Dungeons & Dragons 5.5: Now with Vancian Threadshitting

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Gas Chamber > Dungeons & Dragons 5.5: Now with Vancian Threadshitting

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

Eikre posted:

But I think a lot of you guys maybe noticed from the erratic displays out of WOTC that 4E probably didn't do as well as they hoped? And saw what a loving powerhouse Pathfinder became?

Look, there are a shitload of people who picked 4E up, tried it out, rolled their paladins, played a campaign, and decided without a trace of affectation or weird tribalism that they just didn't like it, man. For whatever reason they just didn't find the game itself to be sufficiently fun or interesting.

What kind of numbers do you have to support claims like this?

# ¿ Feb 26, 2012 21:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2013 11:08

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

Scrubber posted:

4th edition may or may not be a better game than earlier editions of D&D, I can't honestly say. I suspect that some of the more controversial changes in 4th edition had very solid reasoning behind them.

But when a developer is continuing the development of an existing game, the developer does not have the same freedom that he would if he were developing a new game.

A new game just has to be fun. But a new version of Dungeons and Dragons needs to both a) be fun and b) be Dungeons and Dragons.

When 3rd edition came out, I opened up the books and there was enough continuity and commonality that I could immediately recognize that yes, this was still Dungeons and Dragons.

When 4th edition came out, that was not the case. They may have succeeded in designing the game mechanics, but they failed in making the game feel like D&D. Monopoly may be a lovely game, but that doesn't mean Monopoly fans will be happy if you create a new version of Monopoly that turns it into Settlers of Catan.

I imagine 4E would have gotten much more respect if it was marketed as a separate brand.

Wrong thread. I think you meant to paste that here.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2012 21:55

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

Scrubber posted:

I understand that you guys are upset about the failure of a game you liked. But make no mistake, 4E failed to some significant extent. That is why they are making this new edition and promising to revert significant parts of 4E.

It may not have been mechanical weakness that caused 4E to fail, but it did fail. I just thought I'd explain why I spent 0$ on 4E (and virtually ignored it) after spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars on 2E and 3E.

That may make me a bad person, but apparently there are enough bad people out there in the RPG market to make WOTC reconsider how it does business.

Simple, there were too few mechanical similarities with previous editions for to feel like the same game to me. I found it unrecognizable.

So you're saying the game failed at attracting grognards interested in lovely legacy mechanics?

The reason they are making a new game is to sell more books to a possible different segment of the market. It's not because the game "failed".

# ¿ Feb 26, 2012 22:11

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

4outof5 posted:

That might hold up if Pathfinder didn't turn into a dollar bill printing machine....Don't listen to me though I'm a nerd 2nd edition lover.

Since we only have anecdotal evidence to go on when it comes to sales of these games, I always like seeing a bunch of baldytail types sitting around a table sharing 1 Pathfinder book among them while chugging store brand Mt. Dew from the grocery store next to the game store. Makes me feel real good about a Pathfinder fan's average spending potential.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2012 22:42

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

Scrubber posted:

Hasn't it always been like this though?

In every previous edition I can remember, a fighter was just a mundane human who is good at fighting; Anderson Silva with a sword. He didn't get super hero type powers.

Meanwhile, the mage could do magic. He could manipulate the fundamental elements of the universe, fly, turn invisible, teleport, scry, etc.

So no matter how good the fighter is at killing monsters, it doesn't really matter. Eventually the character who can do magic will be far more broadly useful than a guy who just good at swordfighting and athletics, unless you were to take away most of the signature wizard abilities.

Wizards being more useful than fighters was always basically an integral part of the D&D "fluff". I was kind of shocked when I saw this listed as something that would be desirable to remove. How can you make punching people as useful as magic, without a) making punching people into magic or b)making magic less interesting?

Perhaps the issue is that earlier editions were often more along the lines of what you might call "Sandbox RPGs", where a huge amount of the action was non combat adventuring / problem solving (where wizards shine). As opposed to 4th edition which seems to be more of a "tactical RPG".

Anyone can make a non combat / problem solving game in any edition of any RPG ever.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2012 01:19

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

pelswick posted:

4th edition was a bunch of furries to me, everything was trying to appeal to furries. Werewolf furries, dragon furries, demon warlock furries. It's like they got their marketing department and made them study the internet for maximum sales.

