Dungeons & Dragons 5e playtests

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by Meister

They did say things that suggest something like that but recently the marketing has subtly shifted more to "each DM can use modules to make the D&D they want" and anyway I could never see that working out at all.

The "each GM" thing or the "each player". 'Cause if it's the latter: no, that would never work.
- "I'm going to be 2E and practically die all the time! Also, Vancian!"
- "Well, nuts to that madness! I'm going to be 4E and be a superhero!"
- "Hah! N00bs! I'm going to be a 3.0 and Psionics! You guys are my slaves now!"
... and so on, is pretty much how that would turn out every time.

The "each GM" thing could work pretty well, but there'd be a rather advanced learning curve between each table, and they'll have to do something for organized play, or else lose it entirely.

Also, it's really not relevant, but I figured it worked well enough here. I've said it before, but, H. G. Wells is the MAN (at least in regards to gaming and sci-fi). Every last one of us owe our hobby to him (see the last paragraph under "Writer"). (... some of the other stuff is rather iffy.)

Anyway, we can all blame him. It's his fault for starting this whole mess.

[Meister]

Each player.

And let's not kid ourselves, organized play is going to be basic ruleset + whatever module just came out.

I read a neat explanation why the current design of giving the wizard lots of spells and the fighter attacks and nothing else is objectively bad game design. The system ostensibly encourages player creativity such as you allegedly can't use in a system with clearly defined abilities, but it boils down to this: whenever the fighter wants to do something outside of "attack," he has to specifically ask the DM to be allowed to to it, and what kind of skill/ability check to use. The DM is entirely free to allow or reject improvised stunts based on his idea of what a fighter should be able to do, or if you want to be unfavourable about it, on his whims. Meanwhile, the wizard automatically gets a broad selection of options beyond attacking with clearly defined workings that don't require DM approval and, I guarantee, would often in fact go against DM approval, but are within the basic rules of the game so he's forced to allow them. If you disagree with the word "forced," then at least rejecting them would be a departure from the stated rules of "what a wizard gets to do."

It's a huge, inherent discrepancy in how much influence a player of a certain class is allowed to exert on the game, it's a problem that 3.5 had to some extent and 4E didn't, and the developers don't give any indication they even recognize it as a problem. As a matter of fact many seem to see it as a virtue of the system and believe that Daily powers and a grid are all anyone ever liked about 4E.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by Meister

Each player.

Cool.

Originally Posted by Meister

And let's not kid ourselves, organized play is going to be basic ruleset + whatever module just came out.

Suck.

Originally Posted by Meister

I read a neat explanation why the current design of giving the wizard lots of spells and the fighter attacks and nothing else is objectively bad game design. The system ostensibly encourages player creativity such as you allegedly can't use in a system with clearly defined abilities, but it boils down to this: whenever the fighter wants to do something outside of "attack," he has to specifically ask the DM to be allowed to to it, and what kind of skill/ability check to use. The DM is entirely free to allow or reject improvised stunts based on his idea of what a fighter should be able to do, or if you want to be unfavourable about it, on his whims. Meanwhile, the wizard automatically gets a broad selection of options beyond attacking with clearly defined workings that don't require DM approval and, I guarantee, would often in fact go against DM approval, but are within the basic rules of the game so he's forced to allow them. If you disagree with the word "forced," then at least rejecting them would be a departure from the stated rules of "what a wizard gets to do."

See, I get the theory: the execution of such things is a little hazy, however. This sounds, in theory/principle, similar to what 4E does insomuch as it deals with stuff that's not covered in the Powers section. The way you describe it, though, sounds much more random and subjective, compared to the DMGs description.

Originally Posted by Meister

It's a huge, inherent discrepancy in how much influence a player of a certain class is allowed to exert on the game, it's a problem that 3.5 had to some extent and 4E didn't, and the developers don't give any indication they even recognize it as a problem.

Really, any discrepancy would be dependent entirely upon how potent or useful the basic things a wizard can do.

See, the problem with claiming that a system like this can't work is that it depends heavily on the viability of the two classes. The idea, of course, is that fighters (and their ilk) are always versatile/ready, while wizards get big, flashy things that they can try, but have finite resources to do so. In some ways, this hearkens back to the 1E mentality of "1st level wizards suck, but rock at high levels" type thing, which is cool enough, and has merit, even!

