D&D 5E [L&L] Campaigns in D&D Next

[Imaro]

I should also clarify that I think the dev's edition warrior tendencies are not so much a result of malice and more of marketing. The launch of 4e is pretty infamous because a lot of 3e fans felt that WotC was mocking their beloved game, talking trash about it in order to sell them on the new edition. There was backlash over that and I see the current talks as an attempt to do the same again, just more subtly to prevent as much backlash. Talking garbage about warlords shouting hands back on is in my view meant as an appeal to people who intensely dislike 4e. That doesn't mean WotC doesn't understand how 4e healing actually is supposed work, they're just repeating the sales tactic of before in a way that makes it less easy to call them on it.

Do you have a link to this? I remember a comment about Warlord's shouting wounds closed but not this other one about the hand...

 

[Sage Genesis]

Do you have a link to this? I remember a comment about Warlord's shouting wounds closed but not this other one about the hand...

I'll try but he said it in a podcast about a year ago. Given the way the WotC website is set up it might take me ages to find it...

 

[Mistwell]

I'm not sure where you're going with this but I'll answer just the same.

It's not a simple matter of "like" or "dislike" of the game. I already like a lot of what I've seen of Next. I like the ease of character creation. I like some of the class abilities. I like backgrounds. And so on. It's quite rare for me to like or dislike the entirety of a game, the issue is more whether overall I like enough elements for me to justify a purchase. Similarly, I also dislike certain elements of 4e that I think could've been handled better on launch or even still need to be handled better today. It's just that overall I like enough elements to buy and play it.

What the odds are of me liking enough of 5e/Next? I rightly don't know. Maybe around 50-50, but even if it falls to the side of "no purchase", that doesn't have to mean I dislike the entire thing. I expect to still like some elements.

OK, fair enough. I can definitely see wanting to talk about a game that I have roughly a 50-50 chance of wanting to play it.

Talking garbage about warlords shouting hands back on is in my view meant as an appeal to people who intensely dislike 4e.

That was one very low-level person at WOTC who said it one time in, I think, an off-hand Twitter reply about a year ago? Not really what I'd call a position of WOTC. You certainly have never heard that comment from anyone high up in the creative team.

 

[Sage Genesis]

I'll try but he said it in a podcast about a year ago. Given the way the WotC website is set up it might take me ages to find it...

As it turns out, "ages" is about 15 minutes.

If you go here and download the podcast:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20130306

Then skip ahead to about 30:12 to 31:40 or so.

The context and summary is that they're discussing absorbing the Warlord into the Fighter, albeit with no healing abilities because the captain of the guard is not a "healer". They discuss William Wallace as a good example of a Warlord who could maybe inspire people but not regrow severed or broken limbs. (In a somewhat joking fashion.)

The problem being, however, that in 4e hit point damage is not just injuries but explicitly also factors in morale. There is no real way to lose your hand in the first place in 4e so the whole argument is kind of silly. And even if you did, you'd need a specific Ritual (the exact name of which escapes me at the moment) to regrow it rather than anything else. While the Warlord can heal your hit points with a class feature, he can't restore your lost arm. This is true... but it's also true for the Cleric, the Bard, etc. As such it's an utterly spurious reasoning to withhold hitpoint-healing from the Warlord (or the Warlord-style equivalent).

They do later go on to say that people who want a 4e Warlord character should be able to do so... but months afterwards they clarified on twitter that you'd get it through the College of Valor Bard. Again, healing reserved for just the magic people because hands can't be shouted back on. And you only need to check the latest playtest package to see that this is true, Fighters have zero Warlord traits while Valorous Bards are the closest thing in the game.

That was one very low-level person at WOTC who said it one time in, I think, an off-hand Twitter reply about a year ago? Not really what I'd call a position of WOTC. You certainly have never heard that comment from anyone high up in the creative team.

The podcast I linked above has a talk with Mike Mearls, Chris Dupuis, and Rodney Thompson. So yeah I kinda did hear it from people high up in the creative team.


