D&DNext: Playtest Review

[rasmuswagner]

What would be the best way to represent "I am the guy standing in front of the demon protecting my friends" in D&D?

It's a hard one. You need the narrative power to make your opponent act foolishly in order to simulate most of those scenes.

[Fuchs]

My basic rule for any "tanking" mechanic is that if it cannot be used on the player characters then it's no good.

[Username17]

What would be the best way to represent "I am the guy standing in front of the demon protecting my friends" in D&D?

Something like this. Or possibly something like this

If you have a conditional ability that would make you extremely dangerous were the demon to attempt to ignore you to go after your friends, then the demon can rationally decide that standing there boxing with you is a better life choice than walking around and punching one of the cloth-wearers.

That could be a damage boost for being un-engaged or a hard core threatened area that locks enemies down. But Marks showed that defense buffs to allies don't work that well for that sort of thing: if your defense buff makes the rogue just as tough as you, then the rogue is just as tough as you and does more damage - and is thus still a juicier target.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Also while we're at it, perhaps could clarify how 4th edition = WoW, or even just MMO's in general?

[*] 4E D&D went out of its way to prevent players from having game effects that interacted with the game world. The game designers clearly think that any effect lasting longer than 5 minutes needs to have a permanent cost to it. This makes it pretty much impossible to affect the world in any meaningful way other than DM fiat.

[*] The paragon/epic fluff did not match the mechanics. One of the epic classes in the game is 'demigod'. Do you know what you get after 6 out of ten levels in it? A small bonus to stats (+2 to two), two extra healing surges, and a rather boss regeneration power. All that wanking and wasted paragraphs and I haven't advanced an inch towards feeling like a demi-god. Now, it's common for videogames and CCGs to have game effects with names like Apocalypse or Neo-Ultima which shows a cutscene or art of the planet being wrecked but the enemy being scratched afterwards along with the meadow being singed. That joke has been pretty much done to death. It's extremely insulting for a TTRPG to do this unless you signed on explicitly for parody.

[*] The Skill Challenge system, along with quite a few skills in the core book, fatally did not set DCs to the difficulty of the task; they set DCs according to the level of the party. So the patch of ice that the party fighter could have easily made its way through at level 4 can be a nightmare task at level 19 due to divergent bonuses. That's fucking fucked up video-game logic. Games like NWN arbitrarily jack the DC up using the 'they're a higher level, so the same tasks have to be harder' non-logic.


While everything you said was true, to me they're not really all that important. The real pisser for me was the above three things. They could have taken out the WoW artwork and all of the cultural flotsam like Eladrin and Tieflings and roles and I would be the first one to call the game a badly-done MMORPG because of those three bullet points.

[ishy]

Something I don't understand in 5e threads, is that some people post something like this:
"I dislike the vancian casting scheme of the wizard and hope the wizard gets a more 3.5 sorceress casting approach, like the 5e cleric!"

And I don't really understand what is so bad about disliking how one class works, if you do like the mechanics of another class?

Not every class has to be tailored around your specific tastes now should it?
(This disregarding if it works mechanically and just talking about what you prefer btw)

[hogarth]

There are all kinds of things a really engaging and fun combat system needs to include.

For example, throwing sand in an enemy's face. Kicking a chair at someone to trip or block a charge. Picking up and tossing things like barrels or rocks, knocking back tables so that flying coins and cards distract people, dropping down on enemies from trees or ledges, riding or climbing large monsters in combat, pushing statues or rocks onto enemies or dropping stalactites or candelabras on enemies.... the list goes on and on and that's before you even get to fantasy stuff like covering your magic sword in lava or tossing clay pots full of green slime.

Now, 5e's current solution is to MTP those situations and have the DM create a system on the fly.

I don't know why people think that the average DM can create a good, simple, and balanced system to do those things, but they seem to think that it's the best thing since sliced bread.

Ideally, I think most people want a system where tricks like that work if the result is cool and don't work if the result is lame. That's basically MTP. Of course, a player and a GM may not agree on what's cool and what's lame, so that's one problem.

Any non-MTP system you come up with will have two things to balance.

If you make maneuvers too good (e.g. too easy to accomplish and/or too powerful in effect), then you're encourage to spam the same flashy maneuver over and over again until all of the flashiness has worn off (e.g. 3.5's Improved Trip and Dungeon Crasher bull rush).

But on the other hand, if they're not good enough (e.g. too hard to accomplish and/or not powerful in effect), then people will never try them and it's just basically wasted space in your rule book (e.g. Pathfinder's Dirty Trick maneuver).

Not every class has to be tailored around your specific tastes now should it?

Of course not, but if someone asks my opinion, I'm going to say "I like it" or "I don't like it". Duh.

[DrPraetor]

What would be the best way to represent "I am the guy standing in front of the demon protecting my friends" in D&D?

