Page 29 of 50 FirstFirst ... 4192021222324252627282930313233343536373839 ... LastLast
Results 841 to 870 of 1492
  1. - Top - End - #841
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

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

    Fluff can influence player choices, at least new and novice players. I remember way back when 3.0 was still new a player in my group went into the Dungeon Delver prestige class only because he liked the fluff. He never regretted* the choice or anything, but for later campaigns as he gained more playing experience he made more informed choices.

    Fluff helps to bring flavor to the game mechanics. Let us hope all the game mechanics of 5E is of merit*.

    *Not to mean there was anything wrong with Dungeon Delver.
    Last edited by navar100; 2012-09-08 at 01:59 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #842
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Craft (Cheese)'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011

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

    WotC fluff has two main problems.

    1. Everything is assumed to coexist with everything else. This not only leads to major style clashes and conceptual overlap but also some attempts at trying way, way, way too hard to fix this overlap with some very contrived bull****. What exactly is the difference between a Fighter and a Warblade, anyway? Do we really need sorcerers AND wizards AND warlocks AND wu jens AND warmages AND beguilers AND dread necromancers? WotC is just way too afraid to say "Okay, this thing is meant to replace this other thing, if you so desire. Try to use them both in the same world at your own peril."

    2. Even with this assumed coexistence, they never actually take out the time to work out what relationship each class/race/monster has with both the world as a whole and with each other, except for maybe a few generic throwaway lines like "Sorcerers and Wizards hate each other." Yes, the reason for this is they don't want to restrict what DMs can do with their own worldbuilding efforts but they already restrict worldbuilding plenty with what fluff they do provide. It's just the worst of both worlds: There's so little defined you have to do almost all the work yourself, yet there's just enough defined that you'll constantly be fighting against your players' preconceptions.

    Not to mention when they actually *do* try to provide backstories and interrelationships to things the ideas are just flat-out dumb. Tomb of Battle is easily the best example of this; As much as I like ToB from a mechanical standpoint the backstory for how the schools exist is so stupid.

  3. - Top - End - #843
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

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

    . Even with this assumed coexistence, they never actually take out the time to work out what relationship each class/race/monster has with both the world as a whole and with each other, except for maybe a few generic throwaway lines like "Sorcerers and Wizards hate each other." Yes, the reason for this is they don't want to restrict what DMs can do with their own worldbuilding efforts but they already restrict worldbuilding plenty with what fluff they do provide. It's just the worst of both worlds: There's so little defined you have to do almost all the work yourself, yet there's just enough defined that you'll constantly be fighting against your players' preconceptions.
    It seems to me that when they do provide slightly more extensive fluff, the wailing and gnashing of teeth concerning the restrictiveness of said fluff begins. See some of the reaction to the little fluff they put in the playtest for sorcerers vs warlocks vs wizards.

  4. - Top - End - #844
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Flickerdart's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Gender
    Male

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

    The issue with standard fluff is every other thing is "powerful" or "feared" or something like that, and everything has a quote along the lines of "oh I wouldn't want to make this guy angry" but 90% of the stuff is actually hideously weak and can't accomplish what the fluff says it should be able to.
    Quote Originally Posted by JaronK View Post
    Frankly, a Wizard can suck even more than a Fighter could ever dream of sucking. A Fighter can stab himself to death, but only a Wizard could Plane Shift to some horrible far realm to be tortured for an eternity of insanity.


  5. - Top - End - #845
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Craft (Cheese)'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Flickerdart View Post
    The issue with standard fluff is every other thing is "powerful" or "feared" or something like that, and everything has a quote along the lines of "oh I wouldn't want to make this guy angry" but 90% of the stuff is actually hideously weak and can't accomplish what the fluff says it should be able to.
    Reading WotC's material about the abyss is friggin comical: Listen guys, when you use "Even Demon Lords fear X", where X is every other thing that gets mentioned, you stop making the abyss seem threatening and just start making demon lords look like absolute whimps.

  6. - Top - End - #846
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2011

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

    Alignment is a problem. The fantasy kitchen sink can be a problem. I play E6 to avoid things happening at higher levels that I don't care for. Wizards becoming demigods. Magic solving every problem. Things that wreck my fluff. I ignore tons of fluff that seems dumb and I don't have any problem with someone refluffing something as long as the RAW is unchanged.

    But if we both didn't care for the core fluff, the warriors and wizards running around a fantasy setting trying to be heroes (mostly), then we wouldn't be here on this forum debating the quality of the details. We wouldn't care.

