Highlights: Bard class included. Same with dragonborn, tiefling, warforged, kender, and drow races. Skills are back. Multiclassing rules. Proficiency replaces...well...a lot.
Ok, now into more detail
Bard Class: like most versions, a hybrid caster who can also play instruments to bolster allies or charm people (there are two specialties: War and Wit). War is focuses on helping allies, Wit is focused on charming
Races: I won't be playing any of them, but I can see why they'd want to include some peoples' favorite. None of them seem way overpowered. Maybe dragonborn at low levels, but that might be it.
Multiclassing: Boy, are some people throwing a shit fit about this. Most notably that you need to have a min stat before multiclassing. Harkens back to AD&D. No longer can you just have a F2/C4/R1/Brb5 character. Well, I suppose you could, but it's unlikely. For example, if you start as a different class and want to be a fighter? You need a min STR 15. I love it. It just makes way more sense, and they are explicit as to why (if you're taking the fast track instead of training like a level 1 character, you need to have an exceptional attribute). But man, is the char op crowd absolutely pissing their pants.
Now the big one. Proficiency. In a nutshell, each class has a proficiency bonus that goes up with level. Anything you're proficient in gains that bonus. Proficient in martial weapons as a fighter? You get that bonus to all attacks. Proficient in thieves tools? You get the bonus whenever using them. Proficient in certain saving throws (like dodging, etc)? You get your bonus. Proficient in the perform skill? You guessed it. Proficiency bonuses range from +1 to +6 at level 20. Although initially skeptical, I think I'm warming to the idea. It's a very simple, singular mechanic that handles a lot of things. I'm all for things making the game simpler.
For example: Fighters are proficient in all armor and shields (although you don't get your prof bonus to AC), simple and martial weapons, mounts, strength and con saving throws, and one skill of acrobatics, athletics, or intimidation. For all of those things (except AC), you add your prof bonus. Need to make a CON saving throw and you're level 5? you get an additional +2 bonus in addition to whatever your Con bonus is.
Speaking of fighters, all fighters and subclasses (ranger and paladin) can choose a fighting style at level one: archery, defense, great weapon, protection, or two-weapon fighting. They are important, but not huge benefits to each. Think of it like specialization from AD&D. Basically it means not all rangers have to be 2-weapon fighting Drizzt clones.
Also speaking of fighters, gone is the second wind ability where you can heal 1/2 your hit points. Now it's more of a true second wind or adrenaline surge. You add 1d6+level to your HP as temp HP that expire in 5 minutes.
QuoteNow the big one. Proficiency. In a nutshell, each class has a proficiency bonus that goes up with level. Anything you're proficient in gains that bonus. Proficient in martial weapons as a fighter? You get that bonus to all attacks. Proficient in thieves tools? You get the bonus whenever using them. Proficient in certain saving throws (like dodging, etc)? You get your bonus. Proficient in the perform skill? You guessed it. Proficiency bonuses range from +1 to +6 at level 20. Although initially skeptical, I think I'm warming to the idea. It's a very simple, singular mechanic that handles a lot of things. I'm all for things making the game simpler.
Very interesting.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;692312Very interesting.
From a rather broad observation, it comes down to:
Action = roll plus prof bonus + attribute bonus, and compare vs. DC value
And that's it. you don't have this list of situational modifiers like a "to hit" chart, skill bonus, feat bonus, specialization bonus, etc. And it's the same mechanic for every class, and for every action. You don't have some use % dice while others use the d20 for instance.
They should call it the "the last laugh playtest packet."
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692311Multiclassing: Boy, are some people throwing a shit fit about this. Most notably that you need to have a min stat before multiclassing. Harkens back to AD&D. No longer can you just have a F2/C4/R1/Brb5 character. Well, I suppose you could, but it's unlikely. For example, if you start as a different class and want to be a fighter? You need a min STR 15. I love it. It just makes way more sense, and they are explicit as to why (if you're taking the fast track instead of training like a level 1 character, you need to have an exceptional attribute). But man, is the char op crowd absolutely pissing their pants.
Yeah that won't stop charopers/minmaxers, it will only hurt non-charopers/min-maxers (like me) who have some sort of character concept in mind.
Why?
Random ability generation is default. 4d6 drop lowest, trade 2 points to gain 1 point in another ability appears to be still happening. The last 3rd edition game I played with people, that I don't usually play with, I realized after a couple sessions, that everyone
but me had no abilities scores below 14, apparently they all rolled their ability scores at home ;) and brought their characters with them to game. I had used the point buy system myself.
The only solution to stop charopers/min-maxers, one that really works, has been a strong GM/DM. It's been the same since the 1970s.
Further I don't see how it makes "more sense."
Quoteif you're taking the fast track instead of training like a level 1 character, you need to have an exceptional attribute
That last statement just doesn't make any sense at all. I'm a level 20 wizard with a 12 intelligence, check out my spell book. I'm a level 20 fighter with a 14 intelligence but I never had what it took to cast one arcane spell. Make sense? nope.
People are just going to ignore what they don't like anyway. Isn't that the one of the selling points of a soggy system (reduced-rules) that people can make up their own rules. I think we will see people just ignoring rules they don't like, like they did with racial maximums and of course ability minimums in AD&D. If a rule is made and it is purely for meta-game considerations like game balance, then they tend to get vetoed out in favor of more realistic (making more sense) rules, especially if those rules get in the way of what they want to do.
So no, charopers/min-maxers will be fine. People who play by the rules, or at least the spirit of rules at least, will be hampered a bit though.
If only there were some way to increase your stats as you level...
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692311Fighters are proficient in all armor and shields (although you don't get your prof bonus to AC)
It's odd that Fighters don't learn how to defend themselves better. A 1st level fighter and 10th level fighter wearing the same gear having the same ability to avoid blows has always seemed odd to me.
Quote from: Spinachcat;692340It's odd that Fighters don't learn how to defend themselves better. A 1st level fighter and 10th level fighter wearing the same gear having the same ability to avoid blows has always seemed odd to me.
Hit points represent that.
Quote from: hamstertamer;692335People are just going to ignore what they don't like anyway. Isn't that the one of the selling points of a soggy system (reduced-rules) that people can make up their own rules. I think we will see people just ignoring rules they don't like, like they did with racial maximums and of course ability minimums in AD&D. If a rule is made and it is purely for meta-game considerations like game balance, then they tend to get vetoed out in favor of more realistic (making more sense) rules, especially if those rules get in the way of what they want to do.
So no, charopers/min-maxers will be fine. People who play by the rules, or at least the spirit of rules at least, will be hampered a bit though.
At the table, you're right. But it should stop a lot of the endless charop threads on boards with the comment "that's not RAW". Which is an improvement, at least.
ETA: also, wasn't a 15 prime requisite one of the rules for dual classing back in 1e or 2e? Blast from the past!
Quote from: JonWake;692342Hit points represent that.
Just not very well whereas a monk gets improved AC through training and gains far fewer HP.
So you have 2 incongruous ways of getting the same effect.
And of course touch attacks etc particularly relevant to fighters in a duel to first blood situation.
AC bonus improving 1 per 2 levels for fighters seems like a good houserule to me.
For fun, I started creating hypothetical multi-classed characters and realized something. The real killer for multi-classing IS NOT minimum ability scores at all, it's the fact that you never get ability score improvements or feats if you do. For example, if you made a 3rd level mage, 3rd level fighter, 3rd level cleric, you would never hit 4th in any of those classes thus never get your ability score improvement or feat. All though you are a 9th level character, you don't receive an ability improvement unless a single class hits 4th level, 8th level, 12th level, etc.
That's pretty much a total killer for multi-classing, I don't think there will be many multi-classed characters by players with game mastery (understanding of the rules). I honestly think they should just remove multi-classing as an option for now. I don't think it's a bad thing really, if they want to be the anti-multi-classing edition (in reaction to previous editions), that's fine, but just say so and remove it instead of making it a trap option for newbies.
Quote from: hamstertamer;692346I don't think there will be many multi-classed characters by players with game mastery (understanding of the rules).
Boo FUCKIN hoo.
Screw the game mastery charop twinks.
Quote from: The Ent;692351Boo FUCKIN hoo.
Screw the game mastery charop twinks.
Indeed they did screw them. I would rather they just make it obvious though, then to hide their fuck you message.
When I opened the 4th edition player's handbook, I got the message immediately, page after page was "fuck you asshole." Just make it clear, I say.
Quote from: hamstertamer;692356Indeed they did screw them. I would rather they just make it obvious though, then to hide their fuck you message.
When I opened the 4th edition player's handbook, I got the message immediately, page after page was "fuck you asshole." Just make it clear, I say.
Haha, I know what you mean. :rotfl:
I got the message pretty quick when reading 4e too (whereas the messages I got from 3e were mixed. :mad: But then 3e was weird that way, its actual nature doesn't become obvious until after you've been playing it for a while...).
Quote from: hamstertamer;692335Yeah that won't stop charopers/minmaxers, it will only hurt non-charopers/min-maxers (like me) who have some sort of character concept in mind.
Why?
Random ability generation is default. 4d6 drop lowest, trade 2 points to gain 1 point in another ability appears to be still happening. The last 3rd edition game I played with people, that I don't usually play with, I realized after a couple sessions, that everyone but me had no abilities scores below 14, apparently they all rolled their ability scores at home ;) and brought their characters with them to game. I had used the point buy system myself.
The only solution to stop charopers/min-maxers, one that really works, has been a strong GM/DM. It's been the same since the 1970s.
Further I don't see how it makes "more sense." That last statement just doesn't make any sense at all. I'm a level 20 wizard with a 12 intelligence, check out my spell book. I'm a level 20 fighter with a 14 intelligence but I never had what it took to cast one arcane spell. Make sense? nope.
People are just going to ignore what they don't like anyway. Isn't that the one of the selling points of a soggy system (reduced-rules) that people can make up their own rules. I think we will see people just ignoring rules they don't like, like they did with racial maximums and of course ability minimums in AD&D. If a rule is made and it is purely for meta-game considerations like game balance, then they tend to get vetoed out in favor of more realistic (making more sense) rules, especially if those rules get in the way of what they want to do.
So no, charopers/min-maxers will be fine. People who play by the rules, or at least the spirit of rules at least, will be hampered a bit though.
People will ignore certain rules. Do you have a character in mind? Why let the dice stop you? "Roll" the stats you need to "Build" the character you want by writing (or typing if that is your thing) the numbers in the boxes
YOU want. I know, I know, a bit of 'avant garde' "out there" thinking going on, but your game, your rules. Who needs dice at this stage anyway?
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;692359Who needs dice at this stage anyway?
I prefer'em.
Point-buy stats work well in GURPS, but in D&D it mainly produces bland cookie-cutter dudes imo.
Quote from: The Ent;692361I prefer'em.
Point-buy stats work well in GURPS, but in D&D it mainly produces bland cookie-cutter dudes imo.
I didn't mean to imply point-buy, I meant fudge it all the way through character generation (without magically producing scores of 18s).
Quote from: jibbajibba;692345Just not very well whereas a monk gets improved AC through training and gains far fewer HP.
So you have 2 incongruous ways of getting the same effect.
And of course touch attacks etc particularly relevant to fighters in a duel to first blood situation.
AC bonus improving 1 per 2 levels for fighters seems like a good houserule to me.
That will break the game. ACs will outpace to hit modifiers, so instead of getting more accurate as you level, you'll actually get less accurate while HPs continue to increase, making fighters perpetually more difficult to hit and damage, leaving everyone else in the dust.
Its inconsistent, but it works at the table.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;692363I didn't mean to imply point-buy, I meant fudge it all the way through character generation (without magically producing scores of 18s).
Well, okay, I can see that one. Not sure I'd do that myself but, seems an okay way of doing it.
Quote from: JonWake;692365That will break the game. ACs will outpace to hit modifiers, so instead of getting more accurate as you level, you'll actually get less accurate while HPs continue to increase, making fighters perpetually more difficult to hit and damage, leaving everyone else in the dust.
Its inconsistent, but it works at the table.
so tweak the numbers or never have any of your characters demand a duel to first blood in no armour.
Cos if you do highest initiative wins :)
May be all classes get a AC bonus at the same rate as THACO. then it's as hard for a 10th level Fighter to hit another 10th level fighter in a duel as it is for a 1st to hit a first but the fighter will be far better at combat and will cream anyone else ... whcih is fine with me as they can't change into trees, teleport, fly etc .... (of course my heartbreaker works basically like this)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692314From a rather broad observation, it comes down to:
Action = roll plus prof bonus + attribute bonus, and compare vs. DC value
And that's it. you don't have this list of situational modifiers like a "to hit" chart, skill bonus, feat bonus, specialization bonus, etc. And it's the same mechanic for every class, and for every action. You don't have some use % dice while others use the d20 for instance.
How do they differentiate proficiencies versus skills?
Quote from: The Traveller;692369How do they differentiate proficiencies versus skills?
There is none. Proficiency is a catch-all term for 'gets this bonus when attempting tasks related to this.'
I like the sound of the proficiencies. I really do. Sounds like a neat idea.
Quote from: JonWake;692370There is none. Proficiency is a catch-all term for 'gets this bonus when attempting tasks related to this.'
That's weird. Why not just use skills?
Quote from: The Ent;692372I like the sound of the proficiencies. I really do. Sounds like a neat idea.
It's pretty damn flexible. You could easily dispense with skills altogether and just give the Proficiency bonus to any checks made with a couple attributes (sort of how Castles and Crusades does it), or make Backgrounds into big catch all categories like "Pirate of the Blood Seas" and give the bonus to anything the GM says is applicable.
Next week I have a group that's been playing the Next playtest for the last five months; we'll see how it works at the table.
Quote from: The Traveller;692373That's weird. Why not just use skills?
Flexibility, probably. Characters get proficiency in a half dozen things from several categories: thieves tools, horses, sailing, weapons, armor, the like. You could call it a skill and would do the exact same thing.
So you get 'skills', which you check versus your stats, from your background and you progress in them through proficiencies which are tied to your class?
is that roughly it?
Quote from: hamstertamer;692346That's pretty much a total killer for multi-classing, I don't think there will be many multi-classed characters by players with game mastery (understanding of the rules). I honestly think they should just remove multi-classing as an option for now. I don't think it's a bad thing really, if they want to be the anti-multi-classing edition (in reaction to previous editions), that's fine, but just say so and remove it instead of making it a trap option for newbies.
You do realize that D&D is about ROLEPLAYING as well as being a game. If a player wants to be a thief/magic-user then that what he will be. If it is an inferior option then that make sense as the character is spreading his attention over multiple professions. The old adage of "Jack of all trades, master of none".
Quote from: estar;692393You do realize that D&D is about ROLEPLAYING as well as being a game. If a player wants to be a thief/magic-user then that what he will be. If it is an inferior option then that make sense as the character is spreading his attention over multiple professions. The old adage of "Jack of all trades, master of none".
QuoteYou do realize that D&D is about ROLEPLAYING as well as being a game.
You do realize that was a dumb statement as well as being a trite one.
Anyway back to the discussion at hand, the whole idea of the hidden trap in their multi-classing system was to make multi-classing a bad option. If they don't like multi-classing then fine, just remove it, but don't punish people who do. In other words, if someone wants to be a thief/magic-user the game shouldn't try to demotivate them for wanting to.
Quote from: jibbajibba;692391So you get 'skills', which you check versus your stats, from your background and you progress in them through proficiencies which are tied to your class?
is that roughly it?
There is a proficiency bonus that increases as you level. You get the use the bonus for skills that you have proficiency plus your attribute bonus. Otherwise you get to use just your attribute bonus. It looks broadly similar to the abilities I used in my Majestic Wilderlands supplement.
My guess for the terminology is the same reason why I used ability instead of skill in my supplement. The game allows the character to attempt any actions but some characters are better at certain things than others.
Look at 'How to Play', look at 'Feats and Skills', and finally look at Classes. None of the things in 'How to Play' is restricted to any particular classes. Anybody can stealth, climb, pick locks, or use any of other skills.
Quote from: hamstertamer;692398 You do realize that was a dumb statement as well as being a trite one.
Anyway back to the discussion at hand, the whole idea of the hidden trap in their multi-classing system was to make multi-classing a bad option. If they don't like multi-classing then fine, just remove it, but don't punish people who do. In other words, if someone wants to be a thief/magic-user the game shouldn't try to demotivate them for wanting to.
Jesus Christ. "Punish" really?
It's called making trade offs, you know "choices"?
Show me on the doll where WOTC touched you.
Quote from: hamstertamer;692398Anyway back to the discussion at hand, the whole idea of the hidden trap in their multi-classing system was to make multi-classing a bad option. If they don't like multi-classing then fine, just remove it, but don't punish people who do. In other words, if someone wants to be a thief/magic-user the game shouldn't try to demotivate them for wanting to.
It only "punishes" people who are designing characters for maximum power (min-maxers) and who want to multi-class. It does not punish people who don't care about maximum power and are multi-classing because it allows them to play a particular character concept that they want to play -- regardless of what doing so do does to their character's power level in the eyes of min-maxing players.
