|
Spoilers Below posted:The problem with this as far as RPGs go is that they simply don't have the kind of secondary swag that a band has.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
dwarf74 posted:CATS AND DOGS, LIVING TOGETHER. It's been there the whole time! The wizard only gets to choose as many options as he has spells, while the fighter can choose whether to hit a monster or not all day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:CATS AND DOGS, LIVING TOGETHER. I'm going back to my theory that Hasbro is just secretly shredding everything Mearls has been designing and a group of statisticians and economists fresh from college have been making the real game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Barudak posted:I'm going back to my theory that Hasbro is just secretly shredding everything Mearls has been designing and a group of statisticians and economists fresh from college have been making the real game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:So, just for clarity's sake, what's the difference between the licenses used by D&D/d20 and FATE Core? I mean, besides FATE being a bit less "setting assumed" in its writing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Barudak posted:I'm going back to my theory that Hasbro is just secretly shredding everything Mearls has been designing and a group of statisticians and economists fresh from college have been making the real game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Well, we'll have to see. The guy volunteered to contact WotC to see if I can also be a closed playtester. Not getting my hopes up, but if so, we'll see about running a goon game. If it happens, I'd love a spot so I can see what the game actually looks like. So far its been a weird whiplash between what has been publicly discussed and what playtesters are saying is happening in game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
You have me intrigued. I would love to see what it is the closed testers are playing. And yeah I agree with Barudak about the whiplash between what we have seen and what the playtesters are saying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:It's been there the whole time! The wizard only gets to choose as many options as he has spells, while the fighter can choose whether to hit a monster or not all day. Yeah, this. I've seen a lot of people unironically talk about the 3E Fighter as being "rich with tactical depth" because you get to choose his feats! And you get to decide whether you want to move and attack or stand still and full attack. And attacks of opportunity! I have no idea whether closed playtest guy is full of poo poo or not but without any kind of actual proof, just based on what was show in the open playtest previously I'm intensely skeptical that the B Team has managed to somehow turn Next into a sterling example of game design in a matter of, what, three months or so? It'd sure be nice if that was the case but I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I'm intensely skeptical that the B Team has managed to somehow turn Next into a sterling example of game design in a matter of, what, three months or so? It'd sure be nice if that was the case but I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
I'd also be very interested in playing if you can get in. I'm still doubtful this guy can hook you up, as I continue to believe he's full of poo poo. Here's something I saw the other day in Barnes and Noble:  I just now realized what's unusual about it: The iconic characters, logo, and gem themes are all from 3x. e: mystery solved smiley. moths fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
moths posted:I just now realized what's unusual about it:
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
I wonder if it'd be possible for there to be say, a 4E Pathfinder, or at least a way for someone to make more 4E books. I'm currently in two 4E campaigns, and one of the sad things is that the newest books that came out in the game are still like 2 years old while 3E technically still has books being made from it (after 4E came out all of our DMs including me refuse to DM 3.Pathfinder anymore because well, yeah, that game sure is that game). I guess if Next does actually end up being good we could switch to that but man it sucked every time my group attempted to playtest it for the reasons stated in this thread a million times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
That's because it's from 2001.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
moths posted:I'd also be very interested in playing if you can get in. I'm still doubtful this guy can hook you up, as I continue to believe he's full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Zereth posted:Why isn't the fighter dying?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
What's the deal with the whole Universe Hates Regdar thing? I imagine it's some kind of injoke, because that dude is always getting hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:What's the deal with the whole Universe Hates Regdar thing? I imagine it's some kind of injoke, because that dude is always getting hosed up. The 3e artists were told at some point to make a character that the playerbase was "more likely to identify with", by which they meant a generic white man. The artists didn't much like being told to use a boring white man as the centerpiece of most of the book art, so they fought back by having him always be in the greatest danger/look like an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:What's the deal with the whole Universe Hates Regdar thing? I imagine it's some kind of injoke, because that dude is always getting hosed up. Splicer fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
