Page 1 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=62334&d=1403562689&stc=1), page 2 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=62335&d=1403562692).
My question is that the amount of spells prepared seems different, it's LEVEL + Wisdom modifier. In the playtest it's LEVEL +1. Or was it different for clerics?
Quote from: Marleycat;760794My question is that the amount of spells prepared seems different, it's LEVEL + Wisdom modifier. In the playtest it's LEVEL +1. Or was it different for clerics?
No, pretty sure this is new.
Can somebody explain (or link to an explanation) of the spell slots vs. spells prepared thing?
I actually like the new change. It also lowers the use of at wills if more slots are available, which should make people happy :-)
Quote from: GnomeWorks;760815Can somebody explain (or link to an explanation) of the spell slots vs. spells prepared thing?
spells prepared are the pool of spells which you cast. Spell slots are the number of spells you can cast per level.
so if you can prepare 5 spells, and can cast 2ea level 1 and 1ea level 2 spells, it would look like:
prepared spells: magic missile, charm person, burning hands, web, levitation
you can cast either web or levitation because they are both level 2 spells and you only have one slot. Or you could cast burning hands all three times, twice at level 1 and once at level 2 (for increased damage)
Quote from: GnomeWorks;760815Can somebody explain (or link to an explanation) of the spell slots vs. spells prepared thing?
IIRC, Prepared is what you have prayed for or memorized. Slots is actually casting it. I can prepare 9 spells, but theoretically can spend all my slots casting the same one, for some spells gaining a benefit if I expend a 3rd level slot for a 1st level spell. I like it, it's a good mix between something like spell points and strict 1e. Tactical forethought still matters, as does leaving some of your spells "unprepared" so you can be flexible.
That's... bizarre. Not Vancian, but not quite not-Vancian, either.
Not sure how I feel about that.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;760822That's... bizarre. Not Vancian, but not quite not-Vancian, either.
Not sure how I feel about that.
I like it because it gives a little flexibility to the mage. I've always houseruled that clerics didn't have to memorize their spells but just prayed for the one they wanted when needed, so it works for me
I'll probably old school the mage, but give the cleric the flexibility.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;760815Can somebody explain (or link to an explanation) of the spell slots vs. spells prepared thing?
It's like a 3e sorcerer with Arcana Evolved's flexibility. As a wizard you can learn any spell out there, as a cleric you know any given spell on the list. But you can only prepare a short list usable in any slot you have with differing effects is the quick and dirty version.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760821IIRC, Prepared is what you have prayed for or memorized. Slots is actually casting it. I can prepare 9 spells, but theoretically can spend all my slots casting the same one, for some spells gaining a benefit if I expend a 3rd level slot for a 1st level spell. I like it, it's a good mix between something like spell points and strict 1e. Tactical forethought still matters, as does leaving some of your spells "unprepared" so you can be flexible.
It reminds me of 3E Sorcerer more than anything.
JG
Quote from: GnomeWorks;760822That's... bizarre. Not Vancian, but not quite not-Vancian, either.
Not sure how I feel about that.
Neo-vancian is the popular term.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760828I'll probably old school the mage, but give the cleric the flexibility.
You would have to give them way more spell slots and that's not counting at-will cantrips/orisons or the fact that spells better be scaled again unless you prefer 35+ individual slots plus possibly 25+ cantrip uses at high levels?
The reason why 0-level spells are unlimited along with 4/4/3/3/2/1/1/1/1 (19) total spells with flexibility is to erase the Batman wizard and to make a cleric's actual God half relavent. And to eliminate paralysis analysis with the 76 (3e) spell slot nightmare.
Quote from: Marleycat;760833Neo-vancian is the popular term.
I mean, it seems
way better than normal Vancian, but still gonna say that I prefer spell point systems.
I imagine it wouldn't be that hard to convert this to a point-based system, either.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;760837I mean, it seems way better than normal Vancian, but still gonna say that I prefer spell point systems.
I imagine it wouldn't be that hard to convert this to a point-based system, either.
I also prefer spell point systems and yes this system would be very easy to convert if that's your preference. I don't like or play "let's outguess or chess with" with the GM. The World in motion is quite enough thank you very much.
And it's just seriously houserulable while never actually converting it if that's your preference.:)
Quote from: GnomeWorks;760837I mean, it seems way better than normal Vancian, but still gonna say that I prefer spell point systems.
I imagine it wouldn't be that hard to convert this to a point-based system, either.
I called it a pseudo-spell point system during the playtest. Because that is essentially what it is.
At 5th level as a cleric you have 4 alpha points, 3 beta points, and 2 delta points. Using a beta or delta point to cast a first level spell will boost its effect.
Its got all sorts of potential for modding and house ruling later.
Such as forgoing the boost from a higher tier slot to regain a spent lower tier. Or even just burning a higher tier to get back some lower tier slots.
IE: I've used all my first level slots. So I burn a second level slot to get back 2. Though Id go with a doubling factor to prevent abuse. A tier 4 slot would get you 2 second tier slots. That way youd only be able to regain up to 4th tier slots at the high end. At a prohibitive cost.
Just an odd idea that came up while looking it over.
Quote from: Marleycat;760836You would have to give them way more spell slots
No I wouldn't. I won't have to let them go Pew Pew either.
Quote from: Omega;760841I called it a pseudo-spell point system during the playtest. Because that is essentially what it is.
At 5th level as a cleric you have 4 alpha points, 3 beta points, and 2 delta points. Using a beta or delta point to cast a first level spell will boost its effect.
Its got all sorts of potential for modding and house ruling later.
Such as forgoing the boost from a higher tier slot to regain a spent lower tier. Or even just burning a higher tier to get back some lower tier slots.
IE: I've used all my first level slots. So I burn a second level slot to get back 2. Though Id go with a doubling factor to prevent abuse. A tier 4 slot would get you 2 second tier slots. That way youd only be able to regain up to 4th tier slots at the high end. At a prohibitive cost.
Just an odd idea that came up while looking it over.
I like flexibility and resource management but too much swapping around spell slots and turning attempts and it seems like metagaming. Course that line is different for people.
Quote from: Omega;760841Such as forgoing the boost from a higher tier slot to regain a spent lower tier. Or even just burning a higher tier to get back some lower tier slots.
IE: I've used all my first level slots. So I burn a second level slot to get back 2. Though Id go with a doubling factor to prevent abuse. A tier 4 slot would get you 2 second tier slots. That way youd only be able to regain up to 4th tier slots at the high end. At a prohibitive cost.
Just an odd idea that came up while looking it over.
Well, you always need to be careful with the math, there. It's usually not the case that a 3rd-level spell is worth a 2nd + a 1st, so you need to map the spell levels to some kind of formula or something to acknowledge that.
