# Something Awful leak.



## WarlockLord

Yo:

SA leak of D&D 5e's playtest rules - Pastebin.com


----------



## blalien

Really cool if this is real.  Is there any evidence behind it?


----------



## mhensley

hmmm... that's really negative... if true


----------



## JoesephBear

Curses, ya beat me to it.

Anyway, this came out of SA and has been floating around /tg/. Historically, such leaks have proven to be quite true.

It would seem that WotC, like Paizo, like TSR, like so many other game devs, is once again taking a stance that playtester & community feedback that doesn't agree with them is to be ignored.

Looks like 5e is off my radar for now. I'm not interested in "caster edition 2.0" 

To be more positive, my hope is that I'm surprised next year. I think I will be, as this will probably cause some internal backpedaling at WotC.


----------



## SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS

Really bad if true, nothing here is interesting to me.


----------



## Sunseeker

I'm not taking much issue with most of this stuff, it's really vague and obviously a significantly older edition of the playtest.

But this one really worries me: 


> Every PHB will contain a random selection of 7 common classes, 3 uncommons, and 1 rare.



Er, _how_ exactly would this be accomplished?  I can get how you can shove different trading cards into the same package, but these are pre-printed books with presumably, no loose parts.  The amount of money Wizards would have to spend to produce a conceivably infinite number of books with random class allocations would make printing books entirely not cost effective.  Sure this would work online, or as a trading-card game, but not as printed books.  Buying several hundred $5 packs of cards is one thing, but buying a dozen PHB's to get all the classes?  er.... that's just not realistic.

And breaking classes down into rarity?  Shouldn't that be, I dunno, a campaign thing and not a pre-decided in the books thing?  Taking from MTG, generally rarer things are more powerful for a lower cost, but once ONE person has the book with the information, EVERYONE can be that class.  It doesn't work like a TCG, it uh, _can't.
_
Not to mention, Wizards Points?  That's a MT system and those don't usually get developed until the product is almost ready to ship.


----------



## The Little Raven

shidaku said:


> Er, _how_ exactly would this be accomplished?




Pretty sure it's a joke in reference to class rarity (a meaningless distinction to appease people who complain that something they don't like shouldn't be common).


----------



## Rune

shidaku said:


> I'm not taking much issue with most of this stuff, it's really vague and obviously a significantly older edition of the playtest.
> 
> But this one really worries me:
> Er, _how_ exactly would this be accomplished?  I can get how you can shove different trading cards into the same package, but these are pre-printed books with presumably, no loose parts.  The amount of money Wizards would have to spend to produce a conceivably infinite number of books with random class allocations would make printing books entirely not cost effective.  Sure this would work online, or as a trading-card game, but not as printed books.  Buying several hundred $5 packs of cards is one thing, but buying a dozen PHB's to get all the classes?  er.... that's just not realistic.
> 
> And breaking classes down into rarity?  Shouldn't that be, I dunno, a campaign thing and not a pre-decided in the books thing?  Taking from MTG, generally rarer things are more powerful for a lower cost, but once ONE person has the book with the information, EVERYONE can be that class.  It doesn't work like a TCG, it uh, _can't.
> _
> Not to mention, Wizards Points?  That's a MT system and those don't usually get developed until the product is almost ready to ship.




Those parts read, to me, like typical WOTC-bashing.  Well, it _all_ read like WOTC-bashing, but those particular sections seemed like snark.


----------



## Sunseeker

The Little Raven said:


> Pretty sure it's a joke in reference to class rarity (a meaningless distinction to appease people who complain that something they don't like shouldn't be common).




Hopefully, I guess I didn't get the joke, huge page of text to read and all.



Rune said:


> Those parts read, to me, like typical WOTC-bashing.  Well, it _all_ read like WOTC-bashing, but those particular sections seemed like snark.



For anything trading or collectible, it's a great strategy, people who don't understand that well, probably aren't TCG/CCG collectors.  Anyway it appears the joke went over my head.


----------



## whydirt

That line about random classes was a joke.


----------



## kitsune9

The guy had me at the flat math and ability scores, but I just don't buy this:

_You have to raise a common class character to level 10 before you can unlock the uncommon ones. Or you can unlock them right now for 400 Wizard Points. Every PHB will contain a random selection of 7 common classes, 3 uncommons, and 1 rare._

All things are possible I guess, but I'm still refraining from judgment until I get 5e in my hands.


----------



## Ainamacar

Even if it's all true the main thing I take from the leak is rather more positive regardless of my opinions of the rules:
It's in such a rough condition (as of a few months ago) that community feedback actually will have an opportunity to affect things.  That's much better than a patina of "listening to the community" with polished rules.

In particular, the use of cut-and-paste doesn't strike me as objectionable, it strikes me as a person grabbing rules they know to fill in for rules they haven't thought about in detail.  At least, when I start on a new design the very first thing I do is steal 90% of everything from what I already know, just so I'll actually have something to play.  If I were Monte I'd steal from 3e more regularly as well, not necessarily because I intend to stick to it, but because I already know intimately how and why it's supposed to work.  Design is iterative.  Copy-and-paste, especially where all the seams are clear, is evidence of iteration in action.


----------



## kitsune9

One thing should be clear is that 5e isn't going to please everyone, even the playtesters. So there's always going to be someone who says:

1. They are just appeasing the grognards!
2. They just rewrote x edition instead of improving my x edition!
3. I hate how they did [insert whatever complaint here]

To be honest, I don't think 5e will be a win-all for me either, but I'm not going to dismiss it.

The polls do look biased, but the way I think they are is simply because game designers are game designers, not biostatisticians and market researchers who specialize in writing unbiased polls and surveys.


----------



## Meophist

kitsune9 said:


> The guy had me at the flat math and ability scores, but I just don't buy this:
> 
> _You have to raise a common class character to level 10 before you can unlock the uncommon ones. Or you can unlock them right now for 400 Wizard Points. Every PHB will contain a random selection of 7 common classes, 3 uncommons, and 1 rare._
> 
> All things are possible I guess, but I'm still refraining from judgment until I get 5e in my hands.



I think the stuff that starts with a > at the beginning are things other people are saying, not the leaker. Mostly there for context.


----------



## D'karr

Meophist said:


> I think the stuff that starts with a > at the beginning are things other people are saying, not the leaker. Mostly there for context.




The leaker, that sounds like a really horrible name for a monster, or even worse a superhero.


----------



## n00bdragon

I'm really sad that the designers seem ashamed of the few 4E elements they found too good to totally discard. I really feel like there's a disconnect between the design objective and a large portion of the 4E fanbase that Wizards just doesn't even care about fixing. The most distressing thing by far is the way the action economy is simply no more. When things get ambiguous narration should fall back on rules, not the other way around.


----------



## Incenjucar

I believe the lines starting with ">" are from the community, while the other lines are from the leaker(s). So yes, that random classes thing was a joke. By someone other than the leakers.

While the whole thing sounds quite horrible to me, there is some logic to a lot of the obfuscation. A vocal portion of the community cannot stand being fully aware of the rules of the game, and only find that D&D is magical when it is unknowable. They've stated as such quite often. Some people really want to ignore the little man behind the curtain. For me, that's the opposite of what I want.


----------



## steeldragons

n00bdragon said:


> The most distressing thing by far is the way the action economy is simply no more. When things get ambiguous narration should fall back on rules, not the other way around.




What's "the action economy"? 

No, I'm serious. I've never heard that term. What does it mean?


----------



## n00bdragon

In 4e everyone had a Standard Action, a Move Action, and a Minor Action. This kept a lid on just how much _stuff_ a character could do in one round and provided a unifying framework to how actions worked. That way when you use a special power that lets you move you do that _instead_ of moving by having it cost a Move Action. Etc and so on. The Minor Action was generally used for support type abilities, things you do in addition to hitting people or picking locks or whatever. That's what the cleric uses the heal others and the fighter uses to buff his defenses or draw an enemy or do some fancy footwork or whatever.


----------



## The Little Raven

This has to be fake.

It HAS to be.

PLEASE BE FAKE.

*PLEASE.*

If this is real... aside from boneheaded design flubs like "Undead are immune to *the* iconic anti-undead power," the design philosophy behind it seems so regressive and anti-DM empowerment because it wants to hide functionality behind pointless walls of text or needlessly complex subsystems.


----------



## JonWake

n00bdragon said:


> When things get ambiguous narration should fall back on rules, not the other way around.





That is something New Schoolers and Old Schoolers will never, ever, ever ever agree upon.

I cannot disagree more.


----------



## Savage Wombat

I suppose it's possible that this is real, but it sounds like trolling the 4th ed players to me.


----------



## nightwalker450

Whoa... If that's true, I think we're looking at D&D -3.5.  As in 3.5 but done worse.

Or maybe we're lucky and they exorcised that version of the playtest.

I so want my hands on the playtest so I can know whether there's any reason for me to even follow this information anymore.


----------



## TwinBahamut

If this is true then it is... terrifying.

I really hope this is either an elaborate hoax on someone's part or the playtest he is looking at has been heavily revised and obsoleted already...


----------



## I'm A Banana

I'm not sure it's so much "fake" (though it could be) as "really really super-duper _early_." The leaker mentions this is info from the 1.0 version, and they're on 1.5-ish by the time of his post. It sounds like a lot of it was derived from earlier books, just pasted all together and given out to people for the first early round of testing. 

What you're looking at is the reason WotC doesn't give out the playtest documents yet. They are not ready for prime time. They are copypasta of old documents. They are disorganized. They are unstandardized. They are mathematically gormed. They haven't been developed or cross-tested. There are multiple cooks in the kitchen and it shows. 

They are still potentially useful for very early playtesters and folks who know how to give constructive feedback in the context of an early document, but they're not very useful for the general fanbase, which is full of folks just _itching_ to read the whole thing as functional gospel and cry about how Monte Cook is ruining everything because he <3's wizards so much and that everyone on the design team secretly hates 4e and that Mearls shot their dog or whatever. 

I woudn't read too much into it. Especially since the poster really seems to have a "4e 4EVA, 3E N3VA!!!!!" flag waving around. 

Forex, there's this:



			
				the leaker said:
			
		

> As has been the general trend, they are deliberately making their system opaque to look at and tedious to use in order to appeal to people who like bad games.




...it doesn't seem like anyone with _good context_ could make any statement about how they're "making their system" with an early playtest document. It doesn't show how they're "making their system," it shows a bunch of arrows thrown at a dartboard to see what sticks, to be organized and codified and balanced and reworded at some later time before publication, but not now, because now there are bigger issues to tackle. "Readability" isn't important when the only folks reading your stuff are a hand-selected group of people who already presumably know the context for what you're doing.


----------



## Libramarian




----------



## Janaxstrus

nightwalker450 said:


> Whoa... If that's true, I think we're looking at D&D -3.5.  As in 3.5 but done worse.
> .




*shrug* I liked most of what I read, especially the distancing themselves from less immersive things.

I don't like the idea of capping scores at 20, but I'm glad to see healing surges gone.  So I guess it's a give and take.


----------



## Sunseeker

Honestly, this is early alpha at best.  And the subjective nature of MANY of both the supposed "playtester"s comments as well as the person he's chatting with really throw this whole thing into "elaborate troll" area.

We've still got what, a _year_ before the game comes out?  I doubt we're looking at anything other than the "hey guys we had a neat idea, lets see how it plays!" alpha.


----------



## grimslade

*Alpha test rules are alpha; also water is wet.*

These rules sound pretty kludgey. C and P from multiple editions, weird mechanics wording to change from current edition terms, and no universal terminology, i.e. advantage, combat advantage, skill advantage, point to an early test document without real direction.

There is a lot of 3.x in there, especially the wizard. Monte Cook is one of the lead designers for Next and was one for 3e, plus he loves an all powerful wizard class. Plus, there is still a lot of good stuff to mine from 3E. It should be a catalyst for a new synergy.

Also, PF is eating WotC lunch with a game based on 3.x. Reactionary game design is bad. PF is eating WotC lunch because it put out consistently good story and adventures on an already mature game system. There is not a lot of noise about how fantastic the PF system is; it is familiar and also a system time-intensive enough to warrant lots of AP and adventure sales. Who wants to stat out all those higher level NPCs all the time? The 3E horse is out of the stable and long gone. Buy a new horse to race and train it better.

I think the 1.0 playtest stuff looks horrid, but it is an opening blast. The next series of rounds of playtests will start to gel the design better. The fighter is rough, but it has been consistently mentioned as being a rough class to balance. The flat math sounds positive, reliance on artificial magical additives to adjust the flatter math sounds nasty, and the inclusion of bull strength in an ability score driven game sounds broken. But alpha is alpha, and beta will be beta.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky

Actually it sounds like the posters are trolling 3E players...

"So...yeah, it's bad. It's really bad. Unless you really, really liked 3.5! Or you are Monte Cook, I guess. Or wanted your rules to be written in the most obfuscatory language possible. Hopefully they can scrap the whole thing and build on 4e's improvements, but the design team has really strongly shown what they want the next edition to look like, and it looks like 3.5 with a few tweaks here and there. "

Except reading through all the stuff up to there, it all looks like an unholy love child of 4E and 1E/OD&D/etc...


----------



## The Little Raven

Kamikaze Midget said:


> They are copypasta of old documents.




One of the problems I see as he describes the document is that this only true of pre-4e games, and anything 4e related is written to disassociate it with 4e. Now, it might not be accurate, and things from all editions were modified, but if it is true, and 4e stuff was rewritten to pretend it wasn't from 4e, that just speaks of an incredible bias that seriously reduces this 4e fan's enthusiasm for the new edition.


----------



## JonWake

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Except reading through all the stuff up to there, it all looks like an unholy love child of 4E and 1E/OD&D/etc...




And I'm kind of okay with that.


----------



## JoesephBear

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm not sure it's so much "fake" (though it could be) as "really really super-duper _early_." The leaker mentions this is info from the 1.0 version, and they're on 1.5-ish by the time of his post. It sounds like a lot of it was derived from earlier books, just pasted all together and given out to people for the first early round of testing.





While true, here's my problem. 

v1.0 leak - "Oh it's just super early. Nothing is set in stone."

Internal alpha test - "Ok, so it's still mostly bad, but internal playtesting will fix it."

Beta test - "So the design philosophy hasn't changed at all yet. Don't worry. They'll surely listen to everyone who hates it and make the needed changes."

Release - "So they only tweaked the numbers on some stuff. It's only the first printing. We've still got errata and splat books to look forward too."


We've all seen this happen before. WotC did it with 4e. Paizo did it with Pathfinder. Once a dev team gets going down a specific design path, they aren't going to drastically change it. To do so costs lots of time and money. It's also really bad to tell your investors and your CEO that everything you've done up until now has been a waste and needs to be redone.


The incentive then is to only listen to feedback that falls into the chosen design philosophy. Any criticism that does not follow the chosen core design, or criticizes the core design, no matter how insightful or constructive it may be, falls onto deaf ears and is disregarded.


This leak gives insight into the chosen design philosophy of 5e. We now know that it is geared strongly towards winning back members of the OSR and Pathfinder crowd with a steep 3.5 angle, and traces of 4e are to be cut and minimized wherever possible. I do not see this core ideal changing radically for the final product.


----------



## catastrophic

This is the foundation they are building from. They're not going to radically change their approach, and even if they do, the point they start from will seriously influence the design going forward, and maintain the serious flaws and areas of deliberate neglect the design clearly has.

And the point they started from is one where Fighters do very little, Wizards overtly trivialise the niches of other classes, and you only get to hit in combat if you rolled high on your strength and/or your DM decided to give you a magic sword.

The 'wait for the patch' fallacy can't conceal the problems with that. 

And the polls they've done in the last few weeks suggest this trend also- viewed in relation to 1.0 and the feedback they likely got at ddxp, it's clear that a lot of them aren't "What do you think we should do with X", but rather "Here's a colum and poll designed to get support for the option I prefer".


----------



## Lanefan

On the (very uncertain) assumption that any of what's there is real, some of it is rather intriguing and some of it is rather awful.

And some of it doesn't make sense.  Ability scores are capped at 20 but you get +1 to your prime ability every 3 levels?  If the game goes 1-20 for levels and you use the array thus give your prime stat a 15 to start, it'll hit 21 at 18th...but the cap is...20.  Huh.

All in all, though, I think I'll wait to see a newer version before passing too much judgement.

Lanefan


----------



## Iosue

The Little Raven said:


> One of the problems I see as he describes the document is that this only true of pre-4e games, and anything 4e related is written to disassociate it with 4e. Now, it might not be accurate, and things from all editions were modified, but if it is true, and 4e stuff was rewritten to pretend it wasn't from 4e, that just speaks of an incredible bias that seriously reduces this 4e fan's enthusiasm for the new edition.




Or, it speaks to WotC listening to a large group of fans who say, "I admit that 4e is a good game, well-designed, but it just doesn't feel like D&D to me."  It might also speak to an attempt to design basic rules that fit with using miniatures and grids, but is not dependent on them, and are not described with the grid in mind.  I'm as much a fan of 4e as the next guy, but I'm not unsympathetic to the charge that it reads as "game-y".

On an unrelated note, even assuming all of this leak is true, and that the leaker was remembering everything correctly, I'm not particularly worried that the wizard seemed ahead of the fighter.  This playtest packet would far pre-date the DDX seminars, and even at that point they were saying they hadn't figured out the fighter yet.  So it's no surprise that things would be unbalanced and not fighter-chock-a-block with awesome yet.


----------



## The Little Raven

Iosue said:


> Or, it speaks to WotC listening to a large group of fans who say, "I admit that 4e is a good game, well-designed, but it just doesn't feel like D&D to me." It might also speak to an attempt to design basic rules that fit with using miniatures and grids, but is not dependent on them, and are not described with the grid in mind.




It's the worst kind of pandering. It's semantics intended to appease a person who would reject something sight unseen because it comes from 4e. It has nothing to do with grids or miniatures or anything like that. It's the fact that they apparently took mechanics directly from 4e and rewrote them to be verbose rather than concise. No difference in function, just drawn out over more words. The rest mechanic, its limitations and its percentage-based healing is practically the healing surges system with the name filed off. The Guardian Fighter mentioned has the exact mechanics of Defender Aura.

It's like they're willing to sleep with 4e, but not willing to be seen in public with it.


----------



## Iosue

The Little Raven said:


> It's the worst kind of pandering. It's semantics intended to appease a person who would reject something sight unseen because it comes from 4e. It has nothing to do with grids or miniatures or anything like that. It's the fact that they apparently took mechanics directly from 4e and rewrote them to be verbose rather than concise. No difference in function, just drawn out over more words. The rest mechanic, its limitations and its percentage-based healing is practically the healing surges system with the name filed off. The Guardian Fighter mentioned has the exact mechanics of Defender Aura.
> 
> It's like they're willing to sleep with 4e, but not willing to be seen in public with it.




Well, it sounds like you've made up your mind, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'll just say, as someone who loves, loves, LOVES the Essentials Knight, that "Guardian" sounds a hell of a lot better than "Defender Aura".


----------



## Sunseeker

The Little Raven said:


> It's the worst kind of pandering. It's semantics intended to appease a person who would reject something sight unseen because it comes from 4e. It has nothing to do with grids or miniatures or anything like that. It's the fact that they apparently took mechanics directly from 4e and rewrote them to be verbose rather than concise. No difference in function, just drawn out over more words. The rest mechanic, its limitations and its percentage-based healing is practically the healing surges system with the name filed off. The Guardian Fighter mentioned has the exact mechanics of Defender Aura.
> 
> It's like they're willing to sleep with 4e, but not willing to be seen in public with it.




Calling 4e the secret mistress of Wizards isn't _that_ far off from the truth IMO.  Honestly as gamey as it was, I loved the more concise descriptions in 4e.  I enjoy 3.X greatly, but I *HATE* having to read through fluffed up, overly verbose descriptions that essentially say: "You heal the target for 2d8."  Great, thank you, I don't need to know that some random Joe had to wiggle his fingers and pinch his nose, then do a jig while singing ICP's Toxic Love to figure this spell out.


----------



## Kynn

I'm really, really hoping that they make major changes during the playtest period.


----------



## Serendipity

Why are we assuming this is legit?  I mean, it could be, but I don't see anything terribly compelling to make me believe that it is.


----------



## GX.Sigma

To be fair, a lot of the caster-centric vibe seems to be a lack of polish, multiplied by the author's extreme bias against Monte Cook/3.x.

There aren't really any bits of actual evidence to indicate that the game will repeat 3.x's mistakes in that area (aside from the existence of Knock as a 1st- or 2nd- level spell, and let's not have that argument right now); it's just that the author has made up his mind that he hates the system, and goes out of his way to describe it in the most negative way possible.

Of course, this is assuming it's true (and there's not a big difference between someone who breaks NDA because he doesn't like 5e, and someone who makes things up because he doesn't like 5e).


----------



## Ratinyourwalls

This has to be fake, right? No way WotC would do this. I mean they do some questionable things on a regular basis but  everything about this.


----------



## JonWake

Ah, the sweet scent of fear.

This looks legit to me. Once you scrape away the 4e-_cum_-grognard panic, it looks like they're building a pretty robust system that is designed to run fast and stay out of the way, but have a unified mechanic.  Given, there are some rough edges, but the core is there.  

Putting the saves as ability scores is something I've been doing for a while, and it's the best anti- min/max tool I've found.  Dump stat?  Naw, son, that's just the thing that's gonna get you.


----------



## Roxolan

Serendipity said:


> Why are we assuming this is legit?  I mean, it could be, but I don't see anything terribly compelling to make me believe that it is.



SomethingAwful's board culture, and the fact that the leak comes from multiple posters independently (some of which old-timers). Either it's some kind of vast trolling conspiracy that will get half its members banned, or it's real.


----------



## Lurks-no-More

I hope this leak is a huge, cunning troll.

If not, I hope against hope that the end result won't much resemble the 1.0 playtest version.

Because if this is indicative of the design philosophy and goals behind the D&DN; if "casters rule, fighters drool" makes a come-back; if clarity and consistency of rules is sacrificed for fluffy "conversational" tone; if the whole thing is a huge, deliberate step back in order to woo back the people who already have Pathfinder and retroclones and previous editions... it will be a game that I won't play even if you paid me to do so. If I got the books as a gift, I'd burn them in the street.


----------



## Kzach

April is two-weeks away so this is a spoiler.


----------



## D'karr

Lurks-no-More said:


> If I got the books as a gift, I'd burn them in the street.




I wouldn't go so far, I've never been the book burning kind.  I'd regift them though, with a big fruitcake bow.

LOL


----------



## rjfTrebor

it seems legit to me, but definitely mired in personal opinion and hyperbole.

keep in mind that this is why the devs are reluctant to release early drafts of the rules to the masses, it's simply not polished enough to withstand the searing gaze of the gaming community.

wait until the public playtest rolls out in the next month or so before you stomp your feet in judgement.


----------



## Minigiant

If even it's fake, it doesn't look too far off.
If I were to troll the fans using what we heard, it would somethng look like this. 'Cept for the monster part, I don't understand. Some birthday present. heh. Ability checks for everything. Wimpy spells. 

I'm sure that this, whatever early alpha 5e is, or whatever Cook has saved on a drive,; it is a lot of costapasta with no sauce.


----------



## Noir le Lotus

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Except reading through all the stuff up to there, it all looks like an unholy love child of 4E and 1E/OD&D/etc...




That was my impression as well.

I really liked 3.X edition, but I'm really not appealed by this new edition.


----------



## D'karr

Sometime ago I said in another thread that they needed a lot more tweaking before doing an open test.

The reaction I'm seeing to these news kind of bears that out.


----------



## Hassassin

Other than the hostile commentary, it doesn't contain many very bad things. Most issues I would have with the rules as described (like lack of consistent actions, incoherent list of conditions) seem likely to be representative only of the early state of the playtest.

In fact, other than some more details on the ability score system, it contains almost no really new information.


----------



## delericho

That sounds absolutely horrible.

But... I also doubt very much that it's real. Some of the stuff there is so obviously bad that I can't believe it would even reach a first draft playtest document.


----------



## Dice4Hire

I think this is a rather obvious fake.


----------



## KarinsDad

And so the 5E edition war starts.


----------



## Ettin

Well, anyone familiar with grognards.txt knows SA goons are a bunch of lying jerks anyway, so.


----------



## Mercurius

I have not read the entire thread, but let's get a couple things clear:

1) This is based upon Playtest v 1.0
2) It is the basic game and doesn't include any modular options, which means...
3) 4E-esque elements were probably not included

To put it another way, it is a lot easier to add "4E style" onto a 3Eish base game than it would be to take out 4E-esque elements to make a "3E style" game.

Make sense? Good, now we can all relax.


----------



## JonWake

I'd really love to hear what all these HORRIBAD O NOES I HATE EVRYTHING bits are.  Or is overreaction a D&D fan class feature?


----------



## Piratecat

Folks, whether this is true or not, and whether you love it or hate it, don't use this as an opportunity for edition warring or insulting other people.


----------



## Mallus

JonWake said:


> Or is overreaction a D&D fan class feature?



Yes. 

How else can you explain - "I just read this possibly true leak of the pre-alpha version 1.0 playtest rules for the new D&D on a humor board known for organized trolling raids. Man, the new D&D is gonna suck - do not want!"

That said, aside from the obvious jokes (random classes in the PHB, unlocking for Wizard Points), the post sounds plausible, in a non-objectionable, I'm still interested way.


----------



## Mokona

I may or may not like the current state of the *Wizards of the Coast* playtest rules for 5e but the biggest benefit of releasing the Official Playtest now (sooner than later) is stamping out internet trolls.

Fear of the unknown is worse by far than any set of bad rules, no matter how bad. Rampant speculation leads to lying trolls leads to hate leads to suffering (oh, hi there Yoda).

Maybe the leak is lies and maybe it's true. If it's true there really was very little substance to say it is like-4e or HATES-on-4e. The author's bias also makes it difficult to understand what the rules are really saying, as a whole. I only know what the author is saying, I don't get a clear picture of the non-bias-flavored text he's working from.

It's funny that WotC thinks they can "control the message" by controlling the release date of the playtest. Multiple trolls, multiple leaks (some false), and even D&D Experience playtest reports show that you cannot control the message while hiding the playtest from the public. Only by releasing the playtest now (and evolving it with updates to be tested and kept/rejected) can Wizards take back control of the message and keep control.

To me it feels like Wizards keeps trying to shoot themselves in the foot.


----------



## vagabundo

If this is true I hope they pair down all the horrible fiddliness. I was hoping for a core game something like Basic DND, something that could be built on.

Some of the horrible bits:
- Spell levels different from class levels
- fighters getting nerfed
- way too general wizard spell make a comeback
- Spell lists in NPC stats (this x1000, sooo bad)
- Big focus on magic items again. 

Monte is known to have a bias towards wizards so I can well believe they have been bumped up in power...


----------



## tlantl

Reading this thread is like looking into my crystal ball. I foresee many more like it when the real play test starts. Many, many more.

Every little thing that doesn't quite mesh with people's wants or expectations will fill thread after thread with vituperations on dozens of web sites. 

It doesn't bode well.

I find it humorous and in some cases predictable. I'm sure there are going to be things I don't like about the game. I'm not going to be disappointed unless there is so much wrong with it that I can't stomach the thing. I don't expect that to happen, but I also don't expect it to resemble any or the editions that came before. 

I have hopes and fears. Until then I will wait and see. When I can sit with my friends playing a well polished version of their play test and can judge for myself I will basically treat these leaks as entertainment nothing more.


----------



## ExploderWizard

D'karr said:


> The leaker, that sounds like a really horrible name for a monster, or even worse a superhero.




LOL!!!  Sounds like a character from The Tick universe.


----------



## Blackwarder

Isn't it the same thing that been floating around several months ago only written as one long document... :/

I'll take every thing in there with a truckload of salt, we will see the rules our selves in a few months, no need to get over excited over this.

Warder


----------



## Arytiss

I'm curious as to why those who are thinking "OMG THIS IS TERRIBLE!" have that opinion. Treat this as if it were a playtest. Instead of simply saying the whole thing is bad, say what you don't like and why. At the very least it'll mean a little more feedback for any WotC people who happen to browse this thread. Simply saying something is bad isn't very helpful.


Looking at the leaked information, I suspect that it's most likely true, but again, it's a very early alpha and probably compares very little to the current iteration. Most of it I found interesting enough, such as the use of abilities for saves and skills, though some I'm cautious of - in particular the mention of the need for magic items. I'm one of those people of the opinion that a magic item should be special and that adventurers shouldn't have to go around decked out like a christmas tree in order to fight the monsters.


----------



## Viking Bastard

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Except reading through all the stuff up to there, it all looks like an unholy love child of 4E and 1E/OD&D/etc...




Yeah, that's my impression as well (or more precisely, Essentials and AD&D).

But 4e tempered with OSR sensibilities would probably resemble 3e in a lot of ways, only hopefully simpler (and with tighter math).

I mean, so what if they don't call Encounter powers "Encounter powers"? Yeah, I liked a lot of the standardized language of 4e (makes is so much easier to learn and communicate), but a power that refreshes after a short rest _is_ an encounter power, no matter what you call it.


----------



## dkyle

I'm generally inclined to believe that this is a reasonably accurate description of the 1.0 rules.  And they look _terrible_.  Not that I expected much different.  Sounds like these are from before they started talking publicly about 5E, so hopefully there's been some feedback they're paying attention to.

A lot of it is a return to stuff from older editions that I was glad to see go away, but there's one new mechanic that I'm not thrilled by: the ability check system.  So, if your ability score matches or exceeds the DC, you succeed automatically.  But if it doesn't, you roll d20+ability mod vs that DC.  Which means that with, say, an ability score of 16, you automatically succeed all they way up to DC 16, but at DC 17, success chance drops all the way down to 40%.  But then DC 18 and up, it just drops 5% each time.  That sounds incredibly wonky.

Also, at 20 ability score, the success rate for DC 21 is 25%.  But, apparently, past 20 ability mod increases at one for one (I suspect that "20 cap" is just a starting stat cap).  Which means that for every ability score past 20, the success rate for the DC one higher is always 25%, while the success rate for the equal DC (or less) is 100%.  At least it doesn't devolve to the point of rolling never meaning anything, period (which would happen at ability score 31, if ability mods continued at 2 to 1 past 20), but it still feel incredibly bizarre to have such a stark drop-off from one single point of DC.

One thing I _am_ glad to see: no automatic level scaling of spells.  That's a significant part of "quadratic wizards".  Not all of it, though, and overall caster balance still seems to be awful.



Arytiss said:


> I'm curious as to why those who are thinking "OMG THIS IS TERRIBLE!" have that opinion. Treat this as if it were a playtest. Instead of simply saying the whole thing is bad, say what you don't like and why. At the very least it'll mean a little more feedback for any WotC people who happen to browse this thread. Simply saying something is bad isn't very helpful.




Aside from a few things (some which I mentioned above), the bulk of it is just stuff brought back from older editions.  Going into why I dislike all those various things they're bringing back would just be rehashing the same old "why I like 4E" arguments.  There's basically nothing I saw that made me think "oh, that's an improvement over 4E".


----------



## billd91

Mokona said:


> I may or may not like the current state of the *Wizards of the Coast* playtest rules for 5e but the biggest benefit of releasing the Official Playtest now (sooner than later) is stamping out internet trolls.
> 
> Fear of the unknown is worse by far than any set of bad rules, no matter how bad. Rampant speculation leads to lying trolls leads to hate leads to suffering (oh, hi there Yoda).
> 
> Maybe the leak is lies and maybe it's true. If it's true there really was very little substance to say it is like-4e or HATES-on-4e. The author's bias also makes it difficult to understand what the rules are really saying, as a whole. I only know what the author is saying, I don't get a clear picture of the non-bias-flavored text he's working from.
> 
> It's funny that WotC thinks they can "control the message" by controlling the release date of the playtest. Multiple trolls, multiple leaks (some false), and even D&D Experience playtest reports show that you cannot control the message while hiding the playtest from the public. Only by releasing the playtest now (and evolving it with updates to be tested and kept/rejected) can Wizards take back control of the message and keep control.
> 
> To me it feels like Wizards keeps trying to shoot themselves in the foot.




I do not believe Wizards is shooting itself in the foot at all right now. They need to work at their pace and *IGNORE* the trolls rather than react to them with haste and lack of care. Because that's all we'd get if they thought they had to react to trolling threads like the leak on a site better described as Someplace Awful. Hasty releases of half-baked stuff really *will* be shooting themselves in the foot.

If the rampant speculation leads to the dark side, that's a reflection on the foolishness of the rampant speculation and speculators. People need to be patient. People need to be reasonably open-minded. People need to stop running around like they're on fire every time speculation suggests the next edition will include something they don't like or exclude something they love. There will be plenty of time to criticize elements of the game when we actually have it in our hands and are working from something other than hearsay.

I've been a vocal critic of the direction WotC took with 4e. But I waited until I had real information in my hands. I actually checked out the game before I decided it was too different from the D&D I wanted. I'm doing the same with 5e, waiting to have elements of it before I comment on what is or isn't there, rather than what I'd really like to be in or not in there.


----------



## Scribble

Sooooo at this point we've seen a play test leak that points to a game that is very much like 4e, and another with a leak saying the game is very much NOT like 4e.


----------



## Blackwarder

Scribble said:


> Sooooo at this point we've seen a play test leak that points to a game that is very much like 4e, and another with a leak saying the game is very much NOT like 4e.




Woot? Where have we seen something that is like 4e?

Warder


----------



## kitsune9

D'karr said:


> The leaker, that sounds like a really horrible name for a monster, or even worse a superhero.




Makes me think twice about robbing a bank or pulling off a jewelry heist knowing that The Leaker is out there fighting crime.


----------



## Hassassin

JonWake said:


> Or is overreaction a D&D fan class feature?




It's a class feature of the general Fan class, as well as specialist fans like the D&D Fan.


----------



## Scribble

Blackwarder said:


> Woot? Where have we seen something that is like 4e?
> 
> Warder




A month or so back? There was another "Look I'm leaking the play test!" thread.

That one painted a picture where everything was almost exactly like 4e with a few modifications. Like the exact opposite of this.

In that thread all the anti-4e peeps were gnashing teeth and ready to disown WoTC for life (again?)

Now we have one where pretty much the exact opposite is happening.  That just kind of amuses me.


Like others I will wait until we see some actual released stuff from WoTC before making any kind of choice.


----------



## Grazzt

Scribble said:


> A month or so back? There was another "Look I'm leaking the play test!" thread.
> 
> That one painted a picture where everything was almost exactly like 4e with a few modifications. Like the exact opposite of this.
> 
> In that thread all the anti-4e peeps were gnashing teeth and ready to disown WoTC for life (again?)
> 
> Now we have one where pretty much the exact opposite is happening.  That just kind of amuses me.
> 
> 
> Like others I will wait until we see some actual released stuff from WoTC before making any kind of choice.




If it's the leak I'm thinking of, that one was shot down by WotC Trevor as being fake.


----------



## Scribble

Grazzt said:


> If it's the leak I'm thinking of, that one was shot down by WotC Trevor as being fake.




Has this one been confirmed by WoTC Trevor?


----------



## vagabundo

Grazzt said:


> If it's the leak I'm thinking of, that one was shot down by WotC Trevor as being fake.




Which means if we get a no comment from WotC it is probably true. They probably should have stuck to a common statement when addressing potential leaks.


----------



## Viking Bastard

Here's that thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...ily-playtest-apparently-violates-his-nda.html


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt

People Troll on the internet for fun.  I'll keep my powder dry for the public beta, thank you.


----------



## Mengu

Designers are intelligent people. I am sure there are reasons as to why they are trying out what they choose to try out. We can have a little more faith in their ability to envision the big picture, and trust the design process. What I read in that post already seemed to indicate some differences from what I played at DDXP (I'm not sure if 1.0 was pre or post DDXP). Nothing is set in stone yet, nothing is published, if they get massive negative feedback on an issue, they will change it.


----------



## Gundark

Snipped


----------



## DEFCON 1

dkyle said:


> A lot of it is a return to stuff from older editions that I was glad to see go away, but there's one new mechanic that I'm not thrilled by: the ability check system.  So, if your ability score matches or exceeds the DC, you succeed automatically.  But if it doesn't, you roll d20+ability mod vs that DC.  Which means that with, say, an ability score of 16, you automatically succeed all they way up to DC 16, but at DC 17, success chance drops all the way down to 40%.  But then DC 18 and up, it just drops 5% each time.  That sounds incredibly wonky.




This of course assumes a 2 to 1 score to mod conversion, as you pointed out.  But truth be told... having now read these "leaked" playtests... it sounds a lot more likely that these modifiers are probably *1 to 1* up from 10 (which is a theory someone else put forth here on the boards several months ago, which I now crib.)

Evidence:

If your ability score matches or is higher than a DC, you succeed automatically.  If we assume 10 is a +0 and everything goes up 1 to 1 (so that a 16 has a +6 mod for example)... then your ability score equals Taking 10 on something.  So any check that you can Take 10 on (aka Passive Perception, or Insight et. al.) _should_ succeed automatically by definition.  If you can't Take 10 on it... it means you HAVE to roll to attempt it.  But like you said, if mods went up 1 point every 2 ability points, then the math goes wonky.  If they go up 1 to 1, then it just becomes like any other mod check.  Forex a DC 18 Dex check for a PC with a 13 Dex... that's a 1d20+3 to hit DC 18.  Makes all the logical sense in the world.

Rolling for ability scores and the race/class +1 score bonuses.  The problem with rolling scores and those +1 bonuses was the 'odd number' problem in 3E-- where a character had a better chance of being gimped compared to others depending on how many odd numbered ability scores showed up, and some racial adjustments not actually being bonuses because it just raised a score from the even number to the odd number (with no bonus to mod).  By doing point-buy... you could get as many even numbers as you wanted (along with their beneficial mod bonus), and 4E's +2 racial modifiers meant you always got a mod bonus from your race.

However, if you raise mods 1 to 1... then the odd-number problem goes away, because EVERY score you roll is valid from a modifier point of view-- odd or even.  That removes some of the stigma of rolling for ability scores.  It also means that a +1 from your race or class also impacts your modifier.  Those minor bonuses are all worthwhile.

Doing 1 to 1 also gets us closer to the idea that many people had wondered about for a long time about whether we should have just gotten rid of the 3-18 ability score format sacred cow and just did the modifiers themselves (which Blue Rose did I believe) seeing as how the 3-18 scores really didn't serve a purpose.  A 1 to 1 modifier (thereby creating automatic Take 10 numbers) does make the 3-18 sacred cow actually viable and worthwhile.

*****

I'm not saying this theory is definitely correct... but it just seems to make more sense from the evidence we have thus far seen.


----------



## FireLance

Well, speaking as both a 4e fan and someone who doesn't want to go back to "linear warriors, quadratic wizards", nothing in the supposed leak actually worries me very much.

At the fairly low levels that the playtest seems to be focused on (up to 2nd-level spells, so probably not more than 3rd or 4th level PCs), _knock_ is a pretty serious commitment. You're spending one of your best spells to open a lock once per day. There's also some implied scaling with spell level for the other spells mentioned (_invisibility_ as a 2nd-level spell provides an apparently fixed DC 17 concealment, and 1st-level and 2nd-level versions of _shield_ were described). This suggests to me that as a 2nd-level spell, the Open Lock or break DCs (for chains) can't be too high. I'm fairly sure that if you want to use _knock_ to get past the doors you should encounter as an 18th-level character, you'll have to cast it as a 9th-level spell.

From the looks of things, the key difference between fighters and wizards is that wizards have better control over when they spike. Fighters can spike - they apparently get bonus damage on a crit without needing to confirm, and can then roll for more damage like everyone else - but are more dependant on dice. "Daily" powers (so far) seem limited to an extra action once per day and "encounter" powers seem limited to the "slayer" style. 

So, it appears that the wizard will have lower baseline effectiveness but better control over spikes while the fighter will have a higher baseline effectiveness but random spikes. They might have different resource structures, but it seems to me that neither would strictly dominate the other. Even if they aren't always perfectly balanced, there are sufficient trade-offs that it is seldom an obvious decision to favor one or the other. That's balanced enough in my book.


----------



## delericho

billd91 said:


> I do not believe Wizards is shooting itself in the foot at all right now. They need to work at their pace and *IGNORE* the trolls rather than react to them with haste and lack of care.




Problem is, they shot down that other "leak" a couple of weeks back. Now, if this leak is also false, they should simply shoot it down and be done. No problem. But if it's true...

If it's true, they have a slight problem, because they can't disavow it, and they can't just stay silent (because that amounts to confirmation, and because of the negative reactions to it). Their best bet is to demonstrate that they've moved on beyond that point, and that really needs them to get the current thinking on mechanics out there, and quickly. Of course, doing that pretty much means getting the playtest going ASAP.

It's all rather unfair, of course. While I don't like waiting, this is WotC's process, and it is them that are taking the risks. They really should be free to proceed at their own pace. Sadly, that may now not be an option.

(If this isn't a hoax, of course - I'm still expecting a fairly swift shooting down.)


----------



## I'm A Banana

JosephBear said:
			
		

> While true, here's my problem.
> 
> v1.0 leak - "Oh it's just super early. Nothing is set in stone."
> 
> Internal alpha test - "Ok, so it's still mostly bad, but internal playtesting will fix it."
> 
> Beta test - "So the design philosophy hasn't changed at all yet. Don't worry. They'll surely listen to everyone who hates it and make the needed changes."
> 
> Release - "So they only tweaked the numbers on some stuff. It's only the first printing. We've still got errata and splat books to look forward too."




Well, I'm no psychiatrist, but it seems your problem is then _pessimism_, if you assume that all future releases will go like that.  It's good to be skeptical, but lets not try our hand at fortune telling. 



			
				The Little Raven said:
			
		

> One of the problems I see as he describes the document is that this only true of pre-4e games, and anything 4e related is written to disassociate it with 4e. Now, it might not be accurate, and things from all editions were modified, but if it is true, and 4e stuff was rewritten to pretend it wasn't from 4e, that just speaks of an incredible bias that seriously reduces this 4e fan's enthusiasm for the new edition.




I don't think it speaks of an incredible bias so much as it speaks of a "where we've done some work already, and where we haven't."

4e is the most recent edition. Everyone on the design team has probably been tinkering with 4e for the last 3-5 years. They have an idea of how they might want to use the 4e information already. They've done _a bit of work on it_, so it looks different.

They haven't gotten to futzing with the earlier edition stuff too much, and that's because it's farther away from them chronologically. Like, with the 20 status conditions that the poster rants about -- that's pretty much what 3.5e had (and Pathfinder has). It seems to me like it's smart to throw them all in and see what actually gets used in the early playtests, so they can identify what status conditions to cut. 

Or like the spell text. Toss in the most powerful version of the spell (read: probably not the 4e version), and see how it plays in practice, and what might need to be scaled back. 

A lot of 4e fans seem to have some sort of pre-emptive persecution complex about the next game, which is kind of understandable given 4e's flash-in-the-pan duration, but I probably don't need to remind 4e fans that a lot of _3e fans_ had the same reaction to 4e, and a lot of them were hyperbolic and paranoid, too.


----------



## Hangfire

If this is real, and not a fake, then why not just post the document rather than posting what he remembers. He mentions not having the document in front of him "now" as he begins to write, which makes it seem as if he's got something, a document, he was able to walk away with. If that's true, post it. Let us judge for ourselves.


----------



## Ratskinner

The Little Raven said:


> One of the problems I see as he describes the document is that this only true of pre-4e games, and anything 4e related is written to disassociate it with 4e. Now, it might not be accurate, and things from all editions were modified, but if it is true, and 4e stuff was rewritten to pretend it wasn't from 4e, that just speaks of an incredible bias that seriously reduces this 4e fan's enthusiasm for the new edition.




I would suspect the following are true:


4e uses a lot of specialized language, and needs to be re-written more than the other editions
the writer has a very strong bias towards 4e, so minor variations in 4e text stand out more to him than from other editions


----------



## Viking Bastard

Hangfire said:


> If this is real, and not a fake, then why not just post the document rather than posting what he remembers. He mentions not having the document in front of him "now" as he begins to write, which makes it seem as if he's got something, a document, he was able to walk away with. If that's true, post it. Let us judge for ourselves.




Well, for one, it might be an actual meat-world document.


----------



## Wulfgar76

This certainly must be fake or trolling.

To ditch all the innovations of 4e and regress to some stunted idiot version of 3e would be suicidal for a brand attempting to reunite a fractured customer base.

WotC knows 3.5 still exists, and a more polished and balanced version of 3.5, Pathfinder, also exists - and many people play it.

It would be simply insane to ignore all 4e players, and create some degenerate version of 3.5 that nobody would play.

Wait for the public betatesting before going nuclear I say.


----------



## Boarstorm

Viking Bastard said:


> Well, for one, it might be an actual meat-world document.




He specifically mentions pdfs.

Edit: To clarify...



			
				Linked Thread said:
			
		

> Prior to getting the pdfs, I assumed that they might, as a base module,  create a really simple basic game which might please some OSR types, and  also be newbie friendly as well.


----------



## pauljathome

delericho said:


> Problem is, they shot down that other "leak" a couple of weeks back. Now, if this leak is also false, they should simply shoot it down and be done. No problem. But if it's true...




There were also a whole slew of Enworlders who shot down that other leak. People who claimed (I am assuming correctly) to have seen the actual playtest rules.

They are all remarkably quiet on this particular leak.

Sounds pretty real to me.

That said, it is still very early days and lots of things will doubtless change.


----------



## Paraxis

On posting the pdf, it takes a lot of work to dewatermark and look for hidden info in the document so they can not tell wich copy was posted.  He might not want to share because if it doesn't clean it 100% wotc legal team could swoop down on him.


----------



## Nathal

I think they're gearing up for an April Fools joke. 



kitsune9 said:


> The guy had me at the flat math and ability scores, but I just don't buy this:
> 
> _You have to raise a common class character to level 10 before you can unlock the uncommon ones. Or you can unlock them right now for 400 Wizard Points. Every PHB will contain a random selection of 7 common classes, 3 uncommons, and 1 rare._
> 
> All things are possible I guess, but I'm still refraining from judgment until I get 5e in my hands.


----------



## Ratskinner

Does it strike anyone else as odd that the writer doesn't seem to relate any actual events from playing with the rules? The closest he comes seems to be the parts about a -5 penalty, and how that has to change....

I'd expect to see something like "This looks clunky as written, but plays really smoothly." or the opposite "This looks really good, but in play..." There's no "It sucked when our wizard..." Just "Monte loves Wizards too much!" and "There's not enough 4e here!" (Which may or may not be true...but still isn't really informative.)

I feel kinda like this is (at best) someone who fished an early draft out of the trash but didn't actually play it.


----------



## whydirt

Again, the comments about randomized classes came from other posters making jokes about the leaks and are not part of the playtest information.  We've already heard directly from WotC that certain classes will be labled as common, rare, etc.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt

delericho said:


> Problem is, they shot down that other "leak" a couple of weeks back. Now, if this leak is also false, they should simply shoot it down and be done. No problem. But if it's true...
> 
> If it's true, they have a slight problem, because they can't disavow it, and they can't just stay silent (because that amounts to confirmation, and because of the negative reactions to it).




Let's be honest for a second.  Trevor Kidd and WotC PR made a terrible mistake by denouncing the Giants in the Playground Troll.  The mistake is obvious, by responding to the Troll, he created an environment where any future Trolling that is not denounced by a WotC Spokesperson has a ring of truth to it.

We know WotC PR is error prone.  I chalk Kidd's statement on the Giants leak to be one of those errors and not an official stance by WotC to hunt down and denounce future "leaks" as trolls.  It was an error made in good faith by WotC, they were attempting to protect their customers from blatant deception.  

WotC should have referred to the Troll attempt as one of many that will happen in the weeks and months before the NDA is lifted and a public playtest begins.  That official information about the next edition of DnD will come from WotC itself or trusted news outlets.


----------



## Mark CMG

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> That official information about the next edition of DnD will come from WotC itself or trusted news outlets.





That's about the only thing we know for certain.  This leak feels false to me since there is the claim that this is an earlier rendition (iteration?  ) of the playtest material and that there is a 1.5ish version now.  If this person has access, why not post the most recent?  And if they do not have access, how can they know there is a 1.5ish at this point?  The leak seems to contradict itself in that way.


----------



## Tortoise

Something to keep in mind about play testing. Typically you can't expect to have the entirety of the documents that comprise the rules available to the specific group. Most documents are likely snippets involving pregenerated characters designed to test a variation of some elements of potential rules. What a couple of groups are testing may not be what other groups are testing at a given time and may get swapped group to group to get different perspectives in digestable chunks.

While I am not a playtester, if I were the company doing such a large project test this is how I would make sure it was handled in the earlier stages. It would serve numerous purposes, only one small one is nailing NDA breakers and defending against trolls. The main one is allowing developers to focus on the details of some aspects of the game instead of having to work on the whole thing at once.

Also, if I were working on it I wouldn't want to build the roof first, but the foundation. Earlier playutests would look a lot more like earlier versions than later versions and later elements would begin to appear as things progressed in the play test phases.

Even if the poster from Something Aweful is breaking NDA, I seriously doubt we're getting more than a grain of the possibilities. Therefore we should calm down, sit back, put our feet up and enjoy the show. We'll have our own chances to see chunks of material when the open playtest starts and even then I doubt any of us will see more than one bit of the elephant at time.


----------



## Janaxstrus

Mark CMG said:


> That's about the only thing we know for certain.  This leak feels false to me since there is the claim that this is an earlier rendition (iteration?  ) of the playtest material and that there is a 1.5ish version now.  If this person has access, why not post the most recent?  And if they do not have access, how can they know there is a 1.5ish at this point?  The leak seems to contradict itself in that way.




I've beta tested release 1.5 of a game, and not been selected to test 1.6.  It's not that uncommon to switch testers, especially if they haven't been helpful (and judging by that guy's opinions, I doubt it was that helpful of feedback provided)


----------



## Mark CMG

Janaxstrus said:


> I've beta tested release 1.5 of a game, and not been selected to test 1.6.  It's not that uncommon to switch testers, especially if they haven't been helpful (and judging by that guy's opinions, I doubt it was that helpful of feedback provided)





Okay, that's a fair point.  Given that information, it seems risky to drop playtesters midway through the process, especially since if you drop them because you don't like their feedback it probably increases the chance of a leak.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

deleted


----------



## Dausuul

pauljathome said:


> There were also a whole slew of Enworlders who shot down that other leak. People who claimed (I am assuming correctly) to have seen the actual playtest rules.
> 
> They are all remarkably quiet on this particular leak.
> 
> Sounds pretty real to me.




It was only posted late last night. Give it a day or two.


----------



## ArmoredSaint

I am primarily a 1st Edition AD&D grognard with a strong preference for playing heavily-armoured Fighter-types, though I kinda liked what 4E Essentials did with the Knight and Slayer.

I read through this and didn't find anything too offensive.  I don't really see where the Wizard is so much better than the Fighter in this rough set of rules; I thought the options presented for the Fighter sounded cool and fun.   

Fighters are my favorite class, and I would play the game presented in that leak.  

I'd be interested in seeing more, especially more types of armour than just scale.

I like that the distances are given in feet rather than in squares; it has a delightful 1E feel to it.

I _really_ like the different weapon damage types, and I dearly hope that those will affect various types of armour differently.

I think that's really what I'd like to see for this edition:  like 1E, but with more Cool Toys for Fighters.  That'd satisfy _me_, anyway...


----------



## Ratinyourwalls

Nathal said:


> I think they're gearing up for an April Fools joke.




Anything that is behind a > is just their forum users responding to the playtest. That's not actually in the playtest itself.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Wulfgar76 said:


> Wait for the public betatesting before going nuclear I say.




I'm quoting Wulfgar, but the message is for everybody.

If you feel like going nuclear when you see the public betatesting, don't do it here.

ENworld loves fruitful discussion about personal likes and dislikes, but anyone going nuclear is likely to face banning of some duration. Nuclear rarely promotes peace...

Thanks


----------



## avin

I don't know, seems plausible to me... and I'm already worried about Fighters...


----------



## GX.Sigma

It rings true to me because the author has to distort and selectively ignore the facts to bash it.



> Wizards get at-will powers. No more crossbows!
> Fighters still don't get .
> ...The Class descriptions for both wizard and fighter list a set of abilities.
> The Wizards get cantrips/feats: Detect Magic, Javelin of Fire, Mage Armor, Ritual caster.
> Fighters get fighting styles: Archer, Guardian, Slayer, Two-Weapon fighting.
> The Wizard get all of the abilities listed. The Fighter gets to *pick one*.



Actually, from the facts the leaker presented earlier, the wizard gets:



Cantrips/Feats: Detect Magic, Flame Javelin (1d6 at-will), Ritual Caster, Mage Armor (+2 AC for free)
Spells (including Knock, which is apparently pure Monte Cook evil)

While the fighter gets:



Doesn't have to confirm to deal 1d10 critical damage (but can confirm for even more damage)
+2 damage with all weapon attacks
Fighter's Surge (Action point, seemingly even off-turn)
Choice of fighting style: Archer (shoot twice at a penalty), Guardian (defender aura), Slayer (+1d10 on a hit, recharges with short rest), Two-Weapon (two-weapon defense _plus _extra attack at a penalty)


Note that it doesn't mention how much HP or AC the wizard has to start with (if they're unarmored, a free +2 AC sounds more like a quick-and-dirty math fix than anything), or how much damage the fighter's melee attacks deal (presumably more than 1d6).


----------



## thecasualoblivion

GX.Sigma said:


> It rings true to me because the author has to distort and selectively ignore the facts to bash it.
> 
> Actually, from the facts the leaker presented earlier, the wizard gets:
> 
> 
> 
> Cantrips/Feats: Detect Magic, Flame Javelin (1d6 at-will), Ritual Caster, Mage Armor (+2 AC for free)
> Spells (including Knock, which is apparently pure Monte Cook evil)
> 
> While the fighter gets:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't have to confirm to deal 1d10 critical damage (but can confirm for even more damage)
> +2 damage with all weapon attacks
> Fighter's Surge (Action point, seemingly even off-turn)
> Choice of fighting style: Archer (shoot twice at a penalty), Guardian (defender aura), Slayer (+1d10 on a hit, recharges with short rest), Two-Weapon (two-weapon defense _plus _extra attack at a penalty)
> 
> 
> Note that it doesn't mention how much HP or AC the wizard has to start with (if they're unarmored, a free +2 AC sounds more like a quick-and-dirty math fix than anything), or how much damage the fighter's melee attacks deal (presumably more than 1d6).




You're wrong in that there are two Fighter vs Wizards complaints. First is that Fighters were weak, and the second that they were boring. While there isn't enough in the leak to really say for sure that Fighters will be weak, what they describe is certainly a return to "swings a sword" with little variation and a return to boredom. It can be argued that Fighters being boring is a matter of taste, but to those who want Fighters to do more than swing a sword this is pretty much epic fail.


----------



## Scribble

thecasualoblivion said:


> You're wrong in that there are two Fighter vs Wizards complaints. First is that Fighters were weak, and the second that they were boring. While there isn't enough in the leak to really say for sure that Fighters will be weak, what they describe is certainly a return to "swings a sword" with little variation and a return to boredom. It can be argued that Fighters being boring is a matter of taste, but to those who want Fighters to do more than swing a sword this is pretty much epic fail.




Sure, but if the aim is to start with a game that resembles basic (or at least allows you to have the same "feel") and then have options you can layer on top to get a more 4e feel who cares?

Personally I'd like to see an "easy version" of ALL the characters to start...  I'd be less upset about a "simple" fighter (since adding complexity is easier then removing) and more upset about not having a wizard type class that is simple (if this play test proves true.)


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Scribble said:


> Sure, but if the aim is to start with a game that resembles basic (or at least allows you to have the same "feel") and then have options you can layer on top to get a more 4e feel who cares?
> 
> Personally I'd like to see an "easy version" of ALL the characters to start...  I'd be less upset about a "simple" fighter (since adding complexity is easier then removing) and more upset about not having a wizard type class that is simple (if this play test proves true.)




I care because the base rules color the options added on. 4E was built on a chassis that was designed to have infinite amounts of powers, feats, ect. added onto it, and wore the added weight well. Then we get to community arguments about which way to play 5E is 'right'. The core philosophy of the game matters.


----------



## tlantl

GX.Sigma said:


> ... (including Knock, which is apparently pure Monte Cook evil)




You know, badmouthing the people you want influence in the decision making isn't the most productive way to do it. 

If it were me, I'd be reluctant to listen very closely to anyone who can't give feedback without taking swipes at me. 

The developers develop games. They have ideas that may or may not work for everyone. I'm sure there are going to be things in the game I don't like as there will for the majority of us. If a spell is so offensive that you don't want it in your game then take a big black marker and get rid of it. 

The rules don't abuse themselves players and dungeon masters do. 

If a spell caster is stealing your thunder then kill him, kick him out of the group, talk to the guy playing the offensive character. Don't hate on the guys who made the game, hate on the jerk ruining your fun. 

Your opinion isn't my opinion. The stuff you find offensive is perfectly reasonable for others.


----------



## GX.Sigma

tlantl said:


> You know, badmouthing the people you want influence in the decision making isn't the most productive way to do it.
> 
> If it were me, I'd be reluctant to listen very closely to anyone who can't give feedback without taking swipes at me.
> 
> The developers develop games. They have ideas that may or may not work for everyone. I'm sure there are going to be things in the game I don't like as there will for the majority of us. If a spell is so offensive that you don't want it in your game then take a big black marker and get rid of it.
> 
> The rules don't abuse themselves players and dungeon masters do.
> 
> If a spell caster is stealing your thunder then kill him, kick him out of the group, talk to the guy playing the offensive character. Don't hate on the guys who made the game, hate on the jerk ruining your fun.
> 
> Your opinion isn't my opinion. The stuff you find offensive is perfectly reasonable for others.



I was being sarcastic. I don't believe Knock (or Monte Cook) are necessarily bad things for the game, just that whomever posted this "leak" definitely does. I was using it as an example of how biased the leaker is, to support my argument that the leaker is going out of his way to make the system look bad.


----------



## Savage Wombat

My proposal:  If the leak is fake, WotC should say so.

If the leak is based off real info, then WotC should speak up (silence is consent, as previously mentioned.)

What they should say is something like "Well, it does look like he saw a very early playtest document, but he sure misinterpreted a bunch of stuff, and we've changed a lot since then."  That would limit or squash further speculation on the post, without giving out any information WotC doesn't want released.  And it would continue to show that they're responsive to the community at large.


