Alaxk Knight of Galt
First Post
Can't disagree more here. Classes need to be mechanically different. This includes what resources they have, how they expend resources, and how they attack.
D&D 5E Considering the D&D Next Playtest in Light of the WotC Seminars
- Thread starter bpauls
- Start date
Can't disagree more here. Classes need to be mechanically different. This includes what resources they have, how they expend resources, and how they attack.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Or whether the system is any good, which is kinda the point. A good enough DM can make up for system deficiencies. A bad enough one can ruin any game, no matter how good. The vast majority of DMs between those two extremes benefit from non-sucky systems, though.
I absolutely agree that it was a good idea to get good DMs to run the playtest, and, yes, that's their goal. Not a good goal for the longer term future of the game or the hobby it spawned in all likelihood, but 'long term' when you're a corporate subsidiary is next quarter. Can't blame 'em at all.
Nod, and I have a pessimistic bias on much the same basis.I guess I'm a little bias, and therefore a little more optimistic, since I am a DM myself.
Sure, you can do that. Though...
(Well, first, with the Rogue scouting sans roll and the barb auto-smashing doors, 'incompetence' was /clearly/ the wrong word. At least we're not back to the theif with a 20% move silently trying to scout.)
...with all the retro-nostalgia aiming at the old-school, there's a legitimate concern that the game will only be balanced over the long haul, weeks spent twiddling your thumbs because you're not a diplomat balanced by weeks of the diplomat plinking with a crossbow because he's just not a combat character; vast godlike power at high level balanced by fragility at low. That sort of thing.
With 3e and 4e having clear systems for starting above 1st, and low 'punishment' levels can end up skipped.
So low levels need to still feel like heroic fantasy, so they get played, at all.
They've so used those up as names of classes, sub-classes, Kits, builds and PrCs though.
This one is 'post of the thread' based purely on number of replies. Frankly you have hit the nail on the head, its a really big shift from 4e (the ULTIMATE in player entitlement) to this which is sounding like its all about DM interpretation.
Unforunately, it really does fall back onto the skills of the DM, and if you get a bad one, this design philosophy is going to suck.
However, by the time I had finished playing 4e I was left with a feeling. My players didnt step outside of capabilities. Did they try to topple the statue to fall in the midst of their enemies? No, they ran in and fought. Did they come up with creative solutions to situations? No, they picked up the dice and started rolling.
I cant help but wonder "did I not encourage them enough?". I wont claim to be the worlds greatest DM, but I have been doing it for a good amount of time now and feel fairly confident in my craft, and as much as I tried to inject interesting twists in scenarios to aid players in coming up with successful scenarios, they never seemed to take the bait. (Not to understate my players, they have been doing it a long time too, and there a smart bunch of guys).
I couldnt help but feel that 4e sorta put blinkers on the player/character. "This is what you can do!", and as much as the fluff encouraged otherwise, the saturation of rules e.t.c. (while it didnt restrict the player from stepping outside the box) tended to predefine how to solve the problem (My experience, others may vary).
So, 4e just didnt feel like previous editions. Every release since 2.0 has more tightly defined what can and cant be done, but in terms of P&P games, Im not sure thats what we needed to do.
So, I understand your concern, if you get a bad DM its going to suck, but if you have a good one...well, this is probably the most promising aspect 5e has going for it. Loosening the reigns, the girdle, the blinkers and the saddle, and letting the player run free.
bpauls
Explorer
Who survived the near-TPK, out of curiosity?
The wizard and the rogue skedaddled when the paladin, warlord, half-orc and cleric were all either dead or unconscious, and there were still two or three bad guys on their feet...
Sadras
Legend
If you're the player: Is this system not going to improve your personal game with your playgroup? It is kinda like you telling me you have a bad DM now, which seems to be the real issue, no matter what the system you still wont get the enjoyment level you desire.
If you're the DM: You dont trust your own judgment? Isn't this better assisting in the story you wish to create?
So agree!
I hear your concerns, but I cannot believe they're gonna make the first few levels unplayable or design it so ppl are twiddling thumbs. What they might have learnt from the playtests is that monsters need to be toned down or pcs built up a little to avoid too many PC deaths or TPKs. Level 1-10 has always been the sweet spot for roleplaying - they're not gonna destroy that now with all the experience they have with design and role-playing. No chance.
avin
First Post
Some people, in particular people who like 4E games, are fond of heroic fantasy from the beginning of the game. It's fine.