At low levels in 3rd Ed., this was pretty straightforward. If you had a spear, and you knew how to use it, you could hold off some large number of orcs by AoO-ing them (possibly with trip attacks) if they tried to charge around you and attack the wizard.

This was a very successful rule design because it fit with people's pre-conceptions of how you would do crowd control/body guarding. I stand here with a weapon and let no-one past.

Now, it broke down at higher levels - an actual demon would just walk through the threatened area, take the hit in the chest without caring, head over to the wizard and start dismembering him; except of course that at higher levels the wizard knows the fighter has started riding the short bus, so the wizard is going to cast Force Cage or something.

So the AoO system used in 3rd edition D&D could use significant refinement, especially if you want to keep role of meat-shield relevant past level 7 or so. But it doesn't need to be replaced, certainly not with some system where instead of doing crowd control by physically standing there with a weapon and beating people up, you instead look your foes in the eye and just dare them to fight anyone else!

[virgil]

That would be interesting to see: a fighter with an AoO that did damage like the Samurai's Kiai! attack.

[ishy]

Of course not, but if someone asks my opinion, I'm going to say "I like it" or "I don't like it". Duh.

Guess my point of view is pretty weird then. Because I prefer that some classes are build around things that I like and some are build around things I don't like (but someone else does)

[hogarth]

Of course not, but if someone asks my opinion, I'm going to say "I like it" or "I don't like it". Duh.

Guess my point of view is pretty weird then. Because I prefer that some classes are build around things that I like and some are build around things I don't like (but someone else does)

If I asked someone "What do you think of Vancian casting?" and she responded "I hate it, and I think they shouldn't change anything about it", I would find that oddly cryptic.

[nockermensch]

Of course not, but if someone asks my opinion, I'm going to say "I like it" or "I don't like it". Duh.

Guess my point of view is pretty weird then. Because I prefer that some classes are build around things that I like and some are build around things I don't like (but someone else does)

If I asked someone "What do you think of Vancian casting?" and she responded "I hate it, and I think they shouldn't change anything about it", I would find that oddly cryptic.

What's exactly cryptic about the self-loathing of a TTRPG player?

[Previn]

Something I don't understand in 5e threads, is that some people post something like this:
"I dislike the vancian casting scheme of the wizard and hope the wizard gets a more 3.5 sorceress casting approach, like the 5e cleric!"

I've never understood the hate for actual Vancian casting mechanics, when the system itself is fine, and it's the balancing of spells that drags it up or down. 4e was basically a Vancian system in terms of power use and people love it.

[hogarth]

4e was basically a Vancian system in terms of power use and people love it.

(1) If by "Vancian" you mean "prepared spellcasting", then there's little Vancian spellcasting in 4E.

(2) It's possible that I'm in a minority in disliking prepared spellcasting, but judging from a recent thread on the Paizo boards on class popularity, most of the posters claimed that sorcerers are more popular than wizards in their campaigns.

[John Magnum]

Well, Previn, which aspect of "actual Vancian casting mechanics" do you mean? There's a lot that goes into it. The 3.5 system, which doesn't actually resemble Vance very closely but it's a catchy name, has: Every day you prepare a subset of your Spells Known to become Spells Ready-to-Use. Each Spell Ready-to-Use can be used once, but you can prepare a certain number of duplicates. Spell levels.

The 4e system is not Vancian in the sense of preparing your power selection out of a subset of Powers Known each day. It's Vancian in the sense that each power has a single use that's expended and then refreshes after a period of rest, and in the sense of spell levels.

To me, actually, those are the least interesting aspects of the 3e system. If you gave people a dozen spells known and told them every day they could choose six to be at-will, I'd like it a lot better. Or you choose six to be on a Drain mechanic, or spell points, or whatever. The interesting part is getting to make decisions about which powers you have active, not the part where you use a power once and then it's unavailable until the next Power Refresh Period.

[virgil]

(2) It's possible that I'm in a minority in disliking prepared spellcasting, but judging from a recent thread on the Paizo boards on class popularity, most of the posters claimed that sorcerers are more popular than wizards in their campaigns.

That part I can vouch for in my experience as well. I'm one of the few people in my various groups that actually plays a wizard, let alone enjoys it.

[Previn]

4e was basically a Vancian system in terms of power use and people love it.

(1) If by "Vancian" you mean "prepared spellcasting", then there's little Vancian spellcasting in 4E.

I think it's the opposite. Everything but at wills is 'prepared spellcasting' it's just fiddled with the the time table. Heck, I'll go so far as to say that dailies are explicitly Vancian.



John Magnum, when I say Vancian casting, the general thing I mean is memorize and forget once cast. Slots are really just a funky magic point system once you get to 3.x. What most people complain about in my experience is how Vancian casting is either 'not enough spells' or 'game breaking magic' neither of which actually have anything to do with casting/forgetting mechanics, and only superficially with spell slots or even magic rules in general.

