Quote from: Sacrosanct;648281Which 5e playtest are you using?  I gotta ask, because it's very easy to create a character in Next in 10 minutes.

Again, just because it has what it calls FEATS does not mean it's a 3e clone.  The feats are in packages.  You don't scour the book looking for the best feat combination.  You choose the package that fits your archetype you want.

I imagine there would be a whole lot less vitriol from all sides if people would actually see how the game plays rather than make assumptions because it shares a keyword with a previous edition.

I completely agree. However, I do think that this is the reason it was unwise of them to call these things 'feats'.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;648314I completely agree. However, I do think that this is the reason it was unwise of them to call these things 'feats'.

RPGPundit

I don't disagree.  I don't see why they don't call them custom class abilities, theme skills, or something.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;648279Incorrect.  At 7th level, including specialization, you get 2 attacks per round.  At 13+ level, it's 5 every 2 rounds.  A 20th level fighter who isn't specialized in 3e still has a BAB of +20/+15/+10/+5.

I was apparently mis-remembering the 2e weapon specialization breakdown athinking you got the 5/2 at 7th, but either way it's reliably 2 attacks every round with a single weapon.

IIRC it's capped at 7 attacks every 2 rounds with two-weapon fighting though.  Either way you are taking either 2 or 3 attacks every round without two-weapon fighting at high level pretty much no matter what.  He only loses his extra attack(s) when he drops an opponent and has attacks left over afterward (which is pretty much the same in 3e anyway).  

More to the point you don't get your extra iterative attacks in 3e if you've moved more than a 5ft "step" without a 'buff', only available from a non-core spell.  In 3e you don't even get an extra attack from two-weapon fighting if you've moved.  

QuoteA 20th level fighter in Next?  +5.  That's it.  Yes, they do get multiple attacks against targets as long as they are all in front of the fighter, unless you chose volley instead of whirlwind.  You cannot have both, and you cannot use Deadly Strike expertise while doing so.  But most importantly, you only get those extra attacks if there are extra opponents.  No multiple attacks against the same target.

The overall attack bonus is irrelevant in 3e because of Thac0 in AD&D and "bounded accuracy" in Next.  

An increasing to-hit bonus versus an ascending AC is literally no different mathematically to AD&D's descending Thac0, so I don't really see what the point is.  I don't think anyone (that is worth listening to on the subject) has an issue rolling a d20 and adding a 2 digit number to it in less.  You could even make a chart more or less identical to an AD&D Thac0 chart if it was actually an issue.

The purpose of "bounded accuracy" isn't to cater to OSR aesthetic senses on what the size of numbers should be and keep the highest bonuses available smaller.  It's to keep the gap between the highest bonus and the lowest bonus smaller and prevent the scaling issues 3e has (where 75% of a full BAB and 50% of a good save aren't enough to hit or pass anything reliably.)

QuoteAgain, an AD&D character will never gain 3 attacks every round unless they are specialized in the dart or something.

Or fighting with two weapons in 2e at least, and they still get at least 2 every round starting at 7th and an additional attack every other round.

QuoteSo let's recap.  In 3e, you had BAB of up to +20, and had several attacks each round.  

No, you won't have several attack each round.  Archers will get them often, if there is someone to interpose themselves between archer and target.  If this is how you played 3e (or if you played 3e) you were doing it wrong.  If you have to move, you can make a single attack on your turn.

QuoteIn Next, the same class has a BAB maxing out at +5 and does not get extra attacks unless you choose either volley or whirlwind, and then there are limits as to what you can attack.  For example, you don't get 5 attacks per round unless there are 5 opponents, and even then you can only attack each target once.  In 3e you can attack the same target over and over.

Again, we'll see.  I fully expect that you'll be able to make multiple attacks against a single opponent in Next at higher levels, and you'll be able to do it every single round.

QuoteIn 3e, it is not uncommon to have a 20th level "build" that has ability ratings into the 30s and even 40s, translating into HUGE ability bonuses.  Just look the D&D wiki for 3e builds.  Next caps out at 20 IIRC for any ability.

HUGE ability bonuses aren't a problem in and of themselves, since we are only talking about 2 digit numbers (and I disagree that they are actually common in play rather than some theorycrafted character that would be disallowed at any real table because it's using some monster race/template, permanent spell effects, that give +12 to a stat before other adjustments, and other shit that never actually happens in play;  the only 'standard' character that can get close to a 40 in a stat is a raging barbarian that has temporary spell buffs like Enlarge Person; real characters that people actually played don't wind up with stats that have been +5 Wished up and a +6 Belt of Giant Strength as standard adventuring gear unless they've been playing their demi-demigod for a decade).  It's the gap between best and worst that is the issue that gets discussed with 3e, because the monsters are balanced in such a way that after a certain point if you are not "the best" at something you'll get progressively worse versus threats that are allegedly on par with the character.

