16387
Post by: Manchu
 Ahtman wrote:So following the rules as they are written would make someone a bad DM?
Yes, of course, if one follows the rules mindlessly; or to be more precise, by assuming such rules follow design concepts that would not appear until decades later -- and usually in video games first, for that matter. For example, Rules Compendium provides that first-level thieves have a 15% chance of opening a lock. I use this example because I myself made this mistake when DMing LL or S&W for the first time. Somehow forgetting that history is a thing, I just mindlessly called for a d100 role whenever the thief tried to pick a lock. The result? Naturally, that player became convinced he had managed to create the universe's most inept thief. So here we had a player who was inspired to make a dastardly cutpurse from whose darting hands no precious possession is safe. And thanks to my lousy, thoughtless DMing, what he ended up with was a guy who could not for the life of him pick even a rusty old lock in some peasant's hut. Because the rules say 15% after all. To make matters worse, the rules also say that a thief may not try to pick a lock she has already failed to open until she gains a level. To be perfectly honest, with my Third Edition "do whatever the rules say" mentality, this struck me as excellent evidence that Basic D&D was total gak. So I asked guys who had played it back in the late 70s and early 80s (including Rob Kuntz by the way) -- WTF is up with thief skills? Turns out, none of them just literally applied the rule and they were kind of shocked that I did that. They were not impressed when I said "because the books says so," either. So you insist on not having fun, they retorted, as long as it's by the book? Their counter argument was, RPG rules are not computer code. The rules are there as guidelines to inspire the DM, whose job is to make calls not just apply predetermined code. You know, the DM is actually a player who also plays D&D. For me, this was a breakthrough moment. I finally understood why video games never stand a chance of overtaking table top RPGs, short of true artificial intelligence. So I have actually been explaining this to you and anyone else who reads my posts here for the past couple of years with my interpretive/determinative spectrum of D&D history. The key to earlier D&D, stretching up to the Rules Compendium in 1991, is that "following the rules" is not the beginning, middle, and end of D&D. Later D&D, especially after WotC took over the property, became more and more "determinative" in that the players just execute the rules. Gygax actually talks a bit about this in the First Edition DMG. which i have written about elsewhere: In the ever colorful AD&D DMG, GG confessed that he "deeply regrets not taking the time and space in D&D to stress repeatedly the importance of moderation" regarding player acquisition of magic items.
Even despite that he himself included powerful magic items in the D&D tables, he spared only the merest sympathy for those DMs whose campaigns are "little more than a joke" because they actually used those tables: "the uninitiated DM cannot be severely faulted for merely following what was set before him or her in the rules."
They can be faulted, yes -- just not "severely." Faulted for following the published rules? Blaming the people trying to deal with your shoddy work for its shoddiness? The part of me that loves 3E/PF can't help but laugh at such astounding arrogance. The thief skill table also comes to mind here.
But the part of me that loves the OSR kind of gets it. As GG himself sardonically lamented, if only he had made it a rule that DMs "use care and logic." Reading between the Gygaxian lines, I guess the "initiated DM" might wonder just what kind of people need permission or a command from a ruleset in order to simply use their brains.
Now that rather elitist attitude fails to account for the truly radical nature of D&D. I have the impression that most if not all other games of the era had permissive rule sets. So maybe GG wasn't being totally sarcastic when he wrote that he should have more thoroughly explained "the intent, meaning, and spirit of the game" when writing D&D.
So for all my fellow OSR scenesters, remember to be gentle and patient when introducing folks weaned on 3E+ to the radical weirdness of earlier D&D. The notion that you don't just follow the rules in order to play the game is pretty strange.
42494
Post by: nomotog
That is like totally crazy. I hope me moved pass that.
42494
Post by: nomotog
I am hopeing that we aren't still at the stage were playing with the rules as written is inherently broken.
72556
Post by: Red Harvest
Sadly no. But there is an option to encounter Androids, Cyborgs and Robots. So it has that going for it. Trappers, Mimics and Lurkers Above didn't appear until the AD&D monster manual.
Ahtman wrote:
Of course if one wants bloodthirsty then they should read the original Tomb of Horrors, though that was designed with bloodthirstiness in mind.
