TheRPGSite

Although there are a lot of things I'm actually liking in it, the one thing that has completely spun my head around and boggled it into oblivion is the new feats/abilities/skills rules.

Having no skills is bizarre enough, but then subsuming feat acquisition into ability bumps and not only that but having different bumps for different classes, is... I can't even put it into words.

Mind-bogglingly, head-spinningly, daft? Does that work?

Is it April?

Can I get my money back?

Will they see reason and fix it before I exorcist chunder?

Quote from: The_Rooster;676787Although there are a lot of things I'm actually liking in it, the one thing that has completely spun my head around and boggled it into oblivion is the new feats/abilities/skills rules.

Having no skills is bizarre enough,

Meh.  So you lost an extra d6 to four skills, but now have lore.  Not really a major change.  They were all at heart an ability check anyway,

Quotebut then subsuming feat acquisition into ability bumps

Wasn't that essentially always the rule, they just put it directly into the class charts instead of mentioning it in the feats section? Or is this that they took away the suite of feats?

Quoteand not only that but having different bumps for different classes, is... I can't even put it into words.

Not sure why this bothers you.  Different classes have different features.  Ability scores/feats are now more emphasized in some classes than others.  Seems normal to me.

Oh, and HI by the way.  Glad you took my advice and joined up.  I think you'll like it around here.

Quote from: Mistwell;676792Meh.  So you lost an extra d6 to four skills, but now have lore.

Four skills of my choice that don't have to have anything to do with knowledge. You now only get two Lore skills and MAYBE one from your class. Great, my character knows a lot about stuff he doesn't care about but can't sneak worth a damn because the DC's haven't changed but they've taken away a bunch of abilities which gave you advantage and/or one, sometimes even two, d6 rolls.

My sneaky rogue is now no longer sneaky. Thanks WotC.

Quote from: Mistwell;676792Wasn't that essentially always the rule, they just put it directly into the class charts instead of mentioning it in the feats section? Or is this that they took away the suite of feats?

You got both feats AND ability scores at set levels. Now you get a feat OR an ability score bump. On top of that, they've reduced the amount of feats and ability bumps for most classes, getting only 4 ability bumps across twenty levels instead of 5. With having to choose one or the other, and with DC's not having changed, and with ability score bumps being far and away the better choice for a character in terms of power, few people are going to even want to choose feats.

It's all in all a very terrible and very clumsy change. Yes, the feats are more powerful, but an ability bump is still better. And you don't even get a feat/ability bump now until 4th-level.

Quote from: Mistwell;676792Not sure why this bothers you.  Different classes have different features.  Ability scores/feats are now more emphasized in some classes than others.  Seems normal to me.

Most classes get 4 ability bumps OR feats, for a grand total of +8 potential ability score increases. The rogue gets six and the fighter gets seven. So a rogue can get +12 ability score increases and the fighter +14. Seems pretty whack to me.

Quote from: Mistwell;676792Oh, and HI by the way.  Glad you took my advice and joined up.  I think you'll like it around here.

Shutup and go miscalculate a production budget.

Quote from: The_Rooster;676800and with ability score bumps being far and away the better choice for a character in terms of power, few people are going to even want to choose feats.

This is where I noped out.

Quote from: The_Rooster;676800Four skills of my choice that don't have to have anything to do with knowledge. You now only get two Lore skills and MAYBE one from your class. Great, my character knows a lot about stuff he doesn't care about but can't sneak worth a damn because the DC's haven't changed but they've taken away a bunch of abilities which gave you advantage and/or one, sometimes even two, d6 rolls.

My sneaky rogue is now no longer sneaky. Thanks WotC.

?  Granted, I have only had a chance to briefly scan the new docs, but the rogue still has an expertise dice they use on every DEX related skill, that ranges from a d6 up to a d12.  There's also a stealthy feat that allows you to roll your expertise dice twice and take the highest.  That's not worse than the previous packet, so I'm having a hard time seeing where your complaint is.

And keep in mind that unless they changed it, your roll for stealth is essentially the DC for other creatures when they try to find you.  A 1st level thief with 18 dex can get a result of up to 30, with a minimum of 6, average of 18.  A DC 18 is pretty darn hard for most creatures to be able to find you, and that's when they are looking.  Seems pretty stealthy to me.

Quote from: Piestrio;676809This is where I noped out.

I don't know.  Looking at some of the feats, and I would rather take them than take the ability bonuses.  With the new design, each feat is more like a specialty, where you get more than one benefit.

For example, if you learn the Shield Master feat, you get:
* prof with all shields
* use shield as a weapon, doing 1d6 points of damage.  I imagine you would treat this as any other two-weapon fighting attack for the round you declared you're attacking with it.  It does not say you lose your AC bonus when using it as an attack, so I assume you keep it
* Add shield's AC bonus to any Dex saving throw vs. projectiles and spells that target only you.

That certainly seems worth more than a +1 ability score to two abilities IMO

Quote from: Sacrosanct;676813I don't know.  Looking at some of the feats, and I would rather take them than take the ability bonuses.  With the new design, each feat is more like a specialty, where you get more than one benefit.

For example, if you learn the Shield Master feat, you get:
* prof with all shields
* use shield as a weapon, doing 1d6 points of damage.  I imagine you would treat this as any other two-weapon fighting attack for the round you declared you're attacking with it.  It does not say you lose your AC bonus when using it as an attack, so I assume you keep it
* Add shield's AC bonus to any Dex saving throw vs. projectiles and spells that target only you.

That certainly seems worth more than a +1 ability score to two abilities IMO

Anytime someone starts talking about what is the "better" choice in an RPG my grogsence starts tingling and I get grumpy.

Quote from: Piestrio;676815Anytime someone starts talking about what is the "better" choice in an RPG my grogsence starts tingling and I get grumpy.

Well, I didn't use "objectively" ;)



But seriously, I can see it going either way, honestly.  For me, I'd probably do a hybrid.  I.e., at level 4 for the first ability increase, I'd probably go with a feat that rounded out the theme of the character type I wanted.  Then probably go with ability bonuses from there on out when they occurred.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;676813Granted, I have only had a chance to briefly scan the new docs, but the rogue still has an expertise dice they use on every DEX related skill, that ranges from a d6 up to a d12.

And what if I want my rogue to be charismatic or my mage to be sneaky?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;676813There's also a stealthy feat that allows you to roll your expertise dice twice and take the highest.  That's not worse than the previous packet, so I'm having a hard time seeing where your complaint is.

A FEAT. You don't get to even choose a feat until 4th-level and then your choice is EITHER a feat OR a +2 to one ability score or +1 to two ability scores. The ability score bump is far and away the better choice. Game balance should always have the question, "Is this choice a no-brainer? If yes, it's unbalanced."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;676813And keep in mind that unless they changed it, your roll for stealth is essentially the DC for other creatures when they try to find you.  A 1st level thief with 18 dex can get a result of up to 30, with a minimum of 6, average of 18.  A DC 18 is pretty darn hard for most creatures to be able to find you, and that's when they are looking.  Seems pretty stealthy to me.

Firstly, you can't get a 1st-level character with a Dexterity of 18. The only way you can get an 18 at all is if you make a half-orc and start with 16 Strength.

Secondly, the average of a d20+d6+Maximum Dexterity is 17.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;676813For example, if you learn the Shield Master feat, you get:
* prof with all shields
* use shield as a weapon, doing 1d6 points of damage.  I imagine you would treat this as any other two-weapon fighting attack for the round you declared you're attacking with it.  It does not say you lose your AC bonus when using it as an attack, so I assume you keep it
* Add shield's AC bonus to any Dex saving throw vs. projectiles and spells that target only you.

That certainly seems worth more than a +1 ability score to two abilities IMO

Any character that is likely to use a shield in this manner is already proficient in it. Losing the benefit of the shield and gaining a 1d6 damage bump is versatile but really, you're better off with a +2 stat bump to Strength. The same goes for the Dexterity. You're better getting a permanent +1 bonus to all Dexterity saving throws by upping Dex by 1 (if odd numbered) or 2.

Quote from: Piestrio;676815Anytime someone starts talking about what is the "better" choice in an RPG my grogsence starts tingling and I get grumpy.

You must be grumpy all the time then.

Quote from: Raven;676824You must be grumpy all the time then.

You have no idea.

Quote from: The_Rooster;676821And what if I want my rogue to be charismatic or my mage to be sneaky?


A FEAT. You don't get to even choose a feat until 4th-level and then your choice is EITHER a feat OR a +2 to one ability score or +1 to two ability scores. The ability score bump is far and away the better choice. Game balance should always have the question, "Is this choice a no-brainer? If yes, it's unbalanced."


Firstly, you can't get a 1st-level character with a Dexterity of 18. The only way you can get an 18 at all is if you make a half-orc and start with 16 Strength.

Secondly, the average of a d20+d6+Maximum Dexterity is 17.


Any character that is likely to use a shield in this manner is already proficient in it. Losing the benefit of the shield and gaining a 1d6 damage bump is versatile but really, you're better off with a +2 stat bump to Strength. The same goes for the Dexterity. You're better getting a permanent +1 bonus to all Dexterity saving throws by upping Dex by 1 (if odd numbered) or 2.

I'm on my tablet so forgive the lack of quote breaks.

I do recall seeing something for charisma for rogues.  Secondly, if you want a mage to be very competent doing something he probably hasn't hardly ever practiced (being a mage and all), tough shit.  Anyone can sneak, but if you want to be as good as a guy who does that as a living?  Then take a level in rogue.

no-brainer?  Maybe to you, a person who focuses only on +/- modifiers. And that shield was just an example.  There are plenty of other feats that look more appealing to me than a stat bump, depending on what sort of archetype I want to play

And where are you getting this "no ability can be an 18"?  Roll for your stats, there you go.

also, learn math.  10.5 + 3.5 + 4 (18dex) is 18

Quote from: Piestrio;676826You have no idea.

You must not like HERO System.

jg

Quote from: Sacrosanct;676831And where are you getting this "no ability can be an 18"?  Roll for your stats, there you go.

also, learn math.  10.5 + 3.5 + 4 (18dex) is 18

Only old grumpy people roll stats. Us hipsters use point-buy. Therefore, 17 is the highest, therefore, learn math, 17 is the highest.

So... nyah.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;676831no-brainer?  Maybe to you, a person who focuses only on +/- modifiers. And that shield was just an example.

The 1d6 damage from the shield is an extra 3.5 damage on average, while adding two points to Strength only provides an extra point of damage.  The frequency of Strength ability checks would vary wildly by play style, so that's a wash.  Carrying capacity is a constant bonus, in this case a rather minor extra 20lbs.

I would say the choice is something of a toss-up, entirely dependent on the type of play at a given table.  There is no obvious 'right' answer, although the shield feat has a slight advantage.  Which means WotC has at least a glimmer of game design skill left.

Quote from: James Gillen;676842You must not like HERO System.

jg

In Soviet HERO System, numbers crunch you!

Quote from: StormBringer;676845The 1d6 damage from the shield is an extra 3.5 damage on average, while adding two points to Strength only provides an extra point of damage.  The frequency of Strength ability checks would vary wildly by play style, so that's a wash.  Carrying capacity is a constant bonus, in this case a rather minor extra 20lbs.

+1 to damage, +1 to hit, +1 to ability checks, +1 to saving throws.

I'd say it's more than a wash.

Quote from: The_Rooster;676844Only old grumpy people roll stats. Us hipsters use point-buy. Therefore, 17 is the highest, therefore, learn math, 17 is the highest.

So... nyah.

rolling for attribute scores is not only the way D&D has been designed from the get go, but is the most common way of generating them.  Because you don't roll for them is hardly a design flaw, and your preference is hardly objective fact.  So yeah, you can get an 18 at level 1.  You can even get higher.

Quote from: The_Rooster;676862+1 to damage, +1 to hit, +1 to ability checks, +1 to saving throws.

I'd say it's more than a wash.

that feat also granted more than an extra damage, as I described.  Because ability modifiers only increase with every 2 points of ability score rating, you can't get both the strength and dexterity bonuses as in your earlier example.  You only get one.  And before you say, "yes you can if both scores were an odd number to begin with." I'll point out that if that's the case then the next time you have ability score bonuses and you increase each by 1, you get no bonus at all.  So in that case, choosing a feat is obviously better...

point is, is that you're basing your bitching on either incorrect assumptions, or in the ways you're choosing to use which rules you use and which ones you are ignoring.  Either way, not a game design problem.

Quote from: James Gillen;676842You must not like HERO System.

jg

I like it when it's used to model a world and takes a back seat to the imagination. I dislike it when it becomes about crunching numbers and dictates to the imagination.

This is of course a group problem.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;676910rolling for attribute scores is not only the way D&D has been designed from the get go, but is the most common way of generating them.

I'm guessing that hasn't been true for the better part of a decade at this point. Most of the 3.5/PF crowd seems to use point buy and rolling ability scores appears to be virtually unknown among 4E players.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;676910Either way, not a game design problem.

You're right. It's not a game design problem.

Of course, you're only right if you don't care about game balance.

Rollin', rollin', rollin', keep them dice a rollin'...

Quote from: Justin Alexander;676955I'm guessing that hasn't been true for the better part of a decade at this point.

Yeah, while OSR gamers may roll 'em, 3e/Pf and 4e gamers are far more likely to point-buy their character attributes.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;676969Yeah, while OSR gamers may roll 'em, 3e/Pf and 4e gamers are far more likely to point-buy their character attributes.

If that's true, it's sad. There's some excitement to have in generating attributes randomly. I'm sure not all recent 3e/PF/4e gamers would like it, but if they're not even aware that could be done, or what it actually does when you generate a character in such manner, then some of them might be missing something that would actually make the game more fun to them, and not necessarily less.

I think it's a difference of philosophy. In the WotC editions your character is something that you build, a tool for solving the encounters mechanically. In the TSR editions your character is more of an avatar, a jacket you put on while solving the encounters with your own creativity.

Quote from: The_Rooster;676966You're right. It's not a game design problem.

Of course, you're only right if you don't care about game balance.

Rollin', rollin', rollin', keep them dice a rollin'...

man what?  It seems you are just crying for crying's sake, as everything you complained about either isn't true, or is easily avoided by using official rules available.  If your preference is providing a shit experience, then maybe the problem is your preference and not the rules themselves.. I mean, your entire position has been reduced to a very bad strawman.

Quote from: Benoist;676970If that's true, it's sad. There's some excitement to have in generating attributes randomly. I'm sure not all recent 3e/PF/4e gamers would like it, but if they're not even aware that could be done, or what it actually does when you generate a character in such manner, then some of them might be missing something that would actually make the game more fun to them, and not necessarily less.

either way, the claim that you can't get an 18 dexterity at level one simply isn't true, as you can by playing raw

Quote from: Benoist;676970..then some of them might be missing something that would actually make the game more fun to them, and not necessarily less.

As a person who has played many games that have random ability score rolling, I can say only this:

Fuck. That. Shit. My hat of random chargen know no limit!

Tried it, many times, and absolutely don't enjoy it. Rolling dice is for conflict resolution in the game - not for PC generation.

If people really have retreated from rolling for ability scores in D&D - good for them. They are missing nothing.


Slightly less evil than random ability scores are pure point buy systems.

To be honest, this is the first playtest in a long while that I actually like. I haven't read it in detail or anything, but I like what they did with Skills (that is, remove them and replace them with Lores).

As for attributes, I don't consider myself an old school gamer, but I like to roll them. That has always been a part of D&D for me (probably because I started with AD&D 2nd Edition, and I never quite liked the more modern versions).

I've had a bit to look at the deck further, and my opinions:

Good
I like the monk class better now.  They got rid of the "raise everything to 20" at 20th level, and have introduced elemental powers as you level up, which I like.  For example, at 3rd level you can learn wind riposte (each element has it's own ability you can choose), which is if you are hit with a melee attack, you can spend 1 ki point to push the attacker 15 feet away with a gust of wind if they fail a strength saving throw.  Those types of abilities feel like old kung fu movies to me, so win there.

Mages.  One class encompasses wizards, witches, sorcerers, etc.  They only mention the wizard tradition though.  Within that tradition, you specialize like 2e wizard schools, and each specialization grants unique abilities.

Rogues:  they cleaned up the rogues a lot.  Only two styles are included: assassin and thievery, but each style is more robust and has more abilities than the specializations in the previous packet.

I haven't played barbarians before, but I understand they addressed the barbarians' overpowered attacks in this one.

Not so Good, or meh:

Clerics got nerfed.  Channel Divinity is now gained at 2nd level, and only once per day.  They only have 3 divine areas to choose from: life, light, and war.  My dwarven protection cleric with the interposing shield feat is now gone.  That sucks.  I really liked him.

Fighters no longer have expertise dice.  That cuts a lot of options away from them.  Instead, now they have 3 specialties: gladiator, knight, or warrior.  Each path grants a special ability at level 3, 7, 10, 15, and 19.  They also have new abilities like healing 1/2 your hp one per day, making a save at 0 hp to go to 1 instead, etc.  They also get ability bonuses more frequently than other classes, so if you use feats, they get more of them.

Paladins.  They got rid of cavalier, warden, and blackguard.  Now they have only one Oath: Oath of Devotion.  So a traditional paladin I guess.  I imagine they'll have warden and blackguard back at some point.  They better.

I mentioned this, but I really don't like that they got rid of a lot of fighter abilities and some feats.  Things like warning shout, interposing shield, etc are things I really liked.  I think that hurts customization.  I've said several times how I loved being able to do my halfling assassin as a fighter only class instead of a fighter-thief.  Now it looks like that's severely hindered.  I can still take the stealthy feat to essentially grant myself an expertise dice on stealth checks, but without deadly strike, I lose that "attack from surprise for extra damage" that emulated the thief's sneak attack.

General observations
Each class now has multiple attacks at certain levels, so it looks like they went back to that.

Feats are now packages rather than singular feats.  We already talked about the shield one above.  I actually sort of like this, but then I've never been one who prefers char op.  They simplified this process of character advancement.  Another example is archery.  If you learned Archery Mastery as your feat, you gain:
* range doesn't impose disadvantage
* ranged attacks ignore half cover and 3/4 cover
* once on your turn with a bow, you can make an additional attack.  Both attacks suffer a -5 to hit.

Speaking of feats, you don't get them now until 4th level.  Level 1-3 truly seem like introductory levels, allowing you to get a feel of the character class and how you want to progress before the really big path choices present themselves.  I think this will help newer players, as there isn't much to learn about your class at low levels.

Skills:  Skills are gone.  Which I like.  Reinforces the "anyone can attempt" theory that I prefer.  Now they just need to address the DC values of tasks, which IIRC, they are doing right now to reflect this.

Quote from: Benoist;676970If that's true, it's sad. There's some excitement to have in generating attributes randomly. I'm sure not all recent 3e/PF/4e gamers would like it, but if they're not even aware that could be done, or what it actually does when you generate a character in such manner, then some of them might be missing something that would actually make the game more fun to them, and not necessarily less.

I find the big advantages to rolling ability scores in order is that it (a) speeds up character creation and (b) provides an improv seed. You really are generating the foundation of a character and then creating on top of that foundation. I've found these features absolutely essential in open table play, and particularly valuable when introducing new players to RPGs. (I discussed this at some length over here (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/7737/roleplaying-games/legends-labyrinths-on-the-importance-of-character-creation).)

What's interesting is the degree to which randomly rolling six attributes and then assigning them to ability scores pretty much completely nullifies these advantages. At the link above, I discuss the fact that it still gets new players rolling the dice faster and that can be valuable. But that's a fairly narrow window of advantage.

D&D basically switched to this compromise position for random generation back in 1979 and I suspect it's the version most people who have used random generation are most familiar with. Given that, I think it's unsurprising that so many people have difficulty seeing any advantage to random generation.

Quote from: Jaeger;676979Tried it, many times, and absolutely don't enjoy it. Rolling dice is for conflict resolution in the game - not for PC generation.