----------



## tlantl

GX.Sigma said:


> I was being sarcastic (I thought "apparently" connoted that; apparently not). I don't believe Knock (or Monte Cook) are necessarily bad things for the game, just that whomever posted this "leak" definitely does. I was using it as an example of how biased the leaker is, to support my argument that the leaker is going out of his way to make the system look bad.




My apologies.

There are so many people taking swipes at Mr. Cook for one thing or another, deservedly or not, that it's getting old. 

My post was directed toward those people not you in particular. That was just the catalyst.

I'm pretty sure the guy who wrote that was looking for attention. whether the stuff in his post is real or woven from whole cloth doesn't much matter. The game is more than a year away from being close to done and you and I will be able to give it a test drive before we actually have to decide if we are going to buy it or not.


I'll likely buy the core rules regardless of whether I'm going to actually play them for completeness sake. The price of a few books isn't going to kill me and if I can enjoy using those books, all the better.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

tlantl said:


> There are so many people taking swipes at Mr. Cook for one thing or another, deservedly or not, that it's getting old.




You don't need to insult Monte to have a problem with him. I tend to associate Monte with:

1. Favoritism towards spellcasters
2. Building system mastery into the game
3. Prioritizing mathematical symmetry over balanced, smooth running gameplay

In his blog posts and preview comments, I've seen strong signs of all three of those, and at this point don't trust Monte with D&D at all.


----------



## billd91

Savage Wombat said:


> If the leak is based off real info, then WotC should speak up (silence is consent, as previously mentioned.)




Silence is not consent. Anyone who infers that it is assumes too much.


----------



## Piratecat

Savage Wombat said:


> My proposal:  If the leak is fake, WotC should say so.
> 
> If the leak is based off real info, then WotC should speak up (silence is consent, as previously mentioned.)
> 
> What they should say is something like "Well, it does look like he saw a very early playtest document, but he sure misinterpreted a bunch of stuff, and we've changed a lot since then."  That would limit or squash further speculation on the post, without giving out any information WotC doesn't want released.  And it would continue to show that they're responsive to the community at large.




No they shouldn't. They should ignore it. There's no upside to commenting, and it can only make them look defensive.

If it's false, it won't even be relevant, right? And if its true, it involves early rules that will look completely different by the time the game launches. I'm not sure they gain anything. The best thing they can do in my opinion is keep their mouths shut, read the analysis of the true-or-not-true report, and examine their rules accordingly.

EDIT: I sound cranky here. I apologize. It's annoying knowing whether it's true or not and not being able to say anything either way.


----------



## Tovec

billd91 said:


> Silence is not consent. Anyone who infers that it is assumes too much.




I think they're only saying silence is consent when in the past they were not silent about something that was wrong.

Not silent = incorrect
Silent = correct

I'm not saying I agree with it but I do understand the premise.
Honestly, I think it has just been too soon to expect a response either way.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Piratecat said:


> No they shouldn't. They should ignore it. There's no upside to commenting, and it can only make them look defensive.
> 
> If it's false, it won't even be relevant, right? And if its true, it involves early rules that will look completely different by the time the game launches. I'm not sure they gain anything. The best thing they can do in my opinion is keep their mouths shut, read the analysis of the true-or-not-true report, and examine their rules accordingly.




This assumes that it doesn't become a festering wound that radicalizes 4E players expecting to be screwed over by 5E.

Personally I put more stock in the lack of actual playtesters stepping forward to refute it.


----------



## Piratecat

thecasualoblivion said:


> This assumes that it doesn't become a festering wound that radicalizes 4E players expecting to be screwed over by 5E.




I think that whatever people say now, it's going to be the open playtests of verified rules that affect purchasing decisions. Call me cynical, but when EN World launched, there were a tremendous amount of people who swore they'd never buy 3e based on the rumors. Did they? I have no idea. But I bet their actual decision ended up being predicated on trying it and/or how good a game it was, not a rumor a year and a half out.

Man, I AM cynical.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Piratecat said:


> I think that whatever people say now, it's going to be the open playtests of verified rules that affect purchasing decisions. Call me cynical, but when EN World launched, there were a tremendous amount of people who swore they'd never buy 3e based on the rumors. Did they? I have no idea. But I bet their actual decision ended up being predicated on trying it and/or how good a game it was, not a rumor a year and a half out.
> 
> Man, I AM cynical.




Still, going into the open playtest with an already negative attitude due to previous events(this leak) can lead to a more negative reading of that playtest than would otherwise occur. I don't think WotC wants people biased against the game before they even see it in a relatively finished form.


----------



## mcintma

Wulfgar76 said:


> This certainly must be fake or trolling.
> 
> To ditch all the innovations of 4e and regress to some stunted idiot version of 3e would be suicidal for a brand attempting to reunite a fractured customer base.




Different and more-recent does not equal "innovative", and I only have to say "Jar-Jar Binks" to prove that.

4e fans will (understandably) be going nuts when Next's fans are trumpeting 5e's shiny new "innovations", the same thing 3e fans suffered through.


----------



## Sunseeker

thecasualoblivion said:


> You don't need to insult Monte to have a problem with him. I tend to associate Monte with:
> 
> 1. Favoritism towards spellcasters
> 2. Building system mastery into the game
> 3. Prioritizing mathematical symmetry over balanced, smooth running gameplay
> 
> In his blog posts and preview comments, I've seen strong signs of all three of those, and at this point don't trust Monte with D&D at all.




I find it strange that the lead developers of almost every game I can come up with favor spellcasters.


----------



## Reflex

Some of the suppositions about why this is not a valid leak are a little tenuous. The Leaker Above responsible for most of the quoted material (there were a couple posters in the thread who had access to the PDF) was not a playtester himself. He was given access to the material and read it over only. The same guy later played 1.5 and was slightly more positive, but he WAS bound by the NDA at that point and said as little as possible. It was pretty apparent in the thread that all parties were working from the same corpus. The leak is legitimate, but again, there's time for changes. I hope they take advantage of the opportunity.


----------



## billd91

thecasualoblivion said:


> Still, going into the open playtest with an already negative attitude due to previous events(this leak) can lead to a more negative reading of that playtest than would otherwise occur. I don't think WotC wants people biased against the game before they even see it in a relatively finished form.




And exactly how are they going to stop you and others from engaging in speculation and rumor mongering, flying off the handle at half-baked assumptions, and otherwise prejudicing potential play testers? Even if they said they're moving up the release of the play test to tomorrow morning, that still leaves more than 12 hours with which people will engage in the very same behaviors they'd be trying to prevent. There's no winning in this situation. They've got to just forge ahead with their plans of getting the materials to us when they are ready and let the work stand for itself.

If none of us can let the work stand for itself, then I don't think any of us are worth the effort they are putting into it. Frankly, I am going to wait, as patiently as I can, for them to try to wow me. They might succeed like they did with 3e. They might not like with 4e. But it will be the product that does it when I get it, not a bunch of malinformed natterings on an internet message board.


----------



## gweinel

Scribble said:


> Sooooo at this point we've seen a play test leak that points to a game that is very much like 4e, and another with a leak saying the game is very much NOT like 4e.




I am the only one that thinks the two leaks don't contradict with each other??


----------



## Janaxstrus

gweinel said:


> I am the only one that thinks the two leaks don't contradict with each other??




The 4e one was debunked.  This one may or may not be fake.


----------



## Gundark

Piratecat said:


> No they shouldn't. They should ignore it. There's no upside to commenting, and it can only make them look defensive.
> 
> If it's false, it won't even be relevant, right? And if its true, it involves early rules that will look completely different by the time the game launches. I'm not sure they gain anything. The best thing they can do in my opinion is keep their mouths shut, read the analysis of the true-or-not-true report, and examine their rules accordingly.
> 
> EDIT: I sound cranky here. I apologize. It's annoying knowing whether it's true or not and not being able to say anything either way.



Yup , and everyone keep in mind that this is playtest 1.0 ( assuming this is real) . I am sure early versions of (insert game here) didn't look all that good either. 

Keep in mind this would be the core rules ... what you would use to emulate od&d, 1st ed, becmi etc. It's not going to look like 4e , complaints that it is not looking like 4e are misinformed at this stage of development .


----------



## gweinel

Janaxstrus said:


> The 4e one was debunked.  This one may or may not be fake.




I think a month ago there was two playtest leaks. The one was indeed debunked (i haven't read it), however the other one as i remember it doesn't seem to contradict with the current leak.


----------



## Scribble

thecasualoblivion said:


> I care because the base rules color the options added on. 4E was built on a chassis that was designed to have infinite amounts of powers, feats, ect. added onto it, and wore the added weight well. Then we get to community arguments about which way to play 5E is 'right'. The core philosophy of the game matters.




I'm just going to disagree with you there. If I can bolt on these "modules" and end up with the game I want to play, I'm not going to argue against there being another way for people to play the game.

I think above all else that's the biggest failure 3e and 4e "created."

They kind of ushered in a "this is how the game is played, everything else isn't TRUE D&D" attitude it seems.

I REALLY hope personally that 5e is modular enough that it can bring back what I loved about AD&D... That there were countless different ways to play the game... The only problem was how chaotic it all was... If they can create that same feeling (the game is yours) without the chaos... I will be happy, and who the frack cares about the core.


----------



## gyor

These sound like really early stuff. I'm betting they have a bunch of experimental packets like this. If you read the blog posts, lls, and 3rules you can already see how much things have changed.


----------



## Reflex

Gundark said:


> Yup , and everyone keep in mind that this is playtest 1.0 ( assuming this is real) . I am sure early versions of (insert game here) didn't look all that good either.
> .




Back when Eric Noah was still running what eventually became ENWorld, I personally was very interested in every new tidbit that emerged about ur-3.0. So were the rest of my group. In fact, we managed to cobble enough of the proto-rules together to play a campaign well before release and we loved it. 

I'm convinced this represents a pretty accurate picture of what the 1.0 version of the rules looked like. I wish I'd seen what was so "hi-lariously" awful about the magic items section, but now that coeranys is under NDA, I guess we may never know (assuming they change in the next revision). Either way, the difference in my personal anticipation based on these leaks compared to those from 3.0 couldn't be more different. This looks pretty awful and presages some very bewildering changes in direction all around. The one positive is the auto-success streamlining for certain tasks- that aids narrative flow and eliminates pointless rolling when it doesn't really add any play value to the game. 

Of course, we already did that in our games anyways at this point...


----------



## Piratecat

thecasualoblivion said:


> Still, going into the open playtest with an already negative attitude due to previous events(this leak) can lead to a more negative reading of that playtest than would otherwise occur. I don't think WotC wants people biased against the game before they even see it in a relatively finished form.



That's totally your decision. Still, I think you'd be best off evaluating a game from a place of neutrality - "is this game fun for us?" - based on the actual game itself. Judging anything from rumor, either good or bad, is not necessarily a great idea. 

We're playtesting D&D Next, so I know what the rules are (and what other folks make up, or don't), and we're having a fantastic time with what we have so far. So perhaps I'm biased. But we judge and evaluate with each iteration of rules, working to be critical. When something gets screwed up it gets flagged and then hopefully tuned/changed/eliminated by designers. That's what a playtest is for. I'll be shocked if the final rules look much like what we currently have.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

thecasualoblivion said:


> You don't need to insult Monte to have a problem with him. I tend to associate Monte with:
> 
> 1. Favoritism towards spellcasters
> 2. Building system mastery into the game
> 3. Prioritizing mathematical symmetry over balanced, smooth running gameplay
> 
> In his blog posts and preview comments, I've seen strong signs of all three of those, and at this point don't trust Monte with D&D at all.




Exactly, I think Monte Cook is one of the nicest people I've ever talked to on the internet, but I disagree vehemently with a lot of his game design.


----------



## mcintma

JRRNeiklot said:


> Exactly, I think Monte Cook is one of the nicest people I've ever talked to on the internet, but I disagree vehemently with a lot of his game design.




That's how I feel about Mike Mearls 

Monte helped usher in the 2nd golden age of D&D, for that ...he has my axe


----------



## Scribble

mcintma said:


> That's how I feel about Mike Mearls
> 
> Monte helped usher in the 2nd golden age of D&D, for that ...he has my axe




I always felt his stuff got too much rolemaster in it... But I've always been a fan of his "flavor" ideas.


----------



## SensoryThought

thecasualoblivion said:


> I tend to associate Monte with:
> 
> 1. Favoritism towards spellcasters
> 2. Building system mastery into the game
> 3. Prioritizing mathematical symmetry over balanced, smooth running gameplay.




I have and tried to be optimistic about 5e but many of the actual interviews and discussions with Mr Cook reinforce the above post. 

The spellcaster favoritism I find the greatest concern as the linear fighters quadratic wizards has been a problem with editions prior to 4e. Making wizards fun to play with lots of options and fighters return to basic attacks only was always a design choice I though might be considered, and one I hope they don't end up with. 

While I appreciate there will be a need to divorce 5e from a lot of 4e language, I hope the action economy is kept in some form. While I found it cumbersome and confusing for new players, 3-6 months into our 4e campaign all the players hit their stride. Once they knew what could be done in a turn (and became familiar with their powers) combat rounds actually run surprisingly fast. And there are no arguments about players trying to attack and squeeze 8 minor actions into a turn. 

The actual SA post may be fake but it does crystallize for me a few 4e innovations (better class balance, action economy) that I hope translate to 5e.


----------



## catastrophic

Mercurius said:


> 1) This is based upon Playtest v 1.0



In other words, the foundation upon which the game is being built, and a clear doccument of their key prorities and intent.



> 2) It is the basic game and doesn't include any modular options, which means...
> 3) 4E-esque elements were probably not included
> To put it another way, it is a lot easier to add "4E style" onto a 3Eish base game than it would be to take out 4E-esque elements to make a "3E style" game.
> Make sense? Good, now we can all relax.



That's not true at all, in fact I'd say the opposite is true.

Key to 4e's success as a design is it's _basic core system_. The lucid, clean, and balanced set of unified mechanics such as the action economy, categories of power usage (as opposed ot powers themselves), and so on. 

All of 4e is built on this foundation. It's why they could do things like Essentials and the Psionic classes, even if YMMV on their success, that it's possible at all is because of 4e's Foundation, not what's added onto it. 

Gamma World is another clear example of this.

You can't kludge those things on after the fact, somehow building over the far more 3e-like system on display in 1.0. 4e relies on that basic, core system to function.

It's very convenient to say 'It's ok just wait for the patch and they'll fix everything', but if you don't have the core, basic functionality in place for a 4e like system, there's no way to add one. Not really.

It's already clear that the history of 5e development will be defined by two things, at least for fans of 4e. Bad news, and Denial.


----------



## Piratecat

I didn't think this was necessary to state, but I was apparently wrong. No edition warring. Please discuss the topic, don't segue into old D&D vs 4e vs 5e arguments. 

Thanks.


----------



## Piratecat

And to hit your point, Catastrophic, I think they've promised 4e-style rules modules. I'll be fascinated and excited to see those go into place.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Piratecat said:


> And to hit your point, Catastrophic, I think they've promised 4e-style rules modules. I'll be fascinated and excited to see those go into place.




To echo Catastrophic, specific rules aren't the issue. My preference for 4E is in a large part based on the smooth running excellence of the base skeleton. If the game is going to deliver the balance and elegance of 4E(which are more important than the specifics like tactical combat), its going to have to do those things at the core. If the core fails at this, no amount of modular fixes is going be able remedy it.


----------



## I'm A Banana

catastrophic said:
			
		

> In other words, the foundation upon which the game is being built, and a clear doccument of their key prorities and intent.




That's not what a playtest document is, though. That's what a bible is, or a constitution is, or a manifesto is.

A playtest document is a bunch of rules mushed into a ball, chewed up, and spit at some trusted critics, so that they can beat the rules against actual play experience to see what valuable things fall out.

It wouldn't be a playtest if it was foundational and clear and key. A playtest is pre-foundation, inherently unclear, and basically entirely up to change. 

That's part of why the leaker, I think, is such a good example of why WotC doesn't release rules like this this early on: _people assume it is more important and immutable than it actually is._

It's a starting point, nothing more. It doesn't resemble the end product anymore than _Pong_ resembles _Skyrim_.


----------



## Quickleaf

Piratecat said:


> And to hit your point, Catastrophic, I think they've promised 4e-style rules modules. I'll be fascinated and excited to see those go into place.




Me too! I caught a little tidbit from the "possibly a leak" post at SA that made me pause:



> A clarification before I get too deeply into spells, this is only level 1-3, and so it only includes up to level 2 spells (like old school, you can cast spells of half your level rounded up.)




Whether or not there's any truth to that, one of the things I like about 4e is how character/caster level maps to power/spell level. In 4e if I play a 9th level mage my highest level spells are 9th level. In older editions I believe my highest level spells would be 5th level. I know 4e broke with tradition here and the math (half rounded up) is easy, but when it comes to explaining the game to new players I've found the 4e version so much simpler.

I remember introducing a friend to D&D (we were playing 2e then) and she wanted to play a wizard, so I put together a simplified wizard so she could join the ongoing game. I recall the "max spell level is half your level rounded up" rule being very confusing for her.

In retrospect, letting a new player run a level 9 mage was not my brightest DM moment. 

So what if D&D5 took a play from 4e as to spell level naming conventions? So in 4e there are no 4th level or 8th level powers/spells - Go figure. What if the level at which you learned a spell *was* that spell's level. 

For example, a 9th level Mage gets to learn a 5th level spell for the first time, which is a big deal since that includes things like Cone of Cold, Cloudkill, Conjure Elemental, and Teleport (at least going off my memory of Basic). So what if we renamed those "9th level spells"?

Just a thought.


----------



## OnlineDM

Piratecat said:


> No they shouldn't. They should ignore it. There's no upside to commenting, and it can only make them look defensive.
> 
> If it's false, it won't even be relevant, right? And if its true, it involves early rules that will look completely different by the time the game launches. I'm not sure they gain anything. The best thing they can do in my opinion is keep their mouths shut, read the analysis of the true-or-not-true report, and examine their rules accordingly.
> 
> EDIT: I sound cranky here. I apologize. It's annoying knowing whether it's true or not and not being able to say anything either way.




As I recall on the fake leak that came out on the Giant in the Playground forums, you and others (other play testers and Trevor Kidd of WotC) chimed in on EN World to say that it was fake. You're not doing that this time around, which makes people think that it's real.

I haven't even read the post in question yet; I decided I would first skim this EN World thread to look for the denials from people "in the know". I haven't seen any such denials.

I think it's entirely possible that WotC sent out a message to play testers after the last leak was debunked saying, "Listen everyone, if other 'leaks' show up online in the future, please don't comment on their veracity whether they're true or false. We don't want to give any information about that sort of thing right now." Unfortunately, if that message did go out, it has not been communicated to the community at large, so we don't know about it.

All of this leads people to believe that non-debunked "leaks" are true. I don't personally care one way or the other (I'll wait for the play test), but I admit that the lack of denial on this leak coupled with the denial of the earlier leak makes me think that whatever this "leaker" said is probably true. And again, I haven't even read it!


----------



## Szatany

Lanefan said:


> And some of it doesn't make sense.  Ability scores are capped at 20 but you get +1 to your prime ability every 3 levels?  If the game goes 1-20 for levels and you use the array thus give your prime stat a 15 to start, it'll hit 21 at 18th...but the cap is...20.  Huh.



Sure it does. As soon as you reach the cap, you must put your +1s into other abilities.


----------



## Klaus

Quickleaf said:


> Me too! I caught a little tidbit from the "possibly a leak" post at SA that made me pause:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not there's any truth to that, one of the things I like about 4e is how character/caster level maps to power/spell level. In 4e if I play a 9th level mage my highest level spells are 9th level. In older editions I believe my highest level spells would be 5th level. I know 4e broke with tradition here and the math (half rounded up) is easy, but when it comes to explaining the game to new players I've found the 4e version so much simpler.
> 
> I remember introducing a friend to D&D (we were playing 2e then) and she wanted to play a wizard, so I put together a simplified wizard so she could join the ongoing game. I recall the "max spell level is half your level rounded up" rule being very confusing for her.
> 
> In retrospect, letting a new player run a level 9 mage was not my brightest DM moment.
> 
> So what if D&D5 took a play from 4e as to spell level naming conventions? So in 4e there are no 4th level or 8th level powers/spells - Go figure. What if the level at which you learned a spell *was* that spell's level.
> 
> For example, a 9th level Mage gets to learn a 5th level spell for the first time, which is a big deal since that includes things like Cone of Cold, Cloudkill, Conjure Elemental, and Teleport (at least going off my memory of Basic). So what if we renamed those "9th level spells"?
> 
> Just a thought.



Back during the 3e era, I seem to recall someone posting an idea about turning the 9 spell levels into 20, allowing spells that were "a bit too good for their level" to be placed in a slightly higher tier.


----------



## Savage Wombat

I guess what I'm feeling right now is "You're not just any playtester, you're Piratecat.  You're one of the voices of ENWorld, and one of WotC's biggest supporters since before 3.0 was even released."

I think you should talk to someone about getting permission to make some sort of official statement, even if it's just "WotC has specifically asked us not to comment on rules leaks" or, what I'd prefer, "WotC understands that leaks like this happen, and has allowed us to reassure you that the core rules are very much in flux at this point."

They owe that to you, and to us, I think.  They can give us support without cutting their own legs off.


----------



## GX.Sigma

If anyone wanted to see the leak's contents in a condensed (and hopefully as neutral as possible) form:

 [sblock]*Stats*
·         Rolling primary method. Array is something like 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.
·         Race is +1/-1. Class is +1 to the prime stat (but only if it’s your first class—3.x multiclassing is in effect).
·         At level 3, +1 to one stat.
·         CON: Your starting hit points is equal to your CON score.
·         INT: Extra languages.
·         CHA: Loyalty and Max Henchmen
·         WIS: Gives bonus to CHA saves (?)
·         Score maximums: 18+class+race, so 20 is max, but not clear what “max” means.

*Races*
·         +1/-1 to stats.
·         Dwarf: Dwarven weapon training (good with hammers and axes); darkvision 10’.
·         Halfling: Automatic proficiency in slings, thrown, etc.
·         Human: +1 to all saves, and two bonus d6 that can be applied to any d20 roll(s) in a day.
·         Dwarves move 20’, halflings 25’, everyone else seems to be 30’.

*Classes*
·         Skills: +2 for passive checks; +1 for active checks.
· *Wizard*[FONT=&quot]o   [/FONT]Detect Magic
[FONT=&quot]o   [/FONT]Flame Javelin (at-will)
[FONT=&quot]o   [/FONT]ritual caster
[FONT=&quot]o   [/FONT]Mage Armor (+2 AC for the rest of the day).​· *Fighter*[FONT=&quot]o   [/FONT]d10 HD
[FONT=&quot]o   [/FONT]d10 crit dice (don’t have to confirm to deal the extra damage, but can confirm to deal even more damage)
[FONT=&quot]o   [/FONT]Fighting Style§  *Archer*:  When you shoot, you can shoot again at -5
§  *Guardian*:  Adjacent enemies get -2 to attacks if they don’t include you
§  *Slayer*: Do an extra d10 on a hit, but then can’t do it again until your next long or short rest
§  *Two-weapon fighting*: +1 to AC; when you hit with your main weapon, you can attack with your off-hand weapon at -5 (but if you do, you lose the AC bonus until your next turn)​[FONT=&quot]o   [/FONT]“Skills”: +1 to break down doors, smash “compartments”, or destroy objects
[FONT=&quot]o   [/FONT]+2 to damage rolls with weapon attacks
[FONT=&quot]o   [/FONT]Fighter’s surge: Once per day, the fighter can take an action at any time.​*Spells*
·         Spell lists, “spells per level” tables
·         _Knock_: Opens anything. Stuff that’s welded shut, portals held by chains, etc.
·         _Charm Person_: level 1 (brd, drd, wrlk, wiz); Turns someone into a trusted friend and companion. Won’t do anything outside of normal, etc. Target remembers being charmed.
·         _Invisibility:_ level 2 (brd, src, wrlk, wiz): DC 17 concealment, advantage against all creatures you attack. It goes away if you do anything harmful.
·         _Animate Dead:_ Exists in some form; has a max HD

*System*
·         "Advantage," "combat advantage," "skill advantage," "+2 to skill" - Not normalized yet.
·         Crits: Max damage on 20, plus crit dice on confirm, and 20s explode.
·         Rules for donning and removing armor[FONT=&quot]o   [/FONT]Heavy armor takes 1d4+1 minutes to remove​·         Many of the rules for the playtest documents were copied directly from older sources[FONT=&quot]o   [/FONT]Many 4e-like rules are reworded​·         Monsters can lack ability scores—they aren’t susceptible to attacks vs. that ability.[FONT=&quot]o   [/FONT]A wraith with "–" STR can’t be bull rushed; a golem with "–" CON can’t be poisoned​[FONT=&quot]o   [/FONT]Undead lack CHA, which means the current version of Turn Undead technically doesn’t work on them.​·         Nine alignment axis is back, as are items that have mechanical effects based on alignment.
·         20 status conditions, many of them similar or overlapping
·         Healing surges are gone; each rest gives you a certain amount of HP back.
·         Action economy is not strictly called out.[FONT=&quot]o   [/FONT]There are no “move actions”, etc.; such things are described in prose.​·         “the core maths of the system don't scale with level anymore. There's no base attack bonus and no 4e-style +halflevel, no skill points and no +level to skills either. Absent feats and so on, you have the same chance to hit at level 12 as you did at level 2.”

*Monsters*
·         "Monsters are built 4e-style. They're divided into minion/standard/elite/solo and monsters of increasing rank get more hp and damage per round. Their hp, damage, and AC/to-hit/to-hit-with-spell all scale with level."
·         "So anyway, the rules tell you to pencil in what you think the monster's ability scores might be, then compute its hitpoints and attacks and so on. If it makes multiple attacks, divide its per-round damage by the number of attacks it's supposed to make and otherwise mess with the math so everything lines up with the provided table. (Presumably, this is the point when you go back and fill in the monster's precise ability scores, carefully massaging its Str to line up with the static damage bonus on its melee attack, etcetera)."

*Items*
·         Potion of Delusion (Healing): When you drink it, it heals d8 HP, but the next time you take damage, you take an extra d8.
·         Unknown item: Each enemy you kill is raised as a 1 HD zombie under your control which doesn’t count against the max HD of undead you can control with _Animate Dead._[/sblock]

Of course, it goes without saying that all this information could be false. And even if it's true, it's likely far outdated by now.


----------



## am181d

Savage Wombat said:


> I guess what I'm feeling right now is "You're not just any playtester, you're Piratecat.  You're one of the voices of ENWorld, and one of WotC's biggest supporters since before 3.0 was even released."
> 
> I think you should talk to someone about getting permission to make some sort of official statement, even if it's just "WotC has specifically asked us not to comment on rules leaks" or, what I'd prefer, "WotC understands that leaks like this happen, and has allowed us to reassure you that the core rules are very much in flux at this point."
> 
> They owe that to you, and to us, I think.  They can give us support without cutting their own legs off.




1) if it's a real leak, Wizards is under no obligation to say so
2) if it's a real leak, it's of preliminary material that may or may not reflect where the game is a month, six months, or a year from now
3) if it's a real leak, it's a leak presented WITH bias and WITHOUT context

If people are wringing their hands and spitting curses over this, they need to relax. By all means, discuss the things you like or find objectionable, form theories, make suggestions, etc.

But if anybody's freaking out right now, it's their own fault, not Wizards.


----------



## am181d

2nd Point: Who are the people who are surprised by this direction? We know that the base game will be more of a throwback to 3rd edition with some old school flavor, and that the 4e influence will be felt here and there but primarily in modules. They've come out and said as much.

Remember that the mission statement of the new edition is to create a version of D&D that appeals to the entirety of the fractured base. Since 4e is the least like the other editions, that means that the new edition is likely to least resemble 4e. That's not to say that 4e is bad. It's just a practical reality.

Similarly, for those who are looking for the new edition to be something new entirely... That is not the game they're building. They tried that with 4e to mixed results and they're deliberately trying a different approach this time...


----------



## StreamOfTheSky

am181d said:


> 2nd Point: Who are the people who are surprised by this direction? We know that the base game will be more of a throwback to 3rd edition with some old school flavor, and that the 4e influence will be felt here and there but primarily in modules. They've come out and said as much.
> 
> Remember that the mission statement of the new edition is to create a version of D&D that appeals to the entirety of the fractured base. Since 4e is the least like the other editions, that means that the new edition is likely to least resemble 4e. That's not to say that 4e is bad. It's just a practical reality.
> 
> Similarly, for those who are looking for the new edition to be something new entirely... That is not the game they're building. They tried that with 4e to mixed results and they're deliberately trying a different approach this time...




But it's not a throwback to 3rd edition.  Read the summation in the 2nd to last post on page 10.  Just because the biased authors of that SA thread kept accusing the new rules of being heavily 3E-based doesn't make it true.  Look at the list of things brought up.  The only truly 3E thing in there is the free multiclassing.  There's several other elements that 3E contained, but older editions _also_ contained, and many would argue...were only even in 3E due to them being sacred cows.  What do I see looking at the rules?  4E monster design, a complete abandonment of the wonderful 3E skill system, 1E style fighters, 4E style casters...

It looks almost nothing like 3E.  Look at pretty much every 3E fan posting in this thread.  None of us seem to like it.  If it were a throwback to 3E, why would we all not like what we're hearing?

To speak generally, it sounds like they plan to make the game mostly like 4E but cleverly hide those elements behind new names and added fluff so as to hope 4E haters don't notice (a pretty cynical way to treat your fan base), and toss in 1E style warriors that do nothing but stand around in full plate and roll attack rolls to appease grognards.

It sounds like they're basically taking the worst ideas from both parts of the spectrum and homogenizing it into one giant, ugly mess.


----------



## am181d

StreamOfTheSky said:


> But it's not a throwback to 3rd edition.  Read the summation in the 2nd to last post on page 10.  Just because the biased authors of that SA thread kept accusing the new rules of being heavily 3E-based doesn't make it true.  Look at the list of things brought up.  The only truly 3E thing in there is the free multiclassing.  There's several other elements that 3E contained, but older editions _also_ contained, and many would argue...were only even in 3E due to them being sacred cows.  What do I see looking at the rules?  4E monster design, a complete abandonment of the wonderful 3E skill system, 1E style fighters, 4E style casters...
> 
> It looks almost nothing like 3E.  Look at pretty much every 3E fan posting in this thread.  None of us seem to like it.  If it were a throwback to 3E, why would we all not like what we're hearing?
> 
> To speak generally, it sounds like they plan to make the game mostly like 4E but cleverly hide those elements behind new names and added fluff so as to hope 4E haters don't notice (a pretty cynical way to treat your fan base), and toss in 1E style warriors that do nothing but stand around in full plate and roll attack rolls to appease grognards.
> 
> It sounds like they're basically taking the worst ideas from both parts of the spectrum and homogenizing it into one giant, ugly mess.




I like 3e just fine, and I had no problem with about 85% of what I read. It sounds like half the board is taking the leaker's commentary too seriously and the other half is mapping their own anxieties onto everything they're reading.


----------



## Falling Icicle

I think it's fake. There's just too many glaringly bad flaws. The people working on 5e are all experienced game designers who have worked on various editions of DnD for years, and I just can't imagine them removing common sense game mechanics like free actions so that they have to say things like "this can be done so quickly that it still allows you time to take an action" or "at the same time as you move during your turn, you.." in each ability. I also think they'd know better than to make all undead immune to turn undead.

It seems like a well-informed troll who included just enough stuff that has been confirmed by WotC publicly and then sprinkled it with made up stuff. After all, the best way to hide a lie is to wrap it in truth.


----------



## Libramarian

I absolutely think one of the things they might do with this edition is remove the "action economy" jargon.

On the whole I find the leak very believable. I'm not thrilled by it. I don't see anything that actually, you know, makes me excited as opposed to just not disappointed.

The return of Henchmen maybe. That's cool. Even though I prefer "Retainer". Call them Retainers to give Basic D&D some love.

I don't like the Fighter Surge mechanic. Rename it something besides "Surge" at least, please. 

I also dislike 3e-style multiclassing, but I already heard about that.


----------



## Arytiss

Falling Icicle said:


> I think it's fake. There's just too many glaringly bad flaws. The people working on 5e are all experienced game designers who have worked on various editions of DnD for years, and I just can't imagine them removing common sense game mechanics like free actions so that they have to say things like "this can be done so quickly that it still allows you time to take an action" or "at the same time as you move during your turn, you.." in each ability. I also think they'd know better than to make all undead immune to turn undead.



I dunno, given that what it's supposed to be is a very early Alpha version, it's entirely possible that those sorts of mistakes might be present. Alpha is Alpha after all.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

StreamOfTheSky said:


> But it's not a throwback to 3rd edition.  Read the summation in the 2nd to last post on page 10.  Just because the biased authors of that SA thread kept accusing the new rules of being heavily 3E-based doesn't make it true.  Look at the list of things brought up.  The only truly 3E thing in there is the free multiclassing.  There's several other elements that 3E contained, but older editions _also_ contained, and many would argue...were only even in 3E due to them being sacred cows.  What do I see looking at the rules?  4E monster design, a complete abandonment of the wonderful 3E skill system, 1E style fighters, 4E style casters...
> 
> It looks almost nothing like 3E.  Look at pretty much every 3E fan posting in this thread.  None of us seem to like it.  If it were a throwback to 3E, why would we all not like what we're hearing?
> 
> To speak generally, it sounds like they plan to make the game mostly like 4E but cleverly hide those elements behind new names and added fluff so as to hope 4E haters don't notice (a pretty cynical way to treat your fan base), and toss in 1E style warriors that do nothing but stand around in full plate and roll attack rolls to appease grognards.
> 
> It sounds like they're basically taking the worst ideas from both parts of the spectrum and homogenizing it into one giant, ugly mess.




That's an interesting take. The 4E people are seeing things they hated in 3E, while the 3E people are seeing little of what they liked about it.


----------



## AeroDm

The idea that if a monster doesn't have a stat it is immune to attacks by that stat is really quite elegant and I'm jealous I didn't think of it. It is by far the best design I saw in this leak. Some of it I like, very little of it do I dislike, but in sum it doesn't inspire me as much as I might hope. I'll still keep an open mind.


----------



## Quickleaf

Libramarian said:


> I don't like the Fighter Surge mechanic. Rename it something besides "Surge" at least, please. .




Maybe they used terms that evoked certain editions intentionally? In historic architectural preservation, for example, it's common practice now to make renovations/repairs that look just slightly different than the original so that people can tell the preservation history. 

Maybe in the playtest documents they're doing something like that so playtesters have a reference point. "Ah, ok 'surges', that's like healing surges in 4e, I get it."

Just a hunch.


----------



## GX.Sigma

Libramarian said:


> I don't like the Fighter Surge mechanic. Rename it something besides "Surge" at least, please.



How about "action point"?


----------



## Henry

Arytiss said:


> I dunno, given that what it's supposed to be is a very early Alpha version, it's entirely possible that those sorts of mistakes might be present. Alpha is Alpha after all.




I've never understood why some people take closed playtest info as gospel and assume that's anywhere NEAR what the final product will look like. A great quote from Dave Noonan back at his tenure at WotC is: _"Never ask a game designer what a certain rule is from memory, because in his head are The Correct Rule, an Incorrect Rule, and Rules that Should Not Be."_ 

Some people may just not realize how many changes rules for a brand new game or system can really go through. Ask the gents at Order 66 about their game of Edition Wars -- I'm willing to bet their design of a simple board/card game probably went through some pretty wild iterations before they got the balance straight.

Heck, the framers of the American Constitution had their sessions closed-door because they knew that if their constituents caught wind that they were totally revising the Articles of Confederation instead of just making patches, they'd be tarred and feathered.


----------



## Thorpe

Couldn't the "boring" fighter be rather easily transformed by feats that did some of the following:
If you hit by 5 or more: push the enemy 15 feet, or knock prone, or the attacker shifts 10 feet ,or enervate(whatever that is ) the enemy maybe weaken or slow for the guardian or bonus damage for the slayer.
If you hit by 10 or more: repeat the attack on the same target or deal the same damage to a second adjacent foe or stun the target (maybe with a save chance) or charge another target ect.
The hit plus five could trigger as much as fifty percent of the time with combat advantage the hit plus 10 twenty five percent.  These would make a fighter plenty dangerous especially against foes he hits easily.  Seems maybe more exciting than "I use my level 3 encounter power".


----------



## FireLance

Incidentally, since I like math and naturally gravitate to examining the math behind a system, I ought to add that the comment that the fighter's extra attacks at -5 (for the archer and two-weapon style) are going to be useless seems to be based on the assumption that the base hit rate is about 50%. That gives the secondary attack a base hit rate of around 25%.  However, if a fighter's base hit rate is closer to 65% or 70%, then we're looking at a base hit rate of 40% or 45% for the secondary attack. Not too shabby, in my view, and there may be feats or other character customization options that allow you to reduce the penalty for the second attack.


----------



## catastrophic

Piratecat said:


> And to hit your point, Catastrophic, I think they've promised 4e-style rules modules. I'll be fascinated and excited to see those go into place.



It is not possible to talk about 5e unless we can also talk about the previous games, games who's fans the developers have clearly stated they seek to include in it.

It is vital to be able to contrast those systems, and their qualities, when the stated goal of the developers is to _make a system which supports play as represented by various editions_.

If 5e doesn't give fans of 4e, or 3e, or 1e what they want, _including in contrast to other editions_, then it's not fulfilling one of it's core design goals. And if discussions of the system are to be fruitful, they must be able to discuss those contrasts, as well, despite the bad history of such discussions.

It is impossible to discuss the new system otherwise, considering it's key goals. 

Likewise, contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, you can't just plonk all the bits of one edition or another in some hypothetical module or later version- the game _on all levels_ must be built to handle those modules, _even when the modules are not in use_.

Pursuant to this, having read it, and since i'm not under NDA (and unlikely to ever be so since i'm genuinly critical of the process), I do not feel that 1.0 shows any signs of a genuine 'modular' system, or one which 4e-style modules in particular could be plugged in to. Nor is the early stage of the development an excuse for this- on the contrary, such components or foundations should be the very first thing laid down in design, if such an ambitious goal is to be realized.

To design a game which offers such a feature, you have to have that in mind from day one, to be sure that you don't design another part of the game which clashes with it. You have to have the modular system clearly laid out at least in test form, so you can check it against new work.

For instance, when making a spell which involves movement, the 5e devs have to be able to ask themselves "How does this new kind of movement relate to how we are managing the difference between combat on a battle map, and combat without a map? Does it translate between the two in a way comparable to the way other movement modes translate? Or will it act very differently between the two modules?"

Instead, in 1.0 we have. . . everything that used to be in squares, is in feet instead. That's it. That's all they've got to build the 'tactical combat' module on. To say nothing of people who might have hoped for a better take on mapless combat (using something like FATE style zones, for instance). And again, other options would also need support. They'd need something to plug into. 

That is what 'modular' means, after all. You have to have the sockets and plugs in place in the base design, so you can plug bits into them. And, much like a hard-point on the wing of a jet fighter where a missile is mounted, the structure has to be built to handle the extra weight, for when it's in place. You can't just pile a bunch of extra rules on, you need to be able to give the GM a functional workload, regardless of the complexity level.

Those plugs don't exist in 1.0. There are no hard points. Seemingly no effort is being made to manage complexity at various levels, if the fluctuation in complexity in this example is anything to go by.

There's just a bunch of 'fantasy roleplaying game' with very little genuine oversight displayed. Certainly, there's no sign of the kind of core mechanic or mechanics which would allow variations in say, wether combat takes place on a battle map, or what a fighter does apart from dealing damage (or how it is that this old school fighter is somehow also a newbie-friendly fighter). You can't just 'add a feat' or 'change a rule', you need to figure out how those module-feats compare to others, and how changing a rule impacts other systems.

And yes, I get that some people don't care about things like that, or disagree with the assertion i'd make of how much fun it ruins when rules implode or neglect a key class because of design issues of this sort. But again, _as a fan of 4e amongst other games_, I do not feel that this is a promising development, and since _wotc has stated a clear goal of including people like me in the game_, that makes this a problem.

At best, if such module-friendly design is present, it's very deeply buried and disguised- but that would also damage it, since DMs using such a system would have to understand it, in order to make it work.

People will make a bunch of excuses. As i've said, these excuses will define the discussions over 5e, clearly. Apparently the initial test version of a game has nothing to do with the game? It's just kinda. . what, a coincidence? There to test the font? That's the conventional wisdom apparently?

Hogwash. This isn't internal playtesting. This is something they are taking to conventions.

A playtest is not an excuse to just throw some stuff together and hurl it at people, like some kind of developmental reading of entrails. It is meant to test and iterate _the design_.

If 1.0 doesn't have those features, then the whole process will involve playing catch-up and never really locking such features down. 

Where's the design? Where's the edition fan inclusion? Where's the modular system? It's not in 1.0. And it should be.


----------



## Lanefan

Szatany said:


> Sure it does. As soon as you reach the cap, you must put your +1s into other abilities.



You'd think so, but the leak-as-written (LAW?  Please, no!) says it goes into your prime stat, period.

Lan-"I don't understand why playtesters are NDAed when it's supposedly an open playtest"-efan


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

I have almost no opinion on any of this because all of it is just babbling exchanges of terms and references that make my eyes glaze over and head spin.  I just don't know what to think.  I remember being fairly involved and reasonably excited about all the changes being made for 3rd Edition.  It was curious, however, that when I actually got my hands on the books my eyes glazed over and my head spun.  The actual product was so much more... I dunno... dense.  There was SO MUCH new information to absorb beyond the little details that had been dripped slowly over the preceding months.  It took me several readings of the whole thing and a number of actual game sessions before I started to feel like I really had a proper grasp of the whole thing.

The release of 4E was somewhat different for me.  The details that I'd been hearing just did not excite me and I was quite trepiditious about the whole affair.  So then when I bought the actual product and read the books... my eyes glazed over and my head spun.  That time around I decided that it wasn't for me - at least not to run, and I'd still personally prefer 1, 2, or 3 before 4.

So now I read some things that sound good, some things that sound not so exciting, but I'm quite sure that when I finally get my hands on the books and read them my eyes will still glaze over and my head will spin trying to absorb the HUNDREDS of pages of rules that will comprise it.  I'll still be reading a lot of the debate but I put no more stock in anyone elses ability to prognosticate the ultimate pass or fail based on such thin information as we will have up until we actually have books in hand.

But that's probably just me.


----------



## variant

It all sounds interesting to me.


----------



## n00bdragon

catastrophic said:


> It is not possible to talk about 5e unless  we can also talk about the previous games, games who's fans the  developers have clearly stated they seek to include in it.
> 
> It is vital to be able to contrast those systems, and their qualities, when the stated goal of the developers is to _make a system which supports play as represented by various editions_.
> 
> If 5e doesn't give fans of 4e, or 3e, or 1e what they want, _including in contrast to other editions_,  then it's not fulfilling one of it's core design goals. And if  discussions of the system are to be fruitful, they must be able to  discuss those contrasts, as well, despite the bad history of such  discussions.
> 
> It is impossible to discuss the new system otherwise, considering it's key goals.
> 
> Likewise, contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, you can't just  plonk all the bits of one edition or another in some hypothetical  module or later version- the game _on all levels_ must be built to handle those modules, _even when the modules are not in use_.
> 
> Pursuant to this, having read it, and since i'm not under NDA (and  unlikely to ever be so since i'm genuinly critical of the process), I do  not feel that 1.0 shows any signs of a genuine 'modular' system, or one  which 4e-style modules in particular could be plugged in to. Nor is the  early stage of the development an excuse for this- on the contrary,  such components or foundations should be the very first thing laid down  in design, if such an ambitious goal is to be realized.
> 
> To design a game which offers such a feature, you have to have that in  mind from day one, to be sure that you don't design another part of the  game which clashes with it. You have to have the modular system clearly  laid out at least in test form, so you can check it against new work.
> 
> For instance, when making a spell which involves movement, the 5e devs  have to be able to ask themselves "How does this new kind of movement  relate to how we are managing the difference between combat on a battle  map, and combat without a map? Does it translate between the two in a  way comparable to the way other movement modes translate? Or will it act  very differently between the two modules?"
> 
> Instead, in 1.0 we have. . . everything that used to be in squares, is  in feet instead. That's it. That's all they've got to build the  'tactical combat' module on. To say nothing of people who might have  hoped for a better take on mapless combat (using something like FATE  style zones, for instance). And again, other options would also need  support. They'd need something to plug into.
> 
> That is what 'modular' means, after all. You have to have the sockets  and plugs in place in the base design, so you can plug bits into them.  And, much like a hard-point on the wing of a jet fighter where a missile  is mounted, the structure has to be built to handle the extra weight,  for when it's in place. You can't just pile a bunch of extra rules on,  you need to be able to give the GM a functional workload, regardless of  the complexity level.
> 
> Those plugs don't exist in 1.0. There are no hard points. Seemingly no  effort is being made to manage complexity at various levels, if the  fluctuation in complexity in this example is anything to go by.
> 
> There's just a bunch of 'fantasy roleplaying game' with very little  genuine oversight displayed. Certainly, there's no sign of the kind of  core mechanic or mechanics which would allow variations in say, wether  combat takes place on a battle map, or what a fighter does apart from  dealing damage (or how it is that this old school fighter is somehow  also a newbie-friendly fighter). You can't just 'add a feat' or 'change a  rule', you need to figure out how those module-feats compare to others,  and how changing a rule impacts other systems.
> 
> And yes, I get that some people don't care about things like that, or  disagree with the assertion i'd make of how much fun it ruins when rules  implode or neglect a key class because of design issues of this sort.  But again, _as a fan of 4e amongst other games_, I do not feel that this is a promising development, and since _wotc has stated a clear goal of including people like me in the game_, that makes this a problem.
> 
> At best, if such module-friendly design is present, it's very deeply  buried and disguised- but that would also damage it, since DMs using  such a system would have to understand it, in order to make it work.
> 
> People will make a bunch of excuses. As i've said, these excuses will  define the discussions over 5e, clearly. Apparently the initial test  version of a game has nothing to do with the game? It's just kinda. .  what, a coincidence? There to test the font? That's the conventional  wisdom apparently?
> 
> Hogwash. This isn't internal playtesting. This is something they are taking to conventions.
> 
> A playtest is not an excuse to just throw some stuff together and hurl  it at people, like some kind of developmental reading of entrails. It is  meant to test and iterate _the design_.
> 
> If 1.0 doesn't have those features, then the whole process will involve  playing catch-up and never really locking such features down.
> 
> Where's the design? Where's the edition fan inclusion? Where's the modular system? It's not in 1.0. And it should be.






I already gave you experience so I can't +1 you again for a while but you deserve it. Here's +2.

*QFE*


----------



## am181d

catastrophic said:


> To design a game which offers such a feature, you have to have that in mind from day one, to be sure that you don't design another part of the game which clashes with it. You have to have the modular system clearly laid out at least in test form, so you can check it against new work.
> 
> For instance, when making a spell which involves movement, the 5e devs have to be able to ask themselves "How does this new kind of movement relate to how we are managing the difference between combat on a battle map, and combat without a map? Does it translate between the two in a way comparable to the way other movement modes translate? Or will it act very differently between the two modules?"
> 
> Instead, in 1.0 we have. . . everything that used to be in squares, is in feet instead. That's it. That's all they've got to build the 'tactical combat' module on. To say nothing of people who might have hoped for a better take on mapless combat (using something like FATE style zones, for instance). And again, other options would also need support. They'd need something to plug into.




That sounds backwards to me: If they have a tactical combat module, that's where the rules for tactical combat will live.  If there ARE other options, they should by definition NOT be supported by the core rules. They should be supported *in* the modules.


----------



## Quickleaf

Klaus said:


> Back during the 3e era, I seem to recall someone posting an idea about turning the 9 spell levels into 20, allowing spells that were "a bit too good for their level" to be placed in a slightly higher tier.



Yeah pretty much like that! I figure there are enough design challenges around having 20 levels, why not actually make them work to their advantage in this instance? But I wonder how much the "max spell level is half level rounded down" spell tables for mages is a sacred cow?


----------



## KarinsDad

Arytiss said:


> I dunno, given that what it's supposed to be is a very early Alpha version, it's entirely possible that those sorts of mistakes might be present. Alpha is Alpha after all.




This isn't even close to an Alpha. You won't see an Alpha for another year. At the moment, they'll still just playing around with the design.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

am181d said:


> That sounds backwards to me: If they have a tactical combat module, that's where the rules for tactical combat will live.  If there ARE other options, they should by definition NOT be supported by the core rules. They should be supported *in* the modules.




That isn't the issue. The issue is whether the core rules allow for modular rules to be comfortably slotted in with no issues, or whether modular rules are a clunky tacked on system that doesn't mesh with the core rules. 3E had a lot of options that fit that description, for example.


----------



## catastrophic

am181d said:


> That sounds backwards to me: If they have a tactical combat module, that's where the rules for tactical combat will live. If there ARE other options, they should by definition NOT be supported by the core rules. They should be supported *in* the modules.



You're missing the point. The basic game needs to be built to take these modules and use them.

You can't just pile rules on top of each other, the base game does need to _support_ the other, modular content, if the developers are serious about making those modules, and various combinations of modules, viable.

If a class is to be expanded by a module, then the base class needs to not only be balanced against the add-on version of the class, but the base class also needs a structure which allows people playing the class to easily upgrade it to the module version if they choose to. 

And there are second-order interactions. If the class has feats in the base game, how do those feats relate to the more complex-module version of the class? Are they worthless for it? Do they have unintended effects?

Not only that, but even if the balance and design is up to snuff, the system needs to be somewhat transparent,  at least clear enough with the rules, that players and DMs considering such a change can understand better what it means and what it's result is likely to be.

I get that some people don't care about this stuff, or disagree, but as a fan of 4e and other similar games, if they genuinly want me as a customer, then these are the kinds of things they need to do. Otherwise, they're not offering the product they advertised, because I'm not in some tiny minority of 4e players, here.



KarinsDad said:


> This isn't even close to an Alpha. You won't see an Alpha for another year. At the moment, they'll still just playing around with the design.



So they're publicly announcing, and releasing to bloggers and conventions, a _pre-alpha_ build of their game?


----------



## pauljathome

thecasualoblivion said:


> That's an interesting take. The 4E people are seeing things they hated in 3E, while the 3E people are seeing little of what they liked about it.




The good news is that 5th edition WILL unite all (or almost all) D&D players

The bad news is that they'll be united in their hate/dislike/disinterest of 5th edition.

Probably about 1/2 a smiley on that. I think its actually a real risk.


----------



## Libramarian

catastrophic said:


> It is vital to be able to contrast those systems, and their qualities, when the stated goal of the developers is to _make a system which supports play as represented by various editions_.




This is what is called marketing, not a core design goal. 

The real core design goal is subtly but importantly different: they're going to support the "feel" of all editions. Which they've determined themselves by playing a few sessions of each.

Which really means the same thing as their core design goal every new edition:

make the Best Damn Game EVER.


----------



## pauljathome

KarinsDad said:


> This isn't even close to an Alpha. You won't see an Alpha for another year. At the moment, they'll still just playing around with the design.




One of the really key questions is when they're planning on releasing this puppy.

Their 4th edition sales HAVE to be affected to some extent. I don't know to what extent, of course. It may be coincidence but a WHOLE bunch of 4th edition stuff (modules, rules, etc) has shown up in the local remainder store (BMV for those living in or near Toronto. The one at Bloor and Spadina has lots of cheap 4th edition stuff available).

I'm personally betting on Gencon next year (although I would NOT put high odds on that). If that is right then there is less than a year to nail the game down given WOTC's print lead time. In which case the current version pretty much IS Alpha.


----------



## KarinsDad

catastrophic said:


> So they're publicly announcing, and releasing to bloggers and conventions, a _pre-alpha_ build of their game?




For all intents and purposes.

An Alpha release of any product typically means a product that is mostly there. In the case of an RPG, especially an RPG like 5E where they want to iron out differences between earlier editions, they don't have enough internal testers and enough of a set of solid requirements to get them the product that they want.

So, they need to go out of house to gain the requirements knowledge that they need to build their product.

This silly leak is a joke. It is so far away from the final product because even WotC doesn't yet know where they want to go with their design. Why? Because they are breaking new ground where they have ideas on what they want, but have no idea how to get there. It's extremely difficult to put together a core game that appeals to a high percentage of their overall fan base. So, they are using these playtests and blogs to get the answers that they don't yet have.

And what's even more amusing is how seriously the D&D community is taking this leak. This leak isn't even past level 3 for most things. How can anyone seriously consider that an Alpha? If there is a leak in 6 months or 9 months, then yes, that would be something worth analyzing and commenting on. This leaked version? Meh. It's not worth the paper it's written on. They've probably changed 25% or more of it by now and will continue to do so.

I suspect that some core mechanical elements like ability score range, skills using ability scores, hit points, AC, weapon damage, etc. are fairly close to what they want, but there are still a few hundred pages of material beyond the core mechanics that has yet to be fleshed out and it will change a lot over the coming year.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Breaking new ground, seriously? Between this leak and everything else we've heard, 90% of 5E is based on retreading old ground.


----------



## Falling Icicle

Arytiss said:


> I dunno, given that what it's supposed to be is a very early Alpha version, it's entirely possible that those sorts of mistakes might be present. Alpha is Alpha after all.




You could be right. I guess we'll find out once the NDAs are lifted. Until then, or until someone who has playtested it confirms this is legit, I'm not going to believe any of it.


----------



## catastrophic

KarinsDad said:


> For all intents and purposes.



Apart from the ones where they take it to conventions and playtest is beyond friends and family?



> An Alpha release of any product typically means a product that is mostly there. In the case of an RPG, especially an RPG like 5E where they want to iron out differences between earlier editions, they don't have enough internal testers and enough of a set of solid requirements to get them the product that they want.



Ahh so, the logic is that if the product doesn't look any good, it can't possible be an alpha build. 

_Or_, this is broadly the game as they envision it (less some text needing to be re-written and basic editing goofs like the turn undead thing), and it's just not a very good design WRT the stated goals.



> So, they need to go out of house to gain the requirements knowledge that they need to build their product.
> 
> This silly leak is a joke. It is so far away from the final product because even WotC doesn't yet know where they want to go with their design. Why? Because they are breaking new ground where they have ideas on what they want, but have no idea how to get there. It's extremely difficult to put together a core game that appeals to a high percentage of their overall fan base. So, they are using these playtests and blogs to get the answers that they don't yet have.



How can you playtest when you don't have a game to test? What are they testing is everything is subject to change?

And where on earth do you get the idea that they're breaking new ground when everything we've seen, in the leak and outside of it, suggests the opposite?



> And what's even more amusing is how seriously the D&D community is taking this leak. This leak isn't even past level 3 for most things. How can anyone seriously consider that an Alpha? If there is a leak in 6 months or 9 months, then yes, that would be something worth analyzing and commenting on. This leaked version? Meh. It's not worth the paper it's written on. They've probably changed 25% or more of it by now and will continue to do so.



Meh. Bleh. This is just a random set of things that have nothing to do with the final product. 

Because that's how you test things. You start with something completly meaningless, that has nothing to do with your stated goal, and then you change everything.



> I suspect that some core mechanical elements like ability score range, skills using ability scores, hit points, AC, weapon damage, etc. are fairly close to what they want, but there are still a few hundred pages of material beyond the core mechanics that has yet to be fleshed out and it will change a lot over the coming year.



So the fact that there are 7 defences is in? That's real? 

The weapon damage is real even though they've done polls asking how many hit points would 'feel' right for a 1st level fighter? 

The ability score setup is real, even though it's wierd curve and caps and dump stats-as-defences are one of the core concerns people have?

You guys can brush this off for the next year, and then when it launches, you'll come up with another excuse to defend it. There will always be another excuse.


----------



## KarinsDad

catastrophic said:


> Ahh so, the logic is that if the product doesn't look any good, it can't possible be an alpha build.




Where do people come up with off the wall comments like this that have nothing to do with what I said?

Speculate all you want about my thought processes, but you're blowing smoke with comments like these.



catastrophic said:


> _Or_, this is broadly the game as they envision it (less some text needing to be re-written and basic editing goofs like the turn undead thing), and it's just not a very good design WRT the stated goals.




And you know this how? Psychic? Or maybe you are breaking an NDA?

Even if this leak is true, it's a leak of 1.0. You are putting serious credence into something that at best is a first rough cut and at worse is a hoax or a partial hoax.



catastrophic said:


> How can you playtest when you don't have a game to test? What are they testing is everything is subject to change?




They are testing design and mechanics ideas and the synergy of those ideas.

Of COURSE a lot of this is subject to change.



catastrophic said:


> And where on earth do you get the idea that they're breaking new ground when everything we've seen, in the leak and outside of it, suggests the opposite?




How many RPGs have EVER gone back and created a merged version of multiple earlier editions?

Answer: ZERO.

It's not breaking new rules ground (although there will be some of that), it's breaking new ground in merging multiple editions (and new rules) into something unique.

It has to be different enough to sell new product and be unique. It has to be the same enough that a high percentage of D&D players equate it to D&D.

Something that I trust them to do a lot more than I trust some armchair quarterback like yourself that just complains.



catastrophic said:


> You guys can brush this off for the next year, and then when it launches, you'll come up with another excuse to defend it. There will always be another excuse.




I'm not defending jack. I have no idea how the game will turn out.

But, you are consistently attacking a game system that is in an extremely early stage of development without even knowing if what you are attacking is even a real version of that game.

Brilliant.


----------



## GX.Sigma

Begun, the edition war has.

I think this has taught us why they had an NDA in the first place: if even the slightest little bit of information gets out, suddenly you have 4e players saying it sucks, 3.x players saying it sucks, and everyone arguing about which parts of it suck more than the other parts.

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and realize the following things:

1. One's opinion cannot overrule another's opinion, and neither is the same as fact (or even consensus)
2. If this is true information, the game is obviously in a very rough state (see: copy&pasted rules; the inconsistent "advantage" wording; undead technically being immune to turn undead [which itself is being redesigned even now]; status conditions being very contrary to the stated philosophy about such things; the fighter being a version playtested before the designers admitted that they still haven't figured him out yet; pending open playtest; etc. etc.)

Edit: Just thought of something. The leaker said that only the four classic classes were in the playtest rules, but we definitely know that Warlords were in the DDXP playtest. Also, he doesn't mention Themes hardly at all, and those are supposed to be a big thing.


----------



## Someone

That looked... unfinished.

However, even taking it as a very rough guideline of the general game's design, I don't really see anything that attracts my interest.


