|
Ratoslov posted:So what's the state-of-the-art with bad D&D Next design decisions? I seem to recall Mearls basically saying Wardens didn't warrant their own class and that the "primal defender" would/could just be a Barbarian variant. Does that count?
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2013 09:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
Barudak posted:Also have we seen anything that keeps aggro in this game? Lack of stickyness in previous DnD's meant that gentlemans agreements were the only reason the wizard survived anything. My Pathfinder DM actually said he thinks "aggro mechanics are dumb" so there's your D&D Next audience. I'd try explaining to him why he is wrong but it would probably go, "blah blah cognitive dissonance blah blah."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
L&L posted:Two-Weapon Fighting: Our default assumption is that if you fight with two weapons of the appropriate size and are proficient with both of them, you are on par with a two-handed weapon user or a sword and board character. Feats and such make you better at two-weapon fighting. This change reflects our overall approach to character options, with options making you good at things rather than merely competent. This is an odd thing to say. Do they mean if you use TWF you can get a slight defensive bonus, equal to a shield bonus? That would be "on par" with sword and board. Do you have the option to do a little more damage? That would be "on par" with a two-hander. It would also be really odd, because it would really disincentives wielding a single weapon with no shield. Maybe I am reading too much into this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
Payndz posted:If the players want to RP the situation and come up with something particularly clever, give them a bonus on their next roll, but nobody is actually penalised for not wanting to do improv theatre. My idea would be if you go through the effort of coming up with and acting out something intelligent and convincing YOU SUCCEED. If you can't be bothered, YOU ROLL DICE. Binary pass/fail. gently caress. I don't (as a DM) want to be either ad-libbing or rolling on a bullshit generic chart to determine how you "fail forward" or what a partial success means or going around the table and voting on whether your speech was convincing enough to get you a +2 to your roll. gently caress. That.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
Nessus posted:if you don't succeed it doesn't mean that the chain dies and you are just totally stuck and unable to progress. You can gently caress up but you gently caress up by your own will not purely by the throw of a die. If, as a DM, you ask for a dice roll when a failure on said dice roll means the social interaction grinds to a halt, you shouldn't have left it to chance in the first place. Just give the PCs whatever info/incentive they need to keep things progressing; don't be like "oh hey I could make this part call for a diplomacy check because Timmy spent all that time putting points into it!" Make the narrative happen, because. e: ZenMasterBullshit posted:This is something that Apocalypse World does pretty well I feel and it's something P.d0t should look into (Plus, what game does failing forward the way you described, P.d0t?) my wording was meant as a mashup of every alternate system people have suggested in this thread in place of what D&D does, most of which made me balk. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Mar 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Basically, you're rolling for "Yes" or "Yes, but..." The problem I have with this, is that it devolves into "the DM has to come up with..." which leads to DM burnout. Sometimes you just want to be able to say YOU FAIL  or if you need the story to march on, just say "you succeed! don't bother rolling!"Alternatively, you can leave it up to the players to decide collectively what the "but..." is, but that will either lead to minimizing the negative, or (like all improv) degenerates into self-referencing and in-jokes. At which point you might as well say "you succeed! don't bother rolling!" Or we can have a chart tell us what happens. It's much like the oft-proposed "your party member died! lets go on a quest to the afterlife to bring them back!" -- you can get away with it once. But constantly having to come up with bullshit reasons why not getting what you want makes OTHER STUFF happen is just another way of saying "we have to have a DM that can do any/everything on the fly/a chart that tells us what happens" which doesn't get more people into DM'ing (it's me, I am the
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
Mikan posted:Apocalypse World and derivatives have conversation starters, ideas and prompts built into the actual mechanics and make this poo poo so easy you don't even know, it owns And it doesn't get repetitive at all, I bet 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 08:22
