Page 49 of 50 FirstFirst ... 24394041424344454647484950 LastLast
Results 1,441 to 1,470 of 1486
  1. - Top - End - #1441
    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

    Does anyone know what an elite monster is?

    XP for monsters seem to be completely random and arbitrary with the 1 HD Dark Cultist beeing being way above the 4 HD cultist. But still I wonder if elite is supposed tohave something to do with this.

  2. - Top - End - #1442
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    in front of a keyboard

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

    Can anyone find where it says what your AC is when you're not wearing armor? I'm assuming 10 + Dex mod.
    It's mentioned in "Character Creation", step 5.

    Quote Originally Posted by noparlpf View Post
    I've barely skimmed things, but what I've noticed is Sneak Attack. That is a lot of damage. I guess it'll be harder to get Sneak Attacks in in 5e?
    You get it once per round if you have advantage. How to get advantage is kind of hazy. Examples are, when you're hidden, deliver an opportunity attack, supposedly if someone uses the Help action for you, when the opponent is prone, stunned or similar, or whenever you DM sees fit. It's somewhat hard to judge how easy that is to get. Additionally, if you use the "Thug theme" of the Rogue class, you get sneak attack whenever you opponent is "flanked", i.e., threatened by two other friendly creatures.
    Signatures are for losers.

  3. - Top - End - #1443
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2009

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    For example, Web doesn't seem to have a duration - Web currently lasts forever.
    I think this may be intentional.

  4. - Top - End - #1444
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nu View Post
    "Filler" encounters that aren't taxing at all are actually more possible in an encounter-based design than in an adventure-based design, because "encounter powers" and more plentiful healing resources mean that an low-level encounter featuring primarily low HP monsters (like 4E minions) will hardly affect the party's resources at all.
    That all depends on the purpose of "filler" encounters. If they're to just add another fight and exercise the mechanics, great.

    Random encounters in old-school play were specifically there to put a pressure on players to move forward, rather than waste their resources not getting to the big pile of gold (remember, gold=xp in old-school games).

    In more simulation-oriented play, they're there because, well, there's monsters between point A and point B, and you ran into some.

    I have no idea what purpose they play in story-based games. Which is probably why most people running story-based games don't use them.

    Of course, this gets to my kind of over-arching metapoint with 5e, which is that the first thing they need to do is figure out exactly what game they're making.

  5. - Top - End - #1445
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Seerow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    Wow, you didn't read my post before you replied to it. While it is true TWF doesn't increase your damage(though it does increase the chance you'll do some damage at the cost of giving a chance to do reduced damage). There can be many effects carried by an attack that are not damage, which may make a TWF viable.
    I don't think you read MY post. TWF doesn't just fail to increase damage, it actually REDUCES the damage of any class that is likely to use it. Hell, my second paragraph even acknowledged that you can use TWFing with rider effects or for minion clearing, I just state that those effects aren't worth wasting a feat on.



    You're really not making any sense. First of all, not everyone wants a ton of abilities. One of the advantages of older editions was that if you wanted a complex class with a ton of abilities, you'd play a wizard or cleric, and if you wanted a more simple class you'd play a fighter or rogue. In 4e you didn't have that choice, you'd have stacks of cards no matter what you played as. Also keep in mind that spells are daily, and cover all manner of effects, not just combat abilities. A wizard can reduce their work load by preparing several copies of the same spells, and won't be using all 30+ of their spells as combat spells
    It doesn't matter how you spin it. Wizard: 30 spells that can be changed between daily. Right now a 5th level wizard has over a billion permutations of spells available to him. Fighter: 3 abilities that he chooses at level 1 that are then locked into place. That's without even looking at how effective the wizard options are vs the Fighter options. That is the kind of disparity of options we saw in 3rd edition.

    And no, you shouldn't say "If you want a simple class, go play a Fighter". You should say "If you want a simple class, use this optional feature to make your class simple". That optional feature may be "Wizard trades out all of his spell slots for some souped up cantrips" or "Fighter gives up his combat superiority options and just gets a flat bonus to hit and damage", but in no case should you have a single class who by default has so few options.




    And now I'm going to go on a tangential rant. We were sold Combat Superiority with the idea that it would be the Fighter's complex option, and someone who wants a simple fighter could just ignore those options and pump out extra damage each round. Instead what we've seen is Combat Superiority have half a dozen options that are variations on "deal more damage", a couple options that are "reduce damage", and a bunch of options that are "Do things that in previous editions anybody could do without wasting an ability slot on"

    Seriously, Pushing people and knocking people prone shouldn't require wasting an ability slot. It should be something literally anyone can do for free. Glancing Blow shouldn't have ever been written. There is no reason Jab and Snap Shot should have been separate abilities. Cleave should be an active ability as opposed to a reactive one, where you spend dice to attack two enemies near you, because as is trying to use it will frequently result is wasting your dice for the turn.

    The only ability out of the ones presented in the playtest packet that actually seemed interesting or added any sort of new option to the Fighter was Shift. And even that's just a sort of souped up 5ft step.

    The fact that all of the options are practically non options gets added on top of the fact that you only get 3, and you don't even get to pick and choose just adds insult to injury. A Fighter in 3.5 actually had more options than the Fighter in this playtest, because he at least got his feats on top of the baseline options like trip, disarm, and bullrush. A lot of the options may have been terrible, but so are the options the 5e fighter has now, he just gets even fewer of them. It's literally the worst of both worlds.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  6. - Top - End - #1446
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Seerow View Post
    And now I'm going to go on a tangential rant. We were sold Combat Superiority with the idea that it would be the Fighter's complex option, and someone who wants a simple fighter could just ignore those options and pump out extra damage each round. Instead what we've seen is Combat Superiority have half a dozen options that are variations on "deal more damage", a couple options that are "reduce damage", and a bunch of options that are "Do things that in previous editions anybody could do without wasting an ability slot on"

    Seriously, Pushing people and knocking people prone shouldn't require wasting an ability slot. It should be something literally anyone can do for free. Glancing Blow shouldn't have ever been written. There is no reason Jab and Snap Shot should have been separate abilities. Cleave should be an active ability as opposed to a reactive one, where you spend dice to attack two enemies near you, because as is trying to use it will frequently result is wasting your dice for the turn.

