D&D 5E New playtest packet available.

[Ahnehnois]

As expected, we have had very different experiences. I mentioned here or elsewhere that my Arcana Evolved game was crushed under two ubercasters - it was among the last straws of 3.x for me, though I gave it a few more short campaigns before moving on to Star Wars Saga and other systems like WFRP2. I think the oft-mentioned tier ranking system predates 4e, though, as does CoDzilla.

On the other hand, the realism debate was never much important for my group.

No doubt, very different experiences.

I put the terms CoDzilla the tier system and a variety of other things under a particular culture. I only ever saw them on charop boards, and they were generally accepted in that context. I liked the old WotC charop boards. Optimizing a druid is a fun intellectual exercise. I never actually saw truly optimized characters played in any of my games though, for a variety of reasons.

However, the notion that people were playing these characters in situations where it caused a problem, or that the ability to build them was a problem in the rules that needed to be fixed, was something that I didn't see argued until well after 4e was released. And which, in any case, was never a consensus, merely one of many perspectives on the system.

***

Personally, I've had fluid membership in my group, but two of my core, long-term friends are a history major and an engineer. They expect things to be done right. They treat the game world as a complete functioning world, and have a pretty strict game rules as the laws of physics for the game world approach. I've seen and learned from other perspectives online, but they're still foreign to me. For me to pass muster as a DM, the way my world works and the way creatures behave has to make sense. Personally, I work in biomedical research and have a biology and psychology background, and before that was trained in drama and filmmaking, so I care about modeling wounds and having characters behave naturally more than most.

To all of us, D&D is primarily a creative experience which can sometimes become an exercise in game mechanics. We all know each other and look at the game as a team effort. No one really cares much about balance between characters unless that gets wildly out of control (and when it has, it hasn't been the casters). All the players and the DM enforce a variety of measures to prevent that from happening, generally without even thinking about it. If a rule does create an imbalance, it's on the DM to fix it; no one is looking to game designers to do that.

Thus, when I buy a game system, I'm generally looking for a world simulator that is both accurate enough and simple enough that I can use it. To me, the tension is between modeling detail in the name of realism and abstracting it in the name of playability. Balance between different character options is virtually irrelevant. (I also find the balance between options in 3e to be vastly better than in any other version of D&D, but that's another conversation).

***

Then again, D&D evolved from miniatures games, so I can see where other people might approach it differently. D&D players are an (intellectually) diverse bunch.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think your bias is showing.

I just call 'em like I see 'em. Thus...

Tactically disadvantageous decisions made by your enemies are not necessarily the result of mind control, and non-magical recovery of hit points does not have to be described as healing.

when I've playing D&D, recovery of hit points is healing, and character decisions are made solely by the person playing the character. That's not the only way of doing things, but it's not a 'bias' either.

 

[Phoenix8008]

I very much agree. The small quibbles I have with the class are outshined by this single mechanic. Though it might need a stipulation that the attacks must be against a creature. This prevents the barbarian from attacking inanimate objects just to keep the rage going, but leaves open the possibility of attacking allies and the innocent.

This. My son came up with the idea of carrying around a pillow as an alternate weapon to attack his allies with just to keep his rage going. I pointed out that the pillow would still be doing a minimum of 2 points of damage per hit due to the bonus damage while raging. Kinda took the wind out of his sails.

 

[Dragoslav]

when I've playing D&D, recovery of hit points is healing, and character decisions are made solely by the person playing the character. That's not the only way of doing things, but it's not a 'bias' either.

It's not a bias, but it's a mistaken premise. If the game system says "This is not mind control" and "This HP recovery is not magical healing" and you say "But it is," then you're insisting on using one set of logic (that is valid for one system) to judge another set of logic (that is valid for a different system).

So when you consider the 3e rules and say, "The only way for a player to dictate an NPCs movement is through mind control," that's a true statement. But when you consider the 4e rules and say, "the only way for a player to dictate an NPC's movement is through mind control," then that is a false statement. To insist on using terms like "martial magic" when all evidence points to the contrary is, if not indicative of a bias, then at least rather stubborn.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It's not a bias, but it's a mistaken premise. If the game system says "This is not mind control" and "This HP recovery is not magical healing" and you say "But it is," then you're insisting on using one set of logic (that is valid for one system) to judge another set of logic (that is valid for a different system).

First off, I'm using it to describe mechanics that were piloted in 3e. So, for example a phbii knight has an ability that forces enemies to attack him. There's also the goad feat. Both abilities clearly describe the effect as a psychological manipulation of one character on another, and that the enemy is "compelled" to attack (though not "thrown into a mindless rage"). They are language-dependent and have various other mechanical properties because of this (which they would not have if there were any other rationale for the ability). So the term "martial mind control" is an accurate description; I'm not using it inappropriately.

