|
Generic Octopus posted:I think the point is that 4e has exactly as much support for skills/story/non-combat as every other edition. What is the difference between the skill systems in 3.5, 4, and 5? Not much, which is part of my point. I don't think a list of skills is always necessecarily a bad thing, because it can provide direction for the game thematically. 4e and 5e have very similar skill list. My main point was that the combat of a 4e game completely eclispes ALL the other areas - exploration, roleplay, etc. even in a combat-light game because it takes so loving long and is so fiddly. It's not that you can't do it, but it's a lot harder to balance the time ratio. Game balance really isn't the issue I was citing, but it is a shame 5e wasn't as balanced as 4e, even if neither is really better in the skills department. It's not like you don't see some of the same differences in skill stuff in 4th when a player gets stuff like Jack of All Trades or uses their feats for extra skill training. For the record, 3.5 is probably my least favorite edition just because of the skill system. I feel like you could pull the skill system out of it completely, have people do roll+stat (instead of modifier) for most stuff when needed, give the rogue open lock/disable device/use magic device as a class ability and call it a loving day with a better (if still somewhat unbalanced) system. This could even work with 5th, but I feel like the skill system in 5th doesn't weight the game down as much as 3rd's did. Darwinism posted:There's no good way to run combat-lite any edition of D&D - the non-combat stuff is either bare-bones pass/fail or spell-solves-the-problem, so the heavy roleplaying is almost universally in spite of the system, definitely not because anything actually encourages RP mechanically. Eh, I'd disagree. I find it's easier to wrap your head around numerical attack bonuses and weapon/attack ranges and radiuses in real world measurements than everything in terms of squares if you're going theatre of the mind. The shifting of enemies in particular, especially at higher levels, is fiddlier than it needs to be if you're looking to play fantasy novel sandbox vs tabletop tactics. Section Z posted:I know at least what you are going for. Even if I don't agree it's as extreme as you think. Especially because "Narrative abilities" is 99% of the time code for "Where are my campaign altering spelltable spells, you fucks?" Because honestly, how often have Fighters ever had "narrative altering" abilities unless you were in a barbarian political situation solved with arm wrestling? (Amusingly, in 4th my pals are going through Scales Of War right now, and a skill challenge had our Kobold Fighter bench press party members to keep a gladiator pit obsessed king's attention). I think both narrative abilities and simulationism elements have been kind of poisoned as being seen as fun things by some rear end in a top hat players. Maybe it's because I started playing in the 90s with 2nd edition, though. D&D had cool campaign worlds, and no real "skill system" as such except for thief skills. My group used non-weapon proficiencies as a vehicle to give opportunities to roleplaying and worldbuilding rather than make it harder for characters to do poo poo. They way they've evolved as try/fail gates rather than character building description is not good, but having skill rolls as a form of mechanical engagement isn't necessarily a bad thing. I do prefer to do degrees of success and failure vs pass/fail, but my groups have always done that kind of naturally depending on how far you missed the mark. From your example, actually, I think we kind of have the same idea of what "narrative mechanics" should be like. I liked the idea of Paragon Paths and Epic Destiny more than the execution, and it would have been cool to have those grant both narrative abilities as well as combat. The Paragon Paths in particular were so mechanically similar it was a little boring. In that "perfect version" of 4e pared down, I'm thinking something like a basic attack tied to a stat by class (str/dex/int would probably cover it), one mechanical ability slot for each category per tier (at-will, enc, daily, utility, passive?), and one to two narrative thing choices per class and tier. I don't really want to derail the 5e thread with 4e/DnD heartbreaker chat though. Tunicate posted:Getting armies as a class feature was pretty pimp. Hell loving yes, this is what I'm talking about. It's way more fun to get poo poo like a castle and/or a bugbear follower at level 10 than "you can bypass 2 AC on this attack once per fight" or whatever. gradenko_2000 posted:But if you're looking for "a pared down 4e at its core, with a little less emphases on the battlefield mechanics and a little more on narrative abilities by class and tier", there's still games that do that better (that aren't FATE either) True, but again, 5e thread and all that. Although, is there one that has any kind of worldbuilding platform? All the ones I see are either totally generic or they tout themselves as "D&D but better!"