    The only ability out of the ones presented in the playtest packet that actually seemed interesting or added any sort of new option to the Fighter was Shift. And even that's just a sort of souped up 5ft step.

    The fact that all of the options are practically non options gets added on top of the fact that you only get 3, and you don't even get to pick and choose just adds insult to injury. A Fighter in 3.5 actually had more options than the Fighter in this playtest, because he at least got his feats on top of the baseline options like trip, disarm, and bullrush. A lot of the options may have been terrible, but so are the options the 5e fighter has now, he just gets even fewer of them. It's literally the worst of both worlds.
    I completely agree. As I mentioned in a previous post, they could easily combine all of the features a certain specialty gets and give that to you as one feature and I still don't think that would be all that powerful or interesting. Really, everything we've seen so far can be summed up as "Add extra attack given X condition," "Add X combat maneuver as a rider, no save," or "Add +/-X to your/your enemy's damage," which doesn't look like it addresses the complaint that lots of 4e powers are just damage+effect. I'm reminded of a post on RPG.net where someone wrote up a build-your-own-power system for the 4e fighter that managed to duplicate every single PHB1 fighter power in half a page, with the other half page for an explanation and a picture.

    What I'd prefer to see would be a list of standard combat maneuvers as in previous editions and then a list of things you can do with CS dice. Any abilities mentioned would be melee-range and either single-target or personal, to keep things simple and to allow for expansion. Then, your specialty wouldn't grant you CS abilities, you'd have access to all of them, and specialties would do things like "Archer: You may use offensive CS abilities at range" or "Guardian: You may use defensive CS abilities on adjacent allies" or "Horde Slayer: You may spend one CS die when using an offensive CS ability to affect one additional enemy adjacent to both you and the primary target" or "Berserker: [Grant Barbarian rage-type ability] and you increase your CS dice by one step while in a rage" and so forth.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  7. - Top - End - #1447
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Madara's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Up north, dontcha' know
    Gender
    Male

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

    I noticed the durations for many spells are quite large, which isn't exactly an improvement. Combat doesn't last 10 min(IC) so having my spell last 10 min is no different than 3 min, since they both last the whole encounter.

    Also, I noticed they nerfed Ray of Frost a bit

    They listened!!

    Its proof that they really are listening to the playtests. Also, because of the way some of the wording for some of the specialties, certain races allow you to qualify for things without being a spellcaster. So you could have a Fighter with Undead servants.


    I hope that when the actual game comes out, Gnomes are in the races. They skipped the Gnomes in 4e at first, and I don't see Gnomes in the playtest yet. Also, while Humans don't get the bonus feat, the ability boost is huge for them. Do you think they're still the best race?
    Quotes:
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Hashmir View Post
    When I die, I donate my body to the cause of whatever ******* finds it first.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bloodgruve View Post
    Really though, how effin scary would the beach be if an octopus could launch itself outta the water at a 200' move speed every 6 seconds. I'd never go to the beach again... I thought flying sharks were scary...
    Blood~

  8. - Top - End - #1448
    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

    There are no half-elves either. It's 4 classes and the 4 most basic (because from middle earth) races.

  9. - Top - End - #1449
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    obryn's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012

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

    There's a ton of argument right now on whether Humans are too good, or on par with other races. There's also some folks who don't like the flavor of, for example, tough humans being tougher than dwarves. Or dextrous humans being more dextrous than elves.

    Me? I don't mind it. I think it sounds about right, power-wise. And if it gives them a little edge? Good. I like my D&D humanocentric.

    -O

  10. - Top - End - #1450
    Firbolg 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 obryn View Post
    There's a ton of argument right now on whether Humans are too good, or on par with other races. There's also some folks who don't like the flavor of, for example, tough humans being tougher than dwarves. Or dextrous humans being more dextrous than elves.
    I have absolutely no issue with this, given that there are cases where other races still have the advantage. Perceptive humans are still nowhere near as perceptive as other races, as basically everyone else has much better senses. Tough humans are only equivalent to tough Hill Dwarves. So on and so forth.
    Fudge Assistant in the Playground.

  11. - Top - End - #1451
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Nu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Beyond the flow of time

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

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    That all depends on the purpose of "filler" encounters. If they're to just add another fight and exercise the mechanics, great.

    Random encounters in old-school play were specifically there to put a pressure on players to move forward, rather than waste their resources not getting to the big pile of gold (remember, gold=xp in old-school games).

    In more simulation-oriented play, they're there because, well, there's monsters between point A and point B, and you ran into some.

    I have no idea what purpose they play in story-based games. Which is probably why most people running story-based games don't use them.

    Of course, this gets to my kind of over-arching metapoint with 5e, which is that the first thing they need to do is figure out exactly what game they're making.
    My reply was to a specific kind of "filler" encounter, which was as I quote, "filler encounters that don't really tax the players all that much."

    Of course, an encounter designed to be taxing should be, though I'm a bit unsure if it's a good idea to make an encounter that is both taxing and uninvolved. It seems to me to be more natural that brief encounters don't put much strain on the party's resources, while extended encounters do. Something that is brief and taxing strikes me as less of an encounter and more of maybe a trap, or some kind of natural disaster.

    I'm just not liking how much we're having to sacrifice here to reach that point. I don't think this edition is very much catered to the DM anymore. I don't feel like DnD Next is designed in such a way that makes the DM's job easy or intuitive.

  12. - Top - End - #1452
    Firbolg 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 Nu View Post
    I'm just not liking how much we're having to sacrifice here to reach that point. I don't think this edition is very much catered to the DM anymore. I don't feel like DnD Next is designed in such a way that makes the DM's job easy or intuitive.
    It looks easier to GM for me, simply because there are far fewer rules in play.
    Fudge Assistant in the Playground.

