Including a much nicer version of the cover art (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140605) - hopefully the actual box will include the full party.
It takes 4 pages to explain the Six Ability scores?
Hmm... :idunno:
Big list of equipment and spells for a supposed lack of character generation. Wonder how big is the book.
Quote from: Opaopajr;755554Hmm... :idunno:
Big list of equipment and spells for a supposed lack of character generation. Wonder how big is the book.
Book is announced as 32 pages, so that appendix is probably a 1-page summary.
The length of the equipment and spell descriptions looks sensible to me given that this book has to handle levels 1-5 (and there's presumably lots of illustrations in the equipment section of kit that new players may not be familiar with).
As far as the ability score section goes, since the scores are being used for task resolution and saving throws C&C-style tthe section probably includes an explanation of that with lots of examples.
Quote from: jeff37923;755553It takes 4 pages to explain the Six Ability scores?
It took just under 8 pages in the play test document so that's a significantly cut down version.
Quote from: jadrax;755557It took just under 8 pages in the play test document so that's a significantly cut down version.
Took an entire chapter in AD&D 2E...
Sorry, should have clarified. I mean the .pdf basic rulebook.
Hopefully a starter party can't beat a Dragon :)
Nice art.
The level 1-5 thing should work if the full game is released at the same time.
Quote from: Warthur;755568Took an entire chapter in AD&D 2E...
Also keep in mind that ability scores in 5e now also drive all things like saving throws as well. Everything is based off a "roll d20 and add ability modifier". I'm guessing there will be things in there like the playtest docs, giving some examples of how to come up with your own DC values for various attempted actions.
Quote from: Bill;755588Hopefully a starter party can't beat a Dragon :)
Nice art.
The level 1-5 thing should work if the full game is released at the same time.
Well, it wouldn't be the first edition where you could successfully gang up on a wyrmling or something. But I'm sure a fully-grown dragon will be a bigger threat than that, they just wanted a striking image to draw the newbies in.
Yeah, it isn't quite as inspirational to show a group of adventurers heroically ambushing a flumph.
Looks good but the small "D&D" at the top annoys me.
Quote from: LibraryLass;755676Well, it wouldn't be the first edition where you could successfully gang up on a wyrmling or something. But I'm sure a fully-grown dragon will be a bigger threat than that, they just wanted a striking image to draw the newbies in.
Best to get em' while they are eggs.
It IS a good picture.
Seeing that "the abilities" is the last section of chapter 1, it seems likely that at least one of the pages between it and the first section of chapter two will be art.
Art is nice and it looks simple and straightforward.
And Yay! The females look sensibly dressed.
Quote from: Marleycat;755709Art is nice and it looks simple and straightforward.
And Yay! The females look sensibly dressed.
No endless spikey bits on the guys armor either.
Quote from: Bill;755588Hopefully a starter party can't beat a Dragon :)
Nice art.
The level 1-5 thing should work if the full game is released at the same time.
Latest Q&A says that the green dragon is in the starter, requiring the PCs to be level 5 to take it on.
Quote from: Warthur;755680Yeah, it isn't quite as inspirational to show a group of adventurers heroically ambushing a flumph.
Exactly. More inspirational is showing a flumph heroically ambushing some adventurers!
The first level fighter on the cover is not well versed in the effects of chlorine gas as a breath weapon.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;756193The first level fighter on the cover is not well versed in the effects of chlorine gas as a breath weapon.
But it would appear he's about to become so.
Has this one been mentioned anywhere?
(http://i61.tinypic.com/15hzjt4.png)
Oh, the complaints have started already: "why are they ALL WHITE??"
(Because the selective pressure for eumelanin production decreased in climates where radiation from the sun was less intense? See also: Why aren't Dwarves black?)
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;756227Oh, the complaints have started already: "why are they ALL WHITE??"
(Because the selective pressure for eumelanin production decreased in climates where radiation from the sun was less intense? See also: Why aren't Dwarves black?)
Immigration has always been a thing. Your mental picture of an all-white medieval Europe owes more to the racism of Hollywood than to actual patterns of human migration.
That said, I expect the actual art will probably be more diverse and it's a bit early to be getting one's dander up about it.
(Who says they're not?)
I'm sure it will be balanced out more in the book itself. That seems to be something WotC cares about.
I suppose the elf looks a bit swarthy, but I'm not sure he'll pass muster.
Yeah, you can't really make that sort of call based on a single page from a book of hundreds of pages.
Quote from: LibraryLass;756255Immigration has always been a thing. Your mental picture of an all-white medieval Europe owes more to the racism of Hollywood than to actual patterns of human migration.
Moreover, standard D&D fantasy societies don't much resemble either the actual historical picture of medieval Europe or, for that matter, many of the popularised myths about medieval Europe, so there's no reason to assume any of our assumptions about the demographics of the region (whether those are the real demographics or the ones we imagine to be the case) apply to D&D cultures. Certainly, to object that including people who aren't white in D&D artwork would be historically inaccurate seems kind of choosy when there's far greater historical inaccuracies you could pick out - like the fact that there's a
freaking elf sat at the campfire chilling with these people like he's a regular human being.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;756227Has this one been mentioned anywhere?
(http://i61.tinypic.com/15hzjt4.png)
Why does the cloaked female looking one appear to be symbolicly posed to push the males around the campfire back?
Uh, she's warming her hands?
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;756227Oh, the complaints have started already: "why are they ALL WHITE??"
(Because the selective pressure for eumelanin production decreased in climates where radiation from the sun was less intense? See also: Why aren't Dwarves black?)
It's the proto-culture midichlorians, oppressing the non-cis-gendered melanin.
Quote from: LibraryLass;756255Immigration has always been a thing. Your mental picture of an all-white medieval Europe owes more to the racism of Hollywood than to actual patterns of human migration.
That said, I expect the actual art will probably be more diverse and it's a bit early to be getting one's dander up about it.
(Who says they're not?)
I expect so to but it doesn't matter.
Nothing you can do will ever be good enough for the tumblr outrage machine. Whatever you do will be twisted into yet another excuse for outrage.
Not enough women
Not enough minorities
Minorities not depicted properly
Minorities just "tokens"
Women not depicted properly
Not enough sexual minorities
Not enough of a particular minority/ethnicity/sexual minority.
Too many stereo types.
Not enough stereo types.
Too many of the wrong stereotypes.
Not diverse with regards to class.
Not "representational"
Too biased.
Not biased enough.
etc...
And on, and on, and on, and on.
And all based on a fundamentally bullshit principle.
I see the Speaking Staff has returned... :p
(seriously, stirring up hay is easy fun! :D)
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;756227Has this one been mentioned anywhere?
Oh, the complaints have started already: "why are they ALL WHITE??"
(Because the selective pressure for eumelanin production decreased in climates where radiation from the sun was less intense? See also: Why aren't Dwarves black?)
um... the elf looks to have dark skin. Its not super dark, but its not white either. Kinda like the elf tracker in the D&D movie perhaps.
Quote from: Omega;756384um... the elf looks to have dark skin. Its not super dark, but its not white either. Kinda like the elf tracker in the D&D movie perhaps.
What I notice is it looks like they're going with Tolkien (Pathfinder) elves like 4e. Baseline slightly taller but thinner then humans. Good to see a Wood Elf actually look like they spend time in forests by the way.
Quote from: Piestrio;756335I expect so to but it doesn't matter.
Nothing you can do will ever be good enough for the tumblr outrage machine. Whatever you do will be twisted into yet another excuse for outrage.
Not enough women
Not enough minorities
Minorities not depicted properly
Minorities just "tokens"
Women not depicted properly
Not enough sexual minorities
Not enough of a particular minority/ethnicity/sexual minority.
Too many stereo types.
Not enough stereo types.
Too many of the wrong stereotypes.
Not diverse with regards to class.
Not "representational"
Too biased.
Not biased enough.
etc...
And on, and on, and on, and on.
And all based on a fundamentally bullshit principle.
This. And conflating a report on
other people's opinions with my "mental picture of an all-white medieval Europe" is bullshit. If an accusation like that was levelled at in an academic context you'd be laughed out of existence. An unfortunate problem with so many "pseudo-academic commenters".
Within the context of what is seen in the image, of course there is immigration and movement of people. There are at least 4 humanoid races co-existing peacefully in the image.
But that doesn't speak to the outrage crowd. They have to have different skin colour. It is as if critical thought as applied to popular sub-culture is stuck in 1960s Star Trek mode: "ooh so diverse, many human races on Enterprise! Wow, very inclusive. Many colours. Teach the world to sing."
TL;DR Fuck off.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;756402This. And conflating a report on other people's opinions with my "mental picture of an all-white medieval Europe" is bullshit
I meant "your" in a general sense, wise guy.
Quote from: Warthur;756268Uh, she's warming her hands?
What are you? Some kind of MRA?
:D
*sigh*
One day I will learn to not get drawn into these arguments. It never makes anything better. One day.
Quote from: jeff37923;756266Why does the cloaked female looking one appear to be symbolicly posed to push the males around the campfire back?
She is damaging the campaign setting with her at will cantrips.
Quote from: LibraryLass;756440*sigh*
One day I will learn to not get drawn into these arguments. It never makes anything better. One day.
C'mon girl (I assume that's where your transitioning to) Please tell me or PM me if I am off. Because us women are really out numbered here. But understand no politics just games it'd be nice if another woman could step in and shock the boys now and again. Come play tag with me please?:)
Quote from: Bill;756449She is damaging the campaign setting with her at will cantrips.
FUCK YOU BILL. ...it's just a dream...no woman beyond your wife would EVER say that...ever.:)
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;756402This. And conflating a report on other people's opinions with my "mental picture of an all-white medieval Europe" is bullshit. If an accusation like that was levelled at in an academic context you'd be laughed out of existence. An unfortunate problem with so many "pseudo-academic commenters".
Within the context of what is seen in the image, of course there is immigration and movement of people. There are at least 4 humanoid races co-existing peacefully in the image.
But that doesn't speak to the outrage crowd. They have to have different skin colour. It is as if critical thought as applied to popular sub-culture is stuck in 1960s Star Trek mode: "ooh so diverse, many human races on Enterprise! Wow, very inclusive. Many colours. Teach the world to sing."
TL;DR Fuck off.
I would have made them all black just to watch folk like you reach nuclear mode.
I mean imagine picking up a fantasy RPG and having every image show black heroes. The impotent rage would be fantastic even though every single argument about why they are all white would be just as valid.
I don't blame the outrage crowd on this one.
I would not do a "group photo op" style picture for D&D without a black and an Asian character. It costs nothing and backs up all the PR talk of being modern and inclusive. Hell, I'd have two male character hold hands too.
WTF not in 2014? It's just good marketing in a gender/ethnic sensitive marketplace. If you want to be the "D&D for Everyone" edition, then fuck it, do the United Colors of Benetton dance.
And double fuck it. Have two male or two female holding hands and/or affectionately touching in two different pics. Make it Elf on Dwarf action. And then watch D&D get promoted on O'Reilly, the 700 Club and Limbaugh as trying to turn all Amerika's children into cock sucking devil worshiping liberals!
Homosexuality and ethnic inclusivity may be almost as good as the Satanic Panic for getting D&D back on the airwaves with free publicity.
And just imagine the SJWs having to DEFEND D&D!!!
Quote from: Spinachcat;756475I don't blame the outrage crowd on this one.
I would not do a "group photo op" style picture for D&D without a black and an Asian character. It costs nothing and backs up all the PR talk of being modern and inclusive. Hell, I'd have two male character hold hands too.
WTF not in 2014? It's just good marketing in a gender/ethnic sensitive marketplace. If you want to be the "D&D for Everyone" edition, then fuck it, do the United Colors of Benetton dance.
And double fuck it. Have two male or two female holding hands and/or affectionately touching in two different pics. Make it Elf on Dwarf action. And then watch D&D get promoted on O'Reilly, the 700 Club and Limbaugh as trying to turn all Amerika's children into cock sucking devil worshiping liberals!
Homosexuality and ethnic inclusivity may be almost as good as the Satanic Panic for getting D&D back on the airwaves with free publicity.
And just imagine the SJWs having to DEFEND D&D!!!
There's my Toxic Cat you ate your spinach.:)
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;756402But that doesn't speak to the outrage crowd. They have to have different skin colour. It is as if critical thought as applied to popular sub-culture is stuck in 1960s Star Trek mode: "ooh so diverse, many human races on Enterprise! Wow, very inclusive. Many colours. Teach the world to sing."
And yet I'd guess A Game of Thrones has a more diverse (not to mention large) audience than any polyglot fantasy property governed by quota. It's almost as though the best way to appeal to a diverse audience is to be really entertaining, because that's all 95 per cent of people care about in their movies, books, and games.
Quote from: Haffrung;756536And yet I'd guess A Game of Thrones has a more diverse (not to mention large) audience than any polyglot fantasy property governed by quota. It's almost as though the best way to appeal to a diverse audience is to be really entertaining, because that's all 95 per cent of people care about in their movies, books, and games.
I think it's rather patronizing to assume someone won't/can't enjoy something because it doesn't have someone like them in it.
It's the same kind of idiocy that gets The Old Man and The Sea removed from English textbooks because it's "regionally biased" against kids that live inland. (And yes, that's a real thing). Or has publishers counting off against bowdlerization checklists (also a real thing)
I've had my fair share of PoC players-- mainly Latin@, but some south and southeast Asian as well-- and many of them have said they do feel somewhat underrepresented in in-game art, but honestly that's not my biggest reason. It's a factor of course, but I want it for my own reasons as much. Namely, I think it makes things feel less repetitive and more interesting and immersive. Species-wide monocultures, IMO, are for Star Trek.
Quote from: Piestrio;756542It's the same kind of idiocy that gets The Old Man and The Sea removed from English textbooks because it's "regionally biased" against kids that live inland. (And yes, that's a real thing). Or has publishers counting off against bowdlerization checklists (also a real thing)
You have to be fucking kidding me. Who invents this stuff? Yes, I understand that perhaps a trilogy about the sorrows of an Thailand transsexual child - prostitute may rely on some cultural nuances that people'll not understand, but NOT UNDERSTANDING SEA?
Quote from: LibraryLass;756588I've had my fair share of PoC players-- mainly Latin@, but some south and southeast Asian as well-- and many of them have said they do feel somewhat underrepresented in in-game art, but honestly that's not my biggest reason. It's a factor of course, but I want it for my own reasons as much. Namely, I think it makes things feel less repetitive and more interesting and immersive. Species-wide monocultures, IMO, are for Star Trek.
I get it. I really do. And as far as we're going to trot out anecdotes just the other day my wife was complaining about people assuming she wouldn't like a book unless it has a female protagonist. Her exact words were "I'm not as shallow as they think I am".
I think more diverse art is pretty awesome.
Where I draw the line is calling someone names because they like/produce/consume said media or demanding that they like/buy/draw something else to fit your preferences.
Quote from: LibraryLass;756588Species-wide monocultures, IMO, are for Star Trek.
No, any nitwit who loves broad sweeping generalizations loves them.
Quote from: Marleycat;756461FUCK YOU BILL. ...it's just a dream...no woman beyond your wife would EVER say that...ever.:)
I was hoping that would be a hilarious joke based on the debate of at will cantrips :)
Quote from: Bill;756773I was hoping that would be a hilarious joke based on the debate of at will cantrips :)
I bet it will be. It can't be hard to make up a houserule about them. Who knows maybe the DMG will even have a couple of options concerning them?
Quote from: Marleycat;756792I bet it will be. It can't be hard to make up a houserule about them. Who knows maybe the DMG will even have a couple of options concerning them?
A buck fifty says it will.
Quote from: Rincewind1;756589You have to be fucking kidding me. Who invents this stuff?
It gets ridiculously idiotic, like an educator in Portland Oregon arguing that Mexicans don't know about peanut butter and jelly.
http://findanoutlet.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/bimbo-bread.jpg <--- Mexican white bread.
Quote from: dragoner;756968It gets ridiculously idiotic, like an educator in Portland Oregon arguing that Mexicans don't know about peanut butter and jelly.
http://findanoutlet.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/bimbo-bread.jpg <--- Mexican white bread.
Quite a few movies have been dubbed over because it was believed that Americans could not comprehend someone speaking in a British accent.
Books get edited even today to remove or alter phrases the publishers think the American reader cannot grasp these alien terms.
etc.
If someone thinks someone cannot comprehend something. Then somewhere, somehow, someone WILL get it removed somewhere.
Quote from: Omega;757050Quite a few movies have been dubbed over because it was believed that Americans could not comprehend someone speaking in a British accent.
It is actually that they are afraid that the accents will be viewed as effeminate, that is what happened to Mad Max.
