|
treeboy posted:who says it's supposed to be a hard counter? There are three primary limiting factors to concentration spells: 1) Limitation, one concentration spell at a time. 2) Concentration checks, *any* amount of damage requires a DC10 concentration check (of which there will ALWAYS be at least a 5% chance to fail by rolling double 1's on 2d20), and 3) HP (eventually the wizard dies) Hitting the wizard to make him lose his spell pretty much fills the definition of counter. Since Concentration checks are primarily made when you whack wizards to make them lose spells they're working on, it's a system that's designed to provide everyone a counter to concentration spells without resorting to one-hit-KO levels of cheese. It's a hard counter because it's supposed to be the most likely way for all classes to disrupt concentration spells, whereas death is a soft counter because while effective, it is unlikely and can be mitigated. Arguably, the truest hard counter is another spellcaster using dispel magic, but everyone is able to at least force a Concentration check which makes it is the most likely countermeasure. Unfortunately the guiding concept behind Concentration has always been less 'system for countering' and more 'MY VERISIMILITUDE'. E: f;b LuiCypher fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Aug 8, 2014 |
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:28 |
|
|
LuiCypher posted:Hitting the wizard to make him lose his spell pretty much fills the definition of counter. Since Concentration checks are primarily made when you whack wizards to make them lose spells they're working on, it's a system that's designed to provide everyone a counter to concentration spells without resorting to one-hit-KO levels of cheese. It's a hard counter because it's supposed to be the most likely way for all classes to disrupt concentration spells, whereas death is a soft counter because while effective, it is unlikely and can be mitigated. Most likely to occur should not be the most successful. Death is the hard counter to any class or ability, spells like Counterspell fill in the middle ground of "likely to succeed but relatively rare" and concentration is the "constant if not always significant threat"
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
treeboy posted:What? The only stats a Wizard has any interest in is Con and Dex? How about Int, the Wizard's primary stat that determines all of its to-hit and DC bonuses? He obviously means the only stat a Wizard cares about, after Int, is Con followed by Dex. The standard array lets you put a 15 in int and a 14 in con. You should do that if you play a Wizard. quote:Also excuse me, True Polymorph is a lvl 9 spell, Polymorph is a lvl 4 crowd control spell. Concentration doesn't matter for those spells listed because they are loving amazing and don't require concentration. They are huge amounts of Wizard power, and concentration does nothing to nerf them because it doesn't apply. quote:You're still completely ignoring the fact that a Wizard can't simply be hit infinite number of times and not lose a spell. Eventually (1-3 DC10 hits) they're likely to die and lose the spell anyway. Uhhhh EVERYONE can be hit and die from damage. But healing also exists. The Wizard can have his long-duration concentration spells and as long as he is not getting murdered in a fight, which those long duration concentration spells help prevent by the by (like Stoneskin), they are not going away due to this mechanic. AKA concentration is not an effective limit to the power of certain buffs aside from the only 1 spell you can concentrate on at a time. As soon as that limit is broken (and of course it will be, this edition is gently caress all if not gung ho for more broken spells, I bet there is going to be a spell that concentrates on a spell for you, because the Wizard's of the Coast D&D team motto: "Because gently caress you thats why." It will be balanced because it uses up a spell slot, you see! quote:Almost like they've got some kind of process for determining monster statistics to keep them within a certain range... Yeah wouldn't it be great if they told us what that was instead of backsolving for tummyfeels. Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Most likely to occur should not be the most successful. Death is the hard counter to any class or ability, spells like Counterspell fill in the middle ground of "likely to succeed but relatively rare" and concentration is the "constant if not always significant threat" But the math we've been doing (that apparently WotC isn't doing) just showed that Concentration isn't even a threat at all. For anything to be a threat at all, it has to be credible and this is anything but. You're much more likely to die than to ever have a spell be disrupted by a failed Concentration check. There is pretty much no reason to have Concentration be a thing other than to have a skill trap. Or maybe in Bizarro World WotC realized that if they told everyone the only counter to concentration spells was dispel magic or death, then everyone would be up in arms about 'caster supremacy'. So they put this little system in place to fool people into believing that there were ways other than the aforementioned means to counter certain spells.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:He obviously means the only stat a Wizard cares about, after Int, is Con followed by Dex. The standard array lets you put a 15 in int and a 14 in con. You should do that if you play a Wizard. 