Moderator: Moderators
To me, it looks like 4E but with mostly smaller numbers (Magic Missile does 3x 1d4 at level 10?) and with a dose of Goodman Games's Dungeon Crawl Classics added (let's roll to determine spell DCs! no, let's not).Aryxbez wrote:I guess they figure if 3rd edition did it, then it's all kosher? As it seems most will assume it's a mix of 3rd edition presentation, with a hand of 4th edition weakening it.
What the shit? How is that even supposed to scale on a d20? It's like they don't understand the difference between linearly scaling DCs and mods and doubling the otherwise arbitrary number that is the DC. There's no way that will work once your DC gets past 10 or 15 if they're even on the same RNG. Why couldn't they just say "if you beat the DC by more than 10 points, or something"?Some monsters have an evasion like ability that if they roll a 20, or double the DC for a save for half they take none.
Yeah, pretty much. The sample wizard had at-wills, encounter powers, and dailies. About the only thing that's really different is that numbers are scaled way down. Of course, we haven't been told hit point totals, so either the numbers are merely scaled down versions of 4e numbers, or the hit points aren't scaled down as much because they decided that 4e simply wasn't grindy enough.Hogarth wrote:To me, it looks like 4E but with mostly smaller numbers (Magic Missile does 3x 1d4 at level 10?) and with a dose of Goodman Games's Dungeon Crawl Classics added (let's roll to determine spell DCs! no, let's not).
So I guess the lesson they learned from 4E is that 4E is awesome...
Ideally, combat in a tabletop RPG would be like M:tG or Pokemon, where you had a handful of options and then you used one maneuver or another based on what you thought your opponent was prepared for and they made similar choices either sequentially or simultaneously. There are lots of other conflict systems that I enjoy, but I don't think Diablo-style grinding or Soul Caliber-style combo timing actually works in a table top format.Aryxbez wrote: Frank, may I ask what kind of combat would make you more satisfied in a Fantasy RPG, even if specific to D&D?
Otherwise, doesn't seem learned much in way of anything, hell even spell DC's are apparently done as a roll on the D20 plus an attribute modifier, so have fun with that wacky Range, on top of an extra roll.
I think you're jumping to conclusions. From the sound of it, bonuses go up pretty slowly (e.g. between level 2 and level 5, a thief gets +1 to attacks), so saying "once your [minimum] DC gets past 10 or 15" may be moot.RobbyPants wrote:What the shit? How is that even supposed to scale on a d20? It's like they don't understand the difference between linearly scaling DCs and mods and doubling the otherwise arbitrary number that is the DC. There's no way that will work once your DC gets past 10 or 15 if they're even on the same RNG.Some monsters have an evasion like ability that if they roll a 20, or double the DC for a save for half they take none.
There's some followup posts here (with some comments on hit points):FrankTrollman wrote:Yeah, pretty much. The sample wizard had at-wills, encounter powers, and dailies. About the only thing that's really different is that numbers are scaled way down. Of course, we haven't been told hit point totals, so either the numbers are merely scaled down versions of 4e numbers, or the hit points aren't scaled down as much because they decided that 4e simply wasn't grindy enough.Hogarth wrote:To me, it looks like 4E but with mostly smaller numbers (Magic Missile does 3x 1d4 at level 10?) and with a dose of Goodman Games's Dungeon Crawl Classics added (let's roll to determine spell DCs! no, let's not).
So I guess the lesson they learned from 4E is that 4E is awesome...
To be fair, it kind of makes sense to have two different mechanics in the same playtest so that the players can say "I hated A and I loved B". Then you could ditch the one that everybody hated, I suppose.John Magnum wrote:You know, it's not like I'm really committed to having every class get exactly identical resource management, advancement schedules, and nigh-identical in-battle effects, but this sort of differentiation just seems really daft.
As cool as it would be to start that, basically a proper Pathfinder, that's a pipe dream for me. I don't have the personal finances to do such, and I need more than rules to make it at all financially viable; I need a crack team of artists and layout designers.FrankTrollman wrote:But failing that, I would like to play 3rd edition that was simply cleaned up. And by that I mean tracking less tiny bullshit bonuses that add up to a christmas tree that breaks the RNG. Basically the exact opposite of what this writeup is describing.
So a wizard has like 20 something hit points at level 5. And a level 5 Magic Missile does one d8 of damage. That is padded sumo the likes of which I can't even understand.hogarth wrote: There's some followup posts here (with some comments on hit points):
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost ... tcount=350
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost ... tcount=351
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost ... tcount=355
No one saw that coming, right?I just played a minor 'mother may I' game where the DM told me to make attribute checks.
