|
Piell posted:Why not just have a set DC and have saving throws go up by level? It's exactly the same as what he's saying without the stupid "lower is better" poo poo that we finally managed to ditch when 2E ended. The trade-off there is that then you have to do some basic math every time you roll your save. Having some big numbers be good and some be bad is a little messy, but just rolling a d20 and checking to see if it's over a number is a bit smoother in-play than rolling a d20, adding a number to it, and then checking it against a number. It's not a huge difference in speed and ease of use, but honestly neither is the 'low numbers are sometimes good' thing.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 08:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
OtspIII posted:The trade-off there is that then you have to do some basic math every time you roll your save. Having some big numbers be good and some be bad is a little messy, but just rolling a d20 and checking to see if it's over a number is a bit smoother in-play than rolling a d20, adding a number to it, and then checking it against a number. It's not a huge difference in speed and ease of use, but honestly neither is the 'low numbers are sometimes good' thing. My question to you, then, would be that if roll-under is easier than roll-and-add-stuff-and-get-over, then why don't we just move to an entirely roll-under system? Using a bunch of different dice mechanics sort of tells me that you (the game designer, not you-the-poster) are not really sure which of those works the best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 09:03
|
|
|
If D&D goes back to "lower is better" and people sign up knowing that that's the "new" system, is it too much to say that they deserve everything they get from that point forward? Christ. THAC0 is the most infamously counter-intuitive, time-consuming bullshit in the history of D&D (there's stuff that's worse, but the THAC0 system is the poster-child). And I thought my entire turn being one d20 roll was as bad as it could get. The joke's on me!J. Alfred Prufrock posted:My question to you, then, would be that if roll-under is easier than roll-and-add-stuff-and-get-over, then why don't we just move to an entirely roll-under system? Using a bunch of different dice mechanics sort of tells me that you (the game designer, not you-the-poster) are not really sure which of those works the best. Since Mearls thinks "game design" is "ask the Twitterverse," that's a pretty accurate summation of his stance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 09:14
|
|
|
Roll low or roll high are equally intuitive, as long as you pick one and stick with it. It's just a case of whether your bonus is added to the roll or the target number, and the latter may be easier to determine odds. Look at roll-under like this for a situation where you're rolling a d20, the target number is 10 and you have a 5 point bonus: You have 10 chances out of 20 to succeed. Add your 5 bonus to the "chances out of 20", making it 15. Roll the dice. Was it 15 or under? Edit: That would probably tie in nicely with the whole "flat math" thing if it were set up so that numbers <1 or >20 weren't possible. Further edit: If you use smaller dice, it gets even easier to say - "you have a 3 in 8 chance of success", "wait, I have a sword +1", "cool, so you have a 4 in 8 chance". Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 09:30 on Jul 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 09:21
|
|
|
J. Alfred Prufrock posted:My question to you, then, would be that if roll-under is easier than roll-and-add-stuff-and-get-over, then why don't we just move to an entirely roll-under system? Using a bunch of different dice mechanics sort of tells me that you (the game designer, not you-the-poster) are not really sure which of those works the best. Having a target number written directly on your character sheet is better if there's going to be minimal fiddly stuff interacting with it. If there's going to be any degree of fiddling (like, even if there's just going to be variable difficulty ratings) then having a roll+bonus system is better. I'd say that using a bunch of game mechanics actually means you understand which is the optimal one in each situation pretty well. . .but that you don't really consider the fact that having a bunch of different mechanics is kind of a pain in the rear end for new players. It's a trade-off between a tiny increase in how smooth the game is to run for experienced people versus a tiny increase in how smooth it is to run for new people, so I'm pretty okay with either path. I just want them to get rid of wizards getting to gently caress with spell save difficulties. Roll under is a pain, though (assuming it's mixed with roll-over mechanics). That poo poo can get confusing, but the suggested system is still always roll-over. It's just that sometimes you write out the bonus you get to your roll and sometimes you write out the roll's target number on your character sheet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 09:34
|
|
|
I like the core of thac0 (d20+mod, roll over your target number) AC is what muddies it up, and even that's super marginal. It's still not as bad as the fantasy flight system where you have to count degrees (gross)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 09:40
|
|
|
