Legends & Lore: What Worked, What Didn't

[I'm A Banana]

Absence of absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence of absence either...er... I mean the fact they haven't addressed it in articles and blogs doesn't mean its being changed or fixed either. Its more likely they haven't addressed it, because wouldn't they want to announce that they fixed another problem?

There's lots of reasons why they might not want to announce that. Two that leap to my mind immediately are first, that their survey feedback shows that most players aren't concerned about it, and second, that they want to save most of their surprises now for the actual release to make it an appealing purchase for those who have the playtest docs. There's literally an infinite number of other plausible reasons why they might not announce it.

There's no proof that it's been fixed, but you can't say that 5e will have that in it with much confidence. You can't prove I'm not a Turing-complete computer program, either, but it's not bloody likely. What's more likely, that you discovered a problem that no one else is aware of or that they stubbornly refuse to fix that will irreparably damage this game that their company has literally sunk millions of dollars into creating, or that these paid professionals are doing exactly the job they're paid to do and will end up delivering on their promises (which include not having a wizard overshadow a fighter unless you opt into it)?

 

[Lokiare]

I asked if you found this true in play, and you responded with theory again - theory based on a specific ability score and spell choice despite the small number of choices early on, and the inability to know how long a day will be in a given scenario (it lasts 8 hours, but the day is 24 hours, and monsters don't just wait for you to cast it again). So I guess that answers the question - you have not, in fact, found it to be the case in actual play, and every conclusion you've drawn is based on faulty hypothesis and averages which don't account for anything varying from the center of that average.

In my 5E play experience Mage Armor wasn't in the game yet, but I still didn't get hit very often because I stayed behind the melee classes and used Blink. I don't remember if I had Blink maximized, but I might have. In most cases a day is around 16 hours meaning a maximum casting of 2 Mage Armor spells. Any longer than that and you start to deal with fatigue rules and pushing limits. For the most part I doubt it takes more than 1-2 hours to clear out an entire dungeon. Remember you can walk 300 feet per minute and most combats last less than 1 minute. You could actually say that for most adventures they are 'five minute workdays' because you can include a lot of travel, and 4 encounters in that five minutes.

And that's more theory based on averages rather than what actually happens. I think I have my answer.

You should maybe try the game you're critiquing. I think you will find it plays different than you might think.

I'd love to. Do you know of anyone that is offering an online game of it? I'd be glad to wreck the game trying to find broken parts.

Complete with "badwrongfun" for a game you have not even played, in response to someone actually playing it?

Yeah, the only badwrongfun is not even playing. That, that's badwrongfun.

You now have multiple reports from people who have actually played it, and found their experiences differ from your hypothesis. Results trump hypothesis every time - that's how science work, and it's why you make the hypothesis to begin with, to test it in practice and see if it holds up. So far, it has not.

Nope, no where did I say it was badwrongfun. I said they were 'doing it wrong' as in 'not being very effective at their job'. It might be all kinds of fun to play Fizban the forgetful clumsy Wizard that always has the wrong spells prepared "What!?! Immune to fire, well I'll just go stand over here then...". However mechanically they weren't playing to a baseline competency that is assumed in the rule set.

Again please quit trying to construe everything I say in the worst possible light...

 

[Mistwell]

Nope, no where did I say it was badwrongfun. I said they were 'doing it wrong' as in 'not being very effective at their job'.

Sure you were. You were assuming you knew better, and they way someone else chose to play the game was "wrong". The player is very effective with his mage - he just is actually experiencing how the game plays as opposed to sitting back and armchair quarterbacking it without knowing all the relevant details of the circumstances of the particular game.

However mechanically they weren't playing to a baseline competency that is assumed in the rule set.

More faulty assumptions - drawn based on you knowing, with certainty, you have no clue what the circumstances were. And rather than asking, you just declared you knew better anyway.

Again please quit trying to construe everything I say in the worst possible light...

I am just shining an ordinary light on your words. If what you say looks bad once examined up close, that's not me making it bad. Stop playing the victim. You and I agree sometimes and disagree other times - that's just how message boards go. Quit pretending I am treating you poorly by focusing just on when we disagree.

 

[Lokiare]

There's lots of reasons why they might not want to announce that. Two that leap to my mind immediately are first, that their survey feedback shows that most players aren't concerned about it, and second, that they want to save most of their surprises now for the actual release to make it an appealing purchase for those who have the playtest docs. There's literally an infinite number of other plausible reasons why they might not announce it.

There's no proof that it's been fixed, but you can't say that 5e will have that in it with much confidence. You can't prove I'm not a Turing-complete computer program, either, but it's not bloody likely. What's more likely, that you discovered a problem that no one else is aware of or that they stubbornly refuse to fix that will irreparably damage this game that their company has literally sunk millions of dollars into creating, or that these paid professionals are doing exactly the job they're paid to do and will end up delivering on their promises (which include not having a wizard overshadow a fighter unless you opt into it)?

If most of their players aren't concerned about it they wouldn't bother fixing it in the first place.

They can save the actual methods for the release and give us some hope they fixed the problem beforehand so we actually have the interest to go out and buy it.

I can think of an infinite number of reasons to think that the core of the moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't mean it absolutely is does it?

