D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

Ten saves you fail on a 2 instead of ten saves you fail on a 7. That's huge. Stack war caster and it's ten saves you fail in TWO twos.

But, honestly, the concentration thing is just the icing on the cake, governing WHICH version of Resilient a caster is likely to prioritize. The reason Resilient is such a big deal is that in 5e there are three important saves whose DCs scale with the strength of your opposition, but only one save whose bonus scales with your level. You get suckier and suckier at surviving fingers of death or dominates or whatever... unless you take this feat, which puts you on the same footing at level 10 that you were on at level 1.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 16:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 21:46

treeboy: Nov 13, 2004; James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was another life.

Ferrinus posted:

Ten saves you fail on a 2 instead of ten saves you fail on a 7. That's huge. Stack war caster and it's ten saves you fail in TWO twos.

But, honestly, the concentration thing is just the icing on the cake, governing WHICH version of Resilient a caster is likely to prioritize. The reason Resilient is such a big deal is that in 5e there are three important saves whose DCs scale with the strength of your opposition, but only one save whose bonus scales with your level. You get suckier and suckier at surviving fingers of death or dominates or whatever... unless you take this feat, which puts you on the same footing at level 10 that you were on at level 1.

im not arguing its not a good, hell even great, feat. My point is that it's not a level 4, or even 8...or even 12 buy. If you're playing long campaigns where you never purchase a feat it's hardly a 'tax'

edit: and the alternatives aren't "trap" feats either. Maybe they're not as min-max, but they have real benefit.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 16:09

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

I mean, in 4e you don't need a lot of the NAD boosters early on either, because it takes to around mid paragon tier for your barbarian's will to start getting hit whenever a monster rolls a 3. Resilient really "comes online" around the level you get a new feat having maxed your attack stat already - it IS a level 12 buy, in other words, since your prof bonus is what by that point, 3? 4?

E: And come on, dude, no trap feats? Hrm, should I take Resilient or Linguist.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 16:18

treeboy: Nov 13, 2004; James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was another life.

Ferrinus posted:

I mean, in 4e you don't need a lot of the NAD boosters early on either, because it takes to around mid paragon tier for your barbarian's will to start getting hit whenever a monster rolls a 3. Resilient really "comes online" around the level you get a new feat having maxed your attack stat already - it IS a level 12 buy, in other words, since your prof bonus is what by that point, 3? 4?

E: And come on, dude, no trap feats? Hrm, should I take Resilient or Linguist.

Probably depends on the type of campaign being run. If there's not a lot of RP then probably Resilient, if its light on combat then probably Linguist (or some other choice). I love the Tavern Brawler feat, is it optimal min max? no. It's still fantastic and I would definitely consider taking it if that was my character.

edit: you know theres something to be said too for DMs to pay attention to feat choices that their players are making as non-verbal desires for the campaign. If I have a min-max combat oriented character i'm probably hoping (or at least anticipating) tough fights. If I take a feat that ups my unarmed die size and lets me get drunk then that seems like tacit permission to get my character drunk and disarmed once in awhile.

treeboy fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Jul 21, 2014

# ? Jul 21, 2014 16:27

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

Yeah, that's why they're called feat TAXES. They're boring as poo poo, but leave you comically incompetent unless you take them, so they push interesting and flavorful feats out of the game.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 16:31

treeboy: Nov 13, 2004; James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was another life.

Ferrinus posted:

Yeah, that's why they're called feat TAXES. They're boring as poo poo, but leave you comically incompetent unless you take them, so they push interesting and flavorful feats out of the game.

Then don't play with feats? This is not a mandatory corrective feat. You're not comically incompetent as a Wizard (which I thought was broken to begin with) if you don't take Resilient, yes it makes your Concentration checks easier, but you could also not take high-level concentration skills to begin with and avoid the situation entirely.

I don't know what to say to you. You openly hate the system, and don't want to play it. So don't? Every post you make is how this is just the worst, except its objectively not the worst D&D. Maybe it's not what you were hoping for, and that's frustrating. I get it, I'm a bit disappointed about it too in some ways, but you're getting almost comical in your distaste for this edition.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 16:39

eth0.n: Jun 1, 2012

If you have to choose between "cool/interesting/fun" and "optimal", you are playing a bad game. It's only due to a history of abusive marriages to bad games that "optimization" becomes a dirty word for boring unfun munchkin powergaming. In a well-designed game, Tavern Brawler would be both cool and a valid choice for optimization. Same for Linguist. Sticking in lovely "flavor" feats is pure laziness.

Now, if you are playing Next for some reason, sure, you'll want to make the best of it. That might mean not taking lovely flavor feats, or convincing the DM to buff them, whether explicitly by adding new stuff, or implicitly by fiat-ing the world to fit and shine on you instead of others in your party who would naturally be more impactful. But that's making the best of a bad game. If the discussion is on the relative merits of Next, and what problems it has, all that is irrelevant. That the DM can fix problems is a meaningless tautology.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 16:45

treeboy: Nov 13, 2004; James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was another life.

