5e isnt even D&D....

rasmuswagner · Post by **rasmuswagner** » Sun May 13, 2012 9:22 am

Wrathzog wrote: No, it makes perfect sense. Generally speaking, people don't go around threatening authority figures or other people for that matter. It's a bad idea 95% of the time and you're only going to convince people that you're a colossal dick.

No, that's real-world thinking, it doesn't work that way in D&D land. In the real world, you don't go around threatening authority figures, because they will have a couple of guys sort you out if you do. D&D guys have the pocket nukes and killing experience to seriously just kill Duke Fuckface and all his fucking guards right here, right now.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun May 13, 2012 10:00 am

Also, the statement "You have hope against the Witch King, because I am personally badass and I'm going to kill the dragon!" is an Intimidate check. You're attempting to sway people's opinions and choices by convincing them that you are physically powerful. The Intimidate skill is used for inspiration in addition to extortion.

So even within the narrow confines of thinking about things in terms of real-world power discrepancies between murder hobos and executives, it still doesn't make any sense for there to be only automatic failures for all uses of the Intimidate skill in a social challenge scenario.

-Username17

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Sun May 13, 2012 2:46 pm

FrankTrollman wrote: I think the idea is actually that Combat Reflexes does exactly the same thing without a grid, but then you magical teaparty whether enemies are provoke AoOs from you.

Leaving aside the meaningless bafflegab about how things should be "seamless", the example about a "shove maneuver" seemed pretty clear to me (on a grid it should push you back X number of feat and without a grid it should push you into something bad, if it exists).

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Sun May 13, 2012 4:46 pm

...You Lost Me wrote:So he's saying we need a system where you can use a grid but not use a grid when you want to?

... and this system totally is feasible and works? What? Can someone explain this to me slowly?

You build it so it doesn't use a grid at all. Position is locally abstract and you target randomised enemies in any group (whirlwind attack would just give up to 1d6+1 attacks against different targets, or 1d6+2 with reach, or 1d6+3 with a chain; area effects have similar standard target numbers, modified by face and structure on a table somewhere).

Similarly, if you're "in melee" (meaning you have attacked/been attacked, but haven't taken the "leave melee" action yet) and do something stupid you take 1d6-2 AoO. Also, you can't just run past someone, but two of you can split up and one will make it (if there's room).

Then when you add the grid, it's just used to measure how far it is to the next point of interest when you go to move, and you can place things like cover to run to. You don't use the grid for targeting, or setting DCs or whatever, because the rules do that for you given basic numbers like the width of a corridor.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sun May 13, 2012 4:50 pm

I can see the APPEAL of having a grid (or whatever discrete positioning system you can think of) and I do enjoy sRPGs which use grids. But you can't do half-grid and half-abstract. I for one remember the good old days of 3.0E when we had a discussion about whether my monk who lucked into boots of springing and striding was able to circle around the front lines and flank what the fighter was fighting in a session without a grid.

Wrathzog · Post by **Wrathzog** » Sun May 13, 2012 7:47 pm

rasmuswagner wrote:No, that's real-world thinking, it doesn't work that way in D&D land. In the real world, you don't go around threatening authority figures, because they will have a couple of guys sort you out if you do. D&D guys have the pocket nukes and killing experience to seriously just kill Duke Fuckface and all his fucking guards right here, right now.

It's actually worse in D&D land. At this point, we're basically faced with two paths that lead down the same shitty road.
1) Most likely, the Duke has his own pocket nukes (he himself is a high level adventurer or he employs high level adventurers (court mage, captain of the guard, the cook, etc)) and you may or may not die in this situation.
2) You murder a low level noble and all of his staff.
Regardless, the end result is that you're a Duke Killer (Dukicidist?) and you've pretty much proven to everyone that you can't work within the bounds of normal society. Good luck with the rest of your life as you're hunted down by adventurers and mercenaries who are convinced that you showed up to replace The Demon Lord (which at this point you might as well).

Even the best case scenario involves the duke caving in and giving you what you want this one time. Next time you show up, if he even lets you see him, he is not likely to be friendly.
OR you could have just used diplomacy and avoided this entire terrible situation.

This isn't rocket science. People in authority do not respond well to threats. The only way this works is if you're vastly higher level than the duke, in which case you're probably not working for him anyways and a diplomacy check is still going to work out better for everyone involved.

Frank wrote:The Intimidate skill is used for inspiration in addition to extortion.

And this is not intuitive at all.
I'll say it again, take intimidate out of the game. Merge it into Diplomacy. Now we don't have a trap option that people are going to treat like a legitimate social option.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun May 13, 2012 7:55 pm

Wrathzog wrote:
Frank wrote:The Intimidate skill is used for inspiration in addition to extortion.
And this is not intuitive at all.
I'll say it again, take intimidate out of the game. Merge it into Diplomacy. Now we don't have a trap option that people are going to treat like a legitimate social option.

