|
DalaranJ posted:What? Large swaths of 5e have been cribbed from other games, so it wouldn't surprise me.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
DalaranJ posted:What? Hackmaster did much the same thing. 2e had a variant rule in one of the later supplements that was similar. I'm about 50% sure AD&D's unearthed arcana had something like it too but I'm phone posting and cant check.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the origin of this rule is TAAC, right? They stole this rule from a goon-made retroclone, or did Payndz borrow it from another game that I'm not familiar with?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
I stole the idea from whichever edition introduced Cleave, but extended it so that you kept chopping up fools until you used up all your damage roll. (I hadn't seen it anywhere else in that form; it came about after the Next playtest where my fighter was bitten to death by the 30 rats at the entrance to the Caves of Chaos while swinging at them one at a time and often missing.) I do like the thought that Next stole it right back, though!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
13th Age doesn't have it for normal enemies but that's basically how its mook type enemies work; damage flows across the whole mook swarm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
Payndz posted:I stole the idea from whichever edition introduced Cleave, but extended it so that you kept chopping up fools until you used up all your damage roll. (I hadn't seen it anywhere else in that form; it came about after the Next playtest where my fighter was bitten to death by the 30 rats at the entrance to the Caves of Chaos while swinging at them one at a time and often missing.) I do like the thought that Next stole it right back, though! Sweeping was some version of 1e. Every round, autokill a number of level 1 opponents within reach equal to your level, or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 09:00
|
|
|
PublicOpinion posted:13th Age doesn't have it for normal enemies but that's basically how its mook type enemies work; damage flows across the whole mook swarm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
Payndz posted:I stole the idea from whichever edition introduced Cleave, but extended it so that you kept chopping up fools until you used up all your damage roll. (I hadn't seen it anywhere else in that form; it came about after the Next playtest where my fighter was bitten to death by the 30 rats at the entrance to the Caves of Chaos while swinging at them one at a time and often missing.) I do like the thought that Next stole it right back, though! For what it's worth, your application of how it works is by far the most elegant I've seen, as it doesn't leave your chance of cleaving up to the whims of an extra attack roll. I like the idea of damage overflowing so much that I'll probably borrow it for my weird little heartbreaker. Incidentally, didn't the 4e Fighter have Cleave as an at-will that dealt your Strength modifier as damage to a target other than your original target?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:Incidentally, didn't the 4e Fighter have Cleave as an at-will that dealt your Strength modifier as damage to a target other than your original target? Yes, it's a level 1 at-will that's a STR vs AC, deals 1W+STR damage to the target, and STR damage to another enemy adjacent to the Fighter Reaping Strike was 1W+STR on a hit, half of STR on a miss Sure Strike was a plain 1W+STR on a hit, but had a +2 on the attack roll and finally Tide of Iron was 1W+STR on a hit, and you pushed the target 1 square, and you could step into the square that was just abandoned It's staggering how these 4 abilities are infinitely more potentially useful than an entire Archetype and most of the other two.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:What? It's similar how 13A treats minions, but shittier, because in 13A they don't have to be undamaged. You just carry damage through the stack. So "it's like _____ but shittier."
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:It's similar how 13A treats minions, but shittier, because in 13A they don't have to be undamaged. You just carry damage through the stack. Wait, what? I had to go back and check the DMG: quote:When a melee attack reduces an undamaged creature to 0 hit points, any excess damage from that attack might carry over to another creature nearby. The attacker targets another creature within reach and, if the original attack roll can hit it, applies any remaining damage to it.  The target has to be at full HP AND the attack has to one-shot it for the rule to even work. Why would they do that?! It waters down the rule so much!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Wait, what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
D&D Next: Why would they do that?! slɐᴉʇɹɐɯ ʞɔnɟ ǝsnɐɔǝq :ɹǝʍsu∀ Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
I just caught myself wallpapering over it with "Of course, I'd never run it that way" and suddenly understood the chain of indulgences that leads to Next.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
moths posted:I just caught myself wallpapering over it with "Of course, I'd never run it that way" and suddenly understood the chain of indulgences that leads to Next. It's super frustrating that there's usually an obviously better way to run most of the weird/dumb stuff that comes up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Sweeping was some version of 1e. Every round, autokill a number of level 1 opponents within reach equal to your level, or something like that. In 2e it's that fighters (and only fighters) get one free attack per level against opponents less than one HD.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
I don't have a problem with stealing design ideas, especially if their good ones like this one (would have been without the max HP caveat). I just thought that stealing from a goon is particularly ironic given that there is no love lost between most goons and Mike Mearls. Possibly even more ironic then stealing from 13th age, but it's hard to say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Large swaths of 5e have been cribbed from other games, so it wouldn't surprise me. It's a common idea. I don't think anyone needs to have stolen it. I don't think I've read TAAC and I put something very similar (but more powerful) in Strike as a feat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:It's super frustrating that there's usually an obviously better way to run most of the weird/dumb stuff that comes up. If they were smarter, I'd suspect this was the same marketing gimmick that puts a few clunker cards in each MtG intro deck. The idea is that you quickly internalize the mindset of improving your deck by buying cards. To make it "yours." They'd be deliberately writing clunky rules with obvious fixes to train customers to house-rule and un-break the game. So when you encounter something abysmally hosed or useless, you'll see it as a creative exercise or design opportunity. (Instead of sloppy, lazy design.) It's  as a conspiracy theory, but I believe it's an emergent property resulting from combing a popular IP with a flawed delivery. It's why we see so many people excited and determined to "fix" Next instead of writing it off as a loss.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