  7. - Top - End - #847
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    TheOOB's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by noparlpf View Post
    Even so, the main issue I've always had with the Paladin (in 3.X anyway) is that in the metagame alignment is subjective. So when you and your DM discover you have differing opinions on whether something is lawful or chaotic or neutral you run into issues.
    Actually, it's not really subjective, especially not good and evil, which is the only one that's relevant for the paladin code. While a Paladin must be lawful, they can perform chaotic acts if need be. Remember that as a general rule, determining whether a specific action is a certain alignment is usually pointless, alignments represent general trends of a character.

    Simplified, here are what D&D style good and evil are. Note that for these definitions an "innocent" is someone for whom you have no person relationship with who, to your knowledge, has done no great wrong, and to "harm" is to cause significant injury or hardship.

    A "Good" person is willing to take significant risks or make significant personal sacrifices to help an innocent, and they will not harm an innocent to advance their goals.

    A "Neutral" person is unwilling to harm an innocent to advance their goals, but they are also unwilling take significant risks or make significant personal sacrifices to help an innocent.

    An "Evil" person is willing to harm an innocent to advance their goals.

    The Law-Chaos axis is a little more ambiguous, but here is a very general interpretation.

    A "Lawful" person typically evaluates their actions based on their long term and far reaching consequences. They are unlikely to betray their own codes of conduct or any rules they live by, and tend to prefer to adhere to tradition and the status quo. The typically see the means as justifying the ends.

    A "Neutral" person is likely to look at the long term and far reaching consequences of their actions, but they weigh them equally with the immediate consequences. They typically follow a code of conduct or set of rules, but understand that occasionally they need to be more flexible. The respect tradition and the status quo, but are not bound to it. The balance the means and the ends of an action.

    A "Chaotic" person typically cares primarily about the immediate consequences of their actions, and prefers to deal with future problems as they come up. They are unlikely to follow a code of conduct or set of rules, and if they do they see it as guidelines at best. They have little to no respect for tradition or the status quo, and embrace change. The typically see the ends of an action justifying the means.

    A Paladin is lawful good in large part because they WILL NOT perform an evil action even if it has good ends. For them, the cosmic weight of performing an evil act is greater than any possible consequences not performing it could have. I like that the paladin code is tough, though I have some problems with the specifics(no association with evil is too broad and hard to define for one).

    Also, because I'm sure it will come up. Killing someone or something is never a good act, it is, at best neutral. Risking your life to protect someone or something can be good, the the actually act of killing is not.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  8. - Top - End - #848
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Flickerdart View Post
    The issue with standard fluff is every other thing is "powerful" or "feared" or something like that, and everything has a quote along the lines of "oh I wouldn't want to make this guy angry" but 90% of the stuff is actually hideously weak and can't accomplish what the fluff says it should be able to.
    I agree. It's problematic whenever fluff that says something is powerful, when the crunch says that it's not. This issue applies to many powers and rituals in 4E.
    Crystal Shard Studios - classy freeware games!

    Utility Belt wizard (Batman 4E-style) * Chocolate!

  9. - Top - End - #849
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    shadow_archmagi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Earth... sort of.
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    I agree. It's problematic whenever fluff that says something is powerful, when the crunch says that it's not. This issue applies to many powers and rituals in 4E.
    To be fair, the general tone of everything advertising itself is an important part of the general tone of fantasy writing.

    Would you really take Mordakienens' Kinda Crappy Hand?
    Avatar by K penguin. Sash by Damned1rishman.
    MOVIE NIGHTS AND LETS PLAYS LIVESTREAMED

  10. - Top - End - #850
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    I agree. It's problematic whenever fluff that says something is powerful, when the crunch says that it's not. This issue applies to many powers and rituals in 4E.
    You've got to take in mind the fluff is probably written from the common, low level civilian's point of view. Sure a giant may be easily kited by medium-high level PCs, but if you're mister lv1 expert/warrior, and only have other lv 1 experts/warriors to defend your village, a giant is something you most definetely don't want to mess up with.

  11. - Top - End - #851
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    *snip*
    Personally I've thought about different ramifications of Lawful and Chaotic so much that different points started matching up and the whole thing lost meaning to me. (I really need to take shorter showers.)
    But the reason I mentioned it in the first place is that:
    Spoiler
    Show
    The first time I played a Paladin, the DM ruled that when the party decided to work against the local government (my Paladin's former employers) when we discovered they were personally directing kidnapping of and experimentation on small children, and that they were trying to revive some kind of god of death and pain, he had to multiclass to Paladin of Freedom to keep some of his powers. I disagreed that was enough to make him lose his powers, because he wasn't committing an evil act, but the line about "respecting legitimate authority" was probably the bit he was reading.

