Results 721 to 750 of 1486
Thread: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
-
2012-11-13, 07:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- New Zealand
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
I agree that too many manoeuvres actually roll the dice rather than spending them. Compare Step of the Wind, where I can spend all 3d10 of my level 10 dice and get in the worst case an extra three squares of movement (but it's ok, I can walk on water) to Spring Attack where for the cost of one die I get an extra 6 squares movement guaranteed. At least Hurricane Strike didn't make the same mistake.
If you think that's bad, have you read the latest Turn Undead? It takes up more than an whole column of text, around 450 words, to describe it. I'd flat out ban it just for how long it would take to resolve in combat.Last edited by Excession; 2012-11-13 at 07:27 PM.
-
2012-11-13, 07:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
I'm sorry you find different views of elfgames offensive. However...
If optimization means boring by-the-numbers play than that form of optimization should be excised in full for something that is both interesting and dynamic, not elevated as something for "intelligent players". That direction leads to traps and poor design that made 3.5 such a terribly balanced and written system for it's genre.
Making a game where the fun aspects of play are outright worse is the way crappy games get made, and in this case especially, is based in bad logic, as it's not necessary for preparatory challenges to so strongly influence execution challenges.
-O
-
2012-11-13, 07:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
My feedback on the Monk:
http://community.wizards.com/go/thre.../Monk_FeedbackLast edited by Surrealistik; 2012-11-13 at 07:41 PM.
-
2012-11-13, 07:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
-
2012-11-13, 07:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Is anyone else bothered by the overly fiddly maneuvers where sometimes you roll and add and sometimes you roll and take the highest?
I dunno. I don't love expertise dice as a universal mechanic. I think it's an "if the only tool you have is a hammer..." issue with the design team.
-O
-
2012-11-13, 07:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Not different views, that view. Because that view, the way it's phrased is everything in my post. It is elevating boring design decisions based of the arguments inherent to optimization appeal. It is deliberately, and knowingly deciding to make what makes the basic interaction between the ruleset and the player as misleading and unintuitive as possible, for the only purpose of "optimization" and pretenses to "intelligence".
You missed my point, too. Because I agree with all that.
-
2012-11-13, 08:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
5e Homebrew: Death Knight (Class), Kensai (Monk Subclass)Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.
-
2012-11-13, 08:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- New Zealand
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
True, but I would greatly prefer to be able to look at how far I need to go and use that many dice. Having to pre-declare how many dice I'm going to use and take the risk of not making it, or the near-guarantee of making it but having no Flurry of Blows, doesn't strike me as fun. A fixed distance per dice would be my preference, or at least let me keep rolling dice if the first one is a 1.
-
2012-11-13, 08:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Beyond the flow of time
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Actually, Step of the Wind is one of the "roll all dice and take the highest" ones. So you'll never get more than 10 squares (at least up until level 10), and the lowest you can get is 1 square, and I don't think there's a 99% chance of getting at least 6 squares.
Kinda makes dumping all of those dice into movement a rather unattractive option.
-
2012-11-13, 08:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
-
2012-11-13, 09:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
-
2012-11-13, 09:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- New Zealand
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Oops. Thanks for the correction. The odds of making 6 or more squares from 3d10 turn out to be about 87%. With 2d10 it's about 75%. May as well just roll the one die, and if you come up short at least you have Iron Root Defense to dump the leftovers into, right? Well, assuming you took it in one of your few slots.
On another note, while walking on water sounds cool, how many encounters do you remember recently where you would have used it? If the first step is walking up walls, the second should just be flight.Last edited by Excession; 2012-11-13 at 09:20 PM.
-
2012-11-13, 09:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Jude P.
-
2012-11-13, 09:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Utah
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
It's basically a corollary of the Bounded Accuracy design goal. If you are adding Expertise to something that scales with level, you're allowed to use (add up) multiple dice. If you're adding to something that doesn't scale with level, you only get to add one die to your result, and spending multiple dice raises your average bonus but doesn't change your maximum bonus.
I think in many cases this distinction is necessary to prevent scaling imbalances.
