Page 5 of 50 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141530 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 1486
  1. - Top - End - #121
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

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

    I think they understood "this fighter is looking pretty decent as a starting point compared to earlier fighters" to mean "this fighter is the best thing ever nobody will ever want to play a wizard if you keep making this fighter better so you'd better stop now".
    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.

  2. - Top - End - #122
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob.Tyr View Post
    How what why? Lets make the fighter even simpler, great...
    I think they mean (based off of their earlier remarks) that they're currently focusing on the more simplistic Fighter maneuvers so if someone wants to make a simple fighter they can. That's been their goal since the beginning that the Fighter can be made complicated but the option to be simplistic is still present.

    Still, we'll see how it turns out. If anything I think the current fighter they have waits too long between gaining new maneuvers.

  3. - Top - End - #123
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    obryn's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    Unless something has changed that I'm unaware of, D&D Next is attempting to get away from +X/-X modifiers, and instead tries to use Advantage for every situation - meaning that it's unlikely the stealth system, whatever it turns out to be, will use bonuses/penalties. While I think that some of the different systems that have been proposed in this thread are promising, it's worth keeping in mind that kind of design constraint when making a suggestion. If they've reneged on this design, feel free to ignore me.
    They seem to have moved beyond this. Advantage/Disadvantage are much rarer than they were in playtest 1. Now (for example) Kobolds and Rats get +1's.

    -O

  4. - Top - End - #124
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    TheOOB's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob.Tyr View Post
    How what why? Lets make the fighter even simpler, great...
    You forgot to turn your sarcasm blinkers on.

    One thing that cannot be overstated is how absolutely important it is to have simple play options available for players who want them. Everybody's core engagement with D&D is different. Some people want to use a suite of abilities in unique ways to solve difficult problems, some people want an epic story, some people want to slaughter hoards of foes, and some people really just want to hang out with their friends who happen to be playing D&D. D&D needs to have options for all of those players and more.

    See, the problem with 4e was there was no really choice. Every class had about the same level of complexity. People who liked playing complex characters felt stifled, while characters who just wanted to hit people with a sharp stick were intimidated by they deck full of powers. It was a bad game design decision.

    There are people out there who just want to attack things, or just want to heal. They don't want the spotlight, they don't want to make tough choices, they just want to play, and their enjoyment is just as important as anyone elses. As such, the game needs options for those players.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  5. - Top - End - #125
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Oracle_Hunter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    There are people out there who just want to attack things, or just want to heal. They don't want the spotlight, they don't want to make tough choices, they just want to play, and their enjoyment is just as important as anyone elses. As such, the game needs options for those players.
    IMHO, these people should probably be playing a simpler game then.

    Not every RPG needs to be for everyone. I wouldn't recommend Mountain Witch to a hardcore min/maxer any more than I'd ask a Pure Roleplayer to build a SR3 character. It may just be my personal preferences coming into play but I felt that the 4e Character Builder threaded the needle just right -- a simple framework for character building that had enough scope for the more complexity-driven without leaving the "simple gamers" in the dust.

    My proclivities aside, trying to permit "simple" and "complex" options within a single game presents substantial issues when it comes to build-relevance. Since the idea is to have a mix of "simple" and "complex" Players in a single party it is essential to keep the gap in power between the two narrow enough that they can still face the same challenges. It is no good at all for the "simple" Player to be in a game where their basic function is usurped by a "complex" character who can do everything the "simple" character can and more. Likewise "complex" Players will get frustrated if their elaborate min/maxing does not grant them a significant advantage over a "simple" build -- all that effort will feel wasted.

    Personally, I don't know of a good way to balance the two. Increased flexibility for the "complex" can quickly result in One Man Parties without scrupulous restraint by the "complex" Player; powerful "simple" options will just be incorporated into "complex" builds unless you segregate the options somehow.

    D&D is, at its heart, a war-game with roots in the minuate of Encumbrance Tables, Weapon Speeds, and Damage Type v. Armor Type modifiers: it has never really been suited for rules-light gameplay and efforts to make it so will only end in a bloated, compromised system. Also tears.
    Lead Designer for Oracle Hunter Games
    Today a Blog, Tomorrow a Business!