So, let's say that they go with the model where you get better at saving against spells as you level up regardless of what you face. Does this mean that at low levels it will be impossible to save against a kobolt priest's spells, and at epic levels a dracolitch won't be able to do anything other than throw evocations at you? I hope this doesn't come off as a strawman argument, but I grew up on a strict d20+bonus vs DC diet and this doesn't make much sense. Of course I agree with OtspIII that putting an end to casters pumping their DCs to insane numbers is a good thing, but I wonder how it will work for the rest of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 10:12
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Of course I agree with OtspIII that putting an end to casters pumping their DCs to insane numbers is a good thing, but I wonder how it will work for the rest of the game. This is also a detail that people started complaining about. "Casters get better, what's even the point of levels?!" But that's how 2e handled saves for the most part: save vs spells, not save vs MY spell DC. It wasn't until 3e that casters could start really pumping their save DCs. Caster DC inflation and cantrip saves (rolled by the DM) were two big things I went on about in the last packet feedback survey, and now poof they are gone. At least they are thinking about being gone. Progress?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 10:30
|
|
|
Rexides posted:So, let's say that they go with the model where you get better at saving against spells as you level up regardless of what you face. Does this mean that at low levels it will be impossible to save against a kobolt priest's spells, and at epic levels a dracolitch won't be able to do anything other than throw evocations at you? I hope this doesn't come off as a strawman argument, but I grew up on a strict d20+bonus vs DC diet and this doesn't make much sense. It means that save-or-die effects get worse as you level, while at the same time HP totals are inflating anyway so direct damage gets worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 10:35
|
|
|
Yeah, Mearls said something like obviously, stunning a higher level character for a few rounds is a bigger deal than stunning a low-level one. Even though having 1/5th of the players sit out the combat should be the same deal at lvl1 and lvl20 in a well-balancAHAHAHAHA we can't have high-level wizard's arsenal of encounter-bypassing powers so easily nullified and we should design the entire save system around that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 10:37
|
|
|
It would be very quick and easy of them to state "You need a 20 to successfully save", give classes save bonuses and then have stats add to those. Numbers go up, the save math is exactly the same (get the new numbers by subtracting the current one from 20) and it's intuitive - Rolling 20s is always good, you need a 20, simple. It's even quicker to just be lazy and not think about it because it's haaaaard. e: Or, hell, go full hog with the roll-under. Roll under attributes to succeed on a d20. Math is bounded to within a limit set by the 3-18 range. What's that? It accomplishes stated design goals and can unify the system? Can't have that, we have to constantly design by feel, like a spelunker in the dark. Rulebook Heavily fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Jul 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
So, wait, I'm confused. Mearls wants to re-introduce the save system from 2nd ed AD&D? And in doing so, help mitigate the caster supremacy issue somewhat? Isn't that a... not good, but at least decent thing to try to do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 13:33
|
|
|
I was looking at Darker Dungeons for Winson's pbp and that's exactly how they do saves, you have to roll 20+ after modifiers to save. Save modifiers even at level 1 can be like +12. Really simple. 4e saves were good and simple, just roll 10+, but really the three 4e NADs (fort/reflex/will) are the equivalent to what Next is trying to do here. Next wants attribute modifiers to matter so you can have Dex saves and Con saves and whatever. Hit the dumb monster with a Wis save, hit the slow monster with the Dex save; basically the same decision attackers in 4e made with reflex/will/fort targets. If they make fighters good at Con saves and wizards good at Int saves, that would again be exactly what 4e did with +fort and +will class bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 13:48
|
|
|
Rexides posted:So, let's say that they go with the model where you get better at saving against spells as you level up regardless of what you face. Does this mean that at low levels it will be impossible to save against a kobolt priest's spells, and at epic levels a dracolitch won't be able to do anything other than throw evocations at you? I hope this doesn't come off as a strawman argument, but I grew up on a strict d20+bonus vs DC diet and this doesn't make much sense. There's a lot behind that question. 2e used this system and even I don't know the roots of it (I'm sure some other goon knows more.) But keep in mind that a.) for most classes, at least one save will always sorta blow and b.) that as casters go up in level, most of their powers do something even against a successful save. If you see an all-or-nothing spell at higher levels, you know that thing is pretty much just for slaughtering low level kobolds. Also keep in mind that in 2e, saves often start out in the realm of, "you need to successfully roll a 20 to save."