  13. - Top - End - #1453
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nu View Post
    My reply was to a specific kind of "filler" encounter, which was as I quote, "filler encounters that don't really tax the players all that much."
    What would the purpose of a "filler encounter that doesn't tax the PCs" be, under any system?

  14. - Top - End - #1454
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    TheOOB's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nu View Post
    There is nothing fun, interesting, or desirable about a wizard sitting in the back and casting magic missile over and over. The fact that this is a choice is a negative thing, not a positive one.
    Read posts before you reply to them please. I never said that a wizard is just going to use magic missile over and over, only that they may stick to minor and lower level spells, saving their big guns for the tougher encounters. As a 5th level wizard you can solve simple encounter quickly with a fireball, or you can use burning hands and mop up with magic missile and basic attacks. One choice leaves you without your best damage spell for a later encounter, one choice will likely cause more wounds to your team and make your other party members use more resources. It's not a choice of be cool or do nothing, it's a choice of how much power you want to save for later.

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    I think the solution to this problem isn't to take away a ton of the wizard's toys, but rather to give the fighter more toys. This is what WotC did with 4E, and it worked out well, for many people.

    However, 4E brought it's own problems, notably that not everyone wants to play really complex characters that have twenty different things to do in a turn, but would rather have a fighter that charges in, smashes stuff up, and has lots of fun.

    In the past, this has unfortunately also meant that those players would be woefully inadequate when compared with the more complex classes, with the reasoning that if you work a lot to play a complex character, you should be awarded with higher effectiveness.

    With 5E, they seem to be coming to the conclusion that 1) you should be able to play a simple fighter, 2) you should have the option to play a complex fighter, and 3) complexity doesn't need to be tied to effectiveness.

    I think the key here is that complexity for the fighter is an option, and we aren't being given a ton of the really deep options for any of the classes yet. Combat Superiority seems to be a nod towards having even the basic fighter be somewhat complex. Most of the time, you probably just want to throw your CS dice at damage, but the abilities have niche purposes that you can also use them for. Importantly, though, none of them are so strong that you need to spend much time thinking about them except for the obvious times when they would be really nice.

    Combat Superiority is also a very new mechanic, so it's to be expected that it's rough around the edges, to say the least. You should definitely give them feedback about what's good, what's not, but don't get turned off from the system just because they didn't get it 100% perfect from the start. (I don't know if any of you are doing this, but it can be hard to tell sometimes)
    The way to make weak classes more powerful is not to make them more complex. The game needs simple classes for more casual players, and complex classes for more hard core players. I like what they are doing with the 5e fighter. The expertise dice allows the fighter to have some cool tricks, while not being hard to play. The fact that they refresh quickly means that a casual player will never have to make the hard choice on if they use them or not, and casual players hate difficult choices. Depending on what fighting styles you pick, you may have an array of interesting abilities to spend your dice on, or you may just be able to make your numbers bigger. What's most important, however, is that even if a fighter is playing simply, and just has big numbers, they are useful, unlike say 3e fighters.

    I defiantly think some classes should be more complex than others, and I like it when classes have the ability to alter how complex they are. That said, it's important to be flexible with flavor. As it stands in D&D Next, from most complex to least complex you have Wizard>Cleric>Rogue>Fighter. That is, the more magical you are, the more complex you are. There needs to be options for complex martial characters, and simple magic characters, though I think that is done best with new classes. 3e had the warlock, a simple arcane caster, and the warblade, a complex fighter, and I see no reason Next cannot do the same.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  15. - Top - End - #1455
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

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

    Honestly, it's not the concept of Combat Superiority I think, or it's complexity. I think the idea of CS is actually a simple and elegant and could lead to something that's fun for both types of players.

    Two problems I think need to be addressed, the first is that they need to say that advanced players can choose not to take a package and just pick the maneuver they want, and that the prepackaged ones are for those who don't feel comfortable with such options (on the same token, pre-packaged spells fo wizards is not a bad idea as long as the same statement is made). The second problem comes in the options presented aren't that interesting, at all. And they won't scale well. Now neither will spells, admittedly, but as it goes the Fighter will only have 12 or so options, while the Wizard will have around 60+ spells. Those dozen options need to scale.

    Anyway what I would do.
    Deadly Strike: Use a CS die to deal that damage directly to the target regardless of whether or not you hit.

    This gets rid of the superfluous (and crappy) Glancing Blows, and is a general damage bonus for those who just want the simple option to lay the smack down.

    On the same token
    Protection: Use a CS die to reduce the damage taken by you or an ally within reach by the die result.

    Cleave: Same, but gains Great Cleave after a few levels.

    Knock Down/Push: Increase the size you can use the ability on as you level up. Yes, getting a no-save ability to push a dragon around is pretty good.

    Shift: Increase the distance you can move as you level up.

    Tumble: I don't think this should be a Fighter only ability to be honest. Tumbling Rogues are too much in my brain. However some ability to spend a CS to negate an AOO (or whatever they're calling it these days) would be useful

    Breaker: Use a CS to either break an object that was being held by your target, or to break through the target you were attacking (if you were attacking a wall or something)

    Precise Attack: Use a CS to gain Advantage against an opponent. As you gain levels you can allow your allies to also gain Advantage against that opponent until the start of your next turn.

    Fearsome Blow: Use a CS to make the opponent Shaken. As you gain levels nearby enemies can also become Shaken.

    Mark: Use a CS on an opponent, that opponent takes a penalty to attack if it attacks anyone but you. As you gain levels the penalty increases.

    Crippling Strike: Use a CS on an opponent, that opponent gains Disadvantage on it's next attack.

    Hamstring: Use a CS on an opponent, that opponent's Movement Speed reduces by 10, for a round. As you gain levels the penalty increases until the opponent cannot move.

    And so on. Anyway I think these are simple and could be fun for the new player, and more of them could bring a lot of complexity for the advanced player.
    Last edited by Dienekes; 2012-08-15 at 05:46 PM.

