|
Boing posted:Dungeon World is a system that is built to take advantage of spontaneity and tummyfeels and it's a much better system than D&D for it in my opinion. "Ah gently caress it, you know what, this happens" is coded into the very rules. It doesn't feel like D&D supports that kind of playstyle at all. As jigokuman said, Dungeon World lacks random bullshit tables. It kinda kills the vibe in Dungeon World when you realize it doesn't largely matter what you're fighting or how you describe your action. I mean, that isn't totally true, but it's a basic system that doesn't bring in Actual D&D RNG Zaniness that much. Whether that's good or bad is another story.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I agree with people who have mentioned that separating out thief from fighter was a total mistake. We made a thief, so fighters can't be the best at skills, period. We made a ranger, so fighters can't be the best at wilderness skills and tracking and poo poo. We made a paladin, so fighters can't be the best at social interactions. We made a barbarian, so fighters can't be the best at dumb jock strong-o-man skills. Given that all of these classes fight pretty good... well, it's not so surprising that fighters are what they are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
I liked when fighter was something you grew out of. Maybe do that with the other martial classes like they did with paladin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
You choose Fighter as your class at level 1, then you pick between the Thief, Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian archetypes at level 3 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Never understood how "thief/rogue" became one of the archetypal adventurer classes alongside wizard, fighter and cleric.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Someone in Gary's group wanted to be the Gray Mouser? e: Or Bilbo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
I think the idea is that literally everyone was constantly sneaking at all times in the dungeon crawl type game so it got pretty ridiculous and they decided to branch of and make a new type of character who specialised in traps/stealth. This worked fine while inside of a dungeon for the entire game. Not so much when you break out of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Maybe someone joined who couldn't figure out Gary's bizarre logic puzzles and just wanted to roll for it. No, I have no idea why there is a sundial and three holes on this door, can I just pick the lock Gary?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
The other problem with Fighters is that being able to use all weapons is sort of useless if you need to max 2 ability scores in order to really do so effectively, plus needing CON (because everyone needs CON, really) Add in the fact that using a shield is the hardest setup the change out of, in-combat.. ugh. Like, the Fighter should have some drat good archetypes with some awesome moves to compensate for being so pigeonholed, but nope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:It kinda kills the vibe in Dungeon World when you realize it doesn't largely matter what you're fighting or how you describe your action. What are you smoking? that's almost the -Only- thing that matters in dungeon world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:As jigokuman said, Dungeon World lacks random bullshit tables. It kinda kills the vibe in Dungeon World when you realize it doesn't largely matter what you're fighting or how you describe your action. I mean, that isn't totally true, but it's a basic system that doesn't bring in Actual D&D RNG Zaniness that much. Whether that's good or bad is another story. Doesn't the freeform nature of Dungeon World mean that you could use random bullshit tables from any other game? Break out the Rules Cyclopedia and use that - if you draw a Zombie, run it like they always go last in the cinematic faux-initiative order and give them a grapple-heading-towards-a-bite move. If the tables tell you that the party is fighting a Bullette, then it has a submerge move and the party has to figure out a way to draw it out like they were Fred Ward and Kevin Bacon from Tremors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Doesn't the freeform nature of Dungeon World mean that you could use random bullshit tables from any other game? Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Yes, kinda. If you randomised everything, you'd lose a bit of what makes Dungeon World really great. For instance, when a player says "I scout out the area for danger", as GM you could roll on a random table, but you'd lose the ability to say "OK, what danger did you find?" which to me is the best thing that DW does. I can't see any reason you couldn't use tables from (eg) AD&D instead if that's what you wanted to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:What are you smoking? that's almost the -Only- thing that matters in dungeon world. Sorta? In one way it's the only thing that matters. I get what you're saying. But I also get what OTM was saying. Like, it doesn't matter if I'm fighting a grick or a flumph, because the hack and slash move doesn't care what I'm fighting or if I'm using my axe or the tusk I ripped off a mastodon - I make the same roll either way. With D&D the creatures have different defenses and the weapons have different stats. So you can see that those particular differences didn't make the cut in Dungeon World (they didn't make the cut in Strike either, so don't think I'm knocking Dungeon World here). The only thing that matters is how you describe it because that affects the future descriptions - but neither of those come from the actual fighting mechanic because the mechanic doesn't care how you described it and doesn't tell you how your previous descriptions should feed into the next. The mechanic tells you very generally how your general hacking/slashing description should feed into the future descriptions in a general way, but the details of weapon and such mostly lie below the level that the mechanics care about. Looking at the descriptions, my having a giant mastodon tusk directly affects the DM's descriptions of what happens, and the general outline of that description is determined by my hack-and-slash roll, but at no point does the tusk come into the mechanics there. It's still important, though. I make a point of calling out how items work in Strike. A gun doesn't need any special mechanical weight because it has a ton of narrative weight already. If I have a gun, I can shoot you, or I can put the gun to your head and threaten you, or I can fire into the air as a warning shot, or I can simply lift up my shirt to intimidate you. Without the gun I can do none of those things, and there's no rule in the gamebook that tells you that. It doesn't come from any particular rule, but it is just as authoritative. If somebody says "I don't have a gun, but I shoot him," that's not going to fly - it's nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