Which way are you being retarded? Are you seriously suggesting that the skills that make you a big, scary, warlord should be exactly the same as the skills that make people like you? Or are you seriously suggesting that it is "intuitive" for Genghis Khan to have absolutely nothing to contribute in social situations. Because either way you are stupid and you should feel stupid.

-Username17

Wrathzog · Post by **Wrathzog** » Sun May 13, 2012 11:19 pm

I said merge the two. Implication: Genghis Khan has access to Diplomacy.
Now, not only can he contribute to social situations, he can do it without implicitly angering everyone in the room.

Also, if you think that a Skill is necessary to make someone a big, scary warlord then we're obviously looking at two completely different problems.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Sun May 13, 2012 11:31 pm

But you could make that work. I mean, even if Duke ex-adventurer McAwesome does have powerful guys there's still a chance that he too could die in the ensuing battle. And it's pretty easy to see "We need it now, damn it, I don't have time to sweet-talk him. Give me the McGuffin or die!" would make sense as opposed to a diplomacy roll.

Wrathzog · Post by **Wrathzog** » Mon May 14, 2012 12:06 am

Man, I'm going to have to look this up now... in terms of influencing someone else's behavior... 3rd edition... intimidate and diplomacy take the exact same amount of time (1 minute per check).
So, no benefit... nice try, though.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Mon May 14, 2012 12:24 am

Well, this would be for structuring a future game. I was thinking in terms of a narrative. It's not IMPOSSIBLE for this to make sense.

As is, the diplomacy rules are borked. We had a long discussion about this the other night when we realized our cleric could auto-friend anyone...

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Mon May 14, 2012 1:43 am

Intimidate should be replaced with "Shonen Hero skill"

Wrathzog · Post by **Wrathzog** » Mon May 14, 2012 3:23 am

CapnTthePirateG wrote:Well, this would be for structuring a future game. I was thinking in terms of a narrative. It's not IMPOSSIBLE for this to make sense.

If this is the case then I'm with you. I just want to make sure that there isn't an implication that threatening people is somehow a replacement for courteous behavior. There should be repercussions to acting like a dick, even if you can technically get away with it, even if it's just an apology.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Mon May 14, 2012 4:32 am

Yeah, fair enough. In MTG terms, diplomacy is tapping a land for 1 mana. Intimidate is sacrificing that land for two. Power now for long-term loss I'd guess.

On a side note, wizards!

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20120514

Because 3.5 haste broke the game.

EDIT: Yeah, I don't think Mearls gets it. We can tell he seems to have some of the big ideas (buff stacking ridiculous), but haste? Invisibility? Those aren't game-breaking. Haste stomped on fighters? No, Mearls, fighters got wrecked by battlefield control and flight, both of which you have just informed us the wizard gets.

These new scrolls look like the shit. I would seriously take these over 3.5 scrolls.

I don't see where the miscast magic adventures are going to be that great.

Lastly, the "spells don't automatically scale" translates to "you will cart around useless abilities. Deal with it." or the 3.5 "Fill your lower-level slots with defense and utility and become Jesus."

And please don't try to prevent flying parties. You just get Mongoled.

My rant of the day.

Tumbling Down · Post by **Tumbling Down** » Mon May 14, 2012 5:23 am

Mearls wrote:The issue we see with this class isn't that it needs clarity on what it does. After all, it's fairly obvious that wizards cast arcane spells.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon May 14, 2012 6:10 am

My favorite part:

"Second, caster dominance shows up at high levels. In my experience, it comes to the fore when a caster has enough spells to unleash powerful combinations. For instance, I remember turning what was supposed to be a deadly fight in 3E against an iron golem into a cakewalk simply by throwing grease and glitterdust at the thing."

Yeah man, level 3 is just so high level.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon May 14, 2012 8:40 am

Kaelik wrote: Yeah man, level 3 is just so high level.

It's Mearls. Third level in 3E is high-level compared to what a 4E character can do at any level.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Mon May 14, 2012 11:10 am

Keep Spells Under Control: This is an obvious first step, but we need to make sure that spells are of the appropriate power level and that they don't abuse the system in some way. For instance, the 3E grease spell required a DC 10 Balance check to avoid some of its effects. That seems reasonable, until you realize that grease was a 1st-level spell and that a 15th-level NPC cleric might have a total Balance check modifier of –8. We need to make sure that spells don't create an effect that is too powerful or include loopholes that make them overwhelmingly powerful for their level.

