Listening to arguments about whether you can trip a currently flying creature (or ooze), whinging about needing flying fighters to go against dragons (arrows? wuh?), and the coinciding concession of trippable Gelatinous Cubes and Hopping Dragons, et al...

... let me just say, though 5e game may be good, WotC's track record of listening to its customers and shitting up its product in spineless attempts to appease leaves me with the experience to have...

... lowered expectations.

However, I do look forward to being pleasantly surprised. Fair enough?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;645086Hell, in this case, keywords would've made it easier to fix: "Oozes are immune to the Prone condition." Bam, done.

True. Keywords in the hands of a firm authority can be a very useful tool.

However, no amount of singular source statute patching will catch up to the efficiency of diffused source common sense judgment. (Case in point, the reams of WotC errata) "Nothing is foolproof for fools are so ingenious." That's one place where the argument towards favoring GM Judgment does very well.

The taggable keywords are already being mismanaged.
A single "Type" is a gross simplification of how monsters work since it includes its biology (outsider, elemental, undead, construct, living) its shape (humanoid, ooze, aberration), some specific feature of its biology (plant, dragon), WTF subcategories (yuan-ti being 'cursed', so they count as monstrosities rather than humanoids) and then piles on inconsistent categories to fit in all the leftovers (aberration, Beast which includes somewhat dragon-like reptiles, regular mammals like horses, and things that are almost as weird as aberrations - squids or whatever).

If a proneizing power ran off the 'Ooze' keyword, its still basically going to work on the Fire Ooze, which would be an Elemental but still amorphous. Or is green slime an Ooze or a Plant for purposes of killing it with weedkiller? Vice versa a power that works on humanoids because of their shape (Iron Bands of Bilarro or something maybe, or 2E psychokinetic 'control body') should work equally well on a mummy [Undead] or a mind flayer for the most part [Aberration].

The keyword system is going to be a horrible mess unless they ditch the idea that every monster has or needs a category, and let things have no type or multiple types if necessary.

Well, D&D fans perhaps never experienced the joy of taxonomy wars, as any biologist has had the fortune to endure. I oh ever so do look forward to the taxonomy classification battles of imaginary creatures. When whole "Kingdoms" and "Phylum" get renamed and shifted there'll be much colorful language exchanged.

As a flexible, completely optional tool for a GM at their specific table, cool. Might make their life easier. But I worry about the RPGA/Society influence and how WotC will likely bend to them. And afterwards, I will be quite entertained. I mean, really, why is a bugbear neither bug nor bear...

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;645092The taggable keywords are already being mismanaged.
A single "Type" is a gross simplification of how monsters work since it includes its biology (outsider, elemental, undead, construct, living) its shape (humanoid, ooze, aberration), some specific feature of its biology (plant, dragon), WTF subcategories (yuan-ti being 'cursed', so they count as monstrosities rather than humanoids) and then piles on inconsistent categories to fit in all the leftovers (aberration, Beast which includes somewhat dragon-like reptiles, regular mammals like horses, and things that are almost as weird as aberrations - squids or whatever).

If a proneizing power ran off the 'Ooze' keyword, its still basically going to work on the Fire Ooze, which would be an Elemental but still amorphous. Or is green slime an Ooze or a Plant for purposes of killing it with weedkiller? Vice versa a power that works on humanoids because of their shape (Iron Bands of Bilarro or something maybe, or 2E psychokinetic 'control body') should work equally well on a mummy [Undead] or a mind flayer for the most part [Aberration].

The keyword system is going to be a horrible mess unless they ditch the idea that every monster has or needs a category, and let things have no type or multiple types if necessary.

If they take MtG's approach, treating keywords more as tags for effects rather than effects themselves, and allowing for keyword mixing as per modern magic (Goblin Soldier Lord, for example), it may work quite well.

Quote from: Rincewind1;645101If they take MtG's approach, treating keywords more as tags for effects rather than effects themselves, and allowing for keyword mixing as per modern magic (Goblin Soldier Lord, for example), it may work quite well.

I've never played magic. Oh, I expect keywords could work, if they could have more than one per monster; currently they've just based it off 3Es system though (where every monster had to have a type) without thinking it through.

Quote from: Mistwell;644764When I didn't know your name.