Quote from: dragoner;757053It is actually that they are afraid that the accents will be viewed as effeminate, that is what happened to Mad Max.
What? Do you have a linky?
They were using Australian accents quite liberally in that movie. Did you mean to say Road Warrior instead?
Quote from: Marleycat;757057What? Do you have a linky?
They were using Australian accents quite liberally in that movie. Did you mean to say Road Warrior instead?
"When shown in the U.S. during 1980, the original Australian dialogue was re-voiced by an American crew"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max
The original Australian version was re-released in 2000, and I saw it in a Theater in Berkeley; OZ version is better. The movie is great though, one of my favorites, the whole Nightrider scene in the beginning where he is babbling all that stuff ... perfect. :D
Quote from: dragoner;757063"When shown in the U.S. during 1980, the original Australian dialogue was re-voiced by an American crew"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max
The original Australian version was re-released in 2000, and I saw it in a Theater in Berkeley; OZ version is better. The movie is great though, one of my favorites, the whole Nightrider scene in the beginning where he is babbling all that stuff ... perfect. :D
Cool beans thanks for the linksie.:)
Quote from: Marleycat;757057What? Do you have a linky?
They were using Australian accents quite liberally in that movie. Did you mean to say Road Warrior instead?
Little bit of a clip with the dubbing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPC3E6ZhjTI&feature=player_detailpage#t=89 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPC3E6ZhjTI&feature=player_detailpage#t=89)
Quote from: Warthur;755551Including a much nicer version of the cover art (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140605) - hopefully the actual box will include the full party.
Page 19, in the equipment section is now also previewed.
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140610#93068
Quote from: Omega;757050Quite a few movies have been dubbed over because it was believed that Americans could not comprehend someone speaking in a British accent.
Solo might not have shot first but at least we still have the British Empire. :D
Page 23, Spell Lists.
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140612#93069
And page 57 was previewed on Google+
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/06/12/byryjydy.jpg)
So Finesse finally adds to the damage as well? Praise Bale.
No Continual Light! Fuck you TBP.:) Probably the BASIC list though. Staves are "versatile'?
Doubt anybody lets me play a Drow Bard with a hand crossbow though.:( It's not a real Bladesinger but scimitars are so overused. I could do the obvious I guess...
Quote from: Marleycat;757606No Continual Light! Fuck you TBP.:) Probably the BASIC list though. Staves are "versatile'?
Doubt anybody lets me play a Drow Bard with a hand crossbow though.:( It's not a real Bladesinger but scimitars are so overused. I could do the obvious I guess...
Continual Light was not in the playtest either.
Quote from: Omega;757612Continual Light was not in the playtest either.
Excellent.:)
The mace vis-a-vis the quarterstaff and the trident vis-a-vis the spear both annoy me a little, but they seem easy enough to fix up.
Quote from: LibraryLass;757620The mace vis-a-vis the quarterstaff and the trident vis-a-vis the spear both annoy me a little, but they seem easy enough to fix up.
Just make the mace a light weapon. Then it can be used in a 2 weapon combo if you fancy it.
And here are the spell lists...
(http://media.wizards.com/images/dnd/products/Starter_Ex3_Spellth.jpg)
Quote from: jadrax;757603And page 57 was previewed on Google+
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/06/12/byryjydy.jpg)
Ha! Unneeded rule :)
If someone wants to wield two shields, get a +4 AC, and have no weapon, let em'.
Duel wielding shield basher..attack!
Quote from: Marleycat;757606No Continual Light! Fuck you TBP.:) Probably the BASIC list though. Staves are "versatile'?
Doubt anybody lets me play a Drow Bard with a hand crossbow though.:( It's not a real Bladesinger but scimitars are so overused. I could do the obvious I guess...
I always check out how good staves are in every rpg. I like staves.
It appears that Versatile means 'does more damage when wielded in two hands'
Actually I bet it's there so you know you can't have a physical shield and the spell called Shield up and in use at the same time.
I have to say, I like the aesthetics of the pages. Good background, font are easy to read. Nice job.
Quote from: Marleycat;757671Actually I bet it's there so you know you can't have a physical shield and the spell called Shield up and in use at the same time.
That reminds me: I hope to freakin' hell they simplify or remove the 'stacking of bonus' systems from 3X.
Quote from: Bill;757675That reminds me: I hope to freakin' hell they simplify or remove the 'stacking of bonus' systems from 3X.
The spells sample that went up today pretty much says "no doubling from the same source". The PHB and/or DMG may have more elaborate systems if you want them.
One thing that caught my attention was the reference to "the worlds of D&D". Now, for 4E and I think most of 3E, it's referred to "the D&D world" in the singular. The change maps with the new focus on multiple settings, so hopefully WotC has given up on their decade-and-a-half-old goal of One Game, One Setting, One Campaign.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;757685so hopefully WotC has given up on their decade-and-a-half-old goal of One Game, One Setting, One Campaign.
and the One Play-style of the last edition.
Quote from: One Horse Town;757687and the One Play-style of the last edition.
Bah. 3E was nearly as bad, it just obfuscated things more. But it's tough to blame the designers for that, since the rules wound up unwittingly encouraging a style of play that mutated the game heavily once it got into the general population ...
And as I said on TBP, it's past time for someone to admit their wrongdoings. Who fed 3E after midnight? :)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;757685The spells sample that went up today pretty much says "no doubling from the same source". The PHB and/or DMG may have more elaborate systems if you want them.
One thing that caught my attention was the reference to "the worlds of D&D". Now, for 4E and I think most of 3E, it's referred to "the D&D world" in the singular. The change maps with the new focus on multiple settings, so hopefully WotC has given up on their decade-and-a-half-old goal of One Game, One Setting, One Campaign.
Same source is still not perfectly clear.
Unless they tag things with the 'deflect' 'dodge' whatever labels. Not overly fond of that.
Not a big deal, I am assuming 5E will have less of an issue with this than 3X.
Here..http://media.wizards.com/images/dnd/products/Starter_Ex3_Spell.jpg (http://media.wizards.com/images/dnd/products/Starter_Ex3_Spell.jpg)
Quote from: Marleycat;757714Here..http://media.wizards.com/images/dnd/products/Starter_Ex3_Spell.jpg (http://media.wizards.com/images/dnd/products/Starter_Ex3_Spell.jpg)
Interesting that there seems to be some overlap with Evocation mentioning channeling positive energy to heal, And Necromancy mentioning life and death.
Quote from: Bill;757669Duel wielding shield basher..attack!
there is a duel shield basher in the film 'Once Upon a Time In China', and he is awesome.
Quote from: Bill;757669Ha! Unneeded rule :)
If someone wants to wield two shields, get a +4 AC, and have no weapon, let em'.
Duel wielding shield basher..attack!
Shield master mage here. Hmmm, if I took shield master twice THEN I could dual wield shields and then take charge! But I'd need a stovepipe hat with smoke billowing out of it and make train noises every time. hmmmm...
Quote from: Warthur;755551Including a much nicer version of the cover art (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140605) - hopefully the actual box will include the full party.
That fighter's about to chop off the wizard's arm.
Quote from: hedgehobbit;757787That fighter's about to chop off the wizard's arm.
Nah, he'd swing down and come up under the dragon...
So shed take one to the kneecap... :o
(Think that is a cleric?)
Quote from: Omega;757827Nah, he'd swing down and come up under the dragon...
So shed take one to the kneecap... :o
(Think that is a cleric?)
I get the feeling the girl to the right is a cleric.
Page: Overland Hex Map
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140617
Quote from: jadrax;758778Page: Overland Hex Map
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140617
Pretty nice.
Quote from: jadrax;758778Page: Overland Hex Map
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140617
Nice map.
Hexes lightly in, terrain overlapping hex borders naturally, increments of 5 an easy number to count by, some depth suggested by water shade, suggested topographical detail but not too busy, etc.
Keep it up and perhaps an update to everything geographic about Toril might be a worthwhile product on its own. I know I'd buy new bundles of maps and general region description. No need for metaplot updates, just some spiffy new maps for Maztica, Kara-Tur, Zakhara and the like.
Quote from: One Horse Town;758780Pretty nice.
The only thing I don't like about it are the hexes are not numbered.
And the fact that I now care about that sort of thing has me deeply worried.
Quote from: jadrax;758778Page: Overland Hex Map
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140617
From 4e Neverwinter Campaign Setting, p.11. The hexes are added though, as are some adventure locations on the bottom right.
From the twitter feed, Command!
http://ow.ly/i/5WsKg
I sort of feel like Charisma is the more logical stat for most enchantment spells. Force of personality seems like it corresponds with willpower better than faith or awareness.
Quote from: LibraryLass;759051I sort of feel like Charisma is the more logical stat for most enchantment spells. Force of personality seems like it corresponds with willpower better than faith or awareness.
I would like to see spells like Suggestion/charm use a Cha save, and spells like Command/dominate use Wis. People will have their preferences, but the save system seems flexible enough in concept to make me happy.
I like the extra target when using command in a higher level slot.
I could also see allowing the command to last an extra round on a single target when using a higher level slot.
Page: Charicter Sheet
http://ow.ly/i/5X4Jr
Specifically, the Human Guy with the Great Axe Charicter Sheet, who is a noble apparently.
Also note the pre-gens are not named.
Quote from: jadrax;759122Page: Charicter Sheet
http://ow.ly/i/5X4Jr
Specifically, the Human Guy with the Great Axe Charicter Sheet, who is a noble apparently.
Also note the pre-gens are not named.
Interesting that the ability mods are much more prominent than the scores themselves...I suppose that makes sense mechanically (the scores are largely irrelevant in game play), but this is a solid push to eliminating them altogether.
Also...Proficiencies: playing cards. At least there's a sense of humor in D&D again.
Quote from: Bill;759061I would like to see spells like Suggestion/charm use a Cha save, and spells like Command/dominate use Wis. People will have their preferences, but the save system seems flexible enough in concept to make me happy.
I like the extra target when using command in a higher level slot.
I could also see allowing the command to last an extra round on a single target when using a higher level slot.
I don't see why a particular save couldn't be switched with any actual harm to the system. I understand LibraryLass's view of wanting all enchantment spells to key off charisma but that would run into the possible issue of making Enchanters or Sorcerer/Warlock subclass equivelents too 1 note.
So I prefer Bill's view or solution of a wisdom/charisma split for enchantment spells. Because its been my experience that if your wizards are either all specialists like 5e or 90%+ specialists like Fantasycraft or Chivalry and Sorcery players tend to keep inside their school or tradition or mode whatever you label it and dip outside only for basic utility or iconic spells. Because its to their advantage and it fits a coherent theme.
And with 5e having unlimited cantrips and basically being able to use quite of few iconic spells as rituals it's even easier and better just to hyperfocus your typical daily prepared spell list. You could even houserule it to allow any spell not prepared that day can be cast as a ritual and it wouldn't hurt a thing beyond playing up what is supposed to be a wizard's iconic ability (flexibility).
Quote from: Marleycat;759124I don't see why a particular save couldn't be switched with any actual harm to the system. I understand LibraryLass's view of wanting all enchantment spells to key off charisma but that would run into the possible issue of making Enchanters or Sorcerer/Warlock subclass equivelents too 1 note.
So I prefer Bill's view or solution of a wisdom/charisma split for enchantment spells. Because its been my experience that if your wizards are either all specialists like 5e or 90%+ specialists like Fantasycraft or Chivalry and Sorcery players tend to keep inside their school or tradition or mode whatever you label it and dip outside only for basic utility or iconic spells. Because its to their advantage and it fits a coherent theme.
And with 5e having unlimited cantrips and basically being able to use quite of few iconic spells as rituals it's even easier and better just to hyperfocus your typical daily prepared spell list. You could even houserule it to allow any spell not prepared that day can be cast as a ritual and it wouldn't hurt a thing beyond playing up what is supposed to be a wizard's iconic ability (flexibility).
Trying to remember how rituals in 5E are going to work; Was it 'You memorize a spell as a ritual instead of the normal way' and rituals then allow the spell to do something outside the box?
Quote from: Bill;759125Trying to remember how rituals in 5E are going to work; Was it 'You memorize a spell as a ritual instead of the normal way' and rituals then allow the spell to do something outside the box?
No, it was 'you spend some cash and extra time and it does not cost you a spell slot'.
Quote from: Brad;759123Also...Proficiencies: playing cards. At least there's a sense of humor in D&D again.
When I saw that on the equipment list the other day, I thought it was pretty dumb. "If you are proficient in playing cards, you get advantage on card games"
Really? Whatever happened to just plain "gambling"? It's just a reminder that they're getting caught up in the super minor details that end up requiring a million skills, and that's just dumb. What next, proficiency in brushing your teeth and how to use a lantern?
Quote from: jadrax;759122Page: Charicter Sheet
http://ow.ly/i/5X4Jr
Specifically, the Human Guy with the Great Axe Charicter Sheet, who is a noble apparently.
Also note the pre-gens are not named.
The bond, traits, flaws, virtues thing really is helpful for someone inexperienced in roleplaying and not a straitjacket or over the top for experienced players. I definitely want to try it in my games. I could see myself instantly get into that character cold. I love that you can just attempt any skill also. Just roll a d20 and go with it.
Quote from: Bill;759125Trying to remember how rituals in 5E are going to work; Was it 'You memorize a spell as a ritual instead of the normal way' and rituals then allow the spell to do something outside the box?
Currently any spell that you have in your spellbook that is specifically noted as ritual means you don't have to prepare it on your short list for the day but can use it in ritual form at any time but it takes 10 minutes to cast. I was thinking of just houseruling any spell in your spellbook that isn't currently prepared can be cast as a ritual.
@Sacrosanct I would just combine the whole mess. And say you can do any gambling but a cards you get +2 to your profiencency.
Quote from: Marleycat;759129The bond, traits, flaws, virtues thing really is helpful for someone inexperienced in roleplaying and not a straitjacket or over the top for experienced players. I definitely want to try it in my games. I could see myself instantly get into that character cold. I love that you can just attempt any skill also. Just roll a d20 and go with it.
I can see the value for new players, as it reinforces the role-playing aspect of the game. But for me?
Nah, I'm not using bonds/traits/flaws. I prefer all that to happen organically in play and not be tied to any mechanic.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;759133I can see the value for new players, as it reinforces the role-playing aspect of the game. But for me?
Nah, I'm not using bonds/traits/flaws. I prefer all that to happen organically in play and not be tied to any mechanic.
Remember I am a White Wolf GM/Player so it really works for me it kind of keeps me focused. But I have no problem with your take.
I like the character sheet! (possible nitpicking about the "playing cards" thing aside – I'm assuming it was a little joke)
The one way I would armchair-general the whole pregen characters thing is that I'd supply, like, ten of 'em. More than most tables could use, so they could mix & match.
Quote from: Marleycat;759134Remember I am a White Wolf GM/Player so it really works for me. But I have no problem with your take.
NO! You must fight with vitriol! You cannot "not have a problem with my take"
;)
Quote from: Imp;759135I like the character sheet! (possible nitpicking about the "playing cards" thing aside – I'm assuming it was a little joke)
Its not, Tool proficencies are a big thing.
I belive Proficency in Horses has replaced a Ride skill for example (although that might be Animal Handling).
Quote from: Imp;759135I like the character sheet! (possible nitpicking about the "playing cards" thing aside – I'm assuming it was a little joke)
The one way I would armchair-general the whole pregen characters thing is that I'd supply, like, ten of 'em. More than most tables could use, so they could mix & match.
And I suppose you could change the bonds, traits, flaws etc. around a bit if you wanted to put in a bit of extra work?
Quote from: jadrax;759138Its not, Tool proficencies are a big thing.
I belive Proficency in Horses has replaced a Ride skill for example (although that might be Animal Handling).
As I said upthread why couldn't you just roll in all in together and just say with this "tool" you get your profiencency bonus. It seems too clunky and requires unneeded rolls otherwise.
Quote from: Marleycat;759140As I said upthread why couldn't you just roll in all in together and just say with this "tool" you get your profiencency bonus.
I am not sure what you mean?
If you are proficient with the tool you do get your proficency bonus, that is what proficency does.
Quote from: Marleycat;759139And I suppose you could change the bonds, traits, flaws etc. around a bit if you wanted to put in a bit of extra work?
I mentioned this a few days ago, but for the so inclined, you could easily reverse engineer the pregens to have some sort of character generation ability. Take the racial abilities from the dwarf pregen, and the fighter abilities from this human fighter to have a dwarven fighter, for instance.
Quote from: Marleycat;759132Currently any spell that you have in your spellbook that is specifically noted as ritual means you don't have to prepare it on your short list for the day but can use it in ritual form at any time but it takes 10 minutes to cast. I was thinking of just houseruling any spell in your spellbook that isn't currently prepared can be cast as a ritual.