----------



## Kzach

Dear God, 13 pages of debate over an early April Fool's prank. I promised someone I wouldn't troll people here anymore but man, you guys make it SO easy it's hard to resist.


----------



## Hussar

On the point about WOTC's lack of commentary:

The leak was posted on the 15th.  It's entirely possible that no one at WOTC even heard about yet.  Good grief, it's been a day.  And a Friday at that.  I've heard a rumour that those guys at WOTC actually work once in a while, and not spend the day poncing around Internet forums putting out fires.

As far as the veracity of this particular leak, I have no idea.  I highly doubt it to be honest.  Sure, they want to unify the different play groups.  Fine and dandy.  But, 4e is still the largest block by a whole bunch (at least at En World - every poll taken puts 4e at about 2:1 over other editions) so, it's pretty unlikely that they're going to go too far to ignore that.

Although, I have to admit, this looks EXACTLY the same as it did back in 2006-7 with the 4e announcements.  

Hey guys, what shape do you see in those clouds over there?


----------



## Mark CMG

Hussar said:


> On the point about WOTC's lack of commentary:
> 
> The leak was posted on the 15th.  It's entirely possible that no one at WOTC even heard about yet.  Good grief, it's been a day.  And a Friday at that.  I've heard a rumour that those guys at WOTC actually work once in a while, and not spend the day poncing around Internet forums putting out fires.





You can bet if they didn't spot it themselves, they would have noticed the hundred plus emails they probably got from concerned parties.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

kitsune9 said:


> One thing should be clear is that 5e isn't going to please everyone, even the playtesters. So there's always going to be someone who says:
> 
> 1. They are just appeasing the grognards!
> 2. They just rewrote x edition instead of improving my x edition!
> 3. I hate how they did [insert whatever complaint here]
> 
> To be honest, I don't think 5e will be a win-all for me either, but I'm not going to dismiss it.
> 
> The polls do look biased, but the way I think they are is simply because game designers are game designers, not biostatisticians and market researchers who specialize in writing unbiased polls and surveys.



The polls need to be biased. Because they design the game and usually have a great idea in their mind. So they make the poll to look if they are completely off track or not.
Designing a game is no democratic thing. If you have a completely "free" poll, you get 25% for each of the four different answers and are back were you begun.


----------



## FireLance

Hussar said:


> Hey guys, what shape do you see in those clouds over there?



You might see a Cloud, but I see Lightning.

(Obscure Final Fantasy joke.)


----------



## DEFCON 1

Someone said:


> That looked... unfinished.




Well... DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!


----------



## kiltedyaksman

I realize it's still early in the process, but this isn't the style of game I was hoping for - all min-maxy. No thanks. Here's hoping major revisions are undertaken through the playtest.


----------



## kiltedyaksman

Hussar said:


> On the point about WOTC's lack of commentary:
> 
> The leak was posted on the 15th. It's entirely possible that no one at WOTC even heard about yet. Good grief, it's been a day. And a Friday at that. I've heard a rumour that those guys at WOTC actually work once in a while, and not spend the day poncing around Internet forums putting out fires.
> 
> As far as the veracity of this particular leak, I have no idea. I highly doubt it to be honest. Sure, they want to unify the different play groups. Fine and dandy. But, 4e is still the largest block by a whole bunch (at least at En World - every poll taken puts 4e at about 2:1 over other editions) so, it's pretty unlikely that they're going to go too far to ignore that.
> 
> Although, I have to admit, this looks EXACTLY the same as it did back in 2006-7 with the 4e announcements.
> 
> Hey guys, what shape do you see in those clouds over there?





4e is the largest block by a whole bunch? How do you figure that? So the players of all other editions (including PF) are dwarfed by this massive 4e group? I seriously doubt that. Yes, 4e reigns supreme at enworld...and that's the only place it reigns other than the WotC forum. Taking a 4e forum as the defacto D&D sample size is just flat in error and wrong. Many folks that play other editions go elsewhere, so you have a nice self-fulfilling prophesy. Enjoy.


----------



## Szatany

Kzach said:


> Dear God, 13 pages of debate over an early April Fool's prank. I promised someone I wouldn't troll people here anymore but man, you guys make it SO easy it's hard to resist.




It's only natural. People are starved for new tidbits of 5e. It's been two months since we were given any meaningful information about the game.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

kiltedyaksman said:


> 4e is the largest block by a whole bunch? How do you figure that? So the players of all other editions (including PF) are dwarfed by this massive 4e group? I seriously doubt that. Yes, 4e reigns supreme at enworld...and that's the only place it reigns other than the WotC forum. Taking a 4e forum as the defacto D&D sample size is just flat in error and wrong. Many folks that play other editions go elsewhere, so you have a nice self-fulfilling prophesy. Enjoy.




Its the biggest block of D&D people at rpg.net, and its the biggest block at WotC's forums. That adds up to 4E people being the biggest piece of three out of the four largest online D&D discussion communities. Is 4E a majority, I'm not sure. Its bigger than any other single faction, I believe.


----------



## OnlineDM

Lanefan said:


> Lan-"I don't understand why playtesters are NDAed when it's supposedly an open playtest"-efan




This is not the open playtest. This is the closed "friends and family" playtest. The open playtest is scheduled to start this spring sometime.


----------



## OnlineDM

Hussar said:


> On the point about WOTC's lack of commentary:
> 
> The leak was posted on the 15th.  It's entirely possible that no one at WOTC even heard about yet.  Good grief, it's been a day.  And a Friday at that.  I've heard a rumour that those guys at WOTC actually work once in a while, and not spend the day poncing around Internet forums putting out fires.




Sure, but [MENTION=2]Piratecat[/MENTION] obviously saw it, since he commented several times in this thread, and he's one of the folks who called out the last "leak" as a fake. And when the last one hit this forum, Trevor Kidd from WotC chimed in quickly over here. I'd be very surprised if WotC isn't aware of this leak.

Given that no one in the friends and family playtest has jumped in to debunk this leak as they did last time, it's probably real, though based on very preliminary play test stuff that will probably have huge differences with what comes out in the open playtest and even larger differences with what's eventually released in the finished product. And as I said before, I'm not even looking at the content of it! I'm just curious about whether it's real or not.


----------



## kiltedyaksman

thecasualoblivion said:


> Its the biggest block of D&D people at rpg.net, and its the biggest block at WotC's forums. That adds up to 4E people being the biggest piece of three out of the four largest online D&D discussion communities. Is 4E a majority, I'm not sure. Its bigger than any other single faction, I believe.




Of course we are both entitled to our opinions.

I believe that if you were correct, 4e wouldn't be a dead system walking.


----------



## howandwhy99

I"m not a playtester, so here's my feedback on what was compiled so far. (Thanks GX.Sigma)

1. Skills aren't mandatory IIRC, right?

2. Wizards aren't proficient in javelins normally (much less flaming). Just go ahead and give them "every wizard gets their own custom Magic Missile." I've used ice knives.

3. Mage Armor as default makes me think Wizards are supposed to be in melee.

4. Give the Fighter EVERY Fighting Style listed. Missile, sword & board, two handed, shield wall, whatever. All of that stuff is the complexity and awesomeness of an elite trained warrior. Let 'em play with it rather than "Every one is specialized" and sucks at everything else. Specialization should be custom by the player. "I call this Stabbing Fist School"

(Thanks for the spells where we get duration, some oomph in power, and "oh no!" temporary control loss again.)

5. Variable donning armor time? I guess I can see this for the plate mailers. Does this mean we're talking 1 minute Rounds again? Interesting.

6. "Monsters without Ability Scores", he says. Tons of stuff has ability scores. Rolling these for monsters _only as they are needed_ is a nice touch. Just as that last point on rolling HD for every monster during prep.
-- However, here's the catch with making Ability Scores Saving Throws. Now we really do need to know what they are for every single monster encountered. That single Monster S.T. Matrix looks mighty fine now, huh? My only suggestion for breaking out of this is making A.S. S.T.s PC-only. 

6a. Whoops, he says "can lack ability scores". My fault, but I'm leaving it as both points above may still apply. No problem with no A.S. 

7. 20 status conditions is not that bad. These are the physical results of different effects (combat, magic, miracles, whatever). But I really think the 3 Fear effects are unnecessary. Isn't this making combat an attrition early decided and long to resolve? (e.g. HP doesn't affect "to hit" ability for a reason)

8. Action economies are needed, but I highly doubt you'll go my way on this. (maybe you're making these optional?) 1st off I go by monster/race. 2nd I include any and every time length but zero (e.g. round, turn, etc.) 3rd these are all unknown and behind the screen on purpose. 

9. It was funny to hear early D&D monster creation called 4e, but bad because it might actually be thought of as representing monster traits in the game world. (go figure)
-- FYI, you might want to add a default 1st time monster meeting method instead of naming them outright. Relay all sensed traits available to the PCs and let the players name the "thick red haired humanoids with tusks and porcine snouts". Pigmen is a fine name, even after they learn the creatures call themselves orcs.

10. Lastly, HoOrah! for cursed items. 

(Thanks for keeping use afloat and keep up the good work)


----------



## Viking Bastard

kiltedyaksman said:


> Of course we are both entitled to our opinions.
> 
> I believe that if you were correct, 4e wouldn't be a dead system walking.




I have no idea who's in the lead (and don't really care), but I think that even if 4e has 2/3 of the D&D market, that wouldn't be enough to properly sustain it. Niche of a niche of a niche and all.


----------



## Szatany

> 4. Give the Fighter EVERY Fighting Style listed. Missile, sword & board, two handed, shield wall, whatever. All of that stuff is the complexity and awesomeness of an elite trained warrior. Let 'em play with it rather than "Every one is specialized" and sucks at everything else. Specialization should be custom by the player. "I call this Stabbing Fist School"



Or something in between: any two at first level, and an extra one every 5 levels.



> 6. "Monsters without Ability Scores", he says.



And later he says skeletons have no Charisma. Something's not right here.


----------



## Viking Bastard

Szatany said:


> Or something in between: any two at first level, and an extra one every 5 levels.




Well, it's only the first 3 levels. My thought was that it worked like 4e's Rogue's Tricks, where you pick two at character creation and then get to add a new one every few levels.


----------



## Ratinyourwalls

OnlineDM said:


> Given that no one in the friends and family playtest has jumped in to debunk this leak as they did last time, it's probably real, though based on very preliminary play test stuff that will probably have huge differences with what comes out in the open playtest and even larger differences with what's eventually released in the finished product. And as I said before, I'm not even looking at the content of it! I'm just curious about whether it's real or not.




Either that or the order came down from up high to "stop doing that" when it came to confirming the truth/untruth of leaks after the last big one.


----------



## Zireael

> That's an interesting take. The 4E people are seeing things they hated in 3E, while the 3E people are seeing little of what they liked about it.




My thoughts too about the leak.

And it looks like it's a pre-pre-pre-alpha. I hope the version the playtesters are playing is much better.


----------



## OnlineDM

Ratinyourwalls said:


> Either that or the order came down from up high to "stop doing that" when it came to confirming the truth/untruth of leaks after the last big one.




Yes, I should have reiterated that point, which I made in my original reply to PirateCat. 

It's entirely possible that WotC has told everyone involved in the closed playtest not to comment on any "leaks" to confirm or deny them any more; however, they should TELL the community that they've made that declaration or else the community thinks that every non-denied "leak" is true.

Debunking one "leak" and then not debunking others without telling the community about the policy change is a recipe for getting people to believe every rumor that purports to be a leak. If this is the new policy, it needs to be announced broadly in order to be effective. I'd be fine with that policy, by the way.


----------



## Reflex

OnlineDM said:


> It's entirely possible that WotC has told everyone involved in the closed playtest not to comment on any "leaks" to confirm or deny them any more; however, they should TELL the community that they've made that declaration or else the community thinks that every non-denied "leak" is true.




There's some serious cognitive dissonance in effect in this thread. Let's be frank. *This is not a prank.* This is no more a prank than SomethingAwful's Mass Effect 3 leak was. The same bitter denials bubbled up on the official Bioware forums as have here. The same subset of posters tried to confidently portray themselves as unflappably sure that everyone else was foolish for taking such an obvious troll literally.

They were dead wrong. 

Discussion of the veracity of the leaked details is a lost cause. They are the real deal relevant Holyfield. 

What is arguably valid is the notion that they are subject to radical changes before release. I'm not sure how much time is left for dramatic revisions, particularly with the addition of the promised modules and the thorough testing of all those pieces not yet forthcoming, but there's certainly a chance that all of those things can happen. But this is an accurate snapshot of the way the rules were at one point and the playtesters know it.


----------



## TwinBahamut

Kzach said:


> Dear God, 13 pages of debate over an early April Fool's prank. I promised someone I wouldn't troll people here anymore but man, you guys make it SO easy it's hard to resist.



If this is a prank, it is a _very_ elaborate one. If you actually go look at the thread involved, you will quickly see this isn't a case of one random guy showing up and saying "oh hey I've got a leak". This is a case where a whole group of people who were already involved in a discussion for weeks somehow got started on talking about the 1.0 playtest and one admitting they saw the rules caused a cascade of 2-4 other posters admitting they saw the rules too. The info on that pastebin link from the first page was slowly spelled out by several different people in the midst of normal conversation between them.

So, I guess it could be a hoax, but it would be a very, very difficult one to pull off. It would also be rather pointless, since most of the people involved in the leak were already the central figures of that conversation and made their opinions about D&D clear long before they started giving out some information. If it was a leak designed to get people riled up, that is a very weird time and place for it.


----------



## Thraug

I'm *VERY* concerned about the number of conditions mentioned in this quote (2 more than 4e???):



> -*Twenty* different conditions that can negatively affect a character. 20. What's the difference between Blinded, Dazzled, and Dazed? Between Enervated, Sickened, Frightened, Shaken, and Panicked? Buy 5e and find out




Haven't they learned from 4e that too many conditions drag encounters to a screeching halt? Whether you're tracking them on grid or not playing on a grid this many conditions is about 5x too many. I haven't played or run a 4e Paragon or Epic encounter where condition tracking (and non-condition boon/penalty state tracking) hasn't directly resulted in adding a significant amount of (unnecessary) time to the encounter, usually doubling or tripling the time.

This alone is a deal breaker for me. I won't play another RPG that requires as much tracking during an 4e encounters. 1/5 or less than 4e is what I'll settle on. No more 2+ hour combats for me.


----------



## gloomhound

From what I've read this is much ado about nothing. Provided that it is real it's date and lack of detail render it useless in viewing what 5e is going to look like as a product.


----------



## mkill

I don't mind having 20 conditions IF they are all distinct and interesting. "drunk", "distracted", "confused", "frozen", "petrified", "zombified", "panicked"... Hey, a hero's life is no cakewalk.

What I don't like is 20 conditions which are all just slight variations of "-1 to attack, save, skill checks". Roll all of these into one and be done with it.

By the way: A lot of the stuff that the SA posters are musing about are straight cut&paste from 3E. 20 conditions, variable armor donning time, monsters lacking ability scores... Seems like they discuss an early version where things that the dev team didn't get to yet were just stripped from the d20 SRD or whatever. No surprises, really.

The part I was wondering about was why this playtest didn't have minor actions. They are already in 3.5, just called "swift action". And they're somewhere around 94 on the Top 100 complaints about 4E. Makes no sense to cut them.


----------



## Meophist

Szatany said:


> And later he says skeletons have no Charisma. Something's not right here.



Something just came to mind: I'm thinking it might be possible that the person misread and what the undead lack is Constitution, not Charisma? If not the person leaking, but perhaps Wizards themselves made that mistake. I don't think Wizards would intend on making the undead immune to one of its weaknesses.


----------



## GX.Sigma

The 20 conditions thing, as well as the undead being immune to turn undead thing, are just examples of how unpolished the system is. The designers have been indecisive about conditions: 







> Currently we're in the area that the effect should be relevant to the spell or power. For example there might be a power word stun spell that explains what stun is and goes from there. But we're probably not going to have too many abilities or spells that would do something like that.  We've pared down and increased the list of status effects, back and forth.



Also, I think it makes more sense for skeletons to lack CHA. CHA measures force of personality, and lesser undead have no personality. I'm positive the turn undead thing was a lack of communication or a case where the systems came in at different times and didn't know what was going on with the other systems.


----------



## Ratinyourwalls

It could easily be fixed by giving the weaker undead a 1 in Charisma, couldn't it? I suppose that it would also make them vulnerable to charm and bluff type effects too but they could easily make undead blanket immune to those types of things. I dunno. I really hope this was just an error on the part of the reader or something.


----------



## SteveC

I think a lot of people are missing what catastrophic is saying, so perhaps an analogy will help out.

I work in a shop where I regularly interact with our code developer group. The primary program they work with deals with almost all of the regulated work we do (we are a contract pharmaceutical lab).

This program was originally written in the late 90s by someone who had no formal programming experience, and they did a great job for what they knew about and what they could imagine the business would grow to include. What they did not do, and it's hardly surprising since they weren't trained as a programmer, was make things modular. At all.

Since then, we have grown to generate about 100x the work, and the software now has a team of six full time developers, who all do modular coding. The underlying code base, however, has largely not changed. 

This is not good. In fact, it's about the worst thing you can possibly have, and it has resulted in the application becoming something like the Winchester Mystery House, where modules are built all over the place on top of each other. Since there's very little consistent underlying structure, it makes development a royal pain, with many, many problems, since nothing was developed to work together.

In the next couple years, we are going to be hiring a few more developers, and re-doing almost the entire thing from scratch. 

Consider that redesign an edition change in D&D. If you create the foundation of the edition in a consistent, modular fashion, you can easily build out a variety of modules on it. For example, if you have a consistent class structure, you can easily add powers to it. If not, your module becomes redesigning each class from scratch.

I haven't seen much that's real about 5E, but what I have seen has not been modular at all: it's simply been a rehash of basic D&D from the late 70s. That edition is simple, but it has many, many assumptions about how classes work that are not portable or modular. If the advanced combat and the advanced powers module have to rewrite the combat and class system from the ground up, you don't have a module, you have a different game that still uses the same attributes and a D20.


----------



## Windjammer

catastrophic said:


> This isn't internal playtesting. This is something they are taking to conventions.
> 
> A playtest is not an excuse to just throw some stuff together and hurl it at people, like some kind of developmental reading of entrails. It is meant to test and iterate _the design_.
> 
> If 1.0 doesn't have those features, then the whole process will involve playing catch-up and never really locking such features down.
> 
> Where's the design? Where's the edition fan inclusion? Where's the modular system? It's not in 1.0. And it should be.




Excellent questions.

I really gotta ask what the WotC R&D staff were doing* throughout 2011 *while they were busily sinking 4th edition? 

Giving us 'class updates' no one wanted (PH cleric anyone?), thinning the product catalogue, and outsourcing 90% to freelancers, and now we get ... this? 

This unfinished sorry thing of a 'playtest document' is Mearls' explanation of why *for 14 months* they couldn't pump solid work into 4e?

You gotta be *kidding*.


----------



## Elf Witch

thecasualoblivion said:


> Its the biggest block of D&D people at rpg.net, and its the biggest block at WotC's forums. That adds up to 4E people being the biggest piece of three out of the four largest online D&D discussion communities. Is 4E a majority, I'm not sure. Its bigger than any other single faction, I believe.




You cannot judge just by what people post on a forum. Especially polls which really don't have any security to stop people from voting more than once. 

If you look at a lot of those polls you will often see if you add up the 3E people with the the people who play different versions of the older editions it comes to a bigger group then 4E.

I have a feeling that is the group WOTC wants back the big group of DnD players who are playing older versions.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

mkill said:


> I don't mind having 20 conditions IF they are all distinct and interesting. "drunk", "distracted", "confused", "frozen", "petrified", "zombified", "panicked"... Hey, a hero's life is no cakewalk.




"I don't wanna get fraculated..."
"PSYCHO-fraculated."
"Still fraculated..."

Invisible Boy/The Bowler


----------



## the Jester

Windjammer said:


> Excellent questions.
> 
> I really gotta ask what the WotC R&D staff were doing* throughout 2011 *while they were busily sinking 4th edition?
> 
> Giving us 'class updates' no one wanted (PH cleric anyone?), thinning the product catalogue, and outsourcing 90% to freelancers, and now we get ... this?
> 
> This unfinished sorry thing of a 'playtest document' is Mearls' explanation of why *for 14 months* they couldn't pump solid work into 4e?
> 
> You gotta be *kidding*.




Actually, I think quite a lot of us wanted those class updates, and 2011 saw pretty much all good content, even if it was slightly thin. 

If the catalogue hadn't been thinned out, how many more people would now be crying that WotC tricked them into buying more 4e stuff right before they killed it (not that that would be an accurate characterization, but...)? In fact, there are already people that feel that way.

No, I think the last 15 months have been good for 4e; there has been a bunch of good DDI content, PO: HotF, PO:HotEC, Shadowfell, Monster Vault 2, etc. etc.


----------



## ggroy

Windjammer said:


> I really gotta ask what the WotC R&D staff were doing* throughout 2011 *while they were busily sinking 4th edition?
> 
> Giving us 'class updates' no one wanted (PH cleric anyone?), thinning the product catalogue, and outsourcing 90% to freelancers, and now we get ... this?
> 
> This unfinished sorry thing of a 'playtest document' is Mearls' explanation of why *for 14 months* they couldn't pump solid work into 4e?





At times I wonder if Mearls' daily job these days is more like being a manager and dealing with the workplace politics and higher management (whether WotC or Hasbro), and less actual game design/development type stuff.


----------



## Ratskinner

Szatany said:


> It's only natural. People are starved for new tidbits of 5e. It's been two months since we were given any meaningful information about the game.




True enough, but there is no game...just a rough idea for one.


----------



## KarinsDad

SteveC said:


> I think a lot of people are missing what catastrophic is saying, so perhaps an analogy will help out.




I understood exactly what he was saying and to some extent, even agree with some of it. But, I think that he is basing his "the sky is falling, there is no modular design here" ideas off of a very incomplete and small sample set of information.



SteveC said:


> I work in a shop where I regularly interact with our code developer group. The primary program they work with deals with almost all of the regulated work we do (we are a contract pharmaceutical lab).
> 
> This program was originally written in the late 90s by someone who had no formal programming experience, and they did a great job for what they knew about and what they could imagine the business would grow to include. What they did not do, and it's hardly surprising since they weren't trained as a programmer, was make things modular. At all.
> 
> Since then, we have grown to generate about 100x the work, and the software now has a team of six full time developers, who all do modular coding. The underlying code base, however, has largely not changed.
> 
> This is not good. In fact, it's about the worst thing you can possibly have, and it has resulted in the application becoming something like the Winchester Mystery House, where modules are built all over the place on top of each other. Since there's very little consistent underlying structure, it makes development a royal pain, with many, many problems, since nothing was developed to work together.
> 
> In the next couple years, we are going to be hiring a few more developers, and re-doing almost the entire thing from scratch.




Interestingly enough, where I work, we did do a modular redesign of our project in 2001 and 2002. The redesign was led by a guy with a PhD in Computer Science. We spent 2 years redesigning it and have since 2003, had a fairly stable product. However, we have found since then that modular does not necessarily mean better. It often means bloatware as more and more components are created and "plugged into" the software. We are now re-designing it yet again to be a lot less modular (the new redesign is also being led by the same guy with the PhD and we are yanking out some design elements that 10 years ago, were thought necessarily).

The problem you describe above is not merely a result of lack of modular design, it's a problem of all software with increased mass over time. The same problem happens with RPGs.

So, although there is something to be said for modular design, it too often has its own set of issues. With regard to an RPG, WotC would be better served by limiting the amount of modular design and going with a very strong and stable core set of rules. The modular portion of it should be mostly limited to additional classes (and feats and some special rules for modifying rules beyond core, etc.) and different mechanics to handle some of the abilities of those classes, but even new modular classes should still be 80% to 90% core driven with regard to design. For example, Psions might use Power Points, but they should still have Psionic powers that are statted up similar to spells and those powers should still interact with the rest of the rules very similarly (e.g. Stunned is still Stunned, etc.).


----------



## Kzach

kiltedyaksman said:


> I believe that if you were correct, 4e wouldn't be a dead system walking.




Show me the evidence that says 4e is a dead system, please?

I believe that, if you were correct, nobody would be playing or discussing 4e.



TwinBahamut said:


> If this is a prank, it is a _very_ elaborate one. If you actually go look at the thread involved, you will quickly see this isn't a case of one random guy showing up and saying "oh hey I've got a leak". This is a case where a whole group of people who were already involved in a discussion for weeks somehow got started on talking about the 1.0 playtest and one admitting they saw the rules caused a cascade of 2-4 other posters admitting they saw the rules too. The info on that pastebin link from the first page was slowly spelled out by several different people in the midst of normal conversation between them.




Umm... sorry, but you just described exactly how such a hoax would play out. "I shouldn't mention this but I got a peak at some early play-test rules," he winks slyly to his buddies who then grin and reply, "Oh yeah, me too!"


----------



## Ratskinner

SteveC said:


> I think a lot of people are missing what catastrophic is saying, so perhaps an analogy will help out.
> 
> I work in a shop where I regularly interact with our code developer group. The primary program they work with deals with almost all of the regulated work we do (we are a contract pharmaceutical lab).
> 
> This program was originally written in the late 90s by someone who had no formal programming experience, and they did a great job for what they knew about and what they could imagine the business would grow to include. What they did not do, and it's hardly surprising since they weren't trained as a programmer, was make things modular. At all.
> 
> Since then, we have grown to generate about 100x the work, and the software now has a team of six full time developers, who all do modular coding. The underlying code base, however, has largely not changed.
> 
> This is not good. In fact, it's about the worst thing you can possibly have, and it has resulted in the application becoming something like the Winchester Mystery House, where modules are built all over the place on top of each other. Since there's very little consistent underlying structure, it makes development a royal pain, with many, many problems, since nothing was developed to work together.
> 
> In the next couple years, we are going to be hiring a few more developers, and re-doing almost the entire thing from scratch.
> 
> Consider that redesign an edition change in D&D. If you create the foundation of the edition in a consistent, modular fashion, you can easily build out a variety of modules on it. For example, if you have a consistent class structure, you can easily add powers to it. If not, your module becomes redesigning each class from scratch.
> 
> I haven't seen much that's real about 5E, but what I have seen has not been modular at all: it's simply been a rehash of basic D&D from the late 70s. That edition is simple, but it has many, many assumptions about how classes work that are not portable or modular. If the advanced combat and the advanced powers module have to rewrite the combat and class system from the ground up, you don't have a module, you have a different game that still uses the same attributes and a D20.




I can see the point, but I feel two things make this fear a little out of proportion. Firstly, tabletop games aren't computer programs, things can be different here. Secondly, I really don't know how...given what was in the pasteup...anyone can conclude anything solid enough about the structure of this draft of a game to react this way. There simply isn't enough there to conclude that this is going on, IMO. From what others are saying about early playtest documents and experiments...its quite possible that the leakers don't even know enough about the game's (potential) structure to even give the opinion themselves.


----------



## kiltedyaksman

Quote:
Originally Posted by *kiltedyaksman* 

 
_I believe that if you were correct, 4e wouldn't be a dead system walking._

Show me the evidence that says 4e is a dead system, please?

I believe that, if you were correct, nobody would be playing or discussing 4e.

_______

Dude, are you serious? 4e is as dead a system - meaning supported by new product by the parent company - as OD&D, Basic, AD&D, 2nd Ed., 3.0, or 3.5. Have you seen the rollback in product? With the AD&D reprints in April, you could argue at least AD&D is a supported system LOL

4e is what they call in football a "lame duck." Meaning the deathknell has been sounded. The end is near. You might as well just admit the obvious.

And here's an excellent example of edition warring: making your point rudely in order to start a fight. The last few sentences are problematic and not something we'd like to see. When in doubt, please err on the side of being polite. - Piratecat

EDIT: Additional comment removed by admin.


----------



## fjw70

I don't see why it would be that hard to layer a tactical module over these base rules to get a 4e like game. Let's use the fighter as an example.

First the tactical fighter doesn't need to be balanced against the core fighter. He needs to be balanced against the tactical wizard, the tactical cleric, the tactical rogue, etc.

To make the tactical fighter give him an extra 15 points of hp at 1st and instead of leveling up at d10 he gets 6 more hp at levels 2 and up. Then just give him some tactical feats to select powers and there you have the 4e like fighter.

If you want to play a simple tactical fighter then just allow him to use the feats for attack and damage bonuses.


----------



## gyor

I don't get why so many people are worried about a slice of info which already outdated. I mean its fun to analyzing it, but its just a very basic attempt at brianstorming. There is probably a dozen of these packets with different experimental rules each.

 I mean it was one early experiment amoung countless others and more experiments and polls have happened since. This is challenging and so they are probably trying all kinds of stuff.

 Treating this stuff as carved in stone when its not, is just discouraging WOTC from revealing more info. Lets just treat it as an interesting experiment give good feed back and not over inflate it.


----------



## Thraug

GX.Sigma / WOTC said:
			
		

> Currently we're in the area that the effect should be relevant to the  spell or power. For example there might be a power word stun spell that  explains what stun is and goes from there. But we're probably not going  to have too many abilities or spells that would do something like that.   We've pared down and increased the list of status effects, back and  forth.




I recall reading that too, and cringing. I'll be utterly shocked if they abandon the wonderful modern design paradigm of creating a term dictionary in a base rulebook (PHB), and in the case of 4e/5e defining a list of conditions instead of describing/defining unique states in power/monster/spell/magicitem descriptions.

The few benefits in the old and archaic method don't come close to the benefits of a defining terms in one place.

Who wants to go back to the horrid:


roaming through countless books to find out how a condition work?
having 30 different ways to explain and run a "stun" like condition, each slightly different for Power Word Stun, a Dwarven Shield Bash, a Giant Pummel?
reading over two pages of a monster description just to find out what it's "daze" does?


Good gravy man, leave bad 70s design behind, it's 2012. I really fear they will be bringing back REALLY poor design just so they can appease some nebulous grognard group that barely exists.


----------



## Piratecat

Kzach said:


> Show me the evidence that says 4e is a dead system, please?
> 
> I believe that, if you were correct, nobody would be playing or discussing 4e.



We're hip deep in definitions here, I think. If WotC is not producing new content for 4e, it could be considered a dead system. If people are playing it, though? Not a chance, any more than the heart of 3.5 is dead while a jillion people play Pathfinder. 

I think people refer to a current system being dead when they want to get a big a rise as possible from the fans who love it. It's a label that doesn't mean much.


----------



## kiltedyaksman

Piratecat said:


> We're hip deep in definitions here, I think. If WotC is not producing new content for 4e, it could be considered a dead system. If people are playing it, though? Not a chance, any more than the heart of 3.5 is dead while a jillion people play Pathfinder.
> 
> I think people refer to a current system being dead when they want to get a big a rise as possible from the fans who love it. It's a label that doesn't mean much.




Gygax himself stated that AD&D was as dead a system as Latin was a language. His meaning: the edition was no longer supported by the company that created it. I don't think anybody is telling tales out of school to suggest that with the advent of 5e, 4e is now a dead system similar to all the others. Does the spirit of older editions continue on through clones etc? Of course is does, but the point remains they are no longer supported by the company that created them = dead system. I have played every edition of TSR/WotC D&D and prefer retroclones because I'd rather have the spirit of a dead system than play the modern version of the brand.

I fail to see your point - at all. These are the realities of D&D gaming subculture - how is that getting a rise out of people? At least I can acknowledge that my game is a dead system. Touchy are we?


----------



## Piratecat

kiltedyaksman said:


> Touchy are we?



Nah, not at all. I loved 1e, 2e and 3e. I like 4e (and run two very fun campaigns in it), but it has a few more things that annoy me than previous systems did. I'll either switch if I find 5e more fun, or I'll stick with 4e until the current campaigns are over in 3 years. I'm not particularly invested in one edition, or one game, over another.

I think you may be mistaking my moderator caution about tone with my opinion about the game. I sent you a PM to go into more detail. Let's discuss it there, please -- we don't handle moderation questions in-thread.


----------



## Reflex

kiltedyaksman said:


> I fail to see your point - at all. These are the realities of D&D gaming subculture - how is that getting a rise out of people? At least I can acknowledge that my game is a dead system. Touchy are we?




I'd counter that you are being a bit disingenous here- You specifically trotted out your claim that 4E is a dead system as your 'proof' that some silent majority of players, in spite of the polls being cited, prefer Pathfinder. It was done to score a point, not for some sort of dispassionate discussion about what constitutes a 'live' system. 

It also ignored the fact that 3.5 came only 3 years on the heel of 3.0, just as 4.0 came 5 years after it. 5E looks likely to land in 2013, 5 years later. Certainly you could choose to use those numbers to support an argument that 4E is doing poorly. You could also use it to suggest that game companies kinda like to release new core books every 5 years. But that's not really germane to the discussion. The why's and wherefore's of 5E's provenance aren't really relevant to this thread and hashing them out is likely to kick off the precise sort of 'edition wars' Piratecat is cautioning us against.


----------



## GX.Sigma

Thraug said:


> I recall reading that too, and cringing. I'll be utterly shocked if they abandon the wonderful modern design paradigm of creating a term dictionary in a base rulebook (PHB), and in the case of 4e/5e defining a list of conditions instead of describing/defining unique states in power/monster/spell/magicitem descriptions.
> 
> The few benefits in the old and archaic method don't come close to the benefits of a defining terms in one place.
> 
> Who wants to go back to the horrid:
> 
> 
> roaming through countless books to find out how a condition work?
> having 30 different ways to explain and run a "stun" like condition, each slightly different for Power Word Stun, a Dwarven Shield Bash, a Giant Pummel?
> reading over two pages of a monster description just to find out what it's "daze" does?
> 
> 
> Good gravy man, leave bad 70s design behind, it's 2012. I really fear they will be bringing back REALLY poor design just so they can appease some nebulous grognard group that barely exists.



Everything you said here (in slightly different terms) is the problem with 4e-style conditions.

In 4e, a monster does something, and the PC is shaken. The power doesn't say what shaken means, so you have to dig up the PHB and look it up.

I think what the designer was saying about the hypothetical "power word stun" is that it would say "stun," and then it would describe what being stunned means. So you would still have the keyword, and there would still be a list of them somewhere, but you don't have to look it up every time, as the definition would be right there.

Hopefully.


----------



## Reflex

GX.Sigma said:


> Everything you said here (in slightly different terms) is the problem with 4e-style conditions.
> 
> In 4e, a monster does something, and the PC is shaken. The power doesn't say what shaken means, so you have to dig up the PHB and look it up.
> 
> I think what the designer was saying about the hypothetical "power word stun" is that it would say "stun," and then it would describe what being stunned means. So you would still have the keyword, and there would still be a list of them somewhere, but you don't have to look it up every time, as the definition would be right there.
> 
> Hopefully.




Then again, monster spell lists without effect descriptions are back too, so I'm not sure that user-friendliness is the core driver at work here. I'd like to think we can attribute these sorts of ad hoc status decriptions to the very unfinished state of the rules. Hopefully those will get tightened up and standardized before release if they haven't already, so we know for certain whether 'Remove Stun' applies to Power Word:Stun, Stunning Fist targets, and characters struck by a stone giant club with an effect description noting the stricken character 'reels, drops his/her weapon, and is unable to act until his/her next action'. 

Hopefully.


----------



## Incenjucar

4E-style conditions were pretty easy to memorize. The rules for Darkvision are more complex.

--

4E is getting new content from WotC still, it's just slowing down and likely to end once 5E is available. When it's dead to WotC, then the fans will step in. This will happen with 5E, too, and the story will be the same once 6E comes out. No big deal. 4E is a fantastic, easy-to-work system, so I expect the big issue will be organizing all the indie content.


----------



## Piratecat

Incenjucar said:


> 4E-style conditions were pretty easy to memorize.



You won't hear me complain if they get simplified. I think 4e has too many conditions, personally. I'm sure not everyone agrees with that, but there are only a dozen we seem to use regularly.


----------



## Doug McCrae

kiltedyaksman said:


> Dude, are you serious? 4e is as dead a system - meaning supported by new product by the parent company - as OD&D, Basic, AD&D, 2nd Ed., 3.0, or 3.5.



But isn't 5e the anti-death edition? You'll be able to play it like BECMI, 1e/2e, 3e or 4e, depending upon which options you use. So product for 5e will, in a sense, be product for all these editions. Thus, no editions are dead.


----------



## Incenjucar

Surprised, Blinded, Deafened, Dying, Helpless, and Unconscious kind of need to be defined in any system. The rest you could argue for one way or another. Really, one of the main things is making sure that things don't stack too much; named conditions can only be applied once, but random situational penalties might stack, even if they mostly mean the same thing.


----------



## n00bdragon

GX.Sigma said:


> Everything you said here (in slightly different terms) is the problem with 4e-style conditions.
> 
> In 4e, a monster does something, and the PC is shaken. The power doesn't say what shaken means, so you have to dig up the PHB and look it up.
> 
> I think what the designer was saying about the hypothetical "power word stun" is that it would say "stun," and then it would describe what being stunned means. So you would still have the keyword, and there would still be a list of them somewhere, but you don't have to look it up every time, as the definition would be right there.
> 
> Hopefully.




Except Shaken isn't a status effect in 4e. I wouldn't knock it till you've tried it. The advantage of having a small number of status effects that aren't re-explained in every entry is... that they aren't re-explained in every entry. When an mummy stuns you and when dragon stuns you and when an evil wizard stuns you it ALWAYS works the same way. That's not something to look down on. Once you learn how the basic conditions work there's no need to look up anything, ever. This is the power of keywords.

Even 3.5 learned this lesson. I will be sorely disappointed if 5e throws out this progress. Sadly it looks like all the progress that has been made in 3e and 4e and even some made in 2e is being discarded purely to appeal to a tiny subset of gamers.


----------



## KarinsDad

Reflex said:


> Then again, monster spell lists without effect descriptions are back too, so I'm not sure that user-friendliness is the core driver at work here. I'd like to think we can attribute these sorts of ad hoc status decriptions to the very unfinished state of the rules. Hopefully those will get tightened up and standardized before release if they haven't already, so we know for certain whether 'Remove Stun' applies to Power Word:Stun, Stunning Fist targets, and characters struck by a stone giant club with an effect description noting the stricken character 'reels, drops his/her weapon, and is unable to act until his/her next action'.
> 
> Hopefully.




Actually, I am ok with this as a possibility. It's just cool if the monster can trot out Power Word Kill, just like the PC can (note: assuming PWK does one of those fails 3 saves and dies things instead of fails 1 save and dies thing).

Specifically, I want Demons, Devils, and Dragons to be casting spells (and nasty ones at that), not just using abilities/powers. In fact, I'm ok with default spells for these types of creatures, but the DM should be told that this creature has 3 first level spells, 2 second, and a third so that the DM can switch it up if he wants to go to that level of effort.

But if WotC does allow some monsters to be casting spells AND doesn't list out the entire spell with the monster, I sure as heck want most if not all of those spells to be in the PHB AND I want the PHB page number of the spell to be in the monster description so that I as DM can go find it quickly. Additionally, if I print that monster from an online tool, I want that spell to be printed out along with the monster. Having just the spell name and page number is ok in a printed Monster Manual to save space and get more monsters listed in it, but it's dumb to not take advantage of technology with online tools.


One would think, however, that the vast majority of monsters don't need to be casting spells. In those cases, it's ok to give them special abilities and have the entire special ability described right in the monster description.

But I don't think that the game designers should shunt out an entire aspect of monster design, namely, having monsters with spells. In fact, the game designers should expand upon monsters abilities and have some monsters have PC powers/abilities as well as spells. It's real nasty when the Troll does Come and Get It and the jaws of your players drop. (bwa ha ha)


----------



## Incenjucar

Monsters using spells and other class powers is covered in the 4E DMG. Page 182 "Class Templates."

I can't imagine WotC would back away from that for 5E.


----------



## catastrophic

I read *GX.Sigma* as suggesting a system where effects are noted and explained in the monster refrence space, but also standardized. That would be ideal, but there also needs to be fewer conditions, and a better way of managing them. 

However, that doesn't seem to be the direction 5e is heading in, and the fact that on day one they pull out the *3e* condition list for refrence, is not a good sign.

Again, this is the kind of thing they should be working out or at least testing from the beginning- instead they're just going back to the old ways of doing things, and ignoring the issue.

Has these even been a poll, or anything about conditions? I can't remember one at all. I guess it's too much of a 4e-refrencing issue, and WOTC has clearly decided that that is the Edition Wich Must Not be Named.


----------



## KarinsDad

Incenjucar said:


> Monsters using spells and other class powers is covered in the 4E DMG. Page 182 "Class Templates."
> 
> I can't imagine WotC would back away from that for 5E.




How many DMs have you known that used those on any consistent basis?

I used it a total of twice in 3 years (ironically, both times for Dragons).


In fact, this is a prime example of a "game module" in 4E. One that rarely gets used because it is too much of a hassle. I suspect that if 5E game modules are set up like this one is, that they will be too much of a hassle in 5E as well and people will rarely see these types of modules used.

What we might see instead is a 5E core system, some game elements such as classes as add on modules that will be used because they will be plug and play, and some other add on modules such as "spellcasting for monsters" like the 4E plug in that almost never gets used because it is not plug and play.


----------



## Incenjucar

I've used it before but just making monsters into big scaly wizards is boring to me and my players, so I avoid it. It was boring in past editions, too. But it's already there for people who like that kind of thing.

If 5E is going to make spellcasting interesting for monsters, they should stay clear of the classes.


----------



## Piratecat

The only monster I really, really want to have spellcasting is the lich. Other than that I'm pretty flexible.

...and just like that, I'm totally off topic.


----------



## Kzach

Piratecat said:


> The only monster I really, really want to have spellcasting is the lich. Other than that I'm pretty flexible.




And beholders, of course. And rakshasa. And vampires. And living spells. And sphinxs. And lammasu's. And arcanoloths. And couatls. And...


----------



## Incenjucar

Most of those monsters have no reason to cast spells *as a species*.


----------



## Tovec

Kzach said:


> And beholders, of course. And rakshasa. And vampires. And living spells. And sphinxs. And lammasu's. And arcanoloths. And couatls. And...




You are confusing spellcasting with supernatural abilities.

Spellcasting to me is levels in wizard, sorcerer or even cleric.

Supernatural abilities would apply to those creatures you listed, as well as most fey, but not necessarily dragon.


----------



## KarinsDad

Incenjucar said:


> Most of those monsters have no reason to cast spells *as a species*.




I think that is a major weakness of 4E. You have this campaign world where the physical laws are such that humanoid PCs take advantage of spells and prayers and such via the arcane and divine and psionic and primal power sources, but a vast majority of the humanoid monsters (some of which can be PCs) are using "the monster power source". What the heck is that? Often no rhyme or reason to their abilities, just a hodge podge of whatever the designer thought was cool.

The 4E model of Monster Knowledge Checks where the PC knows a ton of stuff about a monster NOT as a species, but because the monsters has Educational Cues floating above his head was implemented precisely because monsters have lost a lot of their rhyme and reason. Monsters have all kinds of powers and abilities, but they are so disparate that the game designers had to create an artificial MKC system so that players could keep up with it.

And, some of those abilities could and should be spells. What's the difference? Why should a Goblin Hexer's hexes be different than the Human Hexer's hexes and that different from Warlock Curses? And why do half of all Goblins have Goblins Tactics, but the other half doesn't? To me, something like Goblins Tactics should be something that all Goblins have and something that players should expect Goblins to have, not something that some do and some don't and oh by the way, roll a Monster Knowledge Check for this particular Goblin to figure it out.

I think that 5E Monster Knowledge Checks should give Racial knowledge, not individual named monster knowledge, including any spells or specialized powers unless a vast majority of that race is able to cast that spell (e.g. Darkness for Drows).

Most monsters should have obvious abilities. For example, many creatures with tentacles might be able to reach. Giants with large clubs should be able to knock smaller foes around like bowling pins. But, a lot of these abilities should be racial abilities. Individual abilities should be unknown to PCs. An example of an individual ability is a spell.


----------



## Tallifer

KarinsDad said:


> Most monsters should have obvious abilities. For example, many creatures with tentacles might be able to reach. Giants with large clubs should be able to knock smaller foes around like bowling pins. But, a lot of these abilities should be racial abilities. Individual abilities should be unknown to PCs. An example of an individual ability is a spell.




In the Fourth Edition, monster do indeed have obvious abilities. Kobolds are shifty and hard to pin down. Giant crocodiles grab you in their jaws. Ghosts pass through walls and take half damage from attacks. Rats swarm you. Hippogriffs fly. Not sure why you would think otherwise.

On the other hand specific spell-like abilities are as wondrous and mysterious as those of any class's spells. BUT if the monsters' attacks are just the same as those from the characters' spell lists, then the mystery and surprise is lessened (and the logistics increased).


----------



## Piratecat

Kzach said:


> And beholders, of course. And rakshasa. And vampires. And living spells. And sphinxs. And lammasu's. And arcanoloths. And couatls. And...



Tovec nailed it. Vampires don't cast a charm person spell, they stare into the maiden's eyes with a supernatural ability. Sirens didn't cast a "come hither" spell when luring sailors to their doom. I'm talking actual, honest to gosh class ability to cast.


----------



## KarinsDad

Tallifer said:


> In the Fourth Edition, monster do indeed have obvious abilities. Kobolds are shifty and hard to pin down. Giant crocodiles grab you in their jaws. Ghosts pass through walls and take half damage from attacks. Rats swarm you. Hippogriffs fly. Not sure why you would think otherwise.




Which 4E Giants can hit you and knock you back and which cannot? Some Hill Giants can do it, some cannot. Hill Giant Grunts can do it for pete's sake, but many other hill giants cannot. Hill Giant Grunts can do it, but many other bigger and more powerful giants like Frost and Storm Giants cannot.

I don't see the rhyme or reason for this. I think any giant (i.e. Hill Giant or taller, not just Ogres, specialized Ogres might have these abilities) using a really large weapon should knock foes all over the place. JMO. I think the same should be true for certain types of massively powerful Demons, and Devils, and Dragons. On the other hand, there should be some more subtle Demons and Devils and slim snake-like Dragons that don't use massive weapons that don't have this ability. But, Giants are massive by definition. They should almost all do this type of thing. I want Giants that are like the Cave Troll in the LotR movie. Not brutes that just swing for damage. The overhead shot knocks a PC prone. The normal shot knocks a PC back. A heavy duty shot knocks a PC back and prone.

I think the 5E game would be better served if the monster races were created first such that all monsters of each particular race have specific racial abilities. Then, create specific monsters of each race that enhance those abilities and add in new abilities.

4E's method of "maybe the designer remembered that Hobgoblins have this ability, maybe the designer forgot" is lacking in flavor and consistency.



Tallifer said:


> On the other hand specific spell-like abilities are as wondrous and mysterious as those of any class's spells. BUT if the monsters' attacks are just the same as those from the characters' spell lists, then the mystery and surprise is lessened (and the logistics increased).




I don't think that monster attacks should always be the same as PC spells. I just think that sometimes they should be. I think the game is not served well if most abilities of most monsters are mostly specific to this monster. I think some abilities should be obvious and some should be recognizable (and even unrecognizable) spells.

I think that there is plenty of room in the game space for monsters that cast spells. Not just liches, but pixes and dragons and demons and devils and most humanoid monsters who have their own deities and their own prayers/spells and because they are humanoid, they have the same access to Arcane, Primal, Divine, and Psionic abilities.

I don't see why the physics of the campaign world should be segregated between PCs and NPCs. I do see a reason to make NPCs simpler and easier to run, but that doesn't require that NPCs cannot cast spells.


----------



## Dragonblade

Being away all weekend and reading that 5e "leak" fills me with absolute horror. I hope the released playtest looks nothing like the rubbish I read in that link.

I pray this is an elaborate troll.


----------



## KarinsDad

Piratecat said:


> Tovec nailed it. Vampires don't cast a charm person spell, they stare into the maiden's eyes with a supernatural ability.




But, this complicates the game system. It's not so much that the Vampire is casting a Charm, but the game system is a LOT more simple if the Vampire Charm and the Charm spell are identical or nearly identical.

The moment every supernatural monster ability is unique is the moment that causes DM headaches at the table. I cannot tell you the number of times that as a DM, I missed some small nuance of a monster's ability that weakened the overall encounter. As an example, I went through half of an adventure forgetting Lycanthrope Fury for Frenzied Werewolves because it was lower down on the stat writeup and some of my other werewolves did not have it. It's not a simple claw, claw, bite, it's a specific ability that some werewolves have and others do not and when running different ones together, I as a DM sometimes miss this stuff.


----------



## Incenjucar

Wizards are usually using spells to try and replicate - if not improve upon - supernatural abilities from the "monster power source."


----------



## keterys

KarinsDad said:


> But, this complicates the game system. It's not so much that the Vampire is casting a Charm, but the game system is a LOT more simple if the Vampire Charm and the Charm spell are identical or nearly identical.



This does not match my own experience playing... every edition of D&D .

A lot of the things you're objecting to are frankly because they made some racial abilities (ex: hobgoblin) that ended up being _bad_ so they experimented with trying new ones (Ex: phalanx movement). Disparity, sure, but better monsters yes.

And I'm sorry but having to refer to many different spells instead of actual abilities is _far_ harder to DM. Lessee, a beholder could have 10 lines of eye rays that just reference a spell, and you get to look them all up, maybe copy down relevant bits in a note after... or it could have 20 lines for 10 eye rays that tell you what they do. And maybe differ from the spell when it's appropriate for the monster.

Not interested in 3e's "attach spells to everything" methodology. I'm fine with any other edition's treatment, though I think it'd be a shame to throw out all of the innovations of 4e instead of just adding the things that were excluded (ex: rituals, plot abilities, guidance for how to just add extra spells and abilities, etc).

Anyhow, I'm with Piratecat. Lich's can have spells. Vampire wizards (or mummy clerics, or human wizards for that matter) can have spells - vampire rogues don't need them. If they really want, spells can duplicate monster abilities instead of the other way around. ("Gaze of the Basilisk", et al)


----------



## SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS

KarinsDad said:


> But, this complicates the game system. It's not so much that the Vampire is casting a Charm, but the game system is a LOT more simple if the Vampire Charm and the Charm spell are identical or nearly identical.
> 
> The moment every supernatural monster ability is unique is the moment that causes DM headaches at the table. I cannot tell you the number of times that as a DM, I missed some small nuance of a monster's ability that weakened the overall encounter. As an example, I went through half of an adventure forgetting Lycanthrope Fury for Frenzied Werewolves because it was lower down on the stat writeup and some of my other werewolves did not have it. It's not a simple claw, claw, bite, it's a specific ability that some werewolves have and others do not and when running different ones together, I as a DM sometimes miss this stuff.




If the game was other than d&d it would be true, but d&d spell are full of useless fluff the be used as generic powers. In savage words or muttants and masterminds it is true, but d&d? Like the big area damage effect is a fireball, so if I want a cold monster with a big area damage effec? You can say "it is like fireball but with cold damage" but reading the 3e fireball descriotion it says that if burn things.... the cold fireball burn things too?


----------



## Klaus

KarinsDad said:


> Specifically, I want Demons, Devils, and Dragons to be casting spells (and nasty ones at that), not just using abilities/powers.




And in 3.5, the whole point of the Xorvinthaal template for Dragons was to make them feel like... well, dragons, instead of just being high-level sorcerors that happen to be shaped like dragons. And demons/devils had enormous spell lists with many spells that were simply never used because the creature's time in the "spotlight" is very limited.

You said that 4e is bad because you have to remember which goblins have Goblin Tactics, and which don't (the vast majority does). But you don't have to. You just pick the stat block and it's all there. You don't have to list a Goblin Hexer's spell list of "feeblemind x2, curse x3", and then refer back to whichever book has the spell to know what it does. It's all there, in the stat block.

And in the end, 4e monster design/customization is so easy, you can just say "this dragon is trained in Arcana and can cast rituals" and be done with it.


----------



## Truename

Klaus said:


> And in the end, 4e monster design/customization is so easy, you can just say "this dragon is trained in Arcana and can cast rituals" and be done with it.




Exactly. 4e monster design is _awesome_. Monsters are surprising, interesting, and incredibly easy to DM. If I want all my goblins to feel similar, I just do it. And if I want to stat up the world's most powerful goblin mage (and I did; he's riding a worg named Fluffy and tagging along with my high-paragon PCs), I just do that, too. Easy. Look up appropriate damage, call it "fireball," and done. Thank you very much, Wizards, that one _you got right_.


----------



## catastrophic

KarinsDad said:


> 4E's method of "maybe the designer remembered that Hobgoblins have this ability, maybe the designer forgot" is lacking in flavor and consistency.



This is not a fair description of 4e. In my experience 4e has characterful and consistant design of monsters, particularly types of monsters, who are distinctive in ways that are unmatched in previous editions.

I compare this to the approach of previous editions, which rarely gave most monsters much of anything to do, and the ones that it did, were weighed down with skills, spellbooks and more which didn't serve any gameplay purpose.

I find that simulationist dogma doesn't make for good or evocative battles, and that's why it makes sense to me that every giant doesn't have the same powers as every other giant.

5e monster design should stick to 4e's approach, especially if they (as some people suggested earlier) want a monster sheet to include everything the DM needs to run them.

I don't need codified quasi-story on the monster sheet in my games. I need a combat sheet. 

I can make my own fluff, or read the fluff in a context better suited to it (such as knolwdge checks, or a general lore section), which can be written more evocativly as a result, as well.

I certainly don't want dragons-as-sorcerors, in fact i'm flat out finding room for Devils-As-Spellcasters. I remember one of the more powerful fiends in 3e had a sword, and a flaming whip- but their best move by far, was to, inexplicably make people Implode. Why? Because implode is a high level spell they can cast.

Sure, a spellcaster like a lich should be built around spellcasting, but even here, monster design must be unbound by dogma. 

When my PCs fought a solo lich, he had a power for each shool of specialization- (including a seeming evocation spelll wich was actually an illusion!)- but doing that wasn't a process of poring over spell lists and trying to shoe-horn existing spells into the monster design- it was based on creating unique powers which FELT and PLAYED like like a powerful, undead spellcaster.



KarinsDad said:


> But, this complicates the game system. It's not so much that the Vampire is casting a Charm, but the game system is a LOT more simple if the Vampire Charm and the Charm spell are identical or nearly identical.



This is an argument for common conditions, not common powers. Likewise, having spells instead of powers isn't going to make things more simple, especially if PC-style spells come with a bunch of additional features like interruption of casting, and how often they can be cast in a day. 

It makes no sense in a balanced and hence functional 4e approach to tie monster abilities into spells just because that's how they did it in the old days. 



> It's not a simple claw, claw, bite, it's a specific ability that some werewolves have and others do not and when running different ones together, I as a DM sometimes miss this stuff.



Anything you can miss in a monster power, can be missed just as much if not more in a spell list that carries a bunch of legacy issues. 

Exception based power design is a huge asset to the game, and rejecting it is going to cost WOTC customers.


----------



## JonWake

catastrophic said:


> Exception based power design is a huge asset to the game, and rejecting it is going to cost WOTC customers.





Oh, I'm sure they're not that worried about it.


----------



## Kzach

Piratecat said:


> Tovec nailed it. Vampires don't cast a charm person spell, they stare into the maiden's eyes with a supernatural ability. Sirens didn't cast a "come hither" spell when luring sailors to their doom. I'm talking actual, honest to gosh class ability to cast.




I was just listing these off the top of my head but I'm positive many of the ones I listed DID have caster levels in 1e or 2e


----------



## Szatany

GX.Sigma said:


> Everything you said here (in slightly different terms) is the problem with 4e-style conditions.
> 
> In 4e, a monster does something, and the PC is shaken. The power doesn't say what shaken means, so you have to dig up the PHB and look it up.
> 
> I think what the designer was saying about the hypothetical "power word stun" is that it would say "stun," and then it would describe what being stunned means. So you would still have the keyword, and there would still be a list of them somewhere, but you don't have to look it up every time, as the definition would be right there.
> 
> Hopefully.




If there are only 20 or less status effects, why not have them on cards? That'd be super-useful.
You don't have to bloat MM with them.
You don't need to flip a book to recall them.
You don't even need to write them somewhere or remember that your character is under the effect. You just take a card. And duration? If you get blinded for 5 turns, you take a Blidnded card and put a dice with 5 on it.


----------



## Gort

Szatany said:


> And duration? If you get blinded for 5 turns, you take a Blidnded card and put a dice with 5 on it.




Being blinded for five turns sounds like the opposite of fun. At least if it's blinded (save ends) then you've a CHANCE of being effective in the near future. Being blinded for five turns means you might as well go home, in character and out of character.


----------



## Szatany

Piratecat said:


> The only monster I really, really want to have spellcasting is the lich. Other than that I'm pretty flexible.
> 
> ...and just like that, I'm totally off topic.




I want spellcasting tyrannosaurus! Their little hands are perfect for casting while it bites you to pieces.



Gort said:


> Being blinded for five turns sounds like the opposite of fun. At least if it's blinded (save ends) then you've a CHANCE of being effective in the near future. Being blinded for five turns means you might as well go home, in character and out of character.




The duration was just an example, not a reflection on what I want from the game.


----------



## Szatany

double post


----------



## Hassassin

I absolutely believe conditions, spell-like abilities etc. should be explained in the monster entry. That is one thing 4e improved a lot, but didn't perfect.

However, that doesn't mean there shouldn't also be a list of conditions that are used consistently and a list of spells that most spell-like abilities are based on.

You can have a one-line definition of the effect in the monster's stat block that covers 95% of the issues likely to come up, and explain the rest in the more detailed condition/spell description. For bonus points, tell me where to find the long description with a page reference so I don't have to search through indices.

For example: _fireball_ (5d6 fire, 20' spread in 400'; Dex 13 halves; PHB 232), or _blinded_ (-2 and no Dex to AC, 50% miss chance, half-speed; PHB 306).


----------



## Hassassin

Gort said:


> Being blinded for five turns sounds like the opposite of fun. At least if it's blinded (save ends) then you've a CHANCE of being effective in the near future. Being blinded for five turns means you might as well go home, in character and out of character.




Oh, come on. Even if blinded makes you only 50% as effective as otherwise, that is an exaggeration. It's not like there aren't situations where you completely lose your actions for an encounter - like dying or not being a part of it to start with. "Everyone should have something to do each round" is a good starting point, but it shouldn't be considered an absolute rule that everything must adhere to.

(And "everyone should be as effective every round" is not even a good starting point, IMO.)


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Hassassin said:


> For example: _fireball_ (5d6 fire, 20' spread in 400'; Dex 13 halves; PHB 232), or _blinded_ (-2 and no Dex to AC, 50% miss chance, half-speed; PHB 306).



