D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

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

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Jackard posted:

I just now found out the basic rules are free so only have one question.

Is this game an improvement on 3.5/Pathfinder?

The core rules are an improvement over core 3.P.

However, the Basic rules (the free stuff) have like, 4 classes. Anything more than that costs money (I think). 3.P has so much more material, and most of it available free.

# ¿ Aug 25, 2014 20:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 22:22

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Zombies' Downfall posted:

I actually prefer "whatever let the DM figure it out, here's some guidelines" to the 3E approach of "here's a system of racial hit dice and poo poo that doesn't work for poo poo and produces only overpowered and worthless PCs" and 4E's "going through every humanoid and giving them two random stats and an arbitrary racial bonus that again tends to result in them being underpowered or bugbears". I'd rather see them not even try than half-rear end it in a core book and canonize some busted, stupid poo poo that every player will then assume is canonical and should be allowed without amendment, which is what both 3E and 4E did with monster PCs in the core.

It's a weird topic to address because you know there's a 0% chance they won't release a race book with minotaurs and undead and poo poo in it at some point just like every other edition.

EDIT: Or was it hobgoblins? Whichever one of them got monkey grip as a racial feature

I kinda like how they do it in Legend. For reference, a "track" is a grouping of 7 abilities gained over 20 levels, and every character gets 3 tracks by default. Monsters can switch out one of the tracks they would get normally for a racial track. So monsters get their own abilities, but are playing by the same rules as everyone else.

# ¿ Aug 26, 2014 02:22

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Re: cool martial stuff.

How about a last stand type ability? You get huge buffs (set strength to 30, gain advantage on every attack, maybe have really high spell resistance) but are guaranteed to die at the end?

Although, perhaps it would be better as a rule and not a class ability.

# ¿ Aug 27, 2014 03:03

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

mastershakeman posted:

Yeah, take 2es interrupting of spells and restricting schools, enforce needing materials (and make the materials for high level spells as difficult to get as magic items), and add 5es concentration feature to prevent stoneskin plus fly plus greater invis, and you've gone a long way.

Granted, divination and travel spells probably need to just be removed entirely, but 2e plus 5e is a start.

I agree with restricting the wizard's schools, but not enforcing materials. For the same reason I don't think you should have to keep track of arrows. It doesn't in any way effect the balance, it just makes it more boring to play.

# ¿ Aug 27, 2014 14:44

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Vorpal Cat posted:

Honestly it seems like you could easily split wizards up into 5-6 different classes each with there own class features and more thematic spell list. So instead of a single wizard class your would have necromancers, illusionists, envokers, conjurers, arcanists, ect. There's no real reason to have this vast array of different magical powers under "do magic" class other then tradition. Making each school of magic its own class would go a long way to fixing the magic batman problem where a wizard can do anything if they have 8 hours to prepare.

See: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warmage.

# ¿ Aug 29, 2014 01:58

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

TKIY posted:

Monsters can ignore the fighter sure, but then you are assuming all monsters are intelligent enough to walk past the big metal guy with the two handed sword to go eat the squishy thing standing in the corner. Does your DM play super intelligent zombies?

I also never said that the Fighter only ever plays bodyguard. Sometimes he does, but in a fight against a large solo monster that's not going to happen, etc. I'm saying in a fight where you know the wizard is going to need to pop a few big spells to whittle down a horde of monstrous gubbins, you play to that and make sure he stays in the fight.

For the last point, if the Wizard is walking around with a small cadre of elite bone dudes, fine. If he's playing the game specifically in a manner that makes it boring for everyone else, we tell him/her to change it up because it's boring. Again our goal is to enjoy the game. I think the bone solo wizard is missing the point of an RPG.

You shouldn't have to tell the wizard to change his character. He should be able to make his character without worrying about overshadowing the idiots who picked a nonmagic class. You are literally dragging him down. He might loving love necromancers and be giddy as hell to play one, and suddenly he has to remake his character because the fighter is feeling useless. This is bad. The "hit things with a sword" concept should be playable in the same group as the "skeleton master" concept, and if it isn't then that means there's a problem.

