Search results

Something to add here: A game based purely on well-balanced and simple resolution mechanics is ultimately as boring as snakes and ladders (where action resolution is just finding out what the random numbers are tonight). There needs to be something (IMO a lot) else to turn it into an evening's...

Flying is an odd option, in that it is a great power relative to creatures that cannot fly. It also plays to world assumptions about what consitutes an obstacle - in worlds where flight is common, ravines are not obstacles, but storms might be. In a campaign where almost everyone can fly, a...

Actually there are guidelines for what constitutes a threat to the PCs in the playtest packet. I purposely broke them earlier in this thread to show that Ogres could be scary (to the point of overwhelming) at first level. But mainly I was trying to show that Parry was optimal - a bit too good if...

I think the 5E design for classes, is that one or more defining core mechanics sit at the class level, and then you can choose to take a customised subset of it to build a specific character. I would personally take that away as "if your concept works best with a major new mechanic (especially...

The difference in 4E mainly being the ogres would hit more, but for less damage than the at-level version. It's probably a similar damage per round and survivability to what would happen in 3E with the AC/to-hit mismatch, but smoothed out by 4E's expected hit rates.

4E's siloing of prime stats for classes, which sets up synergies for mult-classing and race choices, annoys me. It works, but seems to cut out a lot of options based on combination (which are then replaced by a lot of options, period - e.g. a "smart fighter" could be represented by Tactical...

IMO default to always Parry is optimal in a lot of cases. Exception is only when you can near-guarantee a kill by adding Deadly Strike. This will need fixing, either by increasing monster damage (unlikely) or reducing power of Parry (more likely - I expect it will drop a die type, or similar)...

I propose we will see a new golden age of arguing on the internet. Not that it ever went away, but it's about to get a lot better as we pick over every last iota of the upcoming 5E playtest documents - surely two people somewhere will have opinions worth fighting for over the font used in the...

Regarding the Ogre, I think it *is* in fact pretty scary to meet at low level. The maths is out slightly on two things in the current playtest IMO: 1) The ogre hits too infrequently 2) Parry and Protect are a bit too effective . . . address those a bit (I'd suggest halving damage absorbed...

Agreed, an ability or background that could help with *anything* needs at least part of the ability modeled outside the at-will skill system. E.g. give the same feylock a "twice per day, get help from fairies and use Cha on *any* skill check" power, then they might choose to burn a use of that...

I agree about the D20, and I think there should be a middle ground option between d20 randomness and automatic success. That middle ground should favour high stats or skills, and come in to play because it would give characters with high skills a chance to shine (without it being handwaved and...

Has there been any attempt (by anyone) to relate this preference to Actor vs Storyteller play style preferences (which I believe WotC suggesetd as archetypes that mirrored more acedemic research into MMO play style preferences). Or maybe others . . . just those two from the names scream...

Although to some extent this has always been true (of anything that does hit points damage), 4E does take this a lot further, especially with martial exploits designed to keep non-magical characters up-to-par with their spell-lobbing team mates. One important dissonance I find, with my own...

Yes I really believe that. PC and monster abilities are not at all easy to evaluate separately, and I don't think the designers are actually intending that to the happen in the playtest. There is a difference between "not polished, not quite consistent" which is reasonable, and "not fun to...

These look pretty good. On the dragonborn . . . I think the power level of the dragon breath is reasonable and fitting. I miss the per-encounter and use-alongside nature of the 4E racial power design, and would have gone for something like burning hands requiring a 10 min rest between uses...

I've noticed this in the automated runs too - at level 1, it seems best to save dice for Parry (in terms of fighters winning encounters), even if monsters have more hitpoints. There might be some exceptions depending on numbers of monsters and what they can do - obviously at higher level the...

Surely during the game, you won't say "Combat Superiority" any more than you'd say "Spontaneous Casting". What (a taciturn) fighter player might say: "Deadly Strike" <rolls dice> "Parry" <rolls die> "Protect" <rolls die> "Knock Down" <marks use of die> etc, etc . . . the first one is a bit...

I definitely prefer adjudication: - Player describes attempted action in character - DM decides mechanic to use to the "skill button push" approach I get in 4E from some players. "I use my History skill to determine the best course of action." However, you will still get creative attempts...

If allowed to choose which roll to take when they know the target number, I expect quite a few players will simply maximise their chances and pick 1d20 when the target number is 11+ or 3d6 otherwise. Giving up the chance of a critical in D&D Next is not that meaningful.

I like this, but think this kind of open-ended floating system requires experienced players and DM, and a willingness to play these traits story-first, not as mechanics hammers (I might get annoyed with a farmhand player who "spammed" Soft-Spoken Innocent to try and get a +2 in every bluff...