If you are ever lost in the Tomb, here is a map to help you out  I read that module when it first came out. Ugh. Nobody ever wanted to deal with it.
nomotog wrote:Some times it is kill or be killed. You know like a wraith. You can't really reason with a wraith.
Indeed. Or say, a shark. If it perceives you as a meal, it will attack... The problem lies in making a sweeeping, and somewhat insulting, generalization from a reaction to a specific encounter, rather than dealing with the specifics of the encounter. Or Anthropomorphizing monsters. Either way, not worth any more words.
Which is the more interesting Magic-User to play, a conjuror or a Transmuter?
38888
Post by: Skinnereal
nomotog wrote:Some times it is kill or be killed. You know like a wrath. You can't really reason with a wrath.
Just because a wraith appears, it doesn't mean it is always in default nom-nom mode.
How about if the wraith can only drain so much lifeforce per day and had just wiped out an orc horde outside that chased the characters inside. It glances their way, shrugs, and drifts through the wall.
Or, one of the characters bears a striking resemblance to the wraith's spouse when it was alive, and it floats away sobbing.
There's a lot that a DM can do to scare the players white, while still following the rules and rolls.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
 pretre wrote: Ahtman wrote:I like the inclusion of concentration (though they stole my idea so that is part of why I like it) as a way to limit how many spells a caster can have running at a given time.
Yeah, it does mean that your caster needs a second trick though. Our elf mage carries a shortbow just for this circumstance.
Haha so does ours funny enough
Liking 5th though thus far, my party consists of my Half Orc Fighter whos using Greatweapons, an elven Bard, a Warforged (had to homerule it a bit as 5th didnt include them) Fighter whos our tank, and an Elf Wizard.
We're level 4 currently, been playing since 5th officially dropped (though we ran a mini campaign with the beta rules before), myself and the Wizard are actually fairly neck in neck when it comes to dealing damage with me running the Battlemaster path for my fighter for delicious manuvers, having a +1 greatsword and recently finding a belt of giant str that puts my guy at 21 str.
2d6+6 damage, rerolling 1s and 2s on the damage dice due to Greatsword fighter stuffs, rolling an extra die if i crit due to orkiness and the 1d8 damage from Manuvers, oh and +5 damage if I charge in a straight line since i took the Charger Feat. Orc man goes smashy smashy
29408
Post by: Melissia
In 3.5 my wizards always carried a backup weapon at early levels anyway, so that's not really a difference for me.
Elf wizards would carry a bow, others would carry a ranged weapon appropriate for their race and/or ability to use.
20774
Post by: pretre
Actually, the backup weapon thing was debunked earlier in the thread since concentration doesn't meant you can't cast other spells. Our game was playing it wrong. Both 4th and 5th mean you don't really need a backup weapon since you have infinite cantrips.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
Well still, you can run out of spells fairly quick at lower levels.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
Just got my MM in the mail. Nice looking book, though I was a bit surprised by some of the monsters they decided to bring back.
I assume the Flumph is back because of the love Order of the Stick gives them, but the Jackalwere doesn't get that sort of attention. Modrons still look silly, although the art for Myconids looks killer. Good stuff it seems, just from a brief perusal.
Edit: sort of surprised the Nymph didn't make it into the book. Think they've been in every edition prior to 5th.
207
Post by: Balance
I'm really interested to see how the "Legendary" rules work in practice. My usual DM likes 'solos' but they to work poorly without a lot of 'exceptions' in 3rd and 4th... They Legendary rules look to remove some of these. Monsters with legendary stuff often get to break the 'action economy' a bit with special attacks they take after an opponents' turn, so it breaks up the concept where a dragon attacks, then gets pummeled for a round as every attacking PC gets to act before. Many also get limited ability to make saves automatically to prevent them being locked down so easily.
The Lair Actions are a bit less interesting to me, but I guess it depends on the monster. I think I'd say the ones presented should be used as a basis and retimed as needed.
20774
Post by: pretre
not in 4th or 5th, you can't.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Also, in 3.5, if you're playing a utility wizard with few offensive spells, having a bow was basically mandatory . Made use of your dex, which if you were an elf, you'd have a decent score of anyway (and it'd help you dodge anyway even if you weren't an elf so you'd probably want that as the third stat after int and con).