That's utterly ridiculous. It's like saying I should be able to eat as much as I want and never get fat. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. In complex systems there will always be an optimal choice in regards to some in-game action. Whether that is combat or not depends on the action you're attempting (edit: or the stated purpose of the campaign/system). By your logic every feat would have to buff the exact same things in the exact same way but with a little flavor on the side to sliiiiiiightly differentiate between the other vanilla feats.

That's how we got 4e item progression.

edit: the *difference* is whether those Optimal choices are mandatory to remain relevant or effective in the game's mechanics. I make the argument that in 5e they are not, unlike 3.x (and to an extent even 4e). As a caster I can err on the side of caution by forgoing heavy usage of concentration spells if I don't take Resilient, focusing instead on direct damage or short duration utility. A fighter, who has many more feats to burn, very well might use Resilient to buff his off-class saves, that seems to me very much who this feat is aimed at, vs the caster who will likely outright drop from the 10d6 arrows he just got shot with (but by golly he didn't drop polymorph!).

treeboy fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Jul 21, 2014

# ? Jul 21, 2014 16:50

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

You can try saying "yes, you're right, Resilient is a feat tax" instead of immediately dodging. For instance, you're once again pretending that Resilient is just a way to fix your concentration checks, when I've pointed out quite explicitly that it's a crucial math fix that happens to improve spellcaster concentration as a significant side benefit.

You're not wrong about "don't play with feats". Perhaps people SHOULDN'T play wih feats. Of course, if they don't, non-scaling save bonuses will lead to creeping incompetence on everyone's part, so maybe annoying as feats are the poor math of the game means we're stuck with them. Hmm, this feels familiar...

E: It's almost directly analogous to 4e item progression. You think there weren't trap items, even though many items gave you +1 to some core value regardless of how lovely or crucial their additional property was?

Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Jul 21, 2014

# ? Jul 21, 2014 16:55

VoidTek: Jul 30, 2002; HAPPYELF WAS RIGHT

Fourteen years and feats are still garbage designed by idiots. You know. Allegedly. Wouldn't want to jump the gun here.

Comstar posted:

Didn't the Spellplague blow up the Al-Qadim area to be a smoking hole in the ground without the radiation, and the Maztica continents are no longer located on the planet? So 2 out of 4?

Personally, I hope they bring Spelljammer back.

Only if Spelljammers are navigating between the giant, magically irradiated rubble and dessicated corpses of the realms and it's dead gods tumbling for eternity through the astral sea.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 16:56

Jack the Lad: Jan 20, 2009; Feed the Pubs

quote:

@khelthros : The overchannel ability for wizards. Can it be used to max cantrip damage? At no cost as well, since it's a 0 level spell?
@mikemearls : as written, yes, but i'd house rule it to increase the damage by 1d12

No idea how I missed this originally. This may well give Wizards better at-will DPR than the fighter again - I'll run the numbers with and without Mearls' houserule.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 16:59

eth0.n: Jun 1, 2012

treeboy posted:

That's utterly ridiculous. It's like saying I should be able to eat as much as I want and never get fat. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. In complex systems there will always be an optimal choice in regards to some in-game action. Whether that is combat or not depends on the action you're attempting (edit: or the stated purpose of the campaign/system). By your logic every feat would have to buff the exact same things in the exact same way but with a little flavor on the side to sliiiiiiightly differentiate between the other vanilla feats.

That's how we got 4e item progression.

So you say that different in-game actions/activities would have different optimums? Gee, I wonder how a game could have every option be similarly optimal, yet be widely different?

Optimality is never as simple as this one thing is optimal always and forever. Complex (or even simple) games have complex optimums. Especially in RPGs, where there's a dynamic metagame driven by a human DM. The art of good game design (in general) is for all those optimums to also be fun.

In good board games and video games it's a given that there's a wide variety of similarly optimal choices. Look at how many choices there are in MOBA games, yet a wide variety of characters get played even by ruthless optimizers.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 17:00

VoidTek: Jul 30, 2002; HAPPYELF WAS RIGHT

This last round of tweets is really starting to break me. When I saw that it was even more "Well that would be a call for the DM" and "Yes that is how the rule is written, but here is how I would houserule it" bullshit, I actually pounded my fists on the desk in frustration. Mad at ~~video~~tabletop games. What have I become.......

# ? Jul 21, 2014 17:06

Jack the Lad: Jan 20, 2009; Feed the Pubs

To be fair the "Yes that is how the rule is written, but here is how I would houserule it" thing is pretty baffling/frustrating.

e: Also, I ran the numbers and overchannelled cantrips do not beat the Fighter's at-will DPR. His rock 'em sock 'em robots swing sword all day niche is safe.

Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Jul 21, 2014

# ? Jul 21, 2014 17:22

moths: Aug 25, 2004; I would also still appreciate some danger.

It's a device that lets him "officially" make Calvinball D&D rules.

The detective turning to the camera, asking "Who do YOU think the killer was?" Make up your own ending!

# ? Jul 21, 2014 17:27

Ryuujin: Sep 26, 2007; Dragon God

Speaking of tweets:

quote:

@doug_justice : I'm running the LMoP (loving it!) and the Bugbear picked up a greatsword. With his Brute ability, would he do 3d6 or 4d6?
@mikemearls : 3d6

@Hadan_Ashcroft : DnD 5e Stealth: Can I move out of cover and still gain advantage for having stealth or as soon as I move I am seen?
@mikemearls : DM's call. Typically no, unless a creature is looking away from you or otherwise wouldn't see you.