You are correct, if the game were being designed with min-maxers as the only target audience, then removing multi-classing would be a good thing as it is a "trap option" for min-maxers who aren't yet skilled at charop. Fortunately, D&D Next does not seem to be designed around the needs and desires of min-maxers and multi-classing can be very useful for people who aren't min-maxers.
Quote from: JonWake;692339If only there were some way to increase your stats as you level...
No kidding. I pointed this out on the WoTC forum, and the response was, "I shouldn't have to wait a few levels to be able to multi-class to what I want."
My response to that was, "Well, you
chose to allocate your highest stats the way you did, and you
chose to go into a class that needed an attribute that you didn't put as a high one. So based off of your
choices, that's the price to pay to get what you want." No accountability for choices.
Quote from: JonWake;692342Hit points represent that.
This is true. Quite literally in fact, as "avoiding taking the brunt of the hit" is expressly pointed out in the definition of hit points.
Quote from: hamstertamer;692335Further I don't see how it makes "more sense." That last statement just doesn't make any sense at all. I'm a level 20 wizard with a 12 intelligence, check out my spell book. I'm a level 20 fighter with a 14 intelligence but I never had what it took to cast one arcane spell. Make sense? nope.
.
It makes complete sense. If you've spend years in your background studying to be a mage and are level 1, you don't need a 15+ INT because you've had years of study to learn it. What doesn't make sense is that a character with an INT of 10 (or whatever) can do absolutely no studying of magic whatsoever with the exception of looking over the mage's shoulder a few times, and a few days later when they get the XP, suddenly have the same casting ability as that mage who spent years learning how to do it. Therefore, if you want to learn a skill in a MUCH shorter time frame than the person who spent years, you're going to have to need to be exceptional in the appropriate attribute.
Also, and this is a general comment, you needed a 17 in AD&D to dual class.
Quote from: JonWake;692365That will break the game. ACs will outpace to hit modifiers, so instead of getting more accurate as you level, you'll actually get less accurate while HPs continue to increase, making fighters perpetually more difficult to hit and damage, leaving everyone else in the dust.
Its inconsistent, but it works at the table.
Increasing AC too much also has a huge effect because the scale is much lower. You don't have ACs into the 30s, so a +1 bonus in Next is equivalent to a +2-3 bonus in 3e. Giving a 20th level fighter a +10 bonus to AC would make him unhittable.
Quote from: The Traveller;692373That's weird. Why not just use skills?
Because then you'd have another modifier mechanic to worry about: skill modifier. And it's unique to skills and may not be the same as your modifier to attack, or to save. With proficiencies, it's the same modifier for everything, which keeps it really simple to remember.
Quote from: RandallS;692403It only "punishes" people who are designing characters for maximum power (min-maxers) and who want to multi-class. It does not punish people who don't care about maximum power and are multi-classing because it allows them to play a particular character concept that they want to play -- regardless of what doing so do does to their character's power level in the eyes of min-maxing players.
You are correct, if the game were being designed with min-maxers as the only target audience, then removing multi-classing would be a good thing as it is a "trap option" for min-maxers who aren't yet skilled at charop. Fortunately, D&D Next does not seem to be designed around the needs and desires of min-maxers and multi-classing can be very useful for people who aren't min-maxers.
Yup, and I admire your ability to say it with fewer insults than myself :D
Quote from: hamstertamer;692398 You do realize that was a dumb statement as well as being a trite one.
Anyway back to the discussion at hand, the whole idea of the hidden trap in their multi-classing system was to make multi-classing a bad option. If they don't like multi-classing then fine, just remove it, but don't punish people who do. In other words, if someone wants to be a thief/magic-user the game shouldn't try to demotivate them for wanting to.
The incorrect assumption here that options have to have a mechanical advantage or at least balanced. Again D&D is about roleplaying a character as well as being a game. Because of this I feel that options in a RPG are better off being setup to reflect the genre or setting. Which implies that sometimes this calls for options that are clearly better in terms of game mechanics.
To me the way the multi-class option is setup reflects the designer's opinion of how the implicit game world works. That if somebody take multiple classes they are spreading their attention resulting a loss of expertise compared to a person focusing on a single class.
My prediction that there will be more than a few players who play multi-class characters in Next. That the reason for doing so would be much like if that world existed. Because circumstances of the character or desires of the player made that ideal choice despite the consequences of the mechanics.
Quote from: RandallS;692403QuoteIt only "punishes" people who are designing characters for maximum power (min-maxers) and who want to multi-class.
False. It was designed as a sabotage against players who want to multi-class for whatever reason.
QuoteIt does not punish people who don't care about maximum power and are multi-classing because it allows them to play a particular character concept that they want to play -- regardless of what doing so do does to their character's power level in the eyes of min-maxing players.
Again false. It affects everyone that multi-classes. It does not matter their motive.
QuoteYou are correct, if the game were being designed with min-maxers as the only target audience, then removing multi-classing would be a good thing as it is a "trap option" for min-maxers who aren't yet skilled at charop. Fortunately, D&D Next does not seem to be designed around the needs and desires of min-maxers and multi-classing can be very useful for people who aren't min-maxers.
So, you agree then it was a deliberate sabotage against multi-classing, but you are fine with it because you believe those dirty min-maxers have it coming.
*facepalm*
Quote from: hamstertamer;692414So, you agree then it was a deliberate sabotage against multi-classing, but you are fine with it because you believe those dirty min-maxers have it coming.
That's not what he said at all. "not catering to min/maxers" does not equal "sabotaging multi-classing."
They are completely independent of one another.
Quote from: estar;692406The incorrect assumption here that options have to have a mechanical advantage or at least balanced. Again D&D is about roleplaying a character as well as being a game. Because of this I feel that options in a RPG are better off being setup to reflect the genre or setting. Which implies that sometimes this calls for options that are clearly better in terms of game mechanics.
First, please stop telling that D&D is a role-playing game. I'm starting to think you have a mental illness.
QuoteTo me the way the multi-class option is setup reflects the designer's opinion of how the implicit game world works. That if somebody take multiple classes they are spreading their attention resulting a loss of expertise compared to a person focusing on a single class.
No it's to encourage people NOT to multi-class. We talking about the loss of ability improvement/feat option. "That if somebody take multiple classes they are spreading their attention resulting a loss of expertise compared to a person focusing on a single class." That explanation does not make sense and has nothing to do with their design goals, even if that was their bullshit in-game reason. It was purely meta-game.
QuoteMy prediction that there will be more than a few players who play multi-class characters in Next. That the reason for doing so would be much like if that world existed. Because circumstances of the character or desires of the player made that ideal choice despite the consequences of the mechanics.
[/QUOTE]
Your prediction will be wrong. In fact, people on this very thread are crowing about the fact that it will decrease multi-classing. How can we know it, and you don't?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692416That's not what he said at all. "not catering to min/maxers" does not equal "sabotaging multi-classing."
They are completely independent of one another.
No they are not "completely independent of one another." I was making the point that it was really about sabotaging multi-classing, he just said it in a different way, because for him having a fair and liberal multi-class system is "catering to min/maxers." So in that sense he agrees with the design goals which were, undeniable, to sabotage it. You even said it yourself, when you said you loved what they did in multi-classing because of what it did min-maxers. So it's game design with an agenda behind it, you recognized it immediately and so did I. We just disagree about if it's a good thing or not.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692311Multiclassing: Boy, are some people throwing a shit fit about this. Most notably that you need to have a min stat before multiclassing. But man, is the char op crowd absolutely pissing their pants.
Well, you all can see this first hand now.
Quote from: hamstertamer;692422No they are not "completely independent of one another." I was making the point that it was really about sabotaging multi-classing, he just said it in a different way, because for him having a fair and liberal multi-class system is "catering to min/maxers." So in that sense he agrees with the design goals which were, undeniable, to sabotage it. You even said it yourself, when you said you loved what they did in multi-classing because of what it did min-maxers. So it's game design with an agenda behind it, you recognized it immediately and so did I. We just disagree about if it's a good thing or not.
(http://i1.sndcdn.com/artworks-000015059155-al8zak-crop.jpg?16b9957)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692416That's not what he said at all. "not catering to min/maxers" does not equal "sabotaging multi-classing."
They are completely independent of one another.
Min/maxers can see no point to the game outside the numbers.
I suspect hamstertamer is so locked into an obsessive mindset that doesn't even understand the very idea of trading mechanical advantages for non-mechanical (fiction based) advantages.
If my supposition is correct the game will be better off without him and his ilk.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692423Well, you all can see this first hand now.
Indeed. I bet the Gaming Den is on fire.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692423Well, you all can see this first hand now.
Stunning.
Quote from: Piestrio;692425Min/maxers can see no point to the game outside the numbers.
.
Absolutely true. The forums out there are ablaze with people saying how broken the rules are because of X and Y build examples.
"Why would anyone ever play any class other than a druid 16/pal 4?"
Those examples? They are all level 20 characters. It's like that these players start all of their characters at level 20 from the get go. If you have to get to level 20 for your character to really shine? What's the point? If your character doesn't start really giving you the experience you want until level 20? You're not playing the same game I am.
The really big irony is that these are the same people who bitched and moaned that they were getting robbed of 3 levels of gameplay because the really cool powers didn't start until level 4. If you're starting at level 20 anyway, or playing Monty Haul so you level up ever 5 minutes, what the hell are you bitching about level 1-3 for?
Some people.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692423Well, you all can see this first hand now.
Exactly. Which was the point.
I don't have any love for min-maxers myself. If the average min-maxer saw the character builds I like to play they would call me a "basketweaver." I actually played a lowly peasant with very little combat ability once, just for the hell of it. I do however understand what the designers did, and why they did it. Their anti-multi-classing attitude affects me as well since I like custom characters with lots of different options. The minimum ability scores thing is nothing more than a speed bump. It's the loss of ability improvements/feats that is the real killer, as I already said. Not that it matters, because I have more than one reason not to invest in Next.
Quote from: hamstertamer;692432I don't have any love for min-maxers myself. If the average min-maxer saw the character builds I like to play they would call me a "basketweaver." I actually played a lowly peasant with very little combat ability once, just for the hell of it. I do however understand what the designers did, and why they did it. Their anti-multi-classing attitude affects me as well since I like custom characters with lots of different options. The minimum ability scores thing is nothing more than a speed bump. It's the loss of ability improvements/feats that is the real killer, as I already said. Not that it matters, because I have more than one reason not to invest in Next.
If you're a "basketweaver," what do you care if multi-classing is not mechanically optimal?
Quote from: hamstertamer;692414False. It was designed as a sabotage against players who want to multi-class for whatever reason.
Again false. It affects everyone that multi-classes. It does not matter their motive.
So, you agree then it was a deliberate sabotage against multi-classing, but you are fine with it because you believe those dirty min-maxers have it coming.
You are the prime example of what institutionalized specialization has done to D&D. Its not completely your fault. WOTC has done a lot of damage in this area and you may just be a victim.
What is institutionalized specialization ? It the slow boiling frog of numbers creep and mathematical wankery that defines the modern D&D game. The core of the issue is that only numbers matter. How big a bonus can you drum up against the rising tide of CRs and DCs coming at you like a tidal wave of bullshit. "You must be this tall to ride" is the name of the game. Characters are so specialized at doing their "thing" that they have ceased to be adventurers and now represent cogs on the great adventuring wheel. Each cog must be large enough to carry its share of the chain. To this end attributes are custom ordered, feats carefully selected, entitled wealth spent on specific purchases of gear all in the name of ensuring a given cog is strong enough to bear its burden. Variety is the death of effectiveness. Trap options are everywhere and its up to the player to be a good little worker insect and avoid them, keeping to the one true path that provides those glorious high numbers.
Then end result are aventurers who can ONLY operate in their little niche. Poking their head out of their one-trick universe means a catastrophic failure rate because
only the numbers matter. A natural result of this play dynamic are obsessive charoppers.
Remove the need for hyper-specialization from the play dynamic and the problem will fix itself.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692404Increasing AC too much also has a huge effect because the scale is much lower. You don't have ACs into the 30s, so a +1 bonus in Next is equivalent to a +2-3 bonus in 3e. Giving a 20th level fighter a +10 bonus to AC would make him unhittable.
.
unless he was fighting another 20th lvel fighter or equivalent of coure ...;)
Point is if you have ever fenced, spared or whatever, or you have ever read a book or seen a film where there are skilled fighters this is how it actually works and how it works in the fiction.
1st level guy versus 20th level guy the 1st level guy doesn't lay a point on the 20th level guy for the whole fight.
As it stands in order to compete with high level monsters high level fighters need magical armour.
A 20th level fighter in a fight with a Cloud giant. If the fighter is wearing simple chain mail he will have AC5 call it 3 for dex. The cloud giant will need what a 4 to hit him? so will hit 85% of the time (we won't give it a + for str) so the fighter will get hit nearly all the time for what 3d10 +12 damage ? a hit .... he can't doge the giants blows etc...
Or the fighter wakes up in the night attacked by a spectre, he can't avoid the spectres blows, he now has AC10 , give him 8 for dex... the spctre will hit him on what a 4 (? Spcrets have 8hd or 7?) and level drain the crap out f him. the fighter can't use his combat skills to avoid it he is as prone to it as a 0 level human. .....
But a 17th level monk has -3 AC with no armour on because .....
Quote from: hamstertamer;692432It's the loss of ability improvements/feats that is the real killer, as I already said. Not that it matters, because I have more than one reason not to invest in Next.
Dude. You're getting a TON of class features by selecting a new class that far outweigh what you would have gotten if you just chose a feat or ability boost.
Seriously man, just stop whining for a moment and think first.
Quote from: hamstertamer;692421First, please stop telling that D&D is a role-playing game. I'm starting to think you have a mental illness.
What is your malfunction?
D&D is about playing a character within a setting. Either you play the character as a reflection of yourself within the situation or you adopt a personae and roleplay according. Either works as well as anything between. Nothing about D&D preclude playing a character of varying background, personality and circumstances. What matters is what the player is interested in doing and has fun at.
Personally when I play I look at my stats and circumstances and create a personality that fits. I rarely play a reflection of myself because I done it so often it boring. The challenge for me these days is to be successful despite the self-impose flaws of my characters.
When I play I look at my stats and circumstance and create a personality that fits. When I referee I don't care if the player is a hardcore charop maestro or plays angst ridden character that throws milk at barbarians. My job is to adjudicate the consequences to what the player do as their character
From a recent game
QuoteMe: I've got 8 charisma.
GM: And you sure are getting the most out of it.
Quote from: hamstertamer;692421No it's to encourage people NOT to multi-class. We talking about the loss of ability improvement/feat option.
Yes those are exactly the consequences of the design.
Quote from: hamstertamer;692421"That if somebody take multiple classes they are spreading their attention resulting a loss of expertise compared to a person focusing on a single class." That explanation does not make sense and has nothing to do with their design goals, even if that was their bullshit in-game reason. It was purely meta-game.
Professional versus amateur athletes. On the average professional are way better because they can focus all their time on their chosen sport. Not just a little better but to point where amateur athletes can't even begin to compete. So yeah to me it make sense that multi-classing sucks compared to taking a single class.
Quote from: hamstertamer;692421Your prediction will be wrong. In fact, people on this very thread are crowing about the fact that it will decrease multi-classing. How can we know it, and you don't?
I agree that incidence of multi-classing will drop. Reread what I said. I said "more than a few". This was in response to everybody saying that people will just stop multi-classing all together.
Quote from: Piestrio;692425Min/maxers can see no point to the game outside the numbers.
I suspect hamstertamer is so locked into an obsessive mindset that doesn't even understand the very idea of trading mechanical advantages for non-mechanical (fiction based) advantages.
I have to reluctantly agree after he said that people who roleplay in D&D were mentally deranged.
@Hamstertamer,
You do realize that if you referee D&D Next that you could always like..like
you know house rule the game.
Remove the minimum abilities.
Use the total level of all classes to determine when to get feats or ability increases.
Just saying.
Quote from: estar;692444@Hamstertamer,
You do realize that if you referee D&D Next that you could always like..like
you know house rule the game.
Remove the minimum abilities.
Use the total level of all classes to determine when to get feats or ability increases.
Just saying.
[Denner]He's not paying money for an incomplete ruleset...[/Denner]
Quote from: estar;692442I have to reluctantly agree after he said that people who roleplay in D&D were mentally deranged.
Jesus Christ, some people on here are retarded.
I didn't suggest that you had a mental illness because I disagreed with your definition of what D&D was or what a RPG was or even what fucktard Piestrio said, it was because of your condescending attitude
and your repetition as if i didn't understand.
Quote from: hamstertamer;692449Jesus Christ, some people on here are retarded.
I didn't suggest that you had a mental illness because I disagreed with your definition of what D&D was or what a RPG was or even what fucktard Piestrio said, it was because of your condensing attitude and your repetition as if i didn't understand.
You fairly clearly don't.
Quote from: estar;692444@Hamstertamer,
You do realize that if you referee D&D Next that you could always like..like
you know house rule the game.
Remove the minimum abilities.
Use the total level of all classes to determine when to get feats or ability increases.
Just saying.
More condescending, what a surprise!
You do realize that I don't have to play next, and I definitely don't have to buy it.
You know that I can spread the word that it's the gorgnard's revenge edition.