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 Balance wrote:I'm really interested to see how the "Legendary" rules work in practice. My usual DM likes 'solos' but they to work poorly without a lot of 'exceptions' in 3rd and 4th...
In my own, fairly limited play experience, Solos aren't truly designed to be solo. In most of the pre-generated encounters that I've come across, or participated in that had a solo, it was often "accompanied" by some minion type monsters. Depending on what the Solo was, it could be the case where the "minions" saw the party, and are trying to make a quick/easy score on gear/money from a soon to be dead party, and are instead caught in the combat as well.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Still haven't gotten a chance to really sit down with a copy of the rulebook, or to play for that matter . What's everyone's impression of the magic system so far, for those that have been playing? I've heard bits and pieces of promising stuff in the thread so far, so I'm feeling optimistic...
I don't need my wizard to be powerful, but I do want them to be interesting and useful. I actually prefer non-combat utility mages over fireball slinging combat mages most o the time.
20774
Post by: pretre
So far, I have really enjoyed the magic system. Never running out of cantrips, being able to empower any spell, less duplicate spells, etc.
I only got to 5th but it seems like there's better balance of classes between Wiz and others as well.
edit: Finished starter last weekend. Starting a new campaign this week!
29408
Post by: Melissia
Never running out of cantrips sounds great. They're usually weak anyway, so they should be re-useable...
20774
Post by: pretre
Yeah, they are all basically as strong as a melee weapon plus some rider effect. So you don't have to tote around a crossbow. 
29408
Post by: Melissia
That's stronger than I thought they'd be, so that actually makes me happy right there. I can use magic as my basic attack, always good 
16387
Post by: Manchu
Another bit of 4E DNA, that.
29408
Post by: Melissia
And not a bad bit to have either, I think. Maybe we'll have an equivalent of the AWESOME 4e swordmage in 5e someday.
9883
Post by: Cyporiean
Looks a bit like my Pact of the Blade Warlock.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I don't carry around other weapons because I have to, but because it is deliciously thematic.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I guess? Haven't seen 5e warlocks, but there's a ton of baggage associated with them that really irks me in previous editions.
16387
Post by: Manchu
How about the Fighter specialization that lets you cast spells?
241
Post by: Ahtman
 Manchu wrote:How about the Fighter specialization that lets you cast spells?
Eldritch Knight
29408
Post by: Melissia
Manchu wrote:How about the Fighter specialization that lets you cast spells?
Are those spells just generic wizard spells? Automatically Appended Next Post: Basically the distinction is-- do they swing a sword and also cast spells, or do they swing a sword TO cast spells? Is the sword-swinging an extraneous thing that can be used instead of spellcasting when the spellcaster wants... or is the weapon itself an arcane implement used in the spells, like in the 4e class described above? One of the basic at-will spells from the 4e swordmage was Greenfire Blade, where your spell consisted of making a basic attack while coating the blade in fire (ostensibly, green, though I preferred white for mine). Another was swordburst, which was a wide arc swing that hit enemies in front of you in an arc, using the sword to direct a burst of magical power. And so on. Automatically Appended Next Post: It's a fine distinction I know, but it actually does make a huge difference in how the class is played vs a "you can cast spells AND you can swing a sword" type class, like eldtricht knight.
241
Post by: Ahtman
EK is a 'tanky' spellcaster, which is what a Swordmage is. Of course they aren't exactly the same as this isn't the same edition and it plays very differently. The EK gets class abilities around their limited casting ability which might be similar to the At-Wills and such of a Swordmage, but don't have the book in front of me at the moment.
Swordmage also wasn't initially in 4E either, so it may appear later in another book, but for now there are a few options that can fill a similar niche.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ahtman wrote:EK is a 'tanky' spellcaster, which is what a Swordmage is.
Leather armor doesn't really make for a tank... maybe if you reduce damage by using a single one-handed sword with no shield to get the aegis bonus to +3... but I usually opted for a two-handed sword instead, and the +1 bonus. I played mine like a striker more than a defender/controller... Ahtman wrote:Swordmage also wasn't initially in 4E either, so it may appear later in another book, but for now there are a few options that can fill a similar niche.
