal-like language (e.g. Terms of Art) and not having a whole lot of "inconsistencies or edge cases" over the course of its run.
There is a reason legal documents use a "limited grammar" and it isn't just for the enrichment of lawyers: human language (particularly English) is imprecise by design and the interpretation of it where its meaning can have important consequences tends to result in more heat than light. If you are trying to design a system of rules that gives out consistent results it is better to rely on precisely defined terms than the "flexibility of human language."
If you'd rather have an inconsistent system, I'd suggest making it yourself instead of shelling out cash for rules that say, essentially, "make it up yourself."Lead Designer for Oracle Hunter GamesToday a Blog, Tomorrow a Business!
~ Awesome Avatar by the phantastic Phase ~Spoiler
Elflad
-
2012-07-28, 07:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
It has edge cases all over it, see my example with Icy Terrain vs Cube. The rules do not cover nearly enough use cases nor do they give intuitive results (or explain why their results are unintuitive).
Many people reading the same 4E ruleset come away with VASTLY different ideas about how things work. Including hilarities like Fireball doesn't actually set things on fire.
Seriously, I was reading the rules and the Fireball daily power doesn't actually say it does, neither does taking fire damage have anything to do with actually burning; and there is no explanation of how fireball appears to work that would imply it should set things on fire. (unlike 3E fireball which even mentions it is hot enough to melt lead)
You can explain all of that. You can explain nearly anything if you really needed to. The requirement for explanation is bad.
This is why we need fluff explanations for things.
Additionally, 4E is a system whose rules largely focus on combat. The moment you start applying character powers to out of combat situations, GM adjudications are required basically everywhere.
Note that I do not mean to imply any amount of praise for 3E. Other problems exist for that edition.
-
2012-07-28, 07:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Location
- Washington
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
I personally liked the 3E and 4E skill systems, but I also feel that for spells, interesting combat spells are probably better to focus on first than out of combat only ones(though a few tout-of-combat spells are still useful to include somewhere even if your system doesn't have a lot of them), as many combat spells have some clever out-of-combat uses such as "lockpicks", lighters, or making objects such as bridges.
Meow(Steam page)
[I]"If you are far from this regions, there is a case what the game playing can not be comfortable.["/I]
-
2012-07-28, 07:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
I can tell you that after an entire 4e campaign stretching from level 1 to 15, the number of weird inconsistencies we've encountered can be counted on one hand. The question isn't whether "Icy Terrain" should slow down oozes, the question is whether there is a particular benefit to put in multiple edges cases to cover the small (and I reiterate, small) chance where things-don't-make-sense.
And honestly, on the subject of fireballs to do you require the rules to say that "fire burns things"?
I'm not completely against using fluff to help describe how powers "work", but I would argue that there's nothing wrong with allowing players and DMs to adjudicate the effects of using a Fireball in a wooden structure, as long as there are guidelines about improvisation to be followed as long as an agreeable solution isn't present (which is what page 42 of the 4e DMG does well). A good way of adjudicating "fluff" is a hundred times more useful in my opinion than baking in "fluff" directly.
-
2012-07-28, 08:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
Then your group must be very different from mine. Or at least the style of campaigns must be radically different.
Because even when there was fluff to explain things, my players required adjudication at least once per combat and half a dozen times in the space of one in-game day.
We also make incredibly long range plans involving multiple entities (one player was setting himself up as the saviour of a city from his own undead hordes... as another secret army of ghouls were digging tunnels to various important residences and guild headquarters. He implied that he had other plans involving some other cities but hadn't put it into motion yet.
This is one guy. At least two others had similar levels of schemes going, including one where the player mind controlled a number of politically important giants to introduce sleeper agents for an undeclared purpose. )
None of this would have been possible under 4E, with its inherent unpredictability, and 3E's meager fluff explanations were already showing cracks as they tried anything they could think of.
Oh, I did pull clarifications out of thin air every time they came up and for certain, fireball will set things on fire if I was GMing a 4E game. But other spells and powers are rather less clear.
Fireball was just an example. And yes, it would be nice if the rules said fireballs set things on fire.