I believe that my d20 caster class went with squaring the spell level, but if you have higher-level spells (this only went to 5th or so), the numbers start looking a bit ridiculous. I'm not a fan of numbers bloat, though, so that probably wouldn't work here exactly, but something similar would probably be workable.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760844No I wouldn't. I won't have to let them go Pew Pew either.
That isn't the issue. 5e full casters have 19 total slots, half casters 15 total slots, sorcerers and warlocks even less because they use point system/AEDU respectively. Good luck getting anybody to play your gimped wizard class in BASIC. Even in BASIC you proposal makes no sense without serious changes to the other classes. Even without multi-classing it makes the cleric and fighter the obvious and preferred choice. Seriously why would anybody play a wizard with so small a number of spell slots and be forced to lock it each spell like some game of let's outguess the DM all while every other class is untouched?
The problem is you're not changing any other class and have effectively created Codzilla but worse. Think it through I trust you will see it. Even I would multi-class into fighter or cleric if I were using anything beyond BASIC. Like say I want to play something like 1e or 2e? Don't even count the possible mixes with 3e/4e.
Clerics have (3) 6-9th level spells per day. That is (12) gamechangers a day, now figure that out what happens when you pick the War domain. Or some other domain most players will pick and be completely justified in thinking so because in reality they are the equivalent of modern day fire and brimstone evangelists. That cleric you see is basically a Cleric of Mishkal without any magic items.
I don't actually believe a guy like yourself would never try anything beyond BASIC you're too invested at this point. Whether it's your need to prove me or Sacrosanct wrong or just to prove how old school you really are it just doesn't matter at this point.
Somebody explain the AC 18.
Chain + Shield + -1 Dex = 18?
Quote from: GnomeWorks;760822That's... bizarre. Not Vancian, but not quite not-Vancian, either.
The Not-Vancian is okay in actual play. Like everything else in 5e, its an attempt to please everyone with pudding. It allows players of spellcasters to choose conditional spells without fearing they might not have something immediately useful. AKA, if you choose a couple of Anti-Undead spells, you don't have to run out of the dungeon when you meet orcs.
In the playtest, the math was a mess for casting spells at higher levels versus just casting a higher level spell instead, but I suspect we will see that fixed in the PHB. If they balance that, it will make some people happy.
apparently heavy armor negates dexterity completely, both bonus and penalty
So you can cast spells at 1st, but can't turn undead.
Hmm...
Quote from: Spinachcat;760851Somebody explain the AC 18.
Chain + Shield + -1 Dex = 18?
Chain is heavy armor, heavy armor AC doesn't factor in Dex.
Chain 16AC, +2 for Shield = 18
Quote from: Spinachcat;760853So you can cast spells at 1st, but can't turn undead.
Honestly, I'd much rather see turn undead become a specialty thing for priests of deities who don't like undead (or are associated with anti-undead things, or what-have-you).
It being a staple for clerics has always struck me as really, really bizarre.
Quote from: Marleycat;760849That isn't the issue.
Actually, at my table it's the only issue. Funny how that works.
Quote from: Marleycat;760849Good luck getting anybody to play your gimped wizard class in BASIC.
Aw, you mad bro? Am I badwrongfunning it by not allowing maximum somethingorother?
Quote from: Marleycat;760849The problem is you're not changing any other class.
According to who, your crystal ball?
Quote from: Spinachcat;760853So you can cast spells at 1st, but can't turn undead.
Hmm...
That is weird. But I guess chain is heavy armour in 5e. And he is using a shield. Not sure about the CR/HD change either whether good or bad. Spellcasting in armor isn't a thing as long as you're profiencent in said class of armour via class ability. Or it requires multiclassing or a racial ability, never saw a feat that grants it.
SO
Quote from: CRKrueger;760859Actually, at my table it's the only issue. Funny how that works.
Aw, you mad bro? Am I badwrongfunning it by not allowing maximum somethingorother?
According to who, your crystal ball?
No by what you actually say. Do as you will because it's your game. See how that works? I just thought I point out the obvious but since you seem to think houseruling is nothing then you really should shut the fuck up and stop arguing about stuff you already know you'll change for pages and and trying to single me and Sacrosanct out. Or call me nuts.. see how that works?
It's what I do with EVERY game I run and any DM does with a brain. Like I said you're way too invested to not actually try the game. What's hilarious to me is that you actually plan to houserule sight unseen.
Quote from: Marleycat;760871you really should shut the fuck up and stop arguing about stuff you already know you'll change for pages and and trying to single me and Sacrosanct out.
Nah, I'll just do what everyone does, speak their mind, I just happen to feel like calling you two on it when you go off your fucking nut and become disingenuous brats who scream to get their way.
Not a damn thing you can do about it either except put me on ignore. Sac's pride will never let him do the same thing so you'll see all the posts anyway. But since "Go Away, I Don't Like What You're Saying." hasn't been workin' out to well for ya, might as well try something. We both know stopping dissembling about other people's positions in your posts won't be it.
Quote from: MarleycatWhat's hilarious to me is that you actually plan to houserule sight unseen.
I just saw the rule. That's what 5e is about, right, rules on the sheets and modules so you don't need to thumb through the book. If Wizards have the same rule, I'll change it.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760896Nah, I'll just do what everyone does, speak their mind, I just happen to feel like calling you two on it when you go off your fucking nut and become disingenuous brats who scream to get their way.
Not a damn thing you can do about it either except put me on ignore. Sac's pride will never let him do the same thing so you'll see all the posts anyway. But since "Go Away, I Don't Like What You're Saying." hasn't been workin' out to well for ya, might as well try something. We both know stopping dissembling about other people's positions in your posts won't be it.
I just saw the rule. That's what 5e is about, right, rules on the sheets and modules so you don't need to thumb through the book. If Wizards have the same rule, I'll change it.
Put you on ignore? Be serious. You basically admitted that your position is bullshit and will do exactly what I will be doing and have been suggesting on multiple threads. It's not about liking what you're saying I really don't care because 5e is a toolkit game so there is only whatever each table agrees to as a baseline. I don't care about OP and I doubt you do so why are you going nuts?
Quote from: Marleycat;760898I don't care about OP and I doubt you do so why are you going nuts?
Probably because you took a pop at him for no discernible reason other than the little feud you two have built up recently.
It's getting boring and disruptive to 5e threads.
Carry on at it and i suspect that Pundit will give you no choice but to ignore list each other.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760828I'll probably old school the mage, but give the cleric the flexibility.
I like that. It seems to fit clerics and sorcerors better than wizards.
Quote from: Spinachcat;760853So you can cast spells at 1st, but can't turn undead.
