D&DNext: Playtest Review

FatR · Post by **FatR** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:07 am

CapnTthePirateG wrote:http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20120618

More Mearls monsters! In which low-level monsters smack high-level peeps, and solo critters have more abilities. Umm...okay.

I'm pretty sure than even in LotR mooks couldnt' touch tougher monsters, and a number of the latter were practically invulnerable to mundane weapons. So I don't know who's supposed to like this, except shit GMs.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:07 am

FatR wrote:
CapnTthePirateG wrote:http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20120618

More Mearls monsters! In which low-level monsters smack high-level peeps, and solo critters have more abilities. Umm...okay.
I'm pretty sure than even in LotR mooks couldnt' touch tougher monsters, and a number of the latter were practically invulnerable to mundane weapons. So I don't know who's supposed to like this, except shit GMs.

The entire concept of having dragons be incapable of being threats to villages is something that I cannot understand on any level. If the guards can handle a dragon attack, why the fuck am I here? The guards can handle it apparently, so they should probably just do that and not try to depend on "heroes" at all.

-Username17

FatR · Post by **FatR** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 pm

FrankTrollman wrote: The entire concept of having dragons be incapable of being threats to villages is something that I cannot understand on any level. If the guards can handle a dragon attack, why the fuck am I here? The guards can handle it apparently, so they should probably just do that and not try to depend on "heroes" at all.

Well, I suppose you still can hunt treasures to become personally rich or be Shadowrun-style thugs for hire. There is nothing wrong with playing like this. Except it is not DnD. I know that I'm repeating a typical argument of butthurt grognards here, but I seriously doubt that people come to DnD to play Dungeonrunners till the end of time. Particularly as systems for low-power fantasy adventuring alteady are dime a dozen, trying to improve balance or become more "realistic" by cutting off gonzo parts of DnD is the standard path for fantasy heartbreakers. If Savage Worlds (or, AFAIK, Legend) already is everything Next tries to be, why should anyone except brand slaves care about Next that much, even if the latter actually works?

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:53 pm

... but if you read those comments, fuck, it sounds like people are fapping with joy that heroes are as obsolete as dragons, and hordes of bland monsters. I know there were a few (far too few) well reasoned objections, but every time I read shit like, "I sometimes feel like Mearls is reading my mind, or at least my posts on forums..." I bleed tears of rage. And that shit just flows.

violence in the media · Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:46 pm

This seems somehow pertinent to this discussion.

Aryxbez · Post by **Aryxbez** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:47 pm

A great wyrm can attack the town and destroy it, but it still risks death if the town guard can turn catapults, ballistae, and massed crossbow fire against it.

Seriously?, I mean really now? an 1000++ yr old being of great power and might can just be punked by the Shire... Sounds like this model fails to tell even basic stories people associate with their D&D, hell Dark Sun starting to sound like a pretty decent place, considering none of those sorcerer-kings would be able to take out the city without a slave revolt ripping them to shreds. Or hell the Hobbit, where a Red Dragon apparently razed a city or plural, something, now he would've died horribly (at least I guess now have explanation how a single arrow could kill him../sarcasm).

God, least 4th edition had basic RNG where said dragon could just deflect the arrows off his hide for the most part. Now, have the actual chance of getting hit, this is like Superman getting defeated by the U.S. Army.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:48 pm

FatR wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote: The entire concept of having dragons be incapable of being threats to villages is something that I cannot understand on any level. If the guards can handle a dragon attack, why the fuck am I here? The guards can handle it apparently, so they should probably just do that and not try to depend on "heroes" at all.
Well, I suppose you still can hunt treasures to become personally rich or be Shadowrun-style thugs for hire. There is nothing wrong with playing like this. Except it is not DnD. I know that I'm repeating a typical argument of butthurt grognards here, but I seriously doubt that people come to DnD to play Dungeonrunners till the end of time. Particularly as systems for low-power fantasy adventuring alteady are dime a dozen, trying to improve balance or become more "realistic" by cutting off gonzo parts of DnD is the standard path for fantasy heartbreakers. If Savage Worlds (or, AFAIK, Legend) already is everything Next tries to be, why should anyone except brand slaves care about Next that much, even if the latter actually works?

