# Legends & Lore: What Worked, What Didn't



## Plaguescarred (Feb 10, 2014)

What Worked, What Didn't 
Legends & Lore 
By Mike Mearls

In this week’s _Legends & Lore_, Mike talks about the evolution of a few key points of rule design in D&D Next.

What do you think?


----------



## Plaguescarred (Feb 10, 2014)

Advantage and Disadvantage is a great mechanic my group and i found.

Weapon Powers is something i like the idea and would have liked to see it more playtested. I was fond of the Halberd with property to knock prone.

Concentration is a mechanic i like and i'm glad to see being brought back.

Auto Success is something i'm not too fond of, i like a minimum of randomness. Even climbing a ladder can be failed, that's why we often have dumb accidents in the most mundane tasks we do.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 10, 2014)

Plaguescarred said:


> Auto Success is something i'm not too fond of, i like a minimum of randomness. Even climbing a ladder can be failed, that's why we often have dumb accidents in the most mundane tasks we do.



It's been my experience that rolling the dice for common place things not only slows the game down due to constant die rolls but ends up making the PCs look like bumbling idiots.

I've played a couple of games like this and when we're rolling for EVERYTHING it just gets silly: "Roll to see if you open the door or if you miss the door, slip over your own feat and smash your skull against the pavement."

Yes, accidents do happen, but they happen so rarely that you can't use a d20 to determine whether they happen.  You need a d10,000 for most of these accidents.  My general rule of thumb is if I don't see an average person failing at least 1 time in every 20 times they try something, I don't bother with a roll.  Glad to see a similar philosophy is part of D&D Next.


----------



## Plaguescarred (Feb 10, 2014)

I agree that common place things like walking or running should not be checked as they bug the game down, but climbing has usually been a check of some sort.  Ok may be not a ladder, but a rope though. 

I prefer handwaving checks as autosuccess to remain at DM's discretion i guess.


----------



## thewok (Feb 10, 2014)

It would depend on the situation.  I think anyone with at least an 8 or 9 in Strength should be able to climb a rope given some help from others in the group (assuming the character is not morbidly obese).  In a combat situation, though, where they can't take the time to ensure they have their feet placed well before trying to push up?  Yeah.  That can be a check.  But, assuming a normal ladder or a normal rope in a situation where there is no immediate danger and they don't need to rush?  That's an auto-success.

I would like to see the weapon powers in a module later on.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Feb 10, 2014)

I'm not yet sure what to think about ad/disad. While it's cool to boil down the whole bonus/penalty business, one can go too far in this direction. And if the gate are thrown open to allow for different mechanisms beyond ad/disad, the whole simplification and speed-up it brings will soon be history.


----------



## delericho (Feb 10, 2014)

Plaguescarred said:


> Advantage and Disadvantage is a great mechanic my group and i found.




Yep. It's a good one. As Mearls says, it causes _so much_ clutter just to drop out of the game it's quite amazing.



> Weapon Powers is something i like the idea and would have liked to see it more playtested. I was fond of the Halberd with property to knock prone.




I think there's a strong argument for introducing a generic 'hand weapon' for those players who just want something simple that does damage, alongside some more complex "signature weapons" for those players who want more detail. But it might be better if those "weapon powers" only become available to PCs who take the appropriate Weapon Focus (or equivalent), and perhaps fall into some broad categories (so all flails trip, all picks have anti-armour uses, etc).



> Concentration is a mechanic i like and i'm glad to see being brought back.




Agreed.



> Auto Success is something i'm not too fond of, i like a minimum of randomness. Even climbing a ladder can be failed, that's why we often have dumb accidents in the most mundane tasks we do.




_We_ do, but I'm not sure it's beneficial if the heroes of our games do - Aragorn, Conan, and Lancelot very seldom suffer that sort of failure of basic competence.

Having said that, I'm not convinced it's a good idea to omit DCs less than 10 completely. I think perhaps it's better to list them, but advise DMs simply not to call for a roll at such low DCs. The reason for including them is for scaling purposes - climbing a ladder may be DC 0, but climbing a _badly damaged_ ladder _in a gale_ probably isn't, and it may well be easier for the DM to derive _that_ DC if he's given the baseline one to start with.

Or not; that's just a gut feeling - I don't really know.


----------



## Plaguescarred (Feb 10, 2014)

I see Weapon Powers as a great addition for an optional module if its not in core rules., it has enought granularity and tactical depth for optional tactical module though.

I liked the halberd property to knock prone a few packets ago but in core rules i wouldn't necessarily want to see every weapon do something on a hit without feat, feature or optional rules in use. 

I also think it'd be preferrable to call them Weapon Maneuvers over Weapon Powers. The term "powers" seems to not jive well with some people in the hand of non-spellcasters...  #4ELessons


----------



## Minigiant (Feb 10, 2014)

Some autosuccess is good and some just is weird or even bad,

For example, a DC5 checks is something a character with a 10 in the score would fail 20% of the time. I can't think of any thing that fits that bill.

Climbing a ladder is something so routine that only in the worse circumstances would a character fail. Then the DC would be at least 10.

Things like ranger tracking and rogue decipher script are so rare in use that an autosuccess is not too bad. Especially if it is all they get that level.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 10, 2014)

Generally agree with the article, but they haven't won me over to the Passive Perception bandwagon. 

*No roll without action!*, I say!


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 10, 2014)

The only reason I liked the idea of Weapon Powers was because the weapons table always included weapons which were statistically worse than others in the same category, resulting in rarely anyone taking them (beyond just flavor).  At least with Weapon Powers or weapon properties, they would give you some other reason to consider it.

I mean if we look at the Martial Melee Weapons table in the last playtest packet... there are 7 weapons that are 1d8 in damage.  For three of those eight that's it (flail, morningstar, warpick)... whereas the other four get some special property on top of that.  Battleaxe, longsword, and warhammer are Versatile, and Rapier is a Finesse weapon.  What reason is there for anyone to take flail, morninstar or warpick over any of the other four?  We can't even use cost, weight, or damage type, because there's no real benefits in those categories for those three either.  Had flail helped with trip or disarm attacks, warpicks gave a bit better crit, and morningstars were moved back into the Simple category, maybe you'd have something.  But right now?  Nothing, other than a character fluff decision.

Personally... I don't like relying on just that though.  Every choice should get something, because otherwise there's no real choice.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 10, 2014)

advantage/disadvantage...  seems to work pretty well, so I agree

weapon powers...  I think I'd like 5th Edition far more if this was included.  Having a few minor benefits to help differentiate the D&D weapon list more would be a good thing.  As Defcon 1 said, there are too many weapons in D&D that never get used.  I think making more of the choices matter is a good thing.  I also think it makes the game more interesting to give choices which don't just boil down to straight damage, but instead offer interesting tactical choices.  Though, unfortunately, based upon prior experience with previous D&D editions, I'd worry that this would leave a door open through which power creep would start to be designed into the game, and we'd see later books publish weapons with better 'powers.'  Still, I like the idea.

Concentration...  in theory it's a good idea, and I'd never say it was a bad idea (it's not,) but, in actual play, it hasn't appeared to really hinder casters all that much.

Auto Success...  no strong feelings one way or the other.  I like rolling dice, but I also believe there are tasks so trivial that a DM shouldn't ask players to roll.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 10, 2014)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> It's been my experience that rolling the dice for common place things not only slows the game down due to constant die rolls but ends up making the PCs look like bumbling idiots.
> 
> I've played a couple of games like this and when we're rolling for EVERYTHING it just gets silly: "Roll to see if you open the door or if you miss the door, slip over your own feat and smash your skull against the pavement."
> 
> Yes, accidents do happen, but they happen so rarely that you can't use a d20 to determine whether they happen. You need a d10,000 for most of these accidents. My general rule of thumb is if I don't see an average person failing at least 1 time in every 20 times they try something, I don't bother with a roll. Glad to see a similar philosophy is part of D&D Next.




Ayup. Adventurers should be considered at least as competent as regular people. Climbing a ladder in ordinary circumstances shouldn't require a roll. Trying to climb a ladder out of the 8th plane of Hell with an ice devil clinging to you _would _be an action worthy of a roll.


----------



## am181d (Feb 10, 2014)

ExploderWizard said:


> Ayup. Adventurers should be considered at least as competent as regular people. Climbing a ladder in ordinary circumstances shouldn't require a roll. Trying to climb a ladder out of the 8th plane of Hell with an ice devil clinging to you _would _be an action worthy of a roll.




I feel like most of us can climb a ladder out of the 8th plane of Hell with an ice devil clinging to our backs AT LEAST 95% of the time. I don't think we should require a roll unless there are 2-3 ice devils involved. (Or, obviously, if we're talking about the 6th or 7th plane of Hell.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 10, 2014)

am181d said:


> I feel like most of us can climb a ladder out of the 8th plane of Hell with an ice devil clinging to our backs AT LEAST 95% of the time. I don't think we should require a roll unless there are 2-3 ice devils involved. (Or, obviously, if we're talking about the 6th or 7th plane of Hell.




That would be a STR dependent DM call I think.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 10, 2014)

I'd love to see weapon properties being included as an optional benefit you can unlock with a feat. Seems like the perfect spot for Weapon Specialization...


----------



## Minigiant (Feb 10, 2014)

Well one thing that is good about limited autosuccess is it nudges DMs away from being "Roll for every single thing" DM.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 10, 2014)

The only time you should be rolling is when failure matters.
If you're not on a time constraint when climbing the ladder you don't need to roll. You don't need to roll to avoid tripping when running through the forest normally, but you should make the check when being chased by a knife wielding psycho. 

Every second counts and you're try to scamper up a ladder? Check to see if you slip or slow town.Trying to open a door to escape an orc horde? Better roll. Sometimes doors stick.


----------



## Gundark (Feb 10, 2014)

I would be okay with weapons powers as an  optional rules mod. I have played other RPGs that have included them in their core rules. These rules have bloated the game and made combat a long drag fest as everybody had to check the powers of their weapons they were using.

optional yes. RAW no


----------



## 1of3 (Feb 10, 2014)

Weapon powers might have worked. They just weren't willing to go all the way. 

Legends of the Wulin does it, but there are only 8 types of weapons on the list (Sword, Heavy, Spear, Flexible, Ranged, Paired, Unarmed), with the options of buying special proficiency to combine the effects of two types. That certainly is manageable. If the list is as detailed as the D&D list... not so much.


----------



## Gundark (Feb 10, 2014)

Agreed 







1of3 said:


> Weapon powers might have worked. They just weren't willing to go all the way.
> 
> Legends of the Wulin does it, but there are only 8 types of weapons on the list (Sword, Heavy, Spear, Flexible, Ranged, Paired, Unarmed), with the options of buying special proficiency to combine the effects of two types. That certainly is manageable. If the list is as detailed as the D&D list... not so much.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Feb 10, 2014)

1of3 said:


> Weapon powers might have worked. They just weren't willing to go all the way.
> 
> Legends of the Wulin does it, but there are only 8 types of weapons on the list (Sword, Heavy, Spear, Flexible, Ranged, Paired, Unarmed), with the options of buying special proficiency to combine the effects of two types. That certainly is manageable. If the list is as detailed as the D&D list... not so much.



IOW, "weapon powers might have worked, but not in D&D."

Sure, weapon types might be very cool in a game that doesn't have the same assumptions D&D does, but that's neither here nor their, is it? D&D _does_ have a huge weapon list and it most likely always will. A long list of weapons with fiddly powers would have been overwhelming for many players. I like the idea of weapons powers, but it wasn't going to work for D&D as it exists now. Which I think is pretty much what MM was saying.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 10, 2014)

Dungeoneer said:


> IOW, "weapon powers might have worked, but not in D&D."
> 
> Sure, weapon types might be very cool in a game that doesn't have the same assumptions D&D does, but that's neither here nor their, is it? D&D _does_ have a huge weapon list and it most likely always will. A long list of weapons with fiddly powers would have been overwhelming for many players. I like the idea of weapons powers, but it wasn't going to work for D&D as it exists now. Which I think is pretty much what MM was saying.




Well, I'd say that depends on just how powerful those weapon powers were.

After all... we do already have "weapon powers" in a manner of speaking.  There are plenty of weapons that have properties to them, which are basic weapon powers.  Some weapons give you more damage when you use it two-handed.  Some weapons let you attack 1 square further than others.  Some weapons let you attack at range with it.  Some weapons allow you to attack with your Dexterity.

Adding in extra properties of this sort so that every weapon has at least one property to call its own isn't going to be much of an issue.  Picks and curved blades getting High Crit.  Weapons with chains getting a trip attack.  And most especially... actually making a weapon's _damage type_ MEAN something.  One of the very first things WotC talked about when they announced the game was the reintroduction of weapon damage type... but other than Skeletons being vulnerable to bludgeoning damage, does weapon damage type ever come up _at all_?  Does it matter whether something is slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning?  As far as I can tell... pretty much almost never.  Which means its pointless re-addition to the game.

If you don't want weapon powers because they are too complex... then remove all weapon properties so that every 1d8 weapon is just like any other (and thus your choice truly just comes down to aesthetics.)  Otherwise... every weapon should have at least one property so that it distinguishes it from any other, and thus weapon choice comes from both aesthetics, but also what you want (as a player) to be able to do with it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 10, 2014)

Dungeoneer said:


> IOW, "weapon powers might have worked, but not in D&D."
> 
> Sure, weapon types might be very cool in a game that doesn't have the same assumptions D&D does, but that's neither here nor their, is it? D&D _does_ have a huge weapon list and it most likely always will. A long list of weapons with fiddly powers would have been overwhelming for many players. I like the idea of weapons powers, but it wasn't going to work for D&D as it exists now. Which I think is pretty much what MM was saying.



What if weapon types had powers

Example: sword all have a axes all have b


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 10, 2014)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Well, I'd say that depends on just how powerful those weapon powers were.
> 
> After all... we do already have "weapon powers" in a manner of speaking.  There are plenty of weapons that have properties to them, which are basic weapon powers.  Some weapons give you more damage when you use it two-handed.  Some weapons let you attack 1 square further than others.  Some weapons let you attack at range with it.  Some weapons allow you to attack with your Dexterity.
> 
> ...




I like the cut of your jib.


----------



## Bluenose (Feb 10, 2014)

Dungeoneer said:


> IOW, "weapon powers might have worked, but not in D&D."
> 
> Sure, weapon types might be very cool in a game that doesn't have the same assumptions D&D does, but that's neither here nor their, is it? D&D _does_ have a huge weapon list and it most likely always will. A long list of weapons with fiddly powers would have been overwhelming for many players. I like the idea of weapons powers, but it wasn't going to work for D&D as it exists now. Which I think is pretty much what MM was saying.




As compared to the (much) longer list of spells and/or magic items, which can't possibly be cut on the grounds they're too confusing for many players.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 10, 2014)

GMforPowergamers said:


> What if weapon types had powers
> 
> Example: sword all have a axes all have b




That's what much of 4E had on their weapon tables.  The swords (of all sizes) got an extra +1 to their proficiency bonus.  The axes/hammers all were a damage die bigger than the other weapons of a similar type.  Picks and curved blades (scimitar, falchion) were High Crit.  Polearms had reach.

For my money... I think all weapons should be charted so that weapon groups get a property and damage types get a property (so every weapon would have two properties).  But that's just me.


----------



## Minigiant (Feb 10, 2014)

I understand not doing weapon powers like how spells are. But there are many examples in D&D's history and tradition that could be used for a simple base system. You don't even have to let every class have access to them at first. 

You can easily divide powers by weapon group or weapon damage. Any you can soft lock them much like proficiencies (assassin rogues only get dagger maneuvers from class). And you could easily do them like older editions where you needed a certian level of proficiency or focus to get them, this way everyone doesn't have to learn every power/maneuver/propty.

There are ways it could have been done. Just not the same level and style as spells.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Feb 10, 2014)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Otherwise... every weapon should have at least one property so that it distinguishes it from any other, and thus weapon choice comes from both aesthetics, but also what you want (as a player) to be able to do with it.




*choir of angels*  _Thiiiiiis!_


----------



## Dungeoneer (Feb 10, 2014)

Bluenose said:


> As compared to the (much) longer list of spells and/or magic items, which can't possibly be cut on the grounds they're too confusing for many players.



The reason your sarcasm is ridiculous is because a player doesn't have to select spells from the entire spell list at once. And magic items are usually distributed in limited quantities by the GM. But the choice of weapon/power would be virtually unrestricted.

What's being proposed here, as I understand it, is that every halberd, flail and falchion has 2-3 'powers' associated with it. Which means that when a player is rolling up a warrior they are going to have spend ages agonizing over whether a great-axe with powers A & B is better or worse than a battle-axe with powers B & C. Since most martial classes have access to virtually the entire catalog if medieval weaponry from the start of the game, this is going to be a pretty overwhelming up-front choice.

If weapon types had to be 'unlocked' (perhaps with feats) that might be different, but again you are then starting to have a game that doesn't look like traditional D&D to most folks.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 10, 2014)

For auto success, I've done the 5+level rule - if a DC is lower than 5 + the character level, I let it auto succeed (unless its an attack, trap or spell related DC).


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Feb 10, 2014)

Weapon powers would have been too much of a hassle, but "powers" from sources like feats and (sub)-class abilities that tie to certain weapons would be better as was stated by the article.  I personally think too much would be wasted if Rapier, Dagger, Scimitar and Shortsword had "for a -5 penalty to all attacks, you get an extra one" as opposed to the feat that does just that...

Come to think about that feat and dual-wielding, I think that the last column basically stated you can't use both of those together to get 2 extra attacks anymore.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 10, 2014)

Jan van Leyden said:


> I'm not yet sure what to think about ad/disad. While it's cool to boil down the whole bonus/penalty business, one can go too far in this direction. And if the gate are thrown open to allow for different mechanisms beyond ad/disad, the whole simplification and speed-up it brings will soon be history.




Same concern here. It's probably up to what they put in supplements or 3rd-party products, if bloat happens they'll reset the edition in a few years. But as long as core is concerned, it's probably not going to be a problem at all (unless a DM starts granting advantage as a reward for description, that is quite likely to end up pretty badly).

Weapon special abilities would have been really cool... I am undecided on this subject. On one hand, I understand that since everybody can pick up a weapon, having most weapons with special rules can cause a lot of drag in the character creation phase, if players start thinking too much about which weapon to pick up. On the other hand, spells already have a similar issue (everyone playing a spellcaster goes through the list), so non-casters having the same would probably bring more balance. That said, just representing weapon special abilities through feats and class features is probably fine. But whatever their choice, it's not going to satisfy everybody... 

I still have to build enough an opinion on concentration rules. Apparently, playtesters loved them, but how many of them really had time to see the long-term consequences?


----------



## GX.Sigma (Feb 10, 2014)

They can still reintroduce weapon powers as mid-level fighter features, which is probably where they belong.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 10, 2014)

Plaguescarred said:


> Auto Success is something i'm not too fond of, i like a minimum of randomness. Even climbing a ladder can be failed, that's why we often have dumb accidents in the most mundane tasks we do.



Is that why you play Dungeons & Dragons?  To simulate the chance you have at encountering a "dumb luck" accident and trip over your own feet while walking down the hallway or climbing a ladder or whatever?

For me, D&D is about simulating heroic sword & sorcery action stories.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Feb 10, 2014)

Hobo said:


> To simulate the chance you have at encountering a "dumb luck" accident and trip over your own feet while walking down the hallway or climbing a ladder or whatever?




Hyperbole for hyperbole: yes!


----------



## EnglishLanguage (Feb 10, 2014)

GX.Sigma said:


> They can still reintroduce weapon powers as mid-level fighter features, which is probably where they belong.




It's always bothered me that Wizards can command the very forces of reality to do his bidding from level 1, and yet the class who's supposed to be a master of all things combat can't reliably trip an enemy until about level 12 or so.


----------



## Wulfgar76 (Feb 10, 2014)

DEFCON 1 said:


> For my money... I think all weapons should be charted so that weapon groups get a property and damage types get a property (so every weapon would have two properties).  But that's just me.




Very tough to do this. Layering on weapon variable inflates the complexity of a basic part of the game, and most often makes for a clear 'best choice' that everyone chooses, thus diminishing choice. Remember rapiers and greatswords in 3e?


----------



## Plaguescarred (Feb 10, 2014)

Hobo said:


> Is that why you play Dungeons & Dragons?  To simulate the chance you have at encountering a "dumb luck" accident and trip over your own feet while walking down the hallway or climbing a ladder or whatever?
> 
> For me, D&D is about simulating heroic sword & sorcery action stories.



I play D&D to tell stories, all kinds from the boldest to the most hilarious one with all success and failures they entail!


----------



## GX.Sigma (Feb 10, 2014)

EnglishLanguage said:


> It's always bothered me that Wizards can command the very forces of reality to do his bidding from level 1, and yet the class who's supposed to be a master of all things combat can't reliably trip an enemy until about level 12 or so.




Two magic missiles per day isn't exactly "commanding the very forces of reality to do his bidding."
A 1st level fighter is _not_ supposed to be a "master of all things combat."
I don't think I'd want to play a game where you can "reliably trip an enemy."
By "mid level" I meant around level 4.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 10, 2014)

DMZ2112 said:


> Hyperbole for hyperbole: yes!



Nice try, but I used his exact example specifically to difuse the mistaken attempt to paint my post as hyperbole.

The reason I ask is because the D&D game hasn't been--for a long time, if indeed it ever was--a game designed to simulate that kind of "dumb luck" event.  Just like it isn't meant to simulate a gritty medieval disease-ridden society or whatever either.  It's entirely possible that this complaint is rooted in the notion that D&D isn't Rolemaster, or D&D isn't Harn (to paraphrase.)  D&D does, on the other hand, do a pretty decent job at meeting its own design goals and simulating its target genre.

To the extent that PCs had to worry about falling off of ladders while doing a routine trip to clean out the rain gutters of the castle, it would actually be considerably _worse_ at emulating its chosen genre.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Feb 10, 2014)

Hobo said:


> Nice try, but I used his exact example specifically to difuse the mistaken attempt to paint my post as hyperbole.




It isn't really relevant to whom the hyperbole belongs, although it is true that if [MENTION=6701422]Plaguescarred[/MENTION] was not being at least slightly facetious my attitudes on the subject are probably not quite as severe as his.

The things that make heroes heroes have to involve a risk of failure, even for heroes, or they would not be heroic.  By extension, the possibility of critical failure exists for the same reason that the possibility of critical success exists -- perspective.



> The reason I ask is because the D&D game hasn't been--for a long time, if indeed it ever was--a game designed to simulate that kind of "dumb luck" event.




D&D has never been designed to simulate much.  "Pointy end goes in the other man," and that's about it.  A Dex check made to climb a wall is what it is, and failure is what it is.  I grant you that a ladder should provide such a bonus to that check as to render it virtually impossible to fail, unless the ladder is for some reason actually a living remorhaz.  But if there is no ladder, and the wall is treacherous, the Dex check serves.  Or does not serve, which I suppose is the point.


----------



## The Choice (Feb 10, 2014)

GX.Sigma said:


> Two magic missiles per day isn't exactly "commanding the very forces of reality to do his bidding."
> A 1st level fighter is _not_ supposed to be a "master of all things combat."
> I don't think I'd want to play a game where you can "reliably trip an enemy."
> By "mid level" I meant around level 4.




About that 2nd point you make : The 1st edition AD&D player's handbook grants the title
of "Veteran" to 1st level fighters. Their class description in that book is rather anemic (all
of the class descriptions are), but they do make it clear that "[...] Fighters are the strongest
characters in a fight [...]"

The 2nd edition PHB describes them as "[...] a combatant, a weapons expert, and, if they
are intelligent, cunning strategists and tacticians [...]" The expression "master of weapons"
is also used a few times.

So, yeah. They are masters of at least most things combat-related. Also, I expect a master
of at least most things combat related to reliably trip an enemy if that is a tactic s/he favours.

Edit: Note that I am working from a 1988 French printing of the 1st edition AD&D PHB and a French
printing of the 2nd edition PHB from an unknown year, that I had to translate back into English.
Any difference in wording from the original versions can be blamed on me.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Feb 10, 2014)

The Choice said:


> About that 2nd point you make : The 1st edition AD&D player's handbook grants the title
> of "Veteran" to 1st level fighters. Their class description in that book is rather anemic (all
> of the class descriptions are), but they do make it clear that "[...] Fighters are the strongest
> characters in a fight [...]"



"Veteran" is not the same as "master" (and level titles aren't an end-all-be-all anyway, since "warrior" comes at 2nd,  which sounds like a downgrade from "veteran"). According to the DMG, a "serjeant" is a 1st level fighter, and is described as "the leader of a small body of troops, a non-commissioned officer equivalent." (A lieutenant is 2nd-3rd, and a captain is 5th-8th level).


The Choice said:


> The 2nd edition PHB describes them as "[...] a combatant, a weapons expert, and, if they are intelligent, cunning strategists and tacticians [...]" The expression "master of weapons"
> is also used a few times.