Just saying.
....
Quote from: Bobloblah;692451You fairly clearly don't.
What? I don't even know.
So you're going to actively try to sabotage a game you don't like rather than just not play it?
Man, you sure are a piece of work.
Quote from: Bobloblah;692451You fairly clearly don't.
I'm presuming that a condensed attitude is what, an att?
Quote from: hamstertamer;692452You know that I can spread the word that it's the gorgnard's revenge edition.
Just saying.
....
?
Is this some kind of threat...or something? Why would anyone even waste time on doing so, or worse,
threatening to do so on an internet forum?
Invoking min-maxers is a strawman. A player making a choice for flavor reasons and ending up gimped is bad design. Choosing to play a weaker character is fine. Choosing to play Fighter Mage and ending up weaker because the system punishes the combination is not. The person wanting to play a Fighter Mage doesn't want to do so because it is weaker, but the system makes it so.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692439Dude. You're getting a TON of class features by selecting a new class that far outweigh what you would have gotten if you just chose a feat or ability boost.
Seriously man, just stop whining for a moment and think first.
Sacrosanct, I don't even like Next, I was just building a Multi-classed PC as a theoretical exercise to see how much the ability minimums would affect multi-classing. I then saw the sabotage design in multi-classing and just wanted to point it out. If people here are fine with it, then good for them.
Multi-classing is one of the areas that 4e got right IMO.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692462Invoking min-maxers is a strawman. A player making a choice for flavor reasons and ending up gimped is bad design. Choosing to play a weaker character is fine. Choosing to play Fighter Mage and ending up weaker because the system punishes the combination is not. The person wanting to play a Fighter Mage doesn't want to do so because it is weaker, but the system makes it so.
The consensus is that a multi-classed character is MORE powerful, except for people like the lil' hamster, who clearly haven't even taken the time to look at it objectively.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692462Invoking min-maxers is a strawman. A player making a choice for flavor reasons and ending up gimped is bad design. Choosing to play a weaker character is fine. Choosing to play Fighter Mage and ending up weaker because the system punishes the combination is not. The person wanting to play a Fighter Mage doesn't want to do so because it is weaker, but the system makes it so.
Wait, what? So...if I choose to play a Fighter who uses only daggers...and end up "weaker" because of it...it's bad game design? I'm not choosing to play a dagger-wielding Fighter because it's weaker; I'm playing it because I think my conception of such a character is cool. Explain to me the difference between this:
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692462Choosing to play a weaker character is fine.
...when it's the dagger-wielding Fighter, and this:
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692462Choosing to play Fighter Mage and ending up weaker because the system punishes the combination is not.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692465The consensus is that a multi-classed character is MORE powerful, except for people like the lil' hamster, who clearly haven't even taken the time to look at it objectively.
If it's "MORE powerful" then what were you talking about in your first post when you said " But man, is the char op crowd absolutely pissing their pants." You must believe the char op crowd does not want more powerful multi-classing. Weird.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692462Invoking min-maxers is a strawman. A player making a choice for flavor reasons and ending up gimped is bad design. Choosing to play a weaker character is fine. Choosing to play Fighter Mage and ending up weaker because the system punishes the combination is not. The person wanting to play a Fighter Mage doesn't want to do so because it is weaker, but the system makes it so.
Institutionalized specialization at its finest.
Quote from: Bobloblah;692434If you're a "basketweaver," what do you care if multi-classing is not mechanically optimal?
Quote from: hamstertamer;692468If it's "MORE powerful" then what were you talking about in your first post when you said " But man, is the char op crowd absolutely pissing their pants." You must believe the char op crowd does not want more powerful multi-classing. Weird.
I think the base assumption some people are using (taken from their familiarity with 3e, I suspect) is that multi-classed characters should be *more* powerful than (not balanced with) single class characters.
I refute that assumption; you gain a lot of advantages in increased available play options by being a different class. The loss of ability bonus increases and feats sounds very *balanced* to me - as much as these things can be.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: hamstertamer;692468If it's "MORE powerful" then what were you talking about in your first post when you said " But man, is the char op crowd absolutely pissing their pants." You must believe the char op crowd does not want more powerful multi-classing. Weird.
You seriously need to go look up what a list of common fallacies are, because your arguments always come down to one.
Not as char op friendly (or char op people pissing their pants)
and
Multi-classing is more powerful than not
are not in opposition of each other. You can still have multi classing be more powerful than not, and at the same time not allowing the char op crowd to go nuts.
Let me try to put into simple terms. A regular class is turned up to 5. Multi-classed characters have that turned up to 8. Char oppers want that bitch cranked up to 11.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692465The consensus is that a multi-classed character is MORE powerful, except for people like the lil' hamster, who clearly haven't even taken the time to look at it objectively.
It's not more powerful, because class abilities scale. The class features you get at level 10 are more powerful than what you get at level 5, and having two classes at 5 is weaker than one class at 10. Multiclassed spellcasters get locked out of spells, and outside of heavy micromanagement multiclassing screws up feat/attribute acquisition.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692475It's not more powerful, because class abilities scale. The class features you get at level 10 are more powerful than what you get at level 5, and having two classes at 5 is weaker than one class at 10. Multiclassed spellcasters get locked out of spells, and outside of heavy micromanagement multiclassing screws up feat/attribute acquisition.
A mage with one level in fighter can cast spells in heavy armor and is proficient in all simple and marital weapons. That means that a level 10 mage/1 fighter can attack with a sword and long bow with the same effectiveness as a level 10 fighter. And they are slinging spells around in full armor.
It's better than a feat or attribute choice that you might otherwise lose because you get that classes base abilities, which include not only the aforementioned proficiencies, but also second wind and a fighting style. Certainly a much larger benefit than choosing a feat or increasing an attribute by 2 points. Also, that only puts you 1 level delay in getting the attribute bonus/feat selection anyway.
Once again, just
look at it for a minute outside of the box, on how things can be combined.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692478A mage with one level in fighter can cast spells in heavy armor and is proficient in all simple and marital weapons. That means that a level 10 mage/1 fighter can attack with a sword and long bow with the same effectiveness as a level 10 fighter. And they are slinging spells around in full armor.
It's better than a feat or attribute choice that you might otherwise lose because you get that classes base abilities, which include not only the aforementioned proficiencies, but also second wind and a fighting style. Certainly a much larger benefit than choosing a feat or increasing an attribute by 2 points. Also, that only puts you 1 level delay in getting the attribute bonus/feat selection anyway.
Once again, just look at it for a minute outside of the box, on how things can be combined.
It sounds like you're saying multi-classing is a Char-Oper's wet-dream in Next. All the power of a 10th level fighter, with a single level of Fighter?
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692475It's not more powerful, because class abilities scale. The class features you get at level 10 are more powerful than what you get at level 5, and having two classes at 5 is weaker than one class at 10.
As it should be. You get vesatility with 5/5 that you don't get with a single class at 10.
If a 5/5 combo character was a purely powerful as a single classed 10 then they would effectively be a 10/10.
Under those circumstances what is the benefit of playing a single classed character? Why would anyone choose such a gimped option?
Quote from: hamstertamer;692452More condescending, what a surprise!
As a referee, I adjudicate according to how the person acts.
You do realize that I don't have to play next, and I definitely don't have to buy it.
Quote from: hamstertamer;692452You know that I can spread the word that it's the gorgnard's revenge edition.
Just saying.
....
I am sure that will be a popular meme among some circles. But I am well aware that the current number of "grognards" is at best equivalent to a solid third tier publisher. That it is split among the many classic editions and various clones.
It is my opinion is that what Wizards learned that is the fact that the old school hobbyist managed to grow despite the general collapse is a sign that perhaps a char op oriented tactically detailed game is not the way to go for your headliner.
That returning to 3.5 is not a viable option due to Paizo's dominance and product quality. Rather what they should do is make an approachable game and grow a new audience out of novices, returning customers, and yes maybe a few grognards too. Something that easier to setup and get going than what they had in the past with 3.X or 4.0. But has the customization and detail that many of today's gamers have grown to like.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;692481It sounds like you're saying multi-classing is a Char-Oper's wet-dream in Next. All the power of a 10th level fighter, with a single level of Fighter?
The fighter gets a lot more benefits between level 1 and 10, so no, your statement is false. I'm saying that choosing to multi-class is still more powerful of an option than to get your feat/attribute bonus one level sooner than normal, and thus more powerful than a character who hadn't multi-classed at all. The core level 1 benefits outdo any +2 bonus/feat choice.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692478A mage with one level in fighter can cast spells in heavy armor and is proficient in all simple and marital weapons. That means that a level 10 mage/1 fighter can attack with a sword and long bow with the same effectiveness as a level 10 fighter. And they are slinging spells around in full armor.
It's better than a feat or attribute choice that you might otherwise lose because you get that classes base abilities, which include not only the aforementioned proficiencies, but also second wind and a fighting style. Certainly a much larger benefit than choosing a feat or increasing an attribute by 2 points. Also, that only puts you 1 level delay in getting the attribute bonus/feat selection anyway.
Once again, just look at it for a minute outside of the box, on how things can be combined.
There are indeed some perverse incentives for 1-2 level dips, which is another problem.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692474You seriously need to go look up what a list of common fallacies are, because your arguments always come down to one.
Not as char op friendly (or char op people pissing their pants)
and
Multi-classing is more powerful than not
are not in opposition of each other. You can still have multi classing be more powerful than not, and at the same time not allowing the char op crowd to go nuts.
Let me try to put into simple terms. A regular class is turned up to 5. Multi-classed characters have that turned up to 8. Char oppers want that bitch cranked up to 11.
Pointing out your failed logic is not a fallacy.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;692483As it should be. You get vesatility with 5/5 that you don't get with a single class at 10.
If a 5/5 combo character was a purely powerful as a single classed 10 then they would effectively be a 10/10.
Under those circumstances what is the benefit of playing a single classed character? Why would anyone choose such a gimped option?
Except that level 5 abilities are often weaksauce for level 10 characters.
Quote from: estar;692485As a referee, I adjudicate according to how the person acts.
But as a dumbass, you don't realize you started it.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692494Except that level 5 abilities are often weaksauce for level 10 characters.
Yes, that's the point.
You have two sets of weaker abilities instead of one set of stronger abilities.
Quote from: hamstertamer;692493Pointing out your failed logic is not a fallacy.
Man what? Um, that's exactly what I just did to your logic, and showed why it is a fallacy.
Are you a teenager by chance? because I'm really getting that vibe from your posts.
Quote from: Piestrio;692498Yes, that's the point.
You have two sets of weaker abilities instead of one set of stronger abilities.
Punishing people for building the character they want isn't a point worth having.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692501Punishing people for building the character they want isn't a point worth having.
For God's sake, that's not punishing. You can't have a level 10 fighter/10 mage and have them be just as powerful as a 20th level fighter and 20th level mage.
That's the point.
I have an idea for a new System. It's called No Choice Matters. As you level, you get a single stat called Awesome and you roll your Awesome to do anything. You'll never have to make another character choice again.
Quote from: JonWake;692507I have an idea for a new System. It's called No Choice Matters. As you level, you get a single stat called Awesome and you roll your Awesome to do anything. You'll never have to make another character choice again.
That's flawed. You shouldn't even have to roll.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692506For God's sake, that's not punishing. You can't have a level 10 fighter/10 mage and have them be just as powerful as a 20th level fighter and 20th level mage.
That's the point.
Not at the cost of making a level 10 fighter/10 Mage too weak to function as a 20th level character. I'm not saying the character should benefit from 20 full levels of both classes, but the current system makes the multiclass character too much weaker.
Quote from: Bobloblah;692466Wait, what? So...if I choose to play a Fighter who uses only daggers...and end up "weaker" because of it...it's bad game design? I'm not choosing to play a dagger-wielding Fighter because it's weaker; I'm playing it because I think my conception of such a character is cool.
I think TCO is saying that the problem is you should be allowed to play a dagger-wielding Fighter who is game mechanically as good as a sword-wielding fighter - in other words, you should have the option to play a dagger-wielding Fighter who isn't weaker than anyone else.
Which creates a situation where the only way to play a weak character is to specifically declare "I want to be weak", because all build options are equally strong and there's no such thing as a strong build or a weak build. Which goes even beyond the charop dreams of 3rd/4th edition (where at least the effort put in by min/maxers to identify weak and strong combinations highlighted interesting options for people to take if they wanted to play a weak or strong character) into some weird abstract realm of total mechanical equivalence.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692501Punishing people for building the character they want isn't a point worth having.
Can you not see a situation where the
combination of two weaker ability sets can give you an advantage of someone who only has a single stronger ability sets?
Quote from: Warthur;692512I think TCO is saying that the problem is you should be allowed to play a dagger-wielding Fighter who is game mechanically as good as a sword-wielding fighter - in other words, you should have the option to play a dagger-wielding Fighter who isn't weaker than anyone else.
Which creates a situation where the only way to play a weak character is to specifically declare "I want to be weak", because all build options are equally strong and there's no such thing as a strong build or a weak build. Which goes even beyond the charop dreams of 3rd/4th edition (where at least the effort put in by min/maxers to identify weak and strong combinations highlighted interesting options for people to take if they wanted to play a weak or strong character) into some weird abstract realm of total mechanical equivalence.
The issue is transparency. A dagger is transparently a weaker option than a great sword. That it does less damage and is less powerful is obvious. That 5E's multiclassing generally results in making you a weaker character with the exception of a few perversely effective dips is not transparent. There is no reason that playing a character with two classes should be weaker overall than a single classed character. That character shouldn't be as powerful in both classes as the single classed character is in one, but it should add up to the same total. The multiclass system in 5E does not, because of scaling, the magic system, ect.
Quote from: Warthur;692514Can you not see a situation where the combination of two weaker ability sets can give you an advantage of someone who only has a single stronger ability sets?
I'm sure there are corner cases. In general, the way scaling works in 5E it's not going to be the case.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692506For God's sake, that's not punishing. You can't have a level 10 fighter/10 mage and have them be just as powerful as a 20th level fighter and 20th level mage.
That's the point.
In earlier editions of D&D (prior to 3.x) a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 was roughly equal to a 15th level single-class character. Since XP per level increased (to a point) you could even have a Class X 3/class Y 3 for the same XP as a single Class Z 4 or 5.
Since 3.x, the designers have tried to say total class level is what matters (rather than experience point total). They have tried to make a X 3/Y 3 the equvalent of a 6th level character; not noticeably weaker. In 3.x, they mostly failed. If Next doesn't 'fix' the issue, than score one more for 3.x - even if it's not
better, it has the excuse of being based on a system released almost 14 years ago.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692492There are indeed some perverse incentives for 1-2 level dips, which is another problem.
Maybe that's why they included attribute minimums - to discourage multiple dips.
Quote from: Saplatt;692559Maybe that's why they included attribute minimums - to discourage multiple dips.
Multiple dips is a trap. They gimp your main class too much, you can only really afford 1-2 levels worth of dipping. The attribute minimums can be cheated. You can build a Str 8 Int 18 Mage who takes his first level as Fighter for 19 AC, then goes Mage for the next 19.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692564Multiple dips is a trap. They gimp your main class too much, you can only really afford 1-2 levels worth of dipping. The attribute minimums can be cheated. You can build a Str 8 Int 18 Mage who takes his first level as Fighter for 19 AC, then goes Mage for the next 19.
Wait, are you complaining that the thing that people complained about for years is no longer overpowered?
Quote from: JonWake;692567Wait, are you complaining that the thing that people complained about for years is no longer overpowered?
Honestly, dipping into 5 classes was never really overpowered, not without Prestige Classes, and not outside of very specific corner cases. Dipping into 5 classes left a bad taste. My primary hatred of 3E-style multiclassing stems from the fact that it undermined D&D as a class-based system, not balance issues.
Quote from: hamstertamer;692421First, please stop telling that D&D is a role-playing game. I'm starting to think you have a mental illness.
Quote from: hamstertamer;692452You know that I can spread the word that it's the gorgnard's revenge edition.
Just saying.
:rotfl:
Comedy friggin'
GOLD!
And by the way, all you dumb bitches replying to tco?
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;330631I like arguing with people. I don't really care about winning the argument, and I don't really care which argument. I've argued with people over what Transformers line is superior, which American Idol contestant sucks, whether or not overfocusing on tournament play was ruining M:tG for those who played casually, I argued with people over whether the Fighter sucked and spellcasting was too powerful in 3E ect. Posting on message boards without an argument is boring. I say I don't have an agenda, because I'm not here to promote one, I'm just here to join in the argument. I don't have a goal beyond that. If I were to win the argument and the argument would end, my reason for existence would end as well.
In the RPG world right now, 4E is the center of the storm. I'm here for the storm, not for 4E.
PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE SELF-PROCLAIMED TROLL.
TCO status: on ignore
To move this in a more constructive direction. Why do we need a multiclassing system they've never worked. There aren't enough multiclass combinations with actual traction that the game isn't better served just writing up a few "hybrid classes" and calling it quits.
Don't know about 4e; never played it. But multiclassing in AD&D worked fine.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692595Don't know about 4e; never played it. But multiclassing in AD&D worked fine.
I have no complaint about AD&D multiclassing, 3E's multiclassing is the only system I hate.
