D&D 5E (2014) 11/1/13 google hangout with

[YRUSirius]

I think the term "skill" is fine. It's still correct.

-YRUSirius

 

[Raith5]

I think the conversation about non-magical forced action is good.

What I would like to see is less dictation of actions, and more things like the 4e mark: something that introduces an incentive to perform a particular action.

I think I agree with you. But in their discussion I cant help feel they were too defensive about the idea of mundane forced action, it was kinda: we dont want to go too far down this path, but it happens all the time in the real world. I like the example Mearls used of con men tricking people out of the money. Even in the context of sport, players get out of position all the time because of fakes, feints etc.

The truth is that people make mistakes because of the skill of their opponents, but I think than many people and DMs want to have complete sovereign control over all their actions all the time except when magic is involved. I dont see this as realistic or fun but it seems baked into many of the earlier editions of D&D. I think I would like to see incentives to performs actions, especially at lower levels, but I would also like to see dictation of actions at higher levels.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the term "skill" is fine. It's still correct.

-YRUSirius

It's not a question of whether the word itself is correct, but more of whether people who use that system treat it correctly. And based upon a whole lot of threads here and elsewhere... many players seem to keep wanting to treat "skills" as they were in 3E and 4E... instead of how they are now supposed to be used. And so long as you use the word "skills" to describe the system... some players will continue to try and use the system incorrectly. Change the name... make people realize it's a new game system... and I think we'd be better off.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I was not impressed with most of the video. A couple times I wanted to stop and make notes, to go point by point, but decided against it, as I was already about 25 minutes in. It's stuff like "the new skill system helps with nuance, as it's not tied to a particular ability score", while the deep focus on ability scores in general eliminates nuance. That bugs me. Or, "naming conventions are important.... [Later on] For example, there's a new condition called 'Charmed', which is not necessarily magical"... but you named it after a well-known magical spell that does exactly that? I'm not sure what to call it (Manipulated?), but I don't think that's a good idea, as it stands. Also, my bet on the new class is "Eldritch Knight" or the like - a warrior/arcana hybrid that isn't a Swordmage, Duskblade, etc.

Overall, I still enjoyed the video. Especially the end. I feel Mike's pain about his friends and football... I'm not super into it, but my friends know nothing. It's fun watching designers explain stuff, and compare their reasoning to my own. They seemed relaxed, excited, and rightly dismissive of certain stuff (like math fixes). I'm glad they did it, even if I'm overall more pessimistic than I was before. Then again, there's a long way to go, and I'm interested in a complicated game, so we'll see what the game looks like once we add a lot of modules to it.

If any of those guys take a look at this thread (/wave at Trevor), thanks for doing that. Hopefully there's another one. As always, play what you like

 

[Manbearcat]

"I pick the Green Bay Packers versus the Denver Broncos." Ouch, Mike.

 

[JamesonCourage]

"I pick the Green Bay Packers versus the Denver Broncos." Ouch, Mike.

Can't XP, but that was funny. Though I thought the Broncos would take the Ravens. Pretty up in the air on the Packers game, but yeah. Funny stuff after yesterday.

 

[Manbearcat]

To be fair to Mike, I suspect plenty of folks (myself included) were going that route. Nonetheless, its an amusing flourish to the end of the show

 

[fjw70]

To be fair to Mike, I suspect plenty of folks (myself included) were going that route. Nonetheless, its an amusing flourish to the end of the show

I listened to the chat this morning, so yes it was very funny.

I had Denver and the Packers winning yesterday too, but I have a Patriots/Seattle Superbowl so I am still good there (at least for a few more hours).

I am gald that the Long Sword thing was solved (seriously I have wondered about that before).

 

[Kobold Stew]

I don't understand what they're talking about with giving the basic Rogue the skill die on all Dex checks, or the Fighter on all Str checks. They'll already have the highest Dex or Str modifier, so why make them better at something they're already the best at? (And that's ignoring the issue of the Dex fighter, which they've been neglecting lately...)

Yes!

Flexibility of builds based on different abilities seems particularly well suited to what wee've seen so far, and this would be a big step backwards.

Dex based fighters, Charisma based Rogues, Strength based Rogues, even Strength or dex- based Clerics are all plausible builds, unless this kind of default is implemented.

 

[fjw70]

Yes!

Flexibility of builds based on different abilities seems particularly well suited to what wee've seen so far, and this would be a big step backwards.

Dex based fighters, Charisma based Rogues, Strength based Rogues, even Strength or dex- based Clerics are all plausible builds, unless this kind of default is implemented.

I am okay with this lack of flexibility for the basic game. The standard and advanced games will be more flexible. If you want lower complexity in the basic game then lower flexibility is a by-product.

On the weapon dice thing for martial characters, I am glad they are coming around to my thinking on this. That was my suggestion from the beginning (at least for fighter-types). For rogues I prefer more of a XD-type fixed bonus dice solution.