D&DNext: Playtest Review

[deaddmwalking]

Clearly if you try to do something that anyone could do in real life, it's fine, unless you want rules for it. That makes you a special snowflake.

[Cyberzombie]

as long as the thief exists as a class in D&D then it will be designed for sneaky-sneak tactics as "rogue" group or class exists to make that the schtick. you would have to remove it from the game and design a way for the other classes to do it if you want something other than the wizard using magic. literally design some kind of sneak mechanic for all classes to use. otherwise well the thief exists to sneak and does it best.

So apparently, the fighter is the only class that should get an attack roll mechanic because he makes melee attacks the best?

[nockermensch]

Clearly if you try to do something that anyone could do in real life, it's fine, unless you want rules for it. That makes you a special snowflake.

Thus Gygaxian DMing, where the players have to describe what their characters are trying to do in minute detail, and the DM makes an instant ruling based on common sensesomething he saw on a movie, once.

[Schleiermacher]

You guys aren't reading Shadzar in good faith.

He's saying that the Thief class in AD&D is self-justifying and that as long as it exists and has "Move Silently: 15%" as one of its class features, other people cannot be allowed to successfully sneak at all, probably excepting circumstances where the DM wouldn't ask for a check anyway, because if a Figther or Wizard has even a 5% chance to do those things in addition to their actual class features, then you're stepping all over the entire reason why the Thief exists. If you aren't willing to accept that level of archetype-based restrictions, you shouldn't play a game where there's a class called Thief whose only claim to fame is that he has those skills.

But he's also saying that this state of affairs is stupid and it'd be better to have no Thief class and let everyone sneak.

Of course, even if you do that, you still need some kind of stealth mechanic, so I'm not really sure why the class role digression became so big in the first place.

[shadzar]

Of course, even if you do that, you still need some kind of stealth mechanic, so I'm not really sure why the class role digression became so big in the first place.

you arent the only one. with fighting man, magic-user, and cleric you have everything covered so why have ANY other classes?

fighting man = best with weapons
magic-user = best with arcane
cleric = best with divine favor

what more is there really? why was the thief created to emulate Bilbo Baggins except to fight back at Tolkien when Nazgul, Hobbits and Ents had to be "removed" from the game? why was a class needed to be "best at sneaking/stealing"?

from a miniature game to an RPG, the classes were designed around combat, and every mode of combat is included in the three above and EVERY other class is just a permutation of those three in varying degrees.

the thief class is as bad as 4th edition roles of "defender", "striker", "controller" and "leader".

all i can think is the Conan movie spurred the thief class, though Conan was still just a fighter who stole shit. not to mention he was a sellsword while doing it, which is just a fighter.

all you need are those three combat types and then a system to support them to do anything else from sneaking to diplomatic negotiations, etc that can be done by any of them not jsut the one designed for in the game.

when that game comes out with a decent system it will eclipse D&D and any of its clones on the market...which is pretty much every damn RPG out there.

[Voss]

arcane and divine aren't 'combat types' They aren't even meaningful descriptions of anything. They're pure flavor for magical background description (not even subsystems, which is why they have so much shit in common).

the thief class is as bad as 4th edition roles of "defender", "striker", "controller" and "leader".

Yes, it is, because those roles were present in prototypical form (though not clearly elucidated as such) all the way back to the beginning.
Thieves were damage guys [strikers], clerics were healers/buffers (leaders), fighters were meat shields (defenders) and reliable damage, and M-Us were a combo of damage (fireball and the like) and control (sleep and the like).

That they made them explicit and limited in 4e was annoying, but it was a poor development of concepts that were already in play, and had been for years, from D&D, further defined and made more rigid in MMOs and then ported back to D&D.
A second edition rogue was just as limited and stupid as a 4th edition rogue, and unfortunately the more interesting classes were downgraded to or sometimes even below their 2nd edition counterparts after having a lot of freedom in 3rd.

[shadzar]

you completely miss the point with your second part on roles, and as for the first, you need to play some miniature wargames to understand what "combat type" means in the context in which it is being used.

or you could play LoL and learn both of these things and see what a "combat type" is by AD or AP, and roles as carry, jungle, etc....

[Voss]

Oh, good, the classic shadzar argument of 'you're wrong because I say so.'

Arcane and divine could be replaced with Evocation and Transubstantiation, or Wizardry and Mysticism or any number of vaguely 'magic' terms you care to use. They're fluff and mean nothing. What they did in game matters and that was primarily damage/control and enhancement/healing. Or you could just take the 4e route and cop to it.

[shadzar]

i have said in the past there need only be two classes, caster and non-caster. search this forum for it. but for those wanting the diversity what WAS done, doesnt mean it was done right for all occasions, ergo the problem with the thief existing. they are different and were from a miniature wargame standpoint. have you ever played any real miniature wargame? not DDM or a Clix game, but a real one?

[RadiantPhoenix]

i have said in the past there need only be two classes, caster and non-caster.

And non-caster would suck, so then you'd have only one class, and you'd suddenly be in free-form mode like classless games.

[shadzar]

no, you just cant say what would or would not be without single a two class D&D in effect. having only two classes might mean the non-caster has less options to do some things or no options to natively do some things, but it means more cooperation is required than most modern gamers put into it in their competitive D&D gaming.

[Voss]

i have said in the past there need only be two classes, caster and non-caster. search this forum for it. but for those wanting the diversity what WAS done, doesnt mean it was done right for all occasions, ergo the problem with the thief existing. they are different and were from a miniature wargame standpoint. have you ever played any real miniature wargame? not DDM or a Clix game, but a real one?

Quite a few. And whatever you're trying to babble about isn't even vaguely apparent.