However, as you can see in previous posts, when someone can refluff his "fireball" into a dragon-made-of-fire, whether THAT sets things on fire is rather more unclear. Maybe the dragon homes on lifeforce and so inanimate objects get ignored? Who knows, it's up to the description.
This sort of thing matters. One of my players would have died more or less instantly if I had ruled the other way on whether incorporeal creatures took up space for other incorporeal creatures. (unbodied vs multiple shadows) 3E never explained how incorporeality actually worked, or at least when used outside the normal cases.
And if the player had known about my ruling ahead of time, his plans would have been rather different... The requirement that I make a snap ruling caused his death and severely disrupted the plans of the other player (who was the one who killed him)
Additionally, I do not want to have to pull out the GM ruling too often. Some use of it is unavoidable. But when I have to give my players a multipage document of pre-start rulings on little things like "fireball sets on fire" (although not quite to that level), then it gets a little tedious.
-
2012-07-28, 08:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
That is not an edge case.
An edge case is "a problem or situation that occurs only at an extreme (maximum or minimum) operating parameters" not something that commonly occurs during play. Furthermore, if you had read the rules you would have noted that Cubes are not immune to the Prone condition, and therefore would be affected by Prone as normal. It is a straightforward situation, handled directly by the rules and is not an "edge case" at all.
This is the point of a legalistic system -- people read the rules and do what they say. The fact that your "intuition" did not jive with the rules is not a problem with how the rules are written. This is much like complaining that your recipe failed because you used "all-purpose flour" even though the recipe called for "self-raising flour:" when terms are defined by a system you have to use the definitions provided and not just whatever you think the words are supposed to mean.Last edited by Oracle_Hunter; 2012-07-28 at 08:26 PM.
Lead Designer for Oracle Hunter GamesToday a Blog, Tomorrow a Business!
~ Awesome Avatar by the phantastic Phase ~Spoiler
Elflad
-
2012-07-28, 09:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
And by the rules, fireball doesn't set things on fire.
In which case, the operating parameters are far too narrow to run a world. If the edge cases that fall at the edges of the rules do occur commonly, which they apparently do all the time in my games, then clearly the rules aren't good enough and don't cover a wide enough range of circumstances.
-
2012-07-28, 09:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
And by the rules of 3.x a torch can't set anything on fire either, since it's not in the items description
* * * *
Yeah... we gotta agree to disagree on this one.
I, for one, have never found the parameters of 4e to be too narrow to run any D&D game I wanted to run. Nor did I hit any of these so-called "edge cases" -- I simply followed the rules. The few times that the rules were not explicit I made rulings as I had in every other RPG every made: was that enough heat to set the wood on fire, or did it just scorch it? At no point were this issues frequent enough to render the game "unplayable" -- stopping for five minutes to resolve a straightforward rules interaction would literally have never entered my mind.Lead Designer for Oracle Hunter GamesToday a Blog, Tomorrow a Business!
~ Awesome Avatar by the phantastic Phase ~Spoiler
Elflad
-
2012-07-28, 09:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
I'd like to counter with 4e which is notable for both using legal-like language (e.g. Terms of Art) and not having a whole lot of "inconsistencies or edge cases" over the course of its run.
If you are trying to design a system of rules that gives out consistent results it is better to rely on precisely defined terms than the "flexibility of human language."
If you'd rather have an inconsistent system, I'd suggest making it yourself instead of shelling out cash for rules that say, essentially, "make it up yourself."
And honestly, on the subject of fireballs to do you require the rules to say that "fire burns things"?
The fact that your "intuition" did not jive with the rules is not a problem with how the rules are written. This is much like complaining that your recipe failed because you used "all-purpose flour" even though the recipe called for "self-raising flour:" when terms are defined by a system you have to use the definitions provided and not just whatever you think the words are supposed to mean.
At no point were this issues frequent enough to render the game "unplayable" -- stopping for five minutes to resolve a straightforward rules interaction would literally have never entered my mind.Last edited by 1337 b4k4; 2012-07-28 at 10:29 PM.