Hmm...
I miss the old dnd cleric that got spells at level 2 :)
But I am hoping
all 5E clerics are not healing fountains and Undead turners.
I want clerics that use spells appropriate to their god.
The playtest already featured several domains, besides the Life cleric on the sheet. War, Magic, Light, Storm.
Each domain offers always prepared domain spells, a special ability (like armor proficiency or bonus healing) and two channel divinities. I think one of those is always Turn Undead, though.
It's rather simple to make your own subclasses, if you want.
Quote from: 1of3;760987The playtest already featured several domains, besides the Life cleric on the sheet. War, Magic, Light, Storm.
Each domain offers always prepared domain spells, a special ability (like armor proficiency or bonus healing) and two channel divinities. I think one of those is always Turn Undead, though.
It's rather simple to make your own subclasses, if you want.
Sounds decent. I would houserule that all clerics do not heal, and all clerics do not turn undead. Some would, some would not.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760852apparently heavy armor negates dexterity completely, both bonus and penalty
Quote from: Emperor Norton;760854Chain is heavy armor, heavy armor AC doesn't factor in Dex.
Chain 16AC, +2 for Shield = 18
The logic behind this is what exactly? If you are clumsy just pile on weight. That ought to nimble you right up. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exploderwizard;761007The logic behind this is what exactly? If you are clumsy just pile on weight. That ought to nimble you right up. :rolleyes:
The logic is flawed; but possibly they know that and went with it for a game mechanical reason.
Regardless, I will houserule a flat penalty instead of 'lose dex'. Maybe reduce the dex stat itself.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;761007The logic behind this is what exactly? If you are clumsy just pile on weight. That ought to nimble you right up. :rolleyes:
Keeps em too busy trying to move to have time to trip over things... :confused:
Quote from: Exploderwizard;761007The logic behind this is what exactly? If you are clumsy just pile on weight. That ought to nimble you right up. :rolleyes:
Because in heavy armor, the deciding factor of taking or not taking damage is the armor itself, not the ability to void the attack. Breaching the armor of someone standing there like a stick isn't any easier than breaching the armor of someone dodging an parrying-- which isn't all that quick in full chain or plate. Yeah, you can roll around in the stuff, but armor's a pretty good equalizer of defense.
Quote from: JonWake;761015Because in heavy armor, the deciding factor of taking or not taking damage is the armor itself, not the ability to void the attack. Breaching the armor of someone standing there like a stick isn't any easier than breaching the armor of someone dodging an parrying-- which isn't all that quick in full chain or plate. Yeah, you can roll around in the stuff, but armor's a pretty good equalizer of defense.
But D&D armor isn't DR. I can see the logic somewhat in heavy armor negating a DEX
bonus, but heavy armor making a clumsy person into one of average agility is quite funny.
What of a character with a 3 DEX?
Crap man, if I were an armor salesman in that world I would be advertising my wares as a wonder cure-all for clumsiness!
Are you tired of tripping over your own feet? Can't seem to find your balance on a smooth stone floor? Have I got a product for you! JUst wear one of our magical hauberks and you too can have the agility of your neighbors! :p
I think the "no bonus/penalty" for dex w/heavy armor is actually a good idea from a mechanical view, but different from how armor was treated in old versions of D&D. Seems like a trade-off between AD&D and 3.X. Definitely less things to min-max.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;761021But D&D armor isn't DR. I can see the logic somewhat in heavy armor negating a DEX bonus, but heavy armor making a clumsy person into one of average agility is quite funny.
What of a character with a 3 DEX?
Crap man, if I were an armor salesman in that world I would be advertising my wares as a wonder cure-all for clumsiness!
Are you tired of tripping over your own feet? Can't seem to find your balance on a smooth stone floor? Have I got a product for you! JUst wear one of our magical hauberks and you too can have the agility of your neighbors! :p
It only negates the penalty to AC, your Dexterity Saves against things like slippy floors will still be rubbish.
Quote from: jadrax;761023It only negates the penalty to AC, your Dexterity Saves against things like slippy floors will still be rubbish.
Have two fighters standing there. They are identical other than one has a 3 dexterity and the other has an 18.
They put on heavy armor.
Same AC? Hardly.
The 3 dex fighter is going to be easier to hit.
Unless the armor prevents all motion; such as being frozen solid in a block of ice.
Quote from: Bill;761031Have two fighters standing there. They are identical other than one has a 3 dexterity and the other has an 18.
They put on heavy armor.
Same AC? Hardly.
The 3 dex fighter is going to be easier to hit.
Unless the armor prevents all motion; such as being frozen solid in a block of ice.
You're trying to shoehorn reality into an abstract concept. Sort of like explaining wounds when using hitpoints...just accept it's a game and be done with it.
Quote from: Brad;761032You're trying to shoehorn reality into an abstract concept. Sort of like explaining wounds when using hitpoints...just accept it's a game and be done with it.
You are of course, entitled to your opinion, and entitled to accept anything you like in an rpg.
Some degree of realism is desirable. For example, I would object to a quarterstaff doing more damage than a greataxe.
Armor negating dexterity is equally stupid to me.
That seems like alot of spells for the Cleric...at 5th level they have 4 cantrips and 9 free spells prepared with 6 total domain spells on top. Not even figuring in Channel Divinity and Preserve Life or Turn Undead. That isn't very simple to me.
At 20th level that might be 8 cantrips (no idea if it would be possible to actually pick up cantrips in books like a wizard but that's unlikely), 25 free spells and 18 domain spells with overchannelling and who knows about Channel Divinity or Preserve Life or if something else unlocks? Can't wait to see the advanced versions. Wow!
Quote from: Bill;760965I miss the old dnd cleric that got spells at level 2 :)
But I am hoping all 5E clerics are not healing fountains and Undead turners.
I want clerics that use spells appropriate to their god.
Once I've had Hackmaster Clerics, and RuneQuest cults, I can't go back to generic clerics or even the whole domains thing. I could play it, sure, but to run it, I'd be in there chopping up spell lists and powers to make clerics truly reflect the god.
Quote from: Marleycat;761060That seems like alot of spells for the Cleric...at 5th level they have 4 cantrips and 9 free spells prepared with 6 total domain spells on top. Not even figuring in Channel Divinity and Preserve Life or Turn Undead. That isn't very simple to me.
At 20th level that might be 8 cantrips (no idea if it would be possible to actually pick up cantrips in books like a wizard but that's unlikely), 25 free spells and 18 domain spells with overchannelling and who knows about Channel Divinity or Preserve Life or if something else unlocks? Can't wait to see the advanced versions. Wow!