[Dean]

Stop talking to him

[shadzar]

it SHOULD be that the thief class isnt needed and that everyone can do MOST of his stuff commonly as per adventuring requires: sneaking, climbing, removing traps, etc. these are things that would need to be done by anyone.

. http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20130916 .

In the last D&D Next playtest packet, we took a stab at removing skills from the game.
[*]Emphasize the abilities as the centerpiece of the game. Abilities have replaced skills as the primary tool characters use to attempt checks.
[*]*Skills are great for customizing a character, but too heavy an emphasis (especially a focus on steadily inflating bonuses and DCs) turns them into a list of what you can and cannot attempt.

[*]Streamline the game by removing specific rules from skills and placing them in the core game. Rather than have rules for climbing determined by a Climb skill, the game instead includes climbing as one way to move among others.

ok Mike, fess up. Who are you. you must be lurking these forums at least and taking shit directly form my posts.

in the case of taking my fix and applying it to DDN as you see fit, it is time for it to be said: Fuck you, pay me!

what purpose do you think ability scores existed in the first place? EVERY fucking thing that built on them was jsut making the system obese with modifiers and rules bloat.

now wait for those people that cant decide whether to use STR or DEX when trying to catch yourself after slipping over the edge of a cliff to start bitching about not being able to pick between SIX ability scores to apply what works best with the group of people you are playing with for the night.

[rasmuswagner]

ok Mike, fess up. Who are you. you must be lurking these forums at least and taking shit directly form my posts.

in the case of taking my fix and applying it to DDN as you see fit, it is time for it to be said: Fuck you, pay me!

This...this explains everything. It's so clear now!

[...You Lost Me]

ok Mike, fess up. Who are you. you must be lurking these forums at least and taking shit directly form my posts.

Best post all day.

[Previn]

For those with shadzar on ignore, new Mearls L&L article: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20130916

High lights:
- Expertise Dice for skills are bad (duh)
- 'Proficiency' bonuses from +2 to +6
- Expertise gives +5 on top of proficiency
- Don't want you to have to have a skill to do something

Wait, what?

Let's napkin math this out: 2nd level rogue. 16 dex. Expertise in thieves tools, proficient in thieves tools. Total check: d20+10. Results between 11 and 30.

I'm to expect a 2nd level fighter with a 12 dex to make a d20+1 check and have a meaningful chance of succeeding at finding and disabling a trap?

[zugschef]

I'm to expect a 2nd level fighter with a 12 dex to make a d20+1 check and have a meaningful chance of succeeding at finding and disabling a trap?

Yes, because if you roll over 15 you succeed and if you roll below 10 you fail. No matter which modifiers come with the attempt.

[Voss]

Wow, people didn't like the randomness of relying of two dice to hit an ridiculously high DC because it 'bred only disappointment? Who'd have thunk it?

Hmm. With the exception of the whopping expert bonus being restricted to certain classes, this is almost functional. If the DCs are sane, anyway. Which I expect they won't be (instead being tuned to experts), so it will fall apart anyway.

At the end of the day, skills aren't entirely optional, but our approach makes ignoring them fairly easy. I believe that while they do reside in the core of the game, we've made them simple enough to use that they benefit beginners by providing focus while keeping the abilities as the centerpiece of the game.

This still pisses me off. You don't design games solely for the benefit of beginners, because sooner or later they aren't, and they're going to want some depth. That isn't to say you make it crazy hard and opaque, but you're starting point shouldn't be 'for the morons!'

It pretty much puts the nail in the 'modular' idea, however. There is only one version, and people who find skills too difficult are just going to have to put up with it.

[Cyberzombie]

It pretty much puts the nail in the 'modular' idea, however. There is only one version, and people who find skills too difficult are just going to have to put up with it.

The modular idea has gradually died as D&DN went on. It started with some crazy thing with a minimalist no options character travelling with a guy with a giant character sheet of options. That idea (which was totally unfeasable) was dumped for a bunch of modules you can swap in and out that applied to the whole group.

Now we're back to One True Way to play D&D and if you don't like it, you can go suck a dick. Only we already have 3+ other ways to play D&D and this new one doesn't beat any of them other than 4E.

[shadzar]

10+

OD&D
BD&D (the permutations here are crazy)
RC
1st
1st w/Unearthed Arcana
2nd
2nd w/Player's Options
3.0
3.5
PF

the sklills are just going back to NWP idea. use them if you want, but they are optional. many people did use them, but for others they can just use the ability scores without having to track and record excess christmas lists of things. no matter how long some people play, they just don't all want that crap to deal with or to slow down the game looking up or figuring out, or setting a specific DC vs a specific skill when designing or running the game, etc.

it isnt all about handwaiving talking to the city guards and getting to the combat like Wyatt suggest in pre-4th commentary, but about handwaiving needless ruless that add nothing to the game really except having to track it and slow the game down so you MAY talk to the city guard if you so choose without having a lawyer and librarian with you to figure out all the little fiddly bits involved in just talking to people.

EDIT: fixed word transposition that was in error.

[RobbyPants]

no matter how long some people play, they jsut don't want all that crap to deal with or to slow down the game looking up or figuring out, or setting a specific DC vs a specific skill when designing or running the game, etc.

I do.

[deaddmwalking]

no matter how long some people play, they jsut don't want all that crap to deal with or to slow down the game looking up or figuring out, or setting a specific DC vs a specific skill when designing or running the game, etc.

I do.

Hear! Hear!

I do.

[Whatever]

Anecdotally, A.

But, anecdotally, ~A.

argh

[RadiantPhoenix]

Anecdotally, A.

But, anecdotally, ~A.

argh

It's not something that collapses logic or anything.
A(x1)⋀¬A(x2)

Code: Select all

$A\left(x_{1}\right)\land\lnot A\left(x_{2}\right)$