Page 26 of 50 FirstFirst ... 161718192021222324252627282930313233343536 ... LastLast
Results 751 to 780 of 1486
  1. - Top - End - #751
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Scowling Dragon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese) View Post
    EDIT: For posterity, here's a system that I think would work better: Wizards get 4 spell slots of the highest level they can cast, and 6 slots of the second-highest level. This never increases except for the choice of tradition and potentially feats. You can still prepare a lower-level spell into a higher-level slot if you so choose.

    The at-will and signature spell lists for each tradition should include spells of every level. In addition, at-will and signature spells should take up separate spell slots and not restrict your use of dailies.
    That would be good to me. Possibly make lower level spells scale not in power, but in choice.

    So like at level 5 my fireball is just a ball of fire. At level 15 I can collapse it for 10 feet and then expand it again. Or at level 20 I can make it bend over walls.

    So its a choice of damage over mastery.

  2. - Top - End - #752
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Craft (Cheese)'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    No, that never happened.

    A game designer later said it happened, in a blatant CYA maneuver. People asked "hey, how come there's these sucky options in 3E" and the only thing he could think of was to claim they meant to do that.
    The irony is that statement caused many gamers to think far, far less of WotC's design team (especially Monty Cook) than they would if they just admitted "Oops, we screwed up. Toughness was totally meant to be balanced against Natural Spell."

  3. - Top - End - #753
    Ettin 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
    To me, monks have always been one of those things that just... doesn't belong. Like psionics, the main problem with the idea is it clashes thematically with what the rest of the system is doing. It feels like it was thrown in as an afterthought rather than considered from inception as a core part of the world and narratives the game is trying to build.

    If I had to choose to get rid of 3.5 core classes, Monk would be the first on my list. Followed by the druid, cause druids suck.
    I like the ideas of the monk and druid. They don't feel like they should be core classes, but I like the concepts. In my opinion we could just have the "big four" as core, then have the various other things show up in supplements.
    I've never liked Psionics, though. What's the point?

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese) View Post
    The irony is that statement caused many gamers to think far, far less of WotC's design team (especially Monty Cook) than they would if they just admitted "Oops, we screwed up. Toughness was totally meant to be balanced against Natural Spell."
    Yeah, reading that did not do wonders for my opinion of those guys.
    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.

  4. - Top - End - #754
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

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

    I like the ideas of the monk and druid. They don't feel like they should be core classes, but I like the concepts. In my opinion we could just have the "big four" as core, then have the various other things show up in supplements.
    The most recent L&L article implies that the developers think that whats in the play test packet is already more than what they intend on having in the final "core" product. That gives me hope that perhaps what we'll see from a finalized product is a "core" which looks an awful lot like just the resolution mechanics and the 4 main classes, with the other classes perhaps grouped into additional included modules (martial classes, spell-casters etc), either as a box set a la OD&D, or in a sort of "Starter" book that includes modules as separate sections.

  5. - Top - End - #755
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The Hurricane State
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    The most recent L&L article implies that the developers think that whats in the play test packet is already more than what they intend on having in the final "core" product. That gives me hope that perhaps what we'll see from a finalized product is a "core" which looks an awful lot like just the resolution mechanics and the 4 main classes, with the other classes perhaps grouped into additional included modules (martial classes, spell-casters etc), either as a box set a la OD&D, or in a sort of "Starter" book that includes modules as separate sections.
    I like that a lot. If thats the case, then they will have smaller books (or please e-books...) and can sell for less then the hardcover, which can help penetrate the market and get a bigger market share and then make up for the loss by selling the modules.

    Also if they are mostly done with the "core" then they have a lot of time to just work on what we have seen, a year and half (or more) to work on the classes we have gotten, the magic system, magic items, isn't to bad. I agree that they need to do more then use expertise dice for everything. But if they put aside year+ for that, then I am a bit more hopeful that they can do a good job on it.
    Boo!

