|
Father Wendigo posted:Some of us still have a really foul taste left in out mouth from the playtests, and not much of what we've seen so far indicates it's going to be drastically changed. Since they're pulling the
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
I for example is really loving the look of it nd given that I played and had fun I can say it's a good game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Hubis posted:If you don't want to remotely risk a TPK, don't throw high-CR monsters at your party? In 4e, there was a genuine, workable system so a GM could eyeball an encounter and be confident of it's power level. In 3e, there was a meaningless stat that meant next to nothing in the times when it was most needed. 5e is clearly following the 3e model. dwarf74 posted:I know, but there's a whole loving "bitch about elf games but mostly 5e" thread in DDRD/Imp Zone. I think it's cool that people are legit interested in 5e, even if I'm not one of them, and holy poo poo a constructive thread like 4e and Pathfinder have (and keep in mind, Pathfinder is even more terrible than 5e) might not be too crazy. A Catastrophe fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Jul 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
I am still confused how people take my statement that CR does not necessarily have to scale linearly with party level and interpret that as saying "the game shouldn't have any meaningful way of measuring the difficulty of an encounter"
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
I for one remain pretty up on the system. I put up with 3.5, I really enjoyed 4e (but hated how combat could drag), and am currently looking forward to getting my starter kit tomorrow and reading through it. Every system has its ups and downs, 5e is neither the second coming of RPG-Christ, nor is it the TableTop Devil. It seems a lot simpler to DM than the last couple editions (i've never DM'd 3.5 but I ran a 4e campaign for about six months) and am currently planning a new campaign for August when the PHB comes out. Honest discussion of flaws does not unmake positives of the system, even though the current opinion at SA is one of derision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Hubis posted:I am still confused how people take my statement that CR does not necessarily have to scale linearly with party level and interpret that as saying "the game shouldn't have any meaningful way of measuring the difficulty of an encounter" I guess I just misinterpreted what was meant when it was said that CR shouldn't be tied to character level. From that Mearls thing earlier it seemed like the CR of monsters was supposed to be used to judge whether or not specific monsters were in and of themselves fit for the party to fight and the EXP budget thing was more meant to control the difficulty of the encounter. If that's the case then I was mistaken and CR does scale 1:1 with party level and the DM uses the exp total of the encounter to gauge how hard the combat is. That seems pretty reasonable to me and a good idea over all. Also if we're supposed to post positive things here then I have to say that what I've seen of the art is really really good. e: yeah re-reading that thing again and I was just straight up mistaken about the purpose of CR in the system. copy fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
I think CR is meant to be an absolute cap but you're really supposed to "usually" fight monsters with a CR of about 80% (or something) of your level. Like a level 2 character is sort of stuck fighting CRs 1s and 2s and having a hard time of it but at level 10 the bread and butter of enemies you're fighting should be CR 8, with only a few actually at CR 10. Like, the same way that in previous editions you were supposed to occasionally have hard fights with a CR 2-3 above yours, now they're setting hard fights at a CR equal to your level and normal fights at ones below your level.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:This may sound weird coming from a dude who's not that into 5e, but this is seriously the most negative +thread I've ever seen on SA and I can't tell if I'm in TG or DDRD when I read it. I think most of it comes from just how lacking Next is shaking out to be. A lot of us have been following from the beginning, and this edition has no concrete direction beyond "All of your wildest dreams, ENWorld!" Originally D&D was new ground, but essentially a game about Dungeons and the Dragons therein. AD&D was that, but more, and then 2e was about framing that in a (slightly) more user-friendly way. 3e, for all its faults, was groundbreaking at the time and extremely ambitious - It delineated between a core system and periphery ones in a way that promoted expansion. (Ultimately this was it's undoing, but it's still a fundamental improvement over "Here's the rules, deal with it.") 4e's most harshest critics acknowledged that it had a central design vision - even if they framed it as "Dumbing it down for WoW baby MMOs". 4e unified a lot of mechanics, presented the rules clearly, and made play fun for players who preferred to imagine martial heroes doing heroic things. But then what is Next? Is it supposed to be a simplified rules-lite like BECMI? Not in three $50 books, it isn't. Is it a well-constructed machination of keywords and interacting mechanics like 4e? A slightly-less integrated stab at unified mechanics like 3.x? Or even a clunky ruleset like AD&Ds, but forgiven for its fantastic new settings and groundbreaking concepts? Next is a reaction to levied criticism. Its key selling point has been that it's not 4e - and while that's enough for some people, it's not a foundation you can build a game on. "Natural language" has replaced concise spell descriptors, fighters have less agency, 1/3 of the rulebook is Pro Player Casters Only, etc. One broke-rear end system after another has been brought to light, and then hand-waived away because it's a beta, early build, not in a module, fixed in the PHB, fixed in the DMG, etc, excuse, etc. Even something ostensibly great - adding 32 pages to the MM for "free" - breaks down when you look at the math and realize it's not even the same value as the 2e premium reprint.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
