New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 16 of 50 FirstFirst ... 6789101112131415161718192021222324252641 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 480 of 1486
  1. - Top - End - #451
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    A suggestion I made on the WotC forums:

    Rogues at level 6 gain Dirty Fighting (or whatever you want to call it), this ability makes it so anytime a rogue attacks someone with advantage, and both rolls hit, the result is treated as a critical strike.


    Basically this brings rogues up to a 50% crit chance when they have advantage. I ran the numbers, and it brings the rogue from just below 50% of the Fighter's average damage, to around 80% of the Fighter's damage (varying with how often you have advantage or a friend in melee. I assumed Advantage about 50%, with a friend in melee about 80%, which I considered pretty fair).

    This still doesn't really do anything about the fact that 5e's skill system is horrible, which means the rogue's main schtick is bad, but it brings the rogue's average damage closer up to par, while making it feel burstier and I think better fitting the rogue feel.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  2. - Top - End - #452
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Seerow View Post
    A suggestion I made on the WotC forums:

    Rogues at level 6 gain Dirty Fighting (or whatever you want to call it), this ability makes it so anytime a rogue attacks someone with advantage, and both rolls hit, the result is treated as a critical strike.


    Basically this brings rogues up to a 50% crit chance when they have advantage. I ran the numbers, and it brings the rogue from just below 50% of the Fighter's average damage, to around 80% of the Fighter's damage (varying with how often you have advantage or a friend in melee. I assumed Advantage about 50%, with a friend in melee about 80%, which I considered pretty fair).

    This still doesn't really do anything about the fact that 5e's skill system is horrible, which means the rogue's main schtick is bad, but it brings the rogue's average damage closer up to par, while making it feel burstier and I think better fitting the rogue feel.
    Given the fact that two turns is usually mandatory to get consistent advantage, the basic unreliability of needing advantage (which may not always be possible to exact, even with a turn devoted to it) and the lack of damage distribution flexibility, I feel the Rogue should get a small premium over the Fighter's 2 round total DPR.

  3. - Top - End - #453
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Surrealistik View Post
    Given the fact that two turns is usually mandatory to get consistent advantage, the basic unreliability of needing advantage (which may not always be possible to exact, even with a turn devoted to it) and the lack of damage distribution flexibility, I feel the Rogue should get a small premium over the Fighter's 2 round total DPR.
    Frankly, that's not going to happen. The best we can hope for is to see the Rogue close to the Fighter in terms of damage, I highly doubt we'll see the rogue beating the Fighter.

    However, players in general don't look at averages. They look at results. The rogue who regularly hits for 60-80 points of damage in a hit is going to seem really good, even if given an average over a few rounds, the Fighter is dealing more damage.

    I do agree with you about the unreliability of advantage and the action costs for getting it. My general feeling on that is Rogues (and Fighters, but thats separate) should get a lot more CS maneuvers, Rogues could get a bunch of random abilities that make it easier for them to gain advantage more reliably. I'd like things like setup strike (use an expertise die now to gain advantage next round), a reaction to an enemy attacking that lets them make a check to avoid the attack and become hidden, things like that. Just add more tools to their box that let them play to their strength (fighting dirty and gaining advantage one way or the other), and design around that.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  4. - Top - End - #454
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Averaged DPE (damage per encounter), or effective DPR (after factoring in set ups) _are_ results. I'm not sure why you feel that the Rogue, if specifically built for damage, will never see comparable/competitive damage outputs, especially given that the class' design isn't set in stone. I sincerely doubt that Merle wants to kill off the assassin archetype, which he certainly will if he insists on obviating the possibility that a damage focused Rogue can be competitive in combat with the Fighter. Besides that, the present incarnation of the rogue is _exceedingly_ unpopular thus far.

  5. - Top - End - #455
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Re: Combat vs. Non-combat

    The issue isn't necessarily that game-time is divided into combat and non-combat parcels, nor that abilities are grouped thusly, but rather that both combat and non-combat abilities are bought with the same character building resources, so becoming better at one means you don't keep up in the other. That creates the problems. If everyone could choose the combat Nice Things they get and choose some non-combat Nice Things, there wouldn't be the issue. The non-combat game is just not developed enough to make that really work. Also, if non-combat abilities are too useful in combat, then you're back to the same problem.
    *********
    Matters of Critical Insignificance - My Blog for all my favorite entertainment
    11/4: Announcing the Vow of Honor KS! (I contributed)

  6. - Top - End - #456
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Stubbazubba View Post
    Re: Combat vs. Non-combat

    The issue isn't necessarily that game-time is divided into combat and non-combat parcels, nor that abilities are grouped thusly, but rather that both combat and non-combat abilities are bought with the same character building resources, so becoming better at one means you don't keep up in the other. That creates the problems. If everyone could choose the combat Nice Things they get and choose some non-combat Nice Things, there wouldn't be the issue. The non-combat game is just not developed enough to make that really work. Also, if non-combat abilities are too useful in combat, then you're back to the same problem.
    That sounds nice on paper (in fact, I think I was arguing for it at some point a while back) but in practice it doesn't work out.