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
2 things: A.) You will not be derailing the thread with 5e v 4e chat, because many of us are curious, interested, and invested in one system or the other. So hearing different opinions is awesome. Don't think people are making GBS threads on your opinions, their just voicing theirs and pointing out things they see that are wrong, or arise from misconceptions. b.) The squares or hexes were literally feet. Each one represented 5 feet. Burt 3 was "radius 15 feet" It's the same exact system. Question: Do you play 5e without a grid? Turtlicious fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
ScaryJen posted:Hell loving yes, this is what I'm talking about. It's way more fun to get poo poo like a castle and/or a bugbear follower at level 10 than "you can bypass 2 AC on this attack once per fight" or whatever. Yeah definitely! I also think you should get stuff like 'you can steal anything from the greatest treasure to someone's hopes and memories' would be a pretty cool class feature to give a rogue. This is the fun stuff that I'd like to see in my Dungeons and/or Dragons game. Literally every 5e ability makes me fall asleep. kingcom fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Honestly I would like Feats to give "Campaign" altering spells to everyone. Level 6 Fighter? Break a hole into the wall with your head. Level 12 Rogue? Once per combat steal an opponents weapon from them poo poo like that would be rad as hell, and doesn't really seem game breaking. Also, I keep seeing this "Microlite 5e" thing coming up on the internet, what is Microlite?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Honestly I would like Feats to give "Campaign" altering spells to everyone. Steal your opponents depth perception imo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
ScaryJen posted:I don't really want to derail the 5e thread with 4e/DnD heartbreaker chat though. It's not derailing to talk about applying your heartbreaker/4e/OD&D ideas to the 5th ed framework, it's the most interesting part of the thread. Turtlicious posted:Honestly I would like Feats to give "Campaign" altering spells to everyone. Yes, Feats should be goddamn feats: Achievements requiring great skill, courage, or strength. Noteworthy or extraordinary acts desplaying great boldness and skill. Remarkable, skillful, or daring actions, exploits, or achievements. Not "can wear medium armour". kingcom posted:Steal your opponents depth perception imo. Ok... but... I mean, they don't have it, which gives you an advantage, but what the gently caress do you do with extra depth perception? Can you sell it? Maybe to a one-eyed man? e: Trade it to the Pirate King (who obv. has one eye) for a Pirate Baronetcy! Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Ok... but... I mean, they don't have it, which gives you an advantage, but what the gently caress do you do with extra depth perception? Can you sell it? Maybe to a one-eyed man? You know that Cyclops mage whos up to all kinds of poo poo. I bet you he'd kill for some depth perception. AlphaDog posted:Not "can wear medium armour". Or pathfinder's "can lie prone"
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:It's not derailing to talk about applying your heartbreaker/4e/OD&D ideas to the 5th ed framework, it's the most interesting part of the thread. Turtlicious posted:2 things: Okay, then, why not? To answer the 2nd thing first, no, I've never really used grids in games I've run except for in 4th. I've played in games where they were used, but it always struck me as very much of a personal preference thing with the older editions. With 4th edition, exact position in relation to enemies and allies on the board is waaaay more important in play because of how most of the character abilities work. A lot of what characters rely on is moving enemies around on the field, moving before and after a strike (with stuff baked into the attack itself) and exact positioning in a very mechanical sense. It's less about mentally converting the squares themselves to measurements (it's just a little bit of extra bandwith on a player's part, like using THACO) as much as keeping track of where everyone and everything is on the battlefield. RAW, if you don't do something to player abilities to tone down just how much poo poo is moving around everywhere, it's a lot harder to keep track of everything. With the older ones, it's way easier to do the "final fantasy" style combat since it's focused more on damage and status effects with the occasional "you're fighting in a forest so these guys have cover" or "this guy is shooting at you from on top of the thatched roof cottage". As for an idea of how to "fix" DnD so it's got that mesh of simple and engaging...drat, you guys made me get my notebook out. I'd probably start with trimming down the individual class list and have the players pick from archetypes at 1st level. Fighter, Rogue, Priest, Magic User, and probably bring back Psionics as a 5th. A lot of other classes could be rolled into those, if you ask me. Give each of the archetypes in the core book 3 options for each thing they can do*/a character build, 3 paragon paths at level 10ish, and a bigger class-agnostic Epic Destiny list than 4th had. Keep the 3 tiers, and with each tier you get another slot for your abilities so you get 3 of each at around level 20. *Stuff you could do as follows, defined by class: Basic Attack, tied to Str Dex or Int, whichever is highest, for any class with some variance by weapon At-Will Ability This would probably cover like Sneak Attack or Lay on Hands, though the 2nd you could make a flat per use amount vs a pool "Charge" Attack - I'm thinking rather than limiting it to once per encounter, you could "hold" your turn to do something bigger by giving up two attacks/actions to do a stronger one. Fireballs and Big Blast type stuff would go here. Triggered Action - Instead of a Daily, an attack, ability, or effect you can only use on certain conditions. Like being blinded, being at 1/4 hp, etc. Passive Ability - A boost to you and/or allies, or a special defense. Utility- Class dependant narrative ability. A thief would get thievery, a ranger would get tracking, druids could talk to animals, etc. cooler stuff would open up at higher tiers. Features - Not feats as they've been traditionally used, and a