Legends & Lore: What Worked, What Didn't

[Hussar]

Just as a question since hold and charm person factor pretty heavily here. How many 44 hp humanoids are there?

 

[Lokiare]

Just as a question since hold and charm person factor pretty heavily here. How many 44 hp humanoids are there?

5th level:
Cultist of Asmodeus is 40
Orc Leader 32

Any level:
Bugbear 22
Bullywug 11
Dark Acolyte 6
Dark Adept 11
Dark Priest 22
Succubus (in human form) 40
Doppleganger (in humanoid form) 18
Drow 27
Gnoll 13
Gnoll Leader (packlord) 27
Goblin 3
Goblin Leader 18
Green Hag 36
Hobgoblin 11
Hobgoblin Leader 27
Human Berserker 13
Human Commoner 4
Human War Chief 22
Human Warrior 11
Human Witch Doctor 22
Kobold 2
Kobold Alchemist 7
Kobold Dragonshield 7
Kobold Winged 3
Lizard Folk 11
Lizard Folk Leader 45
Lycanthrope 22
Orc 11
Orc Leader 32
Orog 19
Phanaton 3
Phanaton Warrior 10
Rakasta 5
Rakasta Tiger Rider 11
Troglodyte 13

So the average might be lower. I'll leave it to you to do the math, since I have to redo most of it anyway for the newest packet.

Of course this only affects the 1st level spell Charm Person, and not Suggestion which affects anything that can understand you.

 

[Lokiare]

But wait there's more!

The average attack bonus of creatures of level 5 is +5.5

How high of AC can a Fighter achieve (as in miss chance)?

Somewhere around AC 19 maybe 20, which means the Fighter gets hit:

Hit %: (((invert - (AC - bonus)) + equal to or greater on dice) * percent of each point on dice) - crit chance
Hit %: (((20 - (20 - 5.5)) + 1) * .05) = 0.325 = 32.5%

Now let's look at a Wizard that doesn't want to get hit:

Mage Armor with Dex 16 is AC 16:

Hit %: (((invert - (AC - bonus)) + equal to or greater on dice) * percent of each point on dice) - crit chance
Hit %: (((20 - (16 - 5.5)) + 1) * .05) = 0.525 = 52.5%

But wait, there's more:

Mirror Image:

33% hit chance
52.5% * 33% = 17.325%

Oh look the Wizard has less of a chance of being hit than the fighter in full plate and a shield if they so choose.

But wait there's more:

How many rounds will it take the Fighter to take down a group of 5 level 5 enemies?

Using my numbers from the post above:

44 / (2 * 11.65) = 1.88 rounds (rounded to 2 because there are no partial rounds in D&D) 2.

2 rounds per combatant = 10 rounds.

How long does it take the Wizard?

Suggestion 75% hit chance so 3 of them go out in the first round, then Charm Person for the other two with the same chance. So we'll be generous to the Fighter and say only one is affected. That leaves one to be taken out by the hasted Fighters extra attack each round which means another 4 rounds. So it takes 7 rounds for the Wizard. We could probably shave that off if we went with straight damage spells because 70% of the Fighters damage to all 5 at a time is going to go really quickly. Doing the math it would be 6 rounds.

But wait there's more:

How about out of combat utility (hint, hint: Mage Hand, Alarm, Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Disguise Self, Feather Fall, Identify, Invisibility, Knock, Suggestion, Rope Trick (free short rest), Fly, Spider Climb, Water Breathing, etc...etc... vs. A couple of decent ability scores)?

How about survivability (hint, hint: False Life, Blur, Mirror Image, Blink, Fly, etc...etc... vs. the Fighter not dropping at 0 a few times)?

I could go on and on and on, but I won't. I think I've made my point...

Edit: And before anyone tries to claim 'Schrodinger Wizard', guess what? 5E has that as a design concept. The Wizard can literally prepare their best spells both combat and out of combat and simply use the one they want as needed. So its entirely possible to grab the utility and combat spells and depending on what you encounter you could be the best exploration character, combat character, or social character that day.

 

[Cybit]

Did I miss a packet after the 8/02/13 packet?