  16. - Top - End - #1456
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Nu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Beyond the flow of time

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    It looks easier to GM for me, simply because there are far fewer rules in play.
    "Fewer rules" can make it harder in many situations, not easier. Fewer rules mean you have to make on-the-spot decisions more often. Fewer rules means there are fewer guidelines for building challenges for the players. I mean, the reason we HAVE rules in the first place is to make it easier for the DM and the players to make stuff, right? If "fewer rules" meant "easier to DM," then why have any rules at all? Just go freeform and have fun.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    What would the purpose of a "filler encounter that doesn't tax the PCs" be, under any system?
    I wouldn't know, I'm not the one who brought it up or presented it as desirable to have as an option.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    Read posts before you reply to them please. I never said that a wizard is just going to use magic missile over and over, only that they may stick to minor and lower level spells, saving their big guns for the tougher encounters. As a 5th level wizard you can solve simple encounter quickly with a fireball, or you can use burning hands and mop up with magic missile and basic attacks. One choice leaves you without your best damage spell for a later encounter, one choice will likely cause more wounds to your team and make your other party members use more resources. It's not a choice of be cool or do nothing, it's a choice of how much power you want to save for later.
    I simply used magic missile as an example because it was the most iconic minor spell. I could have said "magic missile or ray of frost" and it'd be more accurate, I suppose. It would require VERY specialized circumstances for any of the other minor spells to be useful.

    I'm well aware of the mindset behind daily resources, so you don't have to explain it to me or sing their praises. I still think that taking away the encounter resources is anti-fun and a step backwards. And yeah, I did kind of hate the style of play that promoted wizards holding onto their good spells for more important encounters, and just stayed away from the battle and used a wand of magic missile or whatever to make some minor contribution to the battle.

    Besides that, let's not talk about the 5th-level wizard. Let's talk about the 1st level wizard, because most campaigns will start at the 1st level. Three spells per day. I'm sorry, but eww. As soon as you run into a tough encounter and blow say two of your spells to push the party through (suppose one misses or is rendered ineffective), congrats, you get to be useless for the rest of the day. Oh, you have ONE spell, good luck with that. Enjoy your feather fall (why are offensive and utility spells taking up the same slots again?).

    Unfortunately, an alternative wizard build, one that has "per-encounter" options, is not available, despite full casters completely eclipsing non-caster in terms of options. For a system that is praised by some as "letting you do what you want" I'm not finding what I want. The fighter's "options" barely even count (as has been pointed out, it basically amounts to "do a little more damage, cause enemies to do a little less damage, or maybe do push/trip an enemy unless they happen to be bigger than you in which case you're screwed). Heck, they're not even customizable, you're completely locked into a single path once chosen.

    I guess if I had to summarize this edition as it currently exists in three words, it'd be "a step backwards."

  17. - Top - End - #1457
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    TheOOB's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nu View Post
    I simply used magic missile as an example because it was the most iconic minor spell. I could have said "magic missile or ray of frost" and it'd be more accurate, I suppose. It would require VERY specialized circumstances for any of the other minor spells to be useful.

    I'm well aware of the mindset behind daily resources, so you don't have to explain it to me or sing their praises. I still think that taking away the encounter resources is anti-fun and a step backwards. And yeah, I did kind of hate the style of play that promoted wizards holding onto their good spells for more important encounters, and just stayed away from the battle and used a wand of magic missile or whatever to make some minor contribution to the battle.

    Besides that, let's not talk about the 5th-level wizard. Let's talk about the 1st level wizard, because most campaigns will start at the 1st level. Three spells per day. I'm sorry, but eww. As soon as you run into a tough encounter and blow say two of your spells to push the party through (suppose one misses or is rendered ineffective), congrats, you get to be useless for the rest of the day. Oh, you have ONE spell, good luck with that. Enjoy your feather fall (why are offensive and utility spells taking up the same slots again?).

    Unfortunately, an alternative wizard build, one that has "per-encounter" options, is not available, despite full casters completely eclipsing non-caster in terms of options. For a system that is praised by some as "letting you do what you want" I'm not finding what I want. The fighter's "options" barely even count (as has been pointed out, it basically amounts to "do a little more damage, cause enemies to do a little less damage, or maybe do push/trip an enemy unless they happen to be bigger than you in which case you're screwed). Heck, they're not even customizable, you're completely locked into a single path once chosen.

    I guess if I had to summarize this edition as it currently exists in three words, it'd be "a step backwards."
    And you still didn't read my post. Stop trying to put up a strawman of my argument and actually put some effort into reading comprehension before you try to refute something. I said minor or lower level spells. Fact, a wizard will gain 1 or 2 spells per day every level. Fact a wizard gains a new spell level every two levels. Fact a wizard will end up having many spells that, while not as powerful as their top level spells, are non the less useful. Just because a wizard doesn't go supernova and throw out their best spells, doesn't mean they don't have options.

    By the way, have you ever played an older edition of D&D, even 3rd. 3 spells per day is enough to cast 1 spell per typical encounter in a day, and at level 1 your minor spells are powerful enough to be relevant when you run out better spells. And while most games start at level 1, few games stay there, by the time you're tired of your minor spells, you'll have plenty of new spells to cast. If your DM doesn't want players to resort to basic attacks and minor spells, he shouldn't start the campaign at level 1.

    Further, why shouldn't "utility" spells be the same as attack spells. It's part of what makes a wizard fun, picking the spells for the situation at hand, playing the wizard you want. Unlike 4e, a character isn't just about how they kill monsters, there is more to an adventure than fighting. In 4e utility powers were few and far between, and most of them were still combat powers(just non offensive ones). Now a spellcaster can actually have real utility powers, and having them also gives a use for some of their lower level spells slots when their offensive spells are obsolete.

