D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

[AgentPaper]

A large cataclysm is also a good way to shake things up from a story perspective without having to build up characters and locations completely from scratch. It helps to mark the end of an age and the beginning of a new age. If stuff like this didn't happen every once in a while, the world would just become bloated and unusable eventually.

They could certainly have chosen to move on to an entire new world, but the Sundering means that any players who have an ongoing campaign in the world don't have to completely re-start. They can choose to play through the campaign, or continue on without it and still use the new material without much issue.

Also, I don't like how much I've been seeing "cliche" thrown around here as negative statement. Just because something has been used before, doesn't mean that it can't be used again. Doing something new and different just to be new and different is just as bad or worse than doing the same old thing just because it's the same old thing.

[huttj509]

Also, I don't like how much I've been seeing "cliche" thrown around here as negative statement. Just because something has been used before, doesn't mean that it can't be used again. Doing something new and different just to be new and different is just as bad or worse than doing the same old thing just because it's the same old thing.

Tropes are not bad.

Oh no, forgot to hotlink that, I guess people will just need to NOT have hours fly by suddenly.

[Hylas]

Some DMs get enraged a PC can auto-succeed on a task.

They can just do "oh, the DC is higher because circumstances. You failed!" because in the end they get to decide if you succeed or not with any roll.

[TheOOB]

They can just do "oh, the DC is higher because circumstances. You failed!" because in the end they get to decide if you succeed or not with any roll.

Yes, but it can be said any time the DM has to change the rules on the fly the rules failed.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Also, I don't like how much I've been seeing "cliche" thrown around here as negative statement. Just because something has been used before, doesn't mean that it can't be used again. Doing something new and different just to be new and different is just as bad or worse than doing the same old thing just because it's the same old thing.

There's a difference between:

"We know this works and we have no good reasons to change it, so let's keep it."

and:

"We know this doesn't work, and we have tons of good reasons to change it, but we're going to keep it anyway because we're afraid of taking risks."

[noparlpf]

Some DMs get enraged a PC can auto-succeed on a task.

When's the last time you had trouble walking on a flat surface with no distractions and no hurry?
I think most people can auto-succeed on that barring added difficulty. So why not other things? I can make a good paper crane out of a small sheet of paper in a minute or so, every time.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I think they're talking more about stuff like auto-succeeding on convincing the King to be your slave and give you control of the kingdom.

[noparlpf]

I think they're talking more about stuff like auto-succeeding on convincing the King to be your slave and give you control of the kingdom.

It's the same thing, though. Except that the DC for convincing a king to give you his kingdom is much higher. Craft (origami) DC 12; An ordinary person can do it well, reliably, with a little practice. Diplomacy DC 60; You have to be Wormtongue. Although unfortunately the rules for Diplomacy in 3.X are really bad and don't actually work that way. But that's a problem with the specific skill's rules, not with the concept of skills in general.

[Camelot]

On the topic of the Realms, I only use my fourth edition books for the game mechanics (swordmage is my favorite class, genasi are awesome too, and the monsters from the campaign guide come in handy). I've read most of the rest of the books, but I always prefer to play in a homebrew world. I really loved points of light because it encouraged that, less so when they started coming out with Nentir Vale stuff.

[Stubbazubba]

Tropes are not bad.

Oh no, forgot to hotlink that, I guess people will just need to NOT have hours fly by suddenly.

I need a "Like" button!

There's a difference between:

"We know this works and we have no good reasons to change it, so let's keep it."

and:

"We know this doesn't work, and we have tons of good reasons to change it, but we're going to keep it anyway because we're afraid of taking risks."

Doubly so!

I would find it really cool if they transported a party of mainstay characters from the FR and shift them into a new world for the new edition. The story in the books can be about them finding a way to get back to their world (a suitably mid-high level quest, I would think) and then, when they accomplish it, you could continue the FR line and a new world, perfect for a new edition's new fans to cut their teeth on. Kind of like the Ultimate line of Marvel comics, but for an RPG setting.

