|
OtspIII posted:5e seems to be getting rid of encounter powers and replacing them with. . .something awkward. It makes the per-rest powers more interesting, since they really are a resource that you have reasons both to and not-to use, but the one-hour break is just such an obnoxious period of time that it just turns it into a 'will the DM let us get away with this' fiat-fest more than anything else. I think something like 'spend a [daily resource/healing surge] to regain all encounter powers during a 10 minute rest' would be a good middle ground, but obviously the 5e designers thought otherwise. This is a pretty great idea and i am stealing it when i eventually (never) get around to designing a ttrpg. The idea of healing surges/hit dice representing your, for lack of a better term, energy/stamina and conversely useable for out of combat healing or recharging 'encounter' powers is neat. Combined with less than 100% recharge per long rest and you create a plentiful yet dwindling supply of stamina during long forays. it would need to be tuned a bit with some suitable method of complete refresh a stay at a nice inn, or some expensive "Tent" (to borrow a term from jRPGs) option in the wilderness for example.
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
So remember when everyone agreed that the spell list format was so horrible that spell cards would be a godsend? Welp, http://www.gf9-dnd.com/gameAcc/tabid/87/entryid/87/Default.aspx
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:So remember when everyone agreed that the spell list format was so horrible that spell cards would be a godsend? I'm imagining having a book with clear plastic slots to put the cards in so you can actually make a little book of spells, and I'm thinking that would be adorable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
ShineDog posted:I'm imagining having a book with clear plastic slots to put the cards in so you can actually make a little book of spells, and I'm thinking that would be adorable. I'm not a fan of 5e, but I'd buy that in a heartbeat!
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
ObMeiste posted:I'm not a fan of 5e, but I'd buy that in a heartbeat! Mage Wars already has this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Something like one of the Mage Wars binders?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
ShineDog posted:I'm imagining having a book with clear plastic slots to put the cards in so you can actually make a little book of spells, and I'm thinking that would be adorable. That's exactly how the Gash Bell ccg worked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
The 6th edition is just gonna be Magic the Gathering isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
Rannos22 posted:The 6th edition is just gonna be Magic the Gathering isn't it? A roleplaying game with that much thought, investment and success would be a first.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
Rannos22 posted:The 6th edition is just gonna be Magic the Gathering isn't it? Why is this being said like it's a bad thing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 09:23
|
|
|
Rannos22 posted:The 6th edition is just gonna be Magic the Gathering isn't it? If Mearls and the ENworld gang have their ways with it, I highly doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
http://www.themarysue.com/sexuality-and-gender-diversity-dungeons-and-dragons-next/ "I’m not worried about offending bigots" -- Mike Mearls, Head of Inclusivity Dept. "We had over 175,000 people download the playtest through the open process. We also know that in most cases, the Dungeon Master for a group was the only one to download materials. So, it’s possible that over a half million people played the playtest version." -- Mike Mearls, Lead Statistician of WotC
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 09:46
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Why is this being said like it's a bad thing? Also its time for 5e so throw all your books away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
Rannos22 posted:The 6th edition is just gonna be Magic the Gathering isn't it? WotC has a policy of not sullying Magic with any connection to D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
If WotC knew how to design a action/hero/fate/willpower/good stuff fuel trait worth a drat I think it would solve so many problems. Spend a point to do X, the points recover over a game time interval (per session) or based on the type of power being invoked. For some reason that company, which has a lot of design talent, never seems to develop decent implementations of this idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Littlefinger posted:"I’m not worried about offending bigots" -- Mike Mearls, Head of Inclusivity Dept.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Littlefinger posted:"I’m not worried about offending bigots" -- Mike Mearls, Head of Inclusivity Dept. "Because we gave them consultant positions."