    Also, you need to remember that this is a play test build, if it was a video game it would still be in early alpha. And no, there shouldn't be a per encounter wizard. Apart from the fact that such a build kind of goes agienst the design goal of Next(which is to get away from encounter based powers because they want a DM to define what an encounter is, not the players powers), the wizard a daily based spellcaster class. There is only 4 classes right now, and I can guarantee there will be more classes as time goes on, and not all of them will work the same as the currently existing classes.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  18. - Top - End - #1458
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

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

    Ok first off, where the heck is this idea that the 12 listed cs options will be the only ones the fighter will ever have? If you want more options than that, be sure to include it in the feedback, but let's not pretend they've set this list in stone here. There's absolutely no reason to think that this is all there will ever be or that they're done. More likely they've built up a base and want to see how people like it as it plays out. No point in designing 30+ cs options only to scrap the whole system because it actually sucks when put on the table. And before you ask, the reason there are so many spells already is because they were already written before this play test even started.

    Secondly, let's stop being disingenuous about our comparisons. There's nothing productive about saying a 20th level wizard will have 30 spells per day and then comparing that to the 1st level fighter with his 3 cs maneuvers. A more accurate comparison is the 1st level wizard with his 3 daily spells and the fighter with his 3 at will cs abilities. Sure, by level 5 it's 9 vs 5 but again daily vs at will. Also note that your fighter can take the magic user specialty giving him access to some magic as well. Also it reads to me like you can start stacking your cs abilities as you gain more dice. Consider the following at 5 th level ( the first multi die level):

    Your magic user specialty fighter opens his turn by casting "magic missile" hitting a ranged foe. Then he spends one cs die to "jab" (casting spells is not a ranged attack per my reading of the combat section of the how to play document) jab lets him make a melee attack against an enemy with d8 damage (which is only worse than heavy weapons), finally your fighter spends his other cs die on either "deadly strike" for another d8 worth of damage or "knockdown" to inflict prone. That's pretty damn cool to me, and while the rules aren't explicit about you being able to do multiple cs actions in a single turn, it's absolutely consistent with the rues as written, and to my mind perfectly in the spirit of the ability.

  19. - Top - End - #1459
    Firbolg 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 Nu View Post
    "Fewer rules" can make it harder in many situations, not easier. Fewer rules mean you have to make on-the-spot decisions more often. Fewer rules means there are fewer guidelines for building challenges for the players. I mean, the reason we HAVE rules in the first place is to make it easier for the DM and the players to make stuff, right? If "fewer rules" meant "easier to DM," then why have any rules at all? Just go freeform and have fun.
    That would be why we have rules, yes. That doesn't mean that having a bunch of rules doesn't weigh things down. I'm fine with on the spot decisions as long as there is a framework for them. For instance, D&D 5e has a qualitative scale for difficulties which corresponds to certain DCs. Whenever someone tries to do this, you can refer to this one scale. I'm fine with that. 3.x, meanwhile, has explicit DCs laid out for every single skill. That's either a pain in the rear to memorize, or something you need to check all the time. It's rules getting in the way.

    You seem to be positing that rules are inherently linear, and that because having rules makes it easier at one point it must make it easier at all points. I don't think that this is a safe assumption, and would instead posit that it's probably closer to a bell curve, with a portion on the left chopped off. As a GM, my rules preference curve is a narrow one, that puts D&D 3.x a good two standard deviations to the right of my ideal rules spot, where freeform is about one to the left.

    I'd characterize both 3rd and 4th editions as poster children in rules getting in the way, and 5e appears to be moving away from that. Good riddance to it, I'm in favor of a much lighter system as a GM. Qualitatively evaluating how difficult things are really doesn't add to my work load,
    Last edited by Knaight; 2012-08-15 at 06:46 PM.
    Fudge Assistant in the Playground.

  20. - Top - End - #1460
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Seerow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    Ok first off, where the heck is this idea that the 12 listed cs options will be the only ones the fighter will ever have? If you want more options than that, be sure to include it in the feedback, but let's not pretend they've set this list in stone here.
    I haven't seen anyone make that assumption. So I'm not sure where this is coming from at all.

    However, what the current list of abilities does show is a parred down basic CS option list vs a parred down basic spell option list, and we see that favoring the casters 3:1. That's on top of the fact that the CS options are universally more bland and weaker than spells. It may not be all there is or ever will be, but it is showing where the developer mindset is as far as utility and power level, and that mindset is showing us abilities that are decidedly lacking. The fact that I would be happy to trade away the majority of my CS abilities to gain 2 cantrips at this point is a really bad sign.


    There's absolutely no reason to think that this is all there will ever be or that they're done. More likely they've built up a base and want to see how people like it as it plays out. No point in designing 30+ cs options only to scrap the whole system because it actually sucks when put on the table. And before you ask, the reason there are so many spells already is because they were already written before this play test even started.
    If the point is to test the CS as a system, then including worthwhile abilities would have made the test better. As is I could see a lot of feedback saying "This doesn't fix the fighter at all, it's still bland and boring" because of how the CS abilities have been handled.

    Secondly, let's stop being disingenuous about our comparisons. There's nothing productive about saying a 20th level wizard will have 30 spells per day and then comparing that to the 1st level fighter with his 3 cs maneuvers. A more accurate comparison is the 1st level wizard with his 3 daily spells and the fighter with his 3 at will cs abilities. Sure, by level 5 it's 9 vs 5 but again daily vs at will.
    The Wizard gains 3 spells every 2 levels. The Fighter gains 1 maneuver every other level. Also calling Deadly Strike and Parry options is really stretching incredulity, those are the equivalent of the Wizard's cantrips, but with less flexibility. So at level 1 you have 3 spells per day and 5 spells known vs 1 option. By level 5, it's 9 spells per day and a minimum 21 spells known vs 3 options. By level 20, it's 31 spells per day, and a minimum 85 spells known, vs 11 options.

    The scaling is there for everyone to see, and leaves the fighter in the dust starting at very low levels.