@Sacrosanct I would just combine the whole mess. And say you can do any gambling but a cards you get +2 to your profiencency.
So what is the purpose of rituals? Why are they not just spells?
Quote from: Bill;759144So what is the purpose of rituals? Why are they not just spells?
Most spells that are ritual are iconic utility spells like Alarm or Knock. Things that are very needed but situationual and/or steal other classes lunch money.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;759143I mentioned this a few days ago, but for the so inclined, you could easily reverse engineer the pregens to have some sort of character generation ability. Take the racial abilities from the dwarf pregen, and the fighter abilities from this human fighter to have a dwarven fighter, for instance.
Don't see why not because the character sheet looks very transparent and well explained to me.
Quote from: Bill;759144So what is the purpose of rituals? Why are they not just spells?
Basically it means utility spells, sch as Knock, do not take up spell slots (remember, 5th edition gives casters very few spell slots).
You still might memorise them if you really think you will need one in a hurry or are low on cash, but most of the time you will probably cast them ritualistically from your spell book.
Quote from: jadrax;759138Its not, Tool proficencies are a big thing.
I belive Proficency in Horses has replaced a Ride skill for example (although that might be Animal Handling).
Okay... what's the conceptual space between a proficiency and a skill, then? A proficiency applies to a specific type of object? Is playing the lute a proficiency or is it covered by the Performance skill? Do you get a bonus/advantage with skill checks involving objects you're proficient with?
Edit: Oh yeah and do non-weapon and weapon proficiencies come from the same pool, late 1e/2e style?
Quote from: jadrax;759141I am not sure what you mean?
If you are proficient with the tool you do get your proficency bonus, that is what proficency does.
Not quite. Say instead of just being proficient at Animal Handling as per your example you get a bonus with a horse with the right tool. Like Gambling is general but cards are your specialty.
Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, Flaws - part of the Starter Set and Basic? If those actually include mechanics for them, Ouch. I figured the all the story bullshit would get piled on in the 3 hardbacks, didn't know they'd be laying the foundation in the starter.
Proficiencies - Odd, but I kind of like it. Proficiency: Playing cards. So I know how to play card games, I can do gambler like shuffling etc, without assuming I'm great in everything from Poker, to Pick up Sticks, to Chess, to Go. Dunno about Proficiency: Chess Pieces though, the "Tool" metaphor breaks down for some things.
Interesting approach though, looking forward to my Pre order Starter coming in, even if the story stuff signals the End of Everything As We Know It. :D
Quote from: Marleycat;759146Most spells that are ritual are iconic utility spells like Alarm or Knock. Things that are very needed but situationual and/or steal other classes lunch money.
Might be good.
So a Wizard can use a knock ritual, but it takes 10 minutes.
The Thief can probably pick locks quickly.
Quote from: Bill;759153Might be good.
So a Wizard can use a knock ritual, but it takes 10 minutes.
The Thief can probably pick locks quickly.
Exactly. There if you absolutely need it but usually some other party member could do it quicker.
Quote from: jadrax;759149Basically it means utility spells, sch as Knock, do not take up spell slots (remember, 5th edition gives casters very few spell slots).
You still might memorise them if you really think you will need one in a hurry or are low on cash, but most of the time you will probably cast them ritualistically from your spell book.
I would like that a lot if there was a limit on spells in your book.
Hopefully it is not trivial to learn them in the first place.
Quote from: CRKrueger;759152Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, Flaws - part of the Starter Set and Basic? If those actually include mechanics for them, Ouch. I figured the all the story bullshit would get piled on in the 3 hardbacks, didn't know they'd be laying the foundation in the starter.
Proficiencies - Odd, but I kind of like it. Proficiency: Playing cards. So I know how to play card games, I can do gambler like shuffling etc, without assuming I'm great in everything from Poker, to Pick up Sticks, to Chess, to Go. Dunno about Proficiency: Chess Pieces though, the "Tool" metaphor breaks down for some things.
Interesting approach though, looking forward to my Pre order Starter coming in, even if the story stuff signals the End of Everything As We Know It. :D
No mechanics are attached they are just guideposts really. I suppose you could add heft to them and I have no doubt it will be an option in the DMG. Given they have hinted it would be. Since it would alter the baseline of the entire game if you did something like that.
Quote from: Imp;759150Okay... what's the conceptual space between a proficiency and a skill, then? A proficiency applies to a specific type of object? Is playing the lute a proficiency or is it covered by the Performance skill?
These are all very good questions, and right now I am not sure I can answer them.
QuoteDo you get a bonus/advantage with skill checks involving objects you're proficient with?
You get your proficeny bonus, which is +2 at level 1 and scales up to +6 at level 20. This never stacks, so you can't get a a skill proficency bonus from perform and a lute (if this exists) proficency bonus.
QuoteEdit: Oh yeah and do non-weapon and weapon proficiencies come from the same pool, late 1e/2e style?
Theres no pool per say, in general most of your weapon and armour proficences are granted by class, most of your skill and tool proficencies are granted by background. But some classes also grant non weapon proficences and some races grant both.
Quote from: Marleycat;759157No mechanics are attached they are just guideposts really. .
maybe, maybe not. Mearls did say there were mechanics tied to them (like get advantage on a die roll if you use one of your bonds or whatever). I don't know if that mechanic will be in the starter set.
I hope not.
Quote from: Bill;759144So what is the purpose of rituals? Why are they not just spells?
simple answer? They don't take up precious spell slots.
Quote from: Bill;759156I would like that a lot if there was a limit on spells in your book. Hopefully it is not trivial to learn them in the first place.
I suspect this will come down to how the DM handles handing out loot. I suspect wizards will get somethingh like a free spell a level and have the buy the rest. Clerics will probably get the whole lot on a plate again.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;759160simple answer? They don't take up precious spell slots.
I wonder if it is possible to make a 'ritual heavy' caster?
Essentially I hope you need to make hard choices between how many ritual spells and non ritual spells you 'know'
Kinda like the maximum number of spells known in 1E.
Quote from: Bill;759156I would like that a lot if there was a limit on spells in your book.
Hopefully it is not trivial to learn them in the first place.
No limit on the amount of spells in your spell book autolearn 2 spells per level but a limit on both your spell slots and actual daily prepared spells currently level+1 (They are more like a hybrid wizard/3e sorcerer mixed in with Arcana Evolved or even FantasyCraft in some ways would be the best explanation I can give it).
A good term for it that I have heard it called is Neo-Vancian.
Quote from: jadrax;759161I suspect this will come down to how the DM handles handing out loot. I suspect wizards will get somethingh like a free spell a level and have the buy the rest. Clerics will probably get the whole lot on a plate again.
AAAARGGHHH!
If there is one thing they can do to turn me off 5E, its going to be 'Clerics Free lunch' :)
I absolutely hate clerics getting 'all cleric spells'
Quote from: Bill;759162I wonder if it is possible to make a 'ritual heavy' caster?
Essentially I hope you need to make hard choices between how many ritual spells and non ritual spells you 'know'
Kinda like the maximum number of spells known in 1E.
Well, only certain spells are ritual. so you're limited pretty significantly in what you can actually cast as a ritual.
really, and this is just my impression, is that the whole point of rituals was to no longer require MUs to memorize identify, read magic, etc type of spells, saving those precious slots for spells that need to be cast quickly.
Quote from: Bill;759164AAAARGGHHH!
If there is one thing they can do to turn me off 5E, its going to be 'Clerics Free lunch' :)
I absolutely hate clerics getting 'all cleric spells'
Well, as originally intended to balance that out, clerics might lose access to some or all of their spells based on their god's whim of how good a job they're doing. MUs don't have to worry about that.
Quote from: Marleycat;759163No limit on the amount of spells in your spell book but a limit on both your spell slots and actual prepared spells (They are more like a hybrid wizard/3e sorcerer mixed in with Arcana Evolved or even FantasyCraft in some ways would be the best explanation I can give it).
A good term for it that I have heard it called is Neo-Vancian.
Hopefully that means I can, for example, prepare say six spells a day, some ritual, some vancian, but six at the most?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;759159maybe, maybe not. Mearls did say there were mechanics tied to them (like get advantage on a die roll if you use one of your bonds or whatever). I don't know if that mechanic will be in the starter set.
I hope not.
Well that could be a problem. Personally I don't care and in fact goes right into my preferences but it would be a huge problem for straight old school play. I suppose it would easiest just to never give advantage/disadvantage for them if that is your preference. And just don't use them beyond the Starter Set because they are supposed to be optional.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;759166Well, as originally intended to balance that out, clerics might lose access to some or all of their spells based on their god's whim of how good a job they're doing. MUs don't have to worry about that.
I would greatly prefer clerics to only get access to spells that fit the gods ethos.
Can't stand cleric of the Fire god casting cold spells 'just because they can'
Quote from: Bill;759169I would greatly prefer clerics to only get access to spells that fit the gods ethos.
Can't stand cleric of the Fire god casting cold spells 'just because they can'
I don't disagree. That's one thing about 2e I really liked, and incorporated into my 1e games (along with THAC0 and thief skill progressions).
There are specialty clerics in 5e, and I imagine it wouldn't be hard for a DM to say, "You worship the god of fire. You can't cast any cold based spells."
Quote from: Bill;759167Hopefully that means I can, for example, prepare say six spells a day, some ritual, some vancian, but six at the most?
I honestly can't remember if you need to prepair a ritual spell or if you can just cast it if its in your book (or off your plate if you are a cleric).
Quote from: Sacrosanct;759171I don't disagree. That's one thing about 2e I really liked, and incorporated into my 1e games (along with THAC0 and thief skill progressions).
There are specialty clerics in 5e, and I imagine it wouldn't be hard for a DM to say, "You worship the god of fire. You can't cast any cold based spells."
That's where Forgotten Realms Adventures knocked my socks off, every single deity having a different type of priest. The new Hackmaster does that, except there isn't even a generic cleric, every god is unique. Really adds flavor to a setting and brings religions a little further to the forefront.
Quote from: jadrax;759172I honestly can't remember if you need to prepair a ritual spell or if you can just cast it if its in your book (or off your plate if you are a cleric).
You can cast any ritual spell if you can cast that spell anyway (being a caster). All you have to do is add 10 minutes to the casting time. No other real limitations. You don't need to prepare it or memorize it.
*edit
check that. wrong. I was only looking at the how to play section. Under the class section, you do have to have the spell prepared (for clerics) or in your spellbook (for MU)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;759171I don't disagree. That's one thing about 2e I really liked, and incorporated into my 1e games (along with THAC0 and thief skill progressions).
There are specialty clerics in 5e, and I imagine it wouldn't be hard for a DM to say, "You worship the god of fire. You can't cast any cold based spells."
It's easier with a fire/cold situation. But having to justify each spell is a pain in the ass.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;759174You can cast any ritual spell if you can cast that spell anyway (being a caster). All you have to do is add 10 minutes to the casting time. No other real limitations. You don't need to prepare it or memorize it.
Unless learning a ritual is expensive, hard to find, and or takes a long time, they seem more like class abilities.
Quote from: Bill;759167Hopefully that means I can, for example, prepare say six spells a day, some ritual, some vancian, but six at the most?
Say you have a 5th level Wizard...you could technically have any number of spells in your spell books but at minimum you would have 3 cantrips (0) level spells, 6 1st level spell, 4 2nd level spells, and 2 3rd level spells in your book.
Since you're 5th level that means out of those 12 non cantrip spells you can prepare 6 spells to use in any combination your spell slots allow iirc it would be 4/3/1 or similar. And once a day you can recover 3 spell slots to use in any combination allowed (3 firsts, 2 first and a second, or 1 third).
Quote from: Marleycat;759177Say you have a 5th level Wizard...you could technically have any number of spells in your spell books but at minimum you would have 3 cantrips (0) level spells, 6 1st level spell, 4 2nd level spells, and 2 3rd level spells in your book.
Since you're 5th level that means out of those 12 non cantrip spells you can prepare 6 spells to use in any combination your spell slots allow iirc it would be 4/3/1 or similar. And once a day you can recover 3 spell slots to use in any combination allowed (3 firsts, 2 first and a second, or 1 third).
Hold the bus!
Does that mean you regain half your spells each day instead of all of them?
That would be awesome :)
Quote from: CRKrueger;759173That's where Forgotten Realms Adventures knocked my socks off, every single deity having a different type of priest. The new Hackmaster does that, except there isn't even a generic cleric, every god is unique. Really adds flavor to a setting and brings religions a little further to the forefront.
That was an awesome book. And Hackmaster really did clerics right.
Quote from: Bill;759178Hold the bus!
Does that mean you regain half your spells each day instead of all of them?
That would be awesome :)
No she means in addition to recovering them all at rest.
Although I think that was a class special ability rather than a general rule.
(I am on holiday, I don't have any of my stuff here).
Went through the spell list, and these are all the spells that can be cast as rituals
Augury
Commune
Comprehend languages
Contact other plane
Detect good/evil
Detct magic
Detect poison/disease
Divination
Find Familar
Gentle Repose
Identify
Knock
Locate Plants and Animals
Plant Growth
Purify food and water
Silence
speak with Animals
Wish (just kidding)
Quote from: Bill;759178Hold the bus!
Does that mean you regain half your spells each day instead of all of them?
That would be awesome :)
Once a day with a
short rest you recover 1/2 your level round up in
spell slots not
spells it's a HUGE distinction. And it's only good for 1st-5th level spells. It's a class ability not general. A long rest recovers ALL your spell slots. Sorcerers and Warlocks have totally different spell mechanics/systems in use.
Quote from: Marleycat;759182Once a day with a short rest you recover 1/2 your level round up in spell slots not spells it's a HUGE distinction. And it's only good for 1st-5th level spells. Sorcerers and Warlocks have totally different spell mechanics/systems in use.
I get it; recovering some power but you can't change what was memorized.
That's cool.
Definitely like that Wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks will be different.
Fyi, Warlocks rule, just saying.
Quote from: Marleycat;759182Once a day with a short rest you recover 1/2 your level round up in spell slots not spells it's a HUGE distinction. And it's only good for 1st-5th level spells. It's a class ability not general. Sorcerers and Warlocks have totally different spell mechanics/systems in use.
Here's the actual text for Arcane Recovery:
Once per day during a short rest, you can regain some of your magical energy by studying your spellbook. You choose expended spell slots to recover. The spell slots can have a combined level that is less than or equal to half your mage level (round up), and none of the slots can be 6th level or higher.
For example, when you are a 4th level mage, you can recover up to two levels worth of spells slots. You can recover either a 2nd level spell slot or two 1st level spell slots.
Quote from: Bill;759183I get it; recovering some power but you can't change what was memorized.
That's cool.
Definitely like that Wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks will be different.
Fyi, Warlocks rule, just saying.
Sorcerers for me especially Chaos Sorcerers. Wild Magic for the win!:D
Quote from: Marleycat;759185Sorcerers for me especially Chaos Sorcerers. Wild Magic for the win!:D
God, you sound like my buddy Chuck. He LOVES wild magic.
I hate it ;) He's such a giant pain in the ass lol
Quote from: Sacrosanct;759186God, you sound like my buddy Chuck. He LOVES wild magic.
I hate it ;) He's such a giant pain in the ass lol
Of course you do.:)
Sounds like this Chuck and I are like peas in a pod.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;759128When I saw that on the equipment list the other day, I thought it was pretty dumb. "If you are proficient in playing cards, you get advantage on card games"
Really? Whatever happened to just plain "gambling"? It's just a reminder that they're getting caught up in the super minor details that end up requiring a million skills, and that's just dumb. What next, proficiency in brushing your teeth and how to use a lantern?
I know plenty of people who are great at gambling on card games who cannot gamble worth a shit on craps or sports books. What's your point?
If this is indeed not simply a joke, then it's stupid and can easily be ignored. But there's no logical extension that playing cards = all gambling.
Quote from: Marleycat;759124I don't see why a particular save couldn't be switched with any actual harm to the system. I understand LibraryLass's view of wanting all enchantment spells to key off charisma but that would run into the possible issue of making Enchanters or Sorcerer/Warlock subclass equivelents too 1 note.
So I prefer Bill's view or solution of a wisdom/charisma split for enchantment spells. Because its been my experience that if your wizards are either all specialists like 5e or 90%+ specialists like Fantasycraft or Chivalry and Sorcery players tend to keep inside their school or tradition or mode whatever you label it and dip outside only for basic utility or iconic spells. Because its to their advantage and it fits a coherent theme.
