Then use wisdom (find the flaw, strike it) charisma (intimidate until they flinch for an opening) stamina (roll with the punch and counter) or intelligence (new sherlock Holmes with Downey Jr)
Str/dex (and charisma) was given as an example.
Like I said, attribute divorced from class.
If my role play is hindered by rolling to play, then I'd prefer the rolls play right, instead of steam-rolling play-night.
The shoutout to Dark Sun reminded me that I'd keep themes, but not 3 different kinds of themes like 5e seems to have.
I'd definitely do the inherent bonuses idea, but rather than being an option, that'd just be how the math worked. As consequence I'd drop magic items that were simply +1 of whatever.
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
Then use wisdom (find the flaw, strike it) charisma (intimidate until they flinch for an opening) stamina (roll with the punch and counter) or intelligence (new sherlock Holmes with Downey Jr)
Str/dex (and charisma) was given as an example.
Like I said, attribute divorced from class.
Right, but then why bother with the racial bonus at all? If elves have lower Strength than dwarves but it doesn't matter because they can both just choose to use Wisdom for their attack stat then what is a stat bonus adding to their racial identity?
after rolling a wizard from scratch (instead of using the pregen) for Denada's game I have to say that while they are definetly overpowered 5th ed wizards are fucking stupid compared to every previous edition
My choice is: be able to cast 3 weaker spells and 1 or 2 good spells per day (huzah 5 minute workday) OR be able to case infinite weaker spells and a good spell every 10 minutes forever but only if I pick these exact 4 spells here.
So every wizard is just gonna have burning hands, mage armor, shocking grasp and thunderwave because some fuckwit at wizards has a hardon for those 4 specific named spells.
If you want to actually make choices then FUCK YOU PEASANT you lose your at wills
I think I'd just rip-off the level scaling of Gamma World (level + Primary attribute instead of half-level+Primary attribute+magic item) and get rid of +X magic items entirely. Instead I'd create magic items that actually, you know, do stuff. Like maybe they give a new power or apply a type to damage. Or both. Anyway, I'd like to see magic items be exciting to find rather than just another number on the sheet.
I'd definitely do the inherent bonuses idea, but rather than being an option, that'd just be how the math worked. As consequence I'd drop magic items that were simply +1 of whatever.
Sorry, yeah, to clarify, the "of whatever" part is my table's shorthand for "does nothing but adds 1". The sword that is just a bonus to hit, the armor that's just a bonus to AC, so on and so forth are "of whatever".
So I absolutely agree, other effects are cool.
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
Then use wisdom (find the flaw, strike it) charisma (intimidate until they flinch for an opening) stamina (roll with the punch and counter) or intelligence (new sherlock Holmes with Downey Jr)
Str/dex (and charisma) was given as an example.
Like I said, attribute divorced from class.
Right, but then why bother with the racial bonus at all? If elves have lower Strength than dwarves but it doesn't matter because they can both just choose to use Wisdom for their attack stat then what is a stat bonus adding to their racial identity?
A. Combat bonuses aren't every part of the system.
B. An elf could choose to use another stat the dwarf could not do as optimally, either as primary or secondary, and vice-versa.
C. Attribute allocation is not the WHOLE of racial identity, but a part of it.
The result is not "no elf fighters" or even "less elf fighters and they will always be statistically inferior to other races" but "elf fighters typically fight in ways that suit their biological proclivities, as do dwarves, halflings, etc. Where those proclivities overlap, you see similar results, and overall effectiveness in combat is even across the board, rather than being limited because the designer didn't think it was as cool as the player does."
If my role play is hindered by rolling to play, then I'd prefer the rolls play right, instead of steam-rolling play-night.
0
Options
tzeentchlingDoctor of RocksOaklandRegistered Userregular
As far as magic items go, perhaps they should consider adopting something like the Relic rules from Scion? Basically, relics are 1 through 5 dot special items, with the more dots indicating the more powers the item has, more or less. Very few relics are simply +1 Damage (though they unfortunately exist, or are riders, probably because they're lazy and easy). But the general powers of each relic are left up to the GM and the players to define. They also tend to be representative of a particular God or heroic/mythological figure, or significant in the pantheon's mythology, which makes them a lot more flavorful, if only desciptive-wise.
We could have that covered with item levels and the common/uncommon/rare system. I'm not sure how it would work yet, but we have a framework established to work from. Question is, how do we implement and standardize the system so we have little to no question where different items fall on that scale? That's always were I kinda get stuck in this thought process... :x
// PSN: wyrd_warrior // MHW Name: Josei //
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
Not to be pants-on-head or anything, but that is kind of a logical conclusion to reach.
D&D has always had this weird dichotomy where martial fighters (be they Fighting Men, barbarians, thieves, a priest with a morningstar, or whatever) follow a nominally realistic, real-world combat milieu while, right beside them, dudes are flinging magical destruction around.
Provided that your non-magical combatants are limited to realistic-ish tactics and your magic users are not in any specific fashion curtailed then yes, anyone with non-physical powers is, at some point, going to be more powerful than anyone without them. The best d&d-setting fighter in the world can...what? Walk into a room full of dudes and beat them all up, eventually? Meanwhile the best d&d-setting magic user can incinerate the entire building in a matter of seconds.
Well, its not even that. For all the hemming and hawing about martial characters needing to be realistic, the framework said "realism" is based around is pants on head retarded about it.
I mean they exist in a universe where the "realistic" level of competence assumes that battlefield mobility barely exists, fighting multiple opponents is close to impossible and actual combat technique is abstracted down to swinging your weapon really hard.
This is also a universe where being impaled multiple times by a 4ft length of sharpened steel is considered an inconvenience, while a dude with robes can just ignore that and kill you with a word.
Hell yes. +X was boring as hell. The "of whatever" was usually cool, though
The big thing I'm looking at is that everybody gets the required math bump by x but if I want I can make the special item slightly higher so it's even cooler for awhile. Essentially, give me some control and make magic items cool without being the entire point of a character.
I can think of a bitchin item I'm sure the player will like once every 10 levels for each character. Every level, making sure it's actually better and more on point for the character focus and OMG I DON'T GIVE A SHIT.
Magic Treasure, it should be cool but not make my head explode.
Yeah, that's exactly why I want to steal the Gamma World math.
I really want magic items to be awesome stuff. Like flaming swords that range from just doing fire damage to burning down swathes of enemies. That's the kinda stuff I want to see.
If we're going to keep the 4e approach to damage and healing, then one possible mechanism for magic items is letting the character do something awesome if they burn a healing surge. Like a flaming sword that can shoot a fireball, for the cost of one surge.
That could be a simpler approach than tracking when item dailies can be used, like 4e does.
Additionally, static hit bonuses are just too insanely good in the standard d20 resolution while static damage bonuses are usually boring. (and seldom scale well)
While I always thought even +x damage (fire) is seldom mechanically exciting, it does at least conjure up some nice aesthetics.
If my role play is hindered by rolling to play, then I'd prefer the rolls play right, instead of steam-rolling play-night.
