TheRPGSite

Mearls discusses the design concept behind feats (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140721) in 5e and then drops the full list from the PHB:

Spoiler

To tide you over until the release of the Player's Handbook, here's a list of all the feats in the book.

Alert
Athlete
Actor
Charger
Crossbow Expert
Defensive Duelist
Dual Wielder
Dungeon Delver
Durable
Elemental Adept
Grappler
Great Weapon Master
Healer
Heavily Armored
Heavy Armor Master
Inspiring Leader
Keen Mind
Lightly Armored
Linguist
Lucky
Mage Slayer
Magic Initiate
Martial Adept
Medium Armor Master
Mobile
Moderately Armored
Mounted Combatant
Observant
Polearm Master
Resilient
Ritual Caster
Savage Attacker
Sentinel
Sharpshooter
Shield Master
Skilled
Skulker
Spell Sniper
Tavern Brawler
Tough
War Caster
Weapon Master

I'm sorry to see they removed Tactical Warrior from the list. I can only hope another feat has subsumed the ability to mark an opponent. Perhaps Weapon Master or Martial Adept.

Edit: I see the inspirational leader feat and I'm hoping it's warlord related.

I'm hopeful that 3rd times a charm for Feats. I love the concept, but the implementation has always been rough. Of course, feats and backgrounds are hellacious issues for balance long term and they're going to be the whining-ground for min/maxers.

The problem with Mearl's columns is that during the playtest, I would read his column nodding at the good ideas about how he was approaching a concept, but then the PDF showed up and it was WTF? what happened to that smart approach MM was talking about?

But hey, the PHB will be here soon enough. I will be interested to see how the Grappler feat works in actual play.

I'm eager to find out how that Lucky feat stacks with advantages and disadvantages. I wonder if it basically means that such a character is never disadvantaged on those specified rolls. Pretty nifty!

I really wasn't a fan of 3e/4e style feats. God they were so painfully fiddly.

So I have high hopes for the way 5e is doing them - and it's particularly nice to see Mike Mearls describe them as "like a focused multiclass option". That's the sort of chunkiness that makes them more meaningful (and easier to select).

If the terms "system mastery" and "character build" are consigned to the dustbin of history then I'll be a happy man.

Intriguing.

This looks a lot less fiddly than 3e and 4e, and partly addresses my concern that 5e would feature a 3e-like system-mastery-rewarding involved subsystem of Feat trees and pathways.

I'm one step closer to getting into 5e. Let's see what the PHB will look like.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;770871If the terms "system mastery" and "character build" are consigned to the dustbin of history then I'll be a happy man.

You and me both.  Unfortunately, we have nice names that remove the stigma associated with number crunching.  "I'm not a a min-maxer.  I'm a a POWER GAMER."  "Optimizers"'are game killers. That security blanket needs to be unraveled.

As someone who does not particularly like feats, but would like to see them used at the table by other people, I'm concerned that they are markedly more powerful than any +2 to a Statistic, discouraging any other option.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: Panjumanju;770888As someone who does not particularly like feats, but would like to see them used at the table by other people, I'm concerned that they are markedly more powerful than any +2 to a Statistic, discouraging any other option.

//Panjumanju

I wonder if that is the point?

Perhaps the game designers don't see stats as the holy grail.

Not sure.

Personally, there's still too many types of objects running around in D&D.  I'd rather see, feats, class, and racial abilities unified as a single object type.  But then I'm a big GURPS fan.

Quote from: Panjumanju;770888As someone who does not particularly like feats, but would like to see them used at the table by other people, I'm concerned that they are markedly more powerful than any +2 to a Statistic, discouraging any other option.

It is a bit weird actually. At the start of the process I was 100% convinced that WotC was never going to write a Feat that was going to be worth +2 to your primary Ability score.

But now, seeing the feats in the leaked alpha document, along with the way they seem to have somewhat de-emphasised Ability bonuses, I think that there are a handful of feats that, for the right class, are as good or even better.

But tbh, I am still doubtful that you are likely to see a character or takes all the feats they can over Ability boosts. Or for that matter even takes 50% of the feats they can over ability boosts. But time will tell.

Quote from: Batman;770846I'm sorry to see they removed Tactical Warrior from the list. I can only hope another feat has subsumed the ability to mark an opponent. Perhaps Weapon Master or Martial Adept.

Edit: I see the inspirational leader feat and I'm hoping it's warlord related.

That marking ability is now part of the fighter subclass, not a feat.  Unless it's changed from the leaked PHB that is.  The inspirational feat is: spend 10 minutes pumping up your buddies, they get bonus temp HP equal to level+CHA bonus.

Quote from: Panjumanju;770888As someone who does not particularly like feats, but would like to see them used at the table by other people, I'm concerned that they are markedly more powerful than any +2 to a Statistic, discouraging any other option.

//Panjumanju

I think it really depends.  None of the feats give a bonus to hit.  But you can get creative.  For example, an assassin rogue getting the alertness feat.  The feat gives you +5 initiative.  Assassins attacking a target that hasn't gone yet in the round gain advantage.  If you gain advantage, you apply sneak attack damage.

I actually played an assassin rogue last year during the playtest.  I was pretty squishy (no way I was fighting on the front line), but I was dealing out some pretty good damage and hit nearly every time.

Quote from: jadrax;770894But tbh, I am still doubtful that you are likely to see a character or takes all the feats they can over Ability boosts. Or for that matter even takes 50% of the feats they can over ability boosts. But time will tell.

I am probably going to use feats over ability bumps nearly every time.  For one, I use random stat generation so I don't throw fits if I have a score not as high as my buddy.  secondly, I like the flavor of a lot of those feats.  I can tell already that the first feat many of my rogue characters would get is Dungeon Delver :)

From the leaked Alpha doc:

Spell Sniper
Doubles your range for spells requiring an attack roll and ignores 1/2 and 3/4 cover.

Moderately Armoured
+1 to Str or Con and proficiency with medium armour and shields

Ritual Master
Choose two level 1 spells from a single class and you can cast them as rituals (yes, your fighter will be able to cast spells in this way). You can also later add more ritual spells to your book.

Shield Master
Bonus action to shove, shield bonus to Dex saves, no damage on a successful Dex save that would otherwise result in half damage.

War Caster
Advantage on Con saves to concentrate, can use somatic components even you're holding weapons and/or a shield in your hands, can cast a spell as an opportunity attack.

Feats which provide a +1 to one ability score, and also another smaller benefit from the feat: Actor, Athlete, Durable, Heavily Armoured, Heavy Armour Master, Keen Mind, Lightly Armoured, Linguist (yes, it makes you more cunning), Moderately Armoured, Observant, Resilient, Tavern Brawler, and Weapon Master.

Quote from: Panjumanju;770888As someone who does not particularly like feats, but would like to see them used at the table by other people, I'm concerned that they are markedly more powerful than any +2 to a Statistic, discouraging any other option.

//Panjumanju

That is EXACTLY what I want. I want those min/max types to look beyond max their ability scores and build a concept. Spell Sniper is nice for a classic spellcaster and I see seriously good feats for Gish types in there and linguist, observant and lucky look fun.

Ritual master was another one of those feats that looked really good.  I've always been a jack of all trades type player instead of super specialized (my original draw to the thief* class), so having those options without needing to actually multiclass (something I don't like) is a win for me.


*I liked the ability to get in, get out, fight if you needed to.  Sort of a self-reliant class.  To this day I don't get all the "thieves were way underpowered and useless" arguments.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;770932I can tell already that the first feat many of my rogue characters would get is Dungeon Delver :)

If you are in a game with a lot of traps and secret doors I think that's definitely a top tier feat, although I might worry that on a rogue it may end up pushing towards overkill territory. But your right, it is pretty cool.

I really like Mage Slayer from the leaked alpha as well. good flavour and looks pretty good mechanically. Although its a shame you can use Ranged weapons or thrown cats with it.

Quote from: jadrax;770943If you are in a game with a lot of traps and secret doors I think that's definitely a top tier feat, although I might worry that on a rogue it may end up pushing towards overkill territory. But your right, it is pretty cool.

.

In my experience, rogues are still pretty squishy, and if you're the front line scout ahead, you'll need that extra advantage ;)

Although, it most certainly isn't a rogue only designed feat, and one reason why I like the way feats are set up in this edition.  Don't have a rogue in your party or don't want to play a rogue but still want to play a scout type character?

Go with a ranger with that feat.  Or a fighter.  Or a cleric of shadow.  Imagination is the limit, really.

My impression of feats is that it basically allows you to multi-class without actually dealing with the bookkeeping or hassle of having to actually multi-class.  Essentially replacing a lot of the "dip into one level of X class to get Y benefit" situations

Yeah. If anything I think its possibly better if your not a rogue.

Like I say, I think most characters will take a couple of feats, its after that I think most people will be going back to stat bumps.

And of course there's a big variance. 'Moderately Armored' I think might be the poster child for 'Not worth +2 Dex'.

Those armoured feats are definitely worth a stat bump. Too many situations where even leather armour is a life saver and allowing for you to entirely forgo Mage Armour. It really helps with the "lets geek the guy in the robes" syndrome. If I rolled an odd primary I would take lightly armoured and get the +1 and be good to go. (We don't use standard arrays or point buy it's all random roll so we can't count on what score you start with). Or say you get that 18 INT High Elf lightly armoured is better then a +2 stat bump.

Quote from: Marleycat;770948Those armoured feats are definitely worth a stat bump. Too many situations where even leather armour is a life saver and allowing for you to entirely forgo Mage Armour. It really helps with the "lets geek the guy in the robes" syndrome. If I rolled an odd primary I would take lightly armoured and get the +1 and be good to go. (We don't use standard arrays or point buy it's all random roll so we can't count on what score you start with). Or say you get that 18 INT High Elf lightly armoured is better then a +2 stat bump.

You have to be proficient with Light Armour to take moderate Armour.

The best Light Armour gives you +2 AC, you would have got +1 AC from the Dex boost (which helps you in 1000 other important ways, including dodging Fireballs and Going First). Could be o.k., if not great.

The best medium Armour gets you another +3 AC over that. Which is nice I suppose, but again your not getting the huge versatility of the Dex and your also capping the bonus you get from Dex to AC to +2. And (and this is I think the killer blow), none of the medium armour types are actually fashionable or cool.

Quote from: jadrax;770955You have to be proficient with Light Armour to take moderate Armour.

The best Light Armour gives you +2 AC, you would have got +1 AC from the Dex boost (which helps you in 1000 other important ways, including dodging Fireballs and Going First). Could be o.k., if not great.

The best medium Armour gets you another +3 AC over that. Which is nice I suppose, but again your not getting the huge versatility of the Dex and your also capping the bonus you get from Dex to AC to +2. And (and this is I think the killer blow), none of the medium armour types are actually fashionable or cool.

Or you max your INT/CHA automatically and probably run 18 DEX easily with room to have 2-3 feats. Light armour, mage sniper...Lucky or Resilence/Toughness just hanging back 240 feet with your Flame Bolt or Witch Bolt or whatever.....combine that latter feat with a Sorcerer or Warlock could be fun with the Book Pact. Lot of different concepts are possible and it really makes multiclassing an interesting route for the versitility because of the War Caster and a couple other feats that are made for Gish concepts. As a pure wizard I am not that interested in medium armour unless I am running a dwarf wizard.

No char-op then. ;)

Quote from: One Horse Town;770963No char-op then. ;)

Optional modular char-op. ;o)


The big test though will be how much difference there is between an optimised to the hilt PC, a PC where someone has worried about the numbers and a PC were the player just picked what seemed cool without caring about the rules at all.

Which we are not going to know for about a year probably.

Quote from: cranebump;770886"Optimizers"'are game killers.

  How so?

  It seems to me that the ways in which optimization can break a game are:

• Too much of a power gap between optimized and non-optimized characters.
• Too much sameness or predictability in character creation
• Overly complex rules that constrain other players in order to either serve or present charop.
• Overly loose rules that charoppers can use to disrupt or break the game.

  All of these can be controlled for by solid design and still allow character optimizers to have their fun, without having to run certain people out of the hobby. Granted, there are a lot of days I think that running people out of the hobby is the primary goal of numerous online factions ...

I suspect that in the course of actual play, specializing into a single stat will end up being a sucker's game. Sure, you can use your stat bumps to increase your Int to 20, but at those early levels you'll notice how easy it is for something to grapple you, blow you up, poison you, mind control you or intimidate you. Stat bumps might be better used for boosting your weakest stats.

Quote from: One Horse Town;770963No char-op then. ;)

It's there for people who want it.  Me?  I like building around a theme, caring less about +/- and more about how does my character feel.  And it seems feats do that quite well.

Optimisers can also rip the integrity of a game to ribbons by placing far more emphasis on what is good than what makes sense.

Franky my games don't have room for a Bugbear Slaughterwelder 4/Toeclipper 2/Hoopmonger 3/Paladin 4/Gunslinger 7.

I don't mind players investing in feats, multi-classing, special snow flake races because they have a strong concept that fits the game world. But too often with Optimisation any concept beyond 'win the game' goes straight out of the window.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;770969How so?

  It seems to me that the ways in which optimization can break a game are:

• Too much of a power gap between optimized and non-optimized characters.
• Too much sameness or predictability in character creation
• Overly complex rules that constrain other players in order to either serve or present charop.
• Overly loose rules that charoppers can use to disrupt or break the game.

  All of these can be controlled for by solid design and still allow character optimizers to have their fun, without having to run certain people out of the hobby. Granted, there are a lot of days I think that running people out of the hobby is the primary goal of numerous online factions ...

Minmaxers push the design space of a game to their directions. 3e was a minmaxer's paradise, and though they were never a large contingent, they were loud and persistent. WoTC listened to their complaints and view of the game and created a balanced version that would let the min maxers screw around to their heart's content. However, to account for all the ways someone could break the game, the design space got smaller and smaller. The design tolerances got tighter and tighter.

Additionally, the minmaxer is a nightmare at the table.

Quote from: jadrax;770980Optimisers can also rip the integrity of a game to ribbons by placing far more emphasis on what is good than what makes sense.

Franky my games don't have room for a Bugbear Slaughterwelder 4/Toeclipper 2/Hoopmonger 3/Paladin 4/Gunslinger 7.

I don't mind players investing in feats, multi-classing, special snow flake races because they have a strong concept that fits the game world. But too often with Optimisation any concept beyond 'win the game' goes straight out of the window.

Well just looking at the Wizard and the Fighter it really only makes sense to at least 5 levels in on any class to actually get the benefits. Because of the staggered feat/stat bumps single-double dipping actually makes you far weaker. Because you lose so many stat bumps or feat chances.

Why multiclass into Fighter for example without the 2x attacks? (5 levels) and from there it's a choice of feat/ability add or Potent Cantrip (6 levels) and so on. It just better to go with a concept and have fun. Because in the end rules can't stop stupid.

Optimizers being a problem depends highly on the system. More numbery/complex systems are way more vulnerable, because it's really likely there are combinations the devs didn't notice/plan for.

Then you have Risus, say, where optimizing is kind of silly.

there have always been optimizers (we called them munchkins back in the day), and there always will.  It's only a problem if your gaming table makes it a problem.  If they aren't happy not being able to play their "uber build" at your table?  You probably don't want them playing with you anyway.  No loss.

I was really excited about the Basic download... but this and the grotesque HP inflation seen in the Starter Set (The typical ogre has 59 HP? The typical goblin 7?) are really starting to turn me back towards Labyrinth Lord.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;771048I was really excited about the Basic download... but this and the grotesque HP inflation seen in the Starter Set (The typical ogre has 59 HP? The typical goblin 7?) are really starting to turn me back towards Labyrinth Lord.

In fairness, the monsters generally had lower HP during the playtest and were kind of... wet tissue paper.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;771048I was really excited about the Basic download... but this and the grotesque HP inflation seen in the Starter Set (The typical ogre has 59 HP? The typical goblin 7?) are really starting to turn me back towards Labyrinth Lord.

You have to look at the overall context and the fact that the baseline will be adjustable. Though if I were to play OSR pure the shortlist would be DCC, ACKS or LL.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;771048I was really excited about the Basic download... but this and the grotesque HP inflation seen in the Starter Set (The typical ogre has 59 HP? The typical goblin 7?) are really starting to turn me back towards Labyrinth Lord.

You and me both, my friend.  I like 5E but it's already too heavy for me.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;771048I was really excited about the Basic download... but this and the grotesque HP inflation seen in the Starter Set (The typical ogre has 59 HP? The typical goblin 7?) are really starting to turn me back towards Labyrinth Lord.

Quote from: cranebump;771065You and me both, my friend.  I like 5E but it's already too heavy for me.

I guess this is where, as a fan of 5e, I chime in and jump down your throats about how you're doing it wrong.  So I've been told that happens anytime anyone says anything not praising of the game.

But I'm afraid all I got is, "Eh, to each their own.  Sorry it's not for you, but I hope you are having fun playing your preferred games.  Game on dudes, game on."

I too noticed the HP inflation right away but am not sure it means what some people seem to think it means. A goblin may have 7 hp on average, but typical weapon damages are up proportionately:  damage of 8-9 is so common as to be almost expected. The real question is how many attack rolls are generally required, on average, to kill or incapacitate a common foe. If the answer is more than 5, you have a slow, boring combat system. I don't think 5E breaks that rule of thumb. Comments from those who have played a few hours?

Well, I've been stuck on the E6 idea for 3e D&D, because I hate the inflation of the last two editions.

Fuck, if it were me, HP would be static.

Quote from: Marleycat;771064You have to look at the overall context and the fact that the baseline will be adjustable. Though if I were to play OSR pure the shortlist would be DCC, ACKS or LL.

I keep seeing people wanting to turn 5e into B/X or AD&D and I've even caught myself thinking about various ways to nudge it in those directions but in the end I have to remind myself that I already own those games, and derivatives like ACKS, that fully support the old school style of play that I enjoy. So do I really want 5e to do the same thing as those games, or do I want to play 5e for a different experience?

Different feels, you know? Like if ACKS = Platoon, then 5e = Star Wars. That's the way I see it anyway.

And of course I don't want to give the impression that hacking 5e is a bad thing, people should do what they want with it and they will. But for me it seems more effort than it's worth.

I've run a campaign using the playtest rules that's just hit fourth level.

The fights aren't taking too long at all. I think the thing with the extra hit points is that it's pretty damn well balanced with the ease of attacks.

So instead of taking three rounds to roll well enough to hit that goblin but then killing it in one hit because it only had 3hp, you now hit it twice in three rounds and that's enough to kill it with it's 7hp.

Combat's not really any slower overall, and it feels better to the players because they can see progress within the fight - particularly at lower level where in previous versions they'd be missing most rounds.

Quote from: Raven;771076I keep seeing people wanting to turn 5e into B/X or AD&D and I've even caught myself thinking about various ways to nudge it in those directions but in the end I have to remind myself that I already own those games, and derivatives like ACKS, that fully support the old school style of play that I enjoy. So do I really want 5e to do the same thing as those games, or do I want to play 5e for a different experience?

Different feels, you know? Like if ACKS = Platoon, then 5e = Star Wars. That's the way I see it anyway.

And of course I don't want to give the impression that hacking 5e is a bad thing, people should do what they want with it and they will. But for me it seems more effort than it's worth.