[Zeful]

As a result of various "what are X weapon's stats" threads (the "What is the length of my Katana" from this board being the most recent example), I hope there's a module where weapon stats are less about damage and more about other qualities (tripping, disarming, etc.) and fighting style determines proficiencies, damage, stances and maneuvers, as well as more supernatural stuff. Though, being some kind of unholy mash up of Martial disciplines and spells, it would be expansive and complicated as hell. Which would kinda be nice in comparison to the 3e and Pathfinder fighters.

[noparlpf]

As a result of various "what are X weapon's stats" threads (the "What is the length of my Katana" from this board being the most recent example), I hope there's a module where weapon stats are less about damage and more about other qualities (tripping, disarming, etc.) and fighting style determines proficiencies, damage, stances and maneuvers, as well as more supernatural stuff. Though, being some kind of unholy mash up of Martial disciplines and spells, it would be expansive and complicated as hell. Which would kinda be nice in comparison to the 3e and Pathfinder fighters.

One thing I like to do is have some weapons able to be used for tripping, disarming, &c., and others not at all, and have some weapons give bonuses. For example, bolas. In 3.X they suck. You can hardly trip anything with them. There should be some bonus for using them to make trip attempts.

[Water_Bear]

As a result of various "what are X weapon's stats" threads (the "What is the length of my Katana" from this board being the most recent example), I hope there's a module where weapon stats are less about damage and more about other qualities (tripping, disarming, etc.) and fighting style determines proficiencies, damage, stances and maneuvers, as well as more supernatural stuff. Though, being some kind of unholy mash up of Martial disciplines and spells, it would be expansive and complicated as hell. Which would kinda be nice in comparison to the 3e and Pathfinder fighters.

Seconded.

In 3.5, the only valuable weapons were ones with special abilities tied to them; the rest were just table-clutter.

Lances and Long-Spears could double your damage under specific circumstances. Spiked Chains were reach Tripping weapons which could attack adjacent squares. Daggers gave a decent Sleight of Hand bonus, were Finesse weapons, and had a ton of rogue-related feats tied to them. Greatswords... did an extra 1d6 damage.

More abilities tied to weapons and less damage-dice variety, that's my hope. Also if WoTC learned the difference between Arming Swords ("Long Swords") and Long Swords ("Bastard Swords"), that would be nice.

[AgentPaper]

There's a difference between:

"We know this works and we have no good reasons to change it, so let's keep it."

and:

"We know this doesn't work, and we have tons of good reasons to change it, but we're going to keep it anyway because we're afraid of taking risks."

And there's also a difference between that and:

"Lots of people like it but some don't on a fundamental level, and we don't see how we could make the latter like it without making the first group hate it, so let's keep it."

[Zeful]

Seconded.

In 3.5, the only valuable weapons were ones with special abilities tied to them; the rest were just table-clutter.

Lances and Long-Spears could double your damage under specific circumstances. Spiked Chains were reach Tripping weapons which could attack adjacent squares. Daggers gave a decent Sleight of Hand bonus, were Finesse weapons, and had a ton of rogue-related feats tied to them. Greatswords... did an extra 1d6 damage.

More abilities tied to weapons and less damage-dice variety, that's my hope. Also if WoTC learned the difference between Arming Swords ("Long Swords") and Long Swords ("Bastard Swords"), that would be nice.

That's kinda why I made the suggestion. That and you could homebrew fighting styles that develop in differing parts of the setting. Bandits hailing from a extraplanar desert city should fight with a completely different style than a warrior from elven lands. By treating them like spells (in respect to learning at least) you don't have to worry about characters wasting feats to learn a new style, they just need to spend some time, and some money for training materials/weapons, and bam, new style. Weapons would be more homogenized of course, but a warrior would no longer be defined by his weapon, which is in my opinion worth such homogenization.

[noparlpf]

More abilities tied to weapons and less damage-dice variety, that's my hope. Also if WoTC learned the difference between Arming Swords ("Long Swords") and Long Swords ("Bastard Swords"), that would be nice.

The former: I houseruled that.
The latter: I also have that wish.

[Craft (Cheese)]

And there's also a difference between that and:

"Lots of people like it but some don't on a fundamental level, and we don't see how we could make the latter like it without making the first group hate it, so let's keep it."

