New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 38 of 50 FirstFirst ... 13282930313233343536373839404142434445464748 ... LastLast
Results 1,111 to 1,140 of 1486
  1. - Top - End - #1111
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

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

    I dislike tokens because its an additional case of bookkeeping that turns encounters too much into calculating the math to "play the game".
    There's some unease about Expertise dice, but I can live with those because they are reset after every round.

    I want combat not to be about out-calculating the opposition, but more about out-narrating them. Writing down damage taken and crossing out expended spells is the maximum of bookkeeping that should occure during encounters. The use of dice and and bookkeeping should be as low as possible to dertermine the outcome of the players descisions. When you start fighting math with math, that's not a game I want to play, and my main problem with 3rd Edition.
    We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.

    Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying

  2. - Top - End - #1112
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Draz74's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by obryn View Post
    This is why I prefer things more like 4e or Bo9S for martial resource management. It's simple, direct, and puts the results first. I know that's not everyone's favorite, though, so I'm open to other options.
    Well, the basic model I use in CRE8 is based on the Psionic Focus mechanic from 3e. It's like the "token" system you describe, except (1) you can only ever have one "token" at a time (reducing the math involved), and (2) methods of gaining a "token" are relatively unreliable, leading to some randomness about when your "Cool Move" is usable. Oh yeah, and (3) it's not just for martial characters; it also powers e.g. metamagic effects.
    You can call me Draz.
    Trophies:
    Spoiler
    Show

    Also of note:

    I have a number of ongoing projects that I manically jump between to spend my free time ... so don't be surprised when I post a lot about something for a few days, then burn out and abandon it.
    ... yes, I need to be tested for ADHD.

  3. - Top - End - #1113
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    I dislike tokens because its an additional case of bookkeeping that turns encounters too much into calculating the math to "play the game".
    There's some unease about Expertise dice, but I can live with those because they are reset after every round.

    I want combat not to be about out-calculating the opposition, but more about out-narrating them. Writing down damage taken and crossing out expended spells is the maximum of bookkeeping that should occure during encounters. The use of dice and and bookkeeping should be as low as possible to dertermine the outcome of the players descisions. When you start fighting math with math, that's not a game I want to play, and my main problem with 3rd Edition.
    Well, the issue here is that you're enforcing an asymmetry that doesn't need to be there. I'm not sure why you're okay with tracking expended spells but not with tracking maneuvers. (I mean, as I've said, I'm good with checking off a list of maneuvers for fighter-types; it works for me. And I accept that it's not for everyone. It's the asymmetry that's weird, IMO.)

    But, with that criticism in mind, here's a new mechanic to take care of all tracking for fighters:

    Death Strike. It's Fighter-only. Spend all your Expertise dice, don't make a normal attack this round, and an enemy your level or lower within reach of your weapon, dies (or is horribly maimed, knocked out, or otherwise removed from combat). If you're adjacent to your enemies, two of them die. No save.*

    It cuts down on tracking better than any of their attacks to-date - both of maneuvers and hit points. There's no rolling that needs to be done and no math. It's just a thing a Fighter does because he's metal.

    -O


    * No, I do not actually think this is a good mechanic for several reasons. But I think peoples' reasoning behind why it's a bad idea could be interesting.

  4. - Top - End - #1114
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

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

    Actually, you might be able to bring the "cool" level of expertise dice up by adding a slight bit of record keeping (that you have to do anyway). Burn expertise dice during attack, apply status effect (blind, hobbled etc etc). Effect lasts for number of rounds equal to value rolled on expertise dice, but you don't regain that die until the number of rounds have passed. So for example, Level 4 fighter has 2d6 expertise dice. Decides that he wants to blind the umberhulk, so attacks and rolls 1d6, gets a 3. For the next 3 rounds, the umberhulk is blinded, but the fighter only has 1 expertise die to use.

    Alternatively, the fighter decides to burn both expertise dice, gets a 4 and a 3, totaling 7 rounds of blindness. For the first 3 rounds, the fighter has no more expertise dice to burn. Then for the final 4 rounds, the fighter only has one.

    Perhaps to keep this from being too OP (3d10 rounds of paralysis at will on the big boss anyone?) monsters are allowed one save per expertise die burned to avoid the effect of that die.