Some other people, in particular fans of 1E and 2E, like somewhat grittier fantasy at first levels, telling the story how some adventurers become heroes. And they play that levels.
I don't want to be back to a time where a house cat could kill a Wizard, but I like lower levels as something a bit less safe than they are played on fourth edition.
Connorsrpg
Adventurer
We always relished surviving those low levels of previous editions. It really felt like you had earnt those new snazzy powers.
I definitely want a return to 'normalish' 1st level. Want heroic, then add the Con score to hps, or start at higher level. Novels I read and enjoy mostly start out with the Orientation of establishing 'normal' characters thrust into the situation of adventure.
I also wanted to XP BobtheNob again, but can't.
Having all the things you can do set out on the PC sheet with their own names and descriptions, certainly limited the freedom I was used to XPing at my table. (Even though I initially loved the concept).
Freeing up their character sheets from powers I think will actually benefit NEW players. I have always loved the ideas players with little rules knowledge come up with.
Unfortunately in my latest games (4E), there seemed to be more expectation to 'do your role' and don't try other things. My son (8 years) played a Gnome Warden. He got into the whole warden relation to nature thing but also like the gnome trickster side and loved the cantrips. He roleplayed being frightened of larger folk when I described them 9as he was an escaped formorian slave). He found a cool hand crossbow and liked to use it (even though there was nothing on his sheet telling him it was any good).
Fortunately he didn't go through powers in order of +'s etc. But even more disturbing, was the other players (who have played along with me since 1E) often swayed him away from his initial response, stating he had a better power, or 'you are our defender, it would be better for you to get up front', or 'you know your bonuses aren't as good with the crossbow?' etc.
These players were long time roleplayers (and very character focused - not normally power gamers at all). Even worse - I even erred my son along another course of action a few times.
So, for DnDNext I too share the concern that everything you can do being defined by what you have - not what you don't have. Look at the blank faces when people go to disarm in 4E. I always allowed attempts at such things - and tried to encourage things not on sheets. The Terrain Powers were cool from DMG2, but players were too entrenched in their own powers.
Mind you there are so many things about 4E I love - definitely not flaming - I am still playing, and enjoying it too (see website in sig), but this is not something I would like to be brought forward.
I DO want new players saying "I try this". Playtests so far are indicating a positivist outlook as far as i can see.
I definitely want a return to 'normalish' 1st level. Want heroic, then add the Con score to hps, or start at higher level. Novels I read and enjoy mostly start out with the Orientation of establishing 'normal' characters thrust into the situation of adventure.
I also wanted to XP BobtheNob again, but can't.
Having all the things you can do set out on the PC sheet with their own names and descriptions, certainly limited the freedom I was used to XPing at my table. (Even though I initially loved the concept).
Freeing up their character sheets from powers I think will actually benefit NEW players. I have always loved the ideas players with little rules knowledge come up with.
Unfortunately in my latest games (4E), there seemed to be more expectation to 'do your role' and don't try other things. My son (8 years) played a Gnome Warden. He got into the whole warden relation to nature thing but also like the gnome trickster side and loved the cantrips. He roleplayed being frightened of larger folk when I described them 9as he was an escaped formorian slave). He found a cool hand crossbow and liked to use it (even though there was nothing on his sheet telling him it was any good).
Fortunately he didn't go through powers in order of +'s etc. But even more disturbing, was the other players (who have played along with me since 1E) often swayed him away from his initial response, stating he had a better power, or 'you are our defender, it would be better for you to get up front', or 'you know your bonuses aren't as good with the crossbow?' etc.
These players were long time roleplayers (and very character focused - not normally power gamers at all). Even worse - I even erred my son along another course of action a few times.
So, for DnDNext I too share the concern that everything you can do being defined by what you have - not what you don't have. Look at the blank faces when people go to disarm in 4E. I always allowed attempts at such things - and tried to encourage things not on sheets. The Terrain Powers were cool from DMG2, but players were too entrenched in their own powers.
Mind you there are so many things about 4E I love - definitely not flaming - I am still playing, and enjoying it too (see website in sig
), but this is not something I would like to be brought forward.I DO want new players saying "I try this". Playtests so far are indicating a positivist outlook as far as i can see.