The problem is people who loved the Forgotten Realms pretty much universally hated the spellplague. I've not once ever seen a pre-4E Realms fan who actually likes the 4E incarnation of the setting. (I have, however, seen people who didn't like/know about FR before who liked the 4E version better. They are, however, a minority.)

Somehow I doubt the Sundering will be any better received.

*awaits flood of gamers who loved the 4E FR who also loved pre-4E FR just to prove me wrong*

[Oracle_Hunter]

The problem is people who loved the Forgotten Realms pretty much universally hated the spellplague. I've not once ever seen a pre-4E Realms fan who actually likes the 4E incarnation of the setting. (I have, however, seen people who didn't like/know about FR before who liked the 4E version better. They are, however, a minority.)

Somehow I doubt the Sundering will be any better received.

People who like an existing Universe don't like it when it is reworked?

Stop the presses!

[Knaight]

Also if WoTC learned the difference between Arming Swords ("Long Swords") and Long Swords ("Bastard Swords"), that would be nice.

I'd rather WotC picked up some knowledge on weights. As of now, they have hammers that weigh twice as much as many sledgehammers intended for combat, and one ten pound one handed weapon. If they can get weapon weights at least somewhat in line with reality (and armor weights while they are at it) a few misnomers wouldn't be so bad.

[Craft (Cheese)]

People who like an existing Universe don't like it when it is reworked?

Stop the presses!

That's exactly why I don't think the argument that they should do it to keep the fans happy holds, because it doesn't really accomplish this.

Personally, I'd rather see them not port Eberron at all than see them port Eberron with all the parts of the setting that I like horribly mutilated such as:

- A rift into Xoriat appears, destroying the magic powering all of the House Cannith/Lyrandar/Orien technology, including the Warforged. Sharn is sucked through the rift and the economy of Khorvaire is destroyed in the process, leaving the opulent towns and cities to revert to medieval peasant villages made of mud.

- A sudden civil war rapidly depopulates Argonessen, destroying the dragon civilization and leaving only the independent rogue dragons (who just find caves and sit on piles of treasure in them all day, occasionally kidnapping a princess to eat) surviving.

- The gods of the Sovereign Host appear, proving themselves real and all other religions false. The Silver Flame becomes a sub-organization of the church of the sovereign host, and all other religions disperse (except the cults of the dragon below, obviously).

- A strange magical curse (uncurable) comes from Xoriat and turns all the races except Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, and Halflings into mindless always-chaotic-evil mass-murderers.

- The Sovereign Host destroys Dolurrh and creates numerous new afterlife planes where souls are sorted and punished/rewarded according to their alignment.

- The Day of Mourning is revealed to be an elaborate practical joke: All the people who were killed were actually just hiding out in some demiplane, because they thought watching everyone freak out because an entire nation just disappeared within a day would be friggin hilarious. They all come back, the living spells disperse, and Cyre is rebuilt.

[Oracle_Hunter]

That's exactly why I don't think the argument that they should do it to keep the fans happy holds, because it doesn't really accomplish this.

It keeps the fans happy inasmuch as it permits the mechanical changes to be mirrored by fluff. Otherwise people would need to think up their own ways to explain changes from previous editions to new ones.

And yes, they need to have some sort of cataclysm to change the world -- things don't just change without some sort of impetus and reworking an entire mechanical system is sufficiently large that it needs some huge upheaval.

That said, I agree that WotC does a particularly poor job of trying to update settings.

[Starbuck_II]

- The Day of Mourning is revealed to be an elaborate practical joke: All the people who were killed were actually just hiding out in some demiplane, because they thought watching everyone freak out because an entire nation just disappeared within a day would be friggin hilarious. They all come back, the living spells disperse, and Cyre is rebuilt.

Some how I think this sounds awesome.
Can we seriously get this?

Someone mentioned Swordmage, why do we not have a 3.5/
Next port of this yet? Look at at wills: he can cast spells to grant flaming to sword, etc.
This would be its class features. Encounters/dailys would be spells.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Someone mentioned Swordmage, why do we not have a 3.5/
Next port of this yet? Look at at wills: he can cast spells to grant flaming to sword, etc.
This would be its class features. Encounters/dailys would be spells.

