D&DNext: Playtest Review

ModelCitizen · Post by **ModelCitizen** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:13 pm

tussock wrote:I just realised they're never going to let me spend my treasure on a cohort of twenty archers. With no scaling in armour class, they'll either need a damage vs DR scale, or numbers are better than levels.

I guess they'll take care of that with fear effects that hit everyone with less that 20 hit points, no save, line of sight radius. At least for Dragons.

Yeah, that's the sort of thing you'd put in if you knew about the problem but still had to work within its constraints.

That or DR. In AD&D if you lock a gargoyle in a room with every lv1 goblin archer in the world, the gargoyle wins. And that would still be true in 3e if gargoyles were arbitrarily classified as elementals or constructs.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:46 pm

Dogbert wrote:... except they never will.

Do not underestimate the power of denial.

Well, if you were going by the reaction of people on the boards -- or rather, who will be left over after the Second D&D Exodus -- you'll be left thinking that 5E D&D is the best thing since sliced sex. But the sales numbers don't lie.

Blicero · Post by **Blicero** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:51 pm

rasmuswagner wrote:Didn't they JUST LEARN this shit? They massively improved their solo design from the 4E MM to the MV, and now they're throwing out that progress?

What was good about the Monster Vault? I'm honestly curious here. It being good has been mentioned a few times on these boards, but it's never been explained.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:10 am

Blicero wrote: What was good about the Monster Vault? I'm honestly curious here. It being good has been mentioned a few times on these boards, but it's never been explained.

Not sure if you can call it good, but it increased monster damage and decreased monster hit points. Thus reducing padded sumo.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:41 am

ishy wrote:Not sure if you can call it good, but it increased monster damage and decreased monster hit points. Thus reducing padded sumo.

That's complete and total bullshit. I own the Monster Vault. I also own the pre-Essentials Errata Monster Vault 2. Here's a small sample of comparison to show just how much they did not fix the padded sumo issues.

Monster Vault:

Level 10 Hydra (174)
Hit Points: 432
Defenses: 24/23/21/21
Cocktail of +15 vs. AC, 3d10 attacks; 2 at the start of a player's turn adjacent to it, up to 8 at once unless fire or acid damage used before a chopped off head (loses a head at sufficient damage points) causes it to regenerate two. Starts with four heads at beginning of encounter.

Level 14 Adult Purple Worm (240)
Hit Points: 560
Defenses: 28/28/26/24
Minor Action Attacks at-will (3d10+8, slide 4, +17 vs. Fort), Immediate Reaction Attacks on a hit (+17 vs. Reflex versus two critters, 3d12+5 damage)
Bite and swallow whole attacks. +19 vs. AC, 3d8+8 damage; +17 vs. Fortitude, 3d10+7 damage.

Level 17 Elder White Dragon (73)
Hit Points: 668
Defenses: 31/30/27/28
Bite: +22 vs. AC, 5d12+14
Icy Tomb: +20 vs. Reflex Stunned, No Forced Movement, Ongoing 45 Cold Damage

Monster Manual 2:

Adult Iron Dragon, Level 11 (84)
Hit Points: 472
Defenses: 25/25/23/23
Immediate Interrupt at will against attacks, +16 vs. AC, 1d10+3 damage.
Double Attack: +16 vs. AC, 1d10+5 damage.
Two uses of a mass-stunner frightful presence attack. +12 vs. Will.

Adult Adamantine Dragon (75)
564 Hit points
Defenses: 30/28/27/26
Draconic Fury: Three Claw Attacks (+19 vs. Reflex, 1d10+6 damage) and a Bite Attack (+19 vs. Reflex, 2d6+6 damage and 5 ongoing)
Wing Buffet an Immediate Reaction attack against a target entering or leaving a square adjacent to it: +19 vs. Fort, 1d8+6, target knocked prone.
2x Frightful Presence an encounter.

Bebilith Level 18 (52)
696 Hit Points
Defenses: 30/30/31/29
Two Reaving Claw Attacks (+21 vs. AC, 2d10+6 damage, cumulative -1 to AC penalty) against two different targets.
Flaming Web: Minor Action: +19 vs. Reflex, Close Blast Three. 2d8+10 fire damage, slowed and ongoing 10 fire damage. Failed saving throw: restrained and ongoing 15 fire damage.
Can shift 4 squares as an immediate reaction if an enemy moves adjacent to it.
Danger Sense: Acts on initiative counts 20 and 10. Cannot delay or ready actions. Has a standard action instead of normal allotment of actions.