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
Randalor posted:So, wait, I'm confused. Mearls wants to re-introduce the save system from 2nd ed AD&D? And in doing so, help mitigate the caster supremacy issue somewhat? Isn't that a... not good, but at least decent thing to try to do? I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
So they're basically abandoning flatter math as far as saving throws are concerned. To me it just looks like they're missing the forest for the tree: the thing to take away from monsters with horrible stun-locking abilities shouldn't be "yeah, we need to work on the math to make these abilities a non-issue at higher levels," it should be "monsters with horrible stun-locking abilities are a bad idea because." Not only do they turn the combat into what basically amounts to a coin-flip (you either save and the combat is a cakewalk or you fail and might have to sit out the combat) but they also skew the action economy horribly. The DM using stun-locking monsters is basically the DM saying "No, you don't get to use your cool abilities" while the players using stun-locking abilities is them telling the DM "No, you don't get to run a tactically engaging combat."
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:To me it just looks like they're missing the forest for the tree: the thing to take away from monsters with horrible stun-locking abilities shouldn't be "yeah, we need to work on the math to make these abilities a non-issue at higher levels," it should be "monsters with horrible stun-locking abilities are a bad idea because."
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
This is dumb as hell. Ignoring the math issues here, they're treating a symptom, not the disease. If SoD or SoNotFuns are the problem, fix the problem. Simply converting binary save conditions into gradually worsening conditions would fix a lot of the problems with on/off gently caress you switches. Instead of petrify, have a stacking slow that eventually petrifies. If the monster is especially nasty, the effect is automatic over time, otherwise it would require multiple hits and failed saves to actually petrify you. Same deal with any other condition that instantly fucks you over - build a granular system that has the flavor (dare I say feel? ho ho) of the status condition on its initial application, but takes a bit more work mechanically to shut you down completely. Heck, if they wanted, they could even make this assymetrical - the heroes are more resilient to these conditions because HEROES, monsters of a certain toughness are not ('minions' always eat the full force condition, etc).
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
victrix posted:This is dumb as hell. Ignoring the math issues here, they're treating a symptom, not the disease. "Looks like if someone doesn't want to play real games, he should go back to those baby MMOs he loves so much where nothing bad can ever happen to his precious little snowflake. Us real men understand the feeling of D&D and what's it's really about. The tyranny of 'fun' had ruined this hobby because..."  edit: and I'm really not sure how if "you have 4 numbers for defense which scale at the same rate, and the attacks all say which number they go up against" is too complicated, how "check this big chart in the back against 6 different defenses that scale strangely as you go up in level and compare which type of attack it is to the save chart" is any simpler. double edit:  See? Piece of cake! Toph Bei Fong fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Jul 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:Or, hell, go full hog with the roll-under. Roll under attributes to succeed on a d20. Math is bounded to within a limit set by the 3-18 range. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Payndz posted:As far as non-combat stuff goes, that's B/X and BECMI's task resolution system. It worked just fine, but nope, how would we pad out the book with skills and feats if we made Next that simple? It's not that modules themselves are a bad idea, it's that the Next are doing them all wrong. Splicer fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Jul 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
victrix posted:This is dumb as hell. Ignoring the math issues here, they're treating a symptom, not the disease.