@DaveTheGame : I wonder if @mikemearls remembers this conversation, in which I will take credit for Advantage/Disadvantage: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6963408603037048958&postID=1738878152049218005
@mikemearls : wow, that's a blast from the past. Rare instance of past me looking smart after the fact.

quote:

@khelthros : The overchannel ability for wizards. Can it be used to max cantrip damage? At no cost as well, since it's a 0 level spell?
@mikemearls : as written, yes, but i'd house rule it to increase the damage by 1d12
@khelthros : I see... Wizards have insane damage (Meteor Swarm). Will other classes, like Fighters, be able to keep up?
@mikemearls : yes - compare meteor swarm's 40d6 to 8 attacks from a fighter using action surge. Fighter can easily get up to 140 damage
@khelthros : Thank you for answering. I'm excited to play, but worried that wizards will steal the show.Just noticed wizards cast less spells

@Brail4 : Are you allowed to say,will all of the spell schools have an Arcane Tradition in the phb?
@mikemearls : yes, each traditional school gets one

@MisterDaedalus : So are you guys doing a different subscription service for D&D 5e? Want to know whether I should keep paying DDI.
@mikemearls : it's separate - follow @DnDMorningstar for more info

quote:

@basmith7 : any plans to release a hard copy of the basic rules in the future?
@mikemearls : not yet.

@A_real_geek : Can you crit with a spell (assuming it has an attack-roll)? Rules seems to indicate that you can. #dnd
@mikemearls : yes, you can

quote:

@GameCrunchEma : Unarmed Strike: Shouldn't it be a light weapon? (one-two punch, you don't have to be a monk for that I guess). Just curious.
@mikemearls : it became default, which felt wrong for non-monks

@chimerasame : Can a low-init character ready an action, then take that action if legit triggered by a high-init character in the next round?
@mikemearls : yes

@Ooze : Something I didnt understood about Inspiration rule: Why would I give my Inspiration to other PC if the GM could do the same?
@Ooze : I mean, since they don't stack, the better option would be tip the DM to give the PC an Inspiration instead I give up mine.
@Ooze : Or I miss something?
@mikemearls : you might give it at a dramatic moment or when the player needs to make a key role
@mikemearls : idea is that good rp helps entire table

quote:

@WolfHunter83 : In the Monster Manual or in the DMG, can we expect to see rules for Fiend/demonic and spiritic possession, for horror campaign?
@mikemearls : can't remember off the top of my head. sorry!

@wordsncode : Will monsters in the MM have a proficiency bonus? in LMoP it looks like most have a prof-bon of 2. #guessing#DnD5e
@mikemearls : yes, they have one based on their CR.

@aideddorg : Why official Character Sheet does have a space to put Inspiration value if rules says you have it or not, so no value ?
@mikemearls : it's like a check box - i put a d20 there to mark when I have it.

quote:

@eerongal : hiding: attacking w/ ranged it says you give away your location, does this cancel hiding? Doesn't say you are "seen" or "heard"
@mikemearls : Yes, others are aware of you

@mrlong78 : Page 90: Faeire Fire
@mikemearls : in the queue of fixes!

@notBowen : Any ETA on PDFs for the Starter Set pregens? At least I think you guys said you intended to put them out there.
@mikemearls : I'll check this afternoon - I thought they were going up this week.

@CHoffos : I like to use art to make tokens. so will the art from the stater set be uploaded on the D&D site?
@mikemearls : sorry, don't know for sure. will check around.

quote:

@mikemearls : Hey everyone, looks like I've been answering some rules questions with an outdated version of Basic D&D. Corrections to follow.
@mikemearls : Barbarians no longer lose their rage abilities for one week after eating a meal using a fork, spoon, or knife.
@mikemearls : It is no longer legal in OP to attack bard player characters on sight.
@mikemearls : Druid players are no longer required to bring living animals to the table to represent beast forms they want to transform into.
@mikemearls : Paladins no longer receive XP penalties for, and I quote "making with the sexy times."
@mikemearls : The latest revisions to the spells chapter means that the spells no longer, in fact, work in real life.
@mikemearls : Please change the damage for "A withering critique of an opponent's rapping ability" from 3d12 psychic damage to 2d6 cold damage.
@mikemearls : Last but not least, you no longer need to "bust out real karate moves" on anyone at the table to gain bonus damage on a critical hit.
@mikemearls : Thanks for being understanding, and sorry for those oversights. I have updated my files to the latest versions.

quote:

@smokekodiak : Will there be boons and other non-magic item rewards in DMG?
@mikemearls : I believe so. I know some rules were drafted, but not sure how they worked out.

@ETallitnics : Good Morning Mr. Mearls! Can you confirm that this example of Sneak Attack is correct please?
http://community.wizards.com/comment/50897521#comment-50897521 � Thank you!
@mikemearls : Looks correct to me.
@ETallitnics : Sorry, to be clear, your confirmation includes the Cleric's Divine Strike? Either way thank you for your time.
@mikemearls : divine strike specifies *your* turn, so you wouldn't get it on an oppy

@Brail4 : Will Tensers Disk be in phb or do I need to convince DM to houserule it in somehow? I miss my disk :[
@mikemearls : It's there!