Weak

Quote from: Brad;677000Weak

I'm curious to know why such aversion to rolling for stats, especially since classes don't require a high stat anymore.  Is it fear of having the chance for a low roll?  Is it hating the fact that another player might have better rolled stats than you?

I like what I'm hearing. WoTC seems to finally be scaling down the twinkly. Boy power gaming minna era are going to be pissed though :)

Still think "ability bumps" and feats are completely unnecessary wank, but I guess they're expected by the kids these days. Now if only they'd drop the retarded class gut and cut it down to 3 or 4 classes.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;676969Yeah, while OSR gamers may roll 'em, 3e/Pf and 4e gamers are far more likely to point-buy their character attributes.

Not in my experience.  I played 3e for the better part of a decade, at game stores and in probably dozens of different groups, and every single time attributes were rolled.  Generally 4d6 in order, sometimes other variations, but the only time point buy was used was at conventions in tournament play.  I won't speak for 4e, because I'd rather be assraped by a herd of gorgons than touch that abomination.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677006I'm curious to know why such aversion to rolling for stats, especially since classes don't require a high stat anymore.  Is it fear of having the chance for a low roll?  Is it hating the fact that another player might have better rolled stats than you?

Rolled stats have always been anathema to the min- maxers.

Quote from: JRR;677010Not in my experience.  I played 3e for the better part of a decade, at game stores and in probably dozens of different groups, and every single time attributes were rolled.  Generally 4d6 in order, sometimes other variations, but the only time point buy was used was at conventions in tournament play.  I won't speak for 4e, because I'd rather be assraped by a herd of gorgons than touch that abomination.

I would rather play 4e than get assraped by a herd of Gordon's, but I'd also rather not play at all than play it.

Quote from: Benoist;676970If that's true, it's sad. There's some excitement to have in generating attributes randomly. I'm sure not all recent 3e/PF/4e gamers would like it, but if they're not even aware that could be done, or what it actually does when you generate a character in such manner, then some of them might be missing something that would actually make the game more fun to them, and not necessarily less.

It's my preference as well, whenever possible. Even those I usually go all soft-hearted and let them swap around 2 stats. :)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;676974I mean, your entire position has been reduced to a very bad strawman.

Maybe in your mind it has, but in reality you're the one existing in a fantasy world.

By your own admission you don't care about such things and yet claim you know all about them. Sorry, but you don't. These feats and attribute bonuses are a balance nightmare.

What I love about people like you is that you'll decry the efforts of people like me and yet in the same breath spit vitriol at WotC for making imbalanced classes. It's people like me, you know, the ones who actually understand system mechanics and system balance, who provide valuable feedback to WotC so that you can bitch about something else other than game balance.

I suggest calling 5e too video-gamey.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;676987If you learned Archery Mastery as your feat, you gain:
* range doesn't impose disadvantage
* ranged attacks ignore half cover and 3/4 cover
* once on your turn with a bow, you can make an additional attack.  Both attacks suffer a -5 to hit.

Here's a perfect example of not understanding system mechanics or balance. This is an absolutely terrible feat. For one thing, the range on even a shortbow is more than you're likely to need in most of your sessions. And really, if you're an archer then you're going to go longbow which is more range than you'll probably ever use at all. And since most characters who are going to forego a stat bump for a feat in order to focus on archery are going to already be proficient in the longbow, that's void too.

Then you have a -5 on all attacks. First of all, a -5 is MASSIVE in this system. You're essentially saying that you'll miss on most of those attacks. Second of all, it's a penalty and the entire system design and everything the designers have claimed up until this point, has been to steer away from penalties. That's why the entire advantage/disadvantage system was developed in the first place. And yet, here we are, already deviating from the design goals.

There are very good reasons for not wanting to use penalties. You should try investigating them and learning a bit about system design.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;676987Skills:  Skills are gone.  Which I like.  Reinforces the "anyone can attempt" theory that I prefer.  Now they just need to address the DC values of tasks, which IIRC, they are doing right now to reflect this.

They're not gone. They simply weren't included in the packet because they're still being worked on.

Honestly, why do people like you even want to play D&D Next when it's patently obvious that you want it to be a BECMI or 1e clone.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677006I'm curious to know why such aversion to rolling for stats, especially since classes don't require a high stat anymore.  Is it fear of having the chance for a low roll?  Is it hating the fact that another player might have better rolled stats than you?

Here we are again. The mere fact that you're asking this question tells me you have no real understanding of system balance and design. In fact, it indicates that you have no real understanding of fun at all. At least, not other people's versions of fun.

Quote from: Zachary The First;677025It's my preference as well, whenever possible. Even those I usually go all soft-hearted and let them swap around 2 stats. :)

Thanks for proving a point. All you've done is defeat the point of rolling. Why bother rolling when you're going to let them have better stats anyway? 4d6 drop the lowest is already statistically going to average to be better than the point buy option.

It's always the people who don't understand system mechanics who decry new systems and cling to the old ones. Things were better in my day, grump, grump, hurumph.

Quote from: Zachary The First;677025It's my preference as well, whenever possible. Even those I usually go all soft-hearted and let them swap around 2 stats. :)

We did the 2-for-1 swaps, but not with the B/X restrictions.  Figured it was showing that your character concentrated on one score to the detriment of another, or possibly two others.  Spending all that time working out didn't leave much time for studying, as an example.

Balance.:D
...
Boiled Pork.:rotfl:
(Forgive. I'm easily amused.)

Quote from: The_Rooster;677027Maybe in your mind it has, but in reality you're the one existing in a fantasy world.

What do you mean "in my mind"?  This is what you said:

Of course, you're only right if you don't care about game balance.

So unless you can point to a quote of mine saying I don't care about game balance, that is a textbook strawman.  Not in my mind.  In reality.

QuoteBy your own admission you don't care about such things and yet claim you know all about them. Sorry, but you don't. These feats and attribute bonuses are a balance nightmare.

Not knowing and not caring are not the same thing.  I know the names of most of the cast of Jersey Shore, but I can assure you I don't care about them at all.  Once again you are showing your complete ineptitude at comprehension.  

QuoteWhat I love about people like you is that you'll decry the efforts of people like me and yet in the same breath spit vitriol at WotC for making imbalanced classes. It's people like me, you know, the ones who actually understand system mechanics and system balance, who provide valuable feedback to WotC so that you can bitch about something else other than game balance.

I suggest calling 5e too video-gamey.


Here's a perfect example of not understanding system mechanics or balance. This is an absolutely terrible feat. For one thing, the range on even a shortbow is more than you're likely to need in most of your sessions. And really, if you're an archer then you're going to go longbow which is more range than you'll probably ever use at all. And since most characters who are going to forego a stat bump for a feat in order to focus on archery are going to already be proficient in the longbow, that's void too.

Then you have a -5 on all attacks. First of all, a -5 is MASSIVE in this system. You're essentially saying that you'll miss on most of those attacks. Second of all, it's a penalty and the entire system design and everything the designers have claimed up until this point, has been to steer away from penalties. That's why the entire advantage/disadvantage system was developed in the first place. And yet, here we are, already deviating from the design goals.

There are very good reasons for not wanting to use penalties. You should try investigating them and learning a bit about system design.


They're not gone. They simply weren't included in the packet because they're still being worked on.

Honestly, why do people like you even want to play D&D Next when it's patently obvious that you want it to be a BECMI or 1e clone.


Here we are again. The mere fact that you're asking this question tells me you have no real understanding of system balance and design. In fact, it indicates that you have no real understanding of fun at all. At least, not other people's versions of fun.


Thanks for proving a point. All you've done is defeat the point of rolling. Why bother rolling when you're going to let them have better stats anyway? 4d6 drop the lowest is already statistically going to average to be better than the point buy option.

It's always the people who don't understand system mechanics who decry new systems and cling to the old ones. Things were better in my day, grump, grump, hurumph.

OK, look.  I think by now we have a clear picture of your playstyle, and it's the "put everyone in an arena gladiator style and refresh resources back to max after every battle."  Let's just look at the short bow thing that you said gaining the ability to ignore range penalty doesn't matter.  Any target greater than 80 feet away means you have to roll disadvantage.  Unless all of your adventures take place in a dungeon or building, 80 feet is very important.  You've made it very clear that are viewing the game through an analysis that rarely, if ever, actually happens in game play.  You've also shown an ignorance of the rules ("you can't get an 18") and when called on your mistakes, can only reply with arguments that people haven't actually made.  

Congrats on that.  And to top the ridiculousness off, you have to audacity to accuse me of not understanding how things works.

Sorry, I can't handle that level of irony in one day.  I have a feeling rpg.net would be a better site for you.

Quote from: StormBringer;677029We did the 2-for-1 swaps, but not with the B/X restrictions.  Figured it was showing that your character concentrated on one score to the detriment of another, or possibly two others.  Spending all that time working out didn't leave much time for studying, as an example.

I think that's reasonable. I always thought of it as perhaps I roll a 10 STR, 12 DEX, 9 CON, 10 INT 14 WIS, 11 CHA, I swap the CON and WIS--that's sort of a Teddy Roosevelt move. I'm sickly, so I spend time making me tougher. Maybe I could have garnered more book knowledge in that time, but instead I focus on what I'll need to be tough and durable in the outdoors (or even a marital scenario).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677006I'm curious to know why such aversion to rolling for stats, especially since classes don't require a high stat anymore.  Is it fear of having the chance for a low roll?  Is it hating the fact that another player might have better rolled stats than you?

Because players might not get to do exactly what they want. If you want to play a paladin in AD&D, good luck; chances are you won't even get close. I think this is more a problem with entitlement than anything else. When we played Mentzer D&D (for pretty much the entire time I was in junior high), you rolled dice and picked whatever class had the highest rolled prime. It was a game, and it was fun to take a less-than-capable playing piece to success. One of my favorite characters ever was randomly rolled a few years ago. All stats were phenomenal, but with an abysmal WIS, so of course I made a thief named Cugel. He eventually died doing something ridiculous, but heroic. I planned to play a cleric in that game, but the dice dictated something else...I went with it and had a great time.

Point-buy inherently fails on some level because of perceived "fairness". HERO or GURPS, for instance, try to make all characters the same in power level by stressing points, but a great player can be extremely successful with a shitty character. The worst player ever won't be able to do much with a D&D character who has all 18s.

Fundamentally, and I say this sincerely, random stats vs. point-buy (or even arbitrary assignment) is equivalent of picking the shoe in Monopoly vs. randomly pulling a piece out of a bag. In the end, the piece itself is essentially irrelevant to the gaming experience if you're just trying to have a good time. People who look at rpgs as something other than a game will most likely disagree.

Yeah, but as I mentioned, you don't have attribute requirements in recent versions.  Certainly not in Next.  So regardless of method, you can still play whatever class you want.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677041Yeah, but as I mentioned, you don't have attribute requirements in recent versions.  Certainly not in Next.  So regardless of method, you can still play whatever class you want.

But but but...you have an 18 and I have a 12. 18 is bigger than 12. You are winning arbitrarily.

Quote from: Brad;677043But but but...you have an 18 and I have a 12. 18 is bigger than 12. You are winning arbitrarily.

It's worked for decades.  I guess I'm secure enough in myself that I don't get my panties in a wad if another character has a higher stat.  After more than 30 years, it really hasn't had that much of an impact to the gaming experience.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677044It's worked for decades.  I guess I'm secure enough in myself that I don't get my panties in a wad if another character has a higher stat.  After more than 30 years, it really hasn't had that much of an impact to the gaming experience.

Pretty much. There are hobos with 180 IQs...am I intimidated by their greater intellect? Considering they're dumpster diving, not really.

* once on your turn with a bow, you can make an additional attack. Both attacks suffer a -5 to hit.

-5 is 'more-or-less' equivalent to having disadvantage but I imagine they don't want the archer burdened with the condition of disadvantage to prevent future interplay with other rules that apply only on disadvantageous rolls. Does the penalty need to be smaller for it to provide equivalent statistical damage to a single shot? If it's already equal in that respect there should be no issue, the real star of the feet is the long range and ignoring cover.

Archers could also use this to interact with the environment in unique ways against targets where a -5 is not so big a deal. Like attempting to actuate a button on the other side of the room and cut a rope suspending and captured comrade simultaneously, or deal double damage to a nearby crystal.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;676994What's interesting is the degree to which randomly rolling six attributes and then assigning them to ability scores pretty much completely nullifies these advantages. At the link above, I discuss the fact that it still gets new players rolling the dice faster and that can be valuable. But that's a fairly narrow window of advantage.

I think this is correct.  If you roll 4d6 six times and assign the scores that really isn't any different than the elite array (15,14,13,12,10,8) of 3rd edition.  Except that some players get slightly better arrays than others.  

And that leads to the other design decision that started in 3rd edition that made rolling dice hard.  In OD&D, a +1 bonus was about the best you could get for having a high score (or at least this is what I infer from Swords and Wizardry).  Similarly, penalties were rather low.  

In B/X it was possible to get to +3 (on an 18) but that was about it.  Even in AD&D it was perfectly possible to play a magic user with a 14 intelligence and not really suffer massive penalties until very high levels.

By 3rd edition, all of the class features ran off your ability scores.  So a Fighter could not get the combat expertise feat without a 13 intelligence.  A wizard with an 18 INT would always have +2 on spell DCs (and more bonus spells) over a wizard with DC14.  A Paladin with an 18 CHA would always have better lay on hands abilities versus one with a 14 (in 1st and 2nd edition, there was no need to link the power of this class feature to ability scores).  

And do not get me started on constitution.  In previous editions, non-fighters had a very limited amount of bonus hit points from con (ranging from +1 to +3; in AD&D it was capped at +2 for example).  In 3rd edition a low con was very bad (hurting saves and hit points) and a high con could almost make up for the difference in hit dice.  A wizard with an 18 CON was nearly as formidable as a Fighter with 11.  

This dependence on ability scores to drive player power made a single set of dice rolls create fairly large gaps.  When it was also "arrange to taste" it turned into players being able to greatly minimize weakness.  

I have actually had the most fun (in more than a dozen groups over the years) in elite array d20 games.  It seemed to really improve the overall feel of the game.  I could get behind rolling dice in order, but only because it would help create the personality.

Quote from: Brad;677000Weak

Where is that Not a Fuck Given O-Meter when you need it?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677006I'm curious to know why such aversion to rolling for stats, especially since classes don't require a high stat anymore.  Is it fear of having the chance for a low roll?  Is it hating the fact that another player might have better rolled stats than you?

Has nothing to do with other players.

It can restrict my choice of the type of PC I want to play. (In the versions I have played.) I am letting the dice decide if I am going to play a wizard, thief or fighter.

I'd prefer to make that choice myself.

Quote from: TristramEvans;677012Rolled stats have always been anathema to the min-maxers.

Yes! If a person wants more freedom of choice then they MUST be a min-maxer!

Accuse them of being a min-maxer! Put them on the defensive and control the argument!

Heaven forbid they have an opinion that disagrees with the love of randomly rolled stats!

I must be having all kinds of badwrongfun.

Quote from: Brad;677000Weak

It occurs to me that your avatar is highly appropriate.

JG

Quote from: Jaeger;677087Yes! If a person wants more freedom of choice then they MUST be a min-maxer

I'm sure there's a name for the logical fallacy you're committing there that's got your panties all in a bunch, but I can't be bothered to look it up.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677034In reality.

Your reality and reality are two distinct things. The reality is that the feat and ability rules in the current packet are completely inept. Saying that you think they're OK shows a distinct lack of care and understanding. Therefore, you don't care about game balance. If you did care, you'd make the effort to understand what you're talking about.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677034OK, look.  I think by now we have a clear picture of your playstyle, and it's the "put everyone in an arena gladiator style and refresh resources back to max after every battle."

What was that you were saying about strawmen?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677034You've also shown an ignorance of the rules ("you can't get an 18") and when called on your mistakes, can only reply with arguments that people haven't actually made.

Only a moron would balance a game around random die rolls. The game is balanced around point-buy. The only reason random die rolling is even an option is because of whiny-bitches like you who insist that everything they did forty years ago is better.

An 18 cannot be gotten via point-buy. Is that better, princess?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677034Congrats on that.  And to top the ridiculousness off, you have to audacity to accuse me of not understanding how things works.

That's because you don't.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677034Sorry, I can't handle that level of irony in one day.  I have a feeling rpg.net would be a better site for you.

I'm perma-banned from there. And ENWorld. You're stuck with me until someone perma-bans me from here too. I give myself a month at best.

Quote from: Brad;677040Because players might not get to do exactly what they want.

Yeah, let's all force players to do stuff they don't want to do!

FUN!

Quote from: Brad;677040I think this is more a problem with entitlement than anything else.

Actually it's more about system balance but that doesn't seem to be something that grognards care about. At least not until it's something they can bitch about because the lack of it is ruining their games and destroying their childhoods.

Quote from: Brad;677040When we played Mentzer...

What a surprise.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SAjY3FFfD9M/UO5fx9noTRI/AAAAAAAAAQ8/d39rprggCMM/s400/get-off-my-lawn.jpg)

Quote from: Brad;677040In the end, the piece itself is essentially irrelevant to the gaming experience if you're just trying to have a good time. People who look at rpgs as something other than a game will most likely disagree.

OMG! I've been having badwrongfun for 25 years! FUCK! ME!

Please teach me how to have fun the right way?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677041Yeah, but as I mentioned, you don't have attribute requirements in recent versions.  Certainly not in Next.  So regardless of method, you can still play whatever class you want.

(http://media.tumblr.com/9ab94451e8614dc17251cd0b7c0a88b9/tumblr_inline_mqiowtzJX01qz4rgp.png)
Yah, and I'm the one who doesn't understand system design. Holy shit man, please stop being ignorant. It pains me to witness it. Like the retarded kid banging his head against a brick wall until his skull is a bloody mush.

Go play Rath.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677044It's worked for decades.  I guess I'm secure enough in myself that I don't get my panties in a wad if another character has a higher stat.  After more than 30 years, it really hasn't had that much of an impact to the gaming experience.

Annnnnnnnnd here it is.

Seriously, why are you even posting in a thread about DDN? You obviously don't want to play it unless it's a grognard's wetdream. There's this thing. It's called progress. You are the minority. Go back to your nursing home.

I honestly think that people like you only have an interest in DDN because you can't find anyone willing to play BECMI. Either that or you get off on trolling people.

Game balance is an illusion insecure players tell themselves to pretend that the DM can't kill them at any moment and that they're just as much a special snowflake as everyone else at the table

Just like " character optimization" is an illusion min- maxers tell others to pretend that the inane numbers-based self-flagellation they engage in is in anyway related to role-playing.

Quote from: TristramEvans;677114Game balance is an illusion insecure players tell themselves to pretend that the DM can't kill them at any moment and that they're just as much a special snowflake as everyone else at the table

Just like " character optimization" is an illusion min- maxers tell others to pretend that the inane numbers-based self-flagellation they engage in is in anyway related to role-playing.

Yes, yes, we're all mere mortals that are blessed to glow in your almighty DM'ing presence and have no right to expect our characters to enable us to do anything other than be slaughtered in your name. And of course, anyone who optimises a character has no concept or understanding of roleplaying because roleplaying requires pain, suffering, boredom and frustration. Fun is anathema to a real roleplayer.

Funny how I always tend to get roleplaying XP bonuses at any game I play at. I must've optimised for it.

Yep. Nope. And giggling at the unintentional irony. In that order.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677027It's always the people who don't understand system mechanics who decry new systems and cling to the old ones. Things were better in my day, grump, grump, hurumph.

Perhaps there are people who still know how to have fun with other people regardless of the system mechanics. What a concept!

Also: Don't be so proud of this mechanically balanced terror you have instituted. The power to create special snowflakes is nothing compared to the power of fun. :p

Quote from: The_Rooster;677108Yah, and I'm the one who doesn't understand system design. Holy shit man, please stop being ignorant. It pains me to witness it. Like the retarded kid banging his head against a brick wall until his skull is a bloody mush.