    Fluff: Paladins must be lawful good, and they lose their divine powers if they deviate from that alignment. (Which implies that if you change from Lawful you also fall, which the class doesn't say anything about later.)
    Class mechanics: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

    And so the whole Law-Chaos thing was thrown into disarray in my mind because apparently some see refusing to sway from one's beliefs as counting as chaotic if it means rebelling against one's leaders.
    Also, the descriptions of Law and Chaos in the 3.X PHB (that's the one I remember best) are kind of vague and in places are not mutually exclusive. There's no reason somebody with no respect for authority should have to be unreliable or dishonorable. There's no reason somebody with a strict personal code has to be trustworthy or obey authority.

    Further, the alignment scale in general is a little too black-and-white for me. I saw a simple fix that I like the idea of: Add "Exalted", "Vile", "Anarchic", and "Axiomatic", and the variations that come with them, and you get a still-fairly-simple scale that allows for more variation. A Paladin could be Exalted-Lawful and clearly place more emphasis on Good than on Law, or could be Axiomatic-Good and clearly place more emphasis on Law than on Good.
    Jude P.

    Playing Pokémon X
    3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
    4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

  12. - Top - End - #852
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

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

    Quote Originally Posted by deuterio12 View Post
    You've got to take in mind the fluff is probably written from the common, low level civilian's point of view.
    Why would it be? Most editions don't even have first-level experts. If something is called a "mountain leveling strike" then it had darn well better be able to level mountains. Otherwise don't call it that. Exalted does this pretty well, overall.
    Crystal Shard Studios - classy freeware games!

    Utility Belt wizard (Batman 4E-style) * Chocolate!

  13. - Top - End - #853
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    Why would it be? Most editions don't even have first-level experts.
    City design rules from the DMG. Most of the population is indeed 1st level mooks. In 1e D&D orc/goblin armies composed mostly of lv1 enemies were also expected ecounters as you went up in levels.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    If something is called a "mountain leveling strike" then it had darn well better be able to level mountains. Otherwise don't call it that. Exalted does this pretty well, overall.
    You mean the game where the starting story has a "god" that can't even deal with street thugs? I would say that's a lot more misnaming that anything D&D has.

    There's also "Invincible Fury of the Dawn" that doesn't make you invincible or actually gives any defensive boost. Or Bolts of Solar Fire that can't actually set something on fire. Or yet "there is no wind" that doesn't actually have anything to do with wind besides a very specific situation.
    Last edited by deuterio12; 2012-09-09 at 09:35 AM.

  14. - Top - End - #854
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    TheOOB's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by noparlpf View Post
    Personally I've thought about different ramifications of Lawful and Chaotic so much that different points started matching up and the whole thing lost meaning to me. (I really need to take shorter showers.)
    But the reason I mentioned it in the first place is that:
    Spoiler
    Show
    The first time I played a Paladin, the DM ruled that when the party decided to work against the local government (my Paladin's former employers) when we discovered they were personally directing kidnapping of and experimentation on small children, and that they were trying to revive some kind of god of death and pain, he had to multiclass to Paladin of Freedom to keep some of his powers. I disagreed that was enough to make him lose his powers, because he wasn't committing an evil act, but the line about "respecting legitimate authority" was probably the bit he was reading.

    Fluff: Paladins must be lawful good, and they lose their divine powers if they deviate from that alignment. (Which implies that if you change from Lawful you also fall, which the class doesn't say anything about later.)
    Class mechanics: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

    And so the whole Law-Chaos thing was thrown into disarray in my mind because apparently some see refusing to sway from one's beliefs as counting as chaotic if it means rebelling against one's leaders.
    Also, the descriptions of Law and Chaos in the 3.X PHB (that's the one I remember best) are kind of vague and in places are not mutually exclusive. There's no reason somebody with no respect for authority should have to be unreliable or dishonorable. There's no reason somebody with a strict personal code has to be trustworthy or obey authority.