Last edited:
vagabundo
Adventurer
They can make the first few levels more dangerous without making the PCs fragile. It's all about the balance. I enjoyed 4e's take on 1st level PCs. They had some staying power at first level, but I did kill a few 1st level parties - by accident I must add - when I first started DMing.
It is quite easy to do with a swarm of the right kind of bad guys. I'll always remember that unconsciousness wizard getting Thunderwaved to death. A TPK swiftly followed.
I also think the 0-level rules for 4e are quite good. I'd love to see a similar system for apprentice level adventurers in 5e
It is quite easy to do with a swarm of the right kind of bad guys. I'll always remember that unconsciousness wizard getting Thunderwaved to death. A TPK swiftly followed.
I also think the 0-level rules for 4e are quite good. I'd love to see a similar system for apprentice level adventurers in 5e
Raith5
Adventurer
I think this is a good and fair point about 4th edition. Monte or Mearls talked about forgetting about the invisible button when presented by so many options. I must confess to forgetting to be creative and thinking beyond the box because I get to entranced with my many powers, magic items and skills in 4th ed... But I must say that the encounter and daily powers of PCs are normally more powerful and reliable than stunts.
That said in 4th ed, my party was once confronted by a large group of hobgoblins which included a hobgoblin riding a dinosaur (or what ever it is called). I used a combat power to kill the rider, an athletics check to climb up the dinosaur and then action pointed to use a nature check to take control of the beast (and fulfill a boyhood fantasy) and turn the tide of battle (or at least that is how I remember it!). So the rules/powers/skills can be used to go beyond being blinkers and used to do cool things.
LostSoul
Adventurer
This is the part that has me the most excited:
That's how I use skills in my game and it's great. I find that it really helps players think about the fictional situation/game world.
Skills provided situational bonuses to checks that were also based on ability scores. As Bruce Cordell and Monte discussed in the same seminar, the D&D Next skill system is currently open-ended. Rolling to use any skill is always resolved as an ability check. The skill itself simply provides a bonus to that particular ability check in a specific situation.
That's how I use skills in my game and it's great. I find that it really helps players think about the fictional situation/game world.
Mattachine
Adventurer
For me, people started forgetting the invisible button back in 3e, because the game rules were so vast and specific. Fourth edition initially had the issue you describe--being dazzled by too many powers. After playing 4e for a few years, our group is up to improvising, using combat powers for non-combat effects, skill stunts, and so on. It took a conscious effort on our part to realize that the rules don't cover everything, DMs get to make rulings, and that is OKAY.
Alaxk Knight of Galt
First Post
Skill Check for Craft Forum Post using DnD Next.
- Str: A FORCEFUL, TAKE NO PRISONERS FLAME POST or Mod action
- Dex: A quick reply - in before the edits!
- Con: Wall of Text with no spacing no formatting
- Int: Logically correct point
- Wis: Sees the value of both sides of the issue
- Cha: Flashy rhetoric from the poster with 10,000+ posts
Nonsense.
In some rule sets I know I can kick in a door because I know that doors of this type are so-so hard to kick in, and my strength is such and such, and I know from reading the rule book that my strength is enough to kick in the door in front of me.
In other rule sets I know that I can kick in a door because I know that the last time I saw a door of this type, the DM made a judgment call and let me kick it in. So obviously he'll let me kick it in this time because he's a good DM and hasn't forgotten his previously established standards of door kicking. But if my other friend starts DMing, and I run into a similarly described door, well... its all up in the air again. Maybe he has different opinions regarding the kicking in of doors. Whether I succeed in a task is based on whether the DM lets me succeed, and I find out by asking him whether I may. Even if I have the best living DM on the planet, I am still asking him for permission to complete a task.
Defend the latter as a good way to play if you want. But don't pretend it isn't real, or that it isn't legitimate to dislike it.
As for the rest of what's being discussed... if a first level character with full hit points can die from a single critical hit, that will be a deal breaker. I'm basically just treading water until I see that officially confirmed (one playtester confirmed it, but I'm hopeful that the designers aren't fools). If you design a game that (1) encourages deeply investing in characters with personality and back story, and (2) you make that game so that characters, played properly, will engage in combat with some regularity, and (3) you make that game so that dead characters can't be easily resurrected... then if you make it so that totally random events during inevitable gameplay moments can kill off a fully healthy character who was played without mistakes, you've designed a bad game. End. Of. Debate. If people like this sort of thing, their opinions are wrong.
