D&DNext: Playtest Review

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:29 am

The strength 10 character in 5e lifts as much unencumbered as a str 18 character in 3.5. I thought that was kind of interesting. Heavy Load capacities the str 10 character measures up with a 15str 3.5 character.

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

I like how that coincidentally fits perfectly with a raging barbarian starting with 18 strength (who would max out at 1040). Wonder if that was intentional.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:36 am

So uh, in that dumpster diving analogy I mentioned that occasionally you find something useful?

Here's something someone posted that I actually liked and would like to see more of:

I prever favorrd enemy.
But it should not be focused.

Instead it grants features that can alway be helpful.

Favored Enemy: Goblin
Perception +3
Sense Cheating: The ranger are immune to bonus damage granted from advantage
Dealdy Surpise: The ranger deals 1d6 bonus damage when he rolls an initiative highter than 10.

Favored Enemy: Reptillian (to get trapsy kobolds, stank troglodytes, and water-ambushing lizardfolk)
Find/Remove Traps +3
Mook Slayer: The ranger deals 1d6 bonus damage when outnumbered
Hold Breath: The ranger can hold its breath for a number of rounds equal to four times its Constitution score before it risks drowning

Favored Enemy: Dragon
Insight +3
Fearless: The ranger has advantage against saving throws vs fear effects
Maw dodger: The ranger has advantage against saving throws vs breath attacks

Winnah · Post by **Winnah** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:40 am

The max encumberance of a strength 10 character in 5e exceeds that of an 18/00 character from 2nd edition (480 lbs).

It's also the equivelant of a fully laden pack mule.

In other news:

The Ranger Design Goals are up. Thanks Bruce!

They're apparently going for a Drizzt/Ranger Smith merge. Hunters quarry will be making a return. Animal companions are back. Weapon styles are related to Themes.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:45 am

Ah and the forums just totally backpedaled on awesome by making me find this awesome bit of DM self-wanking (from that same old race pigeon-holing thread as before)

Telling the DM "No, that's not right' should never happen...

It is a cooperative game, the players cooperate with each other to accomplish the tasks and quests and whatnot...but they do it in a world imagined and planned for by the DM...the DM cooperates only in so far as he agrees to be as consistent and fair as possible within the structure he's put forth. A DM is free to "cheat" "bully" "pigeonhole" etc... if it fits his world...the players are free to leave his table, or take over DMing if they want to do the work.

You say you have DM'd twice as much as you've played, bravo for you, I've played and DM'd since I was 7, back in 1978, and I've probably DM'd 80% more than I've played, because I have people lining up to be in my games, no matter what edition or even system I'm running. I'm not saying this because I'm a fabulous DM, that's not for me to say, I'm saying it, because I DM, I don't take players trying to overthrow my vision of my world. They line up to play in my world, so obviously I'm doing something right, or at least, I'm more willing to do the work involved to keep the game going than they are...they want an enjoyable experience...the DM is the provender of this enjoyable story...and things like "racial pigeonholing" as you put it, are part of the DM's toolkit.

If a player comes to me with a great idea for a counter-culture character...I say fine, here's what it will cost you to modify the core character to do it. You need these feats, these background options, etc... and we make it work, AT A COST.

I love your double-triple standard of things...Don't tell you how to DM, How to Role-play, or you'll show me how to be a scottsman I think was the phrase you used (paraphrased to include other things I might "tell you" how to do) but your free to Tell the DM how to run his world?

I can see where you go that sarcastic title of the "Unfailing Arbiter of All That is Good Design(Even More So Than The Actual Developers)" because your insufferable....you think your right, so you will scream louder and louder until people agree with you, and if someone does come up with a good argument of why your wrong, you invalidate it out of hand, kind of like a zealot does when talking religion (I'm not bringing up any specific religion here, just pointing out what zealotism is)

The Majority doesn't know what they want...

yes, that's quite often true, however, that doesn't make them wrong, they still vote with their dollars, even if they get disappointed afterwards. You have to target what the majority wants if you want to make a game that sells...I'm sorry if the developers aren't coming to you ever morning for advice on what to do next on the game, as your the final arbiter, but that's not the case. The put out a playtest to get feedback on it, they put up forums to get discussions going about it. They didn't come to simply ask you "what should be the answer" why, because no single person, you included, has the answer...