    Steam ID: Dublock

    Battle tag: Dublock 1-7-2-5

    Feel free to add me but say GitP :)

  6. - Top - End - #756
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

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

    I like that a lot. If thats the case, then they will have smaller books (or please e-books...) and can sell for less then the hardcover, which can help penetrate the market and get a bigger market share and then make up for the loss by selling the modules.
    Yeah. Part of me really hopes they out do GURPS in this regard. GURPS has historically done really well with the core rules + modules for EVERYTHING business model, but the most recent edition of GURPS requires an initial investment of ~$85 in just the basic 2 books to get started. I realize this buys your A LOT of content, but it's a pretty steep investment, especially for a hobby that is bolstered by hooking younger players early.

    I'm really kind of hoping we see a core that's big enough to run a complete game with, but small enough that it could sell on it's own as a ~$20-30 standalone book, or alternatively be included at the beginning of every module, so that essentially, no matter which ~$50-60 module you picked up (say, D&D Tactics, D&D Oriental Adventures, D&D Desert Delves, D&D Ravenloft etc etc) you would have a complete game sitting in front of you.

  7. - Top - End - #757
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    The most recent L&L article implies that the developers think that whats in the play test packet is already more than what they intend on having in the final "core" product.
    That's an interesting idea.

    On the one hand, I agree that having several hundreds of powers/spells/maneuvers don't add a lot of value to a PHB1, and that putting eleven classes in there (or even eight) is probably too much.

    On the other hand, I find that certain sections are still missing or incomplete, in particular those related to exploration and social interaction (which, as WOTC claims, are two of the three "pillars" of D&D). For example, I want the book to contain a list of common wall types and the DC to climb them; this is more important than an optional table of what may go wrong if you mix potions.

    Common PC actions need a standard resolution mechanic and DC; I'm not paying WOTC to let them say "well, we trust the DM will come up with something".
    Crystal Shard Studios - classy freeware games!

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

  8. - Top - End - #758
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    This is a holdover from older D&D where the expectation wasn't that you would always fight with a crossbow, but that you would carry one around with you when exploring and for encounters that start at a distance, your party would first loose a volley of bolts before switching weapons as the combat distance closed. In this case, the reload time doesn't really matter because baring special circumstances, you weren't expected to be reloading.
    The thing about holdovers is that they really ought to be dropped at some point. In this specific circumstance, crossbows are marginally better, but for a character who consistently uses a ranged weapon they're worse.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Kid Kris. Sigatars by Gulaghar, Kid Kris, Zefir and billtodamax, respectively.

  9. - Top - End - #759
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

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

    On the one hand, I agree that having several hundreds of powers/spells/maneuvers don't add a lot of value to a PHB1, and that putting eleven classes in there (or even eight) is probably too much.

    On the other hand, I find that certain sections are still missing or incomplete, in particular those related to exploration and social interaction (which, as WOTC claims, are two of the three "pillars" of D&D). For example, I want the book to contain a list of common wall types and the DC to climb them; this is more important than an optional table of what may go wrong if you mix potions.

    Common PC actions need a standard resolution mechanic and DC; I'm not paying WOTC to let them say "well, we trust the DM will come up with something".
    To be fair, I think I overstated the statement a little bit. The statement I'm referring to comes from this block here:

    As for our overall progress, our next two big areas are multiclassing and high-level play. With those two areas in place, we'll move on to several tasks:

    Refine the key systems and content of the game. Once something is finished, we'll continue to polish it based on feedback as described above.
    Expand content to cover more classes and races, ranging from core D&D elements such as the paladin, half-orc, and cavalier to world-specific stuff such as draconians, warforged, and bladesingers.
    Our spell survey was very useful for determining our design direction, so we'll launch something similar for prestige classes and feats.
    Review the entire system to lock down the core of the game, which is the starting point and the simplest expression of D&D Next. This step mainly consists of cutting out as much stuff as possible—rules and character options—to create a true core of D&D.
    With the core in place, we can either complete or kick off the design of a number of rules modules, such as alternative magic systems, tactical combat, mass battles, skirmish battles, planar travel, gritty wounds, and realm management. If it was in the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, it's something that we're likely to cover with a rules module.
    I guess the better message to take away is not that they think the current play test is too big, but more that just because it appears in the play test doesn't mean it's core.