1) your saves (excepting con) will suck and you'll be hit by every single enemy ability in the game, which mostly seem to target Wis/Dex 2) You can also only have one of them at a time (based on alpha rules) as they are all lvl 8. Hope the Con+11 dragon doesn't resist. 3) So what? The fact that HP serves as a hard limit to all classes doesn't obviate the limit even if it's universal. The chances of a Fighter dying to (or being hit by) a DC11 concentration hit are markedly less than the Wizard. 4) Currently there is a hard limit to 1 concentration spell per caster at a time. The lead designer said this is never going away, it's one of the few things he's been super direct and unequivocal about. 5) Yes it would be great if it was public. They said it's coming in the DMG. There's no real reason to doubt that. This is just cynical and dumb treeboy fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
treeboy posted:I'm pretty convinced there's some kind of point buy system at work for monster generation modified by templates (which i would guess simply increase the overall pt total available) with special abilities assigned pt costs. 
petrol blue fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:No picture, sorry (they're not mine) but second-hand, it can duplicate any 8th level or lower spell without using components, and has a handful of additional effects: creating a non magical item of up to 25k in value, healing large groups, forcing a reroll on an action in prior turns (this seems to work retroactively, I have no idea how it's supposed to be handled). Also allows reality shaping effects, prone to DM shenanigans, with severe drawbacks including a chance of never being able to cast wish again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Chaltab posted:Why is this a spell and not a ritual? Also from what I read yesterday IIRC, if you use Wish for anything other than replicating a spell there is a 33% chance that you can never cast wish again. The retroactive thing basically tells you to change the game state to account for whatever the results of the reroll was, but doesn't give any information on how to adjudicate potentially complicated scenarios, so basically your GM is just gonna have to make whatever up to handle it at that point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Chaltab posted:Why is this a spell and not a ritual? Probably because it was a spell before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Chaltab posted:Why is this a spell and not a ritual? In 5E, all rituals are also spells. Making it a ritual would just make it stronger. Like everything in 5E that's ostensibly from 4E, it misses the whole original point. In this case, rather than open utility magic to everyone, it just makes Wizards even stronger. The only surprise is that Clerics actually managed to get nerfed on this: they have to prepare the spell, not just have it in a ritual book.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:In 5E, all rituals are also spells. Making it a ritual would just make it stronger. i think that's supposed to be the counter to wizards needing to fill their books vs. simply getting all the spells like clerics do
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
treeboy posted:i think that's supposed to be the counter to wizards needing to fill their books vs. simply getting all the spells like clerics do Wizards needing to fill their books is not a significant impediment to them. Clerics getting all the spells has, since 3E at least, primarily been a matter of fluff not real balance. That Wizards are so much better than Clerics at rituals is just plain bizarre. In response to the word "Ritual", "religious dude" comes to mind much faster than "book-worm". eth0.n fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:Wizards needing to fill their books is not a significant impediment to them. Clerics getting all the spells has, since 3E at least, primarily been a matter of fluff not real balance. This would seem to be more campaign dependent than system dependent. Personally I love the idea that a wizard has to hunt down most of his spells and either purchase them at potentially premium prices or steal them from enemy casters. or heck even a really great adventure hook. Maybe the party wants to invest time and effort o locate some really high powered spells they've been unable to obtain. Time for a little side adventure to the famed Mage Tower of Obel'eski
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
treeboy posted:This would seem to be more campaign dependent than system dependent. Personally I love the idea that a wizard has to hunt down most of his spells and either purchase them at potentially premium prices or steal them from enemy casters. Right. But that is yet more attention/character development/spotlight time for the Wizard, and skews the game towards being about the Wizard and his faithful assistants.