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
MalcolmSheppard posted:If WotC knew how to design a action/hero/fate/willpower/good stuff fuel trait worth a drat I think it would solve so many problems. Spend a point to do X, the points recover over a game time interval (per session) or based on the type of power being invoked. For some reason that company, which has a lot of design talent, never seems to develop decent implementations of this idea. Power Points in 4e's third PHB were a horrible disappointment here. I want a D&D where you play "lands" except instead of Island and Mountain they're stuff like Mana and Stamina and you need to tap 1 Mana, 1 Stamina, and 1 power point of any "color" to execute an Eldritch Slash or whatever. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Jul 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
I'm thinking about running 5E for my next game. From what I've seen of the rules, they look surprisingly streamlined and knock out some of the excessive bloat in 4E, while also enabling a bit of crunch and (probably) a fair bit of class customization. In short I rather like what I've seen. Everyone here is making GBS threads on it, though. So is it really that bad, or is this just a case of the Internet being, well, the Internet? For what it's worth I really didn't like running 4E because no one I played with is particularly hardcore about table tops, so flipping through 15 powers and adding bonuses from five different pieces of gear every turn made it a huge slog. To me, it felt like a game that was trying to emulate a computer game, and forgot that computers can make accounting for hundreds of modifiers trivial.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Damning with faint praise, 5th edition is an improvement over 3.5 in many ways.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Its essentially 3.75e. A refinement and streamlining of 3.5 but has none of the advancement achieved in 4e that made playing a non caster class a varied and interesting experience. Lots of bad/questionable design issues but I think what really gets peoples goats is that the lead designer for the entire thing responds to nearly all questions with 'DM fiat, houserule'. It'll work great with a good DM and party but whats the point in that if that holds true for literally any other TRPG?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
It honestly is an improvement over 3.5 in many ways, and it's no doubt faster to run than 4e was. This board's complaints about 5e (or at least, my complaints about 5e) boil down to: 1. It pretends it's a theater of the mind (as opposed to grid/map-using) game when many of its rules pretend otherwise 2. Like every other edition of D&D but the fourth one, it reserves all its agency and doting attention for spellcasting characters, leaving non-spellcasters thin and boring
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It honestly is an improvement over 3.5 in many ways, and it's no doubt faster to run than 4e was. This board's complaints about 5e (or at least, my complaints about 5e) boil down to: I would say that poor/inconsistent monster design and a return to the useless CR system for encounter building is the biggest problem aside from the Wizard/Mundane divide, but the ToTM thing is big too. Both issues make running 5e a real pain. You have to eyeball every encounter to determine whether it will be a challenge without wiping the party. Faceless Clock posted:For what it's worth I really didn't like running 4E because no one I played with is particularly hardcore about table tops, so flipping through 15 powers and adding bonuses from five different pieces of gear every turn made it a huge slog. To me, it felt like a game that was trying to emulate a computer game, and forgot that computers can make accounting for hundreds of modifiers trivial. This is easily circumvented by having your players write the bonus, damage and effect of each of their powers on their sheet (or making sheets for them with that information). Generally they'll have the same attack bonus for almost all of their attacks, so it's actually way easier than it sounds. Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Jul 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
i would say it boils down to a reasonably able RPG system with positives, and drawbacks, but it's not TTRPG's second coming. My group has really enjoyed what we've played of the playtests/alpha content. We're gearing up to try our hand at the starter adventure (getting five employed adult men who are married to find a day to roll20 is annoying) and mostly feel pretty positive despite the drawbacks. We were big 4e fans and played that pretty exclusively since 2008. Before that the other guys did a lot of 3.5 in highschool, but that was before I met them (I only got introduced to 3.5 in the last couple years) So, if this were rotten tomatoes i'd say the system is 65% fresh. Not the best thing ever, but pretty drat fun if that's what you're into and don't worry about the details too much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
You'd think, but it's not so easy when many 4E magic items have a special effect they do once a day, or there are character feats that add a bonus in only a certain situation, etc and so on. It's easy at first but most level 10+ characters I've played or have played with seem to have no shortage of tiny situation bonuses that can't easily be slapped on the character sheet. But anyway, the lack of things for melee characters to do does sound like it would suck rear end. Even in 4E I felt that was sometimes the case; the first character I played ever in 4E was a bog-standard Rouge with only the options from the first Player's Handbook, and boy was that terrible. Maybe I'll go with 13th Age instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
In addition to what Ferrinus and Jack the Lad have to say, the big knock against 5E thus far (to me) is that it doesn't seem to do anything exciting or new that you can't just get from another currently existing game. Most of the new things it does have like Fighter action dice or whatever they're called are extremely tepid and lackluster in execution. The stuff that's supposed to be reminiscent of 4E frequently misses the point. It's better than 3.X but you could say that about a ton of games out there. So I guess if you don't like 3E and you don't like 4E and you don't like Pathfinder and you don't like Basic or AD&D2E or any retroclone thereof and you have to play a game with the name "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover or nothing at all, it's a functional game though the other issues people mentioned still remain. Otherwise there are a plethora of games out there to choose from, many of which are simpler to run and more streamlined than Next if that's what you're looking for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:You'd think, but it's not so easy when many 4E magic items have a special effect they do once a day, or there are character feats that add a bonus in only a certain situation, etc and so on. It's easy at first but most level 10+ characters I've played or have played with seem to have no shortage of tiny situation bonuses that can't easily be slapped on the character sheet. I STRONGLY recommend paying the money to use the character builder - it's legit really useful. Particularly good, set the option for inherent bonuses. Never worry about your +1 sword again. The builder just makes an assumption about an appropriate damage bonus on your weapon and builds it right into your standard attack rating.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It honestly is an improvement over 3.5 in many ways, and it's no doubt faster to run than 4e was. This board's complaints about 5e (or at least, my complaints about 5e) boil down to: I think we really just need to accept that TotM and non-mandatory magic weapons are both bullshit and stop complaining that the game breaks when you use them. They're both pretty bald-faced lies (well, kind of--I think the game supports eyeballing mini placement and is less reliant on having the exactly correct tier of magic item at the correct level than 4e did, but those aren't TotM or NMMW), and nobody (definitely nobody here) is going to play that way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
The Table of Contents and Sorceror from the PHB have been released:  
Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Jul 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
edit: ^^^ at least they've condensed the spell lists a bit, 90 pages instead of 200+. Granted that's 90 front and back instead of single page front only.OtspIII posted:I think we really just need to accept that TotM and non-mandatory magic weapons are both bullshit and stop complaining that the game breaks when you use them. They're both pretty bald-faced lies (well, kind of--I think the game supports eyeballing mini placement and is less reliant on having the exactly correct tier of magic item at the correct level than 4e did, but those aren't TotM or NMMW), and nobody (definitely nobody here) is going to play that way. yeah this was a non-issue for me since it was clear even in the playtests that TotM is bullshit when abilities give explicit values like "push 5ft" instead of range bands like EotE/AoR. Also I vastly prefer playing with minis and a grid so it was a non-starter beyond RP encounters (which are dumb to do on a grid anyway unless there's a chance of a fight breaking out). Magic weapons, likewise, are part of what make D&D fun. Playing without them at all is kinda lame (but I can understand the appeal even if I disagree).