moths posted:If they were smarter, I'd suspect this was the same marketing gimmick that puts a few clunker cards in each MtG intro deck. The idea is that you quickly internalize the mindset of improving your deck by buying cards. To make it "yours." People have been buying into the "it's a good game, we just houserule x" for a long time, I don't think they'd design a game just to deliberately condition people to do that. I will admit though that I'm in pretty deep on the "it's broken and I have to fix it!" front.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
MartianAgitator posted:In 2e it's that fighters (and only fighters) get one free attack per level against opponents less than one HD. I think that's actually a 1E rule that got pulled for 2E. Unless it is buried somewhere in a blue column in the DMG. Note that sorta thing is a big problem with older editions. They do have rules to make fighters pretty drat cool, but those rules are never in the fighter section. They're hidden away as optional rules in other sections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:I think that's actually a 1E rule that got pulled for 2E. Unless it is buried somewhere in a blue column in the DMG. I think that particular one is actually in the Combat & Tactics supplement, one of the Player's Option books, which were an even mix of good ideas, terrible ideas and pure, refined grog(mostly C&T for the latter).
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Yeah I don't think they deliberately put in almost functional rules, that's a side effect of stealing functional mechanics from other games/editions and maiming them to fit. It's real easy to look at Next and think "This might work if I just change..." and I wonder how many people are intuitively going to revert those mechanics back to what they started as.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
 Page 25 of the AD&D (1st Edition) PHB
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Glorified Scrivener posted:Dude chill out and don't be so aggro, D&D as a game design problem was solved with 4th edition, though a few very small fixes to the RAW combat math are worth implementing at your table. Otherwise the game is the pinnacle of game design as far as making a D&D game is concerned. Other games might implement player engagement in or control of the narrative better, but no D&D is as good as 4th edition.  You're like the loving william jennings bryan of d&d here mate, "You shall not crucify D&D upon a cross of game-design!" You could try reading the thread (this thread) where everyone goes into detail about the flaws of D&D 4E and solutions to those problems, and how next introduced old problems that we've already seen solutions to - problems, yes, shared by 3.5 and pathfinder. problems like loving Action Economy, and Caster Supremacy, and a whole host of other things. Your smug inhalation of your own farts via thinking that posting three paragraphs that boil down to a strangled accusation of "BADWRONGFUN! BADWRONGFUN!" would be a damning blow against the swirling 4E hordes is pathetic and insulting to everyone who is spending time talking about a game they love (D&D) and how they want it to be better.-- So I ran a D&D Next Devil Boss Rush where I found the best way to do the combat was to completely ignore all of the rules in the DMG, invoke "weird time distortions due to your planar travelling" to give my players each two duplicates (who occupied their same space and who, when reduced to 0, had another duplicate take their place). So on their initiative they got three actions, with three sets of resources. They had to kill the devils in order from Lemure to Pit Fiend, with a riddle because why not its D&D, and did pretty well. Fun was had by just going completely gonzo- and by totally ignoring the useless rules that don't help you have fun. D&D Next everybody. Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:and by totally ignoring the useless rules that don't help you have fun. D&D Next everybody. Legitimate question here: Has anyone here, when just playing with friends, and not in some sort of tournament or con setting, had a system where they used every last rule, and invoked them every time they could? Not counting intentionally minimalist stuff that's basically only got one mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Legitimate question here: Has anyone here, when just playing with friends, and not in some sort of tournament or con setting, had a system where they used every last rule, and invoked them every time they could? Not counting intentionally minimalist stuff that's basically only got one mechanic. Legitimate answer: Whenever I first play any game system, I strive to adhere as close to the rules as possible. When my group played 3.5, we played with a legalistic fetish towards the rules and rulings. We used optional and official rules variants, but we played with the rules. Other games, like Magic the Gathering, Netrunner, Infinity, Warhams, boardgames - we use the rules. When I play FIASCO, I used the rules - when I played FATE, I used the rules. When I played Dungeon World, when I played Unknown Armies - we used the rules. Basically yeah I mean I am playing A Dirty World currently and if you are NOT using the rules in a Greg Stolze game, why did you pick it up? His rules are good, consistent, and coherent to a setting. I'd say they are Good Systems with Good Rules.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Yeah, that's basically my group's default state. It's really not hard with something like Call of Cthulhu or D&D4. Edit: wait do you mean specifically playing with the goal of seeing every rule implemented? That's stupid drippy poo poo, man. moths fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