I'd start with the up-front assumption that I'm dividing the game into three components: combat, interaction, and exploration (sound familiar?). Then I'd take all the traditional character sheet components and rework / reapply them to those pillars. For instance, your character attributes would be divided along those three lines, something like the following:
Combat
Power (damage, DCs)
Accuracy (chance to hit)
Agility (merges AC and Reflex)
Hit Points (damage taken, old Constitution / Fortitude resistances)
Interaction
Charisma ("offensive" interaction stat)
Insight ("defensive" interaction stat)
Willpower (opposed rolls for battles of will, magical or mundane)
Here's the key: each section of stats gets its own pool of points. So, every player can contribute in all three sections of gameplay, just in different ways.
From here, keep the d20 vs target where target can also be an opposed roll. Build in character options to Interaction and Exploration in the following manner:
Class provides weapons, armor, maneuvers, and combat spells (blasting). Culture replaces "Race" in traditional fantasy, where all the usual races are broken down into cultural sub-races for purposes of making this selection. It is from there that you get your interaction options for that subsystem. Finally, Theme is sort of like your profession, only a bit more general to allow for additional possibilities. This is where your options for overcoming environmental challenges come from.
The old classes would be chopped up and scattered across these new divisions. For instance, Bard and Ranger become Themes while Barbarian (Human) becomes a Culture. A traditional older-edition Barbarian might thus be represented as follows:
Fighter/Barbarian (Human)/Hunter
Or, of course: Fighter/Wood Elf/Hunter, where "Wood Elf" is the elven race version of Barbarian.
Multiclassing now comes from mixing and matching across these discrete areas. For example, a character that works something like a Beguiler or an Elder Scrolls Nightblade could be made like this:
Rogue/High Elf/Shadow
The Rogue Class provides the expected sort of combat abilities like maneuverability and sneak attack. The High Elf culture would give access to some mental enchantment options, while Shadow makes use of Illusion magic and acrobatics to handle the environment. A human version of this in Faerun might be Rogue/Thayan (Human)/Shadow.
Something akin to optional "power swap" options would then be put in place to help bring a lot of the popular / traditional archetypes to life. For instance, a character with the High Elf culture may be able to swap some standard Fighter abilities with some specific abilities that work with the Longsword or Spear, while a Wood Elf culture character may have some forest-specific options for a Shadow, and so on.
This game would be tiered, so your choices here would function for precisely one tier. The first set of materials would only function for tier 1. The game would later be expanded into tier 2 (paragon stuff) with a new set of Class/Culture/Theme options for higher-end play.
There would be nothing quite like "feats" in this version. Each class, theme, and culture has its own set of choices baked in. This keeps expansion under control, so you never reach a situation where you're literally choosing between over a thousand options on a level up.
Combat spells would include those from the blasting and zone styles. Charms and illusions get moved to Interaction and Exploration events.
Skills are removed; once again, your options come from your class/culture/theme. If you want to be acrobatic, then you pick a class with maneuverability, a theme based around tumbling and balancing and such, and put high scores into Agility and Dexterity. Note that you can do all of this without in any way sacrificing or even limiting your Interaction abilities, because you still have your culture to select and all points available in the Interaction pool.
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
I'm not sure I agree with this. I've always had a problem with that combat/exploration/social split. Isn't social interaction just another form of exploration? It just feels so damn shoehorned; like someone trying to force a divide that doesn't belong. I could be wrong about this but I just don't feel like this is necessary.
I definitely don't like the idea of point pools. Point systems beg to be abbused. I'll direct you to VtM for evidence of this.
// PSN: wyrd_warrior // MHW Name: Josei //
0
Options
oxybeEntei is appaled and disappointed in youRegistered Userregular
i asked this to my buddies a while ago:
are you a competent fighter because you have a high strength (or dex), or are you a competent fighter because you're a fighter?
divorce stats from class competence. a fighter doesn't require a high any stat. have different stats for combat, like the "weapon attack" and "magic attack" stat the classes currently have.
have stats control skills and skills alone. not all military folks are wise military leaders. some are the big dumb brutes, but at least this way a fighter can still be an awesome fighter, but isn't penalized when he wants to play a charismatic, intelligent & wise military leader over a mass of muscles devoid of any mental capabilities because he put his three best stats in those stats rather then strength, dexterity & constitution. i would also lose the "bonus = to (stat-10)/2, round down" and base everything strait off the stat+skill but because of legacy, i doubt i'd ever see it happen.
here is where i would also recommend they dump their current specialization/feat setup and change it up a bit. i would keep the concept of feats and their acquisition, but change what it covers. as of now, they are simply a hodgepodge: some give +X's (like improved initiative or toughness) while others allow a VERY limited use of some rather pathetic spells (because more then one free mage hand per day is broke) or abilities.
i would change feats so that they act more akin to a "non-numerical" sort of bonus: Retainers/Allies, In-Game status/fame, Contacts, Gadgetry/Resources, etc... if we do go with stuff like "hedge mage" i'd go the 4th ed wild talent route: pick a handful of effects from a list of at-will effects you can do whenever. i mean, sure the ability to light a non-attended object on fire might seem powerful to some, but a tinderbox can reproduce that same effect for 5sp, or mage hand... pick up an unattended object that weight less then a heavy book... "oops i left my keys on the counter" *hovers them over*... is that really so OP that it needs to be restricted to 1/day?
have those feats each have a rating of sort, where the more you put into those feats, the more you get out of it: more retainers, a higher status, better contacts, more resources, more wild talents...
the rather bland +X to an action (like imp.initiative, toughness or the herbalist stuff) should be it's own separate thing, as should more skill training (or additional uses of the skills). these things can be done seperately, and IMO having to choose between a +4 to my initiative roll or the ability to quickly search an area as though i rolled a 20 makes no sense as they affect entirely different things, yet come from the same basic pool of options.
would it be that hard or confusing to have a Class (each with their own things) + Talents (a generic pool that boosts different combat modifiers or abilities), Skills + Specialties (training and better use of some skills) and finally Feats (story/campaign bonuses).
i could just be talking the crazy, but then again i haven't eaten supper yet.
they just seem to be repeating a few issues i've had with D&D as a whole and a few i'm just shaking my head at. i know this is a playtest, but what worries me is that this is the material they feel comfortable showing us. this, at some point, i have to believe this was their "A" game. and that worries me.
otherwise, i'm left with the scary thought that if this isn't their A-game they're throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks, without letting us know fully what is going on and i'm missing context in the playtest. i can give my thoughts, but without proper context i would question it's validity.
what's sadder is that it's an A-Game i can't even get my group bothered enough to try on the off-days our normal game can't run, and this is a group that keeps a set of BECMI on hand behind the counter (one player is the owner of the store) "in case". they chose to have me try my hand at shadowrun instead. can't say i really blame them.
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
I know it would be extremely difficult to execute, but I would love to see a D&D edition where all attributes are equally important to all classes. Where a fighter values high Charisma as much as Constitution, where a wizard has just as much reason to increase their Strength as they do their Intelligence. I hate the concept of dump stats so much.
