The Gaming Den

shadzar wrote:so from everything i am seeing DDN = 3.x + 4.x

Not sure where you're getting that. There is very little of 4th beyond the monsters (and even then, a lot of them are more complicated than 4e monsters), and most of it is a lot of BECMI and 1st coupled with 3rd. All of the options are third-style, and the basic framework is early stuff.

All of the holes are typical of both.



@Krusk. A template would be crazy, given what a level appropriate monster looks like. As is, it is a complete waste of time as FoD doesn't come up until 13th level, and a 1st level zombie is barely worth the action to kill. Most people of that level won't even have to roll dice to kill it.


The 'first class is cleric' language is probably just there to link up to future multi-class rules, as they are currently not present. It does mean a cleric/ fighter will probably be a completely different beast than a fighter/cleric, and I'm not sure yet if that is going to be a good thing or not.




As far as other thoughts go, at the moment, I'm kind of frowning at the cleric. They clearly think that adding in the fighter mechanics late is an actual benefit for the class, but as it is costing the cleric spellcasting and they are so late and so non-level appropriate that it just kind of sucks. The buff spells are also kind of awful now (as opposed to the crazy shit like shield of faith in the first docs, which was imposes disadvantage on attackers rather than +1 AC (so from too good to utter shit). The problem with the martial damage they gave the cleric is it doesn't even keep up (let alone scale) with the scaling for fucking lance of faith, so there isn't any damn point to it. A cleric can sort of keep up for a while with buff spells and some forms of channelling, but will soon fall behind the curve as the resources get used up.


The rogue turned out a lot better than I expected given the last one and the horrible preview article about what was going to happen to it with this version. The biggest advantage is that it, the fighter and the monk are all on the same damage chassis, but get different secondary abilities. Quite a few of all of them are shit, but there is enough good stuff to pick up and be useful. The Trickster scheme is blatantly good, however, with the ability to start with 4 tricks. With initiative buffing, poison buffing, save buffs, imposing disadvantage and granting advantage, the rogue has a bunch of useful stuff.

Just wish the skill die was spelled out more. I'm guessing you 'spend' it but not really, and can keep using it any time it comes up.


In other news, fireball is a cloud now. So, is stinking cloud, by the by,
but that actually makes sense. And the stinker is a much better spell to boot, since in exchange for -1d6 damage, it can last 10 minutes.

CapnTthePirateG wrote:The Capn likes zombie minions, ok? This is sadly the only kind we get.

It's also unlimited: seriously, there's one sentence about how anything killed with this spell rises as a zombie under your command. So if you take a month off to kill chickens or something you get an army of humanoid zombies. Of course, you don't care because you can polymorph into Asmodeus and use his abilities, but hey, progress!

Actually they inserted a stealth fix to polymorph to prevent that. It is limited to 'any beast,' and apparently 'beast' is a critter type. So, giant snakes, yes, Asmodeus, no.

Fair enough on the zombie minions, I guess. They're just so far off from level appropriate that it is kind of a waste. And your chicken zombie army will be 30 zombies after a whole month. 90 if you can cast 8th and 9th level spells, and use higher level slots to 'spam' FoD.

Voss wrote:

hogarth wrote:The idea that (some) PCs plateau after level 10 or so isn't entirely new; that's how the Fighter and Thief worked in AD&D, for instance.

Sure. But it is terrible, 30 year old game design and people know better.
What is the point of level based progression if you don't progress?
The difference between an 13th level wizard and 14th level wizard is literally 4 hit points. And a 15th level wizard just gets 4 hit points and a single spell.

There's nothing inherently "terrible" about having power levels plateau at a certain point. I can't say I'm impressed with the D&D Next approach, of course.

EDIT: What's terrible is the lack of balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters, even if you limit the spellcaster's awesomeness to one extra awesome thing per day. E.g. "I get a Ferrari and you get a bicycle, but it's balanced because my Ferrari sometimes runs out of gas."

hogarth wrote:

Voss wrote:

hogarth wrote:The idea that (some) PCs plateau after level 10 or so isn't entirely new; that's how the Fighter and Thief worked in AD&D, for instance.

Sure. But it is terrible, 30 year old game design and people know better.
What is the point of level based progression if you don't progress?
The difference between an 13th level wizard and 14th level wizard is literally 4 hit points. And a 15th level wizard just gets 4 hit points and a single spell.

There's nothing inherently "terrible" about having power levels plateau at a certain point. I can't say I'm impressed with the D&D Next approach, of course.

The terrible bit is level based progression that doesn't provide progression. At best you've got real progression to about level 11 or 12, then the game is pure shit you just slog through.

EDIT: What's terrible is the lack of balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters, even if you limit the spellcaster's awesomeness to one extra awesome thing per day. E.g. "I get a Ferrari and you get a bicycle, but it's balanced because my Ferrari sometimes runs out of gas."

