|
Rulebook Heavily posted:So it depends on how you're using it, sort of like how you wouldn't roll every combat with goblins at level 30. The half-assed kind where you track detailed travel times and so on but where there's no set of milestones like "hex a24 is explored, well done" is something I've never done and seemed sort of pointless in the same way that encumbrance has always been ever since they removed the "gold you carry out of the dungeon is XP" rule and weight stopped mattering for advancement, but it sticks around because no one in thirty years has cared to examine why encumbrance is even there anymore. Up until now, there has been a slow decline in these sort of meta-game systems. Remember when flight was handled on a hex grid above the world that was on a square grid, and flying creatures could only turn so many degrees each combat round? That was done away with because hell if anyone wanted to track how slowly the dragon was coming around for a second pass. 4th edition did us all the huge favor of doing away (at least initially, I haven't read every Dragon and Insider) with stat modifications based on age. 3rd edition did away with characters getting fancy titles at certain levels, as well as eliminating the sudden scale-up of fights required by some portion of the party suddenly gaining armies. I would like to imagine that when designing Next they will also turn a critical eye to other leftovers that are either not really necessary to workaday four-guys-in-a-dungeon play, or at least look towards moving it into expansion modules for the game. Encumbrance, overland travel, micromanaged XP rewards (ooh, 100 for good roleplaying! I sure hope there's a joke in this chapter about giving the DM pizza!), etc. Unfortunately, this is unlikely. Still, I think we can all take a moment to imagine a world where Next releases without any of the stuff that 1st and 3rd edition are famous for (charts! Huge tables of random encounters based on fiddly differences in region! The odds that your sword will choose not to fight orcs today! The extra damage you take while immersed in lava from drowning!) and then packages them into "D&D Next: The Grognard Module".
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
gninjagnome posted:Out of curiosity, does anyone actually use the overland travel rules? Fifty Fathoms has an interlude system for travel times, which boils down to "Pick a player, they have to tell a story about the time when X happened to their character and if everyone likes it they get an action point equivalent," where X is determined by a random card draw. It's amazing.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
I've been looking at the sort of things you can do with character creation in Next. It's actually pretty versatile compared to, say, core 3.5 or anything earlier. So here's a cleric:quote:wood elven arcanist cleric, 1st level So that's pretty neat. It's a healer, a mobile ranged attacker, a stealthy scout and has some wizard control. Shocking grasp gives a nice escape tactic, all the swift action spells (cures, sanctuary) can be used while firing a bow thanks to lack of minor actions. Dex and Wis get raised as you go. Nice synergy all around. It manages to break the typical mold of a cleric and instead is some sort of cleric/mage/thief elven spy dude. But enough about elves, lets make a dwarf.  quote:mountain dwarf evocation wizard, 1st level Yep that's a wizard in scale armor with a halberd and better AC than the cleric. He's a second-line reach attacker that can fight and threaten over the tank's shoulder and still has all the wizard goodies. The halberd is there to gain advantage on OAs and threaten the area, you don't really attack with it otherwise. He can hide behind the illusion of a tree with his halberd just waiting for a monster to walk by. He can cast thunderwaves right through the frontline fighter and won't hurt his buddy thanks to evocation specialty. Dwarven armor proficiency helps with the squishy wizard issue. And this is all at first level. Bounded accuracy, low or nonexistent feat entry requirements and the lack of 'must have' feats like Expertise really help make these possible. I think over a few levels the archer/cleric would hold up better, but it's pretty neat that you can even do stuff like this and make it work.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 08:05
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Up until now, there has been a slow decline in these sort of meta-game systems. Remember when flight was handled on a hex grid above the world that was on a square grid, and flying creatures could only turn so many degrees each combat round? That was done away with because hell if anyone wanted to track how slowly the dragon was coming around for a second pass. 4th edition did us all the huge favor of doing away (at least initially, I haven't read every Dragon and Insider) with stat modifications based on age. 3rd edition did away with characters getting fancy titles at certain levels, as well as eliminating the sudden scale-up of fights required by some portion of the party suddenly gaining armies. All that stuff was done away with without any thought put into why it was there in the first place. Stat mods for age = penalties for casting/receiving certain spells which could add up surprisingly fast - casting Wishes or Contigencies or receiving Hastes could make you a feeble old man before you knew it. Followers = fighter/wizard balance. "Commands a small army" was supposed to be roughly equal in power to "Casts fifth level spells". Look where that ended up going when followers got removed and magic stayed nearly the same (or even got easier). Encumberance would have been a good one to remove during the 1e-2e transition where XP was no longer mostly based on treasure hauled out of a dungeon, but it stayed in (and stayed, and stayed...) I'm all for removing redundant stuff, but a lot of the stuff that got removed over the years wasn't actually redundant. Even the dragon's turning circle is fairly important if the rest of the system was written assuming that a flying dragon can't attack every round (but this is one of the ones where 4e really nailed it, removing the stupid and adjusting everything else to fit). Edit: poo poo, I thought it was 3.5 that did away with stat modifiers for age. Or maybe it was 3.5 that did away with the "ages you a year" thing. Either way, you're right about that one. ritorix posted:(Dwarf Wizard) Yes, yes I am. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:24 on May 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 08:10