The "three pillars" is a good adventure design tenet but I wouldn't design characters around it. I mean, to me it makes sense that each pillar has a primary set of skills, but you could really use any of them in any pillar. "Exploration" style Knowledge checks help identify monsters' weaknesses in combat, "Interaction" checks Bluff out some feints in combat, "Combat" attack rolls bash through a door while the chamber's flooding, that kind of thing. When DMing 4e, it doesn't come up often because PCs tend to have so many options, but I've allowed "I'm going to intimidate the orc chieftain by setting his house on fire with fireball" type stuff in a skill challenge.
Make the system so that you can (either creatively, or hard-coded) apply what your character does in all sorts of situations, and you don't need to design around the pillars.
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
I know it would be extremely difficult to execute, but I would love to see a D&D edition where all attributes are equally important to all classes. Where a fighter values high Charisma as much as Constitution, where a wizard has just as much reason to increase their Strength as they do their Intelligence. I hate the concept of dump stats so much.
I always wanted that too. Wily fighters, tough rogues, muscle-bound mages... All good RPG opportunities.
The division has more to do with the appropriate subsystem for resolving the conflict rather than direct narrative translation. For example, if you're talking your way through the undercity of a metropolis to locate a crime organization's hidden lair, that could be considered Exploration even though you're technically talking to people. "Social Interaction" would be where you're directly opposed to another person or group, but violence isn't being used. For example, if you're trying to convince the local lord to pay for some extra guards for a few weeks, bluff your way into the ogre encampment without bloodshed, or making use of magical charms to win yourself a temporary minion, then you'd use the Social Interaction system.
In Exploration, you wouldn't have an actual "opponent" that's set up against you so much as a set of obstacles you need to overcome.
The "point pools" is nothing more than point-buy in three parts. You choose your stats three times, but with fewer places to allocate stat points each time.
bss--
That's dependent on the design of the game. Yes, you can design a game that uses one set of abilities for all three types of events. This has the problem of often meaning you can only really optimize for one of them, and it's Combat that usually wins here. Incidentally, it also means that the designers tend to spend more time with combat, too. And all that means that players wind up spending more time in combat. D&D 4E works great when a session is played out as a series of combat encounters with narrative interludes, but it's pretty bad when you try to handle debating between PCs and NPCs, any sort of extended bluff / intimidation event, and so forth. Even obstacles and dangerous terrain work best as a part of combat rather than as their own thing (4E's DMG even recommends this fairly directly).
You gain a lot if you separate the mechanics, and you don't have to lose any verisimilitude. If you're playing a very strong hammer-wielding brute of a character, you can have high Power and Strength to make sure you do great damage and have no trouble breaking stuff. But now you can also represent the swashbuckling blademaster who knows exactly where to strike with a saber to do the most damage, but otherwise is more of a scrawny and nimble sort of fellow. This would be high Power and Dexterity. You can also make a clumsy brute that can break stuff easily and take a beating but rarely seems to get in really solid strikes in battle (high Hit Points and Strength, lowish Power, Accuracy, and Dexterity). And so on.
Some of your specific examples are well-handled with the synergy options, like gaining Feint-themed "power swap" stuff if you selected a Culture (Interaction option) that typically deals with bluffing and lying.
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
When fantasy games are criticized for being “unrealistic” — and by fantasy I certainly mean both imaginary “science fiction” games and heroic fantasy — the sheer magnitude of the misconception absolutely astounds me! How can the critic presume that his or her imagined projection of a non-existent world or conjectured future history is any more “real” than another’s? While science fantasy does have some facts and good theories to logically proceed from, so that a semblance of truth can be claimed for those works which attempt to ground themselves on the basis of reality for their future projections, the world of “never-was” has no such shelter. Therefore, the absurdity of a cry for “realism” in a pure fantasy game seems so evident that I am overwhelmed when such confronts me. Yet, there are those persistent few who keep demanding it. The “camel” of working magic, countless pantheons of gods and devils, monsters that turn people to stone or breath fire, and characters that are daily faced with Herculean challenges which they overcome by dint of swordplay and spell casting is gulped down without a qualm. It is the “gnat” of "unrealistic” combat, or “unrealistic” magic systems, or the particular abilities of a class of characters in the game which makes them gag.
When fantasy games are criticized for being “unrealistic” — and by fantasy I certainly mean both imaginary “science fiction” games and heroic fantasy — the sheer magnitude of the misconception absolutely astounds me! How can the critic presume that his or her imagined projection of a non-existent world or conjectured future history is any more “real” than another’s? While science fantasy does have some facts and good theories to logically proceed from, so that a semblance of truth can be claimed for those works which attempt to ground themselves on the basis of reality for their future projections, the world of “never-was” has no such shelter. Therefore, the absurdity of a cry for “realism” in a pure fantasy game seems so evident that I am overwhelmed when such confronts me. Yet, there are those persistent few who keep demanding it. The “camel” of working magic, countless pantheons of gods and devils, monsters that turn people to stone or breath fire, and characters that are daily faced with Herculean challenges which they overcome by dint of swordplay and spell casting is gulped down without a qualm. It is the “gnat” of "unrealistic” combat, or “unrealistic” magic systems, or the particular abilities of a class of characters in the game which makes them gag.
That's dependent on the design of the game. Yes, you can design a game that uses one set of abilities for all three types of events. This has the problem of often meaning you can only really optimize for one of them, and it's Combat that usually wins here. Incidentally, it also means that the designers tend to spend more time with combat, too. And all that means that players wind up spending more time in combat. D&D 4E works great when a session is played out as a series of combat encounters with narrative interludes, but it's pretty bad when you try to handle debating between PCs and NPCs, any sort of extended bluff / intimidation event, and so forth. Even obstacles and dangerous terrain work best as a part of combat rather than as their own thing (4E's DMG even recommends this fairly directly).
I don't dispute that it can work, but I'm saying it's not what I'd do for D&D. Frankly, I'm fine with the rules focusing on one pillar and letting the players and DM fill in the rest. There are systems that try for a broader spread, either intentionally, or just by not having special combat rules at all, or whatever. I don't want to get into what "is" and "isn't" D&D, but if I were designing it, I'd say "alright, here's a bunch of mechanics about combat, because the game has traditionally leaned towards more combat, but you can apply a lot of the mechanics out of combat too".
Don't get me started on verisimilitude though. The bss version of D&D would have "0. Fuck verisimilitude." as the first tip to DMs.
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
That's dependent on the design of the game. Yes, you can design a game that uses one set of abilities for all three types of events.
You could design a game that uses one set of resolution mechanics for all three types of events. And then you would have Mouse Guard, which is awesome. Dragooning townsmice into forming an emergency caravan, leading the caravan through a summer rainstorm, and backing off a hawk that sees an all-you-can-swoop buffet can all be run in the same way, though the applicable skills and equipment for each of the conflicts are going to vary.