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I'd genuinely love a tactical conversation system. My objection to "combat" working the same as "social" (and to retort fatherdog who satired me a couple posts back) is that inevitably you're going to be using a system designed to make apples into apple sauce and then try and get it to make lemons into lemonade. Either it'll be "the social encounters work the same as combat encounters except ignore rules A, E, I, O, U, and sometimes Y" or it'll have one thing in common (i.e. roll a d20). Or it just won't work at all. I mean, I get it; if everything runs off the same engine, you only need to learn about 1 engine. But it's always gonna end up with caveats and cut corners to take the square encounter and fit it into the round system. To bring this back to D&D, this is what I like about 4th Edition. The combat system works really well RAW, and the rules by and large get out of the way for the roleplaying. Alternatively, if there has to be mechanics for social encounters, I'd take "solid rules framework specifically designed for the task" over "mostly the same as the combat mechanics"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 13:32
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Funnily enough this is what a lot of people hate about 4th Edition, that there is a distinction made between combat and roleplaying when it should be heavily integrated together. Silo the 3 pillars, I say. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:And yeah, everyone should get an electric kettle, they're so much more efficient and quick than boiling on the stove, don't waste power/gas doing that. Ramen noodles, ahoy!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
I'm betting it's the coffee vs. tea thing Has anyone dug into the maths and poo poo on the new classes? I know I said I'd start giving a gently caress if/when they released Paladins and Rangers but I just can't be bothered to navigate the dumpster fire that is Wizards.com Also, I hate reading. Unless it's forum posts. And even then, they need to not be  tl;dr I should probably get checked for A.D.D.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Back when I was in scouts, boiling hotdogs in a pot of Lipton chicken noodle was a staple. Some people like soup, some people like hotdogs, everybody wins. I imagine this could be concocted in a coffee maker.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
Payndz posted:I just boiled exactly one mug's-worth of water (for coffee, not tea) in under two minutes. America is clearly behind on the kettle technology curve. Necessity is the mother of invention? 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Really, though, most Americans put no thought into how their water gets boiled. Between the stovetop, the microwave, and coffee makers, there's usually little reason to have a device dedicated to that function. I'm sure it has to do with multiclassing or niche protection
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
If there is one thing I don't mind about D&DNext, it's that they're going with the "gently caress having so many goddamn classes" mentality. ("Paladins encompass 3 classes  ")Honestly I like the idea of multiclassing in a "simple core" game where there is like... as many classes as the average Diablo game. Take levels in Spells guy and Animal Companion guy to make Close Approximation of Druid-guy. or something. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Mar 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
moths posted:It's amazing how many people never use the lower power settings on a microwave. It's worth it! (To be fair, I just started using them last year myself.) They stretch open the time window between "acceptably heated" and "dessicated burnt husk", and if you have a quick defrost setting (you probably do) get ready to save all your thawing time. A thousand times this. It is a good way to avoid "biting into pizza pop that is scalding hot on the inside but cool to the touch on the outside" having just gotten a new microwave, though, I can safely say gently caress every microwave nowadays having 1 through 5 be "autostart X# minutes" because typing in the time manually and setting the power is superior to pressing "time cook" before doing all that. really, the "+30 seconds" button should be all you need for laziness purposes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
I'm surprised nobody has made the obvious "apprentice tier = shitfarmer phase" equation yet.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
01011001 posted:Why say it if it's so heavily implied? I dunno, I loves me some buzzwords? Shitfarmer is like 4e grogwhistle
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
Der Waffle Mous posted:The idea that PCs being mechanically weak and incompetent equates to "gritty" needs to be taken out back and shot. This is where 4th (and the D&D boardgames) did really well. At level 1, you have a handful of interesting things you can do, and you get a few more as you go along, and they get more complex. None of this "earning your fun" bullshit It also got rid of the initiative-based rocket tag (which we're seeming creep back in with Next) by making 1st level characters not one-shot kills.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
Barudak posted:you could probably tank 1 or 2 good hits before going down. This is what I'm getting at  Ignoring the "building characters mechanically is hard and time-consuming" problem with rocket tag and/or adversarial DM and/or old skool "Constant Death" D&D, it kills roleplay by destroying any sense of character ownership, characterization and character growth. I think this is part of the "3.X causes brain damage" thing, because I know players who refuse to flesh out their characters, since they think as soon as they do they will die; for some people it is literally seen as a jinx to have a backstory.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
