|
Darwinism posted:Have they said why they're going back to martial competency = roll more dice? Fighters don't get to be interesting.
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
Remember, people never get slapped or shouted awake in any sort of book, TV show, or movie. The only possible way to wake from unconsciousness is magic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
You cannot play 3.5 (or D&D Next) without a grid. You can play a heavily houseruled version of 3.5, but 3.5 is heavily characterized by exact movement and distance modifiers, and there's no way to do that and keep track of a dozen separate characters mentally without being a beep boop robot. The reason 4E gets claimed to be much more grid-focused is that in-combat movement is actually a thing that happens, as opposed to 3.5 where the melee guys all move up to each other and full attack while the archers/wizards hang back in an ill defined location.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2013 14:02
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Its not that difficult, all you do is set a certain point as the center of the map (usually a player who tends to be ranged) and track all distances from him. So that player is 0 and all you need to know are enemy 1 is 30 feet away, and enemy 2 is 60 feet away. When movement changes you set things to change in that as the x axis. Takes a single column on a notepad to measure everything. If players/npc a moving on the y-axis (which hardly ever comes up) you start tracking them relative to an object or another player. Say the melee character. So enemy 1 is 30 feet away from the Ranged Player and 20 feet away from the Melee Player. I dont see how, given the ton of maths going on anyway, that this is some impossible task. You seem to have confused D&D with a sidescroller. Edit: Also at this point you are doing twice as much work as moving some dice around on a battlemat to get something a quarter as clear.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
OK so I'm reading "feats and skills are optional" as "the things noncasters are supposed to be good at aren't in the base game, suck it non-spell-havers." Am I wrong about this?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I clicked on that link hoping for a map made cheese I think the main difference between 4E and other editions in terms of combat encounters is that literally every enemy is unique and does something interesting. In most of the other editions, in terms of what a player sees an orc and a hobgoblin play out exactly the same - the DM might play them differently or have different equipment, but their numbers and abilities are almost exactly the same. Whereas in 4E, orcs and hobgoblins have different racial abilities and each individual type of orc/hobgoblin has their own unique abilities that you can clearly see in play.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Wait...what. Are you saying 3e monsters literally were nothing more than stat blocks and to hit numbers? For humanoid-type monsters, yes. By and large they either had no unique abilities (at least that would be visible from a player's POV), or were just spellcasters barely different from a human wizard. Take, for example, hobgoblins vs orcs, or gnolls vs lizardfolk. There's no real difference between them other than gear. Even powerful monsters like the Pit Fiend don't have anything really interesting to do, it's just a monster with a bunch of resistances/immunities and some spells. Look at the tactics list, for god's sake - it's either casting spells that any player wizard fighting it could also cast, or it's just full attacking like any player fighter could be doing at that level. The disappointing thing about Next is that it's returning to this boringness. There's nothing that distinguishes an orc from a hobgoblin other than their gear.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 10:55
|
|
|
You could technically grapple bigger things than you in 3.5. BUT A) Larger things get a bonus to grapple due to size B) Larger things have more hit dice, so their base attack bonus (and thus grapple bonus) is higher C) Larger things are stronger, meaning a higher grapple check D) You can only use light weapons or natural weapons in a grapple. Guess what large monsters tend to have a lot of (its natural weapons)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 08:40
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:It certainly seems obvious that feats should have been the one thing to go, but it's also pretty obvious that feats were never on the table as far as something that could go. That's the essential problem with Essentials, though. They looked to simplify the game in a way that would appeal better to the grognard set instead of in a way that would actually simplify it. The thief was better than slayer/knight, because their at-will things were actually choices. There were reasons you might want to use one or another. The slayer and knight at-wills, by and large, were things you turned on and then never changed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
This is all you need to know about why Sean K. Reynolds should never be allowed to design games. But anyway, this is getting off topic. The thing about DTAS in 4th is that ability scores are hardly ever used directly. You might make the occasional strength check or need 11 in a stat for some feat, but that's it. Instead, the modifier is used as a bonus to stuff all other (skills, attack, defenses, etc) so you might as well cut out the middleman and just remove the stats altogether. Next actually makes ability scores useful, but not in good ways. Skills, for example. An interesting way to do it (and actually take stuff from a non-3rd edition). would remove skills as separate numbers altogether, and have characters just use roll under stats. "Skills" could just be specific applications of stats that give you advantage on the roll.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2013 08:15
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:That would be stupid since a core feature of the balance in the game is that Fighters get functionality from Feats. You just get +1 attribute every time you would get a feat! I mean, who needs to be able to charge anyways!