Playing the class you want to play isn't good enough. I get it. You were the kid that had to get a present at other kid's birthday parties.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677108Annnnnnnnnd here it is.

Seriously, why are you even posting in a thread about DDN? You obviously don't want to play it unless it's a grognard's wetdream. There's this thing. It's called progress. You are the minority. Go back to your nursing home.

I honestly think that people like you only have an interest in DDN because you can't find anyone willing to play BECMI. Either that or you get off on trolling people.

Progress.  LOL!!

You still seem to be ignorant of the fact that games are not technology. That level of stupid borders on pitiful.

I'm quite liking this new playtest packet. I've not been impressed with the last 6 months or so, but this seems to have cut out a lot that I didn't like.

I don't like the new character sheet design. It's all over the place, like a new version of Windows.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677108Yeah, let's all force players to do stuff they don't want to do!

FUN!

Because that's exactly what I said. When you play a GAME, you don't always get to do exactly what you want to do. Any game. Miguel Cabrera gets three strikes, not four, no matter how much he believes it'd make hitting more enjoyable. No one is "forcing" you to do anything; when you roll dice, a random element, call it chaos if you want, dictates your options.

This has nothing to do with randomly rolled abilities whatsoever. It's a fundamental problem with modern gamers treating D&D like it's some fucking exercise in improvisational theater. Hey, guess what: we didn't always roll 3D6 down the line! Amazing! Sometimes we'd just arbitrarily assign attributes! But I can honestly say this...the characters created organically were always the best. If you want to convince yourself that you must play a specific type of character, and limit your options to one particular role, that's fine with me. But thinking random rolls somehow detract from the game is just complete bullshit.

Quote from: Orpheo;677123I don't like the new character sheet design. It's all over the place, like a new version of Windows.

I agree, it's awful. But I do appreciate the fact that they at least tried to make a more "pretty" character sheet for this package, even if, IMHO, they failed. I don't think this is the final design for it or anything.

Also, I read the playtest files a little bit more, and I like how spellcasting works. You still have to memorize a certain number of spells per day, but you have a lot of freedom while casting them.


[edit]
I love the Path of the Gladiator. I'd totally play a Fighter with it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;677121Also: Don't be so proud of this mechanically balanced terror you have instituted. The power to create special snowflakes is nothing compared to the power of fun. :p

The irony here is that it's imbalance that creates the special snowflakes and balance that prevents them. But then, understanding that requires an understanding of system mechanics.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;677121You still seem to be ignorant of the fact that games are not technology. That level of stupid borders on pitiful.

Right, of course, nothing can ever compare to the original. Gygax was God and there can be only one God. Nobody can ever improve on what he did, therefore there is never any progress in system design.

Good to know.

Quote from: Brad;677133No one is "forcing" you to do anything; when you roll dice, a random element, call it chaos if you want, dictates your options.

Uhuh.

Quote from: Maese Mateo;677134I agree, it's awful. But I do appreciate the fact that they at least tried to make a more "pretty" character sheet for this package, even if, IMHO, they failed. I don't think this is the final design for it or anything.

Initially I had the same reaction but after having actually used it in play, it's not half bad. I think I'd still prefer something a little less dramatic but for now, I can live with it, especially considering it's form-fillable.

Quote from: Maese Mateo;677134[edit]
I love the Path of the Gladiator. I'd totally play a Fighter with it.

Fighter and rogue and possibly cleric I think are probably the best designed at the moment. For pure bad assedness, the gladiator is definitely the go. One of my favourite character concepts, however, suits the knight perfectly.

One thing I've noted is that making a higher level character gives some perspective on the new system as a whole. Here's an example of two of my favourite PC's, both at 1st-level and at 11th-level (the equipment is a little off 'cause I haven't adjusted for new rules):

QuoteVesper of the Vale

1st-level High Elven Rogue

Str 12, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 10.

AC - 14 (Leather + Dexterity)
HP - 8
Alignment - Neutral
Race - High Elf
Class - Rogue
Background - Charlatan
Eyes - Green
Hair - Straw-coloured, long, tied back
Height - 6' 1"
Weight - 155lb.
Languages - Common, Elven, Orcish.

Race - Cantrip (Minor Illusion), Elf Weapon Training, Free Spirit, Keen Senses, Low-light Vision, Trance.

Skills - Cultural Lore (elves), Cultural Lore (humans).

Weapons -    Dagger (22): +4, 1d4+3, 30/120.

Class - Expertise Dice, Sneak Attack.

Equipment: Ball Bearings (10), Caltrops (10), Clothes (traveler's), Potion of Healing, Thieves' Tools, Whetstone.

Money: 8gp, 9sp, 9cp.

QuoteManus of the Blade

1st-level Human Fighter

Str 17, Dex 10, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 16.

AC - 18 (Chain Mail + Shield)
HP - 12
Alignment - Chaotic Good
Race - Human
Class - Fighter
Background - Commoner (Militia)
Eyes - Blue
Hair - Thick, black, coarse, beard
Height - 6' 2"
Weight - 215lb.
Languages - Common, Dwarven.

Weapons -    Long Sword: +5, 1d8+3 or 1d10+3.
      Dagger: +5, 1d4+3, 30/120.
      Quarterstaff: +5, 1d10+3.

Skills - Military Lore, Political Lore.

Class - Second Wind.

Equipment: Adventurer's Kit, Bedroll, Blanket (winter), Chalk (100), Clothes (common), Crowbar, Healer's Kit, Tinderbox, Waterskin (full), Wineskin (empty), Whetstone.

Money: 18gp, 7sp.

QuoteVesper of the Vale

11th-level High Elven Rogue

Str 12, Dex 20, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 10.

AC - 20 (Elven Chain [+1] + Ring of Protection + Dexterity)
HP - 61
Alignment - Neutral
Race - High Elf
Class - Rogue (thievery)
Background - Charlatan
Eyes - Green
Hair - Straw-coloured, long, tied back
Height - 6' 1"
Weight - 155lb.
Languages - Common, Elven, Orcish.

Race - Cantrip (Minor Illusion), Elf Weapon Training, Free Spirit, Keen Senses, Low-light Vision, Trance.

Skills - Cultural Lore (elves), Cultural Lore (humans).

Feats - Thrown-Weapon Master.

Weapons -    Dagger (22 +1): +8, 1d4+6, 30/120.

Class - Cunning Action, Evasion, Expertise, Master Pickpocket, Reliable Talent, Rogues' Cant, Roguish Charm, Sneak Attack (4d6), Supreme Sneak, Trap Expertise, Uncanny Dodge.

Equipment: Ball Bearings (10), Caltrops (10), Clothes (traveler's), Potion of Healing, Thieves' Tools, Whetstone.

Money: 8gp, 9sp, 9cp.

QuoteManus of the Blade

11th-level Human Fighter

Str 18, Dex 10, Con 18, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 16.

AC - 21 (Mithral Plate [+1] + Shield)
HP - 109
Alignment - Chaotic Good
Race - Human
Class - Fighter (Knight)
Background - Commoner (Militia)
Eyes - Blue
Hair - Thick, black, coarse, beard
Height - 6' 2"
Weight - 215lb.
Languages - Common, Dwarven.

Skills - Military Lore, Political Lore.

Feats - Heavy Armour Mastery.

Weapons -    Vorpal Sword: +11, 1d8+7 or 1d10+7.
      Dagger +1: +9, 1d4+5, 30/120.

Class - Action Surge, Courtly Graces, Defy Death, Defender, Impetuous Charger, Knights Demand, Second Wind, Three Attacks.

Equipment: Adventurer's Kit, Bedroll, Blanket (winter), Chalk (100), Clothes (common), Crowbar, Healer's Kit, Tinderbox, Waterskin (full), Wineskin (empty), Whetstone.

Money: 18gp, 7sp.

Surprised nobody has mentioned that marking is back. The only reason I'm interested in Next in the first place is the core design goal of making the game playable RAW without a grid or minis. Anything that makes theatre of the mind combat more difficult pushes me away from Next; marking is a forceful, two-handed shove. Also, it's metagamey as fuck.

I have to say that with each released playtest, D&D next goes further away from what I want in a D&D/rpg.  Not that it matters, I'm not a part of the target market they are aiming at anyways.  I don't know who they are designing this game for, but I hope they have fun playing it.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677104Only a moron would balance a game around random die rolls. The game is balanced around point-buy. The only reason random die rolling is even an option is because of whiny-bitches like you who insist that everything they did forty years ago is better.

Thinking that a RPG can be balanced is moronic. At best it can reflect the reality of a implied or explicit setting. The variety of situations handled by the typical tabletop RPG is effectively infinite even in a narrow genre or a specific setting.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677136The irony here is that it's imbalance that creates the special snowflakes and balance that prevents them. But then, understanding that requires an understanding of system mechanics.

Can you provide one example of a balanced game without special snowflakes?

This concept of a roleplaying game balanced purely on mechanics is an illusion peddled by game companies to try and boost sales.

Any talk about rpg game balance must include people as a large contributor to that balance. You can try till you're blue in the face trying to design a balanced system that is playable by a table full of dicks and one of two things will happen. It will either become a wargame or it will fail completely.

WOTC already proved that trying to write a ruleset based on at least one person at the table being a prick doesn't work.

So no, special snowflakes are created via entitlement.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677136Right, of course, nothing can ever compare to the original. Gygax was God and there can be only one God. Nobody can ever improve on what he did, therefore there is never any progress in system design.

Good to know.

Oh sure, anyone who doesn't let a rulebook run their game is automatically a cleric of Gygax.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677104Your reality and reality are two distinct things. The reality is that the feat and ability rules in the current packet are completely inept. Saying that you think they're OK shows a distinct lack of care and understanding. Therefore, you don't care about game balance. If you did care, you'd make the effort to understand what you're talking about.

this is a horrible red herring.  I accused you of making a strawman when you couldn't refute my point, which you did.  Rather than show me the quote I said saying what you accused me of, now here you are shifting to an unrelated position.

QuoteWhat was that you were saying about statement?

your argument not only ignores the context of actual play, but is dependant on ignoring it as illustrated by your comment about bow range.  That's what arena style combat means.  So no, not a strawman

QuoteOnly a moron would balance a game around random die roll.

this is the money quote right here.  What the fuck do you think combat or any other skill resolution is?  

your problem is that you want D&D to be a literal storygame and are quick to resort fallacies and attacks to anyone who doesn't agree

Quote from: hamstertamer;677144I have to say that with each released playtest, D&D next goes further away from what I want in a D&D/rpg.  Not that it matters, I'm not a part of the target market they are aiming at anyways.  I don't know who they are designing this game for, but I hope they have fun playing it.

it seems clear that this recent packet is to cater to 4e fans, which doesn't make a lot of sense by their own words.  Why make Next more like an edition that you admitted was a commercial failure?

Quote from: The_Rooster;677108Seriously, why are you even posting in a thread about DDN? You obviously don't want to play it unless it's a grognard's wetdream. There's this thing. It's called progress. You are the minority. Go back to your nursing home.

Progress? In an RPG?

RPGs are games, you tool, not computers. They don't evolve like hardware. You choose a game based on whether you think it's fun or not.

I've been a pretty staunch advocate of Next since I first read the playtest packet and started playtesting about six months ago. However, I'm getting the feeling that my original concern about Next when it was first announced - that the D&D player base is so fractured in play preferences that consolidation at this point is impossible - may have been on the mark. Pretty much everything that makes 4E fans like Next more makes me like it less. And vice-versa. I had optimism when it looked like WotC was designing a 2E/3E hybrid with some modern tweaks, and was reversing the 4E path as a mistake. But it looks like they're still trying to cater to a fanbase that wants fundamentally incompatible things from what I want in D&D.

And the fact that after two years of development they're still careening wildly with core system elements like skills, feats, classes, etc. does not inspire confidence. While they may still end up with a playable version of D&D in the end, I have a feeling the published game won't necessarily be better than any of the playtest packets released so far. There's no sense of progress in the playtests, or a firming up of the system. They'll just hit the button at some point and freeze the current iteration of the design in place, add some artwork, and call it a day.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677027Here's a perfect example of not understanding system mechanics or balance. This is an absolutely terrible feat. For one thing, the range on even a shortbow is more than you're likely to need in most of your sessions. And really, if you're an archer then you're going to go longbow which is more range than you'll probably ever use at all. And since most characters who are going to forego a stat bump for a feat in order to focus on archery are going to already be proficient in the longbow, that's void too.

This is just a weird and peculiar thing to say.  Your players never take advantage of range to battle opponents from a distance?  That is bizarre.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677142I can live with it, especially considering it's form-fillable.

Yes, I like that. It's very useful.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677142Fighter and rogue and possibly cleric I think are probably the best designed at the moment.

The Druid looks good as well. I like that you can focus on either shapeshifting or magic. And Druidcraft is a nice little cantrip to have.

I can see myself playing a Druid shapeshifter, looks like fun.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677142One thing I've noted is that making a higher level character gives some perspective on the new system as a whole. Here's an example of two of my favourite PC's, both at 1st-level and at 11th-level (the equipment is a little off 'cause I haven't adjusted for new rules):

Thanks, that was very helpful. I like the fact that even at 11th level, both characters look simple (in contrast to, say, Pathfinder characters).

My grogsense is still working I see.

Good to know.

Quote from: Haffrung;677143Surprised nobody has mentioned that marking is back... Also, it's metagamey as fuck.

In this playtest packet "marked" is only referenced in the feat section and would be ignored by any group not using that option. It's not even mentioned under conditions, which would indicate that marks no longer arbitrarily supersede each-other as they did in 4e. Given those details I'm don't see how in any system that uses opportunity attacks could not also include the concept of using martial  skill to distract and harass opponents that try to ignore, without being meta.

Quote from: TristramEvans;677092I'm sure there's a name for the logical fallacy you're committing there that's got your panties all in a bunch, but I can't be bothered to look it up.

I couldn't be bothered either so no worries...

But it was more like me being eye-rolling sarcastic.

If anything when someone says that they hate random chargen it seems to get the random chargen lovers panties in a bunch.

That if someone doesn't like random chargen the same old lables get trotted out:

They must be a min-maxer.
It must be whiney player entitlement.
They are 'missing' something fundamental to the (true?) D&D expierience.
They're 'weak'
etc. etc...

One doesn't seem to be allowed dislike random chargen as a legitimate play style preference, it is always for this or that negative reason, there seems to be no agreeing to disagree...

Lots of guys on this thread like rolling for ability scores, I don't see the appeal, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Quote from: Old One Eye;677167This is just a weird and peculiar thing to say.  Your players never take advantages of range to battle opponents from a distance?  That is bizarre.

I guess it makes sense if one's gaming only takes place in a succession of  20' rooms.

Anyone else getting a déjà vu feeling about mr. GC? I'm thinking someone got kicked out of the Gaming Den...

Quote from: Jaeger;677186I couldn't be bothered either so no worries...

But it was more like me being eye-rolling sarcastic.

If anything when someone says that they hate random chargen it seems to get the random chargen lovers panties in a bunch.

That if someone doesn't like random chargen the same old lables get trotted out:

They must be a min-maxer.
It must be whiney player entitlement.
They are 'missing' something fundamental to the (true?) D&D expierience.
They're 'weak'
etc. etc...

One doesn't seem to be allowed dislike random chargen as a legitimate play style preference, it is always for this or that negative reason, there seems to be no agreeing to disagree.

Lots of guys on this thread like rolling for ability scores, I don't see the appeal, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Honestly, I don't use random chargen. Character Modelling ala FASERIP is my preferred method. I was in that instance specifically referring to a poster in this thread, not making a universal condemnation.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677108OMG! I've been having badwrongfun for 25 years! FUCK! ME!

Please teach me how to have fun the right way?

I've seen children playing baseball.  Sometimes they throw dirt at each other, sometimes they hit the ball and run to 3rd base instead of first.  Sometimes they make up rules that make no sense at all.  They appear to be having a blast, but yes, they are playing the game the wrong way.

Quote from: Jaeger;677186I couldn't be bothered either so no worries...

But it was more like me being eye-rolling sarcastic.

If anything when someone says that they hate random chargen it seems to get the random chargen lovers panties in a bunch.

That if someone doesn't like random chargen the same old lables get trotted out:

They must be a min-maxer.
It must be whiney player entitlement.
They are 'missing' something fundamental to the (true?) D&D expierience.
They're 'weak'
etc. etc...

One doesn't seem to be allowed dislike random chargen as a legitimate play style preference, it is always for this or that negative reason, there seems to be no agreeing to disagree...

Lots of guys on this thread like rolling for ability scores, I don't see the appeal, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Yeah, one-true-wayism has pretty much taken over this board. It could have been a free-wheeling alternative to RPGnet with a slant towards traditional games. But at this point, the RPGsite is a full-blown old-school D&D forum, not much different from Knights and Knaves Alehouse.

With a light modding policy, there's the potential for this site to foster broad and free-ranging discussion. But in practice, this an extremely conformist site, where 95 per cent of the posters have a very narrow notion of what makes for an acceptable RPG.

I take complaints about 'one-true-wayism' a lot more seriously though when they don't come from a guy spouting nonsense about how anyone who plays differently than him " doesn't know anything about good game design" or is incapable of understanding why sacred cows like "balance" don't really have any value when you're not playing one or two specific games.

Also, quite frankly, there is a reason minmaxing aka char-op is considered antithetical to role-playing, and it's pretty much the same reason as storygaming. There is an activity called role-playing. If someone is playing monopoly it's perfectly fair to say ' no, that's not roleplaying'. Thats not onetruewayism, just stating the obvious. Similarly, there's a number of people, especially it seems when it comes to D&D , may be using the rules for D&D but don't actually Roleplay. And there is also such a thing as BAD role playing. Terms like powerger and minmaxer were coined to describe this.

That doesn't mean 'badwrongfun', meaning I could give a crap how others chose to play make- believe, but it does mean that they are engaging in an activity that has nothing to do with the hobby I participate in.

Plus, quite frankly, I tend to go ahead and express my personal tastes without alluding to them as such or making concessions for other POV when dealing with people doing the same, because 1) they're asking for it and 2) everyone should, if they are a sane adult of even moderate intelligence, know without being told that no matter what anyone posts online, it is ALWAYS subjective, it is ALWAYS their opinion or POV , and someone can ALWAYS disagree and do what they like, and if it affects them that someone doesn't care for their brand of elf games, that's completely their fault and insecurities.

3rd and 4th edition D&D are built around the idea that players will actively engage with the system to try to build a powerful character. Charop/min-maxing is the foundation of play and complaining about it seems silly.  

I would accept that this is nowhere near as true of TSR D&D though.

Quote from: soviet;6772223rd and 4th edition D&D are built around the idea that players will actively engage with the system to try to build a powerful character. Charop/min-maxing is the foundation of play and complaining about it seems silly.  

I would accept that this is nowhere near as true of TSR D&D though.

Yep, which is mainly why I don't consider WOTC D&D to be D& D in anything but name. It's a different game, one designed to sell more and more books rather than provide the best 'role-playing' experience.

5e seems to be promoted as an attempt to correct that, but I'm skeptical so far. But the best sign to me is when the 4evengers start throwing fits about how it's 'badly designed' That at least indicates to me the possibility the game is adopting D&D design paradigms rather than 4e's " superdungeoncrawlers" power gamer orgy game design intentions.

Fair enough.

I don't really get what they are trying to do with Next. It seems to me that there are three basic flavours of D&D being played out in the wild: old school TSR, complex and gamey but broken with a thin veneer of verisimilitude 3e, and complex and gamey but maybe too gamey 4e. These are three different kinds of game. People that want old school D&D already have it. People that want rules for rules sake already have it. People that want to really push the wargaming/challenge aspect already have it. What's Next's niche?