  5. - Top - End - #1115
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    Well, the basic model I use in CRE8 is based on the Psionic Focus mechanic from 3e. It's like the "token" system you describe, except (1) you can only ever have one "token" at a time (reducing the math involved), and (2) methods of gaining a "token" are relatively unreliable, leading to some randomness about when your "Cool Move" is usable. Oh yeah, and (3) it's not just for martial characters; it also powers e.g. metamagic effects.
    Yep, that sounds like a great way to model the "token" system. I'd like it if you could get a Token for something under your control, but Psionic Focus would be a good model for what I'm aiming for in a general sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    Actually, you might be able to bring the "cool" level of expertise dice up by adding a slight bit of record keeping (that you have to do anyway). Burn expertise dice during attack, apply status effect (blind, hobbled etc etc).
    This extension of Expertise Dice would fit the bill quite well, too, especially if there's a way to get them back later. It does add tracking, but (personally speaking) I'm fine with that because I don't see a way around it. If you don't want to do the Cool Stuff, you can always just roll your extra damage and be effective.

    The trick with all of this is making sure it's fun, easy, and potent ... without being too potent, too frequently.

    -O

  6. - Top - End - #1116
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Meridianville AL
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by obryn View Post
    This is why I prefer things more like 4e or Bo9S for martial resource management. It's simple, direct, and puts the results first. I know that's not everyone's favorite, though, so I'm open to other options.
    Base Possiblity: You can go "off-ballance" (or lose focus if you don't like ballance as a term). This costs you one expertise die till you expend an action on "recover" (recover restores one expertise die). Going off-ballance lets you do something roughly equivalent to an encounter power in 4e.

    Advantages: Uses expertise dice which you are already tracking. You don't need to build up prior to doing something cool. Since you are losing a per round resource you're encouraged to save your cool stuff for the end of the battle rather than going nova on the first round.

    Disadvantages: If there is a "best" move (stunning say), then there's no reason not to use it every time you use your move. If you have two fighters and such a "best" move they can tag team someone by alternating stun and recover. (Basically, it's a bit too easy to use with this method).

    Modification to "solve" the disadvantage. Use the "to hit" die roll (unmodified) to also give what status you can impose by expending one or more expertise dice worth of balance or focus or whatevery you call it. So maybe a 19 allows you to spend one expertise dice to cost the target one action. An 18 allows you to blind the foe for a number of rounds equal to the roll of your expertise die roll. A 17 allows you to push the foe. A 16 allows you to trip the foe. A 15 allows you to slow the foe for some number of rounds. A 14 allows you to expend an expertise die to do extra damage equal to the die's maximum value plus a roll of the die. Ext.... The problem with this is that it may be too complicated for some people, but those people can just ignore this system.

    I might tend to make some monsters "resistant" to such manuevers. They subtract some amount from the expertise die roll for the manuever, and if this results in a 0 or negative value the manuever fails. (So a "solo" low level monster might be resistant 2, while a "solo" at level 8 might be resistant 4, in both cases making the manuever fail about half the time for a level appropriate foe.)

  7. - Top - End - #1117
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by obryn View Post
    But, with that criticism in mind, here's a new mechanic to take care of all tracking for fighters:

    Death Strike. It's Fighter-only. Spend all your Expertise dice, don't make a normal attack this round, and an enemy your level or lower within reach of your weapon, dies (or is horribly maimed, knocked out, or otherwise removed from combat). If you're adjacent to your enemies, two of them die. No save.*

    It cuts down on tracking better than any of their attacks to-date - both of maneuvers and hit points. There's no rolling that needs to be done and no math. It's just a thing a Fighter does because he's metal.

    -O


    * No, I do not actually think this is a good mechanic for several reasons. But I think peoples' reasoning behind why it's a bad idea could be interesting.
    While you're being facetious here, that isn't actually a bad idea, conceptually. Fighters used to be able to basically kill one 0th-level enemy (i.e. the vast majority of NPCs) per round, and that wasn't a problem. Since you want to hear peoples' issues with it, the three issues I see are that (A) it just kills people, which is something that the fighter can already do fairly reliably to lower-level people within reach, (B) it does nothing against higher-level opponents, and (C) if given to a boss NPC who's usually 2-4 levels above the party it can be too strong.

    So here's a possible rewrite:
    Tactical Strike: Spend all your Expertise dice as part of an attack to impose a condition from the following list on an enemy you hit: blinded, deafened, stunned, [rest of possible conditions]. Roll all of the dice spent, and the highest result gives the duration of the effect in rounds.