I'm not entirely convinced the spellcasters and non-casters are all that unbalanced in this iteration. I haven't plowed through every spell, but not many of them are all that impressive. Clerics are certainly saddled with healing, mediocre buffs and a slight bit of utility. They actually look weaker than the warrior classes.

Even the wizard spells I'm often shrugging on. The warrior damage bonuses match up (or exceed, especially on sneak attack or combat surge) to damage spells. the save or suck spells have constant saving throws or checks to end the effect early. The buffs, like the cleric buffs are pretty non-thrilling. Better than 4e effects, but definitely a lot weaker than 3rd edition effects.

They even toned down minor illusion and phantasmal force from the game breaking monstrosities they were last time (Though phantasmal force is still fairly good).

It seems that a lot of people thing D&DN reminds them of their least favorite version of D&D. I haven't kept up with the newer versions but the last one I saw basically struck me as Essentials taken to its logical conclusion with some old edition window dressing.

Voss wrote:Even the wizard spells I'm often shrugging on. The warrior damage bonuses match up (or exceed, especially on sneak attack or combat surge) to damage spells. the save or suck spells have constant saving throws or checks to end the effect early. The buffs, like the cleric buffs are pretty non-thrilling. Better than 4e effects, but definitely a lot weaker than 3rd edition effects.

Taking a closer look at the spells, there are an awful lot of them that just do damage. But wizards still get a few encounter-ending spells, it looks like.

You're basically dumpster diving through legions of crap in order to get to the real game-winners.


So basically every version of D&D ever.

Daztur wrote:It seems that a lot of people thing D&DN reminds them of their least favorite version of D&D.

Very much this.

Which is what happens when you try to appeal to everyone: you include enough of what everyone hates about every other edition, and not enough of what they like about their favourite one.

hogarth wrote:

Voss wrote:Even the wizard spells I'm often shrugging on. The warrior damage bonuses match up (or exceed, especially on sneak attack or combat surge) to damage spells. the save or suck spells have constant saving throws or checks to end the effect early. The buffs, like the cleric buffs are pretty non-thrilling. Better than 4e effects, but definitely a lot weaker than 3rd edition effects.

Taking a closer look at the spells, there are an awful lot of them that just do damage. But wizards still get a few encounter-ending spells, it looks like.

I'm honestly groping for which ones those would be.

Sleep is actively terrible, since it is essentially a separate damage type, that only interacts with hp damage if the hp damage is done first.

blue color spray is useful, but not excessively so.

phanstasmal force is good, but has a disturbing level of 'and the DM says fuck you, no.' potential.

Other stuff...
otto's irresistible dance is in fact highly resistible since it allows repeated saves.
Dominate is decent (especially on evil targets),
telekinesis is golden on closet trolls

polymorph is pretty blah (except for basilisk bombs) since it now beast only
stinking cloud and cloudkill are notable only for being damage spells that matter since they have a duration and double as battlefield control.

prismatic spray is largely just damage with a chance of blindness (or blindness and damage or possible blindness, twice, which I don't even know what that does).

gate is entirely DM fiat as to whether or not anything happens at all, and the only way to be certain something happens is to toss a true name, and then your the dumbass who called attention to yourself by something with a true name, that you specifically don't control.

flesh to stone is almost a save or die, but involves multiple saves and only lasts for concentration (max 1 minute) so... good delay I guess.

Trap the soul is about the only real save or die, but the gemstone requirement is essentially a 'metagame this bitch or get the fuck out' clause.

And those are just the highlights. most of the rest are utility or straight damage. So yeah, dominate and telekinesis are about as winning as they get, and single target.


Power Word Kill is notable for just being embarrassing. by the time you can cast it, 50 points of damage is something anyone in the party (except the spellcasters) can just _do_, without using any real resources at all. If they want to actually try, they can probably come pretty close to the 100 hp you get with a true name. Really: 1d8 +6 (22 str or dex) +3 (magic weapon) + 20 (flat damage bonus) + 6d6 (martial damage dice, which are x2 with combat surge or sneak attack, and feats can raise the average of the MDD past the default 21)

There is very little of 4th beyond the monsters

4th is the near non-progression. +1 to hit per 5 levels, when monster ACs are doing the same basic thing, or better.

AD&D+UA or 2e+mastery Fighters don't need as much damage mods because they have 3+ attacks that always hit against the toughest monsters. 1d12+12 x3 that always hits is your 55 damage that 5e current gets via that 1d8+6+3+20+6d6, only 5e can miss, a lot, and needs extra mechanics to let you spread it around against lesser foes.

It's like, I get that 1d20+28 is a terrible thing to ask people to roll, but so is 1d8+6d6+29.

Plane shift is a two-save SoD or targets to straight to Hell, do not pass go.

