D&DNext: Playtest Review

[deaddmwalking]

Regarding the article on 'Fighter's getting Special Maneuver Dice', I don't care for the idea as being excessively gamist. I don't like playing with 'chits' when activating character abilities... But I can see why it might appeal to others. What bothers me more is that he suggested a Fighter with a shield might use these dice to 'reduce damage' or 'negate a hit'. I can't think of many situations where one isn't entirely better than the other - and that one is usually going to be 'negate a hit'. This is one of those things where they talk about 'adding options', but it really sounds like they're making one option so good that nobody ever chooses any of the other options available, so it's not really a choice...

Regarding Monster Design, it sounds to me like they're fully committed to 'exception' design. Basically they figure out what they want a monster to do, than make up stats that 'fit'. So some giants might have a +4 to hit, some might have a +10 to hit, and it's going to be predicated on what 'feels right', rather than any kind of balanced system....

If I've learned anything from the 3.5, such a system works better for them because they can't get the simple math right, anyways. If you know that a particular monster is supposed to have a +3/4s BAB, you can determine if it's wrong... But if they just have a magical +8 attack bonus that's not built on anything else, it can't be 'wrong' - it's just what the designers went with....

[Emerald]

What bothers me more is that he suggested a Fighter with a shield might use these dice to 'reduce damage' or 'negate a hit'. I can't think of many situations where one isn't entirely better than the other - and that one is usually going to be 'negate a hit'. This is one of those things where they talk about 'adding options', but it really sounds like they're making one option so good that nobody ever chooses any of the other options available, so it's not really a choice...

They wouldn't necessarily have to implement strictly superior options. The "negate an attack" option might cost an action where the "reduce damage" option doesn't, or cost a lot more dice than reducing damage, or might have different capabilities (e.g. you could reduce an AoE's damage as well as a single attack, but not negate an AoE), or other differences. Not to say that WotC wouldn't screw things up as usual, but I'm willing to give them a chance with this because this proposed idea isn't as moronic as some of their other ideas.

[Josh_Kablack]

Or they could in theory have 4e style attacks that still deal damage on a miss or 3e style damaging spells that aren't "attacks" so "reduce damage" would be usable in situations where "negate an attack" wouldn't be.

But they have shown me nothing so far to make me inspire confidence that any of those or other scenarios which would make it a plausible choice will actually make it into the design - so I will go right on with my assumption of incompetence.

[CapnTthePirateG]

http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/bl ... dd_next_qa

Sigh. So you can either pick from 4e's bs way of making NPCs, or use a different way which may or may not make NPCs look like PCs.

The stupid continues.

[Duke Flauros]

http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/bl ... dd_next_qa

Sigh. So you can either pick from 4e's bs way of making NPCs, or use a different way which may or may not make NPCs look like PCs.

The stupid continues.

"The guidelines for designing monsters should work the same way when designing enemy NPCs."

Well, he got something right at least.

"In those cases, what we’ll likely do is allow the DM to build the NPC, then provide guidelines for comparing the end result of that character creation system to our expected values in the monster design system, then derive the NPC’s XP value from that."

So close, and yet so far.

[CapnTthePirateG]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20120806

GAAAH! What are these priorities? These are stupid. Was there a big need for 8 Wisdom rogues? And doesn't skill training give you a bonus in the skill? WHY IS THIS DESIGN SO SHITTY ARRGH I WANT TO SMASH SOMETHING.

But they addressed most of the key issues. Like giving fighters shitty options, and making crits "more dramatic." Also, less hit points, but same healing. Ok. Sure. Whatever.

Arrgh.

[ishy]

Lots of people were complaining about the rogue with 8 wisdom being terrible at trapfinding. So they looked at it and tried to fix that specific complaint without checking if there was a more general issue with their skill system.

[sabs]

So, I have a question.
How does that work with multiclassing? Or do I just take 1 level of rogue? Get a +3 to all skills, where my stat modifier is lower?

[MisterDee]

So, I have a question.
How does that work with multiclassing? Or do I just take 1 level of rogue? Get a +3 to all skills, where my stat modifier is lower?

Heh. It might be a way to ensure that there will at least be one person with one level of rogue. It's a fairly decent low-level ability for D&D, after all.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Lots of people were complaining about the rogue with 8 wisdom being terrible at trapfinding. So they looked at it and tried to fix that specific complaint without checking if there was a more general issue with their skill system.