    If the target is above your level, they get a saving throw to halve the duration and take a partial effect: [list of lesser effects, like stunned to slowed etc.]

    If the target is four or more levels lower than you, you may affect one opponent per expertise die spent, you do not need to make an attack roll, and you may also apply the following conditions: paralyzed, unconscious, dying, [rest of possible conditions], which last until healed.


    So a 10th level fighter can automatically KO up to 3 enemies of 6th-level or lower, apply any status effect desired to an enemy from 7th to 9th level with a successful attack, and can attempt to apply any status effect to an enemy 11th level or higher with a successful attack and a failed save. This seems like it would be appropriate for a fighter as soon as he gets multiple expertise dice, which is 5th in the playtest but could be as low as 3rd if we want to give the fighter more and better expertise dice as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Lampert View Post
    Modification to "solve" the disadvantage. Use the "to hit" die roll (unmodified) to also give what status you can impose by expending one or more expertise dice worth of balance or focus or whatevery you call it. So maybe a 19 allows you to spend one expertise dice to cost the target one action. An 18 allows you to blind the foe for a number of rounds equal to the roll of your expertise die roll. A 17 allows you to push the foe. A 16 allows you to trip the foe. A 15 allows you to slow the foe for some number of rounds. A 14 allows you to expend an expertise die to do extra damage equal to the die's maximum value plus a roll of the die. Ext.... The problem with this is that it may be too complicated for some people, but those people can just ignore this system.
    I'd rather see a degree-of-success system rather than a number-on-die system, e.g. "If you beat their AC by 1 or more, you can deal extra damage, push, or trip. If you beat their AC by 4 or more, you can [inflict status condition]" and so forth. It's better than the proposed system because it gives the fighter more control because he can choose any valid option, and it makes him more effective against low-AC enemies rather than being at the mercy of the dice.
    Last edited by PairO'Dice Lost; 2012-11-30 at 04:29 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!
    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

  8. - Top - End - #1118
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Draz74's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    Actually, you might be able to bring the "cool" level of expertise dice up by adding a slight bit of record keeping (that you have to do anyway). Burn expertise dice during attack, apply status effect (blind, hobbled etc etc). Effect lasts for number of rounds equal to value rolled on expertise dice, but you don't regain that die until the number of rounds have passed. So for example, Level 4 fighter has 2d6 expertise dice. Decides that he wants to blind the umberhulk, so attacks and rolls 1d6, gets a 3. For the next 3 rounds, the umberhulk is blinded, but the fighter only has 1 expertise die to use.
    While this model still needs plenty of refinement, I'll point out that at least the physical Expertise Die itself would make a convenient marker for tracking the duration remaining on the condition(s). So that makes the bookkeeping a little less onerous.
    Last edited by Draz74; 2012-11-30 at 05:45 PM.
    You can call me Draz.
    Trophies:
    Spoiler
    Show

    Also of note:

    I have a number of ongoing projects that I manically jump between to spend my free time ... so don't be surprised when I post a lot about something for a few days, then burn out and abandon it.
    ... yes, I need to be tested for ADHD.

  9. - Top - End - #1119
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

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

    I've been saying this time and time again and I don't think people are understanding it - I'm not against the system covering several archetypes, I just think the iconic archetypes should be dealt with first.

  10. - Top - End - #1120
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

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

    While this model still needs plenty of refinement, I'll point out that at least the physics Expertise Die itself would make a convenient marker for tracking the duration remaining on the condition(s). So that makes the bookkeeping a little less onerous.
    Indeed that was the intent. Most people hated spell components because the book keeping was too fiddly. Same with RAW encumbrance rules. 4e suffers from a lot of book keeping as you get higher in levels (see my previous rant regarding my rouge's multiple different rolls for one power based on the current tactical situation). But people are willing to do a basic amount of book keeping if its easy and quick, see the check list of spells for pre-4e D&D and the powers usage in 4e. Similarly, the current expertise dice doesn't require complex book keeping because all the dice renew each round.

    So it's clear that any additional book keeping that a power provides must be both easy to record and maintain and easy to understand. The very fact that expertise dice are dice, and that DMs and players alike have been using dice as simple round counters for years makes such a mechanic (at least to me) meet both of the goals.