It seems to me they should have published a polished up hybrid of 1st and 2nd edition AD&D with modern art and production values, put it in a box as an evergreen product they could sell at Toys R Us, and called it a fucking day.

Quote from: soviet;677228It seems to me they should have published a polished up hybrid of 1st and 2nd edition AD&D with modern art and production values, put it in a box as an evergreen product they could sell at Toys R Us, and called it a fucking day.

I've long maintained that the best thing that could happen to the hobby would be for WOTC to stop "developing" D&D. Just make a game, put it in stores and print it forever.

No more splats. No more supplaments. No more accessories. No add-ons, expansions, enhancements, etc...

Just you, a basic framework and your imagination.

Maybe slap a new coat of paint on it every now and again (tie-ins with popular media?) but otherwise leave it the fuck alone.

Quote from: soviet;677228Fair enough.

I don't really get what they are trying to do with Next. It seems to me that there are three basic flavours of D&D being played out in the wild: old school TSR, complex and gamey but broken with a thin veneer of verisimilitude 3e, and complex and gamey but maybe too gamey 4e. These are three different kinds of game. People that want old school D&D already have it. People that want rules for rules sake already have it. People that want to really push the wargaming/challenge aspect already have it. What's Next's niche?

It seems to me they should have published a polished up hybrid of 1st and 2nd edition AD&D with modern art and production values, put it in a box as an evergreen product they could sell at Toys R Us, and called it a fucking day.

I agree, and yes it confuses me as well. I've stopped reading the play test packets am I'm just sort of waiting it out for now. I've got lots of other games to play, and these days I prefer to design my own anyways. My interest is more in regards to how this will affect the next generation of gamers introduced to the hobby.

Quote from: Brad;677133Miguel Cabrera gets three strikes, not four, no matter how much he believes it'd make hitting more enjoyable.

Miguel Cabrera rarely needs three strikes, let alone four.

Quote from: TristramEvans;677233I agree, and yes it confuses me as well. I've stopped reading the play test packets am I'm just sort of waiting it out for now.

You do realise that the entire point of playtest packets is to... play... test... the packets... right? They're experiments, not a game system. That's why it's healthy to discuss the advantages and disadvantages and, yes, system mechanics and balance (which seem to be two very bad words here).

Quote from: TristramEvans;677215I take complaints about 'one-true-wayism' a lot more seriously though when they don't come from a guy spouting nonsense about how anyone who plays differently than him " doesn't know anything about good game design" or is incapable of understanding why sacred cows like "balance" don't really have any value when you're not playing one or two specific games.

I don't give a flying rat fuck how you play the game. My criticism is in being told that the system is just fine as it is when it's clearly broken and needs significant work to balance it.

The fact that you can't get that ANY system can be played with or without roleplaying and that roleplaying is entirely independent of system (here's a clue, roleplaying doesn't require a system at all!), is the disturbing thing. You purists are all so damned blind that you don't even see what you're saying. That a system dictates roleplaying. Umm... yeah... no.

Quote from: TristramEvans;677215Also, quite frankly, there is a reason minmaxing aka char-op is considered antithetical to role-playing, and it's pretty much the same reason as storygaming. There is an activity called role-playing. If someone is playing monopoly it's perfectly fair to say ' no, that's not roleplaying'. Thats not onetruewayism, just stating the obvious. Similarly, there's a number of people, especially it seems when it comes to D&D , may be using the rules for D&D but don't actually Roleplay. And there is also such a thing as BAD role playing. Terms like powerger and minmaxer were coined to describe this.

There's this thing called roleplaying. And it can be done in Monopoly just as easily as it can be done in any other game, or even without a game. I know this is a revolutionary concept to people like you, but it's true. You don't have to be playing D&D (the true D&D of course, you know, whatever version you think that is) to do it.

The fact that you can't see how someone could both be a powergamer or min-maxer and still roleplay is just... sad. Your extremely narrow view of what is acceptable roleplaying is most definitely onetruewayism. The fact that it limits you and not me is... well... your problem, not mine.

Also, powergaming and min/maxing have never, ever, been born of the need to call someone a bad roleplayer. That's just the connotation that people like you have attached to it. Incorrectly.

Quote from: TristramEvans;677215That doesn't mean 'badwrongfun', meaning I could give a crap how others chose to play make- believe, but it does mean that they are engaging in an activity that has nothing to do with the hobby I participate in.

Gods. Do you even realise what you're saying? I swear that you're like a Westboro Baptist. "It's not the wrong way as long as it's the right way!"

Come on man, even you must see the hypocrisy in your own statement now that it's pointed out to you? If you can't then... wow.... just... wow.

Quote from: JRR;677204I've seen children playing baseball.  Sometimes they throw dirt at each other, sometimes they hit the ball and run to 3rd base instead of first.  Sometimes they make up rules that make no sense at all.  They appear to be having a blast, but yes, they are playing the game the wrong way.

This is pretty much the badwrongfun manifesto. "That's not my game 'cause you're doing it wrong and my game is the right way to play!"

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677158your problem is that you want D&D to be a literal storygame and are quick to resort fallacies and attacks to anyone who doesn't agree

This is all you've done since coming into this thread. It's almost as if you had no interest in a conversation and only wanted to start an argument.

I just picked several nostril hairs and it made my eye water.

Quote from: soviet;6772223rd and 4th edition D&D are built around the idea that players will actively engage with the system to try to build a powerful character. Charop/min-maxing is the foundation of play and complaining about it seems silly.  

I would accept that this is nowhere near as true of TSR D&D though.

Anyone who thinks WotC are going to try to make a popular, modern, mainstream iteration of D&D that will sell in the 10s of thousands and ignore char op is either hopelessly obtuse or just trolling. If WotC really wanted to publish a version of D&D that would turn its back on the entire 3E, Pathfinder, and 4E players bases, then they would have just kickstarted their own OSR project.

Quote from: Piestrio;677230I've long maintained that the best thing that could happen to the hobby would be for WOTC to stop "developing" D&D. Just make a game, put it in stores and print it forever.

No more splats. No more supplaments. No more accessories. No add-ons, expansions, enhancements, etc...

Just you, a basic framework and your imagination.

Maybe slap a new coat of paint on it every now and again (tie-ins with popular media?) but otherwise leave it the fuck alone.

Would you invest in a company that adopted that business model?

Quote from: The_Rooster;677255You do realise that the entire point of playtest packets is to... play... test... the packets... right? They're experiments, not a game system. That's why it's healthy to discuss the advantages and disadvantages and, yes, system mechanics and balance (which seem to be two very bad words here).

I'm not participating in the play test. I frankly don't care enough. I'll judge the game when it's finished. Honestly, if WoTc gave up on D&D and stopped publishing RPGs altogether I wouldn't necessarily consider that a bad thing. The role playing industry has always been the worste part of the role playing hobby.

QuoteI don't give a flying rat fuck how you play the game. My criticism is in being told that the system is just fine as it is when it's clearly broken and needs significant work to balance it.

What you give a flying frell about is nothing to do with what you don't comprehend. Try looking at it this way: take the population of a small North American city. Now ask yourself how 'balanced' it is.

QuoteThe fact that you can't get that ANY system can be played with or without roleplaying and that roleplaying is entirely independent of system (here's a clue, roleplaying doesn't require a system at all!), is the disturbing thing. You purists are all so damned blind that you don't even see what you're saying. That a system dictates roleplaying. Umm... yeah... no.

Nothing to do with anything I've said, so I'm just going to ignore all that.

QuoteThere's this thing called roleplaying. And it can be done in Monopoly just as easily as it can be done in any other game, or even without a game.

There's this thing called 'roleplaying games' and their purpose is to facilitate and encourage role playing so it's not only easier, but in fact the point of the game. But since you have a game with perfect balance like Monopoly, why bother worrying about D&D? You can Roleplay to your hearts content during a game of checkers. Concepts like 'reality clash', 'versimilitude', 'disassociation' and 'emulation' obviously don't enter into it for you. Hence my increasingly accurate observation that whatever you're doing has nothing to do with the hobby I participate in.

Quoteknow this is a revolutionary concept to people like you, but it's true. You don't have to be playing D&D (the true D&D of course, you know, whatever version you think that is) to do it.

Considering that I don't play D&D, perhaps you may want to check out the dictionary definition of the word 'know'...

QuoteThe fact that you can't see how someone could both be a powergamer or min-maxer and still roleplay is just... sad. Your extremely narrow view of what is acceptable roleplaying is most definitely onetruewayism. The fact that it limits you and not me is... well... your problem, not mine.

...and "fact". Notice I didn't say power gaming and minmaxing wasn't roleplaying (except in the literal sense that it's not actually 'playing a role'). You'll excuse me if I don't feel sad over your lack of reading comprehension skills.

Don't worry it's probably not your fault. You were probably subjected to the American education system.

QuoteAlso, powergaming and min/maxing have never, ever, been born of the need to call someone a bad roleplayer. That's just the connotation that people like you have attached to it. Incorrectly.

Lol. Okay, you're ignorant. Big surprise.

QuoteGods. Do you even realise what you're saying? I swear that you're like a Westboro Baptist. "It's not the wrong way as long as it's the right way!"

It's not hockey if you're dribbling a bouncy ball and throwing it into net. Cute Godwin there, though. But false equivilance in every sense of phrase.

Quote from: Haffrung;677268Would you invest in a company that adopted that business model?

It wouldn't be impossible as one element of a larger protfolio of products.

An evergreen product with periodic market extensions isn't an outlandish idea.

[Quote-Originally Posted by TristramEvans]
That doesn't mean 'badwrongfun', meaning I could give a crap how others chose to play make- believe, but it does mean that they are engaging in an activity that has nothing to do with the hobby I participate in.[/quote]

QuoteGods. Do you even realise what you're saying? I swear that you're like a Westboro Baptist. "It's not the wrong way as long as it's the right way!"

Come on man, even you must see the hypocrisy in your own statement now that it's pointed out to you? If you can't then... wow.... just... wow.

I don't care of people choose to hang around in a group spreading peanut butter on themselves while shoving celery stalks up their butts. But that doesn't mean that because those people call themselves artists that what they're doing is the same as what I do when I paint. The term hypocrisy doesn't enter into it.

They could make the core game an evergreen product and follow it up with a different model of supplement. Instead of a thin new book every month, do a boxed supplement every few months. Forgotten Realms grey box type stuff rather than Martial Power 7 type stuff.  

Each box could have its own theme such as a particular world, region, monster type, or campaign type. Or just theme the region boxes around particular monster or campaign types, like 'Castles of Mystara' for the siege and state diplomacy rules, or 'Tombs of Ravenloft' for the undead stuff.

Quote from: soviet;677275They could make the core game an evergreen product and follow it up with a different model of supplement. Instead of a thin new book every month, do a boxed supplement every few months. Forgotten Realms grey box type stuff rather than Martial Power 7 type stuff.

I actually decided to start a new thread because this was beginning to get into new territory.

Quote from: Piestrio;677271It wouldn't be impossible as one element of a larger protfolio of products.

An evergreen product with periodic market extensions isn't an outlandish idea.

Indeed. Consider that Parker Brothers/Hasbro sold things like Clue, Scrabble, and Monopoly in essentially their modern forms for decades and did just fine. D&D really, really, is not different from them, despite the pretensions of some of its players.

Quote from: Haffrung;677268Would you invest in a company that adopted that business model?

People obviously do since many company put out chess, checkers as well game with active IP like Monopoly, Risk, Clue, etc.

In short keeping the standards in print while doing different things with them is not rocket science (Lord of the Rings Risk for example, Star Wars Monopoly, etc)

The difference being that everyone starts asking if an RPG is "dead" if more than six months go without a new release. Folks don't do that as much with a board game (and they are actually leaning that route now with newer "speciality" board and card games).

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;677306The difference being that everyone starts asking if an RPG is "dead" if more than six months go without a new release. Folks don't do that as much with a board game (and they are actually leaning that route now with newer "speciality" board and card games).

No, "gamers" start asking those things.

Maybe gamers need to jump in a lake.

Quote from: Piestrio;677310No, "gamers" start asking those things.

Maybe gamers need to jump in a lake.

I...assume you mean this in a context other than the people that actually buy and play games, right? Because, well...just seems like they would be the demographic.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;677311I...assume you mean this in a context other than the people that actually buy and play games, right? Because, well...just seems like they would be the demographic.

Yes. I put "gamers" in quotes as the sort of people who obsess over support and 'balance' and on and on.

Hardcore vs. casual if you will.

I think D&D would be better off as a game aimed strictly at the casual end of that spectrum.

Quote from: Piestrio;677312Yes. I put "gamers" in quotes as the sort of people who obsess over support and 'balance' and on and on.

Hardcore vs. casual if you will.

I think D&D would be better off as a game aimed strictly at the casual end of that spectrum.

Eh, there may BE something to that.

Savage Worlds has a lot of material, but none of the "editions" have required anything more than minor conversion...all of which has been posted as free downloads on Pinnacle's site. In essence, they have successfully operated off of the same core rules for ten years now. So, while I don't see a D&D edition being released that never has anything else added to it (I don't think there would be enough "casual gamers" enter the roleplaying hobby to keep them afloat), I think one could develop a viable model for D&D that isn't predicated on a five year changeover in rulebooks.

Quote from: Piestrio;677310No, "gamers" start asking those things.

Maybe gamers need to jump in a lake.

No. Not "gamers". BNGs with nothing else to talk about do.

Quote from: Piestrio;677312I think D&D would be better off as a game aimed strictly at the casual end of that spectrum.

That's what they did with 4e. I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that you criticised that as well.

Quote from: LibraryLass;677294Indeed. Consider that Parker Brothers/Hasbro sold things like Clue, Scrabble, and Monopoly in essentially their modern forms for decades and did just fine. D&D really, really, is not different from them, despite the pretensions of some of its players.

Quote from: estar;677300People obviously do since many company put out chess, checkers as well game with active IP like Monopoly, Risk, Clue, etc.

In short keeping the standards in print while doing different things with them is not rocket science (Lord of the Rings Risk for example, Star Wars Monopoly, etc)

Quote from: Piestrio;677312Yes. I put "gamers" in quotes as the sort of people who obsess over support and 'balance' and on and on.

Hardcore vs. casual if you will.

I think D&D would be better off as a game aimed strictly at the casual end of that spectrum.

I'm gonna assume you guys are taking the piss. Not even the most delusional back-in-the-day grognard really believes D&D, or any other RPG, could sell like Risk, Clue, etc. today.

Fuck, even the biggest boardgaming sensation of the last 20 years, Settlers of Catan, doesn't move 1/10th the number of units annually as those hoary old Parker Brothers games.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677324That's what they did with 4e. I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that you criticised that as well.

By accessible game, I think they mean one accessible to 13 year olds in 1983. Because, you know, nothing has really changed since then.

And while we're on the subject, why the fuck don't young people today listen to heavy rock anymore? And not bullshit like Nickleback or the Black Keys, but REAL music like Rush? Fuck, man, if only they'd open their ears.

In a general sense, with this new packet and tonight's L&L(http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130805), it seems like they are now throwing both 3E and 4E under the bus.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677324That's what they did with 4e. I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that you criticised that as well.

4e is not aimed at casual players.  4e is a catastrofuck of numbers wank, intra-round minutiae, and miniatures combat.  It's developed for the assholes who spent all their time on the Character Optimization forums complaining that the fighter was boring.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;6773354e is not aimed at casual players.  4e is a catastrofuck of numbers wank, intra-round minutiae, and miniatures combat.  It's developed for the assholes who spent all their time on the Character Optimization forums complaining that the fighter was boring.

Yup.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;6773354e is not aimed at casual players.  4e is a catastrofuck of numbers wank, intra-round minutiae, and miniatures combat.  It's developed for the assholes who spent all their time on the Character Optimization forums complaining that the fighter was boring.

Lol.

WotC just can't win. 4e was criticised for being too childish, simple, mechanical, boring and videogamey. And now it's criticised as being too complex.

I honestly don't think it matters what WotC puts out, you guys will criticise it, hate it, hate anyone who plays it, and then advocate your own preferred systems as being superior.

You guys are funny.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;6773354e is not aimed at casual players.  4e is a catastrofuck of numbers wank, intra-round minutiae, and miniatures combat.  It's developed for the assholes who spent all their time on the Character Optimization forums complaining that the fighter was boring.

This.

Fun, if you know what you're getting into and want it. But absolutely not beginner friendly. Tried it with beginners in Encounters repeatedly; the sheer level of confusion was legendary. And I've been teaching various RPGs to completely green players for years. I had an easier time teaching CCGs, and that says a whole hell of a lot.

(edit: and mechanical, boring, and video gamey has no direct correlation with childish and simple. You obviously heard that criticism somewhere else than here.)

So, setting aside the fine details of this particular playtest packet, I'd like to ask a more basic question: do we have a goddamn release date for this thing yet, or at least an indication of how many more rounds of playtesting they intend to do? I swear that if there's many more iterations of this we'll go beyond beta testing and well into gamma testing and beyond, and probably hit omega testing before long.

Seriously, Wizards, shit or get off the pot, because at this point I'm already feeling D&D Next overexposure and the damn thing isn't even published properly yet.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677346WotC just can't win. 4e was criticised for being too childish, simple, mechanical, boring and videogamey. And now it's criticised as being too complex.

To be fair, there's no reason a game can't be both too fiddly and complex in areas where it could stand to be more streamlined and agile, and at the same time dumbed down in areas where you really want to have a little depth.

Quote from: Benoist;677318No. Not "gamers". BNGs with nothing else to talk about do.

Nah, "gamers" too. Anyone who defines their identity by their hobbies usually becomes an embarrassment to those hobbies.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677346WotC just can't win. 4e was criticised for being too childish, simple, mechanical, boring and videogamey. And now it's criticised as being too complex.

To be fair, there's no reason a game can't be both too fiddly and complex in areas where it could stand to be more streamlined and agile, and at the same time dumbed down in areas where you really want to have a little depth.

Quote from: Benoist;677318No. Not "gamers". BNGs with nothing else to talk about do.

Nah, "gamers" too. Anyone who defines their identity by their hobbies usually becomes an embarrassment to those hobbies.

Quote from: Warthur;677360So, setting aside the fine details of this particular playtest packet, I'd like to ask a more basic question: do we have a goddamn release date for this thing yet, or at least an indication of how many more rounds of playtesting they intend to do? I swear that if there's many more iterations of this we'll go beyond beta testing and well into gamma testing and beyond, and probably hit omega testing before long.

Erm... that's been pretty well established from the get-go. The intention is sometime next year. Two years of playtesting.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677373Erm... that's been pretty well established from the get-go. The intention is sometime next year. Two years of playtesting.

"Sometime next year" as a vague intention isn't the same thing as "this is the release date".

Also, holy, two years of playtesting? They must be getting deep into diminishing returns at this point.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;677335catastrofuck

This is pure awesome.  You win today's round of internets.

Quote from: Haffrung;677327I'm gonna assume you guys are taking the piss. Not even the most delusional back-in-the-day grognard really believes D&D, or any other RPG, could sell like Risk, Clue, etc. today.

Fuck, even the biggest boardgaming sensation of the last 20 years, Settlers of Catan, doesn't move 1/10th the number of units annually as those hoary old Parker Brothers games.

Who says it needs to move more units than Civ or Catan? Sure as hell not me. And yet those games, too, have stayed afloat for many years, with the odd expansion, but no all-consuming changes like D&D has seen. It can sell to the casual and the hobbyist, as those do whether or not it becomes a juggernaut. And unlike Catan or Civilization, it's a well-known name that could be marketed if they put some actual effort into it.

Hell, for that matter, Hasbro owns a children's TV network, and one that's produced some damned fine original material. They're damn fools for not putting out a D&D cartoon, which, combined with a fully-usable boxset that you can get at Wal-mart and Target, certainly couldn't do worse than they're doing now.

