|
ocrumsprug posted:Will there be a Next edition video game even? Trying to codify Next's RAW into a form that can be crunched by a computer may well be the next Millenium Prize Problem after P versus NP
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
SkimReddit shows you only the posts that the author has replied to - handy for AMAs like this or that one by the guy with two dicks. Mike has answered all of ten questions thus far
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
mirthdefect posted:SkimReddit shows you only the posts that the author has replied to - handy for AMAs like this or that one by the guy with two dicks.  Well then. I guess we can't really expect any huge changes at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
In case anyone was interested I am going to try and run a Gamma World style game using the 5e ruleset, vaguely. Recruit is here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
mirthdefect posted:SkimReddit shows you only the posts that the author has replied to - handy for AMAs like this or that one by the guy with two dicks. 1. Up to the DM 2. Depends on the group 3. Up to the DM's campaign Better authentication than a picture in the OP, right there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
quote:I'm here all day to answer questions you might have about life, the universe, and everything, but I do warn you that I probably am best at answering questions relating to D&D. Jackard fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
SystemLogoff posted:
I don't think I've seen anything that sums up all of Next's problems so succinctly. Even the lead designer is one step away from saying its D&D 3.pf 2: The Sequel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Rannos22 posted:I don't think I've seen anything that sums up all of Next's problems so succinctly. Even the lead designer is one step away from saying its D&D 3.pf 2: The Sequel. quote:I played and enjoyed 3rd Edition (and 3.5), but 4th Edition left a bitter taste in my mouth. The game felt like a tabletop MMORPG, which is not what I'm interested in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Everytime I see a question/comment like that I think "why would you even bother to respond to such a loving mouth breather". Then I remember that that type of person is the demographic that they are actively catering to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Everytime I see a question/comment like that I think "why would you even bother to respond to such a loving mouth breather". But in a market where personal taste is all that matters, which game is better? I need someone else to tell me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
The question is basically an invitation to kiss the rear end of the person asking it. "I am going to arbitrarily give you my money based on whatever stupid internet meta-narrative takes hold, but why don't you get on your knees and really try and sell this to me..."
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
I'd like to think with all these RPGs coming out, when 5e is suggested somebody goes "D&D? Next..." but usually it just ends up being " 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
quote:Q. Given that 5E's spiritual predecessors are (mainly, as far as I can reckon it) 2E and 3.5E, what do you feel 5E offers those who prefer 4E's style of play? Do you worry about losing the support of 4E's fanbase? quote:Q. What kinds of guidelines were used when assigning monsters their CRs? Is there a range of values for each rating/level? Coming from 4e with its fairly strict progression I've been having a hard time finding any sort of pattern in monster capabilities. Is there any way in which this isn't just "we make it up, there is no system"? 
Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
I guess a monster that will either kill a PC in one shot or die itself to a single hit averages out to being a balanced encounter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Did anything ever come of the whole "RPG Pundit and Zak S in the credits"-thing that was making the rounds a few months ago? I recently started looking into NEXT as a result of a local tabletop group expressing interest in it, and I remember something relating to those two and NEXT but not if it had gone anywhere. Just a passing curiosity, now that it's come to mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
The Malthusian posted:I guess a monster that will either kill a PC in one shot or die itself to a single hit averages out to being a balanced encounter. Well it averages out to a monster that's built like a tank, but hits like a feather. So there's obviously complete parity there
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Well it averages out to a monster that's built like a tank, but hits like a feather. So there's obviously complete parity there
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
KazigluBey posted:Did anything ever come of the whole "RPG Pundit and Zak S in the credits"-thing that was making the rounds a few months ago? I recently started looking into NEXT as a result of a local tabletop group expressing interest in it, and I remember something relating to those two and NEXT but not if it had gone anywhere. Just a passing curiosity, now that it's come to mind. I did not hear anything about it. It did not seem that important. Jack the Lad posted:Is there any way in which this isn't just "we make it up, there is no system"? Yes because it's quite clear that there is a system. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I did not hear anything about it. It did not seem that important. Well supporting two of the most vile and toxic people in gaming should have had repercussions, but wotc didn't care.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
Cassa posted:Well supporting two of the most vile and toxic people in gaming should have had repercussions, but wotc didn't care. While I can't say I like them, WOTC really did not do much with them. It appeared that they along with I don't know how many other people, had their opinions asked about the game. They went for some notable people and as a result got had a pair among the consultants that were not very well liked. Anyway my point is I not going to hold it against a group or company for asking for people's opinions, even the people they are asking happen to be scum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
KazigluBey posted:Did anything ever come of the whole "RPG Pundit and Zak S in the credits"-thing that was making the rounds a few months ago? I recently started looking into NEXT as a result of a local tabletop group expressing interest in it, and I remember something relating to those two and NEXT but not if it had gone anywhere. Just a passing curiosity, now that it's come to mind. People sent Mearls evidence. Mearls said he didn't see any of the harassment and declared the matter closed. Maybe Wizards will host a round table in the future. I think Zak S. decided that it was a goon conspiracy orchestrated by Funhaver games, but that might've been someone else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Yes because it's quite clear that there is a system. Where is the system clear though? Everyone who's tried running the numbers in this thread to figure it out have come up mostly empty handed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I did not hear anything about it. It did not seem that important. Weird, I could've sworn there was a couple dozen pages about this. You must have been on vacation those weeks. Rannos22 fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Grimpond posted:Where is the system clear though? Everyone who's tried running the numbers in this thread to figure it out have come up mostly empty handed. If the DMG ends up having clear, precise rules on creature creation for any given CR, I'll eat my hat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Pulsedragon posted:People sent Mearls evidence. Huh. Yeah I was aware of the brush-off of evidence, so I guess nothing really did come of it. Lame, oh well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Yes because it's quite clear that there is a system. Can anyone show me the formula I can use to create the monsters in the book? No? Then it's Mearls saying "there is too a system, we did so use it, it was a really good system but my uncle who works for nintendo had to take it back to japan with him so I can't show you".