As I told Mercurius earlier, I have paid very close attention to the development of Next. It's starting to dawn on me that perhaps I'm in a minority position here.

 

[Mistwell]

As it turns out, "ages" is about 15 minutes.

If you go here and download the podcast:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20130306

Then skip ahead to about 30:12 to 31:40 or so.

The context and summary is that they're discussing absorbing the Warlord into the Fighter, albeit with no healing abilities because the captain of the guard is not a "healer". They discuss William Wallace as a good example of a Warlord who could maybe inspire people but not regrow severed or broken limbs. (In a somewhat joking fashion.)

There is no "somewhat" to it. It's an offhand comment, a joke, it's not a joke about D&D but about William Wallace and the in-between missing scene in a movie, and it has nothing to with the claim you're making about it.

Seriously, everyone should take his advice and listen to it, and tell me if you think that is a "somewhat joking fashion" and if it is about the movie, or about D&D. I think you will agree with my characterization that it's an obvious joke, and it's about the movie.

Nor do they have the quote that you earlier claimed was in there about shouting hands back on.

They do later go on to say that people who want a 4e Warlord character should be able to do so

Not "later". Before and after the movie joke, they say this. In fact, the entire point of the section you referenced is saying they SHOULD be able to heal. You took out of context a movie joke, applied the wrong meaning to it, and then removed the context that said the opposite that was on both sides of that comment.

... but months afterwards they clarified on twitter that you'd get it through the College of Valor Bard.

Right that is the Twitter comment I was referencing earlier, and it was from a very low level employee at WOTC and not from a lead designer. No lead designer says what you claim they said.

Again, healing reserved for just the magic people because hands can't be shouted back on. And you only need to check the latest playtest package to see that this is true, Fighters have zero Warlord traits while Valorous Bards are the closest thing in the game.

The podcast I linked above has a talk with Mike Mearls, Chris Dupuis, and Rodney Thompson. So yeah I kinda did hear it from people high up in the creative team.
As I told Mercurius earlier, I have paid very close attention to the development of Next. It's starting to dawn on me that perhaps I'm in a minority position here.

You didn't pay very close attention to it if you think a slam on a movie about William Wallace (they are slamming the lack of realism in the movie) equates with them saying that 4e Warlord healing was shouting people's hands back on. They say the opposite of what you said. You removed the context, which definitely said they should be able to do healing, and then applied a totally false spin on their JOKE about a MOVIE.

I've paid very close attention to it as well. And, you're wrong in this one. People should listen for themselves and see if they come to the same conclusion you did. I think they won't. I think you are in the minority here, but not in your "attention to detail" on D&D Next development, but in your misconstruing a joke about a movie as a meaningful comment about D&D Next.

 

[Rhenny]

There are a few things, really. Obviously, this is my personal list and things may be better or worse for other people, but:

* Bounded accuracy means that the world doesn't have to scale to the players. I spend more time thinking about how I want the world to look and less time translating my original ideas to match the party's current level.
* Advantage/Disadvantage is a great mechanic to reward or penalise the party for their actions. 4e had combat advantage for pure combat, but Advantage can be applied in any situation as a generic "You came up with a good idea that should net you a reward" mechanic.
* Because of bounded accuracy, I don't need to look for more powerful creatures as often. I've used the 4e conversion suggestions that were posted here a while back to convert some creatures that are iconic to one of my campaigns ("Agents of the Eye"). I can keep using those creatures, knowing that I can vary their numbers or allies to get the right encounter. Not that I'm going to make every relevant encounter have one of them, but it means I can add one to an existing encounter down the line and the party will know (or think ) that a particular in-campaign group is involved... and they'll still be useful, even if the party has gained levels.
* Encounter building is no worse than 4th edition, to me - and therefore it is easier (again, to me) than 3e or 2e.
* The exploration rules are nice. If we weren't moving to 5e, I'd be porting them to 4e right now. They're likely going to be yoinked for our 3e games.
* From a design point of view, I find character creation to be more flexible than 4th edition*. As a GM running a lot of 5e one-offs, it's been really good that I can say things like "All of your characters start as members of a thieves guild. Generate any character that has at least one choice that speaks to that." or "Generate any character that's trained in Arcana" in order to start out a short game with a particular style without restricting the players much. (The former was even better when the cleric had the Trickster deity option, although the Paladin of Vengeance they added can work perfectly as a Guild enforcer. I expect the full game will have the Trickster deity again. If not, it'll be easy to houserule).

