D&D 5E [D&D Next] Second Packet - initial impressions

[VinylTap]

People need to take these play-tests for what they are, and not what you think they should be.

This isn't them trying railroad the community into rolled stats-- its a way for them to get feedback on what people think about rolled stats. If you hate rolled stats, then you're gonna use a point-buy. They know this and encourage it.

I'd say there's a 90% chance the final rulebook will have all the options people are discussing, but you can't get feedback on something until you put it out there, and you're not going to get focused feedback if you give people a bunch of familiar and comfortable options.

The point of the playest is not to say "This is what we're leading the game to" or "This is how you should RP for the rest of time", its saying:

"For a short play-test game, open your mind a little and try it out a few of these options, after you've played a few sessions with the rules-as-written, tell us what you think"

They don't want a lot of feedback from biased Web-forum theorizing, they want suggestions/comments backed by play-experience. Throw a few weird things out there and see what feedback you get.

Also, something to note, a lot of prominent Dm's swear by 'rolling for stats', it takes emphasis away from power-gaming and gives you a more realistic and believable "character" (all fighters are not equal in strength!). Everyone should play the game in a way that makes sense to them-- and no one is suggesting you shouldn't, but a lot of credible Dm's believe its a more rewarding way to play and, as well, keeps the game more a little more balanced. They're listening to these DM's and trying it out.

And I prefer point-buy myself, but see why they used it as the only option.

 

[Yora]

Of course the editing is "bad." The editing isn't done yet.

This is like criticizing the plating 20 minutes into an episode of Iron Chef.

-KS

All I am asking for is for someone to proofread it once. I don't think that is too much of a deal, especially when we are supposed to work with this material, for whcih we need to understand it.

 

[pauljathome]

This isn't them trying railroad the community into rolled stats-- its a way for them to get feedback on what people think about rolled stats..

I've got over 30 years experience playing role playing games. I already know what I think about rolled stats. Playing a few sessions of one particular game isn't going to change that opinion.

For the record :
I hate rolled stats.

I'm human and dislike them less those times that I get lucky and roll high and absolutely loathe them those times that I get unlucky and roll low.

And I'm absolutely convinced that the majority of players cheat when rolling stats. Unless they are rolled properly (ie, lots of rolling in a dice cup or the like) in front of multiple witnesses they are almost inevitably far above what they randomly should be. The cheating is sometimes of the form "well, I might have rerolled one or two characters that were obviously unsuitable"

 

[the Jester]

I react so negatively to rolling for ability scores (and hit dice for the same reason) that its hard to even summarize ....
WOTC is choosing to make the lives of children worse for almost no reason .... Because of this. A child life will be, in a small but noticeable way, worse. Thanks.

Wow.

If you find it so terrible to roll for stats, use an array or point buy. Bam, problem solved. But let's not make it sound like rolling for stats is harming today's youth. A lot of us turned out fine rolling for stats for decades.

For that matter, some of us still roll for stats today, even when running 4e.

I don't think all kids share the same playstyle- the one you're advocating- any more than all other gamers do. It's fine to have your preference, but painting other playstyle choices as bad for the kids is... just wrong.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Allow rolling stats, yes. Encourage it, no. As long as it isn't the core/standard generation method, isn't the first listed, and isn't presented as "normally, you generate those numbers(stats) by rolling dice" I have no problem.

 

[VinylTap]

I've got over 30 years experience playing role playing games. I already know what I think about rolled stats. Playing a few sessions of one particular game isn't going to change that opinion.

For the record :
I hate rolled stats.

I'm human and dislike them less those times that I get lucky and roll high and absolutely loathe them those times that I get unlucky and roll low.

And I'm absolutely convinced that the majority of players cheat when rolling stats. Unless they are rolled properly (ie, lots of rolling in a dice cup or the like) in front of multiple witnesses they are almost inevitably far above what they randomly should be. The cheating is sometimes of the form "well, I might have rerolled one or two characters that were obviously unsuitable"

You're missing the point. Lots of people don't like rolled stats, and they know that. But a lot of people also really like rolled stats, its opens up and promotes a different style of game-play. I'm not suggesting that anyone's trying to change anyone's mind on rolled stats, this is about smoothing out rough patches of the game. We understand that you've made "your" decision on rolled stat generation, but not everyone is as convinced, or seeking the exact same game you are. So they're trying out options, and rolled stats is a good option to play-test.

