• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E Will there be such a game as D&D Next?

There's not really any need to discuss why because I'm not stating a fact that encounter-based powers are bad because x, y, z.
No we are not discussing them being bad ... but preferences generally have under-pining causative elements. X, Y and Z still exist. Several folk would be awesome with encounter powers if a particular detail of their implementation was handled just subtly differently for instance.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



evidence = proof.
If you like. That's not the usage I'm familiar with, though, and wasn't what I intended.

By "evidence" I meant "counts in favour of believing XYZ","everything else being equal tends to imply XYZ", etc. By "proof" I would generally mean "is an all-things considered reason to believe XYZ", "entails that XYZ", etc.

In this context, and in my usage, I don't have proof of much, but I do believe that I have evidence.

I've seen nothing from them that displays an aversion to metagame mechanics.
Fair enough. I've seen bucketloads of it, myself, with the abandonment of the warlord as a distinct class, and by implication the abandonment of martial healing, as the latest sign.
 

I'm not sure I understand this. Plenty of people up to this point in the thread have stated the lack of a Warlord as a reason why they are writing off Next. It's expressed as an example of how the Next crew is ignoring 4E aspects.
Not exactly.

I'm taking it as a keyhole through which the game's design can be seen. The lack of non-magical healing says something about the Next, just like its presence says something about 4e. It doesn't mean Next will be terrible forever and ever. It's tied into the metagame, pacing mechanics, party design philosophy, damage mechanics, etc. But even more, it means that the fundamental design philosophy is unlikely to ultimately be satisfactory to me for a new D&D in 2013 or 2014.

Additionally, rolling it into the Fighter says something about Next, whereas not rolling the Paladin, Ranger, or Barbarian into the Fighter says something else.

-O
 

Additionally, rolling it into the Fighter says something about Next, whereas not rolling the Paladin, Ranger, or Barbarian into the Fighter says something else.

-O

Yep. It says that iconic elements with legacies stretching nearly 30 years they're going to go out of their way to keep distinct and with their classic names, and that good ideas with less than ten years of implementation in the game they're not necessarily going to throw away, but they might not get treated with the same deference. I'm ok with that. It even kinda makes sense with a "best of" edition of D&D.
 

Touchy feely statements like that really are not very useful.
First encounter based doesnt necessarily mean absolutely no repeat - its trivially different to say most encounter abilities can be repeated with a penalty (see below on magic being influenced by environmental resistance), anything sentient enough to attack can most definitely be tricked. And if they can be tricked trivially they just wont survive or be useful ....

For martial types muscle fatigue or short term being winded in whatever form handled as anything other than an encounter resource is fairly silly.

Vancian casting based on the writing of Vance has no daily limit and had no concept of something being "memorized" twice (the D&D translation made less sense than the original which miss matches).

Divine casters having a daily limit? why would they care about your sleep cycle - and rather than their aide acting as a reward for pressing on in their name? it punish it? that is dumb as rocks -- ie encounter based makes more sense, as the more you do for them the more they back you.

Heck the idea of short term mental fatigue which you can meditate to remove(psionics or more mystical magic). Or spell casting which is scene dependent due to environmental resistance that snaps in to place when a spell is cast.

4e's implementation basically simplified multiple elements including the classic narrative reasons about repeat repeat repeat being boring/bad story... and left the elaboration in the hand of the players.

Arguably they could have made everything encounter based and from my point of view it would make more sense and allow more consistently predictable/controlled adventure design. And from what I hear we may get to see some module covering that option in Next.

My answer WRT to magic is the same as yours, which is essentially "there is no logic, its magic, it can work any old way we want". It could be that using powers builds up, dissipates, or otherwise affects magical energies, so daily powers are ones that can only be used once a day practically, etc. If you wish you allow for exceptions, either areas/situations/practices that allow for some recharge/additional use (various items and feats already exist to facilitate this) or the DM can allow for the use of skills/page 42 in magical ways (some feats already enter into this territory, such as Arcane Mutterings). Thus a character might re-use a daily power in some dire circumstance with some Arcana checks required to avoid 'problems' (these could be quite fun, including magical curses/diseases, damage, unwanted effects, whatever the DM comes up with). Clearly you don't want to go too far with this, and with magic you really shouldn't have to, but a little bit can go a long ways towards presenting magic as a less structured and more mysterious force.