My favorite quote from this article, and possibly from the entire development process, is this one:
"The biggest piece of feedback we received was that the rogue came across as a lame fighter. This was a key test to see how much tolerance people have for varied combat strength across classes. There's some give, but it looks like people want to avoid dramatic differences."
So, turns out people want reasonably balanced play and don't like it when one class is the same as another class only shittier. It's deep insight like this that really separates the amateurs from the professionals
I love the image that they knew it was underpowered going in and somebody in a meeting just, like, raised his hand and was like "Well...maybe they want shitty things? Like, maybe we should leave it bad, on purpose?"
and then there's just like ten seconds of total silence before Mearls goes "Give this man a raise."
Edit: Meanwhile, the feedback indicates that the fighter is the 'most powerful class', so it might be receiving a small nerf to expertise dice. Wizards, however, will gain more spell slots and a greater variety of options, but this increase in power will be balanced by also increasing the damage their spells deal.
The biggest piece of feedback we received was that the rogue came across as a lame fighter. This was a key test to see how much tolerance people have for varied combat strength across classes.
So I made you shit for dinner. This was a key test to see how much you liked eating shit. Now I know.
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited December 2012
Wizards learned the things they said were major problems with 3E they wanted to fix in 4E as major design goals, are still actually problems that they have failed to address when designing 5E.
Congrats guys, I guess?
Also the inmates really are running the asylum when you read things as ridiculous as the fighter being the most powerful class.
The biggest piece of feedback we received was that the rogue came across as a lame fighter. This was a key test to see how much tolerance people have for varied combat strength across classes.
So I made you shit for dinner. This was a key test to see how much you liked eating shit. Now I know.
Also, the next time you ask if I served you shit for dinner? It'll turn out that was totally a test too! FEEDBACK!
Quoting myself because I'm too lazy to be clever twice: maybe 5e isn't an edition of D&D but just a meta-game testing how long people pay attention to irrational change
bss on
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
0
Options
oxybeEntei is appaled and disappointed in youRegistered Userregular
i've read to what they have to say and i'll give my final thoughts later in the post
ROGUES:
"The biggest piece of feedback we received was that the rogue came across as a lame fighter. This was a key test to see how much tolerance people have for varied combat strength across classes. There's some give, but it looks like people want to avoid dramatic differences.
Frankly, that's not surprising, but now is the best time for us to challenge our assumptions before we lock things down."
Oops, we goofed, but like heck we'll admit it! you can hear the gears grind as they try to backpedal.
"The plan right now is to give rogues expertise dice equivalent to the fighter's progression. In addition, our new approach to skills uses bonus dice in place of a static modifier. A rogue can essentially use weaponized ability checks in combat. A rogue might lure an enemy into charging forward, dart into the shadows and disappear in the blink of an eye, distract a creature's attention away from the wizard as he or she prepares to cast a spell, and so forth."
now, keep in mind the first line. remember that little bit for later.
so instead of a flat, reliable modifier, you roll more dice and make the result more random. because skilled people are all about random and not about being consistent with their results. as for stuff like luring an enemy to charge, dart into shadows and disappear or divert attention... how exactly? are they going to give the rogue a list of stuff only he can do but require training in a particular skill to do so or just be a generic list of abilities he can use by doing an action? i'll need far more information before i can put any hope into them pulling this off.
"You can think of these as nonmagical effects that would still require a saving throw or an ability contest to resist. For instance, Shalandra the rogue might contest her Charisma against an ogre's Wisdom. If Shalandra wins, she can trick the ogre into charging forward and blundering into a trap. She might contest her Dexterity against a creature's Intelligence to lure it into making a wild opportunity attack that actually targets its ally. These abilities are much like maneuvers, but they use the rogue's skill dice rather than what we're currently calling expertise dice. "
ah, so it's just expertise dice & maneuvers renamed and given a second (?) pool of dice. i'd say i would love seeing the internet shitstorm the grogs will pull when they see the rogue with taunting and aggro control mechanics, but because it's not 4th ed and using standardized terms like Pull/Push/Slide or Mark it will be praised as some sort of epiphany. watch.
"With sneak attack, the plan right now is to treat it as a bonus to damage that you can gain in certain situations. As a default, when you have advantage, you can choose to forgo it in return for extra damage. Gaining both a significant bonus to accuracy and damage was proving a little too good. Dialing down the damage also allows us to be more liberal in giving you the chance to activate it.
I'd also like to continue making sneak attack an option, rather than having it be the default mode for all rogues. For example, a rogue might have the option to take better starting weapons, trading the spike of sneak attack for steadier damage, or the option to gain a special dodge ability to focus on reducing damage taken rather than boosting damage dealt."
more proof that martial types can't have nice things, they've decided to dial down the damage of an already bad version of deadly strike so you can use it more often then before, but less often then deadly strike.
unless it deals more damage then deadly strike, which the fighter (AND THE FRIKKIN ROGUE) can activate whenever he wants, being more liberal with it's use won't make it more appealing. seriously, in this situation, you'd simply pick "no i don't want sneak attack, i'll take greatsword proficiency instead" then nab up deadly strike and lol all the way to the damage bank as you use it on all your attacks.
GENERAL SPELLCASTING:
"Rituals are going to become free to use if you have the spell in your spellbook or on your list of prepared spells. This will require a fair amount of work to balance their effects, but charging gold pieces for them was a poor balancing mechanic."
i'm going for "pipe dream" here. at the moment your balancing factor is both time and money and you're taking away the latter. do note that spells already aren't balanced across what all classes can do, but at best between each other. removing the money factor from say, knock means "you take a minute and open any object with a low enough DC without having to roll" or divination which will mean you get one free "GM, answer my question" or "GM, solve this puzzle" per day with a casting time of an hour.
there is only so many ways you can tweak the rocket delivery system before realizing that they are blowing up immediately after launch because it's the rockets themselves that are the problems.
"Finally, we will add rules for casting spells while in armor. The rule will simply be that if you are proficient with a type of armor, you can cast spells while wearing it. Otherwise, the armor interferes with your ability to cast."
actually sensible.
CLERICS
"Turn undead will be significantly simplified and will be tied to a pool of healing that a cleric can tap into. A cleric gains 5 points of positive energy per level that he or she can channel each day. Clerics can channel healing on a 1-for-1 basis, create bigger healing effects for more points (remove disease, neutralize poison), and turn undead for a small number of points (undead creatures are, not surprisingly, repelled by positive energy). The numbers will change, but the basic mechanic is in place."
you can heal a very little amount each day for free or turn a zombie or two. later, you can get rid of a whole lot of zombies that are at best rough terrain you need to wade through or one decent undead.
"We might revise the deities to include armor proficiency. We'll also look for better at-will options for clerics. The text for the deity entries will also make it clear that titles such as the Warbringer might apply to one aspect of a deity. A single god might have clerics that gain different powers, depending on which aspect they embrace."
the cleric is a class that gets most of it's abilities, skills & gear proficiencies from it's god/domain/aspect/schnitzel. the cleric is twenty different classes, slightly tweaked from one another just because we don't want to confuse people too much.