Edit 2: Also note that I'm using the "080213 DnD Next Playtest Packet". I don't have access to the newer one, if someone would be so kind to PM me a way to get it, I would love to do an analysis on it too.

Oy, this explains a ton. >_<

Loki, PM me an e-mail address, I'll hook you up with the latest public files. (101413)

Cybit

 

[Mistwell]

Did I miss a packet after the 8/02/13 packet?

Holy...have you been ranting based off the August 2 packet this whole time? Wow...that would explain some things.

Yes, you've missed a lot.

 

[Lokiare]

Holy...have you been ranting based off the August 2 packet this whole time? Wow...that would explain some things.

Yes, you've missed a lot.

Yeah I see that now.

So since Rituals are back to 'if you have them in your spell book' instead of 'if you have them prepared' that means I can use all slots on combat.

The Spell DC should be 15 at level 5 instead of 17.

Aura of Antipathy is overpowered - Combined with Mage Armor, it makes the Wizard better off than the plate wearing shield toting Fighter.

Flaming Sphere is no better than a Cantrip is at level 5 (but that's not new).

Overall the spell save DC is the only real thing I see that has changed. In my analysis. There are spells that can replicate nearly any classes features. It still has Schrodinger's Wizard in full swing too.

In other words the Wizard is still overpowered compared to the Fighter.

 

[Cybit]

Yeah I see that now.

So since Rituals are back to 'if you have them in your spell book' instead of 'if you have them prepared' that means I can use all slots on combat.

The Spell DC should be 15 at level 5 instead of 17.

Aura of Antipathy is overpowered - Combined with Mage Armor, it makes the Wizard better off than the plate wearing shield toting Fighter.

Flaming Sphere is no better than a Cantrip is at level 5 (but that's not new).

Overall the spell save DC is the only real thing I see that has changed. In my analysis. There are spells that can replicate nearly any classes features. It still has Schrodinger's Wizard in full swing too.

In other words the Wizard is still overpowered compared to the Fighter.

Heh, I remember that stupid aura - aura of antipathy is something that I severely doubt will survive through the playtest process - they are aware of the math involved with the aura and how it is ridonkulous.

Read through the spells, some of them have some subtle but powerful changes, and concentration is a PITA. It's easy to miss those changes. Also, read through what the other classes start to pick up at 5th level and beyond.

Also, there's a good chance I missed some files; I almost sent you a different set of playtest files <whistles innocently> on accident.

 

[Lokiare]

Heh, I remember that stupid aura - aura of antipathy is something that I severely doubt will survive through the playtest process - they are aware of the math involved with the aura and how it is ridonkulous.

Read through the spells, some of them have some subtle but powerful changes, and concentration is a PITA. It's easy to miss those changes. Also, read through what the other classes start to pick up at 5th level and beyond.

Also, there's a good chance I missed some files; I almost sent you a different set of playtest files <whistles innocently> on accident.

Well I would love to be in their closed play test, and show them the math that goes with everything, but apparently they can't stand a dissenting opinion for whatever reason.

Even if they were to get everything balanced right, they still missed one thing:

I want to play a game that has interesting equal choices on level up and during each round of each encounter. Something that only a few classes in 5E get. I don't mind if there is a simple sub-class for those that want it, but I want a class with lots of options and tactical choices.

I appreciate you sending me the public play test files though. Now I can do my math on them, but really there doesn't seem to be much difference in the most effective spells between the 2 packets. The biggest difference seems to be the spell casting DC and the increased proficiency bonus. So on the one side saves are easier to make, and on the other attack roll spells will hit more often.

 

[Cybit]

Well I would love to be in their closed play test, and show them the math that goes with everything, but apparently they can't stand a dissenting opinion for whatever reason.

Even if they were to get everything balanced right, they still missed one thing:

I want to play a game that has interesting equal choices on level up and during each round of each encounter. Something that only a few classes in 5E get. I don't mind if there is a simple sub-class for those that want it, but I want a class with lots of options and tactical choices.