    The thing about holdovers is that they really ought to be dropped at some point. In this specific circumstance, crossbows are marginally better, but for a character who consistently uses a ranged weapon they're worse.
    Crossbows aren't meant for the guys who consistently use a ranged weapon. They're meant for the sword slingers to deal some damage before they can close to melee range. If you're only going to get off one shot anyway, it might as well be a big one. Recall that in some versions of OD&D, short bows, slings, darts and the like had a rate of fire > 1 / turn (usually if they didn't move), the trade off being that they had to be used at a distance (no AOOs, if you were to close, you couldn't shoot period). The crossbow had the same disadvantage (though I believe it was originally just for the heavy crossbow), and had the lousy reload time. On the other hand, they made up for this by having longer range than any other ranged weapon. For an example of this, see the missile weapons table here (http://www.d20swsrd.com/swords-and-w...ters/equipment).

    Now admittedly, the playtest has pretty much dropped all the nuance between a cross bow and a regular bow, but I would rather see them bring back the nuance rather than just make crossbows no different from a regular bow.


    So speaking of reading things into what WotC says, what do the tea leaves say about the fact that not only is WotC republishing an old AD&D adventure set, they're adding new material to it?

    http://wizards.com/DnD/Product.aspx?...ndacc/a-series

    Added to the collection is an all-new fifth adventure -- A0: Danger at Darkshelf Quarry -- that you can use to kick off an AD&D campaign that pits a group of adventurers against the evil Slave Lords! Module A0, designed for levels 1-3, sets the stage for events that unfold throughout the remainder of the "A" series.
    Last edited by 1337 b4k4; 2012-11-14 at 11:23 AM.

  10. - Top - End - #760
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    No, that never happened.

    A game designer later said it happened, in a blatant CYA maneuver. People asked "hey, how come there's these sucky options in 3E" and the only thing he could think of was to claim they meant to do that.
    To be fair, the idea of intentionally imbalancing parts of a game to reward users for solving the puzzle is a legitimate game design strategy, which has worked very well for MTG over the years.

    However, that's not to say that they did it intentionally, and if they did do it intentionally, then they messed up pretty hard. Intentional imbalance is only good for competitive games, where you're trying to beat the other players, or single-player games, where you're trying to beat a computer or otherwise set challenge.

    In a co-operative game, it just leads to...well, all the issues that people have had with inferior fighters and rogues and party drama over how one character is more optimized, and thus vastly more powerful, than all the other characters.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  11. - Top - End - #761
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    Crossbows aren't meant for the guys who consistently use a ranged weapon. They're meant for the sword slingers to deal some damage before they can close to melee range. If you're only going to get off one shot anyway, it might as well be a big one. Recall that in some versions of OD&D, short bows, slings, darts and the like had a rate of fire > 1 / turn (usually if they didn't move), the trade off being that they had to be used at a distance (no AOOs, if you were to close, you couldn't shoot period). The crossbow had the same disadvantage (though I believe it was originally just for the heavy crossbow), and had the lousy reload time. On the other hand, they made up for this by having longer range than any other ranged weapon. For an example of this, see the missile weapons table here (http://www.d20swsrd.com/swords-and-w...ters/equipment).

