Mattachine
Adventurer
I get that--and I would just prefer that Unaligned were split away from "cosmic balance". They are really, really different things, so why put them under the same alignment?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Rule of Three: 20/3/12
- Thread starter GM Dave
- Start date
I get that--and I would just prefer that Unaligned were split away from "cosmic balance". They are really, really different things, so why put them under the same alignment?
So are personal code vs. rule of law. All the alignments group a number of loosely related views into one.
Kobold Avenger
Legend
The removal of the 9 alignments was one of the biggest things I hated about 4e, so I'm glad they're back. However I don't think that alignment should have anything to do with qualifying for base classes. The answer to that question seems to imply it won't.
DogBackward
First Post
Minions
A lot of people seem to be complaining that one-hit kill normal monsters won't cover the "minion" role, because a big role of minions was reduced complexity. A lot of people seem to be forgetting that the roll of the entire Next system is "reduced complexity". You're not gonna have every standard monster and his pet with seven different abilities and five different reactions. You won't have a level one orc with three different abilities to track. All monsters will have reduced complexity, which makes minions purely a matter of hit points. Like in the older systems, giving normal monsters special abilities will almost certainly be a matter of giving them class levels.
Also, someone mentioned that with flat math, 100 level 1 orcs could kill a level 20 character. I fail to see this as a bad thing: if I want to play a supers game, Evil Hat just came out with an awesome system, thanks. If one man is going up against 100 orcs... yes, he'll eventually die. Because that makes a hell of a lot more sense than him not dying. The amazing and badass nature of that scenario comes from the fact that the guy's still alive after the first bloody round. You'll note that even in high fantasy, most "One man holds off an entire army" scenarios don't usually end well for the one man...
Alignment
You'll notice that they specifically call out that the mechanical effects of alignment will be reserved for the powerful aligned beings, not just your everyday evil shmuck. No, detect evil doesn't register Bill the Thief as evil, because he's not a demon or undead. No, Unholy Blight doesn't hurt Glenda the Good Witch, because she's not an angel or deva (as far as we know...)
Multiple Attacks
I don't think there need to be multiple attack rolls to get multiple effects on an attack. If they work the combat system right, you could be able to just add extra effects on a high enough roll. Or have the target make a save against an effect when you roll (opposed rolls don't slow down combat, you can both roll at the same time. it's actually really easy). And basic combat maneuvers not comparing to spells is okay by me, since they seem to be giving out less spells per day and not allowing stats to increase that amount. If I can push and shove people all day while still smacking them in the face, I don't really mind if a Wizard can dominate a combat round or two.
A lot of people seem to be complaining that one-hit kill normal monsters won't cover the "minion" role, because a big role of minions was reduced complexity. A lot of people seem to be forgetting that the roll of the entire Next system is "reduced complexity". You're not gonna have every standard monster and his pet with seven different abilities and five different reactions. You won't have a level one orc with three different abilities to track. All monsters will have reduced complexity, which makes minions purely a matter of hit points. Like in the older systems, giving normal monsters special abilities will almost certainly be a matter of giving them class levels.
Also, someone mentioned that with flat math, 100 level 1 orcs could kill a level 20 character. I fail to see this as a bad thing: if I want to play a supers game, Evil Hat just came out with an awesome system, thanks. If one man is going up against 100 orcs... yes, he'll eventually die. Because that makes a hell of a lot more sense than him not dying. The amazing and badass nature of that scenario comes from the fact that the guy's still alive after the first bloody round. You'll note that even in high fantasy, most "One man holds off an entire army" scenarios don't usually end well for the one man...
Alignment
You'll notice that they specifically call out that the mechanical effects of alignment will be reserved for the powerful aligned beings, not just your everyday evil shmuck. No, detect evil doesn't register Bill the Thief as evil, because he's not a demon or undead. No, Unholy Blight doesn't hurt Glenda the Good Witch, because she's not an angel or deva (as far as we know...)
Multiple Attacks
I don't think there need to be multiple attack rolls to get multiple effects on an attack. If they work the combat system right, you could be able to just add extra effects on a high enough roll. Or have the target make a save against an effect when you roll (opposed rolls don't slow down combat, you can both roll at the same time. it's actually really easy). And basic combat maneuvers not comparing to spells is okay by me, since they seem to be giving out less spells per day and not allowing stats to increase that amount. If I can push and shove people all day while still smacking them in the face, I don't really mind if a Wizard can dominate a combat round or two.
Grazzt
Demon Lord
Because of this part... "Since AC and attack bonuses aren't automatically scaling up..."
OH FOR PETE'S SAKE!!!
The game is still a YEAR AND A HALF AWAY AT LEAST!!! You have NO IDEA what the rules actually are, let alone whether they match what you think they should be!