WIZARDS:
"We're making a few changes to spellcasting. First and foremost, casters will receive more slots than the number we were giving in the last packet. In addition, at-will spells will scale in damage and effect to remain relevant at all levels. It's likely that these changes push the signature spell out of the picture, since we don't really need it to pick up the slack anymore."
who's willing to bet that @will spells will be more powerful then a fighter spending all his expertise dice on a single attack rather then splitting them up or saving them for defense? average damage from all expertise dice alone at 10th level is 16.5... so i'm going to hazard a 5d6 (15.5 avg) burning hands at 10th level for the wizard.
The biggest change for wizards is that we are going to separate spell preparation and spellcasting. You can prepare a number of spells, let's say three, for each level you can cast. When you cast a spell, you pick any spell you have prepared and spend the corresponding spell slot to cast it. This mechanic mirrors the flexibility we gave to clerics.
so the next possible iteration of the 5th ed wizard (no i'm going the next Next wizard. that sounds as silly as D&D Next) smushes the 3rd ed wizard & sorceror together to create a more mechanically broken version? you've got a powerful utility caster with the ability to change his loadout daily AND the ability to not go "whelp, i've prepared too many invisibilities and not enough blindness/deafnessess. oops".
or basically a wizard that will go "i choose Scorching Ray/Melf's, Invisibility & Web for the day" and 3 floating "whenever i want" slots to cast from, with rope trick being the occasional swap out for invis.
FIGHTER
"The other classes will mostly catch up, but we might reduce expertise dice a little bit at higher levels to keep the game moving quickly." because when they finally start giving the fighter nice things, they realize neither the rogue or the monk are getting some, so the fighter can't have them either.
remember what they said about the rogue? i think this is what they meant. they're giving the rogue a fighter-like expertise dice progression... by taking away the fighter's progression.
MY FINAL THOUGHTS:
sigh. not a "southern bell swooning in the arms of a rugged man" sigh, but an exasperated one.
i need a drink of tea. with whiskey.
so much whiskey. anyone else care for a drink?
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
-Weather Badge
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Yes, they are being remarkable in their ability to put mechanics from 4e into the game and yet try as desperately as possible not to do anything that looks that way. They have literally just described powers that let you pull/shift/slide an enemy, which 4e already let's rogues do but without the codified mechanics. Don't be surprised when the rules give absolutely no recourse when your DM decides "My antagonist is so awesome, that just plain doesnt work on the dragon/beholder/Illithid/my pet villain" or what have you. This is probably what annoys the Grognards so much, 4e let the rogue do this and the rules were codified that an explanation otherwise just made you sound like you were screwing over the player unfairly. Actually I shouldn't say "sound like" I should say "actually are".
But when the spellcaster at the table uses a spell to do the same thing? Expect the rules to ensure that works. Because magic.
The corporate spin-speak is so bad all I can think of is 80s Guy from Futurama.
4E is like weresheep! D&D NEXT is like weresharks! Weresharks don't look back cuz they ain't got necks!
My earlier Mearls = Cave Johnson comment still holds water, I see.
Now I have an itching to stat out Bone-itis as a 4E Disease.
Hitting the broken computer does not fix the broken computer. Fixing the broken computer, fixes the broken computer.
As for re-designing D&D from the ground up, I'd chuck Armor Class, too. I'd much rather see an opposed to-hit roll against a dodge roll, followed by armor acting to reduce damage. The heavier your armor, the less likely you are to dodge a blow but the less likely it is to hurt you. And then you can have the difficulty of hitting an opponent scale with the opponent's skill rather than with the cost of his equipment.
I'd like to see a D&D with asymmetric mechanics based on your role. Everybody gets something to do but those things aren't necessarily similar. Fighter types are good at fighting, so they get at-will abilities to select from every round in combat. Rogues are sneaky and tactical but not necessarily that tough, so they get some kind of dice/point pool to spend on abilities. Spellcasters fill in the gaps with a broad variety of abilities, but are limited by foresight and get only a handful of narrow abilities during any particular fight.
Also, while I like d20 resolution, I've always hated D&D's adherence to pass/fail mechanics. If I were to redesign it form the ground up there'd be a built-in assumption that almost all rolls will have graduated degrees of success and failure.
I like this. Very Apocalypse World or Dungeon World.
I read about D&D way waay more than I play it but as far as stuff I'd keep for D&D generally I would KISS. Rolling a character for 4th ed (in my limited experience) was pretty complex and almost scary. Rolling a character for OD&D, on the other hand, was incredibly simple and nonthreatening. That said, if its too simple, what do you need a system for? I figure a balanced, elegant system is the reason we are paying WOTC anything at all.
"We're playing this great game! We roll dice once a session at most. We leave the character sheets in a binder in the drawer. The roleplaying is fantastic." This common, common kind of play is a result of character sheets and dice mechanics and rules that don't contribute anything meaningful to play, and so disappear.
Here's what I'd say: if all your formal rules do is structure your group's ongoing agreement about what happens in the game, they are a) interchangeable with any other rpg rules out there, and b) probably a waste of your attention. Live negotiation and honest collaboration are almost certainly better.
valiance on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
On twitter I saw Greg Bisland post that they played a resounding game of dndnext for 3 hours with all roleplaying and nothing else. I do not know how on earth I did it but I somehow didn't respond with "Dndnext is amazing whenever you don't need the actual rules isn't it? You know, the bit you have to pay for." Just decided to leave it as it was.
I think I am now getting too old to troll the Internet anymore. I had the perfect opening and yet I didn't bother taking it. That's about the level of apathy I now have at this point towards it. Hell I post in this thread solely to interact with people on this forum for the interesting discussion and if this thread wasn't active I wouldn't even post about dndnext at all.
Posts
Str/dex (and charisma) was given as an example.
Like I said, attribute divorced from class.
I'd definitely do the inherent bonuses idea, but rather than being an option, that'd just be how the math worked. As consequence I'd drop magic items that were simply +1 of whatever.
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
Right, but then why bother with the racial bonus at all? If elves have lower Strength than dwarves but it doesn't matter because they can both just choose to use Wisdom for their attack stat then what is a stat bonus adding to their racial identity?
My choice is: be able to cast 3 weaker spells and 1 or 2 good spells per day (huzah 5 minute workday) OR be able to case infinite weaker spells and a good spell every 10 minutes forever but only if I pick these exact 4 spells here.
So every wizard is just gonna have burning hands, mage armor, shocking grasp and thunderwave because some fuckwit at wizards has a hardon for those 4 specific named spells.
If you want to actually make choices then FUCK YOU PEASANT you lose your at wills
This, so much.
3DS: 1289-8447-4695
So I absolutely agree, other effects are cool.
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
B. An elf could choose to use another stat the dwarf could not do as optimally, either as primary or secondary, and vice-versa.
C. Attribute allocation is not the WHOLE of racial identity, but a part of it.
The result is not "no elf fighters" or even "less elf fighters and they will always be statistically inferior to other races" but "elf fighters typically fight in ways that suit their biological proclivities, as do dwarves, halflings, etc. Where those proclivities overlap, you see similar results, and overall effectiveness in combat is even across the board, rather than being limited because the designer didn't think it was as cool as the player does."