The CR system sucks and as a DM that has DMed a ton of 3.x and 4th edition,the fact that the game uses CR again pretty much completely kills any real motivation I have to DM the system. I know I probably will end up DMing the game at some point, but I know that to do so I'll have to memorize how strong each monster ACTUALLY is and figure out how the game ACTUALLY works, and change monsters CRs on the fly just like I had to do with 3.X.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
The problem with Next has been the unrelenting laziness that's pretty extreme even for this hobby. Every response Mearls makes when asked why a feature is missing or why the math doesn't work as been "Well that's for the DM to change!" Any chance and any opportunity to pass the buck is taken. It's become more and more increasingly clear that the bare minimum of work when into this game as more news comes out and more questions are asked. The whole thing has that "homework done on the bus" taste. Beyond that, Next has nothing new in it. Nothing in Next is interesting. Even it's more hardcore proponents brag about it being "familiar" more then anything else. It's biggest tagline has been "everyone's SECOND favorite D&D." It's all just sad rehashes of past editions desperately churned out by old people desperate to not feel old.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
quote:@Acr0ssTh3P0nd : I want my PCs to have at least a 16 in their main stat (point buy) even if they dont get a racial bonus to that stat. How to do? I know this is just another one of those "the creator does it differently than the way he made his book" comment, but making a weird race/class combo where the primary stat is sub 16 basically kills the idea outright. I'd rather have something like this in the book so DMs know it's not breaking the system to fudge one point, but maybe showing a tweet from "the man himself" might do well enough. The idea that I have to even jump through such a hoop to make such a character is absurd, but at least it's a Mike Mearls approved houserule.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Hubis posted:I am still confused how people take my statement that CR does not necessarily have to scale linearly with party level and interpret that as saying "the game shouldn't have any meaningful way of measuring the difficulty of an encounter" If it doesn't scale linearly but follow some alternate progression, can't you just reverse-scale the numbers into a linear relationship, thus making it easier to gauge difficulty? If it doesn't follow party level then what does it represent? goldjas posted:The CR system sucks and as a DM that has DMed a ton of 3.x and 4th edition,the fact that the game uses CR again pretty much completely kills any real motivation I have to DM the system. I know I probably will end up DMing the game at some point, but I know that to do so I'll have to memorize how strong each monster ACTUALLY is and figure out how the game ACTUALLY works, and change monsters CRs on the fly just like I had to do with 3.X. Is it really that bad in 4th? Everything I've heard has been good, and in the one short campaign I ran in 4th I pretty much ran it blindly following the CR system and it worked out very well. That was at levels 5-6, though. Agreed that 3E CR is a trashheap nightmare, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:If it doesn't scale linearly but follow some alternate progression, can't you just reverse-scale the numbers into a linear relationship, thus making it easier to gauge difficulty? If it doesn't follow party level then what does it represent? 4e literally did not use the CR system, though. It gave the DM an XP budget to spend instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
4e didn't literally use a CR system, but it was an (un?)written rule that you weren't supposed to use creatures over 3 levels of the party so the math didn't get crazy. Or something like that I dont remember exactly, but the idea was the same: at some point the monsters got unhittable. Oh yeah and beta signups for the 5e character builder are open: http://trapdoortechnologies.com/beta/ (8:05:32 PM) king_com: why does it need my birthdate (8:05:46 PM) king_com: because of the rape useage on their front page? (8:05:48 PM) Ritorix: 30+ is proper grog age
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
I must have miss typed what I said, what I meant is that I really liked 4ths sensible level system, and loving hate the CR system with the fury of a thousand suns. Hope that's clearer now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
