D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

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

Gharbad the Weak: Feb 23, 2008; This too good for you.

Being able to choose skills from backgrounds as WELL as classes can give more flexibility to classes to play what you want to play.

Combat is MUCH faster, even including spellcasters.

Edit: And bringing bounded accuracy back into it, because there's generally fewer +1/+2/+3/+5/+10's in there, combat will probably be much faster even in high levels.

And look, we even got a guy saying that people have been overly hostile towards 5e recently.

Don't worry, I don't expect you to do this all day!

Gharbad the Weak fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Aug 9, 2014

# ? Aug 9, 2014 21:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 23:20

LuiCypher: Apr 24, 2010; Today I'm... amped up!

ManMythLegend posted:

So I've been on hiatus from caring about D&D since a few months after 4E Dark Sun got released. I read some of the design philosophy stuff for D&D Next when it was first announced and was not impressed so I stopped paying attention.

Wait wait wait... Where have I been that I have not heard about about 4E Dark Sun?!

Sounds like I need to get my priorities straight.

# ? Aug 9, 2014 21:51

MonsterEnvy: Feb 4, 2012; Shocked I tell you

LuiCypher posted:

Wait wait wait... Where have I been that I have not heard about about 4E Dark Sun?!

Sounds like I need to get my priorities straight.

Yeah they released a setting book for it.

Dark Sun is also one of the rumored settings that will be used in 5e.

# ? Aug 9, 2014 22:16

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

I wonder if ToB maneuvers could be ported to 5e? Maybe take advantage of some of the new mechanics, like Concentration.

# ? Aug 9, 2014 22:24

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

ManMythLegend posted:

Ugh. I hated 3.X. The fact that the game is way closer to that then 4E is huge minus.

Thanks for the feedback.

Don't let this stop you from giving it a try. 5e could fairly be termed "3.x done correctly" or even "what 3.5 should've been" It's definitely more in the "3 direction" from 4e's huge departure, but there's also a smattering of 2nd and earlier editions as well.

I essentially started playing D&D with 4e (my first introduction to ttrpg's was SW Saga Edition) and only in the last year have I played 3.5 regularly with some friends from work who're long time D&D'ers. I'll say unequivocally that 5e is superior to 3.x in every way. Even with the 'plain jane' powergap issues surrounding martial characters, they're just a little boring not pointless and unnecessary like they can be in 3.x. And despite our arguments about concentration, the fact they've designated a ton of spells as Concentration spells means they've already dialed back casters significantly even if on the surface they appear very 3.x-ish

The fighter is still fighty and the barbarian smashy, and in all honesty the magic itemization system they've got going on is, from what i've seen, superior to both 3.x and 4e.

edit: added concentration to my list of pros/cons

# ? Aug 9, 2014 22:34

thespaceinvader: Mar 30, 2011; The slightest touch from a Gol-Shogeg will result in Instant Death!

ManMythLegend posted:

Ugh. I hated 3.X. The fact that the game is way closer to that then 4E is huge minus.

Thanks for the feedback.

If what you're after is '4e but a bit more oldschool', take a look at the Essentials books. If you ignore a couple of classes (principally Hunter ranger, Sentinel druid and Cavalier paladin) it's pretty well-balanced as a microcosm, and really picks up the oldschool feel (i.e. the martial characters do a lot less than in o4e), but without the crashing disparity in effectiveness.

It's pretty reviled on most 4e forums because it was basically trying to old-school-ify the rules, but tbh I actually quite like it. It cuts down on some of the big piles of options and analysis paralysis playing a Slayer, but it's still fun and tactical.

You can't limit the feats to only Essentials though, that IS dull as balls.

Or, you know, play Dungeon World.

Just play Dungeon World.

# ? Aug 9, 2014 22:35

Countblanc: Apr 20, 2005; _{Help a hero out!}

Do not play Dungeon World if you want a tactical game, or a game with significant character creation options. People need to stop recommending Dungeon World as the universal role playing panacea, especially since half the messages in this thread is that there's no reason to look at a single system anymore.

# ? Aug 9, 2014 22:44

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

I see D&D as the Mint Chocolate Chip of RPG's

It's not bad. It's not incredible. It has flaws, but also some neat things. You can do most things with it, but there's probably something out there that does something very specific a lot better. It's kinda general, but oddly specific in its generality.

