5th Edition announced

Mr.Satan · Jan 11, 2012

I second that notion.

Also...

When do we get to see the 3.5 Nosferatu Krusty is making?

Pssthpok · Jan 11, 2012

eduar said:
Ascension for Pathfinder would be great

Just use the last iteration of Ascension rules for 3.5. There's no mechanical difference between the two games.

Mr.Satan · Jan 11, 2012

The domains are quite different. Some of them, such as the Fear Domain, don't even exist in Pathfinder. Although, it wouldn't take much to modify it, and may even give Krusty an opportunity to correct the various clerical errors and discrepancies that currently exist.

Upper_Krust · Jan 11, 2012

Pssthpok said:
Hey hey, UK.

Hi Pssthpok mate!

Yeah, I heard about 5E through the grapevine and dropped into the first thread I saw. If I had more time at the moment, I'd have gone into more detail. There's just so much rigidity and bloat in 4E that I hope goes away.

I think D&D definately needs a simplification to be more accessible. I think with 4E they got the monsters right, but the PC side of things needs to be simplified.

Instead of having a laundry list of powers (12 pages for the Fighter with 77 power choices not counting Paragon Paths even) they should have instead done something like the following:

At-Will powers:

Base Power: 1[W] at 1st, 2[W] at 21st,

Encounter Powers:

Base Power: 2[W] at 1st, 3[W] at 7th, 4[W] at 17th, 5[W] at 27th

Daily Powers:

Base Power: 3[W] at 1st, 4[W] at 5th, 5[W] at 9th, 6[W] at 15th, 7[W] at 19th, 8[W] 25th, 9[W] at 29th

So once you give people the basics you give a list of (for example) 20 effects that you can choose to add to powers. But each of these effects has a negative modifier to the damage dice. So 'off the top of my head' you'd have something like:

Power Modifiers

A. Glancing Blow (Miss = deals str bonus dmg) = -0 base [W]*
B. Precise Attack (+2 to hit) = -0 base [W]*
C. Push (1 square) = -0 base [W]*
D. Minor Shift (shift 1 square after attack) = -0 base [W]*

*Only add one to an attack

1. Two Attacks = 1/2 base [W] each
2. Knock Prone = -1 base [W]
3. Slowed (until end of your next turn) = -1 base [W]
4. Spend Healing Surge after attacking = -1 base [W]
5. Aggression (+2 to hit, +4 to damage) = -1 base [W]
6. Damage Bonus equal to ability mod = -1 base [W]
7. Immobilize (save ends) = -1 base [W]
8. Improved Glancing Blow (half damage on miss) = -1 base [W]
9. Daze (save ends) = -1 base [W]
10. Very Precise Attack (+4 to hit) = -1 base [W]
11. +2 to AC (until end of next turn) = -1 base [W]
12. Reliable = -1 base [W]
13. Major Shift (Shift # squares equal to Dex mod) = -1 base [W]
14. Superior Crit (Crit chance 1 better) = -1 base [W]
15. Slide Target (1 square) = -1 base [W]
16. Ongoing 5 damage = -2 base [W] (additional -2 base [W] for every +5 ongoing damage)
17. Three Attacks = 1/3 base [W] each
18. Close Burst 1 = 1/2 base [W] (Close burst 2 = 1/4[W])
19. Disarm = -2 base [W]
20. Stun (save ends) = -4 base [W]

e.g. Level 25 Daily = 8[W] flat damage
or you could change this to
2[W] Close Burst 1 and Daze (save ends)

So there is about 10 pages of text from the 4E Fighters section condensed down to about 1/2 a page.

For Wizards you could have a different set of modifiers affecting Range, Area size etc.

This way you don't need pages upon pages for each class. You just need a few lines of text.

All true and, while I certainly snark you a bit for all the time I've spent waiting for your official releases, I can't say any of that was your fault. It is, as you say, what it is. Life, as someone else said, is what happens when you're busy making other plans.

In fairness, it is my fault.

Agree on all points. For a class in 4E to be (and you may disagree with me here) as capable of appealing to as many players as their 3E counterparts, one required several volumes of Powers.

And then there's the issue of skill vs. luck, but that's another topic.

It would take a lot of work to get a sufficient number of Immortal Tier classes up and running. Even then, I can just imagine loads of people being disappointed if 'their' PC's class wasn't represented.