-
2012-07-28, 10:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
Eh, I modify 4e rules all the time when I'd like them to work otherwise -- but that doesn't mean I say "this game makes no sense."
But yeah, I'm not doing any further Edition Warring here, but I will reiterate that it always saddens me to hear people won't play a game because of what is, essentially, a failure of imagination. If you don't like a particular rules interaction because it doesn't taste right then play it otherwise -- making Oozes immune to Prone doesn't make them that much stronger and if that's all it takes to make you happy with the system, go ahead. It's just a real shame that people won't play games like 4e, Mouse Guard, or Bliss Stage all because something doesn't work exactly how their gut tells them it should.Lead Designer for Oracle Hunter GamesToday a Blog, Tomorrow a Business!
~ Awesome Avatar by the phantastic Phase ~Spoiler
Elflad
-
2012-07-28, 10:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
But yeah, I'm not doing any further Edition Warring here, but I will reiterate that it always saddens me to hear people won't play a game because of what is, essentially, a failure of imagination. If you don't like a particular rules interaction because it doesn't taste right then play it otherwise -- making Oozes immune to Prone doesn't make them that much stronger and if that's all it takes to make you happy with the system, go ahead. It's just a real shame that people won't play games like 4e, Mouse Guard, or Bliss Stage all because something doesn't work exactly how their gut tells them it should.
-
2012-07-28, 10:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
Lots of things to reply to, so in the interest of brevity,
I'm going to cut out everything but the most salient pointsuse a lot of spoilers since "brevity" still translated to nine pages of text.
Editor's Note: Fatebreaker needs something to do on Saturday nights.
This is one of the problems, yes. And it's a problem which D&D has had in the past, whether through inconsistent language or poor layout or what have you.
But here's an actual example of what I'm talking about: elves are described as being "hauntingly beautiful" (page 15, 3.5 PHB), but they receive no bonuses to Charisma, which is in part a reflection of physical appearance. The fluff makes a claim which is in no way backed by the mechanics -- elves are no more likely to be beautiful than anyone else. On the other hand, they are also described as graceful, but for this they do have a +2 Dexterity modifier to back it up. What is "graceful" worthy of a mechanical bonus, but "beautiful" is not?
Let's look at that for a moment, and then we'll look at it in comparison to your fireball example. Note that "Charisma" means the technical term, the definition as provided by the rules, as opposed to "charisma," which means the conventional definition as used in common speech. Note also that there is an entire spoiler dedicated to the importance of understanding terms as the system defines them specifically. It is located, oddly enough, under the spoiler whose label includes the word "definitions."
So, are elves beautiful?
Is the average elf more beautiful than the average human? Hmm. Both races have a +0 modifier to their Charisma, so neither is more likely than the other to have a higher Charisma score. So, given a large enough sample size of each, the bell curve of Charisma scores for both races are going to be the same. Why, the average elf is no better than the average human when it comes to Charisma!
Are elves still beautiful relative to humans? If so, does an elf get more out of the same Charisma score than a human? Is a Charisma 10 elf more beautiful than a Charisma 10 human? That seems unfair. And imagine how hideous dwarves must be -- they actually receive a penalty to Charisma!
"Ah, but wait! Charisma measures more than physical beauty! Elves can still be beautiful and have the same Charisma score!"
Right you are, my conveniently-created imaginary audience member! So, does this mean that elves have other subsets of Charisma -- force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism and/or ability to lead -- which are worse than average humans, thereby offsetting their beauty and restoring the balance? Hmm. Odd that none of those qualities were mentioned as being lacking under the elven racial entry. Or perhaps elven beauty means less than human beauty, so a beautiful human is Charisma 12, while a beautiful elf is Charisma 10. Why, how strange that would be, for a system designed to allow you to compare different races and creatures to be inconsistent when applied to different races and creatures. And none of the other abilities seem to work that way -- why, equal Strength scores let you carry the same amount of weight, no matter what race you are!