That's fair given I'll be looking to hack elements I like about the 3 games I mentioned given I like 5e's baseline except for healing. I'm loving the fact that my character is effective yet not optimized in Opa's Pbp game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;771066I guess this is where, as a fan of 5e, I chime in and jump down your throats about how you're doing it wrong.  So I've been told that happens anytime anyone says anything not praising of the game.

But I'm afraid all I got is, "Eh, to each their own.  Sorry it's not for you, but I hope you are having fun playing your preferred games.  Game on dudes, game on."

Don't get me wrong--been playtesting it over a year now.  But the more I think about it, the more I prefer something a bit smaller hp wise and such.  I'm a big b/x fan, too, so that may be where I go eventually.

Quote from: Panjumanju;770888As someone who does not particularly like feats, but would like to see them used at the table by other people, I'm concerned that they are markedly more powerful than any +2 to a Statistic, discouraging any other option.

//Panjumanju

Normally you are only going to get a handfull of them at the sacrifice of stat points. One player will weigh it differently than the next. There might be situations where the player will have to weigh bumping a stat out of the negative, or nabbing a kewl power.

Quote from: Omega;771144Normally you are only going to get a handfull of them at the sacrifice of stat points. One player will weigh it differently than the next. There might be situations where the player will have to weigh bumping a stat out of the negative, or nabbing a kewl power.

For example...give my character in Opa's game to up her STR or get Spell Sniper? Screw the ability score. Imagine Flame Bolt and Ray of Frost at double distance for a pure wizard? Now imagine at roll to hit cantrip with a save like Mearls said are coming with Potent Cantrip for your typical Evoker.

It could get whacked when you run the real blasters (Sorcerers and some Warlocks).

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;771048I was really excited about the Basic download... but this and the grotesque HP inflation seen in the Starter Set (The typical ogre has 59 HP? The typical goblin 7?) are really starting to turn me back towards Labyrinth Lord.

The PCs are doing more damage overall. I did a commentary a few weeks ago about our run in with an Ogre during the playtest. He went down very fast to three characters.

So in general it balances out some.

For reference.
AD&D Ogre: 4d8+1 (19) HD, 1d10 damage. vs PCs doing on average 1d6 damage each. Down in about 2-3 rounds to a 4 person group.
Next Ogre: 5d10+5 (32) HD, 2d8+4 damage vs PCs doing anywhere from a d6 to a d12 of damage each. Down in about 2-3 rounds to a 4 person group.
5e Ogre: 7d10+21 (59) HD, 2d8+4 damage vs d6 to d12. Down in about 3-4 rounds.

.

As feats in 3.x and 4e tended (far too often for me, but then once is far too often for me) to silo off abilities that I thought ANY character should be able to attempt (limiting them to those who took the feat so that those who took the feat got there "money's worth), should I run 5e, feats will not be used unless none of the ones listed WOTC publications do this. Feats should not limit characters in general just so someone who takes a feat can feel their character is special.

IMHO, feats, if used in a game at all, should be limited to adding a bonus to attempts to do things that any characters should be able to try to do with any chance of success above zero or adding abilities that sim,ply cannot be attempted with a non-zero chance of success with special training or special inborn abilities.  These limitations do not seem to go over well with those who love feats, however. From what i seen online and been told by those who like feats offline, they tend to loathe feats that just give a bonus to doing X instead of making it so only characters with feat X can do X.

I'm awaiting the 5e PH and DMG to see how feats are handled both from player facing rules and from advice to the GM.  Given WOTC's track record with feats, however, I suspect that even if they do not silo off everyman abilities in the core rules, they soon will in supplements.

You know, thinking about esthetics of design... I think what I'd like is feats allowing special stuff to happen, or to bundle efforts.

Like a feat that lets you, say, do damage when tripping, or bull rush AND disarm. Or 'if someone attacks you with a weapon and misses, you can take an immediate riposte (AoO).'

Quote from: Will;771221Like a feat that lets you, say, do damage when tripping, or bull rush AND disarm. Or 'if someone attacks you with a weapon and misses, you can take an immediate riposte (AoO).'

All of these are things I would say anyone physically able could try to do with greater than zero chance of success. Therefore I would not welcome them as feats that only those who have taken the required feat can even try to do without upsetting players who took the feat.

IMHO, siloing off combat maneuvers as feats in 3.x is one of the things that lead to the weakening of fighting classes.

Well, either feats let you do things, or they give you bonuses. If they give you bonuses, either they are significant, in which case not having a feat is almost as bad as not being able to do it at all, or they are no very significant, at which point why bother.

I suppose one other way you could do feats is getting some special side bonus when you do certain things, like 'every time you disarm someone, you get Inspiration/XP' or something.

Quote from: Will;771226I suppose one other way you could do feats is getting some special side bonus when you do certain things, like 'every time you disarm someone, you get Inspiration/XP' or something.

I like this idea. Maybe some could be more abstract too, like "when you fight dirty" or "when you take damage while protecting someone or something from harm". That sort of thing. Less about what you CAN do and more about HOW you do things.

Quote from: David Johansen;770893Personally, there's still too many types of objects running around in D&D.  I'd rather see, feats, class, and racial abilities unified as a single object type.  But then I'm a big GURPS fan.

Agreed. Why not just call them all special abilities and treat them the same way?

Quote from: JonWake;770983Minmaxers push the design space of a game to their directions. 3e was a minmaxer's paradise, and though they were never a large contingent, they were loud and persistent. WoTC listened to their complaints and view of the game and created a balanced version that would let the min maxers screw around to their heart's content. However, to account for all the ways someone could break the game, the design space got smaller and smaller. The design tolerances got tighter and tighter.

And since minimaxers tend to not be especially imaginative gamers (assuming they even played the game), builds were all optimized for combat. That led to encount3rdization, and, eventually, 4E.

Quote from: Raven;771076I keep seeing people wanting to turn 5e into B/X or AD&D and I've even caught myself thinking about various ways to nudge it in those directions but in the end I have to remind myself that I already own those games, and derivatives like ACKS, that fully support the old school style of play that I enjoy. So do I really want 5e to do the same thing as those games, or do I want to play 5e for a different experience?

Yeah, there's a point at which you're better off just sticking to a previous iteration of the game. 5E is a new edition. It's going to be different from B/X (and AD&D, 3E, 4E, etc.).

Quote from: RandallS;771225All of these are things I would say anyone physically able could try to do with greater than zero chance of success. Therefore I would not welcome them as feats that only those who have taken the required feat can even try to do without upsetting players who took the feat.

IMHO, siloing off combat maneuvers as feats in 3.x is one of the things that lead to the weakening of fighting classes.

I agree I like how fighting maneuvers in 5e are either open or class features of the fighter which are accessible by multiclassing at worst.

Quote from: Necrozius;771228I like this idea. Maybe some could be more abstract too, like "when you fight dirty" or "when you take damage while protecting someone or something from harm". That sort of thing. Less about what you CAN do and more about HOW you do things.

 I like that mentality because it can get you to try things but the downside is that's it's way too fiddley and passive forcing specific situations or particular triggers to activate.

You could link it explicitly to Inspiration, in that your background is 'dirty fighter' or something.

Given the limits on Inspiration, as far as I understand them, it provides a gentle incentive to doing things a certain way while not being overwhelmed by it such that you ONLY do Disarm.

Quote from: Omega;771200The PCs are doing more damage overall. I did a commentary a few weeks ago about our run in with an Ogre during the playtest. He went down very fast to three characters.

So in general it balances out some.

For reference.
AD&D Ogre: 4d8+1 (19) HD, 1d10 damage. vs PCs doing on average 1d6 damage each. Down in about 2-3 rounds to a 4 person group.
Next Ogre: 5d10+5 (32) HD, 2d8+4 damage vs PCs doing anywhere from a d6 to a d12 of damage each. Down in about 2-3 rounds to a 4 person group.
5e Ogre: 7d10+21 (59) HD, 2d8+4 damage vs d6 to d12. Down in about 3-4 rounds.

.

It is also worth noting that the Ogre may not be the best choice to make this sort of system comparison, as it has two unusual benefits to HP (that actually compound each other): most creatures seem to be getting 1 hit die more than 1E; I think of this as sort of a 'level 0' HD. The ogre got 3 HD more than 1E, presumably because the designers wanted it to be a tougher creature — more small giant than slightly over sized bugbear. And everyone gets a CON bonus per HD, which mostly benefits the physically large, tough creatures (which are generally given high CON, at least that is what it looks like so far). Most creatures seem to have roughly twice their 1E HP (a loose recollection...) whereas the ogre has three times.

Quote from: Haffrung;771229Agreed. Why not just call them all special abilities and treat them the same way?

Sounds good, but often doesn't work out that way.

A Unified mechanics is not always the best solution because two problems. Either you have a sorting problem where you are faced with a giant list of X and become lost in picking items to make your concept. This afflicts GURPS to a high degree. In response GURPS developed templates but they are only extensively developed in supplements.

You could have a powerful generic mechanics that can be easily adapted to resolve just about anything the players attempt. The problem stems from players and referee become frustrated in figuring out exactly how to apply it. Particularly if they have a desire to have a high level of detail in a particular aspect of a campaign. Fate/Fudge is noted for this.

My opinion is that you should have consistent generalized set of mechanics however you have should a layer above that implements the general mechanics for specific aspects of the game focused on that aspect. This includes list of "objects." A spell list should be a spell list not a list of powers that could be spells, ray guns, or superpowers.

Also, it's important to note the difference in ability modifiers to damage when comparing AD&D to 5e.  You were lucky to have a +1 bonus to damage in AD&D if you weren't a fighter.  And if you were, a +2 bonus was good.  Only the super rare had +3 or higher bonuses to weapon damage.  And you never got one with bows and many other ranged weapons.

Contrast that to 5e, where nearly every PC has a +3 bonus to damage since both STR and DEX applies depending on the weapon.  Melee classes get STR, and missile/finesse classes get DEX.

So while a typical 1st level PC in AD&D would do 2-7 or 2-9 points, a 5e 1st level PC is doing 4-9 or 4-11.  Those 3hp mooks in 1e could still last a round sometimes, especially when attacked by someone other than a fighter.  They won't in 5e.

Quote from: jadrax;770980Optimisers can also rip the integrity of a game to ribbons by placing far more emphasis on what is good than what makes sense.

Franky my games don't have room for a Bugbear Slaughterwelder 4/Toeclipper 2/Hoopmonger 3/Paladin 4/Gunslinger 7.

I don't mind players investing in feats, multi-classing, special snow flake races because they have a strong concept that fits the game world. But too often with Optimisation any concept beyond 'win the game' goes straight out of the window.

Having a GM say NO is probably a good thing for a game. Having GM say Maybe and give their PC's context is even better.

GM's that let the rules be the iron-law and do no arbitration based on what they are willing to run take no responsibility for their campaign will have shitty campaigns.

Char-Op is fine to the degree that the GM is fine with it. If you're the GM and not fine with it - what the fuck are you doing letting the players dictate what kind of game you don't want to run?

I, personally, don't let PC's multiclass without a rationale that happens in-game. Most of the time it takes very little rationale - depends. A fighter that wants to learn rogue skills? Easily done. A Monk that wants to become a Barbarian? that's going to be obviously a bit more challenging. When you start getting into classes that have their own odd prerequisites or built-in assumptions, you're gonna have RP your way into it.

But that's just me. I play with a bunch of people in their forties or older... we're kinda past that shit.

Quote from: tenbones;771250Having a GM say NO is probably a good thing for a game. Having GM say Maybe and give their PC's context is even better.

GM's that let the rules be the iron-law and do no arbitration based on what they are willing to run take no responsibility for their campaign will have shitty campaigns.

Char-Op is fine to the degree that the GM is fine with it. If you're the GM and not fine with it - what the fuck are you doing letting the players dictate what kind of game you don't want to run?

I, personally, don't let PC's multiclass without a rationale that happens in-game. Most of the time it takes very little rationale - depends. A fighter that wants to learn rogue skills? Easily done. A Monk that wants to become a Barbarian? that's going to be obviously a bit more challenging. When you start getting into classes that have their own odd prerequisites or built-in assumptions, you're gonna have RP your way into it.

But that's just me. I play with a bunch of people in their forties or older... we're kinda past that shit.

Heh, I couldn't really see a Paladin/Warlock but I sure could see Fighter/Warlock or a Rogue/Warlock or a Barbarian/Sorcerer or even a Paladin/Sorcerer for example.

I'm also one of those DMs who doesn't allow multiclass unless it makes sense in game.  And all those people who argue against minimum stat requirements who say, "My 10 INT fighter studies spells during our downtime, so I can totally take a level in magic user.", my answer is, "Can you teach yourself latin just by looking at a book written in latin?"

And at the very least, it's going to take more than a week of looking at the magic user studying his spells before you can do the exact same.  Especially since he's been studying it for years.

Wizard is one of those classes that you could easily say no multiclassing into or put specific requirements like being an elf or if it's 5e an Eldritch Knight because they're actually studying magic academically from the start. I suppose it's whatever you're comfortable with really.

For myself I would say the wizard class would require you to roleplay into it if you didn't take Eldritch Knight or Mystic Thief or something similar like being a High Elf.

Quote from: tenbones;771250Having a GM say NO is probably a good thing for a game. Having GM say Maybe and give their PC's context is even better.

GM's that let the rules be the iron-law and do no arbitration based on what they are willing to run take no responsibility for their campaign will have shitty campaigns.

Char-Op is fine to the degree that the GM is fine with it. If you're the GM and not fine with it - what the fuck are you doing letting the players dictate what kind of game you don't want to run?

I, personally, don't let PC's multiclass without a rationale that happens in-game. Most of the time it takes very little rationale - depends. A fighter that wants to learn rogue skills? Easily done. A Monk that wants to become a Barbarian? that's going to be obviously a bit more challenging. When you start getting into classes that have their own odd prerequisites or built-in assumptions, you're gonna have RP your way into it.

But that's just me. I play with a bunch of people in their forties or older... we're kinda past that shit.

I can see were you are coming from. But, the problem with char-op is it has made the gaming community toxic.

Yes I can hang out with the usual crowd ans its not a problem. But when I wanted to try and recruit some new players from the University Role-play society, all you fucking got were people who thought dreaming up broken 20 levels builds was the *whole point* of D&D.

My life would be a lot fucking easier if I did not have to start reeducating players into actually being role-players eight years after they joined the hobby because the vast quantity of RPG output was written for munchkins.

Quote from: Marleycat;771251Heh, I couldn't really see a Paladin/Warlock

Dunno. Take the Paladin oath of Ancients so you a Fey Knight, then take your Warlock Patron as the Fayqueen. Pact of Chain and get a few animal minions. I think there is a workable concept there.

Quote from: jadrax;771260Dunno. Take the Paladin oath of Ancients so you a Fey Knight, then take your Warlock Patron as the Fayqueen. Pact of Chain and get a few animal minions. I think there is a workable concept there.

I'm going to use your post to illustrate my point.  A point way too many people seem to be missing.

Your multiclass concept?  It's based off of in-game narrative, which is perfect.  It is NOT based of maximizing +'s, which is what way too many people think is the most important part of the game.

It's depressing, really.

Quote from: jadrax;771260Dunno. Take the Paladin oath of Ancients so you a Fey Knight, then take your Warlock Patron as the Fayqueen. Pact of Chain and get a few animal minions. I think there is a workable concept there.

Cool. Haven't seen the Paladin so that sounds like it could be a fun concept to work with. I really love Warlocks and to a slightly lesser degree Sorcerers (far more than Wizards really). So I am looking for a Gish concept that doesn't force me to base it off Eldritch Knight.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;771253I'm also one of those DMs who doesn't allow multiclass unless it makes sense in game.  And all those people who argue against minimum stat requirements who say, "My 10 INT fighter studies spells during our downtime, so I can totally take a level in magic user.", my answer is, "Can you teach yourself latin just by looking at a book written in latin?"

And at the very least, it's going to take more than a week of looking at the magic user studying his spells before you can do the exact same.  Especially since he's been studying it for years.

I have a simple approach. Want to multiclass? Then do so at character generation only. Split the XP straight down the middle. Fighter/Magic-User for life. Done.

Quote from: Marleycat;771251Heh, I couldn't really see a Paladin/Warlock but I sure could see Fighter/Warlock or a Rogue/Warlock or a Barbarian/Sorcerer or even a Paladin/Sorcerer for example.

Yeah - the funny thing, I still talk to a lot of my old players in my group in LA. They have a shitty GM and one of my players in their 4e game (that alone raised my eyebrow) - is playing: Paladin/Warlock.

I just laughed. When they told me about their campaign - it sounded like Ren and Stimpy vs. Groovy Ghoulies.

But hey - you know, whatever floats your boat. If a Paladin had some kinda background like a dwarf with dragon-blood/demon-blood in his Clan wanted to learn sorcery, I'd certainly put content in that game to let give him that option. Even if to tempt him down a path that might just jeopardize his Paladin status. Because to me - that's content worth exploring in the context of the game. This can all be happening while they're adventuring and cracking skulls and looting their enemies. Allowing shifts like this to happen require context in the game. Otherwise it's it's just playing Talisman on roids.

Quote from: Marleycat;771263Cool. Haven't seen the Paladin so that sounds like it could be a fun concept to work with. I really love Warlocks and to a slightly lesser degree Sorcerers (far more than Wizards really). So I am looking for a Gish concept that doesn't force me to base it off Eldritch Knight.

Out of curiosity, I'm kinda the same way. What did you think of the Fantasy Craft Rune Knight?

A Paladin Warlock could work if the entity providing the power was Good.

Even more fun though, would be a Paladin that is being manipulated by devils.

Quote from: tenbones;771267Out of curiosity, I'm kinda the same way. What did you think of the Fantasy Craft Rune Knight?

I think it was well done. Very balanced with good choices to make in either making it fighter heavy or mage heavy and the runes were all good making for hard choices much like a Magus in Pathfinder. Lot's of choice in which feat chains to pursue and which fighting style (I built one with Chakras kind of a riff off Zena Warrior Princess just to see if I could). All in all just alot of fun. But not overpowered in either arena compared to a straight class of either type.

Quote from: jadrax;771258I can see were you are coming from. But, the problem with char-op is it has made the gaming community toxic.

Yes I can hang out with the usual crowd ans its not a problem. But when I wanted to try and recruit some new players from the University Role-play society, all you fucking got were people who thought dreaming up broken 20 levels builds was the *whole point* of D&D.

My life would be a lot fucking easier if I did not have to start reeducating players into actually being role-players eight years after they joined the hobby because the vast quantity of RPG output was written for munchkins.

Preach it, sister!

I've come to the response "but we'll never get there (level 20 perfect build with all necessary goody bags)."

Quote from: jadrax;771258I can see were you are coming from. But, the problem with char-op is it has made the gaming community toxic.

Yes I can hang out with the usual crowd ans its not a problem. But when I wanted to try and recruit some new players from the University Role-play society, all you fucking got were people who thought dreaming up broken 20 levels builds was the *whole point* of D&D.

My life would be a lot fucking easier if I did not have to start reeducating players into actually being role-players eight years after they joined the hobby because the vast quantity of RPG output was written for munchkins.

Video game mentality. I know that's simplifying it, but that's a part of it. I think, too, that changing the stat bonuses hurt the game. You go from a situation where less than 1% of scores gave you a +3 to 5%, and 40% of rolls give you a bonus of some kind. Make 4d6 the default option, where a 3rd of all rolls grants 13-15, and everyone's got +'s out the wazoo. Then add on all the doohickeys from races/classes/feats, and you have the candy mentality. The result? Everyone is speshul in speshul-land.