    ~ Awesome Avatar by the phantastic Phase ~
    Spoiler
    Show

    Elflad

  6. - Top - End - #126
    Banned
     
    willpell's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle_Hunter View Post
    IMHO, these people should probably be playing a simpler game then.
    A simpler game would not have beholders in it. If D&D is going to hoard its intellectual property, then it should give everyone the opportunity to enjoy that IP, or else Wotco's basically turning down money from people who aren't interested in whatever they've arbitrarily limited D&D to being.

    Since the idea is to have a mix of "simple" and "complex" Players in a single party it is essential to keep the gap in power between the two narrow enough that they can still face the same challenges. It is no good at all for the "simple" Player to be in a game where their basic function is usurped by a "complex" character who can do everything the "simple" character can and more.
    This is why I favor the idea of having a very narrow band of capability within which the power ranking goes: poorly-played Wizard, poorly-played Fighter, well-played Fighter, well-played Wizard. The Wizard needs to be a high-stakes bet, requiring much effort to pilot correctly, paying off in noticeably but not absurdly higher power if you do everything right, but being very easy to do wrong. While the Fighter should be safe, a workhorse, doing good work with minimal effort and nigh-impossible to botch with, but not capable of being pushed very hard. Note that it's not necessary for the complex classes to be magical and the simple ones nonmagical; you could just as easily say Monk/Swordsage and Sorcerer/Warlock (concept of the first/execution of the second, more or less), assuming they were built right. But the no-brainer option should be very central in its effectiveness, while the alternative is a puzzle that has to be successfully unlocked if it's to compete. The player can then gravitate to whichever of those offers the play experience he prefers, without the system punishing him (or giving him unearned rewards).

  7. - Top - End - #127
    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 willpell View Post
    A simpler game would not have beholders in it. If D&D is going to hoard its intellectual property, then it should give everyone the opportunity to enjoy that IP, or else Wotco's basically turning down money from people who aren't interested in whatever they've arbitrarily limited D&D to being.
    1) You can add beholders to your home games in any RPG where they would be genre- or theme-appropriate, and that's a very wide range of games indeed.

    2) D&D isn't "arbitrarily limited" by its complexity any more than soccer is "arbitrarily limited" by being a game about kicking a ball around into a goal. Complex rules and interlocking subsystems are as much an integral part of 1e through 4e as realism and modularity are to GURPS and aspects and a unified mechanic are to FATE.
    Last edited by PairO'Dice Lost; 2012-10-16 at 02:25 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!
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  8. - Top - End - #128
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2006

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    No, that's a trap. Any time a DM has to make up a rule on the fly the rules failed the DM. I could see multiple possible options existing, but the book needs clear rules for stealth so that there is a functional baseline for everyone to work off of.

    I actually really likes passive perception from 4e and thought it worked well for the majority of situations. In 4e I'd only have a guard roll their perception if the PC got really close to them or interacted with them in some way.

    I misunderstood and thought they were still using passive perception, so people were discussing how often a player or NPC should be allowed to make an active roll. If it's roll-or-nothing then I agree there can be some odd stuff going on that needs a bit more than "let the DM handle it."
    Now with half the calories!

  9. - Top - End - #129
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by willpell View Post
    A simpler game would not have beholders in it. If D&D is going to hoard its intellectual property, then it should give everyone the opportunity to enjoy that IP, or else Wotco's basically turning down money from people who aren't interested in whatever they've arbitrarily limited D&D to being.
    I disagree; there's nothing to stop WotC from breaking D&D into two games, one simple, one complex. In fact, they even have an available name for the complex one; Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. All players can be satisfied, but not by the same product. There's no reason to think that D&D should or even can cater to all players simultaneously.
    *********
    Matters of Critical Insignificance - My Blog for all my favorite entertainment
    08/18: Playing without a grid? Theater of the Mind too vague? My gridless tactical positioning system hits the sweet spot!

  10. - Top - End - #130
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Nu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Beyond the flow of time

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Stubbazubba View Post
    I disagree; there's nothing to stop WotC from breaking D&D into two games, one simple, one complex. In fact, they even have an available name for the complex one; Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. All players can be satisfied, but not by the same product. There's no reason to think that D&D should or even can cater to all players simultaneously.
    But that is what they are currently trying to do with DnD Next. They deliberately seem to want to avoid that split that you suggest, I'm guessing it won't even be considered.