@wachunga : which classes made it in the upcoming PHB? I haven't seen this confirmed yet.
@mikemearls : Barbarian, bard, cleric, druid, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, warlock, wizard

quote:

@Celestian_GC : So THACO is an option in the PHB? The real question, is it included in the adventures stat blocks? #adnd
@mikemearls : it's in the DMG

quote:

@Fjw1970 : When you attack while hidden are you still hidden or do you have to use the hide action to re-hide?
@wotc_rodney : Basic Rules, page 73: If you are hidden...when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
@Fjw1970 : So when you give away your location you are no longer hidden and you would have to take the hide action to hide again. Correct?
@wotc_rodney : Correct!

‏@seanbonney : Climber's Kit not a #dnd5e tool? Why not add to STR(Athletics) or DEX(Acrobatics) when doing rope work?
@wotc_rodney : B/c we don't want tools to overlap with skills. On a given task, we try to make sure there's 1 way to get prof bonus
@seanbonney : Still confused. Doesn't the Disguise Kit tool overlap with CHA (Deception)?
@wotc_rodney : Not necessarily. Making a disguise and bluffing someone are two different things.
@wotc_rodney : For example, I might create disguises for all of my party members to make them look like soldiers.
@wotc_rodney : That would pass a visual test, but if someone started questioning me, I'd need to make Charisma (Deception) checks
@seanbonney : What is check for "visual test"? Disguise maker rolling CHA (Persuasion) + Pro Bonus vs viewer's passive Percep?
@wotc_rodney : It largely depends on the situation, but in most cases I'd say it's likely a contest against Int (Investigation).
‏@wotc_rodney : But a lot of that is going to depend on the situation at hand, so the DM has to decide what's most appropriate

quote:

@MrMattFree : Hit dice question! Basic rules say you get half your HD back at a long rest but doesn't say round up. What does a 1st lvl do?
@mikemearls : should be minimum 1.

@jimmyjimjam01 : Are the pregen character sheets from the D&D starter box going to be released online this week?
@mikemearls : they should be released soon - i know it's on the schedule.

@AirPower25 : quick Q. If I have reach (10 ft), do I only get an opportunity attack if enemy moves to 15 ft?
@mikemearls : yes, you attack when they leave your reach

@redcometcasval : What are the odds of things like Draconian being in that big crate of monsters you talked about earlier this week?
@mikemearls : not too high - a little too closely tied to one setting

@Kynewulf74 : With kender in the DMG and references to Dragonlance in the Basic rules, will Draconians be in the MM?
@mikemearls : not a high chance - a little too tightly tied to one setting

@mikemearls : ICv2 - Jim Zub on the New 'D&D' Series http://icv2.com/articles/news/29095.html#.U8i-1R_1r3Y.twitter �

quote:

@dndiy_ft : Quick question for you: at 1st level, if you take a long rest. Do you regain 1 HD back or none(from rounding down of .5)? thx!
@mikemearls : you get 1 - should be min. 1 for long rest

@diversionArch : Mike, in the new MM will stat blocks include minimum spell info to run it, or will we have to reference elsewhere for the spell?
@mikemearls : it looks like you'll have to reference spell, but we are sticking to simple options

@Callan_s : Hi! How does the term 'per turn' work? Could a PC who can make an attack 'per turn' make an attack on everyone elses turn?
@mikemearls : yes, though you'd still need to use your action or reaction

quote:

@Gyor1 : just reread ur LL on Tieflings, it appear u chose a different direction. Love 5e Tiefling, but curious as to why?
@mikemearls : can't remember exactly why - think we looked at another option for a general, plane-touched race

@Brail4 : what would the action sequence be like for sheathing one weapon,drawing another,and attacking?Is that all 1 action?
@mikemearls : yeah - the intent is to avoid punishing players for that stuff by charging an action

@ZerounTheQuick : 2wf clarification: can only use 2wf to attack one creature since bonus action w/action, or can attack 2 diff. Enemies with 2wf?
@mikemearls : can attack two targets

quote:

@Brail4 : Are feats going to be the only way to gain weapon/armor profs?Or can you train like with tools?
@mikemearls : think training is an option DMs can use, but not assumed

@vikke064 : Is there anything decided about skill system versions for the DMG, e.g. similar to 3.x skill points? Houserules on the way...
@mikemearls : option in dmg

@thalion94598 : Will there be henchmen and hireling rules in the PHB or DMG?
@mikemearls : dmg

quote:

@mpetruzz : Can you dash with both your action and bonus action? @Wizards_DnD @mikemearls Only if you're wearing red?
@mikemearls : believe you can

@Sam_Urfer : Any chance the Goliaths made into MM/DMG?
@mikemearls : gith in mm, goliaths not in core

@twetzel2k : are the #dndstarterset rules any different than the basic pdf? Have read that page to page, want to save time.
@mikemearls : nope, same rules

quote:

@Brail4 : CunningAction for dash,dash,move would be 30+30+30 right? (assuming 30 move speed) Or have I got my math wrong?
@mikemearls : believe that's correct