better name needs to go here, but this could be class-agnostic that gives cool semi-mechanical stuff. Ritual Casting type stuff would go here. Other ideas: Soul Weapon (magic weapon that you can't lose and grows with you), Planar Shifting, Fortress/Land Holdings, Familiars...etc This would be the easiest one to tweak to a particular setting or game style, or just ignore it completely if you're going story light. That would be a super basic overview of the structure for a character, but I don't see any reason you couldn't do away with the character ability resource management and still have rations/gear lists/etc if you were going a little more simulationist. I'm thinking a good rule of thumb for fatigue, if you wanted to track it, would be roll a Con check every 12 hours or x fights you don't rest/sleep to avoid passing out. kingcom posted:Yeah definitely! I also think you should get stuff like 'you can steal anything from the greatest treasure to someone's hopes and memories' would be a pretty cool class feature to give a rogue. This is the fun stuff that I'd like to see in my Dungeons and/or Dragons game. Literally every 5e ability makes me fall asleep. All of the cool stuff is front-loaded for the classes that have it (and not all of them do). I like Barbarian, personally, but I know what you mean. 13th Age totally goes that route, and I tend to recommend it to people a lot. I don't think there's necessarly anything wrong with character abilities being a little more grounded depending on the game's setting, but I miss a lot of the stuff from AD&D like bags that didn't run out of food, cloaks of flying, and figurines of wondrous power. And class given warhorses. ScaryJen fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Also, I keep seeing this "Microlite 5e" thing coming up on the internet, what is Microlite? Microlite20 was a work by Robin Stacey that distilled of D&D 3.5e down to its base parts: A character has 3 stats: STR, DEX and MIND, obtained by 4d6-drop-lowest, with a modifier derived from (STAT-10)/2, round down A character has 4 skills: Physical, Subterfuge, Knowledge, Communication To do A Thing, roll d20 + the appropriate stat + the appropriate skill, to meet or beat a DC set by the GM. Any 3.5e skill can be captured by some combination of a stat and a skill. Bluff could be MIND + Communications Stealth could be DEX + Subterfuge Use Rope (hah!) could be DEX + Knowledge, you get the idea To attack, roll d20 + STR + Level, to meet or beat your target's AC. Ranged weapons or light weapons might use DEX instead. To cast a spell, take 1 HP damage for a level 0 spell/cantrip, then add a cumulative 2 more HP for every spell level past that first. The term "microlite" in general has since been sort of taken to mean "how do we break this game down to its base parts to make something that's playable in 1-3 pages of A4?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
ScaryJen posted:As for an idea of how to "fix" DnD so it's got that mesh of simple and engaging...drat, you guys made me get my notebook out. I'd probably start with trimming down the individual class list and have the players pick from archetypes at 1st level. Fighter, Rogue, Priest, Magic User, and probably bring back Psionics as a 5th. A lot of other classes could be rolled into those, if you ask me. Give each of the archetypes in the core book 3 options for each thing they can do*/a character build, 3 paragon paths at level 10ish, and a bigger class-agnostic Epic Destiny list than 4th had. Keep the 3 tiers, and with each tier you get another slot for your abilities so you get 3 of each at around level 20. That sounds like a good start. Are you talking about picking (say) Fighter, and then taking either a Warrior, Ranger, or Barbarian (or whatever)* "archetype" from level 1, and then getting a paragon thing at level 10? *Or for magic-users, pick from wizard / sorcerer / warlock or similar? ScaryJen posted:"Charge" Attack - I'm thinking rather than limiting it to once per encounter, you could "hold" your turn to do something bigger by giving up two attacks/actions to do a stronger one. Fireballs and Big Blast type stuff would go here. This is great. I think that in combination with your "triggered abilities", this might be a good place to put save-or-die stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 09:01
|
|
|
ScaryJen posted:I'd probably start with trimming down the individual class list and have the players pick from archetypes at 1st level. Fighter, Rogue, Priest, Magic User, and probably bring back Psionics as a 5th. A lot of other classes could be rolled into those, if you ask me. This pretty closely conforms to my own opinions, particularly regarding Paladins vis-à-vis Clerics. Like, Cleric is just "more, but WIS not CHA." Paladins aren't even particularly more ~fighty~ than clerics, either. If you slap smite and LoH onto cleric, and allowed freedom of which spellcasting mod to use, you could basically get rid of paladins. That, or make ranger/paladin/similar a product of dual-classing/hybriding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:This pretty closely conforms to my own opinions, particularly regarding Paladins vis-à-vis Clerics. Like, Cleric is just "more, but WIS not CHA." Paladins aren't even particularly more ~fighty~ than clerics, either. If you slap smite and LoH onto cleric, and allowed freedom of which spellcasting mod to use, you could basically get rid of paladins. I've messed around with this kind of idea a bit too. Mine was that you'd choose a primary and secondary class. Primary classes are Hero and Mystic. Secondary classes are Leader and Rogue. You can take nearly nothing out of your secondary class, or you can take up to around 2/3 of your abilities from there. Rogue stuff involves debuffs, stealth, control, and additional damage. Leader stuff is buffs, healing, damage control, and followers. Heroes are Fighters. Heros who take many Rogue secondaries shade through Barbarian, Ranger, Assassin, Thief etc. Heroes who take many Leader secondaries might look like Warlords, Cavaliers, 2nd ed Fighters with retinues, Paladins etc. Mystics are Casters. Mystics who take many Leader secondaries might look like Clerics, or Druids depnding on how they invest their abilities. Mystics who many take Rogue secondaries might look like Walocks or Bards. You have the opportunity to play a vanilla-ish Fighter or Wizard by taking most/all upgrade stuff from your Primary class, but let's say you picked Hero/Leader and were playing it as a move/attack kind of fighter type and got bored, you could decide at your next level to take holy orders and start Paladining the place up, or you could recruit a band of mercenaries and have your retinue, or whatever else. e: I don't understand, and have never understood, Psionics in D&D. It's magic, but... slightly different magic that will maybe work in an anti-magic field because it's not magic magic? Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:e: I don't understand, and have never understood, Psionics in D&D. It's magic, but... slightly different magic that will maybe work in an anti-magic field because it's not magic magic? My guess is that psionics in D&D are a result of the weird fiction that D&D is based on. Having said that, no, I don't know which exact swords & sorcery or weird fantasy novel or short story had a sorcerer with mind bullets, but given the fact that almost everything in D&D is derivative I'm pretty sure psionics are also stolen from genre fiction. The thing that really weirds me out about psionics is that they're always cast as something weird and alien, which is really strange because we're talking about a game where people can literally ask their gods for miracles and reading enough books allows you to alter the universe by figuring out the right hacks, but a character using the power of their mind? Whoa, whoa, whoa, that's really weird and different and we're going to need completely different and distinct rules for modeling that! Having said that, some of the (IMO) coolest stuff in D&D also happens to be psionic in flavor: mind flayers are a bit overused, but aboleths, giant psychic prehistoric lungfish with ancestral memory, are totally cool, and I've always had a soft spot for the githyanki and the githzerai, especially the githzerai: seriously, they're a race of psychic zen warrior monks who believe in order and using your mind to make order out of chaos who have just decided to settle in the most chaotic place in the multiverse probably just for the challenge. e: Also, they're actually psychic zen warrior monks from the future, so that's cool I guess? But yeah, as cool as some of the stuff that's related to psionics in D&D is I was really weirded out when I started playing D&D and suddenly the old guard was really hype about the upcoming Psionic's Handbook. I do get some of the coolness of psionics now, but I just keep wondering where the hell it all came from. Ratpick fucked around with this message at 12:45 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:The thing that really weirds me out about psionics is that they're always cast as something weird and alien, which is really strange because we're talking about a game where people can literally ask their gods for miracles and reading enough books allows you to alter the universe by figuring out the right hacks, but a character using the power of their mind? Whoa, whoa, whoa, that's really weird and different and we're going to need completely different and distinct rules for modeling that! This is what I'm talking about, not the other stuff. Mind flayers, githyanki, aboleths, are all cool as hell. Dark Sun is a great setting. I think the in-game mechanical distinction between magic and totally different for real you guys psionics is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
My only notable exposure to psionics prior to D&D was from X-COM, but that was cool as all get-out and I'd totally play a Gnome Psion reskinned into a Sectoid Commander.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
I know in some cases, Psionics used their own list of powers. So I guess that could be why, in those cases. Because they aren't using the Spell Table like a Wizard or Cleric  Or maybe it could just be 90% of the psychic poo poo in DnD is rear end in a top hat stuff like the mentioned Flayers, Aboleths, or "Dark Sun. I wish I was in Ravenloft instead" Section Z fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
In pre-3e days, psionics were treated as more crazy/threatening because of them doing their work while giving no indication of it. So think about it in 2e- mage or priest starts chanting/casting a spell, if he's doing this in plain sight it's a lethal attack and anyone and everyone is within rights to smack him and interrupt the spell. Psionics? You have no idea when he's doing his magic on you and even if you do you can't interrupt him. Once interrupts stopped being a thing that distinction mattered a lot less.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
This is more of a general D&D thing, but you know Acheron? The lawful neutral but sort of lawful evil plane that is all about war and strife? The coolest part about that plane is that there's a bunch of cubes flying around Acheron with the various armies using them to fly around and do battle. poo poo, there's a goblin cube and an orc cube and when they get close to each other the orcs and goblins from those cubes fight. I mean, poo poo, this is like the most D&D thing ever, an alternate dimension that is all about war and strife being characterized by flying battlecubes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Why do so many attempts to "fix" this hot mess that is Next end up with something resembling 13th Age? I mean, let's look at a recent list of "fixes" to appear in this thread: quote:Basic Attack, tied to Str Dex or Int, whichever is highest, for any class with some variance by weapon Not so much 13th Age, which already uses STR or DEX as key ability for melee attacks depending on class (Fighters attack with Str, Rangers and Rogues use Dex, etc.). The thing is I don't see how it enhances gameplay. If everyone can use their highest ability score for attacks, why not cut the middle man and say "all classes get 5 + Level as their attack bonus; flavour it in a way that fits yous character's fighting style and training"? Also, here is where simulationism shows its ugly face once again. First, why no fighting styles that rely on Con, Wis or Cha as well? "You can't stab someone with your good looks, therefore no Charisma as key ability for melee attacks!" would be a common response. And one that shows lack of imagination. A good player should be able to