WRT martial and similar sorts of things that might be considered less inherently magical the real question is just how big a deal is it? Most of a fighter's powers are pretty similar. Even a low level fighter is highly likely to have a variety of powers that overlap in effects. I could give examples but they should be pretty obvious, the fighter who's M.O. is hitting hard (Reaping Strike, Brute Strike, etc), the one who uses his shield to force enemies back, (Tide of Iron, Unstoppable Advance, etc). Even if you have only one instance of a trick in the form of a power there are MANY feats that can provide some sort of repeatable trick, and you always still have page 42. There's little reason to need to see any given tactic as vested purely in a single power that you can only use once per day/encounter.

They key to fun 4e PCs IMHO is theme. What sort of character are you? How is your personality expressed in your combat tactics? Maybe my character is the survivor of an orc massacre. He takes up the fighting style of sword and shield, trained in the army he joined to fight the hated orcs. Eventually he feels frustrated and limited, he wants to take the fight to the orcs and make them feel it! He becomes an adventurer. He uses his shield tactics to keep his allies safe, no loosing MORE people he cares about! (he won't admit they mean anything to him though. He's got lots of aggressive pushing and pinning tactics, this guy has plenty of aggression. He'll wade in with Tide of Iron and start pinning down and positioning his opponents for the kill. If he found himself out of powers he might well try a stunt to use his shield to slow or immobilize an enemy briefly if that made tactical sense.
 

Yep. It says that iconic elements with legacies stretching nearly 30 years they're going to go out of their way to keep distinct and with their classic names, and that good ideas with less than ten years of implementation in the game they're not necessarily going to throw away, but they might not get treated with the same deference. I'm ok with that. It even kinda makes sense with a "best of" edition of D&D.

Which you have to admit makes some people feel marginalized.
 

Sure, but it can also muddy the waters when what you really need to know is what people like and what they dont. I am not saying discount the other part of it. But there is value in someone saying "look I just dont like this, and I am not even sure why, but it bothers me at a gut level". I also think there is a tendancy on these discussions, not to find greater clarity by probing peoples' deeper reasons for like or dislike of a mechanic, but to cloud things through argumentation where posters are forced into positions through lines of questioning, even if these dont accuratley reflect how they feel (they just are not as good at debate and get led by other posters).

Sure, but how do you know what it is that you actually do or don't like or what would make it likable without analyzing it? I see a lot of people who come along and claim to be positive that their gut reaction is telling them exactly what is wrong, but then when you examine the logic of those statements it indicates that the real problems are likely to be somewhere else. If game designers simple-mindedly go by the letter of that feedback they fail. It helps to actually get to the bottom of one's objections (particularly) but preferences in general. I don't care a lot about applying RPG theory to my PLAY, but in terms of looking at why some things are more or less fun/acceptable to me its a very powerful tool. I am not seeing any sign that it has been employed WRT to DDN design. Instead it seems like the whole thing is very simple-minded. A bunch of people yell about how much they hate X, Y, or Z and it gets excluded/removed from the game. Pardon me if I find this approach to be sub-par.
 

This is only an issue if you're trying to "convince" them of something. I'm not stating a fact, I'm stating a preference. You cannot argue with a preference. My preference is to not include encounter-based powers. There's not really any need to discuss why because I'm not stating a fact that encounter-based powers are bad because x, y, z. I don't think they're bad or poor game design. I just don't like them. And that's my preference.

I disagree. You state a superficial preference but you yourself have already admitted that there is an underlying issue that isn't encounter powers per-se. Can you pry open your mind a bit and look beyond the specific mechanic and see that something like encounter powers only fits within a larger context of mechanics and presentation, and possibly agenda. You're far from convincing me that I cannot use this mechanic in a way that you would be happy with, unless of course you simply refuse to even try to meet me halfway. In that case discussion is pointless and the goal of DDN was hopeless from the beginning. If your mind is closed then nothing matter.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top