    Further, the alignment scale in general is a little too black-and-white for me. I saw a simple fix that I like the idea of: Add "Exalted", "Vile", "Anarchic", and "Axiomatic", and the variations that come with them, and you get a still-fairly-simple scale that allows for more variation. A Paladin could be Exalted-Lawful and clearly place more emphasis on Good than on Law, or could be Axiomatic-Good and clearly place more emphasis on Law than on Good.
    I'm not 100% percent buddy buddy with the alignment system, but it's not horrible. You can't let a bad experience with it ruin it forever. If your DM changed your alignment for opposing a clearly evil government, they shouldn't be allowed to DM paladins. That was a horrible decision on their part. Under normal situations, if a Paladin wants change with legitimate authority, I'd say they have to work within the system as best they can, but in that case the government was clearly evil and needs to be put down.

    An important thing of note is that Lawful doesn't mean "follows the law wherever they are" (though a lawful character is more likely to follow and obey a law they don't like), it means that whatever laws or codes they do choose to follow the follow to the letter. Paladins are purposed to destroy evil, and they will tolerate no evil in their quest to do so. While it is true being a paladin will limit your options in taking down evil McGovernment(kidnapping, terrorism, torture, ect are all a no go), they can still fight it. As long as they stick to the code, fighting evil and doing no evil themselves, they are very lawful. Heck, a paladin would be super good at raising public support or getting other countries to help. Their do no evil approach is great for winning the common mans favor.

    Once gain, keep in mind that an alignment is a general trend of how a character acts, and unless a characters alignment was wrongly stated in the first place, it should be very rare for a change in the law-chaos axis to happen.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  15. - Top - End - #855
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

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

    Quote Originally Posted by deuterio12 View Post
    You mean the game where the starting story has a "god" that can't even deal with street thugs?
    I said "well, overall", not "flawless".

    Anyway, yes, I find it a problem if any high-level spell/maneuver/whatever has a terrifying description because a one-hit-die peasant or orc may find it terrifying, even though a level-appropriate opponent would find it trivial. It's silly to describe high-level spells the way a peasant would view them, because peasants aren't relevant (or present) when you would use it.

    (also, nowhere in the books have I read that the power descriptions are "as viewed by a first-level nobody, so I suspect you made that up)
    Crystal Shard Studios - classy freeware games!

    Utility Belt wizard (Batman 4E-style) * Chocolate!

  16. - Top - End - #856
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by deuterio12 View Post
    You mean the game where the starting story has a "god" that can't even deal with street thugs? I would say that's a lot more misnaming that anything D&D has.
    It's a versatile word, this isn't a problem. "Mountain Leveling Strike" or similar is actually worse. We know what a mountain is, we understand what leveling is, and we understand what a strike is. When even the smallest mountains aren't leveled, it's more of a misnomer than what is listed. I don't consider this a problem, as hyperbolic description of marginally better things is pretty much a constant throughout human history, as is power creep in the retelling of stories.
    Fudge Assistant in the Playground.

  17. - Top - End - #857
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    Why would it be? Most editions don't even have first-level experts. If something is called a "mountain leveling strike" then it had darn well better be able to level mountains. Otherwise don't call it that. Exalted does this pretty well, overall.
    Ehh, I'm not sure I agree. Some level of hyperbole is acceptable, after all Plow Guard has nothing to do with using plows as defensive equipment and the Murder Stroke doesn't automatically murder anything.

    However it would be nice if these titles did give a reasonable look at what the attack was going to do. If something is called the Mountain Leveling Strike it doesn't have to actually level a mountain, but with a name like that I would expect it to be fairly powerful and likely to be good at breaking things.

    Take the 3.5 Doom spell for instance. With a name like that the actual spell is incredibly lackluster.

    Then again, the Devs can just plain make a mistake. Sure, hopefully everything is useful but something will inevitably slip through the cracks. Maybe the spell seemed awesome when they made it but ended up being discarded by optimizers.

  18. - Top - End - #858
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dienekes View Post
    However it would be nice if these titles did give a reasonable look at what the attack was going to do. If something is called the Mountain Leveling Strike it doesn't have to actually level a mountain, but with a name like that I would expect it to be fairly powerful and likely to be good at breaking things.

    Take the 3.5 Doom spell for instance. With a name like that the actual spell is incredibly lackluster.
    To clarify: You want the connotations to line up fairly well, even while the denotations don't do so, correct? For instance, would Mountain Leveling Strike be an inappropriate name for something that involved a whole bunch of small strikes even if it were properly powerful, as the denotation is clearly of one very powerful strike?

    If this is your position, we are in agreement.
    Fudge Assistant in the Playground.