  11. - Top - End - #1121
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Meridianville AL
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    I'd rather see a degree-of-success system rather than a number-on-die system, e.g. "If you beat their AC by 1 or more, you can deal extra damage, push, or trip. If you beat their AC by 4 or more, you can [inflict status condition]" and so forth. It's better than the proposed system because it gives the fighter more control because he can choose any valid option, and it makes him more effective against low-AC enemies rather than being at the mercy of the dice.
    I think that's worse.
    1) Beat armor class by X means you're basically subtracting at the table. This will slow combat down. (Seriously, it will, you may think "that's trivial, anyone could do it in less than a second", but you're not taking into account the number of rolls and that players aren't there to do math. It will increase attack resolution time by 50% of more.

    2) More control is the OPPOSITE of what I was trying for. What you're replying to was a deliberate attempt to stop "stun every turn" type tactics. Additionally: level does not correspond to monster AC, that's more or less explicit in their "bounded accuracy" model where boosts to hit actually boost your chance to hit because monster AC isn't getting better with level. So if you're giving a stun on hitting by +4, you're giving stuns vs. over leveled bosses every bit as often as you are vs. minions (except vs. a minion you'll just go "deadly strike" and kill it rather than using a fancy trick).

    If these abilities are to match a wizard's daily spells, they can't be more or less at will vs. any opponent. Which is what "beat AC by 4" pretty well does since monster AC averages about 15 REGARDLESS of monster level, and a level 6 fighter can reasonably have two attacks at +9 or so to each attack without any magic so he'll manage that about 80% of the time.

  12. - Top - End - #1122
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NY, USA
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    I've been saying this time and time again and I don't think people are understanding it - I'm not against the system covering several archetypes, I just think the iconic archetypes should be dealt with first.
    People get it, but they disagree.

    Personally, I'm hoping that the whole idea of focusing on "Iconic" D&D is just a marketing ploy by WotC that they aren't too serious about, because it would really hamper their design if they are. Is the Factotem iconic? Psionics? Building Strongholds and getting Followers? Awesome 2e settings like Dark Sun and Spelljammer, or 3.5 ones like Eberron?

    D&D might be the sacred cow of gaming, but the fastest way to kill it (outside of more poor game design) is to treat it like a literal idol. Make it a good game, people will buy it. Make another **** twinkie, people will turn their nose up at it and play Pathfinder instead. Focusing on "Iconic" aspects is just going to weaken their focus on strong game design.

  13. - Top - End - #1123
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Draz74's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    I've been saying this time and time again and I don't think people are understanding it - I'm not against the system covering several archetypes, I just think the iconic archetypes should be dealt with first.
    Contrary to Water_Bear's comment, I was going to say that I think we can all agree on this -- we just disagree about which archetypes are (or should be) iconic, and how high a priority other archetypes should be (i.e. Core or supplementary).
    You can call me Draz.
    Trophies:
    Spoiler
    Show

    Also of note:

    I have a number of ongoing projects that I manically jump between to spend my free time ... so don't be surprised when I post a lot about something for a few days, then burn out and abandon it.
    ... yes, I need to be tested for ADHD.

  14. - Top - End - #1124
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Lampert View Post
    2) More control is the OPPOSITE of what I was trying for. What you're replying to was a deliberate attempt to stop "stun every turn" type tactics. Additionally: level does not correspond to monster AC, that's more or less explicit in their "bounded accuracy" model where boosts to hit actually boost your chance to hit because monster AC isn't getting better with level. So if you're giving a stun on hitting by +4, you're giving stuns vs. over leveled bosses every bit as often as you are vs. minions (except vs. a minion you'll just go "deadly strike" and kill it rather than using a fancy trick).
    I said nothing about low-level monsters, just low-AC monsters. If the boss monster is a caster or tricky monster, the fighter should probably be better against them in melee than a warrior or brute monster, regardless of relative level.

    And control over tactics is a good thing, which is not incompatible with preventing stun spamming. You obviously wouldn't put stuns and such at AC+4, you'd put "half speed" or "deafened for a round," saving stuns and other SoLs for +10 or so. In fact, this approach makes stuns less common, because instead of just getting it when you hit with a 19, you'd need to hit with AC+10, which means it's rarer for any enemies with AC above 9 (i.e. most of them), and the same for the other numbers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    Contrary to Water_Bear's comment, I was going to say that I think we can all agree on this -- we just disagree about which archetypes are (or should be) iconic, and how high a priority other archetypes should be (i.e. Core or supplementary).
    Agreed. Look at the ranger: it's been different in every edition so far, and we had a debate upthread about what exactly is iconic about it. Certainly once it's decided what the "iconic ranger" is, that should be prioritized over variant rangers and such, but which ranger is the iconic one? The Aragorn clone? The Drizzt clone? The super-archer? The beastmaster?