To be fair, the vision for the (remarkably complete-sounding) basic boxed set for D&D Next sounds like exactly the sort of thing which you could convince Wal-Mart or Target to stock with the rest of the boardgames.

Quote from: Warthur;677391To be fair, the vision for the (remarkably complete-sounding) basic boxed set for D&D Next sounds like exactly the sort of thing which you could convince Wal-Mart or Target to stock with the rest of the boardgames.

Yeah. I mean if they actually pull it off and have a decently put-together product (which at this point I'd almost call the remoter prospect) I would be highly enthusiastic.

The IP of D&D is pretty rich for various Pokémon-esque marketing. Hell, in a way the monster manual was the original pop culture "gotta catch 'em all."

Trouble is the age range of the material. Could swing from Care Bear style love-ins with kender and tinker gnomes, to surprisingly mature fare like Gargoyles and Pirates of Dark Water with lich and drow archvillains.

I don't particularly care if there's D&D lunchboxes again, but ideas that the IP is too hard to leverage back into the pop psyche falls flat with me. It's like they are not really trying. However, that could be more Hasbro not caring and shelving things than anything WotC.

Quote from: LibraryLass;677393Yeah. I mean if they actually pull it off and have a decently put-together product (which at this point I'd almost call the remoter prospect) I would be highly enthusiastic.

Looking at the design by committee thing going on and the fact they are still fucking around with the game system's basics that late in the playtest, I am doubtful they have any idea where it is they are going at this point. EVERYTHING that's been said so far amounts to peace offerings, wishful thinking, theories, "let's try this," "no, that" and maybes. It's all hypotheticals, even the big tent and blah blah blah. There doesn't seem to be a vision or an understanding of what they want to do with the game beyond "please, like us again!" I find that deeply troubling.

So IF such a thing happens as a real basic game that isn't crippleware and represents an evergreen value for its players' tables, I suspect it'll occur by pure coincidence, rather than design.

Quote from: Benoist;677461Looking at (...) the fact they are still fucking around with the game system's basics that late in the playtest, I am doubtful they have any idea where it is they are going at this point. (...) There doesn't seem to be a vision or an understanding of what they want to do with the game beyond "please, like us again!"

I gave up following the 5e playtest because I feel that with every new round of playtest the game changes fundamentally.
Why bother testing rules of five slightly different games? If I like something in iteration #3 it will be missing from the final product anyway.

Quote from: Haffrung;677327I'm gonna assume you guys are taking the piss. Not even the most delusional back-in-the-day grognard really believes D&D, or any other RPG, could sell like Risk, Clue, etc. today.

Fuck, even the biggest boardgaming sensation of the last 20 years, Settlers of Catan, doesn't move 1/10th the number of units annually as those hoary old Parker Brothers games.

So your contention is that low volume games have to reinvent themselves every few years in order to generate sales for their publishers?

Quote from: Benoist;677461So IF such a thing happens as a real basic game that isn't crippleware and represents an evergreen value for its players' tables, I suspect it'll occur by pure coincidence, rather than design.

Or they could be doing what Mongoose did with their playtest. Which turned out to have little to do with the actual system they released.

Quote from: estar;677488Or they could be doing what Mongoose did with their playtest. Which turned out to have little to do with the actual system they released.

I highly doubt that the finished product will be the same as current or future playtests, because why would people buy the thing if it were the same as what they have for free? I also suspect that at some point lock down will occur. I also suspect that the playtests are more of a way to keep up people's interest rather than being meaningful. I mean why would Mearls et al. value the opinions of some basement living, overweight, spotty, non-tabletop RPG gamer, MMORPG enthusiast over people who actually play D&D and other RPGs*?

*stereotyping for effect, but no doubt pretty close.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;677334In a general sense, with this new packet and tonight's L&L(http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130805), it seems like they are now throwing both 3E and 4E under the bus.

How do you figure.  This last packet is clearly catering to the 4e crowd.  That's like...the opposite of "throwing under the bus".

Quote from: Opaopajr;677347This.

Fun, if you know what you're getting into and want it. But absolutely not beginner friendly. Tried it with beginners in Encounters repeatedly; the sheer level of confusion was legendary. And I've been teaching various RPGs to completely green players for years. I had an easier time teaching CCGs, and that says a whole hell of a lot.

(edit: and mechanical, boring, and video gamey has no direct correlation with childish and simple. You obviously heard that criticism somewhere else than here.)

Yeah, I can't see how anyone in their right mind can say 4e catered to the casual player.  It was all about tactical play and power chains.  That's not casual at all.  Casual is more like B/X, where you don't have hardly any fiddly bits to keep track of, a character can be made in 5 minutes and fit on a post card.

Quote from: elfandghost;677512I highly doubt that the finished product will be the same as current or future playtests, because why would people buy the thing if it were the same as what they have for free? I also suspect that at some point lock down will occur. I also suspect that the playtests are more of a way to keep up people's interest rather than being meaningful. I mean why would Mearls et al. value the opinions of some basement living, overweight, spotty, non-tabletop RPG gamer, MMORPG enthusiast over people who actually play D&D and other RPGs*?

*stereotyping for effect, but no doubt pretty close.

Because the published rulebook will have races like Dragonborn, Tieflings, and classes like Warlock, Blackguard, etc.

Interesting that they only released a small vanilla list of options to playtest.  It just means that all those other classes, subclasses, and specialties (like a cleric of disease) aren't getting tested nearly as much as those included in the packet.


************

As an aside, I am more than a bit worried about having major changes to the core game this late in the game.  I do software testing for a living, and changing the requirements after this long is one of the worst things you can do.  On a personal level, it seems to me that they decided to go to RPG.net and read the forums there, and say, "Well, if RPG.net hates it, then clearly we need to make it more like 4e, and make sure that it's less important on how the mechanics actually work in actual game play, and most important on how they work in arena combat."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677522Because the published rulebook will have races like Dragonborn, Tieflings...

More's the pity...

Quote from: elfandghost;677531More's the pity...

haha, I was thinking that too, but I didn't say it ;)


Actually, I don't care if they do have them.  Easy enough for my group to ignore and not allow it.  And if including a few pages so someone can play a Dragonborn if they want results in increased sales, I don't have issue with it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677534haha, I was thinking that too, but I didn't say it ;)


Actually, I don't care if they do have them.  Easy enough for my group to ignore and not allow it.  And if including a few pages so someone can play a Dragonborn if they want results in increased sales, I don't have issue with it.

They can put whatever crazy races they feel like in it. I only ask one favor: don't include stupid shit like " Play a dragonborn if you want to.....look like a dragon." :rolleyes:

Just include the races and try not to aim the text at a 1st grade reading level.

QuoteLooking at the design by committee thing going on and the fact they are still fucking around with the game system's basics that late in the playtest, I am doubtful they have any idea where it is they are going at this point. EVERYTHING that's been said so far amounts to peace offerings, wishful thinking, theories, "let's try this," "no, that" and maybes. It's all hypotheticals, even the big tent and blah blah blah. There doesn't seem to be a vision or an understanding of what they want to do with the game beyond "please, like us again!" I find that deeply troubling.

This.  They can't even get the damn math pinned down.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;677536They can put whatever crazy races they feel like in it. I only ask one favor: don't include stupid shit like " Play a dragonborn if you want to.....look like a dragon." :rolleyes:

Just include the races and try not to aim the text at a 1st grade reading level.

In 4e's defense that line was probably the funniest joke I've ever read in a D&D product, certainly funnier than Dragon Mirth ever was.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677522How do you figure.  This last packet is clearly catering to the 4e crowd.  That's like...the opposite of "throwing under the bus".

I love how everything you say is the polar opposite of what everyone else says. The nerd-rage over on the WotC forums for this packet being simplified and classes being significantly reduced in power is strong.

Hating something so hard that you see whatever you want to see must be lots of work. How do you ever find time to actually game?

I like 4e and it does seem to me that the new packet shows a bit more of a 4e influence. Certainly compared to some of the other packets.

"Just ignore the dice roll and decide whether players succeed or not based on how you feel' is terrible GM advice though, especially for any game trying to replicate 4e style play. You can't have a real challenge to overcome through tactics and luck when GM fudging is the basic unit of play.

For those of you who are playtesting 5e- when a new packet comes out, do you start your game from scratch or just make the necessary changes and move on?

Quote from: soviet;677557"Just ignore the dice roll and decide whether players succeed or not based on how you feel' is terrible GM advice though, especially for any game trying to replicate 4e style play. You can't have a real challenge to overcome through tactics and luck when GM fudging is the basic unit of play.

Heh, I abandoned the screen years ago. Open rolls. I don't even hide monster math.

Quote from: RunningLaser;677560For those of you who are playtesting 5e- when a new packet comes out, do you start your game from scratch or just make the necessary changes and move on?

I'm making the necessary changes and moving on. It's possibly not the best idea I've ever had since this packet has changed things in a way that can pretty much nuke a character concept. Oh well, they all agreed to it.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677550I love how everything you say is the polar opposite of what everyone else says. The nerd-rage over on the WotC forums for this packet being simplified and classes being significantly reduced in power is strong.

Hating something so hard that you see whatever you want to see must be lots of work. How do you ever find time to actually game?

Congrats.  You are so fucking stupid you're going to the top.  Why you insist on making things up that don't exist and honestly think people believe it are beyond me.

Quote from: RunningLaser;677560For those of you who are playtesting 5e- when a new packet comes out, do you start your game from scratch or just make the necessary changes and move on?

I make the changes and move forward.  It hasn't been that difficult up until now.  Now it's a bit harder since blackguards are gone, as well as feats in the context of how they were used.  Now they are less "feats" and more "specializations", as they are more packaged instead of individual benefits.  So gone is my dwarven protector cleric with interposing shield feat.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677588Congrats.  You are so fucking stupid you're going to the top.  Why you insist on making things up that don't exist and honestly think people believe it are beyond me.

Congratulations on creating situations in which you can justify to yourself an addition to your ignore list. Yo momma would be so proud.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677550I love how everything you say is the polar opposite of what everyone else says. The nerd-rage over on the WotC forums for this packet being simplified and classes being significantly reduced in power is strong.

Hating something so hard that you see whatever you want to see must be lots of work. How do you ever find time to actually game?

Dude that's what G+ is for.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677595Congratulations on creating situations in which you can justify to yourself an addition to your ignore list. Yo momma would be so proud.

When you poke enough holes into his thinking he gets all prune-faced and stops responding to you.  No biggie really.

This forum doesn't have that many posters, so I find the ignore list pointless.

Quote from: soviet;677557"Just ignore the dice roll and decide whether players succeed or not based on how you feel'

Wait what?

I haven't looked at the packet yet. Oh man.

Quote from: Benoist;677461Looking at the design by committee thing going on and the fact they are still fucking around with the game system's basics that late in the playtest, I am doubtful they have any idea where it is they are going at this point. EVERYTHING that's been said so far amounts to peace offerings, wishful thinking, theories, "let's try this," "no, that" and maybes. It's all hypotheticals, even the big tent and blah blah blah. There doesn't seem to be a vision or an understanding of what they want to do with the game beyond "please, like us again!" I find that deeply troubling.

So IF such a thing happens as a real basic game that isn't crippleware and represents an evergreen value for its players' tables, I suspect it'll occur by pure coincidence, rather than design.

Design by committee, that is.

JG

Quote from: Exploderwizard;677615Wait what?

I haven't looked at the packet yet. Oh man.

Sorry, but according to Pundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;675319Yes, that's absolutely right. There are no rules for the GM in the RPG. The GM is god. That's part of how RPGs work.  ALL rules for him are just suggestions.

That's true in any RPG that is a real RPG and its stupid to think otherwise.

RPGPundit

All part of that Rulings not Rules mantra.

Quote from: Sommerjon;677763Sorry, but according to Pundit

All part of that Rulings not Rules mantra.

I looked through the GM guidelines document and didn't find that quote that Soviet posted. Without a page reference I will have to attribute it to creative interpretation.

Quote from: soviet;677557"Just ignore the dice roll and decide whether players succeed or not based on how you feel' is terrible GM advice though, especially for any game trying to replicate 4e style play. You can't have a real challenge to overcome through tactics and luck when GM fudging is the basic unit of play.

Oh you mean this piece of advice

QuoteIgnoring the Dice
If you're an experienced gamer, you have seen the following situation happen before. Rachel, playing her halfling cleric, delivers a perfect speech rallying the barbarian tribes to aid a besieged city. When she's
done, everyone erupts in spontaneous applause. When she rolls her Charisma check, though, the die comes up a natural 1 and points to failure.

As a DM, remember that the dice are like the rules. They're a tool to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide  that a player's action is automatically successful, even if the Difficulty Class, or DC, would normally be somewhere above 20. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform even the  easiest task into an impossibility.

The dice are neutral arbiters. They come into play when success and failure are far from clear. Think of them as impartial judges, ready to dispense a yes or no  answer based on a character's bonus and the DC you have selected. The dice don't run the game. You do.

As a DM, you should think about the role the dice play in your game. Do you prefer the vagaries of fate, or do you prefer to reward a good effort with success and a poor one with failure? Use your style to help guide when you call for rolls and when you simply declare success or failure.

I write software for the HVAC industry and a major features is to duct layout. Where they use geometry to take a 3D sheet metal fitting and figure how to cut and fold it from a flat sheet of metal. My software does in 3 second what took a person 3 hours to do manual.

A good deal many times I find people treating the software like it always right. I caution them that for all the nifty things I wrote it still just a tool. That it important to check what it produces and see if it what you really need.

The same way with referee and using the dice. The use of dice is just a tool. The rule governing the use of dice are by necessity general guideline written by an author far remove from the circumstances of your table. In the end it is the referee that knows best on what is happening at that moment.

That one of the key elements of tabletop roleplaying compared to their wargame/boardgame counterparts. That the human referee gives the tabletop RPGs a flexibility that it would not otherwise have. The capability to allow the players to attempt anything their characters can do.

In that light I think the advice is spot on.

I haven't looked at a playtest packet in nearly a year; did they reintroduce that thing from 4e where they go "Aww here's your special cookie anyway" where even if you roll a miss you still hit anyway?

Quote from: estar;677843The same way with referee and using the dice. The use of dice is just a tool. The rule governing the use of dice are by necessity general guideline written by an author far remove from the circumstances of your table. In the end it is the referee that knows best on what is happening at that moment.

That one of the key elements of tabletop roleplaying compared to their wargame/boardgame counterparts. That the human referee gives the tabletop RPGs a flexibility that it would not otherwise have. The capability to allow the players to attempt anything their characters can do.

In that light I think the advice is spot on.

Exactly.

Deciding when to use the dice is the referee's job. It is not the same thing as "ignoring the dice and deciding success or failure depending on how you feel."

The software analogy is a good one. The main thing a tabletop rpg offers above a crpg is the ability to go beyond the programming. This accomplished via player imagination and GM judgement. Without that, a tabletop rpg is just a crpg without graphics.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;677853I haven't looked at a playtest packet in nearly a year; did they reintroduce that thing from 4e where they go "Aww here's your special cookie anyway" where even if you roll a miss you still hit anyway?

I think you're referring to a fighter maneuver that was part of the expertise dice.  Glancing blow or something like that.  With this new packet, they got rid of expertise dice for fighters for the most part.  The Gladiator still does, but nothing to where you do damage if you miss an attack.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677856I think you're referring to a fighter maneuver that was part of the expertise dice.  Glancing blow or something like that.  With this new packet, they got rid of expertise dice for fighters for the most part.  The Gladiator still does, but nothing to where you do damage if you miss an attack.

Ah, well, that's good.

FWIW I find the whole notion of expertise dice and rolling multiple dice every time you attack etc. to be incredibly clunky, you're basically doubling the work of every round, but that's just me.

Not that I've got room to complain; I'm a fan of Hero System where if you're playing right you can roll up to 20 dice :D

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677522How do you figure.  This last packet is clearly catering to the 4e crowd.  That's like...the opposite of "throwing under the bus".

...and failing miserably at it. 5E has never done less than a terrible job of delivering what people who like 4E care about.

I don't know how they plan on appealing to the 3E and 4E crowds with how much this packet has gutted character creation, customization, and advancement.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;677871...and failing miserably at it. 5E has never done less than a terrible job of delivering what people who like 4E care about.

I don't know how they plan on appealing to the 3E and 4E crowds with how much this packet has gutted character creation, customization, and advancement.

They are also failing to offer a basic core that fills my B/X needs.  It is of no great concern. I still have B/X, you still have 3E and 4E and whomever prefers the mishmash that WOTC is developing will have that.

WOOT! for variety.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;677873They are also failing to offer a basic core that fills my B/X needs.  It is of no great concern. I still have B/X, you still have 3E and 4E and whomever prefers the mishmash that WOTC is developing will have that.

WOOT! for variety.

Early on in 5E's development I came to the conclusion that they were designing the game for people who wanted a game similar to AD&D, but not AD&D itself. A modernized AD&D. Nothing 5E has done has changed that conclusion.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677522As an aside, I am more than a bit worried about having major changes to the core game this late in the game.  I do software testing for a living, and changing the requirements after this long is one of the worst things you can do.  On a personal level, it seems to me that they decided to go to RPG.net and read the forums there, and say, "Well, if RPG.net hates it, then clearly we need to make it more like 4e, and make sure that it's less important on how the mechanics actually work in actual game play, and most important on how they work in arena combat."

That's pretty much where I'm at. If the designers don't have the courage to ignore the RPGNet BNG system-wank crowd, then Next will be 4E all over again.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;677818I looked through the GM guidelines document and didn't find that quote that Soviet posted. Without a page reference I will have to attribute it to creative interpretation.

Page 3:

Here's another secret: You don't actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the ability check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result. You'll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player's) squares pretty well with the set DCs presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it unless the task is trivially simple. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the high teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls a 20 or better, there's usually little question that the character succeeds.
Your players will never know.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;677864FWIW I find the whole notion of expertise dice and rolling multiple dice every time you attack etc. to be incredibly clunky, you're basically doubling the work of every round, but that's just me.

My group has been playing D&D since 1979 and we love the advantage/disadvantage mechanic in Next. You realize you can roll two dice at the same time, right? And that rolling two dice requires no more effort or time than one? We find it faster to roll two dice and take the highest roll than to roll one dice and add 4 to value. There's also important probability difference between the two approaches: with the traditional +4 method, you increase the maximum number you can achieve; with the two-dice method, you have a fixed maximum (ie 20), but you have a higher probability of scoring a high number.

Quote from: Haffrung;677884That's pretty much where I'm at. If the designers don't have the courage to ignore the RPGNet BNG system-wank crowd, then Next will be 4E all over again.

It seems that Mearls and Co. are thinking RPGs should be about theory analysis, rather than the social interaction that is actual play.  I.e., spend more time talking about the game rather than actually playing it.

I find that disappointing.

Quote from: Haffrung;677887My group has been playing D&D since 1979 and we love the advantage/disadvantage mechanic in Next. You realize you can roll two dice at the same time, right? And that rolling two dice requires no more effort or time than one? We find it faster to roll two dice and take the highest roll than to roll one dice and add 4 to value. There's also important probability difference between the two approaches: with the traditional +4 method, you increase the maximum number you can achieve; with the two-dice method, you have a fixed maximum (ie 20), but you have a higher probability of scoring a high number.

Exactly.  You also have twice the opportunity to score a critical hit, which keeps getting left out but typically has a huge impact on game play.  In fact, way back in 2000 when I designed Altus Adventum, I used this.   You have a pool of dice (the makeup depending on how skilled you were).  When you attacked or defended, you used the highest # appearing.  No math at all.  Actually sped things up.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677888It seems that Mearls and Co. are thinking RPGs should be about theory analysis, rather than the social interaction that is actual play.  I.e., spend more time talking about the game rather than actually playing it.

I find that disappointing.