isndl posted:Since we're using a battlemap to lay out everyones' positions, the DM had just put down the 10 or so undead miniatures. Then the Cleric uses Turn Undead, and poof! They're not destroyed, but they're Turned and effectively harmless. When they come up in the initiative order again, the DM just pulls them off the board because they're just going to spend the rest of combat running and/or cowering. It's fairly obvious how ridiculous it is when you just cleared half the enemies off the map, but for Theater Of The Mind it's simply another dramatic narrative moment - the Cleric, with a moment of divine inspiration and power, wards away the undead and rallies the party so they may focus on the true evil! Emphasis mine. So, in order, I see a Cleric, a Wizard, a Rogue (probably) and a Fighter (probably). Casters use their abilities to win/invalidate fights while "mundane" characters get to die while attempting to play janitor. I know this wasn't the point of your post, but this could basically be dndnext.txt at this point E: ProfessorCirno posted:They don't want mechanics that work, they want mechanics they can read about. This probably explains why my grognard DM has such a hardon for Hackmaster and Rolemaster and why I can't stand them. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Apr 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Hackmaster The last version he tried to foist upon us was 5th Edition. Build points AND classes? Buying classes with said build points?  Shortly after the chargen session (after which I never had any intention of returning to the campaign), I realized my character (I had rolled good stats for a fighter-cum-paladin) would actually probably be just as well off to not spend the 20 build points required to become a fighter, because well fighters are a dumb jock class which doesn't give you much in the way of features. Except the "privilege" of being able to spend 5 BP to increase either attack, defense or 2 other things by 1. and you have to increase all of them by 1 before you can increase any of them by 2.  Although I don't know if non-class characters are technically allowed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Anyone got any good quick and easy shepherd's pie recipes? I love that dish, but I've never made it and I am lazy as gently caress about cooking; like an hour of prep/food-babysitting is the high end of my tolerance level.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
Hot breakfast is the best breakfast.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:Cold pizza in the morning is the best. I find Dominos is a good cold-pizza, but something greasier like Pizza Hut should always be eaten warm. e: Canadian versions, anyway. btw Canadian and American Corn Pops are completely different.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:Shooting a seizure rainbow from your fingertips, creating a horse with your mind and comprehending all languages: Less mentally taxing than attacking while also defending yourself. New thread title? D&D Next: Less mentally taxing than attacking while also defending yourself
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2013 09:31
|
|
|
SilverMike posted:To be fair, the Charge feat is being misrepresented by a few people here. It's "as an action, move up to full speed and do a single attack, you can't move after this". So it can be a movement doubler because there's nothing stopping you from going 30' with your normal movement and then another 30' on the charge. With one more/less stipulation, this is exactly how charging works in 3.5 and 4e; in both cases you don't need a feat. e: specifically, unless I am misremembering, in 3.5 you could move double your speed and then attack as a "full round action" but it had to be in a straight line with nothing in your way. 4e was just "charge = move + attack, standard action" so you could totally move before. I think both had the stipulation that charging "usually" ended your turn (except for free actions) P.d0t fucked around with this message at 09:46 on May 5, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2013 09:43
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Interesting design question: Does "get rid of spellcasters" count as 1 change? I mean yeah, this poo poo can be done right. But if "fewest changes" is the criteria, IMHO this is the one that might make next playable and/or balanced.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Sure, it counts. I personally don't think it is salvageable. Two things have recently made me want to pick up my homebrew system again
2. Trying to help new players get into 4e Like, Next is a poorly-designed game (i.e. you'd be better off designing something from the ground-up) and 4e has too many barriers to entry (particularly for anyone new to RPGs, but also for anyone unfamiliar with 3.5, in my experience) and too many traps in the form of "do this or else your maths are hosed and you're gimped." Using 4e as a building-block for something better (learn from mistakes, add DTAS, kill math SBBQ-style) is perfectly workable, but it still requires making a new game. e: And to add another thing, am I the only one who thinks Next is trying hard not to be 4e or Pathfinder?  Avoiding both seems to be a lovely way to "unite the editions" (for whatever worth that catchphrase might still hold) and regain market share.