How easy would it be to take one of these options and to houserule it in to something like swordmage, and what would you say would be easiest?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Can you explain what you want to do? Like, what is this "huge difference" you are talking about in terms of actual game play?
241
Post by: Ahtman
 Melissia wrote: Ahtman wrote:EK is a 'tanky' spellcaster, which is what a Swordmage is.
Leather armor doesn't really make for a tank... maybe if you reduce damage by using a single one-handed sword with no shield to get the aegis bonus to +3... but I usually opted for a two-handed sword instead, and the +1 bonus. I played mine like a striker more than a defender/controller...
Doesn't change the fact that it is a Defender and gets Defender HP, surges, boost to AC and NAD, as well as a mark. Being a Defender isn't just having the highest AC, but making it harder for the enemies to attack allies. The two-handed Aegis punishes those that ignore your mark by attacking them, just like a Fighter or a Paladin, both of which are still Defenders as well.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Melissia wrote:Still haven't gotten a chance to really sit down with a copy of the rulebook, or to play for that matter . What's everyone's impression of the magic system so far, for those that have been playing? I've heard bits and pieces of promising stuff in the thread so far, so I'm feeling optimistic...
I don't need my wizard to be powerful, but I do want them to be interesting and useful. I actually prefer non-combat utility mages over fireball slinging combat mages most o the time.
It's step up from 3.P, being better balanced and a fair bit more elegant. That's not saying much though and still looks to suffer from the Angel Summoner & BMX Bandit problem at high-levels, albeit (thankfully) just a few times a day.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Manchu wrote:Can you explain what you want to do? Like, what is this "huge difference" you are talking about in terms of actual game play?
To put it in the bluntest way possible, rather than "you can cast spells, or you can hit them with your sword", I'd like "you can cast spells BY hitting them with your sword."
25990
Post by: Chongara
Melissia wrote: Manchu wrote:Can you explain what you want to do? Like, what is this "huge difference" you are talking about in terms of actual game play?
To put it in the bluntest way possible, rather than "you can cast spells, or you can hit them with your sword", I'd like "you can cast spells BY hitting them with your sword."
Anyway to get to the main point of your question:
There isn't anything for this kind of character in the PHB. Nothing that's ( imo), even all that close for a re-fluff or minor houserule, to be honest. That said the engine could certainly handle it. However, it'd probably take a solid 5 hours or so of home brew work to get something really playable. You'd need to find a GM that enjoys homebrewing, I don't know how readily available they are in your area.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Doesn't seem too hard; just play a EK that takes all/mostly touch spells and describe you spell attack action as "I swing my sword at them." If the spell is successful then you clearly hit them with your sword.
If you're looking for a class that let's you do weapon damage + spell damage or replaces spell attack with melee attack (which are both way beardy IMO) then it's firmly "ask you DM" territory.
20774
Post by: pretre
Or wait for splat books!
29408
Post by: Melissia
Yeah, probably playing a basic wizard until I get splatbooks.
20774
Post by: pretre
Try a pact blade warlock...
241
Post by: Ahtman
The War Wizard feat lets you cast spells instead of do weapon attacks for Opportunity Attacks.
29408
Post by: Melissia
But then I'd have to play as a warlock, and all the baggage associated with warlocks.
Which is a bit unfair I guess. I'll have to look at the warlock's actual info for 5e to see if they did the lore for them a bit more tastefully than in the past...
9883
Post by: Cyporiean
Melissia wrote:But then I'd have to play as a warlock, and all the baggage associated with warlocks.
Which is a bit unfair I guess. I'll have to look at the warlock's actual info for 5e to see if they did the lore for them a bit more tastefully than in the past...
This is how I 5E Warlock:
20774
Post by: pretre
Yeah, it's just mechanics, skin it however you want.
66775
Post by: PEARSCW
Eldrich knight gets the ability to cast a cantrip and attack as one action. Then at higher levels the same with normal spells too. Take the warcaster feat and you dont need a free hand for the Somatic part of spells. Meaning the only spells you cant use with both hands having weapons are ones with a Material cost.
In effect, you can swing your sword (1H to 2H) wie;d a shield if you want and cast spells at the same time
42013
Post by: Sinful Hero
You could possibly get with the DM and try to update the 3.5 Duskblade- it does exactly what you're describing. Swing a sword to hit people with spells. The spell list included mostly touch spells, with a few things to buff melee. So basically buff yourself, charge in, and start slicing with spells. I'm not sure how well that would work in fifth.