    The reason it doesn't work out is that the line between combat and non-combat is not so easily drawn. Unless you make your abilities very bland and straightforwards, there's going to be overlap. And if there's overlap, then you still need to choose between combat and non-combat abilities. For example, if you want to be great in combat, then you'll pick all the non-combat feats that help you out in combat. If you want to be great at non-combat things, then you're sacrificing the combat power of those combat non-combat feats, and thus sacrificing combat power.

    At any rate, I don't think it's actually a problem for combat and non-combat abilities to use the same character resources. If there is any issue there, it's simply that non-combat abilities are not strong enough. In 3.5, for example, if you wanted non-combat feats you'd basically be stuck with skill training. A situational +2 bonus is very weak, so even if you were really focused on non-combat stuff, you'd still be better off with a combat feat, since it would be useful every time you went into battle.

    The obvious solution is to make non-combat feats and abilities much more powerful, versatile, and interesting. Those who want to focus on combat will of course still take the combat-oriented feats, but if you want to have a character who excels at one or more skills, then you should be able to do that with your feats.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  7. - Top - End - #457
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    The most important thing, then, is to make sure that Skills are an equally legitimate method of overcoming challenges. You need to be able to use Skills to rescue the Princess, retrieve the treasure, stop the warlock's evil plot, etc. That multiples the amount of prep work the DM has to be ready for by a lot (will they approach it using stealth, acrobatics, engineering, diplomacy, or combat?). In the end, if combat is the only reliable meaningful method of task resolution, then no amount of powerful skill feats will make it a good choice.
    *********
    Matters of Critical Insignificance - My Blog for all my favorite entertainment
    11/4: Announcing the Vow of Honor KS! (I contributed)

  8. - Top - End - #458
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    I would say that is adventure design and entirely in the hand of the DM.
    We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.

    Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying

  9. - Top - End - #459
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    What if, along with a "Monster Manual", there was also a "Adventure Manual", which had hundreds of different ready-to-go obstacles to put in the player's path, each balanced to give a good challenge to many different skills, so that the DM could browse through, find something that would challenge the players, and plop it into his campaign as needed?

    This would relieve the pressure on the DM to come up with all his skill challenges himself, just like he doesn't come up with all of his monsters himself, and would allow the players to more readily expect what they would face. And of course, the DM would be encouraged to tweak, fluff, and re-fluff the encounters, or use them as inspiration and a reference for making his own challenges,
    Last edited by AgentPaper; 2012-11-05 at 02:46 PM.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  10. - Top - End - #460
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Excession's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    What if, along with a "Monster Manual", there was also a "Adventure Manual", which had hundreds of different ready-to-go obstacles to put in the player's path, each balanced to give a good challenge to many different skills, so that the DM could browse through, find something that would challenge the players, and plop it into his campaign as needed?

    This would relieve the pressure on the DM to come up with all his skill challenges himself, just like he doesn't come up with all of his monsters himself, and would allow the players to more readily expect what they would face. And of course, the DM would be encouraged to tweak, fluff, and re-fluff the encounters, or use them as inspiration and a reference for making his own challenges,
    I like that idea.

    In other news, this weeks Legends & Lore is about high level play.

  11. - Top - End - #461
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    When the new packet first came out, I was highly skeptical about how few spell slots the wizards and clerics were getting. But now that Mearles has explained his motives I can kinda accept it. Each primary caster class gets one new spell slot each level instead of two, and this reduces the amount of complexity that those classes develop over time, making high-level characters less work.

    I'm also curious about the Legacy module. I'd like to give something like that a try, see how it works out.

  12. - Top - End - #462
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    The changes to casters are exactly the opposite of what I wanted to see. For years people have been talking about how casters get plenty of options (multiple spells per level on top of class features) while martial types are one-trick ponies with constrained builds and need more versatility. For weeks we've been talking about how the maneuvers fighters (and now rogues) get are nowhere near an entire level's worth of class features and they're too rigidly packaged by default. And the WotC solution to this problem is to...take the versatility away from the casters and leave the blah noncasters alone?