P.d0t fucked around with this message at 01:42 on May 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
rex monday posted:To go back to an earlier topic briefly: my ideal 5e is pretty simple. Take the rules of Gamma World and place it in an Elf-and-Dragon Points of Light setting. Random race/class rolling and all. How about this mashup: 1. pick the attribute that most relates to your favourite skills 2. make this automatically your Highest Number attribute 3. always use this attribute for your attack rolls 4. use "roll-under an attribute" for skills P.d0t fucked around with this message at 03:13 on May 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:You have a drastically different definition of "gimped" than I do. I had a first time RPG player (a goon) this weekend; suffice it to say, assumptions like "my warforged should have metal armor and a warhammer" gimped his attack bonus enough to make him useless.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
Barudak posted:have class dependent pre determined stats I think if we're going with the idea of "your attack bonus has to always be X number to be effective as a character" and "everyone has a good defense, a medium defense, and a lovely defense" (just a a simple design premise) then I don't think it's terribly necessary to script out specific numbers for each class, as long as there are hardcoded rules ensuring you don't accidentally gently caress up your math at chargen. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 03:48 on May 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
Splicer posted:This could actually be a massive boost for D&D as a brand, if handled right. A film series is a perfect way to start a new product line. Play in the world of Hit Blockbuster of Summer 2015! This post makes me seriously want to turn my campaign into a movie script (which I've been toying with, anyway). I know I probably sound like some horrible goon/fanboy but gently caress off. Also, 4e deities E: replying to the above post, I guess my "design paradigm" is I am always trying to think of a way to still keep ye olde "ability scores do everything," but have it actually done right and not suck. Which is different (though not necessarily better or anything) than most DTAS arguments or "make abilities skills and have combat maths be separate" or whatever other ideas people have P.d0t fucked around with this message at 03:59 on May 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:Unless your player is playing a wizard or something, a warforged with metal armor and a warhammer doesn't gimp his attack bonus. Is he a moron, or are you? He made an artificer all on his own with the online builder, I showed him how to fix it.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I am all for making new things (make a new setting by all means!), but not for making GBS threads up the old ones in ways that invalidate entire chunks of the world material. So like, what if you want to have a huge war that wipes out a major city and all of the race that inhabits it from the region? I ask because I am thinking of doing this in my home game. Settings can change, but it's not ok if it happens during an inter-edition period?
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2013 14:40
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I suspect what is actually going to happen is "Knight: You get Etiquette, Heraldry, and Riding as skills. Hope you rolled high for Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom as well as your Fighter stats otherwise you'll be significantly less good at all that stuff than a Bard, Wizard, or Cleric (in that order)". Yeah, this is part of the bullshit of how 3.x/4e skills work. You have to have a good ability mod AND training/skill points/feats/items/racial bonuses buffing it in order to be "good" at something, because inevitably the DCs get adjusted upwards accordingly. Hell the Cleric/Wizard Religion problem of 4e is the biggest example of this. They need to have a "be good at a skill" thing akin to the "Rogue gets +3 in place of ability mod" rule that was in Next for a while. The necessity for stacking ability mod and skill points/training is always gonna make for pigeon-holed/cookie-cutter characters because of the necessity for specific stats in order to be good at combat. Fix one or the other, and the problem disappears.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Can anyone tell me some proper ways to incorporate dark chocolate into chili? I've heard of this a couple times, and I am interested in trying it, but I don't even know at what stage of the process you're supposed to add it, or in what quantities relative to the rest of the recipe.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 15:09
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Charisma checks don't turn into some sort of mind control. I dunno, the cycnic in me wants to turn this around, into "well duh because only ~*~magic~*~ can do that."
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
The difference is basically this: Player A: "I tell the NPC 'I am the moon.' Does he believe me?" DM: "No." Player B: "I cast Vance's Bullshit Mind Control and tell the NPC 'I am the moon.' He believes me."
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 14:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
New Q&A. I'll try and post a comment once I read the article.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2013 18:09
|
|