Oh yeah, I'm not saying they should all be Cha-based, necessarily, just that it seems like the logical stat and I hope that they're not all Wis-based out of some misguided traditionalism. Even Int-based might be cool in the right context. I can't think of too many enchantments that should be resisted with the physical stats, but maybe that's a limitation of my own creativity.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;757690Bah. 3E was nearly as bad, it just obfuscated things more. But it's tough to blame the designers for that, since the rules wound up unwittingly encouraging a style of play that mutated the game heavily once it got into the general population ...
And as I said on TBP, it's past time for someone to admit their wrongdoings. Who fed 3E after midnight? :)
People keep saying it was an accident. Why is this?
Quote from: mcbobbo;759193People keep saying it was an accident. Why is this?
Because playtest reports, designer comments, etc. suggest that WotC didn't really intend for CoDzilla, scry/buff/teleport, and similar tactics to be the default--it just sort of emerged from what the rules changes (and
lack of changes) wound up encouraging.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;759197Because playtest reports, designer comments, etc. suggest that WotC didn't really intend for CoDzilla, scry/buff/teleport, and similar tactics to be the default--it just sort of emerged from what the rules changes (and lack of changes) wound up encouraging.
Also, the designers apparently didn't expect players to dip into one level of classes in order to acquire bonuses. Basically, they had no idea the player-base would take the char op tools 3E provided and take them to unfathomable extremes.
Even now there is serious bitching by some because the classes are generally backloaded and it's near impossible to CharOP ala 3e even with multiclassing. Because to get more then 1 attack you either have to have 5 levels of Fighter or 8 combined levels in a class with that feature. If you want 3 attacks you have to have eleven levels in the fighter class. So single dipping or doing the 5/7/3/4/1 dance screws you bad.
Say you want to make a Swordmage your best bet is 11/9 Fighter/Wizard Eldritch Knight/Abjurer subclasses. And feats have to be in.
A Bladesinger is probably something like Ranger or Paladin 8 Wizard 12. I would include Bard/Wizard 8/12 but they are being redone into a full caster. Also the above doesn't take into consideration Sorcerers and Warlocks.
The overall point is that you'll want to go 5-6 levels minimum likely more, in any given class to achieve any kind of synergy beyond some unrelated mess of numbers better suited for white room theorycraft idiocy.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;759128When I saw that on the equipment list the other day, I thought it was pretty dumb. "If you are proficient in playing cards, you get advantage on card games"
Really? Whatever happened to just plain "gambling"? It's just a reminder that they're getting caught up in the super minor details that end up requiring a million skills, and that's just dumb. What next, proficiency in brushing your teeth and how to use a lantern?
Use lantern proficiency is on page 13. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Omega;759266Use lantern proficiency is on page 13. :rolleyes:
You could just say fuck it and go C&C style with profiencency bonuses if you have a particular prop. The reason they are doing this middle ground is so it can be used in any playstyle pertinent to 1-4e.
Page: Random Goblin Pic (Not sure the 'Page:' format really worked out to well).
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140619
Quote from: CRKrueger;759152Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, Flaws - part of the Starter Set and Basic? If those actually include mechanics for them, Ouch. I figured the all the story bullshit would get piled on in the 3 hardbacks, didn't know they'd be laying the foundation in the starter.
Apparently the mechanic is called Inspiration, and it basically means that of you role-play your character well, you get a benny you can use to give yourself Advantage later down the line.
Seems pretty easy to ignore if you don't like it, although I expect howls of outrage about it from the 'mother may I' brigade.
Quote from: Marleycat;759227Even now there is serious bitching by some because the classes are generally backloaded and it's near impossible to CharOP ala 3e even with multiclassing. Because to get more then 1 attack you either have to have 5 levels of Fighter or 8 combined levels in a class with that feature. If you want 3 attacks you have to have eleven levels in the fighter class. So single dipping or doing the 5/7/3/4/1 dance screws you bad.
Say you want to make a Swordmage your best bet is 11/9 Fighter/Wizard Eldritch Knight/Abjurer subclasses. And feats have to be in.
A Bladesinger is probably something like Ranger or Paladin 8 Wizard 12. I would include Bard/Wizard 8/12 but they are being redone into a full caster. Also the above doesn't take into consideration Sorcerers and Warlocks.
The overall point is that you'll want to go 5-6 levels minimum likely more, in any given class to achieve any kind of synergy beyond some unrelated mess of numbers better suited for white room theorycraft idiocy.
I like that. Should see more characters based on a theme or even roleplay instead of characters whose concept is "I get full attacks when I charge"
Rearloading for the win.
Quote from: jadrax;759300Apparently the mechanic is called Inspiration, and it basically means that of you role-play your character well, you get a benny you can use to give yourself Advantage later down the line.
Seems pretty easy to ignore if you don't like it, although I expect howls of outrage about it from the 'mother may I' brigade.
I would immediately toss that 'benny for roleplay' out the window, but might give everyone one benny per game session. Maybe.
No howl of outrage, I just don't agree with the concept of bennies for roleplay.
Quote from: jadrax;759299Page: Random Goblin Pic (Not sure the 'Page:' format really worked out to well).
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140619
Look like garden trolls...
I actually think they look quite like this guy, especially the nose.
(http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m71t2xa7oL1qzb1rlo1_400.jpg)
Quote from: Bill;759313I would immediately toss that 'benny for roleplay' out the window, but might give everyone one benny per game session. Maybe.
No howl of outrage, I just don't agree with the concept of bennies for roleplay.
Yeah not a big fan of that either usually I figure if nobody went of the rails and they used their traits or whatever as a guide post everyone gets an extra action point or fate/luck point kind of deal.
Quote from: Bill;759313I would immediately toss that 'benny for roleplay' out the window, but might give everyone one benny per game session. Maybe.
No howl of outrage, I just don't agree with the concept of bennies for roleplay.
Same here. Hero points, Fate points - whatever you want to call them - are fine. Just don't tie them to something as nebulous as roleplaying.
Quote from: Haffrung;759379Same here. Hero points, Fate points - whatever you want to call them - are fine. Just don't tie them to something as nebulous as roleplaying.
I would go so far as to say I'm fine with them in games like WFRP. But not D&D.
I give out Luck points for good roleplaying, I've never had players complain about it either.
Quote from: dragoner;759406I give out Luck points for good roleplaying, I've never had players complain about it either.
I don't tell players if they are role-playing 'well' or 'correctly'
I know plenty of gamers that like roleplay reward bennies; it's just something I personally find distasteful.
Quote from: Bill;759407I don't tell players if they are role-playing 'well' or 'correctly'
I know plenty of gamers that like roleplay reward bennies; it's just something I personally find distasteful.
Fair enough. A possible way to fix this with minimal tweaking, though, would be to look at it through a different lens and restrict the usage somewhat. (I'm largely thinking out loud here; feel free to ignore it if it doesn't work for you. :) )
While a lot of people are comparing the Ideals/Flaws/Bonds system to FATE aspects, it feels to me more like a broadened and simplified version of Pendragon's Traits and Passions. If that's the case, then you could move the Inspiration model closer to that source by requiring the Inspiration Point be used in direct pursuit of one of those elements, instead of a 'save for any time'. If you really want to mechanize it and avoid subjective judgment in the matter of roleplaying, allow players Wisdom or Charisma checks to leverage their Ideals or Bonds--and consider imposing disadvantage if they fail a Wisdom check but continue to act against their flaws. :)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;759414Fair enough. A possible way to fix this with minimal tweaking, though, would be to look at it through a different lens and restrict the usage somewhat. (I'm largely thinking out loud here; feel free to ignore it if it doesn't work for you. :) )
While a lot of people are comparing the Ideals/Flaws/Bonds system to FATE aspects, it feels to me more like a broadened and simplified version of Pendragon's Traits and Passions. If that's the case, then you could move the Inspiration model closer to that source by requiring the Inspiration Point be used in direct pursuit of one of those elements, instead of a 'save for any time'. If you really want to mechanize it and avoid subjective judgment in the matter of roleplaying, allow players Wisdom or Charisma checks to leverage their Ideals or Bonds--and consider imposing disadvantage if they fail a Wisdom check but continue to act against their flaws. :)
I believe it's just too metagamey for my taste. I also can't stand it when players compete for rewards instead of just playing the character.
It is also very difficult to 'reward' a player for 'good roleplay' when the player and or the character are 'introverted'
Quote from: Bill;759407I don't tell players if they are role-playing 'well' or 'correctly'
I know plenty of gamers that like roleplay reward bennies; it's just something I personally find distasteful.
I have a tendency to spread them out evenly, a little something for the something. Sometimes just to encourage involvement, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Often it is for an especially insightful "in character" action, or maybe even a surprising new tangential action.
Do you encourage role playing? There will always be some meta, like rolling dice.
Quote from: dragoner;759424I have a tendency to spread them out evenly, a little something for the something. Sometimes just to encourage involvement, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Often it is for an especially insightful "in character" action, or maybe even a surprising new tangential action.
Do you encourage role playing? There will always be some meta, like rolling dice.
That's more what I do because just to get your introverted player just to try is the same level as your wannabe thespian being all in character to me. It's supposed to promote fun stuff happening.
Quote from: dragoner;759424I have a tendency to spread them out evenly, a little something for the something. Sometimes just to encourage involvement, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Often it is for an especially insightful "in character" action, or maybe even a surprising new tangential action.
Do you encourage role playing? There will always be some meta, like rolling dice.
I don't encourage roleplay; I prefer to play with people that roleplay.
As a player and as a gm my style lends itself to supporting roleplay.
I will create plenty of opportunities to roleplay, but I don't encourage roleplay. Unless you consider that the same thing.
Quote from: Bill;759430I don't encourage roleplay; I prefer to play with people that roleplay.
As a player and as a gm my style lends itself to supporting roleplay.
I will create plenty of opportunities to roleplay, but I don't encourage roleplay. Unless you consider that the same thing.
I don't know, what is your definition of role play?
Quote from: dragoner;759433I don't know, what is your definition of role play?
I would define roleplay as when a player has their character do what the character would do in the setting, instead of what the player would do, with as little metagaming as possible.
Quote from: Marleycat;759429That's more what I do because just to get your introverted player just to try is the same level as your wannabe thespian being all in character to me. It's supposed to promote fun stuff happening.
I often will use the luck points to try to draw the introvert out of their shell, vs the amateur thespian who doesn't really need it. Being an introvert myself, I know it can take some coaxing.
Quote from: Bill;759434I would define roleplay as when a player has their character do what the character would do in the setting, instead of what the player would do, with as little metagaming as possible.
I have found that players aren't equal in their level of being able to roleplay, thus I use the luck points to reward those that grow.
Quote from: dragoner;759436I have found that players aren't equal in their level of being able to roleplay, thus I use the luck points to reward those that grow.
That inequality is probably one reason why I don't give specific rewards for specific roleplay actions. It just feels wrong to me.
I also really don't want to play favorites.
Technically roleplay has its own in game rewards/penalties anyway.
There is something about a gm rewarding or penalizing (by withholding a reward) 'good' roleplay that just rubs me the wrong way. Like the gm is meddling with the players running his character.
I also don't really want to judge who is a good roleplayer and who is not. I just either play my character hopefully in a way that makes the game more fun for everyone, or when gm, try to make the game work and hope everyone has fun.
I am not saying roleplay bennies are the devil, but I am saying I don't like them :)
Quote from: Bill;759439I am not saying roleplay bennies are the devil, but I am saying I don't like them :)
I understand. :)
I don't use them as an inherent reward system, more like an unseen hand.
Quote from: dragoner;759451I understand. :)
I don't use them as an inherent reward system, more like an unseen hand.
I probably unconsciously reward and penalize players without realizing it just from running the game. It's just not as overt.
Quote from: Bill;759456I probably unconsciously reward and penalize players without realizing it just from running the game. It's just not as overt.
I'll be the first to admit that I think too much.
Page: Map of Homlet... hang on, I mean Phandalin.
http://ow.ly/i/5YAQY/original
Quote from: Bill;759407I don't tell players if they are role-playing 'well' or 'correctly'
I know plenty of gamers that like roleplay reward bennies; it's just something I personally find distasteful.
I prefer an exp reward if the good RPing didnt net them something allready. Or better yet, reward the whole group.
That was one of the boons of Palladiums system in that good RP and creative play was rewarded with EXP.
Quote from: Omega;760063I prefer an exp reward if the good RPing didnt net them something allready. Or better yet, reward the whole group.
That was one of the boons of Palladiums system in that good RP and creative play was rewarded with EXP.
I greatly prefer group rewards. To me, rpgs are a group effort, not a contest between players.
I have done supervillain / evil pc games before, but I only enjoy that if all the players are into it.
Quote from: Bill;760460I greatly prefer group rewards. To me, rpgs are a group effort, not a contest between players.
I have done supervillain / evil pc games before, but I only enjoy that if all the players are into it.
One of the neet features of Dragon Storm was that you could donate EXP to other players after a session if you picked up a particular ability. We viewed it as downtime training. I tended to have an absurd amount of EXP and so Id mentor someone in need afterwards.
Quote from: Omega;760470One of the neet features of Dragon Storm was that you could donate EXP to other players after a session if you picked up a particular ability. We viewed it as downtime training. I tended to have an absurd amount of EXP and so Id mentor someone in need afterwards.
Cool concept. Now where are those selfless players hiding? :)
Page: Dwarf Cleric Pre-Gen
http://ow.ly/i/60gQQ/original
http://ow.ly/i/60gS9/original
Quote from: jadrax;760690Page: Dwarf Cleric Pre-Gen
http://ow.ly/i/60gQQ/original
http://ow.ly/i/60gS9/original
Interesting. Unless I'm missing something, it appears you don't suffer DEX penalties in heavy armor either (along with DEX bonuses).
Hmmm....not sure how I feel about that.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760694Interesting. Unless I'm missing something, it appears you don't suffer DEX penalties in heavy armor either (along with DEX bonuses).
Hmmm....not sure how I feel about that.
You just suffer disadvantage to stealth it looks like. Is the prepared number of the spells the same as the playtest? Because it goes off level+wisdom modifier.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760694Interesting. Unless I'm missing something, it appears you don't suffer DEX penalties in heavy armor either (along with DEX bonuses).
Hmmm....not sure how I feel about that.
AD&D rangers, sneaking around in platemail, surprising monsters. Sounds fine to me.
Quote from: Brad;760805AD&D rangers, sneaking around in platemail, surprising monsters. Sounds fine to me.
they'd still get disadvantage on stealth checks, and wouldn't get dex bonuses, but a big part of me thinks they should still get dex penalties as well
Quote from: Haffrung;759379Same here. Hero points, Fate points - whatever you want to call them - are fine. Just don't tie them to something as nebulous as roleplaying.
I've never been comfortable with how vaguely defined getting bennies was in SW. I mean, I'm not about "everything must be nailed down!" but "whenever the GM feels like it" is just too vague to me.
Page: Appendix A - Magic Items
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140624#93101
Art looks a little off. None of the items seem to share the same perspective. Otherwise seems ok.
Quote from: Omega;760925Art looks a little off.
Yeah, is that ring? I can't tell for sure.
Quote from: Endless Flight;760935Yeah, is that ring? I can't tell for sure.
If it is it is totally out of scale. At first thought it was some sort of bracer.
Quote from: Bill;759434I would define roleplay as when a player has their character do what the character would do in the setting, instead of what the player would do, with as little metagaming as possible.
I find that more than a few people are disinterested or incapable of playing a character with a personality that differs from their own. Long ago I stopped thinking this was a problem.
My minimum standard for my campaigns is that you, the player, play as if you were there in the setting as the character. This work even if the character just a reflection of the player. Since then I successfully mixed good roleplayers with well not so good roleplayers.
I concur about the metagaming.
Quote from: estar;760966I find that more than a few people are disinterested or incapable of playing a character with a personality that differs from their own. Long ago I stopped thinking this was a problem.
My minimum standard for my campaigns is that you, the player, play as if you were there in the setting as the character. This work even if the character just a reflection of the player. Since then I successfully mixed good roleplayers with well not so good roleplayers.
I concur about the metagaming.
Technically its ok, albeit unimaginative, to roleplay your own personality, as long as the player does not metagame.
Quote from: Bill;760967Technically its ok, albeit unimaginative, to roleplay your own personality, as long as the player does not metagame.
Like I said I given up on judging whether it good or bad, imaginative or not imaginative. They seem to have as much fun as the player who makes up complete characters.
I will add as an observation, that these players rarely play a carbon copy of themselves. Usually it themselves with X or as X. Bob as a Barbarian. Or sometimes more specific, Bob as a Snow Barbarian wielding a wicked spear.
Quote from: estar;760972Like I said I given up on judging whether it good or bad, imaginative or not imaginative. They seem to have as much fun as the player who makes up complete characters.