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Interesting casters Now make an interesting fighter (you can't)
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
Piell posted:Now make an interesting fighter (you can't) He already did, it's that wizard 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
I guess if you spent all your feats on it you could make a pretty cool fighter with some magic powers. If you take Magical Rejuvenation (no sooner than third level though), that gives you the "ability to cast at least one first level spell" prerequisite, and you can then spend more feats on the anti-magic feats. The idea of a warrior who shrugs off magic attacks and punches spells off his friends is kinda cool. Unfortunately, you have to give up fighting competency (like the ability to trip people) to do it. Edit: Also you need 12 Wisdom to pull it off, and will need 10-12 intelligence to be able to get the later antimagic feats. So you'll need to give up some STR, DEX, or CON to do it too. Which combined with giving up taking other fighter feats will probably ruin you as a fighter. Edit again: gently caress, the game isn't released yet and you already have to do an amazing amount of feat fuckery to do anything cool. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 14:57 on May 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 14:54
|
|
|
First suggested way to make a cool fighter is to take some wizard stuff. Next truly has captured the spirit of D&D (3.x) e: I miss the indestructible drunkard from the early builds though. He was neat.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
Splicer posted:First suggested way to make a cool fighter is to take some wizard stuff. Next truly has captured the spirit of D&D (3.x) Or give a cleric a bow, yeah. Edit: I'm sure you could make a cool fighter with the warrior-y feats provided, but the question was "make an interesting fighter" and the first thing that came to mind was "make a dude who can't be enspelled". The only really stupid part is the anti-magic stuff being classified as magical, and the requirement to be able to cast spells to use it. If those things weren't there, it would make a cool, interesting fighter without using any wizard stuff. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 15:00 on May 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
Never realized how skewed it is when Magic-users are the only ones with access to all the anti-magic tools.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 15:16
|
|
|
Really they're the ones with access to all the tools by mid levels. I guess they can't wield swords but that's mostly offset by being able to poo poo fireballs on everything they can't mind control or immobilise. Also, martials can swing their swords all day, and wizards have a limited number of spells, except for the ones that are not limited (which aren't even that much better than swinging a sword).
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
Well come on now, really, you expect a fighter to be able to be anti-magical in any way? That's not realistic. Clearly the only way to stop magic is by casting magic. Please tell me if I'm close to their way of thinking this through.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Well come on now, really, you expect a fighter to be able to be anti-magical in any way? That's not realistic. Clearly the only way to stop magic is by casting magic. Please tell me if I'm close to their way of thinking this through.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
There's an idea in folklore that cold iron is so real and earthly that it's kryptonite to the fairy folk. Wizards in D&D can't wear metal armor because metal interferes with magic for similar reasons. So of course the only way to negate magic in Next is still even more of the stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Man, a theme or prestige class or feat chain or whatever it is they call these things these days where you eat nails to become immune to magic (and also gain DR and stuff because seriously, look at all that iron) would be pretty boss.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Or maybe it was 3.5 that did away with the "ages you a year" thing.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
moths posted:Wizards in D&D can't wear metal armor because metal interferes with magic for similar reasons. I thought this was more because of D&D's wargame roots? Wizards are the Artillery and those can't really do much to protect themselves once the enemy is right up next to it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Man, a theme or prestige class or feat chain or whatever it is they call these things these days where you eat nails to become immune to magic (and also gain DR and stuff because seriously, look at all that iron) would be pretty boss.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
