5e D&D is Vaporware

[ModelCitizen]

I don't think the new L&L thing is terrible. If you can remember that your Fireball does 5d6 you can remember that your Flesh to Stone petrifies at 50 HP or less. Although if you were going to have separate thresholds for each spell they'd need some amount of randomness so you're not forced to guess precise HP totals. Instead of petrifying at 50 HP and doing nothing otherwise, Flesh to Stone could deal 3d12 damage and then petrify if you're below 30 HP.

Other than that my only objection is that it's Mike Mearls talking and he's the kind of idiot who would try to use this for Charm Person. And then when the barbarian tries to axe the gate guard down below the bard's Charm Person threshold he'd start blathering about how you can only axe the gate guard if the DM says it's OK.

E: Just noticed I typed Stone to Flesh instead of Flesh to Stone.

[shadzar]

Instead of petrifying at 50 HP and doing nothing otherwise, Stone to Flesh could deal 3d12 damage and then petrify if you're below 30 HP.

that is exactly what the ghoul does as described.

If a ghoul's claw damage reduces a creature to 10 or fewer hit points, the creature must make a save or be paralyzed.

[ModelCitizen]

Instead of petrifying at 50 HP and doing nothing otherwise, Stone to Flesh could deal 3d12 damage and then petrify if you're below 30 HP.

that is exactly what the ghoul does as described.

If a ghoul's claw damage reduces a creature to 10 or fewer hit points, the creature must make a save or be paralyzed.

Ah, you're right, so it does. The medusa doesn't though, and a system like this needs some random element to keep the threshold from being a sheer cliff in every case. Getting it right half the time by accident isn't enough.

[Previn]

Although my absolute favorite rumor going around is that 5e is already at the stage of having printing proofs sent to the publisher. That literally all of this "feedback from you!" bullshit is entirely illusory and they couldn't change a thing if they wanted to.

-Username17

You know... if they're shooting for a 2013 release, those rumors may essentially be correct. I would expect a Gencon 2013 release so that gives them April/May 2012 to August of 2013 or roughly 12 months, assuming they need 2-3 months to finish editing, printing and ship before Gencon. A year, with feedback from playtesters on as wide a scale as they're proposing for what they're proposing is almost ludicrous for anyone.


Actually, how does this sound for a conspiracy theory? Essentials wasn't an attempt at reviving the 4e line, but a testing ground for the 'feel' of 5e. So Essentials seems popular, and they start with the 5e development back in Q4 2010 or early 2011, and all the rules/modules are already finished. They are now going to hand out the rules piecemeal to the playtesters, and fix the most glaring numeric or 'feel' issues within individual models. If a module turns out to be fatally flawed, they drop it entirely.

A year in that scenario would be plenty of time.

[Foxwarrior]

Actually, if you go with flat thresholds for HP, and fixed damage values for attacks, you could achieve much the same randomness and uncertainty by rolling for the monster's health (and not letting the players see the value). It wouldn't have as much fun dice rolling entertainment, though.

[ModelCitizen]

Yeah, but rolling monster health sucks donkey scrotum, and the unknown element isn't always the target's HP. The player knows his own exact HP total but may not remember the exact threshold for medusa gaze.

[hogarth]

I don't think the new L&L thing is terrible.

I certainly don't think it's any worse than the 3.5E version of save-or-die effects. Although I think things should possibly have some effect if you're over the HP threshold (e.g. under 30 hp = petrified, over 30 hp = slowed or dazed or whatever).

Note that Pathfinder tinkered around with (some) save-or-die effects, too. For instance, Finger of Death does hit point damage, cockatrice bites do Dex damage, basilisk stares can petrify but the petrification can be cured with basilisk blood, etc.

Dragon Age 2 has some similar effects as well. E.g. "normal"-level enemies are killed but "elite"-level enemies just suffer a critical hit.

[Mask_De_H]

Random Observation:

The Den tends to predict the doom of various companies and brands it doesn't like rather often. This doom generally seems to be less than forthcoming in actual reality.

This is true. It's also true that the Digivolve number threshold is really dumb without fixed health or a specific trigger (bloodied). I mean, having the wound trigger for SoDs/SoSs is smart, but they implement it in the dumbest way (if it is arbitrarily decided for each SoD effect).

However, it could be salvageable if 25 and 10 were spitball numbers for their bloodied and (CAN -2 penalty equivalent). It won't be, but hey; easy houserule.