For 4E, it started with feat based multiclassing which generally sucked, didn't do anything, and was best forgotten. In PHB3 they introduced hybrid rules, which resembled AD&D multiclassing and was good system, though a bit demanding in system-mastery terms.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692499Man what? Um, that's exactly what I just did to your logic, and showed why it is a fallacy.
Are you a teenager by chance? because I'm really getting that vibe from your posts.
What are talking about dude? Are you retracting what you said on the first post? You said that the multi-class system was hosing min-maxers and that you loved it. Then later you said that the multi-class system actually was "more powerful." When I pointed out that a min-maxer
would want to have a "more powerful" multi-class system, you then attempted to change what you intended by "more powerful" as if people couldn't see what you did. Now, you're out of cards and are trying accuse me of being a teenager because of your vibes. Really? I guess you are hippie-shaman-surfer master or something.
Listen I don't give a fuck what Next's multi-class will ultimately become. I disagree with you that the minimum ability score thing will be an impediment for min-maxers. Some one else has already pointed that out here. I just used the point buy system and was able to multi-class into three or more classes. People using a liberal random ability generation will have no problem either as I said earlier. But the big fuck you comes in with the ability improvement, but you seem to believe that won't be a big ol' deal. I have a feeling (sorry I'm getting a vibe) that you are secretly snickering about that and know that it will be discouragement to multi-classing, which is what you want. And that's fine I say as long as we admit it was hard-coded into rules as such.
Genuine question - How is "gets thing every four levels" worse than "gets thing every four levels"?
In your 3/3/3 example, the next three level ups could ALL get the bonus.
What am I not seeing?
Quote from: hamstertamer;692613What are talking about dude? Are you retracting what you said on the first post? You said that the multi-class system was hosing min-maxers and that you loved it. Then later you said that the multi-class system actually was "more powerful." When I pointed out that a min-maxer would want to have a "more powerful" multi-class system, you then attempted to change what you intended by "more powerful" as if people couldn't see what you did. Now, you're out of cards and are trying accuse me of being a teenager because of your vibes. Really? I guess you are hippie-shaman-surfer master or something.
Seriously dude, if you can't even get the most basic of reading comprehension right, how in the fuck is anyone supposed to even have a discussion with you?
Quote from: mcbobbo;692616Genuine question - How is "gets thing every four levels" worse than "gets thing every four levels"?
In your 3/3/3 example, the next three level ups could ALL get the bonus.
What am I not seeing?
He's just being an idiot, his example build sucks because he fails and minmaxing not because of anything in the system. It's obvious to any half decent minmaxer if you want to multiclass your break point should be just after you get a stat boost.
However the fact that this won't be obvious to the layman should be a major point against the system.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692618Seriously dude, if you can't even get the most basic of reading comprehension right, how in the fuck is anyone supposed to even have a discussion with you?
Listen, it's okay with me that min-maxers are getting their just desserts. I know that you really love it, so you don't have to deny it because someone points it out.
Quote from: mcbobbo;692616Genuine question - How is "gets thing every four levels" worse than "gets thing every four levels"?
In your 3/3/3 example, the next three level ups could ALL get the bonus.
What am I not seeing?
Not getting your first feat until level 10 is the problem.
Quote from: hamstertamer;692621Listen, it's okay with me that min-maxers are getting their just desserts. I know that you really love it, so you don't have to deny it because someone points it out.
You're officially off the rails dude. This makes no sense whatsoever. Perhaps you can construct another strawman to argue against, because you're sure as hell not arguing against things people have actually said.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692622Not getting your first feat until level 10 is the problem.
Not when the trade off is getting a whole bunch of class abilities as a replacement. I know this has been pointed out to you before, but I guess you're just here to troll anyway, by your own admission.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692622Not getting your first feat until level 10 is the problem.
I'd think that not getting any feats until level 4 is an equal problem.
Many PCs never make it that far.
You really don't get anything comparable at level 1 any more?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692626Not when the trade off is getting a whole bunch of class abilities as a replacement. I know this has been pointed out to you before, but I guess you're just here to troll anyway, by your own admission.
I'd be inclined to agree.
So which is true?
A) Do you get class abilities when you take a level 1 class?
and
B) Are those abilities roughly equivalent to a feat?
If so, then it seems there's not a 'genuine' issue here other than 'this is different'.
Again, I haven't ready any of the packets, and I really am asking.
Quote from: hamstertamer;692621Listen, it's okay with me that min-maxers are getting their just desserts. I know that you really love it, so you don't have to deny it because someone points it out.
What the hell are you smoking? How exactly is a class of people who by definition never take subpar options penalized by the inclusion of subpar options :?
Quote from: mcbobbo;692628So which is true?
A) Do you get class abilities when you take a level 1 class?
yes
Quoteand
B) Are those abilities roughly equivalent to a feat?
.
I think they are actually better. Feats are nice, sure, and grant a few special abilities for each on mostly. But let's look at it, shall we?
You can choose to gain an arcane feat, which allows you to cast 2 cantrips and one 1 level 1 spell per day.
or
you can take level 1 mage, get more than 2 cantrips, get more than 1 level 1 spell per day, and gain proficiencies. and even then, you're only delaying the feat by one level. If you want to replace the feat, you would essentially take 3 levels of mage, which would give you additional spells, arcane recovery, and a wizard school specialty.
You can choose to learn the great weapon feat, which gives you a choice of a -5 to hit for extra damage, and if you kill or score a crit, you get another attack.
or
you could take your 3 levels in fighter and get all of those proficiencies, second wind, great weapon fighting style (you do damage even if you miss), a specialty, and get action surge.
So TCO is either trolling on purpose (most likely), or he's truly a complete idiot.
Quote from: mcbobbo;692628I'd think that not getting any feats until level 4 is an equal problem.
Many PCs never make it that far.
You really don't get anything comparable at level 1 any more?
I'd be inclined to agree.
So which is true?
A) Do you get class abilities when you take a level 1 class?
and
B) Are those abilities roughly equivalent to a feat?
If so, then it seems there's not a 'genuine' issue here other than 'this is different'.
Again, I haven't ready any of the packets, and I really am asking.
The answer to both A and B is yes.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692646yes
I think they are actually better. Feats are nice, sure, and grant a few special abilities for each on mostly. But let's look at it, shall we?
You can choose to gain an arcane feat, which allows you to cast 2 cantrips and one 1 level 1 spell per day.
or
you can take level 1 mage, get more than 2 cantrips, get more than 1 level 1 spell per day, and gain proficiencies. and even then, you're only delaying the feat by one level. If you want to replace the feat, you would essentially take 3 levels of mage, which would give you additional spells, arcane recovery, and a wizard school specialty.
You can choose to learn the great weapon feat, which gives you a choice of a -5 to hit for extra damage, and if you kill or score a crit, you get another attack.
or
you could take your 3 levels in fighter and get all of those proficiencies, second wind, great weapon fighting style (you do damage even if you miss), a specialty, and get action surge.
So TCO is either trolling on purpose (most likely), or he's truly a complete idiot.
People evaluating 5E multiclassing CharOp have basically decided almost unanimously that a 1-2 level dip in another class is almost universally the best choice. There are a few cases where deeper multiclassing is strong, generally combining a half-caster with a full caster to cheese the multiclass spellcasting rules. Outside of these two cases, multiclassing is generally a trap choice, as higher level class features and spells aren't worth giving up.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692648People evaluating 5E multiclassing CharOp have basically decided almost unanimously that a 1-2 level dip in another class is almost universally the best choice. There are a few cases where deeper multiclassing is strong, generally combining a half-caster with a full caster to cheese the multiclass spellcasting rules. Outside of these two cases, multiclassing is generally a trap choice, as higher level class features and spells aren't worth giving up.
Dude. It has been a day. Who the fuck has done all the cross comparisons necessary to work that shit out?
Quote from: Old One Eye;692651Dude. It has been a day. Who the fuck has done all the cross comparisons necessary to work that shit out?
There's 5-10 people who have been crunching this shit all day. I'm not one of them, I'm just relaying what I've read.
Quote from: Old One Eye;692651Dude. It has been a day. Who the fuck has done all the cross comparisons necessary to work that shit out?
Do you know what's funnier than that? Hours after the packet being released, people saying that they've played adventures already with dozens of various combinations that show how it's messed up.
Or minutes after it was released people saying that "here's a whole bunch of stuff that's broken."
Occam's Razor: internet jackass opens file, skims it, and then tries to add weight to their ranting by saying they've actually experienced it in play when they haven't done any such thing.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692654There's 5-10 people who have been crunching this shit all day. I'm not one of them, I'm just relaying what I've read.
Guessing that the type of game played by someone who immediately started crunching to the exclusion of life's other activities is so far removed from the type of game that I would run that it makes the opinions of those 5-10 people completely irrelevant to my games.
Quote from: Old One Eye;692662Guessing that the type of game played by someone who immediately started crunching to the exclusion of life's other activities is so far removed from the type of game that I would run that it makes the opinions of those 5-10 people completely irrelevant to my games.
Until somebody you game with who has the internet builds a character using what they've read of those guys.
I haven't claimed any play of Next (and I don't expect to). But I always fail to see how showing how something is 'broken' using an example that could easily be from play is somehow inferior to actually using something in play.
Even the most robust playtest is unlikely to find every possible combination. Min-maxers who are good at conceptualizing abuses do a great service by uncovering such things BEFORE release. If designers respected their audience, they'd try to address those issues rather than blame the messengers.
I like how Google pays hackers who find exploits in their code. Min-maxers aren't even asking to get paid... Game companies should take advantage of the free service being provided and look at fixes. Especially in the internet age, these exploits will become common knowledge.
I like the proficiencies idea. Its simple and multipurpose and doesn't bloat up the rules with tons of little subsystems.
... Overall, I might actually start playing D&D again with Next, and 3.x and its crowd had really pushed me away from that and to other systems I liked better.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;692665I like the proficiencies idea. Its simple and multipurpose and doesn't bloat up the rules with tons of little subsystems.
It unifies melee/ranged attacks with skills to operate on the same scale. Good move in my book.
Quote from: Old One Eye;692666It unifies melee/ranged attacks with skills to operate on the same scale. Good move in my book.
and saving throws
Quote from: Emperor Norton;692665I like the proficiencies idea. Its simple and multipurpose and doesn't bloat up the rules with tons of little subsystems.
I agree - in fact, I liked them all the way back when they were called secondary skills.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692663Until somebody you game with who has the internet builds a character using what they've read of those guys.
Anyone who comes to my table with a "build" is the sort I don't want there in the first place.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;692675I agree - in fact, I liked them all the way back when they were called secondary skills.
Yeah, you know, those secondary skills, that neatly wrapped up saving throws, skills, attacks, and thief abilities all into one mechanic...
Oh wait, no that wasn't what those did.
Its a bit disingenuous to call them the same thing.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;692664Even the most robust playtest is unlikely to find every possible combination. Min-maxers who are good at conceptualizing abuses do a great service by uncovering such things BEFORE release. If designers respected their audience, they'd try to address those issues rather than blame the messengers.
I like how Google pays hackers who find exploits in their code. Min-maxers aren't even asking to get paid... Game companies should take advantage of the free service being provided and look at fixes. Especially in the internet age, these exploits will become common knowledge.
I think the odds of the min-maxer community doing more good than harm are pretty low. It's pessimistic, I'll admit, but they have never seemed to me to be the most ethical people.
I think its far more likely to see exploits that the community thinks will be useful go under-reported.
So, I've had a chance to look through it and updated three out of five of the PC's at the table. I haven't had a chance to run it yet, so obviously every assessment is provisional. Here's what I'm working with, though.
In the Red Corner, we have one Mimi Appletoad, the Assassin from Kankbottom, riding her noble Pygmy Behir steed Furhorn Darkeyes. Played by my demented wife, Mimi is a halfling paladin honoring the brutal ancestors of her tribe, cast out after a failed coup. She likes licking the backs of elf knees and eats the faces of her enemies. Did I mention this is Dark Sun?
Next up is Nok, a half-elf Monk with a penchant for fine coffee and an easy going attitude. Nok has been unconscious more times than Robert DeNiro in Sleepers. I feel bad for hitting him so often, but whaddya gonna do?
The newest addition is a Mage named Tiberious, an expert at skullduggery and general rat-bastardry. He's a few levels behind the rest of the group, but he still contributes to their survival.
The other two characters (who I haven't updated yet) are V'Gosh, a gladiator turned statesmen turned reaver, and The Reed, a thri-kreen ranger and the rare voice of sanity in the party. Except for the time he attacked a nobleman over the price of bread. Long story.
In this game, we've done it all: politics, slaying powerful undead, running merchant empires, taking part in a full scale war between the slave armies and the templar forces of Balic, sabotage, and city crawling. Currently, they're exploring forgotten Dwarven ruins far to the south of the city, avoiding some assassins and doing some straight up dungeon crawling.
Now, I haven't always had the system support for all these things: I went to ACKS for merchant and battle rules, and those are just a touch too crunchy for my tastes.
Looking at the differences in the new characters vs. the older versions, we had lots of problems with the monk. As I said, he's dropped in nearly every single fight. I get that he's supposed to be a glass cannon, but unless he expended his ki resources, he was dropping less damage than a wizard, and he usually felt useless and occasionally frustrated. The newer version puts more English on the ball. They get more attacks, attack damage scales, and the unified Proficiency advancement means that he gets to-hit parity with the rest of the party. He's still fragile, but his slow fall, high speed and Uncanny Dodge make him very mobile, doubling quite nicely as the human trap detector and infiltrator. He's not so dependent on his Ki, but when he uses it, it's a noticeable difference.
Mimi, the paladin, is more of a mixed bag: her big damage dealer, in the past, has always been her Smite ability. Doing an extra 2d8 damage on a hit is great, but it was always a one-off. It required an hour of rest to recharge. Now Smite is effectively a spell, and a spell slot is spent when it's used. This means that the paladin can more easily 'go nova' for a fight, dropping smites every round, but they'll be gassed after it. It changes the dynamic, and we'll have to see how it plays out in the dungeon this Wednesday. There's also a new host of smites: ones that light them on fire, ones that knock them down, ones that turn the invisible visible. Once my wife learns that her sword can set people on fire, it's all downhill from there. She also loses her Celestial Steed ability, but that's okay, she still has Furhorn Darkeyes.
The mage as a class is unchanged for the most part, but the proficiency system means that having a background as a spy lets him double as an impromptu thief. He can now pick locks with a reasonable degree of success. Between him and the monk, they won't need a thief. Worst case scenario, there's always Knock.
The Reed, our Ranger, has been invaluable in the Hex Crawl. He can effectively ignore heavy terrain, which means they make great time in the rocky badlands, and there's no chance of getting lost. They've had to deal with heat stroke more than once (the monk and the Wizard have sub-par CON scores), and they've figured out that they have to rest during the day and travel in the evening.
V'Gosh, the weaponmaster fighter is thinking about multiclassing into the Bard's College of War, playing into the idea that he's this become this statesmen and leader after his time as a gladiator. He loses his Second Wind ability, but it was overpowered. It's now a small temp HP bump, and it doesn't scale very well. This is fine with me, because it preserves the difference between Fighters and Barbarians.
Having unified DCs makes the game way easier to adjudicate on my end.
The classes are pretty complicated. Not as complicated at a 7th level 3e or 4e character, but significantly more complicated than a B/X character. Its possible to play a less complicated character, but even then the complexity is just sort of hidden.
Running the game is a breeze, now. The monster math has been tweaked, and while I love me some wandering monsters, I need to be able to estimate how difficult any encounter will be at a glance, and it looks like I can do that again.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692646So TCO is either trolling on purpose (most likely), or he's truly a complete idiot.
A few weeks ago you said he was a D&D expert and we should all accept everything he said about D&D because expert.
Thanks for the run-down on your game, JonWake. Interesting!
Quote from: One Horse Town;692715Thanks for the run-down on your game, JonWake. Interesting!
I concur, the most valuable comment in this whole thread so far. Thanks.
Quote from: soviet;692714A few weeks ago you said he was a D&D expert and we should all accept everything he said about D&D because expert.
When was this? I'm assuming you're talking about when I said "self proclaimed 4e experts."
Perhaps I should remind you I was talking about the group of 4vengers in general, and not just TCO.
Nice attempt though...
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692519I'm sure there are corner cases. In general, the way scaling works in 5E it's not going to be the case.
Can a skilled player not learn to identify and exploit and set up those corner cases so that they happen more often than you might otherwise expect? Would this not be an interesting challenge in play?
I posted the content of the original post to a friend of mine. I wasn't around RPing between about 1995 and 2006, so I missed out of 3.x and the introduction of Pathfinder, but he commented thus:
QuoteI reckon you could do much the same in a D20/3E context, though maybe not D20/4E. My feeling, having followed the play test as well as the design and development articles is that this time round is no different from what has gone before. Here is what I wrote when the new edition was announced to be in development:
If this new edition is anything but a continuation of the D20 approach to D&D, "modern design sensibilities" and all, I will eat my hat (not as great a risk as it may sound, as I do not own a hat). Those of you who think this heralds some return to the golden TSR era of Keep on the Borderlands and whatnot need to wake up. Have people forgotten the marketing of 2000 so easily? This is the same old parlour trick with a new magician (and the help of one of the old ones). It will look more like AD&D than D20/4E, but that is not exactly a difficult feat (pun intended). The most likely scenario to my mind is that this is a big step back to D20/3E with a load of talk about TSR era D&D as a smokescreen to cover their retreat. Believe you me, I would like nothing better than to be wrong about this, but those who do not learn from history and all that.
