D&DNext: Playtest Review

[infected slut princess]

Oh fuck, rolled hit points are not that big of a deal compared to the far more serious problems. Those problems are 1) the core gaming system is basically arbitrary and based on blowing the DM, and 2) for the entire game you should be challenged by locked doors, pit traps, and the lowliest goblin out of the monster book.

---

Now I have another question: we speculated that the most powerful monsters would need 10,000 hit points, due to the fact that minotaurs had like 150 hit points. What is the latest update on monster hit points in 5e?

[Voss]

Pretty much, the entire thing is a wash, led by people as we know it, are going to run the entire thing into the ground. Why even the grognards in my area don't even know 5th edition is to be coming out at all! I'm just basically waiting for the game to fail, and see what comes of Fantasy RPG/D&D history as we know it from there.

Hrmm. I'd actually expect the grognards not to know. Looking for the latest, newest version isn't actually a thing grognards do. If they looked for new things, they might see something that would make the old thing they are so protective of seem worse.

[CapnTthePirateG]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20121015

So, um, more changes. Like people want a spellsword class (Really? In a fantasy game? Who'da thunk it?). Skills apparently need to fail more now, because DMs were getting frustrated that rogues could do stuff.

Also, the rogue is changed to rely more on skills. What's wrong with this?

Encounter spells return. Or something.

And the flavor of specialties changed, which is really important when you're testing the mechanics.

So how long till 6e comes out?

[tussock]

Spellsword should really be a multiclass, if the game is to have multiclassing at all. This is D&D after all, and Elves have been Fighter-Wizards since the start (or close enough).

I've gotten stuck on the idea that Rogue skills shouldn't fail at all unless they're doing something stupid. Like, just build Hide to be the distance you need from the observers to go invisible in shadows, Climb to be the speed you can safely climb at, tumble costs movement to ignore zones of control, .... Can I use scrolls without magic? Meh, that's kinda stupid, roll for it. Then again, in 3e it's just a level of Wizard, so don't bother.

Wait, are they building a 30 level game again? I suspect they are. That explains some of the slow advancement, like in BECMI/4e.

[hogarth]

They released another packet about a week ago and no fucks were given?

Personally, my interest ended immediately after looking at the first playtest document, at which point it became clear to me that it was going to be a typical mishmash of 3E and 4E, not the stripped-down modular game that they were yakking about for months. I mean, I was pretty sure that it was all puffery, but I just wanted to make sure.

My interest might revive slightly if and when they release a high level playtest, but I suspect that won't be for a long, long time (if ever).

[Mistborn]

They released another packet about a week ago and no fucks were given?

I've basically given up on seeing anything good come out of WotC's D&D as long as Mearls is running the show. The only scenario under which my hopes get raised is if Mearls gets the boot.

I really thought that on the tail end of 3.5 the the Dev. team was starting to get it. Was that just wishful thinking on my part?

[CapnTthePirateG]

They released another packet about a week ago and no fucks were given?

I've basically given up on seeing anything good come out of WotC's D&D as long as Mearls is running the show. The only scenario under which my hopes get raised is if Mearls gets the boot.

I really thought that on the tail end of 3.5 the the Dev. team was starting to get it. Was that just wishful thinking on my part?

See, all the people who were starting to get it got fired.

Also, 4e made it pretty clear that they didn't.

[Voss]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20121015

So, um, more changes. Like people want a spellsword class (Really? In a fantasy game? Who'da thunk it?). Skills apparently need to fail more now, because DMs were getting frustrated that rogues could do stuff.

Also, the rogue is changed to rely more on skills. What's wrong with this?

Encounter spells return. Or something.

And the flavor of specialties changed, which is really important when you're testing the mechanics.

So how long till 6e comes out?

It sounds like the just dumped half the game and started over. Which is pretty weird, since I'm pretty sure their timetable calls for a release next year.

The Trickster cleric has me laughing. The Dex/Wis cleric was pretty much the best thing already, so they are going to directly support it? And give it more things, like invisibility and shit? Awesome.

[ModelCitizen]

It sounds like the just dumped half the game and started over. Which is pretty weird, since I'm pretty sure their timetable calls for a release next year.

The Trickster cleric has me laughing. The Dex/Wis cleric was pretty much the best thing already, so they are going to directly support it? And give it more things, like invisibility and shit? Awesome.

Given how determined they are to make rogues suck all the dicks, I wholeheartedly support any build that can use stealth and is not a rogue. Although it's weird that it has to be a "trickster cleric" and not an "illusionist wizard." It casts spells so it's allowed to be good, but it's not called Wizard so 4rries don't hate it!

In conclusion, as a Butthurt Atheist I find 5e offensive to my non-religion and demand classes that respect the Separation of Church and Not Sucking. I'm calling the elf ACLU in on this shit.