I'm not worried about how many spells a cleric can prepare (as I've mentioned I've houseruled clerics a long time ago to just pray for the one they want then and there). I'd only be worried about how many they can actually cast. That's the important part. Clerics are somewhat similar to sorcerers and divine souls in that spells known doesn't impact how many you can cast. I actually almost prefer it that way.
Quote from: Bill;760965I miss the old dnd cleric that got spells at level 2 :)
But I am hoping all 5E clerics are not healing fountains and Undead turners.
I want clerics that use spells appropriate to their god.
From what I understand the general spell list for clerics is pretty short and it's all in the domain spells, and the class features like your Channel Divinity perk and whatnot really. They didn't go as far as Hackmaster with wholly independent spell lists but it's definitely leaning that way
Of course the notion that Plate Armor and most other forms of armor caps your dexterity is bullshit anyway in terms of reality.
What armor is fatiguing, you are wearing x lbs of gear and when you reach the limits of your endurance and strength you will tire. Which will degrade your combat effectiveness.
But if you have the endurance and strength you can do backflips.
The key thing to remember armor is fitted. That is the pieces that make up a suite are properly sized and strapped so that does not hinder the wearer. And it not rocket science everybody back to the Ancient times knew this and built in straps, hinges and took measurements with knotted strings.
Again to clear wearing heavy armor had it consequences but being a clumsy oaf was not one of them.
OD&D and AD&D 1st had it right in applying the full DEX modifier to AC. 3e introduction of DEX caps was a boneheaded addition in the light of reality. Done because "balanced" the wearing of heavy armor.
If you wanted to make more "balanced' the better D&Dish way in keeping with reality would to impose a strength minimum on various types of armor. Keeping in mine that the strength requirement for chain and scale would be HIGHER than plate because of the fact having all the weight of your torso armor hanging off your shoulders was vastly more tiring than wearing a fitted breastplate.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;761063I'm not worried about how many spells a cleric can prepare (as I've mentioned I've houseruled clerics a long time ago to just pray for the one they want then and there). I'd only be worried about how many they can actually cast. That's the important part. Clerics are somewhat similar to sorcerers and divine souls in that spells known doesn't impact how many you can cast. I actually almost prefer it that way.
They can cast up to 19 spells at 20th level (not counting possible magic items that would add slots or whatever of course). They just have a really big amount prepared. It's just not something I exactly expected but I suppose it's alright considering how limited their spell list is compared to a wizard. Because it's not the same as 3e where there was alot of shared spell lists going on between the divine and arcane magic users respectively.
Quote from: Marleycat;761064From what I understand the general spell list for clerics is pretty short and it's all in the domain spells, and the class features like your Channel Divinity perk and whatnot really. They didn't go as far as Hackmaster with wholly independent spell lists but it's definitely leaning that way
If Turn undead is selectable, and not mandatory, I will be happy.
All clerics healing I can live with, although I don't like it.
Quote from: Marleycat;761069They can cast up to 19 spells at 20th level (not counting possible magic items that would add slots or whatever of course). They just have a really big amount prepared.
Compared to my favored edition of AD&D? That's not a lot. Well, assuming I played PCs at 20th level anyway. But I'm perfectly OK with "less spells you can cast, but you can choose from a larger pool of available spells." It offers a lot more flexibility rather than hoping you memorized the right ones.
I'm sure everyone who has played a caster in D&D has run into situations where some spells you prepared you never got around to using because the situation never called for it.
"What do you mean you don't have any more cure light wound spells? You only cast one so far?"
"Well, I prepp'd this other spell instead. How was I supposed to know I'd never need it?"
Quote from: Bill;761070If Turn undead is selectable, and not mandatory, I will be happy.
All clerics healing I can live with, although I don't like it.
Don't know about the turn undead deal, but I bet there will be some kind of option or maybe you'd have to do like 3e? Kind of split it, turn or be my buddy type of deal.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;761072Compared to my favored edition of AD&D? That's not a lot. Well, assuming I played PCs at 20th level anyway. But I'm perfectly OK with "less spells you can cast, but you can choose from a larger pool of available spells." It offers a lot more flexibility rather than hoping you memorized the right ones.
I'm sure everyone who has played a caster in D&D has run into situations where some spells you prepared you never got around to using because the situation never called for it.
"What do you mean you don't have any more cure light wound spells? You only cast one so far?"
"Well, I prepp'd this other spell instead. How was I supposed to know I'd never need it?"
Yeah, when I first looked at it I was going WTF!!! But as I thought about it and checked out some of the other forum discussions I am fine with it. It will only bother me if they don't actually do something for the wizard's amount of prepared spells. Sorry, but not even 25 spells is enough. They really should have a school spell per level auto prepared like a cleric's domain spells.
Quote from: Bill;761049You are of course, entitled to your opinion, and entitled to accept anything you like in an rpg.
Some degree of realism is desirable. For example, I would object to a quarterstaff doing more damage than a greataxe.
Armor negating dexterity is equally stupid to me.
Realism...in D&D. Okay. D&D combat has always been about playability over verisimilitude. To address your specific example, a quarterstaff wielded by Conan would probably hurt more than a greataxe wielded by Frodo Baggins. A game like Tunnels and Trolls specifically addresses this with a minimum strength required to effectively use weapons. D&D does not really care and gives a flat damage rating. To say a greataxe > quarterstaff in all situations isn't realistic. Do I care? Not really, it is in fact just a game.
Quote from: Brad;761082Realism...in D&D. Okay. D&D combat has always been about playability over verisimilitude. To address your specific example, a quarterstaff wielded by Conan would probably hurt more than a greataxe wielded by Frodo Baggins. A game like Tunnels and Trolls specifically addresses this with a minimum strength required to effectively use weapons. D&D does not really care and gives a flat damage rating. To say a greataxe > quarterstaff in all situations isn't realistic. Do I care? Not really, it is in fact just a game.
What I said, was 'some degree of realism is desirable'. I assume you agree with that statement.
Your example of staff and axe has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
I never said strong people do the same damage as weak people with the same weapon.
I did not say great axes and staves do the same damage. In fact, its perplexing how you came to that conclusion.
You did not address my specific example at all.
From MerricB....he says he hasn't gone through the ability score modifiers yet...
QuoteNow that we have the Cleric’s character sheet, let’s have a look at what has changed from the last of the playtest documents (October 2013)!
Preserve Life: This was called Restore Health in the playtest. The restriction barring it from being used on constructs or undead has been removed, and the range has been increased from 25 ft. to 30 ft.