The same book also describes wizard as being able to "vanish in an instant, become a wholly different creature, or even invade the mind of an enemy and take control of his thoughts and actions," which is also not true at 1st level.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Feb 10, 2014)

You know, fighters would have a better rep if the ability to effectively wield almost every weapon in the entire book proved to be relevant to game play.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 10, 2014)

Dungeoneer said:


> The reason your sarcasm is ridiculous is because a player doesn't have to select spells from the entire spell list at once. And magic items are usually distributed in limited quantities by the GM. But the choice of weapon/power would be virtually unrestricted.
> 
> What's being proposed here, as I understand it, is that every halberd, flail and falchion has 2-3 'powers' associated with it. Which means that when a player is rolling up a warrior they are going to have spend ages agonizing over whether a great-axe with powers A & B is better or worse than a battle-axe with powers B & C. Since most martial classes have access to virtually the entire catalog if medieval weaponry from the start of the game, this is going to be a pretty overwhelming up-front choice.
> 
> If weapon types had to be 'unlocked' (perhaps with feats) that might be different, but again you are then starting to have a game that doesn't look like traditional D&D to most folks.




2-3 powers for each weapon?

I can't speak for anyone else, but that's not at all what I was expecting.  Something as simple as "this weapon's design makes tripping easier; a wielder proficient in its use gets their proficiency bonus to trip attempts."  

I understand not wanting to overwhelm people with choices, but I prefer to avoid pointless choices.  There are too many examples of feats, spells, powers, and weapons from previous examples which have little to no reason for existing; I'd prefer for 5th Edition to avoid that.  As a matter of fact, one of the things I liked most about 4E's cosmology is that it gave some of the redundant D&D creatures a reason to exist by shunting some of them to the Shadowfell and Feywild.


----------



## Derren (Feb 10, 2014)

All this could be avoided by making the combat system is little bit more complex so that it actually supports different advantages of weapons besides damage die and crit. But oh no, we can't have complexity now, can we? What would the new players think?


----------



## Sage Genesis (Feb 11, 2014)

1of3 said:


> Weapon powers might have worked. They just weren't willing to go all the way.
> 
> Legends of the Wulin does it, but there are only 8 types of weapons on the list (Sword, Heavy, Spear, Flexible, Ranged, Paired, Unarmed), with the options of buying special proficiency to combine the effects of two types. That certainly is manageable. If the list is as detailed as the D&D list... not so much.




Legends of the Wulin... now there is a name I hadn't expected to see mentioned here. 

D&D came very close to replicating something similar as LotW did with some traits, feats, and powers in 4e. All light blades could have one certain trait, all axes another, and so on. And then it's a simple matter of separating the big (greataxe) from the medium (battle axe) and the small (hand axe). If you define enough types and are willing to include a few unique ones like lances and nets, you could go a long way. You'd maybe lose a few minor weapons along the way like the kama, but really who cares? As long as we have the big ones like the longsword and the quarterstaff it's all good.


----------



## Primal (Feb 11, 2014)

Dungeoneer said:


> The reason your sarcasm is ridiculous is because a player doesn't have to select spells from the entire spell list at once. And magic items are usually distributed in limited quantities by the GM. But the choice of weapon/power would be virtually unrestricted.
> 
> What's being proposed here, as I understand it, is that every halberd, flail and falchion has 2-3 'powers' associated with it. Which means that when a player is rolling up a warrior they are going to have spend ages agonizing over whether a great-axe with powers A & B is better or worse than a battle-axe with powers B & C. Since most martial classes have access to virtually the entire catalog if medieval weaponry from the start of the game, this is going to be a pretty overwhelming up-front choice.
> 
> If weapon types had to be 'unlocked' (perhaps with feats) that might be different, but again you are then starting to have a game that doesn't look like traditional D&D to most folks.




Why the h*** would I want another set of 'traditional' D&D? After 25 years I expect the game to be a bit more innovative than a mixture of 2E and 3E, with maybe with a little of salt and pepper on top of it all. Advantage/Disadvantage is probably the most innovative mechanic in Next, and it isn't anything groundbreaking or something we haven't seen in other RPGs (not to mention previous editions or Pathfinder). Frankly said, I expect way more from D&DN to convince me to buy it. If I want to play traditional D&D with simple and streamlined rules, I got my BECMI and AD&D books. Or I could buy an OSR game, some of which feature much more innovative mechanics than Next (for example Whitehack).

What is so complex or bothersome if weapons have 1-3 keywords listed next to them? They could even be listed as "Optional Properties" in the table, or even as a separate rules module. Or maybe they would apply to whole weapon groups, e.g. 'Flails: you get +2 on disarm and trip maneuvers. Heavy flail also has 10 ft. reach'. IMO that isn't even nearly as complex or "paralyzing" to new players as picking their feats or spells. And not as important as a choice as them, either; especially considering that quite a few DMs don't hand out magic weapons according to wish lists or feat choices, at least the ones I've gamed with. So even though you originally wielded a morningstar, you can switch to wielding a halberd or a greatsword later on (especially if we're assuming you haven't burned any feats on your first weapon). 

Anyway, that's how I see it...


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 11, 2014)

Primal said:


> What is so complex or bothersome if weapons have 1-3 keywords listed next to them? They could even be listed as "Optional Properties" in the table, or even as a separate rules module. Or maybe they would apply to whole weapon groups, e.g. 'Flails: you get +2 on disarm and trip maneuvers. Heavy flail also has 10 ft. reach'.



The problem is once you start adding things like this to the game then it often becomes what the game is about.

I found my 3.5e games got bogged down a lot by small modifiers that weren't all that complex.  But there were so many of them and they were such a small bonus that they tended to get forgotten on a regular basis.  Whenever someone forgets to apply a modifier, however, my players love to point out how much smarter they are to the other players so that was all combat ever became:

Player 1: "I trip the monster.  (rolls a 12).  That's 20 total."
Player 2: "Wait.  I know you have a 16 strength and a 5 BAB, so isn't that 22?"
Player 1: "Plus 3 for strength, plus 5 for BAB.  That's 20."
Player 2: "Aren't you using a flail?"
Player 1: "Yeah?  So what?"
Player 2: "All flails give +2 to trip attempts."
Player 1: "What?  I didn't read that."
Player 2: "Yeah, it's right here.  Flails give +2 to all trip attempts."
Player 1: "Hmm, I didn't realize that.  Fine, then it's 22."
(Next turn)
Player 1: "I trip him again.  (rolls a 10).  That's 18 total."
Player 2: (only half paying attention to the roll) "Did you add the flail modifier?"
Player 1: "Crap.  I forgot.  That's 20 then."
(Next turn)
Player 1: "I trip again. (rolls a 10).  That's 20 total."
Player 2: (only half paying attention to the roll) "Remember flail?"
Player 1: "Yes.  I rolled a 10, plus 5 BAB, plus 3 strength and 2 from flail."
Player 2: "Ok, ok.  I was just making sure since you forgot the last 2 rounds."

Then repeat this process for every modifier in the game....in every round of combat in the game.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 11, 2014)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> The problem is once you start adding things like this to the game then it often becomes what the game is about.
> 
> I found my 3.5e games got bogged down a lot by small modifiers that weren't all that complex.  But there were so many of them and they were such a small bonus that they tended to get forgotten on a regular basis.  Whenever someone forgets to apply a modifier, however, my players love to point out how much smarter they are to the other players so that was all combat ever became:
> 
> ...





...or just take a pencil and write it down on your character sheet.


----------



## EnglishLanguage (Feb 11, 2014)

Johnny3D3D said:


> ...or just take a pencil and write it down on your character sheet.




One thing I liked about 4e's character builder. All non-circumstantial bonuses were pre-added up and already applied and written down on the character sheet, so you never had to go flipping through 2 or 3 books just to see what your abilities do.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 11, 2014)

Johnny3D3D said:


> ...or just take a pencil and write it down on your character sheet.



Great.  The problem is: Did you remember to check your character sheet or are you just working off of memory?  If you bonus to hit is +8 and you use that +8 on 80% of your rolls are you going to even remember to apply the +2 because this round you are tripping instead of doing a normal attack?  Where is the note on your character sheet?  Right beside your weapon or on a page of notes on the back?  If you put it right beside is it big enough that you'll see it when you check your character sheet?  Even if it is, will you remember that when making a trip attempt you need to look at your modifier AND the note below it or will you just check the modifier absentmindedly and gloss right over the note?

Also if there are 4 more notes below that one saying +2 against Orcs, +2 against people wearing red, +2 against Mimes, +2 vs Sandwiches....and you almost never look at any of them because you rarely fight sandwiches, are you going to forget to check that note the day you actually fight sandwiches?

Even if you do remember to apply it, now there's a modifier you MIGHT have forgotten so now the group has to ask if you've forgotten it, just in case, since they want to make sure you are applying every possible benefit.  If you get angry at them for reminding you all the time, they'll tell you they were just trying to be helpful and there's no need to yell.  Then forget that you yelled at them and start reminding you again next turn.

All this fails to ask the fairly legitimate question: Is it worth all the hassle just to have a +2 bonus to trips?


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 11, 2014)

*Advantage and Disadvantage*

Advantage and disadvantage obsfucates the many small +'s and -'s. However this is not desirable. For those that want a quicker game it is desirable, but for those that like optimization, it doesn't work. Since there is no stacking or 1 for 1 cancelation, the (dis)advantage mechanic just takes away a lot of the fun stacking and optimization that used to exist. For a simpler game it would be a great optional rule. As a universal rule, it doesn't work.

*Weapon Powers*

Again if you had kept the simple weapons with no properties as an optional rule and put in the weapon maneuvers that anyone trained in the weapon could attempt, then that would have added a whole lot to the game. As it is though, it severely limits the game. If you want to do something cool with a weapon you have to hope the DM will let you improvise (the improvise thing is totally up to the DM and some DMs will tell you flat out 'no' others will say 'autosuccess' while others will make you roll multiple checks to succeed) or you have to waste one of your 3-5 feats you get over the course of 17 levels (since many will start at 4th instead of 1st) or you have to grab a specific class with a specific feature, as if only certain people can learn these things.

*Concentration*

This ties into the trend that only casters should be complex. Its also a balance mechanic to keep neo-vancian casters from being too powerful. In 4E because of the spell recovery structure and the way spells were worded casters did not need to be put in check by arbitrary rules like this one. In other words there are other ways to do this. One is to get rid of the neo-vancian casting mechanic. Of course its biased to make casters more complex and keep the complexity out of the non-casters. Instead of making options so non-casters can be complex or not complex while at the same time making options so casters can be complex or not complex. To me this is just a failure to understand the problem.

*Auto Success*

This feature is one of the only ones that I mostly agree with. Although it could be worded better where if an action has no negative consequence on a failure that 'eventually' they succeed. Only make them roll when rushed or threatened. For instance climbing a ladder under normal circumstances has no real negative impact. The chance of falling off a ladder is very small if you are careful. However if you are being chased by goblins and being shot at with arrows a check to keep from falling off might be in order.

*Feedback*

The surveys were self selecting. Meaning that as people decided they didn't like what they saw more people left and were replaced by those that liked what they saw. In other words any information you got from the surveys was likely only to be from the portion of your potential customers that your current packet most matched. So what I predict will happen is that on release you'll get about as much support as 4E and 3E and all editions got on release. Then shortly after that (1-2 years) you'll have a huge drop off and be working on the next edition (or  your resumes) in a shorter time than 4E.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 11, 2014)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> All this fails to ask the fairly legitimate question: Is it worth all the hassle just to have a +2 bonus to trips?



Compared to juggling and remembering 15 spells out of a much larger spell list?

e: More to the point, why not draw from BECMI/RC's Weapon Mastery?  Great way to give swordy guys some neat tricks, simple, and pretty potent to boot?


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 11, 2014)

Plaguescarred said:


> I see Weapon Powers as a great addition for an optional module if its not in core rules., it has enought granularity and tactical depth for optional tactical module though.
> 
> I liked the halberd property to knock prone a few packets ago but in core rules i wouldn't necessarily want to see every weapon do something on a hit without feat, feature or optional rules in use.
> 
> I also think it'd be preferrable to call them Weapon Maneuvers over Weapon Powers. The term "powers" seems to not jive well with some people in the hand of non-spellcasters... #4ELessons




I'd rather they build the game for everyone.

One way they could do that is to put keywords on the weapons like 4E did. 

*TRIPPING*: Any weapon with the TRIPPING keyword can be used to trip a target that is within 1 size category of the attacker on a successful hit. The target makes a dexterity saving throw against 10 + the attackers attack bonuses. On a failure they are tripped.

That way for the simple game, they just ignore the weapon keywords. For the complex game they don't. Just like alignment. Everything has an alignment listed, but in some games alignment means nothing.



Hobo said:


> Is that why you play Dungeons & Dragons? To simulate the chance you have at encountering a "dumb luck" accident and trip over your own feet while walking down the hallway or climbing a ladder or whatever?
> 
> For me, D&D is about simulating heroic sword & sorcery action stories.




You have to remember for many people D&D is about simulating that partially mentally retarded clutz that just came off the farm picking up a weapon for the first time and managing not to lop their own head off while they fight off monsters that can kill them with a single hit.

I personally play D&D like the players are hero's, a step above the common man. Having shown extreme talent in one area or another that uniquely suits them for a life of adventure.

So the rules should accomodate both groups. Something like "Farm Boy: -3 to all starting stats. Roll to see if you can walk properly...etc...etc... Hero: Roll only when rushed or threatened...etc...etc..."


----------



## Dungeoneer (Feb 11, 2014)

Primal said:


> Why the h*** would I want another set of 'traditional' D&D? After 25 years I expect the game to be a bit more innovative than a mixture of 2E and 3E, with maybe with a little of salt and pepper on top of it all.



I dunno. I'm not defending 5e. I'm not particularly excited about it myself. But the topic is why the 5e they are _actually _developing doesn't have weapon-specific powers. Given that they are shooting for a very traditional D&D, the kind of re-design that would have been required to accommodate them was never realistically in the cards. That's all.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 11, 2014)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Great.  The problem is: Did you remember to check your character sheet or are you just working off of memory?  If you bonus to hit is +8 and you use that +8 on 80% of your rolls are you going to even remember to apply the +2 because this round you are tripping instead of doing a normal attack?  Where is the note on your character sheet?  Right beside your weapon or on a page of notes on the back?  If you put it right beside is it big enough that you'll see it when you check your character sheet?  Even if it is, will you remember that when making a trip attempt you need to look at your modifier AND the note below it or will you just check the modifier absentmindedly and gloss right over the note?
> 
> Also if there are 4 more notes below that one saying +2 against Orcs, +2 against people wearing red, +2 against Mimes, +2 vs Sandwiches....and you almost never look at any of them because you rarely fight sandwiches, are you going to forget to check that note the day you actually fight sandwiches?
> 
> ...




You took what I was trying to say to an extreme, so it seems fair I do the same.


Then why have the other weapons in the game?

That's really what it boils down to for me.  If there's no difference in what they do, why not just say "little weapons do 1d4, average weapons do 1d6, large weapons do 1d8, and big honkin' two handed weapons do 1d12"?  Then just have the player fluff what the weapon is because it doesn't actually matter in play.  

I find that pretty boring, and I it also annoys me because, as I said earlier, I dislike when choices really aren't choices... whether that's because they don't matter or whether that's because one is obviously so much better that it makes no sense to choose the other ones.  When it comes to D&D weapons and equipment, somehow the game occasionally manages to have both be simultaneously true.  I personally dislike that.  I understand that others may not have a problem with it, but I do.

As for your question about whether I'd remember things...  personally, I would.  There's plenty of empty space on my character sheet.  If I really have to, I'll use a scrap piece of paper or a notecard.  For what it's worth, I was (and I'm not at all making this up) where Pelor had been brainwashed into believing he was the "god of 'sammich,'" so I likely would have been pretty happy with a weapon which got bonuses against sandwiches in that particular campaign.  Now, do I believe that's something which comes up often?  No, I certainly don't, but it amused me that you picked such a way to make your point since I had actually been in a campaign where it would have mattered.  

More to the point, I'm not suggesting to add a slew of modifiers.  I'd be happy with just making the multitude of weapons simply not seem pointless.  If a +1 or -1 seems too hard to remember, simplify it further by using what is already a common 5th Edition element by saying "this weapon gives advantage on trip attacks."  Personally, I paused from saying that as my original idea because I feel that's far too good, and I would believe it to be unbalancing (pun intended,) without some sort of cost.  As such, I felt that starting with a minor bonus (such as a simple +1) as a base property for a few select weapons was the better idea.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Feb 11, 2014)

Johnny3D3D said:


> 2-3 powers for each weapon?
> 
> I can't speak for anyone else, but that's not at all what I was expecting.  Something as simple as "this weapon's design makes tripping easier; a wielder proficient in its use gets their proficiency bonus to trip attempts."
> 
> I understand not wanting to overwhelm people with choices, but I prefer to avoid pointless choices.  There are too many examples of feats, spells, powers, and weapons from previous examples which have little to no reason for existing; I'd prefer for 5th Edition to avoid that.  As a matter of fact, one of the things I liked most about 4E's cosmology is that it gave some of the redundant D&D creatures a reason to exist by shunting some of them to the Shadowfell and Feywild.



I'm too lazy to go back and find the appropriate posters to quote, but I think the idea was that there would be powers for each of the the weapon's attributes. So a morning star might give you a trip bonus, PLUS it would have reach, PLUS maybe something to do with blunt force.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 11, 2014)

Dungeoneer said:


> I'm too lazy to go back and find the appropriate posters to quote, but I think the idea was that there would be powers for each of the the weapon's attributes. So a morning star might give you a trip bonus, PLUS it would have reach, PLUS maybe something to do with blunt force.




That particular amount of stuff I would agree is too much for the typical D&D experience.  (Though, I do play and enjoy other rpgs where more detail than that comes into play.)

I'd be fine with just a simple bonus... or anything really which gave many of the weapons on the list a reason to exist.  I'm not opposed to damage type occasionally playing a factor, but I'd hazard to say that aspect of it is more on the DM's end of things than something the player needs to remember.  "When Brisbain Balderbeard smashes his hammer into the bones of the skeleton, it seems more effective than the previous attacks made by Stabitha Silverleaf's crossbow."  On the player's end, I see it more as "hey, I get a bonus here."  That doesn't require hundreds of modifiers or numbers, and I'm not even suggesting that; just a minor benefit to give something a reason to exist.  I don't even think it should be as complicated or comprehensive as 4E's keyword system was; just pick some of the weapons which are currently bland and flavorless, and either find a reason for them to exist by looking at their design and seeing what seems reasonable for a minor bonus, replace them with something else which is more interesting, or simply just remove them from the list.  

I personally feel that a weapon list which would boil down to dice values without any other defining feature -even among weapons with the same dice value- to be pointless and boring.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Feb 11, 2014)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> The problem is once you start adding things like this to the game then it often becomes what the game is about.
> 
> I found my 3.5e games got bogged down a lot by small modifiers that weren't all that complex.  But there were so many of them and they were such a small bonus that they tended to get forgotten on a regular basis.  Whenever someone forgets to apply a modifier, however, my players love to point out how much smarter they are to the other players so that was all combat ever became...




And with that we come full circle to the versatility of the advantage/disadvantage mechanic.  Trip attacks made with tripping weapons have advantage.  Simple, easy to remember.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 11, 2014)

Derren said:


> All this could be avoided by making the combat system is little bit more complex so that it actually supports different advantages of weapons besides damage die and crit. But oh no, we can't have complexity now, can we? What would the new players think?




You're getting not one, but TWO optional modules to increase complexity.  That being the tactical combat module, and the customization module.  But oh no, we can't have less complexity in the base game now, can we? What would the system mastery players thing?


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 11, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> for those that like optimization, it doesn't work.




This is a feature, not a bug.



> For a simpler game it would be a great optional rule. As a universal rule, it doesn't work.




You have that backwards.  The base game should be the simpler one.  Optimization should be the optional one.  You have 3e for optimization, and Pathfinder for optimization, and there is no way to compete on an optimization level out the gate with two games that have many years of expansion books behind them.  Let that be the focus of the customization and tactical combat modules and let the skeleton base game everything is built on remain the simpler version.  It's easier to add things to an existing solid structure base game, than it is to subtract things from it.




> This ties into the trend that only casters should be complex.




There is nothing complex about "one concentration spell at a time".  



> The surveys were self selecting. Meaning that as people decided they didn't like what they saw more people left and were *replaced by those that liked what they saw*.




They said it was tested (multiple times actually), and while a small minority liked it, *a majority did not like it*.  So the people said they *didn't like what they saw*, and WOTC adjusted to fit that.  That's the opposite of your claim, where you say the playtest is full of people who like what they saw.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 11, 2014)

LightPhoenix said:


> And with that we come full circle to the versatility of the advantage/disadvantage mechanic.  Trip attacks made with tripping weapons have advantage.  Simple, easy to remember.




I generally agree with this.  As I said in my earlier post, I only paused at posting that because advantage seem like a much more significant trait than what I'd consider to be "a minor benefit."


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 11, 2014)

Obryn said:


> Compared to juggling and remembering 15 spells out of a much larger spell list?



Complexity causes less problems in different parts of the game.

Choosing which spell to cast is at least a decision that you can ponder during everyone else's turns and even for multiple turns.  If you forget what a spells does you can look it up between rounds and refresh your memory without slowing down the game.

Complexity in the actual resolution of abilities is where my problems lie.  Lots of small bonuses or bonuses that are so circumstantial that they almost never get used just don't help the game.

I actually kind of like the idea of weapons giving you a whole new option in combat: You can't trip people with a normal weapon because that's not an option in the combat system, but since you are using a whip, it has a special attack to wrap around people's legs and trip them.

I would have liked to see this mechanic in practice.  However, they say that it was tried and that it became too much to remember.  I'll take their word for it.  I can see how that would be the case.  At least with spells, most monsters don't have them so you only need to remember what the spells do that the monster you are planning on running next week has.  Then you can forget them again.  If every enemy who wielded a weapon had 1 or 2 extra options that they could attempt entirely based on their weapon choice, I can see that getting hard to keep track of.



Obryn said:


> e: More to the point, why not draw from BECMI/RC's Weapon Mastery?  Great way to give swordy guys some neat tricks, simple, and pretty potent to boot?



Not sure how this mechanic works as I never played BECMI.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Feb 11, 2014)

Make Advantage / Disadvantage optional. Or at least allow back in via a module the ability to play the game by improving one's odds more than one and done.

Keep each weapon unique and valuable. Powers are only one way of designing a game. Weapons, and everything else for that matter, can be highly variable with different benefits and drawbacks. Keep the Fighter's game intact for those who want to play it.

Last bit, 
It doesn't take much to alter the Dis/Adv rule to allow increased benefits and drawbacks. +1 Bonus Die. +1 Penalty Die. Subtract Penalties from Bonuses and roll the resulting number either taking the better or worse result depending. This is blunting the game, which is cool for those who want to Keep it simple, Silly. But players loving the new cool mechanic, but more might just end up making it the whole game. There should be other options, options keeping more finesse.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 11, 2014)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Complexity causes less problems in different parts of the game.
> 
> Choosing which spell to cast is at least a decision that you can ponder during everyone else's turns and even for multiple turns.  If you forget what a spells does you can look it up between rounds and refresh your memory without slowing down the game.
> 
> ...



You're taking a worst case scenario. I don't think "lots of modifiers" is necessarily a great way to do weapon features, but special maneuvers? Sure, why not? 

If it was too much to remember, tweak the system. That's their job. 

And no reason every monster should get such perks. Symmetric design shouldn't be the default, anyway - and if it's the only option, I'll run, not walk away from Next, because if you want to talk complexity... 

For Weapon Mastery, download the Dark Dungeons retroclone for the system. Basically, mastery in a weapon gives you bonuses depending on the weapon, including increased attack, damage, AC, special maneuvers like disarm/delay/deflect, and "despair" effects where you show how badass you are and intelligent enemies flee. And remember, this was all for the "basic" line of rules. You only needed to know what your own weapon did. 

BECMI is among the friendliest D&D editions to mundanes because of it.


----------



## Bluenose (Feb 11, 2014)

EnglishLanguage said:


> It's always bothered me that Wizards can command the very forces of reality to do his bidding from level 1, and yet the class who's supposed to be a master of all things combat can't reliably trip an enemy until about level 12 or so.




I actually don't object to that, because tripping someone isn't exactly easy. A strike at the legs doesn't exavtly help you defend yourself against a counter going towards your torso/head/arms. And I know where'd I'd prefer not to be hit (either place - taking someone's head off in exchange for losing a leg may be a win, but it's hardly a good result).



Obryn said:


> Compared to juggling and remembering 15 spells out of a much larger spell list?
> 
> e: More to the point, why not draw from BECMI/RC's Weapon Mastery?  Great way to give swordy guys some neat tricks, simple, and pretty potent to boot?