Actually, judging by interviews I heard with them, they want Next to be very much about the experience at the table. In their initial promotion of the game, they almost came out and said "system doesn't matter as much as other stuff." Which is one of the reasons the theory-wanks were all over Next with knives drawn from the outset.

However, they do seem to be backtracking on that principle with the last couple packets. I'm concerned that Next will be designed for whoever shouts loudest in the final weeks of the playtest.

Quote from: soviet;677886Page 3:

Here's another secret: You don't actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the ability check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result. You'll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player's) squares pretty well with the set DCs presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it unless the task is trivially simple. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the high teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls a 20 or better, there's usually little question that the character succeeds.
Your players will never know.

Thanks. OK that looks like pure storywank with dice tossed just for show.

I am all for ruling a success or failure based on circumstances and how an act was attempted but once the action has been deemed worthy of a die roll, the odds are determined and the dice decide.

Quote from: Haffrung;677887My group has been playing D&D since 1979

So what?

Quote from: Haffrung;677887You realize you can roll two dice at the same time, right? And that rolling two dice requires no more effort or time than one?

That's not really true. Rolling the second dice when you have advantage is pretty smooth and works out well in play, but once you start getting into expertise dice and all that stuff you introduce a whole new phase of 'OK, what the fuck dice am I rolling again? I need 2d20, a d6, a d4, no wait...'.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677889Exactly.  You also have twice the opportunity to score a critical hit, which keeps getting left out but typically has a huge impact on game play.  In fact, way back in 2000 when I designed Altus Adventum, I used this.   You have a pool of dice (the makeup depending on how skilled you were).  When you attacked or defended, you used the highest # appearing.  No math at all.  Actually sped things up.

I first saw the 'roll two dice take the highest' mechanic offered on Dragonsfoot years ago as a houserule for two-handed weapons in B/X D&D. I stole it then, and I'm glad Next is using it now.

My favourite part of D&D Next is that I now have concrete proof that I am a better games designer than the people who do it on a full time professional basis for the industry leader.

Note that I make no special claims for my competence otherwise.

How is that storywank?  That's how I do things all the time.  It's the players rolling the dice and the GM interpreting the results.  Just because there's not a set DC doesn't mean that it's "storywank."

Player: I want to break down the door.
DM: Roll a Strength test.
Player: I got a seventeen.
DM: Okay, you break down the door easily.

vs.

Player: I got a six.
DM: You thump the door but you can't break it open.

vs.

Player: I got an eleven.
DM: The door creaks and groans as you kick it.  It's not down yet, but you can roll again next round with advantage.

Omg storygamezzzzzzzzzz.

What they need to realize is that their "D&D for everybody" goal is what is bringing 5E down. "Everybody" involves groups of people with multiple mutually exclusive needs and desires who can't be reasonably served by a single game.

They either need to make a single, smaller game and commit to it being "what D&D is going to be going forward" or start thinking about multiple D&D lines.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;677891Thanks. OK that looks like pure storywank with dice tossed just for show.

I think it'd work better if it weren't a binary pass/fail thing but a matter of deciding how effective the action is.

So, to use the inspirational speech example, a trivial success looks good but only really bolsters the morale of folk who were already convinced, a low-teens roll wins over some of the undecideds, a high-teens roll convinces everyone who hadn't already decided they weren't going to support the PC, and a critical success wins over a portion of the naysayers on top of everyone else.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;677883Early on in 5E's development I came to the conclusion that they were designing the game for people who wanted a game similar to AD&D, but not AD&D itself. A modernized AD&D. Nothing 5E has done has changed that conclusion.

That's great to hear. I'd also say that it is meaningful and an purposeful attempt to go for those who are more likely to buy D&D5 - those who are now adults in their 30s to 40s; with kids, with dollar, free time and nostalgia.

Recently a survey found that most video game players were aged 35 on average and I would think a similar figure for D&D though aged average 45. Not quite the grey dollar, but the 'greying' dollar. That's why I expect D&D5 to be a mature product, and by that I don't mean an 18 certification but a maturity of writing; being more grounded than 3E and 4E.

Oh wait, TCO hates it?

MAN 5E IS THE BEST GAME EVER!

Quote from: thedungeondelver;677904Oh wait, TCO hates it?

MAN 5E IS THE BEST GAME EVER!

I'm never quite sure whether I like D&D Next because of the rules et al. or simply because of the buthurt and weeping that surronds it on pro 4E forums. Thinking about it; it is actually more of the latter! :D

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;677897How is that storywank?  That's how I do things all the time.  It's the players rolling the dice and the GM interpreting the results.  Just because there's not a set DC doesn't mean that it's "storywank."

Player: I want to break down the door.
DM: Roll a Strength test.
Player: I got a seventeen.
DM: Okay, you break down the door easily.

vs.

Player: I got a six.
DM: You thump the door but you can't break it open.

vs.

Player: I got an eleven.
DM: The door creaks and groans as you kick it.  It's not down yet, but you can roll again next round with advantage.

Omg storygamezzzzzzzzzz.

Yeah, I agree with you.  I've been playing more than 30 years myself, and it's not uncommon for us to look at a die roll without having a hard fast "make it or miss it" line drawn, but instead we interpret the die result much in the same way you just described.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;677899What they need to realize is that their "D&D for everybody" goal is what is bringing 5E down. "Everybody" involves groups of people with multiple mutually exclusive needs and desires who can't be reasonably served by a single game.

They either need to make a single, smaller game and commit to it being "what D&D is going to be going forward" or start thinking about multiple D&D lines.

For once you're right.  Anything 4e related needs to get shitcanned, for two reasons:

a) 4e was the least "D&D" of all versions.  Might be a good game on it's own in a vacuum, but for the brand and history of what makes D&D D&D?  Sucked balls.  If you don't like D&D, don't play it.  But don't try to make it into a whole other game and shit in the face of all those thousands of people who do like D&D

b) it was, by WoTC's own admission, a failure.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;677897How is that storywank?  That's how I do things all the time.  It's the players rolling the dice and the GM interpreting the results.  Just because there's not a set DC doesn't mean that it's "storywank."

Player: I want to break down the door.
DM: Roll a Strength test.
Player: I got a seventeen.
DM: Okay, you break down the door easily.

vs.

Player: I got a six.
DM: You thump the door but you can't break it open.

vs.

Player: I got an eleven.
DM: The door creaks and groans as you kick it.  It's not down yet, but you can roll again next round with advantage.

Omg storygamezzzzzzzzzz.

The lament of those who can't assign odds prior to the success roll.

Without knowing what is needed prior to rolling there are is no objective success or failure, merely a grey area that sloshes around, ebbing and flowing according to what the GM wants to happen, i.e. storygaming.

QuoteOriginally Posted by thecasualoblivion
Early on in 5E's development I came to the conclusion that they were designing the game for people who wanted a game similar to AD&D, but not AD&D itself. A modernized AD&D. Nothing 5E has done has changed that conclusion.

Couldn't it be said that 3E was a game for people who wanted something similar to AD&D but not AD&D itself? Contrary to revisionist history, AD&D wasn't some kind of poisoned brand. People who didn't like AD&D wouldn't have been interested in 3E in the first place.

Now, 3E did develop a very different play culture and play modes than AD&D - mainly the character optimization metagame. But that wasn't really the intent of the designers, or part of the initial appeal of 3E.

And it's perfectly understandable why WotC could see the market appeal of a modernized take on the most commercially successful iteration of the game. Their real gamble is over how much of the success of the 3E was from selling books to guys who spend their Friday nights mapping out their Drow Ranger/Assassin/Sorcerors to level 20.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;677915The lament of those who can't assign odds prior to the success roll.

Without knowing what is needed prior to rolling there are is no objective success or failure, merely a grey area that sloshes around, ebbing and flowing according to what the GM wants to happen, i.e. storygaming.

That is a ridiculous leap in logic.  The DM is not changing what happens based on what he desires; he is interpreting the die roll.  You don't need to have a hard rule or DC for everything.  That's videogame logic.

Quote from: Haffrung;677916Couldn't it be said that 3E was a game for people who wanted something similar to AD&D but not AD&D itself? Contrary to revisionist history, AD&D wasn't some kind of poisoned brand. People who didn't like AD&D wouldn't have been interested in 3E in the first place.

Now, 3E did develop a very different play culture and play modes than AD&D - mainly the character optimization metagame. But that wasn't really the intent of the designers, or part of the initial appeal of 3E.

And it's perfectly understandable why WotC could see the market appeal of a modernized take on the most commercially successful iteration of the game. Their real gamble is over how much of the success of the 3E was from selling books to guys who spend their Friday nights mapping out their Drow Ranger/Assassin/Sorcerors to level 20.

I'd say the answer is both, and I'd also say that 5E is only doing a good job catering to one side of things.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;677922That is a ridiculous leap in logic.  The DM is not changing what happens based on what he desires; he is interpreting the die roll.

Die roll. Tea leaves. Goat entrails. Whatever.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;677922You don't need to have a hard rule or DC for everything.  That's videogame logic.

Agreed. Some tasks don't require a roll at all. Some actions can succeed based on the cleverness with which they are executed.

Without knowing what is needed prior to the roll, how does the GM know what success is? Does the required number go up if Bob drank the last coke? Does is get lower if Dave is on fire tonight and you want his awesome streak to continue?

This is the same issue as ignoring the unwanted results of die rolls rolled into a package of greater acceptance because the fudging is done on the other end of the roll.

QuoteWithout knowing what is needed prior to the roll, how does the GM know what success is?

He eyeballs it.

QuoteDoes the required number go up if Bob drank the last coke? Does is get lower if Dave is on fire tonight and you want his awesome streak to continue?

That sounds like bad DMing, which no amount of rules will fix.  There's a reason the game comes with suggested DCs along with the advice to eyeball it.

I am pretty sure Exploderwizard, in his decades of gaming, had made DM interpretations on the fly in the context of dice rolls.

I think he's just being pissy for being pissy's sake at this point.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677957I am pretty sure Exploderwizard, in his decades of gaming, had made DM interpretations on the fly in the context of dice rolls.

I think he's just being pissy for being pissy's sake at this point.

I freely admit to doing so in the distant past. Thats why I know about the kind of stuff that can creep into your judgement in the split second you are eyeballing something.

Quote from: 1989;677163Progress? In an RPG?

RPGs are games, you tool, not computers. They don't evolve like hardware. You choose a game based on whether you think it's fun or not.

Mark the date and time.  I am agreeing wholeheartedly with 1989.  I shall consult the star charts and confirm an unusual alignment of the planets.

Quote from: Haffrung;677890However, they do seem to be backtracking on that principle with the last couple packets. I'm concerned that Next will be designed for whoever shouts loudest in the final weeks of the playtest.

I wish people would realise that these are play TEST packets. They're testing stuff. I don't quite understand how anyone cannot understand that. They're not only testing the core game, they're testing the modular aspects of it as well. That means to some people it appears clunky. The designers, however, know what is and isn't part of the core and modular versions and how everything can, does, doesn't, won't, could, maybe fit together at the end.

The idea that each packet represents the final product or that even there is some sort of progression from one packet to another rather than each packet being seen as an individual test scenario, is kinda silly.

...says the poster who declared D&Dnext was the " most comprehensive Single-volume rpg"...

Quote from: TristramEvans;678078...says the poster who declared D&Dnext was the " most comprehensive Single-volume rpg"...

You just can't let that go, can you. Do you still suck on your mother's teat?

Quote from: The_Rooster;678090You just can't let that go, can you. Do you still suck on your mother's teat?

Wow, jumping straight to images of infantilism coupled with a "yo mama" joke; that's some interesting subtext you've got going there, isn't it.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;678110Wow, jumping straight to images of infantilism coupled with a "yo mama" joke; that's some interesting subtext you've got going there, isn't it.

Let them be DD, love blossoms so rarely in this place.

Quote from: The_Rooster;678090You just can't let that go, can you. Do you still suck on your mother's teat?

Heh, someone's got some Freudian issues. Anyways, thanks for proving my point.

Quote from: TristramEvans;678141Heh, someone's got some Freudian issues. Anyways, thanks for proving my point.

Don't bother replying.  He's only here to troll, as is evidenced by his continuing changing stories (I am perma banned from rpg.net.......I'm not banned from there) and his admission that he will probably only last a month.

Just ignore him.  So far his only backer seems to be sommerjon, so that should tell you something.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;678143Don't bother replying.  He's only here to troll, as is evidenced by his continuing changing stories (I am perma banned from rpg.net.......I'm not banned from there) and his admission that he will probably only last a month.

Just ignore him.  So far his only backer seems to be sommerjon, so that should tell you something.

Fair enough, I've had my fun.

IGNORE LIST ACTIVATE!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;677915The lament of those who can't assign odds prior to the success roll.

Without knowing what is needed prior to rolling there are is no objective success or failure, merely a grey area that sloshes around, ebbing and flowing according to what the GM wants to happen, i.e. storygaming.

Personally I don't really care if difficulties for all possible events in the setting are pre defined by the gm or set later, but I can see where some people might not like that.

If a gm wants a patrol of guards to be heard by sneaking pc's to add tension, is that storygaming? and is it bad?

Or should the gm only be allowed to have that event if he creates a table and rolls on it?

What if the probability on the table is 100 percent?

Quote from: Bill;678342Personally I don't really care if difficulties for all possible events in the setting are pre defined by the gm or set later, but I can see where some people might not like that.

If a gm wants a patrol of guards to be heard by sneaking pc's to add tension, is that storygaming? and is it bad?

Or should the gm only be allowed to have that event if he creates a table and rolls on it?

What if the probability on the table is 100 percent?

I'm a believer of the old AD&D/B/X advice of "always a chance*."  Yes, sometimes that means my plans as a DM don't always work the way I want.  That's OK.  I have my big boy pants on and can continue.


*For most things.  If a PC says they want to jump across a 50' ravine, then that's just not possible outside of some magical help.  But for most things, there's always even a small chance of success.

Quote from: Bill;678342Personally I don't really care if difficulties for all possible events in the setting are pre defined by the gm or set later, but I can see where some people might not like that.

That would be an impossible task. Situational modifiers make pre-setting a DC very difficult unless the actions of the player are disregarded. I'm speaking strictly about a specific check difficulty being determined before the roll, not the predetermination of DCs for anything that might happen in some eventuality.

Quote from: Bill;678342If a gm wants a patrol of guards to be heard by sneaking pc's to add tension, is that storygaming? and is it bad?

It is storygaming. Is it bad? Not if drama over gameplay is the group preference and what they all agreed to play.

Quote from: Bill;678342Or should the gm only be allowed to have that event if he creates a table and rolls on it?

What if the probability on the table is 100 percent?

Perhaps you missed the part about dice only needing to be rolled when the outcome has a chance of failure. Why would anyone waste time creating a table of only one result?

A lot of people mistake obeying the dice once rolled for a mandate on rolling randomly for everything. These concepts are far apart.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;678362That would be an impossible task. Situational modifiers make pre-setting a DC very difficult unless the actions of the player are disregarded. I'm speaking strictly about a specific check difficulty being determined before the roll, not the predetermination of DCs for anything that might happen in some eventuality.



It is storygaming. Is it bad? Not if drama over gameplay is the group preference and what they all agreed to play.



Perhaps you missed the part about dice only needing to be rolled when the outcome has a chance of failure. Why would anyone waste time creating a table of only one result?

A lot of people mistake obeying the dice once rolled for a mandate on rolling randomly for everything. These concepts are far apart.

The Drama over gameplay statement does not really make sense to me. Not saying you are wrong, I just have no idea what you mean. In the above example of busting down a door, I don't see any real drama involved, and gameplay wise, it opens, or not, or gets broken, etc...

Drama is not a factor unless Cthulu is chasing the pc's :)


Ok, so no mandate for rolling everything.
I assume this means you reccomend the gm be constrained 100 percent if a specific rule involving a roll is involved, but the gm can do anything they please otherwise?


Fyi, I am simply facinated by the debates about RAW, not RAW, gm fiat, storygame, etc..., etc... because I never thought about any of that stuff until a few years ago. Before that I played rpg's for 25 years or so without any issues.

So the game theory stuff facinates me.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;678361I'm a believer of the old AD&D/B/X advice of "always a chance*."  Yes, sometimes that means my plans as a DM don't always work the way I want.  That's OK.  I have my big boy pants on and can continue.


*For most things.  If a PC says they want to jump across a 50' ravine, then that's just not possible outside of some magical help.  But for most things, there's always even a small chance of success.

When I GM I don't really make plans, and I really love it when players surprise me.

Quote from: Bill;678455When I GM I don't really make plans, and I really love it when players surprise me.

Really, this is my source of fun when DMing a game.
I learned this during my railroad days (before and during the beginnings of DL). If I have a plan, if I know how a session will play out in advance, I get bored.

My NPCs have plans, and they often get thwarted, but more often than not I have no idea how exactly they can be overcome until the PCs react to them.

Quote from: Bill;678455When I GM I don't really make plans, and I really love it when players surprise me.

I started out GM'ing without a clue about even a quarter of the rules and had great fun. I even inspired a bunch of new players to take up the hobby 'cause of the games I ran. Then slowly, inch-by-inch, I devolved into a "gamer". The desire to be a "better" GM overtook me and I started to get involved in discussions online through BBS and usenet groups.

That's when I took up GURPS (shudder).

It's taken me years to realise that my strength is in improvisation and running games completely on the fly. I just started a new group and am trying a new concept. Instead of using an established setting, I gave everyone some basic information about a setting and asked them to make characters that were sheltered in some way from knowledge of the world. That way, we could build the world together as the PC's adventured through it.

Last week one of the players adlibbed a meeting with an old acquaintance of his mentor's that he'd met once, years ago. I had simply said that they noticed someone in armour and carrying a weapon. He turned the person into a lieutenant in the dying Empire's army. I rolled with it and now that NPC is going to be a major plot element that will unfurl in the next session.

It's the most fun I've had DM'ing in a long while.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;678143Don't bother replying.  He's only here to troll, as is evidenced by his continuing changing stories (I am perma banned from rpg.net.......I'm not banned from there) and his admission that he will probably only last a month.

Quote from: TristramEvans;678146Fair enough, I've had my fun.

IGNORE LIST ACTIVATE!

Says the two biggest trolls here.

Quote from: Bill;678455When I GM I don't really make plans, and I really love it when players surprise me.

I'm not saying planning out every little detail in some non-linear style of game play.  I'm talking about when the PCs finally meet their arch-nemisis and you end up rolling a 1 or 2 on a saving throw to avoid paralyzation on the first round ;)

Quote from: Bill;678454The Drama over gameplay statement does not really make sense to me. Not saying you are wrong, I just have no idea what you mean. In the above example of busting down a door, I don't see any real drama involved, and gameplay wise, it opens, or not, or gets broken, etc...

The drama over gameplay thing is all about subversion of fair resolution to the rule of cool. For example aranging something normally resolved via standard method to taste because it would "create more tension" or "be better for the story".

This is antithetical to emergent gameplay. If what you enjoy is being surprised/ finding out what happens next, then engineering extra tension doesn't make sense.

Nothing is better than a good shot of tension that emerges through natural play without any nudging to get it there. It happens less often but it is far more memorable when it happens.

If the story is more important than organically finding out what happens next and the group desires that, then there isn't any badwrong fun happening.

Even anti-climactic "emergent gameplay" can be fun. I did a random encounter of some bandits on a road about a half a day's journey from the town they were headed towards. Normally I would've pre-planned it to be an 'exciting' encounter that was tailored to their level and party make-up. Instead, I had the party see the bandits from a good thousand feet away. By the time the party had closed the distance to about five-hundred feet, the bandits were already leaving their little caravan raid with some hostages and their loot.

That's when the ranger thought, "May as well take a potshot," and managed to hit and kill one of the bandits in one shot.

Well. Crap. I didn't think of that. Suddenly the bandits, on horseback, turn around and start charging towards the PC's. The PC's get out their bows and because they're first level and even the mage has proficiency (from being an elf), they cop the disadvantage on the rolls and start dropping the bandits. Before the bandits can even get within shouting distance, half their number are gone and they decide a retreat is in order.