  19. - Top - End - #859
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2011

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

    I think you're asking for fluff from the same kind of perspective of the class handbooks. Stuff that's written by people who know what they're talking about for a purpose other than impressing you. When the wizard handbook talks about being godly its not to impress you. Its to give you an idea of what a properly played wizard can do. The fighter handbook then has an apologetic tone to it. Yeah the fighter isn't good, but with optimization you can be as competent as you probably need to be.

    The manufactured fluff isn't trying to describe a reality to you. Its trying to make you feel excited about the content. It doesn't realize that its blowing hot air. A monster is only as impressive as its numbers compared to its CR allow it to be.
    Last edited by MukkTB; 2012-09-10 at 05:30 AM.

  20. - Top - End - #860
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    I said "well, overall", not "flawless".

    Anyway, yes, I find it a problem if any high-level spell/maneuver/whatever has a terrifying description because a one-hit-die peasant or orc may find it terrifying, even though a level-appropriate opponent would find it trivial. It's silly to describe high-level spells the way a peasant would view them, because peasants aren't relevant (or present) when you would use it.

    (also, nowhere in the books have I read that the power descriptions are "as viewed by a first-level nobody, so I suspect you made that up)
    Most books and stories are written for the big masses of nobodies. In particular when the manuals/guides are suposed to be an introduction of things you've never seen. And PCs do start at lv 1. So if you hear there's a frost giant on the cave near town, you stay clear of that area until you've gained a good bunch of levels, or aproach with a white flag.

    Also peasants may be irrelevant in the sense they aren't a threat to anybody, but that doesn't mean they aren't present. Or do the monsters in your campaigns never attack villages or take hostages?

    This is, if you're some important guy with body armor and a squad of professional muscled bodyguards you probably don't have any problem walking trough dangerous city zones at night. That doesn't stop the local guides/manuals of warning you it is a dangerous zone, because the guides/manuals were written for the general population, that is indeed composed of nobodies whitout bodyarmor or bodyguards.

  21. - Top - End - #861
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2011

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

    Leveling kind of breaks down here. When you compare the capabilities of a lvl 1 to a lvl 10 its hard to think of them as the same species.

    But lets assume that D&D fluff comes from found documents. The books were written in the D&D world by authors who lived in the D&D world. Then I can think of several intended audiences. A monster manual could have been written with the peasants in mind. Kind of a survival guide. Every monster would be seen as dangerous. An accounting of an adventure intended for other adventurers would have a different perspective. 'Watch out for this... Be careful about that... This is an opportunity...' A magical manual might have a much drier feel where facts are presented without trying to spin them one way or another. "Bog demons range from 35 ti 38 feet long."

    Give me a moment. I'm going to go read a D&D book as if it was a found document. I'll come back with my conclusions.

  22. - Top - End - #862
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Dec 2009

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    It's a versatile word, this isn't a problem. "Mountain Leveling Strike" or similar is actually worse. We know what a mountain is, we understand what leveling is, and we understand what a strike is. When even the smallest mountains aren't leveled, it's more of a misnomer than what is listed. I don't consider this a problem, as hyperbolic description of marginally better things is pretty much a constant throughout human history, as is power creep in the retelling of stories.
    Crane Style Kung Fu doesn't let you fly.
    Monkey Grasps the Peach does not involve monkeys or peaches.
    Hurricanramas don't flood coastal cities.
    Performing the Snakekiller on snakes is a bad idea.
    Cannonballs are not good for sinking ships larger than inflatable rafts.
    Right and Left Hooks are hard to catch fish with.
    Hundred Hand Slap is performed with 2 hands and rarely hits more than 4 times.

    The Trumpet of Death goes well with fish and salads.
    Potato Mashers are not good things to mash potatoes with.
    Warthogs can fly and kill tanks, but suck at finding mushrooms.

    etc.

    It fits real life naming conventions well enough, so I could definitely see some fantasy weaponmaster coming up with it; whether that was before or after seeing his wizard buddy cast Locate City Bomb is unclear.

  23. - Top - End - #863
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

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

    Quote Originally Posted by turbo164 View Post
    Right and Left Hooks are hard to catch fish with.
    Funny thing is, the exact same argument was made for fourth edition (which, in the preview, had numerous feats like "Purple Phoenix Power" that gave zero indication of what they actually did) and most people concluded that there is a clear difference between a name that's a real word with a meaning you might not know (e.g. "hook" or "lucubration") and a name that's completely meaningless (e.g. "viper strike").

    Anyway, a certain level of hyperbole is acceptable (e.g. a millipede does not actually have a thousand feet, it just has lots of them) but spells/maneuvers that really don't do what they advertise are problematic.