I saw that. Believe me, I saw that. But as you pointed out, it's a crappy sport-fix rather than an actually good fix.

I can't wait to see what happens when people start failing strength saves...

[Voss]

http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/bl ... dd_next_qa

Sigh. So you can either pick from 4e's bs way of making NPCs, or use a different way which may or may not make NPCs look like PCs.

The stupid continues.

"The guidelines for designing monsters should work the same way when designing enemy NPCs."

Well, he got something right at least.

"In those cases, what we’ll likely do is allow the DM to build the NPC, then provide guidelines for comparing the end result of that character creation system to our expected values in the monster design system, then derive the NPC’s XP value from that."

So close, and yet so far.

Actually, the second quote almost seems sane (because you should design to the npc's abilities, not to an xp value), but the top sounds fucking terrible. NPCs should be designed like PCs, not their bizarrely arbitray monster rules. Though I'm not sure why you think the second is a mistake anyway, since if they _are_ built like mosnters working them into 'monster design system' shouldn't even be an issue. If they're using the same system, it shouldn't be possible to diverge significantly.


As for rogues... wow. The main problem with the class was its thing of being a pile of really boring exceptions from the normal rules that actually didn't help.

But anyway, I'm trying to remember how skills work for everyone else. Isn't it skill mod + attribute mod? The way they worded the rogue ability in that article it sounds like they must choose, so will always be behind (so even for skills where they had +3 skill and +3 stat, they'd only have a +3, not +6). Admittedly I could be confused about that, but this sesems really backwards, and not just because it is a spot-fix for a single class.

[CapnTthePirateG]

A five-second look at the playtest indicates that the skills are stat+skill mode, so yeah, Mearls sucks.

[Voss]

Thought so, but couldn't check it at the moment.

Anyway, any theories on the 'tactical rules and narrative rules being on backburner?' What does that even leave for them to do? What are they working on?

[Seerow]

A five-second look at the playtest indicates that the skills are stat+skill mode, so yeah, Mearls sucks.

The most common interpretation I've seen is that the new rogue ability lets you take +3 as your ability mod for a trained skill, unless your ability mod is higher.

So being trained in perception means you get +3 (ability) + 3 (training), for a total of +6, even if you have a -1 wisdom modifier.

[Duke Flauros]

Actually, the second quote almost seems sane (because you should design to the npc's abilities, not to an xp value), but the top sounds fucking terrible. NPCs should be designed like PCs, not their bizarrely arbitray monster rules. Though I'm not sure why you think the second is a mistake anyway, since if they _are_ built like mosnters working them into 'monster design system' shouldn't even be an issue. If they're using the same system, it shouldn't be possible to diverge significantly.

I thought he meant that NPC's, PC's, and monsters would all use the same chargen system. I mean, that would be the most logical thing to do. Oh, wait, I assumed that the WOTC designers would take the most logical route. My bad.

The most common interpretation I've seen is that the new rogue ability lets you take +3 as your ability mod for a trained skill, unless your ability mod is higher.

So being trained in perception means you get +3 (ability) + 3 (training), for a total of +6, even if you have a -1 wisdom modifier.

Second, we’ve given the rogue the ability to use the higher of either a +3 bonus or an ability score modifier when using a skill in which the rogue is trained. This simple change reflects that a rogue’s expertise transcends natural talent. It also means that we can have Wisdom 8 rogues who are good at finding traps.

So the WIS 18 cleric is still a better trapfinder than the WIS 8 rogue.

[ishy]

I thought he meant that NPC's, PC's, and monsters would all use the same chargen system. I mean, that would be the most logical thing to do. Oh, wait, I assumed that the WOTC designers would take the most logical route. My bad.

I wouldn't say that would be logical, sometimes I'd want monsters to have special abilities that I don't want PCs to be able to get.
If for example the players all gain wish as a SLA it surely does change the game (Yes I know you can planar bind them)

[Duke Flauros]

I wouldn't say that would be logical, sometimes I'd want monsters to have special abilities that I don't want PCs to be able to get.
If for example the players all gain wish as a SLA it surely does change the game (Yes I know you can planar bind them)

Perhaps "the same chargen system" was the wrong wording, but I initially assumed that what what he was trying to say was that characters/npcs of an equal level would use the same calculations (monsters aren't made of arbitrarium) and would be roughly comparable in power.

[tussock]

What in the buggery fuck is the point in stat mods if they're going to ignore the stat mods 90% of the time? The whole fucking concept was to base everything on the stats, to not have extra layers of abstraction filling up your character sheet. Then it was stat mods again, now it's +3 or stat mod, whichever's bigger.