    What really needs to happen is more customizability and more options, not less and fewer. The "hard core" players who want to tweak their characters and who can handle a ton of options are just fine with the complexity of high levels, and likely play at those levels for precisely that reason. The high number of epic level, gestalt, all-sources, high wealth, etc. PbP recruitment threads on this forum is ample evidence for that. The "casual" players who WotC thinks can't handle more than a dozen options at 20th level likely aren't the type to start the game off at the mid-high levels anyway, and if they do it's because they want to try something different and get out of their comfort zone.

    And don't get me started on the "high levels are basically the same as low levels" comment. No they're not, and the (mis)understanding that they're just the same low-level stuff repackaged with bigger pluses is exactly why WotC can't write high-level adventures and material to save their collective life!

    This is just repeating the same mistakes over and over--if the people who don't like 4e who you're trying to win over to 5e say they don't like classes having the same power structure with not enough options (a bunch of frontloaded class features and then one thing per level therafter) and don't like the "bonus treadmill" (attack bonus and AC scale in lockstep), don't give every 5e class the same power structure with not enough options and put the fighter on the bonus treadmill! This shouldn't be rocket science!
    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!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  13. - Top - End - #463
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    And don't get me started on the "high levels are basically the same as low levels" comment.
    Yeah, that's really bad. That just means you're cutting off a number of playstyles again.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

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

  14. - Top - End - #464
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    What if, along with a "Monster Manual", there was also a "Adventure Manual", which had hundreds of different ready-to-go obstacles to put in the player's path, each balanced to give a good challenge to many different skills, so that the DM could browse through, find something that would challenge the players, and plop it into his campaign as needed?

    This would relieve the pressure on the DM to come up with all his skill challenges himself, just like he doesn't come up with all of his monsters himself, and would allow the players to more readily expect what they would face. And of course, the DM would be encouraged to tweak, fluff, and re-fluff the encounters, or use them as inspiration and a reference for making his own challenges,
    That sounds fantastic. I'd really love for them to do that.

  15. - Top - End - #465
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    I still think that the answer is to power down casters by decreasing the general power of their myriad options, not by cutting down the number of options they have.
    As for mundanes, I think they're on the right track with making more interesting non-magical maneuvers (or martial feats, or whatever they want to call them, I don't care), and giving characters access to more of them, but unfortunately they understood the "good start, but keep going" response to the early playtests as "perfect, now stop here".
    Jude P.

  16. - Top - End - #466
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    At one point in the process of designing D&D Next, we took a long, hard look at capping the game at 10th level. Most people don't play at high levels.
    It's been said before, but I think it needs to be said again: WotC puts no effort into high-level play because "Nobody likes high-level play." But the reason nobody likes high-level play is because WotC puts no effort into it!

    And, yeah, I have to agree with the general consensus that skipping around the problem by making high levels identical to low levels is the exact opposite of what should be happening.

    Quote Originally Posted by noparlpf View Post
    As for mundanes, I think they're on the right track with making more interesting non-magical maneuvers (or martial feats, or whatever they want to call them, I don't care), and giving characters access to more of them, but unfortunately they understood the "good start, but keep going" response to the early playtests as "perfect, now stop here".
    I suspect the reason for this is they've gotten themselves caught in a local minima: They're scared to death to make any big changes to the maneuver system because the fans might get angry with the new direction. It's just what happens when you go into game design without a vision, just tossing mechanics at playtesters and keeping what sticks.
    Last edited by Craft (Cheese); 2012-11-05 at 06:24 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #467
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese) View Post
    It's been said before, but I think it needs to be said again: WotC puts no effort into high-level play because "Nobody likes high-level play." But the reason nobody likes high-level play is because WotC puts no effort into it!

    And, yeah, I have to agree with the general consensus that skipping around the problem by making high levels identical to low levels is the exact opposite of what should be happening.
    I think "nobody" means "nobody on our design team". Also your point about high-level play being really poorly designed being a turn-off for some people.

    I suspect the reason for this is they've gotten themselves caught in a local minima: They're scared to death to make any big changes to the maneuver system because the fans might get angry with the new direction. It's just what happens when you go into game design without a vision, just tossing mechanics at playtesters and keeping what sticks.
    They don't realise that staying put at this point will also make fans angry with the lack of direction?
    Jude P.