Turn Undead: It now works on undead up to 30 feet away rather than 25 feet away. The DC of the check has been reduced (now 8 + proficiency bonus + wisdom modifier rather than 10 + proficiency bonus + wisdom modifier). Turned creatures may Dodge if they can’t move further away. The destruction of undead is handled differently: rather than a hit point comparison, at 5th level you instantly destroy undead of challenge rating ½ or less. (This probably increases as levels are gained).
Dash: A new action, possibly replacing Hustle. I suspect it allows you to move again in a turn.
Domain Spells: At 5th level, the Life Domain no longer gives access to Prayer as a domain spell; instead it gives access to revivify, one of the new spells that wasn’t in the playtest.
Prepared Spells: In the playtest, a cleric prepared 1+cleric level spells each day. The starter set cleric prepares their Wisdom modifier + cleric level spells each day. (Note the jump in spells/day at 4th level, when the cleric’s Wisdom increases).
Cantrips: The playtest gave 3 cantrips per day, which never changed. The starter set cleric gains a new cantrip at 4th level – I suspect the number of cantrips a character has is equal to their spellcasting modifier.
Darkvision: The playtest had darkvision allowing characters to see in darkness as dim light. The starter set retains that, but also allows characters to see in dim light as if it were bright light.
Stonecunning: Dwarves now add double their proficiency bonus to the Intelligence (History) checks to determine the origin of stonework rather than just their proficiency bonus. They can now become lost underground.
Dwarven Toughness: No longer adds one to the hit points regained by rolling Hit Dice during a rest.
Skills: The soldier background no longer gives the Survival skill. How skill and proficiency acquisition is handled is uncertain at this point.
Proficiencies: A soldier gained Gaming Set, Mounts (Land) and Vehicles (Land) in the playtest. The starter set cleric does not gain Mounts (Land), and Gaming Set has become Playing Cards. The cleric’s free Healing Kit proficiency has been removed, but the character has Mason’s Tools as a proficiency, possibly due to a new dwarven racial feature.
New Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws.
Challenge Rating: Monsters are ranked by Challenge Ratings. There are Challenge Rating ½ monsters.
Enjoy!
Edit: He also said for humans it's +1 to every stat but the others get +2/+1 to two specific stats. Also something about humans will have other choices beyond the stat bumps but not sure if that would been seen in BASIC or if its going to happen in the Advanced game. I suppose we will know for sure soon enough.
Quote from: CRKrueger;761061Once I've had Hackmaster Clerics, and RuneQuest cults, I can't go back to generic clerics or even the whole domains thing. I could play it, sure, but to run it, I'd be in there chopping up spell lists and powers to make clerics truly reflect the god.
I'm a fan of getting rid of the Cleric class and putting divine spellcasters under the umbrella of "Magic-User." Want to wear armor and cast spells? Multi-class.
Though yet again I can see this is too big a tradition to change for D&D.
Quote from: Bill;761086What I said, was 'some degree of realism is desirable'. I assume you agree with that statement.
Your example of staff and axe has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
I never said strong people do the same damage as weak people with the same weapon.
I did not say great axes and staves do the same damage. In fact, its perplexing how you came to that conclusion.
You did not address my specific example at all.
QuoteFor example, I would object to a quarterstaff doing more damage than a greataxe.
Are you purposefully changing the meaning of the words you used? I just pointed out a specific instance in which an objection by you would be raised, and you say I didn't address your example.
Look, I honestly don't give a fuck. Have fun being "right".
Quote from: Brad;761090Are you purposefully changing the meaning of the words you used? I just pointed out a specific instance in which an objection by you would be raised, and you say I didn't address your example.
Look, I honestly don't give a fuck. Have fun being "right".
But you didn't. That is incorrect.
You were clearly the one changing the meaning of words, as anyone can plainly see in text. Right there...in print.
It's fine if we disagree but.....it's right there for anyone to read.
Quote from: Bill;761049...
Some degree of realism is desirable.
...
Then damage reduction is an option you might want to add to the game (since I heard they took it out). Armor has little to do with making you harder to hit, it just makes it hurt a lot less when you are hit.
And as far as realism goes, I'd like to see shields get their due in D&D too. I'd like to see them classed as the weapons they are. Carrying a shield and another weapon is every bit as much dual wielding as a pair of scimitars.
Quote from: Marleycat;761087From MerricB....he says he hasn't gone through the ability score modifiers yet... Enjoy!
Edit: He also said for humans it's +1 to every stat but the others get +2/+1 to two specific stats. Also something about humans will have other choices beyond the stat bumps but not sure if that would been seen in BASIC or if its going to happen in the Advanced game. I suppose we will know for sure soon enough.
Every time I read "challenge rating", a bit of me cringes inside. I'll have to wait and see how it's actually handled.
Quote from: Brander;761089Though yet again I can see this is too big a tradition to change for D&D.
And who would get to kill Sir Fang, Dave Fant's Vampire PC?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;761093Every time I read "challenge rating", a bit of me cringes inside. I'll have to wait and see how it's actually handled.
I know. But I kind of see the reason for it. They don't want some situation like being able to destroy the big bad lich yet not be able to do the same with some giant skeleton or whatever. But I don't prefer CR so we'll see.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;761093Every time I read "challenge rating", a bit of me cringes inside. I'll have to wait and see how it's actually handled.
As far as I can tell, its similar to how the play-test used 'Level' in 'Encounter Building', but renamed so they did not end up using level to mean yet another thing.
Quote from: jadrax;761099As far as I can tell, its similar to how the play-test used 'Level' in 'Encounter Building', but renamed so they did not end up using level to mean yet another thing.
I understand the reasoning behind it, and it's sound. I just wish they wouldn't use the same term as those ingrained into many peoples' brains as being a bad thing. Sort of like feats. I am not a fan of 3e feat trees and that whole mess, and it took me a while to reprogram my brain to not associate negativity with that term because 5e feats work completely different than 3e feats. I imagine CR is going to be a lot like that.
Quote from: Bill;761091But you didn't. That is incorrect.
You were clearly the one changing the meaning of words, as anyone can plainly see in text. Right there...in print.
It's fine if we disagree but.....it's right there for anyone to read.
(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121103194903/halo/es/images/d/d1/Jackie-Chan-Meme-500x2801-620x350.jpg)
Quote from: Brander;761092Then damage reduction is an option you might want to add to the game (since I heard they took it out). Armor has little to do with making you harder to hit, it just makes it hurt a lot less when you are hit.
And as far as realism goes, I'd like to see shields get their due in D&D too. I'd like to see them classed as the weapons they are. Carrying a shield and another weapon is every bit as much dual wielding as a pair of scimitars.
Agreed.
I have played dnd with armor as dr instead of an ac bonus and it worked great.
It was easy; I just took half the normal ac value of the armor and made it dr, and any magic pluses remained ac.