That would work fine...IF they keep spells simple.  But with all the talk of making the game more like 1e-3e, none of those editions have ever kept spells simple.

A spell that simply does damage or applies a really easy to understand effect is easy to summarize in a stat block.

Try summarizing: Force Cage, Death Ward, Polymorph, Teleport(the version with the percentage chances of succeeding), Freedom of Movement...and probably any number of others.

These spells are filled with non-standard effects that require reading 2 or 3 paragraphs to understand the complete rules to.  If a monster has 4 or 5 of these types of spells and there are 4 or 5 monsters in a combat, it can take forever to prepare an encounter.

Also, I'm a little more worried that they'll switch back to using really ambiguous wording given the number of times they've said they want 5e to empower DMs and rely on there being a DM.  The last thing I want is a spell like Freedom of Movement spell that says "The target cannot be hindered in any way".  Leaving each group to wonder "Does that mean that trees and buildings just move aside as they can't hinder him from walking forward?  Does it apply to spells that put you to sleep?  What about someone just grabbing you?  Do they even fail to put their hands on you?"  And each DM will rule differently and it'll either be the worst spell in the game or the best depending on your DM.

Especially if they do as described above and write: Freedom of Movement: Target cannot be hindered.


----------



## Hassassin

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Try summarizing: Force Cage, Death Ward, Polymorph, Teleport(the version with the percentage chances of succeeding), Freedom of Movement...and probably any number of others.
> 
> These spells are filled with non-standard effects that require reading 2 or 3 paragraphs to understand the complete rules to.  If a monster has 4 or 5 of these types of spells and there are 4 or 5 monsters in a combat, it can take forever to prepare an encounter.




But the same is true for non-standard monster abilities. Make it too complex and you will need a lot of space to explain it.

For the spells you mention, most monsters might only have one and that in a limited manner. For example, _teleport_ (to lair only, no failure chance; PHB XXX), or _polymorph_ (to human only, statistics below; PHB YYY).



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Also, I'm a little more worried that they'll switch back to using really ambiguous wording given the number of times they've said they want 5e to empower DMs and rely on there being a DM.




That's a bit orthogonal to what I proposed, but having a more ambiguous description in the monster and a detailed one in the spell description is fine, IMO: _freedom of movement_ (moves normally despite impediments; PHB ZZZ), with the PHB entry explaining what that actually means.


----------



## Mr. Wilson

Pax East is a couple weeks away.  While this leak is unappealing to my gaming style (real or not), I'm not going to get worked up about it until the reports from Pax either confirm or deny the data listed in the leak.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Hassassin said:


> But the same is true for non-standard monster abilities. Make it too complex and you will need a lot of space to explain it.



Agreed.  Which leaves you with a couple of choices:
-Don't use complex abilities on any monsters ever
-Use complex abilities on monsters but explain it in full detail on the monster and allow that much space in the stat block to give that information
-Use complex abilities, summarize them on the monster and refer to a spell list or other reference to explain the details.
For the spells you mention, most monsters might only have one and that in a limited manner. For example, _teleport_ (to lair only, no failure chance; PHB XXX), or _polymorph_ (to human only, statistics below; PHB YYY).[/QUOTE]
I'd be perfectly ok with that.  But it doesn't have to be based off a spell list to do that.  Without any real reference elsewhere, you can use those abilities.  Teleport is a word everyone can understand.  Change shape might be a better word than Polymorph.  But they don't have to reference spells if they aren't complicated.

And periodically if you wanted a complex monster, there should be an optional rule that says "You can add spells to a monster if you want, but it counts as being X levels higher" or whatever.

I just don't want to go back to having to look up spells every combat.


Hassassin said:


> That's a bit orthogonal to what I proposed, but having a more ambiguous description in the monster and a detailed one in the spell description is fine, IMO: _freedom of movement_ (moves normally despite impediments; PHB ZZZ), with the PHB entry explaining what that actually means.



That part of my post was less directed at you and more a comment on the information we have on 5e.  I'm afraid that they may just go with ambiguous descriptions inside the PHB itself.

However, having a ambiguous description in the monster's description is probably just as bad as having no description.  If I want to know if Freedom of Movement can stop Entangle, I'm still going to look up the full description of the spell anyways since "impediments" can mean a lot of things.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Mr. Wilson said:


> Pax East is a couple weeks away.  While this leak is unappealing to my gaming style (real or not), I'm not going to get worked up about it until the reports from Pax either confirm or deny the data listed in the leak.



The playtest at Pax East is NDAed.  Also, it's likely that anyone who plays the game won't actually know enough about the game to confirm or deny most of this.

I saw another post that I believe was a real leak with someone sharing their DDXP experiences.  Basically, he said "I don't know much, the DM wouldn't answer almost any rules questions and the character sheets didn't explain where any of the bonuses came from or even what half of my abilities did except in the most vague terms.  We told the DM what we wanted to do, he told us what happened."

But the couple of things he did know match up with this leak perfectly.  I'm convinced it's real.  But I suspect that 5e as it exists right now is piecemeal with nothing in stone at all.  So it could all change.


----------



## Hassassin

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I'd be perfectly ok with that.  But it doesn't have to be based off a spell list to do that.  Without any real reference elsewhere, you can use those abilities.  Teleport is a word everyone can understand.  Change shape might be a better word than Polymorph.  But they don't have to reference spells if they aren't complicated.




Yes, but if you do base it on a spell you can ignore rare issues in the monster entry and still have the rules explain them in the spell entry. If the monster ability uses the _teleport_ spell you know it's an extradimensional ability that is barred by _dimensional anchor_ and only works within one plane, you know how much stuff the moster can carry with it, etc.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> However, having a ambiguous description in the monster's description is probably just as bad as having no description.  If I want to know if Freedom of Movement can stop Entangle, I'm still going to look up the full description of the spell anyways since "impediments" can mean a lot of things.




You can still either ignore the spell entry and just make a ruling or, if you do care about RAW, look up the details. Most of the time the effect will be obvious, for spells like _slow_ or _hold person_, if the ability comes into play at all.

Of course, most spells should be simple to summarize accurately, but some complex spells are bound to appear and being able to go into less detail in the moster entry seems like an obvious win to me.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Gort said:


> Being blinded for five turns sounds like the opposite of fun. At least if it's blinded (save ends) then you've a CHANCE of being effective in the near future. Being blinded for five turns means you might as well go home, in character and out of character.




If 5 turns doesn't take an hour or longer to resolve in real time its not a huge issue.


----------



## Gort

ExploderWizard said:


> If 5 turns doesn't take an hour or longer to resolve in real time its not a huge issue.




That'd suck in Monopoly, let alone D&D.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Thraug said:


> I recall reading that too, and cringing. I'll be utterly shocked if they abandon the wonderful modern design paradigm of creating a term dictionary in a base rulebook (PHB), and in the case of 4e/5e defining a list of conditions instead of describing/defining unique states in power/monster/spell/magicitem descriptions.
> 
> The few benefits in the old and archaic method don't come close to the benefits of a defining terms in one place.
> 
> Who wants to go back to the horrid:
> 
> 
> roaming through countless books to find out how a condition work?
> having 30 different ways to explain and run a "stun" like condition, each slightly different for Power Word Stun, a Dwarven Shield Bash, a Giant Pummel?
> reading over two pages of a monster description just to find out what it's "daze" does?
> 
> 
> Good gravy man, leave bad 70s design behind, it's 2012. I really fear they will be bringing back REALLY poor design just so they can appease some nebulous grognard group that barely exists.




Ironically, I found 4e to be a throwback to 70's design in this respect - because the implementation of 'exception based design' which was used meant that every monster could do something different. The troglodyte would pin you one way, the devil would pin you another way, a third creature had yet another way of pinning you - all slightly different in their implementation. Maybe every creature had its information in its statblock, but in 3e you just needed to know how stun (or petrification) or something worked once and it always worked that way.

This move away from standardisation of attacks was one of the things I personally found difficult in 4e.

Cheers


----------



## Hussar

ExploderWizard said:


> If 5 turns doesn't take an hour or longer to resolve in real time its not a huge issue.




Just out of curiousity EW, what would you consider a good (for a given value of good) pace of a round?  Presume 5 players and a DM, low to mid-low level and no really funky stuff going on.  How long should a round take and how long should a given player take to resolve his turn?


----------



## Plane Sailing

Klaus said:


> And demons/devils had enormous spell lists with many spells that were simply never used because the creature's time in the "spotlight" is very limited.




I heard the designers use this argument too, and I think they missed a point which is very important to me.

I want demons/devils who can use a certain proportion of their spells in *this fight* and in the next time they are encountered use *a slightly different subset of spells*. In the third encounter there is another one of their spells which isn't of much use in combat but actually sets up the whole foundation for the encounter (e.g. the 3.0 devil 'animate dead' power).

Trimmed down power lists means every time you fight the same devil it is always the same, because it can only spam the same 3 kinds of attack.

Spell lists for those creatures is not about the encounter viability of the creature, it is about the campaign viability of the encounter. The focus purely on encounter design in 4e missed that important point to my mind.

This is why I hope that 5e does have a wider range of spells and/or powers for higher level creatures - give them more versatility, so that there are more options for the campaign.

Cheers


----------



## aurance

Hate it if true.


----------



## KarinsDad

Szatany said:


> If there are only 20 or less status effects, why not have them on cards? That'd be super-useful.
> You don't have to bloat MM with them.
> You don't need to flip a book to recall them.
> You don't even need to write them somewhere or remember that your character is under the effect. You just take a card. And duration? If you get blinded for 5 turns, you take a Blidnded card and put a dice with 5 on it.




DM: "Hey guys! Where are the Blinded cards?"
Player 1: "Well, they should be here with the Stunned cards? You know we have 6 of each of these card, one for each condition. There's only 120 cards. Where could have those gotten to? Darn."


----------



## Klaus

Plane Sailing said:


> I heard the designers use this argument too, and I think they missed a point which is very important to me.
> 
> I want demons/devils who can use a certain proportion of their spells in *this fight* and in the next time they are encountered use *a slightly different subset of spells*. In the third encounter there is another one of their spells which isn't of much use in combat but actually sets up the whole foundation for the encounter (e.g. the 3.0 devil 'animate dead' power).
> 
> Trimmed down power lists means every time you fight the same devil it is always the same, because it can only spam the same 3 kinds of attack.
> 
> Spell lists for those creatures is not about the encounter viability of the creature, it is about the campaign viability of the encounter. The focus purely on encounter design in 4e missed that important point to my mind.
> 
> This is why I hope that 5e does have a wider range of spells and/or powers for higher level creatures - give them more versatility, so that there are more options for the campaign.
> 
> Cheers



For the non-combat abilities, you do what I mentioned before for dragons: slap on training in Arcana and give the creature any rituals you like.

For combat abilities, choose three or four "spells" you want it to use and just give it to them. You don't have to justify caster level, supernatural abilities, which ability score to use, etc.

Want your marilith to be able to raise skeletons to fight for her? Just say "Minor action: four [insert skeleton name here] appear in unnocupied squares within 5 squares of the marilith". You don't need to follow the rules for animate dead, you just give her the ability to create whatever you need, be it skeletons, ju-ju zombies or jujubees.


----------



## Klaus

Plane Sailing said:


> Ironically, I found 4e to be a throwback to 70's design in this respect - because the implementation of 'exception based design' which was used meant that every monster could do something different. The troglodyte would pin you one way, the devil would pin you another way, a third creature had yet another way of pinning you - all slightly different in their implementation. Maybe every creature had its information in its statblock, but in 3e you just needed to know how stun (or petrification) or something worked once and it always worked that way.
> 
> This move away from standardisation of attacks was one of the things I personally found difficult in 4e.
> 
> Cheers



Conditions are standardized. One monster might make you "stunned (save ends)", while another makes you "stunned until the end of its next turn", but stun workes the same.


----------



## howandwhy99

Hussar said:


> Just out of curiousity EW, what would you consider a good (for a given value of good) pace of a round?  Presume 5 players and a DM, low to mid-low level and no really funky stuff going on.  How long should a round take and how long should a given player take to resolve his turn?




Blindness is typically permanent until magically healed in my game. As encounters aren't necessarily about being able to see, being blind does not hinder a player's ability to continue playing or enjoying overcoming yet another challenge.


----------



## KarinsDad

Plane Sailing said:


> I heard the designers use this argument too, and I think they missed a point which is very important to me.
> 
> I want demons/devils who can use a certain proportion of their spells in *this fight* and in the next time they are encountered use *a slightly different subset of spells*. In the third encounter there is another one of their spells which isn't of much use in combat but actually sets up the whole foundation for the encounter (e.g. the 3.0 devil 'animate dead' power).
> 
> Trimmed down power lists means every time you fight the same devil it is always the same, because it can only spam the same 3 kinds of attack.
> 
> Spell lists for those creatures is not about the encounter viability of the creature, it is about the campaign viability of the encounter. The focus purely on encounter design in 4e missed that important point to my mind.
> 
> This is why I hope that 5e does have a wider range of spells and/or powers for higher level creatures - give them more versatility, so that there are more options for the campaign.




It's actually a very difficult subject.

I just went online and grabbed a 23rd level creature. I picked the first one in the list that was just a little complex (which happened to be the second one in the list).

Braxat Lord

Resist Acid 20
Action Point
Threatening Reach (3 squares instead of the normal 2)
Maul (marks foe)
Crushing Pain (immobilizes and then slows foe)
Attack Flurry (2 Mauls, 1 CP, 2 or more foes)
Vitriolic Spew (twice per encounter, and the DM has to remember to use it when the BL gets bloodied)
Overawe (recharge)
Telekinetic Harness (marked foe ends turn non-adjacent)

There's a lot going on with this guy. And, he's only one NPC in the encounter. Most of the Epic level foes are Elites, so quite a few have similar levels of complexity that this guy does.

And this is considered a trimmed down list from 3E. Now imagine that this guy had multiple different spells. He'd be even more complex.

I really don't know of an easy way to resolve the issue and I don't think WotC can. The best I think that they can do is to create a stat block with something like:

Easy Version
x
y
z

Complex Version
a
b
c

And DMs that are a bit overwhelmed stick to the easy portion of the stat block and DMs that can juggle 20 things at once can use elements (including spells) out of the Complex Version list. One advantage of this model is that even DMs that are overwhelmed can every once in a while, pull something out of the Complex Version list.

As a DM, I have run into a lot of circumstances where the monsters run out of juice pretty darn quick and I'm thinking "Boy, if this guy just had one more area effect, that would really have made this a challenging encounter. Instead, it has to spam it's melee attack again. Boring.".


----------



## avin

Plane Sailing said:


> This is why I hope that 5e does have a wider range of spells and/or powers for higher level creatures - give them more versatility, so that there are more options for the campaign.




4E made my life easier, when I don't needed to go to PHB figure out how some spell from those big 3.5 spell lists worked.

I know some people are terribly good at remember things and know D&D editions like the back of their hands... but some don't. Or just don't have the time... 

I'm glad DDN will keep 4E's monster simplicity, but hope there's options to add class levels to a basic mold, for monsters that really matter


----------



## catastrophic

Plane Sailing said:


> Ironically, I found 4e to be a throwback to 70's design in this respect - because the implementation of 'exception based design' which was used meant that every monster could do something different. The troglodyte would pin you one way, the devil would pin you another way, a third creature had yet another way of pinning you - all slightly different in their implementation. Maybe every creature had its information in its statblock, but in 3e you just needed to know how stun (or petrification) or something worked once and it always worked that way.
> 
> This move away from standardisation of attacks was one of the things I personally found difficult in 4e.
> Cheers



The effects of attacks were standardised in 4e. I also question the claim that such effects were standardised in 3e, considering the number of effects, spells, exceptional and supernatural abilities, ect ect that monsters had.

Your description of 4e is misleading because you're confusing attacks with conditions. While it is true that 4e allows for custom and monster-specific attacks and conditions- one of it's clear strengths- it also has a base of uniform conditions, that are as if not more uniform than those found in 3e.

Stun, petrification, and similar conditions are standardized in 4e. The fact that they can be built into larger custom conditions, or can be delivered in various ways (such as on hit, on a failed save, ect) simply makes monsters more unique- and it's all there in plain speech on the monster sheet. Stun, ect are still uniform in any event.

Compare this to 3e's tangle of generic bag-o-hit point monsters, spell lists, and worse. I know which system myself and everyone I know finds easier to keep track of, and it's 4e by a mile.

That's not to say 4e is without flaws- and piles of conditions in combat is certainly one of those issues. It's just a pity we'll have to wait until 6th edition to see any progress on such a design.


----------



## KarinsDad

Klaus said:


> For the non-combat abilities, you do what I mentioned before for dragons: slap on training in Arcana and give the creature any rituals you like.
> 
> For combat abilities, choose three or four "spells" you want it to use and just give it to them. You don't have to justify caster level, supernatural abilities, which ability score to use, etc.
> 
> Want your marilith to be able to raise skeletons to fight for her? Just say "Minor action: four [insert skeleton name here] appear in unnocupied squares within 5 squares of the marilith". You don't need to follow the rules for animate dead, you just give her the ability to create whatever you need, be it skeletons, ju-ju zombies or jujubees.




I agree with your sentiment here.

But, my experience shows that most DMs do not think outside the box like this. If it isn't in the monster stat block, the DM doesn't use it.

WotC could encourage more of this thinking outside the box, but I also see a bit of an issue with it. In the example I just posted where monsters that I run sometimes run out of juice early in an encounter, it would feel a bit like cheating if I suddenly "recharged their once per encounter power" or added a new power on the fly to the monster.

Doing it pre-game is where I think this type of solution works best. The DM can balance it out a bit and it doesn't seem like he is pulling stuff out of his butt mid-encounter.


----------



## KarinsDad

catastrophic said:


> While it is true that 4e allows for custom and monster-specific attacks and conditions- one of it's clear strengths- it also has a base of uniform conditions, that are as if not more uniform than those found in 3e.




I found that the duration aspect of monster-specific (and PC-specific) conditions to be a major weakness of 4E.

This effect lasts:

until the beginning of the user's next turn
until the end of the user's next turn
until the beginning of the target's next turn
until the end of the target's next turn
save ends
until the end of the encounter
until the user forgets to (or chooses not to) use his minor action to sustain

Not only are there too many powers in 4E, both monster and player, that impose conditions, but there are two many different types of duration of conditions that have to be tracked.

There should be 3 durations: until the end of the user's next turn (i.e. a one round duration), save ends, and until the end of the encounter for a good 95% of all effects.

I do hope that 5E makes a good 2/3rds of all attacks just plain damage. Special attacks should do special things, but most normal attacks should just do damage so that the bookkeeping nightmare goes away.

I also think that more instantaneous effects can be used, even for "normal attacks". Foe is moved x squares. Foe is knocked prone. Foe is moved x squares and knocked prone.  At least when using miniatures, these types of effects can be tracked with virtually no effort on the part of the player because their duration is either instantaneous, or in the case of prone, until someone stands up the miniature (prone is less nice if miniatures are not used because it has to be tracked).

But, forced movement and prone do not work well without miniatures. The solution to that, of course, is to just ignore them in a game that doesn't use miniatures.


----------



## Szatany

KarinsDad said:


> DM: "Hey guys! Where are the Blinded cards?"
> Player 1: "Well, they should be here with the Stunned cards? You know we have 6 of each of these card, one for each condition. There's only 120 cards. Where could have those gotten to? Darn."




Yeah, totally happens to me every time I play magic the gathering or talisman. Just can't hold onto those stupid cards  Lose them all the time.


----------



## Hussar

KarinsDad said:


> I agree with your sentiment here.
> 
> But, my experience shows that most DMs do not think outside the box like this. If it isn't in the monster stat block, the DM doesn't use it.
> 
> WotC could encourage more of this thinking outside the box, but I also see a bit of an issue with it. In the example I just posted where monsters that I run sometimes run out of juice early in an encounter, it would feel a bit like cheating if I suddenly "recharged their once per encounter power" or added a new power on the fly to the monster.
> 
> Doing it pre-game is where I think this type of solution works best. The DM can balance it out a bit and it doesn't seem like he is pulling stuff out of his butt mid-encounter.




Again, to satisfy my curiousity, how many DM's are we talking about here?  I can totally see having a poor experience with a DM or three, but, I'm not about to paint with THAT broad a brush - "We need to have monsters with fifteen different abilities because my DM won't add new powers to a creature" doesn't seem like a particularly good criteria.


----------



## Gort

Szatany said:


> Yeah, totally happens to me every time I play magic the gathering or talisman. Just can't hold onto those stupid cards  Lose them all the time.




*Shrug* in my 4e game we had one A4 sheet with the conditions written on it. Pulled it out about once every three sessions, when unusual conditions came up, like "restrained".

Play enough sessions and you'll know all the common conditions off by heart pretty quickly.


----------



## keterys

KarinsDad said:


> I found that the duration aspect of monster-specific (and PC-specific) conditions to be a major weakness of 4E.



Agreed!

I actually prefer until end of target's turn being the default duration, cause then you can associate a condition with a creature, then slash it off when its turn ends. If it's save ends, then it has to make a save to do so. Easy peasy.



KarinsDad said:


> WotC could encourage more of this thinking outside the box, but I also see a bit of an issue with it. In the example I just posted where monsters that I run sometimes run out of juice early in an encounter, it would feel a bit like cheating if I suddenly "recharged their once per encounter power" or added a new power on the fly to the monster.




Well, in addition to the general 4e design of just letting you do whatever you want to alter monsters, WotC made themes, so people can trivially mix and match abilities on monsters, gave options for replacing variable resistance on demons to show a good system for that, etc. You can also rule 42 it, or terrain power it, and have it make a skill check to do something to the environment to mix things up.

Really want a close-ish attack and don't got it? Knock down the pillar next to you, maybe bringing some of the roof down. Your players should appreciate that kind of detail, and your pacing problem's solved.

Really, I think the biggest thing they needed to do was have the start of 4e look a lot closer to what it does now and to have some big advice on letting things do cool stuff that isn't in their stat block. "Ancient dragons are powerful ritualists whose magic can be used in a myriad of ways to protect their hoards, control the minds of others, change into other forms, or even summon or animate armies. Each dragon has its own powers and preferences, so fights with different dragons rarely play out the same." Maybe it even gives some examples of a black dragon which animates undead to lurk in pools within its lair and has a vortex of acid it can trigger during the combat, while a silver dragon changes into a person to interact with the party beforehand then triggers a contingent teleport if things go awry, etc.


----------



## FireLance

catastrophic said:


> That's not to say 4e is without flaws- and piles of conditions in combat is certainly one of those issues. It's just a pity we'll have to wait until 6th edition to see any progress on such a design.



IMO, that's an encounter design problem, not a system problem (apart from the system not giving enough advice). The trick to minimizing the need to keep track of multiple conditions in combat is to avoid using a variety of monsters that inflict different conditions in the same fight. 

Of course, that doesn't do much for the PC side of the issue, but the DM can always spread the load around by requiring the players to track the effects of their own PCs' powers. (You do trust your players, don't you? )


----------



## DMKastmaria

Thraug said:


> Good gravy man, leave bad 70s design behind, it's 2012. I really fear they will be bringing back REALLY poor design just so they can appease some nebulous grognard group that barely exists.




Your attempts at marginalization and insult aside, I've seen the "appeasing the grognards" idea, pop up several times of late. A few words, on that subject:

1. It's going to take a lot more than "vancian casting" and the 86ing of "dis associative mechanics" to "appease" the old school crowd.

2. Most "grognards" I've spoken with, aren't on board the 5e train and are a bit too familiar with WotC and the current situation, to think that Mike & Monte really "gets it," or will make a game that fits their style of play, better than the ones they already have.

3. The OSR is thriving, growing, alive and kicking. It isn't going anywhere, just because WotC puts out a new edition.


----------



## the Jester

Hussar said:


> Just out of curiousity EW, what would you consider a good (for a given value of good) pace of a round?  Presume 5 players and a DM, low to mid-low level and no really funky stuff going on.  How long should a round take and how long should a given player take to resolve his turn?




To me, the real question isn't "how long should a round last?", it's "how many encounters should you be able to fit into a session without rushing?"

The answer, for me, is *twelve to twenty*.

Re: The problem of conditions- 4e's issue with conditions isn't how many there are,  it's how many you need to keep track of in a given fight.


----------



## Piratecat

the Jester said:


> To me, the real question isn't "how long should a round last?", it's "how many encounters should you be able to fit into a session without rushing?"
> 
> The answer, for me, is *twelve to twenty*.



How long a play session?


----------



## KarinsDad

keterys said:


> Agreed!
> 
> I actually prefer until end of target's turn being the default duration, cause then you can associate a condition with a creature, then slash it off when its turn ends. If it's save ends, then it has to make a save to do so. Easy peasy.




This doesn't work for certain debuffs.

For example, I give this creature -2 to all defenses. The creature goes next in init. Nobody got the advantage.

By making it the end of the user's next turn, it lasts for a round+ where the user also gets to take advantage of it.

And, the person responsible for originally using the power is the person responsible for turning it off.


Granted, one solution to this is to get rid of debuffs. Instead of debuffing the monster, buff all of the rest of the PCs and your solution would work. But then, every player has to remember to remove the buff on his PC as opposed to just a single player having to remember to remove the debuff.



keterys said:


> Well, in addition to the general 4e design of just letting you do whatever you want to alter monsters, WotC made themes, so people can trivially mix and match abilities on monsters, gave options for replacing variable resistance on demons to show a good system for that, etc. You can also rule 42 it, or terrain power it, and have it make a skill check to do something to the environment to mix things up.
> 
> Really want a close-ish attack and don't got it? Knock down the pillar next to you, maybe bringing some of the roof down. Your players should appreciate that kind of detail, and your pacing problem's solved.
> 
> Really, I think the biggest thing they needed to do was have the start of 4e look a lot closer to what it does now and to have some big advice on letting things do cool stuff that isn't in their stat block. "Ancient dragons are powerful ritualists whose magic can be used in a myriad of ways to protect their hoards, control the minds of others, change into other forms, or even summon or animate armies. Each dragon has its own powers and preferences, so fights with different dragons rarely play out the same." Maybe it even gives some examples of a black dragon which animates undead to lurk in pools within its lair and has a vortex of acid it can trigger during the combat, while a silver dragon changes into a person to interact with the party beforehand then triggers a contingent teleport if things go awry, etc.




Agreed.

I do find, however, that in today's instant gratification culture (and I am guilty of this myself), one doesn't see the amount of devotion by DMs to craft their worlds. A lot of this is life. When it's summertime between college semesters, there's a lot more time to craft unique monsters and create lairs for them and such. When one is 40 with a family and there's a lawn to mow in the summer and kids to take to the local pool, there is less time for modifying the game beyond what is quickly found in the books. So although I agree it is possible, in practice, I very rarely see it. Maybe that's because every DM I play with anymore is not single and has a family.


----------



## keterys

KarinsDad said:


> This doesn't work for certain debuffs.
> 
> For example, I give this creature -2 to all defenses. The creature goes next in init. Nobody got the advantage.
> 
> By making it the end of the user's next turn, it lasts for a round+ where the user also gets to take advantage of it.
> 
> And, the person responsible for originally using the power is the person responsible for turning it off.
> 
> Granted, one solution to this is to get rid of debuffs. Instead of debuffing the monster, buff all of the rest of the PCs and your solution would work. But then, every player has to remember to remove the buff on his PC as opposed to just a single player having to remember to remove the debuff.



Well, for starters, if you do a sweeping change to durations you should do a similar change to debuffs to make them work...

And let's be honest. -2 to defenses _is_ going to turn into each person's turn if they only miss by 1-2, asking if the -2 was remembered, so it's not harder to remember than +2 to hit that guy. Especially since there are also powers that do just give +2 to hit that guy. In my experience, it's equally valid to give the bonus to PCs... and again, it's far easier to remove something from yourself as something you do every turn than go "Did A go yet? Do I still have that (bonus/penalty)?"

But, I think that part of making it easier to track conditions is making less fiddly conditions and random minor penalties and bonuses to any number of things that last a round or less surely fall into that bin.

So, if you need that power, it can cause everyone to gain combat advantage on the monster for a round. Same effect, simpler, don't have to sweat stacking, and easier to latch other mechanics into it. Otherwise, you can just give the monster a -2 penalty for the encounter. Or _do something else_ like daze, immobilize, whatever.


----------



## DMKastmaria

KarinsDad said:


> I do find, however, that in today's instant gratification culture (and I am guilty of this myself), one doesn't see the amount of devotion by DMs to craft their worlds. A lot of this is life. When it's summertime between college semesters, there's a lot more time to craft unique monsters and create lairs for them and such. When one is 40 with a family and there's a lawn to mow in the summer and kids to take to the local pool, there is less time for modifying the game beyond what is quickly found in the books. So although I agree it is possible, in practice, I very rarely see it. Maybe that's because every DM I play with anymore is not single and has a family.




One of the reasons I utilize "bottom up" world design. In the main, I stay just ahead of the players and solicit their input, when possible. So, someone playing a Cleric can make up their own god, if they wish, with associated myth, background material, etc. A player running an elf PC, has the opportunity to define elven culture and history, to a rather large extent, if he or she chooses. Otherwise, I'll fill it in myself, as we go along. 

Makes life easier on me, encourages player participation and fosters the kind of glorious chaos, I enjoy.


----------



## Thraug

Plane Sailing said:


> Ironically, I found 4e to be a throwback to 70's design in this respect - because the implementation of 'exception based design' which was used meant that every monster could do something different. The troglodyte would pin you one way, the devil would pin you another way, a third creature had yet another way of pinning you - all slightly different in their implementation. Maybe every creature had its information in its statblock, but in 3e you just needed to know how stun (or petrification) or something worked once and it always worked that way.
> 
> This move away from standardisation of attacks was one of the things I personally found difficult in 4e.
> 
> Cheers




Correct. I'm not a fan of powers/abilities that have lasting effects that need to be managed that are unique to that power/ability. They sound good on paper but in my 4e experiences, and coupled with the already long list of existing conditions, they are a nightmare to track. I'd be fine with powers/abilities ONLY issuing LASTING effects that are defined in a small set, say maybe 10 defined conditions. But I doubt that will happen.


----------



## KarinsDad

keterys said:


> So, if you need that power, it can cause everyone to gain combat advantage on the monster for a round.




Once you are giving everyone Combat Advantage for the round is the moment that you are handing out a duration: until the end of the user's next turn. By definition. So, again, until the end of the user's next turn is better than until the end of the target's turn for two reasons: 1) nobody is left out in the cold due to init, and 2) the only player that has to do the bookkeeping for and to remind people of the buff/debuff is the user of the power.

You've more or less proved my point by giving this example.


Your end of target's turn preference also has other side effects. For example, the monster that is at -2 to hit until the end of it's turn. If that monster goes immediately after the caster, that monster does not get -2 to hit on Opportunity Attacks for an entire round. If he goes immediately before the caster, he does.

Any duration system that lasts for a full round consistently (casters turn to casters turn) every single time is preferable to one that has different results dependent on initiative order.

And note: in 5E, it's possible that durations might be things like 1 round per level or some such again. So if that does happen, having the user of the spell or power do the bookkeeping is preferable when one is using a power that lasts for 4 rounds.


----------



## Janaxstrus

the Jester said:


> To me, the real question isn't "how long should a round last?", it's "how many encounters should you be able to fit into a session without rushing?"
> 
> The answer, for me, is *twelve to twenty*.
> 
> Re: The problem of conditions- 4e's issue with conditions isn't how many there are,  it's how many you need to keep track of in a given fight.





12-20?  Really?  Are you going off of the 4e "talking to someone is an encounter"?

We have 5 hour 3x/Pathfinder sessions every week, with about 4-5 combat encounters a night, which goes perfectly.  I don't want 12-20 encounters a session.  That leaves time for roleplaying.


----------



## keterys

KarinsDad said:


> Once you are giving everyone Combat Advantage for the round is the moment that you are handing out a duration: until the end of the user's next turn.



No... that's not what I'm suggesting. But, it's fair that you think that's easier to track than I do. That duration, though, is the _hardest_ one to track from my personal experience. 

Hence I'd much rather everyone tracks their own stuff. Get a benefit or penalty? Ends at the end of your next turn, move along. 



> Your end of target's turn preference also has other side effects. For example, the monster that is at -2 to hit until the end of it's turn. If that monster goes immediately after the caster, that monster does not get -2 to hit on Opportunity Attacks for an entire round. If he goes immediately before the caster, he does.



Save ends has all these problems too - your point?

Also, yours has the problem that save ends is often a _lesser_ condition to end of turn. Neatly solved my way 

And, really, you gave the monster -2 to attacks on its turn. Who cares about OAs? (and, again, why do you keep coming up with fiddly +/-2 stuff? I thought we just said we shouldn't be tracking a billion things that only last a round or less?)



> And note: in 5E, it's possible that durations might be things like 1 round per level or some such again. So if that does happen, having the user of the spell or power do the bookkeeping is preferable when one is using a power that lasts for 4 rounds.



I'd imagine that "lasts 4 rounds" is a pretty good example of another bad duration that'll cause tracking headaches  C'mon, in for a penny, in for a pound. Either clean it up, or don't.

If lots of fiddly conditions with varying durations is a problem, it can be addressed, but the way to address it is not to just change the durations to a variant that's still opaque (err, what round is it? did A act yet? how about B? What about the fact that A delayed in round X?) and to keep around all the same fiddly conditions.


----------



## KarinsDad

keterys said:


> No... that's not what I'm suggesting. But, it's fair that you think that's easier to track than I do. That duration, though, is the _hardest_ one to track from my personal experience.




I don't quite understand why though.

Could you explain why it is hard to track?

Isn't it just a case of "the caster at the end of his turn does all of his saves and ticks off any effect that he cast the previous round".

It's still tracked at the end of the turn, just at the end of the turn of the guy who used it.

I don't get why you find this so complex whereas ticking it off of EVERYONE's sheet at the end of their turn is more likely to have someone forget to do so.



keterys said:


> Hence I'd much rather everyone tracks their own stuff. Get a benefit or penalty? Ends at the end of your next turn, move along.




I see your point. But, everyone has to write it down on their sheet. Everyone has to remember to check it off.

Instead of one guy.

More bookkeeping = bad.



keterys said:


> Save ends has all these problems too - your point?




I hate that phrase "your point" cause it's disingenuous. You knew darn well my point.



keterys said:


> Also, yours has the problem that save ends is often a _lesser_ condition to end of turn. Neatly solved my way




This is a real problem? Seriously?

While what you state is true, it's pretty much non-sequitor. It's such a minor point that it's hardly worth mentioning. Save ends usually is for something nastier than a simple debuff that rarely even affects the outcome of the encounter (a -2 debuff on a monster for a round affects one encounter in 10).

Save ends is often something that definitively affects an encounter. A blinded foe is often less effective. A stunned foe is less effective.

There are save ends that are less effective like Slowed, but then, those effects don't matter when they stop because they are so wimpy, and again are non-sequitor to the duration discussion.

So the fact that save ends CAN be a tiny bit less effective than until end of users next turn ignores the fact that the effect of save ends is typically greater then end of users next turn effects, and ignores the fact that save ends can be a LOT more effective duration-wise.

If this is your big reason that end of user turn is bad, it's pretty weak.



keterys said:


> And, really, you gave the monster -2 to attacks on its turn. Who cares about OAs? (and, again, why do you keep coming up with fiddly +/-2 stuff? I thought we just said we shouldn't be tracking a billion things that only last a round or less?)




We shouldn't. I'm assuming, though, that WotC won't get rid of that. If they replace one round durations with longer durations, then this discussion on when to end a single round duration is a bit moot.



keterys said:


> I'd imagine that "lasts 4 rounds" is a pretty good example of another bad duration that'll cause tracking headaches  C'mon, in for a penny, in for a pound. Either clean it up, or don't.




Totally agree.



keterys said:


> If lots of fiddly conditions with varying durations is a problem, it can be addressed, but the way to address it is not to just change the durations to a variant that's still opaque (err, what round is it? did A act yet? how about B? What about the fact that A delayed in round X?) and to keep around all the same fiddly conditions.




I agree. If they clean it up in 5E, they should clean it up to three basic in combat durations:

Save Ends
End of Encounter
Instantaneous

Done. That removes an awful lot of bookkeeping from the 4E model.

I also think that End of Encounter durations should sometimes be breakable. The monster uses a Standard Action to shake off the Slowed Until End of Encounter effect. The monster gets out of the webs, or clears its head, or breaks the ice off of its feet, etc.

They can have other "out of combat" durations like one hour per level or 24 hours or whatever, but the in combat ones should be simplified.


Edit: Note: The reason for one round durations is for buffs though. Buffing for the entire encounter is a bit powerful, even something simple like +1. So, I doubt that we'll see the removal of one round durations unless they change all buffing to debuffing. Debuffing can be save ends on the target.


----------



## Hassassin

Klaus said:


> For the non-combat abilities, you do what I mentioned before for dragons: slap on training in Arcana and give the creature any rituals you like.
> 
> For combat abilities, choose three or four "spells" you want it to use and just give it to them. You don't have to justify caster level, supernatural abilities, which ability score to use, etc.
> 
> Want your marilith to be able to raise skeletons to fight for her? Just say "Minor action: four [insert skeleton name here] appear in unnocupied squares within 5 squares of the marilith". You don't need to follow the rules for animate dead, you just give her the ability to create whatever you need, be it skeletons, ju-ju zombies or jujubees.




I use the MM *because* I don't want to invent what my monsters can do myself. If the MM monsters get too boring without tweaking, there may be something wrong with it.


----------



## keterys

KarinsDad said:


> I agree. If they clean it up in 5E, they should clean it up to three basic in combat durations:
> 
> Save Ends
> End of Encounter
> Instantaneous
> 
> Done. That removes an awful lot of bookkeeping from the 4E model.



First things first - agreed! My suggestion was to have that, but if you must have minor debuffs/buffs, you add a single extra line which is
End of Turn - and those effects go away when you either end your turn and check saves -or- when someone gives you a save you can save against them. 

But either way, I figure you need those 3 durations, so a minimum of other durations is best.



> Edit: Note: The reason for one round durations is for buffs though. Buffing for the entire encounter is a bit powerful, even something simple like +1. So, I doubt that we'll see the removal of one round durations unless they change all buffing to debuffing. Debuffing can be save ends on the target.



Easy to have less buffs, and certainly easy to have less minor buffs. Nothing wrong with having an encounter long +1 to hit instead of a single round +5 to hit. You can write it right on the map or let folks track it on their sheets, but you do it, you move on.



> Could you explain why it is hard to track?



Because someone not you is tracking things that affect you, that they may or may not remind you of when it's your turn, or someone else's turn who is affected. Someone whose initiative / turn order might change, or who might forget to let you know? 

I'm not talking from a theoretical perspective. I play D&D three or more times a week, and it is _consistently_ the most screwed up duration.



> I don't get why you find this so complex whereas ticking it off of EVERYONE's sheet at the end of their turn is more likely to have someone forget to do so.



If everything goes away, then everything goes away. It's consistent and easy to deal with. You might have a couple people who go "do I still have that +6 to hit"... and those people will quickly learn to stop being ignorant, since no, they will _never_ still have it 



> I see your point. But, everyone has to write it down on their sheet. Everyone has to remember to check it off.
> 
> Instead of one guy.
> 
> More bookkeeping = bad.



Yeah, I play a bunch of leaders... and I've taken to handing people sticky notes, or using table tents, or writing on the map... because otherwise they won't know the bonuses I've given. Doesn't matter how often I say "Everyone has +6 to damage". They need to track it, one way or another, and mostly I'm still going "Did you remember my +6 to damage?"

So, yeah, the bookkeeping is there regardless.



> I hate that phrase "your point" cause it's disingenuous. You knew darn well my point.



No, I don't. Save Ends has problems with init order - end of turn stuff has problems with init order. They're different problems, that deal better or worse with things like delay and ready and whatever. 



> This is a real problem? Seriously?



Umm, yes, a very serious problem. I'm shocked you missed all the discussions about it, but the fact that you can grant saves to save ends and not end of turn, and elites / solos get bonuses to saves, but are often out of luck on end of turn - and may even get hit 2 or 3 times by end of turn because they act 2 or 3 times in a round? Yeah, it's a very big issue. I've seen a rogue _intentionally miss_ with a daily to get an end of turn effect rather than a save ends effect. Further, PCs almost always prefer save ends to end of monster's next turn - you can grant saves, have abilities like Disciple of Freedom to just pop right out, and even ready actions more effectively "I ready a charge for when I make my save".



> While what you state is true, it's pretty much non-sequitor. It's such a minor point that it's hardly worth mentioning. Save ends usually is for something nastier than a simple debuff that rarely even affects the outcome of the encounter (a -2 debuff on a monster for a round affects one encounter in 10).



So, let's take a step back - don't throw a -2 debuff, certainly not for one round. It's not worth the time of tracking it. Make it last the whole encounter, sure.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Hussar said:


> Just out of curiousity EW, what would you consider a good (for a given value of good) pace of a round? Presume 5 players and a DM, low to mid-low level and no really funky stuff going on. How long should a round take and how long should a given player take to resolve his turn?




5-10 minutes of real time per combat round. Its more than possible because I have done it, with 7 players. This assumes an opposition roughly equal to the PCs in numbers. A large horde could take longer for the DM to resolve especially if there were groups with varying abilities.


----------



## Hassassin

ExploderWizard said:


> 5-10 minutes of real time per combat round. Its more than possible because I have done it, with 7 players. This assumes an opposition roughly equal to the PCs in numbers. A large horde could take longer for the DM to resolve especially if there were groups with varying abilities.




Halve that and you are closer to what I'd like to see.

And that's for the first round. Optimally combat should accelerate as characters die and options grow fewer, so that once the outcome is no longer in doubt we don't have to waste time on it. As is, it mostly slows down as the number of conditions and hit point totals to keep in mind grows, except when there are a lot of enemies to start with. I fix this by having the enemy flee/surrender as soon as the combat seems decided.

I'd much rather have my thirty minute boss fight take ten three minute rounds than three ten minute rounds. That would mean players never have to wait long for their turn.


----------



## Incenjucar

the Jester said:


> To me, the real question isn't "how long should a round last?", it's "how many encounters should you be able to fit into a session without rushing?"
> 
> The answer, for me, is *twelve to twenty*.




Whut.

I don't have that many encounters in a session of playing Marvel vs. Capcom.


----------



## Incenjucar

While I realize that the 4E durations are complicated for some people, the effect they have on the game is tremendous. Removing them basically prevents entire tactical concepts from being available.


----------



## Klaus

Piratecat said:


> How long a play session?



Ideally, for me: 3-hour play session, 1 DM and 3-4 players, 2 to 3 combat encounters plus exploration and interaction per session. So about 20-30 minutes per combat encounter, on average.


----------



## Klaus

Hassassin said:


> I use the MM *because* I don't want to invent what my monsters can do myself. If the MM monsters get too boring without tweaking, there may be something wrong with it.



At one point, you're bound to exhaust your options. The DMGs are filled with templates and themes that can be used to customize monsters in less than 5 minutes.


----------



## the Jester

Piratecat said:


> How long a play session?




Six to eight hours- one long evening.


----------



## n00bdragon

Hassassin said:


> Halve that and you are closer to what I'd like to see.
> 
> And that's for the first round. Optimally combat should accelerate as characters die and options grow fewer, so that once the outcome is no longer in doubt we don't have to waste time on it. As is, it mostly slows down as the number of conditions and hit point totals to keep in mind grows, except when there are a lot of enemies to start with. I fix this by having the enemy flee/surrender as soon as the combat seems decided.
> 
> I'd much rather have my thirty minute boss fight take ten three minute rounds than three ten minute rounds. That would mean players never have to wait long for their turn.




Three minutes is a real rush for any normal combat round. Assume you have five players and five monsters just for simplicity's sake. That's ten actors that need to all take a turn in 180 seconds. That's 18 seconds per person including time to pick up the dice, roll them, add up numbers, assess results, possibly roll a second set of dice for damage, assess the state of the target after the hit and record damage, don't forget to move the actor around the map a bit and declare any other miscellaneous actions taken.

This is all completely ignoring the need to:
- Ask other players if they'd prefer you to take X or Y action.
- Explain what an ability does to someone unfamiliar with it.
- Give people ample time to react with reaction abilities. D&D isn't Slapjack.
- Make any additional rolls like saving throws and the like.

And of course this all assumes your group is perfect and doesn't:
- Need a reminder that it's their turn.
- Decide what to do after their turn comes up.
- Need to look up any rules.
- Need to ask what the status of any other actors is.

18 seconds starts to look extremely tight. Having played every edition since I was 13 or so I'd say the average time it takes a player to finish a turn is around a minute in real life or 5 minutes online.


----------



## the Jester

Incenjucar said:


> Whut.
> 
> I don't have that many encounters in a session of playing Marvel vs. Capcom.






I remember finishing a module in an evening back in the 1e days (at least things like Ghost Tower of Inverness). I would really like to see that possibility return.


----------



## Incenjucar

Options run out quickly in Epic, but that's a decision someone made at WotC.

--

My sessions are 5 hours, with 2-3 encounters, and lots of very colorful roleplay and exploration in between. We could do more encounters, but the table is 50% newbies and people who have severe decision and attention span problems.


----------



## Incenjucar

the Jester said:


> I remember finishing a module in an evening back in the 1e days (at least things like Ghost Tower of Inverness). I would really like to see that possibility return.




 Are you all the Micromachines guy? I don't think I could RP that quickly without spraining my tongue.


----------



## KarinsDad

Incenjucar said:


> While I realize that the 4E durations are complicated for some people, the effect they have on the game is tremendous. Removing them basically prevents entire tactical concepts from being available.




Could you give some examples?

It's one thing to say that "until start of the target's turn" has some real legitimate worth, but what is so wonderful about it that some other duration couldn't handle?


----------



## KarinsDad

keterys said:


> Yeah, I play a bunch of leaders... and I've taken to handing people sticky notes, or using table tents, or writing on the map... because otherwise they won't know the bonuses I've given. Doesn't matter how often I say "Everyone has +6 to damage". They need to track it, one way or another, and mostly I'm still going "Did you remember my +6 to damage?"
> 
> So, yeah, the bookkeeping is there regardless.




Yes it is.

But, it's just as simple to cross off effects on a PC's temp sheet when told to do so as it is to do so at the end of the PC's turn.

In both cases, the player has to keep track of it.

In both cases, there is a point in time where players cross it off. In your example, each player does it on his own. In my example, the player who created the effect says "cross off my +6 to damage" at one single point in time and everyone does it.

There really isn't any gain one way or the other. The players who do not hand out effects and do not play more complex PCs do not have to remember to do this type of thing at the end of their turns. Instead, they are told when to do it.

I think this aspect of it is a total wash.


I think the gain that initiative doesn't effect one round durations is something that your preferred system loses. On a creature detrimental effect, it ends when the creature's turn ends with your system and that means that not all PCs get to take advantage of that. Dazed for one turn means that if the creature can be dazed only on its turn and due to init order, none of the PCs get an advantage because of it. They cannot move past without OAing because the creature is only Dazed for a moment on its turn, not on theirs.

If one round durations are a part of 5E, then "end of caster's turn" makes more sense because UNLIKE Save Ends, at least one duration in the game system is guaranteed to work for an entire round, not just part of a round.


So like you said, the bookkeeping is there regardless. Given that, I prefer a one round duration to last an entire round.


----------



## keterys

If you prone a creature, it gets up on its turn. If it goes right after you, then your friends didn't get to exploit the prone.

If you injure a cleric, and he goes right after you, he can heal before your friends can do their own damage and maybe finish him off.

If you move into flank, and the creature then moves before...

If a monster dazes a PC, and that PC uses an ability to become undazed, then the rest of the monsters didn't get a chance to...

You're arguing for _one_ thing in the initiative system to work differently than _everything else_.

P.S. Tangent suggestion:  use side by side initiatives


----------



## Hassassin

n00bdragon said:


> Three minutes is a real rush for any normal combat round. Assume you have five players and five monsters just for simplicity's sake. That's ten actors that need to all take a turn in 180 seconds. That's 18 seconds per person including time to pick up the dice, roll them, add up numbers, assess results, possibly roll a second set of dice for damage, assess the state of the target after the hit and record damage, don't forget to move the actor around the map a bit and declare any other miscellaneous actions taken.




Ok, 18s is very fast, but I would take four players and two monsters as a baseline for my group. That's half a minute per turn, which is perfectly doable. If there are more than 1-2 monsters, some of them are likely identical and I can roll their dice at the same time, so they add less time. I let my players resolve all their actions at the same time, so even adding one more player shouldn't add much.

(I also roll damage with attack rolls for simple attacks. That only saves a few seconds per hit, though.)



n00bdragon said:


> This is all completely ignoring the need to:
> - Ask other players if they'd prefer you to take X or Y action.
> - Explain what an ability does to someone unfamiliar with it.
> - Give people ample time to react with reaction abilities. D&D isn't Slapjack.
> - Make any additional rolls like saving throws and the like.




IMC they should preferably ask others input before their turn, and definitely do it in character (6s rounds mean they shouldn't be spending minutes on it, although I don't use a stopwatch or anything;-).

Any saves and reactions should of course be counted against the time it takes to resolve something. I'd like the latter to be rare and the former to be 1-2/action at most instead of these "save ends" things you need to roll every round.

In any case, remember that for each time consuming action there may be a missed attack that only takes a few seconds to resolve.



n00bdragon said:


> And of course this all assumes your group is perfect and doesn't:
> - Need a reminder that it's their turn.
> - Decide what to do after their turn comes up.
> - Need to look up any rules.
> - Need to ask what the status of any other actors is.




If rounds are short you don't go into ignore-mode where you need to be woken up from.

In any case the three minutes was more of a lower bound. 3-5 minutes per round sounds about right, and would allow 3-5 round encounters in less than fifteen minutes.


----------



## Shemeska

KarinsDad said:


> I think that is a major weakness of 4E. You have this campaign world where the physical laws are such that humanoid PCs take advantage of spells and prayers and such via the arcane and divine and psionic and primal power sources, but a vast majority of the humanoid monsters (some of which can be PCs) are using "the monster power source". What the heck is that?




If there's something that I want to go away it's the use of "power source", and the arbitrary yet mandatory distinction between PC and "monster". If I want a "monster" to have spellcasting, let him have spellcasting, either as a supernatural ability not directly on par with having wizard levels, or as straight up wizard levels as seems to best fit the flavor of the particular thing's race or circumstances. For instance let's take arcanaloths. In my own campaigns I had them with by the book racial caster levels, and frequently then tacked on straight up caster levels, but in a few special cases with "named" arcanaloths, they typically learned spells as wizards and cast as sorcerers.

I'd like a hybrid, middle of the road approach to various editions of treating PCs and "monsters" as either under the exact same rules or wholly divorced.

But the whole parlance of "power source" needs to take a bullet in the head IMO. Too gamey for my tastes.


----------



## Ratinyourwalls

Any news one way or another about the validity of the leak?


----------



## keterys

Yeah, I'm not sure "power source" ever took off in 4e. Like someone had an idea, and then it just fell down on execution (I'm guessing because everyone but that person ignored it). The funny part is, I think it was them trying to inject setting fluff into it, instead of rules-ish - there's some real story around Primal.

Anyhow, re: Arcanoloths - That's a decent example of a creature that should generally have "wizard" casting or whatever. But at the same time, I don't want the system to require using the PC character creation system to use them, except when I choose to do so. I want the ability to lay a "wizard" template or whatever on a monster, or just selectively swap a few spells, but I don't want the PCs in a planescape game to "go off rails" and I suddenly need an Arcanoloth and I need to call a 30 minute pause so I can fill out his spellbook


----------



## I'm A Banana

4e did have rules for adding classes to monsters, BTW. Under-used rules, with some problems, but the basic idea was there. I've added "caster levels" to a lot of 4e monsters just by taking PC powers and giving them to monsters (occasionally changing the damage potential). The discrete "powers" system made it pretty easy to export that rules-bit from the PC side to the monster side.


----------



## Incenjucar

KarinsDad said:


> Could you give some examples?
> 
> It's one thing to say that "until start of the target's turn" has some real legitimate worth, but what is so wonderful about it that some other duration couldn't handle?




"Until the start of your next turn" gives you the ability to have effects persist through your turn, but also during the rest of the round, without giving you access to it NEXT round. This is especially valuable for an at-will effect that requires you to constantly charge it up. Otherwise you can double-dip and get two such abilities revved up at the same time.

"Until the end of your next turn" lets you double-dip on an ability, ensuring that you have a decent chance of utilizing it.

"Until the start of the target's next turn." throttles back an ability, which is good for effects that have more to do with you than the target, or which represents a limit that the target can easily break once they can act. "Dazed until the start of its next turn," for example, staves off OAs and grants CA, and can stop them during this turn, but doesn't kill their action economy next round. "Slowed until the start of its next turn" can halt a charger in its tracks, without making the opponent useless next round.

"Until the end of the target's next turn." ensures that the effect WILL affect the target, regardless of when you use it. This is important for your more limited effects, like dailies.


----------



## Incenjucar

keterys said:


> Yeah, I'm not sure "power source" ever took off in 4e. Like someone had an idea, and then it just fell down on execution (I'm guessing because everyone but that person ignored it). The funny part is, I think it was them trying to inject setting fluff into it, instead of rules-ish - there's some real story around Primal.




Power source is a perfectly sensible thing. 4E just had a lot of change-of-hands during its time, and terrible editing from day 1. The main issue with power source, for me, is that some power sources were sources, and others were METHODS, and the differences could get confusing. All said, except for psionics being related to the Far Realms, I rather enjoyed all the fluff around it.



> Anyhow, re: Arcanoloths - That's a decent example of a creature that should generally have "wizard" casting or whatever. But at the same time, I don't want the system to require using the PC character creation system to use them, except when I choose to do so. I want the ability to lay a "wizard" template or whatever on a monster, or just selectively swap a few spells, but I don't want the PCs in a planescape game to "go off rails" and I suddenly need an Arcanoloth and I need to call a 30 minute pause so I can fill out his spellbook




Arcanaloths are creatures of secrets, so it's natural that they would use the power _method_ of secrets. Fortunately, the rules for adding spells to things is in the DMG. Sadly, you have to actually read the DMG to know that, because that is how books work.


----------



## Shemeska

keterys said:


> I want the ability to lay a "wizard" template or whatever on a monster, or just selectively swap a few spells, but I don't want the PCs in a planescape game to "go off rails" and I suddenly need an Arcanoloth and I need to call a 30 minute pause so I can fill out his spellbook




Psst. If he's not important, and likely to die in short order, make it up as you go.


----------



## Incenjucar

Shemeska said:


> Psst. If he's not important, and likely to die in short order, make it up as you go.




Actually, a random spellcaster is a perfect time to use page 42.


----------



## SensoryThought

I must play D&D differently to others who have 12-20 or even 4-5 combat encounters per session. Even back in my 2e days it was less than that. Far less. 

I guess my games are 'character and story driven' so that combats are purposeful and significant. I run 3 session adventures usually with 3 combat encounters of escalating difficulty. Each session is 3hrs. Combats last from 30min to maybe over an hour (rarely) with 45min average. And I'm ok with that. Combat is tactical but with roleplaying descriptions by players. 

I run a Skype/Maptools game so I have to have a map and monster tokens ready in advance, along with stat blocks. Each combat encounter takes about an hour to pick monsters, customize them on the monster builder, find or make an appropriate jpg map, add tokens and terrain effects and save etc. Any more and my preparation burden would be insane (20 combat encounters - no thanks!) 

I realize a lot of games aren't like mine. Last session the players spent an hour having a funeral for a dead pc, introducing a new pc, and briefing from an npc on a new adventure. Then an hour on traveling and a 45 minute encounter against a ghoul pack. Then an hour role playing with each other and 3 new NPCs found after the battle, a skill check, and more travel.


----------



## GX.Sigma

SensoryThought said:


> I must play D&D differently to others who have 12-20 or even 4-5 combat encounters per session. Even back in my 2e days it was less than that. Far less.
> 
> I guess my games are 'character and story driven' so that combats are purposeful and significant. I run 3 session adventures usually with 3 combat encounters of escalating difficulty. Each session is 3hrs. Combats last from 30min to maybe over an hour (rarely) with 45min average. And I'm ok with that. Combat is tactical but with roleplaying descriptions by players.
> 
> I run a Skype/Maptools game so I have to have a map and monster tokens ready in advance, along with stat blocks. Each combat encounter takes about an hour to pick monsters, customize them on the monster builder, find or make an appropriate jpg map, add tokens and terrain effects and save etc. Any more and my preparation burden would be insane (20 combat encounters - no thanks!)
> 
> I realize a lot of games aren't like mine. Last session the players spent an hour having a funeral for a dead pc, introducing a new pc, and briefing from an npc on a new adventure. Then an hour on traveling and a 45 minute encounter against a ghoul pack. Then an hour role playing with each other and 3 new NPCs found after the battle, a skill check, and more travel.



Which system?


----------



## Mircoles

This game looks like all they're doing is bringing back the suck and why on earth did let put Monte in charge. If there is one thing that he has proven of himself is that he doesn't know how to improve a new edition of D&D.

Well, hopefully the art will at least be interesting.


----------



## Janaxstrus

keterys said:


> Yeah, I'm not sure "power source" ever took off in 4e. Like someone had an idea, and then it just fell down on execution (I'm guessing because everyone but that person ignored it). The funny part is, I think it was them trying to inject setting fluff into it, instead of rules-ish - there's some real story around Primal.
> 
> Anyhow, re: Arcanoloths - That's a decent example of a creature that should generally have "wizard" casting or whatever. But at the same time, I don't want the system to require using the PC character creation system to use them, except when I choose to do so. I want the ability to lay a "wizard" template or whatever on a monster, or just selectively swap a few spells, but I don't want the PCs in a planescape game to "go off rails" and I suddenly need an Arcanoloth and I need to call a 30 minute pause so I can fill out his spellbook




I want my monsters obeying the same rules of magic as pcs.  Thats why they are rules.
I want the monsters to have stats and mean the same as.pcs as well.

Basically monsters and pcs should follow the same rules in general


----------



## Halivar

If monsters are as complicated as 3E, I have two choices:


Retire from DM'ing due to time constraints.
Keep playing 4E.
I would much rather have the complicated "universal rules" aspect be an option.


----------



## The Little Raven

Halivar said:


> If monsters are as complicated as 3E, I have two choices:
> 
> 
> Retire from DM'ing due to time constraints.
> Keep playing 4E.
> I would much rather have the complicated "universal rules" aspect be an option.