Just want to comment Legend is nothing like what 5e is going for. Legend pretty much embraces the over the top-ness of high level characters. I mean can you imagine what the people who like what's being said of DDN would do if they were told Fighters would have an automatic 25ft reach and could fly using Athletics skill by high levels? It's not tome levels, but it embraces the feel of high level characters can do interesting stuff a lot better than most games out there.

FatR · Post by **FatR** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:22 pm

Seerow wrote: Just want to comment Legend is nothing like what 5e is going for. Legend pretty much embraces the over the top-ness of high level characters. I mean can you imagine what the people who like what's being said of DDN would do if they were told Fighters would have an automatic 25ft reach and could fly using Athletics skill by high levels? It's not tome levels, but it embraces the feel of high level characters can do interesting stuff a lot better than most games out there.

Thanks for the correction, looks like I got misinformed.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:28 pm

FatR wrote:There is nothing wrong with playing like this. Except it is not DnD. I know that I'm repeating a typical argument of butthurt grognards here

Actually, it reminds me a lot of 1st edition and BECMI, when Ancient Red Dragons topped out at 88 hp and bands of humanoids might prey on farms and caravans, but didn't attack towns directly. Though armies of humanoids could, but that is where the adventurers came up- culling the humanoid population so it didn't get to that point.

So it comes across as D&D to me, at least. One thing I never really liked about 3rd was that it generally revolved around a handful of opponents, and encounter design was often really predictable.

So I can get behind the idea that warbands don't attack towns and dragons don't attack armies, but only if you take those terms literally. I don't have a lot of faith that Mearls and company can pull it off successfully (particularly after the reddit text), but the idea behind the nonsense does appeal to me.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:38 pm

Well I'd be fine with it, if a red dragon landed in the middle of an army that she might not make it out alive.
But that is why a dragon can do strafing breath weapon runs and just retreat if she's ever at half hit points while she has just taken out half the army.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:38 pm

Seerow wrote:Just want to comment Legend is nothing like what 5e is going for. Legend pretty much embraces the over the top-ness of high level characters. I mean can you imagine what the people who like what's being said of DDN would do if they were told Fighters would have an automatic 25ft reach and could fly using Athletics skill by high levels? It's not tome levels, but it embraces the feel of high level characters can do interesting stuff a lot better than most games out there.

You are confused. Legend doesn't embrace the over the topness of high level characters. It actually completely shits on any and all over the topness. For god sakes, they think Evasion is overpowered.

What they do embrace is the hatred of DMFs. And that's fine and all, to give high level characters flight through the power of kicking their legs really hard is a rejection of DMF limitations. But remember how real characters could already fly at level 3-5? And all day at levels 6-7? Yeah, so flying is not over the topness.

The over the topness is something that Legend shits all over.

Aryxbez · Post by **Aryxbez** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:24 pm

ishy wrote:Well I'd be fine with it, if a red dragon landed in the middle of an army that she might not make it out alive.

Voss wrote: Actually, it reminds me a lot of 1st edition and BECMI, when Ancient Red Dragons topped out at 88 hp and bands of humanoids might prey on farms and caravans, but didn't attack towns directly. Though armies of humanoids could, but that is where the adventurers came up- culling the humanoid population so it didn't get to that point.

So I can get behind the idea that warbands don't attack towns and dragons don't attack armies,

Keep in mind this is a GREAT WYRM Dragon of some kind, not sure if that matters in the sense of legacy context, but it is certainly a 1000yr old being of incalculable intellect and cosmic magical power. So on both those points, this dragon would probably be like the final boss of a game, and yet it can be punked by some town? Hell, I think even Great Dragons in Shadowrun can do more damage than it sounds they could before going out (least that has the understandable notion of big bullets, bombs, and other such being tossed around at em). So I find it absurd that such an endgame monster could be thwarted with such a mundane solution, wouldn't even be of need for the heroes to "save the world" because they can just teleport the Army in, and bam, crisis averted.