    Extend that to fighter fighting styles (is S&B more iconic than 2HF?), rogue fighting styles (how easy should it be to sneak attack/backstab things?), monk fighting styles (unarmed vs. weapons? named styles vs. combos? psionic or ki or martial?), paladin alignment focus, barbarian totems, and more--and that's just the combat aspects of the noncasters. Determining what exactly is "iconic" is not an easy process.
    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

  15. - Top - End - #1125
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

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

    Honestly I would completely separate Fighting Styles from classes. Maybe standardize Fighting Styles into feats set for specific levels (say every other feat slot or so to allow some variability in builds), so if you want the Ranger to have the Fighting Styles shtick it's easy to just say "You gain any level 1 Fighting Style Feat" "You gain any level 6 Fighting Style Feat" et cetera.

  16. - Top - End - #1126
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Clistenes's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dienekes View Post
    Honestly I would completely separate Fighting Styles from classes. Maybe standardize Fighting Styles into feats set for specific levels (say every other feat slot or so to allow some variability in builds), so if you want the Ranger to have the Fighting Styles shtick it's easy to just say "You gain any level 1 Fighting Style Feat" "You gain any level 6 Fighting Style Feat" et cetera.
    THIS!!!!!

    Just use the ToB Manouvers and Stances, make them into feats, and make a third feat that allows recovery as a Warblade, Swordsage or Crusader according to your preference and the Manouver and Stances you have learned.

    If you make them into fighter feats, the fighter will AT LAST be able to use those bonus feats to become the strongest warrior class in the game.

    Also: About the Paladin, I think they should focus on making the class the best fighting supernatural evil, but a worse warrior than the Fighter or Barbarian when facing non-evil creatures.
    These are some upgrades they could try:

    -The Smite Evil feature upgrades as the character takes more levels of Paladin like the First of Raziel's own Smite Evil feature does.
    -The Smite Evil bonuses to attack and damage are added to all the attacks in the round it is activated.
    -Make the Great Smiting feat non-epic.
    -Make the Inmunity Against Fear upgrade to permanent Protection Against Evil at low/mid-evel.
    -Make the Aura of Courage upgrade into a permanent Circle Against Evil at mid-level.
    -Make the Detect Evil upgrade to Detect Chaos, Detect Magic, Discern Lie and Detect Thoughts as the character takes more levels of Paladin.
    -Make the Remove Disease feature upgrade to Neutralize Poison, Remove Fatigue, Remove Blindness/Deafness, Remove Paralisis, Remove Curse and Break Enchantment as the character gains new levels of Paladin (that is, the character could choose to cast those spells instead of Remove Disease).
    -Make Lay On Hands a swift action.
    -Make the mount as powerful as Pathfinder's.
    -Give the characte's weapon the Holy Weapon property for free at level 17-20.
    -Give it the spell progression of the Mystic Ranger, and make it Charisma-based.
    -Give the character the power to stun or banish evil outsiders when they turn undead, and let them use this power to exorcise undead and fiend posessing people.

    In short, the Paladin would be useful in many situations, but it would only be the best fighter when facing fiends or the undead.
    Last edited by Clistenes; 2012-11-30 at 08:06 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #1127
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    Is the Factotem iconic? Psionics? Building Strongholds and getting Followers? Awesome 2e settings like Dark Sun and Spelljammer, or 3.5 ones like Eberron?
    No, none of that is iconic. That is, outside of some niche of hardcore players, almost nobody has heard of it, and therefore it doesn't sell books. Conan, Gandalf, and Drizz't are iconic, among many others.

    On that matter: if the new Tolkien movie is doing well, expect the first 5E book to contain the hobbit race.
    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!

  18. - Top - End - #1128
    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 Kurald Galain View Post
    No, none of that is iconic. That is, outside of some niche of hardcore players, almost nobody has heard of it, and therefore it doesn't sell books. Conan, Gandalf, and Drizz't are iconic, among many others.