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but at least from a gamist standpoint, I can couch my arguments in a reasonably thought out way, and don't dismiss your arguments out of hand, I actually support what I say.

To those of you on the thread who disagree with my premise, but at least try to couch your disagreement in reasonable arguments, I have no ill will towards you, but to those who just want to stomp their feet down and say "your wrong because I'm right, and there's nothing you can say to change my mind" those are the people that are arguing just to argue.

Make the options to swap racial features as a module, make subraces a modular approach, even put a blurb in the module that says although this is put there so the DM can customize his own worlds' cultures, that it is fully acceptable if the DM so chooses, to allow players to freely customize their races in the game.

But don't try to hamstring the DM because it is the DM's world, that might be Elitist talking, but the DMs out there are an elite bunch, because they pay for that priviledge, by putting the work in that players just don't do. You might have a 2-3 page back story and keep up a character fan fiction blog about your character...and these things help the DM in his/her work, don't get me wrong, but you still never do 1/3 the work a DM does to put on these games and make them fun for everyone. If your not having fun, find a new DM, or start DMing yourself...but anyone who can sit back and say that its not the DM's world is sorely mistaken...its the DM's world, it may be the DM and Player's stories, but its the DM's world, and his/her word is Law! Its more than law, its Canon, its put down from on high, because no matter what other gods are in the world, remember, those gods are the equivalent of the DM's Player Characters...so he's the one true God of the game, and you need to realize that.

The whole reason D&D made it big was because of the DM/Player structure of the game. It's not just a set of rules, its based upon DM rulings. Its based upon having the freedom to do anything, as long as the DM allows and approves it. The one true limiter is the DM, and no rule out there supercedes that! You want a truly democratic system to play in, then play at a table that rotates the DM from week to week, those games can be fun, and that's a truly shared world environment...but it is far from the norm or the standard, and you need to realize it.

nuff said

Lokathor · Post by **Lokathor** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:18 am

What a fuckhead.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:26 am

Winnah wrote:Weapon styles are related to Themes.

But themes are just feat packages, right?

Winnah · Post by **Winnah** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:57 am

OgreBattle wrote: But themes are just feat packages, right?

As far I as I know. The only reason it is worth discussing is that there was a suggestion somewhere that Themes would not be exclusive to classes.

So you could have a rogue with Arcane Dabbler using Shocking Grasp to reliably sneak attack guys wering metal.

Taken from that, Archer or Two Weapon Fighting could also be tied to a Theme available to any class. Not an issue in and of itself, however, if fighting styles are inferred to be a ranger bonus, then expect people to get butthurt. Considering the modern concept named for influencing Ranger design:

Bruce Cordell wrote: Drizzt has adventured across the length and breadth (and depths) of the Forgotten Realms with a weapon in each hand and a faithful animal companion to watch his back. Even though Drizzt doesn’t typify rangers, his traits have colored the popular conception of the ranger all the same.

Advertising 'Rangers can take themes, just llike any other class' is just a waste of text.

The only thing that actually aggravates me about the article is my contempt for R.A Salvatore. My old account was banned from the Wizards boards after I criticised his novels in a discussion on Drow fappery.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:17 am

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

I was being semi-sarcastic. I want someone to point out to Mearls and the nascent "Yes-Man" crowd what having fighters on a par with Beowulf and Roland actually means. I seriously doubt Mearls had the Breach of Roland or Beowulf being described as stronger than 30 men on his mind when he wrote that.

erik · Post by **erik** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:24 am

Seerow wrote:Here's something someone posted that I actually liked and would like to see more of:

I prever favorrd enemy.
But it should not be focused.

Instead it grants features that can alway be helpful.

Indeed, this is a very good idea. Instead of a +X bonus vs particular critters, give training that is extra relevant vs. particular critters. Better game mechanics and better game immersion. I like it all around. There was an inkling of this kind of treatment for rangers in the King of the [environment] class in Masters of the Wild, but the execution was horribad.

[edit: Taaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaags!]

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:39 am

More fun.