    Personally I am also horrified by the idea of a "simpler" fighter. Expertise dice or not, I'm playing a slayer in the current playtest version, and 95% of what I do is stand in one place and swing my weapon. There's no need to deadly strike because monsters die in one hit anyway, there's no need to parry because monsters can't hit, and glancing blow is worthless. Maybe once I get cleave I'll actually get to spend my expertise dice. I honestly don't see how they could make it simpler without it looking just embarrassing.

  11. - Top - End - #131
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    TheOOB's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle_Hunter View Post
    IMHO, these people should probably be playing a simpler game then.
    While I'll be the first person to tell you D&D is not the best system for every game(seriously I will, look at my post history), D&D kind of has to appeal to everybody. It is far and away the most popular PnP RPG, especially here in the States, and a vast majority of the RPG players either know how to play D&D, or only play D&D.

    Thus, if you're looking to play RPG's, you'll probably play D&D first, and D&D groups will likely be easier to find. D&D is very successful, but it pays for that success by needed mass market appeal, which means appealing to everyone, including casual gamers. Besides, casual gamers are great to have in the party, they add extra damage and hp to the party, and an extra friend to have fun with without taking screen time or caring if you ham it up a little.

    As for splitting the game, that's usually a bad idea. Splitting your player base creates developmental problems, where you have to design two different systems separately. Likely one system will be more well liked and become the standard, and people who bet on the other horse will just be annoyed. Aside from that, splitting your fan base will make it harder to find groups, and one of the greatest strengths of D&D is how(comparatively) easy it is to find players. If I want to play 7th Sea or Paranoia, I'll have a tough time finding people, and even tougher if I need them to have the books. For D&D I know literally dozens of people who play and own the books.
    Last edited by TheOOB; 2012-10-17 at 01:17 AM.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  12. - Top - End - #132
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Blue Lantern's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Gender
    Male

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

    While I can agree with your reasoning I am widley skeptical they can manage to pull it off without creating some wide gaps in the rules that will be expolited.
    I personally think that choosing a middle ground of complexity required character creation as a baseline and designing the class around that would be better.

    But I my opinion on Next (so far) is that many of the issues of 3.5 will be back, less highlighted maybe, but still present.
    After years of disintoxication I'm back in the D&D tunnel

    "I don’t understand God. I don’t understand how He could see the way people treat one another, and not chalk up the whole human race as a bad idea. I guess He’s just bigger about it than I would be."
    Jim Butcher-Dresden Files, book 3

  13. - Top - End - #133
    Orc in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Chosen Spot
    Gender
    Male

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

    I'm disappointed that they didn't go the route of more focused classes (e.g. the 3.5 Beguiler) when it came to class design guidelines...

    • One focused area in which the class is really good, an expert, better than others who aren't focused in this area. It's their space in which to be an authority on the subject within the game world.
    • Two focused areas in which the class is reliable and competent without being an expert. Give the player some choices so their build of the class is customized.
    • Two focused areas in which the class dabbles, better and more knowledgable than the average person. Give the player some choices so their build of the class is customized.


    There are things outside of the class definition that would allow for more customization, for example: skills, backgrounds, and whatnot.

    I feel like more focused classes are easire to design and slot into the game system.
    Frolic and dance for joy often.
    Be determined in your ventures.
    -KAB

  14. - Top - End - #134
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Madfellow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2012

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

    I think they're getting to that. Most of the classic d&d classes (aside from the Big Four) are fairly rocused, and it's practically certain that we'll have more classes than just the Big Four in the final game.

  15. - Top - End - #135
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    TheOOB's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Lantern View Post
    While I can agree with your reasoning I am widley skeptical they can manage to pull it off without creating some wide gaps in the rules that will be expolited.
    I personally think that choosing a middle ground of complexity required character creation as a baseline and designing the class around that would be better.

    But I my opinion on Next (so far) is that many of the issues of 3.5 will be back, less highlighted maybe, but still present.
    There doesn't need to be wide gaps. Casual players, as a rule, don't like making tough decisions. Ergo, you need to make classes that are effective with fairly rout tactics. The Next Fighter is a good example of this. If you only use your expertise dice to increase your damage on your attacks, you are doing your job as a fighter, you are causing damage(and a lot of damage at that). You can use your other combat maneuvers to gain other abilities that are obvious when they should be used, or just ignore them. Sure you won't be as effective as a fighter who carefully uses all of their maneuvers, but the casual gamer isn't looking for power, they are looking to hang out with friends. This way they get what they want, and the party gets a useful ally.