Many people are aware of the problem and it will damage the potential income if not fixed. It might not sink the game, but for many it will make it a no-buy game.

If they've sunk millions of dollars into 5E, then I have a bridge to sell them, because someone conned them out of the money. What we see so far is what a small group of people could have put together in their spare time. The most expensive thing they've done is the convention stuff and it did not cost a million dollars.

As far as paid professionals go, Mike himself was a hobbyist indie developer that got hired on mid 3.5E to help out and got promoted after massive lay offs. I wouldn't exactly call that professional. Not to mention the massive number of obvious flaws pointed out in the open play tests. That just does not ring true of 'professional' designers. Give me someone that has a relevant degree (Mike is a programmer by trade, and not even a game programmer) and more than 2-3 years experience working for one of the major companies and I might agree to 'professional'.

I'm sorry, but without some solid facts. I'm not going to believe in a fairy tale perfect game that happens to be developed behind doors by people that have been in the game development business about as long as I have. Especially with what we've seen as evidence against it in the open play tests and articles.

Its just not believable...

 

[SkidAce]

More like gravel and slushy jell-o. The purpose of a playtest isn't to be a sneak preview, it's to find flaws and errors. While it's not an entirely empty dataset, you'd have to have an agenda to assume that the published game is going to look pretty much like those docs between two shiny covers.

Fair enough I suppose, I think we could glean a better picture of its shape than you do, but analogies only go so far.


I however, do not have an agenda.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Fair enough I suppose, I think we could glean a better picture of its shape than you do, but analogies only go so far.


I however, do not have an agenda.

Fair enough!

 

[Argyle King]

Have you seen it in actual playtesting? In my playtesting experience, the wizard goes down quick. Their AC lags the rest of the party, their hit points lag the rest of the party, and if they're not extra careful and spend turns doing things like disengaging and moving instead of casting a spell, they get knocked out often.

In a game with bounded accuracy, we're finding AC plays a much more significant role. The wizard seems to consistently lag behind in this department. The rogue does a bit as well, but they have maneuverability and stealth features that make up for it. The wizard in theory can have those as well, but in practice they have to have those spells and know to cast it, and they usually don't, while the rogue is basically using those abilities at-will and without spending an action for them.

So bottom line, have you found in your playtests that this tends to be a real issue with the mage class, or are you making your assumptions purely on a theoretical basis from reading the text and not playing it out to see if there is something you're not accounting for when the text meets the field of play?

I'd ask why the wizard is bothering with playing the AC/HP game at all instead of using things like web or putting the opponents to sleep or using one of the other options which (similar to my experiences with 3E) allow a caster to just bypass the opposition's strong points.

 

[Cybit]

The HP limits on spells absolutely destroy a lot of the AoE effects, since the HP limits are total HP across all creatures. Sleep / similar spells are nasty, but IIRC, the total HP limits basically stop it after 2-3 creatures, assuming the caster rolled exceptionally well. That's one of the changes that doesn't get caught in theory but shows up in play - the HP limits that a lot of spells have really hit the spells hard in terms of mass effectiveness.

Second - the amount of spells casters get are a significant impediment. You don't have the normal "wizard knows all the spells" issue that you have had in previous editions. The amount of spells a wizard can cast are also far more limited, and many of the spells that are being thrown around as "well just do X, Y, and Z" don't stack as they used to. I would point folks towards the concentration rules - concentration puts a large damper on spell stacking.

As for Mage Armor - the only way to get a 16 is if you have a 16 DEX starting off, which means that it is your single highest stat, or tied for it.
[MENTION=83996]Lokiare[/MENTION] - if you are looking for a reason to hate the game, you will find plenty. As a primarily 4E player, and someone whose favorite edition of D&D is 4E by far and away, NEXT is pretty good for me. It is currently supplanting 4E as my favorite edition, and the power gap between the casters and the melee-ers (I hate casters & love melee characters) has diminished greatly - to the point where even at L10, I'm not sure I'd rather be a caster or not. Casters can do lots of cool things, but they can't do them all at once - and that puts a significant damper on their power.

 

[Mistwell]

I'd ask why the wizard is bothering with playing the AC/HP game at all instead of using things like web or putting the opponents to sleep or using one of the other options which (similar to my experiences with 3E) allow a caster to just bypass the opposition's strong points.

Of course they do...but that doesn't mean they don't get hit, sometimes really hard. Sleep generally impacts a couple of creatures, who can each be woken with an action from an ally. Web similarly can be escaped with essentially an action.

If mage's could just waive their hand every challenge and end the challenge that way, it wouldn't be much of a game. Your AC and hit points WILL come up in this game, if you have an even moderately combat-intensive game.

 

[Cybit]

Of course they do...but that doesn't mean they don't get hit, sometimes really hard. Sleep generally impacts a couple of creatures, who can each be woken with an action from an ally. Web similarly can be escaped with essentially an action.

If mage's could just waive their hand every challenge and end the challenge that way, it wouldn't be much of a game. Your AC and hit points WILL come up in this game, if you have an even moderately combat-intensive game.

Because of the way many spells are written (like sleep) to use max HP as targeting limits, a wizard's low HP is also scary in terms of mage on mage combat as well as normal combat.