D&DNext: Playtest Review

[Username17]

Really that whole thread is a mass of horrible. If you have patience to get through the 400 or so posts, it's here: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/ ... _unlearned

Isn't that the "hundred thousand is more than a million" guy? What a fucking tool.

Yes, that is him. So much 4e fapping, it's really sort of embarrassing. Really? The problem with 4e was that there were too many meaningful choices? Titanium Dragon should start giving weather reports from the inside of his own ass.

I'll tell you what was "learned": Mike Mearls is a herp derp Forgite. He helped make 4e as "gamist" a game as he could, and when it was a colossal failure and he was given full control, he decided to make 5e as "narrativist" a game as he could. That's really it. So now instead of having a bunch of fucking +2s to fiddle around with, rules for common tasks have been removed so as to not interfere with the DM's railroady bullshit. Narrative! If (when) that fails and Mike Mearls is for some reason still in charge of things, he is going to try to make 6th edition "Simulationist". Expect... more charts.

-Username17

[DrPraetor]

Frank is right.

D&D 5th will be such an epic failure that they'll auction off the entire unit to an opportunistic venture capitalist, probably these people. Mike Mearls will be kept on to ensure "continuity", but D&D 6th will actually be a re-re-branded Rolemaster, with Mike Mearls at the helm to make sure that it returns to it's table-ridden, incomprehensibly dense walls of nonsense babble, roots.

[malak]

Ok, it's getting worse: Attack bonuses don't increase. Hitpoints do.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20120604

[Chamomile]

Relevant to a lot of the discussions about 5E you're going to see.

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/20 ... 13dbf42720

I got kind of excited that maybe this guy was going to describe an actual game that might be interesting to read a session or two of, and this D&D V thing was just a quick tangent from the usual fare. I walked away disappointed.

[Lokathor]

It's good for verisimilitude. The bounded accuracy system lets us perpetually associate difficulty numbers with certain tasks based on what they are in the world, without the need to constantly escalate the story behind those tasks. For example, we can say that breaking down an iron-banded wooden door is a DC 17 check, and that can live in the game no matter what level the players are. There's no need to constantly escalate the in-world descriptions to match a growing DC; an iron-banded door is just as tough to break down at 20th level as it was at 1st, and it might still be a challenge for a party consisting of heroes without great Strength scores. There's no need to make it a solid adamantine door encrusted with ancient runes just to make it a moderate challenge for the high-level characters. Instead, we let that adamantine door encrusted with ancient runes have its own high DC as a reflection of its difficulty in the world. If players have the means of breaking down the super difficult adamantine door, it's because they pursued player options that make that so, and it is not simply a side effect of continuing to adventure.

I'm done. I'm fuckin done.

Just.

Wow.

[Fuchs]

In other words - in D&D Next, no character actually gets any better. The same wooden door that stopped your level 1 party will stop your level 20 party...

That's not D&D. That goes against every damn edition of D&D.

Edit: And how will that be possible anyway, if damage goes up? You can pierce the hide of a dragon, but not wreck a wooden door? Unless you somehow magically cannot damage a door, a wooden door will not be a challenge for a high level party.

[koz]

In other words - in D&D Next, no character actually gets any better. The same wooden door that stopped your level 1 party will stop your level 20 party...

That's not D&D. That goes against every damn edition of D&D.

Edit: And how will that be possible anyway, if damage goes up? You can pierce the hide of a dragon, but not wreck a wooden door? Unless you somehow magically cannot damage a door, a wooden door will not be a challenge for a high level party.

Not every edition. Just the ones before 4E, which made this kind of statement implicitly.

[tussock]

Allow me.