20774
Post by: pretre
Why update anything when that'll just be a kludge? We've just given like 3 or 4 ways to do what she's looking for.
42013
Post by: Sinful Hero
I like converting stuff...  Automatically Appended Next Post: Plus you can wear heavy armor in addition to your spellslicing.
20774
Post by: pretre
 Sinful Hero wrote:I like converting stuff...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus you can wear heavy armor in addition to your spellslicing.
Anyone can do that if they have the proficiency.
42013
Post by: Sinful Hero
That's the thing, Duskblades already have the proficiency with heavy armor and ability to slice monsters with spells. Just needs an update.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
So this sounds like an Eldrich Knight, or am I missing something that makes them different?
42013
Post by: Sinful Hero
Isn't an Eldritch Knight a fighter that casts spells, while a Duskblade a wizard who hits things with spells?
241
Post by: Ahtman
Getting it is the trick though. Multiclassing into Fighter doesn't get it for you, though starting at level 1 as a fighter does. If you don't have it you would have to spend feats to get it, and requires each armor proficiency feat of the previous type (light > medium > heavy) to get it, which is a lot of feats just for that.
20774
Post by: pretre
Ahtman wrote:
Getting it is the trick though. Multiclassing into Fighter doesn't get it for you, though starting at level 1 as a fighter does. If you don't have it you would have to spend feats to get it, and requires each armor proficiency feat of the previous type (light > medium > heavy) to get it, which is a lot of feats just for that.
Or be a dwarf, iirc.
The multi-classing route is probably my favorite though.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
I like that they made the Feats fairly strong to actually give you something to think about instead of just increasing stats
241
Post by: Ahtman
pretre wrote:
Or be a dwarf, iirc.
The multi-classing route is probably my favorite though.
Dwarves just don't have any penalties to wearing heavy armor, they don't get it as a free proficiency. If multi-classing make sure to check the list of things you don't get for doing so, which is why if you start as a Fighter you get it but if you multiclass into it later you don't the armor. Feats/Attributes bonuses are also class based and not done by base leve ie if you take one level of fighter and then go wizard you won't get a bonus/feat until level five (level 4 Wizard).
16387
Post by: Manchu
 WrentheFaceless wrote:I like that they made the Feats fairly strong to actually give you something to think about instead of just increasing stats
TBH increasing stats is one of the strongest, maybe the strongest thing 5E feats do.
207
Post by: Balance
Mountain Dwarves get Light and Medium armor Proficiency. I've heard a few people suggest using that for Dwarf Casters that have armor, albeit not the heaviest of armor.
46277
Post by: squidhills
Melissia wrote: I'd like "you can cast spells by hitting them with your sword."
If you have Blade Barrier on your spell list, you can cast swords by hitting them with your spells.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
Manchu wrote: WrentheFaceless wrote:I like that they made the Feats fairly strong to actually give you something to think about instead of just increasing stats
TBH increasing stats is one of the strongest, maybe the strongest thing 5E feats do.
Indeed the Feats that increase stats are quite powerful
72556
Post by: Red Harvest
Resilience seems quite useful. +1 and a saving throw proficiency to any ability.
These spell cards that GF9 has produced, do they seem bland to anyone else? They remind me of the Adventure Games (Wrath of Ashardalon) style cards. The way the PHB organizes spells is sub-optimal, so cards, in theory, seem useful enough.
16387
Post by: Manchu
 Red Harvest wrote:These spell cards that GF9 has produced, do they seem bland to anyone else?
They look fine to me but then again I think it is a complete waste of money. I could see using them in a group where I was the only person who bothered to buy any materials BUT I should much rather prefer to not let people see the rules at all in that case.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Red Harvest wrote:Resilience seems quite useful. +1 and a saving throw proficiency to any ability.
These spell cards that GF9 has produced, do they seem bland to anyone else? They remind me of the Adventure Games (Wrath of Ashardalon) style cards. The way the PHB organizes spells is sub-optimal, so cards, in theory, seem useful enough.