Even think to say this is bit different from the Tome "Book of War" interpretation on giant creatures, since at least I'd assume there were some higher level than 5th level/CR in this case teaming up in mass armies to take down these beasts.

sake · Post by **sake** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:29 pm

I'd be incredibly happy if they reduced the importance of those goddamn overfetishized magic flying dinosaurs to where they're little more than minor annoyances easily dispatched by local hunters/town pest control... but somehow I suspect that's not quite what Mearls was going for.

malak · Post by **malak** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:00 pm

Aryxbez wrote:Keep in mind this is a GREAT WYRM Dragon of some kind, not sure if that matters in the sense of legacy context, but it is certainly a 1000yr old being of incalculable intellect and cosmic magical power. So on both those points, this dragon would probably be like the final boss of a game, and yet it can be punked by some town?

But you forget that they said they'd do the scaling with hit point inflation.

So during the 100 or so rounds until the meager commoners grind the dragon to 0 hit points, he gets to kill one or two of them each round.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:11 pm

Aryxbez wrote: Keep in mind this is a GREAT WYRM Dragon of some kind, not sure if that matters in the sense of legacy context, but it is certainly a 1000yr old being of incalculable intellect and cosmic magical power. So on both those points, this dragon would probably be like the final boss of a game, and yet it can be punked by some town? Hell, I think even Great Dragons in Shadowrun can do more damage than it sounds they could before going out (least that has the understandable notion of big bullets, bombs, and other such being tossed around at em). So I find it absurd that such an endgame monster could be thwarted with such a mundane solution, wouldn't even be of need for the heroes to "save the world" because they can just teleport the Army in, and bam, crisis averted.

Meh. 'Save the world' is boring story anyway (yeah, yeah. I just find world spanning threats really fucking contrived and stories and characters are much more interesting on the regional/local level. Whoever first using the term 'epic' to sell computer games and movies needs to be punched in the crotch), and 'final bosses' are fucking stupid concept.

I'm just trying to find the 'not D&D' aspect to the whole thing. As I said, in the earlier editions, this fits in quite well, 4th didn't allow this sort of interaction at all, and 2nd and 3rd pretty much had the 'well, every town has a pocket Elminster' to deal with this sort of shit.

It has never really been an issue that the town _couldn't_ deal with outside threats, it was just cheaper and safer to push a half-dozen murder hobos out of the gates. If the win, the threat is gone, and they come back and shove a bunch of money into the economy. If they die, well, they were a bunch of unpredictably dangerous fuckers, and they were starting to get uncomfortable ideas about the basic power arrangements in town anyway.

ModelCitizen · Post by **ModelCitizen** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:49 am

That last point has doubtlessly raised some eyebrows. One of my favorite pieces of 4th Edition was its approach to the humanoid monsters. They felt distinct not only in terms of story and place in the world, but also in how they played during combat. Goblins skittered away from the characters, gnolls swarmed in hungry packs, and so forth.

Rather than make special abilities a feature of every creature, we're instead moving those abilities to chieftains, shamans, and other leaders. A group of gnolls without a leader fights using rudimentary tactics. With a shaman chanting blasphemous prayers to Yeenoghu, the gnolls attack with a demonic ferocity. They swarm like a rabid pack of beasts, working together to bring down the characters with fang and claw. Take a look at our reasons for deciding on this approach.

Those tactical racial abilities from 4e were pretty OK. All goblins have Goblin Tactics as one of their racials, all kobolds have Shifty, PCs can get those by playing a goblin or a kobold. Great. The shittiness of 4e monsters shows up when a PC can't have the abilities a Goblin Hexer has, because it's built out of "exception based design" instead of options available to PCs.

So Mearls's solution is to get rid of Goblin Tactics and make it an aura around the Goblin Hexer. Ugh.