Shields, yup, always like them to be better than the classic +1 ac.
Quote from: estar;761094And who would get to kill Sir Fang, Dave Fant's Vampire PC?
Heh, good point... :)
Though I could easily see a series of spells like: Turn Undead I-IX or Divine Bolt with spell components of holy symbol, prayer, and genuine faith.* Though Daylight works if you like vampires who burn up in daylight**
*Determined through role-playing perhaps.
**Vlad could walk in daylight in the original story.
Quote from: estar;761067But if you have the endurance and strength you can do backflips.
This is true.
But someone moving less weight will be able to move/react more quickly than someone moving more weight. Because physics.
Quote from: Brander;761092Then damage reduction is an option you might want to add to the game (since I heard they took it out). Armor has little to do with making you harder to hit, it just makes it hurt a lot less when you are hit.
Depending on the game, armor as damage resistance can get wonky with the math depending on the damage range. Either some threats completely become non-threats, or alternately armor will be utterly useless against larger things.
While armor as damage reduction might be more realistic, I much prefer the *game* effects of armor as damage avoidance. And if I really want to go the "sim" route, I'll probably be busting out GURPS or just about anything else that's not D&D.
Quote from: robiswrong;761134Either some threats completely become non-threats, or alternately armor will be utterly useless against larger things.
Which is why you play RQ6 where Critical Results can let you Bypass Armor. :cool:
Quote from: robiswrong;761134This is true.
But someone moving less weight will be able to move/react more quickly than someone moving more weight. Because physics.
Depending on the game, armor as damage resistance can get wonky with the math depending on the damage range. Either some threats completely become non-threats, or alternately armor will be utterly useless against larger things.
While armor as damage reduction might be more realistic, I much prefer the *game* effects of armor as damage avoidance. And if I really want to go the "sim" route, I'll probably be busting out GURPS or just about anything else that's not D&D.
But a guy with a knife or a pair of nunchuks should be a non threat to a guy in field plate.
I ragged ont eh Weapon vs armour table previously becuase its so badly implemented but the idea that certain weapons or weapon types are more or less effective agianst certain armours is a sound one.
So using armour as DR and making say a military pick reduce DR by 50% seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Making the guy with a knife need able to bypass armour as a feat/martial trick/move either on a critical or under certain constrained conditions, attack against helpless foe, surprise etc seems reasonable as well.
None of this slows combat down its still roll to hit roll damage but now you subtract x from the damage
Quote from: jibbajibba;761164But a guy with a knife or a pair of nunchuks should be a non threat to a guy in field plate.
I ragged ont eh Weapon vs armour table previously becuase its so badly implemented but the idea that certain weapons or weapon types are more or less effective agianst certain armours is a sound one.
So using armour as DR and making say a military pick reduce DR by 50% seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Making the guy with a knife need able to bypass armour as a feat/martial trick/move either on a critical or under certain constrained conditions, attack against helpless foe, surprise etc seems reasonable as well.
None of this slows combat down its still roll to hit roll damage but now you subtract x from the damage
How about be a Rogue and strike him precisely or be a monk and flat ignore armour because.....well you're awesome and a Monk? Dnd isn't a good physics engine or for simulation. Other games do one or the other better sometimes both.
FWIW, I'm happy with Dex modifier not affecting AC in heavy armour. The way I see it, if you are wearing medium or lighter armour, then your AC is going to be derived partly from avoidance of blows, partly from the armour absorbing glancing blows, whereas in truly heavy armour avoidance is less significant than the fact that your enemy's weapons can't actually pierce your armour unless they hit you with a hard, properly aligned blow at the right place.
Quote from: Marleycat;761168How about be a Rogue and strike him precisely or be a monk and flat ignore armour because.....well you're awesome and a Monk? Dnd isn't a good physics engine or for simulation. Other games do one or the other better sometimes both.
Rogue striking precisely is the knife crit type I already mentioned and a monk being awesome is out of luck if we wants to punch his fist through plate steel he better have a mystical power otherwise time to learn that kusarigama kata.
the d20 model can be a perfectly accurate combat physics engine if you modify it to so be. The effect of doing this is marginal to D&D game play as everyone has pointed out so often combat isn't that critical to D&D anyway. :)
Quote from: Warthur;761241FWIW, I'm happy with Dex modifier not affecting AC in heavy armour. The way I see it, if you are wearing medium or lighter armour, then your AC is going to be derived partly from avoidance of blows, partly from the armour absorbing glancing blows, whereas in truly heavy armour avoidance is less significant than the fact that your enemy's weapons can't actually pierce your armour unless they hit you with a hard, properly aligned blow at the right place.
My heartbreaker has armour style masteries to go with weapon styles. Anyone can wear heavy armour but unskilled you get many minuses. As you progress in skill you eliminate these and get some bonuses like being able to trap weapons and do lethal damage though weaponless etc .
I though this was the best compromise between armour really impedes you and armour has no effect on action.
I still haven't gotten a simple armour/exhaustion mechanism sorted yet though
Quote from: robiswrong;761134This is true.
But someone moving less weight will be able to move/react more quickly than someone moving more weight. Because physics.
Force = mass * acceleration
Acceleration = Force / mass
So yes for the same amount of force dropping the mass would result in a higher acceleration.
However it also shows that if the character is a stronger fighter i.e. one that can generate more force. Then you can increase the mass you can move at the same acceleration.
If a character has the strength, properly fitted armor doesn't not reduce or cap dexterity. The present rule is a 3e relic meant to add game balance to the wearing of heavy armor. It has no basis in reality even for an abstract system like D&D.
Despite the romance of characters like Indigo Montoya, Oberyn Martell, etc the high strength, high dexterity, plate armored warrior is the king of the battlefield.
I do stress that there are consequences of wearing heavy armor; it more fatiguing over the long term, and uncomfortable. Especially for armor like chainmail or scale where a lot of the weight was hanging off the shoulders.
If you wanted a D&Dish way of representing this then the way to do this is to have character wearing heavy armor for extended period of times make saving throw. Failing this roll would require the character to take a long duration rest or be fatiqued (a penalty or unable to fight).
Quote from: robiswrong;761134Either some threats completely become non-threats, or alternately armor will be utterly useless against larger things.
In GURPS campaign heavily armored opponents were called tin-cans. It is hard to get enough armor to shrug off most damage without seriously encumbering the character. There isn't a manual dexterity penalty for high encumbrance but there is a penalty for agility related actions. Notably it takes a LOT longer to get off the ground.
One tactics successfully used against a lone tin can is to slam or knock him down to the ground. Either pin him down or just beat on him until he finally passes out You are hitting him more often because of the penalties for his defense. He has penalties for attack so he not hitting you. So the little damage you do starts to add up.