  18. - Top - End - #468
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    I do like high level play. The game does not fall apart. It is not an atrocity for PCs to be powerful. A particular DM may not be able to handle the power, but that does not equate to there being something wrong with the power (or the DM).

  19. - Top - End - #469
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    wadledo's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    And of course I don't enjoy high level play unless the game is designed around that.

    I have never seen a game that can go from 'normal' to high powered and not fall apart somewhere in between.

    In addition, no one likes high level play because even when wotc puts lots of effort into it (4e comes to mind), it's not that fundamentally different from low level play, just that the number are higher.
    Idiots give me indigestion.
    Don't give me indigestion.

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonrider View Post
    Wadledo, you dislike EVERYONE. Therefore, you don't count.
    Quote Originally Posted by Draken View Post
    Maybe this is the only true fix for spellcasting, making people scared of using it.
    Quote Originally Posted by dragonprime View Post
    There's a concept called mercy. Are you familiar with it?
    Thank ya Dr.Bath for your avataring skills.

  20. - Top - End - #470
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Simplifying high level play sounds bad, but is I think a good thing to be doing for the overall health of the game. It'll be a delicate balance to strike, but it's good that they're making the effort to do it.

    What I really like is the talk about legacy stuff, and how higher level characters will tend to run into bigger challenges that are more than just bigger stat blocks. Giving the players a natural way to play around with new characters without needing to start a new campaign also seems like a great idea, especially since it leaves the players open to either continue with those characters, to transfer back to their main characters and continue with the high-level stuff. Sometimes you just need a break from playing a level 15 wizard and just want to smash some stuff with a hammer for a little while.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  21. - Top - End - #471
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Oracle_Hunter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    What I really like is the talk about legacy stuff, and how higher level characters will tend to run into bigger challenges that are more than just bigger stat blocks. Giving the players a natural way to play around with new characters without needing to start a new campaign also seems like a great idea, especially since it leaves the players open to either continue with those characters, to transfer back to their main characters and continue with the high-level stuff. Sometimes you just need a break from playing a level 15 wizard and just want to smash some stuff with a hammer for a little while.
    While I like the concept, I'm not so certain it's something you need to write into the system.

    I mean, most people simply say "hey, let's lay off these characters and roll up some new low-level ones" when faced with that situation. Many DMs have run "organic" campaigns in which one party becomes part of the backstory of the next without having to tack on additional mechanics to make it work.

    Could there be mechanics that enhance this sort of behavior? Possibly, but I can't think of any which would be superior to not having written rules to worry over.

    * * *

    As far as high-level play, I think WotC would have been best served by either going with "retire and start-over" or "3e Casterpocalypse" and not trying to have both at once.

    People who enjoy 3e Epic games enjoy having casters that can do ridiculous things; it is a fundamentally different style of play from earlier where you operate under constraints. It makes no sense to include both types of game-play under one set of rules -- Core 5e should be "1-10 then retire" and then later release a "Epic 5e" module where people can design Fantasy Superheroes from Day 1 while also including a detailed system for "epic stories" like managing kingdoms, fighting Gods and whatnot. Anything less is simply not going to feel "epic" enough for these types of Players -- as 4e demonstrated.
    Lead Designer for Oracle Hunter Games
    Today a Blog, Tomorrow a Business!


    ~ Awesome Avatar by the phantastic Phase ~
    Spoiler
    Show

    Elflad

  22. - Top - End - #472
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle_Hunter View Post
    Could there be mechanics that enhance this sort of behavior? Possibly, but I can't think of any which would be superior to not having written rules to worry over.
    I've seen it done well elsewhere (mostly in REIGN), but the odds that WotC does a good job aren't looking good in this respect. They have essentially no precedent to work with, and what little they do have isn't very good.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

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

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

  23. - Top - End - #473
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by wadledo View Post
    I have never seen a game that can go from 'normal' to high powered and not fall apart somewhere in between.

    In addition, no one likes high level play because even when wotc puts lots of effort into it (4e comes to mind), it's not that fundamentally different from low level play, just that the number are higher.
    I have seen many games that went from "normal" to high powered and haven't fallen apart. In addition, I like high level play because it IS fundamentally different from low level play in 3.5. They are going in pretty much the worst possible direction with this philosophy if their goal is to appeal to me.
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  24. - Top - End - #474
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Regarding the legacy stuff: I think 3e's Heroes of Battle, Miniatures Handbook, and Stronghold Builder's Guidebook are a good model to follow. Not because they're balanced, or because the stronghold components are well-priced, or because followers and commander ratings are simple and manageable--they're none of those, not by a long shot--but because they are modular and optional.