So if elves are no more likely than humans to have a high Charisma score, and if they aren't described as having some offsetting racial quality which balances out their physical appearance, then why are they described as being better than their mechanics would dictate? And why is their grace worthy of a mechanical bonus, but their Charisma isn't?
Is it beautiful, as per the fluff? Or average, as per the mechanics? Why is elf-Charisma worth more than human-Charisma? Why are the fluff and the mechanics telling me different things?
What does my elf actually look like?
The answer ends up being: whatever I want my elf to look like. It's my character after all. His appearance is up to me. That doesn't mean it has a mechanical effect... unless, of course, I actually have the mechanics to go along with it.
And if elves are allowed to look however they want without changing their mechanical bonus -- after all, their average is equal to a human average and yet their average is beautiful while the human average is not -- then why can't other things change their appearance without affecting their mechanical bonuses?
Definitions, Clarity, Rules, & You
SpoilerArbitrarily defined? It's used rather specifically, to mean something very clear and very precise. It has clearly written rules with clearly labeled diagrams and pictures.
The lack of clarity stems from the conflict between the fluff (which says that the ball of fire flies "from the wizards fingers to a fixed point which then explodes") and the rule ("burst 4") which operate at cross purposes. The rule says it's a burst 4, but gives no range; the origin square is thus the caster, extending outwards four squares in every direction. The fluff now introduces a confusion by implying that the ball of fire leaves the caster's square and enters another before exploding, which not only creates disagreement about where the origin square of the burst is, but also whether the fireball has unlimited range (since none is provided, and the fluff implies that the fireball's origin square is other than the caster's).
The mechanical rule was quite clear already. The addition of contradictory fluff creates the confusion.
These things are only inconsistent if you insist on defining the rules and the terms they use in ways which run counter to how the system defines them.
See below, where "Prone" and "prone" are two different things -- but "Prone" is still clearly defined and easily understood in mechanical terms.
The "Icy Cube" scenario only doesn't make sense if you can't imagine how introducing ice between the ground and a creature whose locomotion is dependent on friction with the ground would make it suffer penalties to move.
Seriously, though, Prone is a condition. It has a definition for what happens (-2 to attacks, grant combat advantage, cannot move except for specific types of movement, etc.), and that definition is very specific mechanically. How you define it fluff wise is left intentionally up to you, because you know best what, exactly, is happening in your story against that enemy at that very moment. In the Icy Cube's case, it can no longer move reliably over the frozen ground, and so it can neither defend itself (combat advantage!), attack accurately (-2 to attack!), etc. It doesn't have to be "prone" to be "Prone."
In Ghost in the Shell, one of the main characters carries an old revolver. This is a high tech cyberpunk world, in case you're not familiar with it, so the decision to carry an older gun is in and of itself indicative of a defining characteristic of the character. It's such a defining part of the character that the other characters actually talk about what a defining element of his character it is.
In Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty, one of the main characters also carries a revolver. We meet Jim Raynor in a shabby, broken down ol' bar on a shabby, broken-down ol' dustball of a planet, drinking whiskey(?) from a dirty glass, wearing shabby, practical clothes. Ah, but that revolver... what a sexy little thing she is. She's got a well-worn look to her, but it's clean rather than dirty, with ornate decorations across the barrel, and it features prominently in most of the opening cinematic while Mengsk, Raynor's arch-enemy, is talking on the SPACE TELEVISION! This gun matters. Raynor may not care about the flies in the bar or the apathetic sanitary standards of the establishment, and he may not even care much about his own appearance, but this gun? This gun he takes care of. That tells us a lot about him. And so, when the gun continues to appear throughout the game, it matters, too, because it's no longer just a gun -- it's a symbol of Jim Raynor and all the things that make up his character.
We use cues like this in all sorts of things to tell people about ourselves or to listen to what others are subtly telling us. In movies, what music is playing the background when a character does something? What do their clothes look like? What does their home look like? What kind of lighting or colors did the director put in this scene? Or that scene?