Aryxbez · Post by **Aryxbez** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:24 am

Voss wrote: Meh. 'Save the world' is boring story anyway (yeah, yeah. I just find world spanning threats really fucking contrived and stories and characters are much more interesting on the regional/local level. Whoever first using the term 'epic' to sell computer games and movies needs to be punched in the crotch), and 'final bosses' are fucking stupid concept.

It has never really been an issue that the town _couldn't_ deal with outside threats, it was just cheaper and safer to push a half-dozen murder hobos out of the gates. If the win, the threat is gone, and they come back and shove a bunch of money into the economy. If they die, well, they were a bunch of unpredictably dangerous fuckers, and they were starting to get uncomfortable ideas about the basic power arrangements in town anyway.

I agree to the word "epic" being overly used nowadays in both regular speech and advertising to diminish its actual meaning. However I am rather curious as to why you feel that way toward the idea of "Final Bosses". Since any last encounter, which is presumably hard, could be considered said concept. Even the trope dungeon where you go into some rooms, kill some kobolds, goblinoids, orcs, and finally a dragon, then ending the game, never to be played again (one shot or whatever). That said dragon could be considered a "final boss", it could even be something less spectacular, like a Goblin King, or simply a Bugbear mastermind and his Ogre Body guards, which the campaign ends on. Also partly why I call it "endgame" is that said Great Wyrm dragon usually one of the highest CR creatures in the game (I think the actual highest is a Solar Angel in 3.5 MM?).

As even disregarding the bit of "saving....the world!", since just an obvious example which heroes are mostly used. Could include to instead "protect the local civilization that matters in this campaign", or where the threat in question won't destroy the world necessarily, but certainly make the area that matters in the world rather displeasing place to be. However made worse in that the PC's supposedly wouldn't be needed, since the world has it taken care of, it's like the worst of what Shadzar has desired, combined with a Faerun without the fancy high level effects budget!

Oddly enough, the last comment kinda makes me think of Wizardry type of games, least the for one for the PS2, not entirely sure why...

ModelCitizen wrote: Those tactical racial abilities from 4e were pretty OK. All goblins have Goblin Tactics as one of their racials, all kobolds have Shifty, PCs can get those by playing a goblin or a kobold. Great. The shittiness of 4e monsters shows up when a PC can't have the abilities a Goblin Hexer has, because it's built out of "exception based design" instead of options available to PCs.

Well I would say the 4th edition races were a bit more exciting in giving unique abilities it seemed. Imagine be better if weren't constrained to set two ability scores, and instead allow PC's to choose. From what I skimmed, heard the hexer was "bad design", and I can see it had quite a bit of reaction abilities wouldn't all get to use, otherwise really been big deal to have one of its abilities, or even the Kobold glue sling attacks? (among other random monsters) After all, having 15 kinds of Trample is just bad, but monsters should be entitled to unique abilities that PC's just can't necessarily I think, why is that important to people?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:00 am

I am super confused. Earlier editions of D&D handed out DR/magic shit and super immunities and was absolutely full to the brim with "you must be this cool to ride" monsters. There are tons of low-mid level threats which could level a town by virtue of having the feature "absolutely and totally immune to mundanity." Now, you may not realize that as a player because by the time you fight those things you have the tools to overcome those immunities. But actual mundane low-level NPC's do not have those tools, and automaticaly lose basically no matter what quantity you have.

ModelCitizen · Post by **ModelCitizen** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:49 am

Aryxbez wrote: Well I would say the 4th edition races were a bit more exciting in giving unique abilities it seemed. Imagine be better if weren't constrained to set two ability scores, and instead allow PC's to choose. From what I skimmed, heard the hexer was "bad design", and I can see it had quite a bit of reaction abilities wouldn't all get to use, otherwise really been big deal to have one of its abilities, or even the Kobold glue sling attacks? (among other random monsters) After all, having 15 kinds of Trample is just bad, but monsters should be entitled to unique abilities that PC's just can't necessarily I think, why is that important to people?

I've heard 4e people complain about goblin hexers specifically, but I can't remember why and I doubt they have the same complaint I do. I'm just using it as an example of a typical humanoid Leader monster.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:24 am

ModelCitizen wrote:
I've heard 4e people complain about goblin hexers specifically, but I can't remember why and I doubt they have the same complaint I do. I'm just using it as an example of a typical humanoid Leader monster.