I really like these kinds of aids. Flipping open a book takes precious table time and not everyone is great at memorization. It seems kind of superfluous at low levels but as spell lists expand people need reminders. This is particularly true of Clerics/Paladins and anything else they introduce that has Spells Known: All or wizards with brimming spell books. You can organize cards into stacks by level or role or whatever makes sense for you and that can be done before or after the game. Anything that potentially speeds play gets a huge thumbs up for me. I'll definitely buy some packs for my group if the game keeps going strong.
72556
Post by: Red Harvest
I like this sort of aid too. I have grown quite accustomed to cards, first through the D&D Adventure games and most recently with the Pathfinder Adventure Card game. They are a convenient way to keep character information.
The GF9 cards are so dull looking though (yeah, already said that.) Maybe I'll make my own. And a few other card types too. Have a character deck instead of a character sheet.
I have no understanding at all as to why WoTC organized the spells in the PHB as they did. At least sort them by class, if not by class and level. The alphabetized blob they did is a PITA.
29408
Post by: Melissia
If I was using spell cards I'd probably just make my own, I'm a cheapskate lol.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Melissia wrote:If I was using spell cards I'd probably just make my own, I'm a cheapskate lol.
For reals. Nothing wrong with a spiral notebook.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Yeah, and map pencils or highlighters to make it easier to find specific spell types.
72556
Post by: Red Harvest
Spiral notebooks mar the covers of hardback books if they are in the same bookbag. Three ring binders are better. If you use those, you could name your wizard Mitt the Magician(MtM) and say that MtM has binders full of... spells. Hard to read them though. He fired his long time scribe and out-sourced the work overseas.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Someone made a pdf of the all spells in order of spell level so I have just been copy/pasting the ones I know/learned into a document then make some minor changes. The first page has a list of spells per day, time for memorization, and spell slots that recharge on a short rest.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I'll have to find that PDF then. That seems like a good source to have.
72556
Post by: Red Harvest
Here is an Excel spreadsheet of all the spells,
http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4136931 as an attachment to the first post.
Better than nothing.
And what an odd looking forum they have. I like how to joined date defaults to right before the start of Unix Epoch time. Lol.
20774
Post by: pretre
Played our first pirate session on Sunday and it was a blast. My six-year old made his first character and joined in as well (making him the third generation to play D&D).
Stranded on an island full of creepy ghosts and found a mysterious map? Check.
Drunken barfight with press gangers? Check.
207
Post by: Balance
Red Harvest wrote:These spell cards that GF9 has produced, do they seem bland to anyone else? They remind me of the Adventure Games (Wrath of Ashardalon) style cards. The way the PHB organizes spells is sub-optimal, so cards, in theory, seem useful enough.
"Bland' is subjective... I'm hoping they're functional, especially as 5e is back to some very wordy spell descriptions.
Although, I'm still most likely just making my own cheat-sheets, and even offered to make one for the friend playing a Warlock... One thing I've decided is 'important' for this edition is having a concise summary of what each character can do in a short/long rest so as to make resolving those important rests as easy as possible.
16387
Post by: Manchu
In a completely unsurprising turn WotC and Trapdoor have parted ways, so the "Dungeonscape" digital tools suite for 5E will finally be official vaporware: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?2013-DungeonScape-Closing-Down!#.VFJnK_nF98E
241
Post by: Ahtman
I would have guessed they would have waited for people to acclimate to Dungeonscape for a week or two before cancelling it.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Well, that sucks.
38888
Post by: Skinnereal
It was fully of bugs, but so was the 4th ed version when it began.
Using the Official 4th character gen tool saved us loads of time.
We'll be keeping an eye in this.
241
Post by: Ahtman
This seemed like the place for this:
16387
Post by: Manchu
No no no, this is just a merchant-themed campaign.
72556
Post by: Red Harvest
Would Cashier be a regular class, or a prestige class?
So I ended up with a human wizard in my little group. There is a Dragonborn ranger, a 1/2elf paladin (to be a fey knight) and a human paladin. Our DM is 'translating' the Kingmaker campaign from Paizo into 5e for us. Should be interesting.