ritorix posted:4e didn't literally use a CR system, but it was an (un?)written rule that you weren't supposed to use creatures over 3 levels of the party so the math didn't get crazy. Or something like that I dont remember exactly, but the idea was the same: at some point the monsters got unhittable. Oh, so 5E is basically like that, except instead of the standard minion/normal/elite/solo you had in 4E, stuff is just worth whatever XP the devs decided to assign to it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:4e literally did not use the CR system, though. It gave the DM an XP budget to spend instead. True, I just tend to run stuff based off the solo creatures and those are EL = Party Level in XP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Hubis posted:I am still confused how people take my statement that CR does not necessarily have to scale linearly with party level and interpret that as saying "the game shouldn't have any meaningful way of measuring the difficulty of an encounter" Not in 3e, anyway. I don't see any evidence that the system from 5e is viable or workable in the way the 4e system is, and it's looking far more like the ad-hoc value from 3e, although the basic monster math is a lil more coherent in 5. It's all well and good to say that CR does not necessarily have to scale linearly with party level, but all the evidence we have is that it won't work. The only system that comes close to that is 4e, and it very deliberately has solos, elites, minions, ect, as divorced from the basic math of level, which is mainly about defences, attack bonus, ect. I don't see any evidence from 5e to date that you can actually for instance, send a horde of low level goblins at a high level party, or throw in a slightly higher level orc as a mini-boss. I mean, you can do that, but the situation will turn out poorly the way that 3e often did, especially if your non-magical characters don't have those magical weapons they certainly need even though the book explicitly says they do not. A Catastrophe fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
The 5e XP system and CR basically have nothing to do with each other. XP is for the same encounter-building formulas based on party size and desired difficulty that 4e did. 5e CR means "a party of 4 should be able to defeat an equal-level CR (as a solo monster) without having casualties". If you put a party of 4 level 1s against a single ogre (CR2), he can outright kill a character. He hits for ~13 and crits for ~22, enough to KO a level 1 fighter with 16CON (13HP) and enough to outright kill almost anyone on a crit. Character HP nearly doubles at level 2 (the same fighter goes to 22), making the normal hits survivable and the crits merely knock you unconscious instead of outright dead. So while the XP system may say you can build a fair fight for a large party of level 1s with a few ogres, CR tells you that the ogres will probably be killing some characters. At least that is what it's supposed to do. We all know how well CR holds up in 3x.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
goldjas posted:The CR system sucks and as a DM that has DMed a ton of 3.x and 4th edition,the fact that the game uses CR again pretty much completely kills any real motivation I have to DM the system. I know I probably will end up DMing the game at some point, but I know that to do so I'll have to memorize how strong each monster ACTUALLY is and figure out how the game ACTUALLY works, and change monsters CRs on the fly just like I had to do with 3.X. You do know the only reason they did not use Level was because they did not want to use the term level a 3rd time. Did you read how the CR works and have you seen the monsters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The problem with Next has been the unrelenting laziness that's pretty extreme even for this hobby. Every response Mearls makes when asked why a feature is missing or why the math doesn't work as been "Well that's for the DM to change!" Any chance and any opportunity to pass the buck is taken. It's become more and more increasingly clear that the bare minimum of work when into this game as more news comes out and more questions are asked. The whole thing has that "homework done on the bus" taste. Beyond that, Next has nothing new in it. Nothing in Next is interesting. Even it's more hardcore proponents brag about it being "familiar" more then anything else. It's biggest tagline has been "everyone's SECOND favorite D&D." It's all just sad rehashes of past editions desperately churned out by old people desperate to not feel old. But it's fun and that's what matters more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
5e monster level and CR are also two different things. Level is just their hit dice, so like an ogre is level 7. 7d10+21 is their listed hit dice (fighter hit dice, and 21 is their con bonus of 3 times level 7). 5.5*7+21 = 59.5, rounded down to 59 is their listed HP. The system does have a certain sense to it. The actual "this monster is going to murder your entire loving party" threshold is about +3 CR over the party level, about the same as 4e solos. In the starter set, the dragon is CR8 and the max party level is 5. So yeah that was on purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:But it's fun and that's what matters more. I want a tree to bleed sap on you so you could be preserved forever in amber. They could use you in the future to extract the spirit of Real True Gaming Fandom and open Gygax Park.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
ritorix posted:5e monster level and CR are also two different things. Level is just their hit dice, so like an ogre is level 7. 7d10+21 is their listed hit dice (fighter hit dice, and 21 is their con bonus of 3 times level 7). 5.5*7+21 = 59.5, rounded down to 59 is their listed HP. The system does have a certain sense to it. Correct. Though the Party is not really meant to beat the Dragon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:You do know the only reason they did not use Level was because they did not want to use the term level a 3rd time. Did you read how the CR works and have you seen the monsters. CR and monsters seem completely arbitrary again, see the Ogre being talked about on this very page, or the Evil Mage or Bugbear talked about earlier. If you can prove this to be false I will be a good deal relieved, but the examples being thrown about on this very page are proving it otherwise. Edit: The Ogre is level 7, how many levels do monsters need to be CR 2? Is it always 7? Do all CR 2 monsters have to have a certain amount of HP, so it needed to be level 7 to have that much hp (if that's how it works by the way that's probably the worst but still better then 3.X somehow) Is it some arbitrary number? Who knows? goldjas fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