While I'm not in love with all things old school (I prefer a unified rolling mechanic), I do like the idea that survival means something, because survival means levels, and levels mean power. So, I'll be toying with a hack that includes some of what I like about 5E with stuff I like elsewhere. Fewer bells and whistles. Make it about actions taken during play, rather than during chargen. The good thing about this game is access to so many different ways of doing things that you're not stuck with the hand you're dealt, system-wise.

Quote from: jadrax;771258I can see were you are coming from. But, the problem with char-op is it has made the gaming community toxic.

My opinion is that this has to do with time-served vs. the quality of the GM's running the game. Everyone will gravitate to their niche. And some people will grow out of theirs. The tricky part is when people kinda stick with what they know without trying other games, other styles of play. Being a "good" GM takes time and lots of failure. The toxicity exists because people start getting tribal about their "way" of doing things and think that there is no other way. And there's always better ways of doing things.

Quote from: jadrax;771258Yes I can hang out with the usual crowd ans its not a problem. But when I wanted to try and recruit some new players from the University Role-play society, all you fucking got were people who thought dreaming up broken 20 levels builds was the *whole point* of D&D.

But your experience has told you otherwise, right? That's what *I* am faced with too. I just cratered my gaming group of over ten-years last week. I spent the week picking up new players. I was in the same boat.

But since YOU know better - when you get those players, it's your chance to show them an alternative. It might not work, but let's face it, if it doesn't - did you really want those guys to be your on-going players anyhow? Probably not.

Quote from: jadrax;771258My life would be a lot fucking easier if I did not have to start reeducating players into actually being role-players eight years after they joined the hobby because the vast quantity of RPG output was written for munchkins.

I feel your pain. But imo - GM'ing has to happen because you *choose* to do it. If you turn it into this narrative of "it's like smashing my head into a wall" - then eventually that's all it will be. You have to accept this is a part of what makes GMing worthwhile. Not that you have to school people on your method, but that you truly enjoy the moment when everything simply clicks and they "get it". You may not get any appreciation for it. But that's not why you're doing it in the first place.

ideally anyhow.

Quote from: tenbones;771297I just cratered my gaming group of over ten-years last week. I spent the week picking up new players. I was in the same boat.

Ouch. Vibes.

A few years ago I finally walked away from a group I had been gaming with for over 15 years. It was hard, particularly since I have no other groups on hand.

No gaming might be better than bad gaming, but... ugh.

(Doing stuff online has helped a bit, since it's more freeform, timewise)

Quote from: RandallS;771217IMHO, feats, if used in a game at all, should be limited to adding a bonus to attempts to do things that any characters should be able to try to do with any chance of success above zero or adding abilities that sim,ply cannot be attempted with a non-zero chance of success with special training or special inborn abilities.  These limitations do not seem to go over well with those who love feats, however. From what i seen online and been told by those who like feats offline, they tend to loathe feats that just give a bonus to doing X instead of making it so only characters with feat X can do X.

Feats are misnamed in 5th. More like special skills abilities, knacks, whatever. Anyone can start getting them if they are willing to forgo a stat bump. And they are a-lot more restricted in number than 3e/4e. In fact you might NEVER pick up a "feat".

Quote from: Will;771298Ouch. Vibes.

A few years ago I finally walked away from a group I had been gaming with for over 15 years. It was hard, particularly since I have no other groups on hand.

No gaming might be better than bad gaming, but... ugh.

(Doing stuff online has helped a bit, since it's more freeform, timewise)

May I ask what prompted you to walk away?

Just curious.

Quote from: Will;771298Ouch. Vibes.

A few years ago I finally walked away from a group I had been gaming with for over 15 years. It was hard, particularly since I have no other groups on hand.

No gaming might be better than bad gaming, but... ugh.

(Doing stuff online has helped a bit, since it's more freeform, timewise)

The exact same thing happened to me recently.

Mainly, the reason was that I was tired of bickering with them.

Invariably every in-game conflict between PCs bled out into real life. It was usually the same two culprits ("but it's what my CHARACTER would do, party cohesion be damned!"). Also, one player was a notorious min-maxer power gamer, and the other HATED failed dice rolls. Like real upset.

I told them that I was done after the latest campaign crashed and burned after introducing 2 new players who embodied the stereotype of the over-entitled gamer.

It's been hard finding a new group, but at least I have less stress now.

Quote from: Bill;771479May I ask what prompted you to walk away?

Just curious.

Basically, a few of the more focused gamers were replaced over time with much more casual, social gamers; several of us moved across the country (central PA to western WA), and so we gained one player's wife, lost a guy but he was replaced with his sister and sister's husband (who happened to live here).

For a while we coasted with 3 fairly dedicated/'hardcore' gamers and 3 minimally interested social gamers.

Also, several of us had kids over the past 8 or so years, and we lived further from one another. At one point I was making a 100+ mile drive every week or two over some rather mountainous terrain to try to game with them.

FINALLY... schedules started unraveling. Our weekly game became monthly, if we were lucky. And the GM was horrible about responding to any emails.

The snapping point was making a 45 minute drive to the game, and finding nobody there ... check my phone and the GM had, yet again, failed to indicate whether the game was running, and the hosts had decided to just go out to dinner or something. Message came in 15 minutes before I got there.

At that point I was like 'fuck this, I'm busting my ass to get here, and there are only two of us at this point who seem to even give a shit when the game actually runs.'

(To be fair, the GM was under a COLOSSAL amount of stress, so the problems were understandable and I often feel like an ass complaining about it. But it still made for a terrible gaming experience)


So, that was that.
It helped, a little, that I had found a nice Pathfinder MUSH. Playing online isn't as fun, IMO, as a good tabletop session, but good tabletop sessions were a distant memory and the advantages of playing whenever I had time was a huge plus.

Tavern Brawler previewed - It's not the same as in the leaked Alpha.

(http://i.imgur.com/s3xNSkE.jpg)

That looks interesting enough to take for all sorts of concepts.

Yeah I like it too. Mechanically and thematically interesting!

BTW: I can't see the image, but found it on Reddit. Here it is in case anyone else can't see it either:

http://i.imgur.com/s3xNSkE.jpg

A bit nerfed from the alpha playtest, but even though it says "tavern brawler", it also just screams "ninja" to me.  They're known for using improvised weapons so this fits very well IMO

Looks cool. The sort of thing I'ld pick for a broken down, depression-prone, alcoholic soldier who likes to drown his sorrows and pick fights at bars.

TBP thread on this is filled with weenie's screaming about how much worse it is than some other power they wished their characters could have. That place really is such a drag most of the time.

I mean, if you think about it, being proficient with pretty much ANY object that the Tavern Brawler can pick up and swing (including a goblin) is pretty freakin' kick ass.

Unless, of course, your campaign features heavily optimized min-maxers who are never put into situations in which they aren't fully equipped and ready...

Quote from: Larsdangly;771578TBP thread on this is filled with weenie's screaming about how much worse it is than some other power they wished their characters could have. That place really is such a drag most of the time.

It's insufferable. Stuff like "it would be better to take a level of Monk" or "it is SHAMEFUL for a Fighter to use anything but a Greatsword". VOOOOMMMIIIIT

Quote from: Larsdangly;771578Looks cool. The sort of thing I'ld pick for a broken down, depression-prone, alcoholic soldier who likes to drown his sorrows and pick fights at bars.

TBP thread on this is filled with weenie's screaming about how much worse it is than some other power they wished their characters could have. That place really is such a drag most of the time.

Meh bunch of system wonk wankers. All I can say is since I've seen the alpha doc I can't pick between wanting to play a warlock or a multiclassed abjurer/eldritch knight. That feat would be awesome for either of them....any object as a weapon? Bring it on!

Quote from: Sacrosanct;771576A bit nerfed from the alpha playtest, but even though it says "tavern brawler", it also just screams "ninja" to me.  They're known for using improvised weapons so this fits very well IMO

Tavern Ninja.

Quote from: Larsdangly;771578TBP thread on this is filled with weenie's screaming about how much worse it is than some other power they wished their characters could have. That place really is such a drag most of the time.

Seriously, why does anybody bother?  I don't even lurk there anymore and the only reason I still give a damn is if the SJWs are trying to use what reputation RPG.net has left to piss on other people's fun.

JG

Also it gives you a grappling attempt as a bonus action. That's nice for a non-fighter.

Quote from: James Gillen;771588Seriously, why does anybody bother?

The "Let's Read" threads are good.

Quote from: Larsdangly;771578Looks cool. The sort of thing I'ld pick for a broken down, depression-prone, alcoholic soldier who likes to drown his sorrows and pick fights at bars.

TBP thread on this is filled with weenie's screaming about how much worse it is than some other power they wished their characters could have. That place really is such a drag most of the time.

ENWorld isn't much better.  Then again, it's usually the same posters from TBP whining on both, so take it FWIW.

Quote from: Will;771499So, that was that.
It helped, a little, that I had found a nice Pathfinder MUSH. Playing online isn't as fun, IMO, as a good tabletop session, but good tabletop sessions were a distant memory and the advantages of playing whenever I had time was a huge plus.

Know the feeling, twice over. Except I was the DM.

As for online play. I did much the same and ended up on a Shadowrun MUD that is to-date still the most precice recreation of Shadowrun into a MU**. Suffered from some problematic admin ideals. But nothing even remotely as hellish as the Cthulhu themed MU** which turned me off of MUDs for nearly a decade.

Quote from: Necrozius;771581It's insufferable. Stuff like "it would be better to take a level of Monk" or "it is SHAMEFUL for a Fighter to use anything but a Greatsword". VOOOOMMMIIIIT

(http://i.imgur.com/NJoCEfy.gif)

Sometimes I DMed. But it's really... unfun to have half a group that pretty much checks out whenever you describe anything.

As for MU*s... nearly all of them are fucking awful teen drama bullshit. I can count on one hand how many exceptions I've found in 20+ years (I've probably played 50+ MU*s, if only for a day until realizing that, yep, this one sucks out loud TOO. And there have been many long breaks)

Re: TBP:
The D20 forum was awesome pre-4e. 4e... obliterated it. And also poisoned most of the rest of the board.
Lately, my main interest in TBP was some of the 5e previews, hanging out with VGO folks, some cool 'let's watch' stuff in OM, and fun science articles in Tang.

But, oh well, now they can be happy with the folks saying Catholics aren't Christians. Good luck with that, you fuckers.

(yes, still bitter)

Quote from: Haffrung;771265I have a simple approach. Want to multiclass? Then do so at character generation only. Split the XP straight down the middle. Fighter/Magic-User for life. Done.

It's certainly cleaner and more explainable the way you describe.

If a 'fighter' wanted to learn 'wizardry' without any backstory, or without any real setup, I would require them to seek out a wizard for training and it would take time, not just 'bing!' you have a wizard level.

In 1E dnd I would consider allowing a fighter (per the previous example) to become a multiclassed character if they did the in play groundwork. its not that hard to just halve the characters xp.

Or 'third' it because they are breaking the normal multiclass and or dual class rules.

Count me in with Haffrung's idea for MC'ing. You pay the price with slower advancement, not to mention all the other balancing widgets the system has.

I DO think, though, you can get "MC'ing lite" using the expanded Feats (Arcane Initiate and so on). I DO like that use of Feats a great deal.

Quote from: cranebump;771798Count me in with Haffrung's idea for MC'ing. You pay the price with slower advancement, not to mention all the other balancing widgets the system has.

I DO think, though, you can get "MC'ing lite" using the expanded Feats (Arcane Initiate and so on). I DO like that use of Feats a great deal.

I'd like to see an option for 0-2e multiclassing but from what I have seen including the alpha doc multiclassing shouldn't be a big issue even with the baseline version because it's far more cleaned up then the playtest version. And just by seeing BASIC I can 90-95% guess how it will end up in the actual game.

As it stands multiclassing is far nearer to PF then 3x it's just not worth it unless you go to certain break points usually 6/10/14 in either direction.

Quote from: Marleycat;771805I'd like to see an option for 0-2e multiclassing but from what I have seen including the alpha doc multiclassing shouldn't be a big issue even with the baseline version because it's far more cleaned up then the playtest version. And just by seeing BASIC I can 90-95% guess how it will end up in the actual game.

I'd prefer it, as well. Helps deal with the "dipping" into a single level to gain some widget and makes you play a character. I wish they'd release the DM's guide sooner so I could see their hack recommendations. And having a MM would be nice, too.

You know, if they did it like AD&D multiclassing where you split your XP between classes, that sure would solve all the "just dip into class X" problems.

It also  makes more sense, IMO.  If you take a class of magic user, and cast spells during the adventure, you're going to get better just like you're getting better at swinging your sword.  Don't make sense that you'd exponentially get better with your sword (leveling up), but no better at casting spells (no leveling in MU class)

Quote from: cranebump;771808I'd prefer it, as well. Helps deal with the "dipping" into a single level to gain some widget and makes you play a character. I wish they'd release the DM's guide sooner so I could see their hack recommendations. And having a MM would be nice, too.

As I said dipping is a horrible idea. If you want a gish your best bet is Eldritch Knight or Valor Bard or War Cleric with Paladin currently. I would assume the Blade Pact Warlock will be similar. If you multiclassed into Sorcerer or Wizard for more spells you need to dip 5 levels into VB or EK for that extra attack. If you want to use spells and physical attacks at the same time? That is 14 levels in VB or EK. You also have to watch out for the fact that if you multiclass in the wrong mix you can end up with less stat bump/feat chances then even 5. And remember your archtype breakpoints are a levels 2/6/10/14/18 the stuff that makes it worth taking a class in the first place.

If you're just looking for a fighter with a couple of cantrips and a spell? Just take Magic Initiate and be be Drow, High Elf, Gnome or Tiefling and be done with it.

The best way to 'dip' is to have good options (like feats) that give a character some spell stuff without having to actually sacrifice full levels.

Quote from: Will;771821The best way to 'dip' is to have good options (like feats) that give a character some spell stuff without having to actually sacrifice full levels.

Yes, and I am also fond of the concept of trading in abilities.

For example, a Paladin that loses holy smite but gains stealth.

Quote from: Will;771821The best way to 'dip' is to have good options (like feats) that give a character some spell stuff without having to actually sacrifice full levels.

That's what magic initiate does. You could even combine it with spell sniper and Elemental Adept for a bit more tricks.

Quote from: Marleycat;771862That's what magic initiate does. You could even combine it with spell sniper and Elemental Adept for a bit more tricks.

And Ritual Caster. There was also an apprentice background in the playtest, wasn't there?

Quote from: Marleycat;771862That's what magic initiate does. You could even combine it with spell sniper and Elemental Adept for a bit more tricks.

So you can take say, a fighter, and load up on backgrounds and feats of a 'wizardly nature' ?

Sounds excellent.

Yeah, I love that shit.

3e really cured me of my natural inclination to multiclassing. Pretty much... all editions of D&D I've ever played have had various awkwardness with the idea.

The combination of alternate class stuff in Unearthed Arcana, some of the expanding cool options of splatbook feats, and then Pathfinder archetypes/feats, really got me into the mode of just having one class you adjust to taste.

Complete Mage (3.5e), I believe, has some 'you can cast some cantrips.' Complete Divine has Arcane Disciple lets wizards cast a few cleric domain spells.
UA set the stage for a more robust, open swapping of class abilities (like the sneak paladin someone mentioned).


I think all you need is a really solid melee/caster mix (bard, frex) and you have a good range of starting points to tweak rather than trying to multiclass.

Heck, I'm of the opinion that changing focus of a character should let you swap out old abilities (where plausible).

Quote from: Bill;771883So you can take say, a fighter, and load up on backgrounds and feats of a 'wizardly nature' ?

Sounds excellent.

Sure. You have a fighter take the Sage background take magical initiate for 2 cantrips and a 1st level spell be a high elf, drow, Tielfling for the extra cantrip or certain cantrip take Ritual Caster to be allowed to take any ritual spell and use it in a ritual, be a spell sniper and double the range and lessen cover for your cantrips...take elemental adept to mess with the damage type while getting to raise your INT a couple times in the bargain....

It's kind of like be a Wizard and take Soldier and get Medium Armour Mastery while lets you have +3 DEX and gives a DEX and maybe take Tavern Brawler just for the unarmed attack profiencies. All sorts of neat stuff can be done if that's your concept. Honestly there are very few feats worth it for a pure spellcaster beyond Tough, Resilent, Spell Sniper and Lore Master, Linguist. Though Magical initiate Cleric would be a really good choice for many pure Wizards.

I am a huge fan of the backgrounds.  I am not a fan of multi-classing anyway, but love to mold my archetype to how I want it.  I've mentioned this many times, but I love being able to have a sneaky halfling fighter without needing to deal with the bookwork of multi-classing into a thief.  All those people who assume I'm just a typical halfling thief and make their plans around such?  Love the look on their face when I have twice the HP and twice the damage output of a thief, and literally cut them off at the kneecaps :)

Yeah, every time the subject of multi-classing and class-ability 'swaps' comes up, it makes me long for a well-supported version of D&D that has no classes at all. Does it actually mean anything to have classes if you can functionally create any combination of abilities you want? I don't dispute that it might be desirable to have that flexibility, but isn't the purest form of that flexibility a complete removal of the concept of classes? Or reduction to something binary like 'heroes and magic users' (i.e., the Chainmail approach)?

Quote from: Larsdangly;771992I don't dispute that it might be desirable to have that flexibility, but isn't the purest form of that flexibility a complete removal of the concept of classes? Or reduction to something binary like 'heroes and magic users' (i.e., the Chainmail approach)?

I started out in RPGs with GURPS and 2E using the old options books. We kept nominal class names for a while because it served a purpose -- instantly letting others know what sort of role you planned on filling at the table. I see the new 5E design serving much the same purpose, especially since most choices seem to be additive (gain this and this as opposed to lose this to gain that).

Most of the people I played with over time decided that mix-and-match classes or characters was the most fun for us at the table. So rather than trying to find a class or prestige class or a kit, we just created mixed characters from the start. First it was just swapping features, then house rules and finally our own RPG system. It lets you play something from the start and (when done well) avoids the min-max styles that hurt games.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;770931That marking ability is now part of the fighter subclass, not a feat.  Unless it's changed from the leaked PHB that is.  The inspirational feat is: spend 10 minutes pumping up your buddies, they get bonus temp HP equal to level+CHA bonus.

That's rather a shame about Marking. I really like the idea that any class could attempt to mark by having that feat. A paladin, for example, is pretty fun in this regard as can a Barbarian. I might just have to houserule one in.

As for the Inspiration feat, sounds OK. Still, I'm banking on the Battle Master to have the options to create a venerable Warlord (with action granting and HP-boosting). If it's achievable with a sub-class instead of Feats, I'll take it regardless.

I just don't get the mania for customization. Even in Basic, between the sub-races and classes there are 28 combinations. Factor in domains, fighting styles, and arcane traditions and we're at 154. Add backgrounds (even from the paltry 5 included in Basic) and you're at 770 possible configurations. In the most Basic iteration of the game. And that's not even considering ideals, bonds, and flaws. Now consider the archetypes, sub-classes, feats, and new backgrounds that will come out with the PHB, which will bring the different possible PC configurations into the tens of thousands, and and I can't even begin to fathom why some people instantly need more options. Before they've even played. It boggles my mind.

