Legends & Lore: A Few Rules Updates

[Chris_Nightwing]

I hate to be that guy, but isn't the restriction of 1 extra action per round just a retread of the limit on swift actions from 3rd edition that led to minor actions in 4th edition?

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I hate to be that guy, but isn't the restriction of 1 extra action per round just a retread of the limit on swift actions from 3rd edition that led to minor actions in 4th edition?

I assume as long as the concept of extra actions or any detailed action economy is part of the game, there will be problems.

This whole management and tracking of actions is one big argument in favour of the old, abstract 1 minute rounds: don't simulate, subsume.

 

[Lokiare]

Random Encounters = Fail. Unless there is a limit to the number of creatures in an area or you are traveling through an area with near unlimited creatures in it, random encounters don't make sense and seem arbitrary.

Wait, so they didn't know from the previous 4 editions that extra actions would be a problem? OOOOKKKK....

Everything else is just blah. Welcome to 2.5E...

 

[Lokiare]

I am not against the idea of using Passive Perception as it usually simplify things. Good to hear Exploration has been simplified and standarized even more.

I like the idea of Bonus Action streamlined mechanic with a limited usage frequency of 1/round as it will limit possible abuse. I am not sure Two-Weapon Fighting's additional attack should be a Bonus Action though, as its supposed to be one's bread & butter, not something that interfere with (pseudo) action economy so its more balanced.

As for character speed, i liked that there was a variety among races for speed so not a fan of this one speed fit all. I like that shorter races may be slower such as the halfling or that more athletic ones may be faster, such as the wood elf.

In the 4.5E OGL type game I'm designing I handle multiple attacks and weapons as if they are a single action. So instead of adding things multiple times you just roll it all at once. You roll 2d20 if one hits you roll 1[W]+str and if both hit you roll 2[W]+str. Very easy...

 

[ExploderWizard]

Random Encounters = Fail. Unless there is a limit to the number of creatures in an area or you are traveling through an area with near unlimited creatures in it, random encounters don't make sense and seem arbitrary.

No one will make you use them if you are not so inclined. I find random encounters fun as a DM because I get to be as surprised as the players sometimes.

Its also fun to sometimes place little shrines made of bones throughout the dungeon that just keep spawning monsters until the PCs find & destroy them.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In the 4.5E OGL type game I'm designing I handle multiple attacks and weapons as if they are a single action. So instead of adding things multiple times you just roll it all at once. You roll 2d20 if one hits you roll 1[W]+str and if both hit you roll 2[W]+str. Very easy...

I agree for at wills and most encounters, but I think multi attack daily's should still be multi attacks with multi 1w+x and 1w+x because they are daily's...

I like the assassin power a lot, so I fully enjoy this idea.

 

[DEFCON 1]

As far as the halfling/gnome/dwarf speed increase... here's what I suspect might have been the issue (and why they decided to remove it.) Since the game is not defaulting to a grid, in most combats it doesn't make any difference whether someone can move 25' or 30', because in theater-of-the-mind, all those distances get estimated anyway. The DM usually isn't going to tell the group that the goblins are within melee range except the halfling, gnome, and dwarf-- he's going to tell them the goblins can either be charged or not. So if in gridless combat that 5' of difference doesn't matter... where would it? The answer is in long-distance travel.

Whenever long-distance travel is calculated... it's always based upon the slowest member of the party. Which means that in probably 75% or more groups... because invariably a dwarf, gnome, or halfling will be in it... the party would be travelling at the 25' speed on the distance chart. As a result... having others at 30' and the wood elves at 35' don't ever actually matter. Their "bonus speed" never actually gets used.

So at that point, if the only time a race's speed comes up in is calculating long-distance travel... you might as well put down one speed for everyone because that's what you're going to be doing anyway. And at that point, whether it's 25' or 30' no longer matters. So just go with the 30' for everyone because that's what most of the races are going to have anyway.

Now yes... for those games that choose to use the grid... dwarves, gnomes, and halflings gaining that one extra square of movement might feel weird for some people. And that's possibly the case for characters in heavy armor too. Maybe not having that differential between PCs moving 7 squares, 6 squares, or 5 squares does make gridded combat a little less interesting for some people. But it probably won't matter for some segment of the grid-using population, just like changing diagonals on the grid from 5'-10' to 5'-5' didn't matter to a segment of the population. Thus the proportion of players for whom this is a big deal compared to the entire playerbase (including all those who will be using theater-of-the-mind) is on the smaller side. Thus, it seems (to WotC) like a worthwhile change to make the exploration pillar easier or more consistent.

Especially considering they probably expect that most tables who use grids and want the speed differentials are going to houserule the slower speeds back in anyway, regardless of what they write in the book.

 

[TerraDave]

I also assumed while reading it that I would be rolling on my side if using passive perception. And yes, in my game it would only get you so far.

Also Random Encounters=MASSIVE WIN

 

[Warbringer]

All in all, while it seems meh, these are finess changes that are coming out of real game play so I have to admit, fairly happy about that.

These feel like final tweaks to improving the flow of the game, then off to the printers....

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'm ambivalent about passive perception. On the one hand, it's nice to cut down on die rolls in the exploration rules (since in my experience, that's all the exploration rules boiled down to). On the other hand, it makes dungeon design weird. The DM knows the players' passive perception scores, so does he make something that the party will definitely detect, or something the party will definitely not detect?

Well, this depends on the group. I have no idea what the perception checks on the PCs in my game are. I don't particularly care. The players hold on to their character sheets, I don't even have a copy of them. I have a rough idea from the numbers they've rolled when I've called for Perception checks in the past, but the exact numbers? No idea.

However, even if you know the PP of the PCs, if you are only using PP to determine whether they spot hidden enemies or not, and you roll the Stealth checks of enemies, it's still random whether they roll high enough or not.

I find PP works best only when spotting/hearing monsters(and maybe traps...maybe it's even a good idea to have traps roll steath checks like monsters do?). I make people roll Search checks if they are looking for secret doors or hidden objects. If they aren't specifically looking, they don't get a roll. Which appears to be what they are implying in this article.

For myself, I'd rather not rely on game rules for perception (I think it's more fun to have the players ask questions and describe how they're searching), and I'm wondering if this will make it easier or harder to run a game the way I want.

I find that running D&D Next in this way is easiest if you simply don't use skills at all. Make everyone make a stat check for everything that you want to be determined by a roll and simply don't make rolls for anything else.

This allows you to remove die rolls from social interaction if you'd like or for exploration both of which are popular ways to play.

I only find that removing skills entirely is the way to go because when players take Persuasion of Perception as a skill, they want to roll it to make that bonus mean something.