# ? Aug 9, 2014 22:47

Harthacnut: Jul 29, 2014

treeboy posted:

...Mint Chocolate Chip... ...not incredible...

# ? Aug 9, 2014 22:59

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

Lord of Bore posted:

hey, i love Mint Chocolate chip, but let's be honest it's safe

# ? Aug 9, 2014 23:00

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

treeboy posted:

hey, i love Mint Chocolate chip, but let's be honest it's safe

It's safe because it's popular, it's popular because it's delicious. I wish 5e tasted like mint chocolate, but instead it's kind of bland.

Yes, we are going to sit here and argue until you get your similes in order. :colbert:

# ? Aug 9, 2014 23:10

eth0.n: Jun 1, 2012

Countblanc posted:

Do not play Dungeon World if you want a tactical game, or a game with significant character creation options. People need to stop recommending Dungeon World as the universal role playing panacea, especially since half the messages in this thread is that there's no reason to look at a single system anymore.

Agreed. I respect Dungeon World as a well designed system (for the most part; it has some legacy D&D warts), but I wouldn't want to play it again, and it is a vastly different experience from what 4E or 3.X/PF provide. FATE is about the minimum "crunch" I can tolerate for a long-term game.

As for 5E, if someone in my group was interested in running it, I'd give it a shot.

But when I'm discussing 5E, it's not about whether I'd play it or not. With the right people, I'd at least try any RPG. In terms of the experience at the table, quality of an RPG is usually secondary to quality of the people playing it. But an RPG designer has no control over the people playing it. They can try to make the best RPG possible that is as likely as possible to promote a positive experience at the table. What I'm talking about is various design choices the game makes, and why (for the most part) they are bad, and inferior to alternative approaches.

The common pro-5E responses to that, that it's not so bad, or the DM can work around it, or anecdotally it's never been a problem for a given poster, are not actually relevant. They're basically a given, and I generally don't disagree with any of them. They're saying something that doesn't contradict what I'm saying. I think most of the anti-5E posts in this thread are along similar lines.

# ? Aug 9, 2014 23:11

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

I'll bite. I think 5e is good and fun. Not perfect certainly, and not really a total success at their stated design goals, but generally good and fun with a few bumps to be aware of.

# ? Aug 9, 2014 23:15

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

I would have no trouble playing 5e if it were free. I already have an idea on what kind of character I'd want to play.

# ? Aug 9, 2014 23:15

Gharbad the Weak: Feb 23, 2008; This too good for you.

Do you see, MonsterEnvy? Do you see everyone calming down?

# ? Aug 9, 2014 23:19

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

Nihilarian posted:

I would have no trouble playing 5e if it were free. I already have an idea on what kind of character I'd want to play.

well they've put out a fair amount of free content so far with stated intention to release more. I wouldn't be surprised to see more races/archetypes available after the PHB comes out, even if they keep Basic to the Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric set

# ? Aug 9, 2014 23:30

Nancy_Noxious: Apr 10, 2013; by Smythe

Gharbad the Weak posted:

Do you see everyone calming down?

Might be the Stockholm syndrome setting in...

There are nice things in Next � advantage/disadvantage in place is small granular boni and "bigger" feats are things I'd love to see in the 4.5e WotC will never do... �, but let's not forget that Next:

1. Remains messy. I downloaded the Hoard of the Dragon Queen document � the first creature in the bestiary session has PC spells. Martial classes are crap in Next, so I decided to build a Bard* (which is my second favorite class), to see how it would go in the unfortunate case my group picks Next up. While it's nice that the adv/dis mechanic made Vicious Mockery very controller-y, the fact that spells are a) separated from the class write-up and b) (dis)organized alphabetically made the whole thing quite unpleasant. (And reminded me why I no longer like 3.x)

*Using the alpha, of course.

2. It's still caster supremacy edition. Fighters no longer get their defender abilities � because aggro MMO videogame babbies whatever. Meanwhile, enchanters can force an enemy to attack someone else and it's all okay. Minor actions got shafted because too time consuming! and yet spellcasters get obfuscated minor actions.

I see no compeling reason to play Next instead of 13th Age � a game that does real TotM combat instead of "gridless TotM � disclaimer: requires you to imagine a grid in the theatre of the mind".