There's a lot of different ways to handle it, but if something that was in D&D in the 1980s isn't "traditional" enough then I'm not sure what would be considered acceptable.


----------



## Derren (Feb 11, 2014)

Mistwell said:


> You're getting not one, but TWO optional modules to increase complexity.  That being the tactical combat module, and the customization module.  But oh no, we can't have less complexity in the base game now, can we? What would the system mastery players thing?




You mean the Tactical Module we have not seen anything from so far?
I am sure they will be supported through the edition instead of ending up as a glorified houserule, mentioned once and never again.


----------



## Primal (Feb 11, 2014)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> The problem is once you start adding things like this to the game then it often becomes what the game is about.
> 
> I found my 3.5e games got bogged down a lot by small modifiers that weren't all that complex.  But there were so many of them and they were such a small bonus that they tended to get forgotten on a regular basis.  Whenever someone forgets to apply a modifier, however, my players love to point out how much smarter they are to the other players so that was all combat ever became:
> 
> ...




Well, if a player has trouble writing down his bonuses on a character sheet, he's probably going to have a lot of similar problems in the game, for example forgetting to add modifiers/dice from Bless and other buffs. Or temporary/circumstancial stuff from feats, or rolling two dice because of (dis)advantage. Or to announce that you're doing piercing and fire damage because you switched to using your flaming bow. And let's not even talk about the "super feats" in 5E; lot's of stuff to remember, if you pick several feats and don't write them down.  Seriously, though, I don't know about you, but your example above is what happens from time to time, even with veteran players; we're no robots, after all.  

In my opinion keywords relating to weapon groups is almost the simplest kind of modifiers you can have, and no harder to remember than other modifiers in the game. If you think it's too much, it'd be simple to ignore 'em; that's why I said it'd could be an optional rules module/dial/switch/whatever.


----------



## Derren (Feb 11, 2014)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> *Player 1: "What?  I didn't read that."*




This is the only problem in your example. Not the rules, but the Player not reading or even trying to remember them.


----------



## Primal (Feb 11, 2014)

Dungeoneer said:


> I dunno. I'm not defending 5e. I'm not particularly excited about it myself. But the topic is why the 5e they are _actually _developing doesn't have weapon-specific powers. Given that they are shooting for a very traditional D&D, the kind of re-design that would have been required to accommodate them was never realistically in the cards. That's all.




For me it's not about "weapon powers", at least in the 4E sense of the word. It's about simple properties that make wielding a greatsword different from, say, a halberd or a heavy flail. If the core rules only use weapon size, damage type (P/S/B) and damage dice, I wonder if it wouldn't be just the same to use the same dice for all weapons in the same category?  For example, all one-handed martial weapons would use 1d8, while two-handed weapons would be 2d6 or 1d12. That way your sword-n-board guy could be wielding a morningstar, a battle axe or a longsword; whatever suits best you image of your character.

There's nothing revolutionary or "non-traditional" about this, but I guess it'd be too dramatical a change for Next. 

I'm not very enthusiastic about 5E, either. I had high hopes for it, but the more I hear about it, the more it looks like the house-ruled version of AD&D + Skills & Powers books we were using in the 90s. And I don't think I want to go there again.... *shudder*.


----------



## Primal (Feb 11, 2014)

Derren said:


> This is the only problem in your example. Not the rules, but the Player not reading or even trying to remember them.




Yep. Besides, I'm kind of expecting that it's not so bad if you don't remember to add your +2 tripping or damage bonus every now or then; I'm far more concerned about even remotely complex rules being shoved into the rules modules. How many optional rules will there be in the core game, let alone after two or three supplements? If you have trouble with adding temporarily 1d4 or +2 to your dice rolls, how are you expected to remember which rules, dials and switches your group is using in each particular campaign? And each time you play with strangers, how much time will it take to walk through all the stuff they approve and disapprove at their table? 

To me it looks like binders full of notes and house-rules, all over again. And it's not as if this problem didn't already exist in 3E, too, with all sorts of alternate wounding and mana systems and Bo9S and whatnot. However, the 3E core game was already quite complex, and I guess many/most groups didn't use optional material all that often, not at least in every campaign. This time, the devs seem to emphasize and encourage "tinkering" with rules and campaigns.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Feb 11, 2014)

I'm quite disappointed that they didn't try to evolve weapon powers, but they did end up with the awkward maneuver dice.

If the fear was complexity then as many people have said, there could be simple weapons with no powers, or simple options, or unlockable powers. I would personally have liked to see a system like 2nd edition weapon proficiencies - every so often you get another slot to spend, with Fighters getting plenty compared to non-martial classes. Rather than granting proficiency, you get to unlock a series of weapon maneuvers. The simple option would just be getting +x to hit and +y to damage, like the old mastery system, whereas the complex option would be letting your halberd now make a sweeping trip attack, or spinning the blade as a multiattack. I mean, they had some great ideas for powers in 4E, but tying into the rigid power system made most of them awkward.


----------



## gweinel (Feb 11, 2014)

Derren said:


> All this could be avoided by making the combat system is little bit more complex so that it actually supports different advantages of weapons besides damage die and crit. But oh no, we can't have complexity now, can we? What would the new players think?




It isn't about what new players think. It is about what the old players think. The new players can't judge if something is more or less complex than something else because they don't have the experience. The old ones are the ones that have fed up with the fiddliness and complexity of 4th and sometimes of 3rde that want something less time consuming because they value more the telling of the story than the tactical battle (which nonetheless i think it should plays major part in the structuring of an adventure).


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 11, 2014)

Derren said:


> This is the only problem in your example. Not the rules, but the Player not reading or even trying to remember them.



I have a mix of players at my table.  Some scan through the character creation rules as quickly as possible without reading every word.  Sometimes they miss stuff.  My girlfriend is one of those, we're pretty much constantly finding out midway through a session that she forgot to add the AC bonus for her armor or something like that.  At least once she was halfway through a character and changed her mind about what armor she wanted to wear and never changed her AC when she did.  At least once she took 2 or 3 feats that only worked when she was wielding a Rod and then chose a Wand as an implement in a 4e game.

She tries to remember stuff, she's just not good at it.  She's my girlfriend so I don't walk around telling her she's an idiot for not remembering the rules.

Our game has gone much better since we switched from 4e to the D&D Next playtest as there is now so much less for her to remember that she's able to do it just fine.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 11, 2014)

Primal said:


> Well, if a player has trouble writing down his bonuses on a character sheet, he's probably going to have a lot of similar problems in the game, for example forgetting to add modifiers/dice from Bless and other buffs. Or temporary/circumstancial stuff from feats, or rolling two dice because of (dis)advantage. Or to announce that you're doing piercing and fire damage because you switched to using your flaming bow. And let's not even talk about the "super feats" in 5E; lot's of stuff to remember, if you pick several feats and don't write them down.  Seriously, though, I don't know about you, but your example above is what happens from time to time, even with veteran players; we're no robots, after all.



That's why I like the fact that feats in D&D Next mostly apply static modifiers that aren't conditional.  When they do add new abilities, they don't add complex ones.  Also, you don't get very many feats so you don't have to worry about the complexity growing out of control.  The players who find them too complex can just take stat bumps instead.  You don't have to worry about too many temporary modifiers from spells because all buff spells require concentration, so only one buff per caster.

That kind of stuff does happen with veteran players.  They were the ones I was talking about.  That happened nearly every round of combat in our group of friends who'd been playing 3e/3.5e for 4 years straight.

Although my group composition has mostly changed, I don't believe that to be the reason our sessions no longer get bogged down in discussion of modifiers.  I believe it's because we're running D&D Next now.  There are basically 0 modifiers applied at the table.  Turns now go:

"I attack the already damaged Orc.  I hit AC 13."
"That hits."
"9 damage."



Primal said:


> In my opinion keywords relating to weapon groups is almost the simplest kind of modifiers you can have, and no harder to remember than other modifiers in the game. If you think it's too much, it'd be simple to ignore 'em; that's why I said it'd could be an optional rules module/dial/switch/whatever.



The point is that there ARE currently no modifiers in the game.  Adding one might not be the end of the world.  But once you add one then it becomes part of the game design philosophy to have them in the game, that's when you start adding a second, third, and then hundreds.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 11, 2014)

DMZ2112 said:


> The things that make heroes heroes have to involve a risk of failure, even for heroes, or they would not be heroic.  By extension, the possibility of critical failure exists for the same reason that the possibility of critical success exists -- perspective.



Yes, thank you for the false binary choice.  I made no mention of removing the risk of failure, nor do I advocate such a thing, though, so this line of discussion is a total non sequiter. 


			
				DMZ2112 said:
			
		

> D&D has never been designed to simulate much.  "Pointy end goes in the other man," and that's about it.



That assertion is not only totally untrue, but even quite bizarre.  D&D has always been about simulating (or maybe emulating is a better word) sword and sorcery and high fantasy fiction.  From the very beginning.  In some cases, this emulation was even quite specific.. i.e. the close ties between the magic system and the writings of Jack Vance, alignment and Michael Moorcock, the thief class and the Gray Mouser, the ranger class and Aragorn, etc.

One can certainly argue how successfully it emulates this genre (in fact, that's part of my whole objection to the "dumb luck" critical failure while doing day-to-day tasks) but to say that it never was designed to emulate much is completely false.  Any discussion with any developer (or even any look at the rules, for that matter) show that to be obviously incorrect.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 11, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> You have to remember for many people D&D is about simulating that partially mentally retarded clutz that just came off the farm picking up a weapon for the first time and managing not to lop their own head off while they fight off monsters that can kill them with a single hit.
> 
> I personally play D&D like the players are hero's, a step above the common man. Having shown extreme talent in one area or another that uniquely suits them for a life of adventure.
> 
> So the rules should accomodate both groups. Something like "Farm Boy: -3 to all starting stats. Roll to see if you can walk properly...etc...etc... Hero: Roll only when rushed or threatened...etc...etc..."



I don't have to remember anything of the sort.  I'm not a developer for D&D.

I also don't think its incumbant on the game to accomodate every single playstyle, especially those who (in my opinion) are very fringe, minority, low-numbers playstyles.  In fact, in order to bit big tent, the game has to make compromises, which infringes on its ability to meet other design goals that are more likely to appeal to the majority of players.  Accomodating unusual playstyles should actually _not_ be a design goal of the system, unless it can be done without compromising more important design goals.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 11, 2014)

Johnny3D3D said:


> You took what I was trying to say to an extreme, so it seems fair I do the same.
> 
> 
> Then why have the other weapons in the game?
> ...



You say that's extreme, but I have, actually seen and played in several different games where that was exactly how it was handled.  *shrug*  It works.  In many respects, I prefer it to big, long lists of weapons that are only marginally different from each other.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 11, 2014)

Hobo said:


> You say that's extreme, but I have, actually seen and played in several different games where that was exactly how it was handled.  *shrug*  It works.  In many respects, I prefer it to big, long lists of weapons that are only marginally different from each other.




Which is fine, but then why bother to have the list we have?  Just make the weapon entry smaller and give more room for other aspects of the game.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 11, 2014)

Derren said:


> You mean the Tactical Module we have not seen anything from so far?




Yes Derren, I mean the tactile module and the customization module you have not seen so far.  Because the game is in beta test, and you are not an alpha tester.  I am not sure why you feel entitled to have seen the entire game including all optional rules before the game has even been published, but I think it's fair for me to say you should be patient enough to wait until the game actually comes out and you have a chance to read it, before deciding on that aspect of the game.  You know, like you did for all prior official versions of the game.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Feb 11, 2014)

Hobo said:


> Yes, thank you for the false binary choice.




Sigh.

Noted, Hobo.  I won't respond to any of your future posts without scalpel precision unless I'm in the mood to be antagonized.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 11, 2014)

Dungeoneer said:


> I'm too lazy to go back and find the appropriate posters to quote, but I think the idea was that there would be powers for each of the the weapon's attributes. So a morning star might give you a trip bonus, PLUS it would have reach, PLUS maybe something to do with blunt force.




That was me.  I said that I thought every weapon (or weapon group) should have at least one property, and that the three damage types (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning) should have a meaningful reason for being in the game.  But that in no way needs to add "complexity"... seeing as how the mechanics for all these things are already in the game, and have been in previous editions of the game.

We already have the place where weapon damage type comes into play.  In the Skeleton entry in the Bestiary.  Skeletons have a Vulnerability to bludgeoning weapons.  But that's like _the only one_ as far as I know that uses the Resistance/Vulnerability mechanic for weapon damage type (unless some monsters that were created in some of the adventures have it too but I didn't go through every single adventure bestiary.)  Monsters up the wazoo have Resistance and Vulnerabilities and Immunities to "energy types" and "magic types"-- poison, fire, charm, sleep, thunder etc. etc... but why not more to the weapon damage types?  Make selecting a weapon from one of these types actually meaningful.  Make actually having them DEFINED in the game meaningful.  Would it kill the game to have a dozen monsters or so have select weapon damage types affect it more or less?  To actually give those terms meaning?  Because right now, there is practically no point to those terms being there in the game.  Skeletons and the 15th level 'Devastating Critical' ability of the Path of the Warrior sub-class.  Whoopty-do!  So glad we're keeping track of the weapon damage types!

Then beyond that... each weapon or weapon group gets a property.  To me, that's a no-brainer.  Because when a Flail is 1d8 bludgeoning damage and the Warhammer is 1d8 bludgeoning damage *and* Versatile... why would anyone ever select the Flail (other than purely aesthetic reasons?)  Now someone might claim you can save 5 gold pieces by buying the flail rather than the warhammer... but come on.  When you get 175 gold to start with to buy equipment... that reason is absolutely stupid.  And there are a number of easy-to-remember properties out there that could be assigned that would not add any amount of "complexity" over what you already need to remember for "Reach" or "Versatile" or "Thrown" or "Finesse".  Like Brutal (on a damage roll, re-roll any 1), or High Crit (on a crit, roll an extra damage die).  Give the remaining weapons _something_ to call their own.


----------



## Derren (Feb 11, 2014)

gweinel said:


> It isn't about what new players think.




Well every time a vaguely not totally simple rules come up one of the first arguments against it usually is something along "Think of new players".


----------



## gweinel (Feb 11, 2014)

Derren said:


> Well every time a vaguely not totally simple rules come up one of the first arguments against it usually is something along "Think of new players".




Although I don't disagree with you, I consider that Wizards value more the opinion of their existing players (the faithful ones and those whose abandon dnd) than the potentional new ones. I don't have clues of course to back it but it is my feeling that "the edition which unites all dnd players and all dnd iterations" is addressed to the old players. I am not saying that they don't care for new players. On the contrary.


----------



## EnglishLanguage (Feb 11, 2014)

If complexity was really a main concern, the Wizard class would be have been dumped or reworked in favor of a simpler Wizard class a while ago.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 11, 2014)

DEFCON 1 said:
			
		

> Would it kill the game to have a dozen monsters or so have select weapon damage types affect it more or less? To actually give those terms meaning?




I'm fond of the idea of weapon damage type resistance/vulnerability.

So, skeletons are Vulnerable to Bludgeoning

Maybe Oozes Resist Piercing

Maybe Constructs Resist Slashing

Maybe Dragons are Vulnerable to Piercing

Maybe trolls (with their severable limbs) are Vulnerable to Slashing

And maybe a spell that drops rocks on everyone deals Bludgeoning damage?


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 11, 2014)

DEFCON 1 said:


> That was me.  I said that I thought every weapon (or weapon group) should have at least one property, and that the three damage types (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning) should have a meaningful reason for being in the game.  But that in no way needs to add "complexity"... seeing as how the mechanics for all these things are already in the game, and have been in previous editions of the game.
> 
> We already have the place where weapon damage type comes into play.  In the Skeleton entry in the Bestiary.  Skeletons have a Vulnerability to bludgeoning weapons.  But that's like _the only one_ as far as I know that uses the Resistance/Vulnerability mechanic for weapon damage type (unless some monsters that were created in some of the adventures have it too but I didn't go through every single adventure bestiary.)  Monsters up the wazoo have Resistance and Vulnerabilities and Immunities to "energy types" and "magic types"-- poison, fire, charm, sleep, thunder etc. etc... but why not more to the weapon damage types?  Make selecting a weapon from one of these types actually meaningful. * Make actually having them DEFINED in the game meaningful.*  Would it kill the game to have a dozen monsters or so have select weapon damage types affect it more or less?  To actually give those terms meaning?  Because right now, there is practically no point to those terms being there in the game.  Skeletons and the 15th level 'Devastating Critical' ability of the Path of the Warrior sub-class.  Whoopty-do!  So glad we're keeping track of the weapon damage types!
> 
> Then beyond that... each weapon or weapon group gets a property.  To me, that's a no-brainer.  Because when *a Flail is 1d8 bludgeoning damage and the Warhammer is 1d8 bludgeoning damage *and* Versatile... why would anyone ever select the Flail *(other than purely aesthetic reasons?)  Now someone might claim you can save 5 gold pieces by buying the flail rather than the warhammer... but come on.  When you get 175 gold to start with to buy equipment... that reason is absolutely stupid.  And there are a number of easy-to-remember properties out there that could be assigned that would not add any amount of "complexity" over what you already need to remember for "Reach" or "Versatile" or "Thrown" or "Finesse".  Like Brutal (on a damage roll, re-roll any 1), or High Crit (on a crit, roll an extra damage die).  *Give the remaining weapons something to call their own*.





I couldn't XP you again, but I agree with virtually all of your post.  The parts I highlighted with bold are in line with what I've been trying to express with some of my posts.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 11, 2014)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm fond of the idea of weapon damage type resistance/vulnerability.
> 
> So, skeletons are Vulnerable to Bludgeoning
> 
> ...



I dunno, it looks to me like that would mean the Return of the Golf Bag.  

To me, that's kind of rudimentary differentiation. Just enough to be annoying, but not enough to add additional interest or options to Bob Fighter.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Feb 11, 2014)

I kind of liked the golf bag.  It meant there was a drawback to over-specialization besides melee v. ranged.  Why shouldn't a fighter who primarily uses a sword carry a mace for backup?  It happened in the real world all the time.


----------



## Derren (Feb 11, 2014)

Savage Wombat said:


> I kind of liked the golf bag.  It meant there was a drawback to over-specialization besides melee v. ranged.  Why shouldn't a fighter who primarily uses a sword carry a mace for backup?  It happened in the real world all the time.




Considering the usual arguments against anything in 5E it will boil down to "Its too complex, people might get confused about what weapon they use".


----------



## Obryn (Feb 11, 2014)

Savage Wombat said:


> I kind of liked the golf bag.  It meant there was a drawback to over-specialization besides melee v. ranged.  Why shouldn't a fighter who primarily uses a sword carry a mace for backup?  It happened in the real world all the time.



The problem in 3e/4e - that Next is much better about - was that fighters needed to specialize in one weapon to even stay competitive. It's not as big a deal right now.

Still, if there's going to be a golf bag, I'd much rather it was because various cool weapon tricks were particularly helpful in the circumstance. Instead of simply doing half damage against certain enemies.


----------



## Primal (Feb 11, 2014)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> That's why I like the fact that feats in D&D Next mostly apply static modifiers that aren't conditional.  When they do add new abilities, they don't add complex ones.  Also, you don't get very many feats so you don't have to worry about the complexity growing out of control.  The players who find them too complex can just take stat bumps instead.  You don't have to worry about too many temporary modifiers from spells because all buff spells require concentration, so only one buff per caster.
> 
> That kind of stuff does happen with veteran players.  They were the ones I was talking about.  That happened nearly every round of combat in our group of friends who'd been playing 3e/3.5e for 4 years straight.
> 
> ...




I don't think players will favor stat bumps due to fearing complexity; in a game of bounded accuracy with virtually no temporary modifiers, it's a no-brainer to get that sweet +2 permanent upgrade to your primary attribute(s). Of course, once you hit the maximum in all the scores you want to, it's time to pick some feats (which I thought were more complex than in 3E and 4E anyway, i.e. so-called "super feats"?). 

Also, doesn't Bless and some bardic/sorcerer spells and features give everyone bonus dice in combat? Seemed to work that way in those live WotC playtests. 

I understand why people prefer simplicity; but we want at least a certain degree of complexity in my group. I know I could tinker and experiment with the modules, switches and dials, and more complexity by employing them in campaigns ("Guys, tonight we're going with the Wound Points and Power Words, just to try how they feel."). Yet I'm not a young man anymore, and I have less and less time to spend on tinkering and writing stuff each year; maybe I'd have loved Next 25 years ago, but I just don't want (or have time/energy) to house-rule stuff anymore. If the rules don't feel good, there's plenty of other systems out there. As I said, if I want to play a streamlined, simple and innovative system, I'll probably purchase some indie RPG or retroclone.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 11, 2014)

EnglishLanguage said:


> If complexity was really a main concern, the Wizard class would be have been dumped or reworked in favor of a simpler Wizard class a while ago.




It can be a main concern, and still compromise with other main concerns like supporting a traditional-type wizard.  It doesn't all have to be extremes.  Complexity is clearly a main concern for 5e.  It's part of so many mechanics and changes that I don't know how someone can deny it's a major concern.  It was also a major concern voiced by playtesters throughout the playtest, both internally and in the private playtest, in addition to the open playtest.  It was also something mentioned by the team of paid outside consultants, repeatedly.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 11, 2014)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm fond of the idea of weapon damage type resistance/vulnerability.
> 
> So, skeletons are Vulnerable to Bludgeoning
> 
> ...




And this concept is in 5e.  Are you commenting on that fact, or did you not know it was already in the game?


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 11, 2014)

Derren said:


> Considering the usual arguments against anything in 5E it will boil down to "Its too complex, people might get confused about what weapon they use".




You keep making this argument about "confusion".  But that's not the primary argument against complexity.  The argument is primarily about speed of play.  The game moves faster, things resolve faster, you get to more challenges during a given session, when you remove some of the complexity.  And that was the consistent issue raised in all forms of playtesting and by outside consultants - that the game needs to play faster.  And they've achieved that goal.  Consistently, that's the thing most often mentioned by people, that they like how it plays so much faster, how they can "get more done" during a given session.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Feb 12, 2014)

Obryn said:


> The problem in 3e/4e - that Next is much better about - was that fighters needed to specialize in one weapon to even stay competitive. It's not as big a deal right now.
> 
> Still, if there's going to be a golf bag, I'd much rather it was because various cool weapon tricks were particularly helpful in the circumstance. Instead of simply doing half damage against certain enemies.



I agree with this 100%.  The difference between "I'll use this weapon because I get to do special maneuver x" is much more engaging, fun, and _proactive_, than "I need to use weapon y because weapon z is totally ineffective against this opponent." The second statement is _reactive_.

I am not opposed to the second circumstance happening - it should happen _on occasion_ - but it should not be the only reason a melee specialist _chooses_ to carry a variety of weapons. Earlier editions required too much focus to make carrying a choice of weapons rewarding, as Obryn pointed out. And by choice of weapons, I do not mean: "this longsword is ghost touch, this long sword is silver, this longsword is. . ."


----------



## billd91 (Feb 12, 2014)

Savage Wombat said:


> You know, fighters would have a better rep if the ability to effectively wield almost every weapon in the entire book proved to be relevant to game play.




You know, it still is or at least can be. Back in 1e, before specialization, that fighter's low non-proficiency penalty meant he could pick up and be effective with any weapon  he found on the battlefield or in the treasure hoard. Even in 3e, a fighter without a weapon focus/weapon specialization-oriented build can still be pretty effective with any martial or simple weapon he picks up. As everything in a typical RPG, particularly one with as many choices as D&D, an awful lot depends on *how* you play.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 12, 2014)

Obryn said:


> I dunno, it looks to me like that would mean the Return of the Golf Bag.
> 
> To me, that's kind of rudimentary differentiation. Just enough to be annoying, but not enough to add additional interest or options to Bob Fighter.




I see that as a valid concern.  Though, I think where the idea failed (for a lack of better words) in previous editions was in the idea that certain weapons should be required.  I think giving some weapons a small boon, but not making that boon be something which is constantly required is a good things.  Options should be just that -options.  When an option ceases to be an option because it's so obviously good or required, I don't believe it can legitimately still be called an option.


I now see that others have already said what I'm about to type, so I know I'm not alone in thinking this...  On very rare occasions, I'm ok with a specific weapon type being needed to kill a monster.  However, that should be rare, and I in no way feel 5th should handle things like previous editions did in so much that certain weapons became mandatory and a "golf bag" was required.  That being said, I would be perfectly fine with some weapons having a minor trait which helps them stand out from the pack and those weapons being a little better in some situations.  The other weapons should still work and be valid choices; those minor traits would simply allow a handful of weapons to both have a reason to exist and occasionally reward a player's aesthetic choice with a minor benefit.  

The important thing is to make and keep the benefit minor; it should not be something which can be power gamed or something which turns into an "omg, everybody must have this weapon" thing.  Options should be real options.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 12, 2014)

Mistwell said:


> And this concept is in 5e.  Are you commenting on that fact, or did you not know it was already in the game?




