Something Awful leak.

[Sunseeker]

I'm largely indifferent as I almost always used software to build monsters, be it actual Wizards proprietary stuff or someone else's. If wizards can roll out a tool I can use to build a monster in oh, 5 minutes, I'll be fine. I do agree however that 4e's monster-building system was great, I really loved simply creating whatever the heck I wanted in terms of powers, provided the numbers are balanced for the appropriate challenge.

 

[Halivar]

I'm largely indifferent as I almost always used software to build monsters, be it actual Wizards proprietary stuff or someone else's. If wizards can roll out a tool I can use to build a monster in oh, 5 minutes, I'll be fine. I do agree however that 4e's monster-building system was great, I really loved simply creating whatever the heck I wanted in terms of powers, provided the numbers are balanced for the appropriate challenge.

My favorite part of 4E was how, with aid of page 42, I could ad hoc unexpected monsters on-the-fly during play. Granted, they did not have the depth of my preplanned encounters, but the players never knew the difference.

 

[M.L. Martin]

I don't mind monsters not fully following PC rules, but they should have the basics like ability scores so there is at least some common baseline for comparison.

Giving monsters ability scores isn't a problem, and given what we've heard about the resolution and save system in Next/5E/Ouroboros Edition, it's almost a given that they'll have them. The trifecta of making scores uncapped, 'realistic' and applying in exactly the same way as they do to PCs can be a problem. Or do we want to go back to the days when a Great Red Wyrm got 2/3rds of its HP from its Con bonus?

One thing I do want is fluff back in the MM ... 4e MM was the blandest most uninspiring D&D monster book ... I mean I love reading monster books so something is wrong when one is syphoning-off my will to live as I read it.

This has been fixed--the Monster Vaults have some of the best fluff ever in a D&D monster book. I hope that format makes it through to Next/5E/OE; it's what I consider the real home-run of Essentials.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think a lot of people are missing what catastrophic is saying, so perhaps an analogy will help out.

I work in a shop where I regularly interact with our code developer group. The primary program they work with deals with almost all of the regulated work we do (we are a contract pharmaceutical lab).

This program was originally written in the late 90s by someone who had no formal programming experience, and they did a great job for what they knew about and what they could imagine the business would grow to include. What they did not do, and it's hardly surprising since they weren't trained as a programmer, was make things modular. At all.

Since then, we have grown to generate about 100x the work, and the software now has a team of six full time developers, who all do modular coding. The underlying code base, however, has largely not changed.

This is not good. In fact, it's about the worst thing you can possibly have, and it has resulted in the application becoming something like the Winchester Mystery House, where modules are built all over the place on top of each other. Since there's very little consistent underlying structure, it makes development a royal pain, with many, many problems, since nothing was developed to work together.

In the next couple years, we are going to be hiring a few more developers, and re-doing almost the entire thing from scratch.

Consider that redesign an edition change in D&D. If you create the foundation of the edition in a consistent, modular fashion, you can easily build out a variety of modules on it. For example, if you have a consistent class structure, you can easily add powers to it. If not, your module becomes redesigning each class from scratch.

I haven't seen much that's real about 5E, but what I have seen has not been modular at all: it's simply been a rehash of basic D&D from the late 70s. That edition is simple, but it has many, many assumptions about how classes work that are not portable or modular. If the advanced combat and the advanced powers module have to rewrite the combat and class system from the ground up, you don't have a module, you have a different game that still uses the same attributes and a D20.

I know the thread has run on quite a ways probably since this was posted, but take it from another system's engineering guy, you simply cannot create a system that will support additions and replacement of core bits of functionality with other modules when the basic system is pea soup.

First you have to have a 'lexicon'. This defines what each thing is within the system. Each thing has various attributes and meanings. These can be relied on by all the other elements of the system and each module can 'talk to' the other modules in a way they can all understand so they work consistently together. This is CRITICAL. Let me say it again this is critical. No modular system can succeed without it. Note that not only does the common currency of the lexicon have to exist. It has to be EXPOSED. That is it has to be clear to everyone what is in that lexicon and thus what things are allowed to be relied on.