Nothing has really changed in the interim.
How does this curmudgeonly assessment stack up against the experiences in and out of play for other people? I have not really touched 5E playtest, but it looks nice in places.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;693051I posted the content of the original post to a friend of mine. I wasn't around RPing between about 1995 and 2006, so I missed out of 3.x and the introduction of Pathfinder, but he commented thus:
How does this curmudgeonly assessment stack up against the experiences in and out of play for other people? I have not really touched 5E playtest, but it looks nice in places.
I don't see what game mechanics he is complaining about so it hard to judge what the issues the guy has. D&D Next is not the same as D20 nor it is the same as AD&D 1st. It has some similarity to how classic D&D works when you combine Swords & Wizardry and my Majestic Wilderlands supplement. But there are many differences as well.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;692595Don't know about 4e; never played it. But multiclassing in AD&D worked fine.
I think in AD&D it was a little too powerful.
Remember the XP model in AD&D a 5/5 Figther/MU has the same XP as a 6th level figther not a 10th level one because you double XP between levels.
Now I personally feel a 5/5 Elven Fighter MU is much more powerful than a 6th level human fighter. Yes the fighter has more HP but that is it.
It was another of the fallicies in trying to make AD&D Humancentric by imposing illogical and spurious level restrictions. One one hand you say Humans are more flexible than other races and so can be any class but then you say but demi humans can be 2 or even 3 classes at once which seems to indicate flexibility.
Personally I hate Mutilclassing because it
i) makes classes like professions
ii) encourages min maxing for game reasons and doesn't encourage in setting character development for in character reasons
I would much prefer a model where a fighter could learn to cast a spell by sacrificing something else. So as you level you could opt not to get more HP but instead to learn to cast sleep... Now this might encourage min/maxing as I am sure there are ways to delve into this for charop guys but it seems like the sort of thing that would happen organically through play. As they travel ont heir quest the wizard starts to learn how to use a sword by training with the figther at night etc.
Now I like classes because I like the strong archetypes they create but within that structure I think there is room for players to grow their PCs in different ways.
Quote from: jibbajibba;693056I think in AD&D it was a little too powerful.
Remember the XP model in AD&D a 5/5 Figther/MU has the same XP as a 6th level figther not a 10th level one because you double XP between levels.
Now I personally feel a 5/5 Elven Fighter MU is much more powerful than a 6th level human fighter. Yes the fighter has more HP but that is it.
He also couldn't cast spells in armor, and was interrupted just as easy. People keep forgetting about the armor part. In Next, they do allow it, which I have an issue with, but in AD&D, your 5 fighter/5 MU couldn't wear armor (and cast spells) and had just slightly more than half the HP.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;693058He also couldn't cast spells in armor, and was interrupted just as easy. People keep forgetting about the armor part. In Next, they do allow it, which I have an issue with, but in AD&D, your 5 fighter/5 MU couldn't wear armor (and cast spells) and had just slightly more than half the HP.
I'm not looking at my books now, but I thought AD&D F/M-U could cast spells in armor. I thought that it was 2E that kept F/M-U from casting spells in armor unless it was elfin chain. Or am I mis-remembering?
Quote from: wmarshal;693070I'm not looking at my books now, but I thought AD&D F/M-U could cast spells in armor. I thought that it was 2E that kept F/M-U from casting spells in armor unless it was elfin chain. Or am I mis-remembering?
That appears to be the most obvious way to read the rules. It was dual class characters where this was trickier.
1E and 2E are close on a lot of points, but there are a few important differences between them as well.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;693058He also couldn't cast spells in armor, and was interrupted just as easy. People keep forgetting about the armor part. In Next, they do allow it, which I have an issue with, but in AD&D, your 5 fighter/5 MU couldn't wear armor (and cast spells) and had just slightly more than half the HP.
In 1e, multiclass fighter/magic user can cast spells in armor. Dual classed cannot.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;693058He also couldn't cast spells in armor, and was interrupted just as easy. People keep forgetting about the armor part. In Next, they do allow it, which I have an issue with, but in AD&D, your 5 fighter/5 MU couldn't wear armor (and cast spells) and had just slightly more than half the HP.
Oh you meant Dual classes not multiclass.
Yes you are correct
I actually would say dual classing in AD&D was quite weak.
There is a caveat I have expanded on before whcih is the start as a figther get to L2 change become a wizard now by the time the party are 4th level so are you because the 2000 xp you spent on fighter is trivial compared to the XP you now have.
So now compared to another 4th level wizard you now have better HP (2d10 +2d4 compared to 4d4) you can use all weapons, and magic weapons, you have a better thaco (2nd level fighter is as good as a 6th level MU). You can carry a suit of chain mail in your backpack for when your spells run out etc etc ... Also you have a much better chance of surviving early levels
If you add UA specialisation the fighter switch is an even tougher choice. A Mu who has double specialised with a bow back when he was a 1st level Fighter is at a substantial advantage compared to other wizards.
I see many are complaining that the current multi-class rules in D&D Next will encourage level dipping and create some overpowered combo's and/or anomalies. A possible fix; you get a -15% penalty to all earned XP's for every class you have after the first.
Quote from: Spinal Tarp;693081I see many are complaining that the current multi-class rules in D&D Next will encourage level dipping and create some overpowered combo's and/or anomalies. A possible fix; you get a -15% penalty to all earned XP's for every class you have after the first.
Or you only allow multiclassing where it evolves naturally through play...
Or both!
Quote from: jibbajibba;693088Or you only allow multiclassing where it evolves naturally through play...
This has always worked for me, but became a constant battle with certain players through the 3.x era. I'll be very interested to see all the final particulars of multi-classing in Next in order to guage how it's going to shake out.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;692678Yeah, you know, those secondary skills, that neatly wrapped up saving throws, skills, attacks, and thief abilities all into one mechanic...
Attacks and thief abilities, no, but we used secondary skills as, y'know, skills, and fairly wide ranging ones at that, as well as a means of avoiding saving throws because, hey, you got Forestry? yeah, that grove of trees don't look right to you.
The character sheet included in the packet looks really great.
Quote from: Spinal Tarp;693081I see many are complaining that the current multi-class rules in D&D Next will encourage level dipping and create some overpowered combo's and/or anomalies. A possible fix; you get a -15% penalty to all earned XP's for every class you have after the first.
After reading the entire packet, I feel D&D Next is very open to house ruling and tweaking. There is not much overhead to any one subsystem and small changes can make a significant different in how it plays out and feels during a campaign.
Quote from: Benoist;693284The character sheet included in the packet looks really great.
I don't know if I like the characteristics in the middle but it does look good. Bonus points for making it fillable.
Quote from: estar;693291I don't know if I like the characteristics in the middle but it does look good. Bonus points for making it fillable.
The internet reaction is largely that of not liking it (big surprise there). The sheet was from a fan during a contest and that one won. My submission? I blank college ruled sheet.
I did not win, obviously ;)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;693294The internet reaction is largely that of not liking it (big surprise there). The sheet was from a fan during a contest and that one won. My submission? I blank college ruled sheet.
I did not win, obviously ;)
Funny, though, regardless of system that's the best character sheet I can usually come up with.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;693294The internet reaction is largely that of not liking it (big surprise there). The sheet was from a fan during a contest and that one won. My submission? I blank college ruled sheet.
I did not win, obviously ;)
It took me a second looking at the supplied sheet to see where it all was. It was a little confusing to my eye. But, I do kind of like it. The Icons kind of confuse me, but then I have issues with icons to begin with.
However, my litmus test for any game these days is how easy character creation can be filled out by hand. Usually I like to fill it out on a single side of a College ruled Notebook page. I'll go front and back if needed, but if a character takes up a second page or more, then Character creation is just not going to work for me.
Making my first 5e character this weekend, it took one sheet front and back... It was a VERY crowded front and back, but it fit. Something I was NEVER able to accomplish with 4e (unless it was an Essentials character), and 3.x took Front, back and Front of another to do....
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;693051I posted the content of the original post to a friend of mine. I wasn't around RPing between about 1995 and 2006, so I missed out of 3.x and the introduction of Pathfinder, but he commented thus:
How does this curmudgeonly assessment stack up against the experiences in and out of play for other people? I have not really touched 5E playtest, but it looks nice in places.
If you want a game that hews closely to TSR D&D mechanically and ignores changes to the game incorporated in the WotC era, then Next is probably not for you. However, you can easily play a game that
feels like TSR era D&D with Next. No need for minis. Fast character generation (though not as fast as B/X D&D). Fast combat (though again, not as fast as B/X).
But without knowing what, in particular, your friend hates about WotC era D&D, it's impossible to compare his assessment to my own experiences with Next.
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;693317It took me a second looking at the supplied sheet to see where it all was. It was a little confusing to my eye. But, I do kind of like it. The Icons kind of confuse me, but then I have issues with icons to begin with.
However, my litmus test for any game these days is how easy character creation can be filled out by hand. Usually I like to fill it out on a single side of a College ruled Notebook page. I'll go front and back if needed, but if a character takes up a second page or more, then Character creation is just not going to work for me.
Making my first 5e character this weekend, it took one sheet front and back... It was a VERY crowded front and back, but it fit. Something I was NEVER able to accomplish with 4e (unless it was an Essentials character), and 3.x took Front, back and Front of another to do....
Jeeze, I still use index cards.
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;693317It took me a second looking at the supplied sheet to see where it all was. It was a little confusing to my eye. But, I do kind of like it. The Icons kind of confuse me, but then I have issues with icons to begin with.
However, my litmus test for any game these days is how easy character creation can be filled out by hand. Usually I like to fill it out on a single side of a College ruled Notebook page. I'll go front and back if needed, but if a character takes up a second page or more, then Character creation is just not going to work for me.
Making my first 5e character this weekend, it took one sheet front and back... It was a VERY crowded front and back, but it fit. Something I was NEVER able to accomplish with 4e (unless it was an Essentials character), and 3.x took Front, back and Front of another to do....
The basic version, from the previous packet (yes, I know my bonuses aren't right) :D
(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g141/rajzwaibel/5efighter_zpse1d7d3ea.jpg)
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;693317Making my first 5e character this weekend, it took one sheet front and back... It was a VERY crowded front and back, but it fit. Something I was NEVER able to accomplish with 4e (unless it was an Essentials character), and 3.x took Front, back and Front of another to do....
At what level, and what class? Other than writing out every spell by hand that my character had in full... I can't imagine using more than the front side of a sheet for a character in 5e.
(Also, what is the obsession with making multipage character sheets that everyone has when making official sheets. When I make custom sheets, fitting everything on the front of one page is my goal)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;693332The basic version, from the previous packet (yes, I know my bonuses aren't right) :D
(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g141/rajzwaibel/5efighter_zpse1d7d3ea.jpg)
I have always used the rule that if equipment is not written on your sheet, then you lost it somewhere. That etc, etc wouldn't work. :p
Quote from: Old One Eye;693372I have always used the rule that if equipment is not written on your sheet, then you lost it somewhere. That etc, etc wouldn't work. :p
He has TWO etc! Those items have got to be useful for something.
Fighter, page 23 of the Classes document.
Great Weapon Fighting
When you miss a target with a two-handed melee weapon, the target still takes damage from the weapon. The damage equals your strength modifier.
This is one of the basic weapon fighting styles you choose at level 1.
OK. Why does the weapon do damage on a miss? What's the thinking behind this, and how does it relate to the weapon being two-handed?
Quote from: Benoist;693538Fighter, page 23 of the Classes document.
Great Weapon Fighting
When you miss a target with a two-handed melee weapon, the target still takes damage from the weapon. The damage equals your strength modifier.
This is one of the basic weapon fighting styles you choose at level 1.
OK. Why does the weapon do damage on a miss? What's the thinking behind this, and how does it relate to the weapon being two-handed?
Aye, that's weird. You cannot miss with a claymore . Must be why Scots rule the world...
Quote from: TristramEvans;693539Aye, that's weird. You cannot miss with a claymore . Must be why Scots rule the world...
Now before people jump on me, it's just what I happened to be interested in when popping the Classes doc open: I looked a bit at the Barbarian, got honestly bored to tears by the impersonal, dry, mechanical descriptions (irrelevant at this point since it's just a playtest doc), though I was intrigued by the Totem Warrior path (oh, hello, Arcana Evolved!), and decided to jump to the class I'd play by default in a new D&D game: the fighter. It's a first level possible choice.
That's how I just stumbled on it.
Quote from: Benoist;693538OK. Why does the weapon do damage on a miss? What's the thinking behind this, and how does it relate to the weapon being two-handed?
My google fu didn't come with any answer from Wizards or other site. I assume this relate to the fact that in D&D that a roll is not consider a single swing of the weapons but the result of a round worth of fighting.
The designer are assuming that with training a two handed weapon will always do some damage in a six second combat round.
The closest analog I can think of is that in GURPS if you are wearing flexible armor you can take a small amount of damage from a crushing blow even though would otherwise be absorbed by the DR.
The big disconnect I find with these things that people have a very hard time NOT equating the throw of the die with a single sword blow.
Quote from: Benoist;693538Fighter, page 23 of the Classes document.
Great Weapon Fighting
When you miss a target with a two-handed melee weapon, the target still takes damage from the weapon. The damage equals your strength modifier.
This is one of the basic weapon fighting styles you choose at level 1.
OK. Why does the weapon do damage on a miss? What's the thinking behind this, and how does it relate to the weapon being two-handed?
This is how I look at it. We all agree that combat is a series of strikes and parries all rolled up into one attack roll, right? Especially us old school guys where a single round of combat was a minute long. So we know that a single attack roll isn't just one attack, and things like AC and hit points represent not just a physically successful wound, but deflections, fatigue, skill, etc. I mean, plate mail doesn't help you avoid being hit any more than any other armor, but absorbs and deflects the worst of the blow.
So with a 2-handed heavy weapon, even if your attack roll misses, represents that even if the target blocked the blow, it has so much force that it still impacts that target's hit points. Sort of like if you used a shield to block a two-handed axe. You might have blocked the attack, but you're still going to have some sort of impact to your shield arm.
And it's not very much damage, in comparison to the normal damage of the weapon to reflect this.
I will add that my guess it was added to make the use of two handed weapons more attractive. In AD&D and OD&D+Greyhawk, two handed weapons had a nice modifier against those wearing armor in addition to higher damage.
It not like there isn't precedent for 2H weapons for having something extra beyond doing more damage. Nor it's without historical accuracy as 2H weapons became more popular when people starting wearing plate in medieval combat.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;693543This is how I look at it. We all agree that combat is a series of strikes and parries all rolled up into one attack roll, right? Especially us old school guys where a single round of combat was a minute long. So we know that a single attack roll isn't just one attack, and things like AC and hit points represent not just a physically successful wound, but deflections, fatigue, skill, etc. I mean, plate mail doesn't help you avoid being hit any more than any other armor, but absorbs and deflects the worst of the blow.
Yes. I'm following, and I agree to some extent, with the caveat that it also could mean that there was no contact at all during the pass of arms during the round.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;693543So with a 2-handed heavy weapon, even if your attack roll misses, represents that even if the target blocked the blow, it has so much force that it still impacts that target's hit points. Sort of like if you used a shield to block a two-handed axe. You might have blocked the attack, but you're still going to have some sort of impact to your shield arm.
OK. So that means it assumes there is a contact or block made during the round. This is potentially problematic to me, because it basically breaks the abstraction and implies that there's ALWAYS contact when you try to hit something with a two-handed weapon and you're specialized with it.
Quote from: estar;693545I will add that my guess it was added to make the use of two handed weapons more attractive. In AD&D and OD&D+Greyhawk, two handed weapons had a nice modifier against those wearing armor in addition to higher damage.
It not like there isn't precedent for 2H weapons for having something extra beyond doing more damage. Nor it's without historical accuracy as 2H weapons became more popular when people starting wearing plate in medieval combat.
There's no doubt to me that the decision to do this was motivated by the game aspect first, to make the specialization into a two-handed weapon style worthwhile in terms of damage output/rules. It's just that these type of things annoy the fuck out of me.
It's no biggie: since it isn't a default move/attack for the fighter, I could always play something else. But that alone would make me NOT play a two-handed specialist in a D&D Next game, and I'll be honest and say I'd cringe inside if one such specialist would show up in the game and do constant damage like this, though I probably wouldn't pip a word about it while playing (because that's neither here nor there, I'm here to play, not bitch at the rules I don't like).
Quote from: Benoist;693550Yes. I'm following, and I agree to some extent, with the caveat that it also could mean that there was no contact at all during the pass of arms during the round.
OK. So that means it assumes there is a contact or block made during the round. This is potentially problematic to me, because it basically breaks the abstraction and implies that there's ALWAYS contact when you try to hit something with a two-handed weapon and you're specialized with it.