I appreciate you sending me the public play test files though. Now I can do my math on them, but really there doesn't seem to be much difference in the most effective spells between the 2 packets. The biggest difference seems to be the spell casting DC and the increased proficiency bonus. So on the one side saves are easier to make, and on the other attack roll spells will hit more often.

Thankfully the rumor is that they brought on the Magic guys for math tuning - so I pretty confident that the math will get finely tuned near the end of the process (this is just what I've heard living around Seattle). I also do know that in many cases, the options sent out in the playtest packet were to reaffirm the idea of removing something - that is, they didn't think something was a good idea, but they sent it out to make sure other people saw it was as crazy as they did. While I can't comment on specifics, unfortunately for WotC, I know at least 2 playtesters they have that are Ph.D mathematicians, and at least 10 more who have advanced math & engineering degrees. They most certainly hear about poor math decisions.

I can't quite put my finger on whether all classes will get meaningful choices at every level. But, I'm not exactly sure if that's what is best for an introductory RPG.

So, I think part of the disconnect is that while there is a lot of talk at whether the game is aimed at 1/2E players, or 3E players, or 4E players..I don't think it's necessarily aimed at any of them. One of the things I've heard bandied around at various RPG companies is this idea that there is a dearth of brand new younger players. IE, 1E could be played at lunch time in an hour. That's how a lot of people learned to play it as kids. One of the problems with PF & 4E to some extent (IMO) is that they were systems that were aimed at people who already played RPGs. IE, while you will have the market grow a little from folks bringing their kids into the system, Pathfinder / 3E and 4E are really complicated systems to folks who don't know what a d20 is. Even the beginner box, which is a fantastic product, has a distinct jump between the box and the core game.

I have a group of younger players who are 2nd generation D&D fans. Their parents tried to teach them 2E / 3E, and it went terribly, and they ended up joining a 4E Encounters game. When we switched over to the playtest for NEXT several months ago, one of the things that has stood out to me is that the ease of which they can pick up NEXT, and how much fun they have. Everything makes "sense" to them, in both a mechanical and verisimilitude way, and the ease of which off-the-wall actions can be adjucated makes the game far more engaging for them. Operation "Each of us grab one arm of the vampire, one of us kick it in the balls, one of us poke its eyes out, and the last of us cut off its hand and take its axe" is a full go in 5E (and was doable in 4E, albeit a little harder) and is easy to do. On a quick aside; younger players are suuuuuuuuuuuuuper sociopathic in hilarious ways. They genuinely don't know "better", so they come up with the craziest stuff and most sadistic ways to deal with bad guys. Also, Lord of the Rings is their nerd cred argument at D&D.

"I've seen all of the LotR movies"
"I've seen all the extended editions"
"I've read the books!" and etc...it's really sort of hilariously awesome.

I think NEXT is really aimed at being a big tentpole game. If PF and 13th Age and 4E are really good at taking a certain percentage of the pie, I think NEXT might be the edition that tries to grow the pie itself. I think it does a really good job of it. It's not going to be as process simulation as 3E, and it's not going to be as good of a balanced tactical war-game as 4E. (Insert whatever you believe defines each edition, that is my intended point) But, IMO, it does like 80-90% of both at the same time, and to me, as someone who grew up on 3E and actively GMs Pathfinder, but find 4E my favorite (published) edition of D&D by a landslide, that's a really good game for me. I love the fact that my younger players all want me to come DM for them on their birthdays, and that they want to do 5-way 10th level Lord of the Flies (you can make alliances, but only one winner, and you can't share credit on kills, person who knocks you below 0 gets the credit) you die and respawn the next turn at full everything PvP (this is why I am fairly certain mages as they currently stand are not too scary at higher level) some birthdays and they want to fight a dracolich, a dragon, and a lich at the same time on other birthdays. That's a game that can stand up next to video games and other forms of entertainment. I think we need that.

 

[Mistwell]

Well I would love to be in their closed play test, and show them the math that goes with everything, but apparently they can't stand a dissenting opinion for whatever reason.

LOL they are paying, as consultants, both RPG Pundit and the Gaming with Pornstars guy (Zach). I assure you, they have a very high tolerance for dissenting opinions. They sought them out this time.