In Avatar, when the human SPACE HELICOPTERS! and the alien SPACE BIRDS! are flying towards one another, the music for one is ominous and the music for the other is uplifting, and if you change the music for that scene, the subtext of the scene changes even though neither side actually did anything differently. In the theatrical version, the music is (not so) subtly trying to tell you how to feel about the different sides.
These sorts of things matter. You can condense a lot of character development, backstory, themes, and motivation into a few simple character traits.
For a player who wants to take advantage of these little tricks to better develop and flesh out their character, to roleplay in their roleplaying game, the specific way they go about an action can say as much about their character as what action they take.
The NPC Who Knew Too Much & the Mystery of Golden Week
Spoiler(emphasis added)
This is actually something different. The DM can already decide that you meet an NPC who has any skill level he wants. However, 3.x demands that, for individuals to possess a certain degree of skill in something, they must be a certain level. Linking that skill level to a character or class level creates additional weirdness. The idea that, to improve an character's knowledge skills, you also have to improve their hit dice, their various saves, their base attack bonus, and any associated class abilities is silly.
"Wow, this old librarian guy sure knows a lot about ancient heraldry! He must be at least fifth level!"
"I'm sure glad I stopped wasting my time reading books. Stabbing rats has taught me everything I ever wanted to know about ancient philosophical trends in djinn society!"
"Guys, check it out! I was reading the latest copy of Mysterious Monsters -- the one where they finally explained what a "bear" was -- and it was making no sense at all. Then I killed a minotaur, and now not only do I understand bears, but I can also throw fireballs! Hooray!"
The DM is already able to conjure up an NPC with a skill level. In some systems, however, your ability to comprehend ancient languages is not intrinsically linked to your ability to stab people in the face. In 3.x, it is, and so when the DM creates an NPC with the appropriate skill level, he also has to tack on all sorts of other abilities to make it fit within the system.
This has no affect on your ability to make important decisions about your character, unless other things also change. For example, if the way skills worked changed arbitrarily over the course of the campaign, then that would invalidate your ability to make important and meaningful decisions. Or if it was consistent over the course of the campaign, but inconsistent between players. Those would certainly have an effect on the meaningfulness of any individual player's decisions!
I do know what Golden Week is. And I didn't have to level up to learn about it, or improve my ability to ride horses, or my overall health, either.
Other Stuff
SpoilerOnce you establish that you can know things which are otherwise determined by knowledge checks, you should just remove the knowledge skills altogether.
Ah, but your example didn't say "a small marble of flame." It said "a ball of fire."
How big a ball? How bright? There are equally valid opinions here which are not specified by the rules, and otherwise valid options which are "wrong" because some game designer wanted to decide what my fireball power looked like rather then letting me do so. Under the pure-crunch way, there are no wrong answers to what it looks like. The player can decide for themselves.
It's not "someone else's game." Once I start to play, it stops being someone else's game and starts being our game. To paraphrase Fast Times at Ridgemont High:
"You're creating a disturbance on my time!"
"Y'know, I've been thinking... if I have to be here... and you have to be here... doesn't that make it... our time?"
The DM may get to create the scenario, but once I'm in it, I get to control my character. One of those elements includes what my character looks like. This is important for reasons discussed later on in response to jseah.
Who said the mechanics have to be "heavy?"
Games Workshop regularly puts out a miniature version of their rulebook. It is six inches wide by eight inches tall by a quarter-inch deep. It has all of the rules included in the full-sized rulebook, plus helpful pictures and diagrams. 4e's Rules Compendium is not much bigger (twice as thick, an extra inch or so in height, half an inch extra in width). Both are written in a clear, easily understood, well-defined fashion.
There's a key word there: "if."
Given the emphasis that 5e is putting on "iconic" elements, I think we're going to see the same bass-ackward odd-couple of fluff which describes things totally unsupported by mechanics ("elves are pretty!") and mechanics which don't model fluff ("magic is hard!" vs "wizards levels are no harder to gain than peasant levels").
No, by definition, it functions exactly as a fireball would. It has no mechanical differences. No improvements to range, accuracy, damage, blast radius, etc. It just looks cool because I'd rather watch my enemy consumed by flaming serpents than a nondescript ball of fire.
