Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the mechanic that RogueRegault described. I can see how the Shadowfell cards would be useful, especially with the boon listed on the bottom of the card.

streamdragon wrote:

I honestly can't understand how tracking the XP is difficult in 4e; each monster has a set value for XP. Add it up, *boom* done. Certainly simpler than the "cross reference CR vs party level, adjust for overlevel" version of 3.0/3.5; not necessarily better, but at least simpler.

And I never played with those cards, but I agree with you on them. I bought the shadowfell supplement, saw the cards and was like "WTF are these?"

Well, it was mostly an issue of always winding up with weird things like people being 25xp away from a new level right after the big climactic battle.

Also, I was playing with MM1 instead of Monster Vault, so I had to tweak most of the encounters because Wizards got the math wrong for MM1 and 2. Also had to add lots of traps and hazards to encounters to keep them from getting boring, because WotC decided they needed to waste a third of the manual on Epic creatures I'd never use instead of adding in more level one and level two creatures that aren't kobolds or house pets.

25 xp from next level is a problem with xp in general, not 4e. Just fudge it and let them level. If you're hardcore, give them a -1 to everything until they actually earn it.

@stream: funny thing about 3e. With clever magic item creation, you could stay pretty much 1 level behind the party and making tons of free magic items because of the xp boost from being below party level. It was kinda broken.

Good call, Pretre. We had a lot of item-creating casters in our 3.5 groups, and they were occasionally sad when operating a level behind, but when they did so going into a big adventure, they wound up getting substantially more xp than anyone else, and leapfrogging.

streamdragon wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote: I didn't get that in 4E. If the battles were not designed in a way that every class could do their thing, then some characters wouldn't get jak. I remember not being able to do any damage to certain monsters because the monster was designed for characters like fighters to battle it. My DM always had a rule, "if you do one point of damage to it, you are entitled to an equal share". Let's just say, that didn't happen.

Of course if the battles were designed better by my DM, that wouldn't have been a problem.

Wait... your DM assigned encounter XP based on who hurt the monster? That's ... horrible. That actively goes against team work, and pretty much everything D&D is based on!

IIRC this derives from an old complex house rule system for awarding XP which was published in White Dwarf back in the late 70s or early 80s. Where in a fight you actually had to do damage to the monster to get a share, and the guy who dealt the killing blow got a larger share.

And to my recollection, yes, 4E is the first time D&D had keeping people who miss sessions equal with everyone else on xp as a core rule/recommendation. Earlier editions had as the default that you didn't get xp if you didn't attend. Some folks house ruled to do it anyway, of course, but it wasn't the standard expectation like in 4E.

Tried out the Next packet/module today. Pretty much new-school clarity for old-school style. Got through several rooms, some roleplaying and five encounters in less than three hours, after preliminary setup, character selection, general socializing, etc. And that's with a couple of inexperienced players.

pretre wrote:25 xp from next level is a problem with xp in general, not 4e. Just fudge it and let them level. If you're hardcore, give them a -1 to everything until they actually earn it.

@stream: funny thing about 3e. With clever magic item creation, you could stay pretty much 1 level behind the party and making tons of free magic items because of the xp boost from being below party level. It was kinda broken.

I didn't think it was a problem with 4e. I ignored it because it was one more hassle to keep track of when I was sitting down and trying to figure out how to make "five kobolds attack" exciting.

Personally, I tend to prefer "skill progression" systems like Deadlands, although that game has its own issues.


My personal issues with 4e (That it inherited from 3e) are the stagflation curve to bonuses (All your bonuses go up, but the DCs you're rolling against go up at the same rate, so it's just a pointless exercise in making numbers bigger.) and the general expectation that all heroes will have a full set of magic items like we're gearing up a CRPG character.

5e seems to fix those, but it brings back 3e problems I hated. Fighters are awesome at one thing, but that one thing is obsolete by level five because wizards get AoE save or dies and save or sucks. Reaping blow and 2 action points a day doesn't equal spells and cantrips.

RogueRegault wrote:Well, it was mostly an issue of always winding up with weird things like people being 25xp away from a new level right after the big climactic battle.

Also, I was playing with MM1 instead of Monster Vault, so I had to tweak most of the encounters because Wizards got the math wrong for MM1 and 2. Also had to add lots of traps and hazards to encounters to keep them from getting boring, because WotC decided they needed to waste a third of the manual on Epic creatures I'd never use instead of adding in more level one and level two creatures that aren't kobolds or house pets.

Understand now re: the XP thing. Just like you, I partially switched to the "level when I say" to prevent that.
And I completely agree with your MM comment. I do think that the switch to "named" monsters was a mistake, at least without giving us a monster builder worth its code. If I wanted to have an epic battle with a boss orc past a certain level, I'd have to reskin something else to do it, which meant I might not find something comparable. Small issue, but still an issue.

