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.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah I never liked the "half-races" thing. It just made everything to biological, and implied that all the races are the same species.

I much prefer a more magical origin for my magical kindreds.

To me one of the biggest issues with 5e and modern D&D generally is the spell design. Spells are the most reliable and predictable mechanics in the entire game. I think that's not really in keeping with the idea of magic as a wondrous, inexplicable force. That's the main thing that keeps me from having any interest.

Anyway, I will retreat from the thread now because I have been derailing, sorry!

I mean... that magic thing is really an issue with the class structure. You cannot have a class built entirely around magic (wizard, sorcerer, etc) and then make them unreliable at the one thing they do. There needs to be a separate magic system that anyone can access and characters can specialize in to be better/more reliable without being incapable of the more mundane stuff.

Nah, disagree entirely. All martial classes work based on being unreliable at the one thing they do. They all are stuck dealing with the vagaries of the D20 roll for all of their abilities, pretty much, and only get some re-rolls or "take 10s" as mitigation at pretty high levels.

Magic users on the other hand get a neat package of mechanics that does what it says on the tin directly. Sure, some of them allow saves, but lots of them don't, and this makes magic far more reliable than mundane everyday solutions. That doesn't really fit any fictional conception of magic that I've come across, and makes magic more like an "extended physics" that is quite boring.
DCC goes some way to addressing this, with spell tables that mean that magic users have to roll for their spells and get differing results depending on how high they roll. Spellcasters are still probably advantaged in DCC but I think the mechanics better show the flavour of magic as it is presented in pulp adventure fiction in that game.

I think that's why spellcasters are so popular in D&D, they are a sure bet. And when you want to fix a class, giving it spells seems to be the go to, because most of the games actual design is in spell design. Design for martial combat by comparison is tiny.

 Da Boss wrote:
All martial classes work based on being unreliable at the one thing they do. They all are stuck dealing with the vagaries of the D20 roll for all of their abilities, pretty much, and only get some re-rolls or "take 10s" as mitigation at pretty high levels.

Magic users on the other hand get a neat package of mechanics that does what it says on the tin directly. Sure, some of them allow saves, but lots of them don't, and this makes magic far more reliable than mundane everyday solutions.

Okay. I agree with this. The argument of course would be that "martials" can do their thing infinitely and "casters" have limited resources and so the casters need some additional reliability built into their limited resource tricks.

I don't AGREE with that. But that would be the reasoning behind the mechanics. Especially because in practice that limited resource isn't all that limited.

That doesn't really fit any fictional conception of magic that I've come across,

It's magic. The fluff of the magic doesn't matter. The mechanics of the game does.

I think that's why spellcasters are so popular in D&D, they are a sure bet. And when you want to fix a class, giving it spells seems to be the go to, because most of the games actual design is in spell design. Design for martial combat by comparison is tiny.

I think there is a little more to it then that. Spell casters have dnds biggest design flaw in that if there is a problem there is a spell that solves that problem. Locked door? Knock. Need to secure a thing? Magical locks and alarms. Need to be sneaky? Silence and invisibility. Climb, spider climb. Too wide a gap? Leap or levitation or flight.

Magic isn't just reliable. It's a swiss army knife of solving every single problem you could ever run into.

What magic is even capable of needs to be more limited in scope.

I miss 2nd editions clerical spheres. Depending on the deity, you had major (all levels) or minor (1-3 levels) access to spells that fit the sphere (or domain). If you didn't follow the god of healing you didn't get high level healing magic. If you followed the god of fire, you got more fire magic.

Not just 'you get all divine spells ever,' in the edition where supplement books had lists of more & more spells (with a series that was just spells)

I always liked that idea for wizards & sorcerers as well. Suck it up and walk the Path of Storms, or deal only with the School of Conjuration.

Make spellcasters be about something, not just batman with endless utility belts.

Isn't 6E just going to be 5E but more online elements and less physical books? Thought they were calling it DnD Next, but I've been pretty out of the loop for the last couple months.

Dnd next was 5es beta name. 6th is OneDnD.

6e, or 5.5e is going to be a subscription based mostly online edition yes. By all accounts we're hearing. Keep in mind, that is because the new director they hired feels its bad business that only 1 person has to buy the books, and micro transactions are not being well monetized in the current scheme.

So yeah, you pay for the right to play on their server, much like you would pay to play WoW. You can't Pirate WoW easily, and I'm expecting this will be the same. Except that Wow is a literal PAAS, and this is a SAAS. All youre getting here is access to the AI DM and the rules. Which will be leaked day 1. Then after the Yo ho ho ship has sailed, someone will 3rd party it, unless they completely change the OGL, Again.