What exactly would be the problem if grease would be good against a 15th-level NPC cleric who doesn't want to use any abilities to counter it (like a simple fly spell)?
It is not like grease instantly wins the fight here.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Mon May 14, 2012 12:51 pm

Wow. It must be hard to get so close, then completely miss the point. Doing it that many times in a row is like winning the Special Olympics.

The problem is that some spells are crazygonuts good, and wizards get all of them. That wizards also get them lots of times is almost beside the point. Also, fewer spells leads to the five minute workday, etc.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Mon May 14, 2012 2:54 pm

fectin wrote:Wow. It must be hard to get so close, then completely miss the point. Doing it that many times in a row is like winning the Special Olympics.

The problem is that some spells are crazygonuts good, and wizards get all of them.

Clearly they're planning on making spells (like Grease and Invisibility) less "crazygonuts good". The problem will probably be the same as with Pathfinder's efforts in that regard: (a) they'll nerf some spells but leave other powerful spells untouched, and (b) once they start churning out the splatbooks, they'll introduce new powerful spells (either intentionally or through unintended consequences).

fectin wrote:Also, fewer spells leads to the five minute workday, etc.

That really depends on the recovery method (which they haven't spelled out, although they've muttered about it in other places). If they made every spell an encounter power, that wouldn't be a "5 minute workday", for instance.

----

P.S. Critical failures are lame and are terrible as a way of balancing things.

Wrathzog · Post by **Wrathzog** » Mon May 14, 2012 4:48 pm

I don't see anything wrong with anything he's saying other than some poor choices for examples unless he picked them specifically to target the audience, who are mostly people who have a pretty weak or focused perspective of D&D? nahh....

The Keep Magic Items under control section is interesting. So is Keep Buffs under control.

Also, I like the reassurance that they'll actually listen to us after we tear apart the playtest. We'll have to see how that works out.

John Magnum · Post by **John Magnum** » Mon May 14, 2012 4:49 pm

Is it possible to get a -8 Balance check in 3.5, or is that yet another number pulled straight from their ass because they're pathologically opposed to math?

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon May 14, 2012 4:54 pm

John Magnum wrote:Is it possible to get a -8 Balance check in 3.5, or is that yet another number pulled straight from their ass because they're pathologically opposed to math?

Make Dex a dump stat (8) and wear the heaviest armor you can find. Of course, as a level 15 cleric you'd have stat boosters and magic mithril armor anyway, but Mearls never played at that kind of levels I think.

Wrathzog · Post by **Wrathzog** » Mon May 14, 2012 6:07 pm

Full Plate + Heavy Shield is exactly -8. Masterwork mitigates two points as would any points in dex. Realistically... we're looking at a -5 or -6.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue May 15, 2012 2:44 am

just skimming it so far this caught me the wrong way to stand out.

Scrolls would require a caster to expend a prepared spell to use them. Thus, scrolls would make wizards more versatile but they do not increase the number of spells they can cast each day.

Wands would no longer accept just any spell. Instead, we would provide a specific list of spells that can be added to wands. The idea here is to keep things under control so that casting fly on everyone in the party is a real investment by a wizard.

scrolls should be the everybody magic. not a sheet of paper with 10 spells on it ready-to-cast, but a single spell, that imparts to the wielder the abilities to cast that spell. not something for wizards only. think in terms of rituals form 4th. a fighter has a scroll he can cast it. it defeats the purpose of being a magic scroll if the wizard has to expend any spell slots on it, and deprives other classes form using them. hey dumbass, what about cleric spell scrolls?

wands are similar to scrolls, and WotC deciding what should be in them is pointless in the like of Magic Item Creation. it is well and tested that a DM will and SHOULD make ANY magic item he or she wishes. not just those bound by implements in 4th, or some other nonsense rules. and since when did a wand have more than a single type of spell?

dont create arbitrary gamist limits on things that will violate the imagination space of the players. you can tone the spell down, but even still those wanting them ramped up have the ability to do that in their own game, or a DM can, and SHOULD make their own spells, and the PCs should be able to as well, otherwise where did any fucking spell come from? the 4e concept of all magic items are forgotten methods to create and this generation of PCs and NPCs is too dumb to make them?

keep your setting shit to yourself, and OUT of core. if you REALLY think scrolls and wands are a problem, then you REALLY dont understand D&D wizards.

CLW/etc wands werent a problem, the problem was magic mart, and mas-producing magic items in 3.x. what happened to looking at all editions to noticed where a problem was, rather than one you created and think it is a main concern. or is uniting the editions no longer a priority and you want to assume 3.x IS ALL editions prior to 4e?

also seeing it, cantrips should have NO power to make actual attacks or long lasting effects. this is a place i fear you will royally screw up trying to dump too much into to solve some non-existant problem.