I will add as an observation, that these players rarely play a carbon copy of themselves. Usually it themselves with X or as X. Bob as a Barbarian. Or sometimes more specific, Bob as a Snow Barbarian wielding a wicked spear.
That is even a game mechanic in some RPGs. Villains & Vigilanties and Torg are two I had that did this. Possibly Marvel Superheroes and Aberrant too.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760808they'd still get disadvantage on stealth checks, and wouldn't get dex bonuses, but a big part of me thinks they should still get dex penalties as well
Pretty sure you got dex bonuses to AC in AD&D even wearing platemail.
What are you referring to, specifically?
Quote from: Brad;760981Pretty sure you got dex bonuses to AC in AD&D even wearing platemail.
What are you referring to, specifically?
I though we were talking about 5e
Here is an unboxing video (http://ragingowlbear.blogspot.com/2014/06/dnd-5e-starter-set-unboxing.html)of the starter set. It's an hour long, but honestly you only need to see the first few minutes.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760983I though we were talking about 5e
Yeah, I was talking about AD&D not having those issues, which is why if 5e has those issues, I'm fine with it.
One of the biggest gripes I had about 3.X was armor limiting dex bonus to AC. I understand it was so high dex fighters didn't have an inflated AC compared to everyone else, but then again, they probably should. Don't really GAF if the classes are "equal".
Quote from: Brad;760986Yeah, I was talking about AD&D not having those issues, which is why if 5e has those issues, I'm fine with it.
Ah, I see now. Yeah, I see your point.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760984Here is an unboxing video (http://ragingowlbear.blogspot.com/2014/06/dnd-5e-starter-set-unboxing.html)of the starter set. It's an hour long, but honestly you only need to see the first few minutes.
Two things:
1) Ordered another one based on this video.
2) Could they possibly get two nerdier looking dudes to do the unboxing?
Quote from: jadrax;760909Page: Appendix A - Magic Items
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140624#93101
They didn't put the rarity rating in the description that's weird.
Quote from: Marleycat;760997They didn't put the rarity rating in the description that's weird.
It's the starter set, so I suspect that pretty much the rarity is determined by the fact they have already been placed somewhere in the attached adventure.
Quote from: jadrax;761003It's the starter set, so I suspect that pretty much the rarity is determined by the fact they have already been placed somewhere in the attached adventure.
Very likely. It's not something hugely important to learning the game anyway. Wouldn't be surprised if it's briefly mentioned in the DM information somewhere though.
Quote from: jadrax;758778Page: Overland Hex Map
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140617
See?!!
Quote from: RPGPundit;761171See?!!
See what? That the starter has a map with hexes on it?
Quote from: Bobloblah;761175See what? That the starter has a map with hexes on it?
They are relatively small hexes. Just 5 miles across.
The whole map is only about say 4-6 standard hexes across.
More focused and locallized.
Quote from: jadrax;760909Page: Appendix A - Magic Items
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140624#93101
Don't know if its been discussed already, but was interested in the limit of 3 attuned magic items. Was this in the play test?
I like it.
Quote from: Tyndale;761271Don't know if its been discussed already, but was interested in the limit of 3 attuned magic items. Was this in the play test?
I like it.
To be clear attuned magic items are in addition to the the other types of magic items. Characters can still load up on rings, scrolls, wands, boots, +1 swords, etc.
Attuned items confer addition benefits over and above whatever they initially grant. In other words it does X when you first pick it up, and add Y when you attune to it.
Quote from: Tyndale;761271Don't know if its been discussed already, but was interested in the limit of 3 attuned magic items. Was this in the play test?
I like it.
Attuned magic items are special cases. In the playtest a few needed attunement, the rest did not. Some were class specific type items, others had a function A if unattuned and a function B if attuned. Others wouldnt work at all if not attuned.
shit, dudes; the half dozen starter set preview pages are looking pretty good. When is this thing supposed to hit stores?
Quote from: Larsdangly;761285shit, dudes; the half dozen starter set preview pages are looking pretty good. When is this thing supposed to hit stores?
July the 3rd, so not long now.
Quote from: jadrax;761292July the 3rd, so not long now.
3rd if you've got access to a Wizards Play Network store; 15th for everywhere else.
The character creation section of the Basic Rules should also go live around the 3rd.
Cool. Is the online character creation rules packet available to everyone, or just those who have purchased the starter set?
Quote from: Larsdangly;761327Cool. Is the online character creation rules packet available to everyone, or just those who have purchased the starter set?
Everybody. It will start with just character creation and for the 4 core classes levels 1-20 with the one subclass that was given in the starter set. As the PHB/MM/DMG come out it will be updated with treasure, monsters and basic DMG tools. Also it will be updated with enough information to run Tyranny of Dragons just with the starter set and the PDF. You never actually have to purchase any books to run the BASIC version of the game.
Quote from: Larsdangly;761327Cool. Is the online character creation rules packet available to everyone, or just those who have purchased the starter set?
I believe the character creation rules, followed by the basic D&D rules will be free to everyone.
Of course, without the starter the creation rules will be of limited use on their own as far as actual play is concerned.
Quote from: Omega;761278Attuned magic items are special cases. In the playtest a few needed attunement, the rest did not. Some were class specific type items, others had a function A if unattuned and a function B if attuned. Others wouldn't work at all if not attuned.
Yeah, I remember reading about this. It's an elegant solution to both the CTE (Christmas Tree Effect) and item slots. Simple, but enables choices. Of course, this "solution" might have been only for a problem that was mine to begin with :)
Quote from: Tyndale;761463Yeah, I remember reading about this. It's an elegant solution to both the CTE (Christmas Tree Effect) and item slots. Simple, but enables choices. Of course, this "solution" might have been only for a problem that was mine to begin with :)
I disagree, you were fine but 3/4e was expecting different just to function. What I love about attunement is that yes you are limited to 3 multipurpose items but you still can trade out and still have as many regular items as you want or that's actually reasonable in your setting/game/table.
Had a player that wanted a sack of pearls of power to go with his sack of wands of a gazillion low level spells.
Blah!
Page 60: Bestiary (Nothic, Ochre Jelly, Ogre)
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140626
Note this is the page they showed on the unboxing, only now in focus.
Quote from: jadrax;761549Page 60: Bestiary (Nothic, Ochre Jelly, Ogre)
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140626
Note this is the page they showed on the unboxing, only now in focus.
TBP is bitching because it's weaknesses aren't clear. I had to disagree and post the cliftnotes version.
Quote from: Marleycat;761551TBP is bitching because it's weaknesses aren't clear. I had to disagree and post the cliftnotes version.
The regulars on TBP are going apeshit over pretty much everything in 5E. Seriously, if any traditional roleplayer still needs a reason to consider 5E, just spend a few minutes reading the nerdfury from the system-wonks and consider
if these kooks hate it so desperately, there must be something to this game.
Quote from: Haffrung;761581The regulars on TBP are going apeshit over pretty much everything in 5E. Seriously, if any traditional roleplayer still needs a reason to consider 5E, just spend a few minutes reading the nerdfury from the system-wonks and consider if these kooks hate it so desperately, there must be something to this game.
Exactly! I stopped over there for a rare fly-by and thought I'ld wandered into a mad house two days after they ran out of meds. I'm not a massive fan boy of any game written after 1990, but what is the problem here supposed to be? It is basically D&D of some sort or another, it looks pretty basic and therefore playable, and they put some effort into making it look nice enough that I won't feel ripped off. With any game like this, it will be fucked up only if you fuck it up.
The only thing I notice that has me wondering a bit are the really high hit point totals. E.g., an ogre has 2.5x as many HP as in pre-3E editions. Damage is a bit higher as well, but I think the ratio of HP/typical damage is definitely way up there. So, let me degenerate into a sort of mild, un-emotional nerd rage for a moment:
Any game with D&D style damage and injury gets boring when it takes forever to ablate foes down to 0. In my experience, the problem comes when the combination of hit chance, damage and HP undergoes 'mean reversion' — i.e., so many rolls are needed to resolve each fight that the final outcome is statistically pre-ordained. Like, if you are flipping coins until you see 100 heads, you can pretty much bet anything you like that it is going to take ~200 flips.
E.g., if, on average, it takes 7 hits to kill something and you hit one in three rolls, then you have to make 20+ attacks to defeat something, meaning you are in the range of numbers of rolls where the average outcome nearly always happens. So, you start your fight pretty much knowing what will happen and how long it will take and wishing the sweet release of death would set you free so you don't have to wait through it all.
Examples of games where this occurs include the Decipher Lord of the Rings (at least, played RAW) and, the few times I played it, 4E D&D. In both cases I thought I was going to really dig the game based on a first reading and flip through, and was psyched to play once i organized a group, but then when we sat at the table it was a fucking drag. You could kind of see everyone at the table deflate as they realized they couldn't help but defeat the goblin or whatever, and that it would inevitably take 37 rounds to accomplish. Blech.
So, I hope that isn't what I'm seeing in those jacked up hit points!
Numbers bloat is something that really turned me off of 3e and 4e. Those HP totals raise my eyebrows a bit. However, I have to admit that many times during the playtest a tough opponent (like an ogre) would go down faster than a dime hooker on Burnside, which was anti-climatic. So maybe it's not really an issue.
From my limited experience with the playtest, it's easier to hit monsters in 5E than in pre-3E D&D, and PCs do more damage. So instead of, say, hitting an ogre on 40 per cent of attacks and doing an average of 4 damage each attack, you hit on 60 per cent and do an average of 6 damage (I pulled those numbers out of my ass). So I don't think combats take any longer. They may even be faster.
Quote from: Larsdangly;761611So, I hope that isn't what I'm seeing in those jacked up hit points!
PCs are outputting a bit more damage on average.
But yeah, the HP seems a little up there on both sides. But not excessively so. Just was odd that something touted as playing faster and they jacked up most creatures and PCs toughness.
Combats still clicked along pretty fast though since there is less of the usual maneuvering and jockying to trigger some ability chain.
I was constantly surprised by the speed of combat in the Playtest. You would set up an attack by 6 griffons, thinking that would kill an hour or more, and it would all be over in 15 min.
That said, you would not want to bump into more than one ogre at level 2!
Quote from: jadrax;761623I was constantly surprised by the speed of combat in the Playtest. You would set up an attack by 6 griffons, thinking that would kill an hour or more, and it would all be over in 15 min.
That said, you would not want to bump into more than one ogre at level 2!
I'm wondering if the CR is based on a standard challenge for a party of 4-5 PCs at that level, since we know they have 1/2 CRs as well. So that CR2 Ogre is designed to be a challenge for 4-5 level 2 PCs. And I can see that.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;761616Numbers bloat is something that really turned me off of 3e and 4e. Those HP totals raise my eyebrows a bit. However, I have to admit that many times during the playtest a tough opponent (like an ogre) would go down faster than a dime hooker on Burnside, which was anti-climatic. So maybe it's not really an issue.
That's exactly why they jacked up the hitpoints they even said they hadn't refined the monster math yet. I suppose if you see combat dragging you could adjust it back a bit.
Quote from: Haffrung;761619From my limited experience with the playtest, it's easier to hit monsters in 5E than in pre-3E D&D, and PCs do more damage. So instead of, say, hitting an ogre on 40 per cent of attacks and doing an average of 4 damage each attack, you hit on 60 per cent and do an average of 6 damage (I pulled those numbers out of my ass). So I don't think combats take any longer. They may even be faster.
It was indeed.
At level 3 during playtest we all had mostly a +3 or so bonus from stat to hit, on top of the +2 for level. 25% better chance of hitting for me.
Against the Ogre in the Caves of Chaos playtest with AC 11 that meant I hit on a 6 or better. And in the playteast the Ogre had 35 HP. (5d10+5)
Ogre went down in 3 rounds to a group composed of 2 fighters, 1 thief, and 1 mage (me). It would have ended on round 2 if I hadnt missed on the first round. (rolled a 4!) We were level 3 and blundered into the Ogre cave. Round 3 clobbered me with the greatclub for 14 of my 18 HP. ow!
Quote from: Sacrosanct;761633I'm wondering if the CR is based on a standard challenge for a party of 4-5 PCs at that level, since we know they have 1/2 CRs as well. So that CR2 Ogre is designed to be a challenge for 4-5 level 2 PCs. And I can see that.
Yes, Rodney tweeted that CR is level. I don't know why they switched terms.
Quote from: Omega;761638It was indeed.
At level 3 during playtest we all had mostly a +3 or so bonus from stat to hit, on top of the +2 for level. 25% better chance of hitting for me.
Against the Ogre in the Caves of Chaos playtest with AC 11 that meant I hit on a 6 or better. And in the playteast the Ogre had 35 HP. (5d10+5)
Ogre went down in 3 rounds to a group composed of 2 fighters, 1 thief, and 1 mage (me). It would have ended on round 2 if I hadnt missed on the first round. (rolled a 4!) We were level 3 and blundered into the Ogre cave. Round 3 clobbered me with the greatclub for 14 of my 18 HP. ow!
My 2nd level halfling fighter snuck around the corner to peer into that cave and took a club to the face, sending me into death spiral right off the bat. Ogre clubs hurt ;)
Cool. I didn't expect to loose any sleep over this regardless, but it sounds like my worries are unfounded. Perhaps they simply made the Ogre tougher than I'm used to so it is more like a little giant and less like a big orc.
Quote from: Larsdangly;761672Cool. I didn't expect to loose any sleep over this regardless, but it sounds like my worries are unfounded. Perhaps they simply made the Ogre tougher than I'm used to so it is more like a little giant and less like a big orc.
Well it is supposed to be a challenge for a fully rested 4-5 person 2nd level party. I would wager the baseline is actually 5 given there are 5 pregens in the starter set. Now the really cool thing is that you could use them in a group of 5-6 or whatever (need to see the MM for better than a guess) later on down the line against higher level party's and it won't be any easy task and may be outright deadly.
I suppose. I don't think about critters in D&D that way. I 'use' an ogre to be the thing that lives in an ogre's cave, and you can walk into that cave or not as you wish, regardless of your level or the size of your gang/party.
Quote from: Larsdangly;761705I suppose. I don't think about critters in D&D that way. I 'use' an ogre to be the thing that lives in an ogre's cave, and you can walk into that cave or not as you wish, regardless of your level or the size of your gang/party.
I have no issue with that. I was just saying they're pretty tough monsters.
Those monsters really make me think they're applying the bounded accuracy theme to CRs as well. I.e., the entire design seems to be around a lot less numbers escalation than previous editions. So a CR 10 creature in Next would be the equivalent of a CR 20 creature in 3e.
Quote from: Larsdangly;761603Exactly! I stopped over there for a rare fly-by and thought I'ld wandered into a mad house two days after they ran out of meds. I'm not a massive fan boy of any game written after 1990, but what is the problem here supposed to be?
I always get a chuckle out of the nutjob theorycrafters dissecting every mechanic and value in D&D, desperately trying to turn it into a sublime paragon of elegant mathematical design. I can't imagine how shitty your life must be if your hobby is analyzing the mechanics of a roleplaying game for years and years (in many cases without actually playing), while denouncing its flaws relentlessly to anyone who will listen.
But 5E has inspired the theory-wanks to an unprecedented frenzy of outrage. I don't know if it's because 5E is supplanting the only edition of D&D that did follow the design models promoted by the theorycrafters. Or if it's the modular, loose, flexible quality of 5E that makes steam blow out of their ears. But it's damn fun to watch.
Quote from: Haffrung;761748I always get a chuckle out of the nutjob theorycrafters dissecting every mechanic and value in D&D, desperately trying to turn it into a sublime paragon of elegant mathematical design. I can't imagine how shitty your life must be if your hobby is analyzing the mechanics of a roleplaying game for years and years (in many cases without actually playing), while denouncing its flaws relentlessly to anyone who will listen.
But 5E has inspired the theory-wanks to an unprecedented frenzy of outrage. I don't know if it's because 5E is supplanting the only edition of D&D that did follow the design models promoted by the theorycrafters. Or if it's the modular, loose, flexible quality of 5E that makes steam blow out of their ears. But it's damn fun to watch.
(http://randalrauser.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/schadenfreude_pic.jpg)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;761719Those monsters really make me think they're applying the bounded accuracy theme to CRs as well. I.e., the entire design seems to be around a lot less numbers escalation than previous editions. So a CR 10 creature in Next would be the equivalent of a CR 20 creature in 3e.
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20140425
Why use the term Challenge Rating instead of just level for monster difficulty?We have a number of reasons, including that we want to use fractions at the low end (as Mike alluded to in Legends & Lore). Additionally, we're already using level in two different ways in the game (character level and spell level, for example) and adding yet another metric of level didn't seem like a good idea. Moreover, we didn't want to use level because we expect monsters to remain relevant for much longer in the game than in previous editions (being used in larger numbers), and the term "level" could dissuade DMs from using things that are too far below the level of the party. By going with CR, we can indicate to the DM at what point the monster should enter his or her stable of monsters for use when designing adventures and avoid making it seem like they are too quickly removed from that same stable.