He was giving more examples of what we _could_ have in the game for making weapon damage type meaningful, building off of my post.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Feb 12, 2014)

*Weapon 'Powers'*

I too am of the crowd that prefers weapon powers, though I do not like that word power. 4E's keywords were good, _A Song of Ice & Fire RPG_'s weapon qualities are better.

If there are no qualities to make them different, just go with damage die for size. (A little simpler than _13th Age_ though )

I also don't think these 'qualities' have to be straight modifiers. I do like the removal of many small mods to the rules. Advantage on trip attacks for a flail is no big deal, if falling prone is not a big deal. You have given up an attack to knock someone over rather than damage (and potentially kill) them. That is okay. Problems arise if 'removing' the prone condition are hard. In Savage Worlds, getting up is only 2 points of movement and no AoO for doing so. If there is some benefit for other allies to attack the prone guy, then that is good tactical combat isn't it?

These qualities do not have to modify the attack roll at all if only _D&DN_ had a 'raise' or 'degrees of success' mechanic like _Savage Worlds_ and _SIFRPG_ do. That way weapon qualities simply occur on these. So instead of actually modifying the attack roll in any way, a flail simply knocks target prone on a 'raise'.

Anyway, if you get a chance, read the Weapon Qualities from SIFRPG. They even simplify a lot of things b/c of them. See Bulk as an eg.

Some weapons are going to have qualities no matter what anyway. Some will have reach, some can be wielded in the off-hand, others can be used in 1 or 2 hands. Why not just give this circumstance a name and apply it to all weapons that fit?

The mixed, unique and one-off style weapon notes for Savage Worlds for eg can be a little confusing. The simple name of a quality is actually easier to remember what it does.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 12, 2014)

Obryn said:


> I dunno, it looks to me like that would mean the Return of the Golf Bag.
> 
> To me, that's kind of rudimentary differentiation. Just enough to be annoying, but not enough to add additional interest or options to Bob Fighter.




I think you're going to find that if there is any meaningful difference between weapon types, there's going to be situations where one is better than the other. If weapons are different and you want to be optimized for every encounter type, you'll need a Golf Bag, and the more different they are, the more the Golf Bag is necessary rather than just something that optimizers will do. 

That is to say, "Skeletons are immune to piercing damage" encourages the golf bag more than "Skeletons take extra damage from bludgeoning," which encourages the golf bag more than "all weapons deal full damage to all creatures," which encourages the golf bag more than "all weapons deal 1d6 damage to any creature."

I think, as a default for D&D, I'd appreciate some significant distinctions that fall at that place on the spectrum where the guy who brought his bow to a skeleton-tomb feels kind of like the wizard who prepared fire spells to fight the fire elementals, and where both of them need to "return to civilization" to fix the problem (study new spells/get a hammer/whatever) if they didn't come prepared (with a Golf Bag....or a library shelf on wheels...) or aren't flexible/inventive. 

So for me, more on the harsh end of the spectrum -- I don't want spears to be reliable weapons for killing skeletons. But that might be a harsher place than most would like.


----------



## Derren (Feb 12, 2014)

Mistwell said:


> The argument is primarily about speed of play.




And yet every time a supporter of this theory posts an actual example from his game it shows that not the complexity slows down the game but players who pay absolutely no attention.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Feb 12, 2014)

Given I don't post a lot in the forums - I found it odd that I could not XP [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]. So, just like some time in the past, on some distant thread, I agree with you again KM 

Well said. I definitely felt 4E went to far in the 'everyone can deal lots of damage to everyone all the time'. I did not find that fun. I do like when your equipment and weapons can have an effect on some encounters - just like spells.

This never led to a 'golf-bag' situation in our games, but it did encourage having a backup and investing in some different fighting styles/choices, rather than supreme optimization in one weapon. 9though that was still possible - you just weren't at your best ALL the time).


----------



## vagabundo (Feb 12, 2014)

I'd prefer if they got rid of the weapons table, it's far too bloated.

Replace it with one handed/two handed/two weapons, and maybe include damage types; slashing, bludgeoning and piercing.

But that's just me and maybe have shields break but you take now damage from an attack as well as their AC bonus.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 12, 2014)

Derren said:


> And yet every time a supporter of this theory posts an actual example from his game it shows that not the complexity slows down the game but players who pay absolutely no attention.




It's the complexity that slowed down my games.  The choice between which ability to use, how it interacts with the abilities of the other players and the order of operations, the adding and subtracting of minor modifiers and conditions, it all added up to slow our games waaaaay down.  

And now in 5e our encounters are going very fast, with the same players who for many years took a long time per encounter.  They are not paying any more or less attention, it really is the level of complexity.


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 12, 2014)

Hobo said:


> I don't have to remember anything of the sort. I'm not a developer for D&D.




I don't play semantec games, sorry.



> I also don't think its incumbant on the game to accomodate every single playstyle, especially those who (in my opinion) are very fringe, minority, low-numbers playstyles. In fact, in order to bit big tent, the game has to make compromises, which infringes on its ability to meet other design goals that are more likely to appeal to the majority of players. Accomodating unusual playstyles should actually not be a design goal of the system, unless it can be done without compromising more important design goals.




Of course no one knows what those numbers are or whose play styles are fringe. Since the surveys were self selecting, we can never know unless there is a third party survey that targets everyone that has ever played. Something that would be difficult or impossible to do.

Even worse trying to lower the game to the lowest common denominator will mean cutting people out that don't want the lowest common denominator.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think you're going to find that if there is any meaningful difference between weapon types, there's going to be situations where one is better than the other. If weapons are different and you want to be optimized for every encounter type, you'll need a Golf Bag, and the more different they are, the more the Golf Bag is necessary rather than just something that optimizers will do.
> 
> That is to say, "Skeletons are immune to piercing damage" encourages the golf bag more than "Skeletons take extra damage from bludgeoning," which encourages the golf bag more than "all weapons deal full damage to all creatures," which encourages the golf bag more than "all weapons deal 1d6 damage to any creature."
> 
> ...




Except the Wizard just memorizes both Fireball and Lightning Bolt and gets to choose which one they cast during the fight. So that's not actually how the game works according to the last packet.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 12, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> I don't play semantec games, sorry.



ORLY?  So... you try to force me into a developer's stance with my comments, and then when I point out that my stance is as a player talking about what _I_ like and what works for me, you assign me a vague, pejorative, dismissive label to avoid further discussion.

I'd say that absolutely qualifies as a semantic game.


			
				Lokiare said:
			
		

> Of course no one knows what those numbers are or whose play styles are fringe. Since the surveys were self selecting, we can never know unless there is a third party survey that targets everyone that has ever played. Something that would be difficult or impossible to do.



Indeed; I was (and always am) careful to caveat my opinions with the phrase "in my opinion" or something similar.  Of course we don't know that, and therefore we can only make inferences based on our assumptions and experiences.  Although I notice you don't make that point when advocating for your _own_ preferences...


			
				Lokiare said:
			
		

> Even worse trying to lower the game to the lowest common denominator will mean cutting people out that don't want the lowest common denominator.



"Least common denominator" is a deliberately pejorative and in this case completely innacurate label, since I'm talking about what I believe the majority prefers, not what I think is the least objectionable to the least amount of people.  There's a vast difference between those two concepts.  Conflating them for purposes of making one sound worse than it is is... a semantic game.


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 12, 2014)

Hobo said:


> ORLY?  So... you try to force me into a developer's stance with my comments, and then when I point out that my stance is as a player talking about what _I_ like and what works for me, you assign me a vague, pejorative, dismissive label to avoid further discussion.
> 
> I'd say that absolutely qualifies as a semantic game.




Uh no. I quoted your post, but was generally addressing the people that can make a difference, you know, the developers. Don't take me quoting you to mean that I am addressing you directly, especially if it seems like I'm addressing someone else.



> Indeed; I was (and always am) careful to caveat my opinions with the phrase "in my opinion" or something similar.  Of course we don't know that, and therefore we can only make inferences based on our assumptions and experiences.  Although I notice you don't make that point when advocating for your _own_ preferences...




That's because most of the time I'm not advocating for 'my own preferences' I'm advocating for what will work best to make everyone happy with the game. I have only the best interests of D&D in mind. As of right now I wouldn't play 5E if someone paid me to (well I might, but I wouldn't like it). They will have to make quite a few changes to even bring it into a game I'd touch.



> "Least common denominator" is a deliberately pejorative and in this case completely innacurate label, since I'm talking about what I believe the majority prefers, not what I think is the least objectionable to the least amount of people.  There's a vast difference between those two concepts.  Conflating them for purposes of making one sound worse than it is is... a semantic game.




Least common denominator is what everyone refers to when WotC removes contentious things from the game in the hopes of getting enough people to like the game to make it profitable.

I happen to know that by removing things like tactics, powers, and choice (at level up, round to round, and during preparation) many people (anecdotal) have zero interest in the game.

I convinced one of my regular 4E players to take a look to see if they wanted to try a one shot, because I want them to reject it because of their own view and not something I tell them, after downloading the last packet and reading it they deleted off their computer and told me never to talk about 5E again. This player also loves playing 3.5E and several other games.

So its entirely possible to alienate a large chunk of your fans if you dumb the game down by removing anything contentious.


----------



## am181d (Feb 12, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> Except the Wizard just memorizes both Fireball and Lightning Bolt and gets to choose which one they cast during the fight. So that's not actually how the game works according to the last packet.




With the number of spells that you can prepare at a premium, I haven't found that it's a good idea to memorize both of these spells. You need slots for utility spells as well. Those enchantments won't dispel themselves, you know!


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 12, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> Uh no. I quoted your post, but was generally addressing the people that can make a difference, you know, the developers. Don't take me quoting you to mean that I am addressing you directly, especially if it seems like I'm addressing someone else.



That would make a lot of sense.  Well, actually it doesn't make any sense at all that you would quote my post, say that "I have to keep" certain things "in mind" and then later say that the fact that you were quoting my post was just an odd coincidence or something since you weren't actually talking to me or addressing anything in the content of my post.

But it does at least explain the incredible disconnect.


> That's because most of the time I'm not advocating for 'my own preferences' I'm advocating for what will work best to make everyone happy with the game. I have only the best interests of D&D in mind. As of right now I wouldn't play 5E if someone paid me to (well I might, but I wouldn't like it). They will have to make quite a few changes to even bring it into a game I'd touch.



In this case, actually so was I.  I certainly believe that the most people will be the most happy if the game is designed to emulate sword and sorcery and high fantasy adventure stories.  Which usually means eliminating or at least seriously downplaying the possibility of a character being crippled or removed from play due to simple "dumb luck" accidents that don't have anything whatsoever to do with being adventerous.  In the real world, climbing a ladder or opening a door isn't really adventurous, unless you attach some kind of extenuating circumstances to it.

In this case, I strongly believe that my preferences are widely and wildly common amongst players of D&D.


> Least common denominator is what everyone refers to when WotC removes contentious things from the game in the hopes of getting enough people to like the game to make it profitable.



I know exactly what least common denominator means, thank you.  I first learned of it in a mathematical sense over 35 years ago, and I first learned of it in a metaphorical sense... also about 30-35 years ago.

But I don't know why you brought that up, since that didn't really have anything to do with my point, unless you were trying to infer that playing D&D as if it were sword & sorcery or high fantasy adventure was "the least common denominator" and "elite players" or whatever played it in some other fashion.  But feel free to correct my inference if you actually meant something else.  I'd be happy to be wrong on this.


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 12, 2014)

am181d said:


> With the number of spells that you can prepare at a premium, I haven't found that it's a good idea to memorize both of these spells. You need slots for utility spells as well. Those enchantments won't dispel themselves, you know!




Really? you can prepare 1 spell per level which means 8 spells at level 8. There are very few useful spells to prepare in the 1st and 2nd level category, mainly utility spells. So you only need 1 or 2 of each of those. Then you prepare the most spells in levels 3 and 4 for the most choices at play time.

Seems like a no brainer. I mean there is literally no point in prepare a level 1 burning hands or magic missile when you can prepare a level 3 fireball or lightning bolt. Something like flaming sphere might get memorized every time, but that's just one slot.

I could see maybe grabbing one of these at levels 1 or 2:

1st-Fear, Charm Person, Disguise Self, Feather Fall, Grease, Identify
2nd-Darkvision, Flaming sphere,Hold Person, Invisibility, Knock, Mirror Image (if I wanted to off-tank), Scorching Burst (for use with a higher level slot).

At 3rd and 4th there isn't much to grab:

3rd-Blink, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Slow, Stinking Cloud
4th-Evard's Tentacles, Polymorph, Wall of Fire

Some of those spells would be very optional like Charm Person, Feather Fall, Identify, Darkvision (if you aren't going anywhere dark), Knock (if there are no locks), Mirror Image (not wanting to off-tank, better than plate), Blink (if you have a tank in the party), Slow (only useful on some creatures, marginally useful on the rest).


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 12, 2014)

Hobo said:


> That would make a lot of sense.  Well, actually it doesn't make any sense at all that you would quote my post, say that "I have to keep" certain things "in mind" and then later say that the fact that you were quoting my post was just an odd coincidence or something since you weren't actually talking to me or addressing anything in the content of my post.
> 
> But it does at least explain the incredible disconnect.
> 
> ...




Using a semantic argument to build a straw man. How clever of you.

Sorry. I don't play games (well I play D&D and video games, let's say I don't play games that obfuscate the search for truth).

I also prefer the high fantasy sword and sorcery type of game. I do not prefer the game where you start out as a mentally slow, clumsly peasant that just picked up a weapon or spell book for the first time in their lives.

The truth is you can play either of those with a least common denominator game or a complex game with lots of moving parts. The fact of the matter is that many people will NOT like a game that is boiled down to 'what no one had objections to'. I know everyone I've heard on the subject agrees.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 12, 2014)

Lokaire said:
			
		

> Except the Wizard just memorizes both Fireball and Lightning Bolt and gets to choose which one they cast during the fight. So that's not actually how the game works according to the last packet.




And the fighter dual-wields javelins and hammers and can swap out weapons without even taking at turn. Plus, can do that all day. 

Man, the game is not even out yet and I am already exhausted by the "5e wizards are overpowered because they have spells!!!!!!!!" chicken-little-ing. Lets wait and see. And if you think they're too much, I'm sure you'll be able to remove them and never have to look at them again and you're not a bad person if you do that.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 12, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> Using a semantic argument to build a straw man. How clever of you.
> 
> Sorry. I don't play games (well I play D&D and video games, let's say I don't play games that obfuscate the search for truth).



Oh, I disagree.  You play games quite well.  You throw out phrases that are _only_ used pejoratively, and then claim that the obvious inference of what you said isn't really what you said at all.  You in fact, call such a strawman, even though I deliberately explained my reasoning and asked for you to confirm what you in fact meant so that it could in no way be interpreted as a strawman.  And then you drop all kinds of passive aggressive swipes about "semantic games" in several posts in a row rather than simply answer my questions, or even attempt to engage me.  You even claim that in a direct response to me, that you weren't even talking to me after all.

See, in the real world of real conversations that are meaningful and interesting?  All of those things are called "playing games."  And they're seriously annoying when you're expecting real conversations that are meaningful, interesting and engaging.


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 12, 2014)

Hobo said:


> Oh, I disagree.  You play games quite well.  You throw out phrases that are _only_ used pejoratively, and then claim that the obvious inference of what you said isn't really what you said at all.  You in fact, call such a strawman, even though I deliberately explained my reasoning and asked for you to confirm what you in fact meant so that it could in no way be interpreted as a strawman.  And then you drop all kinds of passive aggressive swipes about "semantic games" in several posts in a row rather than simply answer my questions, or even attempt to engage me.  You even claim that in a direct response to me, that you weren't even talking to me after all.
> 
> See, in the real world of real conversations that are meaningful and interesting?  All of those things are called "playing games."  And they're seriously annoying when you're expecting real conversations that are meaningful, interesting and engaging.




Nope sorry, I don't play games like that. No matter how hard you try to twist my words.

Regardless of whether you paint your strawman as a question or confirmation, if it doesn't represent what I said and you then 'knock it down', its a straw man. A cleverly disguised straw man, but a straw man none the less.

There's nothing passive aggressive about it. I simply don't play games like that. I call people out who try to play those games in their attempts to win the argument, because that's not what I'm here for (to win or lose an argument). I'm here to seek out the truth. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less.

Your earlier post got me thinking and so that you would get the proper credit, I quoted your post and used the general 'you' and referred to the broader audience which I hoped would contain some WotC developers. I realize now, that quoting you was a mistake. As you seem to latch onto anything but the facts  in order to disprove people that hold opposing viewpoints.

In order to try to help you out here are a few links that if you read and practice will help you better communicate and seek out truth rather than trying to win arguments at any cost. Hopefully you will be enriched:

Critical Thinking
Logical Fallacies


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 12, 2014)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> And the fighter dual-wields javelins and hammers and can swap out weapons without even taking at turn. Plus, can do that all day.
> 
> Man, the game is not even out yet and I am already exhausted by the "5e wizards are overpowered because they have spells!!!!!!!!" chicken-little-ing. Lets wait and see. And if you think they're too much, I'm sure you'll be able to remove them and never have to look at them again and you're not a bad person if you do that.




I've ran the math and observed all sides of the issue. Its not Chicken-little-ing as you call it. Its just cold hard facts. The Wizard is more versatile and can keep up with the Fighter in every way possible with the exception of hp (and even that is mitigated by a high enough false life spell or stone skin spell in the right situations).


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 12, 2014)

Given that nobody can "disprove" my own opinions of what elements best suit my tastes, your entire post is an attempted clever non sequiter.  As are all of your attempts to paint my responses as simply playing games in order to dismiss them. (Argumentum ad lapidum, since you seem so curious in pretending that I don't know a logical fallacy when you continue to try and throw one in my face.)

Unless you'd like to engage my point that I believe very few gamers are interested in a game where a routine climb of a ladder is an exercise fraught with risk and danger, then we're pretty much done here.  But you did, in fact, directly contradict my opinion and then label it "least common denominator."  Barring you going in and editing your posts to cover your tracks, you can't seriously expect me to give any credence that you didn't do that, because that's exactly what I was responding to.

That's not so much a logical fallacy as just plain denial of what I just barely witnessed with my own eyes.  It's certainly not logical, but it's not a fallacy either; it's just... weird.  Unless, of course, you're interested in helping me understand how I've misunderstood you without you trying to play games with me.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 12, 2014)

Primal said:


> For me it's not about "weapon powers", at least in the 4E sense of the word. It's about simple properties that make wielding a greatsword different from, say, a halberd or a heavy flail. If the core rules only use weapon size, damage type (P/S/B) and damage dice, I wonder if it wouldn't be just the same to use the same dice for all weapons in the same category?  For example, all one-handed martial weapons would use 1d8, while two-handed weapons would be 2d6 or 1d12. That way your sword-n-board guy could be wielding a morningstar, a battle axe or a longsword; whatever suits best you image of your character.



To be fair, they still can.  The difference between the weapons are negligible as it is.  They are just different enough to have a slight flavor difference between them.  Which I'm perfectly happy with.  It worked well in 2e.



Primal said:


> There's nothing revolutionary or "non-traditional" about this, but I guess it'd be too dramatical a change for Next.



It would take any sense of flavor the rules currently have and thrown them out the window.  I like the idea that weapons are slightly different and only become more different if you take feats or get class features to differentiate them.



Primal said:


> I'm not very enthusiastic about 5E, either. I had high hopes for it, but the more I hear about it, the more it looks like the house-ruled version of AD&D + Skills & Powers books we were using in the 90s. And I don't think I want to go there again.... *shudder*.



Honestly, there's nothing of Skills and Powers in 5e.  There aren't 12 stats, you can't use a point buy system to acquire class features from other classes, you can't take disadvantages to get more points.  That's pretty much the entirety of what Skills and Powers added.

Instead, 5E is like core 2e D&D only with ACs going up instead of down, the classes more balanced against each other, feats added, and skills.

It's the 3e I would have preferred to see come out in 2000.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 12, 2014)

Derren said:


> And yet every time a supporter of this theory posts an actual example from his game it shows that not the complexity slows down the game but players who pay absolutely no attention.



Except, as I said in my last post, the same players who "pay absolutely no attention" suddenly are able to keep track of everything and battles go very fast now in 5e due to the lack of complexity.

So, then it must be the complexity and not the players who are the issue.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Feb 12, 2014)

Derren said:


> And yet every time a supporter of this theory posts an actual example from his game it shows that not the complexity slows down the game but players who pay absolutely no attention.




Isn't it possible that the complexity of the rules if the reason why those players don't pay attention?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 12, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> I've ran the math and observed all sides of the issue. Its not Chicken-little-ing as you call it. Its just cold hard facts. The Wizard is more versatile and can keep up with the Fighter in every way possible with the exception of hp (and even that is mitigated by a high enough false life spell or stone skin spell in the right situations).




Sweet, you've got an early copy of the actual rules! How do you like the artwork? I've been pretty excited by what I've seen on the site. What's the pagecount? Is the production quality of the books solid?

Unless all you've seen is the same playstest doc that everyone else has seen and that actually says very little about what the actual published rules are going to look like?


----------



## Evenglare (Feb 12, 2014)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Unless all you've seen is the same playstest doc that everyone else has seen and that actually says very little about what the actual published rules are going to look like?




What was the point of the play test if the final rules will look nothing like what we played?


----------



## MerricB (Feb 12, 2014)

Evenglare said:


> What was the point of the play test if the final rules will look nothing like what we played?




"Nothing" is definitely going too far. What you playtested and the final system will likely be very recognisable. The playtest was mainly assessing which Playstyle the rules support. The major difference between the playtested rules and what we see in the final product is how tight the mathematics of the system are. 

We'll also see a lot more options coming through, which should allow the fighter to be more than just the basic idea, if your group wants him that way.


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 13, 2014)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Sweet, you've got an early copy of the actual rules! How do you like the artwork? I've been pretty excited by what I've seen on the site. What's the pagecount? Is the production quality of the books solid?
> 
> Unless all you've seen is the same playstest doc that everyone else has seen and that actually says very little about what the actual published rules are going to look like?




I've seen what they've presented so far and their articles on design and not once do they acknowledge the problem. It would be foolhardy to assume they will change something with no evidence.


----------



## Primal (Feb 13, 2014)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> To be fair, they still can.  The difference between the weapons are negligible as it is.  They are just different enough to have a slight flavor difference between them.  Which I'm perfectly happy with.  It worked well in 2e.
> 
> It would take any sense of flavor the rules currently have and thrown them out the window.  I like the idea that weapons are slightly different and only become more different if you take feats or get class features to differentiate them.
> 
> ...




I guess our tastes are just different, which is completely fine. By the end of the 90s we had already house-ruled AD&D so much that it was another game altogether. And yet we were getting tired of all the inconsistent and disparate mechanics (percentile rolls for system shock and thief skills, d10 initiative, XP tables, etc.). 3E felt like a breeze of fresh air to us, and it took a year or two to discover its flaws. However, I still vastly prefer 3.0 over AD&D any day. 

I prefer weapons to be balanced against each other, and yet to feel mechanically different. IMO it didn't feel that way in AD&D; the only factor in addition to damage dice and type was the optional weapon speed. Yet honestly, who in their right mind would prefer a morningstar or battleaxe over longsword? Or specialize in a polearm, when a greatsword does 3d6 vs. large creatures? You only did it because of flavor reasons, but it was hardly balanced. If your group *did* use weapon speed -- and not everyone did -- daggers and short swords *were* usually better against spellcasters, because you had a chance to act faster and automatically disrupt their spells. But other than that, it didn't feel to me like there were any mechanical reasons to favor aforementioned weapons over their more popular counterparts. If 5E does this via feats, it still doesn't affect newbie players' choices, right? Because it takes a couple of levels to get your first feat, and that's assuming they even use and know of those weapon-augmenting feats. And if you ask me, "unlocking" all the good stuff with just one feat is neither elegant nor good design.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Feb 13, 2014)

Oh good, we are returning to actual things mentioned in the OP.

Agree on your final points regarding weapon qualities [MENTION=30678]Primal[/MENTION]. Some games have done this very well and then feats/whatever can unlock more weapon qualities or build on those that are there. But I too think it is important to give weapons something to make them interesting and different from one another.

Casters can blast different effects each round, but more than that, it is just more interesting for the weapon wielders. If your PC is wielding a favoured weapon (and I don't think many players would actually have their PC swap weapons regularly) I don't think many players would forget its major properties.

Anyway, I would love to see weapon qualities like SIFRP.


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 13, 2014)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Sweet, you've got an early copy of the actual rules! How do you like the artwork? I've been pretty excited by what I've seen on the site. What's the pagecount? Is the production quality of the books solid?
> 
> Unless all you've seen is the same playstest doc that everyone else has seen and that actually says very little about what the actual published rules are going to look like?