I understand what you're saying. But it's also only a STR mod damage. So if your normal damage is 1d12+6 (for various things), and your STR mod is +2, you're only doing 2 points of damage. And in a round of many parries and blocks, I don't think you'd miss all the time. Maybe, I guess, depending on the scenario.
I don't know. It's one of those things that raised an eyebrow for me as well, but after looking at it it just isn't that big of a deal I guess to me. Bigger fish to fry.
In addition to the above reasons for damage on a miss, it also may help keep combat from dragging on to some degree.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;693552I understand what you're saying. But it's also only a STR mod damage. So if your normal damage is 1d12+6 (for various things), and your STR mod is +2, you're only doing 2 points of damage. And in a round of many parries and blocks, I don't think you'd miss all the time. Maybe, I guess, depending on the scenario.
Yeah for me the amount of damage doesn't matter. It could be 1 point each round and it'd still bother me, because what I see is the assumption there's always contact and, while clearly in some situations that wouldn't bother me, in others it might.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;693552I don't know. It's one of those things that raised an eyebrow for me as well, but after looking at it it just isn't that big of a deal I guess to me. Bigger fish to fry.
Yeah I'm not saying it should be a huge deal for you or anything. I'm not taking up arms and going "D&D NEXT IS BROOOKENZZZ".
It's kind of a big deal for me, though. If these things pile up too much in a game I start having trouble actually playing it, in the game world I mean, because I start thinking about it in terms of the rules, and I don't like when the rules are the game. I become way less engaged with what's going on than I would be otherwise. Hence, less fun, to me.
Quote from: Bill;693553In addition to the above reasons for damage on a miss, it also may help keep combat from dragging on to some degree.
Yes but that's a completely meta-game reason. It's got nothing to do with what's going on in the game world, the justification or assumption for how things work the way they do in the game.
Quote from: Benoist;693555Yeah for me the amount of damage doesn't matter. It could be 1 point each round and it'd still bother me, because what I see is the assumption there's always contact and, while clearly in some situations that wouldn't bother me, in others it might.
Yeah I'm not saying it should be a huge deal for you or anything. I'm not taking up arms and going "D&D NEXT IS BROOOKENZZZ".
It's kind of a big deal for me, though. If these things pile up too much in a game I start having trouble actually playing the game, because I start thinking about it in terms of the rules, and I don't like when the rules are the game. I become way less engaged with what's going on than I would be otherwise. Hence, less fun, to me.
I think damage on a miss is a way bigger 'problem' when players are tracking an enemies HP.
I am more worried about immerssion busting than the auto damage itself (Allthough I understand why it would bother people)
Now if it was worded as something like "IF there is any chance of contact with the target during the round, in an ongoing melee where multiple passes of arms are likely, for instance, . . ." then you let the door open for scenarios where this interpretation could not logically happen and the DM could rule "sorry dude, there is no way you can make contact with your target this round on a miss, so you're not doing your STR mod damage if you fail your attack in this particular situation."
Quote from: Benoist;693556Yes but that's a completely meta-game reason. It's got nothing to do with what's going on in the game world, the justification or assumption for how things work the way they do in the game.
Sure, and I generally detest metagaming. But it may serve a useful metagame purpose.
If I remember right, there's something similar to this in Unknown Armies: if two people get into a knife fight, they each take a small amount of damage per round because it's actually difficult-to-impossible not to get cut in such a fight. (The book makes an analogy of trying to disarm someone waving around a permanent marker - you can do it, but you'll almost always get some ink on you).
Of course, UA health works on a percentile scale so it's rather different. I'd suggest that these sort of minor cuts and bruises are precisely the sort of thing characters inevitably pick up in D&D combat, but equally should be abstracted away for the most part. I guess the rationale for making the exception for great weapons is "that sword is huge, so even a glancing blow from it can actually make quite a big cut".
Quote from: Bill;693559Sure, and I generally detest metagaming. But it may serve a useful metagame purpose.
Sure!
Quote from: Benoist;693555Yeah for me the amount of damage doesn't matter. It could be 1 point each round and it'd still bother me, because what I see is the assumption there's always contact and, while clearly in some situations that wouldn't bother me, in others it might.
Yeah I'm not saying it should be a huge deal for you or anything. I'm not taking up arms and going "D&D NEXT IS BROOOKENZZZ".
It's kind of a big deal for me, though. If these things pile up too much in a game I start having trouble actually playing it, in the game world I mean, because I start thinking about it in terms of the rules, and I don't like when the rules are the game. I become way less engaged with what's going on than I would be otherwise. Hence, less fun, to me.
The only time I'd have an issue with it is if there was some power down the road that said something like, "Whenever you cause damage, you do X."
That would be a big red light for me, because when paired with auto-damage each round, it opens the door for horrible rules exploitation metagaming.
4E featured some damage on a miss attacks but these were usually limited resource encounter or daily powers and the reasoning was to give something for the expenditure of the resource so baby Jesus wouldn't cry.
Auto damage on every attack? I suppose all great weapon fighters are trained in Dr. Evil's underground lair.
" Let that be a lesson. This organization does not tolerate failure." :rotfl:
Quote from: Benoist;693558Now if it was worded as something like "IF there is any chance of contact with the target during the round, in an ongoing melee where multiple passes of arms are likely, for instance, . . ." then you let the door open for scenarios where this interpretation could not logically happen and the DM could rule "sorry dude, there is no way you can make contact with your target this round on a miss, so you're not doing your STR mod damage if you fail your attack in this particular situation."
It really is already this way. If you get to make an attack roll, there's a chance that you hit and do damage. Thus, there is a chance that you 'make contact'. If you're standing 20 feet away, you're not going to get your STR modifier on a 'miss' because you're not even permitted to roll.
Since HP are abstract, there are lots of descriptive elements that can explain the ability - and all of them generally work better on a heavy weapon than on smaller, lighter weapons.
If HP represent 'fatigue' in some sense, than allowing a light weapon to bounce off your armor is less tiring than jumping out of the way of a heavy weapon. If HP represent 'minor damage' until it piles up, when a light weapon hits your armor, it is less likely to bruise than a heavier or more damaging weapon - hitting someone with a greatsword, even if it doesn't penetrate their chainmail, is going to hurt more than hitting them with a rapier that doesn't penetrate their armor.
Ultimately, I think the implementation helps make heavier weapons 'better', but that reflects both the games sensibilities (they want heavy weapons to be a viable choice) and reality (heavy weapons were heavily favored against heavy armor for a reason).
Quote from: Benoist;693551There's no doubt to me that the decision to do this was motivated by the game aspect first, to make the specialization into a two-handed weapon style worthwhile in terms of damage output/rules. It's just that these type of things annoy the fuck out of me.
It's no biggie: since it isn't a default move/attack for the fighter, I could always play something else. But that alone would make me NOT play a two-handed specialist in a D&D Next game, and I'll be honest and say I'd cringe inside if one such specialist would show up in the game and do constant damage like this, though I probably wouldn't pip a word about it while playing (because that's neither here nor there, I'm here to play, not bitch at the rules I don't like).
I agree with why they probably added the rule and that it is not a good motivation. But it doesn't make the mechanic bad in of itself. To me it is a plausible mechanic of how 2H weapons work in real life. That the while the stabbing or cutting aspect of the weapon may be stopped by armor the sheer mass of the impact still does some damage.
In OD&D this was represented by a better To Hit modifier. In Next is represented by a small amount of damage even if you miss.
Now if it read like some kind of shadow dancer move where the eldritch shadow force of the fighter seeps through the armor to do damage then you and I would be on the same page for the core of D&D. That kind of stuff is for a specific setting in my opinion.
*nod* I think it'd be much better if the assumption was spelled out. After, that's why you have human referees: to judge on a case-by-case basis if that particular ability applies or does not apply.
Like
Great Weapon Fighting: When you miss a target with a weapon that you are wielding with two hands, the target still takes damage from the weapon. (. . .) This ability assumes there is a chance of contact with the target during the round even on a miss, in an ongoing melee where multiple passes of arms are likely to be modeled by a single attack roll, for instance. In situations where a miss could not be interpreted as anything else but a lack of contact with the target, this ability would not apply.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;693566It really is already this way. If you get to make an attack roll, there's a chance that you hit and do damage. Thus, there is a chance that you 'make contact'. If you're standing 20 feet away, you're not going to get your STR modifier on a 'miss' because you're not even permitted to roll.
It's not just that. There are also situations in which a single attack roll really can only logically be interpreted as a single swing. The actual strength of the D&D attack roll abstraction is that you can interpret it in a variety of ways, depending on the exact circumstances of the game as they unfold. With something like this, you are making an assumption that there is always contact and the attack roll with the weapon always models multiple passes of arms. So it cuts off the possible interpretation that there would be a single blow, hit or miss, in a particular circumstance. Which absolutely CAN happen at my game table on occasion.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;693564The only time I'd have an issue with it is if there was some power down the road that said something like, "Whenever you cause damage, you do X."
Yeah, 'Poison + Damage on Miss' is something that came up with a earlier version of the ability in my playtest. Although to be fair, that wouldn't have happened in a real game, we were purposefully looking to test things that might be problematic.
Quote from: Benoist;693571It's not just that. There are also situations in which a single attack roll really can only logically be interpreted as a single swing. The actual strength of the D&D attack roll abstraction is that you can interpret it in a variety of ways, depending on the exact circumstances of the game as they unfold. With something like this, you are making an assumption that there is always contact and the attack roll with the weapon always models multiple passes of arms. So it cuts off the possible interpretation that there would be a single blow, hit or miss, in a particular circumstance. Which absolutely CAN happen at my game table on occasion.
I can see the single blow vs multiple passes coming up quite often in most situations.
For example the difference between moving your maximum move rate and attacking vs a full round of melee with an already engaged opponent. On the movement round you may only one actual shot at the opponent.
The rule could be ammended like so:
On any round you begin combat within reach of a target, you score STR modifier damage on a miss.
This means that auto damage is NOT scored while closing with an enemy but can be done while engaged. This will make light fighters want to stay mobile forcing the heavy to chase them around, and heavy fighters want to trap thier opponents in corners or other areas ill suited for retreat.
Quote from: Benoist;693571It's not just that. There are also situations in which a single attack roll really can only logically be interpreted as a single swing. ....So it cuts off the possible interpretation that there would be a single blow, hit or miss, in a particular circumstance. Which absolutely CAN happen at my game table on occasion.
Not really.
You swing and 'miss' but make contact. You do minimal damage since you fail to bypass armor. This would normally be represented by rolling high enough to hit 'touch' AC, or AC without shield, or some such.
You swing and 'miss' and completely miss the target, making no contact with their armor or shield (etc). The target had to expend some effort to avoid the blow. Since a large, heavy, weapon is not easily ignored, the opponent had to move to avoid taking a 'real hit' and possibly much larger damage. The amount of movement required to avoid such heavy blows is 'more wearing' than combat against lighter weapons where you can trust your armor to absorb the blows more completely.
Because hit points are so abstract, the specific method of dealing damage on a 'miss' can also be abstract. I can understand why it's not to your taste, but ultimately, I think it helps with the 'realism' of heavy weapons.
There are other ways they could have done it, too. I mean, a greataxe could do 4d12 damage but you might attack with a -4 penalty compared to lighter weapons - the weapon is heavy and awkward, but when it hits - ow!. Since we're trying to distill reality to game mechanics, some sacrifices are going to be required. There particular solution does a generally good job of representing that heavier weapons still deal damage even when you're not cleaving your opponent from nose to navel.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;693575You swing and 'miss' and completely miss the target, making no contact with their armor or shield (etc). The target had to expend some effort to avoid the blow. Since a large, heavy, weapon is not easily ignored, the opponent had to move to avoid taking a 'real hit' and possibly much larger damage. The amount of movement required to avoid such heavy blows is 'more wearing' than combat against lighter weapons where you can trust your armor to absorb the blows more completely.
Ah err. No. Sorry. It's actually easier and less tiring to avoid blows from heavy, slow weapons in a melee than to dodge repeated blows from lighter, quicker weapons which can easily take you off guard. By this logic, if you are an expert in rapier fighting, say, you should do more "damage" on a miss than the two-handed weapon fighter. So the argument that it really models "fatigue" doesn't work.
Sacrosanct was right: it's got to assume there is some contact achieved during the pass of arms.
Quote from: Benoist;693568*nod* I think it'd be much better if the assumption was spelled out. After, that's why you have human referees: to judge on a case-by-case basis if that particular ability applies or does not apply.
Like
Great Weapon Fighting: When you miss a target with a weapon that you are wielding with two hands, the target still takes damage from the weapon. (. . .) This ability assumes there is a chance of contact with the target during the round, in an ongoing melee where multiple passes of arms are likely to be modeled by a single attack roll, for instance. In situations where a miss could not be interpreted as anything else but a lack of contact with the target, this ability would not apply.
First off, I agree that is good to explain the reasoning behind this kind of stuff. Because lord knows the players find themselves in all kinds of situations especially ones the designers did not envision.
But concerning the particulars of the Greatsword I don't see the distinction you are trying to make. In GURPS, Harnmaster, the reenactment fight videos, all make it clear 2H weapons are massive things with a lot of power and force behind them. That even a single exchange can be damaging.
My advice to a referee who want this aspect of 2H weapons in a D&D game would precisely what Wizards did just do the minimum damage on a miss and be done with it. If you are in a place to roll for a melee damage you are in a place where it a factor.
I would also caution him on whether does he really need this level of detail in his D&D game? I would tell him that for some of your players every inch of mechanical advantage matters. But for most they got this image in their mind's eyes of their fighter is like.
They will play that fighter with a 2H sword if that what they want despite any slight disadvantage. In the fullness of time they will find a way to make up the lack of a magical shield with other types of protection items. That in my experience the lack of a shield vs extra damage pales to the suite of magical items the character possesses in later level. Pales compared to the increased to hit chances and number of attacks.
If that is an important distinction then use it otherwise just keep to the basics and put the work in making your adventures and campaign interesting.
Quote from: Benoist;693578Ah err. No. Sorry. It's actually easier and less tiring to avoid blows from heavy, slow weapons in a melee than to dodge repeated blows from lighter, quicker weapons which can easily take you off guard.
But you don't have to avoid all of those blows. Your armor and shield can be trusted to absorb blows from smaller weapons without necessarily forcing you to jump out of the way.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;693575There are other ways they could have done it, too. I mean, a greataxe could do 4d12 damage but you might attack with a -4 penalty compared to lighter weapons - the weapon is heavy and awkward, but when it hits - ow!. Since we're trying to distill reality to game mechanics, some sacrifices are going to be required. There particular solution does a generally good job of representing that heavier weapons still deal damage even when you're not cleaving your opponent from nose to navel.
In an abstract system even a hit for maximum damage isn't always cleaving your foe from nose to navel. It depends on if its the shot that kills him.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;693580But you don't have to avoid all of those blows. Your armor and shield can be trusted to absorb blows from smaller weapons without necessarily forcing you to jump out of the way.
OK see this is why trying to split hairs on the abstraction can be problematic. I cannot imagine a guy engaged in a melee wearing a suit of chainmail and a shield against a guy who has a light, thin blade that could pierce through his chain ever "trusting his armor to do the protection job for him." And someone's got to swing that shield around too, by the way.
Quote from: Benoist;693578Ah err. No. Sorry. It's actually easier and less tiring to avoid blows from heavy, slow weapons in a melee than to dodge repeated blows from lighter, quicker weapons which can easily take you off guard..
Actually I have something relevant to that statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r7VWIQCHvM
Here is a interesting comment (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=26482).
QuoteLast Saturday, we held an inter-salle rapier vs longsword tournament, but in the run up to the actual contest, it was agreed that the rapier guys should be allowed to use parry dagger. This was for two reasons - firstly, the use of the offhand is very much an instinctive part of rapier, and unless one's hand was held behind one's back, the likelihood of injury to the offhand was seen as too high to warrant the risk of it getting caught up in the action without some kind of appropriate defence (we could have worn armoured gauntlets, but that would have been unrealistic....). Secondly, a longsword just plows it's way through rapier guards and parries, and a rapier on it's own has too little mass to make an opening against a two-handed sword, so it was felt that the parry daggers should be allowed in order to assist in deflecting cuts and making openings. A parry dagger was also seen as a typical (if not universally encountered) companion to the rapier.
Feints were useful, as was avoiding contact and sniping with the point. But a steel feder is also capable of being wielded with a lot of accuracy and dexterity (indeed one longsworder started to use rapier tactics against the rapiers!) and with a lot of power and control, making things considerably trickier.
In the end, the rapier guys won the contest, but those feders took a heavy toll on their equipment - one rapier blade completely cleaved in two, one parry dagger completely bent out of shape, lots of twisted and bent quillons and bent dagger blades.......
Quote from: estar;693584Actually I have something relevant to that statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r7VWIQCHvM
Interesting. Now assuming the guy with the longsword inflicted "fatigue" damage on his opponent, would you say the rapier guy inflicted significantly more, less, or no real different "fatigue" damage on his opponent?
If damage on a miss is unappealing, remove it and add a small amount to the damage when you do hit. The math is not the same but it might be a workable 'fix' for those that dislike auto damage.