That would have been worth waiting for. 4E Epic was, for me, far less interesting since it had been folded into "regular" play. It didn't feel epic, it just felt like more of the same. A layer of Krust over those rules would have changed things a good deal, I imagine.

Even an updated version of the Epic Bestiary with maybe double the monsters would have been cool.

Yeah, exactly. That's one of the things I was wondering how you'd address. Each class has to have stacks of powers to choose from, and the demand for those powers never decreases over time. At least with your 3E rules, you could condense lesser feats into Divine/Cosmic or whatever abilities to take some of the bloat out.

From the feedback I got, all players wanted their class levels to continue in any Immortal Tier.

So I'd have had the Classes progress for 10 levels, plus the Portfolios would have been done as Portfolio Paths (replacing Paragon Paths).

I wouldn't even worry about something like that. Pathfinder, in my opinion, is a holdout's game. It was too like 3E to be a new game and didn't really do anything for me.

You're probably right, it did nothing to help 3E epic.

At any rate, I hope you can land a spot in the playtesting for 5E. At least get some of your non-edition-centric game ideas out there where they might be incorporated into the game.

Maybe who knows. If they just take the modular approach I suggested above then you could simplify ALL classes down to 1 page of text.

Alzrius · Jan 11, 2012

I'm as fierce an edition partisan as the next Pathfinder supporter, but even I have to admit that 3E epic/divine material was awful, and that 4E did handle it better.

In regards to the issue with classes, I think that part of the major problem with epic design in both 3E and 4E both is that, with the introduction of class-specific abilities, any extension of a given class's table with additional levels requires that those classes have new, original abilities added (3E tried to eschew this in favor of simply increasing abilities that granted a numerical bonus or a flat benefit, and the results were boring as hell). That's a ridiculously huge amount of work that's required...and that volume grows as new classes come out, and the range of epic material increases (in terms of how high you can level).

Now add in more universal class functions, such as feats, to that, alongside things like epic skill uses, and the characters' side of designing for epic materials rapidly becomes a burden that's damn-near impossible to bear.

This is why 1E had no issues with letting certain race/class combinations level infinitely; there was none of that to deal with.

All of that, plus spells, magic items, monsters, etc. makes it so that, while I'm disappointed that U_K became burned out on 3E epic design, I'm not surprised by it (nor that Paizo really doesn't want to go there). Ditto for what U_K says above about 4E classes; it's easier to design for something that doesn't extend into infinity, but while the 4E classes don't need to be stretched very far, they are very broad in terms of variable powers. So it's a different problem that still leads to excessive requirements when increasing their playable levels.

I do like the idea of updating Ascension for Pathfinder, and the Epic Bestiary as well, but it wouldn't be so simple as changing the domains and a few specific 3.5->PF instances of the rules (and the domains, particularly with the Advanced Player's Guide's sub-domain rules, don't seem like they'd be cakewalk to convert).

The entire issue of leveling beyond 20 would need to be addressed (I suppose you could keep the default assumptions from the Epic Level Handbook, but I don't recommend it), such as the XP tables in all three degrees of advancement, the rate of BAB and save progressions, the aforementioned class abilities, etc. Plus any revisions made to Ascension itself (not to mention that Pathfinder handles Challenge Ratings slightly differently than 3.5).

I'd love to see it happen, but it's not something that I think would be easy or quick. That said, U_K, if you do want to go that route, you know I'm right there with you.

EDIT: For what it's worth, one company has released a Pathfinder-compatible supplement for epic-level gaming (though they've renamed it "legendary" rather than "epic"). It's called Legendary levels, and my thoughts on it are in the review there.

Upper_Krust · Jan 11, 2012

Hey all!

I expanded the thoughts above on the 4E Fighter Class and made it into an article. Let me know what you think?

5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons Eternity Publishing

Off to get my dinner but I'll be back in this thread later to respond to a few more posts.

Upper_Krust · Jan 11, 2012

Hey Alzrius mate!

Alzrius said:
I'm as fierce an edition partisan as the next Pathfinder supporter, but even I have to admit that 3E epic/divine material was awful, and that 4E did handle it better.

It handled it better, it just didn't support it.