At this point it's tradition. He should be dead or dying on that cover! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:The actual OGL license is entirely identical from D&D to Fate. (d20 also had the STL that let you use the d20 logo and had several restrictions intended to make 3rd-party products drive PHB sales, but it's since been revoked. Fate meanwhile has started offering a Creative Commons license as well.) It's the business strategies and markets around them that are different. Evil Hat did bring out a new version of their game with Fate Core, but they aren't depending on a majority of their customer base buying into an entire line of regular releases, and thus aren't going to be harmed if someone decides that Spirit of the Century is REAL fate and makes an OGL clone of it, least of all to the degree that D&D4e likely lost sales due to Pathfinder existing. I think the fact that Fate Core is such a toolkit system also makes the OGL much more sensible for it than it ever was for D&D. With the D&D OGL they were pretty much giving away D&D 3e while simultaneously claiming that d20 was the perfect system for everything and that everyone should convert to it. The d20 SRD is a really lovely document for its intended purpose: to encourage designers to convert their games to the d20 System, because one of the underlying goals of the OGL was to get as many people as possible playing under the same system (at least if one believes what Ryan Dancey has gone on record to say after the fact). The quality of most games that used the d20 System for anything other than what it was originally meant for (i.e. D&D) is indicative of the fact that even though the d20 SRD contained all the rules necessary to make a d20 game, it had nothing by way of explaining the internal logic that informed the design decisions they made in creating the game. Since Fate Core is basically a "make your own game" system the OGL makes much more sense for it. As you said, the OGL licenses are identical across the two games and the actual contents of their respective SRDs are pretty much the same (i.e. pretty much the entirety of each game's rules text), but because Fate has been designed from the ground up as an extremely transparent system around which it is easy to design your own game the Fate Core SRD is actually a useful game design tool as opposed to the d20 SRD. Also, the music industry analog is a really good one. Even though Fate is popular on the small press side of things, its market share is pennies compared to the industry giants that are D&D and Pathfinder. Giving away their game for free is a smart thing to do, because it creates goodwill among their potential customer base and actually drives more people to try the game out, which further drives the sales of Fate supplements that don't fall under the OGL.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
How does calculating your total attack bonus in Next compare to 4e or 3.5?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
Ultimately whether the OGL is harmful as a general rule or not, it was absolutely harmful to WotC from a perspective of both A). Ryan Dancey's stated goal of creating a glorious d20 utopia and B). not fragmenting the player base. Basically it's questionable whether the OGL did anything beneficial for WotC in the long-term. The closest other thing I can think of that compares to it in terms of "dumb game company decisions" is Games Workshop's latest lawsuit against Chapterhouse that they utterly fumbled and wound up losing the iron grip they maintained on a significant number of trademarks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:How does calculating your total attack bonus in Next compare to 4e or 3.5? I think it's basically like 3.5 only sort of worse. 4e was half your level + main stat, 3.5 was (full level/half level/ 3/4 level depending on class) + main stat, Next looks like its (Arbitrary number decided based on FEEL) + main stat. Edit for below: WHAT?! That's not what it is at all as of the latest playtest packet that I have, did they change it significantly in the "closed beta" test or something? That sounds a lot more like 4E (except it's 1/3 level rounded down for everyone instead of 1/2 but whatever math they want to use is whatever as long as everything is balanced around it) Also I've always hated this magic is rare but it's not bullshit. Either put magic items into the math or don't make magic items give AB/ AC bonuses period, balance around what the numbers will be at any given level, then figure out what part of that is from items, from class, from whatever, etc., if none of it is supposed to be from items then don't have items give loving AB. goldjas fucked around with this message at 10:58 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