Agreed.

Monsters and PCs using all the same rules sounds nice. But then I realize that while my players only have to deal with building and maintaining a single character using the complex character building system, I have to deal with dozens to hundreds, and if I'm going to spend that much time on a second job, I want it to be one I get paid cash money for.


----------



## I'm A Banana

I have come around in general to the 4e "get the maths right" philosophy to monsters for me personally. It's a lot like [MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] recommended above: "make it up as you go." It's some combination of leather armor and quick speed and rock hard hide, or skill and magic and speed and aggressiveness and sharpness, or whatever, that happens to constitute the right numbers. The specifics of how one critter happened to reach that number doesn't often matter.

Of course, I don't like how 4e in general presented monsters, or how it conceived of them as only things to fight and kill in minis combat. I think the 4e monster philosophy was one of the most problematic aspects of the e for me. I just like what they did with the math there. 

Of course, I think it should ALSO be build-able. If you want to a la carte your monster, building it from the ground up with stats and equipment and spells, and take the long way around, you should be able to wind up with _the same results_ as someone who just fills in the math. There's no reason those can't be compatible without forcing someone to do one or the other.

And then people like me can fill in the math quick when things get challenge-y, and worry about the fluff, motives, and interesting interactions the party can do in every other circumstance.


----------



## catastrophic

Incenjucar said:


> While I realize that the 4E durations are complicated for some people, the effect they have on the game is tremendous. Removing them basically prevents entire tactical concepts from being available.



That seems to be a common theme in people's requirements for 4e- mutually exclusive requirements. 

This of course emphasises how important a genuine modular design is, and why it's absence in 1.0 is so damming.

Especially with so many people demanding things like 'allow me to build a monster like in 3e and have it end up the same as a monster in 4e', which is a huge task if the goal is genuinly to have those monsters work as well as they do in 4e.

Of course, the implied conclusion of a lot of this stuff is that 4e style design rigor ends up getting lost in the rush to appease older fans. A lot of care was taken building 4e, and it's clear a lot of people just don't really care if fans of 4e can find a place in 5e- even if they pay lip service to the idea that they should.

That said, while 1.0 certainly suggests that that is the case in general, when it comes to monster design the issue is more complex and the irony is that one of the newer bits of design- the 7 defences and how they work- is a bigger part of why monsters fall down, at least in 1.0.


----------



## keterys

Janaxstrus said:


> I want my monsters obeying the same rules of magic as pcs.  Thats why they are rules.
> I want the monsters to have stats and mean the same as.pcs as well.
> 
> Basically monsters and pcs should follow the same rules in general



I'm okay if PCs used the same stats as, say, 4e style monsters... if I could make PCs that quickly and easily and customize them so thoroughly? Absolutely.

I've put my hundreds of hours into statting things up in 3e style, though, and I will never do so again. I'm content to spend a significant amount of time developing a character I will play for a very long time, but such time is wasted on all but the most prevailing and connected NPC. Even then... having to justify every feat, stat point, hit die, etc? No, I have no interest in requiring anyone to follow the same level of rules as PCs. I don't even really want _PCs_ having to follow that same level of rules 

At the tail end of 3rd edition, actually, I stopped using the spell system in its entirety and started making my monsters with whatever felt appropriate for its intended challenge. Similarly, I had each PC tell me what they wanted to play, and they got a custom class with custom spells. Amusingly, not long after that they launched the stuff about 4e that pretty much did enough of what I was doing that I moved on.

My top preference would actually be closer to picking a few FATE-like Aspects and mechanical guidelines for the level I want (there's an making 4e monster index card out there that's fairly illustrative), then let me do whatever I want.


----------



## GX.Sigma

Janaxstrus said:


> I want my monsters obeying the same rules of magic as pcs.  Thats why they are rules.



I want my monsters to not obey the same rules of magic as PCs. That's why it's magic.


----------



## avin

Seriously, no matter what edition we are talking about, having to create monsters as npcs is a waste of my time. 

It was hinted by Wotc that creating monsters will be similar to how it works on 4E. It will please some, and don't please others. In any case, I suggest you guys try it. It's sliced bread.

Been creating monsters like that since ever, in any system I've tried.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Put me down as not wanting to worry about monsters obeying character creation rules and please no 4E monster statblocks either. If 5E cannot be prepped and run without either software or being a major PITA then I can leave it rather than take it. 

Core monster creation shouldn't get more complex than AD&D 1E. 

As for NPCs, if they are adventuring classes then they should be built as such. If not then freeform like monsters works fine.


----------



## mcintma

I don't mind monsters not fully following PC rules, but they should have the basics like ability scores so there is at least some common baseline for comparison. 

One thing I do want is fluff back in the MM ... 4e MM was the blandest most uninspiring D&D monster book ... I mean I love reading monster books so something is wrong when one is syphoning-off my will to live as I read it.


----------



## Sunseeker

I'm largely indifferent as I almost always used software to build monsters, be it actual Wizards proprietary stuff or someone else's.  If wizards can roll out a tool I can use to build a monster in oh, 5 minutes, I'll be fine.  I do agree however that 4e's monster-building system was great, I really loved simply creating whatever the heck I wanted in terms of powers, provided the numbers are balanced for the appropriate challenge.


----------



## Halivar

shidaku said:


> I'm largely indifferent as I almost always used software to build monsters, be it actual Wizards proprietary stuff or someone else's.  If wizards can roll out a tool I can use to build a monster in oh, 5 minutes, I'll be fine.  I do agree however that 4e's monster-building system was great, I really loved simply creating whatever the heck I wanted in terms of powers, provided the numbers are balanced for the appropriate challenge.



My favorite part of 4E was how, with aid of page 42, I could ad hoc unexpected monsters on-the-fly during play. Granted, they did not have the depth of my preplanned encounters, but the players never knew the difference.


----------



## M.L. Martin

mcintma said:


> I don't mind monsters not fully following PC rules, but they should have the basics like ability scores so there is at least some common baseline for comparison.




   Giving monsters ability scores isn't a problem, and given what we've heard about the resolution and save system in Next/5E/Ouroboros Edition, it's almost a given that they'll have them. The trifecta of making scores uncapped, 'realistic' and applying in exactly the same way as they do to PCs can be a problem. Or do we want to go back to the days when a Great Red Wyrm got 2/3rds of its HP from its Con bonus? 



> One thing I do want is fluff back in the MM ... 4e MM was the blandest most uninspiring D&D monster book ... I mean I love reading monster books so something is wrong when one is syphoning-off my will to live as I read it.




  This has been fixed--the _Monster Vaults_ have some of the best fluff ever in a D&D monster book. I hope that format makes it through to Next/5E/OE; it's what I consider the real home-run of Essentials.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

SteveC said:


> I think a lot of people are missing what catastrophic is saying, so perhaps an analogy will help out.
> 
> I work in a shop where I regularly interact with our code developer group. The primary program they work with deals with almost all of the regulated work we do (we are a contract pharmaceutical lab).
> 
> This program was originally written in the late 90s by someone who had no formal programming experience, and they did a great job for what they knew about and what they could imagine the business would grow to include. What they did not do, and it's hardly surprising since they weren't trained as a programmer, was make things modular. At all.
> 
> Since then, we have grown to generate about 100x the work, and the software now has a team of six full time developers, who all do modular coding. The underlying code base, however, has largely not changed.
> 
> This is not good. In fact, it's about the worst thing you can possibly have, and it has resulted in the application becoming something like the Winchester Mystery House, where modules are built all over the place on top of each other. Since there's very little consistent underlying structure, it makes development a royal pain, with many, many problems, since nothing was developed to work together.
> 
> In the next couple years, we are going to be hiring a few more developers, and re-doing almost the entire thing from scratch.
> 
> Consider that redesign an edition change in D&D. If you create the foundation of the edition in a consistent, modular fashion, you can easily build out a variety of modules on it. For example, if you have a consistent class structure, you can easily add powers to it. If not, your module becomes redesigning each class from scratch.
> 
> I haven't seen much that's real about 5E, but what I have seen has not been modular at all: it's simply been a rehash of basic D&D from the late 70s. That edition is simple, but it has many, many assumptions about how classes work that are not portable or modular. If the advanced combat and the advanced powers module have to rewrite the combat and class system from the ground up, you don't have a module, you have a different game that still uses the same attributes and a D20.




I know the thread has run on quite a ways probably since this was posted, but take it from another system's engineering guy, you simply cannot create a system that will support additions and replacement of core bits of functionality with other modules when the basic system is pea soup.

First you have to have a 'lexicon'. This defines what each thing is within the system. Each thing has various attributes and meanings. These can be relied on by all the other elements of the system and each module can 'talk to' the other modules in a way they can all understand so they work consistently together. This is CRITICAL. Let me say it again *this is critical. No modular system can succeed without it.* Note that not only does the common currency of the lexicon have to exist. It has to be EXPOSED. That is it has to be clear to everyone what is in that lexicon and thus what things are allowed to be relied on. 

An example would be hit points. Not only would you say hypothetically define what a hit point represents, say "a measure of durability/luck/skill" but how it is used "damage is rated in hit points", and also what the scale is "8 hit points of damage is enough to kill most normal humans". Now, if I want to make a new weapon system I can say "hmmm, damage is done in hit points, so I can rate weapon damage in hit points. Oh, 8 points is a fatal wound to a normal person. OK, my sword should be able to do 8 points of damage pretty often if I want swords to be deadly weapons". 

Now, look at the messy conditions system and the thinking that it implies in this 5e playtest. There's no lexicon. There's an open ended list of overlapping things. Its a mess, pure and simple. Of course maybe there's some rules system expert guy over there at WotC ready to go step in and put this back on track. However...

IME (and I've built probably 40 or more complex software projects in my career and been a lead engineer since the mid 80's) any project that doesn't START OUT with these kinds of ground rules I've outlined above and that SteveC outlined, is almost certainly doomed to fail. I say 'almost' because there are exceptions and there are degrees of failure, but actually I've yet to see ANY project that wasn't organized along these lines REALLY succeed. 

My fear isn't really for what 5e is at all. My fear is that WotC hasn't got the systems engineering skills required to do a project with the remit that the 5e project has. If this leak is actually accurate in what it states then 5e is already a project in big trouble. If I was a customer putting this out for contract with them, I'd definitely have a couple of systems guys trundle on over there and take a gander at what they're up to and see what exactly they think they're doing.


----------



## KarinsDad

Incenjucar said:


> "Until the start of your next turn" gives you the ability to have effects persist through your turn, but also during the rest of the round, without giving you access to it NEXT round. This is especially valuable for an at-will effect that requires you to constantly charge it up. Otherwise you can double-dip and get two such abilities revved up at the same time.




I asked for an example. Saying what the result is without having a good example for where the power definitely gains something real doesn't mean anything. For what At Will does this significantly matter where End of Your Next Turn wouldn't work just as well?

For example:

Devastating Strike. The difference between Start of Your Next Turn and End of Your Next turn means that if you provoke an OA (a relatively rare occurrence which player controls) against the foe and if you are not raging, the foe gets +2 to the hit roll which means that maybe 10% of the time * 10% of the time or probably less than 1% of the time, this could actually matter.

Is a 1% difference in outcome worth it when compared to simplifying the rules? Not in my book.



Incenjucar said:


> "Until the end of your next turn" lets you double-dip on an ability, ensuring that you have a decent chance of utilizing it.




It only typically allows you to double dip if you are using an Action Point. For example, Blistering Flourish. If this power wasn't until end of your next turn, it wouldn't do anything above a melee basic.

And, there are a ton of powers where there is no such thing as double dipping. Burden of Earth only allows a single +1 bonus. Shield Feint only allows a single +3 bonus.

Or, powers that allow double dipping, but it requires subpar play. For example, Vicious Mockery is a debuff, so the only way to double dip it is to provoke an OA with it. Hardly something worth discussing.



Incenjucar said:


> "Until the start of the target's next turn." throttles back an ability, which is good for effects that have more to do with you than the target, or which represents a limit that the target can easily break once they can act. "Dazed until the start of its next turn," for example, staves off OAs and grants CA, and can stop them during this turn, but doesn't kill their action economy next round. "Slowed until the start of its next turn" can halt a charger in its tracks, without making the opponent useless next round.




A lot of "until the start of your next turn" is actually for whether something happens, not for a buff or debuff or nasty effect for that duration. For example, Escalating Violence. And like the Devastating Strike example above, the Barbarian would have to provoke an OA if EV was an end of your next turn power in order to get a slight bonus to hit and damage. Sure, it would be an option, but hardly game breaking.

Can you give an example of a throttle back with this?



Incenjucar said:


> "Until the end of the target's next turn." ensures that the effect WILL affect the target, regardless of when you use it. This is important for your more limited effects, like dailies.




It's not important at all. Until the end of your next turn is a superset of end of target's next turn and also ensures that the effect WILL affect the target, so this option isn't needed. It has no significant gain.

Unless you have an example where end of target's next turn is balanced and end of your next turn isn't.


There really is no need for 4 different types of partial round durations. One is sufficient.


----------



## Hussar

the Jester said:


> To me, the real question isn't "how long should a round last?", it's "how many encounters should you be able to fit into a session without rushing?"
> 
> The answer, for me, is *twelve to twenty*.
> 
> Re: The problem of conditions- 4e's issue with conditions isn't how many there are,  it's how many you need to keep track of in a given fight.




You later said 6-8 hour session (oh how I miss those days).  So, let's split the difference on both estimates.  15 encounters in 7 hours.  Now, presuming that you mean combat by encounter and not just talking to someone or disarming a trap, that would mean about 30 minutes per encounter.  Give or take.

Which is a bit shorter than my 4e encounters, but, not hugely - we generally have 2-3 encounters in a 3 hour time slot which is actually closer to 2.5 hours usually.   I could live with this pacing.



ExploderWizard said:


> 5-10 minutes of real time per combat round. Its more than possible because I have done it, with 7 players. This assumes an opposition roughly equal to the PCs in numbers. A large horde could take longer for the DM to resolve especially if there were groups with varying abilities.




If your 4e games are taking longer than this to resolve, you're doing it wrong.  There's no reason that you can't get 10 minute rounds in 4e at all.  The only big difference is that a 4e combat will probably take 10 rounds to resolve.  That's fixable though - just start cutting monster HP's and whatnot.  More encounters but shorter is pretty easily doable in any edition.



ExploderWizard said:


> Put me down as not wanting to worry about monsters obeying character creation rules and please no 4E monster statblocks either. If 5E cannot be prepped and run without either software or being a major PITA then I can leave it rather than take it.
> 
> Core monster creation shouldn't get more complex than AD&D 1E.
> 
> As for NPCs, if they are adventuring classes then they should be built as such. If not then freeform like monsters works fine.




Umm, I've been prepping 4e for over a year now with no computer assistance.  If you "need" software to do your 4e monsters, again, you're doing it wrong.  Given that adjusting monsters is ridiculously easy and the stat blocks are actually not that much longer than an AD&D stat block, I'm not sure what your issue is.

And, what monster creation mechanics are there in AD&D?  AFAIK, it's basically all free form.  There were virtually no monster creation guidelines in AD&D at all.  I suppose that works for some people, but, no thank you.  I want a basic monster chassis that I can just smack on some goodies and be done.  "Just wing it" is lazy game design.  No thanks.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

GX.Sigma said:


> Everything you said here (in slightly different terms) is the problem with 4e-style conditions.
> 
> In 4e, a monster does something, and the PC is shaken. The power doesn't say what shaken means, so you have to dig up the PHB and look it up.
> 
> I think what the designer was saying about the hypothetical "power word stun" is that it would say "stun," and then it would describe what being stunned means. So you would still have the keyword, and there would still be a list of them somewhere, but you don't have to look it up every time, as the definition would be right there.
> 
> Hopefully.




Nah, not really a good idea. 4e has exactly 16 conditions, and I can name them all off the top of my head and tell you what every one of them does. Each one is distinct and has a very specific reason for existing in the game, and the list was carefully vetted. Beyond that this list has been hit with a couple of errata. You can't errata 'stunned' if it appears in 12 different places in the rule books (well, you COULD, but have fun). Common text should appear once. It is also SIMPLE to look up the conditions. They ALL appear on page 277 of the PHB1. Moreover the rules do not contemplate the addition of more conditions. If you were to want an effect of some sort that was basically a 'condition' and wasn't in that master list, you'd create it by composition, not by inventing a whole new condition that almost inevitably rehashes elements (if not all of) some other condition somewhere. It is also quite simple for conditions to be overridden in 4e. Thus for instance a monster can simply have in its stat block "Immune to daze and stun conditions" (or whatever). In fact this is done quite often in monster design. 

What the 5e document is proposing is MUCH MUCH worse game design than the 4e condition system. It is hard to maintain, hard to update, and would be hard to use (lets see, should this be nauseated or weakened...).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Piratecat said:


> You won't hear me complain if they get simplified. I think 4e has too many conditions, personally. I'm sure not everyone agrees with that, but there are only a dozen we seem to use regularly.




Yeah, it SEEMS like it does. Its weird though. When you actually go through the list of 16 4e conditions, which ones would you remove? Many of them exist for reasons having to do with explaining how to handle logical real-world situations (unconscious, blind, deafened, slowed, prone, etc) and kind of HAVE to exist (if they didn't then the rules would still have to tell you what to do in these situations). Others are just so basically handy that it is hard to see how they could be removed (dazed, dominated, marked, stunned, weakened). By the time you go down the whole list you find that it is a darn tight list. There's no one condition in there that you can easily say "eh, we can just do without this" (immobilized MAYBE), and in 4 years almost of running 4e I have yet to find something that I could say "I really need another condition to describe this situation". 

I get that there's always a strong desire to simplify, and I'm all for it in spades. Yet the 4e condition list is really an example IMHO of a very tight and well-thought-out list. I'd say the 4e skill list is another one that is similar. Clearly a lot of thought went into both of those lists. You could maybe tweak either one a little but it is hard to argue they're far off from dead perfect.


----------



## Lanefan

Hassassin said:


> Halve that and you are closer to what I'd like to see.
> 
> And that's for the first round. Optimally combat should accelerate as characters die and options grow fewer, so that once the outcome is no longer in doubt we don't have to waste time on it. As is, it mostly slows down as the number of conditions and hit point totals to keep in mind grows, except when there are a lot of enemies to start with. I fix this by having the enemy flee/surrender as soon as the combat seems decided.
> 
> I'd much rather have my thirty minute boss fight take ten three minute rounds than three ten minute rounds. That would mean players never have to wait long for their turn.



Three minutes to play through a round seems mighty fast even by 1e standards.

Of course, if the combat is 4 PCs vs. a straightforward monster e.g. a dumb Giant then the rounds will go by really fast.

But if you've got a party of 10 PCs up against somewhere between three and fifty foes* (depending how many decide to join in, their participation is not guaranteed), the most significant of which have high-level class abilities including spells and devices and who are not themselves a unified force, each round is going to take some serious time to play.

* - this is exactly the scenario I ran on Friday - each round took about 10-20 minutes once things got going.



			
				Halivar said:
			
		

> My favorite part of 4E was how, with aid of page 42, I could ad hoc unexpected monsters on-the-fly during play. Granted, they did not have the depth of my preplanned encounters, but the players never knew the difference.



Doesn't just apply to 4e.  Generating monsters on the fly is pretty simple in any edition once you've been at it for a while.

And monsters should not have to use the same "rules" as PCs...nor should they have to use the same rules as other monsters, for all that.  The charm ability of a Vampire is much different than that of a Dryad, for example, and both are vastly different from what a "_Charm Person_" spell can do.  Trying to shoehorn them all into being the same is simply a Bad Idea.

As for duration, I have no problem with duration being level-based - it's easy  enough to count rounds, or segments for that matter.  If you resolve a 1-round-duration spell on a '4' initiative its effects are going to wear off on '4' next round - how hard is that?  

Lan-"charmed, I'm sure"-efan


----------



## nightwyrm

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, it SEEMS like it does. Its weird though. When you actually go through the list of 16 4e conditions, which ones would you remove? Many of them exist for reasons having to do with explaining how to handle logical real-world situations (unconscious, blind, deafened, slowed, prone, etc) and kind of HAVE to exist (if they didn't then the rules would still have to tell you what to do in these situations). Others are just so basically handy that it is hard to see how they could be removed (dazed, dominated, marked, stunned, weakened). By the time you go down the whole list you find that it is a darn tight list. There's no one condition in there that you can easily say "eh, we can just do without this" (immobilized MAYBE), and in 4 years almost of running 4e I have yet to find something that I could say "I really need another condition to describe this situation".
> 
> I get that there's always a strong desire to simplify, and I'm all for it in spades. Yet the 4e condition list is really an example IMHO of a very tight and well-thought-out list. I'd say the 4e skill list is another one that is similar. Clearly a lot of thought went into both of those lists. You could maybe tweak either one a little but it is hard to argue they're far off from dead perfect.




I think a reason people found 4e to have too many conditions is because everyone in 4e can inflict those conditions. Pre-4e, the only conditions non-casters can deal out with any regularity is prone. Everything else is the province of casters, and mainly the wizards who focuses on debuffing. If there's only 1 debuffer in the whole party, there's going to be a lot less conditions to track.


----------



## Lanefan

nightwyrm said:


> Pre-4e, the only conditions non-casters can deal out with any regularity is prone.



They're usually pretty good at dealing out "dead", too.

Prone: lying on the ground but able to get up or otherwise act.
Dead: lying on the ground with no interest in doing anything.

Lan-"5e must be a VERY high-level Cleric, to try and raise 4 dead editions all at once"-efan


----------



## nightwyrm

Lanefan said:


> They're usually pretty good at dealing out "dead", too.
> 
> Prone: lying on the ground but able to get up or otherwise act.
> Dead: lying on the ground with no interest in doing anything.
> 
> Lan-"5e must be a VERY high-level Cleric, to try and raise 4 dead editions all at once"-efan




Since we're talking about having too many conditions, I assume it's a problem with tracking the high amount of them during the game. As far as I know, there's no need to track the dead condition for anyone.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Incenjucar said:


> While I realize that the 4E durations are complicated for some people, the effect they have on the game is tremendous. Removing them basically prevents entire tactical concepts from being available.




Meh, I'd have to say that to a large extent those sorts of 'tactical concepts' are ones we can live without. I'd rather streamline and then rely on less gamist tactical concepts. If you want to use tactics then the basics of surprise, flanking, cover, concentration of firepower, range, and mobility should be the core concepts you're leveraging, not "this is a good tactic because we can sequence these 3 powers in such a way that their durations let is put a pile of hurt on X". I don't HATE that kind of thing, but I think it inevitably leads to the need for both complex tracking and complex decision making, which slows down fights.

I also think people lose track of the fact that when you push things down to the micro level like that too much you don't NET gain anything. You make each single combat long and intensive, but a series of short engagements with the players using their heads to figure out how, where, and when to hit the enemy is just as much fun and involves just as many interesting choices. It just FEELS like a faster paced game and allows for more plot choices and flexibility on the part of the DM.

Honestly, I think a lot of trashing on 4e is a pity because really it isn't going to be that hard to achieve this within basically the structure of the 4e rules. It requires a bit different take on PC options and whatnot, but the actual rules need not change much at all. I HIGHLY suspect that a lot of the issues people focus on with 4e would largely go away if combat was just say 50% quicker and more straightforward. Some other things would go along with this of course, but again 90% of it follows from streamlining and moving away from 'fiddly' things to less granularity and just emphasizing the more abstract 'operational' level of the adventure (such as strengthening longer running effects and consumables and having a bit cleaned up ritual system to encourage more planning). 

Sadly the whole focus devolved down onto nitpicking hit points and stuff like that, which really was largely not the issue. Damn, now I'm once again hankering to dive into the whole thing, lol. See what you did to me!


----------



## keterys

It's funny how many people complain about monsters having too many hp in 4e, when I'm used to the other side of it, where stuff does so much damage that I have to work to make combats last more than 2 rounds.

I've done 8 combats in 45 minutes before in 4e, though more to see if I could than as an... optimal use of my RP-ing time.

For a more intentional and well paced game, I did run a 4e epic game (L23) not long ago. 8 hour day, 8 combats - most of them quite complex (like, poisonwater rapids through the demonweb, in combat skill challenges, traps, illusory walls, etc), several RP scenes (including a big negotiation with a goddess), a puzzle, a break for lunch. It's no 15 combats, but I suppose it could have been if they were _much simpler / easier combats_. It wouldn't really have been more fun, though. 

My preference is for around 45 minute combats with probably 10-25 minutes being the first round of the combat. Enough time to casually start up, let folks RP their taunts and insults, discuss things, maybe avert combat early through RP, figure out what they're doing in the combat, etc.

Most of it requires knowing the encounters and having players who don't spend 1-5 minutes _doing absolutely nothing_. (We have a joke in one group when we start and end a discussion about a non-game topic because nothing's happening "Uh, whose turn is it... oh, wait, it must be Bob's")

TLDR, it's totally possible to run 4e faster if you want, even at epic, is I guess what I'm trying to say. Ditto every edition of D&D.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

nightwyrm said:


> I think a reason people found 4e to have too many conditions is because everyone in 4e can inflict those conditions. Pre-4e, the only conditions non-casters can deal out with any regularity is prone. Everything else is the province of casters, and mainly the wizards who focuses on debuffing. If there's only 1 debuffer in the whole party, there's going to be a lot less conditions to track.




Right. I'm not at all sure that I want the casters to be in that exclusive club, but the NUMBER of conditions applied per combat could be reduced a lot. If I were actually redesigning 4e I would cut back a decent amount on the number of powers overall (at least combat ones, I might add more non-combat ones). Fewer powers, more impact for each one. Again, it follows from my quicker and less granular combat with more quicker tactical situations. You can get away with having ONE encounter power or TWO encounter powers if the fight is over in 20 minutes flat. 

The thing with AD&D for instance was that combats tended to be either decided quickly or left to the melee combatants largely. when the casters got involved in a big way there weren't conditions, there was just dead most of the time.

Each fight was usually smaller and focused, or if it was larger it was often lots of 'mooks' and AD&D mook type monsters were simple. An orc did ONE thing, swing a sword, period. Usually when you hit him he died. 

I think we can step up from that, but I think both PCs and monsters would mostly use at-will type attacks that had only instant effects. Then you'd have an encounter power that might have a one-round effect, and your daily power or two that you probably wouldn't use more than one of in a whole fight for the whole party unless it was a big boss fight. Even many of those don't need lingering effects. 

I'd also have a much smaller variety of effects, with most of them inflicting some sort of condition. Dazed for instance is great. It doesn't negate a monster, but worst-case it IS a debuff, and used cleverly it can be a total action negator. Prone, likewise, and blind, weakened, and slowed are perfectly fine too. Restrained, unconscious, stunned, dominated, all good for your higher level or daily type moves. Monsters would just rarely have these things, so you'd probably have 4 monsters with just an MBA and maybe a racial feature thing, and then the one more interesting monster with a couple powers that do fun things maybe. If you want a 'mook' to do much, then give him some terrain power or add something to him, but it would be rare.

I'd also add a bit to the potency of situational stuff. Make CA a +3. Have surprise round allow a full set of actions. Spell out a couple other advantages like 'set weapon vs charge' and 'higher ground'. This encourages more tactical thinking vs power jiggering thinking. It means you can have simpler stripped down encounters with just one salient feature, keep it simple, and still have it be interesting and involve some tactics for that quick duration of the fight. 

I think this also encourages a more AD&D style of making up quick encounters where you really only need to know the defenses, one attack, and the hit points of the 'orcs'. There can be a full stat block in the MM, but you don't NEED to go look it up 90% of the time.


----------



## SensoryThought

Incenjucar said:


> Fortunately, the rules for adding spells to things is in the DMG. Sadly, you have to actually read the DMG to know that, because that is how books work.




Epic tier sarcasm.


----------



## Incenjucar

KarinsDad said:


> I asked for an example. Saying what the result is without having a good example for where the power definitely gains something real doesn't mean anything. For what At Will does this significantly matter where End of Your Next Turn wouldn't work just as well?
> 
> For example:
> 
> Devastating Strike. The difference between Start of Your Next Turn and End of Your Next turn means that if you provoke an OA (a relatively rare occurrence which player controls) against the foe and if you are not raging, the foe gets +2 to the hit roll which means that maybe 10% of the time * 10% of the time or probably less than 1% of the time, this could actually matter.
> 
> Is a 1% difference in outcome worth it when compared to simplifying the rules? Not in my book.




The movement inhibitors would shut down a lot of reactive movement abilities, and some feats and abilities trigger off of status effects: Net Snare, Iron Soul Flurry of Blows, etc.

Aura and zone abilities could be more easily abused in conjunction with movement powers, and you could even have TWO of them up at the same time in the right circumstances: Ignition, Rotting Doom, Body Double, etc.

Special combos can crop up where you can use one ability to magnify another: Karmic Bond+Unconscious Assault, Paint the Bulls-Eye+Direct the Strike, etc.

Abilities that start creating a stacking loop that amplifies the effect: Memory Hole/Eyebite, Playful Torment, Brash Strike, etc.

These are also examples of why action points are so powerful - you can layer abilities in ways normally unavailable.

And please note, that's JUST At-Will powers. The combos you can do with Encounter and Daily powers can get nuts. I also ignored anything to do with OAs, since that can be more game-dependent and you don't consider them valid arguments anyway - which means you chose Devastating Strike as a strawman argument.

Also also keep in mind that this includes not only current powers, but hypothetical powers. In fact, the whole point of this is that 5E's powers will have to be more limited than 4E's powers if this happens, if it's to maintain anything resembling balance.



> It only typically allows you to double dip if you are using an Action Point. For example, Blistering Flourish. If this power wasn't until end of your next turn, it wouldn't do anything above a melee basic.




You can triple-dip if you include action points, actually.

Ardent Outrage, for example, could trigger from an OA or other damage at the start of your turn, after which you could make an attack. With an action point, you'd get two extra standard actions to utilize that effect. You'd also have a chance of getting some boosts between your turns. 



> And, there are a ton of powers where there is no such thing as double dipping. Burden of Earth only allows a single +1 bonus. Shield Feint only allows a single +3 bonus.




Yes. They'd get an increase in power here, too, and could be combined with whatever you use on your next turn to give a target a double-whammy, say with a to-hit bonus AND a damage bonus instead of just one or the other.



> Or, powers that allow double dipping, but it requires subpar play. For example, Vicious Mockery is a debuff, so the only way to double dip it is to provoke an OA with it. Hardly something worth discussing.




Funny how all of your examples are things you consider not worth discussing... Come on, guy. Just say "I do not consider OAs to be worth tactical consideration." and then talk about things that do not involve OAs so we can have a real discussion.



> A lot of "until the start of your next turn" is actually for whether something happens, not for a buff or debuff or nasty effect for that duration. For example, Escalating Violence. And like the Devastating Strike example above, the Barbarian would have to provoke an OA if EV was an end of your next turn power in order to get a slight bonus to hit and damage. Sure, it would be an option, but hardly game breaking.
> 
> Can you give an example of a throttle back with this?




See above.



> It's not important at all. Until the end of your next turn is a superset of end of target's next turn and also ensures that the effect WILL affect the target, so this option isn't needed. It has no significant gain.
> 
> Unless you have an example where end of target's next turn is balanced and end of your next turn isn't.




"End of your next turn" allows you to take advantage of something directly.

"End of your target's next turn." only allows you to take advantage of something passively unless you use an action point.

Ardent Strike would outright suck if it was "End of your target's next turn." unless initiative order was just so, and "Erupting Flare" wouldn't force enemies to flee to protect their allies if it was "End of your next turn." because those allies would be able to flee on their own.



> There really is no need for 4 different types of partial round durations. One is sufficient.




No durations at all ever is also good. Conditional durations is also good. There is no magic number, but I far prefer mine to yours, as it allows for more possibilities, but isn't as complex as conditional durations. And someone out there would just LOVE conditional duration D&D.


----------



## Hassassin

Lanefan said:


> Three minutes to play through a round seems mighty fast even by 1e standards.
> 
> Of course, if the combat is 4 PCs vs. a straightforward monster e.g. a dumb Giant then the rounds will go by really fast.




Yes, I clarified in a later post that I assumed 4 PCs and 1-2 (types of) monsters. While large parties should certainly be supported, I believe 4-5 PCs is a good benchmark to approximate typical groups.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Incenjucar said:


> The movement inhibitors would shut down a lot of reactive movement abilities, and some feats and abilities trigger off of status effects: Net Snare, Iron Soul Flurry of Blows, etc.
> 
> Aura and zone abilities could be more easily abused in conjunction with movement powers, and you could even have TWO of them up at the same time in the right circumstances: Ignition, Rotting Doom, Body Double, etc.
> 
> Special combos can crop up where you can use one ability to magnify another: Karmic Bond+Unconscious Assault, Paint the Bulls-Eye+Direct the Strike, etc.
> 
> Abilities that start creating a stacking loop that amplifies the effect: Memory Hole/Eyebite, Playful Torment, Brash Strike, etc.
> 
> These are also examples of why action points are so powerful - you can layer abilities in ways normally unavailable.
> 
> And please note, that's JUST At-Will powers. The combos you can do with Encounter and Daily powers can get nuts. I also ignored anything to do with OAs, since that can be more game-dependent and you don't consider them valid arguments anyway - which means you chose Devastating Strike as a strawman argument.
> 
> Also also keep in mind that this includes not only current powers, but hypothetical powers. In fact, the whole point of this is that 5E's powers will have to be more limited than 4E's powers if this happens, if it's to maintain anything resembling balance.
> 
> 
> 
> You can triple-dip if you include action points, actually.
> 
> Ardent Outrage, for example, could trigger from an OA or other damage at the start of your turn, after which you could make an attack. With an action point, you'd get two extra standard actions to utilize that effect. You'd also have a chance of getting some boosts between your turns.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. They'd get an increase in power here, too, and could be combined with whatever you use on your next turn to give a target a double-whammy, say with a to-hit bonus AND a damage bonus instead of just one or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how all of your examples are things you consider not worth discussing... Come on, guy. Just say "I do not consider OAs to be worth tactical consideration." and then talk about things that do not involve OAs so we can have a real discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> See above.
> 
> 
> 
> "End of your next turn" allows you to take advantage of something directly.
> 
> "End of your target's next turn." only allows you to take advantage of something passively unless you use an action point.
> 
> Ardent Strike would outright suck if it was "End of your target's next turn." unless initiative order was just so, and "Erupting Flare" wouldn't force enemies to flee to protect their allies if it was "End of your next turn." because those allies would be able to flee on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> No durations at all ever is also good. Conditional durations is also good. There is no magic number, but I far prefer mine to yours, as it allows for more possibilities, but isn't as complex as conditional durations. And someone out there would just LOVE conditional duration D&D.




Lets just grant that everything you say here is 100% entirely accurate, which I don't really dispute, so what?!?! 

Regardless of what sort of system is created you then design a set of powers which works with the tools at hand and produces a game which does what you want it to do. I don't see a problem. Given that 5e will ALMOST CERTAINLY have, and certainly SHOULD have, a goal of providing a tactically interesting but faster-paced and less granular game who cares? OK, so there are some awesome combos. The developers will know that. The game will be designed around that knowledge. The challenge level and capability of monsters will be built with that in mind. As long as the designers of the game factor in how good combos are and provide the monsters with the ability to either withstand them adequately or be present in the numbers and types required to maintain a good threat level to the party it is irrelevant.

I'd much rather see a system where a good use of your resources in a clever way is rewarded by a good solid visible result than not. All too often in 4e the problem is that you do something 'awesome' and it has very little immediate impact at the table. Some monster takes a bunch of damage, but nothing DIES. The results often seem quite indecisive. To a player knowing that their great move just chipped off 1/3 of the pile-o-hitpoints on some monster just isn't all THAT thrilling. Granting your allies a bonus to-hit is nice but again it isn't that viscerally pleasing compared to "it fell down dead" or "the paladin is surely going to finish THAT guy off now!" 

IMHO 5e, as I said a couple posts back, really needs to move to a much faster pace. I love the way 4e makes PCs resilient enough to take chances and gives them a really solid system for doing stunts and the tools to pull off lots of cool stuff. It does fast-paced dynamic combat really well, except for the fact that monsters are bricks and you spend a lot of time coming up with combo after combo without really decisive results. I can't help feeling all the time like from a pacing standpoint there's a mismatch there and that the game is kind of letting me down in that respect. 4e came CLOSE to delivering the perfect "action game" but there are just still a few little things standing in the way, and this is the main one.

So, I'm going to say that having one short duration that allows for decisive exploitation of a smaller number of more significant effects is not a problem at all for 5e. Designed properly around that concept I think it will be a stronger game and tactics will be more fun and revolve a LOT less around 'fiddly' power use.


----------



## KarinsDad

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yet the 4e condition list is really an example IMHO of a very tight and well-thought-out list.




Except that Helpless creatures can still flank, even with the errata.


----------



## Janaxstrus

The Little Raven said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Monsters and PCs using all the same rules sounds nice. But then I realize that while my players only have to deal with building and maintaining a single character using the complex character building system, I have to deal with dozens to hundreds, and if I'm going to spend that much time on a second job, I want it to be one I get paid cash money for.




My first session as a DM was roughly 25 years ago, so I am saying this from some experience...  

Not every monster needs to be special.

As such, at they have roughly 5 books of monsters already fully statted out for 3.5 alone,  I think they called them Monster Manuals.

The only time I feel the need to fully stat out a monster/NPC is when it is Special (named, Dragons, "boss")

Really guys, it's ok for a troll to just be a troll, a ghast to be a ghast and a ettercap to be an ettercap.  They don't all have to be plane touched, vampiric  and advanced.  You will have to take my word on that.


----------



## Scribble

Janaxstrus said:


> Really guys, it's ok for a troll to just be a troll, a ghast to be a ghast and a ettercap to be an ettercap.  They don't all have to be plane touched, vampiric  and advanced.  You will have to take my word on that.




It's not about making them "plane touched, vampiric, and advanced-" at least for me.

For me it's about supporting the unexpected. Throwing a troll at pcs the first time? Fun... OMG it's not dying!!!  Throwing them at the PCs the 3rd time? Get the fire swords out...

Making monsters quick to generate for me lets me throw together monsters that keep on scaring the players because they never know what to expect. THAT to me is the fun of D&D.


----------



## Janaxstrus

Scribble said:


> It's not about making them "plane touched, vampiric, and advanced-" at least for me.
> 
> For me it's about supporting the unexpected. Throwing a troll at pcs the first time? Fun... OMG it's not dying!!!  Throwing them at the PCs the 3rd time? Get the fire swords out...
> 
> Making monsters quick to generate for me lets me throw together monsters that keep on scaring the players because they never know what to expect. THAT to me is the fun of D&D.




Not everything has to be different.  I want a reason for their to be "special" trolls in the same area as regular trolls.  I like my cities to make sense and my ecologies to make sense, as much like a viable world (albeit one involving magic) as possible.

We've been running through one of the PF adventure paths, and are now 9th level in one campaign.  If we hit trolls, only the Wizard and the Spirit shaman would have fire to deal with them.  Not everyone has flaming swords, regardless of the level.  Even with fire, all it does is stop the regeneration.  They are nasty regardless.

In spite of that, they have the mountain troll, the war troll, etc etc.  These monsters exist already.


----------



## Scribble

Janaxstrus said:


> Not everything has to be different.  I want a reason for their to be "special" trolls in the same area as regular trolls.  I like my cities to make sense and my ecologies to make sense, as much like a viable world (albeit one involving magic) as possible.
> 
> We've been running through one of the PF adventure paths, and are now 9th level in one campaign.  If we hit trolls, only the Wizard and the Spirit shaman would have fire to deal with them.  Not everyone has flaming swords, regardless of the level.  Even with fire, all it does is stop the regeneration.  They are nasty regardless.
> 
> In spite of that, they have the mountain troll, the war troll, etc etc.  These monsters exist already.




For me it's about the little differences. It's not Mountain Troll vrs Regular Troll. It's about Regular Troll with a few small difefrences. it makes it feel like a living creature to me as opposed to just some numbers on a sheet, and as I mentioned before makes it harder to expect.

I'm not saying that people who pull stuff straight out of the MM are playing wrong or anything. (I do that too sometimes.) I just like to be able to quickly and easily manipulate/build monsters, and when they use their own rules they tend to work well for that purpose.


----------



## Janaxstrus

Scribble said:


> For me it's about the little differences. It's not Mountain Troll vrs Regular Troll. It's about Regular Troll with a few small difefrences. it makes it feel like a living creature to me as opposed to just some numbers on a sheet, and as I mentioned before makes it harder to expect.
> 
> I'm not saying that people who pull stuff straight out of the MM are playing wrong or anything. (I do that too sometimes.) I just like to be able to quickly and easily manipulate/build monsters, and when they use their own rules they tend to work well for that purpose.




But what would be so different about them as compared to regular trolls that would necessitate a lot of work?  How would they get these differences? 

Changing the stats?  Sure, some trolls may be stronger, weaker, more dextrous, etc.  Those changes take a few seconds.  More or less hps?  Ok, note that.

Are you adding special abilities others of their kind DON'T have?  If so..how did they get them?  Are humans spontaneously born with special abilities?  If not, why are trolls, or worgs, or hill giants? If humans do as well, are there dozens of NPCs running around town with Acid Resistance natively?  Why?

These are the things I think of, personally.  If trolls are evolving new powers, then eventually (if they are beneficial) all trolls should potentially have them, as it is adventageous.  Why are all of these creatures which exist as a species with specific abilities suddenly spontaneously evolving new powers?


----------



## Scribble

Janaxstrus said:


> But what would be so different about them as compared to regular trolls that would necessitate a lot of work?  How would they get these differences?
> 
> Changing the stats?  Sure, some trolls may be stronger, weaker, more dextrous, etc.  Those changes take a few seconds.  More or less hps?  Ok, note that.
> 
> Are you adding special abilities others of their kind DON'T have?  If so..how did they get them?  Are humans spontaneously born with special abilities?  If not, why are trolls, or worgs, or hill giants? If humans do as well, are there dozens of NPCs running around town with Acid Resistance natively?  Why?
> 
> These are the things I think of, personally.  If trolls are evolving new powers, then eventually (if they are beneficial) all trolls should potentially have them, as it is adventageous.  Why are all of these creatures which exist as a species with specific abilities suddenly spontaneously evolving new powers?




Same way PCs get them.

A PC is generally defined by Race + Class. These two things amount for the entirety of their abilities, and they vary based on what the player chooses.

(Realistically I walk down the street I'm going to see people with several different abilities and skills, not all humans function exactly the same way,)

Making monsters run by different rules allows me to quickly and easily give a monster new "class powers and features" without having to account for an existing class or make a new one, or go through the cumbersome process of adding existing class levels. I just "assume" this is what this monster with X class would be like if said class existed, and the numbers work out.

It's essentially short hand for doing exactly what monster + class level does. It gives me the end result without the work.


It's also easier to make what should be bizarre more bizarre.   Some monsters should be just that- monsters. They shouldn't follow evolutionary patterns or social normal. They should be weird, unexpected things hidden in deep dark unexplored places.

Making it quick and easy to adjust monsters allows me to get more use out of spooky weird monsters more quickly and easily. I can make a monster players might have encountered in other games and campaigns "new" again more easily.  This makes me happy.


You previously stated that you generally like using monsters straight out of the MM... More power to you... Why deny ME my ability to quickly and easily re-stat monsters because you don't want to make use of it?


----------



## Hussar

Janaxstrus said:


> My first session as a DM was roughly 25 years ago, so I am saying this from some experience...
> 
> Not every monster needs to be special.
> 
> As such, at they have roughly 5 books of monsters already fully statted out for 3.5 alone,  I think they called them Monster Manuals.
> 
> The only time I feel the need to fully stat out a monster/NPC is when it is Special (named, Dragons, "boss")
> 
> Really guys, it's ok for a troll to just be a troll, a ghast to be a ghast and a ettercap to be an ettercap.  They don't all have to be plane touched, vampiric  and advanced.  You will have to take my word on that.




But, if you're only changing the stats on 1% of the creatures, why in heck do you need three pages of rules to do it?  And, why not give me quick rules for changing monsters so that I don't have to buy 5 books of monsters?  Instead, I can do what I did in 4e - buy one monster book and go to town with incredibly quick and easy monster tweaking rules

Good grief, the last adventure I wrote, I don't think I used a single creature that was stock from the Monster Manual.  It was GLORIOUS.


----------



## Janaxstrus

Scribble said:


> Same way PCs get them.
> 
> A PC is generally defined by Race + Class. These two things amount for the entirety of their abilities, and they vary based on what the player chooses.
> 
> (Realistically I walk down the street I'm going to see people with several different abilities and skills, not all humans function exactly the same way,)
> 
> Making monsters run by different rules allows me to quickly and easily give a monster new "class powers and features" without having to account for an existing class or make a new one, or go through the cumbersome process of adding existing class levels. I just "assume" this is what this monster with X class would be like if said class existed, and the numbers work out.
> 
> It's essentially short hand for doing exactly what monster + class level does. It gives me the end result without the work.
> 
> 
> It's also easier to make what should be bizarre more bizarre.   Some monsters should be just that- monsters. They shouldn't follow evolutionary patterns or social normal. They should be weird, unexpected things hidden in deep dark unexplored places.
> 
> Making it quick and easy to adjust monsters allows me to get more use out of spooky weird monsters more quickly and easily. I can make a monster players might have encountered in other games and campaigns "new" again more easily.  This makes me happy.
> 
> 
> You previously stated that you generally like using monsters straight out of the MM... More power to you... Why deny ME my ability to quickly and easily re-stat monsters because you don't want to make use of it?




Yes, PCs are defined by race AND class.  So should monsters.
You can restat monsters just fine with 3e system.  You add a class or by DM fiat, add a power you want them to have.  I want the rules to be the same if you add a barbarian level to a troll or a human.

I disagree vehemently that monsters shouldn't follow evolutionary patterns.  It's a viable world that (while magical) should have an actual ecosystem.


----------



## Hassassin

Hussar said:


> And, why not give me quick rules for changing monsters so that I don't have to buy 5 books of monsters?




Let me think... No, can't figure out why they wouldn't do that.


----------



## mudbunny

Janaxstrus said:


> Yes, PCs are defined by race AND class.  So should monsters.
> You can restat monsters just fine with 3e system.  You add a class or by DM fiat, add a power you want them to have.  I want the rules to be the same if you add a barbarian level to a troll or a human.
> 
> I disagree vehemently that monsters shouldn't follow evolutionary patterns.  It's a viable world that (while magical) should have an actual ecosystem.




The main problem I have with that is that with the way that you build monsters in 3.5 is a sense of entitlement by many (not all, but many) players that if a monster does something, that they can do something as well. That is not to mention the idea that in order to make someone a master blacksmith, you need to make them a high-level NPC so that they can have the proper number of ranks.


----------



## Grazzt

mudbunny said:


> The main problem I have with that is that with the way that you build monsters in 3.5 is a sense of entitlement by many (not all, but many) players that if a monster does something, that they can do something as well. That is not to mention the idea that in order to make someone a master blacksmith, you need to make them a high-level NPC so that they can have the proper number of ranks.




Yep agree. The monster system of pre-3.x days worked fine for what like 20+ years? Seemed to work ok in 4e as well. Monsters/NPCs shouldnt have to follow the same rules as the PCs.


----------



## Scribble

Janaxstrus said:


> Yes, PCs are defined by race AND class.  So should monsters.
> You can restat monsters just fine with 3e system.  You add a class or by DM fiat, add a power you want them to have.  I want the rules to be the same if you add a barbarian level to a troll or a human.




It amounts to the same end result, just quicker. 



> I disagree vehemently that monsters shouldn't follow evolutionary patterns.  It's a viable world that (while magical) should have an actual ecosystem.




Some should, but not all of them. To me making them ALL follow a sort of ecosystem makes them less monsters and more animals.

Monsters of myth are monsters because they're extraordinary and outside the realm of the natural.


----------



## Janaxstrus

mudbunny said:


> The main problem I have with that is that with the way that you build monsters in 3.5 is a sense of entitlement by many (not all, but many) players that if a monster does something, that they can do something as well. That is not to mention the idea that in order to make someone a master blacksmith, you need to make them a high-level NPC so that they can have the proper number of ranks.




A level 5 expert (blacksmith) can make any kind of weapon needed.
+8 skill ranks
+1 Intelligence bonus
+3 Skill Focus
+2 masterwork tools
+2 from an assistant or apprentice helping them

+16 to his check  If he takes 10, that is a 26 check, vs 20 to make masterwork items.

The Alexandrian  Blog Archive  D&D: Calibrating Your Expectations


----------



## Hussar

Janaxstrus said:


> Yes, PCs are defined by race AND class.  So should monsters.
> You can restat monsters just fine with 3e system.  You add a class or by DM fiat, add a power you want them to have.  I want the rules to be the same if you add a barbarian level to a troll or a human.
> 
> I disagree vehemently that monsters shouldn't follow evolutionary patterns.  It's a viable world that (while magical) should have an actual ecosystem.




Umm, what????

Monsters need to follow evolutionary patterns?  Are you kidding me?

What evolutionary pattern grants things that live underground the ability to see in the dark?  What evolutionary pattern do all those "a wizard created me" critters follow?  And, never mind the fact that evolutionary science is busy sitting in the corner and weeping because we have a fantasy world where Gods are not only real, but active in the creation of things in the world.

Ecosystem=/=evolutionary science.  Good grief, D&D is about as far from science as you could possibly be.



Janaxstrus said:


> A level 5 expert (blacksmith) can make any kind of weapon needed.
> +8 skill ranks
> +1 Intelligence bonus
> +3 Skill Focus
> +2 masterwork tools
> +2 from an assistant or apprentice helping them
> 
> +16 to his check  If he takes 10, that is a 26 check, vs 20 to make masterwork items.
> 
> The Alexandrian  Blog Archive  D&D: Calibrating Your Expectations




Umm, a level 5 Expert IS a high level NPC.  You're looking at one of the highest level NPC's in any town smaller than a city.  Most don't even have that.  Take a look at the 3e demographics guidelines and you'll see that a 5th level NPC is likely the leader of most settlements.


----------



## Janaxstrus

Hussar said:


> Umm, a level 5 Expert IS a high level NPC.  You're looking at one of the highest level NPC's in any town smaller than a city.  Most don't even have that.  Take a look at the 3e demographics guidelines and you'll see that a 5th level NPC is likely the leader of most settlements.




OK, remove 4 skill points and keep skill focus.  Still has a 12 check (14 if a dwarf)
STILL enough to make masterwork at 1st level.

4 skill
1 int
3 skill focus
2 mw crafting tools
2 assistant
(possible +2 dwarven-ness)


----------



## Savage Wombat

And most small towns probably wouldn't have a "Master" blacksmith anyway.  They'd have a journeyman or something lower.  The Master smith would be better off going to a big city.  Exceptions to this rule have no reason they couldn't be 5th level.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

KarinsDad said:


> Except that Helpless creatures can still flank, even with the errata.




Meh, this is true, but it is kind of a nit. I think the thing with helpless is that it isn't really a condition you apply BY ITSELF. I know there are a couple of ways you can end up helpless without any other condition, but it is not really intended to be the only condition on you.


----------



## Hussar

Funny thing though, about the "master blacksmith".  Change that to a Sage and try the same thing.  For some reason, being extremely knowledgeable about the breeding patterns of vampiric wombats suddenly means that I'm capable of standing toe to toe with a 5th level fighter and winning.

This is my primary problem with TheAlexandrian's "examples" of how the 3e system works.  He has a tendency to pick and choose his examples and ignore all the other stuff that doesn't work.


----------



## KarinsDad

Incenjucar said:


> The movement inhibitors would shut down a lot of reactive movement abilities, and some feats and abilities trigger off of status effects: Net Snare, Iron Soul Flurry of Blows, etc.




In a one on one fight, Net Snare is mostly useless as written. It should be until end of your next turn. Even in a party, burning off a standard action to grab a foe is generally considered a waste of an action. Doing so and it auto-ends at the start of your next turn is just plain lame. This is a terrible power that could use a boost of until end of your next turn. Bad example.

Iron Soul Flurry of Blows? Another bad example. Foes cannot shift on your turn (shy of them or one of their allies using an interrupt to do so), so it doesn't matter if it ends at the start or end of your next turn. The odds of an enemy having such an ability and using it are probably one in a thousand.

Your examples here have no teeth to them and this is why I asked for examples. It's one thing to make the claim, it's another to back it up with examples that really illustrate the claim.



Incenjucar said:


> Aura and zone abilities could be more easily abused in conjunction with movement powers, and you could even have TWO of them up at the same time in the right circumstances: Ignition, Rotting Doom, Body Double, etc.




I can see where at first glance you might think this with Ignition. However, Ignition is not enemy only. It's any creature. So if you think about it, the extra damage from the Ignition zone is a two edged sword. NPCs can take it. PCs can take it. Because of this, it does force NPCs initially caught in it to leave it or take a very small amount of damage. But, does it really matter if the Sorcerer can slide some NPCs back into it for CON damage each on the following turn? Sorcerers have very few forced movement powers and most of them are one square, most of them are single target (Beguiling Burst is a once per encounter exception), and most of them are Dailies. Yes, a small synergy can be set up here, but compared to many other synergies in the game system, this is small potatoes.

Rotting Doom? Not seeing it. Foes very rarely heal in the first place. How many foes can heal themselves or possibly an ally on your turn with an immediate interrupt? This is another bad example.

I'll concede Body Double with a caveat. Think about it for a second. A first level PC can be in two places at once and can do so At Will. In earlier editions of the game, that would have been something like a 5th level or higher spell. So yes, they had to put limitations into Body Double, otherwise, it would have really been an overpowered power. But, two places at once? At first level? And At Will? Come on WotC. Just because someone can think of an idea doesn't make it a good one. As an At Will power (which it should have never been), end of next turn is too potent for Body Double. If Body Double was an Encounter power instead of an At Will, then end of next turn would be totally fine for it since the main extra gain is the bonus combat advantage for flank the following round.

So, I'll concede it for this power, but I personally think that this power is way too uber for level one as an At Will and should have never seen the light of day in the game. One poorly conceived power does not really illustrate your point. When one compares the ability to defend a 15 square area compared to the 9 square area of other defenders as a first level At Will plus it increases the number of potential flank squares on the board from 8 to 17 for the Defender, this power is just plain wrong compared to virtually every other defender first level At Will power in the game. So yes, it's already too potent (utility-wise) as a first level At Will and making it more potent with end of turn would be a mistake.



Incenjucar said:


> Special combos can crop up where you can use one ability to magnify another: Karmic Bond+Unconscious Assault, Paint the Bulls-Eye+Direct the Strike, etc.




Karmic Bond + Unconscious Assault? Are you serious? Ok, this is a little complex here, but the gain here is almost non-existent.

Let's compare current version vs. modified version:

Current:

Round one: Ardent hits foe with Karmic Bond. Foe hits someone else. A PC ally hits and the foe takes CON damage.

Round two: If all PC allies missed, then the Ardent can do the extra CON damage with any attack. The power already lasts until the end of the next turn, it's just the enemy attack that must occur before the start of the next turn.

Modified:

Round one: Ardent hits foe with Karmic Bond. Foe hits someone else. A PC ally hits and the foe takes CON damage.

Round two: If all PC allies missed, then the Ardent can do the extra CON damage.

or the only time it would matter:

Round one: Ardent hits foe with Karmic Bond. Foe *misses* someone else.

Round two: Ardent can do Unconscious Assault and the foe can attack and possibly hit a different foe.

Here's the problem. The Ardent used up his Standard Action already in the second round when the foe missed on its turn. The Ardent doesn't have a standard action left over to attack that foe again, hence, this gains ZERO. Yes, he could use an Action Point, so he could possibly do extra CON damage once every other encounter with this trick. At 27th level, there's a lot better tricks than this. Even the augment 2 version of Karmic Bond doesn't do much here. This is white noise and a terrible example for your POV.


Paint the Bulls-Eye + Direct the Strike. This is potentially a legitimate example, but again, think about it. As written, Paint the Bulls-Eye in a 5 PC team allows upwards of 4 * Int or Wis extra damage already. This would up it to 5 * Int or Wis extra damage if changed to end of next turn combined with Direct the Strike. So yes, it would allow for upwards of 2 to 4 extra points of damage every other round at low level. But, it is already allowing upwards of 8 to 16 extra points of damage every other round in a 5 PC team. Is a potential 2 to 4 more every other round really that potent? Not really. Nice? Definitely. Broken? Not even close. At first level, this would drop a 6 round encounter to a 5.7 round encounter (1 to 2 extra points per damage per round * 75% chance to hit vs. 5 30 hit points foes at first level). Measurable, but not overly potent considering that Paint the Bulls-Eye used with or without Direct the Strike is already a striker level power/combo that can easily drop an encounter by 1.5 rounds over the vast majority of other non-striker At Will powers in the game system.

This is a solid extra synergy, but it's not game breaking.



Incenjucar said:


> Abilities that start creating a stacking loop that amplifies the effect: Memory Hole/Eyebite, Playful Torment, Brash Strike, etc.




Course, Memory Hole already has an augment 1 that does this, so meh.

I've always consider powers like Playful Torment to be a waste of space. Oh boy! You allow me to get a bonus to hit AFTER I already hit. Sorry, but these powers do not need to be in the game system. Except for once in a blue moon Action Points combined with a Daily and a once in a blue moon Opportunity Attack, gaining +2 to hit after the attack has already occurred is useless. Changing this to end of turn would actually make it worth taking. This is wasting your At Will power, just for a rare opportunity to set up a Daily once ever other encounter.

Brash Strike is another terrible example for you. Giving your foe Combat Advantage until start or end of your next turn is only going to matter if the foe can OA or Interrupt the fighter's attack on his turn. That would be super rare.



Incenjucar said:


> And please note, that's JUST At-Will powers. The combos you can do with Encounter and Daily powers can get nuts.




Yeah, I'm not going to debate this with you more. Your At Will examples were not that convincing and several of them are just plain awful for illustrating your POV.

Yes, there are some small synergies that can occur, but that doesn't mean that taking 4E powers over to 5E means that they have to be written exactly as is in 5E.

If there are a few powers here and there that could gain a really significant synergy, the designers can re-write those powers.

The point is, nothing you've written here shouts STOP THE PRESSES. A duration of until the start of your next turn is needed. Your examples merely show that at best, a few powers might need to be slightly re-written or tweaked and at worse (like with Playful Torment), the power actually becomes worthwhile more than once every other encounter if it is changed to end of turn.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Janaxstrus said:


> Yes, PCs are defined by race AND class.  So should monsters.
> You can restat monsters just fine with 3e system.  You add a class or by DM fiat, add a power you want them to have.  I want the rules to be the same if you add a barbarian level to a troll or a human.
> 
> I disagree vehemently that monsters shouldn't follow evolutionary patterns.  It's a viable world that (while magical) should have an actual ecosystem.