 Ahtman wrote:
Isn't 6E just going to be 5E but more online elements and less physical books? Thought they were calling it DnD Next, but I've been pretty out of the loop for the last couple months.

Its a revision with emphasis on backwards compatibility, yes (though some classes and races are getting a fair number of changes, and stat bonuses are, at least in the playtest tied to background, not race. The 'backwards compatibility' is that you can use the old versions if you want to, and your group just has to deal with the headaches and imbalances that causes). They're going to be pushing the online stuff, but there will also still be books. If you're book person you'll likely not notice anything different in the sales model. You might see some nonsense of trial versions of new stuff being sold individually in 'D&D Beyond,' and then they'll turn up in a book a year later (which the D&D Beyond folks will be expected to also buy or maintain a subscription for all that time)

Fezzik isn't a good source for what's going on with D&D. Most of his initial claims in the OP (like its coming out this month) are simply false.

I'm going to stick with what I and my playgroup already play, which is predominately 3.5. I'm not too fond of digital books or maps or any of the other online stuff that's involves with oneD&D. I didn't entirely hate 5th edition, but I'm not sold on this.

Of all the rpgs out there, any version of dnd is at the bottom of my list.

I loathe the mechanics, especially magic. I point blank refuse to play anything that has spells.

It boggles my mind that such a convoluted system managed to become the most popular...

 Hellebore wrote:
Of all the rpgs out there, any version of dnd is at the bottom of my list.

I loathe the mechanics, especially magic. I point blank refuse to play anything that has spells.

It boggles my mind that such a convoluted system managed to become the most popular...

First mover advantage.
And it's a decent system. It's not GREAT, but it works.

For me, I've actually been looking back into 4E-I started actually playing in it so I got nostalgia for it.

I ran a 4e campaign recently. I like a lot of the "base setting" of the game, but running it again even with some fixes like only using later monsters, reducing monster HP and upping monster damage a bit, it still drags on a bit too much in battles.

That said, we had a lot of fun playing it. I think some of the criticisms are overblown, but it's still too much time invested in combat for the style of game I like to run (more exploration focused).

5e has similar problems to be fair. I like 5e a bit more than 4e or 3e but it's got it's downsides too.

But as to the popularity of D&D, for sure it's brand name recognition and first mover advantage, but I also think the basic structure of the game is really solid.
You've got a default goal (get treasure), a default challenge (fight monsters) and a default scenario (exploring a dungeon). It's pretty easy for a beginner DM to make a dungeon and stock it with monsters and treasure, and it's a pretty fun play experience.
Doing something like a mystery plot is much harder on the DM, so games like Call of Cthulhu have a much steeper learning curve for DMs.
Given that most people that play are gonna dabble, having a pretty straightforward default mode of play is really useful for allowing the dabblers in.

I actually think modern D&D is much too clunky for new people though, as we discussed earlier in the thread. But the core gameplay structure is really robust and straightforward. I think that's key to it's success compared to other early games like Traveller or Call of Cthulhu.

I don't want to soap box, but one of my biggest gripes about each new edition is how dumbed down it is. Reflex and Will Saves. It used to mean, if you could see an event happening I.E. you knew the trap door had sprung and a heavy rock was falling down above you, you could "reflexively avoid it. If you were unaware, you couldnt. Will saves, allowed you, by sheer determination, to roleplay NOT being affected by a spell. Now literally everything is a Dex save, or a Wisdom save. No reasoning, no extra tidbits, but if you spring a trap in 5E, you get to roll a dex save. That's BS. There is no reason the oblivious wizard should have as much of a chance of avoiding the explosion, than the alert and wary Ranger/Rogue.

I mean, that's just one example. but it's my best point. I liked how I could really chew the roleplay of 2nd, it was kinda built for it. 5th is built for kids to slay dragons.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't want to soap box, but one of my biggest gripes about each new edition is how dumbed down it is. Reflex and Will Saves. It used to mean, if you could see an event happening I.E. you knew the trap door had sprung and a heavy rock was falling down above you, you could "reflexively avoid it. If you were unaware, you couldnt. Will saves, allowed you, by sheer determination, to roleplay NOT being affected by a spell. Now literally everything is a Dex save, or a Wisdom save. No reasoning, no extra tidbits, but if you spring a trap in 5E, you get to roll a dex save. That's BS. There is no reason the oblivious wizard should have as much of a chance of avoiding the explosion, than the alert and wary Ranger/Rogue.

I mean, that's just one example. but it's my best point. I liked how I could really chew the roleplay of 2nd, it was kinda built for it. 5th is built for kids to slay dragons.

3.5 lets you roll reflex saves against things you don't see coming.