Any bonus that doesn't result in 3 digit math are basically the same thing.  The problem is when you've got +20 being the baseline to roll against a ~30 DC and another character can only reliably pull off a +11 or something.  +11 Reflex Save guy was better at dodging magical explosions at level 10 than he is at level 20 just because that is the way the numbers scale.  

3e hits a mathematical sweet spot in terms of success versus DC and then the scaling breaks down and you either reliably have more bonus than you could ever need or not enough.  In the Pathfinder CRB there is a sidebar about advancement past level 20 and it acknowledges that characters at this level will not really be able to make saving throws with their bad saves because the math doesn't scale for it.  That is the game's math was built so that both a Rogue (before ability modifiers) is about 10% better at Reflex saves than a Fighter at 1st level and 50% better at 20th.  After synergystic ability modifiers and players playing to their character's strengths that gap is even worse.  No reason for an armored Fighter to have a ton of Dex, and chances are all of the Dex/dodge/reflex stuff didn't go to Clanky McKlutz when loot was divied out, so the guys that are good at dodging almost always save, and the Fighter very rarely does.

That's the entire point of bounded accuracy.  You could have bounded accuracy with large numbers, so that everyone gets super high bonuses, but of course there would be no point (if the difference between good and bad is +20 and +17 it might as well be +10 and +7).  The only point in large numbers would be to facilitate a large gap between the weak and powerful (which is what 3e winds up doing), and apparently Next is doing this with HP instead of AC and DCs?  I guess we'll see how that plays out, although 3e also showed a large increase in monster HP over 2e.

I agree that so far it's not just another d20 D&D clone; I just don't agree that for one core 3e played all that differently than late 2e (especially assuming you are playing the majority of your games at low to mid level than high level which is true at most tables), or that it plays the way you are representing it.  There is a reason that combat (maybe) takes longer than it did in 2e, but that has almost nothing to do with number of attacks and how long it takes to resolve a single attack roll.

3e monsters have more HP, exponentially more at higher levels.  Characters potentially (probably) have control of minions at higher levels, meaning that running a party of 5 players probably takes about as long as running a party of 15 players.  Even without these 'menagerie' characters that are sometimes banned, there is way more rolling to save in 3e, spellcasters have more spells that they can reliably get off.  Everything inflicts some kind of status effect or disease, or grab that needs to be rolled against starting at mid level; often semi-unique effects which need to be read off or explained to the player.

Number of attacks, and the amount of time it takes to resolve swinging a sword is not a problem that 3e has.

My guess is that there will be more appeal to people who have some acquaintance with 3E and think it's okay, than to people who have been passing up the Wizards of the Coast releases since day one (such as most of my current game group).

I'm sure I'm not alone in finding that 4E simply didn't even sound like D&D. Whether overhearing actual play, or reading discussion online, I would not have thought that D&D was the subject if I had not been so informed. It was a foreign language, mostly gibberish to me despite having been a D&Der since the time of the "little brown books."

I may be a bit unusual in the extent to which I actually gave it a try despite the initial off-putting impression, but the experience only confirmed that it was not at all what D&D meant to me.

The hat trick is more likely to be hanging on to disgruntled 4E partisans while the rest of us get re-gruntled!

Quote from: RPGPundit;648314I completely agree. However, I do think that this is the reason it was unwise of them to call these things 'feats'

I never liked that usage anyhow, because to my mind a 'feat' is a remarkable accomplishment, not a mechanical stat.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;648281Which 5e playtest are you using?  I gotta ask, because it's very easy to create a character in Next in 10 minutes.

We used the March 20, 2013 playtest. Only 2 of our original group of 10 GMs are still reporting back any feedback and I wanted to make sure my comments to WotC were accurate to the most current material.

Maybe chargen would be 15 minutes if we played enough to know all the ins and outs of how each race / class / background / specialty combo plays out, but right now that's a lots of choices that have to be balanced against your stats and your other abilities.

Can I just randomly say Dwarf Cleric Artisan Ambusher? Yeah, and maybe 5e should have a random chart where I can just roll up a character. That would definitely be 10 minutes.

And maybe the Dwarf Cleric Artisan Ambusher would be a great character.

I agree that 5e feats are somewhat differentish because they are prepackaged in the specialty.

I have strongly supported the idea of there being a "random table" option for backgrounds.

Quote from: RPGPundit;650926I have strongly supported the idea of there being a "random table" option for backgrounds.

Good - cherrypicking is always an option. While the table'd later require wooooork . Admittedly about 5 minutes of it, but still.

Quote from: RPGPundit;650926I have strongly supported the idea of there being a "random table" option for backgrounds.

It's an area that I think ACKS has a great solution for: the 3D6 roll for starting gold can be replaced with a 3D6 roll for a "Template" that includes starting gold, equipment, and proficiencies. There are 8 Templates for every class, and they thematically follow the amount of gold that would correspond to the 3D6 result (e.g. 3-4 on Fighter Templates yields a Thug with cheap gear, 17-18 yields a Lancer with a horse, barding, lance, etc.).