So does Next have a Warlord yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
Chaltab posted:So does Next have a Warlord yet? Depends. Short version: Some of it became Valor Bards, and some became Battle Master Fighters. Long version: Red Hood posted:I've got a player who's hard-up to play a character like the 4e warlord. Whatever Wizard school gets Portent is also good for enabling allies/disabling enemies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
Chaltab posted:So does Next have a Warlord yet? Two levels in wizard lets you declare that an enemy rolls a certain number twice per day (or an ally does the same). Three levels in bard lets you declare an enemy takes 1d6 away from their roll twice per day (or an ally adds the same). One level in cleric lets you decide that an ally adds 1d4 to whatever they are rolling (at will). A second level in [Light] cleric lets you decide that an enemy's attack has disadvantage wisdom modifier times per day. You would need to commit your stats to it, but by level seven you would basically decide the result of any and every die roll that mattered. Another three levels for battle master, plus the feat that gives additional superiority dice, would be a good addition to it as well. I'd probably tack that on as the last three levels since they otherwise don't add much to the 'helping the party' part though. Waador fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 09:31
|
|
|
Chaltab posted:So does Next have a Warlord yet? You can make a multiclass character that kind of looks like a Warlord if you squint from the distance. But it'll be a Warlord in the same way that a Fighter kind of looks like a Paladin. So... no.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
PHB page 196 posted:Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Sooo uhh why is Warlord "healing" unrealistic, again?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 11:41
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Sooo uhh why is Warlord "healing" unrealistic, again? Grognards think HP is meat despite all evidence to the contrary. I mean it says I hit, right? And then I do damage? So HP must be meat. Grognards also lack imagination, if that wasn't obvious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 12:03
|
|
|
Chaltab posted:So does Next have a Warlord yet? Mearls absolutely hates the warlord, so 5e does not have it, and likely will not ever have it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
I don't think he hated the Warlord, but it was the Grog's Exhibit C at his ideological purity trial. He needs to maintain distance from 4e's innovations or his new Twitter friends start getting really nasty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
moths posted:I don't think he hated the Warlord, but it was the Grog's Exhibit C at his ideological purity trial. He needs to maintain distance from 4e's innovations or his new Twitter friends start getting really nasty. Go through Essentials and tell me which singular PHB class didn't get a remake. EDIT: You're also basically assuming Mearls really didn't want to make a groggy edition, I swear guys, he just had to. Thing is, he was talking about being a fan of Zak S and Pundit and was bragging about his AD&D games long before 5e development started. Maybe this was all some weird social hostage situation, but for me, the far simpler answer is "no Mearls actually believes what he says."
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
moths posted:I don't think he hated the Warlord, but it was the Grog's Exhibit C at his ideological purity trial. He needs to maintain distance from 4e's innovations or his new Twitter friends start getting really nasty. From one of the WotC podcasts: quote:Mearls: I guess my big thing is, would you, in the world of Dungeons and Dragons, if you pictured a guy who is a cunning tactial leader, would you expect that guy to heal you? HP is meat, folks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
You can basically play a valorous bard and then call yourself whatever you want in the meantime, that's the 5E warlord. It's also one of the better options in the game, as the class can literally do everything with no significant limitations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:You can basically play a valorous bard and then call yourself whatever you want in the meantime, that's the 5E warlord. It's also one of the better options in the game, as the class can literally do everything with no significant limitations. Yeah, so long as you conflate "warlord" with "spellcaster." I'm sure lots of warlord fans really wanted to play a spellcaster all along.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Yeah, so long as you conflate "warlord" with "spellcaster." I'm sure lots of warlord fans really wanted to play a spellcaster all along. Everything and everyone in 5E is either a spellcaster or a filthy normal undeserving of fun though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
Jeez, looks like I gave Mearls too much credit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Go through Essentials and tell me which singular PHB class didn't get a remake. Has anyone ever tried to make a better Essentials, even informally? That is, a straight-forward list of what to take for any particular build of a class, per-level?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
moths posted:Jeez, looks like I gave Mearls too much credit. Yeah, that's not the only time Mearls talked about that on the podcast. Apparently in Mearls' game the players are literally fighting without penalty with their guts hanging out until the cleric prays them back into their bellies, or until a good night's sleep fixes it right up. It's honestly baffling - this idea that inspiration can't fix what a good night's sleep can.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Yeah, that's not the only time Mearls talked about that on the podcast. Apparently in Mearls' game the players are literally fighting without penalty with their guts hanging out until the cleric prays them back into their bellies, or until a good night's sleep fixes it right up. Mearls once lifted some heavy boxes for a friend and then his arms felt like dead weights and super sore to the point he couldn't move them (0 HP), but then he had a good night's sleep and was able to use them again and felt OK, if slightly sore. But if William Wallace had shouted at him to keep lifting he couldn't have done it. See, tummyfeels as design.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