Its not tough to figure out an array or point-system, they're fixed and the math is easy. But for rolled stats, its good to get a lot of feedback, because its the most volatile of the differing systems, and the one that will benefit the most from feedback. That's why there's only one way to generate stats in the "play-test package", as well as saving space etc...

 

[Mallus]

And I'm absolutely convinced that the majority of players cheat when rolling stats.

Or the DM lets people who rolled a really bad set of scores roll again. I've seen that far more often than honest cheating.

I don't see the big deal re: stats. If you don't them rolled, use an array. It's like the fuss over the renaming of demons and devils in AD&D 2e.

 

[fenriswolf456]

Since stats are supposed to be nearly constant through the levels, spells that target those not only remain as useful as ever but instead better, since save DC depend on the wizard level, not the spell slot. This means Grease remains as useful at shutting down a poor Dex creature at level 20 as it was at level 1 (cast it under the gelatinous cube and laugh).

Doesn't this make sense though? A high level wizard should be pretty skilled at casting their low-level spells. I'm totally in favour of low-level spells being useful throughout a caster's career. It makes it a lot more interesting than just settling on one or two spells at high level since all the other spells become useless or far too circumstantial to make sense memorizing them.

Want to be a good wizard? Scrounge splatbooks for spells with saves Vs ability, then memorize monster stats. Choose the right spell for the right monster.

Other spells rely on hit points total to work. A spell may be waster on one monster, but be excellent against another with 5 hit point total less. Want to be a good wizard? Memorize monster stats, again.

Now this I agree is an issue. If you're going to base effects on certain stats, then those stats should be variable enough that there's a chance for failure/less effectiveness. Otherwise, you will get those players metagaming the system.

Though on the other hand, it's not so terrible a thing. Wizards are supposed to be book-learned, and presumably there are treatises on various creatures and how spells work upon them. So I don't have quite the problem with a book-learned player playing a book-learned caster.

And this sort of thing will seep into any group after a while no matter what. How many players in experienced groups don't know about Trolls and their weakness to fire, even if their current character has never encountered one?

It really comes down to the player. I've DMed about 90% of my role-playing history, and I certainly haven't memorized the stats of everything. Hopefully a good player will convert it into character knowledge. "Ogres are clumsy oafs! My Grease spell will totally mess with them."

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Or the DM lets people who rolled a really bad set of scores roll again. I've seen that far more often than honest cheating.

I don't see the big deal re: stats. If you don't them rolled, use an array. It's like the fuss over the renaming of demons and devils in AD&D 2e.

So put the array as the standard option #1 and list everything else as options.

 

[the Jester]

Allow rolling stats, yes. Encourage it, no. As long as it isn't the core/standard generation method, isn't the first listed, and isn't presented as "normally, you generate those numbers(stats) by rolling dice" I have no problem.

Well, I demand that they allow but not encourage point buy and arrays. As long as they aren't the core/standard generation method, aren't the first (and second) listed, and aren't presented as, "normally, you generate those numbers(stats) by spending points or arranging the scores given in the array," I have no problem.

See how silly it is to make demands like that?

Hate rolling for stats all you like, but which method is presented first is really not a big issue for how the game plays, is it? What's wrong with encouraging rolling stats? How does this impact your game, especially when you're going to use point buy or an array?

I swear to God that rolling for stats doesn't hurt the children.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Well, I demand that they allow but not encourage point buy and arrays. As long as they aren't the core/standard generation method, aren't the first (and second) listed, and aren't presented as, "normally, you generate those numbers(stats) by spending points or arranging the scores given in the array," I have no problem.

See how silly it is to make demands like that?

Hate rolling for stats all you like, but which method is presented first is really not a big issue for how the game plays, is it? What's wrong with encouraging rolling stats? How does this impact your game, especially when you're going to use point buy or an array?

I swear to God that rolling for stats doesn't hurt the children.

If its not a big deal as you say, why not just give in and list rolling dice as the second or third option and appease all the people that hate it.

 

[Mallus]

So put the array as the standard option [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] and list everything else as options.

Would that make you feel better?

Why does it matter which is listed first/declared 'optional'?

Even if a stat array isn't included, it's not like they're hard to find... why make something into a problem when you're already in possession of the solution?

Is it just a validation thing?

 

[Mallus]

If its not a big deal as you say, why not just give in and list rolling dice as the second or third option and appease all the people that hate it.

Aha! It is a validation thing.

I'm cool with listing stat arrays first (and/or omitting mention of rolling entirely). It's not like I'll forget how to roll 4d6 and drop lowest !

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Would that make you feel better?

Why does it matter which is listed first/declared 'optional'?

