D&DNext: Playtest Review

[ModelCitizen]

I'm not annoyed, I was trying to be funny. The internet is bad at conveying tone of voice.

[Username17]

Anyone have a link to the old Mike Mearls rant about how scaling AC and hit points against Accuracy and Damage was too hard? Seems like the 5e is just following that piece's "I'm too lazy to use a calculator" methodology to its logical conclusion. Of course, that logical conclusion is that the Ogre has 66 hit points and the Minotaur has 132 hit points, and to keep up that level of bullshit, the Storm Giant has to have 2112 hit points and the Ocean Strider has to have 16896 hit points. We haven't even gotten to actual "epic" monsters, and we're already at the point where we're basically playing Dragonball d20.

The thing I don't get is how these ass holes can go so far as to write multiple articles on these concepts over a series of months and not once extrapolate those numbers to 16th level and realize that they have to scrap the concept. Just like the "Automatic Success Threshold" which they had to essentially scrap (and which I was able to show the math on why they'd have to scrap it as soon as it was announced), this entire thing is like watching a trainwreck in excruciatingly slow motion.

-Username17

[tussock]

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.

They're not all in one fight, and couldn't all attack at once even if they were. I do have some abstract methods for massed archery that have much the same results as rolling bunches of dice anyway.

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.

Incorporating mass combat rules directly into the skirmish game does have some benefits, particularly for the cinematic mass grapple that the grunts can throw off with a burst of strength (a scene I love that's hard to do in regular D&D).

Looking to history often provides interesting solutions. Heavy armour made people immune to most missile attacks beyond very short range, as did the bigger shields in tight formation. Peasants really did monkey-pile to take down armoured knights (and their horses) quickly followed by a knife in the brain. Bearsarks totally got thrown over opposition shield walls as a way to disrupt the otherwise strong formation. Horse archery is extremely hard to learn and awesome only if you have ten thousand of them. Guns really are crap compared to a good longbowman, all the way up to the flintlocks with corned powder in paper cartridges.


Also, funny is , which I usually forget, because it's more fun to troll.

[Koumei]

Anyone have a link to the old Mike Mearls rant about how scaling AC and hit points against Accuracy and Damage was too hard?

Sorry, I can't even find the post where you said if you were doing the new one you'd "have all of them scale because Mearls is a (douche? Some kind of insult anyway)"

[Username17]

Anyone have a link to the old Mike Mearls rant about how scaling AC and hit points against Accuracy and Damage was too hard?

Sorry, I can't even find the post where you said if you were doing the new one you'd "have all of them scale because Mearls is a (douche? Some kind of insult anyway)"

It's a problem. Mike Mearls has now put up so many shitty articles about herpderp game design that it's no longer possible for Google to find any specific article of his from the past. Like where is the one in which he went on a rant that D&D is an inherently "gamist" game? Or the one where he talks about how multiclassing is too difficult for now, but he'll get it working any day now? Or hell, even the one about how cool it's going to be that taking hostages is going to be an obscure ability found only in the Bugbear Strangler monster writeup?

It's all buried under a figurative mountain of similar horseshit articles and commentary on a dozen message boards.

-Username17

[Seerow]

Hey I found the literal distillation of the stormwind fallacy

I would not go as far as saying one person's opinion is wrong but I would say that if you are looking to optimize your character, then you are not roleplaying by definition. It is those character flaws that have made most of my adventuring the most fun... Especially when the character overcomes those flaws.

[erik]

Anyone have a link to the old Mike Mearls rant about how scaling AC and hit points against Accuracy and Damage was too hard?

There's a new one by Rodney Thompson
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20120604

Dang, I can't find the Mearls article either.

There's plenty to rage about in this piece of garbage though.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Print.aspx?x ... l/20120430

So their design goal in a game largely about killing monsters is that nobody is better at killing monsters than fighters.

[Ghremdal]

I just saw this article written by Mearls in august last year. My first impression was that it is not a bad idea. I wonder why they decided to scrap it and put in the existing system.

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20110816

[MisterDee]

One thing we can say about Thompson - he's better at explaining the goals than Mearls is. I'm not sure I agree about the goals, but at least it's clearer what they're trying to accomplish (i.e. make it so Mearls' Fireball-throwing DMPC can go back to being better than his group's PCs.)

