Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The D&D thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Morty View Post

    That is the root of the problem, yes. Health in D&D scales upwards so sharply that you need to keep up. Simply attacking with a weapon stops mattering fairly soon. In D&D as it is, a brainy or social non-magical class basically needs a sneak attack equivalent. Like the PF investigator's studied strike, or something to buff party members, and such. It really does narrow down possible design.
    This is part of why I preferred the "basic" version of the game over the "advanced" version back before WotC bought the IP. A few factors within the rules set helped to keep the weapon-using and spell-slinging characters a bit closer in terms of relative balance, especially when including the weapon mastery rules from the Master Rules boxed set.

    The hit points of most classes were lower in that version (where fighters in AD&D had d10, clerics d8, and thieves d6, the D&D game gave fighters d8, clerics d6, and thieves d4), and of course both systems provided a typically smaller bonus from Constitution score (18 con only gets a +3 bonus in old D&D, for example) that also dropped off in the mid-level range, along with rolling hit dice, and was replaced by a small flat-rate of HP gained (so a high-level character would only have 9 or 10 dice + constitution modifier to each, then only 1, 2, or 3 more hp per level beyond that point). And monster hit points were significantly lower because they didn't have any constitution bonuses, and only ever used d8 hit dice regardless of the type of monster, with occasional monsters having a few flat additions (for illustrative comparison, a storm giant from 5th edition has 20d12+100 hit points for an average of 230 - but a storm giant in old D&D has only 15d8 hit points for an average of 67.5).

    Adding to that the weapon mastery rules that would allow, as an example, a two-handed sword-wielding character to deal up to 3d6+6 as the base damage (instead of the 1d10 a two-handed sword would normally do) for an attack before adding any benefit of strength, magic, or the class option available to fighters and similar classes to "smash" for a -5 to-hit and +entire strength score to damage.

    So instead of high-level play consisting of one character that deals damage in increments of 1d10+strength modifier, and another that can drop 10d6 on multiple creatures at a time, you'd see high-level fighters slinging attacks that were more like 3d6+26 all day long (and also having like 80%+ chance of hitting) to compare to those 10d6 on multiple creatures spells - which doesn't make them equal, sure, but it does make them closer than they have been in some other editions.



    Not so noble anymore.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Drake View Post
      This is part of why I preferred the "basic" version of the game over the "advanced" version back before WotC bought the IP. A few factors within the rules set helped to keep the weapon-using and spell-slinging characters a bit closer in terms of relative balance, especially when including the weapon mastery rules from the Master Rules boxed set.

      The hit points of most classes were lower in that version (where fighters in AD&D had d10, clerics d8, and thieves d6, the D&D game gave fighters d8, clerics d6, and thieves d4), and of course both systems provided a typically smaller bonus from Constitution score (18 con only gets a +3 bonus in old D&D, for example) that also dropped off in the mid-level range, along with rolling hit dice, and was replaced by a small flat-rate of HP gained (so a high-level character would only have 9 or 10 dice + constitution modifier to each, then only 1, 2, or 3 more hp per level beyond that point). And monster hit points were significantly lower because they didn't have any constitution bonuses, and only ever used d8 hit dice regardless of the type of monster, with occasional monsters having a few flat additions (for illustrative comparison, a storm giant from 5th edition has 20d12+100 hit points for an average of 230 - but a storm giant in old D&D has only 15d8 hit points for an average of 67.5).

      Adding to that the weapon mastery rules that would allow, as an example, a two-handed sword-wielding character to deal up to 3d6+6 as the base damage (instead of the 1d10 a two-handed sword would normally do) for an attack before adding any benefit of strength, magic, or the class option available to fighters and similar classes to "smash" for a -5 to-hit and +entire strength score to damage.

      So instead of high-level play consisting of one character that deals damage in increments of 1d10+strength modifier, and another that can drop 10d6 on multiple creatures at a time, you'd see high-level fighters slinging attacks that were more like 3d6+26 all day long (and also having like 80%+ chance of hitting) to compare to those 10d6 on multiple creatures spells - which doesn't make them equal, sure, but it does make them closer than they have been in some other editions.
      It's really not a matter of balance between magic and non-magic, and I'm not a fan of boiling everything down to it. The point here is the significant investment required to be able to contribute at all. You can't have someone who just dabbles in combat and supports the dedicated fighters, because soon they won't be able to do anything that matters.

      Comment


      • To be fair though, everyone has to invest to some degree in combat to be contribute in D&D - even spellcasters. A wizard or cleric or other spellcaster is going to probably need to have a not-insignificant number of spells per day tied up in combat spells if they want to be able to contribute meaningfully to combat. Even on days where they're not expecting to fight, they still need to memorize combat spells because if combat does break out and they don't have anything prepared they'll be screwed and possibly dead.

        Comment


        • It really does taint the pool when used as an introduction to tabletop games game.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by nofather View Post
            It really does taint the pool when used as an introduction to tabletop games game.
            Seriously. I had a friend who wanted to try her hand at running a game for the first time take one look at the 5e DMG and almost give up right then and there.

            (I pointed her to Fate Accelerated, and she seemed quite happy.)


            Call me Regina or Lex.

            Female pronouns for me, please.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by nofather View Post
              It really does taint the pool when used as an introduction to tabletop games game.
              For me, the problem there is the same problem I have when people do that thing were a player is new and they automatically direct them to the "newb-friendly" option instead of focusing on whatever it is the player is actually interested in.