    SBG doesn't say "Okay, PCs, it's level X, you have a castle now!" It merely provides rules for building strongholds of all sorts, from normal castles to astral dreadnoughts, and then lets the PCs do whatever they want with them. It provides the Landlord feat to help defray some of the costs, but it doesn't limit you to any level range for using the SBG otherwise. Same with army-commanding stuff. There's Leadership, Undead Leadership, Wild Cohort, Thrallherd, and similar for people who want cohorts/special companions and followers, and all of Heroes of Battle for people who want to command armies. You buy into the Sun Tzu minigame with feats, PrCs, etc. if you want to, or ignore them if you don't.

    I'm kind of surprised that, with all of WotC's emphasis on how 5e can accommodate everyone's tastes with modules, they're baking legacy mechanics into the game instead of making them a module. (Though "integrating legacy mechanics" is a pretty good description of 5e overall. )

    Quote Originally Posted by wadledo
    In addition, no one likes high level play because even when wotc puts lots of effort into it (4e comes to mind), it's not that fundamentally different from low level play, just that the number are higher.
    Methinks you haven't played many high level games, or if you have you've either tried to keep things similar to low-level play or haven't had many casters in your parties. Dungeons & Dragons generally turns into Logistics & Dragons by the mid levels; you stop worrying about every last arrow and bedroll and stop concerning yourself with walking around everywhere, and instead have enough cash and extradimensional storage to stop worrying about the fine details and have the ability to fly, teleport, or plane shift most places. Combat goes from "stab the goblins or fireball the orcs and hope to roll high" to "I can easily hit the buggers with a weapon or spell, now I need to find the right tactic to get around their immunities and other defenses."

    As Oracle_Hunter pointed out, epic casters can do ridiculous, world-changing things, but that doesn't start in epic. Casters can start changing the world and setting the pace of the plot by mid levels, whether it's outfitting whole armies with siege weapons conjured out of thin air to hold off a ravening horde of orcs or teleport back and forth between three or four cities to administer them all at once or open trade routes between their home nation and the City of Brass or something else.

    It's that plot- and world-shaping potential I like about mid-to-high level D&D. You can go toe to toe with armies of faceless evil mooks or play Fantasy SWAT Team in many systems, but you're rarely going to be able to make major changes to the status quo in games like Shadowrun or WoD with their fairly static settings (there are world-changers out there, but they aren't you) or CoC or WHFRP (you don't matter in the grand scheme of things) or the like; even many d20 variants like Conan or Iron Heroes take away all the tools you can use to shape the setting, leaving you at the mercy of the DM to decide if he wants the setting changed (if you're a player) or depriving you of the opportunity to be surprised by players' large-scale crazy plans (if you're a GM). Whether you personally like high-magic settings like Forgotten Realms or the Tippyverse or not, it's clear that player-driven plans like "I want to revolutionize the world's economy" or "I want to magitek-ify this Medieval setting" or "I want to build a moon base" just aren't an option in lower-magic settings, or at least can't be achieved personally and require the DM to basically hand you control of major nations to manage to pull them off.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle_Hunter
    People who enjoy 3e Epic games enjoy having casters that can do ridiculous things; it is a fundamentally different style of play from earlier where you operate under constraints. It makes no sense to include both types of game-play under one set of rules -- Core 5e should be "1-10 then retire" and then later release a "Epic 5e" module where people can design Fantasy Superheroes from Day 1 while also including a detailed system for "epic stories" like managing kingdoms, fighting Gods and whatnot. Anything less is simply not going to feel "epic" enough for these types of Players -- as 4e demonstrated.
    One minor quibble: people don't necessarily want casters that can do ridiculous things, they want characters who can do ridiculous things. I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the "high level fighters should be Beowulf"-type arguments tossed around here frequently, all of the 3e Epic Destiny homebrews that were popular a while back, and all the attempts to make tier 1 martial characters with plot-altering powers (misguided though the individual attempts often are).

    Otherwise, on the need for god-slaying and divine ascension rules, that playstyle being fundamentally different from low-level play, etc. I completely agree.
    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!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  25. - Top - End - #475
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Gamgee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Canada Land
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    If Hasbro sold out to Disney what does that mean for the Dungeons and Dragons brand? Can anyone even begin to think of the consequences? I think it would be a very bad thing, but I have no idea how bad.