goldjas posted:CR and monsters seem completely arbitrary again, see the Ogre being talked about on this very page, or the Evil Mage or Bugbear talked about earlier. If you can prove this to be false I will be a good deal relieved, but the examples being thrown about on this very page are proving it otherwise. The Ogre is fine. The Bugbear and Evil Mage alone are just as much of a threat to a level 1 party as the other both are around the same threat level and ok for the status of CR 1. They just preform different roles MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:I know, but there's a whole loving "bitch about elf games but mostly 5e" thread in DDRD/Imp Zone. I think it's cool that people are legit interested in 5e, even if I'm not one of them, and holy poo poo a constructive thread like 4e and Pathfinder have (and keep in mind, Pathfinder is even more terrible than 5e) might not be too crazy. Maybe you're expecting plenty of hype because this is a new game, but it really isn't. We've been beta testing it for over two years now, and it's been about as underwhelming as (and drew a few similarities to) the Pathfinder 'playtest.' We're rolling pretty average right now. Getting back to Next: First, did anyone catch the Twitch livestream of 'Mines' earlier tonight? Second, who's up for discussing what does and doesn't work in the final playtest packets while we wait for the PHB?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:Have you read the Pathfinder thread lately? It's been (1)laughing because even the Paizo forums think the new Arcanist class is broken and the overly defensive response by the Devs, (2) laughing because they're hyping the release of a book that promises fixes for the worst classes (and also Wizards because why not), and (3) arguing over how to make the game not implode too terribly for a few more levels beyond 6.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
http://trapdoortechnologies.com/beta/ Anyone interested in Project Morningstar can sign up for the Beta.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
So finally getting around to reading the rulebook in anticipation of a game this afternoon, am I reading it properly that humans get +1 to each ability score at character creation? That umm... That's kind of hosed up?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Cassa posted:So finally getting around to reading the rulebook in anticipation of a game this afternoon, am I reading it properly that humans get +1 to each ability score at character creation? That umm... That's kind of hosed up? They have almost literally no other benefits (other than their "feat" option which isn't an option because basic doesn't have feats) and stats are capped at 20 and the other races get +2/+1 to two stats. Human +1 all is good but not game breaking, it just seems that way compared to other editions where stats were harder to come by and could keep going higher and higher. If I ever make human in 5e it'll be the optional feat human.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Nope if anything the +1 to all stats version of humans is still weaker than most demihumans. The bonuses just mean your lower abilities are slightly higher than other races, but your highest ones will be equivalent or lower. Since D&D rewards specializing in a few abilities, the extra ability bonuses aren't super helpful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Oh right of course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Does anyone have a copy of the starter set who isn't in North America? I'm in NZ and everything got pushed back (as of this morning, the 15th) to the 25th. Book Depository (UK) has it listed as available but not being actually published until the 25th. Australian websites still seem to be listing it as a pre-order but often with no date attached. I remember reading that some Australians were upset they weren't getting it at WoTC partnered stores early like the US did, but getting it even later than gen-pop is pretty awful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Wow this thread is more negative than I thought it would be! I wanted to ask for a recommendation from people who've done the plastering and stuff for this. I've got a DnD group who are 40 sessions deep into a 4e campaign - level 13 atm. The story is drawing to a close + combat is getting fairly bloated so we were going to try a new system after this. I want something more focused on roleplay and not hideously slow combats like 4e. The basic ruleset seemed cool and fairly simple. However I saw people talking about Pathfinder - how easy is that to pick up seeming as me and my players have only ever played 4e? Is it cheaper/less complex/better supported? We mainly play over Roll20 so that would factor in. Does it have necromancer player characters...?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
Pathfinder is incredibly complex, no one should ever learn it. D&D Next is a bit simpler than 4E. Both Pathfinder and Next have exactly the same roleplaying support as 4th edition does. But honestly if you want something simple and roleplay focused I'd do something like Dungeon World or Fate Freeport, both of which are emulations of D&D's style in simpler and more roleplay focused systems.