Quote from: Bill;693588If damage on a miss is unappealing, remove it and add a small amount to the damage when you do hit. The math is not the same but it might be a workable 'fix' for thos ethat dislike auto damage.
Nah, I'd just amend the rules as I described in a previous post, with a simple caveat.
Quote from: Benoist;693590Nah, I'd just amend the rules as I described in a previous post, with a simple caveat.
Or something like, "If your attack misses by 5 or less, you inflict your STR mod in damage."
That accounts for really bad misses that might be wiffs.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;693599Or something like, "If your attack misses by 5 or less, you inflict your STR mod in damage."
That accounts for really bad misses that might be wiffs.
You could do 'Unless you roll a natural one' - less bookkeeping and means their is always a chance of missing even if you have a overwhelming discrepancy. It also ties into Advantage/Disadvantage quite well.
Quote from: jadrax;693604You could do 'Unless you roll a natural one' - less bookkeeping and means their is always a chance of missing even if you have a overwhelming discrepancy. It also ties into Advantage/Disadvantage quite well.
Sure. THat was just an example. I probably totally would do a house rule like that (nat 1)
Quote from: jadrax;693604You could do 'Unless you roll a natural one' - less bookkeeping and means their is always a chance of missing even if you have a overwhelming discrepancy. It also ties into Advantage/Disadvantage quite well.
Thats a very simple and elegant idea. Works for me.
OK leaving the possibility of a complete miss open is a start.
My problem with it is not that there's damage on a miss. I agreed with Sacrosanct's interpretation and I do realize the potential passes of arms are abstracted, depending on the situation. So to be clear: I have no problem with the concept that a miss could inflict some amount of damage in some specific situations.
My problem is that, whether you say it happens once in a while by rolling a six-sider, or not on a natural "1", or not if you fail to hit by this much compared to AC, the assumption is still that the possibility of doing damage on a miss always exists.
The assumption is that there is always a possibility to do some damage to a target by failing to hit it while being an expert wielding a two-handed weapon, as opposed to some other type of weapon. Why? To me, it only makes sense as Sac was interpreting it, when you assume that there's a block or contact with armor going on and that the heaviness/impact of the weapon fatigues the target.
Some situations might occur where it would not make sense for you to inflict any amount of damage on a miss, regardless of the result of the die roll, because in this particular situation, a miss would be a miss would be a miss. My problem is that the possibility of that interpretation is taken away by the ability's assumption, regardless of the particular odds attached to it. With the abstraction of attacks in D&D in some situations you can imagine the action as being multiple blows and passes of arms exchanged between two opponents, AND in some other situations you can interpret an attack as being a single blow that either hits or miss, no ifs nor buts. With each particular situation, I can see different things unfolding in my mind.
What this rule says to me is that there's always multiple blows exchanged by an expert in the wielding of two-handed weapons in a single round, and that there's always some possible impact of the heavy weapon onto the target during that round, and that rubs me the wrong way.
Personally if I wanted something like this is D&D I'd steal a page from GURPS and add a second resource pool to manage. Fatigue points or the like.
The idea that HP are "damage" is too well ingrained for this not to cause waves in most groups I've played with (it harkens back to Star Wars d20).
Quote from: Benoist;693587Interesting. Now assuming the guy with the longsword inflicted "fatigue" damage on his opponent, would you say the rapier guy inflicted significantly more, less, or no real different "fatigue" damage on his opponent?
If two fighters with the same conditioning and one picked up a rapier and the other picked up a 2H sword, the 2H Sword guy will tire more quickly.
But a fighter trained with a 2H sword then he will have developed the strength and control to use it especially over the length of the expected combat. (i.e. they would train for the actual combat conditions not one on one bouts). But over the course of a DAY the rapier guy would win out on fatigue. Which is why you see rapiers as sidearms and not 2H swords. But in battle the 2H Sword is a superior choice especially versus plate or half-plate armored foes.
In my opinion D&D doesn't work at a fine enough level of detail to make this type of fatigue enough of a difference. The Next mechanic just barely past muster.
I think what we're looking at here is an inherent consequence of the strange contradiction of the to-hit roll in D&D. Back in the day, a combat round was a minute long and the to-hit roll did indeed represent that flurry of blows... but you're not dealing a flurry of blows against a resisting opponent if you, say, take a shot on an archery range, or jump out from behind a curtain and try to take down the King with a single dagger stab to the chest, but most DMs would make you roll a to-hit roll for that anyway.
I put this firmly under the category of "bits of the rules which cease making sense if you look at them too hard". All RPGs have them, it isn't a problem that Next has them. It might be more of a problem if the existence of talents like the one under discussion specifically prompts people to look at that aspect of the rules, though.
"Damn, my halberd blow missed but I still deal 3 damage. Your turn bard."
Being bothered by that is persnikety as hell.
Plate armor should be crumpled into a fighter' s chest from the force of a cloud giant's hammer, but instead we just mark off some hit points. A dragon should be able to bat a fighter and send him flying 50 feet into the air as easily as I can a Chihuahua, but instead we just mark off some hit points from a claw.
Examples that are easily as jolting as the halberdier dealing minimal damage on a miss are replete throughout the game. Short stocky dwarves should have a hefty dex penalty. Rakshasas should have some hefty to hit penalties and drop their blades from backwards hands that do not match any other arm motion. Etc, etc.
We are playing an abstract fantasy game, not medieval combat simulation.
Quote from: Benoist;693578Ah err. No. Sorry. It's actually easier and less tiring to avoid blows from heavy, slow weapons in a melee than to dodge repeated blows from lighter, quicker weapons which can easily take you off guard. By this logic, if you are an expert in rapier fighting, say, you should do more "damage" on a miss than the two-handed weapon fighter. So the argument that it really models "fatigue" doesn't work.
Sacrosanct was right: it's got to assume there is some contact achieved during the pass of arms.
Agreed. In fact the guy weilding the great axe should take damage from that logic as its much more tiring that a light weapon.
This is something I would house rule but is itself founded on the AC flaw in D&D.
Quote from: Old One Eye;693731send him flying 50 feet into the air as easily as I can a Chihuahua
You can knock a Chihuahua 50 feet in the air? Remind me not to piss you off.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;693543This is how I look at it. We all agree that combat is a series of strikes and parries all rolled up into one attack roll, right?
No, we aren't.
Quote from: Piestrio;693610The idea that HP are "damage" is too well ingrained for this not to cause waves in most groups I've played with (it harkens back to Star Wars d20).
Exactly.
Quote from: Old One Eye;693731"Damn, my halberd blow missed but I still deal 3 damage. Your turn bard."
Being bothered by that is persnikety as hell.
I really don't see why you guys are giving this a pass. 13th Age does the exact same thing (in terms of doing damage on a miss, not specifically with regards to 2 handed weapons);does that get a pass too, or is it story-meta-gaming when it doesn't say "D&D" on the tin?
If you miss, you miss; if you hit, you hit. None of this weak consolation damage shit. First rule to meet the "nope, that's out" marker if it goes to print like this.
Quote from: apparition13;693746I really don't see why you guys are giving this a pass. 13th Age does the exact same thing (in terms of doing damage on a miss, not specifically with regards to 2 handed weapons);does that get a pass too, or is it story-meta-gaming when it doesn't say "D&D" on the tin?
If you miss, you miss; if you hit, you hit. None of this weak consolation damage shit. First rule to meet the "nope, that's out" marker if it goes to print like this.
I neither know or care what 13 Age does, nor do I recall ever worrying about how metagaming or whatever hit points are. A person does not have to be punched in real life very many times to realize the binary hit/miss is an incredibly metagame concept in and of itself. To have no problem with binary hit/miss but be bothered by dealing 3 damage on a miss is.....well seems like splitting hairs to me.
Quote from: Old One Eye;693731Examples that are easily as jolting as the halberdier dealing minimal damage on a miss are replete throughout the game. Short stocky dwarves should have a hefty dex penalty. Rakshasas should have some hefty to hit penalties and drop their blades from backwards hands that do not match any other arm motion. Etc, etc.
We are playing an abstract fantasy game, not medieval combat simulation.
Yep. Does a 10th level fighter who has taken 20 hits from goblins armed with bows really have 20 arrows sticking out of his body? Of course not. Claiming all hits are direct blows from weapons/claws/fangs is the absurd position, not the notion that swing from a halberd that isn't a direct hit can still erode the target's ability to continue fighting.
Gamers, as a whole, are much like primitive cavemen when confronted with a new game. Rather than 'oh, neat, what's this do?', the reaction is to decide if it's a sex hole, then hit it with a rock.
Quote from: JonWake;693910Gamers, as a whole, are much like primitive cavemen when confronted with a new game. Rather than 'oh, neat, what's this do?', the reaction is to decide if it's a sex hole, then hit it with a rock.
:D Oh so sigworthy. Done.
Quote from: apparition13;693746I really don't see why you guys are giving this a pass. 13th Age does the exact same thing (in terms of doing damage on a miss, not specifically with regards to 2 handed weapons);does that get a pass too, or is it story-meta-gaming when it doesn't say "D&D" on the tin?
13th Age is a set of house rules by the people who made D&D 3rd and 4th edition. It's not at all surprising that it would treat hit points the same way.
And yes, I'm perfectly happy with misses causing light damage most of the time. (If the player/target can come up with a good argument why they wouldn't take 3 points of damage on the halberd miss, then I'd be happy to consider them - that's why we have DMs at the table and not computron 3000s.)
(No offense to the computron 3000s, mind. They're lovely machines and I would let my sister marry one.)
Quote from: apparition13;693746No, we aren't.
Well, maybe you houserule it then. But it has been very explicit in early editions that that is the case, and heavily implied if not directly stated in others as well.
Quote from: Old One Eye;693731"Damn, my halberd blow missed but I still deal 3 damage. Your turn bard."
Being bothered by that is persnikety as hell.
It's not a persnikety distinction (IMHO) if the halberd is coated with poison that required a save vs death on if even a point of damage is taken. With a standard miss (no damage), the halberd wielder has to successful hit to poison the target. With this "no damage even when you miss" system, all the halberd wielder has to do is say he is attacking target X to cause target X to be poisoned. Nor is it a persnikety distinction if the halberd has some magical effect that taken effect if the target takes damage from the halberd. Etc.
Quote from: RandallS;694007It's not a persnikety distinction (IMHO) if the halberd is coated with poison that required a save vs death on if even a point of damage is taken. With a standard miss (no damage), the halberd wielder has to successful hit to poison the target. With this "no damage even when you miss" system, all the halberd wielder has to do is say he is attacking target X to cause target X to be poisoned. Nor is it a persnikety distinction if the halberd has some magical effect that taken effect if the target takes damage from the halberd. Etc.
Poison is triggered on a hit that causes damage. Problem solved.
The Halbeard doing damage on a miss might be defined as : "You inflicted minimal damage to the enemy in a less than optimal manner while wielding a poisoned Halbeard"
Quote from: JonWake;694016Poison is triggered on a hit that causes damage. Problem solved.
As long as you don't mind tossed verisimilitude out the window in favor of whatever the rules say, I guess that would solve the problem. However, it would not for me as I'd want to know how that halberd causes 2 or 3 points of damage without getting the poison into the wound. I suppose you could claim that it was a hit with the flat of the blad so no poison got into the target's system. Of course, this probably would not work as a "how this happened" explanation if the cause of the "death effect" on damage was magic instead of poison.
Quote from: RandallS;694038As long as you don't mind tossed verisimilitude out the window in favor of whatever the rules say, I guess that would solve the problem. However, it would not for me as I'd want to know how that halberd causes 2 or 3 points of damage without getting the poison into the wound. I suppose you could claim that it was a hit with the flat of the blad so no poison got into the target's system. Of course, this probably would not work as a "how this happened" explanation if the cause of the "death effect" on damage was magic instead of poison.
Or not. Whatever. Doesn't bother me. But then, neither do HPs. Or levels. Or the entirety of human skill described as a dozen catchall names with a mysterious amount of overlap. But I guess I'll just have to toss verisimilitude out that window. Hope it bounces.
So, by the rules, I can sit on my couch at home, and swing my two handed sword until Sauron in his castle 1,000 leagues away dies from it?
Quote from: jrr;694042so, by the rules, i can sit on my couch at home, and swing my two handed sword until sauron in his castle 1,000 leagues away dies from it?
obviously.
Quote from: RandallS;694038As long as you don't mind tossed verisimilitude out the window in favor of whatever the rules say, I guess that would solve the problem. However, it would not for me as I'd want to know how that halberd causes 2 or 3 points of damage without getting the poison into the wound. I suppose you could claim that it was a hit with the flat of the blad so no poison got into the target's system. Of course, this probably would not work as a "how this happened" explanation if the cause of the "death effect" on damage was magic instead of poison.
I would explain it the same way I did earlier. Because the weapon is so big, it can cause hp loss even if you manage to block it with a shield or armor.
This is hairsplitting, and it doesn't solve the general case, but: it's a halberd, so 1) poisoning a halberd is nearly as farcical as poisoning a morningstar, so 2) given that the business end has at least 4 points and probably 4 edges as well it's easy to posit that one of those parts wasn't poisoned, and that's the part that hit, and also 3) it's a relatively short pole weapon – smacking the guy with the butt end in preparation for bringing down the murdering end was a tactic, and something I frequently describe happening when someone gets non-fatally hit by a halberd or similar.
Quote from: RandallS;694038As long as you don't mind tossed verisimilitude out the window ...
I toss it out the window every chance I get. It's a pretentious word frequently used by didactic people who wank off to rules all day rather than actually playing the game.
In my experience, people who actually play tend to say things like "that doesn't feel real enough" or "that doesn't seem plausible" or "it seems kinda fake" or "I don't know how believable I find that to be" or, you know, anything else that a normal person not trying to be a pedantic twat might say in conversation.
But that's just me :)
Quote from: RandallS;694038As long as you don't mind tossed verisimilitude out the window in favor of whatever the rules say, I guess that would solve the problem. However, it would not for me as I'd want to know how that halberd causes 2 or 3 points of damage without getting the poison into the wound. I suppose you could claim that it was a hit with the flat of the blad so no poison got into the target's system. Of course, this probably would not work as a "how this happened" explanation if the cause of the "death effect" on damage was magic instead of poison.
I have twice in my life been bitten by poisonous snakes, leaving behind two puncture wounds, without having any venomous effect whatsoever. Verisimilitude is more harmed by poisoned weapons that always work as advertised than by what you are concerned with.
Quote from: Old One Eye;694060I have twice in my life been bitten by poisonous snakes, leaving behind two puncture wounds, without having any venomous effect whatsoever. Verisimilitude is more harmed by poisoned weapons that always work as advertised than by what you are concerned with.
And I've been bitten by poisonous snakes twice in my life and I died both times!
I forgot what my point was, but it's probably that anecdotes (while interesting) are often not reflective of common experience.
I mean, the whole fact that most venomous snakes are unwilling to waste their venom on a creature too large to eat (assuming they know better - which most non-junvenile snakes seem to) calls into question - how do poisoned blades work?
I think it's one of those things that D&D has decided works like Hamlet, not like real life.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;694067calls into question - how do poisoned blades work?
Clearly only on a successful attack, not any old time an attack deals damage. :p
Quote from: JonWake;694043obviously.
Don't be a smartass. It doesn't matter that no dm would ever let that happen, that's no excuse for shoddy rules writing.
"When you miss a target with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, the target still takes damage from the weapon. The damage equals your Strength modifier. The weapon must have the two-*‐handed or versatile property to gain this benefit."
There is no range requirement for this. It's shitty work, typical for WOTC.
Quote from: JRR;694118There is no range requirement for this. It's shitty work, typical for WOTC.
You can't miss a target if you can't attack the target. You can't attack a target that isn't in range.
It doesn't need to specify a range, because it can't be a TARGET if it isn't within range.
"1.
Choose a target. Before you attack, pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location."
Quote from: JRR;694118Don't be a smartass. It doesn't matter that no dm would ever let that happen, that's no excuse for shoddy rules writing.
"When you miss a target with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, the target still takes damage from the weapon. The damage equals your Strength modifier. The weapon must have the two-*‐handed or versatile property to gain this benefit."
There is no range requirement for this. It's shitty work, typical for WOTC.
Are you saying this with a straight face?
Quote from: Old One Eye;694133Are you saying this with a straight face?
I took it straight, but only because I've seen that stupid on this forum can reach amazing levels.
Quote from: JRR;694118Don't be a smartass. It doesn't matter that no dm would ever let that happen, that's no excuse for shoddy rules writing.
"When you miss a target with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, the target still takes damage from the weapon. The damage equals your Strength modifier. The weapon must have the two-*‐handed or versatile property to gain this benefit."
There is no range requirement for this. It's shitty work, typical for WOTC.
Don't go full retard JRR. Never go full retard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAKG-kbKeIo
Quote from: JRR;694118Don't be a smartass. It doesn't matter that no dm would ever let that happen, that's no excuse for shoddy rules writing.
"When you miss a target with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, the target still takes damage from the weapon. The damage equals your Strength modifier. The weapon must have the two-*‐handed or versatile property to gain this benefit."