    Hasbro owns Wizards which owns DnD.
    They say hope begins in the dark, but most just flail around in the blackness...searching for their destiny. The darkness... for me... is where I shine. - Riddick

    Exile

    Deny a monochrome future!!! -Radio Gosha-

  26. - Top - End - #476
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    I have seen many games that went from "normal" to high powered and haven't fallen apart. In addition, I like high level play because it IS fundamentally different from low level play in 3.5. They are going in pretty much the worst possible direction with this philosophy if their goal is to appeal to me.
    The longest-running game I've been in that hasn't fallen apart (and I've only had games fall apart due to people dropping out for various personal reasons, not because the mechanics started getting out of hand) was from level three to level...thirteen or fourteen? I think. In a moderate-optimisation 3.5 group. And it worked great.

    High levels are also really fun for one-shots. My old group used to do a lot of one-shots so people who couldn't commit to longer campaigns could still play, and we usually did 12th or 16th level, occasionally 18th, but never below 8th. Higher levels are just a lot better for one-shots because you want to be able to do things right off the bat and have an eventful and memorable one-night game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gamgee View Post
    If Hasbro sold out to Disney what does that mean for the Dungeons and Dragons brand? Can anyone even begin to think of the consequences? I think it would be a very bad thing, but I have no idea how bad.

    Hasbro owns Wizards which owns DnD.
    At this point I'm just hoping that 5e is such a flop that WotC has to sell D&D cheap, and then I can buy it and become a (wealthy) legend in RPG culture with the release of 6e.
    Jude P.

  27. - Top - End - #477
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Gamgee View Post
    If Hasbro sold out to Disney what does that mean for the Dungeons and Dragons brand? Can anyone even begin to think of the consequences? I think it would be a very bad thing, but I have no idea how bad.
    It probably wouldn't do all that much. The optimist in me hopes that it kills D&D off and allows other games to grow, thus improving the hobby, but it seems unlikely.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

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

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

  28. - Top - End - #478
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Gamgee View Post
    If Hasbro sold out to Disney what does that mean for the Dungeons and Dragons brand? Can anyone even begin to think of the consequences? I think it would be a very bad thing, but I have no idea how bad.

    Hasbro owns Wizards which owns DnD.
    Mickey Mouse, a full Sorcerer as he's no longer an Apprentice, goes on a quest to retrieve the Magical McGuffin with Goofy Paladin, Donald Duck Rogue, Pluto Fighter, Minnie Mouse Bard, and New Character just for the film Cleric.

  29. - Top - End - #479
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    I would say that is adventure design and entirely in the hand of the DM.
    I would agree if skills worked in any edition, ever. Stealth, Diplomacy, all of these approaches are plagued with horrible rules. Most everything boils down to a single pass/fail die roll, or worse, multiple rolls where success means you keep rolling, and a single failure means you lose the encounter. One character can push himself more than a d20 away from failure and have the ability to convince a king that his queen is actually a man, while the rest of the party stands little chance of successfully asking for a loan. Furthermore, by mid-levels, spells are more effective than any skill and become more and more affordable.

    Don't even start me on Skill Challenges. Skill Challenges don't actually improve the situation; they make everyone participate, then punish you for doing so if you do poorly. That's a bad idea no matter which version of errata you're playing with.

    They need either a real skill system or none and do everything on Ability Checks. In which case non-combat is still a problem. I would prefer that, in addition to leveling up in your class, once every level or X levels you pick a power off of a general non-combat list; teleport, a henchman, a fiefdom, a disguise, or whatever else.

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper
    What if, along with a "Monster Manual", there was also a "Adventure Manual", which had hundreds of different ready-to-go obstacles to put in the player's path, each balanced to give a good challenge to many different skills, so that the DM could browse through, find something that would challenge the players, and plop it into his campaign as needed?

    This would relieve the pressure on the DM to come up with all his skill challenges himself, just like he doesn't come up with all of his monsters himself, and would allow the players to more readily expect what they would face. And of course, the DM would be encouraged to tweak, fluff, and re-fluff the encounters, or use them as inspiration and a reference for making his own challenges,
    This is brilliance, assuming non-combat stuff works in any reasonable fashion.
    *********
    Matters of Critical Insignificance - My Blog for all my favorite entertainment
    11/4: Announcing the Vow of Honor KS! (I contributed)

  30. - Top - End - #480
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    It probably wouldn't do all that much. The optimist in me hopes that it kills D&D off and allows other games to grow, thus improving the hobby, but it seems unlikely.
    But it's a classic. Even if it is riddled with bad design. And classics are worth experiencing even if they are flawed.
    Jude P.

Posting Permissions

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