I wouldn't go that far, we draw conclusions from what rules packets we have seen.

Not set in granite perhaps, more like a little brick and mortar.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 13, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> I've ran the math and observed all sides of the issue. Its not Chicken-little-ing as you call it. Its just cold hard facts. The Wizard is more versatile and can keep up with the Fighter in every way possible with the exception of hp (and even that is mitigated by a high enough false life spell or stone skin spell in the right situations).




FWIW, as someone who has access to more...recent documents, I would not worry about this.    Assuming they keep down this route, they actually did solve some of the biggest discussions that these boards have had, including one that recently re-surfaced.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 13, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> I've seen what they've presented so far and their articles on design and not once do they acknowledge the problem. It would be foolhardy to assume they will change something with no evidence.




Have you seen it in actual playtesting? In my playtesting experience, the wizard goes down quick.  Their AC lags the rest of the party, their hit points lag the rest of the party, and if they're not extra careful and spend turns doing things like disengaging and moving instead of casting a spell, they get knocked out often.

In a game with bounded accuracy, we're finding AC plays a much more significant role.  The wizard seems to consistently lag behind in this department.  The rogue does a bit as well, but they have maneuverability and stealth features that make up for it.  The wizard in theory can have those as well, but in practice they have to have those spells and know to cast it, and they usually don't, while the rogue is basically using those abilities at-will and without spending an action for them.

So bottom line, have you found in your playtests that this tends to be a real issue with the mage class, or are you making your assumptions purely on a theoretical basis from reading the text and not playing it out to see if there is something you're not accounting for when the text meets the field of play?


----------



## Cybit (Feb 13, 2014)

Mistwell said:


> Have you seen it in actual playtesting? In my playtesting experience, the wizard goes down quick.  Their AC lags the rest of the party, their hit points lag the rest of the party, and if they're not extra careful and spend turns doing things like disengaging and moving instead of casting a spell, they get knocked out often.
> 
> In a game with bounded accuracy, we're finding AC plays a much more significant role.  The wizard seems to consistently lag behind in this department.  The rogue does a bit as well, but they have maneuverability and stealth features that make up for it.  The wizard in theory can have those as well, but in practice they have to have those spells and know to cast it, and they usually don't, while the rogue is basically using those abilities at-will and without spending an action for them.
> 
> So bottom line, have you found in your playtests that this tends to be a real issue with the mage class, or are you making your assumptions purely on a theoretical basis from reading the text and not playing it out to see if there is something you're not accounting for when the text meets the field of play?





Aye, the low AC is super brutal, and unlike other editions of D&D, there are few to any ways to bump their AC.  When building characters, unless they're wearing heavy armor, I basically tell folks to make Dex their second highest attribute, otherwise they'll get killed AC wise.  

Also, the HP really starts play a massive factor once you get to 6th level or so.  Fireball and Lit Bolt (and other damage spells) don't autoscale with character level, which puts a giant dent in their damage as players get higher level.


----------



## Prickly (Feb 14, 2014)

I also find that with the monsters low hit bonus, high AC character are very difficult to hurt


----------



## pemerton (Feb 14, 2014)

Cybit said:


> FWIW, as someone who has access to more...recent documents, I would not worry about this.    Assuming they keep down this route, they actually did solve some of the biggest discussions that these boards have had, including one that recently re-surfaced.



In your capacity as a wielder of more recent documents, I wonder if you've tested polymorph, dominate and/or stoneskin. I wouldn't expect you to tell the boards who those worked (NDAs and all that), but they look like fairly obvious stress points in the latest playtest. (Mage Armour also looks pretty good, but not quite as worrying as those others.)


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 14, 2014)

Mistwell said:


> Have you seen it in actual playtesting? In my playtesting experience, the wizard goes down quick.  Their AC lags the rest of the party, their hit points lag the rest of the party, and if they're not extra careful and spend turns doing things like disengaging and moving instead of casting a spell, they get knocked out often.
> 
> In a game with bounded accuracy, we're finding AC plays a much more significant role.  The wizard seems to consistently lag behind in this department.  The rogue does a bit as well, but they have maneuverability and stealth features that make up for it.  The wizard in theory can have those as well, but in practice they have to have those spells and know to cast it, and they usually don't, while the rogue is basically using those abilities at-will and without spending an action for them.
> 
> So bottom line, have you found in your playtests that this tends to be a real issue with the mage class, or are you making your assumptions purely on a theoretical basis from reading the text and not playing it out to see if there is something you're not accounting for when the text meets the field of play?




Mage Armor with a decent Dex (16) is AC 16 which is the equivalent of chain mail. It lasts 8 hours and doesn't require concentration. Its one of those non-choice spells that is so good you always have it prepared or on a scroll.

Since the open play test documents state that an average day is 4 equal level encounters, that means by level 5 the caster can pretty much cast 1-2 daily spells per encounter. With one of the 1st level ones being the no brainer Mage Armor. The other spell could easily be something like Blink which is better than plate armor, unless all the monsters ready an action to hit the Wizard when they return.

Something like Blur is also statistically better than plate armor (Plate armor is a 15% chance for a +0 attack, whereas Disadvantage against AC 16 is 6.25%) and being a level 2 spell can be cast multiple time at mid to high level.

Since Wizards can pick their spells on creation and level up, there is no reason they shouldn't have these common always useful in nearly every situation spells.

TL.DR Your Wizard was doing it wrong.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 14, 2014)

Lokaire said:
			
		

> I've seen what they've presented so far and their articles on design and not once do they acknowledge the problem. It would be foolhardy to assume they will change something with no evidence




It'd be foolish to assume that just because they're not talking about it, they haven't seen it. It'd also be foolish to assume you can "run the numbers" on a playtest doc and get relevant results for the published game. The purpose of a playtest is to be usefully flawed. If you found a flaw, that's working as intended.



SkidAce said:


> I wouldn't go that far, we draw conclusions from what rules packets we have seen.
> 
> Not set in granite perhaps, more like a little brick and mortar.




More like gravel and slushy jell-o. The purpose of a playtest isn't to be a sneak preview, it's to find flaws and errors. While it's not an entirely empty dataset, you'd have to have an agenda to assume that the published game is going to look pretty much like those docs between two shiny covers.


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 14, 2014)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It'd be foolish to assume that just because they're not talking about it, they haven't seen it. It'd also be foolish to assume you can "run the numbers" on a playtest doc and get relevant results for the published game. The purpose of a playtest is to be usefully flawed. If you found a flaw, that's working as intended.
> 
> 
> 
> More like gravel and slushy jell-o. The purpose of a playtest isn't to be a sneak preview, it's to find flaws and errors. While it's not an entirely empty dataset, you'd have to have an agenda to assume that the published game is going to look pretty much like those docs between two shiny covers.




The problem is they've found other flaws and talked about fixing them. They haven't even acknowledged the problems I've posted about which indicates to me that its unlikely to be addressed. All they would have to do to appease me is put a single line in one of their articles or interviews:

"We are aware of <insert problem here> and we are looking at various ways of mitigating it."

They put out several articles per month and yet not a single sentence to hang my hope on...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 14, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> The problem is they've found other flaws and talked about fixing them. They haven't even acknowledged the problems I've posted about which indicates to me that its unlikely to be addressed. All they would have to do to appease me is put a single line in one of their articles or interviews:
> 
> "We are aware of <insert problem here> and we are looking at various ways of mitigating it."
> 
> They put out several articles per month and yet not a single sentence to hang my hope on...




Hey, I'd like them to comment on it to, if only to lay out their thinking on it, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and we don't have all the information quite yet.


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 14, 2014)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Hey, I'd like them to comment on it to, if only to lay out their thinking on it, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and we don't have all the information quite yet.




Absence of absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence of absence either...er... I mean the fact they haven't addressed it in articles and blogs doesn't mean its being changed or fixed either. Its more likely they haven't addressed it, because wouldn't they want to announce that they fixed another problem?


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 14, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> Mage Armor with a decent Dex (16) is AC 16 which is the equivalent of chain mail. It lasts 8 hours and doesn't require concentration. Its one of those non-choice spells that is so good you always have it prepared or on a scroll.




I asked if you found this true in play, and you responded with theory again - theory based on a specific ability score and spell choice despite the small number of choices early on, and the inability to know how long a day will be in a given scenario (it lasts 8 hours, but the day is 24 hours, and monsters don't just wait for you to cast it again).  So I guess that answers the question - you have not, in fact, found it to be the case in actual play, and every conclusion you've drawn is based on faulty hypothesis and averages which don't account for anything varying from the center of that average.



> Since the open play test documents state that an average day is 4 equal level encounters,




And that's more theory based on averages rather than what actually happens.  I think I have my answer.

You should maybe try the game you're critiquing.  I think you will find it plays different than you might think.



> TL.DR Your Wizard was doing it wrong.




Complete with "badwrongfun" for a game you have not even played, in response to someone actually playing it?

Yeah, the only badwrongfun is not even playing.  That, that's badwrongfun.  

You now have multiple reports from people who have actually played it, and found their experiences differ from your hypothesis.  Results trump hypothesis every time - that's how science work, and it's why you make the hypothesis to begin with, to test it in practice and see if it holds up.  So far, it has not.  

Four encounters is an average not a pre-programmed fixed sum in a zone.  So half your days will have more than that (sometimes a lot more), and half less (sometimes a lot less).  8 hours is only 1/3 of the day, and things don't just conveniently wait for you in the chaos of the adventure.  Spell slots are often used based on immediate survival needs and circumstances, not average utility.  And in practice, the mage get fairly easily get trounced if he's not extra careful, sometimes losing entire turns just to maneuver away from foes rather than casting a spell.  

The game is a heck of a lot less predictable and static than some other versions of D&D.  It's not based on set piece encounters and combats that are exactly on par with average party level and evenly spaced encounters and convenient resting places to recover.  It's a much more dynamic style of play encouraged by these rules than some other versions encouraged.  You should try it, rather than speculating about it.  I think you will find it does not play like you think it should.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 14, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> Absence of absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence of absence either...er... I mean the fact they haven't addressed it in articles and blogs doesn't mean its being changed or fixed either. Its more likely they haven't addressed it, because wouldn't they want to announce that they fixed another problem?




There's lots of reasons why they might not want to announce that. Two that leap to my mind immediately are first, that their survey feedback shows that most players aren't concerned about it, and second, that they want to save most of their surprises now for the actual release to make it an appealing purchase for those who have the playtest docs. There's literally an infinite number of other plausible reasons why they might not announce it. 

There's no proof that it's been fixed, but you can't say that 5e *will* have that in it with much confidence. You can't prove I'm not a Turing-complete computer program, either, but it's not bloody likely. What's more likely, that you discovered a problem that no one else is aware of or that they stubbornly refuse to fix that will irreparably damage this game that their company has literally sunk millions of dollars into creating, or that these paid professionals are doing exactly the job they're paid to do and will end up delivering on their promises (which include not having a wizard overshadow a fighter unless you opt into it)?


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 14, 2014)

Mistwell said:


> I asked if you found this true in play, and you responded with theory again - theory based on a specific ability score and spell choice despite the small number of choices early on, and the inability to know how long a day will be in a given scenario (it lasts 8 hours, but the day is 24 hours, and monsters don't just wait for you to cast it again).  So I guess that answers the question - you have not, in fact, found it to be the case in actual play, and every conclusion you've drawn is based on faulty hypothesis and averages which don't account for anything varying from the center of that average.




In my 5E play experience Mage Armor wasn't in the game yet, but I still didn't get hit very often because I stayed behind the melee classes and used Blink. I don't remember if I had Blink maximized, but I might have. In most cases a day is around 16 hours meaning a maximum casting of 2 Mage Armor spells. Any longer than that and you start to deal with fatigue rules and pushing limits. For the most part I doubt it takes more than 1-2 hours to clear out an entire dungeon. Remember you can walk 300 feet per minute and most combats last less than 1 minute. You could actually say that for most adventures they are 'five minute workdays' because you can include a lot of travel, and 4 encounters in that five minutes.



> And that's more theory based on averages rather than what actually happens.  I think I have my answer.
> 
> You should maybe try the game you're critiquing.  I think you will find it plays different than you might think.




I'd love to. Do you know of anyone that is offering an online game of it? I'd be glad to wreck the game trying to find broken parts.



> Complete with "badwrongfun" for a game you have not even played, in response to someone actually playing it?
> 
> Yeah, the only badwrongfun is not even playing.  That, that's badwrongfun.
> 
> You now have multiple reports from people who have actually played it, and found their experiences differ from your hypothesis.  Results trump hypothesis every time - that's how science work, and it's why you make the hypothesis to begin with, to test it in practice and see if it holds up.  So far, it has not.




Nope, no where did I say it was badwrongfun. I said they were 'doing it wrong' as in 'not being very effective at their job'. It might be all kinds of fun to play Fizban the forgetful clumsy Wizard that always has the wrong spells prepared "What!?! Immune to fire, well I'll just go stand over here then...". However mechanically they weren't playing to a baseline competency that is assumed in the rule set.

Again please quit trying to construe everything I say in the worst possible light...


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 14, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> Nope, no where did I say it was badwrongfun. I said they were 'doing it wrong' as in 'not being very effective at their job'.




Sure you were.  You were assuming you knew better, and they way someone else chose to play the game was "wrong".  The player is very effective with his mage - he just is actually experiencing how the game plays as opposed to sitting back and armchair quarterbacking it without knowing all the relevant details of the circumstances of the particular game.



> However mechanically they weren't playing to a baseline competency that is assumed in the rule set.




More faulty assumptions - drawn based on you knowing, with certainty, you have no clue what the circumstances were.  And rather than asking, you just declared you knew better anyway.



> Again please quit trying to construe everything I say in the worst possible light...




I am just shining an ordinary light on your words.  If what you say looks bad once examined up close, that's not me making it bad.  Stop playing the victim.  You and I agree sometimes and disagree other times - that's just how message boards go.  Quit pretending I am treating you poorly by focusing just on when we disagree.


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 14, 2014)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> There's lots of reasons why they might not want to announce that. Two that leap to my mind immediately are first, that their survey feedback shows that most players aren't concerned about it, and second, that they want to save most of their surprises now for the actual release to make it an appealing purchase for those who have the playtest docs. There's literally an infinite number of other plausible reasons why they might not announce it.
> 
> There's no proof that it's been fixed, but you can't say that 5e *will* have that in it with much confidence. You can't prove I'm not a Turing-complete computer program, either, but it's not bloody likely. What's more likely, that you discovered a problem that no one else is aware of or that they stubbornly refuse to fix that will irreparably damage this game that their company has literally sunk millions of dollars into creating, or that these paid professionals are doing exactly the job they're paid to do and will end up delivering on their promises (which include not having a wizard overshadow a fighter unless you opt into it)?




If most of their players aren't concerned about it they wouldn't bother fixing it in the first place.

They can save the actual methods for the release and give us some hope they fixed the problem beforehand so we actually have the interest to go out and buy it.

I can think of an infinite number of reasons to think that the core of the moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't mean it absolutely is does it?

Many people are aware of the problem and it will damage the potential income if not fixed. It might not sink the game, but for many it will make it a no-buy game.

If they've sunk millions of dollars into 5E, then I have a bridge to sell them, because someone conned them out of the money. What we see so far is what a small group of people could have put together in their spare time. The most expensive thing they've done is the convention stuff and it did not cost a million dollars.

As far as paid professionals go, Mike himself was a hobbyist indie developer that got hired on mid 3.5E to help out and got promoted after massive lay offs. I wouldn't exactly call that professional. Not to mention the massive number of obvious flaws pointed out in the open play tests. That just does not ring true of 'professional' designers. Give me someone that has a relevant degree (Mike is a programmer by trade, and not even a game programmer) and more than 2-3 years experience working for one of the major companies and I might agree to 'professional'.

I'm sorry, but without some solid facts. I'm not going to believe in a fairy tale perfect game that happens to be developed behind doors by people that have been in the game development business about as long as I have. Especially with what we've seen as evidence against it in the open play tests and articles.

Its just not believable...


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 14, 2014)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> More like gravel and slushy jell-o. The purpose of a playtest isn't to be a sneak preview, it's to find flaws and errors. While it's not an entirely empty dataset, you'd have to have an agenda to assume that the published game is going to look pretty much like those docs between two shiny covers.




Fair enough I suppose, I think we could glean a better picture of its shape than you do, but analogies only go so far.  


I however, do not have an agenda.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 14, 2014)

SkidAce said:


> Fair enough I suppose, I think we could glean a better picture of its shape than you do, but analogies only go so far.
> 
> 
> I however, do not have an agenda.




Fair enough!


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 14, 2014)

Mistwell said:


> Have you seen it in actual playtesting? In my playtesting experience, the wizard goes down quick.  Their AC lags the rest of the party, their hit points lag the rest of the party, and if they're not extra careful and spend turns doing things like disengaging and moving instead of casting a spell, they get knocked out often.
> 
> In a game with bounded accuracy, we're finding AC plays a much more significant role.  The wizard seems to consistently lag behind in this department.  The rogue does a bit as well, but they have maneuverability and stealth features that make up for it.  The wizard in theory can have those as well, but in practice they have to have those spells and know to cast it, and they usually don't, while the rogue is basically using those abilities at-will and without spending an action for them.
> 
> So bottom line, have you found in your playtests that this tends to be a real issue with the mage class, or are you making your assumptions purely on a theoretical basis from reading the text and not playing it out to see if there is something you're not accounting for when the text meets the field of play?





I'd ask why the wizard is bothering with playing the AC/HP game at all instead of using things like web or putting the opponents to sleep or using one of the other options which (similar to my experiences with 3E) allow a caster to just bypass the opposition's strong points.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 14, 2014)

The HP limits on spells absolutely destroy a lot of the AoE effects, since the HP limits are total HP across all creatures.  Sleep / similar spells are nasty, but IIRC, the total HP limits basically stop it after 2-3 creatures, assuming the caster rolled exceptionally well.  That's one of the changes that doesn't get caught in theory but shows up in play - the HP limits that a lot of spells have really hit the spells hard in terms of mass effectiveness.  

Second - the amount of spells casters get are a significant impediment.  You don't have the normal "wizard knows all the spells" issue that you have had in previous editions.  The amount of spells a wizard can cast are also far more limited, and many of the spells that are being thrown around as "well just do X, Y, and Z" don't stack as they used to.  I would point folks towards the concentration rules - concentration puts a large damper on spell stacking.  

As for Mage Armor - the only way to get a 16 is if you have a 16 DEX starting off, which means that it is your single highest stat, or tied for it.  
 [MENTION=83996]Lokiare[/MENTION] - if you are looking for a reason to hate the game, you will find plenty.  As a primarily 4E player, and someone whose favorite edition of D&D is 4E by far and away, NEXT is pretty good for me.  It is currently supplanting 4E as my favorite edition, and the power gap between the casters and the melee-ers (I hate casters & love melee characters) has diminished greatly - to the point where even at L10, I'm not sure I'd rather be a caster or not.  Casters can do lots of cool things, but they can't do them all at once - and that puts a significant damper on their power.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 14, 2014)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I'd ask why the wizard is bothering with playing the AC/HP game at all instead of using things like web or putting the opponents to sleep or using one of the other options which (similar to my experiences with 3E) allow a caster to just bypass the opposition's strong points.




Of course they do...but that doesn't mean they don't get hit, sometimes really hard.  Sleep generally impacts a couple of creatures, who can each be woken with an action from an ally.  Web similarly can be escaped with essentially an action.  

If mage's could just waive their hand every challenge and end the challenge that way, it wouldn't be much of a game.  Your AC and hit points WILL come up in this game, if you have an even moderately combat-intensive game.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 14, 2014)

Mistwell said:


> Of course they do...but that doesn't mean they don't get hit, sometimes really hard.  Sleep generally impacts a couple of creatures, who can each be woken with an action from an ally.  Web similarly can be escaped with essentially an action.
> 
> If mage's could just waive their hand every challenge and end the challenge that way, it wouldn't be much of a game.  Your AC and hit points WILL come up in this game, if you have an even moderately combat-intensive game.




Because of the way many spells are written (like sleep) to use max HP as targeting limits, a wizard's low HP is also scary in terms of mage on mage combat as well as normal combat.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 14, 2014)

Primal said:


> I guess our tastes are just different, which is completely fine. By the end of the 90s we had already house-ruled AD&D so much that it was another game altogether. And yet we were getting tired of all the inconsistent and disparate mechanics (percentile rolls for system shock and thief skills, d10 initiative, XP tables, etc.). 3E felt like a breeze of fresh air to us, and it took a year or two to discover its flaws. However, I still vastly prefer 3.0 over AD&D any day.



See, that's the thing, I don't think our tastes are completely different.  When 3.0 came out, I embraced it like crazy.  I thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Feats and multiclassing let you create precisely the character you wanted to create.  There were more options as a fighter than simply "I attack" every round.  It felt like "grown up" D&D.  And I kept that feeling for a LONG time.  I think if I didn't play as much as I did, I might still feel that way.

The problem is, I don't play D&D casually.  I play D&D a LOT.  I volunteered for WOTC as a campaign admin in Living Greyhawk.  I ran a Living Greyhawk game's day every Saturday then I ran Living Greyhawk adventures a couple of times a week in addition to having a home game once a week.  I also traveled a couple of times a year to go to conventions just to get more play experiences in as well as running a couple of our own.

As time went on and the characters in my home game passed about level 10 and so did our main characters in Living Greyhawk, each game I ran became harder and harder to DM.  I actually sat down and realized our sessions were not about the plot or the adventures anymore.  None of my friends even cared if they played the next part of an adventure series because they didn't care whatsoever about the plot or story of the game.  Our in-between game chat was almost always centered on game mechanics and how to abuse them.  Our IN GAME chat was centered on game mechanics.  Discussions about "What feat should I take next level?" and "What do you think of this build for my next character?" were way more common than any discussion about what was actually happening in the game.  Each round was filled with talk like the one I posted earlier in the thread, constantly going through checklists in our mind and out loud to make sure people followed the rules precisely and didn't forget anything.  Constantly trying to outsmart the other players and the DM and prove we knew the rules better than everyone else....and trying to prove that our particular character build was better than everyone else's.  Lots of "Look at this, because I have feat X, I knock the enemy prone.  But because I have feat Y they can't get up without making a Balance check when within 10 feet of me.  The Balance check DC is based on my Strength and my character has a 32 Strength because I put all my points into it and I have +2 for my race and then I got a +6 stat enhancer. So most enemies have to make a natural 20 to stand up.  Then I have a class feature that says enemies take my strength mod in damage when they start their turns prone within 10 feet of me.  Isn't that awesome?!?!"

The longer it went on, the more of a chore it became running D&D games.  It's likely the enemies wouldn't do anything at all because the PC's Uber-Combos of rules bending were built in such a way that non-custom monsters designed to defeat their tactics would simply lose.  So, I was running through the motions of running combats that were impossible for the PCs to lose to while they spent all their time talking about how great their combos were and about whether their next great idea would work "technically" according to the rules.

I remembered back to my first game of D&D in 2e and about how interested I was in playing a game where it felt like I was really IN the fantasy world.  Where I got to experience a world of dungeons and dragons from the point of view of my own character.  I remember the wonder associated with it.  We had no immersion in 3.5e at all.  The focus of the game was entirely on game mechanics.

That wasn't the case when we played 2e.  There weren't enough rules for people to constantly discuss.  There were a lot of rules issues, don't get me wrong and 3e/3.5e/4e did a lot of work finding a proper balance for the game and came up with a lot of good ideas if applied back to 2e to fix all of its rules issues would make a great game again.  That's the feeling I've been getting since I started running and playing D&D Next.  There's virtually no game mechanic talk at the table anymore.  We discuss the plot and what our characters think instead of what would be tactically optimal according to the rules(although we do have one player who complains relentlessly because that was the part of the game he enjoyed the most and his attempts to do so in D&D Next have been met with failure).


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 14, 2014)

Mistwell said:


> Of course they do...but that doesn't mean they don't get hit, sometimes really hard.  Sleep generally impacts a couple of creatures, who can each be woken with an action from an ally.  Web similarly can be escaped with essentially an action.
> 
> *If mage's could just waive their hand every challenge and end the challenge that way, it wouldn't be much of a game*.  Your AC and hit points WILL come up in this game, if you have an even moderately combat-intensive game.




I very much agree with the part I bolded.  However, previous editions seemed to feel that was part of what playing D&D meant.  I've also had people on this very forum tell me I was wrong for not wanting D&D to be that way.  