come up with entertaining concepts/descriptions for fighting styles based on "unorthodox" ability scores (and a GOOD DM!!! should be able to nudge players in that direction). Such "fix" also creates mechanical issues. Metagame tends to dominate chargen. Why would I make a strong Fighter if a Dex-based one gets to use the ability score both to attacks AND armor class? It falls in the same imbalance trap as the classes: they're all presented as being equaly useful, but some are just plain better than the others (use your SYSTEM MASTERY to find out!). (13th Age has this problem too, btw.) quote:"Charge" Attack - I'm thinking rather than limiting it to once per encounter, you could "hold" your turn to do something bigger by giving up two attacks/actions to do a stronger one. Fireballs and Big Blast type stuff would go here. That's something 13th Age already does to better differentiate Wizards and Sorcerers. Sorcerers are able to gather power, delaying the casting of a spell for one round in order to cast a double strength spell. It does not substitute power usage routines, though (spells are still daily or encounter or recharge or whatever; the gather power mechanic is applied on top of that). quote:Triggered Action - Instead of a Daily, an attack, ability, or effect you can only use on certain conditions. Like being blinded, being at 1/4 hp, etc. It looks good, but there are a couple of practical issues. First: it removes player agency. One of the reasons people (myself included) loved martial powers in 4E is the fun decision making process their use requires. This kind of trigger limitation removes that functionality. "Come and Get It would "make more sense" if it triggered when the Fighter receives a critical hit: being critted makes the Fighter seem like an easy target, so the enemies swarm over her in order to take advantage of this newfound weakness! The power functions the same as in 4E, but now it MAKES REALISTIC SENSE!" ...And it's now a poo poo power too, because it's near useless. A power like CaGI is useful because you're able to deploy it when it's most advantageous to do so — when you're surrounded by nearby minions, or maybe you just need to pull the big baddie that's about to murder the party Wizard in melee combat. In a way, such power already has an "external trigger": position and context matter A LOT. That's why many people dislike the 13th Age Fighter. The flexible attack mechanic is a fun gimmick. Maneuvers are chosen after the attack is made, depending on your natural die roll. It's a very elegant way to emulate the whole "opportunities for deploying martial powers depend on external factors such as momentary openings", but it comes at the cost of player agency. Flexible attacks require you to choose your target before you know which maneuvers you'll be able to choose from, which takes away the tactical context-informed decision making that made Fighters fun in 4E. (Not saying that trigger-based powers can't be done; the mark punishment Defenders have in 4E is an awesome triggered ability. I'm just saying that "unrealistic" usage patterns such as Daily or Encounter are simple enough to track and explain, and they do their job, which is to limit the use of special abilities that would lead to gameplay issues if spammed. When designing such powers, one should be also aware of trigger frequency. "Blinded" was one proposed trigger: how often can we expect enemies to be blinded? Can the Fighter herself inflict such condition in order to exploit it later, creating a kind of combo? Or does she depend on the Wizard? If only the Wizard can inflict blinded, and only once per day, then the Fighter's power that triggers on such condition is in practice a Daily, even if it's nominally At-will, and should be balanced appropriately. Such emergent issues are often overlooked by those who "design" rules as simulation. ) quote:Utility- Class dependant narrative ability. A thief would get thievery, a ranger would get tracking, druids could talk to animals, etc. cooler stuff would open up at higher tiers. So something like the Thievery (Rogue) and Tracker (Ranger) talents, and the Nature Talking (Druid) and Utility Spell slot + cantrips (Wizard) and ritual casting (Wizard, Cleric, Necromancer and anyone else that takes a feat) in 13th Age. (And the background checks and icon relationship rolls that are avaiable to any character.) And just to clarify things: acknowledging that not only other editions of D&D exist isn't edition warring, and the same goes to the fact that OTHER NON-D&D GAMES EXIST AS WELL. If another edition of D&D already solved a problem featured in Next, it's not edition warring to point that out. If another game system was designed to deliver the kind of gameplay that Next is ill-suited to support due to the way its system is structured, I don't think it's inappropriate to bring that up. Next doesn't get to have special treatment just because it says D&D on the cover. Brand fetishism shouldn't make a game immune to criticism. If people are so keen on hacking Next, learning from functional systems seems a better deal than "realistic" "solutions" that create more gameplay issues than they solve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
So this year, WotC will be at GaryCon but not at Gen Con. Discuss.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
This seems like a concession that they're no longer competing for regular gamer money and are content with "True D&D fan" money. Which there's probably no current shortage of, but it's a bad in the long-term. I suppose the same could be said of all their decisions since Essentials.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Or they know they've not got the budget to go to multiple locations and live up to people's expectations of them, so they're just focusing on the ones they think they'll do best at.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
GenCon is a pretty conspicuous absence, though. Acknowledging that they won't do well at it (well enough to merit attending) is a pretty big indication that they're only interested in playing to their existing audience. Hell, Games Workshop even had a token presence at GenCon. They bungled it, of course. (They're still Games Workshop...) But the point stands that even a bunch of isolationist dummies like GW recognize skipping GenCon is bad business .