Except it is MUCH MUCH more work to run a monster through the whole class system than it is to just give it the powers etc that you want to give it to create the type of experience you want. What is the up side?

If YOU want your monsters to have 'class levels' then simply do that. In fact the 4e DMG has a whole several page section on how to do that. DMG2 provides templates for post-DMG1 classes too. 

You can be as logical about it as you feel like being. PERSONALLY I don't think 'class' is something that exists within the game world. Class is a meta-game construct intended to provide the players with mechanics that define what the capabilities and limitations of their character archetype are. They have no such purpose WRT non-PCs. If an NPC/monster should be 'similar to' a druid, for example, then the druid template is there and you can add some 'druid' powers (maybe or maybe not identical to the ones PCs use). You can describe this NPC in whatever way fits in with your setting. Maybe it worships the same god/spirits/whatever as one of the PCs, etc, but that's not something the rules need to dictate.

As for individual monsters being different, again, it isn't a matter of 'evolution', it is a matter of every monster is an individual with its own life history and thus its own potentially unique talents and attributes. Maybe some trolls got exposed to energy from the Elemental Chaos and one of them gained a unique power or attribute. You can of course create a backstory for that and in some cases that will be quite interesting, but it isn't always necessary to go to those lengths.

I'd also note that the boons system in 4e can allow for similar divergences for PCs based on specifics of that PC's experiences and nature. Not everything is dictated by class progression, nor should it be really.


----------



## KarinsDad

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Meh, this is true, but it is kind of a nit. I think the thing with helpless is that it isn't really a condition you apply BY ITSELF. I know there are a couple of ways you can end up helpless without any other condition, but it is not really intended to be the only condition on you.




Dude. Joke. See smiley face. 

You always take jokes so seriously.


----------



## Janaxstrus

Hussar said:


> Funny thing though, about the "master blacksmith".  Change that to a Sage and try the same thing.  For some reason, being extremely knowledgeable about the breeding patterns of vampiric wombats suddenly means that I'm capable of standing toe to toe with a 5th level fighter and winning.
> 
> This is my primary problem with TheAlexandrian's "examples" of how the 3e system works.  He has a tendency to pick and choose his examples and ignore all the other stuff that doesn't work.




So...you agree a 1st level blacksmith can create the stuff a small town would need as well as exceptional weapons and that "high level" isn't required?

Ok then.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Janaxstrus said:


> A level 5 expert (blacksmith) can make any kind of weapon needed.
> +8 skill ranks
> +1 Intelligence bonus
> +3 Skill Focus
> +2 masterwork tools
> +2 from an assistant or apprentice helping them
> 
> +16 to his check  If he takes 10, that is a 26 check, vs 20 to make masterwork items.
> 
> The Alexandrian  Blog Archive  D&D: Calibrating Your Expectations




Right, so now all I have to do is screw around with calculating all the different feats and blah blah blah as if the monster was a PC. No thank you! In 4e I can simply say "this monster is a blacksmith" and MAYBE I give them some attribute scores that would go along with doing 'blacksmith things' (say a good STR and CON perhaps). I can then simply state what they can and can't do and under what conditions. This will all be based on the needs I have within the story, not dictated by some rules framework that is intended to set the limits on what PCs can do and make them accept various trade-offs. 

Remember too, PCs are adventurers. The character gen system is designed to produce adventurers, not blacksmiths and shopkeepers. Given that I'm not interested in complex rules for those sorts of characters it is much more economical and sensible for the system to just let me set up these NPCs so they work for my purposes. I have no need for rules telling me how they level up etc.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Funny thing though, about the "master blacksmith".  Change that to a Sage and try the same thing.  For some reason, being extremely knowledgeable about the breeding patterns of vampiric wombats suddenly means that I'm capable of standing toe to toe with a 5th level fighter and winning.
> 
> This is my primary problem with TheAlexandrian's "examples" of how the 3e system works.  He has a tendency to pick and choose his examples and ignore all the other stuff that doesn't work.




How do you figure that? Examples, please.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

KarinsDad said:


> Dude. Joke. See smiley face.
> 
> You always take jokes so seriously.




lol, maybe. More often I just forget to add my own smiley or something. Helpless IS weird though. I'm not sure why they didn't just attach something like 'stunned' to it, but I guess they figured it might be more useful as-is. 

Anyway, I agree with your analysis of durations, pretty much. I do think it is easier to handle the ones that end on the affected target's turn though. It is kind of one of those things where neither option is really perfect.


----------



## tlantl

Scribble said:


> It's not about making them "plane touched, vampiric, and advanced-" at least for me.
> 
> For me it's about supporting the unexpected. Throwing a troll at pcs the first time? Fun... OMG it's not dying!!!  Throwing them at the PCs the 3rd time? Get the fire swords out...
> 
> Making monsters quick to generate for me lets me throw together monsters that keep on scaring the players because they never know what to expect. THAT to me is the fun of D&D.




Sounds good but there's also the fact that there are hundreds of monsters in those books. I never have to use another troll again for years, especially since were likely to see maybe ten different monsters a session and most of us only see one session a week. I can't see that there's a need to beef up a monster if you can use a different one for your next dungeon.

Most of the people I play with like to have the monsters become familiar, therefore easier to beat the next time they run into one. 

I like to build the dungeons and set up adventures. I draw my own maps and write my own campaign rules. I find building 3e monsters tends to be a problem. I spend so much time building them that I have to skimp on other stuff to get things ready on time. 

But the biggest issue have is that I get attached to some of the intricate enemies I put so much time into building. I _don't_ play 4e so I have no clue about that game's system for monster preparation. 

I never thought of character creation as building until 3e came our way.


----------



## KarinsDad

Scribble said:


> It's not about making them "plane touched, vampiric, and advanced-" at least for me.
> 
> For me it's about supporting the unexpected. Throwing a troll at pcs the first time? Fun... OMG it's not dying!!!  Throwing them at the PCs the 3rd time? Get the fire swords out...
> 
> Making monsters quick to generate for me lets me throw together monsters that keep on scaring the players because they never know what to expect. THAT to me is the fun of D&D.




I have to admit that I can understand your desire, but I think that what you want is mostly supported already, regardless of monster generation system. There are 4857 different monsters in the 4E Compendium which means that with approximately 35 main monster levels (plus a handful higher) and about 4 levels of monsters are worth throwing at the PCs at any given level, there are about 555 different monsters that I can throw at PCs in any given encounter.

I'm sorry, but for non-special monsters, I don't need to generate a single troll that fire doesn't work as well against. I have 555 different monsters I can throw at PCs at each level of which 530 they will never see (and the number is typically 700 to 1000 for levels 1 to 15, and dropping off to 400 to 500 at higher levels because not as much material is available for high Paragon and Epic). I don't need to quickly generate a special troll and if I do, I just take a pencil, cross out what I don't like, and add in what I do.

For special monsters, I agree with you. But for me, a special monster is a re-occurring villain. One that will show up over and over again. If I'm taking out the time to generate a special monster, I don't want it dead in 30 minutes. And yes, I want it to be somewhat quick, easy, and painless to create. But, this is relative. It can take a bit of time because it's something that I want to fine tune anyway. I want to take my time and design it, I don't just want to slap it together.

But for non-special monsters, I really don't care. As long as I can grab some powers in the vein of what I want, have a template for level for attacks, defenses, and hit points, I'm good. The monster doesn't have to be really well designed because it's going to be dead 15 to 30 minutes after I introduce it.

But, I typically do not create monsters. As long as I have a good search tool to search for a monster similar to what I want, it's all good. In 3E, a lot of monsters are not online, so I would have more of a desire to create my own. It really takes too long to search through monster manuals for monsters.


This is why PC rules and monsters rules should be similar for attacks, defenses, hit points (although monsters can have more), ability scores, etc., but their generation rules can be totally different due to their utility and duration in the game system. Monster creation has to be fast and easy because monsters die so quickly. But, the fastest monster creation is just grabbing something someone else already created.


----------



## GreyICE

Well I'm guessing a lot of that junk is going to be scrapped.  Having 6 different NADs, all used for defenses against Save or Die attacks seems like exactly the sort of thing a playtest reveals is a bad idea.  Would not be surprised to see the 4E mechanic return.

If they're truly avoiding using exact language in order to use 'plain language' then they're going to run into huge problems rather quickly.  Minor action stacking is already an issue, that version of minor actions strikes me as sounding exactly like free actions.  And I assure you, if free action attacks/effects can be stacked, free action attacks/effects WILL be stacked.  Getting 3 or 4 free actions a turn to do effects like healing, attacking, buffing, etc. would be NUTS.  

Standard/move/minor was awesome.  

TLDR of the entire thing is that Monte Cook has plowed ahead with throwing out everything 4E did for the game, and instead of DND next, this will be DND retro edition.

Looks like it's time for 4E fans to get our heads together and hack 4E into shape.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Hussar said:


> Funny thing though, about the "master blacksmith".  Change that to a Sage and try the same thing.  For some reason, being extremely knowledgeable about the breeding patterns of vampiric wombats suddenly means that I'm capable of standing toe to toe with a 5th level fighter and winning.
> 
> This is my primary problem with TheAlexandrian's "examples" of how the 3e system works.  He has a tendency to pick and choose his examples and ignore all the other stuff that doesn't work.



As shown, the sage most probably has no dexterity, no strength and no constitution, most probably because of his age, which leaves him with +0 to hit, 1hp per level and AC of less then ten.

(As shown in the example with einstein)

I didn´t know about the alexandrian, but he came to the same conclusions as I, when I began thinking about skillpoints, and if 2 skillpoints per level for fighters are enough.

My experts are usually level 2. Which even allows for 5 ranks in a related skill, to gain a synergy bonus.
It is very easy to get up to a bonus of +10 or more. Which equals to a skill check result above 30 when taking 20. Which means that with enough time, you can do anyting. And you can reliably do hard tasks. (take 10)

3.5 skills were brilliant. The only problem was that somehow they were presented, as if increasing a skill by 1 per level was default. It was not.

Cross class skill ranks rather fitted the expectations. 2+1/2 per level. If you remember that, every class has more than enough points to distribute.

Maybe a simple rule: you may only max 1-2 skills, would have made the system more usable.


----------



## Scribble

KarinsDad said:


> This is why PC rules and monsters rules should be similar for attacks, defenses, hit points (although monsters can have more), ability scores, etc., but their generation rules can be totally different due to their utility and duration in the game system. Monster creation has to be fast and easy because monsters die so quickly. But, the fastest monster creation is just grabbing something someone else already created.




All I'm talking about is the generation rules, not the basic rules like attack and defense damage and stuff.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Hussar said:
			
		

> Funny thing though, about the "master blacksmith". Change that to a Sage and try the same thing. For some reason, being extremely knowledgeable about the breeding patterns of vampiric wombats suddenly means that I'm capable of standing toe to toe with a 5th level fighter and winning.




I've always been fond of the idea that, in a dangerous, monster-filled, magic-rich world, being any kind of expert means that you MUST confront those monsters and that magic. You can't become a sage about the breeding patterns of vampiric wombats without coming up against some vampires, and some dire wombats, and some wizard's wombat familiars, and some other vampiric marsupials, and the goblins that move into vampiric wombat dens, and the necromancer who raises various vampiric marsupials, and all that.

So by the time you're up against a 5th-level fighter, it's not like you have lived your entire life in a tower studying books. You're still an NPC class, and you still probably don't have great ability scores, so you've spent more time than average in a tower studying books, but you HAVE come up against vampiric dire wombats in your studies, and most of THEM can probably eat a 5th-level fighter. 

The world you live in doesn't allow you to be a cloistered sage who doesn't interact with the world yet still somehow gains great expertise in a field. Those treatises on vampiric wombat mating rituals written by the greatest zoologists of old are buried in musty old tombs and forgotten cities crawling with traps, treasure, and monsters. Even if you're a sage, you live in a world of adventure. You may not become an adventurer per se, but your daily work involves some degree of adventure whether or not you become an expert in it. 

This is why, when the necromancer releases his army of dire vampiric wombats ridden by the wombat-people of the Lost Continent, you are a useful person to consult. This is why, when faced with a military expert who has slain a few giants, you can still hold your own (you've likely slain a few giants yourself). 

I mean, I don't think Steve Irwin was too scared of getting into a bar fight. Dude wrestled alligators _for science_. That's the model of a D&D sage. In order to become an expert, you need to go on adventures.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I've always been fond of the idea that, in a dangerous, monster-filled, magic-rich world, being any kind of expert means that you MUST confront those monsters and that magic. You can't become a sage about the breeding patterns of vampiric wombats without coming up against some vampires, and some dire wombats, and some wizard's wombat familiars, and some other vampiric marsupials, and the goblins that move into vampiric wombat dens, and the necromancer who raises various vampiric marsupials, and all that.
> 
> So by the time you're up against a 5th-level fighter, it's not like you have lived your entire life in a tower studying books. You're still an NPC class, and you still probably don't have great ability scores, so you've spent more time than average in a tower studying books, but you HAVE come up against vampiric dire wombats in your studies, and most of THEM can probably eat a 5th-level fighter.
> 
> The world you live in doesn't allow you to be a cloistered sage who doesn't interact with the world yet still somehow gains great expertise in a field. Those treatises on vampiric wombat mating rituals written by the greatest zoologists of old are buried in musty old tombs and forgotten cities crawling with traps, treasure, and monsters. Even if you're a sage, you live in a world of adventure. You may not become an adventurer per se, but your daily work involves some degree of adventure whether or not you become an expert in it.
> 
> This is why, when the necromancer releases his army of dire vampiric wombats ridden by the wombat-people of the Lost Continent, you are a useful person to consult. This is why, when faced with a military expert who has slain a few giants, you can still hold your own (you've likely slain a few giants yourself).
> 
> I mean, I don't think Steve Irwin was too scared of getting into a bar fight. Dude wrestled alligators _for science_. That's the model of a D&D sage. In order to become an expert, you need to go on adventures.




It is the model of a sage IN YOUR WORLD. I can present an equally good counter argument and examples of 'sages' and other NPCs that are poorly served by your model. 

Here's the thing. If the system for generating NPCs/monsters is free-form like the 4e system NOTHING stops you from simply creating PCs and using them as NPCs. Very little to nothing stops you from creating such things where they break the rules in some ways (IE a dragon wizard can certain have dragon hit points and a breath weapon and also be a wizard, 4e will support that fine). 

When it comes to non-'adventuring' NPCs what you find is that the level system, which is pretty good for PCs, doesn't work well for NPCs. Levels are intimately tied in to combat power. The class system and its leveling system are designed to give the character increasing combat effectiveness. Most NPCs simply will never have that. It isn't appropriate to them. If you have to resort to tricks like giving the sage an 8 CON and STR so that his 10 levels in sage DON'T jack his combat effectiveness up (and even then they will have an effect) then WHY BOTHER? You're already clearly pounding a square peg into a round hole. 

In 4e if I want a bookish guy who spent his life in a library studying ancient history and talking to adventurers and writing about it, I can. He can be a minion or a low level 'monster' or not even have combat stats at all. I don't need to use some meta-game concept, class and level, to 'explain' how he has a high knowledge bonus in say Dungeoneering. I COULD, but what's the point if I have to then ignore most of the other class/level rules to get what I want? It makes no sense.

Flat out, the 4e (and BTW all other editions way except 3.x) is just superior. It is more flexible, doesn't preclude doing things in a fancier way, and is quick and easy to understand (really what's to understand basically). If WotC wants to make some "monsters by complex math' book for the people who insist on that stuff, they can of course be my guest. I want simple NPCs/Monsters, simple skill system, and mostly free-form stuff on the DM side, not lots of rules that I will just ignore.


----------



## Hassassin

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Here's the thing. If the system for generating NPCs/monsters is free-form like the 4e system NOTHING stops you from simply creating PCs and using them as NPCs.




And vice versa. Nothing stops me from creating 3e monsters free-form.


----------



## I'm A Banana

AbdulAlhazred said:
			
		

> It is the model of a sage IN YOUR WORLD.




I thought that was pretty clear with the whole "I am fond of" preamble. 

I don't really think that should be an element in every world or in every game, it's just a reason why it doesn't have to be nonsense to have a high-level sage be able to beat up a 5th-level fighter. It's not inherently problematic in and of itself. It certainly doesn't fit certain styles (take away the "world is full of adventure" setup, and you get the problems Hussar was talking about).

I'll also point out, though, that in 3e, you didn't need a stratospheric skill check to be an "expert" in something. 99% of the population has a Knowledge (vampiric wombat mating habits) bonus of exactly +0, being first level commoners with all 10's. This being 3e, even a slightly higher-level commoner, warrior, or expert, might not have ANY bonus in it. If you take 2 skill points and stick it there, you're suddenly the best sage on vampiric wombat mating habits....possibly in the world. Probably in the city. At 1st level.

High level isn't always required for a high level of expertise. And even when it IS, the stuff that comes with a high level can make sense.

And even if neither of those two scenarios work for you, 3e has the justly famous Rule Zero, which says "ad hoc a bonus of whatever, assume a roll of whatever, just do what you want, DM!"

3.5 has a lot of problems, but the idea that 3.5 forced this weird situation of weak sages who could beat up trained fighters on DMs across the game is not really a fair criticism. Though the fact that some 3.5 DMs _think_ this was the case is quite a fair criticism, because it clearly didn't show very clearly that there are at least three reasons why that doesn't happen.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

the average lvl 5 sage will just die against a lvl 1 fighter.


----------



## Klaus

Janaxstrus said:


> A level 5 expert (blacksmith) can make any kind of weapon needed.
> +8 skill ranks
> +1 Intelligence bonus
> +3 Skill Focus
> +2 masterwork tools
> +2 from an assistant or apprentice helping them
> 
> +16 to his check  If he takes 10, that is a 26 check, vs 20 to make masterwork items.
> 
> The Alexandrian  Blog Archive  D&D: Calibrating Your Expectations



Can I play, too?

Blacksmith - Level 1 Minion Brute
AC 13, F 13, R 11, W 12
hp 1, Initiative +2
Attack: Hammer +5 vs. AC, dmg 1d8+2
Athletics +7, Endurance +8
S 15 Co 16 D 12 I 10 W 14 Ch 8
Special: The blacksmith can create any common metal item in one day. Weapons take 2d4 days, depending on complexity. The blacksmith can't make full pieces of armor. If the PCs befriend the blacksmith, he may sell them metal items with a 10% discount.


----------



## Janaxstrus

Klaus said:


> Can I play, too?
> 
> Blacksmith - Level 1 Minion Brute
> AC 13, F 13, R 11, W 12
> hp 1, Initiative +2
> Attack: Hammer +5 vs. AC, dmg 1d8+2
> Athletics +7, Endurance +8
> S 15 Co 16 D 12 I 10 W 14 Ch 8
> Special: The blacksmith can create any common metal item in one day. Weapons take 2d4 days, depending on complexity. The blacksmith can't make full pieces of armor. If the PCs befriend the blacksmith, he may sell them metal items with a 10% discount.




And how does this prove or disprove that in 3.5 it was "impossible" to make items unless you were a "high level npc"?

But thank you for highlighting things I dislike about 4e.  Who is the blacksmith a minion of?  Why is he a brute?  Why can't he make armor? 

Pretty impressive stat array too for a "normal" non-adventuring human.  Why does he have only 1 hp but a 16 con?  This is why NPCs following the same rules make sense.  A 3.5 level 1 expert would have at least 6hps, which means he could at least not get one shot by a house cat.


----------



## Mattachine

In 4e, a house cat isn't a monster with attacks and damage.

It's a housecat.


----------



## dkyle

Janaxstrus said:


> But thank you for highlighting things I dislike about 4e.  Who is the blacksmith a minion of?  Why is he a brute?  Why can't he make armor?
> 
> Pretty impressive stat array too for a "normal" non-adventuring human.  Why does he have only 1 hp but a 16 con?  This is why NPCs following the same rules make sense.  A 3.5 level 1 expert would have at least 6hps, which means he could at least not get one shot by a house cat.




He's not a "minion" of anyone.  It's just a mechanics term.  No stranger than calling Human NPCs "monsters" or "creatures", which is quite common.

He's a Brute because it categorizes how he's likely to fight in combat.  Standardized terminology to make things clear to the DM.

He can't make armor because why should he be able to?  Is every blacksmith supposed to be capable of making all items?

As for the 1HP, it's a mechanics representation thing.  He has 1 HP, because a level 1 (or so) adventurer will fell him in one hit.  That is the context where the combat mechanics are meaningful.  They are not designed to model combats between wildly mismatched opponents.  Those stats are not meaningful against a house cat, because that's just silly.  Obviously, any able-bodied adult would not be seriously threatened in direct combat with a house-cat, to the degree that 3.5's house-cat mechanics suggest.  Which illustrates why shoehorning everything into the same system isn't always a good idea.


----------



## KarinsDad

dkyle said:


> He's not a "minion" of anyone.  It's just a mechanics term.  No stranger than calling Human NPCs "monsters" or "creatures", which is quite common.
> 
> He's a Brute because it categorizes how he's likely to fight in combat.  Standardized terminology to make things clear to the DM.
> 
> He can't make armor because why should he be able to?  Is every blacksmith supposed to be capable of making all items?
> 
> As for the 1HP, it's a mechanics representation thing.  He has 1 HP, because a level 1 (or so) adventurer will fell him in one hit.  That is the context where the combat mechanics are meaningful.  They are not designed to model combats between wildly mismatched opponents.  Those stats are not meaningful against a house cat, because that's just silly.  Obviously, any able-bodied adult would not be seriously threatened in direct combat with a house-cat, to the degree that 3.5's house-cat mechanics suggest.  Which illustrates why shoehorning everything into the same system isn't always a good idea.




I can buy the rest of it, but minions are overused in 4E. A blacksmith should never be a minion. He's one of the "elite guard" in the town militia of a small village (because he's the toughest guy in the village) which means that he should be able to fight and not easily be killed by the first local kid throwing a stone. He might not be as good as a first level Fighter in melee, but he should be more resilient than the first level Wizard.

Minions should be revamped in 5E without the 1 hit point mechanic. It's a terrible mechanic because it has these types of gaping holes with it.

In 4E, I'd prefer minions that have 8 hit points at level one and gain 1 hit point per level. They can be one shot-ted, but sometimes are not, especially by the non-strikers. Still wimpy, but not an entirely different hit point game mechanic that's mostly there for cinematic games which not everyone wants their wimpy NPCs to emulate. Wimpy, not cardboard.


----------



## Incenjucar

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Lets just grant that everything you say here is 100% entirely accurate, which I don't really dispute, so what?!?!




The different durations create more refined bits of balance, allowing you to have certain effects available that would be too powerful otherwise. Removing them makes designers choose between balance and fun, where in 4E they can more easily have both.



> Regardless of what sort of system is created you then design a set of powers which works with the tools at hand and produces a game which does what you want it to do. I don't see a problem.




It's the difference between grayscale and full color. Sure, you can do a LOT with grayscale, and you can make some absolutely beautiful stuff with it, and it's a perfectly valid and functional palette, but it's no help if I want to make a rainbow.



> Given that 5e will ALMOST CERTAINLY have, and certainly SHOULD have, a goal of providing a tactically interesting but faster-paced and less granular game who cares?




Pretty sure that tactically interesting combat is going to be a module, and not the main game.



> OK, so there are some awesome combos. The developers will know that. The game will be designed around that knowledge. The challenge level and capability of monsters will be built with that in mind. As long as the designers of the game factor in how good combos are and provide the monsters with the ability to either withstand them adequately or be present in the numbers and types required to maintain a good threat level to the party it is irrelevant.




Unless they start out at a very high power level (they seem to be leaning toward the OPPOSITE), higher than 4E's power level, they'll just have to not do things they otherwise could have done under 4E.



> I'd much rather see a system where a good use of your resources in a clever way is rewarded by a good solid visible result than not. All too often in 4e the problem is that you do something 'awesome' and it has very little immediate impact at the table. Some monster takes a bunch of damage, but nothing DIES.




Monsters are expected to last multiple rounds in 4E. If you don't like it, reduce their HP and increase their damage. That has nothing to do with combos. The issue of combos is that it makes certain choices worse than other choices, in ways that cannot be easily anticipated.



> So, I'm going to say that having one short duration that allows for decisive exploitation of a smaller number of more significant effects is not a problem at all for 5e. Designed properly around that concept I think it will be a stronger game and tactics will be more fun and revolve a LOT less around 'fiddly' power use.




So, you're all for the return of trap options? Most of the powers I talked about were at-wills. Most at-wills do not have combos. This runs the risk of making those non-combo powers into trap options.


----------



## Janaxstrus

dkyle said:


> He's not a "minion" of anyone.  It's just a mechanics term.  No stranger than calling Human NPCs "monsters" or "creatures", which is quite common.
> 
> He's a Brute because it categorizes how he's likely to fight in combat.  Standardized terminology to make things clear to the DM.
> 
> He can't make armor because why should he be able to?  Is every blacksmith supposed to be capable of making all items?
> 
> As for the 1HP, it's a mechanics representation thing.  He has 1 HP, because a level 1 (or so) adventurer will fell him in one hit.  That is the context where the combat mechanics are meaningful.  They are not designed to model combats between wildly mismatched opponents.  Those stats are not meaningful against a house cat, because that's just silly.  Obviously, any able-bodied adult would not be seriously threatened in direct combat with a house-cat, to the degree that 3.5's house-cat mechanics suggest.  Which illustrates why shoehorning everything into the same system isn't always a good idea.




But a minion is a devoted follower of something...

Those are basically gamist terms, much like "controller", which are things that need to be axed from the game post haste.  I don't want "brute" telling me how they fight, I want some fluff telling me about them and how they fight.

(FYI, the house cat thing was mostly in jest, as they have to crit on a bite to even do damage...so in theory, unless a housecat crits a normal human 3 or 4 times, they won't go down in 3rd)


----------



## Hassassin

KarinsDad said:


> Minions should be revamped in 5E without the 1 hit point mechanic. It's a terrible mechanic because it has these types of gaping holes with it.
> 
> In 4E, I'd prefer minions that have 8 hit points at level one and gain 1 hit point per level. They can be one shot-ted, but sometimes are not, especially by the non-strikers. Still wimpy, but not an entirely different hit point game mechanic that's mostly there for cinematic games which not everyone wants their wimpy NPCs to emulate. Wimpy, not cardboard.




In 5e I'm hoping anyone at least X levels below you will just be a "minion" automatically, without needing an explicit template for it.


----------



## Dausuul

Janaxstrus said:


> A 3.5 level 1 expert would have at least 6hps, which means he could at least not get one shot by a house cat.




Wow, that's the first time I've seen anyone try to deploy the house cat argument _in favor_ of 3.5E.

In 4E, a house cat is a house cat. Unless it's a familiar or something, it doesn't have a statblock. It's not in the Monster Manual. _Because it's a friggin' house cat!_ If it attacks you, you don't take damage, you just get scratched up a bit.

In 3.5E, a house cat is a menace to life and limb. Put it up against an average human peasant with a club (level 1 commoner, 4 hp, AC 10, +0 attack bonus) and it's got a substantial chance of killing that peasant in thirty seconds or less. Two cats and the peasant is lucky to emerge alive. Three and she's doomed.

There's a lot to be said about how silly and metagamey 4E can be, but house cats aren't in it. Both 3E and 4E suffer from the occasional failure to recognize that _anything_ which deals damage is potentially fatal; ergo, you shouldn't have something deal damage if you don't want it killing people. The Feline Deathbot 3000 is no more nor less silly than the 4E bard who makes fun of you and you die.


----------



## Klaus

Janaxstrus said:


> And how does this prove or disprove that in 3.5 it was "impossible" to make items unless you were a "high level npc"?
> 
> But thank you for highlighting things I dislike about 4e.  Who is the blacksmith a minion of?  Why is he a brute?  Why can't he make armor?
> 
> Pretty impressive stat array too for a "normal" non-adventuring human.  Why does he have only 1 hp but a 16 con?  This is why NPCs following the same rules make sense.  A 3.5 level 1 expert would have at least 6hps, which means he could at least not get one shot by a house cat.



He's a Minion Brute because, if a fight breaks out, he'll dish out a decent ammount of damage, but the first solid hit will take him out. He's not the hero of this story. If I want him to be (as someone else mentioned) the toughest guy in the village and a leader of the town watch, I'd stat him differently. But these stats are perfectly serviceable for an adventure's extras.

Why can't he make armor? Because I don't want him to. I don't need to get enough levels to justify enough ranks to reliably hit a high enough DC to have a NPC blacksmith make a suit of armor. If I (the DM) want him to make armor, I'll have him make armor. If I want him to understand the Riddle of Steel and craft weapons with such precision and focus that they are downright magical, I'll just say "he can make magic metal weapons up to level X". No need to make him an Expert, multiclass into Adept, take enough levels to have Craft Magic Arms & Armor, etc. I just write in "he can do this and that".

And still be a Level 1 human who needs the PCs' help to deal with the goblin bandit, instead of being an 8th-level human who could take out half-dozen goblins.


----------



## Quickleaf

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> In 4E, I'd prefer minions that have 8 hit points at level one and gain 1 hit point per level. They can be one shot-ted, but sometimes are not, especially by the non-strikers. Still wimpy, but not an entirely different hit point game mechanic that's mostly there for cinematic games which not everyone wants their wimpy NPCs to emulate. Wimpy, not cardboard.



Funny you should mention that. This is what I ended up doing for minion in 4e; well actually I gave minions HP equal to their average damage, which is 4 + 1 / 2 levels. The advantage of using this particular value has been that I almost never track minion hit points because they either go down on the first or second hit. Since I use tokens to represent minions, it's a simple matter of flipping the token to the bloodied side. That's all the tracking I usually do for minions.

Then you've got all the advantages of the monsters keying into the HP system, so there can be situations where a minion monster is dropped on a missed attack, or a fireball doesn't necessarily wipe off all the minions monsters from the field, or an NPC "minion" villager at risk of dying who needs healing.


----------



## Janaxstrus

Hassassin said:


> In 5e I'm hoping anyone at least X levels below you will just be a "minion" automatically, without needing an explicit template for it.




In 5e, I'm hoping they go back to humans are humans and giving them hps commiserate with their level (or lack thereof)


----------



## Hassassin

Janaxstrus said:


> In 5e, I'm hoping they go back to humans are humans and giving them hps commiserate with their level (or lack thereof)




Yes, that's what I'm saying. If you want to give the level 10 Necromancer some minions, just put in a few zombies and two 3rd level fighter bodyguards.


----------



## Janaxstrus

Klaus said:


> He's a Minion Brute because, if a fight breaks out, he'll dish out a decent ammount of damage, but the first solid hit will take him out. He's not the hero of this story. If I want him to be (as someone else mentioned) the toughest guy in the village and a leader of the town watch, I'd stat him differently. But these stats are perfectly serviceable for an adventure's extras.
> 
> Why can't he make armor? Because I don't want him to. I don't need to get enough levels to justify enough ranks to reliably hit a high enough DC to have a NPC blacksmith make a suit of armor. If I (the DM) want him to make armor, I'll have him make armor. If I want him to understand the Riddle of Steel and craft weapons with such precision and focus that they are downright magical, I'll just say "he can make magic metal weapons up to level X". No need to make him an Expert, multiclass into Adept, take enough levels to have Craft Magic Arms & Armor, etc. I just write in "he can do this and that".
> 
> And still be a Level 1 human who needs the PCs' help to deal with the goblin bandit, instead of being an 8th-level human who could take out half-dozen goblins.





You do realize the guy I showed you was a level 1 person right?  Not 8?
At level 5 they can make legendary quality.

So a level 1 blacksmith who can make anything you might need, but would still need help taking on goblins.  And...he follows the same rules for creating as the PCs did.  It just makes more sense that a human is a human is a human, not that "well this human is a PC so he's special"  Class levels and bonuses therein make him "special" not just the fact that he's not an npc.

If I just wanted to make everything up, I don't need any of the books.  I can make stuff up without WotC.  I buy the books for the rules, not to free form everything.


----------



## dkyle

Janaxstrus said:


> But a minion is a devoted follower of something...




It's not an in-world term.  It does not describe any social structure.  It describes the combat role.  Nothing more, nothing less.



> Those are basically gamist terms, much like "controller", which are things that need to be axed from the game post haste.  I don't want "brute" telling me how they fight, I want some fluff telling me about them and how they fight.




I can't argue your personal preference, but I can say that I greatly prefer having simple, clear mechanics and terms, that are largely divorced from setting or "fluff" assumptions.  I would be very disappointed to lose that kind of terminology.

I don't need my mechanics to wholly embody the world.  I just need them to describe the world, in a way that's easy to use, and understand.  I much prefer to see "Brute", than have to wade through several paragraphs of prose to pick out that info.  Especially when I'm using the Compendium to pick out monsters to use.  It would be nearly useless without those categorizations.



> (FYI, the house cat thing was mostly in jest, as they have to crit on a bite to even do damage...so in theory, unless a housecat crits a normal human 3 or 4 times, they won't go down in 3rd)




Not true.  All damage rolls in 3.5 do at least 1 damage, no matter the penalties.  A House-cat full-attacks for three attacks.  A House-cat could win initiative against an average 1st level Wizard, and knock him out before he can act, without needing to crit.  If the Wizard has already cast his spell for the day, he's unlikely to survive even if he gets a turn, unless he simply flees.


----------



## CAFRedblade

Somewhat getting back to the topic of the 'Leaked' information.  
I don't know if Wizards have debunked this or not, anyone see any notes, comments about it from Wizards personnel?

If it's from an actual leak of the 1.0 or earlier alpha version of DND Next(although it seems to be heavily paraphrased), all I really care about is the open playtest.

Hopefully the open playtest will start shortly after PAX East, maybe by May, then I can get my hands on it, and put it through the wringer, and submit feedback.  

Until then speculation is fun to read and write, but is nothing to base any sort of decision on.


----------



## KarinsDad

Quickleaf said:


> Funny you should mention that. This is what I ended up doing for minion in 4e; well actually I gave minions HP equal to their average damage, which is 4 + 1 / 2 levels. The advantage of using this particular value has been that I almost never track minion hit points because they either go down on the first or second hit. Since I use tokens to represent minions, it's a simple matter of flipping the token to the bloodied side. That's all the tracking I usually do for minions.
> 
> Then you've got all the advantages of the monsters keying into the HP system, so there can be situations where a minion monster is dropped on a missed attack, or a fireball doesn't necessarily wipe off all the minions monsters from the field, or an NPC "minion" villager at risk of dying who needs healing.




A concept similar to this is what I think they should do for 5E.

In 4E, there are minion rules that change the paradigm. Some people like them. Some people do not.

But, the problem with having special rules for a type of monster is that it can mess up other aspects of the game.

For example, when the Battlerager first came out, that class basically ignored minion damage. The Battlerager could be surrounded by minions and it didn't matter. Here's an example of the one set of game mechanics interfering with another set of game mechanics. The Battlerager had to be errata-ed (and quickly).

But if minions follow the basic rules of all other monsters, then the problems that some people have with minions (and the problems with future WotC content forgetting about special rules) could be minimized.

HP: 11(1)

Could be how a given minion is statted. For DMs that want wimpy but not cardboard, they can use the 11 hit points. For DMs that want 4E minions, they could use the 1 hit point. This is an example of how both 1E to 3E can be merged with 4E WITHOUT having to add a special set of 4E module rules.

The same for damage:

Attack: Melee 1 (one creature); +6 vs. AC
Hit: d6+1(4) damage.

DMs that want to roll and want to hide the fact that these are minions from the players can. DMs that want to cut to the chase can use the 4E equivalent damage of 4.

Another advantage of this system is as you stated, the ability to remove special minion rules like "does not take damage on a miss". That's just another arbitrary 4E rule that doesn't necessarily make sense. Everyone else takes damage on a miss with a Fireball, but the minion is immune. Why? Because some designer thought that it was unbalanced throwing Fireball type spells at minions because they would always die with no real die roll involved. But when minions follow the same hit point rules as all other monsters, that problem goes away and so does the special rule needed to handle it.


----------



## Janaxstrus

dkyle said:


> Not true.  All damage rolls in 3.5 do at least 1 damage, no matter the penalties.  A House-cat full-attacks for three attacks.  A House-cat could win initiative against an average 1st level Wizard, and knock him out before he can act, without needing to crit.  If the Wizard has already cast his spell for the day, he's unlikely to survive even if he gets a turn, unless he simply flees.




You are correct.  We've played with the house rules so long (removing minimum 1 pt of damage) I forget that was one of the stupid things they left in 3.5


----------



## DEFCON 1

GreyICE said:


> Looks like it's time for 4E fans to get our heads together and hack 4E into shape.




Or we could... just... you know... wait to see the actual rules of the DDN game first before assuming us 4E players won't like it.


----------



## Incenjucar

DEFCON 1 said:


> Or we could... just... you know... wait to see the actual rules of the DDN game first before assuming us 4E players won't like it.




Eh, we can do both. If we wait for 5E and find out that yes, it's not as fun for 4E fans as 4E is then it'll be a real slog to get it going. If we start now, the worst that can happen is that we did something fun with a fun system and then moved to an even more fun system.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Dausuul said:
			
		

> In 4E, a house cat is a house cat. Unless it's a familiar or something, it doesn't have a statblock. It's not in the Monster Manual. Because it's a friggin' house cat! If it attacks you, you don't take damage, you just get scratched up a bit.




FWIW, this is not an argument in favor of 4e for me.

Because I don't know if that house cat is going to be a skill challenge or a combat challenge or a possible familiar or an ally for the druid or secretly a polymorphed archmage or whatever...until the rubber hits the road. This works against an improv-heavy game. I don't know what this housecat is going to have to do before I put it in the game. Once it's in the game, I'm going to need some way to figure out what happens to it, no matter what the players do to it. 

Housecats were in the 3e MM because they were familiars, or wildshape possibilities, and familiars and wildshape possibilities needed stats, and those stats were frequently relevant in combat (the 3e MM was chock full of player-relevant statblocks like that). Because they were there, and because 3e was nothing if not a comprehensive ruleset, I got the rules for a cat I could use in many different circumstances when I needed to.

And when I didn't need to, I didn't need to bust out the MM for it, and its presence didn't hurt my gameplay one bit.

Like I said, I like that 4e monsters are fairly free-form, but from WotC, I'm going to need more than combat stat blocks for my creature-statting needs. 

And ultimately, if you give housecats the stats of a level 1 minion in 4e, they can still kill your level 1 minion blacksmiths in one hit, so this whole debate is really just wagon-circling. Housecats are what *I* say they are, and if I say I need stats for them, WotC isn't going to convince me otherwise by going "Pssshaw, no you don't!"


----------



## Incenjucar

Housecats could actually make interesting non-damaging creatures.

Trait: Underfoot
Try to move through its space, and you make a saving throw to avoid falling prone.

Attack: Feline Fury
Dex vs. Reflex. Hit: Target grants combat advantage until the end of cat's next turn.


----------



## GreyICE

And I consider it an advantage of 4E that it doesn't bother to stat things like housecats.

If I need a housecat to have some game effects, then I'll make it have game effects.  The fact of the matter is that it's NEVER going to do damage to the PCs.  Incenjucar's abilities looked fine if I wanted to, say, have a fight in a Crazy Cat Lady's house.  

See, the thing about giving everything a stat block is that the stat blocks need to make sense.  In 3E, a battle with 'the angry cats in a crazy cat lady's house' has a good chance of killing a few party members, if not a TPK (18 cats would be... a significant challenge).

This makes no sense.  At all.  So that stat block is worthless, because I can't use it in a game.


----------



## dkyle

Kamikaze Midget said:


> And ultimately, if you give housecats the stats of a level 1 minion in 4e, they can still kill your level 1 minion blacksmiths in one hit, so this whole debate is really just wagon-circling. Housecats are what *I* say they are, and if I say I need stats for them, WotC isn't going to convince me otherwise by going "Pssshaw, no you don't!"




Here, I made up some stats for you:

House-cat
Level 1 Minion
Tiny Natural Beast
Init +2
AC 12 Reflex 12 Fort 6 Will 10
Speed 6

Standard Actions:
Bite Melee +4 vs AC: Deal 1 damage to a tiny size, or smaller, level 1 Natural Beast Minion.

Minor Actions:
Claw Melee +2 vs Reflex: Grab and knock prone target tiny size, or smaller, level 1 Natural Beast Minion.


----------



## OnlineDM

CAFRedblade said:


> Somewhat getting back to the topic of the 'Leaked' information.
> I don't know if Wizards have debunked this or not, anyone see any notes, comments about it from Wizards personnel?




No. Unlike the earlier Giant in the Playground leak, no one from WotC has commented on this one (at least on EN World, which they did last time). Also, no one in the "friends and family" play test has chimed in here on EN World to debunk this one (as they did last time).

As I said earlier in the thread, I believe this means either:
- WotC spread a new policy to employees and play testers, asking them not to debunk false leaks any more, or
- It's a real leak based on real play test information (though probably an early version)

My guess is the latter. But I don't actually care; I'm waiting for the open play test, too.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Housecats could actually make interesting non-damaging creatures.






			
				dkyle said:
			
		

> Here, I made up some stats for you:






			
				GreyICE said:
			
		

> This makes no sense. At all. So that stat block is worthless, because I can't use it in a game.




All this ignores the main point of the post, but thanks for playing.

Lacking cat stats doesn't make a game better for me. Having cat stats doesn't make the game worse for me. Assuming I have foreknowledge of how my party is going to interact with a given game element makes a game worse for me. I need rules to support whatever the party does with 'em. Which means, if not actual stats, a very quick and easy way to come up with them on the fly. 

And if you think a cat poses no threat to anything above its own size, you're lucky you don't know anyone who has an artificial eye and a scarred face from when a rabid cat leapt out of a tree at her, but heck, who am I to tell you that you need cat stats just because they could conceivably hurt your characters? That isn't the threshold of "do I need stats for this?" You need stats for anything you make die rolls about. Some people are gonna need 'em for cats, even in combat, and some folks aren't. The hallmark of a 5e that fits both needs would be if the people that need them can have them without having to invent them whole cloth, and the people that don't need them don't need to worry about it.


----------



## Incenjucar

Every edition of every RPG needs a Big Book of Page 42.


----------



## Halivar

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The hallmark of a 5e that fits both needs would be if the people that need them can have them without having to invent them whole cloth, and the people that don't need them don't need to worry about it.




KM, would it be sufficient to have quick adjudication tables for creating such stats (or parts of stats as needed for the situation) on the fly? As opposed to a full stat-out of a cat?


----------



## KarinsDad

Halivar said:


> KM, would it be sufficient to have quick adjudication tables for creating such stats (or parts of stats as needed for the situation) on the fly? As opposed to a full stat-out of a cat?




I don't think the words "quick" and "table" belong in the same sentence when discussing an RPG.


----------



## dkyle

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I need rules to support whatever the party does with 'em. Which means, if not actual stats, a very quick and easy way to come up with them on the fly.




My stats were very quick to come up with.



> And if you think a cat poses no threat to anything above its own size, you're lucky you don't know anyone who has an artificial eye and a scarred face from when a rabid cat leapt out of a tree at her, but heck, who am I to tell you that you need cat stats just because they could conceivably hurt your characters? That isn't the threshold of "do I need stats for this?" You need stats for anything you make die rolls about. Some people are gonna need 'em for cats, even in combat, and some folks aren't. The hallmark of a 5e that fits both needs would be if the people that need them can have them without having to invent them whole cloth, and the people that don't need them don't need to worry about it.




Even in that extreme case, the cat was not a mortal threat (aside from the Rabies, which _would_ be potentially worth modeling; make the cat a trap with an attack vs Reflex or maybe Fortitude that inflicts a disease).

Anything that deals damage to a humanoid being would have to be logically a mortal threat to them.  Capable of killing an able-bodied person.  A cat is simply incapable of that.  Even subdual damage wouldn't make sense.

There are plenty of more threatening things, with D&D stats, that could scar a face or destroy an eye in real life, that are utterly incapable of doing either of those things by the mechanics of the game.  Neither a 3.5 Wolf nor a 4E Wolf can permanently scar someone's face, or remove an eye, by pure mechanics, even though "realistically", they should be fully capable of doing that, with far more frequency than a house-cat.  My cat stats are just as capable of doing that as those wolves are: by pure DM fiat.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Halivar said:
			
		

> KM, would it be sufficient to have quick adjudication tables for creating such stats (or parts of stats as needed for the situation) on the fly? As opposed to a full stat-out of a cat?




Yep! Like [MENTION=6182]Incenjucar[/MENTION] mentioned, a "page 42"-style reference would be quite handy, as long as that reference was more robust.

That is, it gives me a way to find a baseline that makes sense, and that sensible baseline can than handle whatever my PC's throw at it. Given 5e's dependence on ability scores, a handy way to generate ability scores for NPC's that are appropriate for a given level (level 0 or level 1 in the cat's case, I imagine) might hit the spot perfectly, along with attacks, damages, and skill check results (lets not leave out social and exploration pillars! What happens if the druid tries to befriend the cat? And then sends it out to scout for traps?). 

That's a Page 42 that's quite a bit expanded from where it is now, but I absolutely think it's within the scope of things. 

And some folks would probably use that guideline to construct housecat stats from scratch just because they wanted to anyway. 

But I am pretty much over other folks telling me what my games should and should not be like. I wanna have an 18-cat combat in the house of the Crazy Cat Lady? I want my wizard to acquire a cat familiar? I want a normal housecat suddenly filled with the evil influence of something (like Rabies?) to leap out of the tree at a local blacksmith and I need rules for how long that blacksmith lasts before the cat kills him? WotC needs to give me something I can use to resolve this, not tell me that I shouldn't even need stuff in the first place. 

3e, for all its flawed philosophy of "a stat for everything!" wound up less than ideal, did not disappoint me in this regard. 4e, with its philosophy of "Figure out what is for combat, and what is for not-combat, and here's the combat things, and the not-combat things don't matter," was a lot more problematic for my playstyle.


----------



## Incenjucar

KarinsDad said:


> I don't think the words "quick" and "table" belong in the same sentence when discussing an RPG.




Aaaactually, with the right tables, this could work. Especially but not exclusively with digital tools.

Say you had a table that covered the most generic monsters for each level, for each role, and for each sub-role. Same for traps. Same for non-damaging effects.

Say you also had a table of basic concepts that can be applied to a wide variety of things, like "Movement Inhibition" and "Damage Reduction" and "Hit Reduction" and etc.

There's no reason that, with a well-balanced, structured system, you couldn't randomly generate monsters. In fact, we have Hordelings in multiple editions now. They wouldn't be as complex as fully-designed monsters, but they could still work just fine.


----------



## Hassassin

KarinsDad said:


> I don't think the words "quick" and "table" belong in the same sentence when discussing an RPG.




Aren't monster stats typically listed in the form of a table?


----------



## Halivar

Kamikaze Midget said:


> But I am pretty much over other folks telling me what my games should and should not be like. I wanna have an 18-cat combat in the house of the Crazy Cat Lady? I want my wizard to acquire a cat familiar? I want a normal housecat suddenly filled with the evil influence of something (like Rabies?) to leap out of the tree at a local blacksmith and I need rules for how long that blacksmith lasts before the cat kills him?



Module KM1: In the House of the Crazy Cat Lady.

Nothing but cats. Rabid cats. Dire cats. Half-fiend cats. Level 10 monk cats with Vow of Poverty.

Roll for initiative, if you dare.

(Sorry, the visual was too compelling. I had to.)


----------



## JRRNeiklot

I have but one thing to dsay about the deadliness of housecats:  Man airlifted after fight with cat - Your Houston News: Cleveland


----------



## GreyICE

Kamikaze Midget said:


> 3e, for all its flawed philosophy of "a stat for everything!" wound up less than ideal, did not disappoint me in this regard. 4e, with its philosophy of "Figure out what is for combat, and what is for not-combat, and here's the combat things, and the not-combat things don't matter," was a lot more problematic for my playstyle.



Actually, with monster reflavoring, you could easily make a 'cat' stat block out of pretty much any stat block you felt like.  

Monster creation was dramatically easier in 4E than it was in any prior edition, hence me never really worrying about things not being statted.  Only solos were in any way difficult to make.  And that is as it should be.


----------



## Dice4Hire

JRRNeiklot said:


> I have but one thing to dsay about the deadliness of housecats:  Man airlifted after fight with cat - Your Houston News: Cleveland




And the injuries were caused by.....


a knife. Small point.


----------



## SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS

Let me tell: the stats for house cats in 3e are ridiculous, look at that: Cat :: d20srd.org as each attack causes at least 1 point of damage a house cat will kill a commoner 1 most of the time! 


House cats DON'T need stats!


----------



## CM

SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS said:


> Let me tell: the stats for house cats in 3e are ridiculous, look at that: Cat :: d20srd.org as each attack causes at least 1 point of damage a house cat will kill a commoner 1 most of the time!
> 
> 
> House cats DON'T need stats!




Edition War, year 5: It's been a long, bloody conflict but the 4llies are ready to unleash a potent new weapon upon the unsuspecting, pastoral Ax3s villages in the hopes of shocking them into surrender: kitten bombs.


<We now return you to your regularly-scheduled unfounded rumor thread>


----------



## GMforPowergamers

SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS said:


> Let me tell: the stats for house cats in 3e are ridiculous, look at that: Cat :: d20srd.org as each attack causes at least 1 point of damage a house cat will kill a commoner 1 most of the time!
> 
> 
> House cats DON'T need stats!




lets be honnest. the problem is not the cat (ok maybe it could be toned down) but the hp system.

In 3e a level 1 wizard has 3-8hp (8-18 con) with most mages having 4 or 5.
In 3e a level 1 rogue has 5-10hp (8-18 con) with most having 7 or 8.

a cat with 3 attacks that might hit a level 1 character dealing 1 damage or who might crit for 2-3 damage.


If you put a cat in 4e that had a 'pounce' double attack +1 Vs AC 1d3 damage and a bite attack +2 1d4 damage... 12hp and 13 AC 10 Fort 12 Ref 8 Will, that would work fine...

that stat block still is a house cat, becuse most characters have 20+hp at 1st level.


----------



## I'm A Banana

GMforPowergamers said:
			
		

> lets be honnest. the problem is not the cat (ok maybe it could be toned down) but the hp system.




That, plus the old attack logic that gave cats three individual attacks instead of one attack that was a summary of its claws and bite.


----------



## Klaus

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That, plus the old attack logic that gave cats three individual attacks instead of one attack that was a summary of its claws and bite.



Everyone knows cats prefer to fight with rapiers!


----------



## Dausuul

No, the problem is the cat. As I said earlier, anything that deals hit point damage can kill. If the cat can deal hit point damage, the cat can kill. Give everybody ten times as many hit points; it doesn't matter, because when Jane the Bad-Ass Fighter has just been through a tough fight and is down to 1 hit point--but still on her feet and capable--a cat can walk up and bite her ankle and she falls over dying.

_If you don't think it should be able to kill people, it should not be dealing hit point damage._ It's that simple.


----------



## Lanefan

GMforPowergamers said:


> If you put a cat in 4e that had a 'pounce' double attack +1 Vs AC 1d3 damage and a bite attack +2 1d4 damage... 12hp and 13 AC 10 Fort 12 Ref 8 Will, that would work fine...
> 
> that stat block still is a house cat, becuse most characters have 20+hp at 1st level.



Most characters yes, but not most ordinary people; and house cats should not be able to kill ordinary people on a whim either.


			
				Dausuul said:
			
		

> If you don't think it should be able to kill people, it should not be dealing hit point damage. It's that simple.



Why not?  Not all damage has to be lethal.

House cats may not kill people very often but they sure can hurt sometimes.

Which brings up, tangentially, another issue: I hope 5e has a useful system for non-lethal combat and-or damage.

Lanefan


----------



## Halivar

Eh. It's moot to me. In my 3E games, cats did not have stats, and did not deal significant damage any sort. I just ignored a lot of what I felt were extraneous (and quite frankly, ludicrously built) animal entries. I have no problem doing so again. Therefore, it is of no consequence to me if they are included or not. I certainly won't protest their inclusion, and people are asking for it*, so... might as well, yes?

*This is said in the spirit of creating a uniting edition, not with any measure of condescension.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Yep! Like  @Incenjucar  mentioned, a "page 42"-style reference would be quite handy, as long as that reference was more robust.
> 
> That is, it gives me a way to find a baseline that makes sense, and that sensible baseline can than handle whatever my PC's throw at it. Given 5e's dependence on ability scores, a handy way to generate ability scores for NPC's that are appropriate for a given level (level 0 or level 1 in the cat's case, I imagine) might hit the spot perfectly, along with attacks, damages, and skill check results (lets not leave out social and exploration pillars! What happens if the druid tries to befriend the cat? And then sends it out to scout for traps?).
> 
> That's a Page 42 that's quite a bit expanded from where it is now, but I absolutely think it's within the scope of things.
> 
> And some folks would probably use that guideline to construct housecat stats from scratch just because they wanted to anyway.
> 
> But I am pretty much over other folks telling me what my games should and should not be like. I wanna have an 18-cat combat in the house of the Crazy Cat Lady? I want my wizard to acquire a cat familiar? I want a normal housecat suddenly filled with the evil influence of something (like Rabies?) to leap out of the tree at a local blacksmith and I need rules for how long that blacksmith lasts before the cat kills him? WotC needs to give me something I can use to resolve this, not tell me that I shouldn't even need stuff in the first place.
> 
> 3e, for all its flawed philosophy of "a stat for everything!" wound up less than ideal, did not disappoint me in this regard. 4e, with its philosophy of "Figure out what is for combat, and what is for not-combat, and here's the combat things, and the not-combat things don't matter," was a lot more problematic for my playstyle.




Here's the thing though. The rules, 3e, 4e, whatever, have never been very well-suited to dealing with a fight with a cat. For every one thing that a cat stat block DOES let me do that I would want to do with that cat, there are 3 other things that it just gets in the way of. 

I feel like I'm actually better off and faced with less wrong choices when I don't have that stat block staring at me. I really like that aspect of 4e. It just doesn't try to do bad simulation of anything. It isn't pretending that it can run a fight between your neighbor's kid and a stray down the alley in any way that is likely to advance a plot or provide a really interesting encounter. On the OUTSIDE chance that such a stat block IS useful, I can invent exactly the one I want. 

There's also the question of what is more useful, a page dedicated to a housecat or one dedicated to some more relevant monster....


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Re: The leak, and not the discussion on housecats:

I see people still have a hard time grasping that by it's nature, most 4e-like material will HAVE to be in additive modules and as such would quite obviously be left out of a first-round playtest.

Also, as far as the cut-and-paste-text goes, there's no point in giving the rules a unified feel until much much later in the design process.  How it was once worded would certainly do until a final few passes on the text.

We're a long way off.


----------



## GreyICE

Really?  Has to be in the optional manuals?

Because I see defenses for each individual stat, and that seems dumb and nonsensical.

The 4E design philosophy is 'balanced, coherent, streamlined' and nothing about 6 defenses is any of that.


----------



## Savage Wombat

You don't have six defenses, you have six stats.  If you can't keep track of your basic stats after years of playing D&D...


----------



## JamesonCourage

dkyle said:


> Here, I made up some stats for you:
> 
> House-cat
> Level 1 Minion
> Tiny Natural Beast
> Init +2
> AC 12 Reflex 12 Fort 6 Will 10
> Speed 6
> 
> Standard Actions:
> Bite Melee +4 vs AC: Deal 1 damage to a tiny size, or smaller, level 1 Natural Beast Minion.
> 
> Minor Actions:
> Claw Melee +2 vs Reflex: Grab and knock prone target tiny size, or smaller, level 1 Natural Beast Minion.



Out of curiosity, does this mean that a cat can kill any other cat in one hit, which lands about 2/3 the time?

Anyways, in my game, penalties can reduce your damage to 0, so a cat could be statted up to often deal zero damage. However, creatures deal +4 damage per size category larger they are, so it'd deal damage to diminutive (rats, lizards) or smaller creatures (crickets, flies, etc.). I also don't give higher Strength scores to larger creatures (but I do give higher carrying capacity, damage versus smaller creatures).

I also have a feat that could be added to any race that gives 2 damage reductive per size category above the attacker. So, a human with the feat might have 2 DR against a dog, 4 against a cat, 6 against a rat, and 8 against a bee.

Between these two measures, I feel pretty secure in the system. Is it more than people like to remember? Sure. It's easy for me, and it models what I want, so it works for me. I doubt we'll see anything this "fiddly" in 5e, though. As always, play what you like


----------



## GreyICE

Savage Wombat said:


> You don't have six defenses, you have six stats.  If you can't keep track of your basic stats after years of playing D&D...




And, according to the leaked document, each individual stat is used to defend against different forms of attacks.  So a spell might target your charisma, a poison your constitution, something else your wisdom or dex.

I guess it's a tad much to expect everyone to have read the leaked document, but can you at least refrain from attacking people on the basis of something you're entirely ignorant of?


----------



## Savage Wombat

GreyICE said:


> And, according to the leaked document, each individual stat is used to defend against different forms of attacks.  So a spell might target your charisma, a poison your constitution, something else your wisdom or dex.
> 
> I guess it's a tad much to expect everyone to have read the leaked document, but can you at least refrain from attacking people on the basis of something you're entirely ignorant of?




Try understanding what I wrote before you claim ignorance on MY part.  And maybe learn how to comport yourself appropriately on this forum.

You do not have "defenses" - like, say, a Fortitude Defense based on your Str or Con.  You have your Strength stat.  An attack targets your Strength stat, and you defend with that.

The way you (and some others) are acting, it's like you have to calculate six additional defenses on top of your stats.  Which does not appear to be the case.


----------



## Incenjucar

Savage Wombat said:


> You don't have six defenses, you have six stats.  If you can't keep track of your basic stats after years of playing D&D...




Those stats are all defenses.

So there are now at least seven defenses (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha, AC). They might all get a variety of separate modifications - almost required if you can still get a 20 in one stat and an 8 in another.


----------



## Savage Wombat

Incenjucar said:


> Those stats are all defenses.
> 
> So there are now at least seven defenses (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha, AC). They might all get a variety of separate modifications - almost required if you can still get a 20 in one stat and an 8 in another.




You keep acting like this is some kind of new, additional burden being placed upon you.  You had six stats and AC from the very beginning.  In fact, you originally had five saving throw categories as well.