[Mistborn]

Given how determined they are to make rogues suck all the dicks, I wholeheartedly support any build that can use stealth and is not a rogue. Although it's weird that it has to be a "trickster cleric" and not an "illusionist wizard." It casts spells so it's allowed to be good, but it's not called Wizard so 4rries don't hate it!

In conclusion, as a Butthurt Atheist I find 5e offensive to my non-religion and demand classes that respect the Separation of Church and Not Sucking. I'm calling the elf ACLU in on this shit.

10/10 would lol again

[Lago PARANOIA]

I know that there are objectively worse design decisions made in both this and previous editions of D&D than rolled hit points.

I'm just baffled that they decided to go with something that's so obviously bad. Like, I could understand someone printing up the alignment rules or Pathfinder polymorph rules or even skill challenges. They were bad and hurt the game to a greater extent than rolled hit points, but I could see how someone could come to that decision.

But rolled hit points? That should be such a no-brainer design decision to avoid that I am slightly amazed that someone could go with that. It's like finding a dozen videos where 2011 Richard Dawkins was unsatirically giving a lecture on how classical Lamarckism explained evolutionary theory better than the post-Darwinian school. That should not only immediately throw everything he henceforth claims suspect but should be a cue to also go over his past work. Just to be on the safe side.

[echoVanguard]

What's so awful about rolled hit points intrinsically? Obviously if the range is too great you're going to get serious disparities, but that's a question of implementation, and there are a lot of ways to reduce problems from inconsistent hit point allocation - fewer die steps across the range amongst classes, minimum half rolls, and removal of per-die bonuses, to name a few.

echo

[Kaelik]

What's so awful about rolled hit points intrinsically? Obviously if the range is too great you're going to get serious disparities, but that's a question of implementation, and there are a lot of ways to reduce problems from inconsistent hit point allocation - fewer die steps across the range amongst classes, minimum half rolls, and removal of per-die bonuses, to name a few.

echo

The same thing that is wrong with rolled attributes in any game where you are supposed to actually care about your PC as a real individual.

Competency should not be random across characters who are otherwise identical exactly like it should not be random across characters with different classes.

[Lago PARANOIA]

What's so awful about rolled hit points intrinsically?

Well, let's put this in context. I am willing to entertain a debate on the merits of rolled attributes. They do have exactly the problems that Kaelik say, along with a couple of other problems. Such as encouraging characters to suicide, encouraging lying and cheating, locking people out of classes that they want to play, etc.. But they do have a couple of advantages to them as well, such as allowing people to roleplay non-obvious archetypes.

I'm still against rolled attributes, mind, but I wouldn't preemptively think that a game designer was an idiot for including it in the game.

There's no reason to have rolled hit points, however. Not only does it have every disadvantage of rolled attributes, there's not even a shoddy roleplaying benefit you can wheedle out of it. All it does is make your character better or worse in a passive yet significant way.

[tussock]

My favourite thing about rolled stats is that the first thing you do for a new campaign, after agreeing that we should all try not to be a dick more than is strictly necessary, is roll a big stack of dice and add them up. It's like you're playing D&D already, strait away.

The only real advantage of rolled hit points is you get to roll a die when you level up. A nice, big, important one that makes the moment stick in your mind for a while.

Obviously d6+4 is a better hp roll than d10, for all sorts of reasons, which EGG was going to use for 2nd edition all those years ago, and fancy customised stat-rolling die sets that make characters easier to stir to taste and stop too much power differential are cool too. d20's gigantic stat mods make rolling them worse too, but we seem stuck with that.

[echoVanguard]

The only real advantage of rolled hit points is you get to roll a die when you level up. A nice, big, important one that makes the moment stick in your mind for a while.

This is a definite benefit to rolling HP's. If, for example, you have no per-die modifiers, a minimum value of half the die, and all system variables are balanced against a baseline amount (frx: L10 monsters balanced against a 40-hp base [median hit die d8, min amount 4, 4*10=40]), is there really a compelling negative against including rolled hit points? Every time a player rolls their HD, they stand only to gain something above the baseline, and the overall differences over time will not diverge from the baseline to a statistically significant degree. You might have a character with 53 hp in an encounter balanced for a 40-hp PC, but that's not really a problem to the same degree that having 13 or 172 hit points in the same situation would be.

echo

[shadzar]

What's so awful about rolled hit points intrinsically?

is there really a compelling negative against including rolled hit points?

it was a part of AD&D and pre-WotC D&D, and therefore bad.

you cannot optimize a random factor in the dice, for example you roll straight down the stats and get a 1.

Fighter has had the highest range, but rolling a 1 for HP at 1st level...sort of makes people think the fighter is useless and a failed character.

Rolling a 1 for HP at first level gives most (in the [g]olden days) 1 HP, maybe 3 if you put high score in CON. Fighters and that class group would get up to 5 HP after rolling a 1.

so a wizard with a chance for 4 HP getting only 1 makes him 25% effective in many peoples eyes, and a fighter getting 1 HP instead of 10 is only 10% effective.

percentages aside a hit from anything kills you, and thus ends a level 1 adventurers career. not that a wizard EVER fared much better.

so without rules like "reroll 1s," or "1s become 2s" or the like, people just dont want to play a character that will die from being hit.

