D&D 5E 11/1/13 google hangout with

[Chris_Nightwing]

Whilst many of the concerns over abilities such as 'Taunt' focus on whether the action makes sense in the game or in the metagame, I think there's also a question of taste on the DMing side. With the Taunt ability as it exists, some DMs will be happy with players using it as a tool to dictate the flow of combat, and the narrative. Others will protest for the very same reasons that players might dislike the ability - inconsistencies between actions in the game and in the metagame.

You see, as a DM I'd be very happy for the Rogue to lure in orcs, ogres and a host of other melee-oriented brutes. Players, often being difficult, will use the ability whenever they find it useful, however, and so if I plan a confrontation against an evil Wizard, it would be rather frustrating to watch him get lured straight into melee with the Rogue and Fighter. You could see in 4th edition design, that many-vs-one encounters had to be prepared in a special way, and that many creatures whose focus was ranged atttacks had to have a 'get out of jail free' power to escape melee lockdown. You see, it doesn't matter whether you want the world to make sense to the characters or not, whether you're happy or not with the metagame, a proliferation of forced movement powers trickles down to character, monster and encounter design in a way that I, and many others, don't like. In the same way that uber-powerful casters result in a host of spells and items designed to counteract spellcasters specifically, a design that includes context-free forced movement has its own impact.

So, what I'd like to see is powers more like Distract, move somewhere or suffer for it. As a DM, I can then make sensible decisions for the creatures in the encounter - the wizards and archers will suffer a penalty, but remain an interesting challenge in themselves without having to design against Taunt, the melee creatures will almost always be lured in. Neither players nor DM want there to be 'tricks' that entirely negate an enemy's contribution to a fight, and using Taunt on an average Wizard does this. Magical abilities that have similar effects are just as disruptive - but my taste finds them acceptable because of a long legacy of counter-magic.

 

[Klaus]

I think most concerns with a Taunt ability stem from stuff like Come And Get It (that force enemies to move next to you, regardless of them being capable of hitting at a distance). But a Mark, like 4e's, is a perfect way to simulate that, while avoiding silliness. So you taunt your enemy to hit you on the face? This gives the enemy a penalty to its next attack that is not a melee attack against you. He can still circumvent the penalty by moving next to you and attacking you, but if its detrimental to his strategy (he's a spellcaster, or an archer), he can still take his turn as he wishes, being instead merely distracted by your shouting and name-calling (-2 to attacks).

 

[YRUSirius]

A taunt should give an enemy a bonus to hit the taunting character. Imagine the taunting rogue swashbuckler who is so sure that his taunts wouldn't backfire, that he gets hit by an attack flat-footed. A taunt would be something like lowering your guard with an insult and a smirk on your face to provoke an attack.

-YRUSirius

 

[howandwhy99]

The new-old adventure they mention, "Danger at Dark Shelf Quarry" might be the one Skip's been running at Garycon. That's the Escoult salt mine adventure and I can say from personal experience that it is great fun. It will be interesting to see what D&D books are published in 2013. I don't think it will be the next game, but necessity like this can breed creativity. They are already going back and publishing some old adventure series. New material is even cooler.

 

[tuxgeo]

Meta-Podcast: Trevor needs a better microphone setup. I listened to the podcast using headphones, and while I could understand what Mike and Jeremy were saying, it did seem as though Trevor's voice was poorly recorded. (That, or he barely bothered to enunciate.)

 

[Morrus]

Meta-Podcast: Trevor needs a better microphone setup. I listened to the podcast using headphones, and while I could understand what Mike and Jeremy were saying, it did seem as though Trevor's voice was poorly recorded. (That, or he barely bothered to enunciate.)

Yeah, I struggled to make out what he was saying, too. For me, though, it's just that he has a stronger American accent than the other two and speaks faster (I expect he'd have as much trouble understanding me!) The mike itself seems OK.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'd just like to point out that something like this does exist in the playtest packet: "Distract."

It's true. I wanted to tease out Taunt specifically because it specifically doesn't quite mesh with what I enjoy, and because it was mentioned in the podcast. Most of the other abilities are OK in my book -- they don't violate control of decision points.

I think most concerns with a Taunt ability stem from stuff like Come And Get It (that force enemies to move next to you, regardless of them being capable of hitting at a distance). But a Mark, like 4e's, is a perfect way to simulate that, while avoiding silliness. So you taunt your enemy to hit you on the face? This gives the enemy a penalty to its next attack that is not a melee attack against you. He can still circumvent the penalty by moving next to you and attacking you, but if its detrimental to his strategy (he's a spellcaster, or an archer), he can still take his turn as he wishes, being instead merely distracted by your shouting and name-calling (-2 to attacks).

Sure! It's a little fiddly with the -2, but I think the underpinning logic is a lot more tolerable for me. Let me make choices, give me consequences, don't play the game without me.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Taunt definitely makes for an interesting conversation. It seems to take one step over a line that makes some people uncomfortable. This is very useful data.

Taunt is a bit like bluff or sense motive. It's a check that has an influence on another character. For these skills, the character's response is the responsibility of the player. And it is a responsibility. Both skills can create situations where a player and her character have different amounts on information, and the player is expected to play the character appropriately.

In my experience, much of the fun and tension of roleplaying comes from this dynamic, and I would prefer for abilities like Taunt to work similarly. For example, and successful taunt means that you have successfully offended the target. How they respond to that is up to the player, but it comes with the expectation that they will respond to it in a character appropriate way.

 

[Retreater]

I don't like the cavalier attitude about the math of the game, particularly after the "monster math" fiasco of 4e where the final product of the core MM was so riddled with bad design they has to redesign and republish it.
From my view it is impossible for me to give a fair playtest as a DM with the math so off. If the monsters are not challenging, it breaks encounter design, players design characters with many suboptimal choices, and tactical decisions are irrelevant. Resource management, clever planning, and other integral pieces of my D&D experience go out the window.
It is because the math is broken that my groups abandoned the playtest and our collective interest in Next is practically nil. I am talking about 3 gaming groups consisting of nearly 20 individuals, so I know I am not an outlier.
So to Mike, Jeremy, and the rest of the team: fix the monster math. I cannot tell you if it "feels like D&D" or if it's even fun when the monsters cannot hit or damage often or severe enough to threaten characters.
The game is in the math and the mechanics. I care more about this being correct than flavor text of spells. I would prefer the playtest stop at 3rd level with four races and classes and have the math be right.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I don't like the cavalier attitude about the math of the game, particularly after the "monster math" fiasco of 4e where the final product of the core MM was so riddled with bad design they has to redesign and republish it.
From my view it is impossible for me to give a fair playtest as a DM with the math so off.

I think a more generous interpretation of what they were saying is that the math is not unimportant; it's just easier to adjust than higher-level concerns.

So yeah, it's really bad that a rogue can solo a dragon in this release, but they can fix that in five minutes by adding more hp to the dragon, cutting down the rogue's damage, or both. They'd much rather deal with problems like that than stuff like, "The fighter is too boring," which takes a lot more tough design work.

That said, I hope if nothing else they start working on "solo" monsters soon. They've said a few times that they want to enable the kind of huge setpiece battles that were one of 4e's biggest strengths, and it seems to me like creating "boss" monsters that don't wipe the party or die in three rounds is a necessary first step.