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
The fact that the RPG isn't interested in attending the RPG con says a lot about the game, the con, or both.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
One thing that gets a bad rap from 4e is skill challenges. I maintain the idea and the basic mechanics are fairly elegant; it's just the way it was presented that sucked. So long as you keep to two things, it works pretty well. One: Let players decide how they're going to do it, assign DCs based on how relevant the skill they're bringing to the table is. Two: Only use skill challenges when it's an important challenge with something at stake. Too much "They must use this, this, or this skill," and too much "If they fail, they must try again until they succeed." Really, once you let players just figure out their own solutions and let them narrate results, it becomes a much more interesting mechanic, and helps mitigate the pass/fail of d20 skill systems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Yeah, skill challenges sucked prettyt hard early on, it took two fairly major overhauls oof both the system and the DCs to get them more or less right. Then 5e threw it all out for reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:So this year, WotC will be at GaryCon but not at Gen Con. Didn't they cause a stir with how lovely their last (admittedly outsourced) GenCon outing was? I can't remember if it was GenCon specifically, but I'm referring to when they had to retroactively send out Steam keys and books because the $125 VIP experience was literally the same as the 'free' experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:The fact that the RPG isn't interested in attending the RPG con says a lot about the game, the con, or both. More than anything else, it says an RPG thinks it's the RPG.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:The fact that the RPG isn't interested in attending the RPG con says a lot about the game, the con, or both.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Yeah, skill challenges sucked prettyt hard early on, it took two fairly major overhauls oof both the system and the DCs to get them more or less right. Likely because they didn't want to even pretend to follow a difficulty chart table that frequently. Not that 4th ed does much better. Or ANY system, honestly "Here is the DC table" for mostly any system I look at tends to get ignored by both the official writers and every DM I've played with. Be it commercial system or one they made up themselves.) Uuuuuugh. Why the gently caress do DC charts basically only exist to fool your players into thinking they are up to standard? One minute you're dealing with "DC 30 Acrobatics to climb onto the bar counter, at level 1". The next you are dealing with "please make a DC 13 check a level 1 character couldn't possibly fail, in this lv 16+ module's skill challenge", coming hot off the heels of "DC higher than the DC chart goes to disarm with thievery. OR, you could use the gimmick to disable it instead! but we TOTALLY gave you the option!" Nevermind side effect stuff like how people love to build traps with Perc Checks as high, or higher than their thievery DCs. When a Rogue, guy who's job is to deal with traps, isn't exactly gushing in Wisdom. Or DnD magazines outright saying in articles "If your PC's are taking skill focuses feats or otherwise raising their skills, totally jack up your DC's to match to keep the challenge!". Section Z fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:Didn't they cause a stir with how lovely their last (admittedly outsourced) GenCon outing was? I can't remember if it was GenCon specifically, but I'm referring to when they had to retroactively send out Steam keys and books because the $125 VIP experience was literally the same as the 'free' experience. Oh man, I had forgotten all about this. Yeah, their GenCon showing was a) outsourced, and b) absolutely hilariously inept and terrible in every way, even beyond the "VIP Experience" goatface posted:Or they know they've not got the budget to go to multiple locations and live up to people's expectations of them, so they're just focusing on the ones they think they'll do best at. That's what I'm thinking. GenCon is likely the most expensive con to be at and the one where the largest number of things can go wrong (see.what happened last time). It's also the one where their complete dearth of products would be the most obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Section Z posted:Nevermind side effect stuff like how people love to build traps with Perc Checks as high, or higher than their thievery DCs. When a Rogue, guy who's job is to deal with traps, isn't exactly gushing in Wisdom. Or DnD magazines outright saying in articles "If your PC's are taking skill focuses feats or otherwise raising their skills, totally jack up your DC's to match to keep the challenge!". I hate this. Why even have skill feats, talents traits, ranks, or what ever else you can throw on top of skill checks, when the DM is going to just arbitrarily make the DC be 25%/50%/75% chance of success? This is one of the few reason I prefer roll under mechanics set on player attribute and skill ranks. Something like Rogue Trader, or Call of Cthulhu. I feel like it gives the player more agency than, "Roll and I'll tell you if you succeed" d20 games use. At the end of the day, this arbitrary DC set by DM whim comes down to making the game easier to run. If you can always set the DC to what ever