There's quite a few other things, too, but they're smaller and not all from a pure DM perspective (for instance, the Thaumaturgy and Druidcraft cantrips make me incredibly happy. They're just the sort of thing that my players will use for great roleplay effect, and they're the sort of thing that *should* exist in the D&D world. In fact, my most generic reason for liking D&D Next as a system is exemplified by things like this: In lots of places, the system has loosened up old restrictions or added new capabilities that support the narrative of *being* a character of that race, class or whatever better. Two random things: The way the Fighter and Barbarian classes are both good at combat in different ways (Fighters do more damage on average, while Barbarians *appear* to because they're swingier. Training and skill against ferocity). Or the way that a magic user can choose to leave a slot or two unprepared, then wander off to study a spellbook (or pray) to solve a new problem. It'll take long enough that it's not a workable solution inside combat, but the idea of the cleric praying for a solution to a problem or a Wizard consulting their notes *works*, to me)

... I'm going to stop before my parenthesis-nesting gets worse. Needless to say, there's a ton of stuff I like. It's very much not a case of 4th edition being bad - just that I feel 5e fits my mindset and expectations of how things should work better.

* What I mean by more flexible is that, given the quantity of material in the playtest, I think it's able to create a wider variety of functional concepts at 1st level than 4e would be able to in the same number of pages. Fourth edition has vast amounts more content, of course, and a lot of it is really high quality. But 5e gets more potential variety from fewer distinct elements, I think, because it reuses them cleverly.

This is a nice list. I agree completely.

For me, there is a seamlessness between combat, interaction, exploration that I could not really achieve with previous editions. Attribute checks, attack and saves all using the same system helps in this.

To me, the flow of the game seems more intuitive as a result of this integration. I'm finding it much easier to keep the game moving without looking up rules.

Also, as you mention, it is easier to populate my game world with monsters and NPCs that I feel should be in locations based on what makes sense storywise more than making sure that everything is balanced at level. My players like the idea that they can wipe the floor with some encounters, but in another encounter they may tremble in fear and have to avoid the combat because they don't feel powerful enough. In 5e, even the little combats have a chance to wear down the party or set up important story elements. Then, when a real challenge presents itself, it becomes more surprising and unexpected for my players.

And, it may just be me, but I like the way 5e makes it easier to focus on adventure design (multiple encounters that build a story) rather than focus on individual set-piece encounters that after a while become more and more challenging to build as a challenge to the party.

Like you also mentioned, there are probably other reasons why it has become the easiest game for me to DM, but for now...this covers most of it.

 

[Sage Genesis]

There is no "somewhat" to it. It's an offhand comment, a joke, it's not a joke about D&D but about William Wallace and the in-between missing scene in a movie, and it has nothing to with the claim you're making about it.

As I said, it's done in a joking fashion. But you are completely wrong about how you interpret the podcast. Go listen from 29:40 to 30:10, then. They discuss the Warlord type and grudgingly concede that he might do some healing, like a battlefield first aid kind of way, but overall they make it very clear that they don't expect this sort of person to be a healer on par with a Cleric.

I don't know what else to tell you. For all your "you didn't pay very close attention" bluster, I find that it's you who completely misinterpreted the whole thing.

 

[Mistwell]

As I said, it's done in a joking fashion. But you are completely wrong about how you interpret the podcast. Go listen from 29:40 to 30:10, then. They discuss the Warlord type and grudgingly concede that he might do some healing, like a battlefield first aid kind of way, but overall they make it very clear that they don't expect this sort of person to be a healer on par with a Cleric.

I listened to it. You understand "not on par with a Cleric" is not at all the same claim you made earlier, right? It's a totally different argument.