Well, its not even that. For all the hemming and hawing about martial characters needing to be realistic, the framework said "realism" is based around is pants on head retarded about it.
I mean they exist in a universe where the "realistic" level of competence assumes that battlefield mobility barely exists, fighting multiple opponents is close to impossible and actual combat technique is abstracted down to swinging your weapon really hard.
This is also a universe where being impaled multiple times by a 4ft length of sharpened steel is considered an inconvenience, while a dude with robes can just ignore that and kill you with a word.
The big thing I'm looking at is that everybody gets the required math bump by x but if I want I can make the special item slightly higher so it's even cooler for awhile. Essentially, give me some control and make magic items cool without being the entire point of a character.
I can think of a bitchin item I'm sure the player will like once every 10 levels for each character. Every level, making sure it's actually better and more on point for the character focus and OMG I DON'T GIVE A SHIT.
Magic Treasure, it should be cool but not make my head explode.
I really want magic items to be awesome stuff. Like flaming swords that range from just doing fire damage to burning down swathes of enemies. That's the kinda stuff I want to see.
That could be a simpler approach than tracking when item dailies can be used, like 4e does.
Additionally, static hit bonuses are just too insanely good in the standard d20 resolution while static damage bonuses are usually boring. (and seldom scale well)
While I always thought even +x damage (fire) is seldom mechanically exciting, it does at least conjure up some nice aesthetics.
Combat
Power (damage, DCs)
Accuracy (chance to hit)
Agility (merges AC and Reflex)
Hit Points (damage taken, old Constitution / Fortitude resistances)
Interaction
Charisma ("offensive" interaction stat)
Insight ("defensive" interaction stat)
Willpower (opposed rolls for battles of will, magical or mundane)
Exploration
Strength (carrying, enduring, swimming, resisting afflictions, breaking stuff)
Intelligence (searching, researching, knowledge, puzzle-solving)
Dexterity (acrobatics, balance, climbing, lock-picking, riding / driving)
Here's the key: each section of stats gets its own pool of points. So, every player can contribute in all three sections of gameplay, just in different ways.
From here, keep the d20 vs target where target can also be an opposed roll. Build in character options to Interaction and Exploration in the following manner:
Class - Combat options
Culture - Interaction options
Theme - Exploration options
Class provides weapons, armor, maneuvers, and combat spells (blasting). Culture replaces "Race" in traditional fantasy, where all the usual races are broken down into cultural sub-races for purposes of making this selection. It is from there that you get your interaction options for that subsystem. Finally, Theme is sort of like your profession, only a bit more general to allow for additional possibilities. This is where your options for overcoming environmental challenges come from.
The old classes would be chopped up and scattered across these new divisions. For instance, Bard and Ranger become Themes while Barbarian (Human) becomes a Culture. A traditional older-edition Barbarian might thus be represented as follows:
Fighter/Barbarian (Human)/Hunter
Or, of course: Fighter/Wood Elf/Hunter, where "Wood Elf" is the elven race version of Barbarian.
Multiclassing now comes from mixing and matching across these discrete areas. For example, a character that works something like a Beguiler or an Elder Scrolls Nightblade could be made like this:
Rogue/High Elf/Shadow
The Rogue Class provides the expected sort of combat abilities like maneuverability and sneak attack. The High Elf culture would give access to some mental enchantment options, while Shadow makes use of Illusion magic and acrobatics to handle the environment. A human version of this in Faerun might be Rogue/Thayan (Human)/Shadow.
Something akin to optional "power swap" options would then be put in place to help bring a lot of the popular / traditional archetypes to life. For instance, a character with the High Elf culture may be able to swap some standard Fighter abilities with some specific abilities that work with the Longsword or Spear, while a Wood Elf culture character may have some forest-specific options for a Shadow, and so on.
This game would be tiered, so your choices here would function for precisely one tier. The first set of materials would only function for tier 1. The game would later be expanded into tier 2 (paragon stuff) with a new set of Class/Culture/Theme options for higher-end play.
There would be nothing quite like "feats" in this version. Each class, theme, and culture has its own set of choices baked in. This keeps expansion under control, so you never reach a situation where you're literally choosing between over a thousand options on a level up.
Combat spells would include those from the blasting and zone styles. Charms and illusions get moved to Interaction and Exploration events.
Skills are removed; once again, your options come from your class/culture/theme. If you want to be acrobatic, then you pick a class with maneuverability, a theme based around tumbling and balancing and such, and put high scores into Agility and Dexterity. Note that you can do all of this without in any way sacrificing or even limiting your Interaction abilities, because you still have your culture to select and all points available in the Interaction pool.
I definitely don't like the idea of point pools. Point systems beg to be abbused. I'll direct you to VtM for evidence of this.
are you a competent fighter because you have a high strength (or dex), or are you a competent fighter because you're a fighter?
divorce stats from class competence. a fighter doesn't require a high any stat. have different stats for combat, like the "weapon attack" and "magic attack" stat the classes currently have.
have stats control skills and skills alone. not all military folks are wise military leaders. some are the big dumb brutes, but at least this way a fighter can still be an awesome fighter, but isn't penalized when he wants to play a charismatic, intelligent & wise military leader over a mass of muscles devoid of any mental capabilities because he put his three best stats in those stats rather then strength, dexterity & constitution. i would also lose the "bonus = to (stat-10)/2, round down" and base everything strait off the stat+skill but because of legacy, i doubt i'd ever see it happen.
here is where i would also recommend they dump their current specialization/feat setup and change it up a bit. i would keep the concept of feats and their acquisition, but change what it covers. as of now, they are simply a hodgepodge: some give +X's (like improved initiative or toughness) while others allow a VERY limited use of some rather pathetic spells (because more then one free mage hand per day is broke) or abilities.
i would change feats so that they act more akin to a "non-numerical" sort of bonus: Retainers/Allies, In-Game status/fame, Contacts, Gadgetry/Resources, etc... if we do go with stuff like "hedge mage" i'd go the 4th ed wild talent route: pick a handful of effects from a list of at-will effects you can do whenever. i mean, sure the ability to light a non-attended object on fire might seem powerful to some, but a tinderbox can reproduce that same effect for 5sp, or mage hand... pick up an unattended object that weight less then a heavy book... "oops i left my keys on the counter" *hovers them over*... is that really so OP that it needs to be restricted to 1/day?
have those feats each have a rating of sort, where the more you put into those feats, the more you get out of it: more retainers, a higher status, better contacts, more resources, more wild talents...
the rather bland +X to an action (like imp.initiative, toughness or the herbalist stuff) should be it's own separate thing, as should more skill training (or additional uses of the skills). these things can be done seperately, and IMO having to choose between a +4 to my initiative roll or the ability to quickly search an area as though i rolled a 20 makes no sense as they affect entirely different things, yet come from the same basic pool of options.
would it be that hard or confusing to have a Class (each with their own things) + Talents (a generic pool that boosts different combat modifiers or abilities), Skills + Specialties (training and better use of some skills) and finally Feats (story/campaign bonuses).
i could just be talking the crazy, but then again i haven't eaten supper yet.
they just seem to be repeating a few issues i've had with D&D as a whole and a few i'm just shaking my head at. i know this is a playtest, but what worries me is that this is the material they feel comfortable showing us. this, at some point, i have to believe this was their "A" game. and that worries me.
otherwise, i'm left with the scary thought that if this isn't their A-game they're throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks, without letting us know fully what is going on and i'm missing context in the playtest. i can give my thoughts, but without proper context i would question it's validity.
what's sadder is that it's an A-Game i can't even get my group bothered enough to try on the off-days our normal game can't run, and this is a group that keeps a set of BECMI on hand behind the counter (one player is the owner of the store) "in case". they chose to have me try my hand at shadowrun instead. can't say i really blame them.