Now, granted, the monsters in the Monster Vault are more deadly at late heroic to mid-paragon than the ones in the Monster Manual 2 -- of course they become equally deadly again at around level 14. And Monster Manual 1 monsters are definitely much more padded sumo than every other manual. But Monster Vault making everything all right? That's total 4Eron propaganda bullshit.

Don't fall for it. Just because no one pays attention to their shitty game doesn't mean that we have to accept their memes uncritically.

Aryxbez · Post by **Aryxbez** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:04 am

Bummer, Lago beat me to it, and did it better than my overly positive explanation would've done.

Although to be fair, they were saying how it was a major "improvement" over the trash that is the first Monster Manual. As well that it "reduced" Padded Sumo, so it was still there, but still not fixed.

I can attest to monsters becoming dangerous, at 13th level, Black Pudding and Otyughs were an overly powerful combination for melee classes. Also, for what it's worth, the Monster Vault did have perhaps my most favorite version of the Purple Worm in D&D to date. Seemingly having actual cool abilities to fight back multiple PC's as a Solo should, and even a reaction attack that'll continue to hate on Melee party after its turn has ended. Although like the Purple Worm and I'm pretty sure other monsters therein, they don't have much to counter against Ranged parties, so you have designers still forgetting to account for what is most of the class's in the game as I recall?

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Don't fall for it. Just because no one pays attention to their shitty game doesn't mean that we have to accept their memes uncritically.

I agree that if going to comment, or even hate on a game, should have some foreknowledge of the information at hand so to point out its flaws accurately. Even if that means the pain of having to read a 4th edition book, or any other RPG to despise for that matter (like Dragon Age RPG...). At very least, point to a review or some sort that mentions this design element to be true.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:48 am

To be fair, those monster vault monsters do have lower defenses (with the exception of the Dragon) and it looks like a lot more damage. Though it does seem that reduction of monster HP was really exaggerated, unless they are referring to lower HP of Normal/Elite monsters.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:52 am

4E D&D solo monsters really really hate melee characters. If one thing can be said for the Monster Vault, is that it made the Mongol Archer problem a lot worse.

4E D&D's closet troll design may or may not be a problem. For averagely built parties, sure. For well-oiled parties that have a STR/WIS Cleric and a Warlord that knows what they're doing, it doesn't help much. A properly built STR Ranger + Infernal Warlock + Battlemind + STR Cleric + Non-Ranged Warlord Party can ice all of those paragon-tier monsters in one or two rounds. Or for parties that prefer their shenanigans ranged (which is actually recommended), a DEX/WIS Ranger + CON Warlock + CON Wizard + Laser Cleric/Warpriest + Ranged Warlord party can bring on the pain just as easily.

So not only that, but anyone who says that 4E parties are more balanced than 3E parties are also full of shit.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:55 am

Seerow wrote:To be fair, those monster vault monsters do have lower defenses (with the exception of the Dragon) and it looks like a lot more damage.

That's true for late heroic to paragon. But the damage values start to converge again once Monster Manual 2 monsters start giving characters crazier shit. Then again, MV monsters also have much less in the way of disabling status effects. The Bebelith would be a pain in the neck for a non-optimized melee party to fight. That probably more than anything is what reduces the padded sumo.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:12 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:4E D&D's closet troll design may or may not be a problem. For averagely built parties, sure. For well-oiled parties that have a STR/WIS Cleric and a Warlord that knows what they're doing, it doesn't help much. A properly built STR Ranger + Infernal Warlock + Battlemind + STR Cleric + Non-Ranged Warlord Party can ice all of those paragon-tier monsters in one or two rounds. Or for parties that prefer their shenanigans ranged (which is actually recommended), a DEX/WIS Ranger + CON Warlock + CON Wizard + Laser Cleric/Warpriest + Ranged Warlord party can bring on the pain just as easily.

Wait, you got me confused here. I never played 4E beyond that first keep on the shadowfell starting adventure. Are you saying that 4E fights end in one or two rounds? Then what exactly is the padded sumo?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:15 am

4E D&D fights can end at a reasonable clip with a well-optimized party with access to all of the books and/or Character Builder. For most parties, however, it's padded sumo all-the-way. I ran quite a few 4E D&D games back before I gave up on the edition and a 5-6 round combat is quite standard. Even when I intentionally steered the encounter payload towards Brutes/Controllers and handed out more items than what the DMG recommends.