    Now admittedly, the playtest has pretty much dropped all the nuance between a cross bow and a regular bow, but I would rather see them bring back the nuance rather than just make crossbows no different from a regular bow.
    This isn't old D&D. This is D&D Next, a brand new edition. What you said was true in AD&D, but no longer applies here. Light crossbow and shortbow are in the same category of weapons. Same for heavy crossbow and longbow. They take longer to reload in return for a larger damage die, which stops being relevant on higher levels even if you only shoot it once - and of course, nothing should stop me from making a ranged fighter, rogue or ranger who uses a crossbow.
    This is more or less the same as it was in 3rd edition, of course. There, crossbow was more or less useful only to low-level wizards so they have something to do after exhausting their spells. In D&D Next though, this particular usage is going away, what with the introduction of at-will and signature spells.
    Last edited by Morty; 2012-11-14 at 11:57 AM.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Kid Kris. Sigatars by Gulaghar, Kid Kris, Zefir and billtodamax, respectively.

  12. - Top - End - #762
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2009

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

    It's hard to handle a crossbow in a game with armor class and hit points. Crossbows had two advantages: they were easier to master than a long bow, and they (when made and fired properly) were effective against chain and most plate armor.

    D&D does not make provision for one weapon being easier than another to master (you are proficient or not, and you become proficient by spending a weapon proficiency slot/feat/etc) and it generally does not have special modifiers for one weapon being used against one armor (2nd did have this, but it was an optional system.)

  13. - Top - End - #763
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    huttj509's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    To be fair, the idea of intentionally imbalancing parts of a game to reward users for solving the puzzle is a legitimate game design strategy, which has worked very well for MTG over the years.
    Note that M:TG tournaments have periodic "reset buttons" in terms of what's allowed, so if they spend an expansion focusing on cheap big monsters, those cheap big monsters are not always in play. You discover the metagame, find neat combos, then eventually move on because your combos just don't work anymore because the cards aren't allowed.
    "Come out, Neville."

    R.I.P. Richard Matheson

  14. - Top - End - #764
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

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

    This isn't old D&D. This is D&D Next, a brand new edition. What you said was true in AD&D, but no longer applies here. Light crossbow and shortbow are in the same category of weapons. Same for heavy crossbow and longbow. They take longer to reload in return for a larger damage die, which stops being relevant on higher levels even if you only shoot it once - and of course, nothing should stop me from making a ranged fighter, rogue or ranger who uses a crossbow.
    Easy there buddy, I get that this is D&D Next, no need to get in a twist here. All I'm doing is providing the historical context for something that you noted was an oddity. You will note that I agreed that it was an oddity and that WotC had pretty much removed all the other nuances that gave any meaning that oddity. Whether or not the oddity and its context should remain or not is a different discussion, and certainly one that should be had, but when discussing the removal or change of old features, it's useful to understand why the feature was put there in the first place, and examine whether that has any meaning today.

    Of course, nothing is stopping you from making a ranged fighter, rouge or ranger who uses a crossbow. You'll just be dealing less damage with the rules as written currently. Sort of like if you decided you wanted to be a fighter who only used daggers.

    Ultimately, if the character concept is sacrosanct, then really they should reach way back into history and make all weapons do the same damage. Then your choice of weapon is pure 100% character concept. The reason variable weapon damage was introduced was because Gygax found that with all weapons doing the same damage, all players only ever bought the cheapest weapon, which was the iron spike.

    Personally, I think if they want to keep the odd loading rules, they should either increase the crossbow range again and either bump the damage die or make regular shots with a crossbow be at an advantage. So then your choice for a crossbow is you can be slow but reliable with your damage, or fast but unreliable.

  15. - Top - End - #765
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Alejandro View Post
    It's hard to handle a crossbow in a game with armor class and hit points. Crossbows had two advantages: they were easier to master than a long bow, and they (when made and fired properly) were effective against chain and most plate armor.