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Just like the quest to find a magic weapon is unfair because it skews things toward the fighter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Right. But that is yet more attention/character development/spotlight time for the Wizard, and skews the game towards being about the Wizard and his faithful assistants. Or the party decides they don't need Spell X and they don't go to the mage tower. If it's a fun adventure where the fighter gets a cool sword and the rogue a neat wondrous object, who cares if the hook was to get Grease? As long as not *all* the quests are about the wizard then what does it matter? A good DM throws out neat hooks for all of his players, and also rewards them all for good play. What kind of PTSD groups has everyone in here participated in where one nerdy dude playing a bookworm browbeats all the other players into doing everything he wants? edit: Basic has ~60 non-cantrip spells, a wizard will automatically learn 44 spells (6+2/level) and we know there's a fair number of spells that aren't in the basic rules (both lvl 4 and 9 polymorphs for instance). So while a player can certainly learn a bunch of really great spells they'll have some tough choices to make. treeboy fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Do Wizards need less magic items than Fighters and Rogues? In 4e, it was pretty balanced, so having to also go spell hunting would definitely have skewed things, but maybe 5e works with the Wizard's treasure being primarily spells.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Do Wizards need less magic items than Fighters and Rogues? In 4e, it was pretty balanced, so having to also go spell hunting would definitely have skewed things, but maybe 5e works with the Wizard's treasure being primarily spells. i think this is the goal. Most of the caster item's i've seen don't buff attack or damage, but rather are like that Staff of Fire which has charges for additional spell or spell-like effects. Obviously there'll be the rings of protection +1 kinda stuff, but martial characters have some pretty legit options as far as +3 hammers of thunderfuck etc. Finding scrolls/books to copy new spells is likely a pretty big driving factor of loot for wizards. So i'm okay with an adventure once in awhile for that purpose
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Or the party decides they don't need Spell X and they don't go to the mage tower. If it's a fun adventure where the fighter gets a cool sword and the rogue a neat wondrous object, who cares if the hook was to get Grease? I did a playtest for a d20-system where Wizards were essentially turned past 11. No poo poo, the entire spellcasting system was 'make something up thematically appropriate to the spell school and depending on the roll the GM tells you if it's all good (the GM will pretty much always tell you it's good)'. The Fighter dude hit things kinda hard, I guess? When I decided to play up the fighter-guy's class feature of wearing heavy armor to reduce damage to practically nothing, the GM (who was also the designer) started trying to hose me over by dealing massive damage. In short, the spellcasting system was actually about letting Wizards control the narrative while the combat system was the same exciting drivel that fighters got in 3e.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Well, that sounds terrible (or at least unfun). I don't think 5e is quite that bad. For magic items, the October playtest lists +1 weapons as +1 atk/dmg rolls...i suppose you *could* use that to create a caster weapon and have it affect their attack rolls, but the "weapon type" d100 chart doesn't include quarter staffs, so it seems to be aimed more at martial characters. The magic staffs/wands listed all do some kind of spell effect and don't seem to buff attack/damage rolls at all. edit: actually upon further consideration i don't think it works that way. the +1 atk/dmg bonus is to attacks made with that weapon, not just any attack roll you make. So even if you're wielding a +3 Mace of Uber, it wouldn't do anything for your spell slinging. treeboy fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Thing is spells are the core element of Wizards' class features. Without mechanics to mediate it, A DM is going to look pretty lovely to deny access to more spells. The answer of "make it an adventure!" means that the spellbook isn't a limiting balancing factor, but rather a "take the spotlight" feature just for Wizards. Magic items for martials isn't the same, because magic items aren't class features, and are even explicitly stated to be "optional" by the devs. The same social expectations don't exist. It's just like how, in theory, having a physical, damageable, stealable spellbook is a liability. But in practice, almost no DMs ever target them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
I suppose I was thinking of this through the lens of 4e where access to the core three magic item types was drat near a class feature. Though the refresh for those was too slow for Wizards to get new spells at the same progression as Fighters/Rogues got core items anyways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:Thing is spells are the core element of Wizards' class features. Without mechanics to mediate it, A DM is going to look pretty lovely to deny access to more spells. The answer of "make it an adventure!" means that the spellbook isn't a limiting balancing factor, but rather a "take the spotlight" feature just for Wizards. you don't have to flat out deny access. The wizard naturally obtains spells as they level. I would argue that making some things tricky (or difficult) to obtain *is* mediating their mechanics. Yes it's about feel and up to DM ability and some DMs are dumb, but that's where communication with players is important. If your wizard is loving hating the game because he feels limited then maybe you toss him a wand which helps out some of his problems, or toss a couple scrolls his way he can sell/trade/copy. By the same token your Fighter shouldn't be getting