    On that matter: if the new Tolkien movie is doing well, expect the first 5E book to contain the hobbit race.
    ...You mean halflings? Those are definitely going to be there, they've been around since 1e. Pretty sure they won't be "hobbits" because they've never been hobbits. Hobbit is just what Tolkien called halflings.
    Jude P.

  19. - Top - End - #1129
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    No, none of that is iconic. That is, outside of some niche of hardcore players, almost nobody has heard of it, and therefore it doesn't sell books.
    I dunno, when I think "Why do I care about D&D" I think of this:

    Spoiler
    Show

  20. - Top - End - #1130
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese) View Post
    I dunno, when I think "Why do I care about D&D" I think of this:
    Oh don't get me wrong, I completely agree that it is awesome. But from WOTC marketing's perspective, it doesn't sell enough books, and therefore it's not a priority. Sad but true.
    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!

  21. - Top - End - #1131
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    And control over tactics is a good thing, which is not incompatible with preventing stun spamming. You obviously wouldn't put stuns and such at AC+4, you'd put "half speed" or "deafened for a round," saving stuns and other SoLs for +10 or so. In fact, this approach makes stuns less common, because instead of just getting it when you hit with a 19, you'd need to hit with AC+10, which means it's rarer for any enemies with AC above 9 (i.e. most of them), and the same for the other numbers.
    I still think you have a math problem there; Doug is right that asking the DM "how much did I beat his AC by?" every time would get old fast. It would make critical hits quite interesting*

    Honestly, at this point their best bet is simply making expertise dice work I think. There's plenty of design space for fighter "maneuvers" using them; I think the trick is just giving fighters a nice variety of maneuvers to pick from, scaling them as you level by the higher level maneuvers requiring more expertise dice. So slowing the enemy might cost one expertise dice, but blinding costs two, and outright dazing costs three, etc.

    *although you could probably make critical hits interesting for a fighter by simply giving them a free expertise die or two

  22. - Top - End - #1132
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashdate View Post
    I still think you have a math problem there
    You're right; for some reason there I mixed up a result of 19 with a natural 19.

    Still, the idea with degrees of success is that you get better at it as you level; instead of just having a 5% chance to do something when you roll a natural X, at any level against any target, if you have to beat AC by Y it's harder to do at low levels while by higher levels you can pull it off all the time. For instance, using the AC+10 = stun example, a 1st level fighter has a small chance to stun creatures with AC 10 or lower (5% for AC 10, +5% per point below that) while a 10th level fighter with 20 Str can potentially stun any creature with AC ≤ 20, with the chance to stun that AC 10 creature from 1st level having risen to 55%.

    Meanwhile, using the natural 19 option it happens 5% of the time regardless of level or target, so the 1st level fighter is has a chance to stun higher-level enemies (good for that level) and hasn't improved at all by 10th level (bad for that level). Further, with the threshold system you can choose to, say, blind a dragon for [die result] rounds instead of stun it for 1 round if that would be tactically better, while the natural X system doesn't give you any choice in the matter.

    Doug is right that asking the DM "how much did I beat his AC by?" every time would get old fast. It would make critical hits quite interesting*
    This is true, but memorizing the hit charts (plural, because presumably the ranger/paladin/monk/etc. would get maneuvers too) is also a pain; if you want to base maneuvers on the die roll instead of using up resources, putting things under the player's control is a better option despite the annoyance.

    Honestly, at this point their best bet is simply making expertise dice work I think. There's plenty of design space for fighter "maneuvers" using them; I think the trick is just giving fighters a nice variety of maneuvers to pick from, scaling them as you level by the higher level maneuvers requiring more expertise dice. So slowing the enemy might cost one expertise dice, but blinding costs two, and outright dazing costs three, etc.

    *although you could probably make critical hits interesting for a fighter by simply giving them a free expertise die or two
    I disagree that maneuvers should require more dice as you level. Caster scaling vs. lack of fighter scaling is part of the cause of the imbalance. Fighters should have the value of each individual die increase as they level in addition to being able to do more things with them.