    Also note that your fighter can take the magic user specialty giving him access to some magic as well. Also it reads to me like you can start stacking your cs abilities as you gain more dice. Consider the following at 5 th level ( the first multi die level):

    Your magic user specialty fighter opens his turn by casting "magic missile" hitting a ranged foe. Then he spends one cs die to "jab" (casting spells is not a ranged attack per my reading of the combat section of the how to play document) jab lets him make a melee attack against an enemy with d8 damage (which is only worse than heavy weapons), finally your fighter spends his other cs die on either "deadly strike" for another d8 worth of damage or "knockdown" to inflict prone. That's pretty damn cool to me, and while the rules aren't explicit about you being able to do multiple cs actions in a single turn, it's absolutely consistent with the rues as written, and to my mind perfectly in the spirit of the ability.
    Great, the fighter picked up wizard abilities to do something interesting. Also very questionably rules legal (casting an attack spell not an attack? Okay). It's also still just a variant on deal damage, just from a different source. It's a different way of dealing damage, but it's still the same thing.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  21. - Top - End - #1461
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Nu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Beyond the flow of time

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    And you still didn't read my post. Stop trying to put up a strawman of my argument and actually put some effort into reading comprehension before you try to refute something. I said minor or lower level spells. Fact, a wizard will gain 1 or 2 spells per day every level. Fact a wizard gains a new spell level every two levels. Fact a wizard will end up having many spells that, while not as powerful as their top level spells, are non the less useful. Just because a wizard doesn't go supernova and throw out their best spells, doesn't mean they don't have options.

    By the way, have you ever played an older edition of D&D, even 3rd. 3 spells per day is enough to cast 1 spell per typical encounter in a day, and at level 1 your minor spells are powerful enough to be relevant when you run out better spells. And while most games start at level 1, few games stay there, by the time you're tired of your minor spells, you'll have plenty of new spells to cast. If your DM doesn't want players to resort to basic attacks and minor spells, he shouldn't start the campaign at level 1.

    Further, why shouldn't "utility" spells be the same as attack spells. It's part of what makes a wizard fun, picking the spells for the situation at hand, playing the wizard you want. Unlike 4e, a character isn't just about how they kill monsters, there is more to an adventure than fighting. In 4e utility powers were few and far between, and most of them were still combat powers(just non offensive ones). Now a spellcaster can actually have real utility powers, and having them also gives a use for some of their lower level spells slots when their offensive spells are obsolete.

    Also, you need to remember that this is a play test build, if it was a video game it would still be in early alpha. And no, there shouldn't be a per encounter wizard. Apart from the fact that such a build kind of goes agienst the design goal of Next(which is to get away from encounter based powers because they want a DM to define what an encounter is, not the players powers), the wizard a daily based spellcaster class. There is only 4 classes right now, and I can guarantee there will be more classes as time goes on, and not all of them will work the same as the currently existing classes.
    And I'll ask you to stop making assumptions. There is no need to be so patronizing, I do not believe I have acted in this way towards you. I assure you I am reading everything you say, I merely disagree, and for some reason you take that to mean I'm not reading your arguments. Try to calm down a bit. You really don't need to try and repeat the material that's already in the book, I can see it quite clearly (though, I wonder, did YOU read the playtest material? Example:)

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    3 spells per day is enough to cast 1 spell per typical encounter in a day
    From the DM Guidelines document: "As a rule of thumb, you can figure that the characters will probably get through four average encounters, six or seven easy encounters, or two tough encounters before they have to take a long rest."

    So unless you're fighting only tough encounters, I don't see 3 spells lasting you 1 per encounter being the norm. Not that "1 spell per encounter" is a good model in my book, and the minor spells are even weaker than the at-wills available in 4E, but that's beside the point.

    I'll also ask you to not resort to accusations of a "strawman argument," especially not when you say something like "unlike 4e, a character isn't just about how they kill monsters." I mean, really? Are we going to resort to this childish debate again?

    Yes, I played 3rd edition for quite some time before 4th edition even came out. My experience was that being a low-level level caster was dull and being a high-level caster made other classes irrelevant. And I'm seeing that mistake repeated here, though at least they can cast magic missile instead of shooting a crossbow now. About 3rd level it seems that things become better, but I don't really like that the first two levels are basically a crap-shoot. Incidentally I have other complaints in regards to this as well, such as the hit dice mechanic which seems to me to necessitate someone with the healer specialty, and even that doesn't really kick in until the 3rd level.

    As for utility vs. attack, this was actually a common complaint I saw in 4E, that there should be more room for both. That the "utility powers" had some options that were useful out of combat, but overshadowed by combat-oriented options. Same for feats. It seems wizards did not take these complaints to heart, however, as they continue to make us choose between combat power and out-of-combat power. Odd, that in a model that is supposed to support "more than combat," you often need to choose which you'll devote a spell slot to. I would prefer a model where the two were made more separate, but again, that is my just opinion. It'd definitely make it simpler to create a character that is competent both in and out of combat (and isn't that a stated design goal, to make things simpler?).

    Finally, as I have said before but apparently you were the one not reading, I am making my assumptions based on the playtest material because that is what we have in front of it. Assurances that "it's going to get better" don't hold much water with me until I see it, or at least see some indication that there's going to be something better down the line. I don't see any indication of a good or interesting encounter-based class yet, so I don't see any reason to believe there will be one, especially when, as you said, that conflicts with the design goals of DnD Next.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    That would be why we have rules, yes. That doesn't mean that having a bunch of rules doesn't weigh things down. I'm fine with on the spot decisions as long as there is a framework for them. For instance, D&D 5e has a qualitative scale for difficulties which corresponds to certain DCs. Whenever someone tries to do this, you can refer to this one scale. I'm fine with that. 3.x, meanwhile, has explicit DCs laid out for every single skill. That's either a pain in the rear to memorize, or something you need to check all the time. It's rules getting in the way.

    You seem to be positing that rules are inherently linear, and that because having rules makes it easier at one point it must make it easier at all points. I don't think that this is a safe assumption, and would instead posit that it's probably closer to a bell curve, with a portion on the left chopped off. As a GM, my rules preference curve is a narrow one, that puts D&D 3.x a good two standard deviations to the right of my ideal rules spot, where freeform is about one to the left.