@DrDragonlance : Hi Mike, is there a save versus the Sleep spell?
@mikemearls : nope

@dromaskald : A DM judges it easy
For the monk, not the paladin PC
To climb up a wall
With no armor at all:
May she give Pally a diff'rent DC?
@mikemearls : yes - it's all in the DM's hands

@ianjg2002 : when will Dragon be ready for 5e? I have got some killer ideas to submit.
@mikemearls : no news yet, sorry

quote:

@MerricB : G'day,Mike! Are we going to be able to charge into combat in the full rules? Curious why it isn't in Basic #dnd
@ObsidianCrane : most likely only as a feat as in play test. I'm ok with that in truth.
@mikemearls : @MerricB yeah - the 3e and 4e rules made charging worth a separate rule. Oppy atk and move rules make it easy to spam charge

@SnarkKnight1 : What would be examples of Strength, Intelligence, or Charisma saving throws?
@mikemearls : Strength save - resist a gust of wind or push effect
mikemearls : Int save - psionics when we do it
@mikemearls : charisma - possession
@mikemearls : I think this is an area where we will see more as designers get more used to the edition

@Omgdestroyed : RAW, Wizards have to reprepare a whole new list of spells, using time for spells that were on the previous list, too. Intended?
@mikemearls : nope, not intent, just spend time on changes

quote:

@Omgdestroyed : Any chance of a glimpse/preview of the Wizard's Abjuration Tradition? Very broad school, very interested in how you handle that.
@mikemearls : it works well as a defensive wizard. Swordmage = abjurer + fighter

@Omgdestroyed : Also, Circle of Power (Paladin spell) from the playtest seemed like it would fit Abjurers/any Wizard perfectly. Changed in PHB?
@mikemearls : no - trying to carve out some unique spells for paladins. Rangers bards

@jaceimba : Does a rogue get more than 1 reaction during the first round with thief's reflexes?
@mikemearls : kind of - you get your reaction back when your turn starts. You can't accumulate more than 1
@jaceimba : So it breaks the once per round rule of reaction as long as you use one reaction before your second turn during the first round?
@mikemearls : correct!

@jaceimba : Is the RAI for characters to have only 1 reaction per round?It's under 'Ready' but not in the Reaction section of the rule.
@mikemearls : yes, that is rule as intended

quote:

@yusakuasano : Hey Mike. Any chance to see muls in DMG? Or have to wait sthing for Dark Sun?
@mikemearls : sorry, not until dark sun

@allforjury : In Re: wizards cantrips Via elf racial ability. If one takes Shocking Grasp does the damage go up with Level? @mikemearls
@mikemearls : yes, it goes up

@MonumentGames : what is the purpose of the light property on hand crossbows as Two Weapon Fighting rules specify only melee weapons can be used?
@mikemearls : it might come into play with other abilities or DM rulings. For instance, tight passage where non-light weapons have disad.

quote:

@jrhyne1976 : Can spells affect somebody underwater? Like if something is hiding underwater, can a Ray of Frost effect it? If so, penalties?
@mikemearls : DM can grant disadvantage for cloudy water, etc, but no standard rule

@Silent0siris : Anyone know if the Basic Rules will get some monster stat blocks before September? @mikemearls?
@mikemearls : yes - august

@hewwagner : Can the wizard have the thaumaturgy cantrip? I feel like a lot of its powers are things that Gandalf does, at least in the films
‏@mikemearls : if you house rule that, won't affect balance

quote:

@Spam_On_Maui : Will the PHB have enough info to rescue me from PF? @_@ Help!
@mikemearls : hopefully yes! =)

@Brail4 : what would the action sequence be like for sheathing one weapon,drawing another,and attacking?Is that all 1 action?
@mikemearls : yeah - the intent is to avoid punishing players for that stuff by charging an action
@vikke064 : In http://media.wizards.com/downloads/dnd/DnDBasicRules(PrinterFriendly).pdf#page=70 � it seems you only get strictly one interaction, either sheathing or drawing a weapon.
@mikemearls : DM is free to make a call, based on the situation

@ETallitnics : Good evening! Concerning weapons with the Reach property: Opportunity Attacks are provoked at 5' or 10' or both? #Thanks
@mikemearls : 10 feet

# ? Jul 21, 2014 17:28

Nancy_Noxious: Apr 10, 2013; by Smythe

Jack the Lad posted:

To be fair the "Yes that is how the rule is written, but here is how I would houserule it" thing is pretty baffling/frustrating.

The essence of D&D is back! Rules shouldn't exist to enable fun gameplay � they must be vague in order to enable passive agressive male teen pecking order bullshit.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 17:30

eth0.n: Jun 1, 2012

As a concrete example of what I'm talking about, a Linguist that's "Learn 3 new languages" (I don't know if that's what Next's version does, but I'd be surprised if it's significantly different) is obviously a bullshit flavor feat next to Resilient.

But give it an ability to Charm enemies in combat? Now we could be getting somewhere. One better save vs can't be attacked by an enemy (or enemies) of your choice could be a real choice of optimality. The actual optimum would likely vary according to the situation (Resilient better vs. large crowds, Linguist better vs bosses, for example), but those situation would be those that naturally arise through typical gameplay, not ones the DM has to specially craft when feeling pity for the Linguist.