It's good for verisimilitude. A consistent difficulty system lets us associate difficulty numbers with consistent tasks across levels, there being no need to ensure low level stories are escalated to challenge high level characters. For example, we can say that breaking down an iron-banded wooden door is a DC 17 check, and that can live in the game no matter what level the players are. ... There's no need to make it a solid adamantine door encrusted with ancient runes just to give the players free treasure to put in their portable hole, because doors aren't a valid challenge form for high level parties, or even low level ones for more than a round or two. Instead, we let high level PCs blow through iron-bound doors all day if they want, it's just not important. Obviously high level parties have a million ways of bypassing something as simple as a physical barrier anyway, so there's no need to worry about it.

[Fuchs]

That would be a good explanation. But they honestly seem to believe a wooden door should be a challenge for a party without a weightlifter in it at level 20.

[K]

Relevant to a lot of the discussions about 5E you're going to see.

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/20 ... 13dbf42720

I got kind of excited that maybe this guy was going to describe an actual game that might be interesting to read a session or two of, and this D&D V thing was just a quick tangent from the usual fare. I walked away disappointed.

He runs a good game for drunk sex-workers, but he's a Magic Tea Party DM all the way. I suspect that it's because drunk sex workers aren't that good with actual rules or math and you need to MTP most shit anyway.

[Wulf]

I can kinda understand what they mean, by keeping the playing field levelled. But..this makes hitpoints even more abstract, so much so that they shouldnt be called hitpoints.

Its worse. A swordmaster vs a novice sword-user. How do you roleplay that? The novice still hits the master as easily, but gives the master 1001 little cuts? That is just silly.

They should just add a toughness save / active defense save vs damage rolls, rather then hitpoints. That might work.

[K]

Ok, it's getting worse: Attack bonuses don't increase. Hitpoints do.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20120604

I actually don't care if attack bonuses don't increase as long as monster AC doesn't increase and you aren't getting dumbass shit like iterative attacks that are progressively worse and supposed to make you more effective at higher levels or TWF/flurry/maneuvers that come with massive penalties.

That being said, the whole bit about there being fixed DCs for things in game is actually wrong. He obviously hasn't read the playtest that has no fixed DCs for anything and is basically Magic Tea Party or the Mearls articles that justify the MTP.

[Fuchs]

I can kinda understand what they mean, by keeping the playing field levelled. But..this makes hitpoints even more abstract, so much so that they shouldnt be called hitpoints.

Its worse. A swordmaster vs a novice sword-user. How do you roleplay that? The novice still hits the master as easily, but gives the master 1001 little cuts? That is just silly.

They should just add a toughness save / active defense save vs damage rolls, rather then hitpoints. That might work.

Or say hitpoints represent fatigue or such, not actual wounds, until you start run out of them. Still not optimal, of course.

[K]

I can kinda understand what they mean, by keeping the playing field levelled. But..this makes hitpoints even more abstract, so much so that they shouldnt be called hitpoints.

Its worse. A swordmaster vs a novice sword-user. How do you roleplay that? The novice still hits the master as easily, but gives the master 1001 little cuts? That is just silly.

They should just add a toughness save / active defense save vs damage rolls, rather then hitpoints. That might work.

Or say hitpoints represent fatigue or such, not actual wounds, until you start run out of them. Still not optimal, of course.

The playtest actually changed HPs. They represent health and durability, overall level of energy, speed and agility to avoid harm, luck, divine favor, and other mystic factors.

So it makes more sense. Not much, but more.

[Username17]

Ok, it's getting worse: Attack bonuses don't increase. Hitpoints do.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20120604

I actually don't care if attack bonuses don't increase as long as monster AC doesn't increase and you aren't getting dumbass shit like iterative attacks that are progressively worse and supposed to make you more effective at higher levels or TWF/flurry/maneuvers that come with massive penalties.

That being said, the whole bit about there being fixed DCs for things in game is actually wrong. He obviously hasn't read the playtest that has no fixed DCs for anything and is basically Magic Tea Party or the Mearls articles that justify the MTP.