That may have been the original reasoning, but giving metal armor a chance to cause spell failure is classic DnD. I think this was also the reasoning behind Dwarf spell resistance. They were grounded of the earth and not subject to silly magic. The idea of a wizard slaying fighter swallowing grape shot, pierced with nails, and a steel plate in his head is brutal and , but we'll never see it in Next because martial << magic now.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:I thought this was more because of D&D's wargame roots? Wizards are the Artillery and those can't really do much to protect themselves once the enemy is right up next to it. That's the original reason, but everything past BECMI/AD&D just does it like that because that's how it's done. If the metal interfered with the magic as a "this is the way the world works" thing, then you should be able to wreck a caster by running your armored arse up to him and giving him a hug*, at which point his magic fails and you can administer the wedgie that the scrawny nerd desperately deserves. Next doesn't say anything about metal armor, just that you can't cast spells in armor you're not proficient in. So dwarves can cast spells in armor, because they have a racial ability that gives them proficiency in light and medium armor. *Edit: Or throwing a metallic net over him. Even if it weighed as much as a chain shirt or suit of plate mail, an 18-str fighter should be able to hurl it a significant distance. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 17:19 on May 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:That's the original reason, but everything past BECMI/AD&D just does it like that because that's how it's done. Well yeah, that's what I was getting at. I've never seen someone connect the 'Wizards don't get good armor' thing to the 'Cold Iron fucks with magic in some folklore' thing before. It'd be potentially interesting if D&D played that up more.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
It's pure Cargo Cult design. Let's make D&D the way D&D was always made and then we can At least the spell failure thing is gone, but how hard are proficiencies to get? It used to be a class feature of the fighter that they were the only ones able to use a vast selection of equipment, these days it's "take a feat to get what the fighter gets".
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:If the metal interfered with the magic as a "this is the way the world works" thing, then you should be able to wreck a caster by running your armored arse up to him and giving him a hug*, at which point his magic fails and you can administer the wedgie that the scrawny nerd desperately deserves. This actually sounds like a fun piece of worldbuilding. Plus, it would give Fighters a way to deal with wizards!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
Actually, Chainmail wizards count as two armored foot soldiers (or two cavalrymen if mounted). They're also immune to ranged attacks (which is funny since a kobold with a shortbow is the bane of a 1st level D&D wizard). There are lower-level wizards who get fewer spells and take a penalty of -1 to -4 on their attack dice, but they were always an elite troop.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:It's pure Cargo Cult design. Let's make D&D the way D&D was always made and then we can That particular feature has been cargo cult design for so long that it's not easy to spot if you've mostly only played D&D. That actually goes for a lot of the stuff in Next. The line of reasoning goes "Well if everyone could wear any armor, then wizards would be walking around in full plate, just like fighters, and that's a bad thing!" which on the surface makes perfect sense, but when you get into the why it's a bad thing and what you could do to prevent it while also dropping this legacy rule, it falls apart pretty fast.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
The usual justification was that armour interfered with the 'delicate gestures' one needed to perform to do magic. Oddly, bards were able to perform those delicate gestures in light armour as well.  Still, 2E had this quote:There are even unfounded theories that claim the materials in most armors disrupt the delicate fabric of a spell as it gathers energy; the two cannot exist side by side in harmony. While this idea is popular with the common people, true wizards know this is simply not true. If it were, how would they ever be able to cast spells requiring iron braziers or metal bowls?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Man, a theme or prestige class or feat chain or whatever it is they call these things these days where you eat nails to become immune to magic (and also gain DR and stuff because seriously, look at all that iron) would be pretty boss. It would also lend itself to really cool sounding names like "Nailbiter" and "Metalhead"
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
That and slam-dunking your helmet onto a wizard to make him a worthless old man before you gut him.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
You could make Van Helsing the 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:Well yeah, that's what I was getting at. I've never seen someone connect the 'Wizards don't get good armor' thing to the 'Cold Iron fucks with magic in some folklore' thing before. It'd be potentially interesting if D&D played that up more. One thing off the top of my head that does this is Demon Souls. There is a set of armor and a weapon that while wearing it you reduce the potency of all magic by 80-90%. For a wizard class this is a death sentence since your magic suddenly becomes a rough tickle but for a warrior it lets him laugh (as much as demon souls lets you laugh) in the face of magical foes. When I first played DnD as a kid I just assumed that's how it worked, heavy armor dulled magic fields so a wizard never wanted to wear it. Actually, I was slightly dumber, I assumed it was a triangle with Fighter beating Magic who beats Rogue who beats Fighter. Instead as the editions went on I realized it was rogue and fighter do nothing while wizard beats all. Barudak fucked around with this message at 18:00 on May 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