Nihilarian fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Sep 1, 2014

# ¿ Sep 1, 2014 19:32

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

TKIY posted:

Unless you had players that wanted to play a Fighter and Rogue. I design my games around the players and their characters so that everyone has moments in the sun.

Right but they still have limited slots and have a limited number of spells prepared to use in those slots. They are swiss army knives *if* they have 24 hours notice and know what to expect.

Again, having to tell the casters to tone it down because other players wanted to play a concept that has no mechanical way of matching them is bad design, and should be called out in any RPG in which it appears.

Also, isn't Knock a ritual?

# ¿ Sep 1, 2014 20:10

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

TKIY posted:

So what's the immediate solution in most peoples opinion? If it's not in the game mechanics I think that's where having a bunch of DM fiat isn't a terrible thing, it gives some leeway on creating or supporting either GM designed or player posited scenarios on the fly. I guess a ruleset doesn't have to be terrible abstract for that but it doesn't hurt either.

There were quite a few posts earlier about much more effective feats/abilities for martial-types. I assume there will be splatbooks like Complete Warrior at some point.

I would rather see splatbooks like Tome of Battle or Magic of Incarnum, honestly.

# ¿ Sep 1, 2014 22:51

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Boing posted:

I don't know how anyone has fun player a fighter or a rogue in D&D combats. Roleplay is fine and all, if you have fun being your character then that's cool. But when you're in combat rounds and literally the only thing you can do is say "I attack", how is that not really boring and dumb?

I guess it's not literally the only thing. You can also move and attack. Or attack several times.

I am a big proponent of giving fighters cool things, but there are people who want something simple, and there are reasons for that. Maybe they have a stressful job and just want to smash things around a bit, for example. So there isn't anything wrong with having a simple class, necessarily. I just think that there should be options for someone who wants a tactical fighter, and maybe an option for a simple caster as well.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2014 01:11

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

AlphaDog posted:

There's literally no game design reason that sword guy = simple class and magic guy = complex class and not the other way round.

I agree, that's why I suggested a simple caster class and a complex warrior class.

The warlock and dragonfire adept from 3.5 are good examples of the simple caster concept, I think. The Martial Adepts, Meldshapers and any Gish are good examples of complex warriors.

Nihilarian fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Sep 2, 2014

# ¿ Sep 2, 2014 01:30

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

On further reflection I'm not sure my examples were good at all. The warlock is certainly more simple than a full caster, but not compared to a fighter, and the opposite is true for Martial Adepts. And as much trouble as I had parsing Meldshapers, once I got it it suddenly seemed very simple.

So I'm curious: what would you guys want from a simple caster or a complex warrior class? Are Invocation users and Martial Adepts enough, or would you go farther?

AlphaDog posted:

I know, that's why I edited.

It just pisses me off that simple caster always comes up as a maybe or an afterthought, and never seems to be brought up by the same people who say that they need the fighter to be a simple class so that there's a simple class available.

I guess we'll just have to agree to... Uh, agree then. :p:

# ¿ Sep 2, 2014 01:54

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

The Commoner, Aristocrat and Warrior were strictly inferior to most PC classes. The Expert had niche uses as a skill monkey due to knowing every skill, and Magewright and Adept were good enough casters to stay competitive with lower-mid tiered martial classes.

Of course, there's no reason not to just play a Factotum, Wizard or Cleric instead.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2014 20:15

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Invisibility doesn't make you harder to detect?

Isn't that the whole point?

# ¿ Sep 3, 2014 22:54

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Didn't they release a fighter that only did basic attacks? I mean, I can't help the people who hate wizard encounter powers and wish they could blow their load in one combat and be useless in the next, but I'm pretty sure there was at least one fighter who just attacked over and over again, so those guys should be pretty happy.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2014 01:01

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Cainer posted:

I usually try to steer clear of the RPG online community since its usually just edition wars or other toxic bullshit but the posts on Zak S got me curious enough to look him up. Holy poo poo, how does a person like that actually have anyone taking him seriously let alone honest to goodness fans

Doesn't matter how terrible your opinion is, you can always find someone who agrees with you.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2014 19:58

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

ritorix posted:

Psionics just use wizard spells.

Seriously.

No way. Seriously?