Now... that situation was poorly thought out by me, there's no doubt about it. But the players loved it. They killed the rest of the fleeing bandits even and rescued the two hostages (a young girl and her mother) and escorted them back to town. They even got a randomly rolled magic item for their efforts. The point being is that even though it was anti-climactic and an easy bit of loot for them, the fact that I didn't pre-plan it and think it through thoroughly and that the 'drama' emerged from organic gameplay made it fun.

Quote from: soviet;677886Page 3:

Here’s another secret: You don’t actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the ability check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result. You’ll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player’s) squares pretty well with the set DCs presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it unless the task is trivially simple. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the high teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls a 20 or better, there’s usually little question that the character succeeds.
Your players will never know.

This is just using a predetermined range of success. It's still before the roll, not after the roll. All it does is remove DC from detailed accounting of system mechanics and its modifiers and just rolls the equivalent of percentile success.

The language is pretty clear: below 10 is under 45% or less, low teens is under 75% but higher than 50%, high teens is under 95% but higher than 75%, and 20+ (roll a 20 and have situational benefits) is success. There is no adjusting after the fact, just the lines of demarcation are hazy because not every last jot and tittle is being processed. The DC is there before the roll, just the precision's resolution is fuzzier. (It does make borderline rolls problematic, but the GM made that resolution call for a reason, likely to speed things up.)

I really don't understand the point of this tangent. Strict demarcation v. loose demarcation of determining before the fact is not the same as determining after the fact. So what's the beef this time?

Quote from: The_Rooster;678613Instead, I had the party see the bandits from a good thousand feet away.

Do you know how far a thousand feet is?  Over three football fields.  The only way to see anything at that range is if they are standing in the middle of an open plain. Bandits don't attack in the middle of an open plain in broad daylight.  You certainly don't charge an unknown force from a thousand feet.

Your anecdote is less an indictment of 'random events' and more a description of 'not knowing what the hell you are doing'.

In other words, "Cool story, bro."

Quote from: StormBringer;678761Do you know how far a thousand feet is?  Over three football fields.  The only way to see anything at that range is if they are standing in the middle of an open plain. Bandits don't attack in the middle of an open plain in broad daylight.  You certainly don't charge an unknown force from a thousand feet.

Your anecdote is less an indictment of 'random events' and more a description of 'not knowing what the hell you are doing'.

In other words, "Cool story, bro."

This post is Pure Win.

Quote from: TristramEvans;678763This post is Pure Win.

:hatsoff:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;678552I'm not saying planning out every little detail in some non-linear style of game play.  I'm talking about when the PCs finally meet their arch-nemisis and you end up rolling a 1 or 2 on a saving throw to avoid paralyzation on the first round ;)

I've done that. (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/580/roleplaying-games/tales-from-the-table-in-the-depths-of-khunbaral) Resulted in one of the most memorable sessions in my 20+ years of playing.

More recently, there was a session where the PCs killed a major villain who was responsible for wiping out the priestess' village and killing her father. On a pair of lucky rolls, the PCs snuck into the room she was in and shot her in the back of the head before she even realized they were there. Anticlimactic? Not really. Fifty sessions later the players are still talking about how fucking awesome they were that day.

I have literally never seen a player say, "Oh no! We killed the red dragon in one shot!" The reaction is pretty much universally, "Fuck yeah! We killed that red dragon in one shot!"

Quote from: soviet;677886Here's another secret: You don't actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the ability check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result. You'll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player's) squares pretty well with the set DCs presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it unless the task is trivially simple. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the high teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls a 20 or better, there's usually little question that the character succeeds.
Your players will never know.

That should get cross-posted over in the "Worst Advice for a GM" thread.

I've actually spent months training players out of this mindset.

Player: "Oh no! I rolled a 2!"
Me: "Okay... what's the result?"
Player: "I rolled a 2!"
Me: "Right. Now add you skill."
Player: "18."
Me: "See, your character is actually pretty awesome and that's a success."

What's even tougher is convincing them that we don't need to roll on stuff that their superhuman characters are guaranteed to succeed at.

Quote from: Justin AlexanderWhat's even tougher is convincing them that we don't need to roll on stuff that their superhuman characters are guaranteed to succeed at.

FASERIP is a good antidote for that mindset.

Quote from: StormBringer;678761Do you know how far a thousand feet is?

Yes.

Quote from: StormBringer;678761The only way to see anything at that range is if they are standing in the middle of an open plain.

It was.

Quote from: StormBringer;678761Bandits don't attack in the middle of an open plain in broad daylight.

You're a professional bandit?

They are farmers forced from their lands and resorting to desperate measures just to feed themselves. They were on the road waiting for a weak caravan to pass. The caravan wasn't anything more than food from three neighbouring farms that gave the responsibility of selling their excess in the town to this one man and his family.

So yes. Bandits do attack in the middle of a plain in broad daylight.

Quote from: StormBringer;678761You certainly don't charge an unknown force from a thousand feet.

By the time the PC's took that first pot-shot and downed one of the bandit's number, they were 320 feet away. The bandits were surprised but could see the party was only five people, not on horseback and there were six of them all on horses. So they charged in anger. They were not military geniuses. They did not stop and make a tactical assessment and consult their battlemaster.

I'm sure in your world everyone is a tactics and strategy god, even lowly commoners.

Quote from: StormBringer;678761Your anecdote is less an indictment of 'random events' and more a description of 'not knowing what the hell you are doing'.

The funny thing is that this perfectly describes exactly what you just did. You knew virtually nothing about the situation and yet decided to judge it and then insult me. Keep posting ignorant, stupid shit. It makes me look good.

Quote from: StormBringer;678761Do you know how far a thousand feet is?  Over three football fields.  The only way to see anything at that range is if they are standing in the middle of an open plain. Bandits don't attack in the middle of an open plain in broad daylight.  You certainly don't charge an unknown force from a thousand feet.

Your anecdote is less an indictment of 'random events' and more a description of 'not knowing what the hell you are doing'.

In other words, "Cool story, bro."

Good lord even in wooded hills you can wind up with sight lines of two miles or more. Certainly not in all directions and its constantly changes as you move through the terrain. But it more than plausible and is something I have first hand experience of considering the number of times I drove or hiked through the Allegheny National Forest.

If anybody wants to get a sense of far you can see the next time you are driving and crest a ridge look as far as you can see up the road, then look at your odometer. When you hit that point look at the odometer again to see how far you driven. You will be surprised how far you can see details.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;678552I'm not saying planning out every little detail in some non-linear style of game play.  I'm talking about when the PCs finally meet their arch-nemisis and you end up rolling a 1 or 2 on a saving throw to avoid paralyzation on the first round ;)

It's always fun when an npc like 'Saruman' immediately takes a dirt nap right after he tells the pc's they are doomed!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;678588The drama over gameplay thing is all about subversion of fair resolution to the rule of cool. For example aranging something normally resolved via standard method to taste because it would "create more tension" or "be better for the story".

This is antithetical to emergent gameplay. If what you enjoy is being surprised/ finding out what happens next, then engineering extra tension doesn't make sense.

Nothing is better than a good shot of tension that emerges through natural play without any nudging to get it there. It happens less often but it is far more memorable when it happens.

If the story is more important than organically finding out what happens next and the group desires that, then there isn't any badwrong fun happening.

I think the reason I have trouble relating at all to this concept is that when I gm I don't actually think about 'story' at all. I never have thoughts of 'what is good or bad' for the story, and It would not occur to me to change an event for that purpose. I just don't think that way.

I just have npc's and event do what seems to fit them at the time.

If I judged a door bashing roll on the fly, it has nothing to do with caring if the door is bashed. It is about if the attempt to bash is plausible.

Quote from: TristramEvans;678763This post is Pure Win.

Especially when you figure earlier in this thread he just got done saying what a worthless feat Archery Mastery is because (one of the reasons) you'll never really run into a situation where you're using a long bow at a far enough range to enforce disadvantage.

Between that and this changing stories about being banned, the more he posts the more contradictions he has.  I'm almost convinced he's just making stuff up at this point to get a reaction since his stories keep changing.

Quote from: Bill;678828It's always fun when an npc like 'Saruman' immediately takes a dirt nap right after he tells the pc's they are doomed!

It does make for memorable sessions.  The funny thing is all those people who hate AD&D because of Save or Die (suck)?  You never hear them complain when the same rules apply to the monsters.

Quote from: The_Rooster;678805You're a professional bandit?

Hee. :rotfl:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;678854It does make for memorable sessions.  The funny thing is all those people who hate AD&D because of Save or Die (suck)?  You never hear them complain when the same rules apply to the monsters.

Most players love to 'gank' npc enemies.

One of the most fun moments in a dnd game I played in ever was when the pc's beat the snot out of an npc that was essentially a pope or religious church leader. This powerful npc ended up trying to flee out a window and perished in a humilating manner hanging halfway out the window.

It was awesome, becaue the gm did not throw up roadblocks to 'save' this npc.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;678854It does make for memorable sessions.  The funny thing is all those people who hate AD&D because of Save or Die (suck)?  You never hear them complain when the same rules apply to the monsters.

I have heard complaints from players who are mainly playing for the detailed tactical combat experience in WOTC editions (and in 2e using Player's Option: Combat & Tactics) complain about save or die affecting their opponents because it can end an encounter too quickly to scratch their tactical combat itch.

Quote from: One Horse Town;678857Hee. :rotfl:

Admittedly I'm not a bandit, but I was in the military.  And I think it's not unreasonable to say that as soon as you start taking fire (or an arrow), the first thing you do is drop and take cover and assess what's going on.

Quote from: Bill;678858Most players love to 'gank' npc enemies.

One of the most fun moments in a dnd game I played in ever was when the pc's beat the snot out of an npc that was essentially a pope or religious church leader. This powerful npc ended up trying to flee out a window and perished in a humilating manner hanging halfway out the window.

It was awesome, becaue the gm did not throw up roadblocks to 'save' this npc.

The biggest one for me is when I ran my group through ToEE a few years back.  I had taken one of the character's backgrounds and pulled an NPC villain out of it.  Just so happened the way the players were playing and interacting with the world, it made it very easy to incorporate him as the main general for Zuggtmoy, but none of the players knew it was him until well into the adventure.  I think by the time they made it down to the fourth level or so.

After going through the entire adventure through several sessions, they finally met him guarding the way to Zuggtmoy.  I even had him using Blackrazor (from White Plume Mountain)  One of the PCs used a rope of entangling in round 1.  I rolled horrible.

Big baddie was done, just like that.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;678863Admittedly I'm not a bandit, but I was in the military.  And I think it's not unreasonable to say that as soon as you start taking fire (or an arrow), the first thing you do is drop and take cover and assess what's going on.



The biggest one for me is when I ran my group through ToEE a few years back.  I had taken one of the character's backgrounds and pulled an NPC villain out of it.  Just so happened the way the players were playing and interacting with the world, it made it very easy to incorporate him as the main general for Zuggtmoy, but none of the players knew it was him until well into the adventure.  I think by the time they made it down to the fourth level or so.

After going through the entire adventure through several sessions, they finally met him guarding the way to Zuggtmoy.  I even had him using Blackrazor (from White Plume Mountain)  One of the PCs used a rope of entangling in round 1.  I rolled horrible.

Big baddie was done, just like that.

Thats a good one :)

In a 1e game I saw a halfling thief cornered by a 20th level antipaladin with an unholy avenger. The thief had scouted too far from his friends.

First swing of the fight the thief lopped off the antipaladins head with a vorpal shortsword.

I had expected this antipaladin to be a really, really tough challenge.

He lasted 2 seconds. Barely had time to go 'Bwa! Ha! H.....acccck!'

Quote from: Bill;678867Thats a good one :)

In a 1e game I saw a halfling thief cornered by a 20th level antipaladin with an unholy avenger. The thief had scouted too far from his friends.

First swing of the fight the thief lopped off the antipaladins head with a vorpal shortsword.

I had expected this antipaladin to be a really, really tough challenge.

He lasted 2 seconds. Barely had time to go 'Bwa! Ha! H.....acccck!'

To be fair, it's not just D&D either.  Playing WFRP1e I found myself in an arena with a minotaur as a new character.  I got the first attack and hit. And rolled a 6.

and another 6

and another 6

and another 6

and a 4 or something.  In one hit against the creature that should have wiped the floor with me, I took it out in one punch.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;678869To be fair, it's not just D&D either.  Playing WFRP1e I found myself in an arena with a minotaur as a new character.  I got the first attack and hit. And rolled a 6.

and another 6

and another 6

and another 6

and a 4 or something.  In one hit against the creature that should have wiped the floor with me, I took it out in one punch.

Was that a 1 in 5,184 chance to one hit a minotaur?

I can't recall any details from the mechanics of wfrp. only played it a little bit many years ago.

Quote from: Bill;678871Was that a 1 in 5,184 chance to one hit a minotaur?

I can't recall any details from the mechanics of wfrp. only played it a little bit many years ago.

I don't know the odds, only that I can't ever recall rolling 4 sixes in a row before in more than 30 years of gaming.  The only other "breaking the odds" I've ever done legitimately was when I rolled an 18/00 strength and then rolled a 00 for psionics.

Never did end up actually playing that character though.  Wasted use of beating the odds ;)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;678872I don't know the odds, only that I can't ever recall rolling 4 sixes in a row before in more than 30 years of gaming.  The only other "breaking the odds" I've ever done legitimately was when I rolled an 18/00 strength and then rolled a 00 for psionics.

Never did end up actually playing that character though.  Wasted use of beating the odds ;)

If you roll an 18/00 strength and 100 for Psionics on the same character in
 1E, you officiallay have 'Won' at Dnd.

Quote from: Bill;678873If you roll an 18/00 strength and 100 for Psionics on the same character in
 1E, you officiallay have 'Won' at Dnd.

And it was ADVANCED!!!  :D

Quote from: Sacrosanct;678863Admittedly I'm not a bandit, but I was in the military.  And I think it's not unreasonable to say that as soon as you start taking fire (or an arrow), the first thing you do is drop and take cover and assess what's going on.

I was laughing at the joke. I don't care about the bun-fight.

Kindred of the east, I spent about five or six sessions building up the Half-Dragon/Half Son of the Evil Bad guy mega-villain only for him to not succeed on a single fucking attack roll....

Quote from: estar;678820Good lord even in wooded hills you can wind up with sight lines of two miles or more. Certainly not in all directions and its constantly changes as you move through the terrain. But it more than plausible and is something I have first hand experience of considering the number of times I drove or hiked through the Allegheny National Forest.

If anybody wants to get a sense of far you can see the next time you are driving and crest a ridge look as far as you can see up the road, then look at your odometer. When you hit that point look at the odometer again to see how far you driven. You will be surprised how far you can see details.

See that section on the left, where there are no trees?  You can see pretty far along that part.  I will now direct your attention to the right where you can't see a goddamn thing because all the fucking trees are in the way.  If you climb up a tree on the top of a hill, you might have a sight line of more than a thousand feet, but again, it's because the fucking trees aren't in your line of sight anymore.  At ground level, there are fucking trees in the way of your line of sight.  Also, in the picture above, there is a gigantic fucking hill right in front of you blocking your line of sight.

Where do you suppose a group of bandits would be hanging out in the above picture?

I can't believe this is literally a matter of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Stormbringer. In the example, the bandits aren't lying in wait. They're finishing up a raid on a caravan. They'd be in the visible area. And the PCs are just walking down the road. I see no huge problem with a 1000-foot encounter distance here necessarily.

Quote from: Imp;678979Stormbringer. In the example, the bandits aren't lying in wait. They're finishing up a raid on a caravan. They'd be in the visible area. And the PCs are just walking down the road. I see no huge problem with a 1000-foot encounter distance here necessarily.

1000 feet is roughly only 300 yards, and that's entirely reasonable unless you were in heavily forested area.  If you're in an open area, 300 yards isn't that far.

To put it into context, the rifle range for the military is out to 300 yards (the farthest range you have to hit in your qualification).  And most ranges I went to weren't just wide open areas.  There were bushes, trees, hills, etc.  That was the point: to replicate an actual environment.  A person is very small at 300 yards, but you can easily see them.

Quote from: Opaopajr;678728It's still before the roll, not after the roll.

No it isn't. It literally says to do this after the roll. The resolution mechanic is essentially roll d20, 1=autofail, 2-19=GM decides, 20=autosucceed.

Here's some nifty photos demonstrating how clear a man holding a giant sign is from up to 1000 ft away. The photos on the left are close ups of the actual photos on the right.

(http://ir0.mobify.com/project-mobifyme/288/http://www.prisonpolicy.org/images/geographypunishment/w01_100.jpg)

(http://ir0.mobify.com/project-mobifyme/288/http://www.prisonpolicy.org/images/geographypunishment/w02_250.jpg)

(http://ir0.mobify.com/project-mobifyme/288/http://www.prisonpolicy.org/images/geographypunishment/w03_500.jpg)

(http://ir0.mobify.com/project-mobifyme/288/http://www.prisonpolicy.org/images/geographypunishment/w04_1000.jpg)

useful.

Although it would be better if you could actually view the images in a resolution that scales up to something close to life sized.

Quote from: jadrax;679008useful.

Although it would be better if you could actually view the images in a resolution that scales up to something close to life sized.

yeah, those photos aren't very good.  This is better.  At 300m, the size of a person is roughly the size of the center front sight post in this picture.
(http://i.imgur.com/Tgqq7qf.png)

Quote from: jadrax;679008useful.

Although it would be better if you could actually view the images in a resolution that scales up to something close to life sized.

True, they aren't the clearest.

Quote from: TristramEvans;678802FASERIP is a good antidote for that mindset.

Definitely. That's actually the system that taught me the lesson way back in '90 or '91. I remember being at camp, playing Spider-Man, and suddenly this little light bulb clicked on over my head.

Quote from: StormBringer;678899Where do you suppose a group of bandits would be hanging out in the above picture?

In the scenario as described? Nowhere in that picture. Because they were explicitly on a road finishing up a raid against a caravan. And there is no road in your picture.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;678852Especially when you figure earlier in this thread he just got done saying what a worthless feat Archery Mastery is because (one of the reasons) you'll never really run into a situation where you're using a long bow at a far enough range to enforce disadvantage.

No, I said you'll hardly ever. Stop twisting words in order to justify your bizarre obsession with your own self-righteousness and inability to accept that you are wrong almost all the time.

Also, pretty weak-sauce to put someone on ignore and yet post about them in their own thread no less.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;678852Between that and this changing stories about being banned, the more he posts the more contradictions he has.  I'm almost convinced he's just making stuff up at this point to get a reaction since his stories keep changing.

I haven't changed any story about anything. Stop making stuff up.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;678863Admittedly I'm not a bandit, but I was in the military.

And they weren't in the military. They were ex-farmers who banded together out of desperation and are raiding convenient, easy targets for food for their families.

They saw Bob, their mate, get dropped from an arrow fired from someone around 320 feet away and Pete, Bob's best friend, charged off to get revenge and the rest followed.

It was only after another couple of them dropped (within the same round no less) that they realised how dumb an idea that was.

This is called roleplaying NPC's. You know, 'cause they weren't in the military. Now if they'd not rotated their crops, you'd have something to complain about.

Quote from: Imp;678979Stormbringer. In the example, the bandits aren't lying in wait. They're finishing up a raid on a caravan. They'd be in the visible area. And the PCs are just walking down the road. I see no huge problem with a 1000-foot encounter distance here necessarily.

Not to mention that it was also a random encounter rolled during their journey to a city. I used the opportunity to foreshadow the troubles in the area, which was later backed up by a meeting with someone who mentioned off-hand that people were turning to banditry.

I'm actually going to reply to this this one time, because no one should have the impression that you're actually doing anything but trolling.

