D&D 5E Legends & Lore 4/1/2013

[Warbringer]

[MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]

Might be worth starting a new thread on this as an idea...

 

[VinylTap]

The echo here is that the artifical precept of beginning at 3rd level, if you are not a beginner, is a poor solution. As this is a playtest the natural flow of the conversation is what then would be a better mechanic.

Not sure why this is considered thread crapping

That's not the echo, this is the echo...

DMZ2112[/URL]]In a nutshell, I think this is why the D&DNext playtest is doomed. Wizards thinks they are receiving feedback from their users on what the users want to see in the next editon of D&D, and the users are providing feedback on what they want to see in a modern RPG.

People are just seeing what they want to see, and ignoring what's actually there, or what the designers are actually attempting to do with this playtest. Its an endless rhetorical circle-jerk that contains very few supportable points,
other than "well i don't like it". Wow, 'I don't like it' or 'this doesn't feel right' for 19 pages... what profound analysis. Especially when its so transparently biased cherry-picking and absurd extrapolations for things the designers probably never intended.

Combining an old game feel with new mechanics is EXACTLY what they said they were going to do from the beginning. There's a very "exclusive" nature to a lot of the comments in this thread, 'its not an issue because its not an issue to the people I play with", but that doesn't mean WOTC haven't received a ton of comments on it. And yes, rough, unplaytested rules look like mud, that's why you play test them! This is why most companies don't do these sorts of tests. You have to look at the big picture, its an ongoing process, and most of us are not privy to 99% of it. There's such an immature "gotcha" mentality to these comments: "But WOTC said they were doing this! Its impossible to make a new version of DND! DOOM!".

The closest thing I can compare it to is 'intelligent design' advocates "BUT BUT BUT! We're too well designed to have happened randomly!" when in truth, the people saying that have next to zero comprehension in regards to the processes that they're commenting on. You can cherry pick isolated points all you want, but it hardly calls for the doom-saying that these threads attract.

 

[Warbringer]

I think VinylTap doesn't understand, as I don't, the leap between "starting at 3rd level is confusing" and "fate points," especially when "start at 1st level instead" is still on the table as a perfectly valid choice.

I mean, this is /all/ academic. Even for a D&DNext playtest discussion, which is all essentially dust in the wind, this particular issue is not one. We haven't even seen what apprentice levels are going to look like yet. The current packet still uses the "old" system.

Well I think the concept that Mearls proposed is one in recognition that their is new palyer complexity in the exisiting ruleset as written. The proposal at had is an apprentice tier that is lower than the current 1st level. What he porposed is simply one way of reducing this complexity, the fate point response, is simply another mechanism (granted more narrative in structure).

To be honest, everything on these boards is academic and the official feedback mechanism is the playtest surveys. But, Mike and Co hover around here a lot, and if an idea seems a non-starter why waste time developing the playtest to get overwhelming negative feedback (not that this is necessarily the case).

 

[Warbringer]

[MENTION=51730]Vina[/MENTION]lTap

Apologies, we missed each other on what was being echo'd, and agreed, I have no time for chicken little predictions either, and i don't find the analysis particularly profound

However, in an attempt to "merge" or "take the best" from previous editions, there are some excellent resolution mechanics in 4e that are not being considered yet in Next; this is a major point of frustration for a sizeable minority on the boards.


(PS love the handle

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

This is actually something really odd I'm starting to notice with the DDN discussions; between "unrestricted multiclassing", "bounded accuracy" and "more 'realistic' healing" it sounds like what is being called for is for D&D to look less like it has character classes, less like it has levels and less like it uses hit points as "generic life points". If that is the desired aim, I'm wondering why D&D is a good system to start with at all???

D&D has long been caught in the difficult position of being the first RPG trying to stick to its roots while also trying to compete with modern expectations. No edition shows this more clearly than third with its vast array of similar, but slightly divergent mechanics.

Despite my general dislike of Fourth Edition, I give it a lot of credit for knowing what it was. It made decisions about what classes, levels, skills, bonuses, hit points, damage, and training were and how they would be represented mechanically. I believe that that, more than anything, is the hallmark of a modern game.

Which is why I think 5E is doing a great job of threading the needle between tradition and modern by being an ability score based game with bounded accuracy. That's its solid modern core. The emphasis on the six ability scores is also very traditional, so it's a big win.

But you are right that a lot of the talk about multiclassing is about allowing the class and level based system to function more like a classless system. But that can also be seen as trying to expand the flexibility of a class based system without removing the simplicity of one.

As for hit points, people have been arguing about hit points and damage for over thirty years. D&D has never found a compromise that everyone can accept.

 

[VinylTap]

Warbringer: Sorry if i came off a little caustic . There are some great comments in this thread, I just think they often get derailed through, what I think is, poorly veiled off-topic edition politics. Its can be frustrating to wade through 20-40 pages of it, especially when they get people worked up enough to point it out, it almost always gets seen as confrontational and moderated away...

I think more of 4th will transfer over than most people think, the whole idea of "progressing game mechanics" came from 4th to begin with, although there's obviously a lot of that in 3rd as well. But 4th really was a different beast, its a miniature combat game, and less of a roleplaying game. I know what a can of worms that is, but they're still planning on releasing a rules module for a more 4th ed feel to the game. This is the game that people want who didn't like 4th, and then 4th gets its own version to make those people happy. They've been super vague about how that will work out, but Next is never going to be 4th, its as much a reaction to 4th, as 4th was a reaction to 3.5.

 

[DMZ2112]

Sorry to put words in your mouth, VinylTap; I assumed we were of a similar opinion because of your use of the word "homebrew," which didn't apply to anything I said. Also, you posted less than a minute after me. Between those two things I didn't think you were responding to my post.

 

[VinylTap]

DMZ: No worries, Mike was a lot more "we're shifting DND as you know it!" in his post than I remembered reading. That guy really has a way of presenting info that begs these sorts of debates. I have a feeling they'll change it a bit, although the basis for the idea offers a few interesting ideas. (although maybe that's more calculated than people give him credit for)

Handing out action points to people is a good idea in some campaigns, but I think its tricky as a general rule, especially if that's the only one your PCs see (that being one choice in a DM's options).

One cantrip wizards are pretty odd too, I can't see that surviving for very long, but adding different tiers near the beginning seems like a good way of offering up people different play options seamlessly. The "low level danger" is part of what makes original DND stand for a lot of people, I'm not sure if doing away with it is good for the game overall. Its not the "apprentice level beginning" that the game is trying to commit to, but the sense that "I had nothing before, and now I'm pretty awesome at level 10". If you're awesome all the way along, it feels less pronounced when you get to 10.

 

[DMZ2112]

But you are right that a lot of the talk about multiclassing is about allowing the class and level based system to function more like a classless system. But that can also be seen as trying to expand the flexibility of a class based system without removing the simplicity of one.

I think the answer to the multiclassing question is in backgrounds and specialties. They might not quite be where they need to be, yet, but if I can use the current RoW to turn a wizard into the most fun bard I've ever played, there's untapped potential there.

I have no problem with rebuilding old mechanics into new ones; I just hate to see additional scaffolding erected when the old structure is still largely functional.

I said it a lot during the lead up to D&D4: change for the sake of change is unwelcome.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

poorly veiled off-topic edition politics

But 4th really was a different beast, its a miniature combat game, and less of a roleplaying game.

:shakes head:

And, add another to the list that doesn't understand a first inkling of what "4E Feel" is...