It's a mediocre system that wouldn't have such devoted defenders if it didn't bear the "Dungeons & Dragons" name in the cover.

(Just to balance the optimism a little.)

edit:

Some questions:

Does casting a spell in melee (i.e. adjacent to a foe) provoke oportunity attacks?

Do wizards still get the class feature that let's them cast spells for free as rituals?

Nancy_Noxious fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Aug 10, 2014

# ? Aug 9, 2014 23:56

ManMythLegend: Aug 18, 2003; I don't believe in anything, I'm just here for the violence.

thespaceinvader posted:

If what you're after is '4e but a bit more oldschool', take a look at the Essentials books. If you ignore a couple of classes (principally Hunter ranger, Sentinel druid and Cavalier paladin) it's pretty well-balanced as a microcosm, and really picks up the oldschool feel (i.e. the martial characters do a lot less than in o4e), but without the crashing disparity in effectiveness.

It's pretty reviled on most 4e forums because it was basically trying to old-school-ify the rules, but tbh I actually quite like it. It cuts down on some of the big piles of options and analysis paralysis playing a Slayer, but it's still fun and tactical.

You can't limit the feats to only Essentials though, that IS dull as balls.

I wasn't a huge fan of Essentials. I guess I just didn't really "get" it.

I guess what I liked about 4E is that is was clear, consistent, and well balanced (fire the most part) as opposed to 3.X which was just one big hot mess.

Honestly, I'm kind of over D&D and have been for a long time. 4E got me back into it because I thought it was change of pace, and really distilled the game down to its core, namely going into dangerous places, killing the poo poo out of things and taking their stuff.

5E definitely looks better then 3.X, and I would give it a shot if offered, but I don't think I'll be spending any money on it.

ManMythLegend fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Aug 10, 2014

# ? Aug 10, 2014 00:00

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

LuiCypher posted:

Wait wait wait... Where have I been that I have not heard about about 4E Dark Sun?!

Sounds like I need to get my priorities straight.

As a fan of Dark Sun since the 2e days, who can get kinda groggy about it... It was amazing. I ran a 2 year long campaign in it, and I think it's mechanically the best implementation of the setting. They rolled back the timeline, distilled the essentials down to one great book (two with the monsters), and the 4e system is a better fit than 2e was, imo.

The only downside is that a 4e DM is largely on their own for conversions, but fortunately that's easy in 4e.

# ? Aug 10, 2014 00:16

Elector_Nerdlingen: Sep 27, 2004

Nancy_Noxious posted:

It's a mediocre system that wouldn't have such devoted defenders if it didn't bear the "Dungeons & Dragons" name in the cover.

It's the first system with the D&D label in which I can't see myself ever being motivated to run a game. I'd play in it with my regular group, but it looks to have way too much ambiguous stuff going on for me to be confident that it would be OK with a group of strangers.

Edit: Look, I know I'm pretty negative about Next. I've thought about why that is. It's because I'm not seeing any of what I was super excited about in the first thread.

Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Aug 10, 2014

# ? Aug 10, 2014 00:17

Gharbad the Weak: Feb 23, 2008; This too good for you.

Nancy_Noxious posted:

(Just to balance the optimism a little.)

That's fine. I definitely had fun playing 5e, but to say it isn't a flawed game is nonsense. MonsterEnvy, you managed to go the entire thread without saying a single negative thing about 5e or Next, the only thing you did was either praise Next/5e, or dismiss other people's arguments as irrelevant. Now that people can see that you're aware there are things wrong with 5e, we can get back to discussing things, instead of just reflexively arguing whatever you say.

For a while, I was doing a Let's Play of Dragon Age 2, otherwise known as A Bad Game. I was making the argument that it was actually a pretty decent game, but I had to make sure to address the criticisms of DA2. I had to make sure people knew I understood their concerns, and even agreed with them at many of the points, but it didn't change the fact that I enjoyed the game. Unfortunately, it turns out I hate LPing, so I kinda stopped, but THAT'S NOT THE POINT.

There's good things about it, but I wasn't going to say anything while you were steadfastly refusing to concede even the most minor point. You didn't come off as exactly reasonable, and it made me worry that I'd come off as unreasonable saying good things about Next/5e, too. And I doubt I was alone.