I was explaining in a thread about Armor as DR, that for bounded accuracy to work as the developers described, how damage numbers need to scale. Basically since hit and AC aren't scaling, damage at the very least needs to keep scaling and remain proportional across all levels.

I didn't bother getting into how the intent to let Fighters fight hundreds of orcs at high level means he needs to get thousands of HP. I left the HP number at the extrapolated 6 per level, so the Fighter only had 140 HP. I explained how this meant that an attack from a level 20 enemy should be dealing 35-70 points of damage, to keep up proportionately with the level of damage that an orc puts out at level 1.

Response:

I don't think the damage numbers are going scale as much as you imply; at least I hope not.

That's not to say they won't scale, the Bounded Accuracy article stated that they would; I just think it will be more in line with the scaling in other areas that has been cut back.

Only time will tell though.

Seriously, people legitimately expect bounded accuracy to not scale hit/AC, but also don't want damage to scale either? I'm willing to bet they'd throw a huge hissy fit if HP ever got up anywhere near the levels Frank predicted earlier in the thread as well. Basically the forum has a bunch of grognards complaining that high level characters improve at all at anything except spellcasting.

Edit: Another post, same guy

Why would a creature have 600HP? HP will be rolled for now; giving even the fighters an average of, maybe, 10 per level. A 20th level fighter then has, on average, 200 HP; so the strongest 20th level monsters should have, on average, about the same.

I see your point; in rereading the article, they state that the higher level character will deal out more and more damage (so "their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster's hit points"). I'm not sure I agree with this and I'll give them that feedback.

I think it should take longer to take down stronger monsters, a dragon for example; this battle, especially if the fighter is taking it on solo, should be a drawn out, draining battle that brings both sides to the last of their reserves. 15-20 rounds in this type of epic battle is reasonable to me; they aren't typical battles to be shrugged off, so doing even just 10% of the enemy's HP every other round is okay. I don't think the fighter is going to hit only an average of 50% of the time though. I think it will be more like 70-75% of the time (this is the fighter's area of strength); so I wouldn't be against even 5%, or less, of an enemy's HP every 2-out-of-3 or 3-out-of-4 rounds. Resulting in slightly longer solo battles.

Most adventures star a party of adventurers though. So, if each does an average (wizards more, less often) of 10% per 3 rounds, a party of 5 will still take it down, on average, in six rounds. A party of 4 will do so in 8 rounds. All in all, I want a battle against one, mediocre dragon to be more epic than one against 30 orcs, at any level; even though 30 orcs should be a challenging battle for a low level party, due to being out numbered.

Oh well, that's just me rambling.

Emphasis in that post mine. I mean, first we have the whole "The fighter is rolling his hit points, so he's averaging 10 per level now!" (hey now I understand why people enjoy rolling hit points, they cheat more often than a french hooker!). Then we get that he doesn't want damage to scale that much, and thinks that epic battles should last 20 rounds in the system where most players have nothing but at will basic attacks. Damage against a creature according to him should be 5% of their hp or less (so 30 damage per hit at level 20, assuming the 600hp monster. Given he was assuming 200 hp as the max, he wanted 5 damage per hit, fewer than the fighter gets at level 1!)

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:00 am

Winnah wrote:The only thing that actually aggravates me about the article is my contempt for R.A Salvatore. My old account was banned from the Wizards boards after I criticised his novels in a discussion on Drow fappery.

That's nothing. WotC closed their entire fucking Novels forum in Jan 2004 (while I was a WizO) due to his inability to handle criticism.

Supposedly, he's had negative reviews pulled off of Amazon too, but I cannot personally substantiate that one.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:42 am

Seerow wrote: Response:
Edit: Another post, same guy
A party of 4 will do so in 8 rounds. All in all, I want a battle against one, mediocre dragon to be more epic than one against 30 orcs, at any level; even though 30 orcs should be a challenging battle for a low level party, due to being out numbered.
Emphasis in that post mine. I mean, first we have the whole "The fighter is rolling his hit points, so he's averaging 10 per level now!" (hey now I understand why people enjoy rolling hit points, they cheat more often than a french hooker!).

Sounds to me that the person in question actually hates the many orcs are equal to a dragon effect.