An alternative approach would be for Linguist to not have an opportunity cost of "could have Resilient instead". Something other than feats that characters get as they level, but are mainly fluffy flavor things.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 17:36

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

quote:

@Brail4 : what would the action sequence be like for sheathing one weapon,drawing another,and attacking?Is that all 1 action?
@mikemearls : yeah - the intent is to avoid punishing players for that stuff by charging an action
@vikke064 : Inhttp://media.wizards.com/downloads/dnd/DnDBasicRules(PrinterFriendly).pdf#page=70 … it seems you only get strictly one interaction, either sheathing or drawing a weapon.
@mikemearls : DM is free to make a call, based on the situation

# ? Jul 21, 2014 17:38

Bongo Bill: Jan 17, 2012

"Rulings, not rules" does not refer to the designer's job, Mike.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 17:44

Gort: Aug 18, 2003; Good day what ho cup of tea

Was this guy even involved in the design of the game he's talking about, or did he just read the Basic PDF once?

# ? Jul 21, 2014 17:45

Arivia: Mar 17, 2011

Judgement posted:

Fourteen years and feats are still garbage designed by idiots. You know. Allegedly. Wouldn't want to jump the gun here.

Only if Spelljammers are navigating between the giant, magically irradiated rubble and dessicated corpses of the realms and it's dead gods tumbling for eternity through the astral sea.

You are really mad about the Forgotten Realms. Show me on the elf doll where Elminster touched you.

(Really the FR is awesome, sorry if you can't see that)

# ? Jul 21, 2014 17:50

moths: Aug 25, 2004; I would also still appreciate some danger.

N/m, redacted

# ? Jul 21, 2014 17:58

Selachian: Oct 9, 2012

Ryuujin posted:

@SnarkKnight1 : What would be examples of Strength, Intelligence, or Charisma saving throws?
@mikemearls : Strength save - resist a gust of wind or push effect
mikemearls : Int save - psionics when we do it
@mikemearls : charisma - possession
@mikemearls : I think this is an area where we will see more as designers get more used to the edition

uhwait. I thought willpower-type saves were still Wisdom-based (e.g. Charm). But now you resist possession with Charisma? Okaaaaaaaay.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 18:30

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Selachian posted:

uhwait. I thought willpower-type saves were still Wisdom-based (e.g. Charm). But now you resist possession with Charisma? Okaaaaaaaay.

That's actually a pretty classic implementation of Charisma. Remember, it is your force of personality and will. In AD&D you used your Charisma when engaging in a battle of wills with a magic artifact.

And in 4E of course, your Will defense was based on whichever was better, Wisdom or Charisma.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 18:42

Sir Kodiak: May 14, 2007

eth0.n posted:

The actual optimum would likely vary according to the situation (Resilient better vs. large crowds, Linguist better vs bosses, for example), but those situation would be those that naturally arise through typical gameplay, not ones the DM has to specially craft when feeling pity for the Linguist.

Yeah, what I ultimately dislike about these styles of feats (e.g., Linguist, Tavern Brawler) is that they're a lousy way to put pressure on a GM. I'm happy to craft a campaign around what the players like to see, but the social pressure to give people what they want is plenty, I don't need to also feel like I'm depowering someone's character if I don't work in a bar fight every few sessions.

treeboy posted:

edit: you know theres something to be said too for DMs to pay attention to feat choices that their players are making as non-verbal desires for the campaign. If I have a min-max combat oriented character i'm probably hoping (or at least anticipating) tough fights. If I take a feat that ups my unarmed die size and lets me get drunk then that seems like tacit permission to get my character drunk and disarmed once in awhile.

This seems a backwards way of doing things. "I want to play a game where I'm rewarded for optimizing my character for tough fights" should come before the selection of a system. "I want a world where drunken bar brawls are common" should come before the construction of a setting. You don't want to be getting into this at level 8.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 18:50

Jack the Lad: Jan 20, 2009; Feed the Pubs

Ah, I see. The designers, (Mearls & Co) who have been working on the game for 2-3 years, aren't used to it, and that's why they have included single digit numbers of Int/Cha/Str saves but 50+ of the other attributes.

It makes sense when you think about it.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 18:53

Dwanyelle: Jan 13, 2008; ISRAEL DOESN'T HAVE CIVILIANS THEY'RE ALL VALID TARGETS
I'm a huge dickbag ignore me

Maybe it would be best to think of Feats as similar to, say, GURPS Advantages. Every campaign is going to have different priorities, which will change the affectiveness level of feats. Some of these do seem to have severerly differing power levels regardless. But for an example, I try to run a game that doesn't depend on fighting all the time, and I have a ton of languages used in my game, there isn't even an overarching Common, so taking a feat that granted one extra languages would actually be helpful. If I was running a straight up dungeon crawl, probably not so much.

Are you still going to be able to play without Feats as an option?

# ? Jul 21, 2014 21:13

Cease to Hope: Dec 12, 2011

Thalantos posted:

Maybe it would be best to think of Feats as similar to, say, GURPS Advantages.