That's a probably a shitty at-will, like something just good enough that you don't pack a crossbow. We know Fireball does 5d6 and we know Leak Guy had Fireball at level 5. That sounds about right.FrankTrollman wrote: So a wizard has like 20 something hit points at level 5. And a level 5 Magic Missile does one d8 of damage. That is padded sumo the likes of which I can't even understand.
Of course, the 1st level wizard apparently has like 14 hit points and does a d4 with a magic missile, which I suppose is even worse.
So yeah, this is just another reboot of 4e. I guess I can go back to not giving a shit.
-Username17
try kickstarter.virgil wrote:I don't have the personal finances to do such, and I need more than rules to make it at all financially viable; I need a crack team of artists and layout designers.
Now based on what you read, do you think the hoaxer spent more time on thinking out 5e than Monte has?hoax!
OgreBattle wrote:"And thus the denizens learned that hating Shadzar was the only thing they had in common, and with him gone they turned their venom upon each other"
-Sarpadian Empires, vol. I
There's a build of the Inquisitor class in Pathfinder which works in almost exactly this way. (As a class feature, you get to give up an entire round of actions, i.e. standard/move plus immediates and AOOs, in order to give one person on your team haste for 1 rd.) They're mooching off of 4e lazylord popularity for the fans that are into that sort of thing.FrankTrollman wrote: Although actually the worst part of that is this:That "makes sense" from a tactical standpoint. Obviously, if Haste allows you to convert actions of yoruself to actions of another character you would trade your actions out to whoever had the most relevant attack. But that's... terrible. That is the most boring fucking thing I could imagine. It's the Skill Challenge problem (the best option is to not take actions and let the diplomancer roll more dice), but generalized to combat.I hasted the party (+1 to weapon attacks, +1 AC, +5ft move, and I can give up my standard action any turn to grant a move or standard to anyone else effected), and then I used Invisibility. I spent the whole fight just giving the hafling more attacks.
-Username17
OgreBattle wrote:"And thus the denizens learned that hating Shadzar was the only thing they had in common, and with him gone they turned their venom upon each other"
-Sarpadian Empires, vol. I
I know they mean "you have a couple of spells you can fire off until the cows come home" but Sorcerers were not only also Vancian, but had hard caps on their spell list by dint of not being able to write down extra spells in their spellbooks.Flexible spellcasting (such as the 3rd Edition sorcerer)
FrankTrollman wrote: Halfling women, as I'm sure you are aware, combine all the "fun" parts of pedophilia without any of the disturbing, illegal, or immoral parts.
K wrote:That being said, the usefulness of airships for society is still transporting cargo because it's an option that doesn't require a powerful wizard to show up for work on time instead of blowing the day in his harem of extraplanar sex demons/angels.
Chamomile wrote: See, it's because K's belief in leaving generation of individual monsters to GMs makes him Chaotic, whereas Frank's belief in the easier usability of monsters pre-generated by game designers makes him Lawful, and clearly these philosophies are so irreconcilable as to be best represented as fundamentally opposed metaphysical forces.
Whipstitch wrote:You're on a mad quest, dude. I'd sooner bet on Zeus getting bored and letting Sisyphus put down the fucking rock.
FrankTrollman wrote: Halfling women, as I'm sure you are aware, combine all the "fun" parts of pedophilia without any of the disturbing, illegal, or immoral parts.
K wrote:That being said, the usefulness of airships for society is still transporting cargo because it's an option that doesn't require a powerful wizard to show up for work on time instead of blowing the day in his harem of extraplanar sex demons/angels.
Chamomile wrote: See, it's because K's belief in leaving generation of individual monsters to GMs makes him Chaotic, whereas Frank's belief in the easier usability of monsters pre-generated by game designers makes him Lawful, and clearly these philosophies are so irreconcilable as to be best represented as fundamentally opposed metaphysical forces.
Whipstitch wrote:You're on a mad quest, dude. I'd sooner bet on Zeus getting bored and letting Sisyphus put down the fucking rock.
Nobody in Jack Vance's books cast spells like a sorcerer. Of course, you can always make up your own definition for Vancian, but you should probably share that definition with the rest of us if you want to have an intelligent discussion.Mask_De_H wrote:[..] Sorcerers were not only also Vancian [..]