For me, 5e isn't a bad game, just really disappointing. 4e taught me that I really enjoy being the group tank, the guy swatting people away from the squishies. It taught me I really don't care about doing damage, I just want to keep people safe. So you can imagine how great the 4e fighter was for me.

But in 5e, the fighters and monks and rangers, to me, just don't have the flexibility to do what I want them to do. I mean, at this point, I'd rather play 3.5, because at least I'd have access to the Tome of Battle. A polearm crusader using Thicket of Blades and Stand Still just calls to me the same way that the fighter did in 4e. But in 5e, I'd probably have to play a War Cleric or a War Shape Druid with Sentinel to get the same feeling, and that's... just kinda a cop-out. I want to be the dude using fists or swords keeping his friends safe, but I also want to be mechanically, reasonably, good. And nothing inherent to Fighters or Monks or whatever really supports a defendery role, that the War Cleric or War Shape Druid doesn't do but better.

# ? Aug 10, 2014 00:18

MonsterEnvy: Feb 4, 2012; Shocked I tell you

Gharbad the Weak posted:

But in 5e, the fighters and monks and rangers, to me, just don't have the flexibility to do what I want them to do. I mean, at this point, I'd rather play 3.5, because at least I'd have access to the Tome of Battle. A polearm crusader using Thicket of Blades and Stand Still just calls to me the same way that the fighter did in 4e. But in 5e, I'd probably have to play a War Cleric or a War Shape Druid with Sentinel to get the same feeling, and that's... just kinda a cop-out. I want to be the dude using fists or swords keeping his friends safe, but I also want to be mechanically, reasonably, good. And nothing inherent to Fighters or Monks or whatever really supports a defendery role, that the War Cleric or War Shape Druid doesn't do but better.

I will see if I can find stuff that allows Fighters and Monks to be better defenders when the players handbook arrives for me in a few days. I have a feeling I will be able to find ways for that to happen. If I can't then your right and it is a flaw you can't be a decent defender with out being a Cleric or Druid.

MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Aug 10, 2014

# ? Aug 10, 2014 00:37

illrepute: Dec 30, 2009; by XyloJW

you dumb!! you dumb as hell!!!

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Aug 10, 2014 00:38

A Catastrophe: Jun 26, 2014

treeboy posted:

I can appreciate people really liking and enjoying the 4e minion/normal/elite/solo structure for their artillery/brute dynamic, but these complaints are getting really ridiculous

No, they're not, they're a very important and valid complaint, because these things haven't been replaced by anything, and the result is absurd stuff like 2d20 kobolds with advantage.

# ? Aug 10, 2014 00:41

MonsterEnvy: Feb 4, 2012; Shocked I tell you

A Catastrophe posted:

No, they're not, they're a very important and valid complaint, because these things haven't been replaced by anything, and the result is absurd stuff like 2d20 kobolds with advantage.

The Kobold thing is still something I don't think is absurd.

Also we know that monsters some monsters will have more then one type given the Hobgoblin captains presence.

# ? Aug 10, 2014 00:59

A Catastrophe: Jun 26, 2014

ManMythLegend posted:

I wasn't a huge fan of Essentials. I guess I just didn't really "get" it.
I guess what I liked about 4E is that is was clear, consistent, and well balanced (fire the most part) as opposed to 3.X which was just one big hot mess.
Honestly, I'm kind of over D&D and had been for a long time. 4E got me back into because I thought it was change of pace, and really distilled the game down to it's core, namely going into dangerous places and killing the poo poo out of things and taking their stuff.
5E definitely looks better then 3.X, and I would give it a shot if offered, but I don't think I'll be spending any money on it.

5e is certainly not the book for you. Do not listen to this sudden burst of devil's advocacy, 5e will piss you off no end and if you play it more than once or twice, it will make you wonder why you bothered turning up.

# ? Aug 10, 2014 00:59

A Catastrophe: Jun 26, 2014

MonsterEnvy posted:

The Kobold thing is still something I don't think is absurd.
Also we know that monsters some monsters will have more then one type given the Hobgoblin captains presence.

My point is that tree boy looks at a valid complaint and throws up his hands as if making that complaint was the height of lunacy.