    D&D does not make provision for one weapon being easier than another to master (you are proficient or not, and you become proficient by spending a weapon proficiency slot/feat/etc) and it generally does not have special modifiers for one weapon being used against one armor (2nd did have this, but it was an optional system.)
    That's unfortunately true. Still, I think something could be done with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    Easy there buddy, I get that this is D&D Next, no need to get in a twist here. All I'm doing is providing the historical context for something that you noted was an oddity. You will note that I agreed that it was an oddity and that WotC had pretty much removed all the other nuances that gave any meaning that oddity. Whether or not the oddity and its context should remain or not is a different discussion, and certainly one that should be had, but when discussing the removal or change of old features, it's useful to understand why the feature was put there in the first place, and examine whether that has any meaning today.
    Yeah, sorry about getting snippy. But I think a lot of problems with D&D 3e and one of the reasons D&D Next is unimpressive to many people is that they keep things from old editions without thinking of how it fits the new paradigm.

    Of course, nothing is stopping you from making a ranged fighter, rouge or ranger who uses a crossbow. You'll just be dealing less damage with the rules as written currently. Sort of like if you decided you wanted to be a fighter who only used daggers.
    I think a dagger-using fighter ought to be a viable concept as well, incidentally.

    Ultimately, if the character concept is sacrosanct, then really they should reach way back into history and make all weapons do the same damage. Then your choice of weapon is pure 100% character concept. The reason variable weapon damage was introduced was because Gygax found that with all weapons doing the same damage, all players only ever bought the cheapest weapon, which was the iron spike.
    When it comes down to it, differently sized dice aren't the best way of differentiating weapons. But it's too much of a part of D&D to ever go away. Besides, I think that in most systems there'll be a weapon that is overall the best.

    Personally, I think if they want to keep the odd loading rules, they should either increase the crossbow range again and either bump the damage die or make regular shots with a crossbow be at an advantage. So then your choice for a crossbow is you can be slow but reliable with your damage, or fast but unreliable.
    That's the most logical way of going about it, but I'm not sure how well it'd work in D&D Next. It's not a big issue, but I like crossbows (as evidenced by my avatar ) and I think it would be a waste to leave them as they are in the playtest.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Kid Kris. Sigatars by Gulaghar, Kid Kris, Zefir and billtodamax, respectively.

  16. - Top - End - #766
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

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

    Yeah, sorry about getting snippy. But I think a lot of problems with D&D 3e and one of the reasons D&D Next is unimpressive to many people is that they keep things from old editions without thinking of how it fits the new paradigm.
    No worries. It's easy to get a little overheated in these discussions.

    When it comes down to it, differently sized dice aren't the best way of differentiating weapons. But it's too much of a part of D&D to ever go away.
    Yeah, different damage dice is pretty much the only way to represent the different threat levels different weapons present if you stick with d20 rolls for attacks.

    Honestly, if we're talking real world, every (personal) weapon can do serious (or mortal) damage to an individual, it's more of a question of how likely that serious damage is to occur. That is, the knife isn't less deadly than the sword because when it cuts your artery it's a smaller blade, it's less deadly because you're less likely to be hit with, and when you are hit, to be hit in an artery by a knife.

    Ideally you would model this with all weapons doing the same damage (or damage range) but provide different modifiers to your to-hit rolls. Obviously with a d20 to hit and combined with bounded accuracy, this would get problematic as I don't think the range of modifiers is granular enough.

    Anyone with a fancy dice program want to look at how the regular damage output for a fighter using a dagger (1d4), short sword (1d6), bastard sword (1d8), long sword (1d10) and great sword (1d12) in the play test (over say, 50 combat rounds) compares with using the same weapons all doing say 1d6 or 1d8 damage and providing a -2, -1, 0, +1 and +2 to hit modifier respectively?

    Of course the question is which is less fun, hitting less often or doing less damage?

  17. - Top - End - #767
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Anderlith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011

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

    The guy from Kung Fu Hustle was not lawful!
    Kung Fu Panda wasn't lawful!
    Jackie Chan isn't lawful in every role.