Mannahnin wrote:IIRC this derives from an old complex house rule system for awarding XP which was published in White Dwarf back in the late 70s or early 80s. Where in a fight you actually had to do damage to the monster to get a share, and the guy who dealt the killing blow got a larger share.

And to my recollection, yes, 4E is the first time D&D had keeping people who miss sessions equal with everyone else on xp as a core rule/recommendation. Earlier editions had as the default that you didn't get xp if you didn't attend. Some folks house ruled to do it anyway, of course, but it wasn't the standard expectation like in 4E.

White Dwarf or Dragon? And yeah, when we rolled up characters in my group, we'd always assign someone else to play that character if we couldn't make it ourselves. That way we weren't earning equal XP while taking no risks if our character "went back to town" or something...

RogueRegault wrote:I didn't think it was a problem with 4e. I ignored it because it was one more hassle to keep track of when I was sitting down and trying to figure out how to make "five kobolds attack" exciting.
Personally, I tend to prefer "skill progression" systems like Deadlands, although that game has its own issues.


My personal issues with 4e (That it inherited from 3e) are the stagflation curve to bonuses (All your bonuses go up, but the DCs you're rolling against go up at the same rate, so it's just a pointless exercise in making numbers bigger.) and the general expectation that all heroes will have a full set of magic items like we're gearing up a CRPG character.

5e seems to fix those, but it brings back 3e problems I hated. Fighters are awesome at one thing, but that one thing is obsolete by level five because wizards get AoE save or dies and save or sucks. Reaping blow and 2 action points a day doesn't equal spells and cantrips.

Expectations of gear have been there for pretty much every edition. 1/2 had monsters that couldn't be hurt except by +x weapons or better, which 3e/3.5 changed to the DR##/+x system. I've always sort of hated those systems, because they once again put onus on martial characters that didn't exist on, or at least had almost no effect on, caster classes. That high level monster was still getting hurt by Magic Missle (although at least SR in 3.0/3.5 was a caster issue that martial characters didn't have to contend with).

And you've hit on what I see being my biggest issue with 5e: lack of internal balance for classes.

Got to finally try it out a bit and went the no miniature 'theater of the mind' route.



Lack of op attacks allows people to move around a lot.

The elf, surrounded by goblins, cast sleep on himself and then remembered that he was immune to sleep a turn later. He is now a Sleep bomber.

That Cleric of Moradin ain't no cleric, he's a battlest...err, Paladin. Only slightly less HP then the fighter but better AC and being adjacent to allies makes them very difficult to hit. Doesn't hit like the fighter and can't heal like the Pelor Cleric, but he made the party much more survivable.

Wish they would have explained how Fighter got the to-hit numbers they have. Only a DEX bonus of +1 but has a +4 to hit with the crossbow.

Wish they would have explained how each cleric is only supposed to have 2 prepared spells a day but at the same time says they have 3 spells prepared for the day. We figured they each had a bonus spell from some source but it isn't clear where it is from.

Didn't get to see the dieing rules in action but both the Fighter and Wizard got down to 1 hp. Finding 51 electrum at level 1 is a lot of money.

Had a lot of fun and will be playing more on Thursday, but still curious about scaling and class creation.

They brought electrum back? Nice!

pretre wrote:They brought electrum back? Nice!

I think, in theory, you are supposed to return it to the Merchants guild that it was stolen from, but 51,000 gold is a lot to give up.

"Sorry, Guildmaster. The goblins melted it down and dropped it into the sea. On a separate note, do you know where the nearest magic-item emporium is?"

pretre wrote:"Sorry, Guildmaster. The goblins melted it down and dropped it into the sea. On a separate note, do you know where the nearest magic-item emporium is?"

They don't even know we have it. We weren't sent to find it, we just stumbled across a pile of cash and a merchants guild pouch. When we went back to town, not cause we were hurt or nothin cause were tough you know, we found out through rumors that they were in financial troubles do to some lost funds. If the terms are right we might give them a loan.

I suppose the question is, is the reward worth as much as or more than 51k GP/is there a paladin in the party?

Manchu wrote:I suppose the question is, is the reward worth as much as or more than 51k GP/is there a paladin in the party?

I lol'd.

Paladins ruin it for everyone sometimes.

Manchu wrote:I suppose the question is, is the reward worth as much as or more than 51k GP/is there a paladin in the party?

There are no paladins in 5E playtest. The Moradin cleric is pretty close mechanically, though not in character or alignment, so we dodged that bullet.

There is no reward unless the GM makes one up either. I think he might shut down the shops in town though...because I gave him the idea.

Ahtman wrote: I think he might shut down the shops in town though...because I gave him the idea.