# ¿ Sep 7, 2014 23:09

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

I like 3.5 Psionics and I really love the idea of monks being Psionic. I wish PF or 5e had expanded on that.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2014 15:17

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Agent Boogeyman posted:

And yet that one guy at Paizo did the same thing when errata'ing weapon cords for Pathfinder. Tried to see how difficult it was to flip something into his hand by danging a computer mouse from his wrist and trying to flip it up into his hand. I can believe it. 3E grogs are a certain kind of special.

I'm pretty sure this one at least was a joke.

No clue about the other stuff.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2014 01:42

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

MonsterEnvy posted:

I am pretty sure thats why they exist. They have 25 pages at the back of the book of beasts and giant beasts. Unless the DM really wants the party to fight some elk most of the creatures there are just for the Druid to turn into or to serve as familiars or summoned woodland beings. A good deal of them are in the PHB as well for that very purpose.

Obviously they were included in order to let you play a game where the players are low level hunters/taxidermists.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 03:21

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Why would you need stats for a toad, anyway? Like, a toad, specifically, instead of a generic statblock for any harmless creature? Maybe with the choice of one or two special qualities, like 20 ft. fly speed or the ability to breath underwater.

Maybe have a first level spell that lets you transform into one of these harmless creatures, and if you cast it in a higher level spell slot you get more/better abilities?

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 03:39

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Really Pants posted:

Does it still die instantly to a crossbow bolt with Bless cast on it?

What, really? I want to see this.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 23:14

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Vorpal Cat posted:

Well I suppose that depend on if you interpret magically consumed as magically vanished, or as literally magically consumed as in the Devourer ate the brain without need to use it mouth but the remains of the brain are still physically inside it.

It's probably up to the DM.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2014 04:14

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

WAR FOOT posted:

Fighter SWAT Team seems pretty cool. Tower shields, black armour, ignoring the pleas of unarmed Goblins before shooting them in the back.

Unrelated to this, our PF campaign ended up winding down after the DM finally grew weary of the party Cleric invalidating encounters/the rest of the party. He wants to start up again potentially in 5e, because he'd heard it had less of the tier stuff which meant that if you picked a Rogue you were useless after level 3.

Do we know at this juncture if 5e has PC Balance, or anything approaching it? I'm a bit leery of making another 'martial' class if in order to be viable I have to do a gimmicky build or if my job will become 'Coup de gr�ce the things the wizard disabled".

The reason it doesn't have tier stuff is because people haven't played it long enough to write up a tier list.

Fighters still attack, attack, attack and wizards still end encounters with their spells.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2014 13:20

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Power Player posted:

Using polearms is so lame though. God, I wish this was better balanced. Oh well, first Ability Score increase I'll pick it up and just buy a glaive or whatever.

Edit: Should I get to 20 strength first or just go for Polearm Master first time I get an ability score?

Polearms are actually really cool and I'm glad to see them being mechanically viable.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2014 16:21

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

If you're using Inherent Bonuses, 4e fighters were pretty good at the whole weaponmaster schtick.

Of course, since this is the edition in which you don't need magic weapons, I bet 5e fighters are good at it too!

... right?

# ¿ Sep 15, 2014 13:28

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Dairy Power posted:

It's a role-playing game. A fireball from a wizard makes sense within the context of the story. Being able to load both crossbows simultaneously without some sort of explanation doesn't to me. In Pathfinder you specifically need a free hand to load a ranged weapon, thus freaky alchemist/gunslinger hybrids with extra limbs. It's not specifically stipulated in the rule book here, but the requirement of a "loaded" crossbow in the feat would seem to imply it to me. I'd at least want some sort of fluff explanation about how you were making it happen without putting one crossbow down if I were DMing.

I'm guessing this boils down to a difference of philosophies.

Forgot my colons. The smiley catches my intent better than the letters, so I suppose I am grateful for the reminder.

Well, I suppose I can't say no to free if it's supposed to be good. I'll make some time for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6KKJTRRZ-8

# ¿ Sep 16, 2014 18:08

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

MonsterEnvy posted:

I will state it again. D&D next is not the name of this edition it was the name of the playtest.

Does it really matter?