5394
Post by: reds8n
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/11/04/mike-mearls-head-of-dungeons-and-dragons-rd-does-reddit-ama/
Home » Film » Mike Mearls – Head Of Dungeons And Dragons R&D Does Reddit AMA
Mike Mearls – Head Of Dungeons And Dragons R&D Does Reddit AMA
Posted on November 4, 2014 by Christopher Helton
Share on Tumblr Comments
By Christopher Helton
NEW D&D Logo
Mike Mearls, the head of Research & Development for Dungeons & Dragons at Wizards of the Coast did an Ask Me Anything at reddit the other day. Most of the questions asked were those things that you would expect from fans being given open access, but there were some good questions that were thrown into the mix as well. The reason that I find these thing interesting is that every now and then you get questions from a perspective of someone other than the seasoned interviewer, which means that some things get through the cracks.
There were no big surprises or reveals during his AMA, but there were still some interesting things for fans of the new fifth edition of D&D to find. I’ve picked through and highlighted some of the answers that Mearls gave that I thought were particularly interesting.
No answers were given about the DungeonScape app suite, the online and app-based tools being developed as character creation tools, losing their licensing, but I would not have expected a clear answer on that.
If you follow the link at the top of this piece you can find the AMA in its entirety.
220px-MikeMearls2012EnniesThe influence of previous editions of the game came up a few times. Buried in his questions, user NecronParish asked “Which parts of each prior edition would you say had the most influence in the development of 5E (4th ed’s AEDU [At-Will/Encounter/Daily/Utility] powers and structured feeling, 3.5′s variety, etc)?” To which Mearls responded “For influences: 3e’s core mechanics, and the concept of unifying things across the board, 4e’s approach to a core math foundation, and emphasis on giving every class something cool and unique (might sounds weird to people due to AEDU, but dud classes were a big issue in 3e that 4e really curtailed), 1e’s emphasis on the DM as arbiter and referee, taking priority over the system, 2e’s emphasis on roleplaying and storytelling, along with the 2e DMG’s presentation of options and variants for the DM.”
Similar to this was the questions about the influence of the OSR (Old School Renaissance), an online “movement” gathered mostly around blogs and social media to discuss and play the older editions of roleplaying games, as well as create new material for them, on the new edition of D&D. User DrRotwang asked “How influential was the OSR in guiding 5th? I know that guys like Zak Smith had input, but what was WotC’s impetus to listen to him — to us — in the first place?” And Mearls answered “It’s really about getting back to the core roots of RPGs, and seeing how things changed for both the better and worse over 40 years. There are a lot of assumptions that became embedded in RPG design that have been unchallenged. Looking back and really studying RPGs – both new and old – helped give us a sense of what we had to keep and what prior elements of the game needed to be re-emphasized.”
reddit-logo
User hans_co asked a similar question about the influence of the OSR and expanded to ask about the influence of indie roleplaying games upon the new edition as well. Mearls responded with “The concept behind the OSR – lighter rules, more flexibility, leaning on the DM as referee – were important. We learned a lot playing each edition of D&D and understanding the strengths and weaknesses each brought to the table. Similar to the OSR, I think indie games bring lighter rules via focus and an emphasis on storytelling to the table that we learned a lot from. While a traditional RPG like D&D by necessity has a much broader focus than traditional indie games, there’s a lot to learn there in being clear and giving people a good, starting goal or framework to work within. For OSR stuff, we drew directly on older editions of D&D. In terms of indie games, or games cut from that cloth, Dungeon World, Fate, and the GUMSHOE engine leap to mind. For more traditional RPGs, Warhammer FRP (hello, backgrounds!) and Pendragon definitely had their say on the game. Runequest and Rolemaster had an influence via 3e. The fun part was taking those design ideas and looking at how they’d work within a D&D context.”
A few of the classic D&D settings were asked about. “Planescape is definitely on the radar. It’s a great setting on its own, plus it is easy to link it to our other settings. That makes it a great direction to expand into.” On the long time question of porting the settings from the Magic: The Gathering game into Dungeons & Dragons game, Mearls said “Porting Magic settings to D&D would be cool, but we also have a lot of D&D material to work through first. That’s the biggest barrier – we have enough D&D material to last us a long time.”