What people want seems to be that when the Rogue walks out front far enough he is stealthy, and if he walks slowly enough he can find the traps. If the climb's short enough he can climb it. etc. If Mike doesn't want Rogues failing things, he shouldn't use a fucking failure chance in the first place. But once there is a failure chance? USE THE FUCKING SAVING THROWS.

Meh, whatever. 4e all over again. Sooooooo disappointing.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Looking back at 5E prediction threads on here that are older than a year, I'm surprised by and at how completely off our predictions are. Especially mine. I probably shouldn't have so much confidence in my ability to prognosticate D&D since pretty much every one of my pre-2012 predictions about 5E were totally wrong.

But let's be fair; I and almost no one else for that matter had no idea that the direction that they were going to take for 5E D&D was 'shitty 2E D&D retroclone with 4E bits stapled on it'.

[Korgan0]

Looking back at 5E prediction threads on here that are older than a year, I'm surprised by and at how completely off our predictions are. Especially mine. I probably shouldn't have so much confidence in my ability to prognosticate D&D since pretty much every one of my pre-2012 predictions about 5E were totally wrong.

But let's be fair; I and almost no one else for that matter had no idea that the direction that they were going to take for 5E D&D was 'shitty 2E D&D retroclone with 4E bits stapled on it'.

I think you're being overly optimistic in assuming they have a direction at all, instead of frantically piling on whatever they think will get the increasingly jaded fanbase to look up from their frenzied wanking and take notice.

[Voss]

What people want seems to be that when the Rogue walks out front far enough he is stealthy, and if he walks slowly enough he can find the traps. If the climb's short enough he can climb it. etc.

Don't be ridiculous. If the rogue is out front, there is nothing to hide behind, so he _can't_ be stealthy. The rogue has to check for traps from behind the fighter. And be a halfling, to allow hiding behind party members at all.

[Seerow]

The most common interpretation I've seen is that the new rogue ability lets you take +3 as your ability mod for a trained skill, unless your ability mod is higher.

So being trained in perception means you get +3 (ability) + 3 (training), for a total of +6, even if you have a -1 wisdom modifier.

Second, we’ve given the rogue the ability to use the higher of either a +3 bonus or an ability score modifier when using a skill in which the rogue is trained. This simple change reflects that a rogue’s expertise transcends natural talent. It also means that we can have Wisdom 8 rogues who are good at finding traps.

So the WIS 18 cleric is still a better trapfinder than the WIS 8 rogue.

Only if the Wis 18 cleric is trained in trapfinding (or whatever the key skill for that is). And honestly, if he is... does anybody really care? The problem before was even trained the Rogue was sitting at a +2. If the rogue is sitting at a +6 while someone else has a whopping +7, is that really something to get up in arms about?


Mind you I still think the whole skill system and bounded accuracy is completely retarded, but I'm not worried about the Cleric having a slightly higher perception bonus.

[Korwin]

Didn't they say you could bullshit another Attribute for your checks if you wanted in 5e or am I confusing it with another game or did they backtrack?

[Voss]

I don't think that was the point.
It isn't entirely clear how it works, but what it comes down to is that as a rogue who is theoretically skilled in trapfinding (as in this is one of three things he can do well) is going to have a bonus that is likely to be either +3 or +6, depending on how the weird rogue exception exactly works.

The problem is that a cleric is just inherently going to be marginally better or slightly worse just by existing*, to the point that the only thing that really matters is the die roll. The whole thing makes skill training fairly pointless, and ultimately what it comes down to is one more reason why the 5e rogue is completely useless. Having a worthless class from the get-go is pretty much a reflection of terrible design.

The answer to 'how do you find traps in 5e' isn't 'have someone trained in trapfinding,' it is 'have multiple characters in the party with decent wisdom scores, because multiple d20 rolls are statistically better than a 10% difference on a single roll.'


*Assuming the cleric can't stack skill bonuses on himself, which I believe he can

[sabs]

Like a friend of mine said:
The problem with D&D is that D20 is just too big a variance. Your bonuses are much less significant, than if you tend to roll well or badly at dice.

I mean, we did stat creation with 5d6I
my first set of stats the highest score was a 13, I basically had 9's and 12's.
Someone else, his lowest stat was a 15.

With variances that big, it's hard to compete if you just.. tend to roll badly.