a new sword every session, but neither should they *never get a sword ever* And I kinda hate the whole arguments regarding magic items/no magic items, grid/totm. Everyone can recognize the game works best (and is more interesting) when using magic items and grid, it's basically default no matter how much the designers suggest otherwise. edit: also keep in mind the first ~3 levels are only supposed to take 3-4 sessions total. So there'll be quick advancement up front that settles down into a more rhythmic process. So at first handing out rare spells won't matter as much anyway and more mundane items like healing potions and gold will be primary focus (with maybe a few minor enchanted objects thrown in) edit2: interestingly scrolls are listed as magic items. carrying that logic out - if you're running a campaign with no magic items the only way wizards will learn new spells is leveling up or stealing them from other wizards they defeat. treeboy fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Well, that sounds terrible (or at least unfun). I don't think 5e is quite that bad. To be frank, I don't think 5e is ever going to approach levels of that bad. And no matter what else I say or is said in this thread, I am definitely going to participate in a few sessions of 5e to get a feel for it myself and come back with a more complete assessment/opinion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
depending on how much effort/time my 5e roll20 campaign takes i might try running part of it here and see how it goes once MM/DMG are out. It'll be fun to see how different groups handle the same situations. From day to day my opinion on the system can vary pretty wildly from frustrated to actually pretty dang optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:Just like the quest to find a magic weapon is unfair because it skews things toward the fighter. This explains why magic weapons became optional.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:Codename: Morningstar has posted their beta version of a character sheet: The reason this post is concerning isn't because of the bad UI. That's fixable. The problem is that they thought it was okay to show bad UI to potential customers, which suggests that they don't have anyone on the team that understands User Experience, so they won't be able to fix it. Morningstar posted:Ideals Applause and apprecia... Seriously, who signed off on this? Also, congratulations/condolences on getting second place Ritorix.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Coulda been the goon on the inside. Cover blown.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:The reason this post is concerning isn't because of the bad UI. That's fixable. The problem is that they thought it was okay to show bad UI to potential customers, which suggests that they don't have anyone on the team that understands User Experience, so they won't be able to fix it. It shows by the second picture that clicking it shows the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Just what I want from a character sheet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:It shows by the second picture that clicking it shows the whole thing. If each of those four headings has that much text under it once clicked, it'd all fit into the blank space just in the rightmost column. I'm sure they'll fix it in the updates though. e: Just noticed that the attributes box needs to scroll to display all the attributes, presumably because the triple-spacing or whatever is important to the feel. Seriously, the attributes and all the information currently in the center column would fit into the center column if it was spaced sensibly. That's disregarding the way that almost none of that poo poo is what you'd actually want on the first page of your character sheet anyway. And it looks like there are six pages. Six. Pages. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
4th edition had the sustain/concentration mechanic as well (and martial characters even had it!) I'm not sure why this edition had to go and make it all weird and quirky. Well, actually I think I do, it's so it's not associated with 4th Edition, per usual.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
A Catastrophe posted:And all this, again is supposedly saving time? Nope. The way to save time in this scenario is to have a clear rule in the book. That's certainly a lot quicker than a retcon rule that might result in people reversing an hour of real-time (and eight hours of game time). I've had about the same number of such things in every game. quote:Wait so, i'm replying to you saying this: I disagree with lots of rulings. I don't care enough to reach the level of "can't live with it". quote:And again, on what planet does a complete rebuild of a character make for a faster game, than just having clear rules in the first place? Use the Assassin example people are talking about on this page. Surely it's much much better and simpler to make it clear how stealth and surprise works? Well, given how many more words are put into it in, say, PF, or 4e... and we still have the same stupid arguments... I am not sure that making everything "clear" really changes it that much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
We don't have the same stupid arguments, no. I know how to determine if I have cover from an enemy in 4e, or how many goblins I can engulf in the same fireball, or whether my meditating fey is aware of their surroundings while they rest (they are).