[JonSetanta]

Ironically, 4th edition had a mechanic that could have actually worked: the Bloodied condition. If you did enough damage to take something halfway out, they were "bloodied". If you had abilities that became SoD on bloodied enemies, it would preserve a sense of fairness while still being manageable.

I was going to write the same thing but found someone had beat me to it.

So I'll just agree here.
Bloodied, along with at-wills, are things that could greatly improve any D&D edition they are ported into.
SoDs could even include pure damage spells that deal even more damage to Bloodied targets, like Pokemon's "Brine" attack, the water move that increases in power when your target is at their own Bloodied-threshold of HP.
http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Brine_%28move%29


In animu this is called a "finisher" or "ultimate".

[shadzar]

Instead of petrifying at 50 HP and doing nothing otherwise, Stone to Flesh could deal 3d12 damage and then petrify if you're below 30 HP.

that is exactly what the ghoul does as described.

If a ghoul's claw damage reduces a creature to 10 or fewer hit points, the creature must make a save or be paralyzed.

Ah, you're right, so it does. The medusa doesn't though, and a system like this needs some random element to keep the threshold from being a sheer cliff in every case. Getting it right half the time by accident isn't enough.

i disagree, cause the medusa and ghoul basically says its a save-or-die to low levels, and something else to higher levels unless they are weakened.

i prefer a static monster that gets weaker as the PCs get stronger, not one with built in fake level-up.

if its going to kill.. then let it kill already. that is what legends and such IN the game are for.

either people will metagame the monsters to know how to defend against them, or overRP and get a TPK form them.

people need to do more research in character to learn about the creatures of the world, and DMs need to allow it.

faking things like the ghoul method just doesnt cut it.

i also dont believe in encounters made for the PCs. the level-1 PCs run into a cavern of medusae then its their fault, i wont pamper them. the world exists and doesnt jsut get more dangerous the futher away from the epicenter the PCs start at.

so if you are going to have save-or-die, then let it be flat save-or-die, no gimmicks and just dont have 1000's of them.

[shadzar]

http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/bl ... eadly_dice

Of course, one could argue that the D&D game isn’t about feelings of accomplishment. It’s about creating characters and developing fantasy stories.

i would tell that ONE to shut the fuck up and go back to his Vampire game from White Wolf. D&D isnt a fucking Storyteller Game, its a ROLEPLAYING Game.

living IS an accomplishment and without threat of death unless the story dictates someone dies.. then you arent playing a game, just creating a group novel as there is no game element to it.

Monte, may the barrel of cocks you are sucking never run empty...that way your mouth will have a good use for ONCE in your life.

Bucknard's Everfull Cockbarrel

This item appears to be a normal barrel, but upon inspection it is magical. Opening this barrel will cause a constant stream of cock's to flow into the mouth of the one opened it. The size, color and shape of the cock's vary to whatever is needed to fully fill the mouth of the opener at the moment it is opened.

Bucknard created this barrel for his good friend Monte Cook, and only the one in Monte's office is known to exist.

[Neurosis]

Since adding shadzar to my ignore list, it's a lot harder to actually follow the thread of topics on this forum.

[John Magnum]

I'm glad I don't have shadzar ignored, because his last post is a thing of stark beauty.

[hogarth]

I'm glad I don't have shadzar ignored, because his last post is a thing of stark beauty.

His comments were a waste of space, but the link to the latest blog entry wasn't:

http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/bl ... eadly_dice

Actually, I take that back: the blog entry just repeats the obvious fact that some people like games with lots of death and some people don't. Yawn.

[shadzar]

the rogue gets backstabbed

Maybe we could have a rogue where sneak attack is an option and not at all central to the class’s identity?

flanking an opponent and being able to attack from his blind spot with the opponent offering lesser defense... yeah i can see ANY class doing this as it is a tactic.

two fighters should easily be able to get one behind for some sort of advantage.

let anyone do something like this and the need for an assassin class should diminish as it is something that everyone should be able to do ANYWAY.

[Seerow]

Wow I was among the 0% voters who said "I don't like Backstab or Sneak Attack"

[hogarth]

Interesting -- the three designers' favourite classes (warlock, assassin and wizard) are among my three least favourite.

[JonSetanta]

Warlock should have been a single feat for Sorcerers that allow them to blast opponents as a scaling at-will SLA.

Done. Better than 3e Warlock in every way.

But regardless, if there are no at-will combat spells in 5e, I'm miffed.

[tussock]

I figured that L&L thing with the HP thresholds for turn-to-stone or paralyse would work a fuck load easier if the powers just did subdual damage of nearly that amount which also had the effect when you hit KO'd. Save vs the damage rather than the automatic effect.

