D&D 5E cancelled 5e announcement at Gencon??? Anyone know anything about this?

[Wicht]

Archers could be chased down with a little trouble(if I didn't want to use a spell, such as Call Lightning). Iron gates are subject to Rusting Grasp. It wouldn't wreck the whole gate, but a three-foot radius hole is big enough to walk through. Thick stone walls could pose a problem(assuming I'm trying to get through it). Summon Nature's Ally 3(SNA4, if I'm crunched for time) can get me a Thoqqua, though. Thoqqua have a burrow speed and specifically leave a usable tunnel behind. It's small(so you have it/them make more than one, and combine them) and it's also "blisteringly hot", so use create water to cool it.

At worst, I'm left with the same options as a non-caster.



*For reference, the spells I'm talking about are all PHB, and the Thoqqua is from the Monster Manual. We didn't really use a lot of books other than the core 3.

So you are casting spells as a tiger usng a feat?

 

[Pentius]

Natural spell, level 6 feat, PHB.

Edit: SRD text:
Prerequisites
Wis 13, wild shape ability.

Benefit
You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while in a wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.

You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while in a wild shape.

 

[pemerton]

I can't speak for 3rd edition, but I'm pretty sure our old Planescape campaign fit the narrativist play model. Barring drastic differences in definition. Heh.

Maybe we should fork from this very chaotic thread?

Start a new thread and I'll come into it!

I've enjoyed your other actual play threads - the healing one, the heretics one - and a narrativist Planescape one would be good too. (The first thing I'm curious about is how you handled alignment. It seems to me to be integral to Planescape as a setting, but near-fatal to narrativist play - I want to hear how others have squared that circle!)

 

[pemerton]

See that's the part I don't get. You teleport away and thus leave the situation uncontrolled.

I've played high level games. Teleport can make camping easier, that's for sure, but it doesn't help rescue the damsel, so to speak. While you are recouping, she's being offered up as the sacrifice to allow the really nasty things in.

Is this really a solution to the problem, though? I mean, the wizard teleports the party out, the GM says that the NPCs sacrifice the damsel, the really nasty thing turns up. Is this the end of the campaign? In which case it's not really a solution to making the campaign work.

Or do the PCs now find themselves having to stop the nasty thing? In which case it is still the wizard who has dominated the direction and content of the game.

The damsel situation will only work to stop the problem, it seems to me, if the player of the wizard is sufficiently invested in rescuing the damsel that s/he is prepared to press on - or to cooperate with the rest of the party pressing on - that s/he will do so even if low on spells/resources. Now obviously this is not an impossible, or even improbable, state of affairs. But I think it does tend to emphasise rather than de-emphasise the dominant position of the wizard in play.

(My experience in these issues comes from RM, not 3E, but I don't think there are significant functional differences.)

 

[pemerton]

Double post deleted.

 

[IronWolf]

Is this really a solution to the problem, though? I mean, the wizard teleports the party out, the GM says that the NPCs sacrifice the damsel, the really nasty thing turns up. Is this the end of the campaign? In which case it's not really a solution to making the campaign work.

Yes, I believe it is a solution. Why should the NPCs stop what plans they had in motion because the PCs decided to stop and rest? PC actions should have consequences - both good and bad.

Keep in mind, most DMs that run this way will have shown they do since level 1, so it isn't like a dynamic that changes only at the higher levels. I know in our games our actions as PCs always have consequences on the world as a whole.

Or do the PCs now find themselves having to stop the nasty thing? In which case it is still the wizard who has dominated the direction and content of the game.

In games I have played in the others in the party certainly would have had a say as well. Either agreeing to rest or teleport out or to advocate for pressing on. Still a party decision, not a decision made solely by the wizard. Many times I have seen the wizard say they were out of spells but the rest of the party insists on pushing on due to the criticalness of getting something done in a timely manner.

The damsel situation will only work to stop the problem, it seems to me, if the player of the wizard is sufficiently invested in rescuing the damsel that s/he is prepared to press on - or to cooperate with the rest of the party pressing on - that s/he will do so even if low on spells/resources. Now obviously this is not an impossible, or even improbable, state of affairs. But I think it does tend to emphasise rather than de-emphasise the dominant position of the wizard in play.

The wizard is one voice of the whole party. If the situation calls for swift action or timely action, they need to learn to conserve their spells lest be forced to abandon the party. This precedents are generally set from the first level on when playing under DMs that keep events in the world moving forward on their own timeline.

 

[haakon1]

The thing is, to me, that may as well read "As long as things are roughly balanced, I don't care about balance."

Nod, as long as you call having one 1st level in a party of 3rd-4th level characters, or one 4th level character in a party of 6th-9th level characters "roughly balanced", then yes, we're on the same boat.

But I think when most people say "balanced" here they are worried about MUCH finer gradiations of power than that, as in looking at two characters of the same level, and worrying that one of them has X advantage from his class -- and saying an entire edition is broken if there are differences.

That margin of error of concern is Orders of Magnitude narrower than my "roughly balanced".

 

[JoeGKushner]

I can't see it.

Announcing a new edition just 3 years after release of the prior edition would be insane.

Besides, Scott Rouse said it would be 8-10 years between editions. Yes, I know he's no longer there, but if this turns out to not be the case, then how can we take anything representatives from this company say as truthful?

I've mentioned this before, and it is strickly my opinion, but you cannot take anything they say as truthful because they will change their means and methods to react to the preceived market conditions and sales data they have available. It is not necessarily that they 'mean' to lie, as say cancelling the first quarter products, changing the format of the Heroes of Shadow, changing Neverwinter into a hardcover from a boxed set, etc..., just that they will do what they believe they have to in order to stay viable.

I haven't believed a word out of WoTC mouth in since the DDI went online and took everything before that with a huge grain of salt.

 

[Pentius]

Nod, as long as you call having one 1st level in a party of 3rd-4th level characters, or one 4th level character in a party of 6th-9th level characters "roughly balanced", then yes, we're on the same boat.

I wouldn't, but I think we're still in the same boat, and that my point was made. Balance is important. How important, and in what granularity, differs from person to person, but the basic concept, "Everyone needs to be able to do the cool stuff sometimes" is shared.

But I think when most people say "balanced" here they are worried about MUCH finer gradiations of power than that, as in looking at two characters of the same level, and worrying that one of them has X advantage from his class -- and saying an entire edition is broken if there are differences.

That margin of error of concern is Orders of Magnitude narrower than my "roughly balanced".

Some people are, some aren't, I'd reckon. There's no one answer for everyone. I think 4e does pretty well, but there are people who think it wildly and dangerously unbalanced. Same with you and 3.x, sounds like.

 

[Quickleaf]

Start a new thread and I'll come into it!

I've enjoyed your other actual play threads - the healing one, the heretics one - and a narrativist Planescape one would be good too. (The first thing I'm curious about is how you handled alignment. It seems to me to be integral to Planescape as a setting, but near-fatal to narrativist play - I want to hear how others have squared that circle!)

Thanks, likewise! You've got a good critical eye and are fun to chat with.

Forked over here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-planescape-narrativist-play.html#post5660634