    To use Whirlwind Attack as an example, the current version is fairly pathetic for its level: hit three adjacent monsters and do up to 1d10 damage to each, woohoo. At the bare minimum you should get an actual Whirlwind Attack, where you spend one die and deal that damage to everything adjacent, and I don't think that an Improved Whirlwind Attack that let you spend a die and deal full normal attack damage to them would be out of line. The designers seem to be afraid to give the fighter ways to hit multiple enemies for some reason (probably a side effect of most monsters being boring sacks of HP at this point, but let's not get into that), so they're balancing the stuff you can do with your expertise dice against Deadly Strike--Whirlwind Attack is "Deadly Strike, but to multiple targets" and so on--at the cost of not getting your normal damage.

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that spending N expertise dice to activate a maneuver should give you an effect on par with a level 2N ToB maneuver or a level 4N 4e fighter power (basically the same thing). Each maneuver a fighter gets is two entire levels' worth of class features, so it's unacceptable for them to be as pathetic as the maneuvers in the playtest packet. An N-die maneuver that lets you immobilize your target for N rounds, pick up and throw them 20N feet, gain +N attack against them in exchange for -N to AC for a round, impose disadvantage on saves for N rounds, push them 5N feet and follow them, and similar--all in addition to the baseline +Nd10 damage for spending those dice, mind you--seem like the kind of class features a 10th-level fighter might notice and care about, and even then I'd want to give them one maneuver per level rather than per 2 levels to really keep things interesting.
    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

  23. - Top - End - #1133
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    1) On the subject of Expertise Dice, and ways to utilize them for more cool stuff, a suggestion I put up a while back was basically this:

    At any time the Fighter can choose to double his expertise dice for the next round. Doing so causes him to lose one expertise dice until his next short rest. The Fighter may instead choose to triple his expertise dice for the next round. Doing so causes him to lose one expertise dice until his next extended rest.


    Basically this allows the Fighter to push himself beyond his normal limits and accomplish truly amazing things, but has a built in exhaustion mechanic, that turns expertise dice into a resource that I believe most people are capable of accepting because it makes sense. Rather than "Why can't my Fighter do his level 5 daily power again but he can still do his level 9 daily power?", you already know that the Fighter used a daily to get a 9 dice maneuver off, so now for the rest of the day he has two dice. He can get a 6 die maneuver off if he really needs to, or once a fight he can get a 4 die maneuver off, but doing so is going to tire him out even further.

    This also allows a convenient scaling mechanism that allows low level daily powers to easily be used as higher level at will powers. That whirlwind attack that was a daily power at level 1 the Fighter is doing at will by level 5-7ish. And by that point, the Fighter has access to much more potent abilities.

    Now, this would require an increase in maneuvers known, and more abilities to be scalable in a meaningful way. ie none of this bs "Roll all dice and take the highest", but instead "Roll it all add them up" or "Knock back 10ft per die spent", that sort of thing. So if the 20th level Fighter wants to use his daily doing a super jump, yes he jumps 30d10 feet in the air. If he wants to knock that guy really far back, yes he just threw him 300ft into a wall. And these probably are really bad uses of his nova capability because he should have at least one epic power that costs 30 dice to use that only a 20th level Fighter can do and only one time per day.

    But if handled right I could see being the basis for a system that allows a Fighter to compete on a round-by-round level, and also walk in lock step with the nova capability of a high level spellcaster using his best toys.



    2) On Fighting Styles, my preferred way is to make every style usable as a baseline. Yes, that includes Two-Weapon Fighting. These things should be basic proficiencies that you can get just from class training, no feats required. You can then introduce some Fighting Style Feats to specialize in a specific style, but these should either just be minor options (which is pretty boring), or should be basically universal options that given out for free to basically any martially themed class.

    Like for a Rogue you might say "Pick TWF or Einhander style. You gain style feats appropriate to that style at 1, 3, and 6". A Ranger might get to choose TWF or Archery. A Barbarian would get TWF or Two Hander. A Warlord might get to pick Sword and Board or Polearm. A Fighter might get to take any two of his choice. And so on. Basically you make these feats a bit better than other feats, but any class that would actually want them gets them for free. And if a Wizard or Cleric decides they want to gish it up, they can eat the feat tax for doing that rather than casting spells.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  24. - Top - End - #1134
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Seerow View Post
    1) On the subject of Expertise Dice, and ways to utilize them for more cool stuff, a suggestion I put up a while back was basically this:

    At any time the Fighter can choose to double his expertise dice for the next round. Doing so causes him to lose one expertise dice until his next short rest. The Fighter may instead choose to triple his expertise dice for the next round. Doing so causes him to lose one expertise dice until his next extended rest.
    I like it. Simple, elegant, intuitive.

