+ Log in or register to post
Results 101 to 104 of 104
Thread: Playtest Update
Friday, 29th June, 2012, 06:26 AM #101
Acolyte (Lvl 2)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
Ý Ignore Novem5er
I quick addition. I just read the blog post about the Narrative Combat module. I stole a quote from there about Mike Mearls working on the tactical module:
If you like miniatures, on the other hand, I have heard Mike Mearls talking about a tactical miniatures combat module that might make you happy. I donít know much about whatís in it yet, but I know youíll find rules for cover, movement into and out of enemy threat areas, and other things that most miniatures games worry about. There are even rules for facing! Our goal with the subsystem isnít to make miniatures rules for everyoneóitís to make miniatures rules for the people who really love miniatures.
From earlier in the blog post:
A rules module is an additional set of rules that can be laid on top of the core rules. Each module attempts to make the game feel different in a way that a subset of the audience would find satisfying. We expect that most players wonít use most rules modules, but groups can find the rules modules that work for them so that they can achieve the feel they want.
It's one thing for them to include races or classes that only a minority of players use because I think the majority of players expect them to be there out of completeness and diversity. Most people I know have never played a Bard, but they'd be upset if that option wasn't included as an option. It just wouldn't be D&D!
I'm not sure that same love is going to be felt for entire rule systems. So I go back to my earlier concern that the core D&D won't feel all the complete or interesting and that only by purchasing the rules modules will we be able to "make it our own".
Another game company does this with miniature combat rules. Games Workshop and their Warhammer 40k lines. Of course there is the basic rule book, but they sell whole supplements with new rules systems to add to the core game... Apocalypse allows for bigger games, Cities of Death has rules for dense urban combat, etc. These are great supplements, but they were too complex to fit in the core book (and were written some time afterwards, too).
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Friday, 29th June, 2012, 08:25 AM #102
Magsman (Lvl 14)
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
Ý Ignore Li Shenron
- rarely a PC has a significantly (lower than -1) negative ability bonus, and even more rarely she will have it in an ability that is important for her class role; maybe some Rogues in the past editions had Wis as dump stat, but if 5e requires Wis for trapfinding then Wis will practically never be a dump stat for Rogues
- it may sound theoretically outrageous to realism that a PC cannot even try a check (although this is not what I proposed in case of noticing traps, I do propose it for other skills such as Craft), but if you allow everyone to try then this clutters the game a lot... everyone will demand to roll for noticing traps in a locale where they think there is a trap (if the players don't, then you don't need a rule to handle paradoxes); therefore I am even undecided whether a non-trained character really should be allowed to even try
- as a more general problem, the game works more smoothly if roles in the party are separated, even at the cost of realism (but is this kind of realism really so important?), see what happens to the game when someone has spells that automatically unlock doors, find traps, see what's in the next room etc.
"There is no survival without order, there is no evolution without chaos."
"You have to see past the RAW to understand the rules of the game."
"And rules are OVERRATED by the way!
Friday, 29th June, 2012, 02:36 PM #103
Enchanter (Lvl 12)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Nagoya, Japan
Ý Ignore Iosue
Friday, 29th June, 2012, 05:16 PM #104
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Ý Ignore El Mahdi