Then compare it to what they did to, say, Disintegrate. Grr.

Looks like they're releasing some classes up to level 20, now.

At the very least, Barbarian... but i stopped keeping track a few months ago, so they could have released more.

Yeah, well, no one cares any more.

Although Mearls released some new articles where it's supposed to be possible to min/max but also have characters who don't sacrifice power for flavor.

This is contradictory and impossible.

Later he clarifies that he wants min/maxing to not matter too much, but I have no faith in his ability to pull it off.

I wonder if they will be able to whip up much interest on release day. WotC have the bank roll to do a lot of marketing, but if they really cared about the property would Mearls be at the helm? Them releasing 5e without much fanfare is possible but I think if the project doesn't find a lot more traction in the community it might just be quietly shelved.

Juton wrote:I wonder if they will be able to whip up much interest on release day. WotC have the bank roll to do a lot of marketing, but if they really cared about the property would Mearls be at the helm? Them releasing 5e without much fanfare is possible but I think if the project doesn't find a lot more traction in the community it might just be quietly shelved.

The degree to which everyone has just... lost interest is impressive to me. At this point, people aren't even quoting Mearls columns for purposes of comedy or rage. Unless something radical changes in their marketing, it's DOA and it isn't even close to arriving.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:

Juton wrote:I wonder if they will be able to whip up much interest on release day. WotC have the bank roll to do a lot of marketing, but if they really cared about the property would Mearls be at the helm? Them releasing 5e without much fanfare is possible but I think if the project doesn't find a lot more traction in the community it might just be quietly shelved.

The degree to which everyone has just... lost interest is impressive to me. At this point, people aren't even quoting Mearls columns for purposes of comedy or rage. Unless something radical changes in their marketing, it's DOA and it isn't even close to arriving.

-Username17

I'm completely indifferent to 5e at this point, but is this just a Den related thing? I went to ENWorld to check and found a 12 page discussion for this packet, so it seems people elsewhere are at least still paying attention.

Only 12 pages? Seems much less than what I usually see around there.

It's like 4e, you could like something, or complain, but all the rules will be different next month either way, so why bother? I mean, I could care about what a Fighter feels like, only the lead designer is promising to either halve or double hit points and/or damage and change all the numbers later anyway.

Which, to me, is going to change the feel. Because of the monsters either falling over or not, and me hitting or missing them in runs, or not. The feel of D&D grunts is in the monsters falling over with the hits and the damage and the rate the do that at (against how many are there), and that's not even on the table yet.

So, how can I compare Wizards and Clerks and whoever else? How can we judge spells for overshadowing the grunts if how quickly Fighters kill things is explicitly off the table?

Problem I have is that there's not really much new about this edition that I actually want to use. Skills as MTP and rogues sucking aren't improvements. Spells are still "cherry-pick the best options from this shit-pile. If you do, you dominate and contribute. If you have fireball you suck dongs." Mearls is, however, going to nerf all the non-evocation spells down to shit level so that we got fireballs. I don't care. Clerics are apparently still allowed to be retarded, rogues get non MTP skills, whatever. None of it seems particularly new or innovative and there's no reason to play it over 3.5.

Honestly, I forgot it still existed.
But what I had seen so far was not good. I have no faith in Mearls, and I haven't heard anyone else about it for a while. I'll check it out a bit once it is near release / after release or till I here someone say something interesting about it.

I've lost a lot of interest since the initial announcement and discussion of minotaur hit points.


The Martial Damage Dice seem pretty much like an idea I wrote one "a replacement for iterative attacks" a while ago but since it's D&DN presenting it I want to be a lot more critical of it hahah. I want to like it but something about it's presentation bugs me, it feels cluttered.

But how I would've done it... would be a Swift action. Rogues use their swift action to add bonuses to their skills (that skill expertise die). Fighters spend their swift action to add a bonus to hit/damage or reactively to dodge attacks/make saves. Monks use their swift action to do special Chi stuff like run really fast, flurry, stun-punch. Clerics swift action bless/heal and Wizards swift action metamagic

CapnTthePirateG wrote:Yeah, well, no one cares any more.

pretty much how i feel. they change the goals 400 times, where its just 4e with some 3.x thrown in.

absolutely nothing in it that will capture the "feel" of old-school. selling PDFs for cover price of old books doesnt capture that feel either.

No one cares about this piece of shit. It is an insult to all D&D players who deserved a good edition after being slapped in the face by 4e. Fuck you WotC, you suck cock covered in scabs.

What I don't get is how Wizards keeps fucking everything up vis a vis D&D. Wizards is in theory capable of doing awesome things and they do them semi-regularly with MTG. How is it that they keep fucking up D&D when the bar is so much lower there.

The competent people are allocated to M:tG. D&D just gets the dregs.