The 4rry complaint is that the hexer has magic "fuck you" RNG adjusting hexes that screw the math up and make the PCs suck hard. It gets to drop a cloud on melee that gives the PCs a -2 to-hit and concealment to team monster. Those stack, so the PCs are really hurt very badly.

But the more general point that the goblin hexer is 275 words of crazy bullshit standalone abilities that aren't available to the PCs or even to other evil shamans is a much bigger deal to me. That "Vexing Cloud" happens to be one of the most powerful melee buffs in the game is kind of weird, but the primary piece of fuckery is that it's not a spell or a regular ability or anything, it's just a fucking weird bit of exception text that makes the Goblin Hexer different from all other characters, all other goblins, all other casters, and even all other monsters.

And Mearls is promising to bring back that fuckery. For everything. Fuck.

-Username17

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:17 am

Isn't similar fuckery in every edition of D&D? Like for example the medusa, who has a gaze attack to turn people into stone that is not available to any pc, though it to a few monsters (like a basilisk).

And on an unrelated note, refering to 4e non-design as exception based design pisses me off.
I see exception based design as general rule -> specific exception. Like for example the feats in 3.5 that stop you from provoking etc.
While the 4e monster design is more make stuff up.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:51 am

To a certain extent, it is a flavor thing. If this monster has melting touch because its arms are made out of molten stone, then nobody really expects to have that available. If somebody has melting touch because they're a fire cultist, then people start questioning why the fire-specialist mage - or the cleric of a forge deity, or the guy with fire elemental heritage - can't have that ability.

So yeah, it is from one perspective arbitrary. But from the other perspective, flavor is one of the main components that makes an RPG, and design that ignores the flavor is flawed.

Re: Expection Based Design. It's a pretty meaningless term, in how it's often used. In terms of "Specific rules trump general ones", I can't actually think of a game that doesn't work that way. In 4E, it does mainly seem to mean "we don't bother to see if similar abilities exist and unify them".

violence in the media · Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:19 pm

Aryxbez wrote:From what I skimmed, heard the hexer was "bad design", and I can see it had quite a bit of reaction abilities wouldn't all get to use, otherwise really been big deal to have one of its abilities, or even the Kobold glue sling attacks? (among other random monsters) After all, having 15 kinds of Trample is just bad, but monsters should be entitled to unique abilities that PC's just can't necessarily I think, why is that important to people?

It's important because this isn't the 1980s anymore. The assumption that everyone at the table will be playing some variety of the traditional fantasy races doesn't really hold true anymore. With humanoid creatures especially, when you put one in the MM you are going to have people that will want to play that creature. If that creature has a specific class or ability, PCs are going to rightfully wonder why they aren't allowed to learn that technique. In this specific case, we're not even talking about some obscure creature that nobody has ever heard of--it's a goblin. And it hexes people.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:40 pm

So I was wrong, it doesn't matter how many times you have advantage and disadvantage, you either have it or don't (or both which is the same as not having it)

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... 3/20120619

Oh and the rules apparently will have facing.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:09 pm

ishy wrote:Isn't similar fuckery in every edition of D&D? Like for example the medusa, who has a gaze attack to turn people into stone that is not available to any pc, though it to a few monsters (like a basilisk).

There's a difference between:
[*]"You can't play a PC medusa because all medusas have a gaze attack and I don't want to deal with that in my game."
and
[*]"You can play a PC goblin, and goblins can learn to become hexers, but your goblin can't become a hexer because he forgot to have the letter "N" tattooed next to the letters "PC" on his forehead."

ishy wrote:And on an unrelated note, refering to 4e non-design as exception based design pisses me off.

It doesn't piss me off, but it strikes me as a meaningless term 95% of the time. For instance, the guy on The Alexandrian blog posted a rant against exception-based design, and yet when it came time to write his own version of D&D, he seemed to slather it on with a trowel (from the bits I saw).