It's also worth noting that, because you use the monsters' XP value, not their CR, when gauging the difficulty of encounters and adventures, the actual CR value is of little significance beyond being a relative gauge of power among all monsters. Since the concept of level is of high significance in gauging the power of player characters, it didn't seem like a good idea to use the same term for two concepts, one of which was extremely important, and the other far less so.
How does CR work for what should be big 'solo' monsters? How would a DM calculate CR for a big villain that he or she has created?The CR of a monster is based on the level at which a party of four player characters could fight that monster and have a moderate-to-challenging fight. So, for the big, solo monsters that you fight, four-on-one serves as the baseline for the CR system, and CR represents about the level at which the monster starts to pop up in adventures (there's some leeway in this, of course; you could fight something of a higher CR, but it becomes significantly more challenging). If you're fighting monsters in larger numbers, they're almost certainly of a CR that is lower than player character level.
As for calculating the CR of a villain, you'll do that just like you would with any other monster: by comparing the villain/monster that you've designed to a set of baseline values to determine its CR, similar to how monster design worked in 4th Edition. We're going to present a set of guidelines that you can use to gauge the CR of a monster, whether built like a player character or built just as a normal monster. (More on this in the next answer.)
Will characters of a certain level have a CR equal to their level?No, for a number of reasons. First, because CR is based on the idea that the player characters are fighting the monster four-on-one, and four player characters will not find a single player character of the same level to be a significant challenge in many cases. Additionally, although player characters are designed to have resources that are expended over the course of an adventuring day, NPC villains in adventures don't have this same need: they are on-screen for a limited amount of time, and they can dump large amounts of resources into attacks quickly and without the need to husband their resources for the rest of the adventure. While the party wizard might dole out his or her highest-level spells one at a time out of necessity, the NPC wizard can cast those higher-level spells one after another since doing so is a matter of life-and-death. The same goes for any class, including fighters with Action Surge, paladins with Lay on Hands, and so on. As a result, this skews how difficult a fight with that NPC is. To figure out the CR of an NPC, you'll need to do the same kind of comparisons to monster baselines, just as you would when designing a monster not built on NPC classes, and get a more accurate CR out of it.
This method should also produce more accurate gauges of the challenge player characters face when encountering a monster that the DM decides to give class levels to; adding a few levels of cleric to a high-level monster may have no real impact on that monster's challenge, while adding those levels to a lower-level monster might have a huge impact. All that matters is the end result: whatever the monster/NPC can do during an actual fight, not how it got to those results, determines its CR.
Quote from: Haffrung;761748I always get a chuckle out of the nutjob theorycrafters dissecting every mechanic and value in D&D, desperately trying to turn it into a sublime paragon of elegant mathematical design. I can't imagine how shitty your life must be if your hobby is analyzing the mechanics of a roleplaying game for years and years (in many cases without actually playing), while denouncing its flaws relentlessly to anyone who will listen.
But 5E has inspired the theory-wanks to an unprecedented frenzy of outrage. I don't know if it's because 5E is supplanting the only edition of D&D that did follow the design models promoted by the theorycrafters. Or if it's the modular, loose, flexible quality of 5E that makes steam blow out of their ears. But it's damn fun to watch.
Is awful purple frothing and sputtering? I haven't checked.
The Good News: Ochre Jellies can no longer be knocked Prone.
Quote from: CRKrueger;761789Is awful purple frothing and sputtering? I haven't checked.
Big-time. It's shaping up to be the forum of choice of 5E haters.
Quote from: Haffrung;761799Big-time. It's shaping up to be the forum of choice of 5E haters.
but let me guess. It's still not an official edition, and "things could still change", so their edition war rules don't apply to 5e...
Quote from: Haffrung;761748But 5E has inspired the theory-wanks to an unprecedented frenzy of outrage. I don't know if it's because 5E is supplanting the only edition of D&D that did follow the design models promoted by the theorycrafters. Or if it's the modular, loose, flexible quality of 5E that makes steam blow out of their ears. But it's damn fun to watch.
Any particularly interesting mushroom clouds you can point us towards?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;761803but let me guess. It's still not an official edition, and "things could still change", so their edition war rules don't apply to 5e...
Doesn't really make any difference to me at this point. They lost. D&D won.
Now, I'm just busy getting work cleared so I'll have time to enjoy it when it arrives.
Let them froth away.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;761803but let me guess. It's still not an official edition, and "things could still change", so their edition war rules don't apply to 5e...
They were moderating it a bit better for a while, but not so much the past week or so.
Quote from: Warthur;761805Any particularly interesting mushroom clouds you can point us towards?
"Wasn't there not supposed to be a dependence on magic items..."
Gauntlets of Ogre Power have apparently broken 5E.
Quote from: Warthur;761805Any particularly interesting mushroom clouds you can point us towards?
Any thread I posted in. Just do a search for marleycat. It should lead you right to the hotspots. Though my friends there have convinced me to just stop.... given a wall has no ears.:)
CR is more fun then Topher anyway.;)
Quote from: Haffrung;761799Big-time. It's shaping up to be the forum of choice of 5E haters.
It is quite hilarious seeing the lengths some people are going to to justify their dislike. I saw some joker moaning about the equipment list in the starter set because by 3rd level you won't need to buy a lantern, so why is it listed in the equipment section?
Not to mention the fact that 2 or 3 of the most vocally anti-5e have basically admitted they don't really play d&d in any meaningful way anyway.
I kinda ignored all the anti-4e rhetoric floating about here about it being the edition for people that didn't like d&d, but as the design process for Next has progressed, i think it's come to light that it is pretty much true.
I've also just seen Torchbearer held up as an OSR game. That gives a general idea of the clueless nature of large portions of that board.
Quote from: Marleycat;761912Any thread I posted in. Just do a search for marleycat. It should lead you right to the hotspots. Though my friends there have convinced me to just stop.... given a wall has no ears.:)
CR is more fun then Topher anyway.;)
Oh hey, TBP finally fixed their search function. That took, what, five years at least?
Quote from: CRKrueger;761789Is awful purple frothing and sputtering? I haven't checked.
The Good News: Ochre Jellies can no longer be knocked Prone.
But we can still trip them right? :D
Quote from: One Horse Town;761941I've also just seen Torchbearer held up as an OSR game. That gives a general idea of the clueless nature of large portions of that board.
In a year, 5 max. OSR will have lost any meaning. Just like RPG, Role-Playing, Railroad, etc.
2nd Ed? That was one of the best OSRs to come out. But Shadowrun was a better OSR... :confused:
Quote from: Warthur;761948Oh hey, TBP finally fixed their search function. That took, what, five years at least?
What? They turned the search back on? When? :eek:
(Last time I tried to use it the statement was that it was disabled as that google thing would work the same... really it will!)
There's a thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?729473-Starter-set-excerpt-7-Monsters/)on rpg.net about the monster page...endless bitching about how powerful the ogre is compared to a low-level party. Well, maybe you're not supposed to fucking fight it? Someone said the party might "cheat", setup an ambush, use oil, etc...so the response to that is, "Yeah, but this is the Starter Set. For newbies who are not necessarily used to clever strategy." Seriously, what in the fuck? If the newbies have a TPK, they might actually start using their brains instead of just rolling dice.
These morons treat D&D like an exercise in mathematically analysis, NOT a roleplaying game.
Quote from: Haffrung;761909"Wasn't there not supposed to be a dependence on magic items..."
Gauntlets of Ogre Power have apparently broken 5E.
Heh. I browsed over there for the first time in months and landed on that thread (I noticed that Marlycat was making a futile effort to introduce reason into the conversation).
Yes, it's true. If a magic item that doesn't fit in with your particular campaign and/or character concept is listed anywhere in any book it
breaks the game!!! "Don't have that item show up" is, for some unguessable reason, not an option.
Quote from: Dimitrios;761986"Don't have that item show up" is, for some unguessable reason, not an option.
As is, apparently, "make up your own". If it's not in the book, doesn't exist! I PAY GOOD MONEY FOR THIS GAME, DO THE CREATIVE PART SO I CAN ROLL DICE!
Quote from: Larsdangly;761705I suppose. I don't think about critters in D&D that way. I 'use' an ogre to be the thing that lives in an ogre's cave, and you can walk into that cave or not as you wish, regardless of your level or the size of your gang/party.
That's what I do, too, in defiance of the Final Fantasy complex: "It's funny, the farther away I get from my home village, the more powerful the monsters are!"
When I'm designing an adventure there has to be a reason for the Ogre cave to be there - an eco-system to support such an Ogre, and a history with the local population of whatever-they-are. It could be more powerful or less powerful than the party, I don't care, that's for the PCs to suss out.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: Haffrung;761909"Wasn't there not supposed to be a dependence on magic items..."
Gauntlets of Ogre Power have apparently broken 5E.
That's such a bullshit argument anyway. What it's not fair that a fighter had to "spend' his character creation array on his strength when the mage can cheat and just get the gauntlets later anyway?
OK, guess what mage. You want those? You get them. But that means you have to fight up front with the fighters to actually get the benefit of them (STR melee attacks). Let me know how that works out for you.
Quote from: Brad;761980There's a thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?729473-Starter-set-excerpt-7-Monsters/)on rpg.net about the monster page...endless bitching about how powerful the ogre is compared to a low-level party. Well, maybe you're not supposed to fucking fight it? Someone said the party might "cheat", setup an ambush, use oil, etc...so the response to that is, "Yeah, but this is the Starter Set. For newbies who are not necessarily used to clever strategy." Seriously, what in the fuck? If the newbies have a TPK, they might actually start using their brains instead of just rolling dice.
These morons treat D&D like an exercise in mathematically analysis, NOT a roleplaying game.
Wait, what? This actually makes me angry, because the first time my 10 year old played with his friends, those kids were just as if not more creative than grizzled rpg veterans. Cheating? Whatever. All you need is an imagination, and that's not dictated by how much experience one has playing an RPG.
And no shit a low level party shouldn't be fighting an ogre. Holy....
You get the sense that a large fraction of the folks there don't play D&D in any form, and aren't really that into RPG's generally. But they love to snipe and pick about bullshit.
I didn't watch the unboxing, but someone posted a snippet from Mike Mearls that sounds like they've got the right idea:
"Now, I'm going to surmise that there is quite some overlap in mentality from the MMO to some PnP RPG players. We're all nerds, after all, and the propensity to min/max started before the ability to do so in video games was a thing. What the takeaway here is that some people will play in a way that they dislike in order to pull out a small advantage. In other words, even if someone absolutely hates the idea of multiple short rests in a row, they may give up their preferred playstyle entirely and play a session that they hate because they see a mechanical advantage in doing so."
Followed by a statement that with 5e they made a design decision that they are "not going to try and make rules that will stop people who wanted to be bored from, like, doing boring things."
In other words, it's not the designer's job to force or trick you into having fun if you're determined not to.
Word.
Quote from: Dimitrios;762009I didn't watch the unboxing, but someone posted a snippet from Mike Mearls that sounds like they've got the right idea:
"Now, I'm going to surmise that there is quite some overlap in mentality from the MMO to some PnP RPG players. We're all nerds, after all, and the propensity to min/max started before the ability to do so in video games was a thing. What the takeaway here is that some people will play in a way that they dislike in order to pull out a small advantage. In other words, even if someone absolutely hates the idea of multiple short rests in a row, they may give up their preferred playstyle entirely and play a session that they hate because they see a mechanical advantage in doing so."
Followed by a statement that with 5e they made a design decision that they are "not going to try and make rules that will stop people who wanted to be bored from, like, doing boring things."
In other words, it's not the designer's job to force or trick you into having fun if you're determined not to.
Word.
That aligns with what he said a while ago. "Rules will not fix broken players." Say what you will about Mike (lord knows I think some of the things he's said in the past were...off), but those two statements I can get behind.
Quote from: Brad;761980Someone said the party might "cheat", setup an ambush, use oil, etc...so the response to that is, "Yeah, but this is the Starter Set. For newbies who are not necessarily used to clever strategy." Seriously, what in the fuck? If the newbies have a TPK, they might actually start using their brains instead of just rolling dice.
Further proof these clods don't actually play RPGs. Because in my experience, new players are actually
more likely to try out of the box, clever stuff like luring ogres into pits doused with oil. Unless the newbies you play with are as unimaginative as theorywanks on RPGnet.
Quote from: Brad;761980These morons treat D&D like an exercise in mathematically analysis, NOT a roleplaying game.
Take three days off for implying that an RPG game is something that happens at a table with real people and not a system document best enjoyed by deconstructing down to its mathematical foundations.
Quote from: Dimitrios;761986Yes, it's true. If a magic item that doesn't fit in with your particular campaign and/or character concept is listed anywhere in any book it breaks the game!!! "Don't have that item show up" is, for some unguessable reason, not an option.
But I
shouldn't have to use any imagination, discretion, of judgement to play a roleplaying game!
Quote from: Larsdangly;762006You get the sense that a large fraction of the folks there don't play D&D in any form, and aren't really that into RPG's generally. But they love to snipe and pick about bullshit.
Bingo. But don't ever even imply that over on the TBP - it's the herd of elephants in the room.
Quote from: Dimitrios;762009Followed by a statement that with 5e they made a design decision that they are "not going to try and make rules that will stop people who wanted to be bored from, like, doing boring things."
In other words, it's not the designer's job to force or trick you into having fun if you're determined not to.
Word.
The thing that really must piss off these joyless theorycrafters - fuel their blazing unhappiness - is the prospect that what they think doesn't matter. That there's no correlation between what they want in games and what 95 per cent or roleplayers want. But I guess they have the echo-chamber of RPGnet, where they can pretend they're part of an important movement.
Quote from: Dimitrios;762009In other words, it's not the designer's job to force or trick you into having fun if you're determined not to.
Word.
Didn't know that Mearls was such a fan of Melan's Tyranny of Fun.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762005Wait, what? This actually makes me angry, because the first time my 10 year old played with his friends, those kids were just as if not more creative than grizzled rpg veterans. Cheating? Whatever. All you need is an imagination, and that's not dictated by how much experience one has playing an RPG.
And no shit a low level party shouldn't be fighting an ogre. Holy....
LOL @ cheating!
A first level party can try and fight whatever they want. 5E characters look easy enough to make up fairly fast. Let the newbs grind through a couple characters, so what? I consider that almost like a D&D rite of passage. If they can't accept that then they have no business playing a game.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;762042LOL @ cheating!
A first level party can try and fight whatever they want. 5E characters look easy enough to make up fairly fast. Let the newbs grind through a couple characters, so what? I consider that almost like a D&D rite of passage. If they can't accept that then they have no business playing a game.
This is 100% correct. Level 1-3 is pretty fast. Once again, my sig seems appropriate in this context.
I guess "Joe having more of an imagination than me" equals cheating nowadays? SMH
Gotta love even the concept of being careful/using strategy and tactics somehow being 'cheating' :)
Quote from: Bill;762072Gotta love even the concept of being careful/using strategy and tactics somehow being 'cheating' :)
These days if you do something that isn't a menu option from your sheet some players will look at you like you just did a magic trick.
Quote from: Bill;762072Gotta love even the concept of being careful/using strategy and tactics somehow being 'cheating' :)
Well, it is in the sense of not openly walking into a straight fight. But since when are adventurers supposed to fight honorably in the first place?
And now for the wizard pregen:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-xdyU8nLzPv8/U62psJL4PYI/AAAAAAAABbg/swH_gZlCZek/w679-h879-no/wizard+1.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_GD3_sy91XM/U62psFl6g7I/AAAAAAAABa8/gsXEF0A1B_I/w679-h879-no/Wizard+2.jpg)
I should note that the longsword and bow proficiencies are due to being an elf. The mage doesn't normally get them. Also, does it make me a bad person to see a new edition of D&D have a magic user with shitty AC and low enough hp that most attacks could kill him in one hit again? ;)
Quote from: LibraryLass;762083Well, it is in the sense of not openly walking into a straight fight. But since when are adventurers supposed to fight honorably in the first place?
Maybe a few of the most eccentric Paladins?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762087I should note that the longsword and bow proficiencies are due to being an elf. The mage doesn't normally get them. Also, does it make me a bad person to see a new edition of D&D have a magic user with shitty AC and low enough hp that most attacks could kill him in one hit again? ;)
Guess that wizard will not leap in front of the ogres. The fighter still has a job to do.
Quote from: Bill;762105Guess that wizard will not leap in front of the ogres. The fighter still has a job to do.