From a design standpoint, user Abdial asked “Were there any features in DnD that you wanted to remove or heavily alter, but couldn’t because they have been grandfathered in for so long?” Mearls answers were interesting, to say the least. “There actually aren’t too many traditional pieces I wanted gone. It was more stuff I would’ve added to the game but couldn’t for reasons of time, budget, and priorities. Probably the only mechanic I’m not crazy about is XP and leveling. If I could, I’d build a system where gaining a new class feature is driven by story-based prerequisites. Like, you can’t learn to cast fireball until you’ve defeated a fire elemental and captured its essence, or after slaying the orc king a fighter can master a new battle axe technique.” He also said that he would personally want a “few more classes and races – goliaths, a fey race that isn’t an elf, centaurs dropped to size Medium and made a playable race; for classes, really nail down Psionics in a way that makes them fit with fantasy cleanly to the point that they can be in the Player’s Handbook without confusing people.”
To continued questions about PDFs and ebooks, Mearls’ best response was probably “We’re definitely looking at PDFs, ebooks, and other digital platforms, but no news yet. The goal with anything along those lines will be grow D&D, not just sell ebooks to people who already play the game, so we’re putting a lot of work into figuring out that side of the equation.”
When asked about the future of the D&D line, Mearls did give an answer that was echoed in a couple of other responses given later in the AMA. Does this mean that we might see an “Against The Mind Flayers” styled campaign coming from Wizards of the Coast? Maybe. “I’ll give you an example of a theoretical expansion. Let’s say we wanted to do psionics. We’d tie that to a campaign you can play, maybe one centered on mind flayers or a similar foe. The psionic sourcebook would be the player’s companion to the DM’s mind flayer campaign. The sourcebook would have all the info for creating psionic characters, along with world material for players who are creating characters for the mind flayer campaign. The player’s book might also have a chapter written from an in-world perspective on psionics and psionic monsters, the kind of information that a character might have access to or have heard. You can expect us to do one or two such products a year, to give people enough time to play through a campaign without overwhelming them with new options.” The answer does tell us that the development team seems to be thinking about the impact of continued supplements on the staying power of a game line.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Mike Mearls wrote:1e’s emphasis on the DM as arbiter and referee, taking priority over the system
I can see how they tried to do this but 5E ultimately plays closer to 3E and 4E than old school D&D on that score.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I am trying to put together a short dungeon crawl and according to the system it says that for a group of 5 level 1 adventurers 3 goblins (or 2 orcs) is a 'Hard' challenge. Am I figuring this up right?
25990
Post by: Chongara
Ahtman wrote:I am trying to put together a short dungeon crawl and according to the system it says that for a group of 5 level 1 adventurers 3 goblins (or 2 orcs) is a 'Hard' challenge. Am I figuring this up right?
Yeah that's a correct calculation.
Though especially at level one things are pretty swingy. A good initiative roll and a couple early hits could make the encounter either super-trivial or super-hard depending on the first few attack rolls. Honestly I don't find the challenge system to be super great so far. While the monsters are taken on their own fairly well-designed, there is just too much noise in how combat encounters play out to give a really objective view on what's "Hard" or not. It's not quite as worthless as the 3.P encounter guidelines, but if you're used to 4e it is NOT the precise tool it was there.
In general I've found encounters with more weaker monsters have been more satisfying to run and it seems like the PCs enjoy them more. I've really found myself actually decreasing the individual power of monsters but then padding the number of the monsters in the encounter to keep the challenge on. YMMV of course but I find lower counts of more powerful monsters tend to leave on side or the other reeling in a way that either feels a bit too hard or a bit too easy for what the chart says it should be. '
Feel it out, trust your instincts more than the book.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Well one less person than expected showed which I guess works out because two people didn't show overall. Scaling back just meant taking out an enemy. As it was the Giant Spider almost took out the whole group. It rolled a 20 on it's stealth in a dark room and kept rolling well on to hit and damage. It didn't help that the Warlock kept rolling 1 or 2 for damage. There was also originally a rat swarm in that fight but seemed a bit overkill so I just had them watch from the sideline.
72556
Post by: Red Harvest
That Challenge Rating system seems a bit awkward. And goblins seem to be under-rated. Bonus disengage +shortbow is a nasty and lethal combo against low level characters.
Does anyone know how the CRs for inidividual monsters are determined?
|
|