As for whether 5th will be better in that regard, I'm not yet convinced.  I do see that some melee classes seem to be very good at levels 1-4 (the levels I've played most during Encounters,) and some are arguably too good right now.  However, I specifically mentioned web because I myself used it in a session to essentially shut down an entire encounter.  However, that happened during an older packet, so I am not sure what things look like for mages now.  I plan to find out during the upcoming season though; I've decided to play a mage specifically so I can see how I feel the game handles magic.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 14, 2014)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> <snip>




This. This is what I've always referred to as system mastery. I hated it. To compound things for my group, only half of the group enjoyed doing this. So on top of the the whacked out combos I had players who made suboptimal choices based on roleplaying reasons. The gap between the two types of PCs grew so wide that nothing seemed capable of fixing it. The end-run of 3.x was the first time since I started playing D&D that I actually thought about quitting gaming, not just D&D, for good. That's how much I hated the sub-game of character optimization.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 14, 2014)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I very much agree with the part I bolded.  However, previous editions seemed to feel that was part of what playing D&D meant.  I've also had people on this very forum tell me I was wrong for not wanting D&D to be that way.




I can see that issue coming up in 3rd edition.  Particularly in 3.0e, where you could scry a location, teleport in, and drop a nuke.  Same with the flying, improved invisibility fire-balling helicopter of doom.  We had a wizard take out an entire pirate ship using that later method, on her own, without risk of injury (the pirates had nothing that could reach her, and couldn't identify her location precisely even if they could).

I never found that to be an issue in B/X, or 1e, or 4e.  And it wasn't an issue in 3.5e through the early levels.



> As for whether 5th will be better in that regard, I'm not yet convinced.  I do see that some melee classes seem to be very good at levels 1-4 (the levels I've played most during Encounters,) and some are arguably too good right now.  However, I specifically mentioned web because I myself used it in a session to essentially shut down an entire encounter.  However, that happened during an older packet, so I am not sure what things look like for mages now.  I plan to find out during the upcoming season though; I've decided to play a mage specifically so I can see how I feel the game handles magic.




Our mage has web, and has used it to good effect.  But mostly, it was to buy the party time to flee without being overrun.  The foes had access to torches, so it only took them a round to burn the web away and get out, without a strength check.  Others have broken through with a strength check, or made their initial save.  It's a good spell, but pretty much what I'd think of for a low level wizard from 1e or 2e - it's only going to stop the show if the foes are really weak.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 14, 2014)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I remembered back to my first game of D&D in 2e and about how interested I was in playing a game where it felt like I was really IN the fantasy world.  Where I got to experience a world of dungeons and dragons from the point of view of my own character.  I remember the wonder associated with it.  We had no immersion in 3.5e at all.  The focus of the game was entirely on game mechanics.
> 
> That wasn't the case when we played 2e.  There weren't enough rules for people to constantly discuss.  There were a lot of rules issues, don't get me wrong and 3e/3.5e/4e did a lot of work finding a proper balance for the game and came up with a lot of good ideas if applied back to 2e to fix all of its rules issues would make a great game again.  That's the feeling I've been getting since I started running and playing D&D Next.  There's virtually no game mechanic talk at the table anymore.  We discuss the plot and what our characters think instead of what would be tactically optimal according to the rules(although we do have one player who complains relentlessly because that was the part of the game he enjoyed the most and his attempts to do so in D&D Next have been met with failure).




I guess the questions come up for me: Things clearly changed but *why* did they change? Was it simply because 3e had so many additional substantial customization options? And have you played other games with lots of customization options and compared the experience?

I have to say that having played a lot of 2e and 3e (and now PF), my experiences have not been like this at all. Sure, we discuss some build options and talk about what feat to take next, and yes, it is often about combat effectiveness in some way shape or form. But we never really lose sight of the story, in fact, once we get to a certain level of effectiveness, we're looking for more interesting stories than just doing some dungeon crawling. That doesn't seem to have changed from 1e through PF. It's like the game has changed, but we fundamentally haven't in how we play other than to pick up new techniques in using the new rules. By comparison, your group sounds more like you changed with the game - and that's why I asked the question about other highly customizable games. Would they behave the same way with GURPS, Hero, or Mutants and Masterminds? Do they get distracted by all of the trees (customizable options) that they lose track of the forest (the game's story) and really need to clear a lot of the trees to appreciate the forest again?


----------



## Cybit (Feb 14, 2014)

I think because people spent a lot of time making those choices, and because there were so many to make, it became the focus of the game.  In any game you play, the thing that is the most time consuming often receives the majority of attention & brainpower, methinks.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Feb 14, 2014)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> ...snip...



This matches my experience as well. As I primarily DM, my problem was magnified by the fact that only a minority of the party enjoyed the optimization/system-mastery aspect of the game - the rest of us were there to enjoy the plot and move the story along.  But as they rose in level, the math made it harder and harder for me to challenge the optimizers in combat without wiping out the rest of the party. I don't DM because I enjoy the math (which I do), but because I enjoy the world-building and the story creation that emerges from the playing of the game. That is what is so appealing about Next - bounded accuracy alone means that system mastery should have less of an impact on those players who don't want to pursue it, while still rewarding those who do.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 14, 2014)

billd91 said:


> I guess the questions come up for me: Things clearly changed but *why* did they change? Was it simply because 3e had so many additional substantial customization options? And have you played other games with lots of customization options and compared the experience?



My guess is that in core 2e there was very little actual game to play.  I mean "I'm a fighter, I have a longsword that does 1d8 damage" was an adequate way to summarize a 1st level human fighter.  Every other fighter has pretty much the same options, which is to say very few.  There were very few ways to optimize your characters so there was no need to concentrate on that.  Why worry about options you don't actually have?  Instead concentrate on the things you can actually control like whether or not your character would run into that burning building to save the children or not.

But in 3e and later there became 2 games being played at once:  There was the optimization game where you tried to find the most effective way to defeat enemies, tried to make your character the best at what you wanted him/her to do mechanically.  Then there was the actual game of D&D where you decided what your character would do during the game.  Most of my friends like the optimization game more than the actual game.  I had one friend who would show up with a new character nearly every session because he loved optimization so much that he wanted to do the entire process again every week.  The actual game session was just a chance to prove how well his optimization worked.

I think in addition to the options being available it was also a matter of how much time was spent in the game where the options were useful.  Our battles were taking about an hour a piece in 3e as opposed to the 15-20 minutes they were taking in 2e.  There was a lot more time to concentrate on the effect your optimization was providing you.  You could sit there for an hour thinking in the back of your head "We're winning because of the AWESOME character I made.  Look how much damage he does in comparison to everyone else!" when battles only took 15 minutes and weren't made out to be such a big deal, it didn't matter if you did 30 damage instead of 10 damage.  The monster only had 10 hitpoints and your overkill was kind of useless.  In 3e, monsters had 100 hitpoints so the person who did 30 damage in a round vs 10 was killing the monster 3 times faster.

As for other systems, yes we've played a couple.  My group was just as bad when we played Champions.  They attempted to power game and there was a lot of game mechanics talk.  However, it didn't get too bad since that system was so complicated that none of them understood it well enough to power game effectively.  We decided to switch away from it after people got bored at how long battles took, but I can imagine after a while everyone learning the system well enough to turn into the same thing.

There was almost no mechanics talk at all when we played Numenera since the system is so light.  However, I think we all decided after a short while that it was a little too light for our taste, we like mechanics and options but there just can't be too many.  D&D Next hits about the sweet zone for me.  Though, as I mentioned in the previous post, one of my players would really prefer we go back to 4e where he could power game way more.



billd91 said:


> But we never really lose sight of the story, in fact, once we get to a certain level of effectiveness, we're looking for more interesting stories than just doing some dungeon crawling.



I don't think my players have ever been REALLY interested in stories.  Though the composition of my group has changed quite a bit and each player is different.  However, the group that was playing my 17th level 3.5e game was perfectly happy having interesting things to fight.  The setting and reason they were killing them didn't matter much.  It was just an excuse to test their cool builds.

About the time that one of my players was playing a Half-Shadow(or whatever the template is called) Rogue/Warlock/Arcane Trickster build who had permanent Fire Whip spells cast on both hands so he could materialize 2 4d6 fire damage reach weapons that only had to hit touch AC to hit while having the entire Two-Weapon Fighting tree and could make 6 attacks with sneak attack each round while adding his Warlock Eldrich Blast on all his attacks nearly guaranteeing somewhere around 50d6 points of damage per round to any enemy and could teleport from shadow to shadow at will while hiding in plain sight I wanted to shoot myself.

But they were perfectly happy fighting monster after monster and totally annihilating them over and over again.  That's really what they wanted to do.



billd91 said:


> That doesn't seem to have changed from 1e through PF. It's like the game has changed, but we fundamentally haven't in how we play other than to pick up new techniques in using the new rules. By comparison, your group sounds more like you changed with the game - and that's why I asked the question about other highly customizable games. Would they behave the same way with GURPS, Hero, or Mutants and Masterminds? Do they get distracted by all of the trees (customizable options) that they lose track of the forest (the game's story) and really need to clear a lot of the trees to appreciate the forest again?



I think the thing is that we're hardcore gamers.  We play board games and video games pretty much constantly.  To us, D&D is simply another game we play...though the only game we play consistently.  Like any other game we play, you examine the rules and you play the way the game wants you to play.

My one powergamer friend who is in my group, for instance, played Skyrim and get super annoyed at how easy the game was because he had found a "bug" in the game where it was really cheap to increase your blacksmithing skill to max by making daggers continuously.  The game doesn't stop you from doing that and you can make one of the best weapons in the game at close to first level.  Enchanting is likewise super easy if you know the right tricks allowing you to enchant that weapon you made with enchantments that require skill above 100(the maximum) by first enchanting items to give you bonuses to enchanting skill.

So he was wondering around the game at level 3 or something with a weapon about twice as powerful as the most powerful item that occurs in the game without crafting.  He killed everything in one hit.  However, he blamed the game for allowing him to do that in the first place.

I asked why he just didn't play the game without training blacksmithing to see if it was more fun and he looked at me incredulously as if the idea that you would purposefully NOT take your absolute best option was unthinkably stupid.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 15, 2014)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I think the thing is that we're hardcore gamers.  We play board games and video games pretty much constantly.  To us, D&D is simply another game we play...though the only game we play consistently.  Like any other game we play, you examine the rules and you play the way the game wants you to play.




We've got some pretty hardcore gamers too (board games, war games, LARPs, CCGs, console games). But I think with just a different focus. My friends will play games like Mass Effect *multiple* times just to explore the story changes different choices lead to, not so much to find ways to crush the enemy with more power.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I asked why he just didn't play the game without training blacksmithing to see if it was more fun and he looked at me incredulously as if the idea that you would purposefully NOT take your absolute best option was unthinkably stupid.




Sounds like a gamer-variety of OCD.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 15, 2014)

Mistwell said:


> I can see that issue coming up in 3rd edition.  Particularly in 3.0e, where you could scry a location, teleport in, and drop a nuke.  Same with the flying, improved invisibility fire-balling helicopter of doom.  We had a wizard take out an entire pirate ship using that later method, on her own, without risk of injury (the pirates had nothing that could reach her, and couldn't identify her location precisely even if they could).
> 
> I never found that to be an issue in B/X, or 1e, or 4e.  And it wasn't an issue in 3.5e through the early levels.




I want to say I didn't have the problem in 4th, but I did; on some occasions far worse than it was in 3.5.  I've been a player in 4E games where the DM literally just ended the campaign because the PC group was so out of control with what they could do.  

I remember the first campaign to 30 ending with one of the PCs essentially solo-ing Orcus.  The other members of the party didn't contribute because we really didn't need to, and the encounter was over so quickly that there wasn't much for us to do.  Part of that was due to the early 4E monster math not really working, and also due to some of the PC options which allowed that being pretty obviously broken (and later changed in official updates to the game.)

Unfortunately, things did not change after the updates to the game.  The second campaign to 30 ended with the group so thoroughly crushing the first part of the campaign's end battle that the DM didn't see the point in playing out the second part, and thus simply declared we had won because he didn't feel like running the game anymore at that point.  Part of the problem with why he was so burned out here is because the PCs completely destroying everything in their way had been pretty status quo from about level 12 in the game.  I hate to brag, but the best way that I can convey just how thoroughly the collective player group (and their respective characters) dominated things during that campaign is to say that we took time to make a coat of arms for the character group involved in that game.  To this day, mention of "The Stormbringers" is a sore spot for the guy who DMed that game.  

The most recent game ended before paragon because things were already starting to get a little out of control at level 8.  I'll admit to being part of the problem in this game, but it was completely on accident that I broke that game.  Since I hadn't really messed with hybrid characters before, I wanted to try one.  I also had a concept for a character which seemed (to me) to be pretty cool.  Thus, Mer Tzu, the warlord/wizard was born.  It frustrated the DM that I (as well as a few other members of the party) had such a high AC which I could boost even further by using the utility power shield in the event that someone did actually miraculously manage to hit me.  I had honestly zero intent of playing a broken character and just put together what seemed cool to me.  I realized that using hybrids in this discussion isn't helpful because they are a known problem, but the reason I made that character was because my previous character was putting out amounts of damage which bothered the DM.  He never said anything about it, but I could tell it was an issue.  What really pushed things over the edge was that other characters in the same game were just as bad.  The problem with these 4E games was a little different than 3rd; it wasn't that the characters weren't balanced against each other; the issue was that the characters were so far beyond the expectations of the world they existed in that it was disruptive to the game.


None of the above defends 3rd though.  I have not at all exaggerated in other threads when I've said that the group used to have to ask the guy who normally played a wizard to not doing anything for a few rounds so that the rest of us would actually get to play.  It was already bad enough to have one class which was quite clearly better than the others; putting that class in the hands of a player who was also quite clearly more skilled than some of the other players just made things even worse.  In a recent attempt by the group to play Pathfinder, the same player was using a Summoner, and it essentially ruined the group's ability to enjoy Pathfinder.

I can't speak on behalf of 1st.  I do own some of the reprints, but have only just barely dabbled in trying to use them.  Though, if this makes any sense, I will say that I can look at 1e adventures and pick up what appears to be a different mentality behind the design of the game.  While I've had barely any experience playing 1e, I have played some of the adventures using different rules systems.  Maybe it's crazy to try to extrapolate what the game is like via an adventure played using a completely different rules system, but I feel as though (in spite of using the material with different rules,) I have some sense of what the game is like.  I am inclined to agree with your statement that things are different in 1e, but I cannot honestly say that's how I feel without more hands on experience with it.




Mistwell said:


> Our mage has web, and has used it to good effect.  But mostly, it was to buy the party time to flee without being overrun.  The foes had access to torches, so it only took them a round to burn the web away and get out, without a strength check.  Others have broken through with a strength check, or made their initial save.  It's a good spell, but pretty much what I'd think of for a low level wizard from 1e or 2e - it's only going to stop the show if the foes are really weak.




The short version of how the encounter went was like this...  

me: I cast web.
dm: (after rolling) the enemy is stuck
other player: I shoot them with my bow
me: I use magic missile
dm: they're still stuck
other player: I shoot them with my bow
me: I use magic missile
dm: they're still stuck
other player: I shoot them with my bow
me: I use magic missile
dm: they're dead

That was from an old packet though.  I have no idea how web may have changed from then to now.  I plan to find out during the next season.  For next season, I plan to either play a wizard or a druid.  I've even considered wizard/druid just out of curiosity to see how the 3E character I am currently playing (multiclass wizard/druid) would translate into 5th Edition.


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 15, 2014)

Thyrwyn said:


> This matches my experience as well. As I primarily DM, my problem was magnified by the fact that only a minority of the party enjoyed the optimization/system-mastery aspect of the game - the rest of us were there to enjoy the plot and move the story along.  But as they rose in level, the math made it harder and harder for me to challenge the optimizers in combat without wiping out the rest of the party. I don't DM because I enjoy the math (which I do), but because I enjoy the world-building and the story creation that emerges from the playing of the game. That is what is so appealing about Next - bounded accuracy alone means that system mastery should have less of an impact on those players who don't want to pursue it, while still rewarding those who do.




Wait so a Dwarf Wizard that has an AC of 18 and can use spells to grant people attacking them disadvantage and then proceed to out damage any other class is ok? Its not even 'optimizing' its grabbing a race and 1 feat. Something that can happen randomly 25% of the time. Bounded accuracy means every +1 you gain to something is just that more broken. At least in 3E and 4E a +1 wasn't game changing. I'm sorry, but system mastery is amplified in 5E, not minimized.


----------



## Primal (Feb 15, 2014)

Connorsrpg said:


> Oh good, we are returning to actual things mentioned in the OP.
> 
> Agree on your final points regarding weapon qualities @_*Primal*_. Some games have done this very well and then feats/whatever can unlock more weapon qualities or build on those that are there. But I too think it is important to give weapons something to make them interesting and different from one another.
> 
> ...




I've only taken a brief glance at the rules, but I haven't played it (I liked the basic dice pool mechanic, though); how do weapon qualities work in _Song of Ice and Fire RPG_?


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 15, 2014)

Johnny3D3D said:


> The short version of how the encounter went was like this...
> 
> me: I cast web.
> dm: (after rolling) the enemy is stuck
> ...




From the last public packet it works almost the same. The only difference is the save DC is lower, but still very high for creatures with no Dex bonus cast at level 1:


```
Round     Successful chance to make at least one save (+0 Dex bonus against DC 15)
1            30%
2            51%
3            65.7%
4            75.99%
```

So 3 rounds is not uncommon, slightly less often than half the time. If we cast it at level 15:


```
Round     Successful chance to make at least one save (+0 Dex bonus against DC 17)
1            20%
2            36%
3            48.8%
4            59.04%
5            67.232%
6            73.7856%
```

Since bounded accuracy means creatures ability scores don't go up with level, this means its entirely likely to shut down an encounter with a level 2 spell slot for 4-6 rounds at 15th level. Lets hope all creatures past level 10 or so have ranged attacks.

This is one of the problems with bounded accuracy and the imbalance I keep talking about.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Feb 15, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> Wait so a Dwarf Wizard that has an AC of 18 and can use spells to grant people attacking them disadvantage and then proceed to out damage any other class is ok? Its not even 'optimizing' its grabbing a race and 1 feat. Something that can happen randomly 25% of the time. Bounded accuracy means every +1 you gain to something is just that more broken. At least in 3E and 4E a +1 wasn't game changing. I'm sorry, but system mastery is amplified in 5E, not minimized.



Dwarf Wizard in Scale Mail with a 14 DEX and his 4th level feat/ability score improvement spent on Shield Master? Congrats - you have an 18 AC. Not hard. Waste of feat choice for a Wizard, though. The argument on whether said character can "out damage any other class"
is still very open. 

As for that combination of race, and feat happening "randomly 25% of the time". . . there are more than 4 races and more than 25 feats - so even if you assume one of them is a given, it still can't happen 25% of the time. We'll call this hyperbole and move on.


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 15, 2014)

Thyrwyn said:


> Dwarf Wizard in Scale Mail with a 14 DEX and his 4th level feat/ability score improvement spent on Shield Master? Congrats - you have an 18 AC. Not hard. Waste of feat choice for a Wizard, though. The argument on whether said character can "out damage any other class"
> is still very open.
> 
> As for that combination of race, and feat happening "randomly 25% of the time". . . there are more than 4 races and more than 25 feats - so even if you assume one of them is a given, it still can't happen 25% of the time. We'll call this hyperbole and move on.




There are 7 base races in the game: Dwarf, Elf, Human, Half-Elf, Halfling, Half-Orc, and Gnome. There is a 14% chance of picking any given race. Then out of feats there are only a few that would benefit a Wizard at low level. So you are correct that its less than 25%, but the effectiveness of the Wizard is not in question.

If you compare when they impose a condition or penalty on a target and when that target doesn't have the condition or penalty then the Wizard gains that as DPR or effectiveness. So if the Wizard casts haste on the Fighter those extra attacks don't benefit the Fighter's DPR, only the Wizards because the Fighter wouldn't otherwise have the extra attacks.

What you end up with is the casters far outstripping non-casters. Heck if you do a straight DPR comparison the Wizard is almost flat even with the Fighter given the 4 encounter per day assumptions in the last public packet.

Increasing your AC potential to 18 is not a 'waste' of a feat. It puts you on equal defense with the class with the most defense for the cost of a single feat.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 15, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> What you end up with is the casters far outstripping non-casters. Heck if you do a straight DPR comparison the Wizard is almost flat even with the Fighter given the 4 encounter per day assumptions in the last public packet.




Wait...so far our encounters have been taking around 3-4 rounds of combat a piece.  Let's assume this 4 encounter per day at 3 rounds per combat for a total of 12 rounds of combat a day.  I'd like to see the math on a Wizard outstripping a Fighter at level 5 given those assumptions.

The fighter must have a 20 strength and be using a Greatsword and take the Great Weapon Fighting Class feature.

In fact, the math is easy enough, I'll just do it.  The Fighter has +7 to hit.  Most enemies have a 13 AC or so at this level.  So they hit 75% of the time.  Their average damage is 12.  They get to action surge after every short rest, let's assume they take one between each of the 4 encounters.  So that means in the 12 rounds of combat they make 32 attacks.  24 of those attacks hit.  10% of them are crits because of the class feature.  The crits do 20.5.  22 normal attacks x 12 = 264.  2 Crits x 20.5 = 41.  8 rounds of misses = 40 damage.  For a total of 345 damage.

The 5th level Wizard has 9 Spell slots.  Let's assume the 3rd level spells are 6d6 save for half.  The 2nd level spells are Scorching Rays and the 1st level spells are Magic Missiles.

2 x 6d6(average 21) = 41 damage.  Let's assume a monster with +0 to Dex.  The DC for a 20 Int Wizard is 15.  They save 30% of the time.  So 12.3 of that damage in halved.  So 6.15 gets taken off.  Let's round down to 6 to make this easier.  So 35 damage.

3 x 6d6(average 21) damage from Scorching Rays.  They have +7 to hit so they hit 75% of the time.  13.5 rays hit for 94.5 damage.

4 x 3d4+3(average 10.5) damage from magic missiles. That's 42 damage.

3 rounds of using cantrips.  Let's assume Ray of Frost.  9 damage a piece with only a 75% chance to hit. 20.25 damage.

Thus, during the same 12 rounds a Wizard does 35 + 94.5 + 42 + 20.25 = 191.75

*TL;DR:*
Assuming 4 encounters at 3 rounds per encounter:
5th level Fighter: 345 Damage per day
5th level Wizard: 191.75 Damage per day

Each encounter after 4 in a day just continues favoring the Fighter more and more.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 15, 2014)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> The 5th level Wizard has 9 Spell slots.  Let's assume the 3rd level spells are 6d6 save for half.  The 2nd level spells are Scorching Rays and the 1st level spells are Magic Missiles.
> 
> 2 x 6d6(average 21) = 41 damage.  Let's assume a monster with +0 to Dex.  The DC for a 20 Int Wizard is 15.  They save 30% of the time.  So 12.3 of that damage in halved.  So 6.15 gets taken off.  Let's round down to 6 to make this easier.  So 35 damage.
> 
> ...



did none of your 6d6 spells hit multi targets?


----------



## Nagol (Feb 15, 2014)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Wait...so far our encounters have been taking around 3-4 rounds of combat a piece.  Let's assume this 4 encounter per day at 3 rounds per combat for a total of 12 rounds of combat a day.  I'd like to see the math on a Wizard outstripping a Fighter at level 5 given those assumptions.
> 
> The fighter must have a 20 strength and be using a Greatsword and take the Great Weapon Fighting Class feature.
> 
> ...




One potential oversight I see is the 3rd level spells aren't hitting multiple targets (it is area effect?).  If we assume the wizard can catch 3 targets on average then the wizard expectation jumps up 70.

Another issue is any damage past the dropping point is wasted.  Effects that cause high damage have an effective cap on effectiveness based on the capacity to absorb damage.  That harder to model.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 15, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> Wait so a Dwarf Wizard that has an AC of 18 and can use spells to grant people attacking them disadvantage and then proceed to out damage any other class is ok? Its not even 'optimizing' its grabbing a race and 1 feat. Something that can happen randomly 25% of the time. Bounded accuracy means every +1 you gain to something is just that more broken. At least in 3E and 4E a +1 wasn't game changing. I'm sorry, but system mastery is amplified in 5E, not minimized.




I somewhat agree (based upon only the rules as I know them in the public playtest.) 



Lokiare said:


> From the last public packet it works almost the same. The only difference is the save DC is lower, but still very high for creatures with no Dex bonus cast at level 1:
> 
> 
> ```
> ...





Well, that helps me not feel so crazy when I have the experiences I do.  