The real problem, I think, though, is that such a thing really does limit play styles and expectancy, though that's like anything really.

I'm not going to argue that keeping a "huge inherent discrepancy" is a good thing, at all. I like the idea of fighters being able to do different things*. Heck, I think if the 4E fighter (and ranger and rogue) would have had access to a large set of different at-wills (or at least rechargeable abilities), rather than the rigid at-will/encounter/daily set**, it would have helped to smooth things over between the editions (especially if Fighters had more interesting combat-related tricks). Certainly, it would have made a major (positive) impact on me, actually treating the different power sources somewhat differently (while still balancing against one another).

Originally Posted by Meister

As a matter of fact many seem to see it as a virtue of the system and believe that Daily powers and a grid are all anyone ever liked about 4E.

Those are, like, some of the worst aspects of the system. I mean, really. That's some of the stuff I like least about 4E - the metagamey nature of it all. I mean, daily powers are okay, or whatever, in certain contexts, but in general? ... bleh. I've almost given up describing things in "squares" to my players entirely.

Originally Posted by Meister

And not to forget: the wizard can ask the DM for improvised actions on top of what he already gets.

Which actually makes plenty of sense. If the fighter is purely limited to "hitting stuff + asking", however, that's the problem, rather than the wizard (at least inherently - a wizard could be easily messed up by virtue of many other things, but it's not inherently broken to have the system as described, lacking other information).

* A fantastic example of this structure are some of the Pathfinder monk class variants. It's really cool things that they allow monks to do to create their own style of combat, and letting them perform nifty tricks.

** 4E does not need that structure to function. At all. Psionics is a perfect example of that. I've personally altered some of my players' stuff to become rechargable and messed with that structure a bit, and it still functions pretty smoothly. It really hammers home the feeling sometimes that WotC really didn't test their system thoroughly enough: didn't put it through the ringer enough, and didn't meddle, modify, and play with it before releasing it.

[Meister]

And not to forget: the wizard can ask the DM for improvised actions on top of what he already gets.

[Meister]

This sounds, in theory/principle, similar to what 4E does insomuch as it deals with stuff that's not covered in the Powers section.

It's exactly the opposite of what 4E does inso much as it deals with stuff that is covered in the Powers section, because every class in 4E has a large number of options to influence a situation built in, and of course they all get the same chance to do stuff outside the powers.

Not including that Essentials bollocks, which is still better than what this playtest does because at least everyone sits on the same transparent framework.

e: and Essentials is a much better example for how 4E still works without the At Will/Encounter/Daily structure. Mind you I'm not saying it doesn't work, either, or it isn't a perfectly servicable way to play D&D, I just don't like it very much.

Really, any discrepancy would be dependent entirely upon how potent or useful the basic things a wizard can do.

As of the current Next playtest, damage enemies at range without having to roll for it, set anything on fire he wants including entire encounters, and stun an enemy forever.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by Meister

It's exactly the opposite of what 4E does inso much as it deals with stuff that is covered in the Powers section, because every class in 4E has a large number of options to influence a situation built in, and of course they all get the same chance to do stuff outside the powers.

Soooooooooooooo: not what I was saying at all. I was also not disfavorably comparing 4E to anything! What I meant was: "actions not covered by the rules work like X". That's about it.

Originally Posted by Meister

Not including that Essentials bollocks, which is still better than what this playtest does because at least everyone sits on the same transparent framework.

e: and Essentials is a much better example for how 4E still works without the At Will/Encounter/Daily structure. Mind you I'm not saying it doesn't work, either, or it isn't a perfectly servicable way to play D&D, I just don't like it very much.

So, I've heard you say similar things before, but hear much the opposite from others. I'd be really curious to hear what Essentials does that you don't like. As in, how is it 4E, what does it change that makes it feel strange, etc. I don't have it, so the question is: "What is Essentials?"

Originally Posted by Meister

As of the current Next playtest, damage enemies at range without having to roll for it, set anything on fire he wants including entire encounters, and stun an enemy forever.

That sounds ugly. Any more news or feedback from the playtests?

[Meister]

Essentials was advertised as a basic version of the game that would make it easier to simply pick up and play. There would be new subclasses specifically designed to facilitate this, and the rules would get a general overhaul.