Basically better balance of spells in terms of durration and power would eliminate both those issues without touching on underlying casting/memorization mechanics.

I'm not saying that Vancian casting is good or bad, just that the assumptions I see most often on why it is bad are based on faulty logic.

[hogarth]

(1) If by "Vancian" you mean "prepared spellcasting", then there's little Vancian spellcasting in 4E.

I think it's the opposite. Everything but at wills is 'prepared spellcasting' it's just fiddled with the the time table. Heck, I'll go so far as to say that dailies are explicitly Vancian.

I don't know if you're confused or just trolling, but most classes cannot choose to prepare a new set of encounter powers every day, for instance.

[Kaelik]

4e was basically a Vancian system in terms of power use and people love it.

(1) If by "Vancian" you mean "prepared spellcasting", then there's little Vancian spellcasting in 4E.

I think it's the opposite. Everything but at wills is 'prepared spellcasting' it's just fiddled with the the time table. Heck, I'll go so far as to say that dailies are explicitly Vancian.

His explicit point is that "prepared spellcasting" is where you have X abilities to choose from, and you can choose Y of them, and X is greater than Y. And 4e has literally zero of that.*


* Yes, technically the Wizard gets to choose between dailies and utilities or something like that, no one gives a shit because there aren't even enough good powers of each level.

[ishy]

Guess my point of view is pretty weird then. Because I prefer that some classes are build around things that I like and some are build around things I don't like (but someone else does)

If I asked someone "What do you think of Vancian casting?" and she responded "I hate it, and I think they shouldn't change anything about it", I would find that oddly cryptic.

What's exactly cryptic about the self-loathing of a TTRPG player?

So what should I say then? Remove all magic classes from the game because I don't like to play them?

I just realise some people prefer playing wizards and some prefer playing sorceress. That doesn't mean that because I prefer wizards I don't want any sorceress mechanics in the game.

[hogarth]

So what should I say then? Remove all magic classes from the game because I don't like to play them?

Well, the normal thing to do would be to explain why you don't like X and then to suggest what changes might make you like it more.

Being silent about disliking X will tend to exaggerate how popular X really is, which is bad in terms of getting useful data.

[Winnah]

I spent the best part of the last hour skimming through the various playtest threads on the Wizards forum...

I have no idea how a design team is going to sift through all that feedback and commentary in order to eliminate major issues and institute any useful changes. I know there is supposed to be some kind of follow-up survey sent out to the people that signed up for the playtest, but this is only the first round of public playtesting.

[TheFlatline]

Also while we're at it, perhaps could clarify how 4th edition = WoW, or even just MMO's in general? Call me dense, know there's been some explanations scattered in threads all over the den, even Frank mentioned how it's understandable reasoning to call it having such elements (even if most people don't know the reasons themselves). If do respond to this, feel free to give out all the reasons for posterity, but my guesses were:

Oh jesus christ... This fucking question again?

The old saying is right... everything old is new again.

[Finkin]

I spent the best part of the last hour skimming through the various playtest threads on the Wizards forum...

I have no idea how a design team is going to sift through all that feedback and commentary in order to eliminate major issues and institute any useful changes. I know there is supposed to be some kind of follow-up survey sent out to the people that signed up for the playtest, but this is only the first round of public playtesting.

You've hit the nail on the head.

Neither do they, and they have no real intention of doing so.

[Voss]

I spent the best part of the last hour skimming through the various playtest threads on the Wizards forum...

I have no idea how a design team is going to sift through all that feedback and commentary in order to eliminate major issues and institute any useful changes. I know there is supposed to be some kind of follow-up survey sent out to the people that signed up for the playtest, but this is only the first round of public playtesting.

They've pretty much said (and the 'letter from Mearls' in the playtesting packet stops just shy of explicitly saying so) that the survey is what they will be looking at. If a major consensus comes out of one of the playtest threads, they may give it some weight, but they will focus almost exclusively on the survey. But it will probably be phrased the same way their stupid blog polls are, and the survey questions will probably be something along the lines of the following:

If you liked/didn't like the Wizard, was it because it felt more like:
a BECMI wizard
a 1st/2nd edition wizard
a 3rd edition wizard
a 4th edition wizard.

and if the results are roughly even, they'll assume that means it appeals to everyone, so it is successful.

But really, I expect a lot of crap questions about whether or not it 'felt like D&D' and maybe a few questions about tweaking AC and hit points a bit, particularly on the 'big' monsters. Which will be analyzed with a disturbing amount of doublethink bullshit that will yield results like 'the relatively high AC and absurd hit points of boss monsters made those fights boring and repetitive,' which will somehow lap around and be an actual design goal.

[Winnah]

I did a little research and I think I was confusing the definition of Playtest with Quality Assurance or something.

I'm sure that the marketing team will be salivating over the volume of data supplied by people that have signed up.

I guess I am just dissapointed by the bait-and-switch going on regards meaningful participation/recipient of advertising campaign.