I do not think the concept of "bounded accuracy" (at least how I thought they meant the term in the beginning) is a problem.  As said in other threads, I play games which don't have levels at all, so the concept of extremely flat game math is something I feel I understand.  Though, I have in very early threads (back when 5E was first getting started) questioned how "bounded accuracy" would mix with D&D style levels.  I still think it's possible for flatter math to work, but...  basically, I'm trying to say that I feel the implementation of the idea is more of a problem than the idea itself.  As said above, this belief is supported only by what I know from the public playtest though, so perhaps the finished product will have a better grasp of how it all fits together.  Though, I'd also say that part of my opinion is based on the L&L articles and various other discussions about the intended direction of the game; as well, the collective responses to the polls seem to indicate that the community wants a certain direction.  (Getting into whether I feel the poll options were bias or weighted by carefully chosen language to gain a specific result is a different matter.)  With (what I feel would be) better implementation of some of the ideas like Bounded Accuracy (and being a modular game, and a few other things) I feel 5th edition would very much become a game I want to invest in.  The way things are now is that I'll play the game if presented with it, but feel no motivation to spend money on it.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 15, 2014)

You guys do realize that a DC 15 is impossible to reach at 3rd level, right?

the DC for spells is 8 + spellcasting mod (which, at 3rd level, is capped out at +3, since the highest buyable stat is 16, with a +1 race bonus, for a score of 17) + a proficiency modifier of 2.  So, uh, yeah.  That should be a DC of 13 on Web.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Feb 15, 2014)

Cybit said:


> ...the DC for spells is 8 + spellcasting mod (which, at 3rd level, is capped out at +3, since the highest buyable stat is 16, with a +1 race bonus, for a score of 17) + a proficiency modifier of 2.  So, uh, yeah.  That should be a DC of 13 on Web.



in the _*public*_ playtest docs the DC is 10+spellcasting mod. . .


----------



## Cybit (Feb 15, 2014)

Thyrwyn said:


> in the _*public*_ playtest docs the DC is 10+spellcasting mod. . .




Nope - on the 101413 Classes file, page 6 under Bard, saving throw DC is 8 + mod + prof bonus (with instrument in case of Bard).


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 15, 2014)

Cybit said:


> You guys do realize that a DC 15 is impossible to reach at 3rd level, right?
> 
> the DC for spells is 8 + spellcasting mod (which, at 3rd level, is capped out at +3, since the highest buyable stat is 16, with a +1 race bonus, for a score of 17) + a proficiency modifier of 2.  So, uh, yeah.  That should be a DC of 13 on Web.





The highest rollable stat is not 16.  

Even if we assume it is only possible to buy a 16, level 4 allows a stat bump.  16+1 racial+2 from level is 19.  ...which is only one less than is possible to get from rolling and capping out early at 20.

edit: I was level 3 at the time, but I mentioned level 4 because the gap between 3 and 4 is not significant.  

The old version of web that I used from the previous packet, and what I was talking about when I gave my example states "each creature that starts its turn within the webs or that enters the webs makes a Dexterity saving throw.  The are of the webs is large enough that I covered the entire area of the lighthouse at the end of _Murder At Balder's Gate; _I used the war wizardy or whatever the ability was called that allowed me to pick a certain number of squares to not cover -choosing squares where my allies were.  Even on a success, the enemy needed to 'enter the webs' when moving into a new space, and thus needed to make saves.  Even if they somehow then also made that, they were still in the webs at the beginning of their next turn and needed to start the process over again.  Even at a mere 13 (as illustrated in your post,) that's less than a 50% chance to succeed; the possibility of success (I believe) gets worse as more rolls are required.  

Meanwhile, I was free to use ranged attack spells to kill them.  I should also mention that I was using a pregen.  Had I actually chosen spells myself, it likely would have been worse for the enemy.  I'm not what I would consider a power gamer, but I'd say I'm pretty good at figuring out ways to use spells which aren't direct damage.  Control and/or using spells which aren't often used is my preferred style of caster.  To give a brief anecdote to illustrate what I mean, and how I feel my way of thinking when it comes to spells is different than a straight blaster, in the 3.5 game where I'm currently a player, I recently attempted to use Tree Shape, bluff, and the ability of my raven familiar to speak to defeat an encounter.  (It only didn't work because I phrased something poorly and tipped off to one of the targets that I was obviously lying.) 

I plan to test how things work now with the newer rules in the upcoming season.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 15, 2014)

Ahh yes, Rolled Stats could get you an 18, but the odds of that are very rare, and not something you can count on.  

Note: There is no race in the public playtest (101413 file) that gives a +2 to a casting stat.  The only +2 is STR from a half-orc. So there is no race with a +2.    

I'll go with point buy since a rolled 18 is low (sub 10%) chance on 4d6 choose 3.  With that, at level 4, if you get your stat bump to your casting stat and pass up on feats, you could have an 18. So, per level....based on the 101413 file, and that the caster has the proper implement (and is getting prof bonus)


      Level       Prof Bonus     Casting          Stat          Mod         DC1117312211731232173134219414521941462194147319415832051693205161032051611420517124205171342051714420517155205181652051817520518185205181962051920620519

Assuming the rare scenario of a naturally rolled 18 (or 17, depending on their ability score selection)


     Level       Prof Bonus      Casting           Stat          Mod         DC1119413211941332194144220515522051562205157320516832051693205161032051611420517124205171342051714420517155205181652051817520518185205181962051920620519


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 15, 2014)

Which even at a 13 still supports what I was saying above.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 15, 2014)

Johnny3D3D said:


> Which even at a 13 still supports what I was saying above.




Not quite...

at DC 13, the breakdown is more (assuming a +0 DEX mod, which, is really generous in terms of the targets) as well as a +0 STR mod.  In all honesty, that means the creature's probably a caster, and doesn't really give a crap about web (as spells are often unaffected by restrained).   But, assuming no caster in the situation.  

40% chance on 1st round
64% chance on 2nd round (would need to attempt a STR check here)
78% chance on 3rd round.

Mind you, this assumes there is a "single" target, with +0 Dex mod, and no ability to attacked with a ranged weapon.  Also, the spell requires concentration, which has certain limitations.    

So in a combat where there is a group of players versus a single level equivalent monster, who has no dex modifier (or str modifier, as they can also try to just break out w/ a Strength check), and no ranged attack capability, or alternate means of movement, a 2nd level spell can indeed be a problem.  Add in multiple monsters, the odds of all of them getting hit drop, and a single creature with a torch or fire damage capability makes the spell useless.  

Alternatively, I can just mention that the updated rules (not sure how far along they will update the rules) in the next season may put ease to your concerns.  

For those worried about the spell balance, I would humbly suggest waiting till the next revision of the rules come out.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Feb 15, 2014)

Johnny3D3D said:


> "each creature that starts its turn within the webs or that enters the webs makes a Dexterity saving throw.  The are of the webs is large enough that I covered the entire area of the lighthouse at the end of _Murder At Balder's Gate; _I used the war wizardy or whatever the ability was called that allowed me to pick a certain number of squares to not cover -choosing squares where my allies were.  Even on a success, the enemy needed to 'enter the webs' when moving into a new space, and thus needed to make saves.  Even if they somehow then also made that, they were still in the webs at the beginning of their next turn and needed to start the process over again.



I think there were some problems with DM interpretation there. First of all, that Mage feature only applies to evocation spells, and Web is a conjuration. Also, I think the intention on Web is that a creature only needs to save once per round--I don't think it counts as "entering the webs" when you move within the webs.

That said, I agree that Web is a totally broken encounter-ender and needs to be fixed.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 15, 2014)

Out of curiosity, I got up and went through my pack to see if I could find the old character.  Now that I have it in front of me, I can more accurately put some numbers to the scenario.  My save DCs with the pregen started at 11/12 (depending on if I had a focus.)  So, Cybit is right in saying the DCs were 13; after leveling up the prefen, my numbers were 12/13.

The actual word for word description of Web is essentially what I said above.

I did make a mistake with Web not benefiting from the evocation ability.  However, I do not feel that would have significantly altered things.  Most of my allies were focused on ranged attacks with a high dex and no reason to move through the webs anyway.

As for whether the DM interpreted the spell wrong?  Possibly, but his interpretation (which even I as the player of the wizard felt was far too good) doesn't seem to contradict how the spell's effect is expressed.  Perhaps the wording of the spell could be made clearer if that is not the intent.  

As I sit here now, this is the first time I've actually read the Murder In Balder's Gate adventure, so I'm taking educated guesses at what the creatures faced in the final battle were.  We were fighting in a lighthouse; there was a person empowered by an evil god (Bale maybe?) and some soldiers under his command.  Between the thug, tough thug, watch soldier, and watch sergeant, the best Dex bonus is a +1; +0 is common.  The best Str bonus is +2, which is better, but using that option of getting out of web requires taking an action, and then still again being on the webs at the start of your next turn and getting stuck again.  I don't remember who the person in charge of the enemies was, but I'm going to say it was likely one of the people with the higher Dex bonus, so, in that case, I can only assume the DM was rolling poorly.  The DM is usually at the opposite end of the table from where I sit, so I cannot always clearly see what he's rolling.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 15, 2014)

Johnny3D3D said:


> Out of curiosity, I got up and went through my pack to see if I could find the old character.  Now that I have it in front of me, I can more accurately put some numbers to the scenario.  My save DCs with the pregen started at 11/12 (depending on if I had a focus.)  So, Cybit is right in saying the DCs were 13; after leveling up the prefen, my numbers were 12/13.
> 
> The actual word for word description of Web is essentially what I said above.
> 
> ...





Ahhhh MiBG, ok, that makes sense then.  

Yeah - check out the latest season and I think you'll see some pretty good changes with regards to spells in that sense.  Assuming they've updated the rules at least somewhat.  

As for Web, I'll pass along the idea that someone only needs to make a save against Web once in order to move through the webs from inside the webs.  I can see someone outside entering the webs as requiring a save, but once you've made the save inside the web, it makes sense you don't have to make up to two saves / turn to move through the web.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 16, 2014)

Cybit said:


> You guys do realize that a DC 15 is impossible to reach at 3rd level, right?
> 
> the DC for spells is 8 + spellcasting mod (which, at 3rd level, is capped out at +3, since the highest buyable stat is 16, with a +1 race bonus, for a score of 17) + a proficiency modifier of 2.  So, uh, yeah.  That should be a DC of 13 on Web.



You can also roll for your stats.  Stat buy is only one option.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 16, 2014)

GMforPowergamers said:


> did none of your 6d6 spells hit multi targets?






Nagol said:


> One potential oversight I see is the 3rd level spells aren't hitting multiple targets (it is area effect?).  If we assume the wizard can catch 3 targets on average then the wizard expectation jumps up 70.



Honestly, I don't care how much extra damage gets done to multiple targets.  Yes, the Wizard is often better at fighting multiple targets...However, that's kind of their thing.

It should be noted, however, that even if you add 3 more targets to the area of effect of both Fireballs/Lightning Bolts that that adds 105 more damage making the totals:
Fighter: 345
Wizard: 296.75



Nagol said:


> Another issue is any damage past the dropping point is wasted.  Effects that cause high damage have an effective cap on effectiveness based on the capacity to absorb damage.  That harder to model.



Yeah, but it's one that both the Wizard and Fighter need to worry about.  A Fireball can easily have most of its damage wasted if everyone in the area of effect has 1 hitpoint as well.  I'd say that it's kind of a wash between the two.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 16, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> From the last public packet it works almost the same. The only difference is the save DC is lower, but still very high for creatures with no Dex bonus cast at level 1:




Or Strength bonus, which they can also use to escape.  Most creatures have either a Dex or a Str bonus.



> Since bounded accuracy means creatures ability scores don't go up with level, this means its entirely likely to shut down an encounter with a level 2 spell slot for 4-6 rounds at 15th level.




A simple torch, candle, lantern, or flint and steel is all you need to escape.  Sure, if you start your turn that way you take some minor damage, but it's not a significant amount and pretty meaningless after the low levels.

The spell also has three restrictions: 1) requires two things to attach to so the web can hang between them, 2) creatures in the web are lightly obscured (some can hide in lightly obscured terrain, causing disadvantage on attacks), and 3) you cannot use any fire-spells or other fire-causing items against them unless you're willing to let them escape.  

It's really not as powerful as it seems in the book, once it hits actual gameplay.  It's a fine spell, but nothing overpowered about it. So many ways to defeat or override it: ranged weapons, hiding in lightly obscured terrain, fire, strength, dexterity, or removing an object it's attached to.  In practice, it's typically only a minor delaying spell.


----------



## Sage Genesis (Feb 16, 2014)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> In fact, the math is easy enough, I'll just do it.  The Fighter has +7 to hit.  Most enemies have a 13 AC or so at this level.  So they hit 75% of the time.  Their average damage is 12.  They get to action surge after every short rest, let's assume they take one between each of the 4 encounters.  So that means in the 12 rounds of combat they make 32 attacks.  24 of those attacks hit.  10% of them are crits because of the class feature.  The crits do 20.5.  22 normal attacks x 12 = 264.  2 Crits x 20.5 = 41.  8 rounds of misses = 40 damage.  For a total of 345 damage.
> 
> The 5th level Wizard has 9 Spell slots.  Let's assume the 3rd level spells are 6d6 save for half.  The 2nd level spells are Scorching Rays and the 1st level spells are Magic Missiles.
> 
> ...




I have some real problems with this analysis.

First, a short rest as a full hour. I find it implausible that three times per day a party could find a suitable spot to rest for so long. Giving the Fighter action surge during each encounter is an unlikely scenario.

Second, the Mage has arcane recovery. If you're going to give the Fighter action surge, then you also need to give the Mage extra spell slots totaling up to three spell levels.

Third, I'd like to know how 13.5 rays will hit considering only 12 are fired off in the first place. 
(I think you looked at the 3 x 6d6 and somehow thought 3x6 means 18 rays are fired?)

Fourth, if the Mage has some more favorable AoE he will do way more damage. Magic Missile's damage pales in comparison to what Burning Hands can do. (MM will hit for 10.5 average, BH can hit for 53.55 on average if it catches the maximum amount of medium-sized targets.) And with up to seven of those thanks to arcane recovery, he could exceed the Fighter's damage using nothing but his first level slots.


I'm not really out to prove either the Fighter or the Mage to be superior, but as far as analysis goes this just doesn't help much. Either one's use will depend massively on the details of the scenario so it's rather a case-by-case basis.


Edit:
Oh and Scorching Rays can critical hit too. You didn't take that into account although you did for the Fighter.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Feb 16, 2014)

Cybit said:


> Nope - on the 101413 Classes file, page 6 under Bard, saving throw DC is 8 + mod + prof bonus (with instrument in case of Bard).



My bad, I was remembering the number from the "How to Play" doc from Scourge of the Sword Coast which still says 10+.  The Classes doc does list 8+


----------



## Cybit (Feb 16, 2014)

Thyrwyn said:


> My bad, I was remembering the number from the "How to Play" doc from Scourge of the Sword Coast which still says 10+.  The Classes doc does list 8+




Lol yeah I saw that too. 

I would just reiterate that folks keep an open mind about the game and just read the rules when they come out. That's what I'll end up doing.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 16, 2014)

Sage Genesis said:


> Second, the Mage has arcane recovery. If you're going to give the Fighter action surge, then you also need to give the Mage extra spell slots totaling up to three spell levels.




It's once per day, not every short rest.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 16, 2014)

Sage Genesis said:


> First, a short rest as a full hour. I find it implausible that three times per day a party could find a suitable spot to rest for so long. Giving the Fighter action surge during each encounter is an unlikely scenario.



In wilderness random encounters, it's pretty much guaranteed.  We've also done it in between most encounters at this point.  But, I agree, it won't always happen.



Sage Genesis said:


> Second, the Mage has arcane recovery. If you're going to give the Fighter action surge, then you also need to give the Mage extra spell slots totaling up to three spell levels.
> 
> Third, I'd like to know how 13.5 rays will hit considering only 12 are fired off in the first place.
> (I think you looked at the 3 x 6d6 and somehow thought 3x6 means 18 rays are fired?)



Yeah, some mistakes were made...but I believe it still only lowers the Wizard's damage.



Sage Genesis said:


> Fourth, if the Mage has some more favorable AoE he will do way more damage. Magic Missile's damage pales in comparison to what Burning Hands can do. (MM will hit for 10.5 average, BH can hit for 53.55 on average if it catches the maximum amount of medium-sized targets.) And with up to seven of those thanks to arcane recovery, he could exceed the Fighter's damage using nothing but his first level slots.



That's correct, but as I say up above.  I don't really have an interest in figuring out whether a Wizard who constantly hits lots and lots of enemies will do more damage.  Of course he will, and he SHOULD.  I chose Magic Missile because it does more damage against just one monster.



Sage Genesis said:


> I'm not really out to prove either the Fighter or the Mage to be superior, but as far as analysis goes this just doesn't help much. Either one's use will depend massively on the details of the scenario so it's rather a case-by-case basis.



I agree.  I think that most of the time the Fighter will end up doing more damage because a Wizard ends up saving a bunch of spells just in case a really nasty monster comes by and doesn't need most of their spells.  They also likely use up spell slots of things that aren't combat.  But they will dominate battles with lots of enemies that are close together.

I was originally responding to someone who said they couldn't play D&D Next because of how obviously imbalanced the Wizard was compared to a Fighter that it was able to do SO much more damage than a fighter that it wasn't even a contest.  I was just doing the math to show that not only is it a contest but that in fairly average circumstances the Fighter does MORE damage not less.


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 16, 2014)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Wait...so far our encounters have been taking around 3-4 rounds of combat a piece. Let's assume this 4 encounter per day at 3 rounds per combat for a total of 12 rounds of combat a day. I'd like to see the math on a Wizard outstripping a Fighter at level 5 given those assumptions.
> 
> The fighter must have a 20 strength and be using a Greatsword and take the Great Weapon Fighting Class feature.
> 
> ...




Did I miss a packet after the 8/02/13 packet? I'm not seeing anything listed in the Fighter section for a Great Weapon feature.

Let's go over this line by line so everyone can understand where we are getting our numbers:

Our assumptions:

Both

    3 Rounds per encounter
    4 Encounters
    Total rounds = 12
    Average AC 12.86_ (I went through all the level 5 monsters in the bestiary) so we'll say 13
    Average save bonuses (rounded in favor of the Fighter) Str: +3, Dex: +2, Con: +2, Int: -1, Wis: +1, Cha: +0

Fighter

    Level 5
    Great Sword (2d6, slashing)
    Action Surge 2x a day (being generous, its unlikely in play they would get it more than 1x day)
    Warrior sub-class for the 19-20 crit range.
    2 attacks per action (4x when using Action Surge).
    Strength 20 (+5)
    Attack bonus +8 (Str mod + fighter bonus)
    Damage 2d6+5

Wizard

    Level 5
    Only use half of their daily spells for combat. 1st(2), 2nd(2), 3rd(1)
    Spell DC 17
    Intelligence 20 (+5)
    Attack bonus +7 (Magic bonus + Int mod)
    Evocation sub-class (Potent Cantrip - Half Damage on a miss or save)


Fighter Math:
Hit %: (((invert - (AC - bonus)) + equal to or greater on dice) * percent of each point on dice) - crit chance
Hit %: (((20 - (13 - 8)) + 1) * .05) - .1 = .7 = 70%

Crit %: Percent of each point on dice * number of points in crit range
Crit %: .05 * 2 = .1

Damage based on hit and crit chance:
Hit ((1d6*2)+str mod) * hit chance
Hit ((3.5*2)+5)*.7 = 8.4;

Crit (((2d6*2)+1d6) + str mod * crit chance
Crit ((((12*2)+3.5)+5) * .1 = 3.25

Total 8.4 + 3.25 = 11.65 per attack.

Number of attacks per round day:
(attacks per round * rounds in a day) + extra attacks from action surge
(2 * 12) + 4 = 28

Total Damage per day: 28 * 11.65 = 326.2

Wizard Math:

Dex vs. Spell DC
Hit %: (((DC - Dex mod) - equal to or greater on dice) * percent of each point on dice)
Hit %: (((17 - 2)) - 1) * .05) = .7 = 70%

Miss %: 100% - 70% = 30%



Con vs. Spell DC
Hit %: (((DC - Con mod) - equal to or greater on dice) * percent of each point on dice)
Hit %: (((17 - 2)) - 1) * .05) = .7 = 70%

Miss %: 100% - 70% = 30%



Wis vs. Spell DC
Hit %: (((DC - Con mod) - equal to or greater on dice) * percent of each point on dice)
Hit %: (((17 - 1)) - 1) * .05) = .75 = 75%

Miss %: 100% - 75% = 25%

Str vs. Spell DC
Hit %: (((DC - Con mod) - equal to or greater on dice) * percent of each point on dice)
Hit %: (((17 - 3)) - 1) * .05) = .65 = 65%

Miss %: 100% - 65% = 35%

Vs. AC Magic bonus + Int mod:
Hit %: (((invert - (AC - bonus)) + equal to or greater on dice) * percent of each point on dice) - crit chance
Hit %: (((20 - (13 - 7)) + 1) * .05) - .05 = .7 = 70%

Crit %: Percent of each point on dice * number of points in crit range
Crit %: .05 * 1 = .05 = 5%

Miss %: 100% - (hit chance + crit chance)
Miss %: 1 - (.7 + .05) = .25


Cantrips

Chill Touch / Ray of Frost
Hit: (1d8 * 2) * hit chance
Hit: (4.5*2) * .7 = 6.3

Crit: ((1d8 * 2) + 1d8) * crit chance
Crit: ((8*2)+4.5) * .05 = 1.025

Miss: ((1d8 * 2) / 2) * miss chance
Miss: ((4.5 * 2) / 2) * .25 = 1.125

Total: 6.3 + 1.025 + 1.125 = 8.45

Shocking Grasp
Hit: (1d8 * 2) * hit chance
Hit: (4.5*2) * .7 = 6.3

Miss: ((1d8*2)/2) * miss chance
Miss: ((4.5*2)/2) * .25 = 1.125

Total: 6.3 + 1.125 = 7.425

So our best bet for Cantrips is Chill Touch / Ray of Frost for 8.45 DPR

Now for the dailies:
1st level

Magic Missile
Hit: (3d4+3) * hit chance
Hit: ((2.5 * 3)+3) * 1 = 10.5

Thunder Wave
Hit: (1d8*2) * hit chance
Hit: (4.5*2) * .7 = 6.3

Miss: ((1d8*2)/2) * miss chance
Miss: ((4.5*2)/2) * .25 = 1.125

Total: 6.3 + 1.125 = 7.425

Burning Hands
Hit: (3d6) * hit chance
Hit: ((3.5*3) * .7 = 7.35

Miss: ((3d6)/2) * miss chance
Miss: ((3.5*3)/2) * .3 = 1.575

Total: 7.35 + 1.575 = 8.925

So Burning Hands is our winner at 8.925 damage per cast and we can cast it 2x for 17.85.

2nd Level

Melf's Acid Arrow
Hit: (6d6) * hit chance
Hit: (3.5*6) * .7 = 14.7

Crit: ((6d6) + 1d6) * crit chance
Crit: ((6*6)+3.5) * .05 = 1.975

Miss: (3d6) * miss chance
Miss: (3.5 * 3) * .25 = 2.625

Total: 14.7 + 1.975 + 2.625 = 19.3

Scorching Ray
Hit: (2d6) * hit chance
Hit: (3.5*2) * .7 = 4.9

Crit: ((2d6) + 1d6) * crit chance
Crit: ((6*2)+3.5) * .05 = 0.775

Total: (4.9 + 0.775) * 3 = 17.025

So looks like 2 Melf's Acid Arrows for 38.6 damage per day. So far our total is 56.45

3rd Level

Schorching Ray (used from a 3rd level slot)
Hit: (2d6) * hit chance
Hit: (3.5*2) * .7 = 4.9

Crit: ((2d6) + 1d6) * crit chance
Crit: ((6*2)+3.5) * .05 = 0.775

Total: (4.9 + 0.775) * 4 = 22.7

Hasted Cantrips for 3 rounds
8.45 * 3 = 25.35

Flaming Sphere (used from a 3rd level slot)
Hit: (3d6) * hit chance
Hit: ((3.5*3) * .7 = 7.35

Miss: ((3d6)/2) * miss chance
Miss: ((3.5*3)/2) * .3 = 1.575

Total: 7.35 + 1.575 = 8.925 * 3 rounds = 26.775

Now to total all the spells of the day:

2x Burning Hands (17.85), 2x Melf's Acid Arrow (38.6), 1x Flaming Sphere (3rd level slot for 3 rounds) (26.775), Ray of Frost x 5 (42.25) = 125.475

Fighter = 326.2
Wizard = 125.475

Not that impressive huh? Well, now instead of trying to deal direct damage, lets take a look at what happens when the Wizard takes out creatures using non-damaging spells:

The average hp at level 5 for monsters in the bestiary is 44. So theh base damage of a save or die spell is 44 multiplied by its hit rate.

The extra attack granted by Haste to the Fighter counts as DPR for the Wizard, because without the Wizard there to cast it, the Fighter wouldn't be able to do it.