Admin here. A gentle reminder: making your own case is great, but we'd just as soon not have you tell other people what they're supposed to think. -- Piratecat
Last edited by a moderator:
Skill Check for Craft Forum Post using DnD Next.
Using this, we can now determine what stat was used for each new Enworld post
- Str: A FORCEFUL, TAKE NO PRISONERS FLAME POST or Mod action
- Dex: A quick reply - in before the edits!
- Con: Wall of Text with no spacing no formatting
- Int: Logically correct point
- Wis: Sees the value of both sides of the issue
- Cha: Flashy rhetoric from the poster with 10,000+ posts
I wish more posts used skill challenges with both Int and Wis rolls!
Alaxk Knight of Galt
First Post
Point 1: Dungeons and Dragons sets zero expectations for the amount of backstory for your character. Investment in backstory various from DM to DM, game to game, and player to player.
Point 2: Proper play does not require regular combat. Combat is one of many means of problem solving in Dungeons and Dragons.
Point 3: We have no knowledge of what Raise Dead will be like in 5th Edition.
Finally: I've played and DMed in many games where the DM has adjusted the lethality level based on the type of game he wants to run. So long as 5th Edition supports house rules, I'm happy with whatever the default lethality rate is.
Fanaelialae
Legend
That's as silly as suggesting that you're advocating that DDN should be completely without rules. Not that I'm saying that, but let's not oversimplify valid points to the point of absurdity.
You can't legislate a bad DM out of existence. I think we can all agree with that. However, a good framework can assist an inexperienced or unexceptional DM to perform better than with a poor framework.
To put that another way, I think we can all agree that it's impossible for WOTC to design an objectively perfect game. Does that then imply that they shouldn't bother designing the best game they possibly can? Clearly not.
Personally, I expect to see "DCs" for commonly attempted tasks. So a shoddy door might be an automatic success with Str 10, while a solid oak door is only automatic with Str 16 (or whatever). If they give us an assortment of good guidelines, we can have the best of both worlds. DMs have a bit of guidance when setting "DCs", which offers a reasonable basis of expectations regardless of whose table you sit at. Simultaneously, because they can't possibly cover every scenario, DMs will still be able to exercise their own discretion in determining those "DCs" (such as for a solid oak door of shoddy design).
Savage Wombat
Adventurer
I distinctly recall some game designer (Monte?) saying that players actually don't like critical hit systems, but they don't realize that. Players are so fond of "Wow! A 20!" moments that they fail to realize that there are lot more monsters in the world than there are PCs, and a lot more chances for the monsters to get lucky on a hit and kill a PC as a result.
The addition of a critical system, in other words, actually worsens the odds against the PCs in the long term. But the players don't want to give up that "lucky" possibility.
(Note: I have one player who is so dependant emotionally on those lucky crits that he invariably plays characters designed to maximize his crit chance. And rolls a d20 chosen so that no one else at the table can easily read what he rolled. Hmm...)
Matt James
Game Developer
[Edit]
Last edited:
Mattachine
Adventurer
I also agree that a roleplaying game where a PC can be killed by simple chance is flawed. Even if a player hasn't spent a long time on backstory, they have spent a good bit of thought and time just making the PC. When the PC dies because of one or two unlucky rolls, it is usually very unsatisfying.
I'm not against PC death. I am a player who permakills my PCs when they die in-game (they always refuse to come back via magic). When these deaths are due to falling in combat, either heroically or foolishly, it becomes a great story. When these deaths are due to an instant-death trap (hello, first edition) or a single lucky crit by a monster, it becomes a story about the failings of the game system.
If the game is going to be modular, then "deadlier games" can certainly be a simple option.
*Dangerous crits
*PCs' starting hps are less than or equal to maximum damage from a one-handed weapon
*Instant death effects
I posit that the majority of players would rather a game that doesn't feature these rules.
I'm not against PC death. I am a player who permakills my PCs when they die in-game (they always refuse to come back via magic). When these deaths are due to falling in combat, either heroically or foolishly, it becomes a great story. When these deaths are due to an instant-death trap (hello, first edition) or a single lucky crit by a monster, it becomes a story about the failings of the game system.
If the game is going to be modular, then "deadlier games" can certainly be a simple option.
*Dangerous crits
*PCs' starting hps are less than or equal to maximum damage from a one-handed weapon
*Instant death effects
I posit that the majority of players would rather a game that doesn't feature these rules.
Similar Threads