# ¿ Sep 17, 2014 00:12

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

If you're a DM and you are using a Rust Monster - either as a puzzle boss or just a regular encounter - you gotta be prepared to give them a new weapon. A boring looking weapon that turns out to be the Badass Sword of Destiny, which the hero uses to slay the monster because it's immune to rust.

To be fair, D&D Next let's this happen, since magic weapons aren't affected by the rust monsters rusting abilities. There's still problems with it though. It goes against the design philosophy of not needing magic weapons, and it relies on the DM not being a dick. If it were a function of the monster or something - "If the rust monster eats a weapon, a magic weapon of the same type appears in the rust monster's stockpile of half-eaten metallic items." - it would actually be kind of cool. But I guess that takes power away from the DM, and we don't want that.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2014 14:03

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

homullus posted:

The preview for the rust monster specifically mentions mithral among the ferrous metals ("ferrous metals such as . . .").

It also calls out adamantine

# ¿ Sep 17, 2014 15:05

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

MonsterEnvy posted:

Guess we can just say it's up to the DM.

That's up to the DM.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2014 06:17

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

branar posted:

(a) seems totally loving ludicrous to me. This easily devolves into a situation where both Charlie and the Goblin Ninja, who critted their respective stealth checks and fooled everyone on both sides of the fight including each other, leap out of the trees to stab people in the backs, only to stare dumbfounded at one another, completely taken by surprise that the other one is there, and literally nobody acts in the first round of combat.

Am I the only one that would find this really funny?

# ¿ Sep 18, 2014 14:34

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

ProfessorCirno posted:

Epic Destinies only give combat stuff!

*takes Thief of Legend, has almost no combat based powers but instead can literally steal your lovely opinions*

# ¿ Sep 20, 2014 04:45

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

ascendance posted:

Yeah, except that you always had to take a full attack action to get extra attacks, so you could never move and take multiple attacks. I think there might have been some specialised monster feats that let you get away with extra attacks on the move.

Spring Attack, Bounding Assault and Rapid Blitz got you up to 3 attacks on the move. No one took them, though. Except maybe swiftblades, who I think got them for free.

# ¿ Sep 21, 2014 02:41

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

mastershakeman posted:

It's not like everyone stands still while the enemies run past a fighter. The casters can reposition too if they're being chased.

Make sure you play the Benny Hill theme whenever combat starts.

# ¿ Sep 21, 2014 21:07

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Gort posted:

Don't worry though, they're worse wizards than wizards.

They're probably worse dragons than wizards, too.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2014 18:59

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Jack the Lad posted:

You turn into a dragon but also have your Wizard spellcasting.

Doesn't it also just change you back to not-dragon form when you get down to 0 HP instead of knocking you out?

# ¿ Sep 22, 2014 19:17

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Kaizer88 posted:

Why is this thread filled with angry people who prefer 4th edition? Isn't there another thread for that?

Personally having a blast with 5th edition. I love the simplified movement action without any of that stupid 5ft step rules from 3rd. Running a Birthright campaign with a focus on some old school dungeon crawls and the logistics around that, which usually means everything is balanced around the short rest. At the early levels (4th) the fighter is by far the best combatant (as they should be). Maybe that'll change at later levels, but who the hell actually runs campaigns at 9th level and above? Campaigns always seem to fizzle out and start over again at that point.

If literally no one plays above 10th level, why do we have rules for games that go above 10th level? They could have saved like, 30 pages and used those pages to give us the stats for ring tailed lemurs if they cut each class in half.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2014 23:09

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Jack the Lad posted:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3647634&pagenumber=7&perpage=40#post434962833

Nope, I proved your assumptions and assertions wrong. With charts and everything.

Is that supposed to go to one of your posts? It just takes me to page 7.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2014 00:51

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

S.J. posted:

Can I add how completely loving boring and/or bad a lot of the essentials classes were?

I also think they're pretty boring, but I don't begrudge them existing because there are a couple of people who prefer that kind of thing.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2014 01:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 22:22

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

MonsterEnvy posted:

I am not talking about that. The basic rules even say the system is not final.

So, assuming I want to play DnDNext, when will the final, for-real rules be available? How long am I going to have to play with the busted rules before they fix them to be not busted?

# ¿ Oct 6, 2014 00:34

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

«‹›7 »