So a Medusa does more paralysing subdual than a Cockatrice, and everyone she beats on probably turns to stone rather than dying, because they've got some turn-to-stone subdual damage lying around. All goes away after the fight.

Sure, it means you get beaten down by a sword and it's easier to charm you, but it probably should be anyway. It's already easier to consume you with fire.

[JonSetanta]

I prefer the Bloodied condition ported over to 3e rather than keeping track of subdual, which is essentially a second HP bar.

[ModelCitizen]

Sure, it means you get beaten down by a sword and it's easier to charm you, but it probably should be anyway. It's already easier to consume you with fire.

What this would actually do is make it impossible to use compulsions on most NPCs that matter until you subject them to some rigorous axing first. And even if you could hit their HP threshold on a good roll, you'd still want to axe them down a bit. If the target makes its save it was going to treat you as an attacker anyway, so might as well improve your odds.

So any time a bard or beguiler tries to resolve a dispute with an NPC by a means other than combat, the rules tell them no, flip out and stab the guard captain like a good little murderhobo. Fuck that. And you can avoid this problem AND avoid one-roll SoLs by using condition tracks with base conditions that also don't damage the target, or requiring additional Charisma/social checks to make enchantment spells stick.

[Captain_Karzak]

And you can avoid this problem AND avoid one-roll SoLs by using condition tracks with base conditions that also don't damage the target, or requiring additional Charisma/social checks to make enchantment spells stick.

Could you talk a little more about what this condition track with base conditions would look like?

Something like Charm ->Partial Domination -> Full Domination?
Weakened -> Slowed -> Paralyzed?
etc? Degree of failure on saving throw determines how far down the track the target ends up?

Also: murderhobo. Damn that's a great term.

[Username17]

And you can avoid this problem AND avoid one-roll SoLs by using condition tracks with base conditions that also don't damage the target, or requiring additional Charisma/social checks to make enchantment spells stick.

Could you talk a little more about what this condition track with base conditions would look like?

Something like Charm ->Partial Domination -> Full Domination?
Weakened -> Slowed -> Paralyzed?
etc? Degree of failure on saving throw determines how far down the track the target ends up?

Also: murderhobo. Damn that's a great term.

I assume we're talking about something Like this.

-Username17

[tussock]

Re: damage-conditions

So any time a bard or beguiler tries to resolve a dispute with an NPC by a means other than combat, the rules tell them no, flip out and stab the guard captain like a good little murderhobo. Fuck that.

If'n you're a low level beguiler, leave the Captain alone and charm the punk on night shift. I'd expect such damage expressions to grow with the caster so by the time they can trivially bitch-slap the Cap they can also use magic to pass him. No, I don't feel like writing that up, but it seems solvable.


Yes, ignoring hit points and using a condition track would also work, I was just thinking about improving on the hit point limit Mearls proposed. I've found tracks are a bit ... much, stuff. Something. Bla. Words. Pfft.

The AD&D model of letting everyone's saves get really easy by mid-high levels, and monsters get immunities, so charms always work but not very often on important people, and not at all on a lot of things, that's functional too. It's not predictably long and ratchety like hit point attrition, but it does work on average.

[ModelCitizen]

Yes, ignoring hit points and using a condition track would also work, I was just thinking about improving on the hit point limit Mearls proposed. I've found tracks are a bit ... much, stuff. Something. Bla. Words. Pfft.

If we're trying to improve on Mearls' suggestion we already have HP thresholds to handle SoLs that only matter in combat, so the condition graph wouldn't have to be too complicated. You'd probably only need it for charm/compulsion effects. The entire graph would have less than a dozen conditions.

Level 1 Conditions
Fascinated
Shaken
Commanded (as in the cleric spell)
maybe Dazed (source depending)

Level 2 Conditions
Charmed
Frightened
Suggested
Dominated
(Exceptional stuff like, Geas, Bestow Curse, etc)

If we were only using a condition graph for charm/compulsion I'd change my suggestion from the other thread a bit. Instead of having specific base conditions, any base can be promoted into any advanced condition. That's simpler and the base conditions are all conceptually similar enough not to have verisimilitude issues.

This would be really cool for Charm Person. Every version of Charm I can remember has a bunch of case-specific rules to make it harder to use while the target is under attack and it's never worked particularly well. This way we have a generic solution: Fascinated -> Charmed. Charm Person might read something like this:

Target is Fascinated [Submission, Mind-Affecting], Will negates. If the target is already under a Submission effect, it is Charmed [Mind-Affecting] instead.