Make the system so that you can (either creatively, or hard-coded) apply what your character does in all sorts of situations, and you don't need to design around the pillars.
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
I always wanted that too. Wily fighters, tough rogues, muscle-bound mages... All good RPG opportunities.
I loved 4e's Warlord for being a smart fighter.
The division has more to do with the appropriate subsystem for resolving the conflict rather than direct narrative translation. For example, if you're talking your way through the undercity of a metropolis to locate a crime organization's hidden lair, that could be considered Exploration even though you're technically talking to people. "Social Interaction" would be where you're directly opposed to another person or group, but violence isn't being used. For example, if you're trying to convince the local lord to pay for some extra guards for a few weeks, bluff your way into the ogre encampment without bloodshed, or making use of magical charms to win yourself a temporary minion, then you'd use the Social Interaction system.
In Exploration, you wouldn't have an actual "opponent" that's set up against you so much as a set of obstacles you need to overcome.
The "point pools" is nothing more than point-buy in three parts. You choose your stats three times, but with fewer places to allocate stat points each time.
bss--
That's dependent on the design of the game. Yes, you can design a game that uses one set of abilities for all three types of events. This has the problem of often meaning you can only really optimize for one of them, and it's Combat that usually wins here. Incidentally, it also means that the designers tend to spend more time with combat, too. And all that means that players wind up spending more time in combat. D&D 4E works great when a session is played out as a series of combat encounters with narrative interludes, but it's pretty bad when you try to handle debating between PCs and NPCs, any sort of extended bluff / intimidation event, and so forth. Even obstacles and dangerous terrain work best as a part of combat rather than as their own thing (4E's DMG even recommends this fairly directly).
You gain a lot if you separate the mechanics, and you don't have to lose any verisimilitude. If you're playing a very strong hammer-wielding brute of a character, you can have high Power and Strength to make sure you do great damage and have no trouble breaking stuff. But now you can also represent the swashbuckling blademaster who knows exactly where to strike with a saber to do the most damage, but otherwise is more of a scrawny and nimble sort of fellow. This would be high Power and Dexterity. You can also make a clumsy brute that can break stuff easily and take a beating but rarely seems to get in really solid strikes in battle (high Hit Points and Strength, lowish Power, Accuracy, and Dexterity). And so on.
Some of your specific examples are well-handled with the synergy options, like gaining Feint-themed "power swap" stuff if you selected a Culture (Interaction option) that typically deals with bluffing and lying.
Is this related to anyone's posts here?
I don't dispute that it can work, but I'm saying it's not what I'd do for D&D. Frankly, I'm fine with the rules focusing on one pillar and letting the players and DM fill in the rest. There are systems that try for a broader spread, either intentionally, or just by not having special combat rules at all, or whatever. I don't want to get into what "is" and "isn't" D&D, but if I were designing it, I'd say "alright, here's a bunch of mechanics about combat, because the game has traditionally leaned towards more combat, but you can apply a lot of the mechanics out of combat too".
Don't get me started on verisimilitude though. The bss version of D&D would have "0. Fuck verisimilitude." as the first tip to DMs.
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
I have no idea why it was posted now and not a page or two ago.
Stupid forums.
EDIT:No, wait, it was a reply to Der Waffle Mous.
You could design a game that uses one set of resolution mechanics for all three types of events. And then you would have Mouse Guard, which is awesome. Dragooning townsmice into forming an emergency caravan, leading the caravan through a summer rainstorm, and backing off a hawk that sees an all-you-can-swoop buffet can all be run in the same way, though the applicable skills and equipment for each of the conflicts are going to vary.
My favorite quote from this article, and possibly from the entire development process, is this one:
"The biggest piece of feedback we received was that the rogue came across as a lame fighter. This was a key test to see how much tolerance people have for varied combat strength across classes. There's some give, but it looks like people want to avoid dramatic differences."
So, turns out people want reasonably balanced play and don't like it when one class is the same as another class only shittier. It's deep insight like this that really separates the amateurs from the professionals
I love the image that they knew it was underpowered going in and somebody in a meeting just, like, raised his hand and was like "Well...maybe they want shitty things? Like, maybe we should leave it bad, on purpose?"
and then there's just like ten seconds of total silence before Mearls goes "Give this man a raise."
Edit: Meanwhile, the feedback indicates that the fighter is the 'most powerful class', so it might be receiving a small nerf to expertise dice. Wizards, however, will gain more spell slots and a greater variety of options, but this increase in power will be balanced by also increasing the damage their spells deal.
So I made you shit for dinner. This was a key test to see how much you liked eating shit. Now I know.
4E is like weresheep! D&D NEXT is like weresharks! Weresharks don't look back cuz they ain't got necks!
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
Congrats guys, I guess?
Also the inmates really are running the asylum when you read things as ridiculous as the fighter being the most powerful class.
Also, the next time you ask if I served you shit for dinner? It'll turn out that was totally a test too! FEEDBACK!
Quoting myself because I'm too lazy to be clever twice: maybe 5e isn't an edition of D&D but just a meta-game testing how long people pay attention to irrational change
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
ROGUES:
"The biggest piece of feedback we received was that the rogue came across as a lame fighter. This was a key test to see how much tolerance people have for varied combat strength across classes. There's some give, but it looks like people want to avoid dramatic differences.
Frankly, that's not surprising, but now is the best time for us to challenge our assumptions before we lock things down."
Oops, we goofed, but like heck we'll admit it! you can hear the gears grind as they try to backpedal.
"The plan right now is to give rogues expertise dice equivalent to the fighter's progression. In addition, our new approach to skills uses bonus dice in place of a static modifier. A rogue can essentially use weaponized ability checks in combat. A rogue might lure an enemy into charging forward, dart into the shadows and disappear in the blink of an eye, distract a creature's attention away from the wizard as he or she prepares to cast a spell, and so forth."
now, keep in mind the first line. remember that little bit for later.
so instead of a flat, reliable modifier, you roll more dice and make the result more random. because skilled people are all about random and not about being consistent with their results. as for stuff like luring an enemy to charge, dart into shadows and disappear or divert attention... how exactly? are they going to give the rogue a list of stuff only he can do but require training in a particular skill to do so or just be a generic list of abilities he can use by doing an action? i'll need far more information before i can put any hope into them pulling this off.