I think it actually means that they have read the playtest and the profoundly negative reactions to Mearls´ MTP bullshit. So now they are walking that back and claiming that the world does have fixed DCs afterall. Like how they responded to the fact that their automagic success rules didn´t work by walking the automagic success thresholds back by 5 points so that they pretty much never came up for players. Seriously, a Rogue needs to have a stat of 21 before the automagic success threshold does anything at all - good luck figuring out how broken it is in the playtest where the highest available stat is 17.

The piece is basically just them trying to do damage control on people not liking the "DM makes up all the DCs based on whim" thing. The fact that they couldn´t really resist putting their foot in it by giving the example that doors would continue to be a major nuissance at 20th level is really just them putting their foot in it because they are panicked, unqualified people.

Although if they are serious about monsters not scaling their attack bonuses, the game is going to turn into whiff worlds at high level. The difference between starting in life with scale and having +2 Adamantine Armor and a +2 Shield is a lot of AC. If we are supposed to take monsters seriously at high level because they have a +6 to-hit bonus, the game is going to get pretty fucking horrible at high levels. Joe Fighter 10 can expect to walk into the high level world with an AC in the 25 range, and he will go many rounds without getting touched bz any of the monsters written up so far. If they are serious about not scaling monster attacks, that is that. If you thought 4E was painful padded sumo, you have not seen shit.

-Username17

[Wulf]

I can kinda understand what they mean, by keeping the playing field levelled. But..this makes hitpoints even more abstract, so much so that they shouldnt be called hitpoints.

Its worse. A swordmaster vs a novice sword-user. How do you roleplay that? The novice still hits the master as easily, but gives the master 1001 little cuts? That is just silly.

They should just add a toughness save / active defense save vs damage rolls, rather then hitpoints. That might work.

Or say hitpoints represent fatigue or such, not actual wounds, until you start run out of them. Still not optimal, of course.

The playtest actually changed HPs. They represent health and durability, overall level of energy, speed and agility to avoid harm, luck, divine favor, and other mystic factors.

So it makes more sense. Not much, but more.

Yeah, you can put any explanation behind hitpoints, but that is not how mechanically it works.

Mechanically, you roll to-hit. If hit, you roll damage. Damage lowers hitpoints. In this line of processes there is no indication that the "hit" the attacker made only cost "stamina". Mechanically, it just a tiny wound.

Just imagine the blade being poisoned. The novices wins as much as the swordmaster then...and most likely, both die to lethal poison.

[K]

If you thought 4E was painful padded sumo, you have not seen shit.

Well, there are still magic weapons and they seem to work the exact same, Advantage is the new black and that shit is going to be all the rage, Str is going increase, and the like.

I mean, Advantage is statistically worth a +4 or +5, right?

[CCarter]

Seriously, a Rogue needs to have a stat of 21 before the automagic success threshold does anything at all - good luck figuring out how broken it is in the playtest where the highest available stat is 17.

There are no stats above 20, at least for PCs. Pg 3 in the How To Play rules says only "monsters and divine beings" have scores above 20.

D&D Next: you're 2nd level forever, bitches.

[K]

Seriously, a Rogue needs to have a stat of 21 before the automagic success threshold does anything at all - good luck figuring out how broken it is in the playtest where the highest available stat is 17.

There are no stats above 20, at least for PCs. Pg 3 in the How To Play rules says only "monsters and divine beings" have scores above 20.

D&D Next: you're 2nd level forever, bitches.

Well, the playtest had a Strength Potion that gave an 18 Str just like 2e used to do. For level 1-3 treasure it's pretty good, so I expect bigger things to come along later.

I expect the 2e Belt of Giant Strength is going to make a come-back (come on random rolls for the Cloud Giant version!).

[DrPraetor]

Well, the playtest had a Strength Potion that gave an 18 Str just like 2e used to do. For level 1-3 treasure it's pretty good, so I expect bigger things to come along later.

I expect the 2e Belt of Giant Strength is going to make a come-back (come on random rolls for the Cloud Giant version!).

I wouldn't count on that. I think a "Strength Potion" is going to be major treasure for ever and ever and ever, because after all, a Strength Potion is amazingly powerful - it'll even let you barge down a door!