              I can't even count how many times I've heard stories like "Yeah, I tried that role-play stuff once. It's all dragons and kidnapped princesses, so I don't like it." or "Nah, I don't like D&D. I never even got good enough at it to try playing a wizard." because somebody stuck them in a cliche-heavy D&D game or the "simple" character option instead of asking "What sort of story do you want your character to be part of?" or "What do you want your character to be like?" and showing them that there is more to try than just the one flavor - and you don't have to eat the vanilla before you can have your first bite of the double fudge cookie dough you actually think sounds nice.

              And I say that even though I started on D&D myself - it worked because that was a good fit for me at the time (and still is a good fit), not because it's the game people are supposed to play to figure out if they like table-top role-playing.


              Not so noble anymore.

              Comment


              • Hey, I figure folks in this thread might have an interest in cool dice. Polyhero is currently doing a kickstarter for a set of rogue-themed dice. You should check them out.

                https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...dice-rogue-set



                Onyx Path Forum Moderator

                My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

                Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

                Comment


                • Hah, I saw those earlier, because someone I backed backed them. Very cool looking, but sadly, I do not have the money for them as I just got a bunch of green jade dice. >_<



                  ​When noise turns to silence, when colors dull and pale, when reality no longer makes sense, there shall you find me. There, in the dreams of the River of Faceless Millions, do I dwell.

                  http://harenm.deviantart.com/gallery/ for my art.

                  Comment


                  • Well, I never especially liked the direction WotC went with the publication strategy of 5e. Aside from that, I didn't really have anything personal against Mearls. This, however:



                    It's just... It's so wrong, on so many levels, I can't even...

                    Congratulations, Mr. Mearls, you finally killed my remaining interest in 5e.


                    If nothing worked, then let's think!

                    Comment


                    • Would you explain your position? I might be getting the wrong idea.


                      I'm So Meta Even This Acronym

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Thorbes View Post
                        Would you explain your position? I might be getting the wrong idea.
                        Certainly. I see it as a blatant attempt to shut down the fans, who might have problems with 5e not beeing deep enough, either mechanically, or in lore, to make their arguments invalid. He pictures those things as "gatekeeping", which is, IMO misleading at best and links it to the popular "gamers are sexist mysoginist nerds" narrative, which I find disgusting.

                        He just waves the flag of inclusivity to justify their design and publication choices.

                        And who give him the rights to "fire" anyone from D&D?
                        Last edited by PMárk; 01-24-2018, 09:19 PM.


                        If nothing worked, then let's think!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post



                          They remind me of Gushers... I want to chew on them!

                          But seriously, though, they are pretty cool!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PMárk View Post

                            Certainly. I see it as a blatant attempt to shut down the fans, who might have problems with 5e not beeing deep enough, either mechanically, or in lore, to make their arguments invalid. He pictures those things as "gatekeeping", which is, IMO misleading at best and links it to the popular "gamers are sexist mysoginist nerds" narrative, which I find disgusting.

                            He just waves the flag of inclusivity to justify their design and publication choices.

                            And who give him the rights to "fire" anyone from D&D?
                            Ok, important context for the tweet in question. Wizards of the Coast just hired a new designer (I don’t remember her name). Immediately after this was announced, she and WotC started getting a whole lot of negative feedback related to her hiring, much of which crossed into harrassmebt territory. This harrassment was largely rooted in the same gatekeeping behavior that women are all too often met with in geek hobby communities - questioning her qualifications based on deep lore and system knowledge. There were also objections raised about affirmative action policies, as there pretty much always are when people who are not white men get hired for high-profile jobs like this.

                            Also, if you are a person who likes complex rules and deep lore reading that tweet and think Mike Mearls is accusing you of having a problem with women, you are reading too much into it. Or too little, I guess. He specifically says “people who insist on gatekeeping via rules complexity and lore density. If you’re not one of those jerks grilling women on what color Elminser’s nefew’s third cousin’s best friend’s former rival’s underwear is to establish whether or not they’re “fake gamer girls,” then you’re not who Mearls is talking about.

                            As for for the word choice “you’re fired from D&D.” He’s been having to deal with constant demands that he fire his new employee because she doesn’t pass their need purity tests, and is responding specifically to that behavior by saying that if you’re the kind of people who want to gatekeep women out of the hobby, then you’re the one who should be fired, not this new employee. And good for him for doing so.


                            Onyx Path Forum Moderator

                            My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

                            Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post
                              They remind me of Gushers... I want to chew on them!

                              But seriously, though, they are pretty cool!
                              Haha they totally do look like it!


                              Onyx Path Forum Moderator

                              My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

                              Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PMárk View Post

                                Certainly. I see it as a blatant attempt to shut down the fans, who might have problems with 5e not beeing deep enough, either mechanically, or in lore, to make their arguments invalid. He pictures those things as "gatekeeping", which is, IMO misleading at best and links it to the popular "gamers are sexist mysoginist nerds" narrative, which I find disgusting.

                                He just waves the flag of inclusivity to justify their design and publication choices.

                                And who give him the rights to "fire" anyone from D&D?
                                I see no reason to assume ill intent of the man - he seems to be talking about a specific set of people (those that want people of particular types - in this case "newbs" and women - excluded) and saying he doesn't welcome them or that attitude (that others should be dissuaded).

                                He's not assigning any of those traits which he is "firing" people from D&D for having to anyone that has a problem with 5e - at least not any problems that aren't "I don't like how 5th edition just lets people pick it up and play it."

                                But maybe that's an opinion I have because I've had more exposure to Mike and gotten a sense of his attitude towards things that provides insight into this quoted statement (and his choice of the rainbow ampersand icon).

                                Also, he's got no more right, and is not acting like he has any more right, to "fire" anyone from D&D than the people that think it would be better if the game deliberately engaged in gate-keeping behavior to keep out players they (for whatever reason) don't like have to ask for the same.


                                Not so noble anymore.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X