I dunno. I don't love expertise dice as a universal mechanic. I think it's an "if the only tool you have is a hammer..." issue with the design team.You can call me Draz.
Trophies:
Spoiler
Also of note:
- Winning Entry of Gestalt Build Challenge IV
- 3rd Place in Iron Chef XI (Blade Bravo)
- Judge of Iron Chef XXIII (Divine Champion)
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.
-
2012-11-13, 09:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
- Location
- NY, USA
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Still, you're committing a lot of Expertise Dice to a movement maneuver which may or may not actually let you move the distance you need to depending on the fickle whims of fate. That seems like either really poorly-thought-out design or open sadism on the part of the Dev Team.
I'm an old 3.5 fanboy but I'm pretty sure this is something the editions all had in common; tactical movement abilities work when you use them without having to roll a "Do You Suck?" check first. My philosophy is fine-grained modular design while minimizing the number of unnecessary rolls, that's why a lot of the early 5e stuff had me really excited. This seems like the polar opposite of that; it's clumsily lumping more classes into one mechanic and adding pointless rolls.
My hope is that the Expertise Dice / Maneuver thing is like a combat counterpoint to Vancian casting; less power but more frequently, with possible learned maneuvers broken up into class based lists with schools. That way they can keep some diversity in it at least, and still let mundanes have nice things without taking away from casters. Still, at this point I'm expecting another 4e.
-
2012-11-13, 09:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
-
2012-11-13, 09:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
After looking around and doing some thinking, I'm starting to think that they are doing something wrong in how they're laying out the classes and such.
To clarify, I've not seen much information about what their goals are for the classes at level 20. It could be that I've not been looking in the right places but not having a good idea of where things will end up somewhat worries me as it could very easily lead to a breakdown of the system beyond a certain point. It could be that they have some idea written down somewhere but, with their current philosophy others have stated as being 'throwing things at a wall and seeing what sticks,' my faith is not high for this.
-
2012-11-13, 09:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
It's not necessarily that they're actually throwing things at a wall and seeing what sticks. That's just what it seems like from out here, based on the apparent randomness of much of the material, combined with the lack of a stated direction or goal (and "accommodate ALL the fans" doesn't count).
Jude P.
-
2012-11-13, 10:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Because I didn't say that, and I don't want that? I think you're dead-set on believing that when I said "recognize" I meant it like, "give a special trophy to and reward their system mastery." And when I said "intelligent" I meant it as in, "if you don't optimize you're an idiot." You're stuck on something in your brain, and I don't think I can dislodge it.
And really, this is about as far as I'm interested in having this conversation because it's just altogether too surreal to be the target of internet elfgame rage and being told I disgust someone for holding the same opinions that they seem to have.
-O
-
2012-11-14, 12:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
That is the right article, although on review I see it doesn't quite make my point as directly as I'd remembered (). I was basically getting at the idea that consistency, correctness, completeness, and so forth do not correlate to commercial success or popularity.
In other words, good game design may not make D&DN a successful game.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
-
2012-11-14, 12:09 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
@Zeful: Obryn said that the game should assume that PC choices are made not based on aesthetic, but mechanics. How do you think this assumption would impact their approach to designing said options? If they assume that PCs optimize, would they ever waste manpower to create the 3.5 Monk, which no one would take? Obryn suggests this assumption so that the choices they put in the game will be mechanically equivalent, and not force you to choose between a mechanically superior choice and a 'more fun' choice. That's how that assumption impacts design.
You're reacting as if he said that this is what DMs should do, which is a completely different issue. That's not a good rule for players (at least not necessarily, depending on your group's preferences), but as a designer, it's important to look at it that way and say, "Yeah, if taking this 'fun' option is always a mechanically inferior choice, we need to change one of those options, so that it's not a choice between mechanical oomph and fun."