    For instance, consider a divination spell that fluffs "this spell lets you find exactly the item or landmark you're looking for, wherever it is", and that in reality lets you ask three yes/no questions about said item and that's it. This spell clearly doesn't do what's advertised, and that bothers certain people. I'm sure it doesn't bother certain other people, but if WOTC is really trying to appeal to as many as possible, they should clearly avoid this.
    Last edited by Kurald Galain; 2012-09-10 at 11:04 AM.
    Crystal Shard Studios - classy freeware games!

    Utility Belt wizard (Batman 4E-style) * Chocolate!

  24. - Top - End - #864
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Person_Man's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Gender
    Male

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

    Does anyone know of a good summary of D&D Next and the various rules issues that have cropped up in the play test? I'm too lazy to read through hundreds of forum posts.

  25. - Top - End - #865
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Oracle_Hunter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Person_Man View Post
    Does anyone know of a good summary of D&D Next and the various rules issues that have cropped up in the play test? I'm too lazy to read through hundreds of forum posts.
    Check the EN World link on the first post of this thread
    Lead Designer for Oracle Hunter Games
    Today a Blog, Tomorrow a Business!


    ~ Awesome Avatar by the phantastic Phase ~
    Spoiler
    Show

    Elflad

  26. - Top - End - #866
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by turbo164 View Post
    It fits real life naming conventions well enough, so I could definitely see some fantasy weaponmaster coming up with it; whether that was before or after seeing his wizard buddy cast Locate City Bomb is unclear.
    Did you not see the last sentence? "I don't consider this a problem, as hyperbolic description of marginally better things is pretty much a constant throughout human history, as is power creep in the retelling of stories." addresses exactly this, as does the connotation and denotation divide noted in my next post.
    Fudge Assistant in the Playground.

  27. - Top - End - #867
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

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

    Basically it is 3.5e with a few major differences:

    - BAB starts at +2 or +3, but after that increases very slowly.
    - Spell DCs ignore spell level and instead gain a class-level based bonus, which rises even slower than BAB.
    - There are no saving throw class bonuses. You just make ability checks and it can be all six abilities, depending on which situation you are in.
    - Skills have no ranks but are either trained or not trained. Trained skills have a +3 bonus.
    - Backgrounds give you three trained skills plus a background feature, which is often something RP-related like being treated as an ally in temples, among soldiers, and so on. Rogues have a second background which is either for Thief skills or for Thug skills.
    - There's only a handful of feats so far, but they seem to work exactly as in 3.5e.
    - Fighters have Expertise Dice, which are like Action Points they can use once per round to use maneuvers. I think they get a new maneuver every two levels which are things like deflecting a hit on yourself, deflecting a hit on an ally, getting a free 10 ft. move, or rolling the die for extra damage. At higher levels, they gain more dice and can perform more maneuvers each round, which are always in addition to moving and attacking.
    - Damage Reduction and Energy Resistance are always just half damage.
    - Monster stat blocks are really short, even shorter than in 2nd Edition, if you exclude the special abilities.
    Spriggan's Den - Thoughts on RPGs and some of my personal creations.
    Ancient Lands - PF/d20 Sword & Sorcery campaign setting

  28. - Top - End - #868
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    Basically it is 3.5e with a few major differences.
    The d20 system, that 3.x reinvented/popularized is a strong, versatile system. D20 modern proves as much, and for all of 3.5's problems, making use of that system wasn't one of them. If 5e continues using the d20 system (it clearly does), then there is going to be quite a bit of resemblance between the two systems.

  29. - Top - End - #869
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

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

    The big problem I have with all d20 games is the steep rise in power level as one gains access to the options one needs to make a character concept possible at 6th or 8th level.
    Which is the reason that got us E6.

    However, severely limiting BAB, removing saving throw bonuses, and skill ranks should make a real difference in that regard, which so far is what is really selling me 5th Edition.
    Out of the box E6, count me in!
    Spriggan's Den - Thoughts on RPGs and some of my personal creations.
    Ancient Lands - PF/d20 Sword & Sorcery campaign setting

  30. - Top - End - #870
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    However, severely limiting BAB, removing saving throw bonuses, and skill ranks should make a real difference in that regard, which so far is what is really selling me 5th Edition.
    Out of the box E6, count me in!
    There is the matter of how HP scales, but as long as HP is what is doing the main scaling large numbers of weak things should continue to be effective. It fits with the genre well enough.
    Fudge Assistant in the Playground.

Posting Permissions

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