It's not particularly difficult, for instance, to build a 4E D&D Ranger who does 3 times as much damage as what the game assumes that you will be doing. If the party is at or around this benchmark, that cuts down combat time a lot. Of course it also reveals that the '4E is more balanced!' lie to be just that.

Sashi · Post by **Sashi** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:36 am

I once played a 4E adventure where the party was Strength Cleric, Lazylord, Bravelord, Barbarian.

One combat was ended in the surprise round.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:14 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:4E D&D fights can end at a reasonable clip with a well-optimized party with access to all of the books and/or Character Builder. For most parties, however, it's padded sumo all-the-way. I ran quite a few 4E D&D games back before I gave up on the edition and a 5-6 round combat is quite standard. Even when I intentionally steered the encounter payload towards Brutes/Controllers and handed out more items than what the DMG recommends.

It's not particularly difficult, for instance, to build a 4E D&D Ranger who does 3 times as much damage as what the game assumes that you will be doing. If the party is at or around this benchmark, that cuts down combat time a lot. Of course it also reveals that the '4E is more balanced!' lie to be just that.

Oh man, now I'm regreting I gave up 4E so soon. This is hilarious. The supposedly careful detail put on numbers that scale together completely felt apart, then.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:05 am

I'd like to point out that I believe, despite the supposed major nerfs to orbizards, you can still rock them too. First: Slumber of the Winter Court. 1d4 hrs unconscious if you fail the first save. Second, there are still permanent save penalties out there. You just need to dumpster dive harder.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Lago, I haven't played 4e in a while.

Korwin · Post by **Korwin** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:20 am

John Magnum wrote:Okay. So our eleventh-level Fighter can probably one-shot a CR5 troll if he gets a crit. He'd do way better if he managed to charge on a horse with a lance, but obviously mounted combat is an invitation to be boned in D&D.

That still seems like a pretty far cry from what Wulf was talking about. But maybe I'm just a pessimistic pud.

If we are talking D&D 3.x (no Tome) its really not soo hard to build an fighter (not class, but job description) who one shots CR 5 enemies (if he gets in melee - so Trolls would be no problem).

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:10 am

Actually, even without Tome, it's pretty easy to do if you don't demand that one-shot means literally one attack roll. Simple example:

Barbarian 4/Fighter 2 (or vice-versa)
Feats: Power Attack, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper
Barbarian ACF: Pounce
Stats: Elite array, 15 in Strength, +1 at 4th
Equipment: +1 Greatsword, Gauntlets of Ogre Power
Damage: 2d6+28, average 35, x2 attacks = 70

Damage could be much more with better stats, items, buff support, etc. - and there are a couple more feats that would help, but that's plenty to take out a Troll right there.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:33 pm

ModelCitizen wrote:
tussock wrote:I just realised they're never going to let me spend my treasure on a cohort of twenty archers. With no scaling in armour class, they'll either need a damage vs DR scale, or numbers are better than levels.

I guess they'll take care of that with fear effects that hit everyone with less that 20 hit points, no save, line of sight radius. At least for Dragons.
Yeah, that's the sort of thing you'd put in if you knew about the problem but still had to work within its constraints.

That or DR. In AD&D if you lock a gargoyle in a room with every lv1 goblin archer in the world, the gargoyle wins. And that would still be true in 3e if gargoyles were arbitrarily classified as elementals or constructs.

I tend to forget about DR, it's usually fairly easy to ignore it, and your little archer squad too. Also as many dogs as you can eat when the DM tries to starve you while fleeing the enemy. But then, I still enjoy 30-300 Orcs, so one needs to heed Roald Amundsen on the finer points of animal husbandry. Those big fear effects are the old school army scatterer, if not so much in 3e where the Dragons are also all arch-magi just for a laugh.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:55 pm

Another fun WotC board topic: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/ ... lture?pg=1

Here's some highlights (Daganev really kicks it into high gear around page 3):

That is your premise and I completely reject it.

Races are nothing more than stand ins for culture at it's most basic level.

You can not seperate the short, durable, bearded nature of a dwarf, from his ale drinking, axe/hammer wielding, stone cutting ways.

Well, you can, but that's novel and the basis of some cool game systems. (I.e., My game is exactly like D&D, except instead of dwarves being like this, they are like this)

You would know all this if you read the link I posted.

I'm not sure who you are responding to, but Dwarves are Short and stocky, because they live in mountains, and look like rock formed people.
Elves are tall and lithe because they resemble the trees they live in.