These are valid points grounded in observations, people should not have to play the 'say a nice thing' game before their position in considered. poo poo, I can even say nice things about Pathfinder but it doesn't mean my position is any more valid.

And for crying out loud, i used to play champions and even I know 3d20 is as ridic as vin diesel

# ? Aug 10, 2014 01:03

Tendales: Mar 9, 2012

MonsterEnvy posted:

The Kobold thing is still something I don't think is absurd.

It's absurd because they were told about the problem, they saw the problem, they recognized it's a problem, they fixed the problem, and then added the problem right back in somewhere else. I could almost believe that it's deliberate trolling of the people that pointed it out in the first place.

# ? Aug 10, 2014 01:09

Elector_Nerdlingen: Sep 27, 2004

MonsterEnvy posted:

Also we know that monsters some monsters will have more then one type given the Hobgoblin captains presence.

The Hobgoblin Captain reminds me a lot of the paragraph that's in every 2e Habitat/Society section for humanoid monsters - the one where it says "if there are >X of this monster, one also appears which is <stats> better. If >Y, there's also a chief that is <stats> better and maybe has spells".

Except because this is D&D Next, it has it's own super special my god we're out of room bonus extra 400 pages monster entry and idiots say now it's the same as the way 4e did it and why is anyone complaining?

The monster variants you get in 4e are not different because they have +1 dex, -1 ac, and they have spears instead of axes.

# ? Aug 10, 2014 01:12

MonsterEnvy: Feb 4, 2012; Shocked I tell you

AlphaDog posted:

The monster variants you get in 4e are not different because they have +1 dex, -1 ac, and they have spears instead of axes.

They have different powers. Which the captain does. With his buffed Martial Advantage and Leadership power which buffs his soldiers.

# ? Aug 10, 2014 01:25

Rosalind: Apr 30, 2013; When we hit our lowest point, we are open to the greatest change.

Drow remain the only race with a pure drawback as one of their traits and it's a doozy. Disadvantage on all attacks in direct sunlight. They're penalizing players who want to play Drizzt. Way to know your market, WotC!

# ? Aug 10, 2014 01:25

MonsterEnvy: Feb 4, 2012; Shocked I tell you

Rosalind posted:

Drow remain the only race with a pure drawback as one of their traits and it's a doozy. Disadvantage on all attacks in direct sunlight. They're penalizing players who want to play Drizzt. Way to know your market, WotC!

They mentioned a variation of the Drow on twitter which is weaken their dark vision to normal in exchange for removing the sunlight sensitivity.

# ? Aug 10, 2014 01:28

Rosalind: Apr 30, 2013; When we hit our lowest point, we are open to the greatest change.

MonsterEnvy posted:

They mentioned a variation of the Drow on twitter which is weaken their dark vision to normal in exchange for removing the sunlight sensitivity.

"Hey DM can I use this Drow variant? ...Oh it's not from any of the books, but some guy from Wizards totally posted it on Twitter!"

# ? Aug 10, 2014 01:29

ritorix: Jul 22, 2007; Vancian Roulette

Rosalind posted:

Drow remain the only race with a pure drawback as one of their traits and it's a doozy. Disadvantage on all attacks in direct sunlight. They're penalizing players who want to play Drizzt. Way to know your market, WotC!

Don't worry the drow have it all figured out.

# ? Aug 10, 2014 01:30

Gharbad the Weak: Feb 23, 2008; This too good for you.

Rosalind posted:

Drow remain the only race with a pure drawback as one of their traits and it's a doozy. Disadvantage on all attacks in direct sunlight. They're penalizing players who want to play Drizzt. Way to know your market, WotC!

Having played with people who are pretty much making Drizzt (or worse, drow paladins of a sun god), I am fully 100% behind this.

I would also be ok with mandatory stat penalties for good drow, because there's obviously something wrong with them.

# ? Aug 10, 2014 01:33

Daetrin: Mar 21, 2013

Gharbad the Weak posted:

Having played with people who are pretty much making Drizzt (or worse, drow paladins of a sun god), I am fully 100% behind this.

I would also be ok with mandatory stat penalties for good drow, because there's obviously something wrong with them.

Played absolutely straight that would be hilarious.

# ? Aug 10, 2014 01:43