I don't know what else to tell you. For all your "you didn't pay very close attention" bluster, I find that it's you who completely misinterpreted the whole thing.

I challenge anyone in this thread to listen to the podcast and come to the same conclusion you did. You've already backed off from "somewhat joking" to admitting it was in fact done in a joking manner (not even "manner", as it was an obvious joke, they all laughed, it was about the movie, and it's not a point they were trying to make about D&D). You've back off from the section of the podcast you said people should listen to (which was the right one) to an entirely different earlier part which doesn't even vaguely mention the original claim you made. Even you are not standing by your own first interpretation now.

And my "bluster" came entirely from your own claim that you have paid close attention but that others have not. You made a point of saying that, and if me throwing it back at you feels like bluster, perhaps now you understand how you came across yourself.

 

[Cybit]

So, multiple responses to the multitude of questions

1) As someone who DM'd 3E/PFS/4E for many years now, 5E is so far being the easiest to DM (DM'ing 3 sessions of it a week, one with hardcore PFS players, a second with a group of 8-12 year olds, the third being a group of 20something ish coworkers), with 4E being a close second. While I will always love 4E having everything in one page, 5E has merged a lot of the best of both worlds

For instance: monsters are simpler, with their special abilities defined on the monster entry (Woohoo!), and with no fort/ref/will/BAB, there is far less info necessary to look through

Bounded accuracy is nice in that less ridiculous numbers = less time on math.

Monsters have raw XP values, rather than the completely useless CR system (ok, it's not completely useless, but it sure misses the mark frequently).

Monsters being threats much longer through the game makes thinking about what to throw at players a lot simpler.

2) Warlord / Healer bit - Basically, the "can't shout a hand back on" is intended to be a bit of sarcasm and humor, not too much of a design change. Based on what I've seen so far - the issue is actually pretty simple to resolve: Warlords give out temp HP instead of normal HP. This fits them well with the narrative and the mechanic, and means that having a cleric and warlord is now a complementary bit.

Also, the reason you do not see "warlord" style healing in the open playtest is that it was not done yet. I might have to edit this last part out, but we have a functional warlord type in our playtest game, and she is totally frakking badass. This warlord > 4E warlord, IMO.

3) Mearls Edition Warring

Based on numerous conversations I've had with folks involved with the design (huzzah for living in Seattle and frequenting the same gamer bars) and development, I don't think they're intending to come off as edition warring. Because of the launch of 4E (which apparently had edition warring that I missed for whatever reason) was so contentious, I think it is easy to be wearing the lens of taking certain comments in a way that would imply edition warring. I think they're just trying to explain some of their rationale for what they are doing, regardless of the edition the mechanic is from.

I believe that they are looking to try to make the next game that drags younger gamers into tabletop gaming. Fiasco, Pathfinder, etc, are great games for experienced RPG players as well as the 20 something crowd, but no RPG exists currently that you can play during lunch / at recess in a school - the way many original D&D fans first started playing. This is why I think they're being more explanatory about their decision making process, which can come off as edition warring, since many folks are viewing L&L through the prism of the 4E launch.

 

[Sage Genesis]

I listened to it. You understand "not on par with a Cleric" is not at all the same claim you made earlier, right? It's a totally different argument.

I challenge anyone in this thread to listen to the podcast and come to the same conclusion you did. You've already backed off from "somewhat joking" to admitting it was in fact done in a joking manner (not even "manner", as it was an obvious joke, they all laughed, it was about the movie, and it's not a point they were trying to make about D&D). You've back off from the section of the podcast you said people should listen to (which was the right one) to an entirely different earlier part which doesn't even vaguely mention the original claim you made. Even you are not standing by your own first interpretation now.

And my "bluster" came entirely from your own claim that you have paid close attention but that others have not. You made a point of saying that, and if me throwing it back at you feels like bluster, perhaps now you understand how you came across yourself.

And you actually believe all that, don't you? There's nothing more for me to really gain out of this. This is becoming an Internet Fight thing. I'm bowing out.