Whew. Thanks for sticking through that wall of text, gang. Good times. Fun stuff.
-
2012-07-28, 10:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
Singular character traits can be a useful tool as you point out. Some traits, like carrying an ancient gun, or always climbing circular stairways on the outer edge are perfectly fine.
But this does not give you a license to rewrite anything. When changing fluff explanations, I would default to "ask your DM".
In most cases, you shouldn't need to do it. There are any number of ways to give your character traits, all of which will be far more acceptable within the setting if it means your DM doesn't need to rewrite explanations for basic rules.
Fair enough, you don't trust WotC to do it right. But surely they could write just a bit more fluff explanation than 3.5 had. Maybe a paragraph or two per spell.
It's not hard and when they can write descriptions of setting locations and NPCs, they can also do the same for mechanics.
The thing is, by altering the description (in such a way that the original crunch model still applies), you change how it handles edge cases if you are applying fluff as explanations. Either that or your new fluff makes no sense at all, I can think offhand a number of questions to ask regarding the dragon fireball but will desist to prevent thread derail.
And without fluff as explanations, you end up with crunch mechanics in a void with as many possible interpretations of fluff explanations being tacked on by as many people who read it. Which strikes me as utter chaos and a recipe for silliness.
Also, I do not see how having dragons consume your enemies helps develop your character, and it negatively affects the consistency of the setting. If you want a dragon themed character, your DM can make some new crunch for you (or veto/compromise if he doesn't like dragons in this setting).
NOTE: DO NOT ASK HOW MAKING FIREBALL A DRAGON WILL BE DIFFERENT. That way lies the flame hair thread.
Also, jseah needs to sleep earlier. Especially when I need to go work on a sunday. T_TLast edited by jseah; 2012-07-28 at 11:05 PM.
-
2012-07-29, 12:02 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
Three immediate problems with this line of thinking leap out at me:
(#1) Saying "you shouldn't need to do it, because there are other ways," is a line of reasoning which can be applied to every individual way of expressing my character.
(#2) It's not up to you what I think best represents my character from a cosmetic standpoint.
(#3) If you do not understand why something matters to my character image, that in no way means that it does not matter, nor that an alternative is acceptable.
Oh, a fourth!
(#3) "The DM needs to rewrite basic rules" is an entirely artificial and self-created problem on the part of the objector (or the DM, if they are one and the same). My crew does stuff like this all the time, and it's never been a problem or created a situation where I've needed to rewrite the rules. If you feel compelled to do so, that's on you, but it's not something that is intrinsically part and parcel of describing your fireball as a flaming serpent.
In answer to your unasked questions, I'm gonna go with "in all mechanical ways it functions exactly like a fireball spell, except it just looks cool in a way I think looks cool."
Seriously. All of them. Each and every one.
My backup answer is, "because magic."
Y'know, 'cause it's magic.
And this is a bad thing because...?
Seriously, what is the drawback to letting individual players have cosmetic control over their own characters and abilities?
Why is being hogtied by the limitations of the designer's imagination superior to me using my own imagination in a game of make-believe?
Well, here are a few ways:
(#1) My wizard worships a god whose symbol is the serpent. All of my spells are thus themed around snakes.
(#2) My wizard has a vague Asiatic elemental theme going based on stylized, blended Asian imagery. He wears monk/ninja style robes and has a lot of tattoos. Each tattoo represents a spell or type of spell he knows (for our purposes, the tattoos are not my spellbook, though there are rules for doing so). Having decided that my snake tattoos are tied in with fire spells because my character believes that they share visual similarities in how they move, when I cast fireball, the serpent tattoos on my arms seem to catch fire, come to life, and fly out to explode in the exact same manner as a fireball.
(#3) My wizard has yaun-ti heritage, and therefore has snake-themed spells to symbolize his ancestors.
(#4) My wizard hunts down serpent-men, and therefore has snake-themed spells to symbolize power over his prey.
