Rule of Three: 20/3/12

[Mengu]

Because of this part... "Since AC and attack bonuses aren't automatically scaling up..."

It's still within the scenario they are exploring. In that scenario, AC and attack bonuses don't automatically scale up.

Anyway, the approach is sensible, but there are some issues like how to make "easy" and "difficult" monsters, that they have to resolve. A level 10 iron golem that misses a level 5 fighter as often as a level 1 goblin, is not very impressive. Solutions can be found without scaling attack and defense bonuses, but they may feel gamey to some, and regardless, would need some testing. I don't think we can assume any of this is set in stone at the moment.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Minions
I like minions. I'm a fan of the "effectively 1 hp, but not REALLY 1 hp" compromise, in part because it does away with the awkward and weird "immune to half damage except for some fluff you might want to add about them grunting in pain that doesn't actually matter to the mechanics of the thing." Presuming that monsters have damage values that are viable for longer periods of time, and that it's easy to turn a dice roll into an average, I think that 5e minions will functionally replicate 4e minions while better preserving the reality and flow of the game. I like the idea I can send 100 orcs to challenge a level 20 character!

Alignments
Well, these things are iconic, and if the simplest D&D version also needs to be the most iconic, I suppose they need to be in there, along with some of the iconic items that vary with an alignment. Limiting many of the alignment effects to creatures that embody the alignment rather than just people who have the alignment makes a lot of sense, and is a good compromise that a lot of people have been using anyway. Oh, and just swap out "True Neutral" with "Unaligned," and you have 4e's best contribution to the alignment system (a slight change in verbiage) right there.

Fighter Attacks & Spells
I really like that this makes clear stuff like: "Fireball might do the equivalent damage to three attacks. Fighters get three attacks." I really like the feel of fighter combos, the whole 1-2-3-punch of them. I'm a little concerned they'll slow down play, but maybe with all the other streamlining options, it'll be fine (and they probably slow it down about as much as a wizard rolling for all the fireball attacks and damage, anyway).

The article was a little vaguer on class mechanics being distinctive, but I think this line was solid:

That's something the classes need to have because they are different; it's not a choice made simply so that they would be different.

So, in other words, fighter maneuvers and cleric spells aren't just the same effects, slightly adjusted (4e's powers method). The are different from the ground up, because the classes are different. And that's very encouraging.

Oh, and as for this:

Because of this part... "Since AC and attack bonuses aren't automatically scaling up..."

The context of the paragraph makes it crystal clear to me that Rodney was running, for the duration of that paragraph, with the *assumption* that this was true, since that allowed him to talk about what would happen if it were true.

Perhaps instead of "Since" he might've said "as long as," but it's a whole lot of mountain-out-of-molehilling going on with that one word.

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION]
I was not 100% serious.
It is too early to houserule... especially if we don't have the officially rules. There could be a "no damage on miss" and a "single hit point" modules. Or there might not be. When the playtest happens, I will try it out but I have been spoiled by 4E and its easiness.

So there might be a day 2 after release homebrew post by me if it doesn't make it in. Or not. Who knows?

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

It's still within the scenario they are exploring. In that scenario, AC and attack bonuses don't automatically scale up.

Anyway, the approach is sensible, but there are some issues like how to make "easy" and "difficult" monsters, that they have to resolve. A level 10 iron golem that misses a level 5 fighter as often as a level 1 goblin, is not very impressive. Solutions can be found without scaling attack and defense bonuses, but they may feel gamey to some, and regardless, would need some testing. I don't think we can assume any of this is set in stone at the moment.

I like it, a iron golen should have a easy to dodge but very damaging if hit attack

 

[Grazzt]

I like it, a iron golen should have a easy to dodge but very damaging if hit attack

Yep. Giants too (if you consider giants big, slow, lumbering monsters). Attack speed = slow, but if it connects...you're paste on the end of its club, to be scraped off at its leisure.