Though, 4 HP is easily dead from most weapons, and plenty of people DID in fact play wizards in older editions.

it really boggles the mind, but probably in the end has to do with player agency and thus why the dice rolls no longer really come before class/race choices.

the player's ability to play what they want is greater than the chance of fate.... especially when you are beginning the game.

[Username17]

The only real advantage of rolled hit points is you get to roll a die when you level up. A nice, big, important one that makes the moment stick in your mind for a while.

This is a definite benefit to rolling HP's. If, for example, you have no per-die modifiers, a minimum value of half the die, and all system variables are balanced against a baseline amount (frx: L10 monsters balanced against a 40-hp base [median hit die d8, min amount 4, 4*10=40]), is there really a compelling negative against including rolled hit points? Every time a player rolls their HD, they stand only to gain something above the baseline, and the overall differences over time will not diverge from the baseline to a statistically significant degree. You might have a character with 53 hp in an encounter balanced for a 40-hp PC, but that's not really a problem to the same degree that having 13 or 172 hit points in the same situation would be.

echo

That's stupid. If a majority of your rolls give you "the baseline" and a minority of rolls give you some value more than that, then by definition a majority of the time you will get less than average! That is fucked. Consider a d8 roll where if you roll less than the half-mark you get the half mark (which by the way, is 5). This means that 63% of the time you get 5, but the actual average value is 5.75. Your suggestion merely hands out disappointment most of the time. Why the fuckity fucking fuck would you think that was a good idea?

Rolling hit points is shit. It is shit because there is literally nothing you can do with it that doesn't disappoint people or create noticeable problems with envy on a continuous basis, and it provides no role playing hooks at all! It is physically incapable of not being bad.

If you use more generous or more tail-protected rolling systems, they will still disappoint players continuously because player expectations are pegged to whatever your rolling scheme actually gives. Every +1 or reroll does nothing to alleviate butthurt because player rational expectations of hit point gains adjust immediately to incorporate the reroll or +1. If you let Rogues get the higher of 2d6 instead of just a single d6, then the average will by 4.472 and players will expect to get 4.72, and they will be disappointed when they get less than 4.72 (which they will 4/9 of the time). You cannot placate people no matter what you do with your die rolling scheme. Every possible die rolling scheme is fundamentally flawed in the same way.

-Username17

[John Magnum]

I still can't comprehend what the supposed BENEFITS of rolled HP are. Even if I buy the argument that you can get rid of suboptimal characters and jealousy and stuff by introducing rerolls and minimum rolls and all that, what exactly is the POINT supposed to be?

[Foxwarrior]

Well, if you have rolled HP that's kept secret, you can use flat damage and still not know when something's going to die.

Edit: Not that I'm saying this method has ever been used or will ever be, or anything.

[Username17]

I still can't comprehend what the supposed BENEFITS of rolled HP are. Even if I buy the argument that you can get rid of suboptimal characters and jealousy and stuff by introducing rerolls and minimum rolls and all that, what exactly is the POINT supposed to be?

Rolled hit points for monsters allows you to fireball a group of bugbears and have some of them go down and some of them stay up. That's valuable, because it makes things feel less like you're playing Warhammer and more like you're performing actions in a world.

Since player characters are going to be playing different classes and races and shit, they are already going to be at least subtly different and there is literally no benefit to having their personal resilience vary according to whims of random die rolls of any kind.

-Username17

[ModelCitizen]

While I see the possible value in rolled hitpoints for monsters only, I also know from my BECMI days that it's a bunch of work I don't want to fucking do. With fixed HP I can plunk down a bunch of monsters and only have to track HP for the ones that have taken damage. With rolled HP I have to stop the game to roll 3d8 ten times behind a screen, but more importantly I have to keep track of which of those bugbears has which HP total while they're all moving around.

[Previn]

I really don't see the point in rolled attributes, even beyond the mechanical issues. I suspect that the vast, vast majority are going to roll until they get stats they like, or just point buy it anyways.

[Mistborn]

I'm opposed to anything that gives random chance power over character creation. So rolled ability scores and rolled HP can suck it

[Username17]

I really don't see the point in rolled attributes, even beyond the mechanical issues. I suspect that the vast, vast majority are going to roll until they get stats they like, or just point buy it anyways.

The advantage of rolled attributes is the same as the advantage in drawing character cards in Arkham Horror, Runebound, or Talisman: people get forced to play different stuff each game and players have to make the best of unusual or suboptimal archetypes. Rolling attributes makes the game better as a role playing exercise and as a one-shot.

The cost obviously is that it is blatantly and specifically unfair and delivers characters that players may not identify with for a variety of reasons. It is obviously unsuitable to long campaigns, because it encourages players to get characters retired or killed so that they can roll up a new character.

-Username17