    I'd characterize both 3rd and 4th editions as poster children in rules getting in the way, and 5e appears to be moving away from that. Good riddance to it, I'm in favor of a much lighter system as a GM. Qualitatively evaluating how difficult things are really doesn't add to my work load,
    The thing is that 4th edition also had a chart for improvised use of skills and abilities, there is a very handy chart with levels and DCs that corresponds to "easy," "medium," and "hard" tasks. In fact, such a chart is common in tabletop RPGs and is not unique to either 4th or DnD Next.

    In any case, I was talking about monsters and encounter-building. The encounter-building rules detail how many monsters and how much XP the encounter should be worth, but they don't say anything about what kinds of monsters to use beyond those statistics. I believe that's problematic, because it either implies that the stated guidelines for DMs are insufficient for creating different kinds of encounters for the players, or that the monsters are so generic that it doesn't really matter what kind of monster you put there as long as it gives a certain amount of XP.

    My assertion is that the addition of "monster roles" and gearing the abilities of monsters towards a particular theme or function made building challenging and/or more interesting encounters easier for the DM. And that I believe removing such things is a step backwards.

  22. - Top - End - #1462
    Firbolg 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 Nu View Post
    The thing is that 4th edition also had a chart for improvised use of skills and abilities, there is a very handy chart with levels and DCs that corresponds to "easy," "medium," and "hard" tasks. In fact, such a chart is common in tabletop RPGs and is not unique to either 4th or DnD Next.
    Page 42 scales easy, medium, and hard by level, and is generally nonsense. Moreover, while this isn't anything unique to D&D, 5e is the first time this has actually happened (which means that D&D is catching up to where the industry as a whole was in 1980 in this regard, but whatever). However, that still makes a decent example regarding rules bulk as a negative in general, which was what was pertinent to the context.
    Fudge Assistant in the Playground.

  23. - Top - End - #1463
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Nu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Beyond the flow of time

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    Page 42 scales easy, medium, and hard by level, and is generally nonsense.
    And why is it nonsense? I've used it for scaling the DCs of skills in skill challenges and it has worked quite well (though of course I use the updated version found on page 126 of the Rules Compendium). It is necessary to scale by level in 4E because checks also scale by level, I don't see why that's a necessarily negative thing, though obviously if you cut out skills scaling by level then there's no need for the chart to do so.

  24. - Top - End - #1464
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Thanatos 51-50's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    I'm a Protagonist!
    Gender
    Male

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

    Just played a session as a Human Rogue using the Thug scheme and a quarterstaff. My front-line partners were a Slayer-themed Dwarf Fighter and an Elven War Cleric. They were very useful in standing next to something that was big and bad so that I could destroy it.

    Quarterstaff Ninja one-shotted everything.
    Last edited by Thanatos 51-50; 2012-08-15 at 08:58 PM.
    NaNoWriMo Beat Me
    Red and the Phasmavore by LCP

  25. - Top - End - #1465
    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 Knaight View Post
    Page 42 scales easy, medium, and hard by level, and is generally nonsense. Moreover, while this isn't anything unique to D&D, 5e is the first time this has actually happened (which means that D&D is catching up to where the industry as a whole was in 1980 in this regard, but whatever). However, that still makes a decent example regarding rules bulk as a negative in general, which was what was pertinent to the context.
    I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of the table. It was meant to give DMs who needed to improvize a difficulty check, and I think that's a useful thing for any DM to have.

    Granted, the scaling DCs were completely unnecessary; they should have simply not scaled skills (and I think they ended up giving people a lot more negative an opinion of Page 42 than was warranted*), but as a quick and easy guide, they work wonderfully.

    * as a note, I think the page 42 DCs of the DMG are a lot better than the ones in the rules compendium, really rewarding specializing, and in fact allow a lot more of the "don't use the dice" than I think even 5e hopes to accomplish.

  26. - Top - End - #1466
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

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

    However, what the current list of abilities does show is a parred down basic CS option list vs a parred down basic spell option list, and we see that favoring the casters 3:1. That's on top of the fact that the CS options are universally more bland and weaker than spells. It may not be all there is or ever will be, but it is showing where the developer mindset is as far as utility and power level, and that mindset is showing us abilities that are decidedly lacking.
    Well yes they are in a single instance weaker than the spells, that would be because they're at will abilities. I'm not sure why this is so controversial. The fighters get to be more regularly awesome at the expense of being nova, the wizard is nova at the expense of being below normal when they run out of resources.

    If the point is to test the CS as a system, then including worthwhile abilities would have made the test better. As is I could see a lot of feedback saying "This doesn't fix the fighter at all, it's still bland and boring" because of how the CS abilities have been handled.
    Sure, I can also see a lot of feedback that says "This is pretty damn cool, but it would be nice if XYZ." In fact thats not only the type of feedback I've seen so far, but it's far more useful than "The fighter is still bland and boring." In fact it seems to me that the groups actually play testing are providing that useful feedback, as opposed to the general grognarding and edition warring that is occurring on most of the forums.

    Also calling Deadly Strike and Parry options is really stretching incredulity, those are the equivalent of the Wizard's cantrips, but with less flexibility.
    You know, in 4e you did everything you could (especially as a rogue) to get combat advantage for the extra damage, and it was awesome. Now you give a (admittedly weakened) version of that ability to the fighter for free and at will and suddenly it's a mere "cantrip". You'll have to excuse me for saying so but I believe your biases are seriously clouding your judgement.

    Also very questionably rules legal (casting an attack spell not an attack? Okay)
    Nothing questionable about it. The how to play clearly differentiates between spell casting and attacking. Magic missile says nothing about making an attack, and jab says any action other than a melee or ranged attack.

    It's also still just a variant on deal damage, just from a different source. It's a different way of dealing damage, but it's still the same thing.
    Somehow I get the impression that even if the cs abilities were all battlefield controll, you still wouldn't be happy.