But it really is mind boggling how you can get 10 hp on average if you roll 1d10 for hitpoints

Winnah wrote: The only thing that actually aggravates me about the article is my contempt for R.A Salvatore. My old account was banned from the Wizards boards after I criticised his novels in a discussion on Drow fappery.

I've never read any d&d novel to be honest, are there any hilarious reviews on this forum?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:16 am

ishy wrote:
But it really is mind boggling how you can get 10 hp on average if you roll 1d10 for hitpoints

You have a large Con Bonus. If you always get max for first level (like 3e), a 9th level Fighter will average 90 hit points with an 18 Con. That is 10 per level.

-Username17

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:05 pm

FrankTrollman wrote: You have a large Con Bonus. If you always get max for first level (like 3e), a 9th level Fighter will average 90 hit points with an 18 Con. That is 10 per level.

-Username17

That is not how it works in 5e. You get Con score hitpoints at level 1 + lvl * ([Class Hit dice] or Con modifier).

Thus a Fighter with 18 con will have: 18 hp + (1d10 (min 4)) Average = 6.1
Level 1= 24.1 hp Average
Lvl 9 = 72.9 hp Average

Now sure a Hill dwarf fighter (like in the playtest) has a higher Hit Die, so guess maybe that was already included?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:48 pm

The HillDwarf Fighter sample has a d12 hit die. As such, with a Con of 16, they'd pass through the 10 hit points a level mark at level 5. With a Con of 18, they'd pass through the 10 hit points a level mark at level 6.

-Username17

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:14 pm

Maybe I didn't state it clearly in my previous post.
Fighters have a d10 Hit Die.
HillDwarf increases it by one step to d12 Hit Die.

The original post was talking about fighters in general and not Hill Dwarf fighters.

But besides than that your new Math is correct.

Edit:

I can't believe they actually have a NA-only Hotline out there for this tiny ruleset. Is there standard answer going to be, let the DM make something up?

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:27 pm

How do all these DM-is-God fappers supposedly have all these people lining up for their games?

MisterDee · Post by **MisterDee** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:46 pm

Bah - it's just wankery.

The online RPGing community is made up of mostly DMs who like to pretend that they're great storycrafters. I was one of them too - it's just that with a bit of maturity you realize that 1-your stories aren't that great, they're just passably good ideas held together by clichés and lack of scrutiny by your players; and 2-it doesn't really fucking matter, because those guys at the table are your buddies and they're not here for your awesome narrative talents, they're here to spend time with you and the other dudes around the table. Or to steal your beer and pizza I guess. Whichever works.

IMO, if you polled all the players, as opposed to the self-selecting group that hangs out on gaming forums, you'd find out that a great majority of them just show up to roll the dice, and the story ends when the session ends. These guys aren't interested in your big overarching, season-long metaplot: they sorta care about going into the fucking castle, they really care about slaying the motherfucking dragon, and they don't give a flying fuck about the fucking princess and the bump from "polite" to "friendly" on the King's I-like-the-PCs-that-much slider.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:47 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:The HillDwarf Fighter sample has a d12 hit die. As such, with a Con of 16, they'd pass through the 10 hit points a level mark at level 5. With a Con of 18, they'd pass through the 10 hit points a level mark at level 6.

-Username17

Yeah even with 20 con, the hit points of a d12 hd character is 166 at level 20. And characters will never get beyond 20 con so...

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Sat Jun 09, 2012 5:01 am

No, my responses come with the assumption that the game is actually balanced (and you're also assuming that spellcasting is cool, and well, I would disagree--I dislike the aesthetics of spellcasting and will always choose a non-caster PC if possible).

A 3rd edition fighter has to be given permission to be cool, because spell casters could basically do everything better in every way.

If spells do not turn out like that (I fear they well, but I'm remaining hopeful that they won't), and the spells are actually balanced against the sorts of things non-casters can do as I believe is the case in the current (albeit 3 level) playtest, then I don't feel like the Fighter needs something like Tome of Battle Maneuvers or whatever to make them work.