The 3.5 design team, as you pointed out, was pernicious in its attempt to reward players for system mastery by deliberately placing a bunch of weak options in the game whose only purpose was to not be taken. They assumed players would not make optimized choices until they had gotten over 3.5's significant mechanical learning curve (see this thread for how long it takes many players to get there), and they would then feel smug and accomplished once they did. That was the exact opposite of obryn's intention.
tl;dr - Assuming players optimize is bad for DMing, but really helpful for designers who want their options to be balanced.*********
Matters of Critical Insignificance - My Blog for all my favorite entertainment
11/4: Announcing the Vow of Honor KS! (I contributed)
-
2012-11-14, 02:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Consistency, Correctness, and Completeness actually have very little to do with good game design. Games that focus on those three elements end up being very dry, stale, and boring. That's not to say that Inconsistency, Incorrectness, and Incompleteness are good for game design, but just that it can't be your main focus.
A game that everybody likes but nobody loves will always fail, while one that some hate but others love, will succeed.5e Homebrew: Death Knight (Class), Kensai (Monk Subclass)Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.
-
2012-11-14, 02:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Why does a Monk have to be lawful? This is really bugging me. A monk doesn't have to be lawful-only to fit it's mechanics, a monk shouldn't be lawful-only just to fight one ridged view of the class. You could be a Chaotic Good Monk, getting back at the rival clan of ninjas that killed your father & kicked your dog. Your monastery taught you all you know of Kung Fu, but your Master forbid you from using your skills for violence. You disagree & set off to make the world a better place one punch to the face at a time.
Also, why does the monk need Expertise dice? He is stealing from the fighter (The rogue stole first true, but that is what thieves do) Why not expand the Ki mechanic & give monks a pool of points they can use for cool stuff every encounter that refreshes after every encounter?
Why are we getting a monk? Monks aren't iconic. Give us a ranger, a paladin, a bard, give us back the Sorcerer & Warlock, something-anything other than a monk.
-
2012-11-14, 02:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
The monk has been Lawful-only since 1e, as Gygax associated the monk's strict mental and physical discipline with a lawful alignment. That's also why 5e has a monk class: as the devs have said, every class that has been in any edition's PHB 1 is showing up in 5e's PHB.
-
2012-11-14, 02:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
It's complicated, but the basic reason is that "lawful" actually means two things (actually, more, but let's just talk about two for now).
On the one hand, "lawful" means you obey your masters and keep your promises. "Chaotic" means you follow whatever your heart tells you and do whatever is convenient and sensible at the time.
On the other hand, "lawful" also means you believe in hard work, dedication, and singular focus to achieve your goals. "Chaotic" means you think whatever will happen will happen, so it's best to go with the flow.
It's hard to imagine a monk who isn't "lawful" in the secondary sense, unless you want to go with the idea that they were just born with their mastery of kung-fu. So, in that way, the alignment restriction makes a sort of sense.
The problem is you can't be "lawful" in one way and "chaotic" in the other without being "neutral" because alignment is stupid like that.
-
2012-11-14, 05:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
The restriction of the Monk to Lawful alignment makes sense, but it shouldn't be there anyway. Sure, the discipline and self-perfection associated with the class implies a Lawful alignment... except when it doesn't. Someone might want to come up with a Monk for whom it makes sense to be Neutral or Chaotic. Why forbid such ideas? We don't gain anything meaningful but lose a lot of character concepts.
On another note, I don't think that there's any real incentive to use crossbows. It's basically the same as it was in 3rd edition - they offer a bigger damage die, which doesn't mean that much, but take an action to reload.Last edited by Morty; 2012-11-14 at 05:59 AM.
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.
-
2012-11-14, 06:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
- Location
- Brazil
- Gender
-
2012-11-14, 06:44 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
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.Last edited by Craft (Cheese); 2012-11-14 at 06:48 AM.
-
2012-11-14, 06:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Also, why does the monk need Expertise dice? He is stealing from the fighter (The rogue stole first true, but that is what thieves do) Why not expand the Ki mechanic & give monks a pool of points they can use for cool stuff every encounter that refreshes after every encounter?
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.
On another note, I don't think that there's any real incentive to use crossbows. It's basically the same as it was in 3rd edition - they offer a bigger damage die, which doesn't mean that much, but take an action to reload.
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.Last edited by 1337 b4k4; 2012-11-14 at 07:05 AM.
-
2012-11-14, 07:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
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.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!