  27. - Top - End - #1467
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Seerow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    Well yes they are in a single instance weaker than the spells, that would be because they're at will abilities. I'm not sure why this is so controversial. The fighters get to be more regularly awesome at the expense of being nova, the wizard is nova at the expense of being below normal when they run out of resources.
    The adventuring day is set up such that you have roughly 16 rounds of combat in a day. The Wizard is casting his dailies for more than half of that by level 5. That number will go up with level.

    The Fighters deal a lot of single target damage. They do little else, really. What does this remind you of?



    Sure, I can also see a lot of feedback that says "This is pretty damn cool, but it would be nice if XYZ." In fact thats not only the type of feedback I've seen so far, but it's far more useful than "The fighter is still bland and boring." In fact it seems to me that the groups actually play testing are providing that useful feedback, as opposed to the general grognarding and edition warring that is occurring on most of the forums.
    The point is, you said if the mechanic doesn't work, they may scrap the mechanic rather than putting more work into fleshing it out. I'm pointing out that by showing off the mechanic with no interesting uses of it, you have the potential of seeing the mechanic get scrapped because the mechanic did not solve the problem it was intended to solve. It would have been better to have more interesting options from the get go than risk having a potentially good mechanic thrown away because it was under utilized with release.


    You know, in 4e you did everything you could (especially as a rogue) to get combat advantage for the extra damage, and it was awesome. Now you give a (admittedly weakened) version of that ability to the fighter for free and at will and suddenly it's a mere "cantrip". You'll have to excuse me for saying so but I believe your biases are seriously clouding your judgement.
    Cantrips are the go-to spells of Wizards now. Being compared to a cantrip does not mean useless, but it does mean it shouldn't be listed as an option when lining it up with daily abilities. Frankly, cantrips like Mage Hand and Ghost Sound are more interesting and generally useful than anything the Fighter gets. Even a Ray of Frost equivalent reducing movement speed would have been a huge step up for the playtest Fighter.

    Somehow I get the impression that even if the cs abilities were all battlefield controll, you still wouldn't be happy.

    And you would be correct. Because if it was all battlefield control, you'd still be lacking in other areas. The point is all about versatility. That is what complexity in options are meant to give. What makes the Wizard powerful isn't just battlefield control, it's his huge amount of versatility. While battlefield control is a part of that, it isn't all of it.

    But seriously, even ignoring what we don't have, look at what we do have. We should not have to waste ability slots on things like push/prone, or disarm, or other basic combat maneuvers. In earlier editions of the game these were things anyone could attempt to do. Yet now the Fighter has to waste ability slots to get it. Snap Shot and Jab should be the same ability, why write up the same ability twice for melee and ranged, is it that broken for the Fighter to have flexibility to do both? Glancing Blow shouldn't have been put in at all as is. Tumble seems like it is completely useless. Maybe useful to set up flanking, but that's being held off until the tactical module. Protect is decent, but Protect, AoOs, and the Guardian Theme, all key off reactions, which are 1/round making Protect effectively superfluous, especially with dice regenerating at the start of your turn so to even try to use Protect, you have to risk letting your dice go to waste altogether.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  28. - Top - End - #1468
    Firbolg 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 Ashdate View Post
    I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of the table. It was meant to give DMs who needed to improvize a difficulty check, and I think that's a useful thing for any DM to have.

    Granted, the scaling DCs were completely unnecessary; they should have simply not scaled skills (and I think they ended up giving people a lot more negative an opinion of Page 42 than was warranted*), but as a quick and easy guide, they work wonderfully.
    I know exactly what they were there for, but they broke consistency of the setting by centering it around the players. In basically every other game with something you could call a difficulty, certain things simply have a certain difficulty - very hard is always very hard. In 4e, it magically scales with the players, so that things get harder as you level up to keep uncertainty in, and you're just sort of supposed to cover this gaping hole in the system with fluff. It's a terrible mechanic as a result.

    5e, meanwhile, avoids that problem. Becoming better at things means that one is more likely to succeed at them, not that they suddenly turn more difficult, but only when you're the one performing the task. D&D has finally caught up to where the rest of the hobby was in 1980.
    Fudge Assistant in the Playground.

  29. - Top - End - #1469
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Togath's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Washington
    Gender
    Female

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    I know exactly what they were there for, but they broke consistency of the setting by centering it around the players. In basically every other game with something you could call a difficulty, certain things simply have a certain difficulty - very hard is always very hard. In 4e, it magically scales with the players, so that things get harder as you level up to keep uncertainty in, and you're just sort of supposed to cover this gaping hole in the system with fluff. It's a terrible mechanic as a result.

    5e, meanwhile, avoids that problem. Becoming better at things means that one is more likely to succeed at them, not that they suddenly turn more difficult, but only when you're the one performing the task. D&D has finally caught up to where the rest of the hobby was in 1980.
    Ar you trying to say it seems unreasonable to have scaling dcs?
    Spoiler
    Show
    Sawagakure: Village Hidden by the Valley Marsh
    OOC: I, IC: Team 1(I), Team 2(I)
    Lereth: Stormport
    OOC: I, IC: I
    Verden
    OOC: I, IC: I
    Homebrewer's Link(+PBP)

    Modding in the Playground ^w^

  30. - Top - End - #1470
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Thanatos 51-50's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    I'm a Protagonist!
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Togath View Post
    Ar you trying to say it seems unreasonable to have scaling dcs?
    It's unreasonable that an epic-level Rogue needs to roll against a monstrous DC to pick the lock on the tavern door, whereas a Heroic-tier Rogue has to roll a much lower DC to pick the same lock.

    Some people took "scale you DCs on skill checks" to mean just that, not that the super-duper amazing locked door that epic rogues generally run across have harder to pick locks and that a Heroic rogue wouldn't have a chance of picking one.

    Like the advice to not stat up every NPC, and to only give stats to NPCs that were supposed to engage in combat was taken to mean that NPCs don't matter unless the PCs are killing them.

    I swear, people intentionally (mis)interpret things like this.
    NaNoWriMo Beat Me
    Red and the Phasmavore by LCP

Posting Permissions

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