It's called the Duskblade.

Okay, so not exactly the same, but still very similar in concept.

[TheOOB]

As for weapons and special abilities, would it make more sense to give the character special attacks instead of the weapon? That way if the GM wants to give the party, say a really cool axe, he can expect the party will use it instead of ignoring it because you build your character around a glaive or what not.

[Zeful]

As for weapons and special abilities, would it make more sense to give the character special attacks instead of the weapon? That way if the GM wants to give the party, say a really cool axe, he can expect the party will use it instead of ignoring it because you build your character around a glaive or what not.

Well my idea would be that you couldn't build a character around a glaive, but instead the fighting style that the glaive is a part of specifically for that reason. No military that I know of ever had anyone but conscripts trained with only one or two weapons, freebooters and mercenaries especially wouldn't. They might have a weapon they prefer, but they would know how to competently use quite a range of weapons with very different balances.

It wouldn't be the best system, complex nuances are still being abstracted out, but you gain the ability to more finely tune the capabilities of mundane PCs, as well as make more generalist characters like Garret Jax from The Wishsong of Shannara without having them suffer for that competence, and remove feat taxes for fighters.

[kyoryu]

Well my idea would be that you couldn't build a character around a glaive, but instead the fighting style that the glaive is a part of specifically for that reason. No military that I know of ever had anyone but conscripts trained with only one or two weapons, freebooters and mercenaries especially wouldn't. They might have a weapon they prefer, but they would know how to competently use quite a range of weapons with very different balances.

This is actually one of my issues with 4e (and to a certain extent 3e) - the idea that a fighter must be heavily focused on a single fighting style. In my mind, "the right tool for the right job" should be one of the skills that a fighter player should have, much like a wizard preparing his spell list.

[Draz74]

When's the last time you had trouble walking on a flat surface with no distractions and no hurry?
I think most people can auto-succeed on that barring added difficulty. So why not other things? I can make a good paper crane out of a small sheet of paper in a minute or so, every time.

What, you never stub your toe while walking around your dwellingplace in a routine situation?

Also, Take 10 Rules (or similar) are a great way of modeling "auto-success, but only when not distracted or hurrying."

This is actually one of my issues with 4e (and to a certain extent 3e) - the idea that a fighter must be heavily focused on a single fighting style. In my mind, "the right tool for the right job" should be one of the skills that a fighter player should have, much like a wizard preparing his spell list.

Interesting thought. So, to build off of current 5e models ... something like a fighter who can switch Fighting Styles between encounters? (And maybe at higher levels, can switch between Fighting Styles by spending an Action?)

[kyoryu]

Interesting thought. So, to build off of current 5e models ... something like a fighter who can switch Fighting Styles between encounters? (And maybe at higher levels, can switch between Fighting Styles by spending an Action?)

Possibly. I'd probably also attach a lot of abilities to weapons, rather than to the fighter.

[obryn]

This is actually one of my issues with 4e (and to a certain extent 3e) - the idea that a fighter must be heavily focused on a single fighting style. In my mind, "the right tool for the right job" should be one of the skills that a fighter player should have, much like a wizard preparing his spell list.

I agree; I think in both editions, it's something of a problem. I like the idea of a warrior who's still fully effective when switching between weapons. Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and so on ... they actively discourage such a style to such an extent that there's no benefit to it.

(4e got partway there with the Master of Arms feat. However, the legion of other feats which require a certain weapon type work against it.)

-O

[kyoryu]

I agree; I think in both editions, it's something of a problem. I like the idea of a warrior who's still fully effective when switching between weapons. Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and so on ... they actively discourage such a style to such an extent that there's no benefit to it.

(4e got partway there with the Master of Arms feat. However, the legion of other feats which require a certain weapon type work against it.)

Not just weapon types, but even fighting styles. Switching from sword to axe may be suboptimal - but switching from two-handed weapon to sword'n'board (or worse, dual-wielding) will probably nuke half of your powers.

And sure, some level of specialization is fine, the question is, what percentage of "optimal" are you working at when not using what you're specialized in? 90%? 80%? 50%?