And if you prefer older editions... Play them. They didn't disappear when later ones came out.

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't want to soap box, but one of my biggest gripes about each new edition is how dumbed down it is. Reflex and Will Saves. It used to mean, if you could see an event happening I.E. you knew the trap door had sprung and a heavy rock was falling down above you, you could "reflexively avoid it. If you were unaware, you couldnt. Will saves, allowed you, by sheer determination, to roleplay NOT being affected by a spell. Now literally everything is a Dex save, or a Wisdom save. No reasoning, no extra tidbits, but if you spring a trap in 5E, you get to roll a dex save. That's BS. There is no reason the oblivious wizard should have as much of a chance of avoiding the explosion, than the alert and wary Ranger/Rogue.

I mean, that's just one example. but it's my best point. I liked how I could really chew the roleplay of 2nd, it was kinda built for it. 5th is built for kids to slay dragons.

3.5 lets you roll reflex saves against things you don't see coming.

And if you prefer older editions... Play them. They didn't disappear when later ones came out.

Have you tried lately getting people to step out of 5th, and into a much more complicated/difficult version of DND? One without apps, or a website designed to do everything for you? All the math, record keeping, spell slots, currency, XP, etc? Yeah. I the 45th Cheeto of the US couldn't convince 5 people to willingly leave 5th and go into 3.5. It's too late. There used to be apps and stuff, but they all died off the app store.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
That's BS. There is no reason the oblivious wizard should have as much of a chance of avoiding the explosion, than the alert and wary Ranger/Rogue.

Unless said Wizard has pumped their Dexterity and invested in a way to get proficiency in Dexterity Saving Throws like the Ranger/Rogue has by default, they don't have as much of a chance at all.
And if someone wants to play a particularly dexterous and alert Wizard, why shouldn't they?

Yeah, I have tried to get folks into other games and the electronic component of 5E is definitely a "Golden Handcuff" that keeps people from switching to other systems.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
That's BS. There is no reason the oblivious wizard should have as much of a chance of avoiding the explosion, than the alert and wary Ranger/Rogue.

Unless said Wizard has pumped their Dexterity and invested in a way to get proficiency in Dexterity Saving Throws like the Ranger/Rogue has by default, they don't have as much of a chance at all.
And if someone wants to play a particularly dexterous and alert Wizard, why shouldn't they?

Right, but skipping past all the inevitable whataboutisms, I'm talking about 90% of actually rolled wizards, that don't have enough extra 18s laying around to waste on stuff like Dex. You need INT, CON, and maybe WIS, dex is whatever's left over. Anything over 10 if you have it. YMMV but I've never seen wizards rocking high stats in much other than INT/CON. And yes, with D4 HP, your CON is WAY more important than DEX.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
That's BS. There is no reason the oblivious wizard should have as much of a chance of avoiding the explosion, than the alert and wary Ranger/Rogue.

Unless said Wizard has pumped their Dexterity and invested in a way to get proficiency in Dexterity Saving Throws like the Ranger/Rogue has by default, they don't have as much of a chance at all.
And if someone wants to play a particularly dexterous and alert Wizard, why shouldn't they?

Right, but skipping past all the inevitable whataboutisms, I'm talking about 90% of actually rolled wizards, that don't have enough extra 18s laying around to waste on stuff like Dex. You need INT, CON, and maybe WIS, dex is whatever's left over. Anything over 10 if you have it. YMMV but I've never seen wizards rocking high stats in much other than INT/CON. And yes, with D4 HP, your CON is WAY more important than DEX.

Wisdom isn't really needed for Wizards in 5E. You have native save proficiency in there.
Wisdom isn't really needed for Wizards in 3.5. You have a good Will save, and plenty of spells to help mitigate a low(ish) Wisdom score.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
That's BS. There is no reason the oblivious wizard should have as much of a chance of avoiding the explosion, than the alert and wary Ranger/Rogue.

Unless said Wizard has pumped their Dexterity and invested in a way to get proficiency in Dexterity Saving Throws like the Ranger/Rogue has by default, they don't have as much of a chance at all.
And if someone wants to play a particularly dexterous and alert Wizard, why shouldn't they?

Right, but skipping past all the inevitable whataboutisms, I'm talking about 90% of actually rolled wizards, that don't have enough extra 18s laying around to waste on stuff like Dex. You need INT, CON, and maybe WIS, dex is whatever's left over. Anything over 10 if you have it. YMMV but I've never seen wizards rocking high stats in much other than INT/CON. And yes, with D4 HP, your CON is WAY more important than DEX.

Exactly
So why were you complaining about Wizards having "as much of a chance of avoiding the explosion, than the alert and wary Ranger/Rogue"?