1st level

Charm Person
(when used to convince a combatant to leave the battle)
Hit: (44) * hit chance
Hit: 44 * .75 = 33

Now we know that not all creatures will be humanoid, however in a given day its pretty likely you will run across at least 2 humanoids that you come into conflict with so x2 = 66

2nd level

Hold Person
(Assuming they will be dead in 3 rounds, since combats only last 3 rounds, we will do the math for 3 rounds of hold person)

Hit: 44 * ((hit chance)^rounds)
Hit: 44 * ((.75)^3) = 18.5625

Web
(Which makes it trivial to kill something, advantage on attacks and the target gets disadvantage on their attacks if they even have a ranged attack, unless they have some kind of fire which is rare, we will do the math for 1 Dex save and then 2 Str checks vs. Spell DC)

Hit: 44 * (((Dex hit chance)^rounds) * ((Str hit chance)^rounds))
Hit: 44 * (((.70)^1) * ((.65)^2)) = 13.013

Suggestion
("It would probably be best if get as far away from here as you can, its dangerous")

Hit: 44 * hit chance
Hit: 44 * .75 = 33

x2 = 66

3rd level

Haste
(used on the Fighter and the Fighters extra attacks damage counted toward the Mage)
Fighter attack damage * rounds in a combat
11.65 * 3 = 34.95

Charm Person x2 (66), Suggestion x2 (66), Haste (on Fighter) 34.95, and Ray of Frost x7 (59.15) for a total of 226.1

Fighter = 326.2
Wizard = 226.1

Notice how close those are. The Wizard does about 70% of the damage of the Fighter over the course of a 3 round per encounter 4 encounter per day. Now that's when they give up half their spells. They can easily outdo the Fighter if they go all combat spells:

Charm Person x4 (132), Suggestion x3 (99), Haste (on fighter) x2 69.7 and Ray of Frost x7 (59.15) for a total of 359.85

Fighter = 326.2
Wizard = 359.85

So in this case the Fighter actually does about 90% of the damage of the Wizard. Since the Fighter has little or no out of combat utility (minus standing watch, which the Wizard can do with a ritual casting of alarm) this comparison is valid.

This gap only widens as the characters gain levels and the Wizard goes up in quadratic power. On top of this the Wizard has the ability to hit multiple targets with Suggestion and other save or die/suck spells. Which means the Wizard comes out ahead easily except in rare corner cases when the DM doesn't follow the guidelines in the DM document.

Edit: Note I didn't use Arcane Recovery which would push the number up much higher.

Edit 2: Also note that I'm using the "080213 DnD Next Playtest Packet". I don't have access to the newer one, if someone would be so kind to PM me a way to get it, I would love to do an analysis on it too.


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 16, 2014)

Cybit said:


> You guys do realize that a DC 15 is impossible to reach at 3rd level, right?
> 
> the DC for spells is 8 + spellcasting mod (which, at 3rd level, is capped out at +3, since the highest buyable stat is 16, with a +1 race bonus, for a score of 17) + a proficiency modifier of 2.  So, uh, yeah.  That should be a DC of 13 on Web.




Read it again. If they wield an implement they can add their spell casting bonus and spell casting stat for an easy 16-17 by level 5.


----------



## Sage Genesis (Feb 16, 2014)

Mistwell said:


> It's once per day, not every short rest.




I know. Which is why I said you had to account for 3 extra spell slots instead of 9.




Lokiare said:


> Did I miss a packet after the 8/02/13 packet? I'm not seeing anything listed in the Fighter section for a Great Weapon feature.




 You missed both the 9/19/13 packet and the 10/14/13 one (which was a relatively small update of the previous one). And looking back, the 8/02/13 packet is really rather out of date. Pretty much every class was completely overhauled.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 16, 2014)

Just as a question since hold and charm person factor pretty heavily here. How many 44 hp humanoids are there?


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 16, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Just as a question since hold and charm person factor pretty heavily here. How many 44 hp humanoids are there?




5th level:
Cultist of Asmodeus is 40
Orc Leader 32

Any level:
Bugbear 22
Bullywug 11
Dark Acolyte 6
Dark Adept 11
Dark Priest 22
Succubus (in human form) 40
Doppleganger (in humanoid form) 18
Drow 27
Gnoll 13
Gnoll Leader (packlord) 27
Goblin 3
Goblin Leader 18
Green Hag 36
Hobgoblin 11
Hobgoblin Leader 27
Human Berserker 13
Human Commoner 4
Human War Chief 22
Human Warrior 11
Human Witch Doctor 22
Kobold 2
Kobold Alchemist 7
Kobold Dragonshield 7
Kobold Winged 3
Lizard Folk 11
Lizard Folk Leader 45
Lycanthrope 22
Orc 11
Orc Leader 32
Orog 19
Phanaton 3
Phanaton Warrior 10
Rakasta 5
Rakasta Tiger Rider 11
Troglodyte 13

So the average might be lower. I'll leave it to you to do the math, since I have to redo most of it anyway for the newest packet.

Of course this only affects the 1st level spell Charm Person, and not Suggestion which affects anything that can understand you.


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 16, 2014)

But wait there's more!

The average attack bonus of creatures of level 5 is +5.5

How high of AC can a Fighter achieve (as in miss chance)?

Somewhere around AC 19 maybe 20, which means the Fighter gets hit:

Hit %: (((invert - (AC - bonus)) + equal to or greater on dice) * percent of each point on dice) - crit chance
Hit %: (((20 - (20 - 5.5)) + 1) * .05) = 0.325 = 32.5%

Now let's look at a Wizard that doesn't want to get hit:

Mage Armor with Dex 16 is AC 16:

Hit %: (((invert - (AC - bonus)) + equal to or greater on dice) * percent of each point on dice) - crit chance
Hit %: (((20 - (16 - 5.5)) + 1) * .05) = 0.525 = 52.5%

But wait, there's more:

Mirror Image:

33% hit chance
52.5% * 33% = 17.325%

Oh look the Wizard has less of a chance of being hit than the fighter in full plate and a shield if they so choose.

But wait there's more:

How many rounds will it take the Fighter to take down a group of 5 level 5 enemies?

Using my numbers from the post above:

44 / (2 * 11.65) = 1.88 rounds (rounded to 2 because there are no partial rounds in D&D) 2.

2 rounds per combatant = 10 rounds.

How long does it take the Wizard?

Suggestion 75% hit chance so 3 of them go out in the first round, then Charm Person for the other two with the same chance. So we'll be generous to the Fighter and say only one is affected. That leaves one to be taken out by the hasted Fighters extra attack each round which means another 4 rounds. So it takes 7 rounds for the Wizard. We could probably shave that off if we went with straight damage spells because 70% of the Fighters damage to all 5 at a time is going to go really quickly. Doing the math it would be 6 rounds.

But wait there's more:

How about out of combat utility (hint, hint: Mage Hand, Alarm, Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Disguise Self, Feather Fall, Identify, Invisibility, Knock, Suggestion, Rope Trick (free short rest), Fly, Spider Climb, Water Breathing, etc...etc...  vs. A couple of decent ability scores)?

How about survivability (hint, hint: False Life, Blur, Mirror Image, Blink, Fly, etc...etc... vs. the Fighter not dropping at 0 a few times)?

I could go on and on and on, but I won't. I think I've made my point...

Edit: And before anyone tries to claim 'Schrodinger Wizard', guess what? 5E has that as a design concept. The Wizard can literally prepare their best spells both combat and out of combat and simply use the one they want as needed. So its entirely possible to grab the utility and combat spells and depending on what you encounter you could be the best exploration character, combat character, or social character that day.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 16, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> Did I miss a packet after the 8/02/13 packet?
> 
> Edit 2: Also note that I'm using the "080213 DnD Next Playtest Packet". I don't have access to the newer one, if someone would be so kind to PM me a way to get it, I would love to do an analysis on it too.





Oy, this explains a ton.  >_<

Loki, PM me an e-mail address, I'll hook you up with the latest public files. (101413)

Cybit


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 16, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> Did I miss a packet after the 8/02/13 packet?




Holy...have you been ranting based off the August 2 packet this whole time? Wow...that would explain some things.

Yes, you've missed a lot.


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 16, 2014)

Mistwell said:


> Holy...have you been ranting based off the August 2 packet this whole time? Wow...that would explain some things.
> 
> Yes, you've missed a lot.




Yeah I see that now.

So since Rituals are back to 'if you have them in your spell book' instead of 'if you have them prepared' that means I can use all slots on combat.

The Spell DC should be 15 at level 5 instead of 17.

Aura of Antipathy is overpowered - Combined with Mage Armor, it makes the Wizard better off than the plate wearing shield toting Fighter.

Flaming Sphere is no better than a Cantrip is at level 5 (but that's not new).

Overall the spell save DC is the only real thing I see that has changed. In my analysis. There are spells that can replicate nearly any classes features. It still has Schrodinger's Wizard in full swing too.

In other words the Wizard is still overpowered compared to the Fighter.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 16, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> Yeah I see that now.
> 
> So since Rituals are back to 'if you have them in your spell book' instead of 'if you have them prepared' that means I can use all slots on combat.
> 
> ...




Heh, I remember that stupid aura - aura of antipathy is something that I severely doubt will survive through the playtest process - they are aware of the math involved with the aura and how it is ridonkulous.  

Read through the spells, some of them have some subtle but powerful changes, and concentration is a PITA.  It's easy to miss those changes.  Also, read through what the other classes start to pick up at 5th level and beyond.  

Also, there's a good chance I missed some files; I almost sent you a different set of playtest files <whistles innocently> on accident.


----------



## Lokiare (Feb 16, 2014)

Cybit said:


> Heh, I remember that stupid aura - aura of antipathy is something that I severely doubt will survive through the playtest process - they are aware of the math involved with the aura and how it is ridonkulous.
> 
> Read through the spells, some of them have some subtle but powerful changes, and concentration is a PITA.  It's easy to miss those changes.  Also, read through what the other classes start to pick up at 5th level and beyond.
> 
> Also, there's a good chance I missed some files; I almost sent you a different set of playtest files <whistles innocently> on accident.




Well I would love to be in their closed play test, and show them the math that goes with everything, but apparently they can't stand a dissenting opinion for whatever reason.

Even if they were to get everything balanced right, they still missed one thing:

I want to play a game that has interesting equal choices on level up and during each round of each encounter. Something that only a few classes in 5E get. I don't mind if there is a simple sub-class for those that want it, but I want a class with lots of options and tactical choices.

I appreciate you sending me the public play test files though. Now I can do my math on them, but really there doesn't seem to be much difference in the most effective spells between the 2 packets. The biggest difference seems to be the spell casting DC and the increased proficiency bonus. So on the one side saves are easier to make, and on the other attack roll spells will hit more often.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 16, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> Well I would love to be in their closed play test, and show them the math that goes with everything, but apparently they can't stand a dissenting opinion for whatever reason.
> 
> Even if they were to get everything balanced right, they still missed one thing:
> 
> ...




Thankfully the rumor is that they brought on the Magic guys for math tuning - so I pretty confident that the math will get finely tuned near the end of the process (this is just what I've heard living around Seattle).  I also do know that in many cases, the options sent out in the playtest packet were to reaffirm the idea of removing something - that is, they didn't think something was a good idea, but they sent it out to make sure other people saw it was as crazy as they did.  While I can't comment on specifics, unfortunately for WotC, I know at least 2 playtesters they have that are Ph.D mathematicians, and at least 10 more who have advanced math & engineering degrees.   They most certainly hear about poor math decisions.  

I can't quite put my finger on whether all classes will get meaningful choices at every level.  But, I'm not exactly sure if that's what is best for an introductory RPG.    

So, I think part of the disconnect is that while there is a lot of talk at whether the game is aimed at 1/2E players, or 3E players, or 4E players..I don't think it's necessarily aimed at any of them.  One of the things I've heard bandied around at various RPG companies is this idea that there is a dearth of brand new younger players.  IE, 1E could be played at lunch time in an hour.  That's how a lot of people learned to play it as kids.  One of the problems with PF & 4E to some extent (IMO) is that they were systems that were aimed at people who already played RPGs.  IE, while you will have the market grow a little from folks bringing their kids into the system, Pathfinder / 3E and 4E are really complicated systems to folks who don't know what a d20 is.  Even the beginner box, which is a fantastic product, has a distinct jump between the box and the core game.  

I have a group of younger players who are 2nd generation D&D fans.  Their parents tried to teach them 2E / 3E, and it went terribly, and they ended up joining a 4E Encounters game.  When we switched over to the playtest for NEXT several months ago, one of the things that has stood out to me is that the ease of which they can pick up NEXT, and how much fun they have.  Everything makes "sense" to them, in both a mechanical and verisimilitude way, and the ease of which off-the-wall actions can be adjucated makes the game far more engaging for them.  Operation "Each of us grab one arm of the vampire, one of us kick it in the balls, one of us poke its eyes out, and the last of us cut off its hand and take its axe" is a full go in 5E (and was doable in 4E, albeit a little harder) and is easy to do.  On a quick aside; younger players are suuuuuuuuuuuuuper sociopathic in hilarious ways.  They genuinely don't know "better", so they come up with the craziest stuff and most sadistic ways to deal with bad guys.  Also, Lord of the Rings is their nerd cred argument at D&D.  

"I've seen all of the LotR movies"
 "I've seen all the extended editions"
 "I've read the books!" and etc...it's really sort of hilariously awesome.  

I think NEXT is really aimed at being a big tentpole game.  If PF and 13th Age and 4E are really good at taking a certain percentage of the pie, I think NEXT might be the edition that tries to grow the pie itself.  I think it does a really good job of it.  It's not going to be as process simulation as 3E, and it's not going to be as good of a balanced tactical war-game as 4E.  (Insert whatever you believe defines each edition, that is my intended point)  But, IMO, it does like 80-90% of both at the same time, and to me, as someone who grew up on 3E and actively GMs Pathfinder, but find 4E my favorite (published) edition of D&D by a landslide, that's a really good game for me.  I love the fact that my younger players all want me to come DM for them on their birthdays, and that they want to do 5-way 10th level Lord of the Flies (you can make alliances, but only one winner, and you can't share credit on kills, person who knocks you below 0 gets the credit) you die and respawn the next turn at full everything PvP (this is why I am fairly certain mages as they currently stand are not too scary at higher level) some birthdays and they want to fight a dracolich, a dragon, and a lich at the same time on other birthdays.  That's a game that can stand up next to video games and other forms of entertainment.  I think we need that.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 16, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> Well I would love to be in their closed play test, and show them the math that goes with everything, but apparently they can't stand a dissenting opinion for whatever reason.




LOL they are paying, as consultants, both RPG Pundit and the Gaming with Pornstars guy (Zach).  I assure you, they have a very high tolerance for dissenting opinions.  They sought them out this time.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 16, 2014)

Cybit said:


> Thankfully the rumor is that they brought on the Magic guys for math tuning - so I pretty confident that the math will get finely tuned near the end of the process (this is just what I've heard living around Seattle).




One of the well known MtG developers said on Twitter he was called in to help with the math tuning on D&D Next.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 16, 2014)

Mistwell said:


> One of the well known MtG developers said on Twitter he was called in to help with the math tuning on D&D Next.




Ahh, k, I knew I heard that somewhere.

Basically, as best as I can tell, the ways to be a playtester for all RPG companies (Paizo, WotC, White Wolf, pretty much every RPG company is guilty of this)

a) be known online as a blogger / writer for the system
b) live in the home city of the company and run games at local game stores (check)
c) know the developers personally through non work ways
d) the developers like you for some reason / famous fan (Vin Diesel, for instance)

One of the things I am a fan of is online playtests, because I sort of think in many cases, their closed playtesting groups are just basically friends, family, friends of friends, and contributors to earlier editions.  WotC & Paizo, to their credit, has been much better about looking outside of their normal branches for more opinions than in the past.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 16, 2014)

Cybit said:


> Ahhhh MiBG, ok, that makes sense then.
> 
> Yeah - check out the latest season and I think you'll see some pretty good changes with regards to spells in that sense.  Assuming they've updated the rules at least somewhat.
> 
> As for Web, I'll pass along the idea that someone only needs to make a save against Web once in order to move through the webs from inside the webs.  I can see someone outside entering the webs as requiring a save, but once you've made the save inside the web, it makes sense you don't have to make up to two saves / turn to move through the web.




Your idea makes sense, but then it's still also hard to tell what the intent is because -in previous editions- if I were to say walk through multiple squares containing a wall of fire, I would take damage each time (or so I believe.)

I do plan to try a mage in the newest season so that I can see the differences.  

I think, overall, there were a lot of different conversations going on here that kind of crossed over each other, but may not have been directly intended to be about each other.  I cannot presume to know what exactly other posters had in mind, but I would like to try to explain what my outlook was, and why I posted some of what I did.

First, while I do think web is a very good spell, I was not posting it to showcase that I felt it was broken per se.  I was posting to showcase that (in my opinion) a better measure of what a wizard can do is looking at many spells which do not directly damage the enemy.  I see a lot of direct number comparisons.  "Well the fighter can do ## damage versus the wizard doing ## damage."  I feel that is a very poor measurement of a caster's capabilities.  If I can warp reality, there's far more I can do than simply damage.

Second, while I wasn't exactly saying I felt web is broken, I did want to illustrate what a wizard can do because those spells were some of the most problematic spells in previous editions.  As said above, I feel that direct damage comparisons are a very poor measurement.  When wizards are said to be overpowered in 3.5, I don't believe most people focus on things like fireball or lightning bolt; instead, things like polymorph, evard's black tentacles, haste, and choking clouds of gas (forget the spell name for that one) are in the minds of those saying that the wizard is so good.

Thirdly, I do not necessarily have a problem with the effects that casters in D&D can produce.  The issue I have is that casters can (traditionally) create those effects without really much of anything in the way of drawbacks.  I think a lot of spells -even ones which I feel produce 'broken' effects- would be more manageable if costs or casting times were a little tougher.  Doing so would, in my opinion, make the game more balanced without needing to nerf every spell; I also believe that doing so would make the game mechanics line up with the fluff of the game far better.  Supposedly, magic is hard to learn and hard to control, but there is seemingly no difficulty in actually doing it when playing the actual game.  

In one of the other rpgs I play, there is a concept of Fatigue points which measure how tired fatigued a character is and the threshold they have for pushing themselves further (much in the same way HP measure life and death.)  With the default magic options, casters need to spend FP (Fatigue Points.)  Mechanically, this allows them to produce effects like you'd expect from a wizard, but acts as a limiting mechanism for how often they can warp reality in an encounter.  Some of the most powerful spells also require extra time to cast.  I'm not saying D&D should do this; I don't feel D&D should, but I am mentioning it so as to illustrate how other games handle magic.  For what it's worth, in the same rpg, FP can also be spent by characters to do things like exert more force to hit harder; run/hike for longer; etc., so non-casters can use them to push their limits as well; just in different ways.  Again,  I'm not saying D&D should do this; I don't feel D&D should, but  I am mentioning it so as to illustrate how other games handle magic; both in trying to make magic less of an "I win" button for every encounter, and in trying to make the actual mechanics of the game fit the fiction of the game.  

I understand that the finished product of 5th edition will very likely be different than the playtest rules.  However, that doesn't prevent me from having concerns about the game; in some ways, it makes me more concerned about the game.  I thought early 4E pre-release discussions would produce a game I would love; the finished product was vastly different than I expected.  In the case of 5th, I worry about the end product being vastly different than expected for two reasons: 1) 4E Deja Vu, 2) a lot of the things which appear to be design decisions and directions in the playtest and preview materials don't seem to mesh with the language being used to describe the game.  Though, on the other hand, I see how some of the polls are slanted via language chosen for answers (as well as how others answer those polls,) and I feel as though I'm pretty far outside of the target audience... which is surprising because the very early (like first and second packet) previews of the game seemed to share a lot of my views; as time has gone on, the design direction of 5th appears to be moving in a much different direction.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 16, 2014)

I have noticed in each successive public playtest, that the capabilities of casters have been dwindling.  Not necessarily nerfing the spells, but the amount of spells known, or the amount of spells they can cast, is smaller, or the DC drops.  I think that's an important trend to keep in mind.  

I don't think it's changed too much from the original philosophy; my only concern would be that many of the options we are looking for won't necessarily come out at release, but instead in later books.  5E's biggest issue is that they have to compete with a very large set of options for existing editions.  I don't think it is feasible really to expect them to be able to support all edition playstyles 100% off the bat; that's a lot of materials to support.  But I do hope they get a move on doing so sooner rather than later.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 16, 2014)

Lokiare said:


> Yeah I see that now.
> 
> So since Rituals are back to 'if you have them in your spell book' instead of 'if you have them prepared' that means I can use all slots on combat.
> 
> ...




Relevant to the conversation



*CK* ‏@A_real_geek  Feb 12
Any word whether Aura of Antipathy (Enchanter lvl 2 ability) will be nerfed/changed? Horribly broken as is. @mikemearls #dndnext


 Reply 
 Retweet 
 Favorite 
 More

Expand
​

​

*Mike Mearls* ‏@mikemearls  1h
@A_real_geek I think it has been revised - can't say for sure, but I know it had some issues.
 Hide conversation​


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 16, 2014)

Cybit said:


> I have noticed in each successive public playtest, that the capabilities of casters have been dwindling.  Not necessarily nerfing the spells, but the amount of spells known, or the amount of spells they can cast, is smaller, or the DC drops.  I think that's an important trend to keep in mind.
> 
> I don't think it's changed too much from the original philosophy; my only concern would be that many of the options we are looking for won't necessarily come out at release, but instead in later books.  5E's biggest issue is that they have to compete with a very large set of options for existing editions.  I don't think it is feasible really to expect them to be able to support all edition playstyles 100% off the bat; that's a lot of materials to support.  But I do hope they get a move on doing so sooner rather than later.




That is a little bit of a concern I have as well.  I like the idea of a modular game.  However, D&D 5th is taking a different approach to modular than I had expected.  With other modular (or 'toolkit') games I'm more accustomed to a robust base/core, and then modules which give more depth to particular areas of the core, but do not change how the game works.  5th seems to be taking the approach of a simple core that later adds modules which may or may not change how the game works to varying degrees.  That concerns me because I'm not sure if the modules/expansions/whatever they end up being called that I think I might want will work together without causing problems.  I also question at what point 5th will be capable of providing me with a game that I want to pay money (as in buy) to play.  Since I do tend to be what I feel is outside of the target audience, will anything that I want even be enough of a concern to warrant modules for the style of play I'd like?

I wouldn't say I feel exactly negative toward the game.  I feel negative toward certain aspects, but I'm not opposed to playing 5th.  If I was, I wouldn't continue to participate in Encounters or playtest sessions.  The problem for me is that I'm stuck in a sort of apathy.  Because I'm a gamer, I pay attention to what is going on with the D&D brand, and I care enough to put actual effort into developing an opinion (as opposed to blindly saying I hate something I've never played -as I've had the misfortune of reading/hear from many members of the rpg community,) but I'm not picking up on anything that makes me feel like I should open my wallet and buy the game as opposed to what some of my other options are right now.  I'm trying to look at the materials I have available and ask what the game can do for me, and I'm not getting a very clear answer; the times I do actually manage to get an answer, the answer ranges from "I think I kinda like that" to "what the hell is the reason for that design choice?"


----------



## zicar (Feb 17, 2014)

Cybit said:


> my only concern would be that many of the options we are looking for won't necessarily come out at release, but instead in later books.  .




*uncloak*

First, Cybit thanks for your contributions and insights. 
Second, the above has me concerned that we will only be getting a basic game upon release. It might be a good or even great basic game, but I believe that I was led to believe we would be getting a core + modules. If this is not the case then shame on me for making false assumptions, but it just feels like a bait and switch, moving the goalpost, etc. 

I suppose that technically they never actually said that the modules would be released along with the core. Hmmm.

Third, I am apparenlty under the mistaken belief that the game was 98% done as of last month. Is only the basic game done, and now they are fooling with modules? If that is the case, then yeah, it's looking like core only for summer release.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 17, 2014)

zicar said:


> *uncloak*
> 
> First, Cybit thanks for your contributions and insights.
> Second, the above has me concerned that we will only be getting a basic game upon release. It might be a good or even great basic game, but I believe that I was led to believe we would be getting a core + modules. If this is not the case then shame on me for making false assumptions, but it just feels like a bait and switch, moving the goalpost, etc.
> ...




I can't say for sure, sadly.  There are times where I've thought not much was done, and then the next packet had a crapton of stuff all dropped on us at once.  Even the latest one was a massive jump from the previous ones, so maybe they do have way more planned.  

Thinking about it further, the other explanation (and it's a reasonable one) is that the reason we haven't seen as much modularity is that they intend to keep that in the DMG, which I personally haven't seen. 

I do think they should at least release at launch a basic version of the game.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Feb 18, 2014)

zicar said:


> the above has me concerned that we will only be getting a basic game upon release. It might be a good or even great basic game, but I believe that I was led to believe we would be getting a core + modules. If this is not the case then shame on me for making false assumptions, but it just feels like a bait and switch, moving the goalpost, etc.
> 
> I suppose that technically they never actually said that the modules would be released along with the core. Hmmm.



Yeah. At this point, it seems impossible to get the whole thing printed by Gen Gon (there are a lot of really important questions where the answer is still "we're working on it"). 

If it's any consolation, the basic game will supposedly be a complete game system that you can play a whole campaign with.


----------