No, because there will be some lucky nitwit out there who will translate "Elf" into "Has moves like Legolas from the LotR movies" and have just enough good dice rolls to survive the encounter.
Quote from: Haffrung;761909"Wasn't there not supposed to be a dependence on magic items..."
Gauntlets of Ogre Power have apparently broken 5E.
To be fair to the TBP, they're getting stuck on some of the most baffling bullshit to come out of WotC's discussion of 5E: WotC has repeatedly claimed that characters with magic items have no impact on the balance of the game.
This, of course, makes no sense. It violates what I refer to as the Iron Man Principle (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2055/roleplaying-games/fetishizing-balance). As long as:
(A) There are magic items which are useful (particularly in combat); and
(B) The PCs can have those items; and
(C) The designers care about game balance at all; then
(D) There will need to be guidelines for how many items the PCs should have.
Because there is a difference between what Tony Stark can do and what Iron Man can do.
Now, there are ways you can weaken (D) and put more of the onus of finding the balance for a particular group back on the players. But even if that's true, the claim that magic items can make you strictly better but somehow having them won't impact the power balance between characters is... bizarre.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;762125To be fair to the TBP, they're getting stuck on some of the most baffling bullshit to come out of WotC's discussion of 5E: WotC has repeatedly claimed that characters with magic items have no impact on the balance of the game.
This, of course, makes no sense. It violates what I refer to as the Iron Man Principle (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2055/roleplaying-games/fetishizing-balance). As long as:
(A) There are magic items which are useful (particularly in combat); and
(B) The PCs can have those items; and
(C) The designers care about game balance at all; then
(D) There will need to be guidelines for how many items the PCs should have.
Because there is a difference between what Tony Stark can do and what Iron Man can do.
Now, there are ways you can weaken (D) and put more of the onus of finding the balance for a particular group back on the players. But even if that's true, the claim that magic items can make you strictly better but somehow having them won't impact the power balance between characters is... bizarre.
That's all fair enough. But the theorywanks on TBP then claimed that players will now make Str a dump stat for all fighters, because the know they'll be able to pick up GoOP. It's the blase assumption that:
A) Many players partake in char op to the degree that they build magic items right into the character, and
B) Players can have any magic item in the book they want
...that left me astonished. WotC simply isn't supporting that approach to the game. Presumably, they've ceded the hardcore char op field to Pathfinder. And the critics on TBP must realize that. But they've never been the sort to let common sense and what really happens at the table have any influence on their theorycrafting.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;762125WotC has repeatedly claimed that characters with magic items have no impact on the balance of the game.
I don't believe this is quite right. They've said that they aren't balancing magic items in the rules, not that magic items don't need balancing. They've essentially left this duty in the DM's wheelhouse, as a playstyle choice. That's my understanding of their statements.
Quote from: kurtomatic;762137I don't believe this is quite right. They've said that they aren't balancing magic items in the rules, not that magic items don't need balancing. They've essentially left this duty in the DM's wheelhouse, as a playstyle choice. That's my understanding of their statements.
Mine as well. I.e., certainly a +2 weapon will have an impact to math balance, but the pcs being balanced against each other, that won't be a factor.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762087I should note that the longsword and bow proficiencies are due to being an elf. The mage doesn't normally get them. Also, does it make me a bad person to see a new edition of D&D have a magic user with shitty AC and low enough hp that most attacks could kill him in one hit again? ;)
Max HP 6+2.
Ogre would connect on a 7 or better. ow. Goblins tough would be only a 11 or 10 or better.
Stay out of bashing range of the ogre.
Quote from: Omega;762151Max HP 6+2.
Ogre would connect on a 7 or better. ow. Goblins tough would be only a 11 or 10 or better.
Stay out of bashing range of the ogre.
Yeah, and it should be noted that mage has a +2 Con bonus. I imagine most mages wouldn't. So most level 1 mages would have 6hp.
Stay out of combat indeed.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;762042LOL @ cheating!
A first level party can try and fight whatever they want. 5E characters look easy enough to make up fairly fast. Let the newbs grind through a couple characters, so what? I consider that almost like a D&D rite of passage. If they can't accept that then they have no business playing a game.
This I can get behind. I mean it's set up to get to 3rd level in 2:sessions and level 5 as fast as 6 sessions total. And level 5:is the first time the game shifts from zero to hero as the baseline in a noticeable sense.
Quote from: kurtomatic;762137I don't believe this is quite right. They've said that they aren't balancing magic items in the rules, not that magic items don't need balancing. They've essentially left this duty in the DM's wheelhouse, as a playstyle choice. That's my understanding of their statements.
Correct.
Quote from: kurtomatic;762137I don't believe this is quite right. They've said that they aren't balancing magic items in the rules, not that magic items don't need balancing. They've essentially left this duty in the DM's wheelhouse, as a playstyle choice. That's my understanding of their statements.
Correct.
So my Chapters/Indigo pre-order just came in for the Starter Set. Kind of weird: I thought that it was only going to hit some stores on July 3rd, but here it is, on my desk!
I'd write a full on review but I'm not a writer, game designer or blogger of note so no one would give two fucks about my opinion. All that you need to know is that I hate 3rd edition and Pathfinder for reasons that seem common here and that I'm a fan of Dungeon World (not Apocalypse World). That might be enough to make some of you go "PASS!" so you won't waste your time reading this.
It is a nice product. Nice production values, I love the artwork and it is a nice box that I'll definitely keep and use. I rarely buy physical RPG products anymore, having moved onto PDFs to save space (and money).
There are a few oddities that I'm picking up about the rules as I quickly scan over everything (like how at surface value, the Noble background seems better than the Folk Hero, and I wish that they would've done something a bit ... different?... with the weapon list but meh...), but overall I'm quite pleased. There's some really elegant streamlining in this version of D&D.
I don't regret buying this, and I'm super excited for the Basic PDF. But I doubt that I'll ever buy the other books (in the past few months I've been seduced by the OSR movement so simplicity is key to me).
Now just to resist reading every page before I go home from work. Particularly hard the day before Canada Day, when 3/4 of the staff is away on holiday...
First, I'm jealous ;)
Secondly, I think the only really important thing is, "If you were new to the hobby, could you use this game and do you think you'll have fun playing it?" Put yourself in the shoes of someone who isn't experienced at role-playing.
Quote from: Necrozius;762739So my Chapters/Indigo pre-order just came in for the Starter Set. Kind of weird: I thought that it was only going to hit some stores on July 3rd, but here it is, on my desk!
I'd write a full on review but I'm not a writer, game designer or blogger of note so no one would give two fucks about my opinion. All that you need to know is that I hate 3rd edition and Pathfinder for reasons that seem common here and that I'm a fan of Dungeon World (not Apocalypse World). That might be enough to make some of you go "PASS!" so you won't waste your time reading this.
It is a nice product. Nice production values, I love the artwork and it is a nice box that I'll definitely keep and use. I rarely buy physical RPG products anymore, having moved onto PDFs to save space (and money).
There are a few oddities that I'm picking up about the rules as I quickly scan over everything (like how at surface value, the Noble background seems better than the Folk Hero, and I wish that they would've done something a bit ... different?... with the weapon list but meh...), but overall I'm quite pleased. There's some really elegant streamlining in this version of D&D.
I don't regret buying this, and I'm super excited for the Basic PDF. But I doubt that I'll ever buy the other books (in the past few months I've been seduced by the OSR movement so simplicity is key to me).
Now just to resist reading every page before I go home from work. Particularly hard the day before Canada Day, when 3/4 of the staff is away on holiday...
Aren't you a lucky one. Glad to hear you think it's worth having it though.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762743Secondly, I think the only really important thing is, "If you were new to the hobby, could you use this game and do you think you'll have fun playing it?" Put yourself in the shoes of someone who isn't experienced at role-playing.
That's an excellent question.
For an utter, complete newbie, it would be a bit overwhelming, I think. The starting campaign book feels awfully hefty and detailed for someone who has never done this before.
Granted, the text is easy to read, but if feels like there's a lot in there.
It looks hella fun, though. There are four "dungeons" maps to explore, each with nearly a dozen numbered rooms:
SPOILERS:- The Redbrand Hideout (underground)
- Ruins of Thundertree (forest ruins)
- Cragmaw Castle (...castle)
- and Wave Echo Cave (underground that is like a miniature-Ruins of Undermountain at quick glance)
With all the GM info, descriptions, monster stat blocks and magic items, it feels as complex as many campaign books that I've bought for regular gamers.
Interesting thing to note: many of the pre-gen charaters' backgrounds are tied to some of the locations and NPCs of this adventure.
It's nice to see they have the main environments covered rather than just a dungeon.
OOH! Another cool detail: the main village has a bunch of optional side quests the PCs can acquire through interaction with the locals. This starter-campaign really looks like it has some sandbox-y elements (supported by the big hex map at the start). It definitely doesn't have to be run in a linear fashion. The players have chances to explore the land and have multiple adventures.
The more I read, the more I like this.
Quote from: Necrozius;762754OOH! Another cool detail: the main village has a bunch of optional side quests the PCs can acquire through interaction with the locals. This starter-campaign really looks like it has some sandbox-y elements (supported by the big hex map at the start). It definitely doesn't have to be run in a linear fashion. The players have chances to explore the land and have multiple adventures.
The more I read, the more I like this.
I was just reading the section on Phandalin and like all the possible factions to join. I like the adventure so far. 100% better than Keep on the Shadowfell. It has potential to be a good campaign starter.
I am really anxious to get my copy now, because so far, it seems to be a lot like Moldvay's B/X, with Karmekios (sp) and surrounding areas around the keep outlined just enough to explore and create your own adventures.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762761I am really anxious to get my copy now, because so far, it seems to be a lot like Moldvay's B/X, with Karmekios (sp) and surrounding areas around the keep outlined just enough to explore and create your own adventures.
I would say from reading the rules my order of favourite editions would be:
1) B/X (Moldvay/Cook)
2) OD&D
3) 5e
I cannot wait for the rest of the rules.
Quote from: Necrozius;762754OOH! Another cool detail: the main village has a bunch of optional side quests the PCs can acquire through interaction with the locals. This starter-campaign really looks like it has some sandbox-y elements (supported by the big hex map at the start). It definitely doesn't have to be run in a linear fashion. The players have chances to explore the land and have multiple adventures.
The more I read, the more I like this.
They did mention that would be in there and that some of the monsters you really shouldn't fight but try other tactics.
Quote from: Marleycat;762770They did mention that would be in there and that some of the monsters you really shouldn't fight but try other tactics.
The monster section is quite nice, even though there are some strange ones in there (nothic, flameskull and twig blight).
I was impressed with the magic items provided here, especially the two staves. Pretty neat stuff!
Quote from: grimshwiz;762775The monster section is quite nice, even though there are some strange ones in there (nothic, flameskull and twig blight).
It is not a proper D&D Adventure if you do not encounter at least one monster that you then never see again for ten years.
AAAAND I made the mistake of going to the purple forum to discuss the starter set with the folks over there and got shat on.
They are freaking out over the inclusion of the new Gauntlets of Ogre Power which boost a PCs Strength to 19. Now granted, that IS a big deal, but to them it means that not only is the Fighter invalidated, but that PCs are now totally dependent on magic items to be effective.
What the hell? The Wizard, Cleric and Rogue look pretty damned competent sans-magic items up to level 5. I DARED to say that they're overreacting and if they hate the magic item so much that they could just play without it.
Now I see why you guys dislike that place so much. What a bunch of twats.
Quote from: jadrax;762776It is not a proper D&D Adventure if you do not encounter at least one monster that you then never see again for ten years.
The Ogre and the Young Green Dragon look pretty dangerous. Spoiler: the dragon's poison breath is a DC 16 Constitution save or else you get 12d6 poison damage!!!
Quote from: Necrozius;762778AAAAND I made the mistake of going to the purple forum to discuss the starter set with the folks over there and got shat on.
They are freaking out over the inclusion of the new Gauntlets of Ogre Power which boost a PCs Strength to 19. Now granted, that IS a big deal, but to them it means that not only is the Fighter invalidated, but that PCs are now totally dependent on magic items to be effective.
What the hell? The Wizard, Cleric and Rogue look pretty damned competent sans-magic items up to level 5. I DARED to say that they're overreacting and if they hate the magic item so much that they could just play without it.
Now I see why you guys dislike that place so much. What a bunch of twats.
Yeah, I just posted about this in the other forum - it's this approach of "Magic items are freely bought, and we'll have loads of gold for them" gone mad. Yes, I am sure I'll givem y Fighter 8 STR, since I am CERTAIN I will get that magic item.
What do you mean "It's too powerful to be just bought in shop?!?!?!?!"
Quote from: Necrozius;762778AAAAND I made the mistake of going to the purple forum to discuss the starter set with the folks over there and got shat on.
They are freaking out over the inclusion of the new Gauntlets of Ogre Power which boost a PCs Strength to 19. Now granted, that IS a big deal, but to them it means that not only is the Fighter invalidated, but that PCs are now totally dependent on magic items to be effective.
What the hell? The Wizard, Cleric and Rogue look pretty damned competent sans-magic items up to level 5. I DARED to say that they're overreacting and if they hate the magic item so much that they could just play without it.
Now I see why you guys dislike that place so much. What a bunch of twats.
My pictures are on the front of ENWorld and in the D&DNext forum, and I put some on G+, but I refuse to go to the big purple. That place is ridiculous.
I agree the characters all look competent, and my personal favourites are the rogue and the wizard...then again I like playing those types.
Four dungeon/ettes with optional side quests sounds solid. And good to hear the box material seems solid as well. I like my boxes. Sometimes I store incense in them to perfume my materials. Ayurvedic GMing.
I was quite skeptical of 5e at first, and thought it sounded horrible, but after buying the starter set and seeing the rules, I have come around
Quote from: grimshwiz;762785I was quite skeptical of 5e at first, and thought it sounded horrible, but after buying the starter set and seeing the rules, I have come around
I think most fans of all editions (OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, and even 4e) probably have this attitude--skeptical of the game but not irrational about it. The people who seem to have the biggest issue with it fall into these extremist camps:
Grognard: "Unless the game has 3d6 in order, magic users that can be killed by cats in 1 round, level draining and/or save or die, then it's a crap special snowflake player entitlement game I have no interest in. Warlocks? Dragonborn? What the hell is up with all this new age bullshit?"
3e crowd: "There aren't nearly enough options for me to create a PC I want. Fuck this, every fighter looks and plays the exact same and that's bullshit!"
4e crowd: "WTH! broken magic items that just override every single player choice I have ever made before, classes that don't do all the same exact thing mechanically but with a different name! The game sucks."
Thankfully the extremists make up just as small % of the fans of said editions.
Quote from: grimshwiz;762785I was quite skeptical of 5e at first, and thought it sounded horrible, but after buying the starter set and seeing the rules, I have come around
I am interested, but I can't spring for 120 bucks unless I am 100 percent assured of a group wanting to play it.
Quote from: grimshwiz;762775The monster section is quite nice, even though there are some strange ones in there (nothic, flameskull and twig blight).
I was impressed with the magic items provided here, especially the two staves. Pretty neat stuff!
Yeah, the Nothic is just cool stuff.:)
Quote from: Bill;762804I am interested, but I can't spring for 120 bucks unless I am 100 percent assured of a group wanting to play it.
Just play the basic version first. It's free, and should give you a good idea if it's the kind of game you want to play.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762806Just play the basic version first. It's free, and should give you a good idea if it's the kind of game you want to play.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786965592/
$12.65...fucking McDonald's costs $9 if you supersize.
I bought four copies; three for friends, one for myself. Worst case scenario, I'll donate them to a youth program or something.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762806Just play the basic version first. It's free, and should give you a good idea if it's the kind of game you want to play.
I am pretty sure I will like it. But to run a campaign I would want the three core books.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762803...
Thankfully the extremists make up just as small % of the fans of said editions.
I hope so. I went from completely apathetic to very excited over his edition. It is kind of disheartening to see an entire thread screaming that the sky is falling because of one magic item... I mean: HELL we don't even know the full context yet. Are they all uber obsessed with PvP or something? It's just oNE magic item and they're treating it like a personal insult to the hobby. :(
Here is some stuff from grimshwiz that was updated.....http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?356305-Rogue-and-Archer-Character-Sheets/page2 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?356305-Rogue-and-Archer-Character-Sheets/page2)
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?356305-Rogue-and-Archer-Character-Sheets/page3 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?356305-Rogue-and-Archer-Character-Sheets/page3)
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?356305-Rogue-and-Archer-Character-Sheets/page5 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?356305-Rogue-and-Archer-Character-Sheets/page5)
The Rogue and the Archer Fighter with the part of the armor table.