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
WordMercenary posted:Despite knocking Next a before, I like the sound of this a lot. Making room for different varieties of fighters with different skill sets, one who aren't just dumb muscle, is absolutely a direction I want to see D&D going in. Hell even though I loved what 4e did with the Fighter in combat, there wasn't much room to make a diplomatic Knight or Warrior Poet outside of it, maybe Next can fix that problem. You should read this as less "fighters get cool stuff" and more as "fighters get their cool stuff divided amongst half a dozen mutual exclusive subclases." Wizards, of course, don't have subclasses in the same way, and of course this makes sense. I mean, nobody's ever heard of an "Evoker" or an "Illusionist" or anything like that.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Interesting casters Now make an interesting fighter (you can't)
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
The thing about 3.x is that non-casters are supposed to be balanced by being able to fight "forever". Except they can't - their daily resource is HP, and it runs out incredibly quickly unless resupplied by a caster or expensive magic items. Divine casters can heal themselves, and arcane casters have all sorts of tricks to make them difficult or even impossible to damage, whereas non-casters are expected to just suck up hits. A party that insists on continuing after all the healing is gone is a party that is a TPK waiting to happen. This isn't just a metagame issue, it's an in-character thing as well - I mean, these adventures don't want to die!
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
xiw posted:I'd love to see something like this if it wasn't 'the condition is present AND you have to make another roll to pull it off AND the result is less effective than just attacking for damage'. Make fighters the kings of reaction. You should read Fantasycraft, it has a lot of this stuff! Edit: For instance, my last character had this • Damage Aura: Each time an opponent hits you in melee they take 1d6 lethal edged • Flank from any adjacent square • Once per round when an adjacent opponent attacks you and misses, you gain a free attack against him. If this attack hits, it inflicts only 1/2 damage (rounded up). • Grueling Combatant: Each time an opponent misses you in melee they take 2 subdual damage • Parry: 1/round, make Reflex check vs melee attack result to reduce damage to zero • Arrow Cutting: 1/round, make Reflex check vs ranged attack result to reduce damage to zero Piell fucked around with this message at 10:04 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
tzirean posted:In fairness to Mearls, I'd probably be offended, too, if I were on a podcast and one of the two guys lost interest and just started doodling on random scrap paper. The podcast was hilarious because he's talking for the first part of it, and then he just goes dead silent for about 10 minutes only to come back and say "hey I wasn't listening, but here is this picture I drew."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
4E is the end result of WotC looking at what people spent the most time doing in D&D (having combats) and then making that bit really solid, balanced, easy to run, and fun.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 12:36
|
|
|
WordMercenary posted:So I guess I'm one of the few people on here who doesn't really care about maths then? Don't get me wrong, I don't want to excuse Next's failings at all. Getting the maths right is totally important to an RPG, but I certainly don't every want to make tables and work out percentage chances, I just want it to be as simple an unobtrusive as possible. Honestly I just don't want to have to think about it if at all possible. Would you have fun playing D&D if your big, super-strong fighter can't break down doors? If one character hits every time and another barely hits? If another character did exactly what you did, but twice as well? You can't make a good game without a solid rulebase, and that requires the designers to know the math. The key word there is "designers", not "math" by the way. It's fine for the underlying math to not be immediately apparent as a player. But it's not OK for the designer to ignore it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2013 11:41
|
|
|
WordMercenary posted:I never said the maths isn't part of the problem, but part of the reason Dungeon Worlds maths are so good is because it's simple. Everything is 2d6 and a narrow range of modifiers, and most things don't require a roll. That's it, nice and simple. None of this 'commoners can't see the sun' nonsense ever comes up because it knows when to stop rolling and leave it up to the GM. D&D Next's math is not any simpler than 3.x or 4th edition. It is, however, much more poorly balanced than 4th edition (and much more obviously poorly balanced than 3rd). Edit: Yeah, you seem to be confusing "the designers aren't interested in looking at the math" as "the math is simpler." It isn't simpler - it's just as complex as it ever was, but now the designers are pretending they can just throw random numbers together and have it somehow work out correctly.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2013 11:51
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Its actually one of the fundamental problems I have with RPGs is that yes they should actually be employing some degree of technical writing that is comparable if not the same as what scientists use. Namely because the same things that irritate me about a lot of RPGs is actually the same thing that is involved in bad science and engineering communication. The worst part is D&D Next is actually going backwards in this. 4E made a lot of effort to standardize keywords and explain things clearly, whereas Next has to reinvent the minor action (sometimes with different wording!) every time it comes up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