Poor guild. Too bad they have no money to keep their shops open. Wait, who is this? Our mighty heroes have arrived with investment capital! And at such a low rate for such an enormous sum... We are saved!

So Ahtman, what did you get from your session that could not be gotten from previous editions of D&D and retroclones that you have played?

Manchu wrote:So Ahtman, what did you get from your session that could not be gotten from previous editions of D&D and retroclones that you have played?

I guess the advantage/disadvantage system is the only thing that is unique to 5e that I can tell. I guess the Hit Dice (we still called them Surges) mechanic was useful and seems well implemented so far. Certainly is much more dangerous than 4e at all levels and 3.5 once you get past 3rd or 4th level. It is a nice mash up of elements of the older systems, but nothing so far that I would say is unique. Just from play testing I already like it better than 3.5.

The 2d20 thing did sound neat to me, too. How did it play? I had to laugh when I saw the mechanical result of having both an advantage and a disadvantage was to roll as normal. When you put it that way, it seems a bit hokey.

Also, did you ever play Basic D&D or any of the retroclones?

Manchu wrote:The 2d20 thing did sound neat to me, too. How did it play? I had to laugh when I saw the mechanical result of having both an advantage and a disadvantage was to roll as normal. When you put it that way, it seems a bit hokey.

Also, did you ever play Basic D&D or any of the retroclones?

Had the original Red, Blue, and Black Boxes and everything. No retroclones per se, but I still play 1st Edition and AD&D every now and then.

Adv/Disadv works pretty well, though it could still use some tweeking on implementation. Such as anyone standing within 5' of the Cleric of Moradin, gives attackers disadvantage with their attacks because he is wielding a shield and has the Defender Theme. There is no limit on type of attack or number of times per turn so he is really quite agile with the shield. Of course he doesn't give that bonus to himself*, but if you make a cross shape with the Moradin Cleric in the middle everyone in the party would make enemies roll 2d20 every single attack. A Fireball or Stinking Cloud would still be a problem, but you can move through the tunnels fairly safely in the formation. I think with a little more refinement it could be a nice introduction to the D&D world.

*His AC is also the highest in the playtest with an AC of 18, whereas the fighter has a 15.

I'm guessing you saw my D&D timeline earlier, where "determinitive" rules are contrasted with "interpretive" ones and WotC is trying to reconcile these design paths in 5E. Do you think that account is accurate? If so, does 5E do that well/poorly/at all?

It is a good question and I'm not sure I can give a proper answer just yet. I'll have to mull it over a bit and keep it in mind on Thursday.

They released a podcast the same day as the play test hit. I just got around to listening to it but they are promising another 'big' play test packet in a months, and possibly interim updates. They admitted a few numbers are off. One thing I remember is the Thief is non-optimal, as Wisdom is required to actually find traps, even if it's dec to disable.

Ahtman wrote:

Manchu wrote:The 2d20 thing did sound neat to me, too. How did it play? I had to laugh when I saw the mechanical result of having both an advantage and a disadvantage was to roll as normal. When you put it that way, it seems a bit hokey.

Also, did you ever play Basic D&D or any of the retroclones?

Had the original Red, Blue, and Black Boxes and everything. No retroclones per se, but I still play 1st Edition and AD&D every now and then.

Adv/Disadv works pretty well, though it could still use some tweeking on implementation. Such as anyone standing within 5' of the Cleric of Moradin, gives attackers disadvantage with their attacks because he is wielding a shield and has the Defender Theme. There is no limit on type of attack or number of times per turn so he is really quite agile with the shield. Of course he doesn't give that bonus to himself*, but if you make a cross shape with the Moradin Cleric in the middle everyone in the party would make enemies roll 2d20 every single attack. A Fireball or Stinking Cloud would still be a problem, but you can move through the tunnels fairly safely in the formation. I think with a little more refinement it could be a nice introduction to the D&D world.

*His AC is also the highest in the playtest with an AC of 18, whereas the fighter has a 15.

I guess you missed the part where you get one reaction per turn. Page 9 of How to Play.

Also, Clerics function differently from Wizards. They have 2 Spell Slots per day, not Prepared Spells. They use Spell Slots to cast Prepared Spells in the same way other RPGs use Magic Points or the like. Specifically 1 Level 1 Spell Slot allows you to cast 1 of your level 1 Prepared Spells. So Clerics don't have to specify in advance exactly what they will be casting during the day, they prepare a collection of spells that they will then choose from on the fly.

Chrysis wrote:I guess you missed the part where you get one reaction per turn. Page 9 of How to Play.

And somehow god didn't strike us all dead, though I suspected as much.