Next uses Main stat + proficiency. Proficiency ranges from +1 at 1st to +6 at 19th level. It is the same for everyone and is added to a ton of things. Assuming you have proficiency in those things. It takes care of attack bonus, saves if you are proficient in them, skills and even spell DCs. On the off chance you have a magic weapon, and that magic weapon actually has a +1 or something instead of just a magical property, then the +1 is probably added in. But this is not assumed by the math and in my experience magic weapons are extremely rare. In the adventures I have run one had a magic +1 warhammer because it was required as part of a quest and was also the only way to even damage a golem if someone was stupid enough to upset it. The other that has had a magical weapon is the one I am currently running, and the magic weapon is not a +1 weapon, instead it glows in the presence of dragons and deals an extra 1d6 bludgeoning damage against dragons. With a cap of 20 in a stat, a +5 mod, unless you have a magic item or artifact that can increase your strength beyond that point, and with proficiency capping at +6 at 19th level your max attack bonus without spells or magic items will be +11. Now there are spells that temporarily make your weapon magic, and there are some magic weapons that actually do have a +1 or +3 but those are quite rare, and there are spells that might add +1d4 to your attack rolls. But for the most part your attack bonus is going to be somewhere around +4 at 1st level and +11 at 19th level. Ryuujin fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 09:33
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:With a cap of 20 in a stat, a +5 mod, unless you have a magic item or artifact that can increase your strength beyond that point, and with proficiency capping at +6 at 19th level your max attack bonus without spells or magic items will be +11. I need to reinforce why this is very dumb. I am playing a level 1 cleric with AC 19. By max level assuming you've maxed out a stat your still not the most likely to hit a level 1 character.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I need to reinforce why this is very dumb. I am playing a level 1 cleric with AC 19. By max level assuming you've maxed out a stat your still not the most likely to hit a level 1 character. The good news is that fighters can warp reality and deal damage even when they miss, which makes them more powerful then wizards, QED. Next sounds more and more dumb the more I read on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 11:22
|
|
|
ArkInBlack posted:The good news is that fighters can warp reality and deal damage even when they miss, which makes them more powerful then wizards, QED. Playing in it without any care for if stuff makes sense, is useful or even if you have any control over anything (because the dice are swingy as gently caress) its pretty great. Like playing just a bizarro version of a normal game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 11:26
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I need to reinforce why this is very dumb. I am playing a level 1 cleric with AC 19. By max level assuming you've maxed out a stat your still not the most likely to hit a level 1 character. These kind of games are designed for interactions between characters and monsters of roughly the same level. Not that your argument is wrong, there could be something fishy there on the long run, but it's more or less the same as people who think that minion mechanics in 4E are stupid because even a level 1 character can slay an ogre (minion) with one hit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 11:31
|
|
|
Rexides posted:These kind of games are designed for interactions between characters and monsters of roughly the same level. Not that your argument is wrong, there could be something fishy there on the long run, but it's more or less the same as people who think that minion mechanics in 4E are stupid because even a level 1 character can slay an ogre (minion) with one hit. I'm pointing out that a character already has 19 AC by level 1, let alone with AC of characters by level 19.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I need to reinforce why this is very dumb. I am playing a level 1 cleric with AC 19. By max level assuming you've maxed out a stat your still not the most likely to hit a level 1 character. It's like 60/40, but yeah; if you're looking at +6 to hit at level 1 and you're facing AC19... 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
Most level 1 PCs have +4 to hit. Level 1 monsters are on a different system, with most having +1 to hit. Almost no PCs have an 18 in their main stat at level 1. Point-buy for stats only goes to 16. If you want to see what some level 1s look like check out the first page of Ryuujin's game here (modron bard!). A goblin hits at +1 for 2 damage, AC13, 3HP. Kobolds hit +1 for 3 damage, AC11, 2HP. So the +4 newbie hits a goblin on 9 and a kobold on 7. Monsters hit that 19AC tank on an 18. They need a 14 to hit a typical AC15 rogue (leather+16dex), and less to hit an unarmored wizard. That's just the base. Goblins are sneaky in 5e and a surprise attack gets advantage. Kobolds are pack attackers, potentially boosting their to-hit to +6 each for a swarm of them around a single target. With bonuses like that at play anyone will get hit a lot. AC doesn't automatically scale, so improvements to it are rare. I've played a fighter up to level 8. He started with 19AC and got up to 21 (+1 banded mail, +1 shield).