(#5) My wizard is a treacherous, shifty sort of mage, and his magic expresses his personality. To my wizard, who cannot be honest even with himself, the fireball looks like a snake because it looks cool. Over time, he may come to realize the truth, either embracing it or rejecting it, depending on how the campaign goes.
I mean, these are just off the top of my head. But all of those are examples of how reskinning a "ball of flame" as "snakes on fire" can express something about my character.
At the end of the day, we're talking about a magic spell which has no observable appearance in reality. It would have been equally easy for the designer to write "looks like a snake on fire" rather than "looks like a ball on fire," and neither one is more true than the other. It could be either or both or neither, and it wouldn't change the damage, the range, radius, or any other mechanical ability which a fireball spell already possesses, nor would it grant it anything new. It looks like whatever we want it to look like, so it might as well look cool for the guy who's casting it!
-------
P.S. You keep saying dragon. I keep saying serpents or snakes. Admittedly, I'm arguing that the cosmetic appearance of the fireball doesn't matter, so snakes or dragons are both okay in my book, but I'm not sure why you consistently say something that is not what I am specifically saying. Is it because dragon has connotations of some big, major change compared to a snake? Or do you have some weird and exciting reading disorder which replaces snakes with dragons, which would actually be kind of cool, considering that there are twosnakesdragons in our house right now.
P.P.S You also keep mentioning "flame hair thread," which I am not familiar with. Can you provide a link so that I can properly understand what you mean?
-
2012-07-29, 12:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
Beautiful Graceful Elves
But here's an actual example of what I'm talking about: elves are described as being "hauntingly beautiful" (page 15, 3.5 PHB), but they receive no bonuses to Charisma, which is in part a reflection of physical appearance. The fluff makes a claim which is in no way backed by the mechanics -- elves are no more likely to be beautiful than anyone else. On the other hand, they are also described as graceful, but for this they do have a +2 Dexterity modifier to back it up. What is "graceful" worthy of a mechanical bonus, but "beautiful" is not?
SpoilerSo, are elves beautiful?
Is the average elf more beautiful than the average human? Hmm. Both races have a +0 modifier to their Charisma, so neither is more likely than the other to have a higher Charisma score. So, given a large enough sample size of each, the bell curve of Charisma scores for both races are going to be the same. Why, the average elf is no better than the average human when it comes to Charisma!
Are elves still beautiful relative to humans? If so, does an elf get more out of the same Charisma score than a human? Is a Charisma 10 elf more beautiful than a Charisma 10 human? That seems unfair. And imagine how hideous dwarves must be -- they actually receive a penalty to Charisma!
"Ah, but wait! Charisma measures more than physical beauty! Elves can still be beautiful and have the same Charisma score!"
Right you are, my conveniently-created imaginary audience member! So, does this mean that elves have other subsets of Charisma -- force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism and/or ability to lead -- which are worse than average humans, thereby offsetting their beauty and restoring the balance? Hmm. Odd that none of those qualities were mentioned as being lacking under the elven racial entry. Or perhaps elven beauty means less than human beauty, so a beautiful human is Charisma 12, while a beautiful elf is Charisma 10. Why, how strange that would be, for a system designed to allow you to compare different races and creatures to be inconsistent when applied to different races and creatures. And none of the other abilities seem to work that way -- why, equal Strength scores let you carry the same amount of weight, no matter what race you are!
So if elves are no more likely than humans to have a high Charisma score, and if they aren't described as having some offsetting racial quality which balances out their physical appearance, then why are they described as being better than their mechanics would dictate? And why is their grace worthy of a mechanical bonus, but their Charisma isn't?
Is it beautiful, as per the fluff? Or average, as per the mechanics? Why is elf-Charisma worth more than human-Charisma? Why are the fluff and the mechanics telling me different things?
What does my elf actually look like?
The answer ends up being: whatever I want my elf to look like. It's my character after all. His appearance is up to me. That doesn't mean it has a mechanical effect... unless, of course, I actually have the mechanics to go along with it.
And if elves are allowed to look however they want without changing their mechanical bonus -- after all, their average is equal to a human average and yet their average is beautiful while the human average is not -- then why can't other things change their appearance without affecting their mechanical bonuses?