The ACKS Templates are also a great Judge tool for a quick Henchmen or NPC. WotC could do far worse than adopting a similar system.

You know, there's been all this handwringing over the numbers, the rules - will it balance?  Is it balanced?  Does this provide enough bonuses?  Is it fair for everyone all the time?  Is every snowflake both unique and in lockstep with the other so nobody is better than anyone else at any given moment.  And all of that is bullshit.  

Show me the writing in the rulebooks.  Show me the authorial tone of the new rulebooks.  How do they speak to the gamer?  Are they bland stereo instructions, like 3.5, 4e and the RC?  Or are they actually trying to breath a little life into the books again?  Jokey in places, nod-and-a-wink "don't let the players/DM get one over on you!" mildly adversarial in others?  That's what I'd like to know.  I wanna see a return of those kinds of things.  The rules will work themselves out.  Create good, fun-to-read rulebooks again WotC.  Take that back to your bosses, Pundit.  No more of this BEEP BOOP WHAT-IS-WRITING-STYLE-DOES-NOT-COMPUTE bland-assed stereo instruction rulebooks anymore.  Please.  Use the AD&D DMG, Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play 1e, Dragon Age and other rules as a basis.  But however they do it for god's sake I hope it's interesting.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;650999Create good, fun-to-read rulebooks again WotC.  Take that back to your bosses, Pundit.  No more of this BEEP BOOP WHAT-IS-WRITING-STYLE-DOES-NOT-COMPUTE bland-assed stereo instruction rulebooks anymore.  Please.

Yeah you see a lot of this on wikipedia, makes the site difficult to use. There's a reason good writers get paid!

Quote from: The Traveller;651005Yeah you see a lot of this on wikipedia, makes the site difficult to use. There's a reason good writers get paid!

But do good writers make good games, necessary? Seems like different skillsets. I would prefer decent writing with great game design, personally. I couldn't get out of the first chapter of Septimus, so poor writing is definitely an issue.

I just think back to the time when the market was small and you didn't typically expect as much from RPG books.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;650999You know, there's been all this handwringing over the numbers, the rules - will it balance?  Is it balanced?  Does this provide enough bonuses?  Is it fair for everyone all the time?  Is every snowflake both unique and in lockstep with the other so nobody is better than anyone else at any given moment.  And all of that is bullshit.  

Show me the writing in the rulebooks.  Show me the authorial tone of the new rulebooks.  How do they speak to the gamer?  Are they bland stereo instructions, like 3.5, 4e and the RC?  Or are they actually trying to breath a little life into the books again?  Jokey in places, nod-and-a-wink "don't let the players/DM get one over on you!" mildly adversarial in others?  That's what I'd like to know.  I wanna see a return of those kinds of things.  The rules will work themselves out.  Create good, fun-to-read rulebooks again WotC.  Take that back to your bosses, Pundit.  No more of this BEEP BOOP WHAT-IS-WRITING-STYLE-DOES-NOT-COMPUTE bland-assed stereo instruction rulebooks anymore.  Please.  Use the AD&D DMG, Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play 1e, Dragon Age and other rules as a basis.  But however they do it for god's sake I hope it's interesting.

Just last night, as a matter of fact, I was looking at my Moldvay's basic book, and towards the back there are a whopping two pages (sarcasm) that do an excellent job advising the DM and players how to handle all of this.  All they have to do is literally cut and paste those two pages, and all would be well.

Quote from: mcbobbo;651007But do good writers make good games, necessary?

Nope. But people have been used to reasonably good rulesets out of TSR and WotC for so long (even if you didn't like what a particular ruleset did) that they think it just happens.

I'm all for enjoyable writing in my RPG books, but that word means very different things to different people. I've never liked "High Gygaxian," for example. Hitting a tone with a broad appeal will doubtless mean noone is going to think it's perfect.

Quote from: Bobloblah;651012Nope. But people have been used to reasonably good rulesets out of TSR and WotC for so long (even if you didn't like what a particular ruleset did) that they think it just happens.

I'm all for enjoyable writing in my RPG books, but that word means very different things to different people. I've never liked "High Gygaxian," for example. Hitting a tone with a broad appeal will doubtless mean noone is going to think it's perfect.

Yeah. I'm a technical writer, and you're playing with fire if you try to write instructions or rules in a bantering tone. For everyone who enjoys that particular tone, another person will dislike it. D&D now has an audience ranging from 14 to 60, so it's hard to imagine a distinctive tone that would work for every, or even most, readers.

And while that style may be amusing to read the first time around, RPG books are also reference books. A highly stylistic explanation of how to attempt Detect Traps would likely grow tiresome the third and fourth time around.

The quality of writing in WotC books is actually quite high. Certainly better than the hot mess that is the Holmes basic book.