You have to wonder how many D&D players have never experienced a second wind instead of sitting down for a cigarette.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
moths posted:You have to wonder how many D&D players have never experienced a second wind instead of sitting down for a
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
So we did the one 5-10 adventure available for Expeditions yesterday in store and now there's no more 5-10 adventures until March unless you go to a con. So, that character is shelved for a few months.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Short answer: Yes. Alternately: The Fourth Page, a collection of tables of d6-by-d6 results. The name comes because the throwback "World of Dungeons" is only 3 pages, leading to speculation about the tables on the fourth page.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Mearls absolutely hates the warlord, so 5e does not have it, and likely will not ever have it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Chaltab posted:Seriously? It's a good class and it doesn't even have to heal if that's too objectionable for the grognards. I thought Mearls himself said that every class that had ever been in the PHB would be this game. Yeah in some Obi-Wan Kenobi "it's not the truth but if you really want to pretend it can look like the truth" kind of way. The Assassin class? Not in 5e, but it's there as a Rogue option called the Assassin. So it's sorta kinda maybe in the game. The Warlord class? Not in 5e, but there's other classes that kind of approximate its core experience. So it's sorta kinda maybe in the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
This is one of those strange things about class based systems... In 1 and 2e, you were pretty much locked onto a rail, and followed the class(es) from 1-20 (or 36, etc.), unless you were a human doing human dual class shenanigans. A lot of different classes were available by the end, and if you used the kits from "The Complete..." series books, you had a pretty good amount of customization available. You couldn't build everything, but you could come close to doing most characters found in a fantasy milieu. In 3 and 3.5, you were allowed to do some more customization. Not as far as, say, Fantasy HERO or GURPs totally freeform, command line style character creation, or even the "flexibility" of Rolemaster's "your class determines how many points each ability costs" system, but through the combination of different classes and prestige classes, you could usually kludge together something approximating what you wanted to play given enough levels and enough time. It might look ugly (i.e. Spellthief 4 / Savage Bard 2 / Ur Priest 10 / Wizard 1 / Sorcerer 1 / Beguiler 1 / Duskblade 1), but since character creation was a lot of the fun of the game, that's more of a feature than a bug. The Pathfinder guys didn't seem to get the memo on this, and have tried their best to incentivize sticking with the same class from 1-20. The removal of the dead levels is nice, but in some cases it's still just not worth it. You weren't going to deviate from Summoner no matter what because of the evolution points, but Gunslinger stops giving you any benefits around level 5 or so (if you stick past level 1, which is barely worth it at all, but that's a whole nother discussion). FATE and its ilk took HERO/GURPS and removed all the numbers. Dungeon World took 1 & 2e D&D and did the same thing. 4e, oddly enough, was a return to the more strict class structure of old D&D. No multi-classing in the 3e sense, but you had explicit permission to reskin anything you chose. With a ton of feats, you could pull in powers from other classes, but why bother? The classes were pretty complete packages, pretty balanced against one another, and synergized very well once you knew what you were doing. And there were a lot of oddball classes (Runemaster, Invoker, Swordmage, etc.) after a while that you could get the mechanics you wanted fairly easily. The character builder helped a lot with this. But this would feel very strange if you were used to mixing and matching six different classes to get what you want, rather than just reading the descriptions and re-flavoring them ("My Warlord is a Viking Skáld. Yes, he's kind of a bard, but not a Bard..."). A subtle difference, but a key one for a lot of folks -- note that many didn't care, and could switch back and forth just fine. And 5e, for all its attempts to be "old school", is really emulating 3e in its class layout more than anything else. You can kludge together weird builds to try and make non-standard classes, but since we don't have the breadth of options that 3 had, it's slow going as of yet. And it can definitely feel strange compared to saying "I'm a Warlord, reskinned to be a hypnotic radio announcer!" Toph Bei Fong fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Spoilers Below posted:(i.e. Spellthief 4 / Savage Bard 2 / Ur Priest 10 / Wizard 1 / Sorcerer 1 / Beguiler 1 / Duskblade 1) Get the hell out of here munchkin! We don't want you around here! But no seriously, you raise some good points. It's true that 5e was presented as some sort of "recognizable for everyone" edition while it actually just refines the 3e-ethos... and not much else. I'm not getting the OD&D vibe of logistics-focused dungeon crawls with arcane references to WW2 wargames. I'm not getting the ultra-focused design of 4e. It's all just 3e multiclassing, the 3e spell level division, and the 3e equipment tables. I'm not angry I'm just disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Get the hell out of here munchkin! We don't want you around here! What I hate about it is what it does to the dialogue that exists in D&D circles. I mean we had 3.5 already, which was refined 3.0. When Wizards decided it wanted to move away from 3.5 and make 4, Pathfinder took over and made a refined 3.5. The fact that Wizards wants to go back and revise the revision of the revision sort of suggest they're doubling down and that at its core the 3.X philosophy was the 'correct' one and there can be no other kinds of D&D forever and ever amen. Pathfinder already exists. How many revisions of one game can the market really support simultaneously? I could make a joke about that literally being their marketing strategy but it doesn't really have a punchline.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Mendrian posted:How many revisions of one game can the market really support simultaneously? The market can support all RPGs that have ever been produced. So that's however many D&Ds there have been now except 4th edition, plus 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 02:55
|
|