Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DogBackward" data-source="post: 5959073" data-attributes="member: 50642"><p>Really? How often does a +2 succeed? Even at level one, a +2 to a skill check (with no training) is going to fail more often than it succeeds. At higher levels? You won't stand a chance. The guy who's focused on the skill has a bonus that is so much higher than yours that one of two things happens; he will automatically succeed at most such checks, so your +2 is not needed, or the DM will have the DC's scaled to match his bonus, which means your +2 will never succeed. With flat math, even with the highest skill bonus you can start with (+8), you still have a chance to fail even low-DC tasks. And automatic failures (DC higher than 20) are reserved for only the most difficult tasks.</p><p></p><p>Ok, I'll concede that duration isn't necessarily a limiting factor. Our group played things cautious, lured single monsters out and the like, so we ended up not losing much HP.</p><p></p><p>However, there is still the fact that the Fighter, even if you have your spell, is flat-out better at combat.</p><p></p><p>Sorry, you're right, that wasn't explained on the sheet; I got the two abilities mixed up. The +1 attack, +2 damage was revealed by earlier playtesters to be a "built in" class feature. Weapon Focus is going to be an option that can be chosen starting at level one, with other options able to replace it. The +1 attack and +2 damage is going to be given to all Fighters, no matter what options are chosen.</p><p></p><p>(Nobody knows about the Cleric's AC or the Wizard's attack. Though some have speculated that Wizard's might be the "focused offensive magic" type, and gain +1 to spell attacks. But that's just speculation.)</p><p></p><p>He has the highest hit points, the highest attack, the highest damage... how is that "not good enough" at combat?</p><p></p><p>(Also, it doesn't have any bearing on the discussion, but for clarity; the phrase should be "... half again as often." Though even that's a little clunky to say...)</p><p></p><p>How so? Hold the Line protects allies that are too far away for you to use Defender on, while Defender protects the allies that are right next to you. The fact that they both use the same action means nothing, since they're both for completely different scenarios. And they fit an overall <em>theme</em> (hey, fancy that... "Theme") of protecting your allies. They're just two different, yet equally effective ways of doing so.</p><p></p><p>Your group may do this... but, as I said earlier, dozens that I have personally witnessed do not. I ran Encounters at a local gaming shop, with a new group of players almost weekly. It's a system issue; having a specific list of "Things you can do that are cool." makes many, if not most people look at the list to determine what they can do first, before even thinking about doing something that's not on the list.</p><p></p><p>What edition did you start with, by the way? I did notice that the few people who tended to try to improvise more often started in earlier editions; the most common improvisers started with 1e and 2e. The problem is that many new gamers are coming straight from video games. In order for them to get into the "improvising" spirit, they need a system that actively <em>encourages</em> improvisation, instead of simply <em>allowing</em> it.</p><p></p><p>Yes, from a Pathfinder player. And for the record, I have that exact same problem with Pathfinder. As for your second sentence... what are you trying to say? If it refers to 4e, then it sounds like you're agreeing with my issues with the skill system. If it refers to Pathfinder, then it's a +3 from training a Class Skill, not +5... and I do agree that it's still too much of a difference.</p><p></p><p>I want to clarify something here; I'm not saying that I don't like 4e... I do. I also like Pathfinder. I like them <em>despite</em> their faults. But from what I've seen, Next is much closer to my ideal design goals; simple game, simple system, flat math, and so on. That's all.</p><p></p><p>No, it's designed to have everybody on the same starting point, but very few people actually bothered to try to run Encounters in that little 1 hour timeslot. I, and my fellow Encounter DM's, set aside a full 6 hour session each week, and we played it like any other adventure. If we finished one adventure in a night (rare), we started the next.</p><p></p><p>The PC's could act within the adventure however they wanted. And that still doesn't say anything about the fact that people rarely bothered to try improvising. That's not an adventure issue, it's a system issue. They saw that their character sheet gave them lots of abilities, and they used those abilities because... why not? They have something from their character sheet that they can do every turn, nobody ever stopped to think of trying something else.</p><p></p><p>And I wasn't using Encounters as an example of how play should work, I was simply mentioning that running Encounters was how I encountered so many different players. I didn't like Encounter as written very much; all the worst aspects of pre-made adventure design in one place.</p><p></p><p>1: What is? Keeping improvised actions from being as good as powers? No it's not.</p><p>2: And here you are countering your own <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1" target="_blank">#1</a> . First off, that's why improvised actions are so situational. For example, sand in the eyes; you take up your action, use a contested Dexterity check, and the target has hampered vision for one round. This applies concealment to all targets, and that's it. That's useful in many cases (if nothing else, it allows a Rogue to get hiding), but it's not always better than an attack.</p><p></p><p>Same with pushing enemies into terrain and the like; that won't always be better than an attack, but when it's available, should always be useful.</p><p></p><p>(Also, as you say, sand in the eyes doesn't kill the enemy, it just helps kill them. So swords are still just as important.)</p><p></p><p>It won't be any more of a problem in Next than it is in 4e. Just because a monster's abilities are in their stat block, that doesn't remove the need to know how the monster you're running works in order to run it properly. In 4e, if you haven't already looked over a monster's abilities before-hand, learned how they work and how they work together, and studied what role the monster has in combat and how it plays that role... you're going to be just as lost with that monster as you would be with a monster you haven't prepped with in Next.</p><p></p><p>The only big difference is that you'll have the exact same problem with all of that monster's henchmen, and each of their 3-4 special abilities, whereas in Next, those henchmen won't have nearly so much baggage that comes with them; as previously mentioned, most henchmen abilities will come from their boss.