    2) On Fighting Styles, my preferred way is to make every style usable as a baseline. Yes, that includes Two-Weapon Fighting. These things should be basic proficiencies that you can get just from class training, no feats required. You can then introduce some Fighting Style Feats to specialize in a specific style, but these should either just be minor options (which is pretty boring), or should be basically universal options that given out for free to basically any martially themed class.
    Agreed; TWF sucking by default while 2HF is fine has to go. I don't remember whether it was this thread or another one, but I mentioned one idea for making fighting styles more generic: any offensive or defensive maneuvers (basically, any non-utility maneuvers like the super-jump you mentioned) affect the target of one melee attack (offensive) or the fighter) defensive), and fighting style feats just open up new uses for all your maneuvers, like "you can use defensive maneuvers on an adjacent ally" for S&B or "you can use offensive maneuvers with ranged attacks" for archery or similar. That lets you specialize in certain styles without having to write lists of new maneuvers to go with them or making the basic option suck.

    I'd also like to see meta-maneuver feats, since I'm sure metamagic will show up in force again in 5e. Stuff like taking a -1 die penalty on a maneuver to reroll X expertise dice, taking -3 dice to affect all targets within reach with the maneuver, taking -6 dice to maximize all dice, stuff like that. But that kind of tweaking can wait until the baseline system works.
    Last edited by PairO'Dice Lost; 2012-12-02 at 02:50 AM.
    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 - #1135
    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 Seerow View Post
    1) On the subject of Expertise Dice, and ways to utilize them for more cool stuff, a suggestion I put up a while back was basically this:

    At any time the Fighter can choose to double his expertise dice for the next round. Doing so causes him to lose one expertise dice until his next short rest. The Fighter may instead choose to triple his expertise dice for the next round. Doing so causes him to lose one expertise dice until his next extended rest.
    Hey, that actually sounds fairly good.
    Jude P.

  26. - Top - End - #1136
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

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

    On the subject of fighting styles, I agree with most of what's been said, but I think that some style-exclusive manuevers, abilities, feats or what have you are a good idea. It'll help make them both more unique and balanced.
    I also think it's not a good idea to restrict classes in terms of combat styles unless there's a very good reason. If I want to make a spear-wielding ranger, I should be able to do so.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  27. - Top - End - #1137
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

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

    It could be done with several different fighting styles for Ranger, such as Pathfinder and late 3.5 did.

  28. - Top - End - #1138
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

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

    Yes, but a far simpler and more effective way to do so would be to simply not tie any of the warrior classes into any particular weapon combination nor restrict them from any. Let Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers use whatever weapon they feel like using.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  29. - Top - End - #1139
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Yes, but a far simpler and more effective way to do so would be to simply not tie any of the warrior classes into any particular weapon combination nor restrict them from any. Let Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers use whatever weapon they feel like using.
    Well it all comes back to proficiencies. Some people would prefer that any class can use any set of weapons, because it doesn't really matter. Others would prefer that a class has proficiencies selected that fit the class's core concepts, even if an individual may want to go outside of that.

    For example, while you may like the idea of a Ranger using a polearm, what about a Rogue using a Greatsword, or a Halberd? Neither of these weapons really screams "Rogue". Does it make sense that the Rogue would even be proficient with these weapons, much less be able to pick it up as their specialization?

    Basically, if you want the classes to have any sort of default flavor rather than being exclusively building blocks, there needs to be some restrictions. The examples I gave are just that, examples. A spear wielding ranger for example does fit flavorwise just fine. I could even see later there being ACFs that give classes access to styles outside the norm, so if you want that Greatsword Rogue, you go with the Thug ACF, picking up Medium Armor and Two Handed Weapons, and losing something else in its place.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  30. - Top - End - #1140
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

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

    I should have specified that when I said "warrior classes" I didn't really mean the Rogue. It does make sense for the Rogues and caster classes to be restricted in their use of weapons, but martial classes - by which I mean Fighters, Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians - should be able to specialize in any melee or ranged weapon. Their flavor - weaponsmaster, wilderness survivor, religious warrior and savage warrior - is unchanged regardless of what sort of weapon they use.
    Last edited by Morty; 2012-12-02 at 01:34 PM.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

Posting Permissions

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