[Lago PARANOIA]

1. The Fighter Is the Best at . . . Fighting!

This might sound like an obvious point, but the fighter should be the best character in a fight. Other classes might have nifty tricks, powerful spells, and other abilities, but when it’s time to put down a monster without dying in the process, the fighter should be our best class. A magic sword might make you better in a fight, but a fighter of the same level is still strictly better. Perhaps a spell such as haste lets you attack more often, but the fighter is still either making more attacks or his or her attacks are more accurate or powerful.

3. The Fighter Exists in a World of Myth, Fantasy, and Legend

Keeping in mind the point above, we also have to remember that while the fighter draws on mundane talent, we’re talking about mundane within the context of a mythical, fantasy setting. Beowulf slew Grendel by tearing his arm off. He later killed a dragon almost singlehandedly. Roland slew or gravely injured four hundred Saracens in a single battle. In the world of D&D, a skilled fighter is a one-person army. You can expect fighters to do fairly mundane things with weapons, but with such overwhelming skill that none can hope to stand against them.

Mike Mearls is seriously giving the Bruceman a run for his money in the 'most terrible game designer that people take seriously' contest.

[fectin]

Actually, that fluff sounds like the Tome fighter.

[Maxus]

Great! It's a step forward!

Beowulf had more strength than thirty normal men*, and Roland knocked a hole into a mountain when he was trying to break Durendal

Grant, Durendal was just unbreakable, but the strength was Roland's.

*according to D&D 3.5,This would give Beowulf a Light Load of 1,023 pounds, assuming a normal man's strength score was 10, Beowulf is 31 times stronger than that,

[Seerow]

Great! It's a step forward!

Beowulf had more strength than thirty normal men*, and Roland knocked a hole into a mountain when he was trying to break Durendal

Grant, Durendal was just unbreakable, but the strength was Roland's.

*according to D&D 3.5,This would give Beowulf a Light Load of 1,023 pounds, assuming a normal man's strength score was 10, Beowulf is 31 times stronger than that,

So that pegs Beowulf at 35 strength (which gives a light load of 1064. 34 strength is only 932). It means he can walk around easily with 1.6 tons on his back, and can bench press 3 tons. He can push around up to 8 tons.

Sounds about right to me.

[Foxwarrior]

In 4e, his Strength would be 301 instead.

What are the rules for carrying capacity in 5e?

[Username17]

I just saw this article written by Mearls in august last year. My first impression was that it is not a bad idea. I wonder why they decided to scrap it and put in the existing system.

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20110816

Well, it's not really different from regular skill ranks except that there is an auto-success and an auto-fail check for skill rank levels. This in turn is roughly equivalent to each "rank" being worth a +10 or even +20 bonus. Later on he proposed a more modest version where rather than hitting a specific auto-failure threshold right away for not having enough ranks, the DCs just went up by 5 for every rank you were short until you couldn't do it. Then he proposed another version where the ranks were down to +3, and now the ranks seem to be simply gone altogether.

The thing is that yes, the system where there are only six ranks in the game, but each one is a big enough bonus that you give a shit is something that makes sense. You could even give out extra benefits like automagic success thresholds for having higher ranks. But Mike Mearls' description of it was total ass. The thing where the ranks had names and you were supposed to do rank comparisons before assigning DCs (and thus two different characters performing the same task would have different DCs to pit their bonuses against)? That was ass. Obviously the ranks should just provide a numeric bonus and possibly the side benefits of greater reliability rather than creating extra steps in the middle of action resolution. And bonus negative points for describing a +8 bonus against a DC 15 as a 65% chance of success.

But yeah, it was a lot more salvageable than his "Stats only, Final Destination" tirade of late.

-Username17

[virgil]

*according to D&D 3.5,This would give Beowulf a Light Load of 1,023 pounds, assuming a normal man's strength score was 10, Beowulf is 31 times stronger than that,

By standard D&D math, that makes him have a Strength of ~35. However, if he ever counted as a size category larger for carrying capacity, then he could get away with a 30 Strength. I have my own opinions on 3.5 Strength

[Lago PARANOIA]

What part of that is confusing people into thinking that what Mearls wrote had a kernel of a good idea to it?