A better presentation of armor in D&D could be that characters wearing heavy armor take longer to get up off the ground. Add a slam option that allows a chance for knocking your opponent prone. That while prone the character suffers disadvantage for their attacks and their opponents have advantage.
Holy fuck that character sheet is crowded with giant blocks of text. It's like a Russian novel.
I gotta admit that's kinda disappointing, I was hoping they would keep it simple.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;761877Holy fuck that character sheet is crowded with giant blocks of text. It's like a Russian novel.
I gotta admit that's kinda disappointing, I was hoping they would keep it simple.
The cleric has 15 spells by level 5.
I know they are holding the new player's hand, but will we see an official one page character sheet?
Quote from: Endless Flight;761884I know they are holding the new player's hand, but will we see an official one page character sheet?
Probably not until they preview the PHB. What RPGs do you actually play or run EF? Just curious. You said Dnd isn't your goto game but you've been asking stuff in good faith.
I was assuming the starter set character sheets basically repeat all the rules relevant to the character for easy reference; not the sort of thing you find in a normal character sheet.
Quote from: Skywalker;761879The cleric has 15 spells by level 5.
And channelling divinity and turning. They are scary. I may actually be able to play my drow sword dancer in an advanced game.:)
Now of course they have options but ONLY 9 spell slots for those 15 spells..just sayin'.
Quote from: Skywalker;761879The cleric has 15 spells by level 5.
Huh? He has 9, by my view. 4/3/2
Quote from: Larsdangly;761886I was assuming the starter set character sheets basically repeat all the rules relevant to the character for easy reference; not the sort of thing you find in a normal character sheet.
That's my view as well.
And for those that want a simpler sheet, I present you the one I posted earlier
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-f7INhKZezcE/U6Rwm-kX9eI/AAAAAAAAA7s/TwEOiVMdYPo/w676-h879-no/basic+char+sheet.jpg)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;761890Huh? He has 9, by my view. 4/3/2
Prepared, not slots.
Quote from: Skywalker;761891Prepared, not slots.
I don't really care that much about prepared. It's the actual casting that has the impact. IMO anyway. I.e., you could have 100 spells prepared, but if you can only cast 2 per day....well...there you go.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;761896I don't really care that much about prepared. It's the actual casting that has the impact. IMO anyway. I.e., you could have 100 spells prepared, but if you can only cast 2 per day....well...there you go.
A 5th level cleric has 15 prepared spells by array it could be higher if you roll an 18 and go with a race with +1 WIS. You could have 16 prepared spells for 9 slots. Plus 4 cantrips. And 2 multilevel class abilities without counting their melee abilities. They could be ridiculous combat wise if your God is Grummusch or something with the war domain.
Either way that healbot can fight well if needed.
Quote from: Marleycat;761898A 5th level cleric has 15 prepared spells by array it could be higher if you roll an 18 and go with a race with +1 WIS. You could have 16 prepared spells for 9 slots. Plus 4 cantrips. And 2 multilevel class abilities without counting their melee abilities. They could be ridiculous combat wise if your God is Grummusch or something with the war domain.
Either way that healbot can fight well if needed.
IIRC, clerics don't get extra attacks though. They quickly fall behind the fighter types in direct combat unless they've changed that
Quote from: Sacrosanct;761901IIRC, clerics don't get extra attacks though. They quickly fall behind the fighter types in direct combat unless they've changed that
You're correct. But the War domain allows said cleric to use Fighter stuff without multiclassing.
My actual point is that a cleric of healing can be a front line type if she needed to. Pretty crazy yeah?
A 11/9 F/C with the War domain might get seriously ridiculous if they haven't tightened things up. I know it's an option but seriously Clerics are powerful.
Quote from: Marleycat;761902You're correct. But the War domain allows said cleric to use Fighter stuff without multiclassing.
My actual point is that a cleric of healing can be a front line type if she needed to. Pretty crazy yeah?
A 11/9 F/C with the War domain might get seriously ridiculous if they haven't tightened things up. I know it's an option but seriously Clerics are powerful.
Weren't clerics always overpowered though. That is why they had to give you 200 points in Skills and powerd to make a basic cleric witht heir combo of combat, spells and class powers.
I mean it 1e the cleric can build a castle just like the fighter except its 50% cheaper and they get similar troops excpet they are all fanatically loyal and don't need paying.....
I assume it was seen as a requirement to get someone to play the class that has no archetypal reference in 90% of her inspirational material and has to spend a lot of their time healing if the combat model is going to work.
ah for a 2e Priest of agreculture with d6 hp, theif thaco and a load of spells that affect plants and animals.
Quote from: jibbajibba;761905Weren't clerics always overpowered though. That is why they had to give you 200 points in Skills and powerd to make a basic cleric witht heir combo of combat, spells and class powers.
I mean it 1e the cleric can build a castle just like the fighter except its 50% cheaper and they get similar troops excpet they are all fanatically loyal and don't need paying.....
I assume it was seen as a requirement to get someone to play the class that has no archetypal reference in 90% of her inspirational material and has to spend a lot of their time healing if the combat model is going to work.
ah for a 2e Priest of agreculture with d6 hp, theif thaco and a load of spells that affect plants and animals.
Yeah, I know but it's still shocking at first blush. I'm surprised nobody plays them.I do and well it gets people mad because I am the real Batman. Things like channel divinity almost make them as fun as the Bard. It's like quit your bitching already... BAM! And back to the task at hand.
The 1e cleric wasn't a great healer. He was an undead destroyer and his more interesting spells were more useful than healing.
The 2e cleric with specialty domains were awesome for flavor clerics. Hopefully the domains in 5e will be a major part of the cleric instead of a tag on.
Remember that the major concept of healing in 1e was called - going back to town.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;761877Holy fuck that character sheet is crowded with giant blocks of text. It's like a Russian novel.
Crime and Punishment: The RPG
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;761877Holy fuck that character sheet is crowded with giant blocks of text. It's like a Russian novel.
I gotta admit that's kinda disappointing, I was hoping they would keep it simple.
Thats because its not a purely character sheet in the normal sense. It is a character sheet with a rules/gameplay sheet on the back to cover 5 levels.
In BX I did something simmilar for my sisters character so she could just refference it on the spot rather than need the rulebook. So the back read like Thief level 2, needs 1200 XP. open locks 20%, etc, and again for 3rd.
The Starter pregen just had alot more that needs filling out. Since its a cleric and the new background stuff.
Quote from: jibbajibba;761905...
I assume it was seen as a requirement to get someone to play the class that has no archetypal reference in 90% of her inspirational material and has to spend a lot of their time healing if the combat model is going to work.