An example would be hit points. Not only would you say hypothetically define what a hit point represents, say "a measure of durability/luck/skill" but how it is used "damage is rated in hit points", and also what the scale is "8 hit points of damage is enough to kill most normal humans". Now, if I want to make a new weapon system I can say "hmmm, damage is done in hit points, so I can rate weapon damage in hit points. Oh, 8 points is a fatal wound to a normal person. OK, my sword should be able to do 8 points of damage pretty often if I want swords to be deadly weapons".

Now, look at the messy conditions system and the thinking that it implies in this 5e playtest. There's no lexicon. There's an open ended list of overlapping things. Its a mess, pure and simple. Of course maybe there's some rules system expert guy over there at WotC ready to go step in and put this back on track. However...

IME (and I've built probably 40 or more complex software projects in my career and been a lead engineer since the mid 80's) any project that doesn't START OUT with these kinds of ground rules I've outlined above and that SteveC outlined, is almost certainly doomed to fail. I say 'almost' because there are exceptions and there are degrees of failure, but actually I've yet to see ANY project that wasn't organized along these lines REALLY succeed.

My fear isn't really for what 5e is at all. My fear is that WotC hasn't got the systems engineering skills required to do a project with the remit that the 5e project has. If this leak is actually accurate in what it states then 5e is already a project in big trouble. If I was a customer putting this out for contract with them, I'd definitely have a couple of systems guys trundle on over there and take a gander at what they're up to and see what exactly they think they're doing.

 

[KarinsDad]

"Until the start of your next turn" gives you the ability to have effects persist through your turn, but also during the rest of the round, without giving you access to it NEXT round. This is especially valuable for an at-will effect that requires you to constantly charge it up. Otherwise you can double-dip and get two such abilities revved up at the same time.

I asked for an example. Saying what the result is without having a good example for where the power definitely gains something real doesn't mean anything. For what At Will does this significantly matter where End of Your Next Turn wouldn't work just as well?

For example:

Devastating Strike. The difference between Start of Your Next Turn and End of Your Next turn means that if you provoke an OA (a relatively rare occurrence which player controls) against the foe and if you are not raging, the foe gets +2 to the hit roll which means that maybe 10% of the time * 10% of the time or probably less than 1% of the time, this could actually matter.

Is a 1% difference in outcome worth it when compared to simplifying the rules? Not in my book.

"Until the end of your next turn" lets you double-dip on an ability, ensuring that you have a decent chance of utilizing it.

It only typically allows you to double dip if you are using an Action Point. For example, Blistering Flourish. If this power wasn't until end of your next turn, it wouldn't do anything above a melee basic.

And, there are a ton of powers where there is no such thing as double dipping. Burden of Earth only allows a single +1 bonus. Shield Feint only allows a single +3 bonus.

Or, powers that allow double dipping, but it requires subpar play. For example, Vicious Mockery is a debuff, so the only way to double dip it is to provoke an OA with it. Hardly something worth discussing.

"Until the start of the target's next turn." throttles back an ability, which is good for effects that have more to do with you than the target, or which represents a limit that the target can easily break once they can act. "Dazed until the start of its next turn," for example, staves off OAs and grants CA, and can stop them during this turn, but doesn't kill their action economy next round. "Slowed until the start of its next turn" can halt a charger in its tracks, without making the opponent useless next round.

A lot of "until the start of your next turn" is actually for whether something happens, not for a buff or debuff or nasty effect for that duration. For example, Escalating Violence. And like the Devastating Strike example above, the Barbarian would have to provoke an OA if EV was an end of your next turn power in order to get a slight bonus to hit and damage. Sure, it would be an option, but hardly game breaking.

Can you give an example of a throttle back with this?

"Until the end of the target's next turn." ensures that the effect WILL affect the target, regardless of when you use it. This is important for your more limited effects, like dailies.

It's not important at all. Until the end of your next turn is a superset of end of target's next turn and also ensures that the effect WILL affect the target, so this option isn't needed. It has no significant gain.

Unless you have an example where end of target's next turn is balanced and end of your next turn isn't.