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Payndz posted:As far as non-combat stuff goes, that's B/X and BECMI's task resolution system. It worked just fine, but nope, how would we pad out the book with skills and feats if we made Next that simple? As much as I like BECMI, I must point out that even BECMI dropped the ball on this at some point with the different Gazetteers, which introduced skill systems which were mostly but not always compatible and sometimes had skills as +1 to Ability Checks but sometimes had skills that were more like 3e feats. The RC streamlined skills, thankfully, and as others have pointed out it was still better in vanilla BECMI with skills as a module than an integral part of the system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Spoilers Below posted:See? Piece of cake! Plus a 21st level Wizard has a save vs PPD that is the same as a 9th level Fighter. Surely that makes people happy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Yes it is. "Write these numbers on your sheet" is not very hard. 2e's chart stopped the entire "crunch this in your head every level" that 3e loved. Well, my point was more that "Look at this chart buried in a separate chapter every 2-5 levels and see if anything changes" isn't any more or less difficult than 4e's "add 1 to this number every other level", and it's a little disingenuous of Mearls to suggest that cross referencing 6 different categories is so much harder than "+1 at even levels to 4 different categories." 3e was a bit more of a pain with it's "good saves go up every 2 levels, and bad saves every 3," but it too had a chart printed right inside the class description. I do love that Clerics and Fighters end up basically impervious to every spell possible, though. Toph Bei Fong fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Jul 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
victrix posted:This is dumb as hell. Ignoring the math issues here, they're treating a symptom, not the disease. I think a lot of this has to do with general combat speed and assumed number of encounters per session (and days per session). SoD and SoS are both fine if combat is going to take under 10 minutes and you're going to have a bunch of little skirmishes every session--even if you get ghoul paralyzed it's not like you're sitting out for any significant part of the session, and the poo poo's hitting the fan hard enough around you that watching the rest of the combat unfold around you is still pretty engaging. Maybe the wizard gets to pick an encounter or two a session and just go 'let's skip this one', but that just means you have room for one more encounter at the session's end. All of this assumes, though, a game where combat is a(n admittedly fun) roadblock on the way to your main objective rather than your objective itself, because if combat's the core of what's fun in the game then gently caress getting SoSed out of it, and if the point of each session is just to have three pre-selected minor encounters followed by a setpiece battle then gently caress the wizard getting to be able to skip one+ of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
They aren't actually talking about bringing back the old categories (yet). Just the concept that classes have their own save DCs instead of the caster/effect setting a DC.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
ritorix posted:They aren't actually talking about bringing back the old categories (yet). Just the concept that classes have their own save DCs instead of the caster/effect setting a DC. But this is just a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place. Flattened math and saves being influenced by the caster is okay as long as the outcome of saves isn't a binary state of "You're okay, no problem" or "You lose the game." I know there's no changing D&D's resolution system into a non-binary system with lots of possible outcomes in between because of tradition, but the fact is that keeping the math intact and changing all the "You lose" effects into countdowns of "You lose after 3 failed saves and also you have time to alter the outcome of your 3 saves before that happens or even neutralize the effect that is slowly going to make you lose" would make for a much better game. Basically the fact that they need to rejigger the math this far into design just shows that they're working with a broken base system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
Frankly it doesn't matter what math the save system is using if the DM can decide to dogpile you with spells and gib you because he can. I mentioned it after Game Day. Saving 3 or 4 times with a +1 is beating the odds. The player should feel awesome for having the dice on his side to that degree. He should not then immediately die because "Oh they still do half damage of their 12d8." Reading the mention of the Dragon in that article Mearls thinks that bullshit is a feature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Going through the podcast again, I think a big part of it is that Mearls has taken all the 4e complaints completely to heart and believes that not a single one was disingenuous. He's stepping on eggshells and trying to make a game that fits their complaints. The problem is that nearly all the complaints conflict and contradict with each other AND with D&D itself, and what broadly remains is a really lovely game, and part of the podcast seemed to make me think that he knows it's going to make a lovely game and trying to figure out how to solve that. It's why he goes into this lengthy thing on having to meet a balance between people who want a good set of rigorous rules for D&D and people who want literally no rules at all, treating the latter group as a viable thing for