Piell fucked around with this message at 09:53 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 09:46
|
|
|
I've spent a lot of time pulling apart the monster math, the CR system, and the XP values and, yes, it's somewhat arbitrary. There's general trends, but it gets wackier and wackier as levels go on. Values scale at vastly different rates, defences are assigned seemingly at random, EHP is alternately well-balanced and all over the place, and the XP values relative to the encounter building guidelines is an ever-shifting relationship. All the evidence indicates that creatures at a given CR level are worth progressively more of a given level's XP budget. For example level 1 a Hard encounter is 3 CR 1 creatures, but at level 8 it's 1 CR 8 creature, and unless the XP values flatten off by mid levels a single CR X creature is worth more XP than a "hard" encounter for level X. That said, this could actually explain why CR20 creatures have 450-500 HP, if a CR 20 creature is worth 26000 XP. Ther ecould be a very strange, counter intuitive, but potentially functional system underneath.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
LFK posted:There could be a very strange, counter intuitive, but potentially functional system underneath. Isn't there always? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
Lord Twisted posted:Wow this thread is more negative than I thought it would be! I wanted to ask for a recommendation from people who've done the plastering and stuff for this. Are you familiar with 13th Age? It's quite story/roleplay-oriented (as far as d20 games go at least), and although it shares similarities with 4e, combats tend to run faster. There is a player Necromancer class — it's not in the core book, but in the 13 True Ways supplement. There's a 13th Age thread here — http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3634000 —, take a look, ask some questions and see if it suits you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
The Battle Master is going to be better than the Champion at doing what the Champion is supposed to be good at. By which I mean, the Battle Master at level 3 has three superiority dice per short rest. They can use that for a wide variety of maneuvers, simplest among them probably their feinting attack Which will give them advantage on the attack and if you hit, do another d8. The battle master can take this and two other maneuvers at third level. The champion for its part gets an increase in threat range, performing a critical hit on a 19-20. So the Battle Master has some better burst damage, but the Champion does more damage more reliably, a very optimistic person might say. Yeah...that's true. Technically. But you can actually crunch the numbers on that. For this thought experiment, let's assume that the fighter deals 2d6+3 on a hit, and that they hit on a 10 or higher. For example, a 17 strength fighter with the protector style slamming on 15 AC orcs. Standard stuff. On every attack, the Champion is going to have an average damage of 6.2 (45% of the time it's 0, 45% of the time its 10, and 10% of the time you crit for 17). The first three attacks that the Battle Master makes though is going to have a whopping average damage of 12.7, more than twice what the Champion does. That's because the Battle Master is benefiting from not just from the extra Advantage, but they're going to get that big d8 on top of it. And don't forget, rolling twice means you have two chances for a critical hit. A basic attack with Advantage has a 9.75% chance of critting compared with the Champion's 10%. After those first three attacks, the Battle Master's damage drops down sharply to 5.85. On the 4th swing and beyond, the Champion is going to have the edge when it comes to damage. So how long does it take the Champion to break even?  59 attacks. Fifty-nine attacks. Most of you standard orcs are going to go down in 2 or 3 attacks. Even an Owlbear is going to be toast after 10 or so. Most combat at this level lasts 2 rounds, 4 at the long range. So for a Champion to break even with the Battle Master, you need to go about TWENTY challenging fights without a single short rest in between. Bonus round. What kind of threat range would you need to balance out a champion with a battle master with a reasonable number of encounters per rest?  Chart shows how long after that three round burst of damage it takes for the Champion with various new threat ranges to catch up. So if you crit on a 12 and up, it'd still take 10 attacks before you started to outperform the Battle Master. Onnnnnne more thing. There might be the point raised that the Champion can benefit from Advantage too, from spells and whatnot. Well so can the Battle Master. There is nothing tying the BM's arms that mean it has to use those maneuvers right in the first three rounds. The opposite, the BM can pick and choose when it's most advantageous to burn those dice, and choose the right maneuver for the situation. So yeah. Champion? More like chump...ion. Chumpion. Whatever. Battle Master steals has the issue of having the same list of maneuvers to pick and choose from that are really cool at level 3 but losing their luster at level 17, but that's a whole other can of worms. e: Big ups to Jack the Lad for making the tables. Quadratic_Wizard fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 12:31
|
|