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
I'm perfectly willing to believe there is a system, it will just be a stupid system that leads to effectively random results. Separating offence and defence as Mearls suggests will do it nicely as it assumes the two are equally weighted in respect to difficulty but they clearly will never be in practice. Without standardised damage and defence progressions highly variable creatures are inevitable (for example one shot kill monsters with high avoidance and low HP that are therefore deadly in groups compared to HP meat sacks with low offence). Also, monsters with specialised attacks ala the old favourite intellect devourer can't fit into this kind of difficulty paradigm except effectively arbitrarily - doesn't mean you can't have a system to come up with CR, it will just be a dumb system that produces results useless for GM decision making given selective variable choice and lack of systemic monster design.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
"Special abilities can also modify those CRs, and this is where a fair amount of design sense and playtesting comes in to make sure that something is weighed correctly." "...you might adjust a little in either direction for monsters with weird abilities..." Both of which imply that no math was done for special/weird abilities - the creature's CR was determined via tummyfeel or whatever* and then adjusted up** if Mearls' casting of design sense (wizard 2) showed that it should change. *Show me the formula if you want me to believe there was one. **Do not ask me to believe that a monster's special abilities might make its CR lower.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
As a little side-project, I've been trying to convert class+subclass into single page forms to gain more familiarity with the classes. I do the Fighter first, and then the Cleric, and then I get to the Tempest domain Cleric. At level 6, Thunderbolt Strike can push a target away 10 feet whenever the Cleric hits a target with lightning damage. That's just 5 feet less than the Battle Master's Pushing Attack, and in exchange the Cleric can do it all day with Divine Strike at level 8 to deal lightning damage on any successful weapon attack and the target can't save against it. At level 17, the Cleric just loving flies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:At level 6, Thunderbolt Strike can push a target away 10 feet whenever the Cleric hits a target with lightning damage. That's just 5 feet less than the Battle Master's Pushing Attack, and in exchange the Cleric can do it all day with Divine Strike at level 8 to deal lightning damage on any successful weapon attack and the target can't save against it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Who gives a poo poo about a formula? People who want to create balanced content.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Pulsedragon posted:People sent Mearls evidence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
The Bee posted:People who want to create balanced content. That line is a running joke, not a seriouspost. Just fyi if you weren't already aware.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:No its worst than that. Mearls actually talked to Zak about the claims. Yeah this was where I lost any hope that this was being handled in good-faith. I've said before, but that self-googling harasser is a straight-up bully. I once tweeted something about him direct to Mearls, which he then hijacked and linked to a unibomber manifesto proclaiming that he was the victim. ...And then within 24 hours, I got an email alert that someone had tried to log into my Twitter account from a suspicious location. gently caress that guy, gently caress Mearls, gently caress Next. There is no way I'm supporting that hateful, sketchy rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
The Bee posted:People who want to create balanced content.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Pretty much nobody gives a poo poo about a formula. It would actually be refreshing if Mearls just came out with that, as at least it would be an honest statement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
moths posted:Yeah this was where I lost any hope that this was being handled in good-faith.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Honestly, the part that pisses me of just as much is that they lied about Next being inclusive. Sure the artwork is shiny but holy crap they wrote in some of the worst and unwelcoming things you can do in an RPG in terms of racism. I know that if they actually hadn't gone with the pastey white brigade of consultants they would have probably been slapped over the head with that stupid human write up. How is it bad? I don't own the book, and I crave details.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
I hope you're referring to the part where humans get to choose their ethnicity. That had me laughing my rear end off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:25
|
|