The merits of those mechanics are debatable, but their nature is not. They are an example of the player of one character exerting control over the behavior of another character without using magic. They are martial mind control. Even some applications of the Diplomacy skill and other Cha-based skills (also a controversial topic) fit this description and are commonly known as "Diplomancy". This is all pre-4e.

The comparable 4e mechanics I don't know as much about, but that isn't the point, since they weren't primarily what I was talking about. I was talking about mechanics that appeared in 3e and which I presume were used as inspirations for 4e. What changed, in concept or in execution, is a separate issue.

 

[Phoenix8008]

One positive I will say, I like the idea that rage lasts as long as you attack. It drops duration tracking in favor of a mechanic that encourages the player to be as aggressive as possible. Its simple and elegant.

This is my favorite thing about several items in Next. Like Advantage and Disadvantage.

 

[FireLance]

when I've playing D&D, recovery of hit points is healing, and character decisions are made solely by the person playing the character. That's not the only way of doing things, but it's not a 'bias' either.

Fair enough. I, on the other hand, have been known to imagine six impossible things before breakfast.

First off, I'm using it to describe mechanics that were piloted in 3e. So, for example a phbii knight has an ability that forces enemies to attack him. There's also the goad feat. Both abilities clearly describe the effect as a psychological manipulation of one character on another, and that the enemy is "compelled" to attack (though not "thrown into a mindless rage"). They are language-dependent and have various other mechanical properties because of this (which they would not have if there were any other rationale for the ability). So the term "martial mind control" is an accurate description; I'm not using it inappropriately.

The merits of those mechanics are debatable, but their nature is not. They are an example of the player of one character exerting control over the behavior of another character without using magic. They are martial mind control. Even some applications of the Diplomacy skill and other Cha-based skills (also a controversial topic) fit this description and are commonly known as "Diplomancy". This is all pre-4e.

The comparable 4e mechanics I don't know as much about, but that isn't the point, since they weren't primarily what I was talking about. I was talking about mechanics that appeared in 3e and which I presume were used as inspirations for 4e. What changed, in concept or in execution, is a separate issue.

You might want to edit your original post, then, since it looks like you were actually referring to "4e rules that were piloted in late 3e supplements", and not 3e rules that were used as inspirations for 4e.

EDIT: And for that matter, I don't recall any 3e rules for the non-magical recovery of hit points beyond natural healing. Even the healing maneuvers in The Book of Nine Swords were at least quasi-magical.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You might want to edit your original post, then, since it looks like you were actually referring to "4e rules that were piloted in late 3e supplements", and not 3e rules that were used as inspirations for 4e.

You're not wrong, but I don't see that it was really a big deal either way. It's not about the edition, it's about the mechanic, and I doubt the mechanics are that different but my focus was on the ones that I have access to text for.

EDIT: And for that matter, I don't recall any 3e rules for the non-magical recovery of hit points beyond natural healing. Even the healing maneuvers in The Book of Nine Swords were at least quasi-magical.

There have been several. For example, PHBII presented some "combat trance" feats (I don't have my books on hand), one of which grants fast healing during the trance. Complete Scoundrel has a skill trick that lets you heal a small amount of damage with first aid (Heal check). I don't have a comprehensive list of such mechanics, and they're not in the core books that I'm aware of, but they are out there.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

This. My son came up with the idea of carrying around a pillow as an alternate weapon to attack his allies with just to keep his rage going. I pointed out that the pillow would still be doing a minimum of 2 points of damage per hit due to the bonus damage while raging. Kinda took the wind out of his sails.

Yeah. The pillow is a clever ploy, but:

1. the image of a raging, bloodthirsty pillow fight doesn't fit.
2. By attack, they clearly mean attempt to kill things. A barbarian just doesn't get the same thrill out of hitting someone with a floral patterned Sealy.

 

[Ainamacar]

One positive I will say, I like the idea that rage lasts as long as you attack. It drops duration tracking in favor of a mechanic that encourages the player to be as aggressive as possible. Its simple and elegant.

I definitely agree. It's simple, formally puts duration into the player's control, but should also help to keep the incentives of player and character largely in sync.

It also seems like a nice mechanical theme for a larger collection of rages. I mean, various rages could be written that last as long as the character behaves appropriately rashly. Something like the one in the current package might be the basic "Fighting for your life" rage. But rages for Hatred, Targeting the Weak, Blasphemy, or Spellcasting might all be possible with various risk/reward considerations. For example, hatred might be very specific (one bad guy) or very general (everyone that is not me), but if the risk/reward for keeping it active is done well then the actual duration might not matter so much -- the player should find him or herself letting some rages end "early", either grudgingly or even with relief. Some rages might be especially excellent fits for multiclass barbarians. Non-combat effects may also have a place, in that a player might get advantage on certain kinds of checks, but would either be forced to escalate the situation in a particular way or end the rage. I wouldn't want to go too far toward narrative mechanics (this is D&D, not FATE) but I feel there is some room here.