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DogBackward, post: 5959073, member: 50642"] Really? How often does a +2 succeed? Even at level one, a +2 to a skill check (with no training) is going to fail more often than it succeeds. At higher levels? You won't stand a chance. The guy who's focused on the skill has a bonus that is so much higher than yours that one of two things happens; he will automatically succeed at most such checks, so your +2 is not needed, or the DM will have the DC's scaled to match his bonus, which means your +2 will never succeed. With flat math, even with the highest skill bonus you can start with (+8), you still have a chance to fail even low-DC tasks. And automatic failures (DC higher than 20) are reserved for only the most difficult tasks. Ok, I'll concede that duration isn't necessarily a limiting factor. Our group played things cautious, lured single monsters out and the like, so we ended up not losing much HP. However, there is still the fact that the Fighter, even if you have your spell, is flat-out better at combat. Sorry, you're right, that wasn't explained on the sheet; I got the two abilities mixed up. The +1 attack, +2 damage was revealed by earlier playtesters to be a "built in" class feature. Weapon Focus is going to be an option that can be chosen starting at level one, with other options able to replace it. The +1 attack and +2 damage is going to be given to all Fighters, no matter what options are chosen. (Nobody knows about the Cleric's AC or the Wizard's attack. Though some have speculated that Wizard's might be the "focused offensive magic" type, and gain +1 to spell attacks. But that's just speculation.) He has the highest hit points, the highest attack, the highest damage... how is that "not good enough" at combat? (Also, it doesn't have any bearing on the discussion, but for clarity; the phrase should be "... half again as often." Though even that's a little clunky to say...) How so? Hold the Line protects allies that are too far away for you to use Defender on, while Defender protects the allies that are right next to you. The fact that they both use the same action means nothing, since they're both for completely different scenarios. And they fit an overall [i]theme[/i] (hey, fancy that... "Theme") of protecting your allies. They're just two different, yet equally effective ways of doing so. Your group may do this... but, as I said earlier, dozens that I have personally witnessed do not. I ran Encounters at a local gaming shop, with a new group of players almost weekly. It's a system issue; having a specific list of "Things you can do that are cool." makes many, if not most people look at the list to determine what they can do first, before even thinking about doing something that's not on the list. What edition did you start with, by the way? I did notice that the few people who tended to try to improvise more often started in earlier editions; the most common improvisers started with 1e and 2e. The problem is that many new gamers are coming straight from video games. In order for them to get into the "improvising" spirit, they need a system that actively [i]encourages[/i] improvisation, instead of simply [i]allowing[/i] it. Yes, from a Pathfinder player. And for the record, I have that exact same problem with Pathfinder. As for your second sentence... what are you trying to say? If it refers to 4e, then it sounds like you're agreeing with my issues with the skill system. If it refers to Pathfinder, then it's a +3 from training a Class Skill, not +5... and I do agree that it's still too much of a difference. I want to clarify something here; I'm not saying that I don't like 4e... I do. I also like Pathfinder. I like them [i]despite[/i] their faults. But from what I've seen, Next is much closer to my ideal design goals; simple game, simple system, flat math, and so on. That's all. No, it's designed to have everybody on the same starting point, but very few people actually bothered to try to run Encounters in that little 1 hour timeslot. I, and my fellow Encounter DM's, set aside a full 6 hour session each week, and we played it like any other adventure. If we finished one adventure in a night (rare), we started the next. The PC's could act within the adventure however they wanted. And that still doesn't say anything about the fact that people rarely bothered to try improvising. That's not an adventure issue, it's a system issue. They saw that their character sheet gave them lots of abilities, and they used those abilities because... why not? They have something from their character sheet that they can do every turn, nobody ever stopped to think of trying something else. And I wasn't using Encounters as an example of how play should work, I was simply mentioning that running Encounters was how I encountered so many different players. I didn't like Encounter as written very much; all the worst aspects of pre-made adventure design in one place. 1: What is? Keeping improvised actions from being as good as powers? No it's not. 2: And here you are countering your own [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1[/URL] . First off, that's why improvised actions are so situational. For example, sand in the eyes; you take up your action, use a contested Dexterity check, and the target has hampered vision for one round. This applies concealment to all targets, and that's it. That's useful in many cases (if nothing else, it allows a Rogue to get hiding), but it's not always better than an attack. Same with pushing enemies into terrain and the like; that won't always be better than an attack, but when it's available, should always be useful. (Also, as you say, sand in the eyes doesn't kill the enemy, it just helps kill them. So swords are still just as important.) It won't be any more of a problem in Next than it is in 4e. Just because a monster's abilities are in their stat block, that doesn't remove the need to know how the monster you're running works in order to run it properly. In 4e, if you haven't already looked over a monster's abilities before-hand, learned how they work and how they work together, and studied what role the monster has in combat and how it plays that role... you're going to be just as lost with that monster as you would be with a monster you haven't prepped with in Next. The only big difference is that you'll have the exact same problem with all of that monster's henchmen, and each of their 3-4 special abilities, whereas in Next, those henchmen won't have nearly so much baggage that comes with them; as previously mentioned, most henchmen abilities will come from their boss. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
Top