number you feel like the players can always fail, and the game is always suspenseful. It just is a manufactured suspense with no substance to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:That sounds like a good start. Are you talking about picking (say) Fighter, and then taking either a Warrior, Ranger, or Barbarian (or whatever)* "archetype" from level 1, and then getting a paragon thing at level 10? Initially, yes, that's exactly right. I did some notebook scratching last night, and ended up with 4 tiers over 3, with tier 1 consisting of the base archetype and covering levels 1-4 (neophyte tier), and adventurer/hero/legend tiers at every 5th level. At adventurer you'd pick what mostly qualifies as class, and at hero pick a specialization/paragon path. 15-19 is the one that's a little loose structurally- I'm you could have the option to either substantially increase your the power of your base archetype abilities or crib another paragon path for more utility. I spread out talent gain as follows: 1st level gets you your Basic attack, At-Will Ability, and a Utility From there, each level gives in order: Passive Charge Trigger Feat(ure), +2 Ability Scores, and an additional At-Will Utility Repeat through 19, Epic Destiny at 20 Ability scores would still be in, and tie in to combat/mechanical abilities. It's just all spitballing, but it's a simpler skeleton than 4th that still offers variety and hard-coded classes. Feats/features would be the thing to leave optional/up to the GM as it's all the stuff like Followers, A keep, etc. P.d0t posted:This pretty closely conforms to my own opinions, particularly regarding Paladins vis-à-vis Clerics. Like, Cleric is just "more, but WIS not CHA." Paladins aren't even particularly more ~fighty~ than clerics, either. If you slap smite and LoH onto cleric, and allowed freedom of which spellcasting mod to use, you could basically get rid of paladins. I absolutely agree. I've been working on a couple of skill-based fantasy systems, where you basically cobble together your own build from a list of skills divided by archetype. I really like doing things that way, and one of the biggest disappointments I had with 3rd was how many trap options it had and unbalanced subsystems despite the breaking out of hard classes. One of the settings uses the Warrior/Rogue/Priest/Wizard types. Priest includes Lay on Hands, Bless, Aura, etc. So a traditional paladin would be a hybrid of Warrior skills and priest skills, while a traditional D&D cleric would probably be mostly priest with possibly a warrior skill or two. I like it a lot, and I've had some good feedback on it, but it can also be a little daunting to people who like the direction/iconography of a Class or someone who isn't as familiar with whatever genre the system is skinned to. Nancy_Noxious posted:Why do so many attempts to "fix" this hot mess that is Next end up with something resembling 13th Age? I thought I was "fixing" 4th  So, your post has a bit to unpack, and I'll try to go down the line. Please keep in mind I pretty much just came up with a skeleton sketch here, and the finer points obviously don't have hard numbers. It's mainly my take on what would make 4th fun for someone like me, who likes some mechanical depth, some narrative depth, and less bookkeeping/moving parts than 4th had. What I'm thinking with the stats and Basic Attack is opening up options that sync both mechanically and from an rp standpoint, and I think we basically agree how it should be handled? Fighter could pick from Str, Dex, Int, or Wis for their main attack tie-in, Wizard could get Int or Dex, etc. A rogue could get Str, Dex, or Int and have Cha open up with the right paragon path. This would give a bit more direction than "just pick the highest stat", and could give more thematic options to stabby classes. The main reason to keep ability scores would be to give everyone an idea of their capabilties in the non-combat world, while still tying them in mechanically in places. If you were going to take a departure from the D&D numbers, you could definitely make this a 1-5ish rating, though my idea was to add full scores to things (basic attack is wpn+stat, hp is con x level, AC is straight Dex). Obviously, these numbers are way different than previous iterations, but I agree there don't need to be 2 or 3 sets of numbers for the same thing. With the triggered stuff, absolutely, you'd definitely want to make sure the trigger condition syncs with the trigger ability. The triggers should take into account how often situational said condition is, and that the boost in directly proportional to the trigger's danger. With the blinded one specifically, I'm thinking Blind Fight could be a good triggered ability for a fighter which could negate the fighter's vision imparement penalties and possibly mitigate a blindness penalty to any party members blinded as well (via the fighter's tactical instructions). At 1/4 hp, maybe your Damage and AC go up exponentially until your hp is healed above that mark. Sure, you could damage yourself to get the bonus, but I can see that being a tactics feature vs a bug (it's already a fantasy trope). You wouldn't be giving up anything to add Triggers, it's not intended to replace dailies as much as be a new defense mechanism for a class. My original idea behind "charge" attacks was something closer to "burst" attack, which you could only do every 3 rounds. I agree it might be better for some classes to lean more towards burst and some to lean towards charging, possibly giving