Even if a stat array isn't included, it's not like they're hard to find... why make something into a problem when you're already in possession of the solution?

Is it just a validation thing?

It's a practical and principle thing. Practical in that years of experience have made me dislike the actual results of rolling stats, and principle in being opposed to randomly determining something that will define the effectiveness of your character over the length of the campaign. The principle part in particular, as I don't like what it says about the game when the system makes ability scores so important and so permanent, then leaves it to dice.

I'll say it again, if it's truly as unimportant as you say, why not let the people who seem to care about the issue have this one?

 

[Ahnehnois]

And I'm absolutely convinced that the majority of players cheat when rolling stats. Unless they are rolled properly (ie, lots of rolling in a dice cup or the like) in front of multiple witnesses they are almost inevitably far above what they randomly should be. The cheating is sometimes of the form "well, I might have rerolled one or two characters that were obviously unsuitable"

I don't understand how it's possible to "cheat" in an rpg. If you're rolling for stats, you've decided that balance isn't critically important (if it was, you'd do point buy and not leave it to dice). The last time I had my players roll ability scores (for a non-D&D game), I pretty much just told them up front to roll until they got something they liked. Sometimes people don't even take the "best" array they roll out of that setup. Other times people self police, roll them in order, and take what the dice gives them. It's a fun roleplaying exercise.

If your goal is to dominate the game and you roll stats until you get ones good enough to do that, it isn't so much cheating as it is just being a dick. Cheating the social contract, not the rules.

 

[Mallus]

IThe principle part in particular, as I don't like what it says about the game when the system makes ability scores so important and so permanent, then leaves it to dice.

To be fair, it leaves it leaves it to dice and the DM's common sense. I've never encountered (or been) a DM who forced a player use a set of unplyable stats. We cut the person with the cold dice some slack.

What does it say about gamers if we have to assume gamers don't have any common sense?

I'll say it again, if it's truly as unimportant as you say, why not let the people who seem to care about the issue have this one?

I'll say it again, too (Sam). Personally, I don't care.

But I'll note some people do prefer rolling stats. So perhaps we can put methods in the rule book, side by side even, so as not to start a row.

 

[slobster]

But I'll note some people do prefer rolling stats. So perhaps we can put methods in the rule book, side by side even, so as not to start a row.

I'd give you xp, but can't yet. Anyway, the obvious solution is to sell the core rulebook in binder form, so that each person can pop it open, rearrange the pages, and voila! They're preferred generation method is now listed first! It also lets people take out the dragonborn pages, high elves, attacks of opportunity, and anything else that offends them by its very presence in a core rulebook.

 

[Mercule]

Also, I don't like the sound of displacer beast armor and dragon scale. Could we have gotten something a little less fantastical - would it have been so bad to have studded leather and reinforced scale instead?

Agreed. I don't mind those materials existing, but the bulk of the equipment in the PHB should be reasonable facsimiles of real-world stuff. I don't like not seeing multiple mundane (as opposed to non-magic) options for light armor. I also don't like that the top armor for each category is the same price. Nonsense.

 

[Someone]

Doesn't this make sense though?

Only if you want to build a system that's puposefully broken (I'm not convinced it's not their intention, though). It's the old quadratic wizard again, just slightly worse. Gain more spells, new spells are more powerful, old spells are even more powerful.

Though on the other hand, it's not so terrible a thing.

Having a system that actively encourages metagaming is one of the closest things to terrible you can have in game design.

 

[billd91]

Only if you want to build a system that's puposefully broken (I'm not convinced it's not their intention, though). It's the old quadratic wizard again, just slightly worse. Gain more spells, new spells are more powerful, old spells are even more powerful.

It does little to make a system that's intentionally (or unintentionally) broken. Rather, it keeps low level spells (the ones that haven't grown quadratically in power) viable. Plus, it works against the 15 minute day some players reported in 3e because there's no need for a spellcaster to demand a sleeping break simply because his highest level spells (the ones with the highest DCs) are expended.
Plus, having a save DC that's static across the spell levels is in alignment with 1e, 2e, and 4e (effectively). 3e/PF are the only odd editions out.

Having a system that actively encourages metagaming is one of the closest things to terrible you can have in game design.

Depends on if it's really metagaming. Basing on hit points, yes, that is. But assuming a purple worm doesn't have as well developed a mind or personality than a mind flayer isn't metagaming. Targeting the purple worm with your Int or Cha save spells should be fair. Same with hitting a giant with a spell he needs to dodge rather than endure with brute force (which he clearly has in spades).