Quote from: Haffrung;772008I just don't get the mania for customization. Even in Basic, between the sub-races and classes there are 28 combinations. Factor in domains, fighting styles, and arcane traditions and we're at 154. Add backgrounds (even from the paltry 5 included in Basic) and you're at 770 possible configurations. In the most Basic iteration of the game. And that's not even considering ideals, bonds, and flaws. Now consider the archetypes, sub-classes, feats, and new backgrounds that will come out with the PHB, which will bring the different possible PC configurations into the tens of thousands, and and I can't even begin to fathom why some people instantly need more options. Before they've even played. It boggles my mind.

Probably because a person has a VERY specific idea on what their character should/can do and that the rules don't do it justice to their mind OR don't cover it at all. Some examples:

• Wolverine-style character: How do you build that? What weapons and class? How do you factor in the animal-esque qualities? Not to mention regeneration or adamantium skeletal structure (the later two are hard in almost any D&D edition to pull off).

- In v3.5 it was difficult, but possible with a variety of options they created like Grafting and adamantium-based weapons. Heck you could get Regeneration from templates and be serviceable with Maneuvers (Wolf Fang Strike), and stances (Hunter's Sense, Punishing Strike) from the Tome of Battle. In 4E I think it was much harder to do the samething without major reflavoring.

• Beast Wars Transformers: A Warforged Druid? or Wizard with Polymorph?

- While I think it's possible in next because we have 1) Druid class that wild-shapes and 2) Warforged from Eberron, there was a bit more fluidity to it in 4E that I think 5E lacks (due to balance, which I'm OK with).

• Bomb-throwing Pirate: First, do we even have ranged throwing weapons akin to bombs? Should we? Further, can the Fighter be build like a Pirate or would we need a separate class for that, like 3E's Swashbuckler?

- With reflavoring, it's possible in 4E. In v3.5 it's a bit harder but it takes come customization in regards to throwing weapons. In pathfinder, I think they made a class for it.


Basically there are a sub-set of players who are not happy with "Taerith Smith, the resident blacksmith's 17 year old son who's just picked up a weapon for the first time" or "Fighter with a longsword and shield wearing his dad's chainmail suit" sort of character. As the movies get bigger and better and more CGI is thrown in and protagonists are gifted with all sorts of cool or unique stuff, people are going to want to emulate that in their D&D games. Maybe it's not perfect, but at least gets the job done.

Well, hey, there's 'I want to be a cleric but not Life domain'

That covers a lot of territory. ;)

Quote from: Batman;772014Probably because a person has a VERY specific idea on what their character should/can do and that the rules don't do it justice to their mind OR don't cover it at all. Some examples:

• Wolverine-style character: How do you build that? What weapons and class? How do you factor in the animal-esque qualities? Not to mention regeneration or adamantium skeletal structure (the later two are hard in almost any D&D edition to pull off).

- In v3.5 it was difficult, but possible with a variety of options they created like Grafting and adamantium-based weapons. Heck you could get Regeneration from templates and be serviceable with Maneuvers (Wolf Fang Strike), and stances (Hunter's Sense, Punishing Strike) from the Tome of Battle. In 4E I think it was much harder to do the samething without major reflavoring.

• Beast Wars Transformers: A Warforged Druid? or Wizard with Polymorph?

- While I think it's possible in next because we have 1) Druid class that wild-shapes and 2) Warforged from Eberron, there was a bit more fluidity to it in 4E that I think 5E lacks (due to balance, which I'm OK with).

• Bomb-throwing Pirate: First, do we even have ranged throwing weapons akin to bombs? Should we? Further, can the Fighter be build like a Pirate or would we need a separate class for that, like 3E's Swashbuckler?

- With reflavoring, it's possible in 4E. In v3.5 it's a bit harder but it takes come customization in regards to throwing weapons. In pathfinder, I think they made a class for it.


Basically there are a sub-set of players who are not happy with "Taerith Smith, the resident blacksmith's 17 year old son who's just picked up a weapon for the first time" or "Fighter with a longsword and shield wearing his dad's chainmail suit" sort of character. As the movies get bigger and better and more CGI is thrown in and protagonists are gifted with all sorts of cool or unique stuff, people are going to want to emulate that in their D&D games. Maybe it's not perfect, but at least gets the job done.

It has honestly never occurred to me try to take something from a movie and turn it into a D&D character. Unless that thing in the movie is a lot like a fighter, cleric, mage, or thief. D&D is D&D. Some of those ideas you throw out sound to me like someone wanting to play Iron Man in Call of Cthulhu. D&D isn't a universal action movie emulator. And the thousands of options the standard PHB afford are more than enough to come up with something cool.

But from the sounds of it, maybe there's an opportunity for a superhero RPG to make a big splash in the market today.

Quote from: Haffrung;772029It has honestly never occurred to me try to take something from a movie and turn it into a D&D character. Unless that thing in the movie is a lot like a fighter, cleric, mage, or thief. D&D is D&D. Some of those ideas you throw out sound to me like someone wanting to play Iron Man in Call of Cthulhu. D&D isn't a universal action movie emulator. And the thousands of options the standard PHB afford are more than enough to come up with something cool.

But from the sounds of it, maybe there's an opportunity for a superhero RPG to make a big splash in the market today.

Yep.  D&D is D&D.  There's a reason why there have been tons of other RPGs out there.  Trying to make D&D into something it's not is what led to the debacle of where it is now.

Quote from: Haffrung;772008I just don't get the mania for customization. Even in Basic, between the sub-races and classes there are 28 combinations. Factor in domains, fighting styles, and arcane traditions and we're at 154. Add backgrounds (even from the paltry 5 included in Basic) and you're at 770 possible configurations. In the most Basic iteration of the game. And that's not even considering ideals, bonds, and flaws. Now consider the archetypes, sub-classes, feats, and new backgrounds that will come out with the PHB, which will bring the different possible PC configurations into the tens of thousands, and and I can't even begin to fathom why some people instantly need more options. Before they've even played. It boggles my mind.

Doublemint.

Because I prefer Gish's? As it is with multiclassing I can create a decent SwordMage/Magus with either a Bard Valor College/Abjurer or a EK/Abjurer and even a Blade Pact Warlock/EK by the alpha doc. As written EK or Warlock would be the best choice RAW (a simple house rule would be needed for the Bard version).

Quote from: Will;772019Well, hey, there's 'I want to be a cleric but not Life domain'

That covers a lot of territory. ;)

Nice. Psst....you have 6 other choices already.:)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;772032Yep.  D&D is D&D.  There's a reason why there have been tons of other RPGs out there.  Trying to make D&D into something it's not is what led to the debacle of where it is now.

That is a bit different from setting retheming.

For some D&D does Gurps better than Gurps. You just have to find the right approach.

Wolverine for example: In 5e that could be like so.
Class Berserker: since it covers alot of the basics of the character. Possibly multiclassing into ranger for the extra senses and tracking.
Magical vorpal blades covers the claws. Treat as short swords..
Regeneration: Gets a bonus to each HD he uses to recover. He can still be worn down and knocked out with enough damage. Or even killed. Can spend HD to recover if taken to zero HP.

Someone else will come up with a totally different approach. Or just use Gamma World... aheh...
 
With just what we have right now in Basic we could probably recreate Boot Hill.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;772032Yep.  D&D is D&D.  There's a reason why there have been tons of other RPGs out there.  Trying to make D&D into something it's not is what led to the debacle of where it is now.

Or just maybe your generation's touchstones are different then mine or our children? Naw, that isn't possible at all. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Batman;772014Probably because a person has a VERY specific idea on what their character should/can do and that the rules don't do it justice to their mind OR don't cover it at all. Some examples:

• Wolverine-style character: How do you build that? What weapons and class? How do you factor in the animal-esque qualities? Not to mention regeneration or adamantium skeletal structure (the later two are hard in almost any D&D edition to pull off).

• Beast Wars Transformers: A Warforged Druid? or Wizard with Polymorph?

It's funny you should mention those two examples, because in my Eberron campaigns I once featured X-Men and Brotherhood analogues who all had Abberrant Dragonmarks. Wolverine was a razorclaw shifter Barbarian (this what 3.5, but once shifters are out for 4e, as I'm sure they will be, it won't be a problem to do in 5e.). And in that same campaign we explicitly based the Lord of Blades and his bunch on the Decepticons (except for the lack of shapeshifting)

(For the record, this was deliberately meant to be a not-very-serious campaign, so having NPCs that were goofs on pop culture figures was totally appropriate.)

If someone wants to play Wolverine, I'd suggest they play a superhero game. But then we get into the whole "setting limits" thing, where folks don't get their candy, and, well...gosh we just can't have that.

But, to be serious, ran a short campaign recently where a character found some gauntlets that had blades pop out of the knuckles. There's your Wolverine (or as close as I'm getting to someone who can regenerate from one scrap after a nuclear explosion).

Quote from: Marleycat;772043Or just maybe your generation's touchstones are different then mine or our children? Naw, that isn't possible at all. :rolleyes:

probably not, judging by the evidence we have in front of us.  I mean, I suppose you could try to take my statement as some sort of personal dig at you, but what I'm referring to is that D&D took a huge diversion off of what d&D was with 4e and we all saw the result.  This, coupled with the direction of of 5e combined with the overall reception of it sure seems to point to them realizing that making d&d back to what it was to be d&d was the right move.

sort of like new coke.  It has nothing to do with the older generation not respecting the desires of the new generation.  It had to do old coke just being better coke.

don't be something you're not is the lesson here.  Ergo, d&d shouldn't try to be the best for superhero type games, or MMO games.  It should give the "d&d experience"

Quote from: LibraryLass;772044It's funny you should mention those two examples, because in my Eberron campaigns I once featured X-Men and Brotherhood analogues who all had Abberrant Dragonmarks. Wolverine was a razorclaw shifter Barbarian (this what 3.5, but once shifters are out for 4e, as I'm sure they will be, it won't be a problem to do in 5e.). And in that same campaign we explicitly based the Lord of Blades and his bunch on the Decepticons (except for the lack of shapeshifting)

(For the record, this was deliberately meant to be a not-very-serious campaign, so having NPCs that were goofs on pop culture figures was totally appropriate.)

Love it. I never heard about Shifters until 4e. I'm confident you could do it with either a Barbarian/Druid/Fighter/Ranger subclass.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;772049don't be something you're not is the lesson here.  Ergo, d&d shouldn't try to be the best for superhero type games, or MMO games.  It should give the "d&d experience"

Ok, in this context you're correct.

Quote from: Marleycat;772052Ok, in this context you're correct.

to continue the soda analogy, some people don't like coke, and that's perfectly fine.  Some may like Pepsi, or some may like something else.  But it would be a huge mistake on coke's part to try to make their beverage to cover all of those other tastes.  Ever mixed a dozen sodas into one glass?  How well did that work out?  D&D shouldn't try mix all the flavors.  Be it's own flavor

Quote from: Sacrosanct;772049It has nothing to do with the older generation not respecting the desires of the new generation.

I'll admit it. I don't respect their desires. Tell you why -- I was a young, smart ass iconoclastic bastard, too. "Nothing old is good." Now I know I was just talking out my ass. If young me was standing right here, old me would tell him to fuck off (after admitting technology is great, man...but fuck off, young sir...fuck off....).

Quote from: Marleycat;772040Nice. Psst....you have 6 other choices already.:)

Basic only has rules for Life, right? Or did I miss something?

Quote from: Will;772056Basic only has rules for Life, right? Or did I miss something?

It does. Are you referring to the PHB, Marleycat? What am I missing?

Quote from: cranebump;772058It does. Are you referring to the PHB, Marleycat? What am I missing?

The PHB (should be easy to get the information about the other 6 domains, or at least have a framework to homebrew your own for your personal setting right?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;772054to continue the soda analogy, some people don't like coke, and that's perfectly fine.  Some may like Pepsi, or some may like something else.  But it would be a huge mistake on coke's part to try to make their beverage to cover all of those other tastes.  Ever mixed a dozen sodas into one glass?  How well did that work out?  D&D shouldn't try mix all the flavors.  Be it's own flavor

Yessir, I have it's called a graveyard or zombie or other terms... it's GOOD.;)

Dnd is it's own flavor because it's so mutable.

Marleycat, I was responding to this subthread:

Quote from: Haffrung;772008I just don't get the mania for customization. Even in Basic, between the sub-races and classes there are 28 combinations. Factor in domains, fighting styles, and arcane traditions and we're at 154. Add backgrounds (even from the paltry 5 included in Basic) and you're at 770 possible configurations. In the most Basic iteration of the game. And that's not even considering ideals, bonds, and flaws. Now consider the archetypes, sub-classes, feats, and new backgrounds that will come out with the PHB, which will bring the different possible PC configurations into the tens of thousands, and and I can't even begin to fathom why some people instantly need more options. Before they've even played. It boggles my mind.

I wasn't suggesting 5e entirely, but I DO think people are going to want more than Basic.

Quote from: Haffrung;772008Now consider the archetypes, sub-classes, feats, and new backgrounds that will come out with the PHB, which will bring the different possible PC configurations into the tens of thousands, and and I can't even begin to fathom why some people instantly need more options. Before they've even played. It boggles my mind.

  Counterpoint: Over 40 years, over half a dozen distinct versions (and more if you count subdivisions, spinoffs, and clones), easily over a dozen official settings, and countless unofficial productions, there have been a lot of options put forth for D&D. Not all of them will be in the core book, so some people are going to be disappointed.

  And it's not all weird and esoteric stuff that will be missing, either. The cloistered cleric/White Mage archetype doesn't appear to be an option in the PHB. :)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;772049probably not, judging by the evidence we have in front of us.  I mean, I suppose you could try to take my statement as some sort of personal dig at you, but what I'm referring to is that D&D took a huge diversion off of what d&D was with 4e and we all saw the result.  This, coupled with the direction of of 5e combined with the overall reception of it sure seems to point to them realizing that making d&d back to what it was to be d&d was the right move.

  Well, it looks promising, but it's early days yet--remember, 4E outsold 3E at launch. We'll have to see if it has legs.

Quotedon't be something you're not is the lesson here.  Ergo, d&d shouldn't try to be the best for superhero type games, or MMO games.  It should give the "d&d experience"

  From everything they said, I think they were trying for the D&D experience with 4E--they just didn't understand how much of the D&D experience was tied up in the weird, traditional and sometimes clunky elements of previous games, and they considered it to involve a lot more mechanical engagement than a lot of the market seems to have wanted.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;772054to continue the soda analogy, some people don't like coke, and that's perfectly fine.  Some may like Pepsi, or some may like something else.  But it would be a huge mistake on coke's part to try to make their beverage to cover all of those other tastes.  Ever mixed a dozen sodas into one glass?  How well did that work out?  D&D shouldn't try mix all the flavors.  Be it's own flavor

Alternately, they could offer a bunch of different flavors (http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/2011/03/content-marketing-diversification/) and let each customer choose the one they prefer.

Second-place spaghetti sauce manufacturer, Prego had a can't-miss plan. They'd have Psychophysicist Dr. Howard Moskowitz determine the formulation for the "perfect" spaghetti sauce, with the flavor and texture that was most liked by the most people. Then, in one swoop, they'd unseat category leader Ragu.

But Dr. Moskowitz's proved (to Prego's initial dismay) there was no such thing as one perfect sauce, and that if Prego created a sauce that hit the "sweet spot" between the different sauces that different people liked, they'd have a sauce that millions would find acceptable, but nobody would love.

Dr. Moskowitz still saved the day, though. He went on to prove that if Prego looked at people not as one, big group of spaghetti sauce consumers, but as a groups of people who clustered around particular spaghetti sauce traits, then made multiple kinds of sauce, they could divide the market and conquer Ragu.

Thus was created Prego Extra Chunky, and thus was Ragu moved to the number two position in the category.

http://www.drumcircleco.com/brandz/malcolm-gladwell-howard-moskowitz-spaghetti-sauce-and-the-end-of-endless-line-extensions/

I think there are some "legitimate" reasons for wanting more than the four basic non-multi-classed classes.

1. Although it's not currently a problem, there have been times in the past when we could only get a DM and three players together for a campaign. A multi-class character or two came in very handy for covering the requisite bases for many dungeons (fighting, trap-disarming, healing and blasting.) The same thing has happened in groups of four when we have frequent absences.

In this regard, I was happy to see that the fighter/magic-user and the thief/magic user will be presented as subclasses in the PHB.

2. "Nostalgia" has become a dirty word for some reason, but there are many players, both recent and long-term, who enjoyed playing a particular character in past editions, became emotionally invested in that character, and are interested in ways to recreate that character, or someone very similar, in the context of 5e. Not all of those past characters fell into one of the basic races or classes.

3. Hard as it is to believe, I really do have one player who is fascinated with bards, and another with paladins and the game is a bigger draw for them if classes like that are included.

4. I think that some players really are inspired by fiction, whether books or film, and are very interested in playing a character whose features and mechanics somehow emulate that. Not all such characters fall neatly into the basic races or classes.

- Just a few reasons why the PHB is going to sell like hotcakes, none of which have anything to do with optimization tactics.

But yeah, there will be optimizers as well. It comes with the territory.

Quote from: Raven;772096Alternately, they could offer a bunch of different flavors (http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/2011/03/content-marketing-diversification/) and let each customer choose the one they prefer.

  A lot of people have used that very example when talking about the modularity of 5E. We'll see how close they come once the DMG hits in November.

My initial impression was that the modularity sounds like a bunch of goofy ad-copy and I was very skeptical.

But lately it's occurred to me that merely SAYING 5e is modular and that people can do very different things with the game... might make it modular just by declaring it so, by shaping expectations.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;772095From everything they said, I think they were trying for the D&D experience with 4E--.

What an...odd thing to say.  I think they were trying to get away from the D&D experience and try to capture the MMO fad.  4e took those things that were core D&D (niche protection, exploration and interaction pillars, random chargen (HP and ability scores), vancian magic) and threw them all out the window in favor of a tactical board game that focused on combat as 95% of game play and placed a ton of focus on making sure every class was perfectly balanced with every other class.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;772106What an...odd thing to say.  I think they were trying to get away from the D&D experience and try to capture the MMO fad.  4e took those things that were core D&D (niche protection, exploration and interaction pillars, random chargen (HP and ability scores), vancian magic) and threw them all out the window in favor of a tactical board game that focused on combat as 95% of game play and placed a ton of focus on making sure every class was perfectly balanced with every other class.

I never saw the MMO stuff with 4e, at least not how MMOs actually play. Some mechanics, like marking, have its roots in 3e like the Knight and Iron Guard's Glare stance. Other things, like roles, have been precedent in D&D for a longer time just never given direct mechanics that speak to these roles. Further, many people have been using grid-based combat exclusively since AD&D 2e and before.

As for 4e getting away from the D&D experience, this will vary greatly from group to group, player to player. I never found any distinguishing differences in playstyle when it came to 3e, PF, 4e, or Next. But that could be.just my group and we adapt the system. Probably also why I never felt 4e was combat driven or MORE combat driven compared to other systems, they just left out rules that do the non-combat stuff, which was fine for us.

Quote from: Haffrung;772008I just don't get the mania for customization.