    The monk using expertise could be done away with. Expand Ki to fill that role, you burn Ki to use special maneuvers, (flurry of blows, slow fall, moving fast) & to gain monk related buffs (piercing strikes, slashing strikes, temporary hp, temporary AC or to hit bonuses. etc). Give them a large-ish about of Ki like (Wis Bonus+Monk level) & have it refresh every encounter.

  18. - Top - End - #768
    Ettin 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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    Anyone with a fancy dice program want to look at how the regular damage output for a fighter using a dagger (1d4), short sword (1d6), bastard sword (1d8), long sword (1d10) and great sword (1d12) in the play test (over say, 50 combat rounds) compares with using the same weapons all doing say 1d6 or 1d8 damage and providing a -2, -1, 0, +1 and +2 to hit modifier respectively?
    I have just such a fancy dice program. I'll run some simulations when I get home and post the results.

    Of course the question is which is less fun, hitting less often or doing less damage?
    One of the major complaints regarding 4e was that accuracy was basically stuck in the 50-60% range and it's really hard to get above that, so almost half the time your flashy and cool encounters and dailies are wasted. I'd say people would rather hit almost every round for less damage than hit every other round for more damage.

    It's also better from a basic math perspective, due to the ability to split attacks and the possibility of overkill. If you're facing a dozen goblins with 10 HP each, it's much better to hit 90% of the time for an average of 10 damage than to hit 50% of the time for an average of 20 damage, because all that extra damage doesn't help you kill the goblins any faster and you can remove them faster with more frequent hits. Less frequent hits with higher damage help with the larger monsters since the damage isn't overkill, but less frequent hits gives the monster more rounds to pound on the PCs, which is a problem as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anderlith View Post
    The monk using expertise could be done away with. Expand Ki to fill that role, you burn Ki to use special maneuvers, (flurry of blows, slow fall, moving fast) & to gain monk related buffs (piercing strikes, slashing strikes, temporary hp, temporary AC or to hit bonuses. etc). Give them a large-ish about of Ki like (Wis Bonus+Monk level) & have it refresh every encounter.
    Another idea for the monk would be to give it expertise dice per round and ki points per encounter, and ki points just maximize expertise dice. They would have fewer and smaller dice than the fighter, but they'd have more reliability with their dice, which fits with the "mastery of mind and body" thing.
    Last edited by PairO'Dice Lost; 2012-11-14 at 02:40 PM.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

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

  19. - Top - End - #769
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    Anyone with a fancy dice program want to look at how the regular damage output for a fighter using a dagger (1d4), short sword (1d6), bastard sword (1d8), long sword (1d10) and great sword (1d12) in the play test (over say, 50 combat rounds) compares with using the same weapons all doing say 1d6 or 1d8 damage and providing a -2, -1, 0, +1 and +2 to hit modifier respectively?

    Of course the question is which is less fun, hitting less often or doing less damage?
    I don't have a fancy dice program, but I do have excel:

    {table=head]Level 1|Level 2|Level 3|Level 4|Level 5|Level 6|Level 7|Level 8|Level 9|Level 10
    0.4| 0.3| 0.2| -0.1| -0.1| -0.1| -0.3| -0.4| -0.4| -1.2
    0.2| 0.2| 0.1| 0| -0.1| -0.1| -0.1| -0.2| -0.2| -0.6
    0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0
    -0.2| -0.1| -0.1| 0| 0.1| 0.1| 0.1| 0.2| 0.2| 0.6
    -0.4| -0.3| -0.2| 0.1| 0.2| 0.2| 0.2| 0.4| 0.4| 1.2[/table]

    This is a comparison of the damage done with a dagger/short sword/long sword/bastard sword/great sword using the -2/-1/0/+1/+2 attack bonus model, all using 1d8 damage, compared to the normal model of flat attack bonuses and variable damage die.

    As you can see, it ends up being mostly similar. At lower levels, large weapons aren't quite as strong as they are now, while smaller weapons are better. Around level 4-5, larger weapons start to out-pace smaller weapons mostly due to expertise bonuses. Without expertise bonuses, the variable damage dice weapon out-perform the variable attack bonus weapons even at higher levels.