There really is no need for 4 different types of partial round durations. One is sufficient.

 

[Hussar]

To me, the real question isn't "how long should a round last?", it's "how many encounters should you be able to fit into a session without rushing?"

The answer, for me, is twelve to twenty.

Re: The problem of conditions- 4e's issue with conditions isn't how many there are, it's how many you need to keep track of in a given fight.

You later said 6-8 hour session (oh how I miss those days). So, let's split the difference on both estimates. 15 encounters in 7 hours. Now, presuming that you mean combat by encounter and not just talking to someone or disarming a trap, that would mean about 30 minutes per encounter. Give or take.

Which is a bit shorter than my 4e encounters, but, not hugely - we generally have 2-3 encounters in a 3 hour time slot which is actually closer to 2.5 hours usually. I could live with this pacing.

5-10 minutes of real time per combat round. Its more than possible because I have done it, with 7 players. This assumes an opposition roughly equal to the PCs in numbers. A large horde could take longer for the DM to resolve especially if there were groups with varying abilities.

If your 4e games are taking longer than this to resolve, you're doing it wrong. There's no reason that you can't get 10 minute rounds in 4e at all. The only big difference is that a 4e combat will probably take 10 rounds to resolve. That's fixable though - just start cutting monster HP's and whatnot. More encounters but shorter is pretty easily doable in any edition.

Put me down as not wanting to worry about monsters obeying character creation rules and please no 4E monster statblocks either. If 5E cannot be prepped and run without either software or being a major PITA then I can leave it rather than take it.

Core monster creation shouldn't get more complex than AD&D 1E.

As for NPCs, if they are adventuring classes then they should be built as such. If not then freeform like monsters works fine.

Umm, I've been prepping 4e for over a year now with no computer assistance. If you "need" software to do your 4e monsters, again, you're doing it wrong. Given that adjusting monsters is ridiculously easy and the stat blocks are actually not that much longer than an AD&D stat block, I'm not sure what your issue is.

And, what monster creation mechanics are there in AD&D? AFAIK, it's basically all free form. There were virtually no monster creation guidelines in AD&D at all. I suppose that works for some people, but, no thank you. I want a basic monster chassis that I can just smack on some goodies and be done. "Just wing it" is lazy game design. No thanks.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Everything you said here (in slightly different terms) is the problem with 4e-style conditions.

In 4e, a monster does something, and the PC is shaken. The power doesn't say what shaken means, so you have to dig up the PHB and look it up.

I think what the designer was saying about the hypothetical "power word stun" is that it would say "stun," and then it would describe what being stunned means. So you would still have the keyword, and there would still be a list of them somewhere, but you don't have to look it up every time, as the definition would be right there.

Hopefully.

Nah, not really a good idea. 4e has exactly 16 conditions, and I can name them all off the top of my head and tell you what every one of them does. Each one is distinct and has a very specific reason for existing in the game, and the list was carefully vetted. Beyond that this list has been hit with a couple of errata. You can't errata 'stunned' if it appears in 12 different places in the rule books (well, you COULD, but have fun). Common text should appear once. It is also SIMPLE to look up the conditions. They ALL appear on page 277 of the PHB1. Moreover the rules do not contemplate the addition of more conditions. If you were to want an effect of some sort that was basically a 'condition' and wasn't in that master list, you'd create it by composition, not by inventing a whole new condition that almost inevitably rehashes elements (if not all of) some other condition somewhere. It is also quite simple for conditions to be overridden in 4e. Thus for instance a monster can simply have in its stat block "Immune to daze and stun conditions" (or whatever). In fact this is done quite often in monster design.

What the 5e document is proposing is MUCH MUCH worse game design than the 4e condition system. It is hard to maintain, hard to update, and would be hard to use (lets see, should this be nauseated or weakened...).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You won't hear me complain if they get simplified. I think 4e has too many conditions, personally. I'm sure not everyone agrees with that, but there are only a dozen we seem to use regularly.