3E reduced that number - you now had your six stats, your AC (and some variants) and your three saves.

In 4E you had six stats, AC, and three "defenses".

Now you just have six stats and AC.

Why is this somehow adding complexity?  

Is this simply concern about the possibility of having to use a low stat for defense?


----------



## Incenjucar

Savage Wombat said:


> You keep acting like this is some kind of new, additional burden being placed upon you.  You had six stats and AC from the very beginning.  In fact, you originally had five saving throw categories as well. 3E reduced that number - you now had your six stats, your AC (and some variants) and your three saves.
> 
> In 4E you had six stats, AC, and three "defenses".
> 
> Now you just have six stats and AC.
> 
> Why is this somehow adding complexity?




I have four stats. AC. Ref. Fort. Will. I have one saving throw target number. I left the piles of saving throws in the dust along with Parachute Pants. I don't want that complexity back anymore than I want to have to use a telegraph now that I have the internet.



> Is this simply concern about the possibility of having to use a low stat for defense?




It's having to track seven numbers instead of four numbers. Increasing my number-tracking burden by 75% doesn't do me any favors. The low stat issue just means that they'll have to add in some bonuses which will make your actual stats useless references anyway.


----------



## dkyle

Savage Wombat said:


> You keep acting like this is some kind of new, additional burden being placed upon you.  You had six stats and AC from the very beginning.  In fact, you originally had five saving throw categories as well.
> 
> 3E reduced that number - you now had your six stats, your AC (and some variants) and your three saves.
> 
> In 4E you had six stats, AC, and three "defenses".
> 
> Now you just have six stats and AC.
> 
> Why is this somehow adding complexity?




It adds some degree of play-time complexity because there are more things an attack can target.  The six ability scores in 3.X and 4E are used to calculate saves/defenses, then can essentially be ignored for routine attacks/spells.  It does reduce character creation and leveling complexity, but those are relatively infrequent events compared to being targeted by attacks/spells.  Essentially, it simplifies a rare event at the expense of a common event.

Is it a big deal?  Probably not.  But consider that it's less likely that a player will successfully memorize 7 defenses than 4 (especially if they're also trying to remember their attack and damage bonuses).  Fewer lookups on the sheet means faster play.


----------



## Savage Wombat

Incenjucar said:


> I have four stats. AC. Ref. Fort. Will. I have one saving throw target number. I left the piles of saving throws in the dust along with Parachute Pants. I don't want that complexity back anymore than I want to have to use a telegraph now that I have the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> It's having to track seven numbers instead of four numbers. Increasing my number-tracking burden by 75% doesn't do me any favors. The low stat issue just means that they'll have to add in some bonuses which will make your actual stats useless references anyway.




So you just left your stats off your character sheet as useless relics of the past then?  You had 10 numbers (11 if we count the saving throw target), now you have 7.  That's less then 10.

If your starting characteristics are not relevant to your game at all, why include them?


----------



## Savage Wombat

dkyle said:


> It adds some degree of play-time complexity because there are more things an attack can target.  The six ability scores in 3.X and 4E are used to calculate saves/defenses, then can essentially be ignored for routine attacks/spells.  It does reduce character creation and leveling complexity, but those are relatively infrequent events compared to being targeted by attacks/spells.  Essentially, it simplifies a rare event at the expense of a common event.
> 
> Is it a big deal?  Probably not.  But consider that it's less likely that a player will successfully memorize 7 defenses than 4 (especially if they're also trying to remember their attack and damage bonuses).  Fewer lookups on the sheet means faster play.




I can easily remember the stats my high-school wizard Theodrik had.  I don't remember his saving throws.  I don't remember the saving throws of my most current characters.  But I know their stats, because those are the base factors from which everything else derives.

I have trouble imagining that hordes of D&D players can instantly recall their Reflex save / defense, but can't quite remember what their Dex is.

Directly targetting stats is a simplication of the system, not additional complexity.


----------



## Incenjucar

Savage Wombat said:


> So you just left your stats off your character sheet as useless relics of the past then?  You had 10 numbers (11 if we count the saving throw target), now you have 7.  That's less then 10.
> 
> If your starting characteristics are not relevant to your game at all, why include them?




My ability scores matter for the same reason my height and weight do - they inform other mechanical elements in the game, but are not something I need to pay attention to 99% of the time.


----------



## Savage Wombat

Incenjucar said:


> My ability scores matter for the same reason my height and weight do - they inform other mechanical elements in the game, but are not something I need to pay attention to 99% of the time.




Which is one of the problems WotC is attempting to fix.  Ability scores are one of the cores of D&D, and should make a difference to your play.


----------



## Incenjucar

Savage Wombat said:


> I can easily remember the stats my high-school wizard Theodrik had.  I don't remember his saving throws.  I don't remember the saving throws of my most current characters.  But I know their stats, because those are the base factors from which everything else derives.
> 
> I have trouble imagining that hordes of D&D players can instantly recall their Reflex save / defense, but can't quite remember what their Dex is.
> 
> Directly targetting stats is a simplication of the system, not additional complexity.




I can't remember a single characters stats from any game I've played, ever. I can't even remember the levels of any character except the one I'm playing now. Why should anyone feel the need to do so?


----------



## Incenjucar

Savage Wombat said:


> Which is one of the problems WotC is attempting to fix.  Ability scores are one of the cores of D&D, and should make a difference to your play.




To who? I have never heard about anyone caring about stats outside of complaining about dump stats or imbalance between the stats.

This notion of caring about your stats outside of what they do is completely alien to me, as someone who played 2E. Is this some kind of 1E thing that was discarded?


----------



## Savage Wombat

Incenjucar said:


> I can't remember a single characters stats from any game I've played, ever. I can't even remember the levels of any character except the one I'm playing now. Why should anyone feel the need to do so?




I'm sorry that you think that's somehow an argument for your position.  To me, it's just sad.  The characters I've played are a part of my gaming life, and lots of fond memories.  My memory of Tormack getting lucky with a magic item and getting a 19 Str is as much a component of his story as the time he was slaughtered by ogres who stole the party's horses.  Or that his miniature was wearing green, and had blond hair.


----------



## Incenjucar

My D&D characters have gotten me girlfriends, but I still haven't memorized their stats. That's a very specific kind of relationship to your character that only applies to a distinct minority of people, and really doesn't make for a compelling argument for more numbers to memorize.


----------



## Hussar

/snip

Whoops, conversation has moved WAYY past this.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.


----------



## Savage Wombat

Congratulations on having had girlfriends.  And I don't think most people here have no memory of the basic building blocks of any character but the one they're currently playing.

So, to sum up: I'm sorry, but it looks like in D&DN you'll be expected to know your character's CON score.


----------



## Incenjucar

I doubt that the majority of people here could recite all six of their current character's stats. Moreover, having to track more stats is having to track more stats. Defenses change, and it sounds like they're bringing back impermanent stat changes, so you'll have three extra numbers that are constantly changing to keep track of. It's more work for no visible gain.


----------



## Savage Wombat

And I believe the majority of them could.

Just because you don't see the benefits doesn't mean there's no visible gain.  You're not gaining three things to keep track of, you're losing three stats that no longer need to be derived from other stats.


----------



## dkyle

Savage Wombat said:


> I can easily remember the stats my high-school wizard Theodrik had.  I don't remember his saving throws.  I don't remember the saving throws of my most current characters.  But I know their stats, because those are the base factors from which everything else derives.




I can't say that I remember any specific stats of any character, at this time.  But I can say that I very often remembered the things I used most in combat, at the time I was playing.  That was 6 numbers in 4E (defenses, attack bonus, damage bonus), which becomes 9 in 5E.

When I say memorize, I don't mean in an intentional way, and for all time, recallable on demand at any moment.  Just the natural osmosis that occurs when using a small set of numbers repeatedly, where a person just knows it without consciously memorizing it.  The more numbers being used, the less likely this is to occur.

Also, base stats are not the only base factors from which everything else derives.  You'd also have to memorize what bonus you got from your class(es).  When your DM asked you to roll a Reflex save, did you do mental arithmetic every time, deriving it from your memorized DEX, and a class mod you also memorized?



> I have trouble imagining that hordes of D&D players can instantly recall their Reflex save / defense, but can't quite remember what their Dex is.




Well, I can't speak to hordes.  But I can say that in playing 4E, I almost never knew what my ability scores were without looking at a sheet.  I often would know if an attack roll against me would hit or miss, and what to add to d20 rolls for attacks, without looking.


----------



## Incenjucar

Deriving is only done at level-up. After that, you're spared three things to keep track of.


----------



## Savage Wombat

Seems to me like you guys would prefer to be playing a system that didn't use stats at all.  This may be one of the core issues of your dislike.


----------



## Incenjucar

Savage Wombat said:


> Seems to me like you guys would prefer to be playing a system that didn't use stats at all.  This may be one of the core issues of your dislike.




Nope. Stats are great for describing a character's basic structure. I like 4E's use of stats just fine, hyper-focus issues aside. I just don't want ADDITIONAL stuff to track. It's a Goldilocks thing, Papa Bear.


----------



## Ratinyourwalls

This leak makes me so mad that my nose is bleeding.


----------



## Savage Wombat

Incenjucar said:


> Nope. Stats are great for describing a character's basic structure. I like 4E's use of stats just fine, hyper-focus issues aside. I just don't want ADDITIONAL stuff to track. It's a Goldilocks thing, Papa Bear.




And you're back to my original point. No one's giving you ADDITIONAL stuff to track.  You still have those same six numbers on your sheet.  Now you just don't have three more derived defense stats.


----------



## dkyle

Savage Wombat said:


> Seems to me like you guys would prefer to be playing a system that didn't use stats at all.  This may be one of the core issues of your dislike.




That's a very strange, and very incorrect, conclusion to draw.

I like ability scores being funneled into a smaller number of easy to remember stats that actually get used frequently in combat.  Simplifying the frequent events (attack resolution during combat), even if it adds a little complexity to infrequent events (character creation/leveling) is a good thing.



Savage Wombat said:


> And you're back to my original point. No  one's giving you ADDITIONAL stuff to track.  You still have those same  six numbers on your sheet.  Now you just don't have three more derived  defense stats.




4E: Attempt to mentally track AC, Reflex, Fortitude, Will, Attack/Damage bonuses (6 stats), use them frequently each combat.  Write ability scores on sheet, reference maybe once a session, if that.

5E: Attempt to mentally track AC, STR, CON, DEX, INT, WIS, CHA, Attack/Damage bonuses (9 stats),  use them frequently each combat.

Do you not see the difference?  In 4E, I don't "track" the ability scores any more than I "track" each individual skill bonus.  They're on the sheet if I need them.  I have no real need to remember them during play.  Writing stuff on a sheet is easy.  The difference between writing down 7 numbers and 10 numbers is trivial.  The difference between remembering 6 numbers, and 9 numbers, is more significant.


----------



## Incenjucar

Savage Wombat said:


> And you're back to my original point. No one's giving you ADDITIONAL stuff to track.  You still have those same six numbers on your sheet.  Now you just don't have three more derived defense stats.




In 4E I don't have to keep track of my Dexterity modifier during combat. If my dexterity ever comes up, it's when I tie someone in initiative.

In 5E, I have to keep track of all the bonuses and negatives that buffs and enemies and situational effects are having on my Dexterity score.

In 4E, I might have:
+2 power bonus to AC from a defensive spell
+1 bonus to Reflex thanks to the Warlord
-1 penalty to Fortitude from some poison
-2 to Will because a Mind Flayer is making me see things.

In 5E, I might have:
+2 power bonus to AC from a defensive spell
+1 bonus to Strength thanks to the Warlord
+2 Bonus to Reflex from a Potion of Red Bull
-1 penalty to Constitution from some poison
-2 to Intelligence because a Mind Flayer is eating my smarts.
+1 to Wisdom thanks to the Cleric
-1 to Charisma because an umberhulk is mocking my hairstyle


----------



## Savage Wombat

If you had such an extreme example come up in a game, then it would suggest that you have a system with options and color for effects, instead of limiting yourself to only things that affect your four numbers.  But whatever.  The point about wanting to play a system that doesn't use the six basic stats still applies.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

That is assuming a lot. Even in 3.5 you didn´t have all those modifiers at once. And actually it was never hard to track. It is harder in 4e, because those modifiers change every other round.

In 3.5 you could just use a pencil and write down what is  effecting you.

The only problematic thing in 3.5 is that other stats are derived from your attributes. So if someone only changes your dexterity, you have to adjust:

initiative
AC
reflex
ranged attacks
tumble skill
maybe a DC for a maneuver


----------



## pemerton

Janaxstrus said:


> I want the rules to be the same if you add a barbarian level to a troll or a human.



What do barbarian levels represent? Toughness. Some weapon training. A love of battle.

If I want my troll to be tougher, more loving of battle, and better trained in weapon use than its raw statblock would suggest, I can add these abilities in easily enough (eg make it elite and give it some sort of swordplay-modelling triggered action).

I don't want to be applying class levels which were designed for some completely different purpose, namely, building tough, weapon-trained, battle-loving _player characters_.



Janaxstrus said:


> I disagree vehemently that monsters shouldn't follow evolutionary patterns.  It's a viable world that (while magical) should have an actual ecosystem.



I'm not remotely interested in evolutionary patterns, nor in ecosystems. I'm interested in myth and fantasy adventure.



KarinsDad said:


> A blacksmith should never be a minion. He's one of the "elite guard" in the town militia of a small village (because he's the toughest guy in the village) which means that he should be able to fight and not easily be killed by the first local kid throwing a stone.



Minion isn't an inworld status, it's a metagame status to be used in action resolution. Hit points are part of the same set of mechanics. Local kids throwing stones at NPC don't involve the action resolution mechanics, and doubly, therefore, don't do hp damage to anything.



KarinsDad said:


> Another advantage of this system is as you stated, the ability to remove special minion rules like "does not take damage on a miss". That's just another arbitrary 4E rule that doesn't necessarily make sense. Everyone else takes damage on a miss with a Fireball, but the minion is immune. Why?



Again, this is a metagame thing. Like anyone else, a minion suffers pain and burns from being caught in a fireball.

If a fireball is cast at 2 normal foes and 2 minions, and the GM describes the 2 normal foes suffering burns and the minions standing there unscathed, then something has gone wrong with the GM's descriptions.

This _could_ produce wonky outcomes, in the corner case in which a minion is caught in fireball after fireball, but the attacker never manages to hit, and so the minion survives blast after blast - the Rasputin of that particular battlefield. In practice, has this ever happened at anyone's table? And even if it did, it strikes me as a story opporunity as much as a problem - everyone else died in the battle, but this one schmuck managed to survive through sheer luck!



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't know if that house cat is going to be a skill challenge or a combat challenge or a possible familiar or an ally for the druid or secretly a polymorphed archmage or whatever...until the rubber hits the road. This works against an improv-heavy game. I don't know what this housecat is going to have to do before I put it in the game. Once it's in the game, I'm going to need some way to figure out what happens to it, no matter what the players do to it.



This may be true, but I don't understand what it has to do with statting up housecats for combat.

If the housecat becomes a familiar, look up the stats in Arcane Power. If it is a skill challenge, use the DCs and damage rules from the DMG. If it is (in some bizarre way) a combat encounter, use the Wolf statblock and drop it from level 2 to level 1 (and narrate the bite as a claw instead).

Whatever one thinks of 4e's action resolution mechanics, it hardly has a shortage of them!


----------



## JonWake

Hey guys, as someone who has been using the six stats as defenses for Castles and Crusades for years, it's actually easier to keep track of stats for defense than the Fort/Ref/Will saves.  You still have to keep track of your stats, especially if you're hit with any debilitation type effects.

It's also a great tool to effectively negate stat min-maxers.  I've had min maxing players complain that they're now not the best at everything.  It keeps a prudent player accepting only above average scores rather than risking a dump stat.


----------



## LostSoul

Assuming your stats are targeted by save or die spells, stats that don't go up as you level as saving throws or defences have, that sounds pretty deadly.  I'm not sure how they are going to work that.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

with the hp treshold as they told us?


----------



## Lanefan

Incenjucar said:


> I have four stats. AC. Ref. Fort. Will. I have one saving throw target number. I left the piles of saving throws in the dust along with Parachute Pants. I don't want that complexity back anymore than I want to have to use a telegraph now that I have the internet.
> 
> It's having to track seven numbers instead of four numbers. Increasing my number-tracking burden by 75% doesn't do me any favors. The low stat issue just means that they'll have to add in some bonuses which will make your actual stats useless references anyway.



Ah, the beauty of 1e.

In the run of play - as a player - I only really ought to* keep three things memorized: to-hit bonus, damage bonus, and AC.  My actual stats only come into play on an ability check, and it's trivially easy to glance at my sheet to see what a given stat is if I don't happen to remember it.

* - but often don't, as they are also trivially easy to look up.

What this issue speaks to more is one of being able to keep the character sheet clear, simple, and on one side of one page (equipment list, finances, and experience record can go on the back as they are rarely if ever referenced during play).

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Minion isn't an inworld status, it's a metagame status to be used in action resolution. Hit points are part of the same set of mechanics. Local kids throwing stones at NPC don't involve the action resolution mechanics, and doubly, therefore, don't do hp damage to anything.



Disagree.  Every living being has hit points and can take h.p. damage.  Every non-living thing has damage points (or structural points, depending) and can take structural damage.  Local kids throwing stones at an NPC *do* cause h.p. damage, assuming they hit now and then; the only difference is that because it doesn't really affect the run of play very much you probably don't need to track the specifics.



> Again, this is a metagame thing. Like anyone else, a minion suffers pain and burns from being caught in a fireball.



OK, minions dying in a fire, and the concept dying with them - now you're on to something! 

Lanefan


----------



## eamon

Am I the only one thinking it somewhat amusing that this leak complains of the playtest being for and by grognards while ranting like a 110% grognard?  

The leak should have been titled _*"Who cares about the game, I want edition warfare!"*_


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Savage Wombat said:


> You keep acting like this is some kind of new, additional burden being placed upon you.  You had six stats and AC from the very beginning.  In fact, you originally had five saving throw categories as well.
> 
> 3E reduced that number - you now had your six stats, your AC (and some variants) and your three saves.
> 
> In 4E you had six stats, AC, and three "defenses".
> 
> Now you just have six stats and AC.
> 
> Why is this somehow adding complexity?
> 
> Is this simply concern about the possibility of having to use a low stat for defense?




Here's the real problem with this whole concept. It IS 7 defenses and they ARE separate things from the ability scores. This will be true unless you assume that there will NEVER EVER be any adjustments to those numbers. Are you telling me that no race, class, or item will EVER statically modify those numbers? REALLY? Because if it does then I need to have a box on my sheet where I can write down that modified number. What is that box going to be called? How will the rules refer to it? Will they call it "that number that is your ability score plus modifiers?", lol. No, it will be a DEFENSE, and it will be IN ADDITION TO the ability score. Failing to give it a name just makes things WORSE, not better. This is the idiot logic by which we seem to be operating so far with 5e. Pardon us if we're NOT impressed.

In all fairness maybe these design mistakes will be corrected. Still, given that they stem from statements made BY the designers, we can be pardoned for rolling our eyes at this nonsense.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

UngeheuerLich said:


> That is assuming a lot. Even in 3.5 you didn´t have all those modifiers at once. And actually it was never hard to track. It is harder in 4e, because those modifiers change every other round.
> 
> In 3.5 you could just use a pencil and write down what is  effecting you.
> 
> The only problematic thing in 3.5 is that other stats are derived from your attributes. So if someone only changes your dexterity, you have to adjust:
> 
> initiative
> AC
> reflex
> ranged attacks
> tumble skill
> maybe a DC for a maneuver




Again, where are you going to 'pencil in' this number? In a box on your sheet called "effective dexterity" or something? Now how many numbers am I remembering? It isn't 10 (4 stats plus 4 defenses), it is now 15! Again this is because you WILL HAVE STATIC MODIFIERS to your defenses. WILL HAVE. This is inevitable. 

Now, lets imagine what you would have if you DID NOT have static modifiers. Instead you'd have to have modifiers to your ability scores directly. Every single effect would have to directly change them. You'd STILL have to write this adjusted number down, but NOW all the things that are derived from it would ALSO change!!!

There's simply no way that this change is an improvement. It might SEEM like one to you now without a lot of reflection, but believe me, I did the exercise of actually sitting down and saying "OK, suppose the rules look like this, what does my sheet look like, and how does this play?" and the answer is it makes things more complicated to 'remove' the 3 stat-based defenses. I know that might seem counter-intuitive to people, but ACTUALLY SIT DOWN AND INVENT A CHARACTER and you will see. Imagine this character with bonuses and penalties and items and etc on his/her sheet and you'll very quickly see that 'eliminating defenses' is the 'missing number falacy'. Just because you remove a number from your sheet does not make that number go away.


----------



## Hassassin

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Here's the real problem with this whole concept. It IS 7 defenses and they ARE separate things from the ability scores. This will be true unless you assume that there will NEVER EVER be any adjustments to those numbers. Are you telling me that no race, class, or item will EVER statically modify those numbers?




From what we've heard, race and class adjust the ability scores themselves.

*If* there are a significant number of adjustments to the "defenses" that don't adjust the ability scores, you have a point, but we simply don't know yet.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Lanefan said:


> Ah, the beauty of 1e.
> 
> In the run of play - as a player - I only really ought to* keep three things memorized: to-hit bonus, damage bonus, and AC.  My actual stats only come into play on an ability check, and it's trivially easy to glance at my sheet to see what a given stat is if I don't happen to remember it.
> 
> * - but often don't, as they are also trivially easy to look up.
> 
> What this issue speaks to more is one of being able to keep the character sheet clear, simple, and on one side of one page (equipment list, finances, and experience record can go on the back as they are rarely if ever referenced during play).
> 
> Lanefan




Except of course a 1e/2e sheet is no more simple than a 4e sheet is. You won't sneak that one past me! lol.

You are also forgetting a FEW numbers in there, like all your saving throws. At the very least you wanted to write down the modifier for each one. Again, if you look on the official 1e sheet (I have the 'goldenrod' sheet in front of me) it has spaces for this.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Hassassin said:


> From what we've heard, race and class adjust the ability scores themselves.
> 
> *If* there are a significant number of adjustments to the "defenses" that don't adjust the ability scores, you have a point, but we simply don't know yet.




And again, if this is true then it is WORSE because now I have to change all the numbers related to my ability scores every time one of them changes, which will no doubt happen often. Sure, these will be 'transient' modifications, but that just makes it worse because it means I've got to EVERY SINGLE TIME something happens in the game that involves one of the things on my sheet remember to tot up all the transient modifier's effects to whatever score(s) effect that. At least if a modifier in 4e added to my WILL defense for a turn I know it ONLY effects that, and not also my CHA modifier and my reaction bonus and etc. 

Again, you might think at first glance "wow this is less numbers" but this is still the "invisible number fallacy". You can hide the lack of this invisible number by pretending it doesn't exist, but one way or the other you pay for it in play.


----------



## Hassassin

AbdulAlhazred said:


> And again, if this is true then it is WORSE because now I have to change all the numbers related to my ability scores every time one of them changes, which will no doubt happen often.




An ability score increase in 4e also has a lot of consequences. So *if* the frequency of ability modifications increases significantly, or there is a new class of defense-only ability modifiers, this removal of the three defenses will make things more complicated (other things equal).

Now, what makes you think either of those will be true when they have mostly framed this change as simplifying things?


----------



## GreyICE

Savage Wombat said:


> Try understanding what I wrote before you claim ignorance on MY part.  And maybe learn how to comport yourself appropriately on this forum.
> 
> You do not have "defenses" - like, say, a Fortitude Defense based on your Str or Con.  You have your Strength stat.  An attack targets your Strength stat, and you defend with that.
> 
> The way you (and some others) are acting, it's like you have to calculate six additional defenses on top of your stats.  Which does not appear to be the case.




It doesn't MATTER whether you calculate 6 additional defenses, or just use the stats straight.  6 NADs is the opposite of streamlined, elegant design, especially when those NADs will be determined, according to the default book, by 4d6d1!

That's the problem here.  There is nothing streamlined, elegant, or balanced about that design.  It's messy, stupid, random, and it's going to randomly kill off characters for no discernible reason.  

This is stupid design, messy faux-realistic design and stupid messy faux-realistic design is pretty much the polar opposite of 4E design.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Hassassin said:


> An ability score increase in 4e also has a lot of consequences. So *if* the frequency of ability modifications increases significantly, or there is a new class of defense-only ability modifiers, this removal of the three defenses will make things more complicated (other things equal).
> 
> Now, what makes you think either of those will be true when they have mostly framed this change as simplifying things?




Again, you're missing the point. There are 2 choices here:

A) Permanent and/or transient modifiers apply to ability score - In this case I have to either 1) have a space on my sheet for this 'adjusted score' or 2) recalculate this number every time I use it. AND on top of this there are a LOT more times when my ability scores change than in 4e, which ONLY EVER happens at level-up. Now if I say remove my ring or a buff wears out I have to recalculate EVERYTHING that depends on that score.

B) Permanent and/or transient modifiers only apply to 'defenses' - In this case the defenses have to exist as explicit things on my sheet, or AGAIN every time I use my ability score as a defense I have to recalculate. 

So, which is it? BOTH A AND B are worse than what 4e has, inarguably. This is the problem. Every variation of A and B are ALL worse than what 4e has. There is simply no way around this.

And are you seriously trying to imply that the game will simply blanket eschew ANY modifier of any kind to defenses and there will be NOTHING but static modifiers to ability scores than only change with level up? There's going to be NO SUCH THING as a ring of protection that increases my 'Charisma Defense'? Nothing, ever, in the whole game? No spell which does so, no item that I might remove or lose, no situation where these defenses will be adjusted at all? Really? Seriously? Have you thought about this?

EDIT: and lets assume that the game DOES eschew all modifiers to defenses. Why would this be a good design? Is it really worth removing an entire dimension of game design from 5e simply because someone decided it would be 'easier' (dubiously) to not have those numbers? Does that make sense? What about modularity? You're telling me that this core decision allows for options in the game when those options are either precluded or made much more awkward and less useful because of such a decision made in the construction of the core rules? Isn't the purpose of those core rules to FACILITATE the addition of options to the game that people want?


----------



## Votan

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Again, you're missing the point. There are 2 choices here:
> 
> A) Permanent and/or transient modifiers apply to ability score - In this case I have to either 1) have a space on my sheet for this 'adjusted score' or 2) recalculate this number every time I use it. AND on top of this there are a LOT more times when my ability scores change than in 4e, which ONLY EVER happens at level-up. Now if I say remove my ring or a buff wears out I have to recalculate EVERYTHING that depends on that score.
> 
> B) Permanent and/or transient modifiers only apply to 'defenses' - In this case the defenses have to exist as explicit things on my sheet, or AGAIN every time I use my ability score as a defense I have to recalculate.
> 
> So, which is it? BOTH A AND B are worse than what 4e has, inarguably. This is the problem. Every variation of A and B are ALL worse than what 4e has. There is simply no way around this.
> 
> And are you seriously trying to imply that the game will simply blanket eschew ANY modifier of any kind to defenses and there will be NOTHING but static modifiers to ability scores than only change with level up? There's going to be NO SUCH THING as a ring of protection that increases my 'Charisma Defense'? Nothing, ever, in the whole game? No spell which does so, no item that I might remove or lose, no situation where these defenses will be adjusted at all? Really? Seriously? Have you thought about this?




I think that this matters more for transient bonuses than permanent ones.  Which kind of brings up another design idea that I am beginning to like -- declaring war on the transient bonus.  It maximizes complexity and, when it is +1 or +2, does so for a very small shift in the odds.


----------



## Dausuul

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Again, where are you going to 'pencil in' this number? In a box on your sheet called "effective dexterity" or something? Now how many numbers am I remembering? It isn't 10 (4 stats plus 4 defenses), it is now 15! Again this is because you WILL HAVE STATIC MODIFIERS to your defenses. WILL HAVE. This is inevitable.




No, it is NOT inevitable. 4E has the equivalent in Passive Insight and Passive Perception, and after four years of crunch-bloat I am not aware of a single thing that modifies Passive Insight independently of Insight, or Passive Perception independently of Perception. Likewise, 4E has exactly zero effects that modify your ability scores.

If the designers can muster the discipline to achieve that in 4E, I see no reason they can't do something similar in 5E. 3E was an object lesson in why cascading modifiers are bad.


----------



## GreyICE

So where in 4E do you have a 'save versus passive insight or die' effect?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

GreyICE said:


> It doesn't MATTER whether you calculate 6 additional defenses, or just use the stats straight.  6 NADs is the opposite of streamlined, elegant design, especially when those NADs will be determined, according to the default book, by 4d6d1!
> 
> That's the problem here.  There is nothing streamlined, elegant, or balanced about that design.  It's messy, stupid, random, and it's going to randomly kill off characters for no discernible reason.
> 
> This is stupid design, messy faux-realistic design and stupid messy faux-realistic design is pretty much the polar opposite of 4E design.




Yup! This is a whole OTHER dimension to the problem. NOT ONLY is this design NOT going to make things more convenient for the players at the table, it is also NOT EVEN NUMERICALLY VIABLE as an approach to setting defenses. There are so many downsides to this whole concept it is hard to even take it seriously.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Votan said:


> I think that this matters more for transient bonuses than permanent ones.  Which kind of brings up another design idea that I am beginning to like -- declaring war on the transient bonus.  It maximizes complexity and, when it is +1 or +2, does so for a very small shift in the odds.




So, I rolled an 8 and I had to put it in some ability score or other and now there's simply no way I can ever compensate for my weakness? The cleric can't buff it, I can't hide behind a bush, I can't wear a ring, drink a potion, etc? That's going to fly. Yes, that will most certainly fly. 

Frankly I'm not averse to there being quite limited ways to transiently modify things. I think it is a fine idea to keep that down to a dull roar, but there is really no chance there are not going to be circumstances where some modifier needs to be used. If the only mod available is to the ability score itself, that's a REAL PITA. It is also WEIRD. I hide behind a bush and my DEX goes up? I'm pretty sure that won't happen. Thus again we arrive at the fallacy of the hidden number.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

The whole 7 defenses things smacks of the 3E design attitude of "it looks great on paper, who cares how it plays at the table".


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Dausuul said:


> No, it is NOT inevitable. 4E has the equivalent in Passive Insight and Passive Perception, and after four years of crunch-bloat I am not aware of a single thing that modifies Passive Insight independently of Insight, or Passive Perception independently of Perception. Likewise, 4E has exactly zero effects that modify your ability scores.
> 
> If the designers can muster the discipline to achieve that in 4E, I see no reason they can't do something similar in 5E. 3E was an object lesson in why cascading modifiers are bad.




Nothing modifies your ability scores BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER NUMBERS THAT CAN BE MODIFIED INSTEAD. That's the whole POINT of having defenses!

Your comment about Passive Insight is also irrelevant. Passive Insight and Perception are on the sheet as a convenience, nothing else. They can be removed and there's no real impact at all. It is a totally different situation. I have a Perception skill bonus (which you will note IS on my sheet) and that is the absolute determinant of Passive Perception. Now, look at the Initiative modifier, THAT can be modified independent of anything else. That needs to be on the sheet. Just because 4e puts some derived numbers on your sheet and they don't HAVE to be there does not invalidate derived numbers. There's no X therefore Y to your logic, it is a flawed argument.

As for the 'discipline' of 4e... Well, see above, but the whole point is that being able to have items etc that shore up your defenses is a core aspect of the game which has existed since 1974 (trust me, I know). You're saying that for the sake of pretending that defenses don't exist we have to give up an entire design element of 5e, one that can't be really added back in (you could add it in a module, which is now incompatible with every other module that interacts with the core defenses system, which is going to be a LOT of them). Again, the core game is supposed to provide a platform for optional modules, not exclude the possibility of them existing by refusing to define core concepts that have been in the game since literally day 1.


----------



## dkyle

Savage Wombat said:


> The point about wanting to play a system that doesn't use the six basic stats still applies.




Who wants this?  Certainly not me.  I don't think Incenjucar does either.  Neither of us (and noone else I've seen in this thread) is expressing a desire to remove the six ability scores.  Wanting a system where they produce a smaller number of derived stats, that get used in combat, does not mean we don't want a system with six ability scores.  It only means we don't want to have to reference 7 defenses in combat instead of 4.  That's it.  Stop reading things that aren't there.


----------



## GreyICE

AbdulAlhazred said:


> So, I rolled an 8 and I had to put it in some ability score or other and now there's simply no way I can ever compensate for my weakness? The cleric can't buff it, I can't hide behind a bush, I can't wear a ring, drink a potion, etc? That's going to fly. Yes, that will most certainly fly.
> 
> Frankly I'm not averse to there being quite limited ways to transiently modify things. I think it is a fine idea to keep that down to a dull roar, but there is really no chance there are not going to be circumstances where some modifier needs to be used. If the only mod available is to the ability score itself, that's a REAL PITA. It is also WEIRD. I hide behind a bush and my DEX goes up? I'm pretty sure that won't happen. Thus again we arrive at the fallacy of the hidden number.



Remember, SOD is coming back.  Save versus death DC 15 at a -1 penalty!

Oh but this is new SOD, you get two saves or something.

Nice character sheet there.  Now tear it up and make a new one.


----------



## Hassassin

AbdulAlhazred said:


> So, which is it? BOTH A AND B are worse than what 4e has, inarguably. This is the problem. Every variation of A and B are ALL worse than what 4e has. There is simply no way around this.
> 
> And are you seriously trying to imply that the game will simply blanket eschew ANY modifier of any kind to defenses and there will be NOTHING but static modifiers to ability scores than only change with level up?




We don't know if there will be any blanket +X to Cha saves type modifiers. I hope there will not. +5 against poison, OTOH, is no different from 4e. It doesn't matter if it applies to Fort or Con.

All I'm saying is that you *assume* they will choose A or B, when we don't really know that they will.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Hassassin said:


> We don't know if there will be any blanket +X to Cha saves type modifiers. I hope there will not. +5 against poison, OTOH, is no different from 4e. It doesn't matter if it applies to Fort or Con.
> 
> All I'm saying is that you *assume* they will choose A or B, when we don't really know that they will.




OK, there's a third choice between "this is on your sheet" and "this is not on your sheet"? 

Lets examine this other option further. OK, so now I have a bonus against 'poison'. How many of these different bonuses will I have? Which ones will apply? If there's NO OTHER WAY to have bonuses in 5e then presumably these will be fairly common. If they are so rare that I probably can't get one, then we're back where we were before. If they're not so rare then we've just created a whole OTHER issue, which is that I have to go tot all THOSE things up, AND we need a keyword system so I know what these bonuses apply against (we need one anyway, but that doesn't mean we'll get one, this was a huge issue with AD&D). 

Again, this kind of problem was largely avoided in 4e anyway because AGAIN there were defenses to apply adjustments to. Sure, there was a very occasional bonus to saves vs poison or something, but they were VERY rare. In fact I know of exactly ONE in the entire game, dwarves. I don't know of any other case in the entire system where there was a save or defense bonus against one specific type of damage or effect. There were resistances and immunities instead. This is a good solid design. It was easy to use at the table and numbers rarely changed. A bonus could logically apply to FORT and in fact USUALLY this made more sense anyway. If you're resistant to poison, you'd assume that resistance exists for SOME reason. Chances are that same effect will help you against other similar sorts of things (IE things that attack FORT).


----------



## Hassassin

AbdulAlhazred said:


> OK, there's a third choice between "this is on your sheet" and "this is not on your sheet"?
> 
> Lets examine this other option further. OK, so now I have a bonus against 'poison'. How many of these different bonuses will I have? Which ones will apply? If there's NO OTHER WAY to have bonuses in 5e then presumably these will be fairly common. If they are so rare that I probably can't get one, then we're back where we were before.




Supposing they are not too common there is no problem, in my opinion. 

If I got to choose, they would be things you have at most 1-3 of, usually from race or class. Other bonuses would come through ability score increases (also not common) or circumstance bonuses (quite common). Cleric or Bard buffs would only affect them through general effects like +1 to all checks.

But again, we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Hassassin said:


> Supposing they are not too common there is no problem, in my opinion.
> 
> If I got to choose, they would be things you have at most 1-3 of, usually from race or class. Other bonuses would come through ability score increases (also not common) or circumstance bonuses (quite common). Cleric or Bard buffs would only affect them through general effects like +1 to all checks.
> 
> But again, we'll have to wait and see.




There's only one thing to wait and see about, and that's if someone wakes up and realizes its a bad idea top to bottom. But indeed we will just wait and see.


----------



## Janaxstrus

I liked only having to track

Ref
Will
Fort
AC
To-Hit

The ONLY time I need to pay attention to my 6 stats were when I had some sort of buff applied to them temporarily (spell), at which point I had a +x bonus.

It was doubtful that it would change mid-combat, unless another affect modified it.  The VAST majority of the time, I needed to only pay attention to those 5.

While I like the idea of not being able to dump stat anything, (we have a player who almost exclusively plays the same half-orc in every campaign with high str, low int/cha), it WILL be more complex.  Will it be so complex as to mess with the game?  Won't know til we try I guess.


----------



## Mokona

mudbunny said:


> The main problem I have with that is that with the way that you build monsters in 3.5 is a sense of entitlement by many (not all, but many) players that if a monster does something, that they can do something as well.



It is a natural human tendency! Humans copy the world around them. Birds can fly so people invented airplanes (hey, now we can fly like birds). Plus hang gliders, kites, helicopters, rockets, hovercraft, blimps, hot air balloons, and (conceptually) flying saucers.

If an animal or *D&D* monster can perform a physical act it makes sense for the intelligent races to emulate that capacity through training (martial arts styles taken from "animal" themes like Mantis-style / Crane-style) or magic. *Dungeons & Dragons* spells should at least attempt to replicate supernatural powers found in monsters because if we really had magic that is often how we'd get ideas of what spells to "research".

On the other hand, it's a game design nightmare to make every monster power balanced enough so that PCs can have it. This is the real challenge. Building a system where monsters are easy to make but retroactively make it exciting for PCs that say, "that was cool, I'd like to do that".

1. Explicitly create magical powers, that are balanced for PCs, that emulate iconic monster abilities. Either a Vancian spell, a ritual, or an AEDU 4e power.

2. Create magic items that emulate certain iconic monster abilities.

3. Make a point-buy system and assign a point-buy cost to train it, and a mana-cost to activate iconic monster abilities each time the PC uses it.

4. Make a character class (or classes) that emulate iconic monster abilities and build long lists of iconic monster abilities as AEDU or Vancian powers of that class.

5. Have monsters, sometimes or most of the time, use the same powers that are already available to PCs so that it's easier for PCs to get it because it's almost inherently a PC power.


----------



## I'm A Banana

AbdulAlhazred said:
			
		

> if this is true then it is WORSE because now I have to change all the numbers related to my ability scores every time one of them changes, which will no doubt happen often.




It is entirely possible that they remove "all the numbers related to my ability scores."

It's not 3e. They probably don't feel a need to include detailed rules about how your CON score translates into HP per level, Fort saves, Encumbrance, your Endurance skill.....

They can probably just have CON 12 = X. CON 13 = X+1. 

Not saying this is happening or even an especially good idea necessarily, just saying you're seeing a lot of problems that are potentially not actually problems.


----------



## Votan

AbdulAlhazred said:


> So, I rolled an 8 and I had to put it in some ability score or other and now there's simply no way I can ever compensate for my weakness? The cleric can't buff it, I can't hide behind a bush, I can't wear a ring, drink a potion, etc? That's going to fly. Yes, that will most certainly fly.
> 
> Frankly I'm not averse to there being quite limited ways to transiently modify things. I think it is a fine idea to keep that down to a dull roar, but there is really no chance there are not going to be circumstances where some modifier needs to be used. If the only mod available is to the ability score itself, that's a REAL PITA. It is also WEIRD. I hide behind a bush and my DEX goes up? I'm pretty sure that won't happen. Thus again we arrive at the fallacy of the hidden number.




Note that my argument was against a lot of small, transient bonuses: the cleric is 15 feets away so +1, the bard is singing so +3, the Vrock has a spore field so -1 unless I move 5 feet that way in which case it is -2, plus I am bloodied so +1 for bloodied determination, I am uphill so +1, and wasn't there a bless spell too?  

Not being able to eliminate all weak points would actually be more true to older editions.  Not perfect but there will always be tradeoffs


----------



## Essenti

AbdulAlhazred said:


> There's only one thing to wait and see about, and that's if someone wakes up and realizes its a bad idea top to bottom. But indeed we will just wait and see.




I have been pinging back and forth between both sides of this argument, I can see wisdom in both directions. But this doesn't necessitate becoming irrate. I find it is usually more productive to assume you don't have enough facts rather than assuming someone else is an idiot. It pushes you to gather more facts and look in new directions, and maybe, just maybe, see things in a way you hadn't realized you were missing.

A fair amount of the problems with transient bonuses go away if instead of modifying the defender's defenses, transient bonuses only affect the attacker's attack roll.

"You try to plop an arrow in that goblin hiding in the bushes, the goblin is granted advantage against your attack roll, you roll at -2..." etc. etc.

Yes, some of the logic you are used to becomes inverted when using the six ability scores in this way, but it doesn't make it broken and non-functional.  Just a different way of looking at things.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Essenti said:


> I have been pinging back and forth between both sides of this argument, I can see wisdom in both directions. But this doesn't necessitate becoming irrate. I find it is usually more productive to assume you don't have enough facts rather than assuming someone else is an idiot. It pushes you to gather more facts and look in new directions, and maybe, just maybe, see things in a way you hadn't realized you were missing.
> 
> A fair amount of the problems with transient bonuses go away if instead of modifying the defender's defenses, transient bonuses only affect the attacker's attack roll.
> 
> "You try to plop an arrow in that goblin hiding in the bushes, the goblin is granted advantage against your attack roll, you roll at -2..." etc. etc.
> 
> Yes, some of the logic you are used to becomes inverted when using the six ability scores in this way, but it doesn't make it broken and non-functional.  Just a different way of looking at things.




Yeah, and honestly the really transient ones like that I'm not too worried about. The less transient ones like buffs can be handled the same way. It is really in the final analysis the problem of nowhere to record your adjusted score and/or that if the score itself has to be adjusted there are other things that you have to either constantly add or change, or again if you say have a ring of protection +1 either you're into semi-permanent ability score changes, or toting up all the "everyone gets a -1 to hit my DEX defense" every time it comes up. 

The inevitable upshot of all this is that sooner or later these 'defenses' will have to show up on people's sheets as recorded numbers. At that point there's just no reason not to call them defenses and be done with it.


----------



## howandwhy99

How to Stat your House Cattm _Disney Studios_

Determine lowest (1) and near maximum (10) levels of play for each class.
Determine where a house cat lies for each (below 1 every time).
So, Determine top and bottom averages for 1st level and where the house cat falls below these (0.333 - 3.0, 1.0 average, frex). (House cat = 0.1 combatant, 0.25 thief, 0.01 magic user, 0.02 cleric)
Stat out a house cat as a level 1 challenge for each type.
Determine the loss of ability needed for each class to reach the above status for a house cat.
Use as necessary.

For instance, the Reduce Person on a PC. At 12" tall a house cat can be known to be a 3rd level combat challenge. At 1" tall a house cat is a 9th level one.


----------



## Savage Wombat

Boy, you go away for a few hours.

I'm getting the distinct feeling that this whole argument is just edition warring without anybody mentioning the edition.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Savage Wombat said:


> Boy, you go away for a few hours.
> 
> I'm getting the distinct feeling that this whole argument is just edition warring without anybody mentioning the edition.




Eh, not really. 4e refined the core d20 mechanics some, but 3e had 'defenses', and in general they worked OK. It had some issues, mainly the math was so variable overall that you could easily end up with a non-viable save. 4e STILL hasn't really fixed that. 5e could help fix that by sticking with the existing design and using its flatter curve that doesn't include attack and defense progression as a built-in. That would actually pretty much give you a solid setup. Your wizard's FORT would still be below par and your fighters REF or WILL might be bad, but with 10+(best of two) ability mod the variation is pretty much in the range of 9 to 16 for NADs. If stat bumps don't exist and you don't have more than a total +1 you can possibly get from race or class then it really would work very well. 

What is frustrating is that there's a perfectly good solution, and one that AFAIK 99% of traditionalists don't seem to have a problem with, that already exists. But no no! We can't have anything recognizably carried over from 4e, that's ANATHEMA!


----------



## Janaxstrus

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Eh, not really. 4e refined the core d20 mechanics some, but 3e had 'defenses', and in general they worked OK. It had some issues, mainly the math was so variable overall that you could easily end up with a non-viable save. 4e STILL hasn't really fixed that. 5e could help fix that by sticking with the existing design and using its flatter curve that doesn't include attack and defense progression as a built-in. That would actually pretty much give you a solid setup. Your wizard's FORT would still be below par and your fighters REF or WILL might be bad, but with 10+(best of two) ability mod the variation is pretty much in the range of 9 to 16 for NADs. If stat bumps don't exist and you don't have more than a total +1 you can possibly get from race or class then it really would work very well.
> 
> What is frustrating is that there's a perfectly good solution, and one that AFAIK 99% of traditionalists don't seem to have a problem with, that already exists. But no no! We can't have anything recognizably carried over from 4e, that's ANATHEMA!




I know you are trying to be sarcastic, but I agree with what you said, in a non-sarcastic manner.


----------



## hamstertamer

So far, the Saving throws sound good to me.

d20 + Ability bonus vs. Special Attack's DC  (Very easy)

So Imagine it will be like this for an Elf to resist a Charm.

d20 + Ability bonus (Cha or Wis) + 2 (Enchantment Resistance) vs. 10 + 1 (1st level Charm spell) + Caster's Ability bonus.


----------



## Greg K

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Your wizard's FORT would still be below par and your fighters REF or WILL might be bad, but with 10+(best of two) ability mod the variation is pretty much in the range of 9 to 16 for NADs. If stat bumps don't exist and you don't have more than a total +1 you can possibly get from race or class then it really would work very well.
> 
> What is frustrating is that there's a perfectly good solution, and one that AFAIK 99% of traditionalists don't seem to have a problem with, that already exists. But no no! We can't have anything recognizably carried over from 4e, that's ANATHEMA!




There are several things that I would not mind being carried over from 4e including: 
Removing level drain
Removing 3e XP costs
Balancing casters and non casters across levels
Disease track
Removing the non-biological (ok, 4e didn't do this completely, but close) and making them feats
Giving martial characters cool things to do (but I would prefer going with a Book of Iron Might approach)
Rangers as non-casters
At wills for spellcasters
Magic Missile requiring a hit roll
Backgrounds and themes
Feywild.

Choose between two ability mods for a save bonus without requiring a feat or via a spell, however, is something that I hope is not on my list. It just encourages dump stats, in my opinion.


----------



## GreyICE

Dump stats are much fairer than expecting a player to keep 6 stats high, and punishing them if they don't, especially when the system makes it mechanically impossible to keep 6 stats high.


----------



## Janaxstrus

GreyICE said:


> Dump stats are much fairer than expecting a player to keep 6 stats high, and punishing them if they don't, especially when the system makes it mechanically impossible to keep 6 stats high.




"Punishing the rogue by attacking with undead is unfair if he can't sneak attack them"
"Attacking the monk with things with DR is unfair if he can't bypass it"
"Attacking the wizard with golems isn't fair if he can't bypass SR"

Checks and balances.  It's a party after all.  Just because the wizard will fail his checks semi-regularly against things that target a strength type save isn't unfair.  It's the nature of the wizard.

No different than through out the history of D&D when certain classes were weak vs certain enemies or saves.  It's not a punishment, it's a reality of playing a certain class, they have always had a weakness to certain things.


----------



## GreyICE

Uh, no.

The rogue can't sneak attack, well there goes all his damage.
The monk can't bypass DR, well there goes all his anything.  Again (monks were useless)
The Wizard can't bypass SR, well he can wall of force the thing, buff whoever he wants to make it easy, create blades of force he can use to attack it, he did take his feats to make it easier to bypass SR, right?  If not, well, there's quite a few spells that don't care about SR (hello Force damage).  Hell if he really wants he can just summon a whole ton of monsters to beat the golem to pieces with physical attacks, because hell, he's a wizard, why should he care about SR?

The history of D&D is a bunch of challenges for non-spellcasters that spellcasters don't care about.  4E was the first edition that said 'a challenge should be challenging for every class' and did it.


----------



## Janaxstrus

GreyICE said:


> Uh, no.
> 
> The rogue can't sneak attack, well there goes all his damage.
> The monk can't bypass DR, well there goes all his anything.  Again (monks were useless)
> The Wizard can't bypass SR, well he can wall of force the thing, buff whoever he wants to make it easy, create blades of force he can use to attack it, he did take his feats to make it easier to bypass SR, right?  If not, well, there's quite a few spells that don't care about SR (hello Force damage).  Hell if he really wants he can just summon a whole ton of monsters to beat the golem to pieces with physical attacks, because hell, he's a wizard, why should he care about SR?
> 
> The history of D&D is a bunch of challenges for non-spellcasters that spellcasters don't care about.  4E was the first edition that said 'a challenge should be challenging for every class' and did it.




What 4e, the system going away after not even 4 years of being in print, did to balance spell casters and non-spellcasters has nothing to do with "punishing" classes for having certain stats being low.  

Just because some people took the time to min-max their wizard to the gills doesn't change the fact that for a majority of players who didn't scour the optimatization boards, a golem with SR-ALL was a big challenge.

Either way, having a low stats should be a detriment.  Just like having a high stat is a advantage.


----------



## Saagael

Janaxstrus said:


> Either way, having a low stats should be a detriment.  Just like having a high stat is a advantage.




Except that a save or die effect that targets a character's dump stat means that character is pretty much hosed. A high ability score, even a maximized one, for a character will most likely not equate to an equally hosed opponent. So you end up with a moderate advantage in one area for a completely detrimental flaw in another.


----------



## Janaxstrus

Saagael said:


> Except that a save or die effect that targets a character's dump stat means that character is pretty much hosed. A high ability score, even a maximized one, for a character will most likely not equate to an equally hosed opponent. More like a moderate advantage in one area for a completely detrimental flaw in another.




And?  Targetting a monster with a vulnerability to fire with a scorching ray is going to hose them.  Why should PCs not have to work around their flaws?

Considering they have made mention of 2 step save-or-die effects also involving hit point threshholds, it won't likely end up being the apocalypse you seem to think.


----------



## Greg K

GreyICE said:


> Dump stats are much fairer than expecting a player to keep 6 stats high, and punishing them if they don't, especially when the system makes it mechanically impossible to keep 6 stats high.




Disagree, but then I never agreed with those complaining about MAD.


----------



## Greg K

Saagael said:


> Except that a save or die effect that targets a character's dump stat means that character is pretty much hosed. A high ability score, even a maximized one, for a character will most likely not equate to an equally hosed opponent. So you end up with a moderate advantage in one area for a completely detrimental flaw in another.




Then, don't treat something as a dump stat so that you can max out other scores!  You want that 18 instead of a 16 (which is well above average), then pay the price (my opinion of course).


----------



## Saagael

Janaxstrus said:


> And?  Targetting a monster with a vulnerability to fire with a scorching ray is going to hose them.  Why should PCs not have to work around their flaws?
> 
> Considering they have made mention of 2 step save-or-die effects also involving hit point threshholds, it won't likely end up being the apocalypse you seem to think.




Utilizing an enemy's vulnerability to a type of damage isn't quite the same though. With save-or-die effects (of which I haven't heard of this 2-step process, so any link to a source of this info would be appreciated), there is no vulnerability or weakness other than "you picked the wrong dump-stat".

I'm also doubting that there will be powerful creatures that can be one-shot as long as the players have the correct damage type. Though I can't say for sure as I have never played 1st or 2nd edition, and don't know if that kind of thing existed then.

With the way stats work now, and this could change though I doubt it, a character can't really be great at what they're supposed to do unless they have one or two stats that are low. So you're asking a fighter or rogue to give up with marginal abilities they have, compared to a caster, in order to shore up lower stats.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Greg K said:


> There are several things that I would not mind being carried over from 4e including:
> Removing level drain
> Removing 3e XP costs
> Balancing casters and non casters across levels
> Disease track
> Removing the non-biological (ok, 4e didn't do this completely, but close) and making them feats
> Giving martial characters cool things to do (but I would prefer going with a Book of Iron Might approach)
> Rangers as non-casters
> At wills for spellcasters
> Magic Missile requiring a hit roll
> Backgrounds and themes
> Feywild.
> 
> Choose between two ability mods for a save bonus without requiring a feat or via a spell, however, is something that I hope is not on my list. It just encourages dump stats, in my opinion.




Yeah, I like all of the things you list, though I think there are even more fundamental aspects of 4e's approach that I like. 



GreyICE said:


> Dump stats are much fairer than expecting a player to keep 6 stats high, and punishing them if they don't, especially when the system makes it mechanically impossible to keep 6 stats high.




The thing is, sure, you 'encourage dump stats', but IMHO it is all a two-edged sword, as GreyICE is saying here. Beyond what he's said though, what if I WANT a character with an 8 WIS? Am I just supposed to be utterly helpless? I mean its my choice and I am fine with (WANT) there to be some consequence to that so I can play the character as a dufus or whatever, but literally having no chance of making most defense checks on that stat? That seems harsh. I think the difference between the best and worst should not be more than say 30-50% more often hit, which translates to a numeric range of around 5 points total. 10 points is kinda steep, lol. 

In other words, you're DISCOURAGING of dump stats is not really giving players any more freedom than encouraging them was. Remember, 4e for instance, gave tangible benefits to any PC for pretty much any stat. There were actually a fair number of reasons to want to spread your points out some. You just want to be able to do either thing and not have the consequences be TOO extreme either way.

The other thing is, this whole discussion is moot if you're rolling your stats, and it seems pretty clear that's the designated standard approach in 5e (I really doubt they'll change this). Point buy is going to be there, but if you really hate the way players allocate stats, just tell them to follow the standard rules. I've never been terribly against rolling stats anyway. It can produce some bad results, but it can also add interest to the game. So I would just say this whole thing is really likely a non-issue for the most part. Double up the stats on the defenses, and get the more stable math, then let people roll up their characters, and you have no worries about dump stats.


----------



## Iron Sky

Even if defenses weren't tied to stats, you could do something to make them non-obvious dump stats. For example: Strength - carrying capacity, Con - hp, Dex - Initiative, Int - bonus skills and languages, Wis - bonus crit damage maybe?, Cha - starting wealth/buy prices/built in Leadership?

I like the idea of having to do at least some cost-benefit analysis of my stats, in part because it makes the stats you choose more valuable because you see what you are giving up and makes the characters that chose differently a way to shine in a different way than your character.

"You're wearing the super-heavy plate and it's not even slowing you down? Damn!" "Yeah, but you've got those 5 guys that practically worship you from the last town that will step in front of a dragon for you!" OR "Man, your guy is like McGyver, you disabled that trap AND read the dwarven runes in the crypt and now you know ancient illithid lore too?" "Yeah, but your guy shrugged off a crit from that orc that would have taken me straight to perma-dead!"

Having 90% of my 4e characters packing 8 int or cha because they are the "least useful" stats and I can pretty much ignore the -1 is lame - if I've got a number in a stat, I want it to mean something!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Janaxstrus said:


> And?  Targetting a monster with a vulnerability to fire with a scorching ray is going to hose them.  Why should PCs not have to work around their flaws?
> 
> Considering they have made mention of 2 step save-or-die effects also involving hit point threshholds, it won't likely end up being the apocalypse you seem to think.




Nobody is advocating the non-existence of flaws. You may want to study 4e some because it is QUITE common for characters to have weak points. Dump 10's into STR and CON (quite common for your average wizard) and you're right there with a baseline 10 FORT.


----------



## Hassassin

AbdulAlhazred said:


> The thing is, sure, you 'encourage dump stats', but IMHO it is all a two-edged sword, as GreyICE is saying here. Beyond what he's said though, what if I WANT a character with an 8 WIS? Am I just supposed to be utterly helpless?




If it means someone with Wis 8 is utterly helpless, I agree. But if it just means that character is weaker against <10%* of monters, sounds good. Again you seem to be assuming the designers will screw everything up. Any idea is going to look bad if you assume they'll use it with mechanics and numbers that would not work with it.

*Supposing 50% of monsters really only attack against AC and the rest call for uniformly distributed saves.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Again, where are you going to 'pencil in' this number? In a box on your sheet called "effective dexterity" or something? Now how many numbers am I remembering? It isn't 10 (4 stats plus 4 defenses), it is now 15! Again this is because you WILL HAVE STATIC MODIFIERS to your defenses. WILL HAVE. This is inevitable.
> 
> Now, lets imagine what you would have if you DID NOT have static modifiers. Instead you'd have to have modifiers to your ability scores directly. Every single effect would have to directly change them. You'd STILL have to write this adjusted number down, but NOW all the things that are derived from it would ALSO change!!!
> 
> There's simply no way that this change is an improvement. It might SEEM like one to you now without a lot of reflection, but believe me, *I did the exercise of actually sitting down and saying "OK, suppose the rules look like this, what does my sheet look like, and how does this play?"* and the answer is it makes things more complicated to 'remove' the 3 stat-based defenses. I know that might seem counter-intuitive to people, but ACTUALLY SIT DOWN AND INVENT A CHARACTER and you will see. Imagine this character with bonuses and penalties and items and etc on his/her sheet and you'll very quickly see that 'eliminating defenses' is the 'missing number falacy'. Just because you remove a number from your sheet does not make that number go away.



hmmh... sorry, but i never had problems with my memory. In the worst case I have a sheet next to me where i make dashes.

Stats as defenses are no problem for me. Maybe my core assumprion about what is he core of 3.5 and yours differ.
In my games, those modifieres were rare. Except in the group where the bard sang all the time. But neither did it slow down play, as the bonus was usually the same every time. And my players are not stupid either. They can add +4 to all their rolls. (Sometimes they forget, but who cares)

Assuming that there are 1000s of fiddly modifiers in 5e seems a bit too quick right now.

edit: i bolded the part where you make the mistake: we don´t have enough information to make an estimated guess about any rules. I can imagine a system, where non armor defenses are usually not modified at all.
Also: if my dexterity drops, it is elementary school math to reduce anythin dexterity related by 2 points or so. It is much more difficult if there are effects: reflex saves -2, dexterity -4, acrobatic -3. And suddenly you have different penalties that effectively reduce the same game statstic by different numbers simultaneously.