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Magic weapons, likewise, are part of what make D&D fun. Playing without them at all is kinda lame (but I can understand the appeal even if I disagree). Magic weapons are awesome. Magic weapons that do nothing but give you +1 are boring. It's the latter I think most people have a problem with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Thoughts on leaked pages. Pros: Actually looks really gorgeous. Cons: The resemblance to the 3E PhB is goddamned uncanny.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Thoughts on leaked pages. Pretty sure it's intended.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:I think we really just need to accept that TotM and non-mandatory magic weapons are both bullshit and stop complaining that the game breaks when you use them. They're both pretty bald-faced lies (well, kind of--I think the game supports eyeballing mini placement and is less reliant on having the exactly correct tier of magic item at the correct level than 4e did, but those aren't TotM or NMMW), and nobody (definitely nobody here) is going to play that way. I'm still not convinced that magic weapons add enough damage to keep time-to-kill consistent across all twenty levels. Without them, it goes from two rounds to kill your equal-levelled opponent to seven rounds. Do magic weapons make up for the difference? I guess we won't know for sure until we've seen all the ways to boost your damage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
OctoberCountry posted:Magic weapons are awesome. Magic weapons that do nothing but give you +1 are boring. It's the latter I think most people have a problem with. Thats why we use the inherent bonuses. I'm a liiiitle surprised that they didn't just factor that in to 5e but apparently I'm not the target audience.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
OctoberCountry posted:Magic weapons are awesome. Magic weapons that do nothing but give you +1 are boring. It's the latter I think most people have a problem with. I'm enjoying the return of minor enchants like glowing in the presence of enemies, etc. Yeah there was nothing preventing this in 4e, but it's nice to have it codified and suggested. Helps spice up plain old +1 weapons (and helps percolate some ideas for me because i'm boring and dumb). Personally I enjoy giving people normal weapons and then if they perform some incredible feat, using that as an in-world magical imbuement. i.e. having fought the minions of a young dragon, then cornering the beast in its lair, your Longsword absorbs some of the dragons natural magic and becomes +1 with that "concentrate and locate dragon within a mile" minor enchant (or whatever it was). A ranger's bow is blessed by the Elven Queen of <whatever city in fey wild> gain +1 and some other thing. Gort posted:I'm still not convinced that magic weapons add enough damage to keep time-to-kill consistent across all twenty levels. Without them, it goes from two rounds to kill your equal-levelled opponent to seven rounds. Do magic weapons make up for the difference? I guess we won't know for sure until we've seen all the ways to boost your damage. some of them were pretty beefy, +3 to hit/damage, additional 3d6 per hit kinda stuff
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Why not just have a magic sword that allows you to concentrate to find dragons but doesn't provide a +1 to hit? As in, no magic weapons at all would give + any number to hit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
So that magic swords are better than regular swords. I don't really buy that pluses, even "straight" pluses totally unalloyed with any other magical properties, trivial or otherwise, are a bad thing. If all swords deal 1-8 damage, and your sword deals 2-9 damage (or 6-14 damage), that's meaningful in itself. (I could see the argument for enchantment only affecting damage, not hit chance, but I think either are potentially fine, especially in a game with largely flat defenses and high base to-hit chances) It's silly to pretend that high-level adventurers aren't expected to have magic weaponry, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
It's meaningful, but boring. I'd prefer dealing the same damage, but having more options, over having one option which is slightly better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I want a D&D where you play "lands" except instead of Island and Mountain they're stuff like Mana and Stamina and you need to tap 1 Mana, 1 Stamina, and 1 power point of any "color" to execute an Eldritch Slash or whatever. That legit sounds like a fun mechanic and I'd totally play it. zachol posted:Why not just have a magic sword that allows you to concentrate to find dragons but doesn't provide a +1 to hit? Inherent bonuses in 4e would make this pretty easy; you'd already have your bonuses and crit dice cooked into your character, just remove those from the magic item entry and keep all the other abilities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 21:20
|
|