Yeah, it SEEMS like it does. Its weird though. When you actually go through the list of 16 4e conditions, which ones would you remove? Many of them exist for reasons having to do with explaining how to handle logical real-world situations (unconscious, blind, deafened, slowed, prone, etc) and kind of HAVE to exist (if they didn't then the rules would still have to tell you what to do in these situations). Others are just so basically handy that it is hard to see how they could be removed (dazed, dominated, marked, stunned, weakened). By the time you go down the whole list you find that it is a darn tight list. There's no one condition in there that you can easily say "eh, we can just do without this" (immobilized MAYBE), and in 4 years almost of running 4e I have yet to find something that I could say "I really need another condition to describe this situation".

I get that there's always a strong desire to simplify, and I'm all for it in spades. Yet the 4e condition list is really an example IMHO of a very tight and well-thought-out list. I'd say the 4e skill list is another one that is similar. Clearly a lot of thought went into both of those lists. You could maybe tweak either one a little but it is hard to argue they're far off from dead perfect.

 

[Lanefan]

Halve that and you are closer to what I'd like to see.

And that's for the first round. Optimally combat should accelerate as characters die and options grow fewer, so that once the outcome is no longer in doubt we don't have to waste time on it. As is, it mostly slows down as the number of conditions and hit point totals to keep in mind grows, except when there are a lot of enemies to start with. I fix this by having the enemy flee/surrender as soon as the combat seems decided.

I'd much rather have my thirty minute boss fight take ten three minute rounds than three ten minute rounds. That would mean players never have to wait long for their turn.

Three minutes to play through a round seems mighty fast even by 1e standards.

Of course, if the combat is 4 PCs vs. a straightforward monster e.g. a dumb Giant then the rounds will go by really fast.

But if you've got a party of 10 PCs up against somewhere between three and fifty foes* (depending how many decide to join in, their participation is not guaranteed), the most significant of which have high-level class abilities including spells and devices and who are not themselves a unified force, each round is going to take some serious time to play.

* - this is exactly the scenario I ran on Friday - each round took about 10-20 minutes once things got going.

My favorite part of 4E was how, with aid of page 42, I could ad hoc unexpected monsters on-the-fly during play. Granted, they did not have the depth of my preplanned encounters, but the players never knew the difference.

Doesn't just apply to 4e. Generating monsters on the fly is pretty simple in any edition once you've been at it for a while.

And monsters should not have to use the same "rules" as PCs...nor should they have to use the same rules as other monsters, for all that. The charm ability of a Vampire is much different than that of a Dryad, for example, and both are vastly different from what a "Charm Person" spell can do. Trying to shoehorn them all into being the same is simply a Bad Idea.

As for duration, I have no problem with duration being level-based - it's easy enough to count rounds, or segments for that matter. If you resolve a 1-round-duration spell on a '4' initiative its effects are going to wear off on '4' next round - how hard is that?

Lan-"charmed, I'm sure"-efan

 

[nightwyrm]

Yeah, it SEEMS like it does. Its weird though. When you actually go through the list of 16 4e conditions, which ones would you remove? Many of them exist for reasons having to do with explaining how to handle logical real-world situations (unconscious, blind, deafened, slowed, prone, etc) and kind of HAVE to exist (if they didn't then the rules would still have to tell you what to do in these situations). Others are just so basically handy that it is hard to see how they could be removed (dazed, dominated, marked, stunned, weakened). By the time you go down the whole list you find that it is a darn tight list. There's no one condition in there that you can easily say "eh, we can just do without this" (immobilized MAYBE), and in 4 years almost of running 4e I have yet to find something that I could say "I really need another condition to describe this situation".

I get that there's always a strong desire to simplify, and I'm all for it in spades. Yet the 4e condition list is really an example IMHO of a very tight and well-thought-out list. I'd say the 4e skill list is another one that is similar. Clearly a lot of thought went into both of those lists. You could maybe tweak either one a little but it is hard to argue they're far off from dead perfect.

I think a reason people found 4e to have too many conditions is because everyone in 4e can inflict those conditions. Pre-4e, the only conditions non-casters can deal out with any regularity is prone. Everything else is the province of casters, and mainly the wizards who focuses on debuffing. If there's only 1 debuffer in the whole party, there's going to be a lot less conditions to track.