You've heard SNIPPETS of small, POSSIBLE rules within an ALPHA VERSION of the game. You and I have no idea whether there is damage on a miss... whether or not some monsters might have damage roll expressions AND an 'average' damage listing right after in parenthesis (to use as simple minion damage). And none of us have seen any sort of Monster Manual entry to find out if MAYBE PERHAPS there will be several entries for 'orc', and one of them them might have nothing more than a basic attack and THAT'S IT (thereby being as simple as a 4E 'minion' entry, just without the 'minion' keyword on it.) So all this clamoring about not having "real minions" in the game is quite possibly pretty much negated.
This is why WE HAVE PLAYTESTS.
So that YOU can playtest the game, find out FOR YOURSELF what options or rules are in the game, and then MAKE SUGGESTIONS to have some things you think might be useful put into the game. Rather than just get all huffy NOW and start throwing around ridiculous claims that WotC is now forcing you to houserule a game that doesn't even exist yet. I mean come on! Ugh!
Mattachine
Adventurer
I guess that I don't consider "cosmic balance", "nature's way", and "not interested" as loosely related. The first two, sure, but not the third--making a choice to pursue or preserve balance is really different from not choosing anything at all, or not even being aware that choices exist.
KesselZero
First Post
1. I'm torn on the minion issue; I think both sides make good points. But I think I lean towards the Ro3 concept here. I love minions, but they're very gamey, and players are always looking for them then calling them out. Plus I really support the stated design goal of flattening the math so lower-level monsters stay threatening for longer, and this is a logical consequence of that. Lastly, I think the feel and flavor of hitting level 6 and killing lots of the same orcs who troubled you at level 1 is much better than hitting level 6 and killing lots of orcs who have level 6 AC but 1 HP. You'll still have roughly the same chance of hitting each other, but your improved damage will put the hurt on them much quicker. My only concern is that they account for the lack of scaling damage, hopefully by flattening the HP curve somewhat as well (though that's just my personal preference).
2. I agree with the call for Unaligned to stay in as seperate from True Neutral, and I think what RT is saying is that alignment won't have mechanical effects for normal creatures (mean Farmer Bob, e.g., or evil orcs). It'll only have mechanical effects with creatures that are pure expressions of that alignment: angels, devils, divine avatars, etc. He says, "the execution of those mechanics should serve that goal, and really only apply when dealing with the powerful, elemental forces of alignments, not someone who just behaves a certain way." So no effect outside of RP guidance for normal creatures, and probably mechanical effects only at higher levels, too.
3. My reading of the fighter thing is actually that the 3e multiple attack bonus mechanic might be back. He specifically says "a mix-and-match system combining maneuvers and multiple attacks; on my turn, I charge the orc, then use my next attack to disarm him, and my final attack to push him back away from the weapon he dropped." So maybe we'll have something like the +11/+6/+1 BAB, and you can choose to make three attacks, three maneuvers, or some combo; plus, you could choose which bonuses to use for which choices based on how important you think it is to disarm rather than deal damage rather than trip.
2. I agree with the call for Unaligned to stay in as seperate from True Neutral, and I think what RT is saying is that alignment won't have mechanical effects for normal creatures (mean Farmer Bob, e.g., or evil orcs). It'll only have mechanical effects with creatures that are pure expressions of that alignment: angels, devils, divine avatars, etc. He says, "the execution of those mechanics should serve that goal, and really only apply when dealing with the powerful, elemental forces of alignments, not someone who just behaves a certain way." So no effect outside of RP guidance for normal creatures, and probably mechanical effects only at higher levels, too.
3. My reading of the fighter thing is actually that the 3e multiple attack bonus mechanic might be back. He specifically says "a mix-and-match system combining maneuvers and multiple attacks; on my turn, I charge the orc, then use my next attack to disarm him, and my final attack to push him back away from the weapon he dropped." So maybe we'll have something like the +11/+6/+1 BAB, and you can choose to make three attacks, three maneuvers, or some combo; plus, you could choose which bonuses to use for which choices based on how important you think it is to disarm rather than deal damage rather than trip.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
I think the idea that attack bonuses and AC aren't going to automatically scale is set in stone. The exact rate is probably still up in the air. Since the details are the important thing here, it could go anywhere, for good or ill.
On minions, I don't see any reason why basic creatures, that will eventually become "minons" can't have a few helpful bits of text in their stat block and description. Put the average damage already calculated after the basic damage expression. List a "simple power" that can replace anything more complex--or be used as is, at the DM's discretion. Some DMs might enjoy switching to average damage well before "kill in one normal hit" becomes likely.
Heck, when it comes to "exploding minons" and the like, simply have a power listed that causes them to explode (or whatever) if killed in one hit. That puts an interesting limitation on overly powerful attacks.