    Note that this doesn't take critical hits into account.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  20. - Top - End - #770
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

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

    I can't really get myself to care for the monk. Because it is... the monk! That thing that happens to show up again and again and each time is not worth aknowleding it's existance. When I think of the classes of D&D, I usually forgett monks because they don't have any presence in any of the D&D settings.
    If the monk in 5th Edition turns out to be garbage, I just don't care. It's a wasted 3 pages of the PHB anyway, so whatever they are doing with it: I just don't care.
    Spriggan's Den - Thoughts on RPGs and some of my personal creations.
    Ancient Lands - PF/d20 Sword & Sorcery campaign setting

  21. - Top - End - #771
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

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

    Hm, now that I think about it, what if Expertise Dice used the same size of dice as your weapon? So, if you're using a longsword, you get a 1d8, greatsword you get 1d12. Then, added fighter levels would only increase the number of expertise dice, rather than size, at levels 3/8/13/18. That would allow weapon dice to matter more at higher levels.

    Of course, this would also need to be paired with making it so that non-weapon based maneuvers would need to stop using dice, since it doesn't really make much sense to be able to jump higher because you've got a bigger sword.

    Perhaps some maneuvers could be listed as using your weapon's dice to deal their damage, and others use a static sized-dice, or one that scales with level, as they do now.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  22. - Top - End - #772
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    Yeah, different damage dice is pretty much the only way to represent the different threat levels different weapons present if you stick with d20 rolls for attacks.

    Honestly, if we're talking real world, every (personal) weapon can do serious (or mortal) damage to an individual, it's more of a question of how likely that serious damage is to occur. That is, the knife isn't less deadly than the sword because when it cuts your artery it's a smaller blade, it's less deadly because you're less likely to be hit with, and when you are hit, to be hit in an artery by a knife.

    Ideally you would model this with all weapons doing the same damage (or damage range) but provide different modifiers to your to-hit rolls. Obviously with a d20 to hit and combined with bounded accuracy, this would get problematic as I don't think the range of modifiers is granular enough.

    Anyone with a fancy dice program want to look at how the regular damage output for a fighter using a dagger (1d4), short sword (1d6), bastard sword (1d8), long sword (1d10) and great sword (1d12) in the play test (over say, 50 combat rounds) compares with using the same weapons all doing say 1d6 or 1d8 damage and providing a -2, -1, 0, +1 and +2 to hit modifier respectively?

    Of course the question is which is less fun, hitting less often or doing less damage?
    It might work better, but like I said - using all the dice sizes is too much of a D&D thing to disappear.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Kid Kris. Sigatars by Gulaghar, Kid Kris, Zefir and billtodamax, respectively.

  23. - Top - End - #773
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    It might work better, but like I said - using all the dice sizes is too much of a D&D thing to disappear.
    (Except the d12. Poor bastard saw no use in 3.X--nobody ever used a greataxe. We put them to use as replacements for the minis we didn't have.)
    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.

  24. - Top - End - #774
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    Hm, now that I think about it, what if Expertise Dice used the same size of dice as your weapon?
    Then rogues would become better at sneaking because they're carrying a zweihander
    Crystal Shard Studios - classy freeware games!

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

  25. - Top - End - #775
    Ettin 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

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    It might work better, but like I said - using all the dice sizes is too much of a D&D thing to disappear.
    They could take the 4e approach and combine die sizes with accuracy bonuses. Instead of -2/-1/0/+1/+2 or d4/d6/d8/d10/d12, they could do something like giving light/medium/heavy weapons a d4/d6/d8 damage die with a +1/0/-1 for accurate/average/inaccurate weapons. The greatsword might be a d8/+1 weapon because it's a big hefty weapon with a nice long blade, the dagger is a d4/-1 weapon because it's a smaller and lighter weapon with a short blade, the quarterstaff is d4/+1 weapon because it's long but light, and so on.