    However, in 5e, the fighter can have more complexity, which means it's not purely for casual gamers, and if a casual gamer starts getting more into the game, that can start making their character more complex.

    As for bringing back the issues of 3.5, that's kind of a difficult topic to bring up. What are the issues of 3.5? What caused those issues? How have they be solved by people in the past? What can be done to fix them in the future? Those are all questions that need answers, and I promise you WotC R&D is trying to do just that.
    Last edited by TheOOB; 2012-10-17 at 12:13 PM.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  16. - Top - End - #136
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    As for bringing back the issues of 3.5, that's kind of a difficult topic to bring up. What are the issues of 3.5? What caused those issues? How have they be solved by people in the past? What can be done to fix them in the future? Those are all questions that need answers, and I promise you WotC R&D is trying to do just that.
    Yes. For starters, what the issues actually are is completely different from what theoretical points are repeated ad infinitum in the echo chamber that is message boards.
    Crystal Shard Studios - classy freeware games!

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

  17. - Top - End - #137
    Orc in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Chosen Spot
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Madfellow View Post
    I think they're getting to that. Most of the classic d&d classes (aside from the Big Four) are fairly rocused, and it's practically certain that we'll have more classes than just the Big Four in the final game.
    I do hope they get there.

    I guess I was hoping the typical big four (fighter, mage, cleric, thief) would not exist in the game as generic classes but instead that their more specialized derivities would be present only.

    I suppose mentally I'm approaching this as an object oriented design problem with various is-a and has-a relationships where the abstract base classes won't end up appearing in the Player's Handbook.

    Code:
    abstract class ClassBase
    
    abstract class Spellcaster : ClassBase
    abstract class Mage : Spellcaster
    class Beguiler : Mage
    
    abstract class Mundane : ClassBase
    abstract class Fighter : Mundane
    class Warlord : Fighter
    While a non-spellcaster class would not have any built in magical abilities, they would still be able to pick up magical abilities via has-a relationships, however they would acquire them according to the game system.

    I suppose I'm getting way too geeky because I'm starting to feel the need to draw up a data model or class diagram. So I'll just leave it there.

    P.S. Madfellow, as a fellow bard I saLUTE you!
    Last edited by Kerrin; 2012-10-17 at 04:03 PM.
    Frolic and dance for joy often.
    Be determined in your ventures.
    -KAB

  18. - Top - End - #138
    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 Kerrin View Post
    I do hope they get there.

    I guess I was hoping the typical big four (fighter, mage, cleric, thief) would not exist in the game as generic classes but instead that their more specialized derivities would be present only.
    Well, the big four don't have to be generic. They weren't always the generic "divine magic guy," "arcane magic guy," "combat guy," and "skills guy"--originally, clerics and fighters were armored warriors, one with offensive weapon capabilities and the other with healing/restorative/defensive magic, while thieves and magic-users were primarily non-combat Swiss army knives who could toss a fireball or stab a fool in a pinch. There are plenty of ways to have the big four in the game without them ending up as generic cover-any-concept classes.

    I suppose I'm getting way too geeky because I'm starting to feel the need to draw up a data model or class diagram. So I'll just leave it there.
    Not too geeky at all. I already used (and had to explain) the class inheritance model to my group when they saw that article, as well as interface implementation when the subject of swappable magic systems came up.
    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 - #139
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Clawhound's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    MD
    Gender
    Male

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

    IMHO, in 3.5, much of the issues of non-magic classes vs. magic classes. It's really that simple. It's as if the game was designed by two sets of teams, one of which worked on magic and the other that didn't, and they created classes using different benchmarks.

    In general, non-magic folks advanced linearly and needed to use their gold just to keep up their equipment. Magic folks increased power far faster and used their gold to buy even more power.

    There's more to it than that, of course, but I think those two points are key.

    In Next, classes will be less magic equipment dependent, so any added magic should add equally to the classes. Presumably, they are working on magic to make it cool but less runaway spectacular.

    As an aside, I expect no classes to ever come with their own free actions ever again (such as a Druid or a summoner).

  20. - Top - End - #140
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2006

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Clawhound View Post
    As an aside, I expect no classes to ever come with their own free actions ever again (such as a Druid or a summoner).
    You may be correct, but I hope not. There's NOTHING inherently wrong or unballanced about a minion based class. There's a problem with minion based classes where the minions are individually combat significant and the PC is also at or above the power level of some of the other PCs.