...
That's always been my assumption as well. A bribe to get someone to play the healbot.
Quote from: Larsdangly;761886I was assuming the starter set character sheets basically repeat all the rules relevant to the character for easy reference; not the sort of thing you find in a normal character sheet.
Yeah. Personally, I do that anyway when I'm helping a new player learn an RPG. Last thing I want is a new player fumbling with the rules the first couple times he plays.
Quote from: Marleycat;761885Probably not until they preview the PHB. What RPGs do you actually play or run EF? Just curious. You said Dnd isn't your goto game but you've been asking stuff in good faith.
I've played online games for years, usually d20 Modern/Star Wars d6/Marvel Super Heroes and a few others.
I've introduced my daughter to RPGs and we've played Pathfinder, Mentzer Basic and a couple others.
I'm not really mathematically inclined like others here and don't really break down rules like the pros do. I usually house rule games very little or not at all because I just roll that way. :D My curiosity about 5e is legit. I will probably buy the starter set and see if my daughter wants to play. Maybe I can get my wife to jump in too.
Oops double post.
Quote from: Endless Flight;762159I've played online games for years, usually d20 Modern/Star Wars d6/Marvel Super Heroes and a few others.
I've introduced my daughter to RPGs and we've played Pathfinder, Mentzer Basic and a couple others.
I'm not really mathematically inclined like others here and don't really break down rules like the pros do. I usually house rule games very little or not at all because I just roll that way. :D My curiosity about 5e is legit. I will probably buy the starter set and see if my daughter wants to play. Maybe I can get my wife to jump in too.
Cool beans. It seems we're quite similar in our RPG experiences and goals, at least in broad strokes.
My favorite D&D is Rules Cyclopedia and 5e would have do some serious work to move right up next to it or past it. I'm willing to take a look instead of just prejudging it based on these little snippets of info that seem to be haphazardly thrown out there. I'm not sure if there's a serious plan to their marketing or what.
Quote from: Endless Flight;762212I'm not sure if there's a serious plan to their marketing or what.
WOTC... Serious... marketing ... plan???
bwah-haa-haa-haa-haa! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Omega;762240WOTC... Serious... marketing ... plan???
bwah-haa-haa-haa-haa! :rolleyes:
right now I'd like to see ANY marketing plan
I think I remember Mistwell saying "Wait and see. There might be commercials, ads in magazines, the whole nine yards."
Here we are about a week or two away from launch and I haven't seen anything outside this forum.
Quote from: Endless Flight;762296I think I remember Mistwell saying "Wait and see. There might be commercials, ads in magazines, the whole nine yards."
Here we are about a week or two away from launch and I haven't seen anything outside this forum.
I'm going to wait until after actual release. I think kids have fairly short attention spans for commercials, and seeing an ad, "Come play the new D&D! When it comes out in a couple weeks..." might not work.
However, to say I'm dubious of such commercials would be an understatement.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762299I'm going to wait until after actual release. I think kids have fairly short attention spans for commercials, and seeing an ad, "Come play the new D&D! When it comes out in a couple weeks..." might not work.
However, to say I'm dubious of such commercials would be an understatement.
I think we might be selling kids too short.
Video games are announced almost literally a year from the date of release, like Call of Duty, and yet these kids, some of whom are around 10, know the release date.
We shouldn't beat around the bush. Wizards has pretty much sucked at this.
Quote from: Endless Flight;762329I think we might be selling kids too short.
Video games are announced almost literally a year from the date of release, like Call of Duty, and yet these kids, some of whom are around 10, know the release date.
We shouldn't beat around the bush. Wizards has pretty much sucked at this.
They are announced way ahead of time, but you usually don't see commercials for video games until a week or two until release. And video games have much larger budgets, and have much shorter life (with the exception of some MMOs), meaning that its much more important for them to sell NOW.
Initial sales on video games are pretty much the majority of the money to be made on them. It makes sense that you see way more advertising for video games than D&D.
Perhaps lots of online controversy is the marketing strategy.
Quote from: Endless Flight;762296I think I remember Mistwell saying "Wait and see. There might be commercials, ads in magazines, the whole nine yards."
Here we are about a week or two away from launch and I haven't seen anything outside this forum.
This is WOTC.
The company that has a known record of botching advertising of games. Or even letting people know the game exists...
They didnt announce or have a page even up for Dungeon till a week before release and one rep I talked to was not even aware it was in production when alerted to a false amazon entry.
In this case though WOTC has been advertising indirectly via the playtest, the early modules and the current previews of the pages.
Solomon bay be the reson theres been no actual advertisements if his hold over the D&D title for film can extend to such. No idea. More likely Hasbro just hasnt allocated WOTC a budget for that or is saving the budget for movies if they can break that contract.
It may also be that with the botch of 4e advertisement. No one is willing to risk another with so much riding on Next succeeding.
Anyone expecting a tv advertising campaign, in this day and age and for a product like D&D, should think again. Tabletop RPGs aren't in the same ballpark as videogames in market size or budget.
Quote from: Haffrung;762498Anyone expecting a tv advertising campaign, in this day and age and for a product like D&D, should think again. Tabletop RPGs aren't in the same ballpark as videogames in market size or budget.
this too. How many tv ads do you see for boardgames?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762504this too. How many tv ads do you see for boardgames?
Quite a few. And the occasional cartoons. WOTC blew how much on the Kaijudo cartoon? But their non-CCG stuff? Nada.
Hasbro is better at getting the advertising out.
And for a RPG touted as being more accessible and easier to play to the totally new. Then you really want at least some adverts out letting those people know.
But. As said. Could be budget reasons.
Or maybee others are right and they are waiting till the last minute.
Quote from: LibraryLass;762413Perhaps lots of online controversy is the marketing strategy.
And even if a small fraction of players are online in forums, that fraction has a tendency to be outspoken. Even a hater saying "5e sucks" might be enough to get one of their associates to think "Sometimes what X hates, I like, maybe I will check it out."
Quote from: Brander;762530And even if a small fraction of players are online in forums, that fraction has a tendency to be outspoken. Even a hater saying "5e sucks" might be enough to get one of their associates to think "Sometimes what X hates, I like, maybe I will check it out."
That's half the reason I was writing reviews on RPG.net.
JG
Quote from: Brander;762530And even if a small fraction of players are online in forums, that fraction has a tendency to be outspoken. Even a hater saying "5e sucks" might be enough to get one of their associates to think "Sometimes what X hates, I like, maybe I will check it out."
It also has the opposite effect.
"Someone told me I should hate this game. I hate this game now!"
And unfortunately. Online this seems the more prevalent trend. or at least balances out.