1.) Mundane within the context of fantasy is a bullshit empty statement. Even if by 'mundane' they mean without explicitly noted phlebtonium it's still an empty statement. In One Piece, training yourself to shapeshift is explicitly mundane -- even though that's a magical feat in Harry Potter so hard to replicate it's a plot point.

2.) 'Other classes might have nifty tricks, powerful spells, and other abilities, but when it’s time to put down a monster without dying in the process, the fighter should be our best class.'

That's an even more retarded statement. There are three ways to interpret that, in increasing order of retardedness.

2a. If a fighter isn't using nifty tricks and other abilities to kill a monster, then how IS he defeating monsters? Just throwing out huge numbers? Cynically swinging an overpowered sword in a trite manner that's so good that's all he needs to do? Thanks for making the fighter boring.

2b.) If by 'nifty tricks and other abilities' he means 'tricks that don't directly or only pertain to fighting', congratulations, Mike Mearls, you've made the fighter even more boring than interpretation 1.

2c.) Mike Mearls also said earlier that a fighter should be mundane. Is this signalling a return to 4E fuckery in which an epic-level Earthquake spell only had a 30m radius and couldn't even uproot a tree? It's a fucking insult to God and Man that stapling angel powers to yourself or commanding the very elements that -- despite their special effects -- isn't as good as spending a month in the gym. I'm okay with Beowulf or Roland or Sir Kay punching out, say, Spider-Man or Colossus, but Conan or any of his other VAH dumbass friends punching out Colossus is a storytelling tragedy.

[Username17]

In 4e, his Strength would be 301 instead.

What are the rules for carrying capacity in 5e?

Your Strength score determines the amount of weight you can bear. To determine how many pounds you can carry unencumbered, multiply your Strength score by 10.

If you carry more than this weight, you are encumbered, which means your speed drops by 10 feet, and you have disadvantage on checks, attack rolls , and saving throws. The maximum weight you can carry encumbered equals twice your unencumbered carrying capacity.

So if Beowulf has a light load of 1023 pounds, he has a Strength of 103. Note that the maximum Strength of a Divine Being is 30. The world record bench press is 1100 pounds, which is presumably fully encumbered and corresponds to a Strength of 55.

D&D strength scales are always stupid, but 5e's are stupider than most.

-Username17

[Josh_Kablack]

I just saw this article written by Mearls in august last year. My first impression was that it is not a bad idea

It's a horrible idea that does nothing but substitute complexity for the division operation as I pointed out Earlier

But thanks for showing that Monte, Bruce and Mearls keep designing by their ability to post BS that passes first impression tests for casual gamers.

[deaddmwalking]

So if Beowulf has a light load of 1023 pounds, he has a Strength of 103. Note that the maximum Strength of a Divine Being is 30. The world record bench press is 1100 pounds, which is presumably fully encumbered and corresponds to a Strength of 55.

D&D strength scales are always stupid, but 5e's are stupider than most.

-Username17

I'm not defending the numbers or attacking your interpretation. In this month's Knights of the Dinner Table, one of the characters (Crutch) is studying for his GM Exam. One area he's had trouble with his 'lifting capacity versus encumbrance'. The GM 'trainer' has him load his motorcycle saddlebags with rocks and a few other heavy object. While collectively, he is able to lift all the objects, he finds that carrying them is more difficult than picking them up.

Essentially, they are saying something to the effect that you would be encumbered if you're carrying more than half the maximum that you can pick up. So if you can bench a 1100 pound weight, you'd be encumbered carrying ~550 pounds.

[Seerow]

In 4e, his Strength would be 301 instead.

What are the rules for carrying capacity in 5e?

Your Strength score determines the amount of weight you can bear. To determine how many pounds you can carry unencumbered, multiply your Strength score by 10.

If you carry more than this weight, you are encumbered, which means your speed drops by 10 feet, and you have disadvantage on checks, attack rolls , and saving throws. The maximum weight you can carry encumbered equals twice your unencumbered carrying capacity.

So if Beowulf has a light load of 1023 pounds, he has a Strength of 103. Note that the maximum Strength of a Divine Being is 30. The world record bench press is 1100 pounds, which is presumably fully encumbered and corresponds to a Strength of 55.

D&D strength scales are always stupid, but 5e's are stupider than most.