each classes options for both despite a leaning towards one or the other. These would replace both encounters and dailies in my view because Encounter and Daily, as I don't think measuring character abilities this way is the best way to do it. If the battle is going on a long time, a big charge or repeated bursts could speed it up, and it works better thematically if you're tracking time and rest as well. I think travel time and rest should be an optional rule, which has you roll a con check (I'd probably go back to good 'ol d20 roll under for checks and saves, and have caps at 18-20 by race and tier) to avoid ramping penalties and eventual unconsciousness. I tend not to go with a super simulationist mindset myself, because a. game and b. a lot of the "hardcore" simulationist experts are full of poo poo on how things really work. I do like to have cool worldbuilding details, and stuff like prices for boats and weapon lists help describe the world to me. For a game like this, I'd probably have weapon proficiencies grouped into Light/One hand melee, Heavy/Two hand melee, Thrown/light ranged, Marksman/heavy ranged, and Bare Knuckle. Each of these probably covers a threshold of 2-3 damage die and might have str or dex requirements, with special material weapons and whatnot tweaking that. Which is pretty much only to give some damage balance and thematic direction. Brawl, Melee, and Marksman would actually fit better if you were going with simulationism imo. 13th age does attempt to do some of these things, but it lacks a lot of mechanical depth and some of the mechanics are fiddly, which we also seem to agree on. I'm also definitely not saying 5th didn't take some steps backward in places, but 4th isn't some kind of holy gaming grail. A big part of the divide I see is because the two versions play so differently. People who like 4th REALLY like it, and the people who don't generally really don't. I like the structure, but I the moving parts are too much for me to want to play for most rpgs. dwarf74 posted:So this year, WotC will be at GaryCon but not at Gen Con. Given GenCon is the e3 of tabletop, it makes sense. They don't have any products in the works after Strahd I reckon, at least any that are in any shape to show.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
I have this sudden, random urge to make a 5e supplement based entirely on misspellings and malapropisms. For example, it could have the Beetlemaster Fighter, who rides around on giant armored insects that he calls up from the underground with secret Dwarven chants.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
That guy sounds cool. He can hang around with the Law Bard (uses interrupting powers to disrupt attacks by shouting "OBJECTION!"), the Beat Master Ranger (rhythmic based bonuses to attacks based on your favoured beat pattern), and the Friend Patron Warlock (charisma bonuses and charm [whatever] spells).
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Ideas for spells: Hideous Slaughter (attack bonuses and the like, but must attack something every round) Animagic Field (one or more objects in the area become uncontrolled animated objects every round) Create Dead (spontaneously generate a corpse) Shocking Rasp (cough so nastily that it nauseates people near you) Unseen's Vervant (access to an idyllic town in a demiplane) Water Wok (create cooking tools out of water) Stones' Kin (trick earth creatures into being friendly to you)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Huckabee Sting posted:I hate this. Why even have skill feats, talents traits, ranks, or what ever else you can throw on top of skill checks, when the DM is going to just arbitrarily make the DC be 25%/50%/75% chance of success? This is one of the few reason I prefer roll under mechanics set on player attribute and skill ranks. Something like Rogue Trader, or Call of Cthulhu. I feel like it gives the player more agency than, "Roll and I'll tell you if you succeed" d20 games use. At the end of the day, this arbitrary DC set by DM whim comes down to making the game easier to run. If you can always set the DC to what ever number you feel like the players can always fail, and the game is always suspenseful. It just is a manufactured suspense with no substance to it. I was thinking about a Microlite5e based on something like reducing the stats to STR DEX MIND, and then instead of having skill ranks in Physical/Subterfuge/Knowledge/Communication, you'd choose to be proficient in one or two of them, which would simplify it to a +2 bonus at level 1 going up to +6 by level 20, and then the same basic principle of emulating any possible task by combinations of stat + skills. And then it came to me that for such a thing to work, or indeed for RAW 5e's skill system to work, you'd have to spend a lot of time explaining how to calibrate your skill checks to work within the limits of the system. Except we don't get that. Even in the DMG the skill check advice boils down to +5 DC if it's harder. goatface posted:the Friend Patron Warlock Obviously the Patron Warlock would always be drunk as gently caress and passing the bottle around to the rest of the party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Fiend Patton Warlock is a reincarnation of all the universe's evilest generals and military commanders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Two Words: Balor Bard
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
Paladin of Law & Order: SVU
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:52
|
|