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
seebs posted:I disagree with lots of rulings. I don't care enough to reach the level of "can't live with it". That's fortunate, because if you did, you'd obviously have a mental disorder. In critiquing game design, the standard is "tends to make the game less enjoyable". If you disagree with a ruling, why would you disagree if not because it made the game less fun? quote:Well, given how many more words are put into it in, say, PF, or 4e... and we still have the same stupid arguments... I am not sure that making everything "clear" really changes it that much. The "same" arguments? No. For example, what Elves do when they rest is perfectly clear in 4E. A silly example, but there are tons more. What you're observing is that no matter what, people will find things to argue about. From a superficial perspective, this might make it seem like rules clarity doesn't matter. But what actually happens is the arguments become less and less likely to be relevant to actual play.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:In critiquing game design, the standard is "tends to make the game less enjoyable". If you disagree with a ruling, why would you disagree if not because it made the game less fun? Logical consistency or just "I think this is what the rule says". But there are cases where I think the game would work better with a given ruling. But! The game overall is more fun if we don't spend a ton of time arguing it. quote:The "same" arguments? No. For example, what Elves do when they rest is perfectly clear in 4E. A silly example, but there are tons more. That hasn't really been my experience. The PF rules make a ton of things "more clear", but that just means there's even more rules... Which can have complications or confusions. I don't find that the frequency with which I run into ambiguities and disagree with people shifts much from one system to another. I've been doing rules debates since ~1980, and nothing changes. Except how many defined terms we have for the things we're arguing about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
treeboy posted:From day to day my opinion on the system can vary pretty wildly from frustrated to actually pretty dang optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:As an aside, I think the elf-trance thing is not a good point to keep harping on. 5e has enough weirdo problems without using Mearls' offhand bathroom posting as canon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
seebs posted:Logical consistency or just "I think this is what the rule says". But there are cases where I think the game would work better with a given ruling. But! The game overall is more fun if we don't spend a ton of time arguing it. Are you saying that "A fireball originates in one grid square and occupies these squares <diagram>" and "I dunno, draw a circle on the grid or make a pixellated circle out of grid squares or a cross shape or something, do whatever" are equivalent because people will argue about it anyway, but you don't argue about it because the game's more fun when you don't argue, so that's ok just don't argue?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:28 |
|
|
seebs posted:The game overall is more fun if we don't spend a ton of time arguing it. Which is exactly why designing to limit rules arguments as much as possible is a good thing. Given that you agree that argument is unfun and undesirable, is your argument literally "it is impossible for a game designer to reduce the expected prevalence of rules arguments at the table"? If not, I'm really not sure what it is. quote:That hasn't really been my experience. The PF rules make a ton of things "more clear", but that just means there's even more rules... Which can have complications or confusions. I don't find that the frequency with which I run into ambiguities and disagree with people shifts much from one system to another. I've been doing rules debates since ~1980, and nothing changes. Except how many defined terms we have for the things we're arguing about. "Clear" rules does not imply "more" rules. Like I mentioned, PF really doesn't, because it adds rules cruft for simulation and realism, not actually to make clear game rules. I don't understand why your go-to example for "clear" rules is PF, not 4E.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 03:32
|
|