-Username17

Actually it's worse than that. Since 5e doesn't have different load categories, just unencumbered and encumbered carrying capacity, a average person's unencumbered carrying capacity is 100 (10str *10lbs). If Beowulf is 31x stronger than this, he can carry 3100 lbs, which requires a strength score of 310. More than 10x higher than the gods.



btw, as far as averages go... does anyone else think that sounds high? I mean, I'm kind of out of shape, so would probably qualify closer to 8 than 10 in terms of strength, but while I could probably pick up and carry 80lbs, I really doubt it'd be unencumbered. It seems like the low end encumbrance numbers are too high, and at the high end they obviously don't scale fast enough because of the linearness.

I guess if all you ever use carrying capacity for is to see if you can carry around that loot with you it's not bad. But that is just another small way the system tries to screw mundane warriors.

[CapnTthePirateG]

I'm guessing, if they ever think about this, that this is where Exception-Based Design rears its ugly head.

[Seerow]

So I've run into a new brand of horrible today: The WotC moderation. Now, it's not so bad as GitP where 3 warnings for anything (and saying the word "troll" in the context of a poster is enough to get a major warning) within the span of a year gets you banned, but while they aren't banning people, the things they take issue with are pretty ridiculous.

For example, in the ongoing topic about Bounded Accuracy, there is one guy who has for 15 pages or so insisted that he has seen how the system works in full from the F&F playtest, and thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread. He has a habit of making impossible demands (ie "Please explain why a higher level character should be better than a low level character automatically. What did he do to get better at that?!"), generating a lot of long winded responses, straw-manning out those responses, then disappearing for a few pages, just to do it all over again. In fact, reading that thread just for the posts from Mand is enough to warrant being linked, because it really is horrible.

But anyway, this go round I got sick of it and called him out on doing nothing but trolling the thread, and said if he refuses to address any actual arguments or contribute he should stop posting.

About 10 minutes later, my post is deleted, and a mod posts saying not to attack other users. I PM the mod asking why my posts were deleted, yet Mand could continue disrupting and trolling the thread incessantly, my response:

From: ORC_Opal
Received: Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 05:11pm
Reply
Forward
Hello Seerow,

Sadly we're unable to assist with questions through Private Messages. If you would like to contact us, you can do so here.

Sorry for any inconveniences this may cause.

Opal

The link he sent was: http://www.wizards.com/Company/Contact.aspx

Yeah, he linked me to the same customer service that answers game-related questions. Because THAT will be useful.


Edit: It's possible that their moderation was always terrible and senseless. I'm really not sure. I haven't used the WotC forums before now since they did the whole gleemax bullshit and deleted all of the posts. So that's what, 6 years? Point is I don't remember it being bad before, so this is new to me.

[Previn]

Edit: It's possible that their moderation was always terrible and senseless. I'm really not sure. I haven't used the WotC forums before now since they did the whole gleemax bullshit and deleted all of the posts. So that's what, 6 years? Point is I don't remember it being bad before, so this is new to me.

Actually there was a point where the WotC boards were well ran, back in 2008 that changed. Bad things happened, stupid decisions about merging and rearranging boards were made by the head board admin/mod/'i have a ego bigger then bill gates' against the desires of the posters, a good deal of moderators, and plain common sense and mathematics (bandwidth caps per board). The WotC boards were to say the least a shell there after.

[Winnah]

Strength is borked.

A friend of mine is on a fitness kick. After reading the 5e playtest packet, he sent me his 'strength score' for various editions of D&D based off what he can currently deadlift.

'Average' Strength 10 character in 5e can deadlift 500 pounds all day.

According to a quick google check, a powerlifting coach would expect an untrained adult male to lift their body weight + 25%, on average. Take that for what you will, but I'm not going to rely on that as a hard number for any complelling argument. I am also pretty sure that with basic training, some people may be able to exceed that number by a vast margin.

Another google check reveals average weight for an American Adult male (health statistics) is 190 pounds. I'm not going to argue that 5e states that the average American male would have a strength 4~5, but I thought I would include the value just to stir some shit. Everyone knows that Americans are overweight, on average, so that value is probably on the high side.

The world record raw deadlift (unequipped) is 1015 pounds. Funnily enough, that is around the value of a 20 strength character in 5e.