1) Obviously though many (which note is not a majority, most or all) humans and other races might find them "hauntingly beautiful", hauntingly beautiful is not enough to significantly alter one's ability score. This is especially reasonable when you consider that physical beauty is only 1 of 5 attributes the Charisma mechanic is supposed to model.
2) Apply rules as guidelines: Since the "average" human is represented by an ability score of 10 and since many humans find other average humans to be beautiful, it's quite clear that one can have an "average" charisma score, and still be beautiful.
3) More rules as guidelines: We know from human experience that beauty as it relates to a persons charisma (non mechanical) is a subjective thing. On the other hand, gracefulness as it relates to a person's dexterity (non mechanical) is very much an objective thing. Therefore, being more graceful always makes you more dexterous, hence the always on modifier. Being more beautiful does not always make you more charismatic and therefore has no permanent bonus, and that the mechanical bonus is covered under the "Favorable and Unfavorable Conditions" section of skill checks: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm
4) As for the book not mentioning the charismatic flaws an elves have, you must have missed the following:
Elves are more often amused than excited, ... remaining aloof and unfazed ... They reply to petty insults with disdain and to serious insults with vengeance. ... frail. ... unearthly ... Elves consider humans rather unrefined, halflings a bit staid, gnomes somewhat trivial, and dwarves not at all fun. ... haughty, ... those who fall short of elven standards (which, after all, consists of just about everybody who’s not an elf).
Seriously, though, Prone is a condition. It has a definition for what happens (-2 to attacks, grant combat advantage, cannot move except for specific types of movement, etc.), and that definition is very specific mechanically.
Once you establish that you can know things which are otherwise determined by knowledge checks, you should just remove the knowledge skills altogether.
Ah, but your example didn't say "a small marble of flame." It said "a ball of fire."
How big a ball? How bright? There are equally valid opinions here which are not specified by the rules, and otherwise valid options which are "wrong" because some game designer wanted to decide what my fireball power looked like rather then letting me do so. Under the pure-crunch way, there are no wrong answers to what it looks like. The player can decide for themselves.
As to no wrong answers, there's still no wrong answers, its your game make it up. It takes no more mental effort to decide that your fireball is a winding serpent in the fluffless model as it does in the fluffful model. Either way you're making a call about the appearance and deciding if that has any in play effects. And sure, your DM could tell you that "No the rules say it's a small ball of flame", but he can just as easily in a fluffless system say "No, your flaming serpent is stupid, and you can't have it" or "No, the spell is called fireball, not fire serpent". If your DM is unwilling to negotiate, leave.
It's not "someone else's game." Once I start to play, it stops being someone else's game and starts being our game.
Games Workshop regularly puts out a miniature version of their rulebook. It is six inches wide by eight inches tall by a quarter-inch deep. It has all of the rules included in the full-sized rulebook, plus helpful pictures and diagrams. 4e's Rules Compendium is not much bigger (twice as thick, an extra inch or so in height, half an inch extra in width). Both are written in a clear, easily understood, well-defined fashion.
Given the emphasis that 5e is putting on "iconic" elements, I think we're going to see the same bass-ackward odd-couple of fluff which describes things totally unsupported by mechanics ("elves are pretty!") and mechanics which don't model fluff ("magic is hard!" vs "wizards levels are no harder to gain than peasant levels").
No, by definition, it functions exactly as a fireball would. It has no mechanical differences.
Also, you're lucky that your DM isn't a stickler for the rules, given that the spell is called fireball, and later on there is a lightning serpent, clearly that means that your fireball can't be anything other than a ball (even though it's a square)
It would have been equally easy for the designer to write "looks like a snake on fire" rather than "looks like a ball on fire," and neither one is more true than the other. It could be either or both or neither, and it wouldn't change the damage, the range, radius, or any other mechanical ability which a fireball spell already possesses, nor would it grant it anything new. It looks like whatever we want it to look like, so it might as well look cool for the guy who's casting it!Last edited by 1337 b4k4; 2012-07-29 at 12:22 AM.