The subconscious understanding that D&D tropes don't map to most actual Fantasy literature examples. :D

JG

Quote from: Haffrung;772029It has honestly never occurred to me try to take something from a movie and turn it into a D&D character. Unless that thing in the movie is a lot like a fighter, cleric, mage, or thief. D&D is D&D. Some of those ideas you throw out sound to me like someone wanting to play Iron Man in Call of Cthulhu. D&D isn't a universal action movie emulator. And the thousands of options the standard PHB afford are more than enough to come up with something cool.

But from the sounds of it, maybe there's an opportunity for a superhero RPG to make a big splash in the market today.

D&D is a fantasy-based RPG with a ridiculous number of ways to play it. In any given group's homebrew campaign I'm sure anything is possible. Basically it comes down to the group and what their preferences are. And I think giving them a wide selection to create their campaigns with is a better approach than pushing one, singular trope (Western medieval fantasy stuck somewhere between 1100 and 1400 AD). Not that it's a terrible thing, I just think that the rules can be opened to include other elements.

For example, I have a friend who LOVES Pacific Rim and wants to make a character like Gypsy-Danger. Now as a DM I'd never let him play a robot who's hundreds of feet tall with rockets and machine guns in my Ravenloft game. But instead, I might be able to accommodate the notion of a Warforged piloted by two Faeries inside. If he wanted to something similar to a "lazer" canon then he'd probably need to be a Sorcerer or Wizard who took certain spells that appeared to do those things. How he gets to Ravenloft could be a lot of fun too.

Quote from: James Gillen;772169The subconscious understanding that D&D tropes don't map to most actual Fantasy literature examples. :D

JG

The Grey Mouser, for example.

In the early days of Dragon Magazine, there was a more or less monthly feature called "Giants in the Earth." It was quite popular, at least in my circle,and contained write-ups for a number of fictional characters including, among many others, Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser, Kane, John Carter, Captain Blood, Morgaine, Circe, Belit and my favorite, Roger Zelazny's Shadowjack.

Granted, there were big issues in translation to D&D, but it didn't stop people from trying and was a lot of fun.

Quote from: Saplatt;772260In the early days of Dragon Magazine, there was a more or less monthly feature called "Giants in the Earth." It was quite popular, at least in my circle,and contained write-ups for a number of fictional characters including, among many others, Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser, Kane, John Carter, Captain Blood, Morgaine, Circe, Belit and my favorite, Roger Zelazny's Shadowjack.

Granted, there were big issues in translation to D&D, but it didn't stop people from trying and was a lot of fun.

  Arguably an early example of one of the earliest and most fundamental tensions in D&D--is D&D about emulating fantasy sources (usually in a mashed-up and somewhat reworked form), about being its own thing, neither, or both?

  I notice that the PHB will have a section on Inspirational Reading. That's something that's shown up on and off for a while--there's the famous Appendix N, the IMO superior list in Moldvay Basic, the list of suggested sources in the Ravenloft Black Box, and a section in D&D for Dummies on novels. In the last, it's heavy on TSR/WotC novels, with a small sidebar for classic novels. It'll be interesting to see (in two weeks) what direction Appendx E takes.

Everyone is different, but I never had the desire to play a specific character from literature.

John Carter may be awesome, but I always like creating my own characters.

Certainly the epic heroes are a source of inspiration, even if I did not attempt to specifically emulate them.

Quote from: Bill;772278Everyone is different, but I never had the desire to play a specific character from literature.

John Carter may be awesome, but I always like creating my own characters.

Certainly the epic heroes are a source of inspiration, even if I did not attempt to specifically emulate them.

Most RPGers tend to lean to Role Playing - their own character, even if its just slapping a name on a pregen. But some really get into Role Acting - someone elses constructed character, possibly complete with plot. Sometimes not. Basic Marvel RPG was that.

Unrelated but interestingly I had one player who liked playing the NPCs more than their own character. Ive been to a few LARPs with players who are dedicated NPCs. They love playing whatever villain or monster or villager the moderators need and never actually play a PC. Some DMs are like that too.

Different approaches.

Moar Feats!

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/q79/s720x720/10568833_10152560510591071_3800565637939521807_n.jpg)

Dungeon Delver is hella awesome. That's all that I have to say.

Quote from: Necrozius;774095Dungeon Delver is hella awesome. That's all that I have to say.

Yeah, that one is pretty darn usefull and I can see lots of folk blowing a stat up option or start feat to get that ASAP.

Quote from: Necrozius;774095Dungeon Delver is hella awesome. That's all that I have to say.

I really like it, because it now means that you don't have to have a rogue (or ranger in a pinch) in your party if you don't want to.

In general, the backgrounds and feats look like they are doing a FANTASTIC job at meeting the needs that lead to stuff like multiclassing and whatnot.

I am pleased.

Quote from: Will;774121In general, the backgrounds and feats look like they are doing a FANTASTIC job at meeting the needs that lead to stuff like multiclassing and whatnot.

I am pleased.

I concur.


3....2....1 before people start bitching how durable is broken because a Wizard with 20 Con will get at least 10 hp back every time they use their d6 HD during short rests to heal.


My take?  If someone wants to give their wizard a 20 CON and take that feat, more power to them.  My wizard will actually have a high INT instead.

Yeah, I've been on a bit of a bitch fest about fluff text on some of the threads, and I'm more psyched to run my next 1E campaign than anything else, but overall these guys are hitting this thing out of the park. It will be difficult to resist running my planned 1E sandbox using 5E rules.

Quote from: Larsdangly;774126Yeah, I've been on a bit of a bitch fest about fluff text on some of the threads, and I'm more psyched to run my next 1E campaign than anything else, but overall these guys are hitting this thing out of the park. It will be difficult to resist running my planned 1E sandbox using 5E rules.

Funny enough, that's EXACTLY what I've been doing.  When the playtest first came out, I used my 1e campaign world and a bunch of 1e modules to play with.

I know a lot of AD&D players don't like 5e for a lot of reasons, and that's OK.  For me, there are 2 main reasons why I've switched.

1. customization with backgrounds and broad feats.  Nothing like the crap in 3e where you had multiple classes and feat trees.  And not like AD&D where you had to be a demi human to multi-class and deal with the bookkeeping.  5e is much more broad.  Instead of my F/T, I now just have a fighter with the criminal background.  Done.  Easy peasy

2. Unified resolution mechanic.  D20+modifier vs. DC value.  AD&D is fine if everyone there has everything memorized, but using a unified mechanic to handle combat, spells, skills, saves, etc makes things sooooo much easier and faster to come up with stuff on the fly.

Again, just my opinion of course.

I'm a huge fan of a lot of what 3e _tried_. Just, with time, not such a huge fan of how they did most things. (I'm generally thrilled at their shift to a more unified approach, and that has progressed through the systems afterwards and many OSR things)

I contend one could take M&M or something to build a fully modular character creation system where you can easily slap a bunch of balanced units together to create characters without having to actually dig into point buy system.

But meh, I'm tired, 5e looks good.

I'm really looking forward to the PHB, MM and DMG ever since they started previewing the PHB. I still think 5e is 3e Lite, but it may be a great take on 3e Lite.

I figure ACKS is safe in my preferences (at least as long as WotC doesn't publish and absolutely kick-ass domain management subsystem that can compete with ACKS — which I find an unlikely proposition), as is AS&SH (unless they're also planning a kick-ass horrific dying earth S&S setting complete with ray guns and Cthulhuesque bestiary).

But I find it increasingly likely that I might run (not just play) 5e at some point in the future.

Dungeon Delver looks absolutely awesome, and also very promising - oldschool "traps and secret doors everywhere" dungeons? Yes!!! :)

Quote from: Larsdangly;774126Yeah, I've been on a bit of a bitch fest about fluff text on some of the threads, and I'm more psyched to run my next 1E campaign than anything else, but overall these guys are hitting this thing out of the park. It will be difficult to resist running my planned 1E sandbox using 5E rules.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;774127Funny enough, that's EXACTLY what I've been doing.  When the playtest first came out, I used my 1e campaign world and a bunch of 1e modules to play with.

I'm currently running the whole T1-4/A1-4/GDQ1-7 mega-campaign using the playtest rules. The party are currently 4th level and they've finished the moathouse and have just made an experimental foray into the temple itself...

Everyone's having a blast and loving 5e.

At the end of the month, we'll upgrade from the playtest rules to the PHB rules.

I can't read it on my phone so what does it say? Also Elemental Adept looks promising. From how I'm reading Dungeon Delver you get advantage on traps and perception and something else and with Elemental Adept you pick a damage type that you can on the fly change your spells to that can't be or gains resistance?

Durable and Second Wind are not synergistic! Yay! Yay for Hit Die being keyworded.

Yeah, I love me some original 1E hardbacks, but it seems pretty obvious you could have a rocking game running your old pastel modules with 5E. Particularly if you don't let the whole thing run away from you with magic item give aways and massive level creep.

But there are a couple of things that make me wonder whether I'll prefer that experiment. One simple one that is a game changer in play: Weapon vs armor type has all the charm of a tax return, but is actually an incredibly powerful discriminator between fighters and other classes. A 1st level ST 17 fighter in platemail with a two handed sword and a 1st level DX 17 thief with leather armor and a shortsword are barely distinguished in AC, to-hit chance and damage in 5E. The rules in 5E very much re-enforce the attitude that every character concept is equally valid, beautiful, deadly, etc.

In 1E with weapon vs. armor adjustments turned on, this isn't even a fight. The fighter hits on an 11 and does 1d10+1 damage; the thief hits on a never (to-hit adjusted to 21, so hits only on a natural 20) and does 1d6+nothing. If you are into super number nerd-gasms, the expected value for the fighter's damage output is 0.5x6.5 = 3.25 points per round while the thief's is 0.05x3.5 = 0.175 — nearly a factor of 18.6 difference. And that is how it should be. If you want to be a badass in melee combat you should eat your fucking wheaties, put on some real fucking armor, and bring a real fucking weapon. I do not hold at all with rationalizations people raise as to why twee, fay little slips of characters should be as good at kicking ass as a proper fighter with proper equipment.

The other thing that I worry about with 5E is that it maintains the 3E and 4E focus on making sure everyone has a list of specific stuff to do every turn. In 1E it often wasn't clear what you should do, either in a given round of combat or, more importantly, out of combat. That dynamic might be frustrating if you are shitty at playing table top roleplaying games, but if you work on your skills a little you realize it empowers you to dream up a lot of very clever, interesting, idiosyncratic stuff. 1E has a lot of rules details that encourage and enable clever, interesting play. From the quirky spells to the importance of henchmen, to the really challenging resource management of few spells and few HP. It all drives you to think your way out of problems.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;7741233....2....1 before people start bitching how durable is broken because a Wizard with 20 Con will get at least 10 hp back every time they use their d6 HD during short rests to heal.


My take?  If someone wants to give their wizard a 20 CON and take that feat, more power to them.  My wizard will actually have a high INT instead.

Yeah, that's just dumb. Especially since Durable merely sets the minimum baseline of the roll equal to 2x CON mod, and d6 is a wizards Hit Die. The only CON mod needed is +3 to max out a d6. CON 16 is all you need, then you get 9 HP per HD heal. Anything beyond that sloughs off; 20 CON?, that's a waste of 4 points that could've sat on INT.

They are bad at English and Math apparently.

Or how about DEX? Isn't better not to get hit in the first place?

There may indeed be a time and place (or even fun to be had) with number crunching and statistical analysis of probability of game rules, but to me that's "unweaving the rainbow" and sucking all the fun out of the game.

To each their own, etc, but when someone tells me "no, don't pick THAT ability, it only gives you an average of 1.2 more HP/dps/brownie points per level" I want to throw dice at them.

Quote from: Opaopajr;774161Yeah, that's just dumb. Especially since Durable merely sets the minimum baseline of the roll equal to 2x CON mod, and d6 is a wizards Hit Die. The only CON mod needed is +3 to max out a d6. CON 16 is all you need, then you get 9 HP per HD heal. Anything beyond that sloughs off; 20 CON?, that's a waste of 4 points that could've sat on INT.

They are bad at English and Math apparently.

It depends how you interpret the wording of the feat.

You seem to be suggesting that the minimum is calculated before you then add your ability bonus. I.e. you recover min(1d6, 6) +3.

I interpreted the wording to mean that the minimum is including your ability bonus. I.e you recover min(1d6+3, 6).

So by my interpretation to max out the d6 every time you'd need to have a CON of 22, which isn't possible by simple stat gains.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;774167You seem to be suggesting that the minimum is calculated before you then add your ability bonus. I.e. you recover min(1d6, 6) +3.

FWIW, that's the way I would read it. Otherwise, the clause "from the roll" seems superfluous.

Quote from: Necrozius;774166There may indeed be a time and place (or even fun to be had) with number crunching and statistical analysis of probability of game rules, but to me that's "unweaving the rainbow" and sucking all the fun out of the game.

To each their own, etc, but when someone tells me "no, don't pick THAT ability, it only gives you an average of 1.2 more HP/dps/brownie points per level" I want to throw dice at them.

Amen. I want the ability to have some flavorful choices that mechanically matter, maybe pay enough attention not to make any weird mistakes, but not have to expend much effort to not end up going 'well, fuck, my character is useless.'

The irony about the parsing of odds and numbers in 4E and what I've seen of 5E is that these games are actually statistically very flat; everyone has lots of HP; everyone has some kind of attack that does similar damage; everyone has at least a path to a decent AC. This was really not true in 1E. Many characters that were excellent at combat had to get by on wits alone in other circumstances, and visa versa.

That interpretation would make the feat ignorable, just multi-class dip into Fighter already. 1d10+lvl HP repeatable blows that completely out of the water.

Quote from: Saplatt;774173FWIW, that's the way I would read it. Otherwise, the clause "from the roll" seems superfluous.

I'm used to CCGs where that is shorthand for the die roll specifically, instead of equation roll (i.e. attack roll, saving throw roll, etc.). However, yes you can interpret it in that weaker way. I'd see no reason not to, besides the immortal Cult of the Balance. I myself am still working on ideas to hammer down the power level of this edition.

I am just fascinated how much WotC reads closer and closer to CCG vernacular over the years. You could be right. But I'd expect much sturm und drang to clarify that into something more CCG appropriate power level.

Quote from: Spinachcat;770849I'm hopeful that 3rd times a charm for Feats. I love the concept, but the implementation has always been rough. Of course, feats and backgrounds are hellacious issues for balance long term and they're going to be the whining-ground for min/maxers.

The good news is that if you don't like them, they're not part of the Core anyways.

Quote from: Will;774133I'm a huge fan of a lot of what 3e _tried_. Just, with time, not such a huge fan of how they did most things. (I'm generally thrilled at their shift to a more unified approach, and that has progressed through the systems afterwards and many OSR things)

I contend one could take M&M or something to build a fully modular character creation system where you can easily slap a bunch of balanced units together to create characters without having to actually dig into point buy system.

Have you tried True20? That is exactly what it is designed to do.

Quote from: Marleycat;774164Or how about DEX? Isn't better not to get hit in the first place?

No no no! You should be THINKING about not getting hit! Put those points into Intelligence where they belong! Yeesh, kids these days... :rolleyes:

Quote from: dbm;774296Have you tried True20? That is exactly what it is designed to do.

I thought True20 was more like 'here are three genericed classes you can mix freely.'

I was thinking smaller chunks.

(Also, I wasn't thrilled with T20's magic system, but that's separate)

What's the big deal about having a possible 10 point floor for hitpoint recovery if you max CON? I'd say that is pretty decent deal.

Quote from: Will;774354I thought True20 was more like 'here are three genericed classes you can mix freely.'

I was thinking smaller chunks.

(Also, I wasn't thrilled with T20's magic system, but that's separate)

It is, so I guess you've tried it and didn't like it - no worries :)

Quote from: The Butcher;774138I still think 5e is 3e Lite.

5e is 4e lite.  Powers, Healing etc, far closer to 4e.

Assume you wanted to go back in time and make 4e without the mandate of changing the system so much it couldn't be reverse-engineered under the OGL and follow a Basic/Optional model.

That's 5e.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Yeah, that sounds pretty accurate. I'm not a 4E expert, but I own the starter set and played a couple of sessions. If all you know of it is the simplest parts, the lowest levels, and the way it started out, you can see a lot of it still in 5E. Just without the ornate super-structure that grew from that seed. Perhaps 5E is like 4E with faster combat and a bit of 1E/2E aesthetic and overall structure. Of course frequent HP recovery is the major 4E innovation that changes game play greatly and survived into 5E. I can deal with it, in principle, but will have to see if I can stick to it.

It's not even 4e lite.  For one, you don't need minis or maps to play at all, and there's not really any tactical stuff in the basic set.  It does have vancian-esque magic, and does not have encounter powers

It's not 3e lite, or 2e lite or 1e light.  It's it's own game, with inspirations from each previous edition before it pretty darn equally.

I dunno, I've been reading the 5e rules, and I see where folks are coming from as far as calling it much like 2nd edition.

I haven't actually played, yet, but I'll be looking into rectifying that this weekend.

As long as they don't muck it all up with massive feat/spell/curlicue bloat, I think there's an RPG in here.

Quote from: CRKrueger;7744915e is 4e lite.  Powers, Healing etc, far closer to 4e.

Are Martial Powers still a thing?

Quote from: The Butcher;774502Are Martial Powers still a thing?

One of the three fighter subclasses gets superiority dice it can expend for a couple of rider effects. They're less... chunky than even many 4e at-wills, though, at least so claim the 4e system wonks.

If I was to make a list of what made 4e, 4e.

• Universal Powers system across all classes
• Focused Roles for all classes
• Tactical movement based combat
• Powers always working regardless of simulation
• Focused Roles for all NPCs

5e has none of these.

Quote from: jadrax;7745135e has none of these.

Yay, 5e!

Quote from: jadrax;774513If I was to make a list of what made 4e, 4e.

• Universal Powers system across all classes
• Focused Roles for all classes
• Tactical movement based combat
• Powers always working regardless of simulation
• Focused Roles for all NPCs

5e has none of these.

I'm not sure I understand why 4E should be thought of as supporting focused roles for all classes. Perhaps in a very narrow, tactical sense this is correct, but I felt the broader and more important distinguishing feature of 4E is that all classes were functionally the same. Everyone was something of a combat monster, simply with different explanations as to why their AC and damage output was like everyone else's. A thief or magic user in 1E is a fragile, delicate creature that must think of ways to be useful and try hard to avoid direct confrontation. A thief or magic user in 4E is effectively just a rebranded fighter with a different collection of names for the things they do which inflict damage on foes.

Now, now, I dislike 4e as much as the next guy but saying the classes Are all just rebranded Fighters is just wrong.

...well okay, Rangers do come across as Nothing but fast-moving light-armoured Fighters, I'll give ya that one. Wizards Are quite different though.

Quote from: Larsdangly;774528I'm not sure I understand why 4E should be thought of as supporting focused roles for all classes. Perhaps in a very narrow, tactical sense this is correct, but I felt the broader and more important distinguishing feature of 4E is that all classes were functionally the same. Everyone was something of a combat monster, simply with different explanations as to why their AC and damage output was like everyone else's. A thief or magic user in 1E is a fragile, delicate creature that must think of ways to be useful and try hard to avoid direct confrontation. A thief or magic user in 4E is effectively just a rebranded fighter with a different collection of names for the things they do which inflict damage on foes.

I think jad means the four PC roles in 4e: Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader.

The biggest single problem that I had with 4e was the slow pace of combat resolution.