It wasn't long before it became the de facto baseline design paradigm for all new materials and officially organized play. If you show up at your local game store to play Encounters, you're not supposed to bring a PHB1/2/3 character at all. It's built on the same mathematical framework and all materials are 100% compatible, but Essentials stuff is noticably different.

Probably most obvious is a pronounced tendency of martial characters to lack daily powers and use mainly basic attacks enhanced with riders, while casters' resource structure is by and large unchanged. This leads neatly into the second difference: there's a definite tendency of Essentials material to tie descriptions and mechanics closer together. Put bluntly, it comes off as a transparent attempt to appease the players who complained about the very thought of fighter daily powers being unrealistic and powers flavourless and mechanical.

Another problem with Essentials is that every class is technically a subclass of a PHB class (including the old PHB ones - what you see in PHB1 under "Wizard" is now technically a subclass called Arcanist, subclass of the Wizard). It's set up so the majority of powers now carry over between subclasses within one "super-class." When you play a Wizard (Arcanist), and the new Essentials book comes out featuring the Wizard (Witch), you can now choose Witch powers for your Arcanist. Problem is, most every Essentials class is squeezed under the roof of one of the traditional four D&D classes, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue and Fighter. As a result, those steadily gain more new options, while all others stay right where they were when Essentials was released.

One more issue: the reliance of certain classes on basic attacks messes with established design. There are a number of items and options you can choose that enhance your basic attacks. Those were designed around the concept of basic attacks being used relatively rarely - after all, you had your encounter and daily powers, and even most at-wills aren't basic attacks. So it was okay to throw them in the mix for those characters that wanted to beef up their opportunity attacks or that did have basic attack at-will powers. Then Essentials introduced classes that did only basic attacks, often with riders. But you still have all those items kicking around in the system, and suddenly the Essentials classes spike hugely in power. Those items went from "occasionally useful" to "must have," and an Essentials character decked out with them can easily get a lot more effective than a non-Essentials character even with the same sort of items.

Example: you've got a Warlock who picks up some goggles that grant +1 to basic attack rolls and some bracers that grant +2 to basic attack damage rolls. Eldritch Blast can be used as a basic attack, so he'll get good use out of them, but most of the time he'll still use his other powers because they have better additional effects than the Eldritch Blast.
Now the Essentials Hunter, an archer class, comes in. He picks up the same two items, but all his powers involve him making a basic attack, so he gets to use those bonuses each and every time he attacks, and he freely puts his additional effect riders on them as well.

So, in a nutshell, Essentials works, produces classes that are efficient and fun to play, but also messes with the system far more than is good for it and solves no objective problems while introducing new ones, all for no good reason.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by Meister

Essentials was advertised as a basic version of the game that would make it easier to simply pick up and play. There would be new subclasses specifically designed to facilitate this, and the rules would get a general overhaul.

It wasn't long before it became the de facto baseline design paradigm for all new materials and officially organized play. If you show up at your local game store to play Encounters, you're not supposed to bring a PHB1/2/3 character at all. It's built on the same mathematical framework and all materials are 100% compatible, but Essentials stuff is noticably different.

Interesting. It doesn't sound like it succeeded in its stated goal, but became something else.

Originally Posted by Meister

Probably most obvious is a pronounced tendency of martial characters to lack daily powers and use mainly basic attacks enhanced with riders, while casters' resource structure is by and large unchanged. This leads neatly into the second difference: there's a definite tendency of Essentials material to tie descriptions and mechanics closer together. Put bluntly, it comes off as a transparent attempt to appease the players who complained about the very thought of fighter daily powers being unrealistic and powers flavourless and mechanical.

This actually sounds pretty cool to me. I know you kind of hate that whole thing, but it really sounds pretty neat to me, and exactly what I would have done, had I been building 4E.

Originally Posted by Meister

Another problem with Essentials is that every class is technically a subclass of a PHB class (including the old PHB ones - what you see in PHB1 under "Wizard" is now technically a subclass called Arcanist, subclass of the Wizard). It's set up so the majority of powers now carry over between subclasses within one "super-class." When you play a Wizard (Arcanist), and the new Essentials book comes out featuring the Wizard (Witch), you can now choose Witch powers for your Arcanist. Problem is, most every Essentials class is squeezed under the roof of one of the traditional four D&D classes, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue and Fighter. As a result, those steadily gain more new options, while all others stay right where they were when Essentials was released.