Quote from: The_Rooster;679115No, I said you'll hardly ever. Stop twisting words in order to justify your bizarre obsession with your own self-righteousness and inability to accept that you are wrong almost all the time.

"never really run into it" and "hardly ever" mean essentially the same thing.  That's not twisting words by stretch of the imagination.  And even if they don't mean exactly the same thing, the fact that one of your first examples of actual play contradicts one of the primary reasons you just got done arguing why archery feat sucks shows you just how strong your "arguments" are.

QuoteI haven't changed any story about anything. Stop making stuff up.

You're a liar.  And a bad troll:

Quote from: SacrosanctSorry, I can't handle that level of irony in one day. I have a feeling rpg.net would be a better site for you.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677104I'm perma-banned from there. And ENWorld. You're stuck with me until someone perma-bans me from here too. I give myself a month at best.

Quote from: The_Rooster;678123I find it bizarre that I haven't been banned from RPG.net. Oh wait, that's right, I don't post there.

I wish usenet was still used.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;679121You're a liar.  And a bad troll:

No I'm not. You're just too obsessed with me to see that both can be true.

I'm on my fourth nick at RPG.net. Three of the previous ones are perma-banned. The current one I simply don't use anymore, ie. I don't post there.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;679121I'm actually going to reply to this this one time, because no one should have the impression that you're actually doing anything but trolling.

Oh come on. Don't pretend that this is anything but your ego at work. People like you want everyone to know they've put someone on ignore because of some self-perceived notion born of self-righteousness and need to prove to everyone else that you are superior. And with you, the case is severe given that you actually put your ignore list in your sig. That's so incredibly narcissistic.

The fact is that you look at all the posts from people on your ignore list because you can't help yourself. You need to know if they're talking about you. That's the only reason you responded. Because I talked about you and you couldn't handle it.

Quote from: The_Rooster;678123I find it bizarre that I haven't been banned from RPG.net. Oh wait, that's right, I don't post there.

I wish usenet was still used.

QuoteI'm perma-banned from there...

Quote from: The_Rooster;679135I'm on my fourth nick at RPG.net. Three of the previous ones are perma-banned. The current one I simply don't use anymore, ie. I don't post there.

Yeah....

Not "my fourth sock hasn't been banned", but "I haven't been banned", and then say that yes, you have in fact been banned.  3 times actually.

Seriously question.  Who do you honestly think you're fooling?  Who do you think honestly believes you?

Stop this slapfighting, just leave him on ignore.

This autumn, Matt Damon discovers...

The Rooster Identity.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;679141Yeah....

Not "my fourth sock hasn't been banned", but "I haven't been banned", and then say that yes, you have in fact been banned.  3 times actually.

What the hell is wrong with you? You're the one trolling here. I've only ever responded to your nastiness. And now you're grasping at straws trying to paint me as some sort of Machiavellian villain bent on deceiving people about being banned from a shitty RPG website.

WTF dude? Are you off your meds or something?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;679141Seriously question.  Who do you honestly think you're fooling?  Who do you think honestly believes you?

Believes what? There is no conspiracy here. You're just off your rocker and obsessed with me. I know I'm pretty hot, but really, this is just stalking at this point.

Quote from: The_Rooster;679135No I'm not. You're just too obsessed with me to see that both can be true. I'm on my fourth nick at RPG.net. Three of the previous ones are perma-banned.

You've never been banned at RPGNet because you've been banned three times?

Dude. Just... dude.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;679210You've never been banned at RPGNet because you've been banned three times?

English comprehension 101.

Banned and never banned have two different meanings.

What I find incredulous is that it somehow matters. I mean, even if there was an intentional deception, so what? It's such a huge deal only because Sackrosuck has turned it into one because he is desperately latching on to this notion that I'm some sort of evil nemesis bent on his destruction and the destruction of all that he holds dear.

I think some people both need to get over it and get over themselves. Being pedantic little fucks destroys conversation about interesting and important things. It seems this place is overrun with pedantic little fucks.

Quote from: Bill;678873If you roll an 18/00 strength and 100 for Psionics on the same character in
 1E, you officiallay have 'Won' at Dnd.

"What does he get for Intelligence?"
[roll]
".....5...."

Quote from: StormBringer;678899

(http://pictures.n3po.com/cache/Images/Wooded-hills-rise_540.jpg)

See that section on the left, where there are no trees?  You can see pretty far along that part.  I will now direct your attention to the right where you can't see a goddamn thing because all the fucking trees are in the way.  If you climb up a tree on the top of a hill, you might have a sight line of more than a thousand feet, but again, it's because the fucking trees aren't in your line of sight anymore.  At ground level, there are fucking trees in the way of your line of sight.  Also, in the picture above, there is a gigantic fucking hill right in front of you blocking your line of sight.

Where do you suppose a group of bandits would be hanging out in the above picture?

I can't believe this is literally a matter of not seeing the forest for the trees.

"These bandits have learned the first lesson in How Not To Be Seen: Do not stand up."

Quote from: James Gillen;679231"These bandits have learned the first lesson in How Not To Be Seen: Do not stand up."

I think that's a thread win. Or, it would be, but 'thread win' is such a tinny phrase. We need a good woody phrase instead like "Conversation Conquest!"

Quote from: soviet;678986No it isn't. It literally says to do this after the roll. The resolution mechanic is essentially roll d20, 1=autofail, 2-19=GM decides, 20=autosucceed.

So the words don't actually mean what they say:

Quote from: soviet;677886Page 3:

Here's another secret: You don't actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the ability check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result.

As in, don't use setting a DC, use just the d20 die itself like a percentile die.

Quote from: soviet;677886You'll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player's) squares pretty well with the set DCs presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it unless the task is trivially simple. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the high teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls a 20 or better, there's usually little question that the character succeeds.
Your players will never know.

Those are percentage values. It still depends on stochastic determination to give a value to answer the above ranges. That's still before the roll. It's a different system used for stochastic determination, shifting from DC setting to % equivalent, but it still is based on the randomizer determining success.

Or are these words you qouted not the words in the book? You did reprint in context, correct?

Quote from: Opaopajr;679273So the words don't actually mean what they say:



As in, don't use setting a DC, use just the d20 die itself like a percentile die.



Those are percentage values. It still depends on stochastic determination to give a value to answer the above ranges. That's still before the roll. It's a different system used for stochastic determination, shifting from DC setting to % equivalent, but it still is based on the randomizer determining success.

Or are these words you qouted not the words in the book? You did reprint in context, correct?

It's a copy paste from the playtest packet.

Nowhere does it say that you do anything before the roll. Nowhere does it say anything about percentages. The text you yourself quoted simply says to have the player roll the dice and then (in secret, no less) for the GM to use their gut feeling to decide whether or not it was a success.

The check result is the dice roll. Therefore, if you decide whether or not the character succeeds based on the check result, you can only take such an action after the dice have been rolled. Seriously, I don't see how this isn't clear.

Note also that the text says decide not determine or the like. This is a clear sign I think. If you're setting a DC number beforehand, what's to decide?

I picked up the "roll it and decide after" from a GM a few years ago. Generally referred to as a 'don't fuck it up' roll.

If I'm not mistaken, that whole section is in gray, right?  So it's completely optional.  I don't criticize an entire game based on an optional rule.  Don't like it, don't play with it.

Quote from: RunningLaser;677560For those of you who are playtesting 5e- when a new packet comes out, do you start your game from scratch or just make the necessary changes and move on?

We're just tweaking things as we gain a level, and moving on.  So, during the level transition, we make the changes, and work on a cogent explanation in-game for anything that would appear different.  Most of the changes are differing mechanics, and not necessarily different in-game results.  For example, skills was just an "Add a d6 to your ability check", so no in-game explanation for that as it was just a change in the odds of success.  

Now, the Wizard now having an at-will attack cantrip, when he didn't before, will require an in-game explanation of training or magical revelation or magic item or something.

Quote from: Mistwell;679454We're just tweaking things as we gain a level, and moving on.  So, during the level transition, we make the changes, and work on a cogent explanation in-game for anything that would appear different.  Most of the changes are differing mechanics, and not necessarily different in-game results.  For example, skills was just an "Add a d6 to your ability check", so no in-game explanation for that as it was just a change in the odds of success.  

How do you do that with this newest revision?  They got rid of skills and many classes (like the Blackgaurd, specialist rogues, specialist clerics, etc)?

For example, in the previous packet, I had a dwarven cleric of protection with the interposing shield and hold the line feats.  There is no way I can replicate that in the new packet.

QuoteNow, the Wizard now having an at-will attack cantrip, when he didn't before, will require an in-game explanation of training or magical revelation or magic item or something.

Wizards have always had at-will attack cantrips from day one.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;679459How do you do that with this newest revision?  They got rid of skills and many classes (like the Blackgaurd, specialist rogues, specialist clerics, etc)?

Skills I already explained.  All the same skills are there - there never were actual skills, it was just a skill die you added to ability checks, and now there is no skill die, but the characters still do the same thing they always did - roll an ability check.  There was no "cannot use untrained" concept.

As for the classes, we fortunately didn't have any of those in the party.

QuoteFor example, in the previous packet, I had a dwarven cleric of protection with the interposing shield and hold the line feats.  There is no way I can replicate that in the new packet.

I am sure there are changes that are much more difficult to explain than others, I'm just relating that so far, for our particular group, it has not been a big deal yet.

QuoteWizards have always had at-will attack cantrips from day one.

Day one they had them.  Then they were gone, apparently.  Now they are back again.  The wizard was created during a time when they were, apparently, gone.  I say apparently because I am just going off what the player was telling me - I hadn't read the cantrips section with enough detail to know what he had access to for any given playtest package.  It's possible he just missed the entry for an attack cantrip in a package.

Quote from: Mistwell;679469Day one they had them.  Then they were gone, apparently.  Now they are back again.  The wizard was created during a time when they were, apparently, gone.  I say apparently because I am just going off what the player was telling me - I hadn't read the cantrips section with enough detail to know what he had access to for any given playtest package.  It's possible he just missed the entry for an attack cantrip in a package.

I think your player probably missed them, because at will cantrips like shocking grasp and ray of frost have always been there.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;679459How do you do that with this newest revision?  They got rid of skills and many classes (like the Blackgaurd, specialist rogues, specialist clerics, etc)?

For example, in the previous packet, I had a dwarven cleric of protection with the interposing shield and hold the line feats.  There is no way I can replicate that in the new packet.

I think it matters a lot less in actual play than in the minds of the players. Sure, there are different names and you can't do the exact same things in combat, but ultimately the character can remain the same thematically without having abilities that fully reflect their theme.

Is it an annoying pain? Sure, but it's a playtest, and that's what they signed up for.

Quote from: The_Rooster;679119They saw Bob, their mate, get dropped from an arrow fired from someone around 320 feet away and Pete, Bob's best friend, charged off to get revenge and the rest followed.

You said the encounter distance was a thousand feet.  Which is it, 300 feet or 300 yards?  Because someone closed a 700ft gap in your first version to fire an arrow and kill a bandit.  At which point, normal people would take to the woods and... I dunno...  set up an ambush?  You know, the kind of thing bandits would do.

QuoteIt was only after another couple of them dropped (within the same round no less) that they realised how dumb an idea that was.

No, it was only after another couple of them dropped within the same round that you realised how dumb an idea that was.  And even without a lick of military training, you should have realized that closing a 1000ft gap would take somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 rounds at full speed.  We are assuming they were going something like full speed, because you said they were charging.  So, let's look at this in a modern context.  You and your buddies are scavenging a car by the side of the road.  A shot rings out, and one of your friends falls over dead.  You are arguing that the first thing to cross your mind is "Let's all jump on our ten speed bikes and race in the direction of that shot!"  By the time 2/3 of the distance is covered and two or three more have been killed, the prevailing sentiment is "Keep going!"

I'll let you roll that one around your head for a while.

QuoteThis is called roleplaying NPC's. You know, 'cause they weren't in the military. Now if they'd not rotated their crops, you'd have something to complain about.

Exactly.  They weren't in the military.  No one in the military will charge 1000ft across an open field against an unknown force unless they are ordered.  So charging the party was exactly the opposite of what they would do.  Because, as we all have agreed, they weren't soldiers.

They were farmers, and likely very skittish, because they have zero actual combat training.  Hence, watching an arrow embed itself in your partner's face is not a matter of mild curiosity.  And unless they were also berserkers, it isn't a situation for riding full tilt toward the danger.  It is a really good time to lay low, gather up as much additional salvage as possible in a minute or so and slink back in to the woods to hide.

Then again, for most of us, NPCs are not suicidal bags of xp for the players to slaughter.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;679104In the scenario as described? Nowhere in that picture. Because they were explicitly on a road finishing up a raid against a caravan. And there is no road in your picture.

So, the left hand side is open.  Like a road.  And on the right side is what insiders like to call 'cover'.  Which is where you go when you are being fired upon.  Contrary to popular belief, one does not charge directly up the open space at the people who are shooting at you.  Because you can be easily seen, which is different than on the right, where you can't be easily seen.

Quote from: StormBringer;679595You said the encounter distance was a thousand feet.  Which is it, 300 feet or 300 yards?

Jesus fuck Christ you people are so anal shit spews from your mouths. Give it a rest. You are superior in every conceivable way and I suck and should never pick up a dice.

Happy?

On topic, I just finished a G+ session playing a rogue assassin, level 4.

Compared to the previous packet, I actually like it better.  In the previous packet, you had to chose what subspecialty you wanted to see if you got backstab, or isolated strike, or a variation.  No matter the choice, you didn't have a simple "sneak attack".  It was kind of weird.  Learning open locks, disarm traps, and pick pockets were also weird since it was dependent on specialty, background, or feat.  Now it's all just Dex modifier + skill dice.

I will say the rules are written with a bit too much ambiguity, but once you understand what they are saying, it's easier to manage.  I'm looking at the wording for Trap Expertise, specifically.

In a nutshell, since there are no "skills" like before, pretty much every "thiefy" thing you do, you can add your expertise dice.  This starts as a d6, but goes up to a d12 at high levels.  As you advance in levels, you also gain certain things that can grant you advantage on these rolls.

For the assassin specialty, the focus is on improved sneak attacks.  Personally I think they should call it precise strike because that feels more appropriate because you can technically apply sneak attack damage to any attack in which you give yourself disadvantage.

The way my assassinate ability works is that any time I attack target before it's turn, I get advantage on my attack rolls.  Also, if I attack a creature that's been surprised, it's an automatic critical and sneak attack damage is maxed.

Since I'm level 4, I had the opportunity to increase my stats, or take a feat.  Tough, tough choice because I could get an extra bonus to hit and damage by increasing my Dex.  But I went with the Alert feat, because that not only gives me advantage on spot checks, but most importantly gives me a +5 bonus on initiative (see where I'm going with this)

Actual play effects:  +8 to my initiative (Dex and alert), making me go first almost all of the time.  Since I go first, I get advantage on my attacks.  If I chose to give myself disadvantage (canceling out the advantage so it's a regular attack), my damage is weapon+sneak attack.  At high levels this will be deadly as the sneak attack damage goes up.  And it's very simple to manage.  Either attack at advantage, or regular attack with extra damage.  Nice having that simple choice.  And I think the feat was well worth it over the attribute check.  Our group of 6 players were pretty split down the line on which we preferred, so I guess that means it's working as designed.

Oh, and lore checks are actually quite nice.  I don't mind now missing the skill dice and instead having a couple "skills" that get a huge bonus.  We used lore quite often.  An example was when we were trying to BS our way into the purple dragon cult.  I had forbidden lore, so I made a roll to find out enough about the cult that I was able to put together a believable story.

Quote from: The_Rooster;679632Jesus fuck Christ you people are so anal shit spews from your mouths. Give it a rest. You are superior in every conceivable way and I suck and should never pick up a dice.

Happy?

"Dice" is plural.  "Die" is the singular.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;679640On topic, I just finished a G+ session playing a rogue assassin, level 4.

Compared to the previous packet, I actually like it better.  In the previous packet, you had to chose what subspecialty you wanted to see if you got backstab, or isolated strike, or a variation.  No matter the choice, you didn't have a simple "sneak attack".  It was kind of weird.  Learning open locks, disarm traps, and pick pockets were also weird since it was dependent on specialty, background, or feat.  Now it's all just Dex modifier + skill dice.

Does it maybe feel like FASERIP, where the powers are pretty generic, but the players are intended to 'personalize' the cause and effect?

Quote from: StormBringer;679656"Dice" is plural.  "Die" is the singular.

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lj9qanfPvV1qixleeo1_400.gif)

Quote from: StormBringer;679659Does it maybe feel like FASERIP, where the powers are pretty generic, but the players are intended to 'personalize' the cause and effect?

I'm not familiar with FASERIP, so I don't know.  The abilities didn't really feel generic in the way the players are intended to personalize them.

It was pretty much just having the choice, against opponents I had better initiative on, to either attack with advantage (benefit to hit), or attack regularly, but with extra damage (from sneak attack).

Quote from: StormBringer;679656"Dice" is plural.  "Die" is the singular.

Flawless victory.

Quote from: Piestrio;679667Flawless victory.

It's those damn Muslims, subverting our culture by slowly changing the meanings of words without us knowing.

First they changed what "dice" means.  Now they are trying to put everyone in burkas.  What next?

Quote from: Piestrio;679667Flawless victory.

:hatsoff:

OK, so I guess I was applying the previous packet's sneak attack rules.  In this new packet, you can apply sneak attack damage any time you have advantage (you still get it) or any time there's an ally within 5 feet of your target.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;679665I'm not familiar with FASERIP, so I don't know.  The abilities didn't really feel generic in the way the players are intended to personalize them.

The old Marvel Super Heroes, or the public domain 4C.  I guess Hero would have been a better example; MSH actually had a set of generic powers intermixed with weirdly specific entries.  Energy Generation was anything you wanted it to be, but there was a listing for Web Casting also.

I guess I figured your description sounded like the Rogue has a couple of nondescript slots for 'Rogue abilities', and you could fill those with 'Pick Pockets' or whatever and just roll Dex+mod for all of them.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;680171OK, so I guess I was applying the previous packet's sneak attack rules.  In this new packet, you can apply sneak attack damage any time you have advantage (you still get it) or any time there's an ally within 5 feet of your target.

Which is super annoying since now there aren't any ways aside from hiding to get advantage on ranged shots, which kills a lot of builds.

Quote from: StormBringer;680174I guess I figured your description sounded like the Rogue has a couple of nondescript slots for 'Rogue abilities', and you could fill those with 'Pick Pockets' or whatever and just roll Dex+mod for all of them.

I guess you could sort of look at it like that.  There are really two parts to consider:

1.  Any Dexterity check will also use the skill dice for rogues
2.  Only a few "thiefy" acts require thieves tools, which in turn require a prof. in them (you can get this prof by either being a rogue, taking a thief background, or I think choosing a feat)

So essentially, for some thief skills like pick pockets, anyone can attempt.  Thieves just get an extra dice.  Later on they also get an ability to effectively take 10 on the d20 roll.  For other certain "thiefy" skills, like open locks, require thieves tools so not everyone can attempt.


Also, with the new sneak attack rules, I really have sneak attack on just about every attack I use.  I typically use a bow and stand towards the back.  With my alert feat, I get a +5 bonus to initiative, and by being an assassin, I get advantage every time I attack a target before it goes.  In addition to that, even if I don't go first, as long as I have an ally within 5 feet of my target, I also get advantage.  So I'm adding sneak attack damage on pretty much every attack, without needing to hide at all.

Now, if I DO hide, and surprise the target I attack, not only do I have advantage, but the attack is a critical hit and all sneak attack dice are max'd.  So for a 5th level rogue using a long bow and DEX 18, that's 2d8+4+12 (2d6 sneak attack) points of damage (18-32).  Which is a nasty hit.  I guess that's why they call it the assassin.  I might be squishy, but damn don't let me get surprise on you.