DMing 4th edition was all keeping track of this character getting plus 1 to this because this other character just did that, while keeping track of how many turns the wizard's fireball gets to roll around the battlefield, which gives plus 1 to this other character because of his special thing, ugh. It became less about player freedom and turned into a big rule-heavy videogame simulator.

And no, I haven't DM'd 3.5 and I never intend to.

Look at this guy playing his players' characters for them.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2012 02:26

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

There's nothing WotC can do to make creepy people not like their game and they can't influence public opinion on roleplaying games in general (especially as long as LARPs/RenFests still exist)

# ¿ Feb 27, 2012 02:50

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

Scrubber posted:

I don't know where you're getting the idea that D&D in earlier editions wasn't fun as a fighter. Wizards were more powerful than fighters, but for the vast majority of the game they still had plenty of limitations.

Yeah, this is the first time I've heard anyone say Fighters weren't fun to play in previous editions...

# ¿ Feb 27, 2012 03:15

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

glitchwraith posted:

It's official. WotC no longer wants my money.

I kind of want to read a thread on some grog forum and see if they are just reveling in these legacy game mechanics

# ¿ Mar 5, 2012 16:22

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

Assumethisisreal posted:

I actually like SoD, and I'm hugely progressive about RPGs. I use them in my 4e game alot. I just don't give them to players or monsters, and have them be a part of the trap mechanics. With 4e's Death Saving Throw, it isn't the end of the world if the Rogue hosed up trying to disarm the collapsing roof trap, it just means that the rest of the party has to haul rear end and fix him before he bleeds out. It's a great way to make traps interesting in 4e, which has such terrible traps that half the time the party Defender just shrugs and walks through it.

So you're using Save or Gain the Dying Condition, right? Not save or literally die.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2012 17:08

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

Kasonic posted:

I literally cannot understand that frame of mind. I admit I'm an optimizing type of player, but we're approaching 'Str 11 Fighter for roleplaying reasons' levels of with "Nah, it's okay, I just want the basic attack one. Yeah I know it's free, I'm fine."

I've only seen bitter grognards "forced" to play 4E do it.

Essentials would have worked better as a Dragon Magazine supplement with a "baby's first Fighter" type article each month. 1+ year of almost exclusively Essentials content being published in books was pretty uninteresting to me / my crew.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2012 16:23

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

I liked the one I saw where the dude optimized Hellish Rebuke and would constantly fall / hurt himself to trigger more damage on poo poo. He never used anything else.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2012 18:53

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

ProfessorCirno posted:

Why is it a sin to have some classes that manage to be equal in power to the more crunchy ones while at the same time appealing to people who don't want all the crunch?

D&D will not survive if it only appeals to people who are RPG veterans and want lots of crunch and love diving into lots of rulebooks. Because that doesn't describe any new players at all.

I get the feeling a lot of people here don't remember that new players are totally a thing. And most of them don't want to go through lists and lists and lists of powers. They want to go "I AM THIS DUDE WITH A SWORD, HE'S loving BADASS AND HIS ARMOR AS SPIKES ON IT, I'M HITTING ON ALL THE WENCHES." And when a fight starts it's "I ROLL ATTACK, I ROLL DAMAGE, THAT DUDE'S HEAD GOES FLYING A MILLION FEET INTO THE AIR."

And not only are these perfectly chill dudes to have in the hobby, they're perfectly chill dudes to have in the game - and drat right, the game should have something that appeals to them.

I taught a lot of people new to tabletop to play 4E before Essentials. Most caught on quickly if they had played WoW. I still teach people how to play with non-essentials characters. It's not a big deal, really. 4E is one of the easiest games to learn how to play.

Of course, that is anecdotal evidence, but there's no evidence supporting your claim that most newbies just want to swing a sword for 30 levels.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2012 20:52

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

Dr Nick posted:

This would be true if that were the only choices you had to make at character building were powers.

Let's not pretend that picking ability scores, feats and equipment isn't a giant loving mess at this point. Related to that is that everything is extremely interconnected. I hope you like searching for feats that work with your weapon type and have prereqs that match your classes primary, secondary or (maybe!) tertiary ability scores and may or may not alter your at-will powers some or all of the time!