It was likened to a tactical chess game, which isn't that far off the mark. I don't know how any of you have ever played 4-way chess, but it tends to crawl even slower than the 2 player version unless you use clocks.

Decision paralysis was an issue, but in addition, you had a relatively low damage-to-hit point ratio. That wasn't purely an accident. The game needed combats to be prolonged over multiple rounds in order for all the shifting and sliding and pulling and pushing and the relatively small tactical bonuses to have a meaningful impact. Third, because everyone needs to be able to impose conditions on opponents in order to stay balanced, by "marking" them if nothing else, you have increased bookkeeping and tracking of multiple conditions, and in many cases, tactical victory was achieved not by the sudden swing of a sword or the high roll of a die, but coating the target in so many adverse conditions that it was essentially checkmated.

Not that there's anything wrong with any of this.

Except that, apparently, when you do it over and over and over, many people who actually play the game eventually tire of it. That's what I'm told by the people who refused to play it anymore. In addition, there is a very strong tendency for a small handful of combats to eat up all the playing session time, which means that the overall story also proceeds at a slower pace.

One of my friends compared it to a Lord of the Rings movie where every combat was played out in Matrix-like "bullet time."

One of the early solutions offered in forums was drawn directly from chess.  The DM should just "resign" the monster when it became apparent that the result of the battle was inevitable and handwave the conclusion. The ultimate buzz-kill for people who actually enjoyed a little dopamine surge from seeing the monster drop from something THEY did rather than transparent inevitability.    

I think WotC tried very hard to address that in the Essentials line, and they may have had some success, but, by the time they did, most of the audience had already walked out of the theatre.

The main thing that I've seen so far in 5e is a fast moving game where the players can cover an awful lot of story ground in a single session. So in that sense, it couldn't be further from 4e.

What I'm most curious to see is whether the reintroduction of some of the 4e tactical elements leads down the same blind alley. It certainly hasn't in "basic," but that's the least 4e-like version on the table.

Combat resolution speed wasn't the only problem. The focus on the grid-based encounter as the game's centerpiece created an even more distinctive seam that diminished combat prep, exploration and an entire dimension of strategic planning since, more often than not, no matter what you did, you wound up in an appropriately "balanced" tactical encounter.

Well put, Saplatt.

Combat became the only thing the game was about, and said combat could take hours.

Quote from: LibraryLass;774548I think jad means the four PC roles in 4e: Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader.

Indeed. Both the labeling itself and the idea that the class powers must fit that structure. Its more apparent on the NPC side, where for example they stripped away an Ogre Magi's traditional spells, because they were pretty random and did not fit a role.

This is not necessarily a bad thing for everyone, but it was to me a defining thing of 4e.

Quote from: Saplatt;774554I think WotC tried very hard to address that in the Essentials line, and they may have had some success, but, by the time they did, most of the audience had already walked out of the theatre.

This is true on all counts, at least from my observation of the scene. People I play with are just ready for faster combat. I strongly suspect this exact factor is going to peel away a lot of Pathfinder players as well.

I will note I did enjoy 4e combat for a while, especially in its Essentials incarnation.

Quote from: jadrax;774560Indeed. Both the labeling itself and the idea that the class powers must fit that structure. Its more apparent on the NPC side, where for example they stripped away an Ogre Magi's traditional spells, because they were pretty random and did not fit a role.

This is not necessarily a bad thing for everyone, but it was to me a defining thing of 4e.

They rolled back the baked-in MMOGification, sure, but all the systems will get put back in at some point, just optional, that's why Lite.

The at-wills and healing systems alone mark it as infinitely more 4e then 3e.

Well, Pathfinder has at-will cantrips.

Quote from: CRKrueger;774596They rolled back the baked-in MMOGification, sure, but all the systems will get put back in at some point, just optional, that's why Lite.

The at-wills and healing systems alone mark it as infinitely more 4e then 3e.

Meh, at-wills are in 3e style games and the healing rates/rest cycles are among the easiest to adjust in 5e. You want 4e? Make short rests 5 minutes and add in a grid based tactical mod. You want 3e? Just make cantrips level + mod per day or similar and remove HD healing.

Personally I'd let 5e be it's own thing and not screw with it like the above but whatever.

Quote from: Marleycat;774603Meh, at-wills are in 3e style games and the healing rates/rest cycles are among the easiest to adjust in 5e. You want 4e? Make short rests 5 minutes and add in a grid based tactical mod. You want 3e? Just make cantrips level + mod per day or similar and remove HD healing.

...and if I want F.A.T.A.L. I'll add anal circumference tables.

Quote from: CRKrueger;774611...and if I want F.A.T.A.L. I'll add anal circumference tables.

You forgot to quote the last part of my post. I do understand why given it invalidates your whining but I'll survive.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;774589I strongly suspect this exact factor is going to peel away a lot of Pathfinder players as well.

I'm probably in the Pathfinder Refugee category. For me, it's a combination of several things (including combat speed), that starts causing problems around level 9 and gets worse as it goes on.

If 5e doesn't work out for us, I'll probably go back to PF, cap it at level 10 and call it a day.

Quote from: Marleycat;774616You forgot to quote the last part of my post. I do understand why given it invalidates your whining but I'll survive.

"Whining" of course being anything other then 100% madass support for 5e.  Anything else than Full.Fan isn't worth discussing at all because...it can be changed, right?  :D

BTW, since 99% of any of your arguments lately are just "Stop saying stuff I don't like about something I like.", you'll never invalidate my "whining".

Quote from: CRKrueger;774678"Whining" of course being anything other then 100% madass support for 5e.  Anything else than Full.Fan isn't worth discussing at all because...it can be changed, right?  :D

BTW, since 99% of any of your arguments lately are just "Stop saying stuff I don't like about something I like.", you'll never invalidate my "whining".

No I always say go ahead but I wouldn't because if I went as far as you constantly say you will I would just play something like Labyrinth Lord or ACKS and not waste my money. It's like watching Emirkol or Ruin Explorer. Why work so hard to make 5e into 1e in every way when you already have that game?

Quote from: Marleycat;774680Why work so hard to make 5e into 1e in every way when you already have that game?

Truth.

Quote from: Marleycat;774680No I always say go ahead but I wouldn't because if I went as far as you constantly say you will I would just play something like Labyrinth Lord or ACKS and not waste my money. It's like watching Emirkol or Ruin Explorer. Why work so hard to make 5e into 1e in every way when you already have that game?

I'm not working hard at anything, I'm merely commenting on a game and stating my opinions on things WotC could improve or might have done better.

You're the one spending all the effort hunting down every post to make sure you check every possible dissenting opinion there is here.

Quote from: Raven;774682Truth.

If that was in any way, shape or form what I was doing, yeah, but since it isn't, umm...nope.

Just because we don't care about your opinion doesn't mean we don't understand.

Quote from: JonWake;774696Just because we don't care about your opinion doesn't mean we don't understand.

And where did I say you didn't understand my opinion?  The care that gets put in though to decry them is rather obvious in certain cases though. ;)

Quote from: JonWake;774696Just because we don't care about your opinion doesn't mean we don't understand.

I'm thinking of sigging that.

JG

Quote from: CRKrueger;774596They rolled back the baked-in MMOGification, sure, but all the systems will get put back in at some point, just optional, that's why Lite.

It's possible, but to be honest I am not seeing much demand. And at this point you would pretty much have the rewrite every spell in the game to do it.

QuoteThe at-wills and healing systems alone mark it as infinitely more 4e then 3e.

As has been pointed out, At Will Cantrips are now a pretty solidified feature of Pathfinder, so they don't really remind me of 4e. Mainly because in the main 4e had a completely different power list. So you cant cast 'Shocking Grasp' as an At Will in 4e, because shocking Grasp doesn't exist at all in 4e.

The healing rate is odd. It's basically 1/4 f the rate of 4e. In that you can only rest once every 24 hours rather than 12 hours and you only get back half your Hit Dice rather than all your Hit Dice. While I think it is like 4e, its pretty much the only bit of the game that is like 4e.

Weird graphic that sums up stuff.*

(https://i.imgur.com/EvEzsgKl.png)


*and may or may not be accurate depending on how you define the terms used.

I like that graph.

Allthough 2e bards can be awesome!

Nice graphic, but I feel like attributes in 5E improve a LOT. Of course, I didn't play much 3E, so I can't compare. I just know every character in 5E is gonna end up with at least one 20 in a stat, by RAW. I don't know how things ended up in 3E.

In 3e stats were basically limitless, allthough they "only" went up every 4th level statbonus items with bonuses up to +8 or thereabouts were very common and starting out with an 18 was pretty common too. So a High level wizard say could have an Int of say 30+.

Of course compared to the coolness of 2e 19+ stats, 3e stats were mundane things, just giving a bonus, but still extremely important. An Int 30 Wizard's spells would be pretty damn hard to resist. For an actually way weaker example, a Str 30 Fighter would have a stat to-hit bonus of +10 and if wielding say a greatsword (anything else = BADWRONG) have a base dmg bonus of +15 (without further bonii from Magic and specialization...).

4e fans say it's 1e/2e/3e
3e fans say it's 1e/2e/4e
AD&D fans say it's 4e/3e

That should tell you right there that it's its own game, with things pulled from every other edition, and doesn't emulate one edition more than another.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;7747604e fans say it's 1e/2e/3e
3e fans say it's 1e/2e/4e
AD&D fans say it's 4e/3e

That should tell you right there that it's its own game, with things pulled from every other edition, and doesn't emulate one edition more than another.

Well put!

I view each edition as its own 'space,' liable to please a set of people, be ok for a larger set of people, and be utterly meh for a lot of other people.

The beauty is there've been a slew of editions, so people can find their own thing (and then tweak further).

The other day I was gushing about how simple and streamlined 5e was, like skills are just proficient/not proficient.

And someone said 'eww.' They preferred having various point values for different skills. Felt it made a more convincing/interesting character.


Different strokes.

Quote from: The Ent;774761Well put!

Here is my observation.  Die hard fans of a particular edition have looked at 5e and saw a few elements that seem to be inspired by an edition they hate.  So they overlook or ignore the elements from the editions they like, and say things like, "5e is just a rehashed version of X edition."

Seems to be pretty standard human behavior for us to do things like that.

For example, some 4e fans will say it's just a rehash of 2e/3e because there's nothing of 4e in the game so they feel spurned or something.  Well, we all know there are elements of 4e in the game, just not to the level they want.  And the AD&D fan saying it's just a mashup of 3e/4e while ignoring the fact that 5e doesn't need minis, a grid, use of feats, and has an alignment system like AD&D does.

As my mom used to say, "tough titties said the kitty when the milk ran dry."  Just because you're (general you) favorite mechanic wasn't copied over exactly as you want doesn't mean that 5e didn't pull any inspiration from your edition.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;7747604e fans say it's 1e/2e/3e
3e fans say it's 1e/2e/4e
AD&D fans say it's 4e/3e

That should tell you right there that it's its own game, with things pulled from every other edition, and doesn't emulate one edition more than another.

  I generally agree, but a couple of caveats:

  1. I think the flavor and style are very strongly AD&D/3E influenced. ("It's not D&D without the Great Wheel", for example.) Elements of 4E appear to have shown up, but leading to point 2 ...

   2. I think Basic fans do have grounds to feel they've been left out in the cold, as that strain of the game hardly got mentioned at all during the 2-year buildup. Even 4E got more respect. :) Now, the counterargument is that most of Basic overlaps with AD&D, and there's merit to that, but it is a weak point in your argument.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;774766I generally agree, but a couple of caveats:

  1. I think the flavor and style are very strongly AD&D/3E influenced. ("It's not D&D without the Great Wheel", for example.) Elements of 4E appear to have shown up, but leading to point 2 ...

   2. I think Basic fans do have grounds to feel they've been left out in the cold, as that strain of the game hardly got mentioned at all during the 2-year buildup. Even 4E got more respect. :) Now, the counterargument is that most of Basic overlaps with AD&D, and there's merit to that, but it is a weak point in your argument.

I wouldn't say it's a weak point in my argument when you just proved it ;)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;774766I think Basic fans do have grounds to feel they've been left out in the cold, as that strain of the game hardly got mentioned at all during the 2-year buildup. Even 4E got more respect. :)

Here's something I wish someone would explain to me.

What's with this whole "respect" thing? Pardon my language, but I could not personally give a flying fuck whether the designers of 5e properly "credited" some element of the game to any particular previous edition.

If I was being paid royalties, I'd care. And maybe I'd care if I was a game writer who wanted to bolster my resume. But I'm not, and so far as I know, neither is anyone else who's been complaining about these perceived slights in failing to make proper attributions to previous versions.

So far as I can tell, none of this has any real world consequence beyond preliminary marketing strategy, and the vast majority of potential customers are going to judge the game on what it does rather than on its fucking biological heritage.

If they are sane, anyway.

I believe folks have pointed out a few things in 5e that are done poorly that were done better in 4e, which is annoying.

Although right now I don't remember exactly what they were. Maybe it's the gloves of ogre power (which I'm SO not using in my campaigns)

I don't buy into the jaded view that 5E is a mirror in which people see their most hated previous edition. My 'desert island' game (1 game/edition over all others) is 1E AD&D, and I see major influences from all editions but 2E in 5E.

Basic structure of the game and most classes: OD&D

Most of the real content we should expect (spells, monsters, etc.), and the balance and speed of play: 1E

Notions of customizable characters, with choices of skills/abilities/feats/powers, various new sub classes and races: 3E

Healing surges, powers that 'reset' frequently: 4E

Oh, I'd say there's some 2e in it too - the backgrounds, in particular, and the subclasses.
(Besides, what you mentioned as 1e things are also 2e things.)

Quote from: The Ent;774780Oh, I'd say there's some 2e in it too - the backgrounds, in particular, and the subclasses.
(Besides, what you mentioned as 1e things are also 2e things.)

This and I think moving forward 2e's influence will be shown in the publishing model (settings and fewer player only facing books).

Quote from: Marleycat;774784This and I think moving forward 2e's influence will be shown in the publishing model (settings and fewer player only facing books).

That'd be great.

Quote from: The Ent;774786That'd be great.

From what I'm getting the rpg isn't even the focus anymore Hasbro/WoTC are going for the movies, toys, games, apps, multiple digital platform tools which are huge money makers. The rpg can then put out 6 products a year 4-5 being DM focused another 6 peripheral things  and let a vetted list of 3pp's published stuff and allow the community to share stuff for private use while both watching what is popular so they can use it and integrate it in 5e in a rare global update. Now you have 5e being an evergreen edition and profit for everybody.

Yeah, Mearls was saying somewhere that they want each new book to be an event, so i'd guess we won't see many books a year.

Quote from: Marleycat;774795...The rpg can then put out 6 products a year 4-5 being DM focused another 6 peripheral things  and let a vetted list of 3pp's published stuff and allow the community to share stuff for private use while both watching what is popular so they can use it and integrate it in 5e in a rare global update. Now you have 5e being an evergreen edition and profit for everybody.

Not sure about the exact number of publications, but otherwise I think that's exactly where they are going with this and Mearls has even suggested as much (in one of the Escapist interviews if I remember right).

I'd point out that, first, game design is a really complex fluid thing, so it's easy to see faces in them thar clouds.

Second, design isn't highly limited, so if something does look familiar, it doesn't necessarily signify intent or even awareness of previous designs.

I mean, they MIGHT have specifically gone after various designs, but I think it's a lot more likely that they shot for certain overall design goals and ended up with elements they thought felt right and worked together.

Quote from: Saplatt;774800Not sure about the exact number of publications, but otherwise I think that's exactly where they are going with this and Mearls has even suggested as much (in one of the Escapist interviews if I remember right).

That number is just something I pulled out of thin air but Mearls has said....

1. They want to focus on settings and adventures. And setting books are a great DM/Player facing type book if done correctly. And a perfect way to introduce unique backgrounds, mechanics and subclasses without affecting the game globally.
2. They want to offer something or have some particular presence to everyone each month.
3. It's never bad to do a purely player facing book especially if done 1-2 times a year, it will sell and likely be used by DM's because it's slow enough for them to read it and understand how it will affect their individual campaigns or table.

Here's how I imagine a year of D&D books might roll out, with half the books big hardcovers, and half soft-covers:

• DM's Guide to the Forgotten Realms
• First part of mega-adventure set in Realms.
• Player's Guide to the Forgotten Realms (includes sub-classes, backgrounds, etc.)
• Book of the Sword (sourcebook for combat options, more sub-classes, etc.)
• Second part of mega-adventure set in Realms
• DM's Guide to Dragonlance
• First part of Dragonlance mega-adventure.
• Players' Guide to Dragonlance
• Book of Undead (monsters, lairs, encounters, spells, etc.)
• Second part of Dragonlance mega-adventure.
• Land of Frost (campaigns in ice lands, including rules, lairs, encounters, monsters, etc)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;774769I wouldn't say it's a weak point in my argument when you just proved it ;)

   You're right, I did, didn't I? :) But I do think Basic's been underplayed in the marketing. However, that may just be my own opinion that the team is giving priority to 1E ... which does happen to be my least favorite edition, so again, you're right. :)

  On the support front, the first two product titles and price points have leaked from FRPGames.com: Adventurer's Handbook for $40 and Princes of the Apocalypse for $50. Both originally slated for March; the Adventurer's Handbook has been moved to August 2014, which has to be a mistake somewhere. (Either August 2015, a misentry on the website, or confusing the organized play Adventurer's Guide with something else.)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;774832You're right, I did, didn't I? :) But I do think Basic's been underplayed in the marketing. However, that may just be my own opinion that the team is giving priority to 1E ... which does happen to be my least favorite edition, so again, you're right. :)

I'm going to preface this with saying that I'm not trying to discredit your personal opinion, which seems to be the assumption when people disagree on the internet ;)  It's your opinion, and those are rarely objective to be discredited.

Here's my deal with the people who say 5e is giving priority to 1e.  From how the overall feel is?  I think so.  then again, I play with a playstyle that pretty much applies to everything I play (rulings not rules, etc).  But from a mechanical context?  Not sure how you could argue that.

1e: attack matrix, virtually no customization within a class, only demi-humans could multi-class (don't get started on duel classing, that was just bonkers), XP for treasure, saving throw tables, descending AC etc.

None of the things that make 1e what it is appear in 5e, from a mechanical sense.  5e has bounded accuracy, ascending AC, customization with feats and backgrounds, non-magical HP recovery, unified XP table, no XP for treasure, etc.

Mechanically 5e is the farthest away from 1e than any other edition.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;774832On the support front, the first two product titles and price points have leaked from FRPGames.com: Adventurer's Handbook for $40 and Princes of the Apocalypse for $50. Both originally slated for March; the Adventurer's Handbook has been moved to August 2014, which has to be a mistake somewhere. (Either August 2015, a misentry on the website, or confusing the organized play Adventurer's Guide with something else.)

Interesting!  You're right that some of the dates don't make any sense, and I also see they are starting with some accessories: spell cards, "token sets" and vinyl game mats (apparently specific to tyranny of dragons locations).

"Princes of the Apocalypse", whatever that is, looks like a hardback with a retail of $49.95.

I hope the "Adventurer's Handbook" isn't just another splat.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;774840I'm going to preface this with saying that I'm not trying to discredit your personal opinion, which seems to be the assumption when people disagree on the internet ;)  It's your opinion, and those are rarely objective to be discredited.