    Default BtB Familiars are not overpowered.

    The followers are not what makes Leadership about three times as good as any other feat in the game, 40 followers is fine, one cohort is broken strong.

    The Ranger's animal companion or the paladin's mount isn't a big problem either.

    Take spellcasting and wildshape off the 3.5 Druid, and the class would be considered very weak. The problem ISN'T the pet, its that you've ADDED a powerful pet to a powerful class. Weak pet is fine, otherwise familiars and ranger pets would break the game. Strong pet is fine, the paladin mount is actually very good.

    But strong pet with independent actions + strong class is broken.

    I can solve the above statement plenty of ways that don't touch the fact that pets get independent actions. Take 1 CS die off a D&DNext fighter, and give him a pet that's likely to hit for about the equivalent of 1 CS die in damage and takes about the CS die size+1 damage to disable. I don't see how this is a balance problem, and it doesn't really slow the game down if you make sure the pet's powers are limited to "I hit it or I bite it".

  21. - Top - End - #141
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Clawhound View Post
    As an aside, I expect no classes to ever come with their own free actions ever again (such as a Druid or a summoner).
    Do you think summoners in 4E (druids or wizards) are overpowered? Because they certainly do come with their own free actions.

    See, I think this just needs to be balanced. If players summon a creature, they expect it to do something, not to require the summoner's actions to move around (you're a summoner, not a puppet master). This is similar to how players, when they fight with two weapons, expect to roll two attack rolls.
    Crystal Shard Studios - classy freeware games!

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

  22. - Top - End - #142
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Clawhound's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    MD
    Gender
    Male

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

    I think that the designers have repeatedly learned that any additional player actions are very powerful, especially for ongoing or compounding actions. I know that they were very problematic in 3.X. I saw no issues with 4.x, other than expanding turn time, but as expanding turn time is a no-no in Next, that makes it a problem.

    I think that the action ecology of Next is sufficiently narrow that we just won't see the ability to get more actions or proxy actions on an extended basis. We likely will see some additional actions, such as for one round per day.

    As for summoners, companions, and such, I expect to see an entire design round dedicated to their issues. They will have to wrestle with that inherent conflict of puppet master vs. additional actions. I can't predict what they will settle on.

  23. - Top - End - #143
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Blue Lantern's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    There doesn't need to be wide gaps. Casual players, as a rule, don't like making tough decisions. Ergo, you need to make classes that are effective with fairly rout tactics. The Next Fighter is a good example of this. If you only use your expertise dice to increase your damage on your attacks, you are doing your job as a fighter, you are causing damage(and a lot of damage at that). You can use your other combat maneuvers to gain other abilities that are obvious when they should be used, or just ignore them. Sure you won't be as effective as a fighter who carefully uses all of their maneuvers, but the casual gamer isn't looking for power, they are looking to hang out with friends. This way they get what they want, and the party gets a useful ally.

    However, in 5e, the fighter can have more complexity, which means it's not purely for casual gamers, and if a casual gamer starts getting more into the game, that can start making their character more complex.

    As for bringing back the issues of 3.5, that's kind of a difficult topic to bring up. What are the issues of 3.5? What caused those issues? How have they be solved by people in the past? What can be done to fix them in the future? Those are all questions that need answers, and I promise you WotC R&D is trying to do just that.
    I think you misunderstood my comment, I don't think there is need of a wide gap, I am afraid there will be. I agree with your point of view and I would love nothing more that have classes that could be played in a simple manner, like picking all the default choice, or the same class used at his widest with a lot of options, and that the two options could still be pretty much even, it is just that I am skeptical the designers could manage to do that; after all it is an extremely difficult task.
    That is why I think it would be better and a most easily reachable goal to chose a baseline of complexity and balance the classes around that.
    Also I believe that even if they manage to pull their state d goal off there will be complains by the people who likes the Char Gen minigame.

    Also my issues with 3.5 is that the system encourages complexity in the character creation, and I really don't like all the multiclassing and PrC messes that are so prevalent in the edition.
    After years of disintoxication I'm back in the D&D tunnel

    "I don’t understand God. I don’t understand how He could see the way people treat one another, and not chalk up the whole human race as a bad idea. I guess He’s just bigger about it than I would be."
    Jim Butcher-Dresden Files, book 3

  24. - Top - End - #144
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

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

    The only way to ensure that a better-built character is at the same power level as a standard character is by making the choices meaningless. That's not going to happen. As long as there is a list of feats, there will always be stronger and weaker feats, and any player that competently cherry-picks feats will have a stronger character than a player that doesn't. This just follows from the design axioms.