Just look at the Cleric of Moradin--I mean, it's pretty clear to me that in 3.X, he would be a CoDzilla. In Next, though, even though he basically puts all his effort into being a good fighter, he's not as good as the Fighter--no buffs, at least so far, equal what the Fighter gets from just being awesome.

Now, don't get me wrong--I have no issue with adding later, a Warblade--hell, make it identical to the one from Tome of Battle for all I care. But don't abandon the Fighter as he currently is.

I mean, I'm sorry, I don't want to look through a list of options before I act every turn--I want combat to go fast. I want to just react based on what's going on in the moment. If I have a shield and I'm fighting a guy near a cliff, I want to just, in a split second say, "I use my shield and shove him off the cliff." I don't want to be told, "Oh, no, that's Tide of Iron, and you didn't take that power." Or "ok, give me a second to look up the exact rule governing bullrushes." I just want to say, "I want to shove him off the cliff" and have the GM immediately fire back, "OK, roll X."

I also don't want to always know the outcome of my actions. For example, the power "Come and get it!" from 4e--now, I'm not making the "standard complaint" about this power. I don't mind at all that it "mind controls" enemies--I just dislike that it basically metagames my taunting for me. My problem is that I don't have to figure out what taunt will get under their skin and make them hit me, it's just assumed my fighter knows and does it. I'd have a hell of a lot more fun just yelling insults until I get the right one that makes him flush with anger.

I want my improv-type actions to solve puzzles. Imagine you're playing a text based game and you're locked in a room with a stool, a bucket, a bookshelf full of books, etc.. I want to search around, figure things out, and generally solve the puzzle of how to escape the room. Having codified rules for things like charging or disarming or taunting or whatever is like having only a single button in the above game called "the escape from room button."

rasmuswagner · Post by **rasmuswagner** » Sat Jun 09, 2012 5:11 am

I want my improv-type actions to solve puzzles. Imagine you're playing a text based game and you're locked in a room with a stool, a bucket, a bookshelf full of books, etc.. I want to search around, figure things out, and generally solve the puzzle of how to escape the room. Having codified rules for things like charging or disarming or taunting or whatever is like having only a single button in the above game called "the escape from room button."

This shit is UNBELIEVABLY stupid.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:28 pm

...he does realize that in a puzzle game, you have a set of actions predetermined by the game, right? You can't push the make shit up button.

K · Post by K » Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:28 pm

MisterDee wrote:Bah - it's just wankery.

The online RPGing community is made up of mostly DMs who like to pretend that they're great storycrafters. I was one of them too - it's just that with a bit of maturity you realize that 1-your stories aren't that great, they're just passably good ideas held together by clichés and lack of scrutiny by your players; and 2-it doesn't really fucking matter, because those guys at the table are your buddies and they're not here for your awesome narrative talents, they're here to spend time with you and the other dudes around the table. Or to steal your beer and pizza I guess. Whichever works.

IMO, if you polled all the players, as opposed to the self-selecting group that hangs out on gaming forums, you'd find out that a great majority of them just show up to roll the dice, and the story ends when the session ends. These guys aren't interested in your big overarching, season-long metaplot: they sorta care about going into the fucking castle, they really care about slaying the motherfucking dragon, and they don't give a flying fuck about the fucking princess and the bump from "polite" to "friendly" on the King's I-like-the-PCs-that-much slider.

Basically. For most people, an adventure is a map and monster list

Everything else should be improvised. Heck, the map and the monster list can be improvised if you really get down to it.

That's why I never understand the the whole "I spend hours preparing every week" mentality. They must know that 99% of that work is not going to even be presented to players over the course of the adventure, but still they insist on pretending that it's valuable work for which they should be worshiped.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:53 pm

I spend hours typing up and illustrating the campaign chronicle (usually 2-3 hours), but that's not the same.

Winnah · Post by **Winnah** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 12:12 am

There is a big difference between being able to run a satisfying game and being surrounded by lazy fucking players who refuse to run a game.

DMing does take a little work, but a lot of what makes for a good game comes from player participation, whether is it keeping a campaign journal, instigating plots or just goofing around in character.

My best games were certainly not a result of me bestowing some incredible storycrafting on the guys I play with. I consider a game a success if I can engage the majority of the players. When that happens, it is not something I can take 100% of the credit for.