Okay, this I've heard of and vaguely run into when looking at various elements. It's strange because I've been looking to hear about any sort of support for the Primal classes, Psionic Classes and the non-standard Arcane/Divine/Martial, as those were some of the more interesting options available.

Originally Posted by Meister

One more issue: the reliance of certain classes on basic attacks messes with established design. There are a number of items and options you can choose that enhance your basic attacks. Those were designed around the concept of basic attacks being used relatively rarely - after all, you had your encounter and daily powers, and even most at-wills aren't basic attacks. So it was okay to throw them in the mix for those characters that wanted to beef up their opportunity attacks or that did have basic attack at-will powers. Then Essentials introduced classes that did only basic attacks, often with riders. But you still have all those items kicking around in the system, and suddenly the Essentials classes spike hugely in power. Those items went from "occasionally useful" to "must have," and an Essentials character decked out with them can easily get a lot more effective than a non-Essentials character even with the same sort of items.

Example: you've got a Warlock who picks up some goggles that grant +1 to basic attack rolls and some bracers that grant +2 to basic attack damage rolls. Eldritch Blast can be used as a basic attack, so he'll get good use out of them, but most of the time he'll still use his other powers because they have better additional effects than the Eldritch Blast.
Now the Essentials Hunter, an archer class, comes in. He picks up the same two items, but all his powers involve him making a basic attack, so he gets to use those bonuses each and every time he attacks, and he freely puts his additional effect riders on them as well.

I can see why this could be a problem, but it doesn't sound like it would really be that unbalanced. Now, again, I'd have to run a lot and see what the various abilities would be.

Originally Posted by Meister

So, in a nutshell, Essentials works, produces classes that are efficient and fun to play, but also messes with the system far more than is good for it and solves no objective problems while introducing new ones, all for no good reason.

From what you say, I can see your points, but I'd say it does have a "good" reason: it's trying to bring people back together under the WotC/D&D banner rather than allow them to continue fleeing to other companies. Still, I can understand your frustration.

[Meister]

It is pretty cool actually. The martial classes can hold their own compared to the caster archetypes, they're just less complex - that alone is a world of difference to Next's current approach of "fighter swings his sword all day, wizard wins the day." Like I said, 4E works even without the classic power structure. But I would really have liked to see some martial Essentials classes that retain their complex options and some casters that use only simple attacks. That way it would have been more believable as an exercise in reducing complexity; as it stands it comes off as "hey everyone, the way PHB classes are built are wrong, this is what it's really like, fighting always simple, casting always complex." It doesn't seem like the changes were made to improve the game system, but rather to model some sort of "realistic" approach to physical combat vs. magic, where "realistic" is code for "how D&D used to do it," and that simply wasn't necessary because the way classic 4E does it is perfectly alright.

(I hear there's a newer Essentials book that features a caster like that, though. Gotta look into that. But, you know, first impressions, basic design vs. later additions, and all that.)

And the basic attack enhancers do make a difference. I had a group once where the sole essentials character's attack bonus was effectively permanently 3 higher than all her companions' against the same defense. That's a pretty big deal when you consider you have to follow specific tactics or spend resources in combat to modify attacks or defenses by 2.

e: anyway it's not like those are the only things that bug me about it. That would be the undercurrent of "hey, let's bring back all the stuff from 3.5 like Power Word Kill and Wish so groups won't lose the vital ability to make jokes about those."

Not kidding by the way, one main reason given for reintroducing 3.5 style saving throws into Next was "jokes about failing one's saving throw are a part of gaming culture, we aim to give it a proper basis again." Y'know, rather than actual game design and thought going into it.

[Ryong]

Well, technically those bonuses should balance out the fact that an essentials character is lacking encounter or daily powers, as people usually being combat throwing encounter powers first.

I'm not a fan of the saving throws on 5e and would much prefer if they worked either like 4e and maybe, for, say, petrification and other massively crippling or outright killing effects maybe make it so early on you get 3 saves 'til it actually fucks you up and just make that get to 2 saves when you're 11~20 and then 1 save when 21~30 or some such. I mean cripes, does this weird chicken have the same crippling power of a medusa demigoddess? Fuck that.

Also:

Every time you answer the quiz, suggest yards to be used in 5e. Apparently they want to use meters but can't because of americans but a yard is pretty close to a meter and then americans would call it ward and everyone else would call it meter.