Also a couple better links by Mistwell..
http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=62445&d=1404148944 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=62445&d=1404148944)
http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=62446&d=1404148950 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=62446&d=1404148950)
Or this..http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1722-Rogue-Archer-Character-Sheets#.U7GmWvldVEI (http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1722-Rogue-Archer-Character-Sheets#.U7GmWvldVEI)
a bit more...http://i.imgur.com/Clk4twG.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/Clk4twG.jpg)....http://i.imgur.com/SxO3xus.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/SxO3xus.jpg)
Quote from: Necrozius;762836I hope so. I went from completely apathetic to very excited over his edition. It is kind of disheartening to see an entire thread screaming that the sky is falling because of one magic item... I mean: HELL we don't even know the full context yet. Are they all uber obsessed with PvP or something? It's just oNE magic item and they're treating it like a personal insult to the hobby. :(
To be fair, we've has similar blow ups here. The whole "at will damage cantrips" blew this place the fuck apart. Or one would think based on several of the reactions.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762842To be fair, we've has similar blow ups here. The whole "at will damage cantrips" blew this place the fuck apart. Or one would think based on several of the reactions.
Heh true, but at least that is a core mechanic. It is much easier to just delete a few magic items.
Necrozius, how are you finding the adventure? How far have you made it through it? I realized I have every mini I need to run it except the nothic, unless I have it somewhere else. So that is kind of cool if people want me to use minis.
Quote from: grimshwiz;762775The monster section is quite nice, even though there are some strange ones in there (nothic, flameskull and twig blight)
I can sorta guess the other two, but what's a nothic? I must know!
Quote from: grimshwiz;762857Necrozius, how are you finding the adventure? How far have you made it through it? I realized I have every mini I need to run it except the nothic, unless I have it somewhere else. So that is kind of cool if people want me to use minis.
I haven't had much time to go through it at work, but what I managed to scan I was impressed. It is really quite easy to read, even though it is dense. There's more in there than I anticipated.
Ironically, even though I got it super early, I'm going away to the cottage for the next two days so I will only get a chance to read through it completely and give a full report once everyone else on the internet has. CURSES!
Quote from: Imp;762858I can sorta guess the other two, but what's a nothic? I must know!
It's a bipedal creature with a giant eyeball as a head. https://www.google.com/search?q=nothic&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=9eCxU7iPC6KG8QG4m (https://www.google.com/search?q=nothic&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=9eCxU7iPC6KG8QG4m)
Quote from: Necrozius;762778AAAAND I made the mistake of going to the purple forum to discuss the starter set with the folks over there and got shat on.
They are freaking out over the inclusion of the new Gauntlets of Ogre Power which boost a PCs Strength to 19. Now granted, that IS a big deal, but to them it means that not only is the Fighter invalidated, but that PCs are now totally dependent on magic items to be effective.
What the hell? The Wizard, Cleric and Rogue look pretty damned competent sans-magic items up to level 5. I DARED to say that they're overreacting and if they hate the magic item so much that they could just play without it.
Now I see why you guys dislike that place so much. What a bunch of twats.
The Ogre and the Young Green Dragon look pretty dangerous. Spoiler: the dragon's poison breath is a DC 16 Constitution save or else you get 12d6 poison damage!!!
Quote from: Necrozius;762836I hope so. I went from completely apathetic to very excited over his edition. It is kind of disheartening to see an entire thread screaming that the sky is falling because of one magic item... I mean: HELL we don't even know the full context yet. Are they all uber obsessed with PvP or something? It's just oNE magic item and they're treating it like a personal insult to the hobby. :(
You have to understand that most of the regulars in that forum are bitter non-gamers whose hobby has become system analysis. But it's a banning offence to point out that problems in theory are not necessarily problems at the table.
The good news is the relentless hostility to 5E on TBP, along with the inevitability that even the most well-intentioned newbies will be sanctioned by the mods, means this site will likely see a big upturn in members and activity as 5E picks up steam.
How the hell is everyone getting it already? My Amazon preorder says July 14th.
Same here. I got it, read Phandalin and the items and monster sections. Now between a baby, work tomorrow and a holiday I won't be able to go too in depth until everyone else has it.
How I got it early I don't know. I pre-ordered from Indigo and it shipped early.
The monster list is below if anyone is interested:
Bugbear CL 1
Commoner CL 0
Cultist CL 1/8
Doppelganger CL 3
Evil Mage CL 1
Flameskull CL 4
Ghoul CL 1
Giant Spider CL 1
Goblin CL 1/4
Grick CL 2
Hobgoblin CL 1/2
Nothic CL 2
Ochre Jelly CL 2
Ogre CL 2
Orc CR 1/2
Owlbear CL 3
Ruffian CL 1/2
Skeleton CL 1/4
Spectator CL 3
Stirge CL 1/8
Twig Blight CL 1/8
Wolf CL 1/4
Young Green Dragon CL 8
Wraith CL 3
Zombie CL 1/4
Left out NPC's and important characters, these are just the monsters.
1/8th? Those must be used in pretty serious numbers I would think.
Quote from: Marleycat;7632051/8th? Those must be used in pretty serious numbers I would think.
not a fan of fractions. Why not go by "level of one PC" rather than "levels of party of 4 PC" to figure out the number?
Quote from: grimshwiz;763203The monster list is below if anyone is interested:
Bugbear CL 1
Commoner CL 0
Cultist CL 1/8
Doppelganger CL 3
Evil Mage CL 1
Flameskull CL 4
Ghoul CL 1
Giant Spider CL 1
Goblin CL 1/4
Grick CL 2
Hobgoblin CL 1/2
Nothic CL 2
Ochre Jelly CL 2
Ogre CL 2
Orc CR 1/2
Owlbear CL 3
Ruffian CL 1/2
Skeleton CL 1/4
Spectator CL 3
Stirge CL 1/8
Twig Blight CL 1/8
Wolf CL 1/4
Young Green Dragon CL 8
Wraith CL 3
Zombie CL 1/4
Left out NPC's and important characters, these are just the monsters.
What is the Grick? A sort of land squid/worm combo?
Quote from: Omega;763223What is the Grick? A sort of land squid/worm combo?
Prestty much yes. They are originally from the 3rd edition MM.
Not liking that list, looks like an opportunity for whining.
Well, I got a chance to go through the box. As others have said, the production quality is very good. There is a ton of content for the price you're paying, and I can't see how anyone can complain about that.
My FLGS, like most stores, are hosting game session demos, where people can learn the game. Not only have they agreed to let me DM a lot of these demos, but I'll be doing it with my own adventure campaign (https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/107308672422345398151), which is strongly modeled after the old school style of play. The only stipulation is that all rules we play with have to be official 5e published rules, so nothing out of the playtest or homebrew classes/spells/monsters. That's easy enough to stick with things from the starter box and the basic rules.
Because time is limited for these demos, pregens will be used as well. But rather than be limited to starter box pregens, I am allowed to create my own using the basic rules.
I'm pretty stoked because it's an opportunity to show people right there along side the other demos an old school style of play.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;763235I'm pretty stoked because it's an opportunity to show people right there along side the other demos an old school style of play.
Rock it old school like 1966. (http://smileys.smilchat.net/smiley/sf/violeent.gif)
Just kidding, have fun. :cool:
Quote from: Sacrosanct;763235Well, I got a chance to go through the box. As others have said, the production quality is very good. There is a ton of content for the price you're paying, and I can't see how anyone can complain about that.
My FLGS, like most stores, are hosting game session demos, where people can learn the game. Not only have they agreed to let me DM a lot of these demos, but I'll be doing it with my own adventure campaign (https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/107308672422345398151), which is strongly modeled after the old school style of play. The only stipulation is that all rules we play with have to be official 5e published rules, so nothing out of the playtest or homebrew classes/spells/monsters. That's easy enough to stick with things from the starter box and the basic rules.
Because time is limited for these demos, pregens will be used as well. But rather than be limited to starter box pregens, I am allowed to create my own using the basic rules.
I'm pretty stoked because it's an opportunity to show people right there along side the other demos an old school style of play.
Sounds very cool. You should tell your players exactly what you did so they can see how flexible the game can be.
The WoC web page says they have DDN conversion notes for the hard cover collections of old dungeons, including Dungeons of Dread and Against the Slavers. But I couldn't see any links for this conversion notes on the relevant web pages. Anyone know what's up here?
Quote from: grimshwiz;763203The monster list is below if anyone is interested:
Bugbear CL 1
Commoner CL 0
Cultist CL 1/8
Doppelganger CL 3
Evil Mage CL 1
Flameskull CL 4
Ghoul CL 1
Giant Spider CL 1
Goblin CL 1/4
Grick CL 2
Hobgoblin CL 1/2
Nothic CL 2
Ochre Jelly CL 2
Ogre CL 2
Orc CR 1/2
Owlbear CL 3
Ruffian CL 1/2
Skeleton CL 1/4
Spectator CL 3
Stirge CL 1/8
Twig Blight CL 1/8
Wolf CL 1/4
Young Green Dragon CL 8
Wraith CL 3
Zombie CL 1/4
Left out NPC's and important characters, these are just the monsters.
Hm. Curious list. Mostly fitting. I wonder if some of the more unusual ones like the Twig Blight and the Spectator will make it into the Basic PDF or what.
Also, dude, Spectator. Beholderkin are back!
Quote from: Omega;763223What is the Grick? A sort of land squid/worm combo?
Gricks are frickin awesome. A new-school monster with a definite old-school vibe.
Quote from: Haffrung;763310Gricks are frickin awesome. A new-school monster with a definite old-school vibe.
they sort of remind me of that floating beaked tentacled beast from the 1e fiend folio
I'm fascinated by these Colored Leads values for monsters. But it's all useless gibberish without which brand's color index they are using. Crayola, Prang, Faber Castell?
Quote from: LibraryLass;763275Hm. Curious list. Mostly fitting. I wonder if some of the more unusual ones like the Twig Blight and the Spectator will make it into the Basic PDF or what.
Also, dude, Spectator. Beholderkin are back!
Why wouldn't they? BASIC will include the iconic stuff and stuff to run their published modules at least to December. That alone is 15th level or 75% of the usual suspects.
Quote from: Larsdangly;763252The WoC web page says they have DDN conversion notes for the hard cover collections of old dungeons, including Dungeons of Dread and Against the Slavers. But I couldn't see any links for this conversion notes on the relevant web pages. Anyone know what's up here?
They were included in the final play test package.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;763312they sort of remind me of that floating beaked tentacled beast from the 1e fiend folio
Grell.
Reminded me somewhat of the Neolithid worm from 2e.
Quote from: Haffrung;763310Gricks are frickin awesome. A new-school monster with a definite old-school vibe.
I hope Grells make it in too.
Quote from: Bill;763393I hope Grells make it in too.
If Flumphs are in, surely Grells are too.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;763312they sort of remind me of that floating beaked tentacled beast from the 1e fiend folio
Flee from the Mighty Grells! For they will paralyze you!
Quote from: Bill;763437Flee from the Mighty Grells! For they will paralyze you!
Maybe that's why gricks reminded me of grells. Not only the beak and tentacles, but the names are similar too ;)
But I loved that picture in FF. Emmanuelle is still around I think, doing art.
Quote from: jadrax;763359They were included in the final play test package.
Hmm...so how do you get them now? Is the final play test package still available on WoC's web site?
Quote from: Larsdangly;763441Hmm...so how do you get them now? Is the final play test package still available on WoC's web site?
I do not believe it is currently legally possible to get them, although I could be wrong.
Quote from: Larsdangly;763441Hmm...so how do you get them now? Is the final play test package still available on WoC's web site?
I think it is on Dndclassics but you have to buy one of the new modules. I know you can't get it free at least legally.
That seems odd. There are hard copy publications that are advertised as being useable for DDN using their conversion notes, yet those conversion notes are not available if you purchase the book through a brick and mortar store or Amazon or whatever. Obviously, anyone with half a brain can do their own conversions on the fly, so I'm not particularly worried. But it strikes me as a mistake (or just disorganized) that they are selling product with a particular advertised compatibility but their mechanism for supporting that compatibility doesn't work.
They'd have to rerelease them all anyway. The conversions were done months ago, using old rules. Looking at the new monster stat blocks. they are significantly different.
Although I doubt they'll bother rereleasing conversion stats because the MM will contain most of them anyway.
Check me out, I am a dragon...rawr
Quote from: grimshwiz;763496Check me out, I am a dragon...rawr
Poison damage with a bite? Interesting....
Quote from: grimshwiz;763496Check me out, I am a dragon...rawr
Yeah, that feels about right I think.
I think the starter set is going to result in a lot of dead Archer PCs.
Quote from: jadrax;763505Yeah, that feels about right I think.
I think the starter set is going to result in a lot of dead Archer PCs.
I ran some of "Lost Mines of Phandelver" and trust me it was a challenge for the PC's on some of the earlier encounters. Granted if any of the PC's could roll above a 5 it may have been different. All in all, it was quick, like pre-3.0 quick and no confusion about rules or anything.
I can cast some spells!
Quote from: grimshwiz;763496Check me out, I am a dragon...rawr
That is certainly tougher than an average wingalingding dragon.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;763502Poison damage with a bite? Interesting....
yeah, I quite like that.It makes the bite feel different to the claws, and it kind makes sense that its breath would stock to its teeth.
I also like it is proficient in the Deception and Stealth Skills. That immediately makes me think to use the Green Dragon differently. It is going to attack from ambush if it can and if it is losing it will try and lie to save its skin. I think its a good example of how quite small mechanical tweaks can really have an impact at the table.
I'm not holding my breath, but I hope we eventually get some spells that are interesting in that creepy way that makes you think of magic as dangerous and often evil rather than just generically zappy. I really love games, like Dragonquest, or Call of Cthulhu, or 1E Chivalry and Sorcery, where the spells are twisted and horrific instead of just being another kind of damage.
Quote from: Larsdangly;763516I'm not holding my breath, but I hope we eventually get some spells that are interesting in that creepy way that makes you think of magic as dangerous and often evil rather than just generically zappy. I really love games, like Dragonquest, or Call of Cthulhu, or 1E Chivalry and Sorcery, where the spells are twisted and horrific instead of just being another kind of damage.
Creeping Doom
Tasha's Hideous Uncontrollable Laughter
Spiritwrack
Phantasmal Killer.
And others with more mundane names but disturbing uses.
Quote from: Omega;763546Creeping Doom
Tasha's Hideous Uncontrollable Laughter
Spiritwrack
Phantasmal Killer.
And others with more mundane names but disturbing uses.
Cool! These are spells from the Starter Set?
Quote from: Larsdangly;763556Cool! These are spells from the Starter Set?
Not offhand, but they all have enough legacy that I wouldn't be surprised to see them in the PHB.
Man, that Green Dragon will fuck some shit up! Glad dragons are an actual threat again and not just a bag of hit points...
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;763581Man, that Green Dragon will fuck some shit up! Glad dragons are an actual threat again and not just a bag of hit points...
That's no fair. PCs could get hurt.
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;763581Man, that Green Dragon will fuck some shit up! Glad dragons are an actual threat again and not just a bag of hit points...
They did say if you fight the dragon it wouldn't turn out well or is about Tyranny of Dragons? You decide I suppose.:)
Quote from: Larsdangly;763556Cool! These are spells from the Starter Set?
AD&D.
BX lacked that flare for lurid spell names.
Quote from: Saplatt;763659That's no fair. PCs could get hurt.
Yea! How can I construct my build if I can't easily harvest Dragons for the magic items on my wish list?
Quote from: Bill;763725Yea! How can I construct my build if I can't easily harvest Dragons for the magic items on my wish list?
DMs that don't put Dragon Organ Wholesalers in their games are just being dicks.
Hmmm...
New monster idea. The Charopbuildus Golem.
A golem constructed of dozens of magic items; exactly the items the destroyer of the golem desires.
It has a 10 ac, 1 hp, and no immunities.
Quote from: Bill;763768Hmmm...
New monster idea. The Charopbuildus Golem.
A golem constructed of dozens of magic items; exactly the items the destroyer of the golem desires.
It has a 10 ac, 1 hp, and no immunities.
Change the name to "Christmas Tree Golem"
Actually, I can see that as a webcomic episode just waiting to happen...
Quote from: Sacrosanct;763775Change the name to "Christmas Tree Golem"
Actually, I can see that as a webcomic episode just waiting to happen...
Well Im sure someone has statted out Santa Clause and the reindeer so you can just mug him...
Oh and in d20 GW there were roving items that people had outfitted with bodies and defenses so they could survive.
Picked up a boxed set during lunch as Amazon isn't shipping the ones I ordered for two weeks...this is damn nice.