WordMercenary posted:There really aren't. Clearly you haven't been reading other forums or grognards.txt. There are a number of people who are totally opposed to designers looking at the math in any way. That's why everyone jumped on you - you accidentally fell into making a similar statement as they did, even though you meant something different.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
Dragons are now a sack of hit points with a bunch of damage rolls sticking out the ends. For gently caress's sake even 3.5 gave them spells to at least give them something interesting to do.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Just so we're clear, what the heck is "dissociated mechanics" even supposed to mean? Just going by the name, it sounds like "this check needs a 1d20 roll, this one a 2d6, this one needs you to do X jumping jacks in y seconds", but that doesn't sound like it's what they mean. Disassociated mechanics is basically "Why can this fighter only use his Daily once per day?" Magic, of course, gets a pass. And mechanics like 3.5 rage don't count, either. It's basically a buzzword that grognards through out to bash 4E. EFB
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
Why doesn't the quarterback just throw a throw a perfect pass every time for a touchdown? Why doesn't the striker just head the ball past the goalie every time? Why don't boxers just throw knockout punches every time?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
Haha, no wizard in the party, what a terrible thing
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
The greatest of adventurers: ambushed by the people they were trying to ambush.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
Everyone is super confused about where stuff is. If only there was some sort of map!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
"Hey people of the internet, notice how this is terrible" is the quote of the night
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Thrilling trashpit action
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:What, the players can't see the map we can? Correct. Also goddamn how are they this stumped by a pit with a board across it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Two players paralyze in the surprise round.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
isndl posted:They're testing out Action Surge for Fighters? Isn't that already available for Fighters once they hit level 11+? Did they not test it out before? Fighters get it once per short rest. Rogues get it once per round. D&D Next: gently caress you, fighters.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
Why not just have a set DC and have saving throws go up by level? It's exactly the same as what he's saying without the stupid "lower is better" poo poo that we finally managed to ditch when 2E ended.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
Fuego Fish posted:I still have no idea why people even make it so monsters can have babies, it's disturbing as gently caress. Look if we don't have orc babies how are we supposed to force the paladin to fall
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Why have a monster manual at all, then? Why not have perhaps a half-dozen simple ones to use out of the box and a 4E-style system for creating your own? In fact, why even give those example ones details? 'Humanoid Enemy', 'Large Fierce Animal,' 'Small Annoying Animal,' 'Supernatural Monster Of Approximately Human Size,' 'Dragon (Small),' 'Dragon (Large)' (see? dragons! two of 'em!) and 'Cosmic Horror'? Fantasycraft does exactly this. A Gargoyle is a Construct Walker/Flyer, a Treant is a Plant Walker, etc. Building monsters/NPCs is XP-based, done by choosing statistics, qualities, and attacks and totaling the XP.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:Going back to this... Y'know when would have been a great time to release these? Before ditching grid-based combat. In 4e, that would have been an amazing tie-in, you could have modular figures, 1" scale terrain features, so many things! in 5e, I can't see it being more than a novelty. But, they didn't ditch grid-based combat. Next is grid-based as ever, they just claim it isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2013 11:57
|
|
|
whydirt posted:The gendered ability score thing was pretty obviously a joke. It was a bad, sexist joke, but was never a serious suggestion for the actual game. Then why did they have it in a serious poll? It was stupid to have it in there, even as a joke.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
whydirt posted:The poll wasn't serious. And I already said the joke was stupid. Yes it was, it was totally a serious poll. It wasn't a useful or well-written poll, but none of D&D Next's polls have been that so it's not any different. Piell fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Oct 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Spoilers Below posted:Need a little TG "fast" food advice here: I'm having a huge time crunch between work and skating practice twice a week, and squeezing dinner into the half hour I've got to go from work, eat, change, and get to the skate park is leaving me a bit hungry. Weirdly, I find I skate a lot better if I've had a full meal right beforehand. Since I'm getting seriously onto the "eat better so you don't get fatter and die" train, I've been eating an apple or banana and a real simple turkey and lettuce sandwich, but the lack or variety is kinda wearing thin. You should get a slow cooker. Start whatever in the morning, come home to delicious food after work!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
If you're vegan you shouldn't be trying to make fake version of meat recipes, you should just have to live with your poor life decisions. Meat is delicious. Piell fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Nov 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 15:31
|
|