None of this stuff really matters at 1st level. I helped 2 dudes build Encounters characters out of PHB1 last week and it took maybe 25 mins to build both of their characters. I think the Halfling Rogue took Improved Initiative, the Human (!!) Ranger took Chain proficiency and Bastard Sword prof. Picked equipment and powers in a few minutes. They worked fine as newbie characters and both guys grasped the game after one Encounter.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2012 17:15

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

Dr Nick posted:

It does if you plan on playing for some time. Especially the ability scores. You can't retrain them and if there's a super cool feat that you want when you reach paragon I hope you took a 13 charisma as a fighter!

Yeah this sucks but you have to be a pretty lovely DM to not let someone retrain ability scores on their first character (or help them get really lovely ability scores at 1st level).

# ¿ Mar 8, 2012 17:19

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

MadScientistWorking posted:

You just limited to yourself to one book. Lets take a look at the fighter. You have a fighter that handles two handed weapons, a fighter that handles two weapons, a sword and shield fighter, a fighter that punches things, and a fighter that handles three different weapons. Then your base powers aren't even the same. Depending on your secondary (Dexterity versus Wisdom) you either pick an actual at will power or buff to your opportunity attacks.

That is the way you help a new player create a new character. Plopping down Every 4E Book Ever Printed doesn't work. No game with that much content works that way.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2012 18:24

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

Spell lists? I wonder what Fighters get

# ¿ Mar 9, 2012 21:23

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

coeranys posted:

Don't have it in front of me, but they get, let's see. d10 for hit dice, d10 for crit dice (crit dice are determined by class, crit confirmation is roughly back in - you do max damage on a 20, and on a confirm you also get your crit dice, but 20s explode so if you rolled repeated 20s you could get multiple crit dice.)

Fighters don't have to confirm on a crit to get a bonus d10, but they can still roll for exploding chance.

They get a... fighting style I think they're called?

Anyway, Archer is when you shoot you can shoot again at a -5 (that number will HAVE to be adjusted, with the flattened power curve you're just throwing away an arrow.) Guardian (or Defender? I don't remember specifically) is the knight mechanic, things adjacent get -2 if they don't include you, and once per turn if they don't include you and are adjacent you can make an attack. Slayer is that you can do an extra d10 to someone after you successfully hit, but you can't do it again until your next long or short rest (NOT AN ENCOUNTER POWER!1~1!). Two-Weapon Fighting (these names won't persist to release, they'll have to come up with something catchy for each one) is when you have a one hand and a light weapon in each hand, you get a +1 to AC, and when you hit with your mainhand you can take an attack with your offhand at a -5 (see above, close to auto miss) but if you do then you lose the AC bonus until your next turn.

Oh, and a +1 to break down doors, smash "compartments" (I remember that because the wording was so weird) or destroy objects.

I think they get one or two other things, but I don't remember. Also, there are rules for donning and removing armor, which scale linearly until you hit heavy armor, which is d4+1 minutes to remove. Why is that a random number? Jesus, I don't know.

Also, Dwarves can see 10' in complete darkness. Why 10'? I also don't know, but it strikes me as very funny.

I kind of wish you had just left it a mystery

# ¿ Mar 9, 2012 23:21

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

RedApe98 posted:

Divination, Alteration and Conjuration spells left alot of choice in the casters hands. 4e is mostly just blow poo poo up with the a few alteration thrown in.

The whiny contingent that bitches a moans about every little thing that 3.X did wrong and shouts down anyone that say they enjoyed or still enjoy 3rd editon.

Captain_Indigo gets it! 4th edition players have become what they hate most. Wizards.

Fighters literally having to sit at the back of the bus is a little thing.

# ¿ Mar 12, 2012 17:13

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

PSI-5 posted:

I've seen it as well ... one player is infamous for almost single-handedly destroying any embers of 4e love for one group because he literally took 10 to 20 minutes each turn to run through all the various options at higher levels. It's sort of funny, looking back at it.

Even the biggest 4e grog couldn't be blind to the paralysis of choice that higher level 4e can fall prey to (similar but in my experience slightly worse than the issue of the copious number of Feats in 3e).