Here's my deal with the people who say 5e is giving priority to 1e.  From how the overall feel is?  I think so.  then again, I play with a playstyle that pretty much applies to everything I play (rulings not rules, etc).  But from a mechanical context?  Not sure how you could argue that.

  Oh, yes, I was speaking purely from a 'tone, feel, and fluff' standpoint. Mechanically, it's pretty much 3E Lite with borrowings from 2E and 4E.

QuoteMechanically 5e is the farthest away from 1e than any other edition.

  I was going to argue that Basic might be in competition, but then I remembered that on a lot of the points where they differ, Basic is actually a bit closer to 5E than 1E is, with the exception of the stuff for PCs. You win again. :)

Quote from: Saplatt;774841"Princes of the Apocalypse", whatever that is, looks like a hardback with a retail of $49.95.

I hope the "Adventurer's Handbook" isn't just another splat.

Sounds like an Advanced Player's Guide to me but have no clue what "Princes of the Apocalypse" is.

Quote from: CRKrueger;774684If that was in any way, shape or form what I was doing, yeah, but since it isn't, umm...nope.

I meant in a much broader sense, not you in particular. I said much the same thing over a week ago. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=771076&postcount=40)

Don't take everything so personally. Not everything is an attack on your whatevers.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;774766I generally agree, but a couple of caveats:

  1. I think the flavor and style are very strongly AD&D/3E influenced. ("It's not D&D without the Great Wheel", for example.) Elements of 4E appear to have shown up, but leading to point 2 ...

   2. I think Basic fans do have grounds to feel they've been left out in the cold, as that strain of the game hardly got mentioned at all during the 2-year buildup. Even 4E got more respect. :) Now, the counterargument is that most of Basic overlaps with AD&D, and there's merit to that, but it is a weak point in your argument.

As a BECMI fan I don't feel left out in the cold at all. 5e is closer to BECMI in feel than any other edition (2e, 3e, 4e) has been, and I'm very happy about that.

Although there are no specific rules that seem to have been taken from BECMI and used in 5e, there are a few places where it definitely feels like there's been a strong influence:

1) Spells with few "moving parts" that vary by caster level.
2) An almost complete lack of situational bonuses and penalties to rolls.
3) Alignment has almost no mechanical impact on the game.

I see old Basic plus Expert as essentially Original without the mass of supplementary elaborations, Advanced or Companion/Master as elaborations (1st ed. Advanced covering most of the same ground as the original supplements and magazine articles, C/M a slightly different set).

The finer points of difference among TSR recensions have never struck me as critical. I'm used to people mixing ideas from various sources, as opposed to running a game called Edition N. Somewhere along the line that seems to have become unfashionable, but given all the official variants published for AD&D 2nd Ed, it seems odd that people who were into that should be provincial.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;774840I'm going to preface this with saying that I'm not trying to discredit your personal opinion, which seems to be the assumption when people disagree on the internet ;)  It's your opinion, and those are rarely objective to be discredited.

Here's my deal with the people who say 5e is giving priority to 1e.  From how the overall feel is?  I think so.  then again, I play with a playstyle that pretty much applies to everything I play (rulings not rules, etc).  But from a mechanical context?  Not sure how you could argue that.

1e: attack matrix, virtually no customization within a class, only demi-humans could multi-class (don't get started on duel classing, that was just bonkers), XP for treasure, saving throw tables, descending AC etc.

None of the things that make 1e what it is appear in 5e, from a mechanical sense.  5e has bounded accuracy, ascending AC, customization with feats and backgrounds, non-magical HP recovery, unified XP table, no XP for treasure, etc.

Mechanically 5e is the farthest away from 1e than any other edition.

This seems to me to be an almost perfect misunderstanding of the distinguishing features and importance of 1E. The fact that the probability of attacks are calculated using tables and descending AC and that saves are resolved on a table are truly trivial arithmetic details. In ever version of D&D since the alternate combat system of OD&D, you roll 1d20 and try to beat a number that is something close to 15, with odds improving gradually with level, differing modestly by class, and benefiting modestly from stats. Exactly what algorithm you use to get to that number is a meaningless convenience that has nothing to do with how the game works or what it really feels like to play.

Anyway, 1E is the basic repository of nearly every class, spell, monster and item in every edition of the game, and the roots of most of the class powers as well. 2E-5E effectively re-organize, re-state and polish this content and fiddle at the margins with what everyone can do. I don't even thing it is particularly important that modern editions use squares instead of inches or provide class powers (sorry, 'feats') that enable sweeping blows or pushing people or whatever; these are modest tweaks that are smaller in scope that dozens of house rules that have floated through the community or the pages of Dragon magazine for decades.

Quote from: Will;772105My initial impression was that the modularity sounds like a bunch of goofy ad-copy and I was very skeptical.

But lately it's occurred to me that merely SAYING 5e is modular and that people can do very different things with the game... might make it modular just by declaring it so, by shaping expectations.

Yes. The first Advanced D&D books were mainly a compilation and revision of stuff that had been published for the original game in various venues, from different campaigns that sometimes didn't even know what was coming from the others until after the bits had been published.

D&D was originally a buffet, with no expectation that everyone (or necessarily anyone) would be mashing the whole lot together. And it went without saying, but was nonetheless said, that it was expected that dungeonmasters would modify things as seemed appropriate for their own campaigns.

There was certainly a nod in that direction in the Advanced material, but talk of its being a "system" -- even "a whole different game" from D&D -- seems to have made a stronger impression on a wave of newcomers.

The second edition matched a clearer presentation of "rules" with clearer and more in-depth consideration of them as optional and exemplary rather than mandatorily prescriptive. I didn't find all the defaults to my preference (although I gather that the changes from 1st ed. reflected a lot of feedback), but I liked what appeared to be clear encouragement of tailoring the game to taste.

It is true that most of what is in the PHB and MM and magic items section of the DMG for 1E came from OD&D (sorry for all the acronyms, but I suspect if you are a big enough nerd to hang out here you can follow along).  Most of the expansions and elaborations beyond OD&D being the parts of the DMG focused on henchmen, building castles, etc. — things that were used in some campaigns and not others. Nevertheless, as crazy looking as it all seems now, it definitely felt like a coherent game system that was as much an edition of a complete game as anything else was or is.

But it is understandable if you didn't spend several years playing only these games that you might not relate to them very well and you might even think they look like a hash of disconnected things. There are two main hurdles to getting an accurate 'read' on these books now:

1) the basic design philosophy was that a system is composed of a bunch of sub systems, no one of which should be taken too seriously and all of which are subject to change, replacement, etc. It isn't so much that the published material of 1E is particularly designed for house ruling, but the intention of the publishers and the common practice of the ca. 1977-80 audience was that you would house rule extensively. So the whole thing is sort of loose and schematic compared to a tightly engineered game like Runequest or Traveller  (see what I did there! tightly engineered games have existed since many of us here were still peeing in diapers).

2) Many game designers, particularly associated with the D&D community, were completely psychotic when it came to the details of game mechanics.
        If you want to get some insight into this read the first edition of The Dragon (either by buying a collector's copy for $1000 or by downloading a free pdf from the internet, like everyone else does). It contains a suggested system for attribute checks as a way of resolving all those pesky situations that sensibly designed games cover but D&D always hand waved.
        This is a subject that all players of old D&D know is commonly handled by a 'roll under' mechanic comparing 1d20 with an attribute score. Which is actually a great way to deal with all sorts of situations in D&D without having to think through the details too much.
        So what did a published version of this look like in 1976? Pure, unbridled mechanical madness. Their idea was you should roll 1d100 and consult a table that told you a die type (e.g., 1-20 = 1d4; 21-40 = 1d6, etc.). You then roll that die to generate a number (say, 1d6 yields a 5). Then you multiply that number by the attribute score (say, 5 x a strength of 12 = 60). That is the % chance of success at what you are attempting.
        If you look over the table and are at all numerate you will quickly realize that the system is for all practical purposes the same as rolling 1d20 and trying to get equal to or under your attribute. Which is what most groups house ruled (if they did anything). But somehow people who wrote games for a living in 1976 couldn't see that and had to accomplish the exact same goal with 3 rolls and an arithmetic problem. You can't explain it if you weren't there. And there is no point rationalizing it now. It is just the way these goofs brains worked.

So why pay any attention to 1E or OD&D or the first 20 or so editions of The Dragon? Because this was the creation of the hobby and almost all the ideas that are mixed in with the mechanical insanity are amazing. The ideas and content and imaginative creativity of 5E (for example, though we could say the same of any number of other editions and games) are just restatements of the ideas in OD&D and 1E. And anyone with the slightest taste in art, music, writing, dance, physics or any other creative endeavor can tell you, aint nothin like the real thing. The first articulation of a genuinely new idea is the purest and best form of it. In 3 minutes some smart ass will suggest a reducto-ad-absurdum example showing this is not so, but let me preemptively point out they are wrong. Attempts to re-state original creations — garage punk after 1980; fantasy fiction with dwarves and elves written after Tolkein; impressionist painting after the 1920 — are echoes that grow more muted and dreary with each reverberation.

Old games have a lot of 'charm' and 'personality'

Sure, the mechanics may have issues.

But I will play 1E gamma world any day due to its 'flavor'

Quote from: Haffrung;772008I just don't get the mania for customization. Even in Basic, between the sub-races and classes there are 28 combinations. Factor in domains, fighting styles, and arcane traditions and we're at 154. Add backgrounds (even from the paltry 5 included in Basic) and you're at 770 possible configurations. In the most Basic iteration of the game. And that's not even considering ideals, bonds, and flaws. Now consider the archetypes, sub-classes, feats, and new backgrounds that will come out with the PHB, which will bring the different possible PC configurations into the tens of thousands, and and I can't even begin to fathom why some people instantly need more options. Before they've even played. It boggles my mind.

Mechanical customization for the purpose of being unique is bullshit because a character option, by its very nature is available to ANYONE.

Quote from: James Gillen;772169The subconscious understanding that D&D tropes don't map to most actual Fantasy literature examples. :D

JG

Which is perfectly fine for a game. The protagonists of fiction can do anything their authors need them to do to tell the story they want. If I'm playing a game, my character MAY end up saving the world OR die covered in feces at the bottom of a kobold pit trap on his first adventure. I am playing the game to find out what happens.

Quote from: Larsdangly;774158But there are a couple of things that make me wonder whether I'll prefer that experiment. One simple one that is a game changer in play: Weapon vs armor type has all the charm of a tax return, but is actually an incredibly powerful discriminator between fighters and other classes. A 1st level ST 17 fighter in platemail with a two handed sword and a 1st level DX 17 thief with leather armor and a shortsword are barely distinguished in AC, to-hit chance and damage in 5E. The rules in 5E very much re-enforce the attitude that every character concept is equally valid, beautiful, deadly, etc.

In 1E with weapon vs. armor adjustments turned on, this isn't even a fight. The fighter hits on an 11 and does 1d10+1 damage; the thief hits on a never (to-hit adjusted to 21, so hits only on a natural 20) and does 1d6+nothing. If you are into super number nerd-gasms, the expected value for the fighter's damage output is 0.5x6.5 = 3.25 points per round while the thief's is 0.05x3.5 = 0.175 — nearly a factor of 18.6 difference. And that is how it should be. If you want to be a badass in melee combat you should eat your fucking wheaties, put on some real fucking armor, and bring a real fucking weapon. I do not hold at all with rationalizations people raise as to why twee, fay little slips of characters should be as good at kicking ass as a proper fighter with proper equipment.

The other thing that I worry about with 5E is that it maintains the 3E and 4E focus on making sure everyone has a list of specific stuff to do every turn. In 1E it often wasn't clear what you should do, either in a given round of combat or, more importantly, out of combat. That dynamic might be frustrating if you are shitty at playing table top roleplaying games, but if you work on your skills a little you realize it empowers you to dream up a lot of very clever, interesting, idiosyncratic stuff. 1E has a lot of rules details that encourage and enable clever, interesting play. From the quirky spells to the importance of henchmen, to the really challenging resource management of few spells and few HP. It all drives you to think your way out of problems.

Amen!  Ever since the fighter was made merely as good at fighting as every other class the gamer community at large has been scratching their heads trying to figure out why the fighter seems so bland.

WELL DUH!

Quote from: The Ent;774534Now, now, I dislike 4e as much as the next guy but saying the classes Are all just rebranded Fighters is just wrong.

...well okay, Rangers do come across as Nothing but fast-moving light-armoured Fighters, I'll give ya that one. Wizards Are quite different though.

Naw. 4E characters weren't rebranded fighters. 4E characters were all just superheroes that traded in their snazzy spandex outfits for armor, robes, or whatever. A 4E party was more like the Avengers or the Justice League than adventuring inhabitants of a fantasy world.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;775642Naw. 4E characters weren't rebranded fighters. 4E characters were all just superheroes that traded in their snazzy spandex outfits for armor, robes, or whatever. A 4E party was more like the Avengers or the Justice League than adventuring inhabitants of a fantasy world.

Well, except for all the parts where they're not.

Quote from: Batman;775805Well, except for all the parts where they're not.

Says the JLA member with a cloak.

But you make a good point. No 4E character would be caught dead with anything so crippling as a weakness or a code against killing.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;774892As a BECMI fan I don't feel left out in the cold at all. 5e is closer to BECMI in feel than any other edition (2e, 3e, 4e) has been, and I'm very happy about that.

Although there are no specific rules that seem to have been taken from BECMI and used in 5e, there are a few places where it definitely feels like there's been a strong influence:

1) Spells with few "moving parts" that vary by caster level.
2) An almost complete lack of situational bonuses and penalties to rolls.
3) Alignment has almost no mechanical impact on the game.

Also, while Expert D&D* (B/X, BECMI, RC) got relatively love when it came to retrospectives of how the game has changed, it got quite significantly name-dropped when Mearls said he wanted the core rules to essentially be "like Basic D&D** in terms of rules, but with AD&D character generation options."  And later talking about the new 5e Basic Rules, he called out the Rules Cyclopedia as the model.

For us Expert D&D fans, that's the important stuff.  Lighter rules weight and minimal need to reference the rules during play.  Having 5e draw on Weapon Mastery would have been cool, but not really necessary.  Heck, we may yet see them draw on the Companion set for domain rules.

*I've stopped referring to the Dungeons & Dragons game published by TSR as "Basic D&D".  Basic was but one part, the introductory part, and the lion's share of the game (levels 4-14) were in the Expert Set.  At the time it was just known as D&D to distinguish it from AD&D.  WotC dropping the "Advanced" confuses things, but in that case I think "Expert" is better than "Basic".  "Basic D&D" just reinforces the idea that D&D was the kiddie version of the game, when actually over the course of B/X, BECMI, and RC, D&D was no less a complex or expansive game than AD&D, it was just a lot less baroque and rococo.

**Mearls hadn't gotten the memo when he made that statement.  Actually, I hadn't put out the memo by then...

Quote from: Natty Bodak;775880Says the JLA member with a cloak.

But you make a good point. No 4E character would be caught dead with anything so crippling as a weakness or a code against killing.

(http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ohsnaphouse.gif)

Nicely done. :hatsoff:

Quote from: Natty Bodak;775880Says the JLA member with a cloak.

:) Yes. That was my first thought as well.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;775880Says the JLA member with a cloak.

Former member, but I guess I'm splitting hairs....

Quote from: Natty Bodak;775880But you make a good point. No 4E character would be caught dead with anything so crippling as a weakness or a code against killing.

And thousands of players with different experiences probably disagree with you. The point......?

Quote from: Batman;775805Well, except for all the parts where they're not.

That's simply the feel the rules gave. All character classes had the same basic structure. Everyone used powers, so spell casters didn't really feel that different from anyone else- the spells were more like just flavoring than anything else.

The expressly defined combat roles were pretty much in line with City of Heroes with a few name changes.

[City of Heroes wiki]
There were five basic hero archetypes, which affected a character's power choices and team role throughout the game. Blasters were versatile damage dealers, capable of fighting at short or long range against one or many opponents. Controllers were adept at preventing enemies from moving or acting. Defenders turned the tide of battle with weakening enemy attacks (debuffs) and ally-strengthening (buffs). Scrappers were melee fighters with a greater chance of critical hits against tough opponents such as bosses. Tankers possessed great defenses and the ability to take hits for the team.
[END QUOTE]

So 4E combined scrappers & blasters into strikers, defenders became leaders, controllers stayed the same, and tankers became defenders.

All this superhero mechanical support along with the explicit assumption that all PCs were BIG DAMN HEROES right out of the gate made 4E very much a supers genre game underneath the veneer of fantasy that went only costume and skin deep.

I don't see a problem in the mere existence of alternate routes to similar effects. Where there can be a problem is where alternatives are privileged in ways that screw up game balance or make things not viable that ought to be.

Tarzan or Conan is awesome with just a knife and a loincloth? I've got no problem with that.

This is fantasy, after all, not medieval history simulation. It's a bit fatuous to mistake the superficial differences between the JSA and a team of old-D&D superheroes for something of great substance.

If all you play of old D&D is low levels, perhaps because your scenario makes survival to higher ones extremely unlikely, then you've got a lopsided picture of what it's about.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;776038So 4E combined scrappers & blasters into strikers, defenders became leaders, controllers stayed the same, and tankers became defenders.

  Those roles have arguably been latent in the game since the beginning. (And the blaster role got split between strikers and controllers. :) ) Fighters held the front line, clerics provided support, wizards were artillery. Single-target damage didn't tend to be a specialized thing.

  You may see them in City of Heroes, but I find the four roles are almost a direct lift from Final Fantasy I. :)

QuoteAll this superhero mechanical support along with the explicit assumption that all PCs were BIG DAMN HEROES right out of the gate made 4E very much a supers genre game underneath the veneer of fantasy that went only costume and skin deep.

   For certain definitions of fantasy, that's true. However, I'm not convinced the fantasy genre requires weak, fragile protagonists who survive by low cunning and tricking others into taking the risks so that they can grab the loot and run. :)

Quote from: Batman;776002Former member, but I guess I'm splitting hairs....



And thousands of players with different experiences probably disagree with you. The point......?

Drive by zingers are their own point.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;776048Those roles have arguably been latent in the game since the beginning. (And the blaster role got split between strikers and controllers. :) ) Fighters held the front line, clerics provided support, wizards were artillery. Single-target damage didn't tend to be a specialized thing.

  You may see them in City of Heroes, but I find the four roles are almost a direct lift from Final Fantasy I. :)

I'm not familiar with Final Fantasy so I'll take your word on that front.

What I am familiar with, is the role of fighters in early TSR D&D. The role is quite simple- combat.

Not tanking, not as front line meat shields, not only as melee combatants, but ALL ASPECTS OF COMBAT.

Clerics served as 2nd tier fighters but fighting man did it all. A master of weapons, he/she fought in the front line, fought with spear in the second rank, used missile fire and flaming oil when the situation demanded it, scouted ahead and skirmished as required.

Mind you this is before game designers decided the game should be all about fighting for ALL classes and kind of turned everyone into a fighter more or less.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;776048For certain definitions of fantasy, that's true. However, I'm not convinced the fantasy genre requires weak, fragile protagonists who survive by low cunning and tricking others into taking the risks so that they can grab the loot and run. :)

The fantasy genre certainly doesn't. D&D is not the fantasy genre in general and it certainly does- at least until the PC's gain power and reach higher levels. The whole D&D concept is starting out weak and reaching ever higher for more wealth and power, and getting more powerful & influential as you go.