D&D to try to be. It's why they haven't even STARTED on the math because they've been so worried about making sure things "feel" right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:changing all the "You lose" effects into countdowns of "You lose after 3 failed saves and also you have time to alter the outcome of your 3 saves before that happens or even neutralize the effect that is slowly going to make you lose" would make for a much better game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:That would be terrible in-game. A table full of people tracking multi-level saves, partial effets, and countdowns? gently caress that. That is something that is good for a computer game. Table resolution needs to be quick(ish) and narrative friendly. Yeah, admittedly that was a bad example and would be too fiddly around the table. But the point still remains that reducing abilities to one roll that spells either "Nothing of interest was achieved" or "You lose" is bad. The ghoul paralysis ability would be more interesting if, instead of a save vs. lose it was something like "The first time you fail your save you're slowed and if you get hit by it again you're stunned." Okay, still too fiddly, but I'm sure you know what I'm getting at.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
That's not too fiddly unless Next is going for 'roll twice at most to resolve any combat effect ever' (which is not, in and of itself, a bad goal). Tracking a two step condition that does not occur in every fight is hardly an onerous ask of players or DMs if it solves a serious gameplay problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
If they're gonna keep stun effects, at least make sure they only last 1 turn. Save-ends stun/dominate/unconscious is awful in 4e (for both team PC and team Monster). I can see having a strong CC tool like stun for those clutch moments when something needs to be taken out of the fight for a bit, but the ability to drag it on for 2 or 3 turns is just too much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
Yeah, even in 4E they had trouble keeping Stun from being a fun-vacuum. Early Dracoliches were a tar-pit of stunlocking to the point where it was common advice "don't use these monsters, they will kill the fun right out of your game," and even on the flipside when PCs start getting the ability to stun enemies it turns out, surprise of surprises, that gives them the ability to trivialize solo monsters unless you start giving those monsters lots of ways to shake off status effects and act around action-limiters...which they did with Monster Vault dragons, for example, but it's still a kludgy fix to the same drat problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:If they're gonna keep stun effects, at least make sure they only last 1 turn. Save-ends stun/dominate/unconscious is awful in 4e (for both team PC and team Monster). I can see having a strong CC tool like stun for those clutch moments when something needs to be taken out of the fight for a bit, but the ability to drag it on for 2 or 3 turns is just too much. Something I'm aiming to do with my fantasy heartbreaker is have a number (spell level? caster level? PC level?) represent the potency of the effect. Then, subtract the save/defense from that potency number, and that gives you the number of rounds (turns?) it's in effect for. I think as long as you keep the results within acceptable range, it could work; maybe add saving throws for a chancee to shrug it off sooner. Again, just do the math right..
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130708 This is the most positive I've ever seen Mearl be about a 4e product. It's pretty much 'yeah, Monster Vault got it right, we'll go with that.' And I agree with him there, Monster Vault was one of the best things in the line.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
xiw posted:http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130708 quote:- Give the creature a place in the world. Where does it live? What does it want? How does it act? What creatures does it ally with? Who does it hate? A creature's context is important for making it feel like a living, breathing entity in the world of D&D Next.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 07:32
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:This sounds promising (to me) The third one sounds good to me. I'm always a fan of monsters who are social or situational challenges foremost and only combat challenges as a fall-back. Direct mechanical support for that sounds nice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 07:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
The Ettercap there has a couple of decent hooks to it- the spider-shepherd thing is a neat detail, you could use that setting up an encounter or in dealing with a larger adventure. This is something that most of the monster write-ups thusfar have been lacking. I get a better sense that I would want to use this monster in something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 07:55
|
|