Come on dude.  You're overthinking. You said your name, so I added you on facebook.  That's it.  Had nothing at all to do with what you do for a living.  Ask around - there are others here I have on Facebook, and as far as I know none of them are famous or writers.  Anyone here wants to add me on FB, or wants me to add them, just let me know.  I am a FB slut that way.  My only standard is "I have some interactions with this person".  That's it.

As for you having a "sizable following in Southern California", I have no idea what that means.  I've never heard of that fanzine before.  I have not played any form of Traveller since the early 1980s or late 1970s (I have nothing against the game - I am just completely disassociated from it).  If you have a following out here, I am not aware of it.

Plus, why on earth would I need to network? I am not in the gaming industry, nor do I have any desire to be in that industry.  I am not a writer, beyond covering some panels at comic-cons for my buddy's website when he asks me for an extra hand. My business makes and sells graduation caps and gowns, judicial gowns, and choir robes.  So unless you're graduating, a school administrator, a judge, or in a choir, why would I want to network with you?  And frankly, even if you are one of those things, I don't do networking - I pay salespeople for that shit.  My wife is an actress though, so if you're a casting director or a producer, then I might consider sucking up on her behalf...but I wouldn't do it well, as I am not so good at sucking up.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

For those of you out there who might be as dense as Mistwell, I have the following. No, I am not the creative force behind Freelance Traveller or Stellar Reaches, although my articles have appeared in both (And you should download them all and read them because there is SFRPG gold in those free PDFs).  I am also not the author of several books on golf and God that are popular in Southern California, mainly because I find golf boring and God all too often misrepresented. I am not a weatherman in Ottawa. I do share the same name as these guys do and am glad because it keeps weasels like Mistwell from hounding me across the internet, as they seem to always be attracted to the bigger fish.

It took me forever to read through this fucking thread.  Honestly, looking at the article I have a lot of trouble understanding why any old school gamer wouldn't be fucking overjoyed at the perspective they're taking here.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Opaopajr;645090Listening to arguments about whether you can trip a currently flying creature (or ooze), whinging about needing flying fighters to go against dragons (arrows? wuh?), and the coinciding concession of trippable Gelatinous Cubes and Hopping Dragons, et al...

Golden ones.

Arrows? We don't need no stinkin' arrows. Besides, when I can't use my sword, I'm deprotagonised.

Quote from: Rincewind1;645838deprotagonised.

In retrospect, I find it hard to wrap my head around how 4e abandoned the concept of the versatile fighter in its initial release. Prior to that, having a ranged weapon, for any class, at all times, just in case, seemed vitally important.

Though I will admit flying is cooler, if less practical.

Quote from: jeff37923;645137Oh, for fuck's sake.

For those of you out there who might be as dense as Mistwell, I have the following. No, I am not the creative force behind Freelance Traveller or Stellar Reaches, although my articles have appeared in both (And you should download them all and read them because there is SFRPG gold in those free PDFs).  I am also not the author of several books on golf and God that are popular in Southern California, mainly because I find golf boring and God all too often misrepresented. I am not a weatherman in Ottawa. I do share the same name as these guys do and am glad because it keeps weasels like Mistwell from hounding me across the internet, as they seem to always be attracted to the bigger fish.

You seem to have lumped me in with a whole bunch of other people.  All I asked was if you were the guy who contributed to Stellar Reaches.  The answer is, apparently, yes.  I didn't mention golf, Weathermen, Ottawa, or God, that was other people.  I'm sorry you are having trouble keeping track of the conversation you're having with people here.  

I didn't hound you - I send an invite on FB, to you (and it is you), and told you you're free to decline if you so choose.  That's it.  I've done that same thing with many others, and many others have done it with me.  You're the first, the very first, to take something personal from it.  Are you just a drama queen or something?  You are, to me, that guy Jeff who I have animated discussions with on therpgsite.com sometimes.  That's it.  

You gave me your name and told me to Google it.  I did that, found the Traveller articles, and asked if you were that guy.  If you have a problem with people Googling your name and asking about what they find, THEN DON'T FUCKING GIVE PEOPLE YOUR NAME AND TELL THEM TO GOOGLE YOU.

Can we let at least some ridiculousness rest? I've been getting my Hasbro hate on and y'all are harshing my buzz.