In regards to the issue with classes, I think that part of the major problem with epic design in both 3E and 4E both is that, with the introduction of class-specific abilities, any extension of a given class's table with additional levels requires that those classes have new, original abilities added (3E tried to eschew this in favor of simply increasing abilities that granted a numerical bonus or a flat benefit, and the results were boring as hell). That's a ridiculously huge amount of work that's required...and that volume grows as new classes come out, and the range of epic material increases (in terms of how high you can level).

I really think the solution I posted on the website could be the fix that 5th Edition could benefit from.

Now add in more universal class functions, such as feats, to that, alongside things like epic skill uses, and the characters' side of designing for epic materials rapidly becomes a burden that's damn-near impossible to bear.

Its far too much information. The whole game needs condensed.

This is why 1E had no issues with letting certain race/class combinations level infinitely; there was none of that to deal with.

Indeed...I hope 5E is as simple as 1E.

Imagine if you will, 5E with my above combat rules for each class boiled down to a page or two (and no feats necessary...or folded into a similarly sized Utility power section).

A DM would be able to create PCs and NPCs in the blink of an eye. Regardless of How high level.

Odin = Level 40 PC Warlord, multiclassing* as Wizard
At-Will = 3[W], Encounter = 5[W], Daily = 11[W]

*1/2 base [W] or dice on all Wizard spells

Maybe Portfolios would add bonus [W] dice to certain powers or give access to new Martial Maneouvres.

All of that, plus spells, magic items, monsters, etc. makes it so that, while I'm disappointed that U_K became burned out on 3E epic design, I'm not surprised by it (nor that Paizo really doesn't want to go there). Ditto for what U_K says above about 4E classes; it's easier to design for something that doesn't extend into infinity, but while the 4E classes don't need to be stretched very far, they are very broad in terms of variable powers. So it's a different problem that still leads to excessive requirements when increasing their playable levels.

Yes its a case of damed if you do, damned if you don't.

I do like the idea of updating Ascension for Pathfinder, and the Epic Bestiary as well, but it wouldn't be so simple as changing the domains and a few specific 3.5->PF instances of the rules (and the domains, particularly with the Advanced Player's Guide's sub-domain rules, don't seem like they'd be cakewalk to convert).

I'm not sure the difference would be worth it in the end.

The entire issue of leveling beyond 20 would need to be addressed (I suppose you could keep the default assumptions from the Epic Level Handbook, but I don't recommend it), such as the XP tables in all three degrees of advancement, the rate of BAB and save progressions, the aforementioned class abilities, etc. Plus any revisions made to Ascension itself (not to mention that Pathfinder handles Challenge Ratings slightly differently than 3.5).

I know, its probably a quagmire I shouldn't dip my toes into.

I'd love to see it happen, but it's not something that I think would be easy or quick. That said, U_K, if you do want to go that route, you know I'm right there with you.

I appreciate the offer amigo.

EDIT: For what it's worth, one company has released a Pathfinder-compatible supplement for epic-level gaming (though they've renamed it "legendary" rather than "epic"). It's called Legendary levels, and my thoughts on it are in the review there.

Interesting. The way your review comes across I was amazed at the high score you gave it. Not sure it soulds like my cup of tea. Legendary damage sounds like a kick in the minerals for a game thats trying to divorce itself from save or die effects.

Alzrius · Jan 11, 2012

Upper_Krust said:
The way your review comes across I was amazed at the high score you gave it.

The issue there is how one approaches reviewing, both in terms of focus and scoring.

For the focus of the review, it's easy to become locked in a mindset of "it's good, but here's a detailed list of what's wrong with it," which I admittedly still slip into more than I like. It basically assumes that the purpose of the review is to point out something's failings, and explain what detracts from some mythical idea of a perfect product.

Likewise, the scoring issue is an attempt to add some objective metric that's ultimately going to be futile, since there's no consensus on what the gradations mean anyway. Some people hold that a 3/5, for example, means the product is average, or decent, while others hold that something with that score has some serious flaws that are roughly equal to its strengths.

If my review and my score seem contradictory, then I did a bad job describing why I scored it the way I did. I did like the book, I just thought its execution wasn't perfect; I still applaud it for trying to present something beyond 20th level in Pathfinder, and I think it had some good ideas and generally good execution. It's not perfect, but (as I'm sure you know) when you venture into one of the most broken parts of the system, that's inevitable.