Having actual physical Power cards makes it even worse (my example above involved Power cards). I've seen it happen in 3e as well if you're using Feat cards -- there's just something about having a deck of cards in front of you. It happens just as Splicer describes above.

The reasons turns take longer at higher levels aren't because of paralysis of choice. That's entirely on the player. Discourage metagame thinking, bring out a timer, do something to make slow players play.

Things like situational bonuses, immediate actions, opportunity actions, and condition tracking are what slow the game down.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2012 13:32

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

PSI-5 posted:

This is true but I do question the need then of having so many different, quantified powers (which I think is the point I'm getting at with the whole paralysis of choice thing).

Why not just have a few scaled variations of "You do something really cool using whatever power or skill comes naturally for your character. Do Xd10 on a hit or Yd10 on a miss. If you hit and describe it in a really cool way that fits in with your character concept and everyone agrees, apply an appropriate condition to the target."?

Actually, you could expand on this and banish the banality of classes entirely ... plus every character would be almost perfectly balanced power-wise.

Hmmm ...

Have you tried Essentials? That's basically it. Remove the choices, and just give you better options when you hit.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2012 13:54

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

Pathfinder has an organized play system. It's called Society. I used to organize for it back when I ran D&D public events every week. Of course, none of the Pathfinder players were EVER happy, and Paizo wasn't able to keep up with releasing new adventures, so most of them dropped off.

I still had a good laugh when a lovely DM killed an entire table in under 20 minutes because he made them fight level 8 bartenders at level 1.

# ¿ Apr 27, 2012 17:24

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

Splicer posted:

OK seriously how the hell do I get the materials. Nothing listed in the thread is working for me.

Yeah their workaround doesn't work. Someone needs to just put it on mediafire.

# ¿ May 24, 2012 14:44

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

I'm a DM so I opened the bestiary first. Holy poo poo, the monsters are both incredibly boring and also have really dumb numbers to track. (Rages for 5 turns, etc).

edit: ugh spells prepared. ugh.

# ¿ May 24, 2012 14:52

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

The Halfling Rogue can Hide behind allies who are larger than him.

# ¿ May 24, 2012 15:02

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

They made conditions that impose disadvantage as well as other bad status. Nothing like rolling 2 dice and taking the lower to save against a condition, I guess.

# ¿ May 24, 2012 15:07

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

Splicer posted:

I feel like the only guy not at the party

Maybe you should turn on PMs.

# ¿ May 24, 2012 15:18

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

My co-workers are looking at me oddly, I just can't stop laughing at some of this horribly designed poo poo.

# ¿ May 24, 2012 15:22

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

Did they literally paste a scan of the map from an old adventure?

For all the hype their production values on this are just trash.

# ¿ May 24, 2012 15:36

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

whydirt posted:

Looks like anyone can split their movement between before and after their main action each turn.

Also, I'm pretty sure the whole point of detaching skills from stats is to let Clerics use Wisdom for Lore checks.

The rules say Lore checks are for Int, but I guess DM fiat would fix that

# ¿ May 24, 2012 15:58

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

Jack the Lad posted:

The Thief theme power is that when you attack from hidden, you have advantage.

When you attack from hidden, you already have advantage.

It's basically Prone Shooter.

Lurker? It looks more like it gives you advantage even if you move out into plain sight before your attack.

# ¿ May 24, 2012 16:12

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

anyone who PMs me will get a reply, there are too many people asking now to compose all these PMs.

# ¿ May 24, 2012 16:53

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

So can any of the "wait for the playtest" goons weigh in?

# ¿ May 24, 2012 18:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2013 11:08

alg: Mar 14, 2007; Can't post for 17 days!

Yawgmoth posted:

Can someone explain to me the thought processes behind this mindset? I understand that missing isn't as fun as hitting, and yeah missing multiple times in a row really blows, but part of what makes success fun is the chance of failure. Are there any game systems out there where every action you take in combat is guaranteed to be successful?

It's not that people demand a guarantee of success, it's that for some mechanics (Slayer from Essentials) all you can do is swing your sword, and if you miss, that's it. There's literally nothing else you can do on your turn.

# ¿ May 24, 2012 19:23

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Gas Chamber > Dungeons & Dragons 5.5: Now with Vancian Threadshitting