    That said, of course WOTC can limit the gap to some extent. But that said, the need for balance is way, way overstated in message board discussions, and I strongly suspect that WOTC is aware of that. So I don't think that creating a fully balanced game is high on their list of priorities - first because that's a huge time investment, and second because only a vocal minority actually wants such a game.
    Crystal Shard Studios - classy freeware games!

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

  25. - Top - End - #145
    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
    The only way to ensure that a better-built character is at the same power level as a standard character is by making the choices meaningless. That's not going to happen. As long as there is a list of feats, there will always be stronger and weaker feats, and any player that competently cherry-picks feats will have a stronger character than a player that doesn't. This just follows from the design axioms.
    Only if you consider balance to be a binary feature. Perfect balance may be impossible but a competent designer can get imperceptibly close. Furthermore you can save 99% of your work in balancing a game by just thinking ahead.

  26. - Top - End - #146
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Recovering from RSI
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese) View Post
    Only if you consider balance to be a binary feature. Perfect balance may be impossible but a competent designer can get imperceptibly close. Furthermore you can save 99% of your work in balancing a game by just thinking ahead.
    Although arguably, because it's desirable for system mastery and optimization to mean something, perfect balance is not a good goal; however, something more nearly balanced than e.g. 3.5 is still desirable, and not necessarily all that difficult.
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

    Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity

  27. - Top - End - #147
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Craft (Cheese)'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tuggyne View Post
    Although arguably, because it's desirable for system mastery and optimization to mean something, perfect balance is not a good goal; however, something more nearly balanced than e.g. 3.5 is still desirable, and not necessarily all that difficult.
    Actually, I would argue it's your choices in play where system mastery should matter, not your choices during character creation before play even starts.

  28. - Top - End - #148
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2006

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    The only way to ensure that a better-built character is at the same power level as a standard character is by making the choices meaningless.
    Wrong. If there is a "best" design, then make sure that the standard DEFAULT character presented in the rules is that design.

    If there are multiple "best" designs for different roles then make sure that ONE of those roles is best covered by the standard character.

    Done. You can have all the choices you want. And the standard default character is ballanced. All that's required is that the designers have a good idea of how their own system works so they can produce at least ONE ballanced alternative. If the designers can't even come up with a competative design then maybe we need different designers.

    They're GIVING us backgrounds that are obviously "intended" for certain classes, they're GIVING us specialties similarly focused. Make sure the background and specialty they SAY are good for fighters are actually the BEST choices for fighters, make sure they recommend good ability priorities for that fighter build, and then also make sure the fighter is a reasonable class and you're done. There's a simple, effectively design choice free, class that functions at a high level without any system mastery.
    Last edited by Doug Lampert; 2012-10-18 at 09:27 PM.

  29. - Top - End - #149
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese) View Post
    Actually, I would argue it's your choices in play where system mastery should matter, not your choices during character creation before play even starts.
    Indeed, which to me is one of the hidden geniuses of the early magic user spell systems, where by you had to find spells and didn't automatically gain them each level (or if you did, it was still random which ones). There were no choices to be made at character creation or level up regardless of class. System mastery was reflected in play, not on the character sheet.

    That said, if you are going to offer choices, they should be meaningful else they are no choice at all. I don't mind incomparables as choices, and I honestly hope that WotC makes most of the choices incomparables. I am afraid however that the math behind the system, and the common sentiment that without hard numbers, the rules aren't worth anything, will not be conducive to a game full of incomparables.

  30. - Top - End - #150
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tuggyne View Post
    Although arguably, because it's desirable for system mastery and optimization to mean something, perfect balance is not a good goal; however, something more nearly balanced than e.g. 3.5 is still desirable, and not necessarily all that difficult.
    Balance does not mean every single option is mathematically equal, which is something people who complain about people that want balance do not understand.

    Balance as part of game design is little more than making every option's difference in power fully intentional. One option being more powerful than another does not a bad, or even unbalanced game make. One option being more powerful than most options, and only because the people that wrote it didn't realize the option would be the best by a large margin. That's bad, unbalanced game design, and it hurts the game far more than it helps.

Posting Permissions

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