First Impressions?

[WheresMyD20]

Yeah, I think games need to stop using arm wrestling as an example of an opposed roll. Arm wrestling is a test of raw strength. There is no random element. The stronger person wins. The door example is a little better.

Regardless of the example, the random element in the check mechanic definitely outweighs the ability element. When a character with an ability score of 3 has roughly a 1-in-4 chance of outperforming a character with an ability score of 18, the randomness of the check mechanic seems to be too high.

 

[keterys]

To me it looks like there's a very good case for +2 to attack if you're proficient; carried over from 4E, explicit for magic attacks, seemingly included for everyone, implied by the comment about improvised weapons getting no bonus.

On top of that, fighters and wizards apparently get another +1.

So the rogue's dagger is +3 Dex +2 weapon proficiency.

The cleric's radiant lance is +4 Wis +2 magic proficiency.

The cleric's quarterstaff is -1 Str +1 weapon proficiency.

The fighter's axe is +3 Str +2 weapon proficiency +1 because fighters are the best at hitting people.

The wizard's ray of frost is +3 Int +2 magic proficiency +1 because wizards are the best at magicking people.

Or there could just be mistakes, I don't know.

Let's not forget the very real possibility that these are pregens, and there are mistakes on them.

Pregens almost always have mistakes.

 

[Larkas]

To me, the systems seems like a healthy blend of all the previous editions.

It feels as simple as OD&D, as robust as AD&D2E and, when necessary, as complex as D&D3E. That is an auto-win in my book. They took a step back, an in doing so, took four steps forward. This DEFINITELY feels like D&D to me. I liked the spell presentation, I liked the races, I liked the alignments, I liked the checks mechanics... This seems like a sturdy start to a game system. If they really play to the purported "modular" strengths, it will be a VERY interesting RPG to play.

 

[Guyanthalas]

Regardless of the example, the random element in the check mechanic definitely outweighs the ability element. When a character with an ability score of 3 has roughly a 1-in-4 chance of outperforming a character with an ability score of 18, the randomness of the check mechanic seems to be too high.

This is a far too literal interpretation of the rules. We will go with the minimum breaking point, 3str rolls 15 and 18str rolls 6.

The brute strength vs. brute strength is valid, and the dice should not even bother to roll in this scenario.

You determine an action the players attempt has a chance of failure

However, let us assume you wanted the dice to roll. Dice don't have to represent exactly the occurence that is going on, but all factors of luck that can contribute to this. What if you are pushing a door closed, but you step in some slippery goblin entrails (roll a 6). Sorry, luck screwed you over.

 

[howandwhy99]

First post, the packets seem to represent possible books:

MM = Bestiary (why have this otherwise, we have monster stats in the adventure)
PHB = How To Play
DMG = DM Guidelines

5 PC Sheets = Character Sheet support product
Caves of Chaos = Adventure product

 

[delericho]

Actually, I thought it looked really good. I was very surprised, and pleasantly so.

There are a couple of things I spotted that I really don't like, and I think the Race/Class/Background/Theme thing, especially if you add Schemes, Domains and whatever else to the mix, it probably one or two steps too far.

Still, all in all... yeah, I think I like it.

 

[howandwhy99]

However, let us assume you wanted the dice to roll. Dice don't have to represent exactly the occurence that is going on, but all factors of luck that can contribute to this. What if you are pushing a door closed, but you step in some slippery goblin entrails (roll a 6). Sorry, luck screwed you over.

I think it's a bad idea to quote protected text. You can easily summarize it in your own words, but bearers of that document are under a legally binding agreement.

 

[Thraug]

Can someone explain how removing "long rest takes you to full" makes the game more enjoyable?

Removing it would seem to create a situation where the party continually needs to return to base for days on end?

Mostly it's the complete breakage of narrative plausibility for campaigns that don't adhere to the multiple encounter per day mantra. This rule would severely hinder the immersion of a sandbox or overland exploration campaign where wear & tear and enduring the elements and combat wounds is important to the story.

Paste of a portion of my post above:
Allowing a character to heal up to 100% HP and HD after one Long Rest:

• eliminates story elements that stem from lasting injuries/wounds/wear or enduring treacherous journeys.
• forces isolated combat encounters (1/day max) to be very difficult to be challenging or be a pushover at normal difficulty.
• reduces plausibility and suspension of disbelief of being on a long and hard grueling adventure

 

[Thraug]

Definitely true. But still, there's a good chance it's too powerful for an at-will spell. Reducing speed to 0 (in a system with no attacks of opportunity) effectively locks down a powerful melee monster completely for a round. There's ample time for this to be nerfed, of course.

The "Ready an Action" rule allows the victim to attack anyone coming into reach. Yes, it does nothing if the entire party is ranged.

 

[YRUSirius]

So the only way to properly role play is to make stupid choices with your character?

Erm... no?

Btw, we're talking about something like a 5 gp difference between the mace and the club, right? FIVE gp. The second encounter in the caves of chaos has a treasure worth 15 gp. REAAALLY horrible, ignorant and stupid design. Way to go, dude.

-YRUSirius