If you want to seperate race from culture, then pick a human.

Taking up magic, when you have a bonus to hammers, is the reason why the tradition is that dwarves havn't used magic. Why would they when they are so much more effective at using hammers?

A dwarf wizard is cool, because he has no mechanical bonuses to being a wizard, and must do it "the hard way"

Blicero · Post by **Blicero** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:55 pm

Jeezus. I think that most of the people in that thread had to work at misunderstanding the OP to such a hilarious extent. And the argument was not even especially complex. (And Daganev's racism is almost kind of disturbing.)

ModelCitizen · Post by **ModelCitizen** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:01 am

tussock wrote:But then, I still enjoy 30-300 Orcs, so one needs to heed Roald Amundsen on the finer points of animal husbandry.

I've been thinking about this a bit, and I don't think it can work well if those orcs are making individual attack rolls. It doesn't matter if they hit on a 10 or only on a 20, I just don't want to roll 300 attacks per round. Hell, I don't even want to roll 20 attacks per round.

You can't fix that by making the orcs more likely to hit the PCs and I don't know why 5e is trying. The way you fix that is by making it impossible for a each individual chump mook to hit a 10th level PC even on a nat 20. Then you make a combat maneuver for a damage zone that actually can hurt high level PCs, but it can only be performed by 10-40 dudes acting in unison. The archer version is probably called Volley.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:06 am

More fun quotes of the day from the wotc forums, because ignorance is precious, and like all precious things, deserves to be shared.

In a topic about Fighter vs Caster scaling, the topic somehow got turned to Animal Companions being buffed and taking the Fighter's place. Then this guy shows up:

Wow, this thread has become one of "those threads" where someone makes a ridiculous claim that an animal companion is more effective than the fighter and then posts tons of math that supposedly backs up the claim Let's get something straight here - no summoned creature will ever stack up to a PC, and no amount of math or mechanical dissection will change that.

Thinking this guy means he's seen all the math, and thinks the Fighter always wins in the end, I point out it depends on a lot of factors, such as the companion being chosen, the level the comparison is done at, the optimization level of the fighter, and the buffs and abilities of the companion being discussed.

This is the response I get:

No, it doesn't depend on any of that. An animal companion is inferior to a PC. Period. No amount of math or mechanical breakdowns will ever make it otherwise.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:17 am

...Except when it happens that the bear or lizard can kill the PC.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:41 am

Can someone help me out here? I can't for the life of me remember where it was stated that player characters will top out at 20 in an attribute and Gods at 30. I know for certain it was stated, but I don't see it in the playtest material and can't find it in any recent articles. Am I just looking in the wrong place?

ModelCitizen · Post by **ModelCitizen** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:05 am

Seerow wrote:Can someone help me out here? I can't for the life of me remember where it was stated that player characters will top out at 20 in an attribute and Gods at 30. I know for certain it was stated, but I don't see it in the playtest material and can't find it in any recent articles. Am I just looking in the wrong place?

Playtest "How to Play" page 3, third paragraph down the left column.

And now I feel like an enabler. Seriously dude, why are you doing this to yourself? It's like you're crawling into a sewer and then coming back up angry that you found human shit down there.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:10 am

ModelCitizen wrote:
Seerow wrote:Can someone help me out here? I can't for the life of me remember where it was stated that player characters will top out at 20 in an attribute and Gods at 30. I know for certain it was stated, but I don't see it in the playtest material and can't find it in any recent articles. Am I just looking in the wrong place?
Playtest "How to Play" page 3, third paragraph down the left column.

And now I feel like an enabler. Seriously dude, why are you doing this to yourself? It's like you're crawling into a sewer and then coming back up angry that you found human shit down there.

Thanks, somehow I glazed over that line twice. As an aside I didn't really need it for an argument, nobody asked me to cite it or anything. I was just curious because I knew I had seen it, but couldn't find it and was starting to think I'd gone crazy and just imagined it.

As for the whole sewer diving analogy, I'm not coming back angry. I find the whole experience oddly entertaining. And if other people find it entertaining too, why not share it? I'd compare it to dumpster diving instead, you go in there, and it's a whole pile of garbage, but some of the shit people throw in that dumpster can be pretty funny. And who knows, every once in a blue moon you might find something valuable.

If people get annoyed I can stop posting what I find, but I'd still hang around there anyway.

Edit: Ah that's how I missed it. After a quick skim, I did a ctrl+f for "god" and they specify "Divine Being"