There is no range requirement for this. It's shitty work, typical for WOTC.
wait....
I don't want to make a mistake. Are you saying it's shoddy work on WOTC by not specifying a range requirement for a melee attack? Because that seems...well...a waster of ink to be honest.
No damge on a miss is a shit rule end of.
You can blah blah it as much as you like its still a shit rule :)
Imagine the following situations ....
Kredfar the thief had been cornered. He took a load of damage but slipped on his ring of invisibility and fled. At the gates to the castle stand 2 bugbears. halberds in hand.
Kredfar tires to sneak past but fails a move silently, he is still invisible. the Bugbears who are alert cry "someone is there" and swing their halberds.
Kredfar has some defence feat he uses gviing him +4 ac, +4 from the invisibility so an AC of -2 (he is a dexy little fucker). the Bugbears need a 20 to hit. One rolls a 5 one a 4 .... but doesn't matter Kredfar still takes 2 damage from each and goes unconscious and turns visible as he has been engaged in combat.
Also got to pity 1st level wizards
Wizzy gets cornered by a barbarian with sword. Wizzy casts shield. The barbarian swings the sword 2 handed, (doesn't need to be a two handed weapon just a weapon that can be weilded 2 handed) misses and Wizzy goes down taking 1 point of damage.
Quote from: jibbajibba;694163No damge on a miss is a shit rule end of.
You can blah blah it as much as you like its still a shit rule :)
Imagine the following situations ....
Kredfar the thief had been cornered. He took a load of damage but slipped on his ring of invisibility and fled. At the gates to the castle stand 2 bugbears. halberds in hand.
Kredfar tires to sneak past but fails a move silently, he is still invisible. the Bugbears who are alert cry "someone is there" and swing their halberds.
Kredfar has some defence feat he uses gviing him +4 ac, +4 from the invisibility so an AC of -2 (he is a dexy little fucker). the Bugbears need a 20 to hit. One rolls a 5 one a 4 .... but doesn't matter Kredfar still takes 2 damage from each and goes unconscious and turns visible as he has been engaged in combat.
Also got to pity 1st level wizards
Wizzy gets cornered by a barbarian with sword. Wizzy casts shield. The barbarian swings the sword 2 handed, (doesn't need to be a two handed weapon just a weapon that can be weilded 2 handed) misses and Wizzy goes down taking 1 point of damage.
Fun right? (said much the same thing over at TBP concerning at will spells vs. bullshit daggers/x-bows or whatever...again when is it where I have time to be a fighter? (Unless I am an Elf or multiclass? Both have serious drawbacks btw) personally I work past them but not EVERYONE is wired like myself. Hence I dig the direction 5e is going. Ben called it last year, this is Jo's Dnd.:)
Quote from: JonWake;694016Poison is triggered on a hit that causes damage. Problem solved.
Thats already the case. Hence the problem with a weapon that causes damage even if you miss.
My solution by the by: exchange the auto- damage with " may , on a miss, move opponent d6 feet away". An ability I'd extend to Great Battleaxes as well.
Quote from: jibbajibba;694163No damge on a miss is a shit rule end of.
You can blah blah it as much as you like its still a shit rule :)
Imagine the following situations ....
Kredfar the thief had been cornered. He took a load of damage but slipped on his ring of invisibility and fled. At the gates to the castle stand 2 bugbears. halberds in hand.
Kredfar tires to sneak past but fails a move silently, he is still invisible. the Bugbears who are alert cry "someone is there" and swing their halberds.
Kredfar has some defence feat he uses gviing him +4 ac, +4 from the invisibility so an AC of -2 (he is a dexy little fucker). the Bugbears need a 20 to hit. One rolls a 5 one a 4 .... but doesn't matter Kredfar still takes 2 damage from each and goes unconscious and turns visible as he has been engaged in combat.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. While hitting him with the head of their halberd and cleaving him is pretty hard, the fact that they don't hit with their blade doesn't mean they don't hit at all. The shaft swings through Kredfar's space and he takes a couple of small bruises.
If it knocks him unconscious, he's still invisible. There's a good chance the Bugbears fail to locate him.
This is very much like Bilbo's experience during the Battle of Five Armies.
Quote from: jibbajibba;694163Also got to pity 1st level wizards
Wizzy gets cornered by a barbarian with sword. Wizzy casts shield. The barbarian swings the sword 2 handed, (doesn't need to be a two handed weapon just a weapon that can be weilded 2 handed) misses and Wizzy goes down taking 1 point of damage.
I've always been told that we shouldn't feel pity for the wizard because his job is to avoid standing next to a barbarian.
Keep in mind that this is only applying if the character took a particular combat ability that makes this happen.
Quote from: jibbajibba;694163Imagine the following situations ....
Kredfar the thief had been cornered. He took a load of damage but slipped on his ring of invisibility and fled. At the gates to the castle stand 2 bugbears. halberds in hand.
Kredfar tires to sneak past but fails a move silently, he is still invisible. the Bugbears who are alert cry "someone is there" and swing their halberds.
Kredfar has some defence feat he uses gviing him +4 ac, +4 from the invisibility so an AC of -2 (he is a dexy little fucker). the Bugbears need a 20 to hit. One rolls a 5 one a 4 .... but doesn't matter Kredfar still takes 2 damage from each and goes unconscious and turns visible as he has been engaged in combat.
Then he should have snuck better, or found a less risky way out.
If the combat roll represents a length of time spent fighting, rather than "a blow", damage on a "miss" makes sense, if you're doing well enough to wear your opponent down even without landing a telling blow... although making it a weapon property isn't the best way of handling it.
Quote from: jibbajibba;694163Kredfar the thief had been cornered. He took a load of damage but slipped on his ring of invisibility and fled. At the gates to the castle stand 2 bugbears. halberds in hand.
Kredfar tires to sneak past but fails a move silently, he is still invisible. the Bugbears who are alert cry "someone is there" and swing their halberds.
Kredfar has some defence feat he uses gviing him +4 ac, +4 from the invisibility so an AC of -2 (he is a dexy little fucker). the Bugbears need a 20 to hit. One rolls a 5 one a 4 .... but doesn't matter Kredfar still takes 2 damage from each and goes unconscious and turns visible as he has been engaged in combat.
No damage on a miss is perfectly fine. You might as well rewrite the rule as: You encounter something, it magically loses x-HPs by being in your presence (be that 5ft or one square or whatever), roll to see if you damage it further.
Quote from: jibbajibba;694163No damge on a miss is a shit rule end of.
You can blah blah it as much as you like its still a shit rule :)
Imagine the following situations ....
Kredfar the thief had been cornered. He took a load of damage but slipped on his ring of invisibility and fled. At the gates to the castle stand 2 bugbears. halberds in hand.
Kredfar tires to sneak past but fails a move silently, he is still invisible. the Bugbears who are alert cry "someone is there" and swing their halberds.
Kredfar has some defence feat he uses gviing him +4 ac, +4 from the invisibility so an AC of -2 (he is a dexy little fucker). the Bugbears need a 20 to hit. One rolls a 5 one a 4 .... but doesn't matter Kredfar still takes 2 damage from each and goes unconscious and turns visible as he has been engaged in combat.
Also got to pity 1st level wizards
Wizzy gets cornered by a barbarian with sword. Wizzy casts shield. The barbarian swings the sword 2 handed, (doesn't need to be a two handed weapon just a weapon that can be weilded 2 handed) misses and Wizzy goes down taking 1 point of damage.
To play devil's advocate here:
DM can easily decree no auto damage vs invisible enemies, especially invisible enemies you have not been melleing with. Regardless, that example you gave of Bugbears is simply not how I would gm.
Also, bubbears don't normally do autodamage; if they do, its because the gm decided to make them 'full barbarians like a pc'
Monsters have simple stat blocks.
Wizard: Don't get pinned down by a Barbarian? Also, the auto damage is far less than what a regular hit would do.
I really think experiencing the system in play would be advised before trashing it.
It looks fantastic to me.
Still reading through the book though.
Uh oh....
Oh man am I an idiot!!!! I am talking about 13th Age (that also has auto damage) not 5E dnd.
I feel stupid.
My reply probaby still stands, but I was clueless and must have 13th Age on the brain disease.
Quote from: Bill;694230To play devil's advocate here:
DM can easily decree no auto damage vs invisible enemies, especially invisible enemies you have not been melleing with. Regardless, that example you gave of Bugbears is simply not how I would gm.
Also, bubbears don't normally do autodamage; if they do, its because the gm decided to make them 'full barbarians like a pc'
Monsters have simple stat blocks.
Wizard: Don't get pinned down by a Barbarian? Also, the auto damage is far less than what a regular hit would do.
I really think experiencing the system in play would be advised before trashing it.
It looks fantastic to me.
Still reading through the book though.
Uh oh....
Oh man am I an idiot!!!! I am talking about 13th Age (that also has auto damage) not 5E dnd.
I feel stupid.
My reply probaby still stands, but I was clueless and must have 13th Age on the brain disease.
Okay you all agree fine.
Wiggling my sword in the general direction of an invisble opponent will miss, deal damage but not make them visible becuae even though they have definitely been engaged in combat we will waive the other rule.
The D&D paradigm of a combat round as an exchange of blows has been dropped by all the players unless they are arguing for these sorts of corner cases. Read the thread on how do you describe combat, no one not even Old Geezer says "I engage in a back and forth of parry and thrust before rolling to hit...." everyone envisages it as a single attack. Just check the thread.
So if no one uses it as an abstract exchange of blows lets drop that idea shall we?
If D&D had a separation of fatigue from Hit Points then there may be some mileage in making defence against some weapons drain fatigue, but when we discussed Hit points and some of us suggested such as difference and kind of suggested maybe fatigue could heal fast and be ablative where as wounds were more serious real damage the majority of folks said that was ridiculous ... and yet.....
So if wielding a weapon 2 handed does damage due to 'fatigue' then you should take HP damage for running in armour, climbing a wall, not sleeping, walking a long way etc etc ....
Is it possible that if I swing my axe at you you can move and it misses you? Not a big move a short step to the side perhaps?
This rule is coming from the same place as a "sand in your eyes" power that needs no sand nor for the target to have actual eyes....
Give a 2 handed weapon a wider critical range, additional damage, make the opponent make a save not to be knocked back etc etc but only do it if the thing actually hits something.....
Rant over :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;694240Okay you all agree fine.
Wiggling my sword in the general direction of an invisble opponent will miss, deal damage but not make them visible becuae even though they have definitely been engaged in combat we will waive the other rule.
The D&D paradigm of a combat round as an exchange of blows has been dropped by all the players unless they are arguing for these sorts of corner cases. Read the thread on how do you describe combat, no one not even Old Geezer says "I engage in a back and forth of parry and thrust before rolling to hit...." everyone envisages it as a single attack. Just check the thread.
So if no one uses it as an abstract exchange of blows lets drop that idea shall we?
If D&D had a separation of fatigue from Hit Points then there may be some mileage in making defence against some weapons drain fatigue, but when we discussed Hit points and some of us suggested such as difference and kind of suggested maybe fatigue could heal fast and be ablative where as wounds were more serious real damage the majority of folks said that was ridiculous ... and yet.....
So if wielding a weapon 2 handed does damage due to 'fatigue' then you should take HP damage for running in armour, climbing a wall, not sleeping, walking a long way etc etc ....
Is it possible that if I swing my axe at you you can move and it misses you? Not a big move a short step to the side perhaps?
This rule is coming from the same place as a "sand in your eyes" power that needs no sand nor for the target to have actual eyes....
Give a 2 handed weapon a wider critical range, additional damage, make the opponent make a save not to be knocked back etc etc but only do it if the thing actually hits something.....
Rant over :)
Don't get me wrong, I actually prefer, if it is an option, to have a game system have clearly defned 'Hit/miss', how 'dodgy/how armored', wounds are wounds and stun is stun, etc... (like HERO)
But, I am also comfortable with dnd's VERY abstract concepts like Hit Points.
The low auto damage on a miss, policed by the gm, is absrtact like HP.
Quote from: jibbajibba;694240Wiggling my sword in the general direction of an invisble opponent will miss, deal damage but not make them visible becuae even though they have definitely been engaged in combat we will waive the other rule.
If you are attacked while invisible, you don't become visible. It's only if you attack back. So this wouldn't involve ignoring any rules.
Quote from: jibbajibba;694240Give a 2 handed weapon a wider critical range, additional damage, make the opponent make a save not to be knocked back etc etc but only do it if the thing actually hits something.....
Yeah the real question here is less "is this particular rule stupid" and more "how easy is it to houserule" because really there's a ton of alternate bonuses you can choose from for a two-handed weapon style.
Quote from: jibbajibba;694163No damge on a miss is a shit rule end of.
You can blah blah it as much as you like its still a shit rule :)
Imagine the following situations ....
Kredfar the thief had been cornered. He took a load of damage but slipped on his ring of invisibility and fled. At the gates to the castle stand 2 bugbears. halberds in hand.
Kredfar tires to sneak past but fails a move silently, he is still invisible. the Bugbears who are alert cry "someone is there" and swing their halberds.
Kredfar has some defence feat he uses gviing him +4 ac, +4 from the invisibility so an AC of -2 (he is a dexy little fucker). the Bugbears need a 20 to hit. One rolls a 5 one a 4 .... but doesn't matter Kredfar still takes 2 damage from each and goes unconscious and turns visible as he has been engaged in combat.
Also got to pity 1st level wizards
Wizzy gets cornered by a barbarian with sword. Wizzy casts shield. The barbarian swings the sword 2 handed, (doesn't need to be a two handed weapon just a weapon that can be weilded 2 handed) misses and Wizzy goes down taking 1 point of damage.
Not seeing the problem. If I allow the bugbear to make an attack roll, they have a pretty darn good idea where the handling is at. If all the bugbear know is that he is somewhere in the general vicinity, no attack roll.
And wizards should totally be worried when cornered by a barbarian.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;694253If you are attacked while invisible, you don't become visible. It's only if you attack back. So this wouldn't involve ignoring any rules.
No if you are hit when invisible through melee combat you become visible as you are deemed to be engaged in combat.
Quote from: Imp;694286Yeah the real question here is less "is this particular rule stupid" and more "how easy is it to houserule" because really there's a ton of alternate bonuses you can choose from for a two-handed weapon style.
Agreed.
I like a lot of what I have seen in Next but I will always be against disassociative rules whether they come from 4e, Next, AD&D or where ever.
I mean people are actually seriously trying to say that if A guy with the right skill swings a weapon with two hands they are bound to connect and do some damage even if they messed up. They aren't saying if you hit a touch attach so that its the armour that absorbed the blow, or if the blow is parried or anything they are saying they would be unable to imagine a situation where that swing would simply miss.
Bleah, this "hit on a miss" thing is real? Of all the 4tarded rules they could have kept, they chose one of the stupidest ones.
Quote from: jibbajibba;694484No if you are hit when invisible through melee combat you become visible as you are deemed to be engaged in combat.
I genuinely like you jibbajibba, and I am not trying to be tart. But have you actually played D&D or do you just discuss it on message boards? Invisibility has always ended when you attack, not when someone attacks you.
I really don't like the damage on a miss, and would not allow it at my table. If a big, heavy weapon does auto damage, why not a smaller, speedier weapon that can get more blows in? A miss is a miss is a miss.
Because there are no nonsensical rules in D&D. Hey, why can't immortal perfectionist advance past 9th level again?
Quote from: languagegeek;694529I really don't like the damage on a miss, and would not allow it at my table. If a big, heavy weapon does auto damage, why not a smaller, speedier weapon that can get more blows in? A miss is a miss is a miss.
I do not think it is the best of rules, just find it bizarre that one rule is being singled out so much. The wanderer always remember an area's layout. The noted performer always finds an audience. The researcher always knows where to find lore. Etc, etc.
Quote from: Old One Eye;694490I genuinely like you jibbajibba, and I am not trying to be tart. But have you actually played D&D or do you just discuss it on message boards? Invisibility has always ended when you attack, not when someone attacks you.
Um D&D is that the one with the space ships and the Klingons?
No me bad we changed the invisibility 20 years ago after a very long debate following a long combat where an invisible guy was defending a party wizard by parrying all the opponent's blows. The rules said they wouldn't turn visible as they were not attacking so we changed it to engaged in melee combat.
Sorry.
Quote from: jibbajibba;694574Um D&D is that the one with the space ships and the Klingons?
No me bad we changed the invisibility 20 years ago after a very long debate following a long combat where an invisible guy was defending a party wizard by parrying all the opponent's blows. The rules said they wouldn't turn visible as they were not attacking so we changed it to engaged in melee combat.
Sorry.
If you are parrying, that is an action that you do in place of your attack and would count as such. An invisible guy just running around, not using an attack option or casting spells would remain invisible.
The guy in your group chose to engage in melee by parrying. That is different than just being in melee range when combat is taking place.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;694580If you are parrying, that is an action that you do in place of your attack and would count as such. An invisible guy just running around, not using an attack option or casting spells would remain invisible.
The guy in your group chose to engage in melee by parrying. That is different than just being in melee range when combat is taking place.
To be fair, D&D has never done a good job of modeling the situation. I could see a DM going either way with it.