"You can think of these as nonmagical effects that would still require a saving throw or an ability contest to resist. For instance, Shalandra the rogue might contest her Charisma against an ogre's Wisdom. If Shalandra wins, she can trick the ogre into charging forward and blundering into a trap. She might contest her Dexterity against a creature's Intelligence to lure it into making a wild opportunity attack that actually targets its ally. These abilities are much like maneuvers, but they use the rogue's skill dice rather than what we're currently calling expertise dice. "
ah, so it's just expertise dice & maneuvers renamed and given a second (?) pool of dice. i'd say i would love seeing the internet shitstorm the grogs will pull when they see the rogue with taunting and aggro control mechanics, but because it's not 4th ed and using standardized terms like Pull/Push/Slide or Mark it will be praised as some sort of epiphany. watch.
"With sneak attack, the plan right now is to treat it as a bonus to damage that you can gain in certain situations. As a default, when you have advantage, you can choose to forgo it in return for extra damage. Gaining both a significant bonus to accuracy and damage was proving a little too good. Dialing down the damage also allows us to be more liberal in giving you the chance to activate it.
I'd also like to continue making sneak attack an option, rather than having it be the default mode for all rogues. For example, a rogue might have the option to take better starting weapons, trading the spike of sneak attack for steadier damage, or the option to gain a special dodge ability to focus on reducing damage taken rather than boosting damage dealt."
more proof that martial types can't have nice things, they've decided to dial down the damage of an already bad version of deadly strike so you can use it more often then before, but less often then deadly strike.
unless it deals more damage then deadly strike, which the fighter (AND THE FRIKKIN ROGUE) can activate whenever he wants, being more liberal with it's use won't make it more appealing. seriously, in this situation, you'd simply pick "no i don't want sneak attack, i'll take greatsword proficiency instead" then nab up deadly strike and lol all the way to the damage bank as you use it on all your attacks.
GENERAL SPELLCASTING:
"Rituals are going to become free to use if you have the spell in your spellbook or on your list of prepared spells. This will require a fair amount of work to balance their effects, but charging gold pieces for them was a poor balancing mechanic."
i'm going for "pipe dream" here. at the moment your balancing factor is both time and money and you're taking away the latter. do note that spells already aren't balanced across what all classes can do, but at best between each other. removing the money factor from say, knock means "you take a minute and open any object with a low enough DC without having to roll" or divination which will mean you get one free "GM, answer my question" or "GM, solve this puzzle" per day with a casting time of an hour.
there is only so many ways you can tweak the rocket delivery system before realizing that they are blowing up immediately after launch because it's the rockets themselves that are the problems.
"Finally, we will add rules for casting spells while in armor. The rule will simply be that if you are proficient with a type of armor, you can cast spells while wearing it. Otherwise, the armor interferes with your ability to cast."
actually sensible.
CLERICS
"Turn undead will be significantly simplified and will be tied to a pool of healing that a cleric can tap into. A cleric gains 5 points of positive energy per level that he or she can channel each day. Clerics can channel healing on a 1-for-1 basis, create bigger healing effects for more points (remove disease, neutralize poison), and turn undead for a small number of points (undead creatures are, not surprisingly, repelled by positive energy). The numbers will change, but the basic mechanic is in place."
you can heal a very little amount each day for free or turn a zombie or two. later, you can get rid of a whole lot of zombies that are at best rough terrain you need to wade through or one decent undead.
"We might revise the deities to include armor proficiency. We'll also look for better at-will options for clerics. The text for the deity entries will also make it clear that titles such as the Warbringer might apply to one aspect of a deity. A single god might have clerics that gain different powers, depending on which aspect they embrace."
the cleric is a class that gets most of it's abilities, skills & gear proficiencies from it's god/domain/aspect/schnitzel. the cleric is twenty different classes, slightly tweaked from one another just because we don't want to confuse people too much.
WIZARDS:
"We're making a few changes to spellcasting. First and foremost, casters will receive more slots than the number we were giving in the last packet. In addition, at-will spells will scale in damage and effect to remain relevant at all levels. It's likely that these changes push the signature spell out of the picture, since we don't really need it to pick up the slack anymore."
who's willing to bet that @will spells will be more powerful then a fighter spending all his expertise dice on a single attack rather then splitting them up or saving them for defense? average damage from all expertise dice alone at 10th level is 16.5... so i'm going to hazard a 5d6 (15.5 avg) burning hands at 10th level for the wizard.
The biggest change for wizards is that we are going to separate spell preparation and spellcasting. You can prepare a number of spells, let's say three, for each level you can cast. When you cast a spell, you pick any spell you have prepared and spend the corresponding spell slot to cast it. This mechanic mirrors the flexibility we gave to clerics.
so the next possible iteration of the 5th ed wizard (no i'm going the next Next wizard. that sounds as silly as D&D Next) smushes the 3rd ed wizard & sorceror together to create a more mechanically broken version? you've got a powerful utility caster with the ability to change his loadout daily AND the ability to not go "whelp, i've prepared too many invisibilities and not enough blindness/deafnessess. oops".
or basically a wizard that will go "i choose Scorching Ray/Melf's, Invisibility & Web for the day" and 3 floating "whenever i want" slots to cast from, with rope trick being the occasional swap out for invis.
FIGHTER
"The other classes will mostly catch up, but we might reduce expertise dice a little bit at higher levels to keep the game moving quickly." because when they finally start giving the fighter nice things, they realize neither the rogue or the monk are getting some, so the fighter can't have them either.
remember what they said about the rogue? i think this is what they meant. they're giving the rogue a fighter-like expertise dice progression... by taking away the fighter's progression.
MY FINAL THOUGHTS:
sigh. not a "southern bell swooning in the arms of a rugged man" sigh, but an exasperated one.
i need a drink of tea. with whiskey.
so much whiskey. anyone else care for a drink?
But when the spellcaster at the table uses a spell to do the same thing? Expect the rules to ensure that works. Because magic.
My earlier Mearls = Cave Johnson comment still holds water, I see.
Now I have an itching to stat out Bone-itis as a 4E Disease.
I like this. Very Apocalypse World or Dungeon World.
I read about D&D way waay more than I play it but as far as stuff I'd keep for D&D generally I would KISS. Rolling a character for 4th ed (in my limited experience) was pretty complex and almost scary. Rolling a character for OD&D, on the other hand, was incredibly simple and nonthreatening. That said, if its too simple, what do you need a system for? I figure a balanced, elegant system is the reason we are paying WOTC anything at all.
You don't want rules that just disappear because they're poorly designed: http://lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=43 or
http://www.lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=360
I think I am now getting too old to troll the Internet anymore. I had the perfect opening and yet I didn't bother taking it. That's about the level of apathy I now have at this point towards it. Hell I post in this thread solely to interact with people on this forum for the interesting discussion and if this thread wasn't active I wouldn't even post about dndnext at all.