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Most level 1 PCs have +4 to hit. Level 1 monsters are on a different system, with most having +1 to hit. Given the absolute max you can get is +11 thats still only a 55% chance to hit your AC21 fighter. Essentially they have to have npcs work very different to PCs which seems incredibly anti-grog but then again its probably just terrible math. kingcom fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Given the absolute max you can get is +11 thats still only a 55% chance to hit your AC21 fighter. ing about how PC A interacts with PC B in Next is silly.e: kingcom posted:Essentially they have to have npcs work very different to PCs which seems incredibly anti-grog but then again its probably just terrible math. Splicer fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
goldjas posted:Edit for below: WHAT?! That's not what it is at all as of the latest playtest packet that I have, did they change it significantly in the "closed beta" test or something? That sounds a lot more like 4E (except it's 1/3 level rounded down for everyone instead of 1/2 but whatever math they want to use is whatever as long as everything is balanced around it)
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Splicer posted:The point being made is that you're never trying to hit your AC21 fighter. PCs and Monsters are built differently. Monsters can get their to-hit into a range that will hit said level 21 fighter reasonably often, but themselves have much lower to-hit variables. Monsters and Heroes being built with the same system is a 3e-ism that was often held against 4E, so You say that but then you have issues where they have NPCs they throw in the bestiary which have the same logic as PC character are built. Like the level 1 human acolyte which gets a +2 to hit and AC 16. This is not as swingy as the PC but its still pretty bad to have stuff bounce around that much. EDIT: The big problem is when you start using monsters which is using a player race, its start getting built like a PC with armour and the PC's scaling to hits. So they suddenly get high ACs when you have the monsters using much more reasonable numbers. EDIT2: Yeah going over the beastiary its really funny to see anything non-humanoid having very low values compared to see humanoids suddenly spike AC. kingcom fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
kingcom posted:You say that but then you have issues where they have NPCs they throw in the bestiary which have the same logic as PC character are built.  )
Splicer fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Is it actually built using the same math as the PCs, or is it designed to be a glass cannon/elite/solo monster? What's its damage? (I lost my copy of the last Next build during a PC move a few months ago and now I can't get it back It definitely looks like it, they just use average hitpoints for everything instead of max hitpoints at level 1. It has a lower point buy im guessing but other than that its using the PC logic. AC = 14 for ring mail and +2 for shield. Hitpoints = 6 (1d8+2 average) which monsters at level 1 seem to be in the 2-3 (worth 10xp), 5-6(worth 20xp), 9-11(special monsters) hp blocks for level 1 (its all over the place and none seem to be glass cannons or not). Hit is 1d6+1 (4) which is pretty standard for level 1. kingcom fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
quote:For group A (younger group) I will veto anything too complex for them - when we recently rebuilt the characters, in the group lies a sorcerer, a wizard, a druid, and a cleric (also have a paladin & a monk). Two of the players switched away from fighters and to spellcasters (druid & cleric) because the spellcaster options I presented without modification from the rules were less tactically complex than the fighters they had. The warhammer players in my second group, tactical players to a fault, when presented with the classes, picked the fighter, for they were the tactically most combat-complex class (most choices per combat) in the game. I think you guys are misinterpreting this as though it is indicative of a huge change - even in (some of) the playtest packets we saw, fighters were more complex than wizards by the metric of most choices per combat because they have to decide when to spend their dice each turn. Fighters had to decide whether to spend on damage or save it for other maneuvers of dubious utility. Meanwhile, Wizards get the same or greater effectiveness just by firing off a spell on their turn. Look, the fact that the two kids playing fighters decided "This is too fiddly when I could just play a wizard and press the win button whenever I want like my friends are doing" says to me that fighters are just as lovely as they were before because that's the exact decision I would have made if I was stuck playing a fighter in Next. Kids are astute. I don't think my problem with the playtest packets (aside from the very early ones) was that the fighter was boring or too simple, but rather that you get a bunch of trap options and false choices and really only a couple of worthwhile ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
It's amazing how often 'simple' becomes 'fiddly' and 'complex' becomes 'algorithmic'. Wizards are absurdly simple to build and play; you look up what the best spells are, pick them, use them in order, done. Fighters are 'simple' because they have short lists of options both in and out of play, but wind up being fiddly because those small options give small bonuses you have to choose between on a round-by-round basis. But they don't yet feel TACTICALLY complex because the options simply aren't good enough in comparison with each other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 16:03
|
|