Chrysis wrote:Also, Clerics function differently from Wizards. They have 2 Spell Slots per day, not Prepared Spells. They use Spell Slots to cast Prepared Spells in the same way other RPGs use Magic Points or the like. Specifically 1 Level 1 Spell Slot allows you to cast 1 of your level 1 Prepared Spells. So Clerics don't have to specify in advance exactly what they will be casting during the day, they prepare a collection of spells that they will then choose from on the fly.

If you could find where it specifically states that in the playtest rules it would be appreciated. We can't assuming everything is exactly the same as some of the previous editions because there are differences, such as casting Radiant Lance at-will. I read the rules when they released them but the DM had them printed out in front of him and we didn't see where it went over that, just like it didn't quite explain how a +1 Dex Dwarf had a +4 to hit with a Crossbow or why there were no opportunity attacks either. Not that it had some game breaking impact or kept us from having a good time.

The lack of AoOs is probably a case where silence is supposed to speak: namely, 5E will not necessarily be miniatures-centric.

Manchu wrote:The lack of AoOs is probably a case where silence is supposed to speak: namely, 5E will not necessarily be miniatures-centric.

They've said that should be the case several times. What I'm worried is that there's apparently no way rules-as-written to intercept or otherwise control a fight. Fighters (As portrayed in the playtest material) are damaging, but unable to do anything to stop opponents running past them to attack the squishier party members.

This isn't necessarily bad as long as it makes sense in-context, I guess. I'm hopeful the fighter will get some sort of add-ons to make this more feasible. There was talk that the Fihgter might be the only character to get something akin to 'attacks of opportunity' as well as access to 'marking' features, albeit likely under a new name.

There's been some comments (not from WotC directly) that D&DNext is supposed to be a return to imagination making things interesting in fihgts, not powers and such. That's great, but unless there's some core guidelines, I don't see why it would go differently from past experiences, in which players assumed that since Improvised Tactic #3 worked great that one time, it should work great this time... And get frustrated when the GM doesn't allow the same tactic to be turned into a rote strategy.

"OK, so in that big fight with the goblins we were successful having the two guys use a convenient log to shove a bunch up against a wall. Now we NEED to carry a log with us in c ase that situation comes up again. It worked last time, it'll have to work next time!"

(Yes, I've seen similar behavior... Although I think it was mostly concerning fire and acid as 'grenades'. I was, I admit, 12-14 at the time.)

If this is the paradigm going forward, I'd like a section in the core books that outlines some guidelines for 'Improvised Tactics' that protects and enables botht he players and GM. For the player side, it should say that tactics are at GM discretion and there's no expectation that they'll always work the same. The GM should, however, be encouraged to allow them on the basis of "Is this cool/fun?" not "Is this practical?" because I've also seen GMs that discourage swashbuckling and cinematic moves because they aren't realistic.

I do think it's a good tactic to focus on doing things scripted games like console and computer RPGs/MMOs can't do (I.E. 'lateral thinking' puzzles that are open ended, and generally being able to respond to player ingenuity real-time) .

Interesting. I thought that marking and such was an important mechanic in 4th and I will be surprised if they drop it. It makes squishy members of the party even more vulnerable which, of course, plagued earlier editions of the game.

I'll be interested to see how they handle that.

As to imagination, I think it is important in any system to allow the players some leeway. All editions of D&D have done this to varying degrees either by presence or absence of a system to do so.

I find your example of the log pretty true and funny. Once something works in a campaign, players will repeat it again and again. Not that I blame them. My group was infamous for the 'Wet Handshake' in 3/3.5. You dip your hand in holy water before shaking hands with anyone. I don't think it ever worked after the first time (how often do you shake hands with someone vulnerable to holy water), but boy did they love to do it.

People running characters generally see rules as a matter of dependably achieving beneficial outcomes. This was the soul of 3.5 and the structure of 4E. In 5E, however, I think rules have been/will be relegated to guidelines that prop up and prompt the game as something happening fundamentally "away from" the rules. This is what I mean by the difference between interpretive and determinative games. With determinative games, the game is playing the rules. With interpretive games, the game is something going on separately albeit "in the context of" (or "adjacent to") the rules. As Ahtman pointed out via a quotation earlier in this thread, the fighter is the natural first casualty of this move away from routinized options -- which makes sense, since he was the chief beneficiary (especially in 4E) of routinization.

Meanwhile, great things are happening outside the ambit of WotC. A seemingly better "D&DNext" has already come out in the form of the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG. It even uses the bizarre "Zocchi dice" (strange things like d3s, d5s, d7s, d14s, d24s, and d30s) to refresh your sense of wonder at the strange polyhedrals you had once never seen before (remember, if you dare, your first encounter with a d12 -- if indeed you've ever encountered one). Also, some reviewers have pointed out that the Warrior is the most effective class in DCC. How about that?

Interesting approach. I guess we'll see how it works out. My group isn't big for system changes, we're getting old and our time is pretty limited to what we can do.