I don't see how this reflects well on feats.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 21:21

Sir Kodiak: May 14, 2007

Thalantos posted:

But for an example, I try to run a game that doesn't depend on fighting all the time, and I have a ton of languages used in my game, there isn't even an overarching Common, so taking a feat that granted one extra languages would actually be helpful.

Out of curiosity, how would you run this setting if the PCs were all built to only speak one (presumably, common to the group) language?

# ? Jul 21, 2014 21:23

eth0.n: Jun 1, 2012

Thalantos posted:

But for an example, I try to run a game that doesn't depend on fighting all the time, and I have a ton of languages used in my game, there isn't even an overarching Common, so taking a feat that granted one extra languages would actually be helpful. If I was running a straight up dungeon crawl, probably not so much.

The problem, though, is D&D (any edition) would be a terrible choice for this kind of game. Most of the mechanics are combat. Outside of combat, it's pretty much just DM fiat all the time. If you want languages to be a major focus of the campaign, you should have more mechanics around it than "spend a feat to know a language".

Basically, if you "fix" Linguist by having a combat-light campaign, you just cause even worse problems, like the Fighter being entirely useless instead of just mostly.

And this leads to the simple fact that game design is hard. Which is why, ostensibly, we pay professionals to do it for us, instead of every GM doing it themselves.

quote:

Are you still going to be able to play without Feats as an option?

That's the "default".

# ? Jul 21, 2014 21:28

Winson_Paine: Oct 27, 2000; Wait, something is wrong.

Ryuujin posted:

Speaking of tweets:

jesus gently caress dude

# ? Jul 21, 2014 21:30

Winson_Paine: Oct 27, 2000; Wait, something is wrong.

moths posted:

Added this to the OP

# ? Jul 21, 2014 21:32

treeboy: Nov 13, 2004; James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was another life.

eth0.n posted:

As a concrete example of what I'm talking about, a Linguist that's "Learn 3 new languages" (I don't know if that's what Next's version does, but I'd be surprised if it's significantly different) is obviously a bullshit flavor feat next to Resilient.

But give it an ability to Charm enemies in combat? Now we could be getting somewhere. One better save vs can't be attacked by an enemy (or enemies) of your choice could be a real choice of optimality. The actual optimum would likely vary according to the situation (Resilient better vs. large crowds, Linguist better vs bosses, for example), but those situation would be those that naturally arise through typical gameplay, not ones the DM has to specially craft when feeling pity for the Linguist.

An alternative approach would be for Linguist to not have an opportunity cost of "could have Resilient instead". Something other than feats that characters get as they level, but are mainly fluffy flavor things.

In this instance Linguist is +1 Int (max 20), learn three languages, and can create ciphers that other's can't decode unless you've trained them to decode the cipher or they pass a DC = your int+proficiency or magic (big surprise).

Though i'm not entirely sure which spell would impart understanding of a coded message, comprehend languages doesn't. True Seeing (i thought this only pierced magical illusion/obfuscation) or somesuch?

Personally I don't think feats should all be combat oriented, I vastly prefer games that aren't 100% combat anyway.

Thalantos posted:

Are you still going to be able to play without Feats as an option?

yes

# ? Jul 21, 2014 21:34

Asymmetrikon: Oct 30, 2009; I believe you're a big dork!

Perhaps D&D should get like... actual mechanics for non-combat gameplay. Then it might be reasonable to have feats be shared between combat and non-combat benefits instead of the current divide, which is 'fixed mechanical benefit' and 'fluff bullshit that doesn't do jack poo poo concretely'.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 21:37

PleasingFungus: Oct 10, 2012; idiot asshole bitch who should fuck off

Winson_Paine posted:

Added this to the OP

Covok posted:

moths posted:

...

Now, I suppose it's time to refer to the elephant in the room. This is not the place to have edition wars about D&D. If you must do so, please use this topic instead.

Seamless.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 21:37

cbirdsong: Sep 8, 2004; Commodore of the Apocalypso; Lipstick Apathy

Asymmetrikon posted:

Perhaps D&D should get like... actual mechanics for non-combat gameplay. Then it might be reasonable to have feats be shared between combat and non-combat benefits instead of the current divide, which is 'fixed mechanical benefit' and 'fluff bullshit that doesn't do jack poo poo concretely'.

Well, what they need is to decide whether feats should be about combat or about non-combat. Otherwise, you're still going to be able to gimp yourself in combat by taking all non-combat feats while the other guy focuses solely on increasing his DPR. Conversely, that guy isn't going to have much to do during story-heavy sessions while you negotiate peace between goblins who speak three different languages. It sucks just as much for him.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 21:42

eth0.n: Jun 1, 2012

treeboy posted:

In this instance Linguist is +1 Int (max 20), learn three languages, and can create ciphers that other's can't decode unless you've trained them to decode the cipher or they pass a DC = your int+proficiency or magic (big surprise).

Though i'm not entirely sure which spell would impart understanding of a coded message, comprehend languages doesn't. True Seeing or somesuch?

Personally I don't think feats should all be combat oriented, I vastly prefer games that aren't 100% combat anyway.

That's at least a bit more interesting than I expected. Still trap feat, though.

And no, D&D shouldn't be 100% combat. Just proportional to the mechanical support. In the case of Next, that's pretty much "combats with a little story progression/exploration in between".