 

[erf_beto]

Regarding minions and complexity, why are we assuming there's only going to be *one* type of orc in the MM? Why not have a statblock for a simple, will-be-a-minion-later, orc and a standard orc warrior, with 2 or 3 different attacks and tactics?
People who want a simpler game, with no minis, will probably only use just the first; but those who like tactical combat might prefer to mix and match.
We *can* have simple and complex monsters.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Alignments
Well, these things are iconic, and if the simplest D&D version also needs to be the most iconic, I suppose they need to be in there, along with some of the iconic items that vary with an alignment. Limiting many of the alignment effects to creatures that embody the alignment rather than just people who have the alignment makes a lot of sense, and is a good compromise that a lot of people have been using anyway. Oh, and just swap out "True Neutral" with "Unaligned," and you have 4e's best contribution to the alignment system (a slight change in verbiage) right there.

I believe this is the best compromise. You then have the alignment 'compass' only without the vagueness of neutrality:

Chaotic Good | Good | Lawful Good
Chaotic | Unaligned | Lawful
Chaotic Evil | Evil | Lawful Evil​

 

[Fanaelialae]

It's still within the scenario they are exploring. In that scenario, AC and attack bonuses don't automatically scale up.

Anyway, the approach is sensible, but there are some issues like how to make "easy" and "difficult" monsters, that they have to resolve. A level 10 iron golem that misses a level 5 fighter as often as a level 1 goblin, is not very impressive. Solutions can be found without scaling attack and defense bonuses, but they may feel gamey to some, and regardless, would need some testing. I don't think we can assume any of this is set in stone at the moment.

It seems likely to me that your golem would probably seriously injure the fighter on a hit, but completely flatten the goblin. In other words, the level 5 fighter can survive a hit from a level 10 golem, but the golem's minimum damage will outright kill a level 1 goblin. That seems like a fairly good level of differentiation to me, and doesn't strike me as gamey at all (at least beyond the inherent gaminess of hp and levels).

Besides, RT said a bounded accuracy system. That implies that there can be variations in accuracy in attack and defense, just not wild variations. Difficult monsters, in addition to having high damage, might be on the high end of the accuracy/defense scale, while easy monsters are at the lower end. The difficult monster might hit you on a nat 6, rather than a nat 2. The fighter might hit the difficult monster on a nat 9, rather than only on a nat 20.

Something that I've learned from 4e, as well as a friend's homebrewed game where you can spend stat points for bonuses, is that a +1 or +2 makes a difference more often than you might think. There's a notable difference in durability between a character who is hit on a nat 10, and one who is hit on a nat 12. IME, small differences can make a distinct change at the gaming table, without making attack rolls either guaranteed or hopeless, but only when system accuracy is bound.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You say "gamey", but minions were always more of a storytelling tool than anything else. The DM decides if this creature is gonna be one of those orcs mooks from LotR, which got killed by the droves, or if this creature is gonna be Lurtz, which gave Aragorn a run for his money.

Or maybe that Olympic torchbearer orc that Legolas couldn't kill, even though later he takes out a mumakil with just as many arrows.

Thus the problem with minions. Leave the storytelling to the folks that want it. It doesn't need to permeate the mechanics.

The idea of the basic attributes of something changing depending on who its standing next to does not fit with the rest of D&D.

 

[Gryph]

I get that--and I would just prefer that Unaligned were split away from "cosmic balance". They are really, really different things, so why put them under the same alignment?

I think it makes sense to have unaligned as an explicit alignment.

I've always followed the advice on alignment in the 1e DMG. Most humans and demi-humans (I included some humanoids) will not register on a Detect Alignment spell or the specialised versions. Only those characters who are dedicated to the alignments principles or dedicated followers of a god (or demon/devil) who embodies an alignment will be detectable. So a PC who acted generally neutral good but didn't actively promote the interests of the NG alignment would not show up to a Detect Good spell or ability. While Paladins with their forced dedication to the principles of lawful goodness do (in 1e).

I still think this makes the most sense for handling the in game mechanical aspects of alignment. So I think Unaligned as a way to mechanically represent the majority of characters who are not dedicated to an alignment will help promote that concept of alignment.