    Not the most realistic solution, but it incorporates different die sizes, gives a nod to the 4e weapon system for those players who preferred it, and gives players who liked the 3e weapon system another axis of differentiation now that crit ranges and crit multipliers aren't in the base game.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

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

  26. - Top - End - #776
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

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

    That's once again lots of tiny modifers. While those work great in video games, they are usually poor choices in pnp as it just increases the amount of numbers to remember for very little difference that is actually felt.
    I think early on in the development they talked a lot about everything that's in the game being significant enough to justify the additional paperwork. Which has become again a problem with many of the new maneuvers, that are a lot of dice rolling and calculations only to get a +2 to an attack roll.
    Spriggan's Den - Thoughts on RPGs and some of my personal creations.
    Ancient Lands - PF/d20 Sword & Sorcery campaign setting

  27. - Top - End - #777
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Giegue's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009

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

    Just wondering, is 5th edition homebrew allowed? I ask because the lack of Necromancy in the playtest has me upset and as a result I easily could homebrew a necromancy-based arcane tradition and Necromantic specialty.....So...my main question is....is 5e homebrew illegal right now?

    78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

    Where did you start yours?

    In one of the many palaces of the BBEG, with the PCs as his dining guests.

  28. - Top - End - #778
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Giegue View Post
    Just wondering, is 5th edition homebrew allowed? I ask because the lack of Necromancy in the playtest has me upset and as a result I easily could homebrew a necromancy-based arcane tradition and Necromantic specialty.....So...my main question is....is 5e homebrew illegal right now?
    No, but it is property of WoTC, as per the agreement you entered into with WoTC when you joined the playtest.

  29. - Top - End - #779
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Craft (Cheese)'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    To be fair, the idea of intentionally imbalancing parts of a game to reward users for solving the puzzle is a legitimate game design strategy, which has worked very well for MTG over the years.

    However, that's not to say that they did it intentionally, and if they did do it intentionally, then they messed up pretty hard. Intentional imbalance is only good for competitive games, where you're trying to beat the other players, or single-player games, where you're trying to beat a computer or otherwise set challenge.
    Only if by "worked very well" you mean "it helped sell tons of booster packs." The real reason they do this is the existence of chaff cards in a set means you have to buy more booster packs to get what you want. The whole "This makes the game better!" thing is nothing more than a rationalization and nobody outside of WotC's pocket actually believes it.

  30. - Top - End - #780
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    I think they're looking to see if expertise dice can be the non-spell casters gimmick. It could work, but they need to re-evaluate it a little bit. If we imagine expertise dice as representing the extra ability that comes from years of study in your basic class descriptor then the way the dice are used should reflect that. So while the current design works for the fighter, where the expertise dice feed directly into combat maneuvers, we can see it breaks down for something like the monk, where some of the maneuvers are more "set up" maneuvers.

    Perhaps it would be better if the monks maneuvers all used ki, and what the monks combat dice represented was the amount of ki available on a given turn. So for example at the start (or end) of the monks turn, they would roll their expertise dice, and this number represents the amount of ki they have for this turn to spend on their maneuvers. You could then allow ki to bestowed across cumulative turns, but only up to the max value of the monks expertise dice.

    For the thief it's a bit harder, but maybe instead of applying to combat at all, expertise dice should be how the thieves "skill monkey" trait manifests itself. The thieves expertise dice canbe used to add to their skill rolls and ability checks in a given turn, or alternatively if they're "aiding another" they can spend those dice to aid someone else's skill or ability check.

    If they use expertise dice like this, I could see them being able to stretch the core idea across multiple martial classes, where each classes uniqueness comes from how the expertise dice contribute to the class concept, rather than being 20 different forms of the same basic combat maneuver.
    That would be cool. Me likes!

Posting Permissions

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