The problem is when you have a resource that can be spent on either a thing that happens constantly, with precisely defined rules behind it, and a thing which happens occasionally, and relies on DM fiat to matter, balance is basically impossible.

I'd agree that feats shouldn't be 100% combat, but the better approach would be for all feats to have a combat-mechanics feature, and a flavorful roleplaying or skills-mechanics feature, bound together in an evocative way. It's not just a problem that Linguist is not very useful. It's also a problem that Resilient is so very boring.

Asymmetrikon posted:

Perhaps D&D should get like... actual mechanics for non-combat gameplay. Then it might be reasonable to have feats be shared between combat and non-combat benefits instead of the current divide, which is 'fixed mechanical benefit' and 'fluff bullshit that doesn't do jack poo poo concretely'.

Maybe, but I don't think this is necessary. A given game should only have so many mechanics, and it's OK to have a game that's primarly about crunchy tactical combat, and the adventurers skilled in it. I think there's a good space for that. As long as the design doesn't then pretend that combat options are equivalent to non-combat options.

eth0.n fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Jul 21, 2014

# ? Jul 21, 2014 21:42

OtspIII: Sep 22, 2002

Thalantos posted:

Maybe it would be best to think of Feats as similar to, say, GURPS Advantages. Every campaign is going to have different priorities, which will change the affectiveness level of feats. Some of these do seem to have severerly differing power levels regardless. But for an example, I try to run a game that doesn't depend on fighting all the time, and I have a ton of languages used in my game, there isn't even an overarching Common, so taking a feat that granted one extra languages would actually be helpful. If I was running a straight up dungeon crawl, probably not so much.

Are you still going to be able to play without Feats as an option?

Feats have a bunch of traits that make them great for combat and bad for non-combat.

First off, combat is pretty much the one default assumption in Do&D. It's the one thing every class can reliably use their mechanics to contribute to. Even if you're running a combat-light game, you're still going to almost certainly have more fights than you do scenes where success hinges on being able to read that book written in Pixie.

Second, everyone gets to contribute to combat. If two people speak Pixie in the party, one of them is largely redundant. If two people both do high damage every round, they're both helping equally.

Third, non-combat stuff tends to boil down into binary 'you can speak Pixie so you succeed/you don't so go gently caress yourself" too easily, and it's rare to have campaigns where the GM is designing challenges that their PCs don't have the traits to be able to engage with. Speaking Pixie just makes the GM add books written in Pixie to the game, but if you didn't speak it your life wouldn't really be any harder--those books just would be written in Common instead. Speaking Pixie makes your party less good at reading books (because suddenly books are coming into existence that only you can read), not better.*

Basically, picking a combat feat over a non-combat utility one is generally going to come up more often, be more useful, and have its usefulness be less illusionary almost every time. The only time I can think of it not being this way is if the feat is about an action that the whole campaign is centered around--if the campaign is explicitly about mediating a cold war between the Pixies and the Giant Sentient Eagles then maybe picking up Linguist to speak both Pixie and Bird would be useful, but even then you run into the issue that anybody who can't speak both languages is going to spend half the game sitting on their hands being useless and that the GM should really just give everyone both languages for free.

*Old-school dungeon-crawl stuff actually doesn't do this part so much, since a lot of the time the dungeon you're creating and posting on the internet is going to be explored by PCs you've never even heard of, but I'd say that this style of play is far enough from the norm that it's not something that Next is designing towards.

Edit:

Asymmetrikon posted:

Perhaps D&D should get like... actual mechanics for non-combat gameplay. Then it might be reasonable to have feats be shared between combat and non-combat benefits instead of the current divide, which is 'fixed mechanical benefit' and 'fluff bullshit that doesn't do jack poo poo concretely'.

Kind of? But even then you're kind of going to need to lock into some specific sort of non-combat to be able to make decent rules for it (unless you want to go full on *World-style, which maybe you just should). Basic handles non-combat really well because, even though it doesn't have skill rolls, it does have pretty clear expectations for what you're going to be doing most sessions (kicking down doors, checking for secret panels in walls, mapping poo poo) and gives you mechanical support for doing those things. If what you're doing is roaming the countryside following plot hooks. . .I'm not sure what situations to give you mechanics for.

One thing I will say, though, is gently caress binary social skills. Talking to people is one of those things where there are aspects that just fall apart horrible if you make it too mechanical. Give people the ability to read motivations, evoke emotions, give others incentives for wanting to help you, or hide malicious intent, but don't just give people a "roll this die to win the conversation" mechanic.

OtspIII fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Jul 21, 2014

# ? Jul 21, 2014 22:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 21:46

Father Wendigo: Sep 28, 2005; This is, sadly, more important to me than bettering myself.

cbirdsong posted:

Well, what they need is to decide whether feats should be about combat or about non-combat. Otherwise, you're still going to be able to gimp yourself in combat by taking all non-combat feats while the other guy focuses solely on increasing his DPR. Conversely, that guy isn't going to have much to do during story-heavy sessions while you negotiate peace between goblins who speak three different languages. It sucks just as much for him.

You'd think they'd silo off the 'Flavor' Feats into a separate category to tie into their sleek new Background system, but that would take effort so _vv.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 22:33

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

«‹›1608 »