D&D 5E [D&D Next] Second Packet - initial impressions

[thecasualoblivion]

Well, I demand that they allow but not encourage point buy and arrays. As long as they aren't the core/standard generation method, aren't the first (and second) listed, and aren't presented as, "normally, you generate those numbers(stats) by spending points or arranging the scores given in the array," I have no problem.

See how silly it is to make demands like that?

Hate rolling for stats all you like, but which method is presented first is really not a big issue for how the game plays, is it? What's wrong with encouraging rolling stats? How does this impact your game, especially when you're going to use point buy or an array?

I swear to God that rolling for stats doesn't hurt the children.

If its not a big deal as you say, why not just give in and list rolling dice as the second or third option and appease all the people that hate it.

 

[Mallus]

So put the array as the standard option [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] and list everything else as options.

Would that make you feel better?

Why does it matter which is listed first/declared 'optional'?

Even if a stat array isn't included, it's not like they're hard to find... why make something into a problem when you're already in possession of the solution?

Is it just a validation thing?

 

[Mallus]

If its not a big deal as you say, why not just give in and list rolling dice as the second or third option and appease all the people that hate it.

Aha! It is a validation thing.

I'm cool with listing stat arrays first (and/or omitting mention of rolling entirely). It's not like I'll forget how to roll 4d6 and drop lowest !

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Would that make you feel better?

Why does it matter which is listed first/declared 'optional'?

Even if a stat array isn't included, it's not like they're hard to find... why make something into a problem when you're already in possession of the solution?

Is it just a validation thing?

It's a practical and principle thing. Practical in that years of experience have made me dislike the actual results of rolling stats, and principle in being opposed to randomly determining something that will define the effectiveness of your character over the length of the campaign. The principle part in particular, as I don't like what it says about the game when the system makes ability scores so important and so permanent, then leaves it to dice.

I'll say it again, if it's truly as unimportant as you say, why not let the people who seem to care about the issue have this one?

 

[Ahnehnois]

And I'm absolutely convinced that the majority of players cheat when rolling stats. Unless they are rolled properly (ie, lots of rolling in a dice cup or the like) in front of multiple witnesses they are almost inevitably far above what they randomly should be. The cheating is sometimes of the form "well, I might have rerolled one or two characters that were obviously unsuitable"

I don't understand how it's possible to "cheat" in an rpg. If you're rolling for stats, you've decided that balance isn't critically important (if it was, you'd do point buy and not leave it to dice). The last time I had my players roll ability scores (for a non-D&D game), I pretty much just told them up front to roll until they got something they liked. Sometimes people don't even take the "best" array they roll out of that setup. Other times people self police, roll them in order, and take what the dice gives them. It's a fun roleplaying exercise.

If your goal is to dominate the game and you roll stats until you get ones good enough to do that, it isn't so much cheating as it is just being a dick. Cheating the social contract, not the rules.

 

[Mallus]

IThe principle part in particular, as I don't like what it says about the game when the system makes ability scores so important and so permanent, then leaves it to dice.

To be fair, it leaves it leaves it to dice and the DM's common sense. I've never encountered (or been) a DM who forced a player use a set of unplyable stats. We cut the person with the cold dice some slack.

What does it say about gamers if we have to assume gamers don't have any common sense?

I'll say it again, if it's truly as unimportant as you say, why not let the people who seem to care about the issue have this one?

I'll say it again, too (Sam). Personally, I don't care.

But I'll note some people do prefer rolling stats. So perhaps we can put methods in the rule book, side by side even, so as not to start a row.

 

[slobster]

But I'll note some people do prefer rolling stats. So perhaps we can put methods in the rule book, side by side even, so as not to start a row.

I'd give you xp, but can't yet. Anyway, the obvious solution is to sell the core rulebook in binder form, so that each person can pop it open, rearrange the pages, and voila! They're preferred generation method is now listed first! It also lets people take out the dragonborn pages, high elves, attacks of opportunity, and anything else that offends them by its very presence in a core rulebook.

 

[Mercule]

Also, I don't like the sound of displacer beast armor and dragon scale. Could we have gotten something a little less fantastical - would it have been so bad to have studded leather and reinforced scale instead?

Agreed. I don't mind those materials existing, but the bulk of the equipment in the PHB should be reasonable facsimiles of real-world stuff. I don't like not seeing multiple mundane (as opposed to non-magic) options for light armor. I also don't like that the top armor for each category is the same price. Nonsense.

 

[Someone]

Doesn't this make sense though?

Only if you want to build a system that's puposefully broken (I'm not convinced it's not their intention, though). It's the old quadratic wizard again, just slightly worse. Gain more spells, new spells are more powerful, old spells are even more powerful.

Though on the other hand, it's not so terrible a thing.

Having a system that actively encourages metagaming is one of the closest things to terrible you can have in game design.

 

[billd91]

Only if you want to build a system that's puposefully broken (I'm not convinced it's not their intention, though). It's the old quadratic wizard again, just slightly worse. Gain more spells, new spells are more powerful, old spells are even more powerful.

It does little to make a system that's intentionally (or unintentionally) broken. Rather, it keeps low level spells (the ones that haven't grown quadratically in power) viable. Plus, it works against the 15 minute day some players reported in 3e because there's no need for a spellcaster to demand a sleeping break simply because his highest level spells (the ones with the highest DCs) are expended.
Plus, having a save DC that's static across the spell levels is in alignment with 1e, 2e, and 4e (effectively). 3e/PF are the only odd editions out.

Having a system that actively encourages metagaming is one of the closest things to terrible you can have in game design.

Depends on if it's really metagaming. Basing on hit points, yes, that is. But assuming a purple worm doesn't have as well developed a mind or personality than a mind flayer isn't metagaming. Targeting the purple worm with your Int or Cha save spells should be fair. Same with hitting a giant with a spell he needs to dodge rather than endure with brute force (which he clearly has in spades).