If we could make sense of them, yes. Hence why my group doesn't play shadowrun anymore, or D&D 4e; too much poo poo to remember/look up when we could be playing DW instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Legitimate question here: Has anyone here, when just playing with friends, and not in some sort of tournament or con setting, had a system where they used every last rule, and invoked them every time they could? Not counting intentionally minimalist stuff that's basically only got one mechanic. I'm honestly trying to think of a rule that got ignored during our 4e games. We used all the minor stuff like grappling, skill challenges, and trap DCs. But no, since we didn't track XP according to the charts and just levelled up every couple of sessions. So close. I did play Rifts, 100% by the book, following every single rule (I'm leaving the bar by backflipping, I'll mark 25 xp), when I was 15 though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Legitimate question here: Has anyone here, when just playing with friends, and not in some sort of tournament or con setting, had a system where they used every last rule, and invoked them every time they could? Not counting intentionally minimalist stuff that's basically only got one mechanic. Well, we only used the rules relevant to the combat or RP situation our DM had set up for that particular session. It'd be really silly to focus our session on things that weren't there. However, there have been several times over the years where rules that we WERE using (grappling, OA, diagonal movements, multiclassing, the functionalisty of a class (in 5E, like eldritch knight)) were brought up and found to be counter productive to the game itself. we had to dedicate game time to either understanding the confusing or bad rules, or fixing them on the fly ourselves. is that what you meant?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Grimpond posted:is that what you meant? I just meant anything that involved ignoring/fixing "useless rules," since Laphroaig seemed to consider having to ignore unfun rules to be a sign of 5E being a failure(at least that was my understanding), when it's been my experience that even the most well-designed games has one or two rules that just don't contribute to the game being fun, for me, or which turn things that I feel are better arbitrated by the GM, into rolls. Though, obviously, it's fair argument if you have to remove/ignore more of the game's core rules and concepts than you leave be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Legitimate question here: Has anyone here, when just playing with friends, and not in some sort of tournament or con setting, had a system where they used every last rule, and invoked them every time they could? Not counting intentionally minimalist stuff that's basically only got one mechanic. Pretty much no. We usually try to early on to get a feel for the system and what it's supposed to do, but then we start ignoring or altering things to fit our playstyle within a couple sessions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
I mean I've probably houseruled every game I've ever played. Goodness knows that in 4e I added the 'optional feat at level 1' rule and extra damage monster damage/reduced monster HP before we had MM3 math. But I mean just because a game has bad rules it doesn't really follow that all games are equally bad. I should think the degree of houseruling required would be that measure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I just meant anything that involved ignoring/fixing "useless rules," since Laphroaig seemed to consider having to ignore unfun rules to be a sign of 5E being a failure(at least that was my understanding), when it's been my experience that even the most well-designed games has one or two rules that just don't contribute to the game being fun, for me, or which turn things that I feel are better arbitrated by the GM, into rolls. Though, obviously, it's fair argument if you have to remove/ignore more of the game's core rules and concepts than you leave be. I am ignoring the encounter design rules entirely in my example. They provide no useful framework for building interesting or exciting encounters, and the CR is wildly inaccurate as to the difficulty of a particular fight. In other places, we have house rules (like flanking) which can be consider a rules variant less than ignoring a rule. The reason I said "5E, everyone" was that most of 5E's design philosophy is that you are supposed to ignore rules you don't like. AKA the whole core conceit of the design is that you are supposed to completely ignore the presented game and substitute your own. That is stupid. It is also the only way to make D&D 5E fun or interesting. The Only Winning Move, Is Not To Play Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Monopoly would be a textbook example of a game that's significantly better if run absolutely RAW
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Monopoly would be a textbook example of a game that's significantly better if run absolutely RAW Yet I have as hard of time convincing friends that Monopoly is best RAW as I do convincing people that 4e is the best D&D.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
theironjef posted:I'm honestly trying to think of a rule that got ignored during our 4e games. We used all the minor stuff like grappling, skill challenges, and trap DCs. But no, since we didn't track XP according to the charts and just levelled up every couple of sessions. So close. Tracking XP is a good way to shed players, if you over-recruit or something. I've had homegames that start out with like 8-10 players, and then people who miss a few sessions drop out even faster if they know they're gonna be behind everyone else. Kinda separates the wheat from the chaff or however that saying goes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I think that particular one is actually in the Combat & Tactics supplement, one of the Player's Option books, which were an even mix of good ideas, terrible ideas and pure, refined grog(mostly C&T for the latter). C&T is the solution to pretty much every ill of 5e 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I just meant anything that involved ignoring/fixing "useless rules," since Laphroaig seemed to consider having to ignore unfun rules to be a sign of 5E being a failure(at least that was my understanding), when it's been my experience that even the most well-designed games has one or two rules that just don't contribute to the game being fun, for me, or which turn things that I feel are better arbitrated by the GM, into rolls. Though, obviously, it's fair argument if you have to remove/ignore more of the game's core rules and concepts than you leave be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:08
|
|