Starting out as fully formed awesome and riding the awesome train across a flat plane to awesome town just doesn't feel like D&D. :)

Quote from: Exploderwizard;776055Starting out as fully formed awesome and riding the awesome train across a flat plane to awesome town just doesn't feel like D&D. :)

sig'ed

D&D was not designed to emulate any genre. It's a game. 'It's FANTASY so anything goes' is one of the most tiresome memes in RPG forums. Call of Cthulhu is 'fantastic'. But I don't hear about people pouting because they can't play Wolverine or Cyclops in CoC.

I can handle Wolverine or Cyclops with CoC, and old D&D provides for similar figures right out of the box: Ring of Regeneration and Magic Daggers, or Wand of Lightning Bolts respectively! (Fine tune to taste.)

Quote from: Haffrung;776058D&D was not designed to emulate any genre. It's a game. 'It's FANTASY so anything goes' is one of the most tiresome memes in RPG forums. Call of Cthulhu is 'fantastic'. But I don't hear about people pouting because they can't play Wolverine or Cyclops in CoC.

You realize now that you have said this, somewhere there is a CoC Keeper who is now going to have a conversation about why a player can't play Wolverine in CoC...and it's all your fault! :p


EDIT: OK, I was wrong. It's not a problem. Hey Keeper person where ever your are, just send Wolverine guy to Phillip here on the RPGsite. He's let him run that. ;)

Heh (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=14093).  Superheroes and the Cthulhu Mythos.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;776055I'm not familiar with Final Fantasy so I'll take your word on that front.

What I am familiar with, is the role of fighters in early TSR D&D. The role is quite simple- combat.

Not tanking, not as front line meat shields, not only as melee combatants, but ALL ASPECTS OF COMBAT.

Clerics served as 2nd tier fighters but fighting man did it all. A master of weapons, he/she fought in the front line, fought with spear in the second rank, used missile fire and flaming oil when the situation demanded it, scouted ahead and skirmished as required.

Mind you this is before game designers decided the game should be all about fighting for ALL classes and kind of turned everyone into a fighter more or less.




The fantasy genre certainly doesn't. D&D is not the fantasy genre in general and it certainly does- at least until the PC's gain power and reach higher levels. The whole D&D concept is starting out weak and reaching ever higher for more wealth and power, and getting more powerful & influential as you go.

Starting out as fully formed awesome and riding the awesome train across a flat plane to awesome town just doesn't feel like D&D. :)

Not that I disagree with your conclusions but as usual you ignore that it's way to you. You always forget two important things.

1.1979 was a generation ago accept that things evolve, games and people included.
2. In your opinion that's critical given Dnd means many different things to many different people.

CoC has as its basic premise that nobody knows the limits of the weirdness out there. And whatever they may be, the D&D multiverse eats them for a snack.

That's an old-timer's view, anyhow. Of course, neither are we obligated to include all possibilities; the referee has final say in all matters concerning his or her campaign.

The point, though, is that whatever arbitrary limits may be fashionable in some circles are not inherently definitive of the game.

In D&D, an appropiately equipped Lord is close enough to Superman for most purposes, a Wizard to Green Lantern or even the Spectre.

Quote from: Marleycat;776068Not that I disagree with your conclusions but as usual you ignore that it's way to you. You always forget two important things.

1.1979 was a generation ago accept that things evolve, games and people included.
2. In your opinion that's critical given Dnd means many different things to many different people.

I realize that many things change over time. Its the nature of the beast. I realize the coke I drank as a kid isn't today's coke with high fructose corn syrup, and so I prefer coke bottled today in Mexico.

I realize that D&D as it designed today is not the D&D I played as a kid so I prefer to play older editions.

Quote from: Saplatt;776065Heh (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=14093).  Superheroes and the Cthulhu Mythos.

Clashed in San Francisco, in a scenario in Different Worlds magazine decades ago.

Like most D&D players in the 80s (I suspect), we use D&D rules for other genre games.  I remember one night we watched Predator and Platoon and used AD&D rules to play a game set in those settings.  But also like most players, we soon discovered the system wasn't really set up to support that.  Before you knew it, you had a dozen rules modifiers and changes.

By early the next morning, we looked at each other, looked at our 2 dozen pages of rules (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33128954/AM%20Initial%20draft.pdf), and said, "We created our first RPG!"  :)

Quote from: Exploderwizard;776073I realize that many things change over time. Its the nature of the beast. I realize the coke I drank as a kid isn't today's coke with high fructose corn syrup, and so I prefer coke bottled today in Mexico.

I realize that D&D as it designed today is not the D&D I played as a kid so I prefer to play older editions.

Which is fine. Even I prefer 2/3e over 4e because it fits what I think Dnd is better. But it doesn't mean I'm doing it the accepted or correct way by many other people's definitions. But what can I do? Nothing I would guess, so why would I care?

Besides back in those days we did like most other people and played Dnd with a mashup of 1/2e books and sources to our particular tastes.

Sometimes new stuff is bad.

Soda is better with sugar, not corn syrup. And I'm not anti-HFCS or anything, it just... doesn't taste as good.

Quote from: Will;776082Sometimes new stuff is bad.

Soda is better with sugar, not corn syrup. And I'm not anti-HFCS or anything, it just... doesn't taste as good.

You know, I shake my head every time I read or hear someone say how newer games are objectively better than older games because of "improvements".

What improvements?  Layout?  Print quality?

Sure, things like that are, but they are tied to technology.  What makes a game a game is the creativity and imagination put into it.  And people didn't suddenly get more creative in the past 40 years.  The only important part of a game is the experience it gives the players who play it, and that's most assuredly not tied to "advancements in design".  

Imagination is not technology.  Different is not advancement.  People need to stop conflating the two.  5e isn't throwing away years of advancement because 4e wasn't advancement.  It was just a different way of handling the game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;776092You know, I shake my head every time I read or hear someone say how newer games are objectively better than older games because of "improvements".

What improvements?  Layout?  Print quality?

Sure, things like that are, but they are tied to technology.  What makes a game a game is the creativity and imagination put into it.  And people didn't suddenly get more creative in the past 40 years.  The only important part of a game is the experience it gives the players who play it, and that's most assuredly not tied to "advancements in design".  

Imagination is not technology.  Different is not advancement.  People need to stop conflating the two.  5e isn't throwing away years of advancement because 4e wasn't advancement.  It was just a different way of handling the game.

But....but.....if something isn't objectively improved why does there need to be a NEW one? :rolleyes:

I DO think there is evolution of ideas.

There are clever design ideas that have come out over time that just weren't around earlier. But that doesn't mean new games > old games.

A lot of folks suffer from seeing all sorts of things as linear. Because they are stupid.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;776073I realize the coke I drank as a kid isn't today's coke with high fructose corn syrup, and so I prefer coke bottled today in Mexico.

Mmmmm....Mexican Coca Cola....Mmmmm. :)

Quote from: Exploderwizard;776100But....but.....if something isn't objectively improved why does there need to be a NEW one? :rolleyes:

When an author I likes writes a book that I feel is below par, I always say "Meh, I guess the author needed a new roof on their house." So the answer is "Meh, guess the game designer needed a new roof on their dog's house."

Quote from: Exploderwizard;776055I'm not familiar with Final Fantasy so I'll take your word on that front.

   The interesting thing is that the original game (not any of the sequels, mind) is a blatant AD&D ripoff. Nearly every monster comes straight out of the MM, as do the PC options. The game does suffer from the limits of 8-bit design, so combat's the only thing really mechanized, and it's heavily abstracted. The combination of those two factors produces results very similar to 'roles' for the character classes.

QuoteMind you this is before game designers decided the game should be all about fighting for ALL classes and kind of turned everyone into a fighter more or less.

  From a certain point of view, it makes sense--if combat's the most dangerous and mechanically defined part of the game, it makes more sense to allow everyone tools to participate rather than trying to rotate spotlight balance in a play environment that's getting more and more diverse or unbalanced in terms of dedication to specific elements.

  I think part of the intent, even if only subconscious, of 4E was to use Classes and Powers to define combat situations and leave noncombat up to skills, rituals, and roleplaying. Unfortunately, the design didn't completely follow through on that point.

QuoteThe fantasy genre certainly doesn't. D&D is not the fantasy genre in general and it certainly does- at least until the PC's gain power and reach higher levels. The whole D&D concept is starting out weak and reaching ever higher for more wealth and power, and getting more powerful & influential as you go.

Quote from: Haffrung;776058D&D was not designed to emulate any genre. It's a game. 'It's FANTASY so anything goes' is one of the most tiresome memes in RPG forums. Call of Cthulhu is 'fantastic'. But I don't hear about people pouting because they can't play Wolverine or Cyclops in CoC.

Quote from: Marleycat;776068Not that I disagree with your conclusions but as usual you ignore that it's way to you. You always forget two important things.

1.1979 was a generation ago accept that things evolve, games and people included.
2. In your opinion that's critical given Dnd means many different things to many different people.

  This is, IMO, one of the big problems. With all due respect to WotC and the OSR, the game has not remained the same, not even in the old days. Heck, there were two or three different major schools of play around by the end of 1975 at the latest, judging from reports by people who were there.

  Now, one can argue that the game should or should not have changed to address different styles. But the fact is, the game has changed, and those of us who came in with Dragonlance, 2nd Edition, 3.X, 4E, or other things have a stake in it just as much as those of you who made the pilgrimage to the Spielomance in Lake Geneva, studied under the Sacred Order of Wargamers, and offered the still-beating heart of an Amateur Thespian or Charopper in sacrifice to the Great Demogygax in order to receive the right to peruse the Sacred Pages of the DMG. :)

Well, some senselessly convoluted stuff got higher-profile approval -- including paychecks from publishers -- back in the day. There's no such thing as objectively better unless we've agreed on our objective, but if our objective is to sell a lot to happy customers then some things have been learned to be less optimal than others.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;776038That's simply the feel the rules gave. All character classes had the same basic structure. Everyone used powers, so spell casters didn't really feel that different from anyone else- the spells were more like just flavoring than anything else.

Your experiences vary greatly than mine. Despite the AEDU structure, I felt each class had different mechanics that led them to play very differently at the table. A Fighter simply didn't play or even have the same focus as a Paladin or Warden even though they were all defenders. Same with the Cleric and Warlord, both are leaders yet in how they approach both combat and OOC scenarios was very different.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;776038The expressly defined combat roles were pretty much in line with City of Heroes with a few name changes.

I felt the combat roles were pretty much defined in every single edition of the game, but they just never labeled them until 4E. A Fighter or Paladin arch-type was pretty much a "tank", a Cleric was a "leader" (due to both role in the party and theme in the story), a Wizard's best qualities was controlling the battlefield and Rogues were always build with spike-damage capability. All 4E did was cater to these ever-present roles with tags and features that made them better at it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;776038So 4E combined scrappers & blasters into strikers, defenders became leaders, controllers stayed the same, and tankers became defenders.

All this superhero mechanical support along with the explicit assumption that all PCs were BIG DAMN HEROES right out of the gate made 4E very much a supers genre game underneath the veneer of fantasy that went only costume and skin deep.

The whole BIG DAMN HEROES thing is pretty much a myth when looked at from the perspective of 4E. Kobolds, for example, are damn hard to beat at 1st level and the same is true with Orcs. It's when the characters are compared to previous edition classes that people have this perception that 4E characters are nigh invincible or "super heroic". Well yea, they're bigger because a 1st level Kobold in 4E has approx 24 HP and gets +6 to attack compared to the v3.5 Kobold which has 4 HP and a +1 to attack.

Further nothing about a 4E character, especially at lower levels, gives any indication that they have "superhuman" powers akin to Superheores in DC or Marvel. I've honestly been able to re-create MORE superhero-esque characters in v3.5 that emulate Marvel or DC heroes far better than 4E's structure.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;776159Now, one can argue that the game should or should not have changed to address different styles. But the fact is, the game has changed, and those of us who came in with Dragonlance, 2nd Edition, 3.X, 4E, or other things have a stake in it just as much as those of you who made the pilgrimage to the Spielomance in Lake Geneva, studied under the Sacred Order of Wargamers, and offered the still-beating heart of an Amateur Thespian or Charopper in sacrifice to the Great Demogygax in order to receive the right to peruse the Sacred Pages of the DMG. :)

All I did was send a check (or maybe it was a money order who can remember shit like that after 40 years) in the mail to TSR. No other sacrifice or pilgrimage required. ;)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;776159From a certain point of view, it makes sense--if combat's the most dangerous and mechanically defined part of the game, it makes more sense to allow everyone tools to participate rather than trying to rotate spotlight balance in a play environment that's getting more and more diverse or unbalanced in terms of dedication to specific elements.

The problem is that it not only makes combat the foundation of the game, but it makes a certain approach to combat - toe-to-toe tactical mayhem - the foundation of the game. There's nothing wrong with that kind of play. But D&D has historically offered much, much more.


As for the game changing, yes it has. And that's okay. But it's a matter of degree. 15 years from now, there may be a market for a game of shapechanging insectoids battling in arenas. Should D&D become that game in order to appeal to a changing market? I'd say no. D&D is actually a thing - it isn't infinitely flexible, nor should it be. If there really is an appetite for a Universal Action Movie Emulator Tabletop RPG, someone should design and publish it. But D&D isn't it.

Quote from: Batman;776237I felt the combat roles were pretty much defined in every single edition of the game, but they just never labeled them until 4E. A Fighter or Paladin arch-type was pretty much a "tank", a Cleric was a "leader" (due to both role in the party and theme in the story), a Wizard's best qualities was controlling the battlefield and Rogues were always build with spike-damage capability. All 4E did was cater to these ever-present roles with tags and features that made them better at it.

It did a lot more than that - it pretty much shunted all non-combat roles and activity to the periphery. AD&D Thieves were not strikers; their job was to be the eyes, ears, and nimble fingers of the party in order to set up the optimal context for the combat to take place. Once the fighting starts, they may get a strike or two in, but they're very weak. But that's okay, because their job is largely done once combat kicks off. That job became irrelevant once D&D came to focus on fixed tactical encounters, and manipulating the context of combat with scouting, ambushing, diplomacy, etc. became irksome and not really in the spirit of the game.

And you could run an effective AD&D magic-user who didn't do a whole lot in combat, but used charm, illusion, rope trick, etc. to aid in non-combat and evasion situations. That's not possible in 4E.

4E is a fun game.  But in the interests of focus and balance it truncated D&D to a very, very narrow style of play.

Quote from: Haffrung;776285It did a lot more than that - it pretty much shunted all non-combat roles and activity to the periphery.

When I read this, I can only come to the conclusions that your play style and mine differ significantly, specifically when it comes to 4E and that you look for mechanics to facilitate non-combat activities instead of just telling the DM what you want to do and the DM setting up the things. I've had zero problems with 4E when trying to do stuff out of combat.

Quote from: Haffrung;776285AD&D Thieves were not strikers; their job was to be the eyes, ears, and nimble fingers of the party in order to set up the optimal context for the combat to take place. Once the fighting starts, they may get a strike or two in, but they're very weak. But that's okay, because their job is largely done once combat kicks off.

What's wrong with having both? If I'm playing a Thief and my job is to scout out the area ahead, find favorable terrain to launch an ambush, figure out who the strongest is among the enemy (and make sure the group targets that guy first) I can easily accomplish that with a 4E Rogue AND when it comes time for combat, I can contribute to the party there too. Nothing in 4E stops me from doing exactly what you suggested here.

Quote from: Haffrung;776285That job became irrelevant once D&D came to focus on fixed tactical encounters, and manipulating the context of combat with scouting, ambushing, diplomacy, etc. became irksome and not really in the spirit of the game.

That's a pretty vast departure from any 4E (or otherwise) game I've had the pleasure of running or playing in. Nothing about 4E discourages this and even has class features, spells, exploits, and prayers to enhance it. Not to mention things like Rituals too. Sorry but I think we're just coming from two very different experiences.

Quote from: Haffrung;776285And you could run an effective AD&D magic-user who didn't do a whole lot in combat, but used charm, illusion, rope trick, etc. to aid in non-combat and evasion situations. That's not possible in 4E.

Sure it is though I fully admit that it wasn't so right out of the gate. The 4E Wizard was more focused on battlefield control and blasting *shrugs*.

Quote from: Haffrung;7762854E is a fun game.  But in the interests of focus and balance it truncated D&D to a very, very narrow style of play.

There are those who've had that experience and there are those who haven't.  My style of play hasn't changed when I first started with AD&D 2nd Edition in 98' and it's been through 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, 4E and Essentials. The rules have changed but the style is still there.

Quote from: Batman;776237Further nothing about a 4E character, especially at lower levels, gives any indication that they have "superhuman" powers akin to Superheores in DC or Marvel. I've honestly been able to re-create MORE superhero-esque characters in v3.5 that emulate Marvel or DC heroes far better than 4E's structure.

So, to you, 1st level Druid with at-will wild shape, 1st level wizards who can continually shoot waves of thunder from their fingertips, 1st level clerics striking enemies wth a sacred flame and magically healing their allies at will, or any eladrin or tiefling at all don't strike you as examples of superhuman powers a la Marvel and DC?

I, uh, erm, ok.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;776414So, to you, 1st level Druid with at-will wild shape, 1st level wizards who can continually shoot waves of thunder from their fingertips, 1st level clerics striking enemies wth a sacred flame and magically healing their allies at will, or any eladrin or tiefling at all don't strike you as examples of superhuman powers a la Marvel and DC?

I, uh, erm, ok.

Asshole. Quit acting like you're actually 65 years old already given it's bullshit. And accept most Dnd players were born AFTER 1970ish fucktard.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;776414So, to you, 1st level Druid with at-will wild shape, 1st level wizards who can continually shoot waves of thunder from their fingertips, 1st level clerics striking enemies wth a sacred flame and magically healing their allies at will, or any eladrin or tiefling at all don't strike you as examples of superhuman powers a la Marvel and DC?

I, uh, erm, ok.

Since I know their effects are marginal at best, no I really don't.

Quote from: Batman;776436Since I know their effects are marginal at best, no I really don't.

Cool. Just goes to show you that you have to check your own perspective against others in the real world from time to time.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;776442Cool. Just goes to show you that you have to check your own perspective against others in the real world from time to time.

I hear ya and I'm not saying that 4e isn't a rapid departure from past editions but within the context of the game most PCs aren't that incredible until much later into the game.

Quote from: Batman;776436Since I know their effects are marginal at best, no I really don't.

I guess you never ran into said Druid outside an urban area? Marginal isn't what I'd call them. And that's without factoring in the majority of them aren't humans. And basically 4e wasn't any different about power level .It just had a higher baseline and a lower ceiling.

Was that a non sequiter Natty? I hope so you fuck.

Quote from: Batman;776461I hear ya and I'm not saying that 4e isn't a rapid departure from past editions but within the context of the game most PCs aren't that incredible until much later into the game.

I think I get what you were saying up thread. If 1st level 4e characters do have superhuman powers ( and in my estimation the do, but opinions vary ) then at least kobolds are monsters up to challenging them, so it's not Superman against a bunch of mooks.  Is that a fair take on it?

For what it's worth I played about 2 years of 4e pretty heavily, both home games and LFR. Home games are always good. Despite playing LFR with a few great folks I've seen every criticism leveled against 4e in spades in LFR play. But who knows, that just might mostly be endemic to OP.