Barudak posted:One thing off the top of my head that does this is Demon Souls. There is a set of armor and a weapon that while wearing it you reduce the potency of all magic by 80-90%. For a wizard class this is a death sentence since your magic suddenly becomes a rough tickle but for a warrior it lets him laugh (as much as demon souls lets you laugh) in the face of magical foes. 3.X kinda had a similar theoretical triangle with fighter-monk-wizard. A fighter beat a monk in a straight fight, a wizard blasted/charmed the hell out of a fighter, but a monk had magic resistance, good saves, and could tumble through a lot of enemies to get up to a wizard and grapple him. That's the theory, anyway; the only effective monk I ever saw had pretty ridiculous ability scores so that he could benefit from his MAD rather than suffer from it, and it's my understanding that very few people have ever seen an effective monk.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:All that stuff was done away with without any thought put into why it was there in the first place. This didn't even work in the editions it started in because everybody just played elves.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:This didn't even work in the editions it started in because everybody just played elves. At some point (although I think it was much longer than a human lifetime) your elf character would go on some mythical blah-blah elf poo poo and disappear forever which was their way of age-killing elves.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:This didn't even work in the editions it started in because everybody just played elves. It was never my experience that everyone played elves, mostly because they were limited to level 11 as magic-users. Which meant that every age-causing spell except Haste was beyond their abilities anyway. A human wizard had maybe 4 or 5 Gates before he was feeling it, and considering all the other stuff that would cause aging, it wasn't exactly a non-issue.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Sefer posted:the only effective monk I ever saw had pretty ridiculous ability scores so that he could benefit from his MAD rather than suffer from it, and it's my understanding that very few people have ever seen an effective monk.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
In the Vlad Taltos books, entire armies would fight hand to hand in no armor whatsoever (or wood armor), because anything metal on your person was basically a lightning rod for the sorcerer's corps they had in the back ranks. A certain class of warrior monks wore bronze vambraces at the most, which Vlad described as suicidally stupid. You dealt with wizards by getting the drop on them or outsmarting them, or having a magic-nullifying macguffin like Vlad, assuming he was quick enough to use it. I'm fine with magic working that way too. The problem here is symptomatic of D&D having no setting, just a collection of rules that started out as a loose emulation of genre and became a dogma that SHALL NEVER CHANGE, NAY UNTO THE ENDING OF THE WORLD. Since there is no cohesive logic to anything written in the rules, it can't help but be a mishmosh of "well, I guess THAT makes sense," predicated on tradition rather than any logical process. Hence, magic rules over everything, because when you have an all-powerful force that'd kinda be what happened, because nerd fantasies. The idea that Vlad Taltos could beat a wizard by throwing a knife at his back is of course unthinkable, because  , not because of anything written in the books regarding the actual game.Awesome metal-chomping fighters are set dressing for a setting that doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
alphadog posted:It was never my experience that everyone played elves, mostly because they were limited to level 11 as magic-users. Which meant that every age-causing spell except Haste was beyond their abilities anyway. I feel like racial level caps has to be the single most ignored rule in any edition. They're totally binary, they're either not a restriction in low level games or a complete wall at high level games. Naturally I think we should expect to see them again in Next, with a module that removes them.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
theironjef posted:I feel like racial level caps has to be the single most ignored rule in any edition. They're totally binary, they're either not a restriction in low level games or a complete wall at high level games. Naturally I think we should expect to see them again in Next, with a module that removes them. Racial level restrictions and aging from spells are the two most ignored rules in my experience.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:That's the original reason, but everything past BECMI/AD&D just does it like that because that's how it's done. Wasn't it a thing in 3.5 that if you were grappled or restrained you couldn't cast most spells without special feats? I seem to recall my sorcerer getting jacked up because he got grappled by an evil octpus or something.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
KillerQueen posted:Wasn't it a thing in 3.5 that if you were grappled or restrained you couldn't cast most spells without special feats? Yes, which is why after a certain level caster-caster fights were decided by who cast Evard's Black Tentacles first.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 20:58
|
|