[Parthenon]

He runs a good game for drunk sex-workers, but he's a Magic Tea Party DM all the way. I suspect that it's because drunk sex workers aren't that good with actual rules or math and you need to MTP most shit anyway.

This is just needlessly insulting. He runs a good MTP game the players enjoy, full stop. Theres no real difference in mathematical ability for the players, and its the MTP DMing style thats the only important part.

[Fuchs]

Well, the playtest had a Strength Potion that gave an 18 Str just like 2e used to do. For level 1-3 treasure it's pretty good, so I expect bigger things to come along later.

I expect the 2e Belt of Giant Strength is going to make a come-back (come on random rolls for the Cloud Giant version!).

I wouldn't count on that. I think a "Strength Potion" is going to be major treasure for ever and ever and ever, because after all, a Strength Potion is amazingly powerful - it'll even let you barge down a door!

They'll publish treasure that makes potions look cheap in their splats soon enough.

[ishy]

So now they are walking that back and claiming that the world does have fixed DCs afterall.

-Username17

Not really

Now, we want to avoid situations where DMs feel bound by the numbers. ("Hey," says the player, "you said it was an iron-bound wooden door and I rolled a 17, what do you mean I didn't break it down?")

[Username17]

Well, there are still magic weapons and they seem to work the exact same, Advantage is the new black and that shit is going to be all the rage, Str is going increase, and the like.

I mean, Advantage is statistically worth a +4 or +5, right?

Only if you hit on an 11+. If you hit more or less often than that, the bonus is smaller. If you only hit on a 20 or only miss on a 1, Advantage is worth less than +1. The average is about +3.

But against the guy who has magic Adamantium Plate and a Magic Shield (AC 20 + Magic Bonuses + Other Bonuses), team monster is still going to get +6 to-hit as a boss monster. It's only going to hit on a natural 20. Even with advantage, it's missing 90.25% of the time. And more likely, defense boy over there is going to get a spell cast on him that gives the attacker disadvantage, and then he's only going to get hit about one time in four hundred attempts by the monsters.

On the flip side, yeah the PCs are going to hit all the time, because the big bad Troll only has an AC of 16, and by the time you have your 18 Strength, your Magic Sword +3, and your Fighter abilities you're walking in with a +10 to-hit and probably Advantage. You hit over ninety percent of your attacks. But to what end? Even the lowly Troll #4 has 132 hit points and regenerates 10 hit points a round. And your Longsword of longswording does like d10+13. You're going to be banging on that Troll for eighteen rounds unless you get help from the rest of the party. Now granted, during that time it will have hit you an average of 0.135 times, but we're still talking a very long fight.

I wouldn't count on that. I think a "Strength Potion" is going to be major treasure for ever and ever and ever, because after all, a Strength Potion is amazingly powerful - it'll even let you barge down a door!

...40% of the time. It only gives you a +4 bonus, and barging down a door is DC 17. You need to roll a 13+ to do it.

-Username17

[Username17]

He runs a good game for drunk sex-workers, but he's a Magic Tea Party DM all the way. I suspect that it's because drunk sex workers aren't that good with actual rules or math and you need to MTP most shit anyway.

This is just needlessly insulting. He runs a good MTP game the players enjoy, full stop. Theres no real difference in mathematical ability for the players, and its the MTP DMing style thats the only important part.

He calls his website "D&D With Pornstars" and advertises that he runs a game for drunk sex workers. That's his shtick. That is what he advertises himself as doing. His whole claim to fame is that he can get drunken sex workers to show up for a regular D&D game despite the fact that they aren't D&D's usual demographic or particularly well versed in math or its cultural idioms.

If he wasn't specifically running a game for drunken sex workers, no one would know or care who he was. You don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to brag that you're running a game for drunken sex workers and then expect people to be offended on your behalf when people describe your game as a game for drunken sex workers.

-Username17