----------



## GreyICE

Janaxstrus said:


> What 4e, the system going away after not even 4 years of being in print, did to balance spell casters and non-spellcasters has nothing to do with "punishing" classes for having certain stats being low.
> 
> Just because some people took the time to min-max their wizard to the gills doesn't change the fact that for a majority of players who didn't scour the optimatization boards, a golem with SR-ALL was a big challenge.
> 
> Either way, having a low stats should be a detriment.  Just like having a high stat is a advantage.



It required scouring the optimization boards to realize that all the Spell resistance in the world doesn't do a damn thing against Summon Monster *?

Hmmm.  And here I thought I realized it the first time I encountered spell resistance as a concept back with the 3E manual.

Y'know, it really didn't take scouring the optimization boards to realize the total dominance of Clerics and Druids in 3.5, and Wizards were only a smidge behind until they were optimized (then they jumped ahead).  How to break the game with these classes was easy and readily apparent to players in possession of the 'Player's Handbook'


----------



## the Jester

Janaxstrus said:


> What 4e, the system going away after not even 4 years of being in print...




The 4e PH came out in June of 2008. DnDN will not be out by this June; the favorite bet at this point seems to be GenCon 2013. Let's not play the "factually incorrect assertions about 4e" game, shall we?


----------



## jsaving

Arytiss said:


> I dunno, given that what it's supposed to be is a very early Alpha version, it's entirely possible that those sorts of mistakes might be present. Alpha is Alpha after all.



I wish more people would keep this in mind.  Even if these rules are real -- and I will point out that only some of them line up with what the 5e team *says* it's doing -- they're only a working draft to set the process in motion.

I'm also surprised to see so much debate over whether we can "trust" Monte and the others to incorporate player input into 5e.  To me, it seems naive to say WotC is motivated purely by an altruistic desire to satisfy the player base -- they're a business and always will be.  At the same time, though, they've evidently concluded it makes _business sense_ to incorporate player input into 5e to stop the hemorrhaging of gamers to Pathfinder and unite the role-playing community behind a new edition.  So I think there's room to be at least somewhat optimistic about 5e no matter where one comes out on the "trust" issue.


----------



## GreyICE

That'd pretty much be why we don't trust Monte, yes.  It seems like he wants to cater to absolutely everyone (by which he seems to mean pretty much solely 3E players) by making an RPG that incorporates everything that 3E and AD&D were, and maybe a few elements of 4E (keep the Warlord, but the Warlord can't restore HP because that's magical only, etc.).  

His articles have revealed a deep, breathtaking ignorance of 4E (he made one about how cool it would be if you didn't need to roll the dice to perceive ambushes or traps, and how that was a great idea for Next that completely ignored the fact it was in 4E, something that you couldn't miss if you, say, ever had a 4E character sheet in front of you) and he's been dismissive of the system and people's concerns over it since the year dot.

My bet is the grognards stick with Pathfinder, those of us who like a tight balanced system stick with 4E, and Next tanks.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

nope. Not in 4e. It was in 4e, but shot down in the playtest. Passive perception vs static DC was not fully implemented in 4e.
I don´t know wherein your problem lies. I don´t see 4e people neclected in 5e. Of course the power system can´t be in the base game. Vancian magic needs to be in. Some adjustments for warlord healing are ok.
4e and 3e and especially ADnD are all great games. Or were... at their time. 5e will be the best at its time. Beeing inspired by all editions.


----------



## Kynn

Dausuul said:


> No, it is NOT inevitable. 4E has the equivalent in Passive Insight and Passive Perception, and after four years of crunch-bloat I am not aware of a single thing that modifies Passive Insight independently of Insight, or Passive Perception independently of Perception. Likewise, 4E has exactly zero effects that modify your ability scores.




Stag Helm and Premonition Ring both give increases to Passive Perception (and not to Perception in general).


----------



## GreyICE

UngeheuerLich said:


> nope. Not in 4e. It was in 4e, but shot down in the playtest. Passive perception vs static DC was not fully implemented in 4e.
> I don´t know wherein your problem lies. I don´t see 4e people neclected in 5e. Of course the power system can´t be in the base game. Vancian magic needs to be in. Some adjustments for warlord healing are ok.
> 4e and 3e and especially ADnD are all great games. Or were... at their time. 5e will be the best at its time. Beeing inspired by all editions.




See, statements that "of course" powers aren't in the base game (for any class at all) and "of course" vancian magic is in makes me think you're fundamentally biased and preaching to me.  

4E is, in my opinion, the best version of DnD ever made, and I don't want 3E with a few bones tossed to me to remind me of the best system ever.


----------



## Janaxstrus

GreyICE said:


> See, statements that "of course" powers aren't in the base game (for any class at all) and "of course" vancian magic is in makes me think you're fundamentally biased and preaching to me.
> 
> 4E is, in my opinion, the best version of DnD ever made, and I don't want 3E with a few bones tossed to me to remind me of the best system ever.




I would get used to the idea that the magic default will be Vancian magic, likely with Unearthed Arcana style modular options to allow for other systems.

From what I've found and read, it seems to be the preferred method. (for the designers)


----------



## GreyICE

Janaxstrus said:


> I would get used to the idea that the magic default will be Vancian magic, likely with Unearthed Arcana style modular options to allow for other systems.
> 
> From what I've found and read, it seems to be the preferred method. (for the designers)




I'm getting used to playing 4E.

Wait, I'm already used to it.

No transition needed.


----------



## Janaxstrus

GreyICE said:


> I'm getting used to playing 4E.
> 
> Wait, I'm already used to it.
> 
> No transition needed.




Then why seemingly so worked up about 5e?  If you don't want to switch...don't.  I know lots that never switched from 3 to 4, 1 to 2, etc etc


----------



## GreyICE

Janaxstrus said:


> Then why seemingly so worked up about 5e?  If you don't want to switch...don't.  I know lots that never switched from 3 to 4, 1 to 2, etc etc




Because I was hoping 5E would be another step forward for D&D.

Pretty much every edition has been a step forward in many ways.  3E built on AD&D, simplifying and boradening the scope, 4E built on 3E, rebalancing and creating new tactical options.  I was hoping Next would build on 4E, making an even better game.

This leak pretty much confirms that's not going to happen.


----------



## Hussar

Janaxstrus said:


> Then why seemingly so worked up about 5e?  If you don't want to switch...don't.  I know lots that never switched from 3 to 4, 1 to 2, etc etc




You realize the irony in this don't you.  Considering 5e's goal is to bring EVERYONE together?  Not just cater to your tastes and giving a big middle finger salute to everyone else because, so long as you're happy, there's no problem?

You have to realize that there is a fair chunk of players for whom 4e actually does represent improvements on the system.  Simply trying to shut out 4e players so that we can get some sort of WOTC version of Pathfinder isn't the way to go.

There has to be some degree of compromise.  If all they do is cut and paste mechanics from earlier editions and pretend that 4e is the red-headed stepchild of the game, they are just as guilty of ignoring the fanbase as 3e critics complain they were going into 4e.

Considering the level of pissing and moaning that went into 4e, I would think that 4e critics would be somewhat sensitive to other fans wishes to not be marginalized by the new edition.  

Or, is it simply payback time, and everyone who isn't on the "back to 3e" bandwagon can just piss off?


----------



## Dice4Hire

Sure looks like some people in this thread could use a time out till the actual playtest documents are released.

I know I am ready to take one.


----------



## Szatany

Votan said:


> Note that my argument was against a lot of small, transient bonuses: the cleric is 15 feets away so +1, the bard is singing so +3, the Vrock has a spore field so -1 unless I move 5 feet that way in which case it is -2, plus I am bloodied so +1 for bloodied determination, I am uphill so +1, and wasn't there a bless spell too?




The game could use streamlining in this aspect of the rules. It should be faster and simpler to calculate a bonus. 99% of situational boni should be +2 (or -2 for penalties). Based on your example it should work like this: the cleric is 15 ft away, the bard's singing, uphill and bloodied determination - that's four favorable circumstances. Spore field is one negative one. That's total of 3 favorable factors so my bonus is +6.


----------



## Szatany

GreyICE said:


> Dump stats are much fairer than expecting a player to keep 6 stats high, and punishing them if they don't, especially when the system makes it mechanically impossible to keep 6 stats high.




Life isn't fair. Why should a game that's trying to imitate life (more or less) be fair then?
The only fairness that absolutely needs to be in there is to treat all players equally.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

I'm going to go check if there's a new OOTs now, and then do the final bit of prep work for my Thursday game. The party will be trying to close a shadowgate and that will be interesting. They already got hit pretty good last time and burned up a couple daily powers. Cost them a few surges to boot, now it will be time to see if they can forge their way through the gauntlet and accomplish the mission. Plot twists await! 

Really, 5e could be a great thing. People need to keep an open mind to some actual innovations. Really, it needs to have GAME as one of its priorities, not just fan service.


----------



## billd91

GreyICE said:


> Dump stats are much fairer than expecting a player to keep 6 stats high, and punishing them if they don't, especially when the system makes it mechanically impossible to keep 6 stats high.




I emphatically disagree. It's one of 4e's blind spots in the balancing, I think. Not every class has the same number of dump stats, nor do all races. 4e zigged by generally increasing the number of dumpable stats when it should have zagged toward more multiple attribute dependency.


----------



## dkyle

Szatany said:


> Life isn't fair. Why should a game that's trying to imitate life (more or less) be fair then?




RPGs aren't "life", and like entertainment in general, are inherently escapist.  Just because life sucks sometimes doesn't mean a game needs to suck similarly.

In particular, if I feel that a game is punishing me for something I had little to no agency in, I start looking for a new game pretty quick.  I don't know if the ability-scores-as-defenses will result in that, but it's something to watch for.


----------



## jsaving

GreyICE said:


> Because I was hoping 5E would be another step forward for D&D.
> 
> Pretty much every edition has been a step forward in many ways.  3E built on AD&D, simplifying and boradening the scope, 4E built on 3E, rebalancing and creating new tactical options.  I was hoping Next would build on 4E, making an even better game.
> 
> This leak pretty much confirms that's not going to happen.



The problem, at its root, is that a large and growing portion of the gaming public doesn't see 4e as an improvement and is currently voting with their dollars to use Pathfinder rather than 4e.  

That's what's being missed in this conversation, I think.  Monte's arrival at WotC didn't happen in a vacuum -- he was hired only after WotC concluded they went too far with 4e and inadvertently splintered the gaming community they'd hoped to unite.  Viewed in that light, Next was never destined to build on 4e to make what 4e fans would consider an even better game, no matter how fervently current-edition players wish it could be so.  And I frankly wouldn't trust any new "leak" that might suggest otherwise, for fear that it would simply fill you with false hope.

At the same time, though, the player base can't be reunited simply by dressing up 3e in new clothes and calling it Next.  Only a genuine synthesis can do that -- one that includes 4e's strong points as well as 3e's.  And whether the 5e team can successfully pull *that* off, only time will tell.


----------



## keterys

I imagine that even if 4E had just really been a revised version of 3.5... folks still would have splintered.

Even without a new edition, folks were splintering. Though maybe not into quite the chasm that's Pathfinder nowadays.

Every edition of D&D. Every year that passes. Every little gripe people have with the system. Every new and cool game. They spread. Sometimes they circle back, of course. Sometimes the new players replace those lost, or even increase above that, but...

It's quite a difficult goal WotC has, and it's not just cause one edition sucks or another edition is great.


----------



## Essenti

jsaving said:


> The problem, at its root, is that a large and growing portion of the gaming public doesn't see 4e as an improvement and is currently voting with their dollars to use Pathfinder rather than 4e.
> <snip>




I would really like to see the numbers on this for other areas. The various meetups in my location are relatively equally diverse. There are about 3 regular Pathfinder groups, 3 4e groups, 4 3.5 groups, 3 2e groups, and 5 BECMI/OSR groups. 

I think the biggest issue from the above meetup numbers in my area is that people are playing every edition. I don't see a massive exodus towards pathfinder. I see people playing the edition they are most comfortable with / have the books for. The result is that I've been playing 5 different versions of the game with various groups for a while now, and I've learned that each edition has its merits. ALL OF THEM. It does get a bit awkward keeping the idiosyncrasies of each edition straight for the different games I play though.

The apparent edition fracturing is the main reason I hope 5e accomplishes the goals it has set out for and I am not in the least worried by what was in the purported 1.0 friends and family leak. Not that I like what I saw, but that it seems a perfectly good time for them to mix up a bunch of things from different editions just to see what happens. Sometimes things have redeeming qualities that aren't apparent until you actually see how they are working or failing.

I'm still looking forward to the release of the playtest for 5e.


----------



## Savage Wombat

Hard numbers would be nice, yes.  But in the absence of hard numbers, we have the following circumstancial evidence:

1) Paizo is making an awfully fine living supporting their own version of a separate edition;

2) A lot of anecdotal remarks on the internet and otherwise suggesting a trend of rejecting the new edition; 

3) WotC's clear decision to forgo either continuing the new edition or revamping it into a revised edition.

All of this suggests that, at the very least, WotC (Hasbro?) _thinks_ that they're losing an enormous amount of money to Pathfinder and older editions.  Even if this isn't true, it's fairly obvious that it's driving their decision-making process.

A lot of our world today is driven by perceived trends that may or may not be actual trends.  But we still have to deal with the results.

And I'm also looking forward to the playtest release.  Too much, almost.


----------



## Lanefan

GreyICE said:


> Because I was hoping 5E would be another step forward for D&D.
> 
> Pretty much every edition has been a step forward in many ways.  3E built on AD&D, simplifying and boradening the scope, 4E built on 3E, rebalancing and creating new tactical options.



Thing is, your definition of a step forward is in the broadest terms pretty much the same as my definition of a step backwards, or at least away from a game I would want to play.

I too am hoping 5e is a step forward, but I fear that if it is to please both of us it'll have to walk in two directions at once.

Lan-"these boots are made for walkin'"-efan


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

jsaving said:


> The problem, at its root, is that a large and growing portion of the gaming public doesn't see 4e as an improvement and is currently voting with their dollars to use Pathfinder rather than 4e.
> 
> That's what's being missed in this conversation, I think.  Monte's arrival at WotC didn't happen in a vacuum -- he was hired only after WotC concluded they went too far with 4e and inadvertently splintered the gaming community they'd hoped to unite.  Viewed in that light, Next was never destined to build on 4e to make what 4e fans would consider an even better game, no matter how fervently current-edition players wish it could be so.  And I frankly wouldn't trust any new "leak" that might suggest otherwise, for fear that it would simply fill you with false hope.
> 
> At the same time, though, the player base can't be reunited simply by dressing up 3e in new clothes and calling it Next.  Only a genuine synthesis can do that -- one that includes 4e's strong points as well as 3e's.  And whether the 5e team can successfully pull *that* off, only time will tell.




This is the key point though. Either 5e is an improvement on 4e for the people who like 4e or it is stillborn. It is as simple as that. No ifs, ands, or butts about it, that's the necessary condition to the survival of D&D. You may not like it but that's the way it is. Clearly WotC MUST have everyone on board and buying, and we have zero incentive to buy something that isn't better than what we have now. Consider, I have plenty of books that are what, 2-3 years old? I REALLY do not need to replace those. The case has to be really compelling. So, if people with other tastes want to see a new game succeed, well, they're going to have to compromise, and not just pay some casual lip service. I don't know where that leaves WotC, probably in a very bad place, but such is life.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Lanefan said:


> Thing is, your definition of a step forward is in the broadest terms pretty much the same as my definition of a step backwards, or at least away from a game I would want to play.
> 
> I too am hoping 5e is a step forward, but I fear that if it is to please both of us it'll have to walk in two directions at once.
> 
> Lan-"these boots are made for walkin'"-efan




Then it's done. Like I said above, there's ZERO incentive for anyone who likes the majority of what 4e did to buy anything from WotC unless it is a game that is actually better than 4e in our eyes. If it isn't, then it will almost certainly fail. I don't particularly want to see that, but if you want me to buy more books 3 years after I just bought lots of books you gotta sell me and you gotta sell me hard. 

I'm not interested in inflicting anything on anyone of course. I'm skeptical of the 5e theory of a game that will please all tastes, but hey, who'd really be AGAINST that? Nothing is cast in stone yet. A year from now we'll know exactly what the scoop is, then we can all REALLY complain!


----------



## Hussar

Circumstantial is certainly true.



Savage Wombat said:


> Hard numbers would be nice, yes.  But in the absence of hard numbers, we have the following circumstancial evidence:
> 
> 1) Paizo is making an awfully fine living supporting their own version of a separate edition;




Let's not forget that Paizo is a considerably smaller company than WOTC.  By a couple of hundred employees (Magic and various other bits are still parts of WOTC).  What is doing fine for Paizo isn't necessarily the same thing for WOTC.



> 2) A lot of anecdotal remarks on the internet and otherwise suggesting a trend of rejecting the new edition;




The plural of anecdote is not data.  Do some people reject the new edition?  Oh certainly.  The question is, how many?  Is it widespread or a localized phenomenon?  Is it growing and at what rate?  Is Paizo pulling in new players from the 4e side or simply cannibalizing existing 3e players?  Is anyone actually bringing in new players to the hobby?  If so, in what numbers?  



> 3) WotC's clear decision to forgo either continuing the new edition or revamping it into a revised edition.




How is 5e not a new edition?  It's clearly different than anything that came before.  Will it include 3e elements and elements from other editions?  Oh certainly.  Then again, 4e contained a very large amount of elements from other editions, although it didn't really try to bank on that point.  Many of 4e's "innovations" and whatnot are heavily cribbed from Basic/Expert D&D, for example.



> All of this suggests that, at the very least, WotC (Hasbro?) _thinks_ that they're losing an enormous amount of money to Pathfinder and older editions.  Even if this isn't true, it's fairly obvious that it's driving their decision-making process.
> 
> A lot of our world today is driven by perceived trends that may or may not be actual trends.  But we still have to deal with the results.
> 
> And I'm also looking forward to the playtest release.  Too much, almost.




Define "enormous".  It could easily be that while Paizo is doing quite well, the "quite well" for Paizo would not be enough for WOTC.  It all depends on what WOTC's target goals are.

The thing is, 5 years for an edition is not exactly a huge problem.  Many games have 5 year cycles.  It's only D&D that has had these really long fallow periods between new editions.  5 years is perfectly respectable for any product.

This whole, "Well, 4e is so short lived, it MUST be a failure" meme really needs to die.  It's simply not true.  If time between new editions is the metric for a successful game, then RIFTS is the most successful game on the market.

Do we really believe that?


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> This whole, "Well, 4e is so short lived, it MUST be a failure" meme really needs to die.  It's simply not true.  If time between new editions is the metric for a successful game, then RIFTS is the most successful game on the market.
> 
> Do we really believe that?




IF (and that's a big if) the company behind it can afford to create a new edition and doesn't, that implies it's doing OK by their standards - the metric that matters the most. It is, however, reasonably apparent that 4e isn't performing up to WotC's standards and that's what really matters in WotC's decision-making process. Is there anyone really doesn't believe that? Is there anyone who believes that the new edition is coming out for some other reason other than 4e not paying the bills they way they want them paid? 

I mean I can imagine a few other relatively minor factors weighing in - the coolness of coming out with a new edition right at the 40 year mark, the prestige hit of losing the top RPG spot in the specialty market without being financially destitute. But I don't think coming out with a new edition based on those alone would be a sound business decision. And despite my criticisms of WotC's decisions, I don't think they're likely to make decisions quite that bad.


----------



## Janaxstrus

Hussar said:


> Circumstantial is certainly true.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not forget that Paizo is a considerably smaller company than WOTC.  By a couple of hundred employees (Magic and various other bits are still parts of WOTC).  What is doing fine for Paizo isn't necessarily the same thing for WOTC.
> 
> 
> 
> The plural of anecdote is not data.  Do some people reject the new edition?  Oh certainly.  The question is, how many?  Is it widespread or a localized phenomenon?  Is it growing and at what rate?  Is Paizo pulling in new players from the 4e side or simply cannibalizing existing 3e players?  Is anyone actually bringing in new players to the hobby?  If so, in what numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> How is 5e not a new edition?  It's clearly different than anything that came before.  Will it include 3e elements and elements from other editions?  Oh certainly.  Then again, 4e contained a very large amount of elements from other editions, although it didn't really try to bank on that point.  Many of 4e's "innovations" and whatnot are heavily cribbed from Basic/Expert D&D, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> Define "enormous".  It could easily be that while Paizo is doing quite well, the "quite well" for Paizo would not be enough for WOTC.  It all depends on what WOTC's target goals are.
> 
> The thing is, 5 years for an edition is not exactly a huge problem.  Many games have 5 year cycles.  It's only D&D that has had these really long fallow periods between new editions.  5 years is perfectly respectable for any product.
> 
> This whole, "Well, 4e is so short lived, it MUST be a failure" meme really needs to die.  It's simply not true.  If time between new editions is the metric for a successful game, then RIFTS is the most successful game on the market.
> 
> Do we really believe that?




It's been stated in a few articles that Pathfinder is now the #1 selling RPG.  If that is true, (I can't independently verify it), then it doesn't matter if Paizo is doing well for how big they are or not.  It's still doing better than WotC when it comes to the Pathfinder / 4E divide.

How is it not true that the 3.5 years it was the sole edition means it wasn't successful?  Do you really think that if Hasbro and Wizards were making money like they expected and the players embraced the system, they'd have scrapped it already?  Based on previous experience, no, no they wouldn't have.  They would strap the saddle on and ride it into the ground.

Now, going forward, their options are to either A) try and recapture the people they lost and make a system they will enjoy and potentially lose the 4e Neo-Grognards D).  B) Build off of 4e and keep the playerbase they have now, which doesn't appear to be enough of a market to satisfy their sales numbers C) Hope to hades that they can make a system that appeals to both.


----------



## hanez

There are many reasons to conclude that at least to WOTC 4e was a failure

How about the hiring of a designer who was critical of 4e and worked for Pathfinder? -Monte  

How about the head designer of 4e commenting about the way it restricted some game types, comparing it to forcing a musician to play thrash metal  - Mearls on thrash metal 

How about the fact that they ALREADY tried a[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Fantasy-Roleplaying-Game/dp/0786956291/ref=cm_lmf_:%29:%29:%29_1"] reboot of 4e 2 years ago [/ame]


How about the design goal of the new edition, which DIRECTLY addresses the fact that 4e splintered the base (_Design goal - to create a rule set that enables players of all types and styles to play a D&D game together by taking the best of each edition and getting at the soul of what D&D is_.)

How about the fact that many of the changes 4e introduced are gone (Vancian is back, alignment is back, etc)


----------



## malkav666

wow that was a long read,

I have a couple of additions to the thread.

I like most of what I saw in the leak if its real. It doesn't sound perfect but it sounds a lot better to me than 4e does. I also believe 5e will divorce a lot of the 4e-isms (at least in the core). Everything I have seen thus far seems to be aimed at lapsed players. Pathfinder is a great target for them, I think some of the information from last year had PF selling equal to or more than 4e (Black diamond and ICV). I think this year will be more of the same. That is absolutely insane for a company the size of Paizo to be able to directly compete with company the size of WOTC with the resources that WOTC/hasbro has. I just recently realized how popular Pathfinder is in my play area. I had been playing at store that was about half and half PF vs. everything else D&D, but another game store opened up here and I went to check it out because they were doing PF Society games 3 nights a week and I went and saw a new store with 2-10  regular games running every night except Friday (FNM). The games were mostly posted on the board in the back there were like 2 4e games all week vs. 25-30 different PF games. There were some other systems being played as well (Saw some SW, some leJAdv. some AD&D too). But the lion share was PF. 

The funny part about this store was I actually encountered for the first time ever a diehard 4e player there. I thought the 4vangelist was an internet only species. But at this store that was clearly a PF heavy store is the only place I ever had some random 4e devotee come up and be rude about what I was playing and chastise the game while it was being played (interrupting the session in process). I took a picture for my album  of rarities in life and went on.

I think that if WOTC does not find a way to get some of those PF players they will lose more and more brand potency over the coming years. I think they have been taking a hard look at why PF is doing so well. I think they are trying some of the same plays as Paizo with the idea of a public play test, and I think they will continue to go down that road and try and get some of that PF pie. They failed to get the new players they wanted with 4e and lost half of the current installed players. I don't really care how good of a game 4e might be for anyone, D&D is a brand that has always been the arguably dominant player in its genre since pretty much its inception. To get challenged for its' dominance such a short time after the release of a new edition, by none other than and updated version of the edition they just graduated from is a very loud indicator that something went wrong with 4e. I mean how much money do you think WOTC spent on R&D for 4e? How about lawyers for the GSL? They got seriously challenged by a company of freelance adventure writers for the crown. As 4e dies down, PF continues to gain momentum. 5e must appeal to these PF players or the 5e playerbase will just be a fractured portion of the current 4e playerbase. PF players  are currently spoiled by a consistent and generous release schedule, great customer support, greater transparency as far as product direction and community involvement in choosing that direction, and a very strong organized play program. WOTC has a steep hill to climb to get those folks back. I think that anything less than a focused effort will fail as far as PF players are concerned. The real question is does WOTC feel the same way?

Going into 5e is going to be a strange ride. My prediction is that 4e will largely divorced from the core mechanically. I think 5e will get a splat about adding 4e stuff as alt rules. If it doesn't do as well as the core stuff I think that will be the only 4e flavored book. But hey as long it has an updated page 42 in it, that is the only book they will ever need, right?

As a final note I would like to mention two points previously mentioned in the thread way back.

1. The sage vs, vampire wombats - why would the sage simply not hire adventurers to get him close enough to the specimens of his study to conduct his research? Morgrave university , or Pathfinder (the guild in the campaign) style? The idea of armed individuals escorting science nerds is an established trope. I don't see why the scientist themselves need to kick the ass personally. They are valued for their minds, those sages.

2. on Housecats in  3.x- why would a housecat randomly attack a player character?(I have never seen a published random encounter table with angry housecats on it) If you have a player character running around killing housecats then what is your game really about? is there nothing better for your groups to do than fight cats? And if house cats are in fact the villains of a story doesn't it make sense that they can kill? I mean a cat does technically have all the tools it needs to take life. And it can't mew its enemies to death. I think the stats are for familiars and druids.

love,

malkav


----------



## I'm A Banana

Without reading tea leaves about success, I can say with a large degree of certainty that certain core concepts in 4e are incompatible with the way a lot of folks played D&D until 4e. 

So a 5e that assumed some of these core concepts would be a non-starter. It would be just as divisive as 4e was originally.

Moving forward from 4e is the only option, but 4e's developments (and it has some awesome developments!) need to be contextualized within greater D&D, rather than making the rest of D&D resemble 4e. 

Besides, it's not like 4e can't be improved upon. The idea of keeping minion one-hit-kill and simplified-damage mechanics can be improved on by making it further compatible with other playstyles, so that even people who don't fall strongly on the "it's only a game/it's just a story" side of the continuum makes use of them when they want.


----------



## GreyICE

hanez said:


> There are many reasons to conclude that at least to WOTC 4e was a failure
> 
> How about the hiring of a designer who was critical of 4e and worked for Pathfinder? -Monte
> 
> How about hiring a head designer of 4e commenting about the way it restricted some game types, comparing it to forcing a musician to play thrash metal  - Mearls on thrash metal
> 
> How about the fact that they ALREADY tried a reboot of 4e 2 years ago
> 
> 
> How about the design goal of the new edition, which DIRECTLY addresses the fact that 4e splintered the base (_Design goal - to create a rule set that enables players of all types and styles to play a D&D game together by taking the best of each edition and getting at the soul of what D&D is_.)
> 
> How about the fact that many of the changes 4e introduced are gone (Vancian is back, alignment is back, etc)




By the same logic, 3E was a clear failure.  

The problem is that WotC doesn't have the mandate 'create a good PnP RPG that sells well.'  They have the mandate 'create a success Hasbro will appreciate.'

4E has clearly been quite profitable.  For years it was the top selling RPG, Insider has given them the holy grail of the PnP RPG industry - an ongoing revenue source - and they've clearly had success with tokens, dungeon tiles, and other accessories.

But the fact of the matter is that all the profits of 3E and all the profits of 4E are a small shadow of what Hasbro made off Michael Bay's Transformer movies.  And thus Hasbro just doesn't care.


----------



## jsaving

Several reports over the last year have suggested Pathfinder has overtaken WotC as the best-selling RPG.  I thought one of those reports actually received a brief writeup here at ENWorld, to the effect that Pathfinder is now doing twice as well as 4e.  And I have to say that's broadly consistent with what I'm seeing in my neck of the woods.

Several people in my 4e gaming group feel frustrated by this turn of events because they see 4e as clearly "better" than what came before and foresee a future in which they become the 'Grognards' they're currently so quick to disparage.  And I have to tell them in all honesty that they may be right about this.  Nobody likes to be told they're a minority in the marketplace, or that a product they've come to know and love won't be carried forward, but that's the simple truth of what's happening here.

One particular member of my 4e group feels an especially keen sense of injustice over this turn of events, perceiving that 3e fans deliberately sabotaged 4e through their stubborn refusal to acknowledge its merit and are now being reward for their intransigence with a new edition.  And to some degree, I think he has a point -- some 3e fans didn't give 4e much of a chance.  But there isn't much point in rehashing those kinds of grievances, because there will always be people who reject one edition or another out of emotion rather than evidence.  All we can do now is for each of us, as individuals, to take a stand against this kind of thinking and give the new edition the fair shot we may feel our own favorite edition was denied.


----------



## hanez

jsaving said:


> And to some degree, I think he has a point -- some 3e fans didn't give 4e much of a chance.





My active 3e group moved wholeheartedly to 4e when it came out.  Then we took a break after more then a year of 4e from frustration of TRYING to like the game and not liking it.  

I moved to arcana evolved/pathfinder, while other players just quit.   We just reunited a week ago playing AD&D 2nd edition totally gridless, with THACO and the whole deal.  There are a lot of positives to 2e that we only noticed due to our problems with 4e.  

Either way it made us question playing d&d, be tired of it, take time off and move to other products.   Talk about splintering.


----------



## Ratskinner

GreyICE said:


> The history of D&D is a bunch of challenges for non-spellcasters that spellcasters don't care about.  4E was the first edition that said 'a challenge should be challenging for every class' and did it.




Which is a totally different problem from "having to keep all ability scores high."  Just saying.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Janaxstrus said:


> It's been stated in a few articles that Pathfinder is now the #1 selling RPG.  If that is true, (I can't independently verify it), then it doesn't matter if Paizo is doing well for how big they are or not.  It's still doing better than WotC when it comes to the Pathfinder / 4E divide.
> 
> How is it not true that the 3.5 years it was the sole edition means it wasn't successful?  Do you really think that if Hasbro and Wizards were making money like they expected and the players embraced the system, they'd have scrapped it already?  Based on previous experience, no, no they wouldn't have.  They would strap the saddle on and ride it into the ground.
> 
> Now, going forward, their options are to either A) try and recapture the people they lost and make a system they will enjoy and potentially lose the 4e Neo-Grognards D).  B) Build off of 4e and keep the playerbase they have now, which doesn't appear to be enough of a market to satisfy their sales numbers C) Hope to hades that they can make a system that appeals to both.




I think you'd find it HIGHLY informative to read Ryan Dancy's column here, as well as all the interviews you can find that have been online in the last several months by WotC people. I think it makes the whole picture much clearer in some respects.

The short of it is that WotC has known for half of forever that each new edition sells well for a while and then tapers off. Basically core books are by far the thing that sells best, the better supplements may do reasonably well too, but overall ongoing support for existing editions after the first several years is not making you a ton of money. They also know that the audience is getting older and smaller overall. The game has simply NOT been bringing in new people fast enough to replace old players for a long time. Each new edition sheds a few more holdouts and does a bit less well than the one before it, but if you stop putting out new editions, you don't have a viable business.

This is all what motivated WotC to put out 4e in the first place. The realization that the game has to shift its emphasis and change in some ways to keep appealing to a new audience. SPECIFICALLY their goals for 4e were to have an edition that was "digital friendly" (IE can be incrementally built on and material can be presented in things like DDI tools, etc) and provided less prep work and system mastery to play and enjoy. Additional features include improved human factors (cleaner presentation, more work frontloaded onto char gen vs table time, greater consistency for easier learning, etc). 

In order to sell all of this to management (and there's a long and sordid history of why this was necessary) they had to establish that they could increase sales to the 'major product line' level within Hasbro (and this is sales of the actual game itself, not even counting any other stuff like novels, video games, etc). Effectively it is an impossible goal. At best it could be achieved only with perfect execution and a highly optimistic uptake of DDI. Regardless of what 4e looked like it was effectively never going to do that. 

Notice that Paizo really doesn't factor into this. Whatever level of success PF has had, and nobody is arguing it isn't successful, WotC making basically PF themselves wasn't going to fulfill their goals and probably wouldn't have been funded. Nor is PF so different from 3.5 that it probably would have been very palatable to existing customers as a version roll by itself. It would have just been more of going down the same track that the game has gone down for 30+ years and they already know in the long run that leads nowhere. 

Now, maybe without the existence of PF 4e would just continue on for another several years and be a 7 or 8 year edition instead of a 5 year one. Who knows? At some point they'd still be looking at the situation and still seeing they needed to do more, and doing basically what they're doing now. 

Overall it doesn't matter. 5e needs neigh 100% uptake and pretty much perfect execution. So it is not going to succeed if it is the "trash the 4e direction" edition. Nor is it going to succeed if it doesn't work out the limitations of 4e. It MUST do both, or else it is actually worse than doing nothing in every respect. That's the long and short of it, and you can do the research and find the information that will back that up. They've worked themselves into a corner and thus WOTC at least cannot choose to support only one group of player's desires and not another. There's a REASON why this is the "unite them all" edition, because if EVERYONE isn't going to buy in, then its game over. I don't know what happens to D&D in that case, but presumably it doesn't involve the people who work on it now having jobs anymore, lol.


----------



## Ratskinner

jsaving said:


> Several reports over the last year have suggested Pathfinder has overtaken WotC as the best-selling RPG.  I thought one of those reports actually received a brief writeup here at ENWorld, to the effect that Pathfinder is now doing twice as well as 4e.  And I have to say that's broadly consistent with what I'm seeing in my neck of the woods.
> 
> Several people in my 4e gaming group feel frustrated by this turn of events because they see 4e as clearly "better" than what came before and foresee a future in which they become the 'Grognards' they're currently so quick to disparage.  And I have to tell them in all honesty that they may be right about this.  Nobody likes to be told they're a minority in the marketplace, or that a product they've come to know and love won't be carried forward, but that's the simple truth of what's happening here.
> 
> One particular member of my 4e group feels an especially keen sense of injustice over this turn of events, perceiving that 3e fans deliberately sabotaged 4e through their stubborn refusal to acknowledge its merit and are now being reward for their intransigence with a new edition.  And to some degree, I think he has a point -- some 3e fans didn't give 4e much of a chance.  But there isn't much point in rehashing those kinds of grievances, because there will always be people who reject one edition or another out of emotion rather than evidence.  All we can do now is for each of us, as individuals, to take a stand against this kind of thinking and give the new edition the fair shot we may feel our own favorite edition was denied.




Broadly speaking, this matches my experience as well. Last time I checked, the FLGS was having trouble moving much 4e-specific material at all (Dungeon tiles and other WOTC products are still selling pretty well, though.) Pathfinder groups dominate the local scene, AFAICT.

The only thing I would quibble with (at least WRT my area) is the "didn't give 4e much of a chance". 4e took over the local gamersphere...and then lost it after about 2 years. Now, I know many 4e fans hate to read/hear it, but the nigh-universal response I've gotten when asking the local former 4e-ers is "Great Game, but it didn't really feel like D&D to me." Many times they add details like "great for tactical skirmishes" or something like that.

Obviously, that's not something inherent to 4e, but in the relationship an individual gamer has with 4e. The 4e faithful sincerely feel like 4e is a great successor to the D&D name (I assume, anyway.) At the same time, for whatever ineffable reason, the Pathfinders and OSR folks didn't. I sympathize with the 4e die hards (there are a lot of things I absolutely love about 4e, especially compared to 3e), while agreeing that it doesn't feel like D&D to me. It must suck to be a fan of the "New Coke" of roleplaying games...even more so if you don't agree that 4e is in that position.

I'm just hopeful for 5e being able to mend this divide (even if partially), but I think it will take some innovative game design to do it. Which is why I find these speculative arguments somewhat overblown. In the end, we just don't know how it will be done.


----------



## Ratskinner

AbdulAlhazred said:


> There's a REASON why this is the "unite them all" edition, because if EVERYONE isn't going to buy in, then its game over. I don't know what happens to D&D in that case, but presumably it doesn't involve the people who work on it now having jobs anymore, lol.




Personally, I suspect it involves Hasbro putting the IP on a shelf, and perhaps marketing video and board games. At least until some day in the far off future when someone wonders "whatever happened to D&D?"

Honestly, I often think that the real mistake is thinking that D&D is a viable _continuous_ product line. Perhaps the best way to do D&D is to put out a burst of ~8 new edition books, wait 8-10 years while reprinting them as necessary (and maybe putting out Dragon and Dungeon) then do a remake/update. Avoid the cost and expense of keeping people around to write books for ever-smaller fractions of the market.


----------



## Janaxstrus

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Overall it doesn't matter. 5e needs neigh 100% uptake and pretty much perfect execution. So it is not going to succeed if it is the "trash the 4e direction" edition. Nor is it going to succeed if it doesn't work out the limitations of 4e. It MUST do both, or else it is actually worse than doing nothing in every respect. That's the long and short of it, and you can do the research and find the information that will back that up. They've worked themselves into a corner and thus WOTC at least cannot choose to support only one group of player's desires and not another. There's a REASON why this is the "unite them all" edition, because if EVERYONE isn't going to buy in, then its game over. I don't know what happens to D&D in that case, but presumably it doesn't involve the people who work on it now having jobs anymore, lol.




Here's the thing.  They now KNOW that 4e style won't work, they lost too many people when they switched.  They know people won't switch from 3.x, PF, 1st or 2nd to the 4e system.  How many of those 4e people (many of whom played older versions) won't switch back if they fix some of the balance issues and make it a more 3.x base?  That...they don't know.
They KNOW PF is selling well, making money on a game they created.  Selling better than the replacement even.  If PF is selling more books than 4e, and used 3.5 PHBs/DMG/Monster Manuals sell for near their original retail cost, why would they even consider a 4e BASED game.
4e elements with the gamey-ness removed?  Sure.  1st and 2nd edition stuff, updated?  Definitely.  3.x stuff?  Assuredly.

It can't be only 3.5 Part 2, but it sure as heck can't be 4e part III either.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Janaxstrus said:


> Here's the thing.  They now KNOW that 4e style won't work, they lost too many people when they switched.  They know people won't switch from 3.x, PF, 1st or 2nd to the 4e system.  How many of those 4e people (many of whom played older versions) won't switch back if they fix some of the balance issues and make it a more 3.x base?  That...they don't know.
> They KNOW PF is selling well, making money on a game they created.  Selling better than the replacement even.  If PF is selling more books than 4e, and used 3.5 PHBs/DMG/Monster Manuals sell for near their original retail cost, why would they even consider a 4e BASED game.
> 4e elements with the gamey-ness removed?  Sure.  1st and 2nd edition stuff, updated?  Definitely.  3.x stuff?  Assuredly.
> 
> It can't be only 3.5 Part 2, but it sure as heck can't be 4e part III either.




There's a problem with this concept though. They made 4e because 3.5 wasn't cutting it. Now, I'm not saying that to criticize 3.5, but clearly if everything was just peachy then why change it? Yet as soon as 2006 they began to do just that. Just because "PF is selling well" FOR PAIZO doesn't mean WotC wants to be back there again. If they did they'd have made something like PF or just kept on with 3.5 for another 3-5 years. 

I am not at all convinced there's a market for a WotC 3.5-like either. Why would people buy that when they presumably are still perfectly happy playing 3.5 and PF? If there was no game that was what they wanted that was SUPPORTED then sure, maybe. As it is, nobody has shown me any evidence that such a game wouldn't just sink without a trace and put barely a dent in PF. Thus we're left with your option of something based on 4e core presented in a way that gets people playing other editions interested and gives them an excuse to get into the more updated game without having to admit that maybe there were a lot of things 4e did right.

Here's the thing. I think there is VAST scope for making a more appealing game using 4e. It seems almost trivial to me to speed up combat by 50%, jigger some numbers around, move stuff around so there don't need to be so many feats and powers, etc. There's really no reason why such a 5e can't support Vancian casting and any and all of those things. It can be presented in a different style, emphasize different things, get rid of or modify some things that tend to get in the way of some styles of play, etc. In a sense such a game is quite a bit the legacy of 3.x as well, since 4e really doesn't do a LOT that is entirely new, and you can choose options for the really new parts that are more like old stuff (and I think a lot of the new parts can be presented in a fashion that is more palatable to fans of older editions).

Now, there are going to be some 4e purists who are annoyed by some of that, and some people from other editions that still won't like it, but we're as close to both meeting the business goals of WotC (which remember includes a clean core that can be incrementally built on with stuff in DDI, and stuff that is structured so that it can be served up in things like the DDI Compendium, CB, and MB). Those traits of 4e are going to have to go forward in some way ANYHOW, so why not do that? 5e will ultimately have to move in that direction anyway.


----------



## keterys

As far as I understand things, Pathfinder is not making enough money that it wouldn't also merit a new edition from WotC's perspective. 

End of the day, they're looking for a _big_ success, not a "really good in RPG terms" success. It's an order of magnitude difference.

Ryan Dancey actually had an interesting bit about how the RPG market as a whole may be doomed, that might also be worth a read for those who want to cite problems with any particular edition. Certainly if you compare it to video games. Or some card games. I'm not sure how it compares to board games.


----------



## pauljathome

AbdulAlhazred said:


> So, if people with other tastes want to see a new game succeed, well, they're going to have to compromise, and not just pay some casual lip service. I don't know where that leaves WotC, probably in a very bad place, but such is life.




Unfortunately, I have little incentive to compromise. Just like you have 4th edition I have Pathfinder. If DndNext isn't better than Pathfinder FOR ME then I'll try and stick with Pathfinder.

At some level I don't really care if DndNext succeeds. I certainly do NOT want to see it succeed at the expense of Paizo (I prefer Paizo to Wotc as a company). Now, I DO want to see the industry as a whole thrive but its not at all clear that DndNext is the vehicle for that.

The only reason that I'll compromise is probably the only reason that you'll compromise. If (and only if) DndNext is good enough that it grabs the huge majority of players and so makes it hard for me to find Pathfinder players.

This means that WOTC has an incredibly difficult job. They have to convince most existing Pathfinder players that DndNext is better than Pathfinder, they have to convince most existing 4th Edition players that it is better than 4th Edition, and they have to convince a reasonable number of NEW players that it is both better than any other D&D AND worth playing at all.


----------



## dkyle

keterys said:


> Ryan Dancey actually had an interesting bit about how the RPG market as a whole may be doomed, that might also be worth a read for those who want to cite problems with any particular edition. Certainly if you compare it to video games. Or some card games. I'm not sure how it compares to board games.




It seems like board games are humming along fairly well.  Certainly nowhere near the same feeling of DOOM that seems to pervade the RPG industry.

I think the big differences are:

* Board games tend to have much less "play time" per purchase, resulting in more frequent purchases.  My impression of the board game community is that most just dabble in individual board games. At least that's how I, and the people I generally play with, play them. I don't think it's unusual for a purchased game to be played less than a dozen times, amounting to a few tens of hours of playtime.  Whereas an RPG book can last years, spanning hundreds of hours of play.  Splatbooks try to increase repeat sales, but there's a big resentment in the community towards them.  Whereas noone complains when Mayfair brings out "yet another" board game.

* Playing RPGs is a big commitment, which can turn differences of opinions into fractures in the community.  There are plenty of board games that aren't my favorites, but I'm OK with playing every once in a while, for the sake of playing with my group.  On the other hand, someone in my group wanted to run an OSR game.  I gave it a shot, but ultimately I just don't like that kind of a game, and wasn't willing to do a whole campaign of it, and now we're doing something else instead.  Groups with less history than ours might have just dissolved instead.

* Playing RPGs is _hard_.  Board games might be complicated, but ultimately, they're about understanding specific, well-defined rules.  RPGs, even ones as regimented as 4E, have a lot more going on, and require a lot more judgement calls on what is and is not permitted.

* RPGs aren't really mass market anywhere in the world.  Board games have Germany, where families play newly published board games that only board game geeks even know about in the US.


----------



## Janaxstrus

pauljathome said:


> Unfortunately, I have little incentive to compromise. Just like you have 4th edition I have Pathfinder. If DndNext isn't better than Pathfinder FOR ME then I'll try and stick with Pathfinder.
> 
> At some level I don't really care if DndNext succeeds. I certainly do NOT want to see it succeed at the expense of Paizo (I prefer Paizo to Wotc as a company). Now, I DO want to see the industry as a whole thrive but its not at all clear that DndNext is the vehicle for that.
> 
> The only reason that I'll compromise is probably the only reason that you'll compromise. If (and only if) DndNext is good enough that it grabs the huge majority of players and so makes it hard for me to find Pathfinder players.
> 
> This means that WOTC has an incredibly difficult job. They have to convince most existing Pathfinder players that DndNext is better than Pathfinder, they have to convince most existing 4th Edition players that it is better than 4th Edition, and they have to convince a reasonable number of NEW players that it is both better than any other D&D AND worth playing at all.





This is exactly where I am.  I have all the 3.5 books and all the PF adventure paths (something WotC has neglected entirely).  I am an adult with a lot of disposable income, but I'm not going to give any of it to Wizards until they prove they won't just mess it up.  The only money they have gotten from me since the day they stopped publishing 3.5 materials was Duels of the Planeswalkers 2012 on Xbox and the occasional novel (although the spell plague has slowed my buying of that as well)

They killed a minis game (DDM) that was getting them thousands of dollars from me alone every year (luckily I was able to sell the majority of stuff before the market collapsed).  They wrecked a setting (from my perspective, the Forgotten Realms is a ruin of what it once was for novels) that was my favorite, which means I went from buying every novel, to picking and choosing only a few select ones.  And, until their recent mea culpa, have been telling me for years that it was badwrongfun to play the old edition of D&D compared to the new shiny one.

I have no incentive to trust they can get this right.  I am, however willing to give them a shot to do it.  For me personally, 4e with some nods to us grognards won't cut the mustard though.  It either has to be completely new, with all the strikers, controllers, dps and minions and healing surges and such gamey terms and feel yanked, or it has to be a throwback system.

If they can do it, I'll buy it all.  If they can't, I won't buy it at all, and Paizo will continue to benefit.


----------



## Sunseeker

hanez said:


> How about the hiring of a designer who was critical of 4e and worked for Pathfinder? -Monte



Pathfinder did a lot of good things for 3.x, but people who don't like 3.x probably aren't much more enthused about Pathfinder.  In any case, if your #1 competitor has a top guy who is now free, you hire them.  It's not a statement on 4e, it's a business strategy.  If you don't hire him, someone will, or he'll go back to your competitor.  



> How about the head designer of 4e commenting about the way it restricted some game types, comparing it to forcing a musician to play thrash metal  - Mearls on thrash metal



Every edition restricts certain gameplay styles.  I'm certain you could find similar commentary regarding previous editions.



> How about the fact that they ALREADY tried a reboot of 4e 2 years ago



Essentials wasn't a reboot, it was a revision.  Take it as more 4.5 than a complete redo.  And it had some very good elements, I'll take some of the Essentials classes over any previous incarnation of them in _any_ edition.  Wizards was probably aware that support for 4e was dying, so they decided to go for the gusto and try something new.  Personally I think Essentials was a great idea and I hope that they continue with some of it into 5e.



> How about the design goal of the new edition, which DIRECTLY addresses the fact that 4e splintered the base (_Design goal - to create a rule set that enables players of all types and styles to play a D&D game together by taking the best of each edition and getting at the soul of what D&D is_.)



Every edition splinters the base, every book and every supplement runs that risk too.  There were people who stayed with 3.0 when 3.5 came out, there were people who stayed with 2e, B, AD&D when the others came out.  Laying the blame for "splintering the base" on 4e is just narrow-minded edition hating.  5e will likely splinter the base as well.

Don't forget, there are a lot of fans of 4e out there.  Probably at least as large as any of the other edition factions.  They are included when Wizards says they want to "unify the fanbase".  



> How about the fact that many of the changes 4e introduced are gone (Vancian is back, alignment is back, etc)



You have _two_ examples.  That's not "many", that's not even close to "some".
Vancian was popular and thats largely the reason it's back, but WOTC has already admitted that doing so will make class design more difficult.  Alignment never left, 4e simply used a different alignment system, from what I hear it's closer to some older editions than the 9-alignment system popular in the 3.x stuff.


----------



## El Mahdi

How in the hell did a perfectly awesome thread about the upcoming mechanics of 5E, turn into a thread about 4E vs. 3E/Pathfinder, and WotC vs. Paizo?!?!

I thought we were all so passed this...

I would have thought that with some of the things said in the last Rule of Three article, things that more or less confirm that this leak is likely based on a real look at early 5E rules, that the thread could have moved away from conjecture a bit and really discuss the meat of the presented mechanics.

How and Why did it instead end up being the same Edition war crap yet again...


----------



## dkyle

El Mahdi said:


> I would have thought that with some of the things said in the last Rule of Three article, things that more or less confirm that this leak is likely based on a real look at early 5E rules, that the thread could have moved away from conjecture a bit and really discuss the meat of the presented mechanics.
> 
> How and Why did it instead end up being the same Edition war crap yet again...




The problem is that almost all the mechanics are drawn from previous editions (mostly pre-4E), so it's kind of hard to discuss them without inherently discussing those editions.  It's makes sense to point to an edition and say "that mechanic was in that edition, and I didn't like it".


----------



## El Mahdi

dkyle said:


> The problem is that almost all the mechanics are drawn from previous editions (mostly pre-4E), so it's kind of hard to discuss them without inherently discussing those editions. It's makes sense to point to an edition and say "that mechanic was in that edition, and I didn't like it".




Discussing the mechanics of previous editions is appropriate to this thread.

Unfortunately, the last 30 or so posts have not been at all about the _mechanics_ of any edition, whether past or future. It's been about edition warring.

Discussing whether or not one edition or another is a failure is a known inflammatory subject, and not the subject of this thread.

Discussing whether Paizo is outselling WotC is also an inflammatory subject, and again, not the subject of the thread.

Discussing whether Monte Cook is anti-4E or not is also a very inflammatory subject, completely subjective (since nobody here is qualified to know what is going on in the heart and mind of Monte Cook except Monte Cook), and is also most certainly not the subject of this thread.


----------



## Agamon

dkyle said:


> It seems like board games are humming along fairly well.  Certainly nowhere near the same feeling of DOOM that seems to pervade the RPG industry.




Not to mention, Wil Wheaton's Tabletop show on Geek & Sundry isn't going to be about RPGs.


----------



## Sunseeker

El Mahdi said:


> I would have thought that with some of the things said in the last Rule of Three article, things that more or less confirm that this leak is likely based on a real look at early 5E rules, that the thread could have moved away from conjecture a bit and really discuss the meat of the presented mechanics.




Because there isn't really that much meat to them.
Lets start from the top and get ourselves a list:
-Rolling stats, point-buy, and arrays are all there.
-Races grant +1/-1, back to 3.x style.
-Classes give a +1 to primary, this is new but not world-shattering.
-Level bumps to stats now come at 3 level intervals.  We now get a total of +6 instead of +5, not exactly math breaking either.
-Stats are pretty much as they've always been.  Charisma applies to getting henchmen.  Well I guess Charisma is nice....if you care about henchmen.
-Wisdom adds to Cha saves(great we have a save for each score now?, wasn't 3 enough?)
-Humans get something that he can't really describe(thanks!  That was helpful), sounds like "Heroic Effort" with a dice roll.
-Vancian is back...okay we knew that.
-Fighter seems to get "stances" like Essentials came up with, d10 HD like 3.x, special crit-die?  Yay more complicated rules.
-Multiclassing 3.x style.  Say hi to the Ranger/Bard/Druid/Cleric/Power-Gamer again.
-bad joke on class rarities.
-score maximums: because Wizards needs to tell us how to play to appease the old-schoolers.
-Skills are Pathfinder-esque, training gives an immediate bonus beyond the +1

I'm not going to disagree with some of their sarcasm towards the end about how this is basically a laundry-list of things from 3.5 and earlier editions.  So _we_ aren't really starting an edition war here.  We're getting prodded into one on the basis that WOTC is claiming to want to "unify the base" and then pretending that 4e and it's fans don't exist.


----------



## Thaumaturge

I haven't seen anyone mention the possibility that this was only a piece of the puzzle. I think there is a good chance that certain modules were used for the characters here, and others weren't. Those who are concerned about the lack of A/E/D powers for fighters shouldn't worry too much at this point. 

I think it makes perfect sense, if a goal is to have characters with different modules balanced against one another, to send out playtest docs with different characters using different build types to get an understanding of what works well with what and what doesn't. 

We are but seeing a small piece of the whole and extrapolating that the whole must look like the piece. 

Thaumaturge.


----------



## El Mahdi

shidaku said:


> ..._we_ aren't really starting an edition war here. We're getting prodded into one on the basis that WOTC is claiming to want to "unify the base" and then pretending that 4e and it's fans don't exist.




Which is a completely baseless assertion.  People making this assertion are reading into what Monte and Company are saying, and taking it as what they want to hear, rather than what's actually being said.  In other words, picking a fight for the sake of picking a fight.

We are so far away from anything concrete as to the final look and feel of the game, that it's absolutely preposterous to claim that WotC is pretending that 4E doesn't exist.

It could be just as likely that they already know what they want to keep from 4E, and the first look was simply road-testing some ideas from previous editions, along with some new ideas, and not road-testing 4E concepts at the time because it wasn't necessary.

Is what I just said likely?  I have no idea.  They're no more likely than any other assertion about WotC's intentions.  Which is why it's absolute foolishness to be arguing about it.  But even more importantly, _WotC's intentions are not what this thread is about_.  The personal biases and assertions expressed in that leak aside, the leak was predominantly the possible _mechanics_ of 5E based on what we see of the _mechanics_ in this early leak.

Discussing the mechanics of 5E does not involve nor require discussing whether Paizo is outselling WotC (or vice versa), whether any edition is a failure (whether objectively, in the consideration of WotC, or in the consideration of players), or statements about what systems mechanics are _best_ (which is a pointless and purely personal and subjective argument, one that can't be won and contributes nothing useful), or trying to read the heart and mind of Monte and Company as to their like or dislike of _competing _editions (I said competing not because they are actually in competition, but because people in this thread are beginning to compete with eachother about which editions are best, or which editions players treated other edtitions players worse).

All pointless arguments, comparisons, and competition of which nothing good can come of.


----------



## El Mahdi

So how do people think the lack of BAB and Defence progression will affect the game?

How do you think the different damage expressions will show "progression"?

Do you thing there will be Feats for specialization and such that will increase Attack Bonuses?  Will they be nerfed, stay the same, or even expanded upon (even higher attack bonuses, or more feats providing attack bonuses)?

Will Defence be able to be advanced through Feats?  Or will armor remain the only way to "improve" your defence?


----------



## Hassassin

El Mahdi said:


> So how do people think the lack of BAB and Defence progression will affect the game?




I still disagree that the out-of-context quote implies there is no progression.


----------



## GreyICE

Board games have limited development cycles and good profit/cost ratios once made.

How many people do you employ to keep designing Battleship?  None.  Board games, once designed, are designed.  You might launch a new edition now and then, but the designers have moved on.

If D&D had a board-game like development cycle, that wouldn't be an issue, but RPG consumers expect something different, something more.


----------



## Sunseeker

El Mahdi said:


> Which is a completely baseless assertion.  People making this assertion are reading into what Monte and Company are saying, and taking it as what they want to hear, rather than what's actually being said.  In other words, picking a fight for the sake of picking a fight.
> 
> *We are so far away from anything concrete as to the final look and feel of the game*, that it's absolutely preposterous to claim that WotC is pretending that 4E doesn't exist.



Yes, so debating the "meat" of something that is little more than bones isn't going to be very productive in this regard.



> It could be just as likely that they already know what they want to keep from 4E, and the first look was simply road-testing some ideas from previous editions, along with some new ideas, and not road-testing 4E concepts at the time because it wasn't necessary.



People have said this a lot already: the playtest is just for show and if what you say is indeed what they're doing, then it doesn't matter what we discuss, WOTC will do what WOTC will do.



> Is what I just said likely?  I have no idea.  They're no more likely than any other assertion about WotC's intentions.  Which is why it's absolute foolishness to be arguing about it.  But even more importantly, _WotC's intentions are not what this thread is about_.  The personal biases and assertions expressed in that leak aside, the leak was predominantly the possible _mechanics_ of 5E based on what we see of the _mechanics_ in this early leak.



Okay, the mechanics are almost entirely from 3.5.  K, done.
Really if you think there's more than that to be discussed here, I'd like to know what that is, because every time I read this over I feel like I'm opening up my 3.5 PHB.  And realistically attempting to split the supposed 5e mechanics from the professed intent of 5e is simply not going to happen.  We know what WOTC wants to achieve with 5e, we _have_ to look at the presented mechanics within that context.  Because the whole "unifying the editions" shtick is too pervasive to ignore, if 5e mechanics read more like 3.7543578e than a unifying system, then that needs to be discussed and evaluated.  We cannot look at mechanics in a void or we will risk overlooking the design goals.



> Discussing the mechanics of 5E does not involve nor require discussing whether Paizo is outselling WotC (or vice versa), whether any edition is a failure (whether objectively, in the consideration of WotC, or in the consideration of players), or statements about what systems mechanics are _best_ (which is a pointless and purely personal and subjective argument, one that can't be won and contributes nothing useful), or trying to read the heart and mind of Monte and Company as to their like or dislike of _competing _editions (I said competing not because they are actually in competition, but because people in this thread are beginning to compete with eachother about which editions are best, or which editions players treated other edtitions players worse).



I was initially responding to a poster who laid all the blame for system fracturing at the feet of 4e.  You're putting the proverbial cart before the horse for taking me to par for this since I wasn't actually _doing_ any of those things.  Only correcting the faulty assumption that 4e is to blame for everything that's wrong with D&D.  If anything, I was stemming an edition war more than fanning it's flames.


----------



## Umbran

shidaku said:


> So _we_ aren't really starting an edition war here.  We're getting prodded into one on the basis that WOTC is claiming to want to "unify the base" and then pretending that 4e and it's fans don't exist.




*
So, you aren't starting it, but you're engaging in it anyway?

Nuh-uh.  Enough.  This thread seems to have outlived its usefulness.  *Klunk**


----------

