Backgrounds
Generally looks good. A bit worried about the amount of skills. Can't make up my mind whether there are just too many, or if that is a good thing.
DM guidelines
I have read it over many times, and every time, I gasp and shudder. Decide on a DC after a player has rolled. So basically, cheat if they fail? Well, as a DM who rolls almost every roll out in the open, I think that is a very poor idea. Of course, such advice would never affect my campaigns, so I might as well not care. But still, IMO, the very best campaigns spring from players learning and knowing there are consequences, instead of being guided and railroaded through a DM's wet dream of a fantasy story. On the other hand, the advice about ignoring the dice is very important and can't be repeated enough. Even after 22+ years as a DM, I still fuck up at times and forget to skip the check, even when a player has said and done all the right things. If I recall correctly, it actually cost me a campaign once, because the failed check led to a TPK.
Also, page 3, under options for checks, it says that there are four different options. Hazards, requirements, skills and ... Is it just me or is the fourth option missing?
Equipment
The balance between light, medium and heavy armor has definitely improved since the last playtest, but I am not sure they are exactly where they need to be just yet. Fighters wearing plate and shield top at AC19, while a rogue with Mithral chain will be at AC18. One point of difference isn't much. And if the rogue is a dual-wielder, he equals the AC of the fighter. IMO, that is not how things should be. I think the key is to make the shield better. Shield has tradionally been the weakest choice for most classes, and I think it is high time that WotC fixes that.
How to play
Advantage and disadvantage is still a lovely mechanic, but I am still confused as to when exactly I should use it, and when I should use regular bonuses and penalties. Every time I hear an example from the designers, I get even more confused.
I also like the dying mechanics and the fact that it takes longer to bleed out the higher level you are. It was always weird that no matter how high level and how many hit points you had, you still died just as quick as soon as you went down.
Regarding the stacking of spell effects, I find it unclear. Do penalties from the same spell stack? The stacking part of the text only mentions bonuses.
Changes
Changing the short rest so that others can use herbal kits on your unconscious character was likewise a smart move. Not to mention that it makes total sense in a real world context.
Races
I must admit, I really like the racial fluff, they seemed to have nailed the standard elf, dwarf and halfling. Certainly better than what we have seen from the last couple of editions. I am however not a fan of the absolutes they have baked into the mechanics of the dwarves and the elves, namely the poison and charm immunities.
Speaking of elves, I like that they are back as a race that gets really old. Why I understood and even appreciated the change that happened in 4e, I must admit that I prefer my elves to be old - or at least be able to become really old. I also like that the all-awareness trance they had in 4e (and 2e using complete book of elves iirc) is gone. I like the dynamics surrounding guard duty, and the opportunities the guard duty gives, both for me, but also for my players. Because lets face it, having an elf that can guard while resting kinda removes the need for others to stand guard.
The worst part about the races has got to be the humans. While I do appreciate that the designers want to make human at least as viable race as the others, I do not think this is the way to go. Give them bonuses to saves, skills or anything else, but leave the stat increases for the demi-humans, just like back in the day.
Specialties
Specialties are going to be brilliant, I have no doubt. Already we have so many combinations to create unique and interesting characters in a simple and quick way, but they have got to be careful of the balance. As it is now, the healer specialty is a must-have in any group. It is hard to imagine any group not picking that up, unless they are super-hardcore roleplayers that participate in a campaign where the characters never engage in combat.
Spells
Aid: Too weak. Roll a 1 and you burn a 3rd level spell to prevent (at best) 3 hit points in total. Compare that to Prayer, which will drastically (especially if you consider the current to-hits from monsters) reduce monsters abilities to hit you and your allies. Unless you know you and yours will only take spell damage, there is no reason to ever use Aid, even if you roll average to well.
Augury: Love the chance of failure due to multiple castings. It was a good idea to lower the cost of the spell, so that it would see more use, but with the ritual mechanics, it could easily be abused at higher levels, if they hadn't introduced the failure.
Charm Person: So, if you have less than max 25 hit points, you are charmed, no save, no nothing? Seems very powerful.
Command: Just like Charm Person, but at least this is just for a round, not for an hour. Make more "sense".
Dispel Magic: Big fan of the auto-dispelling of lower level spells.
Hold Person: You can end the paralysis with a save, but the movement 0 part always lasts a minute and affects all creatures?
Inflict Wounds: Gotta love that inflict is somewhat more potent than Cure Wounds. Traditionally, it was always kinda a waste to use the inflict line of spells, but now there seems to be some merit to choosing them.
Classes
Cleric: Seems to me that Channel Divinity worked better when it was based on wisdom, instead of a fixed (but increasing) number of times per day. Once per day (for the first 3 levels) does feel like very little help, if it was meant to help the cleric avoid memorizing all but healing spells. Speaking of memorization, I like the pseudo spontaneous casting that the dndnext cleric has got going. Memorize, but use your spell slots for any kind of combination of the memorized spells.
Fighter: Expertise dice. Impressive idea, but needs some finetuning. For example, refreshing them at the start of your turn means that if you do damage, you can't block for others as a reaction, and if you keep dice to help, you lose damage as you might not need to block for others. Makes damage the logical choice, and the only likely choice. Same thing with other abilities, such as Cleave. If the fighter hits the enemy, and he keeps an expertise die in reserve in case he has the possibility to cleave another enemy, he might very well lose said dice. Most likely, he will use them all when he hits, because why take a chance and gimp yourself needlessly
Rogue: Do Thieves Cant cover any sort of communication? Or just cloak and dagger stuff like in old editions?
Wizards: Seems to me that getting intelligence modifier in spells every time you level is a lot. I mean, we will quickly see a lot of INT 20 wizards who get 5 spells every time. Also, if a wizard wants to learn an unusual spell, what is the DC? Beats me.
I do like that the wizard is now able to stagger his memorization, or at least that is how I read the rules. So for example, if you have 4 first level spells, you might memorize 3 of them, and keep a slot open for eventualities. Shouldn't be too hard to find 1 minute at some point. Even better is the fact that if you are missing your spellbook, you can still memorize the spells you had in your brain the previous day. This means I can steal my wizard's spellbook(s) and still leave him feeling somewhat useful while he struggles to get it back.
Sorcerer: Absolutely love the fluff, but is it on purpose that neither magic attack nor save DCs get higher at any point? Seems a bit weird that the dude who lives and breathes magic doesn't really get better at landing his spells on his enemies. As for the dragon bloodline, it is pretty hardcore. Might want to limit the kind of armors that kind of sorcerer can use. There is just something wrong with tossing Fireballs in plate armor. Speaking of Fireballs, should Sorcerers have their own spell list? The idea certainly has some merits, but I can see why you would want it as a subtype-wizard.
Overall, WotC are moving dndnext in the right direction, and considering there is still a lot of time left for playtesting, dndnext will end up being one heck of a game, of that I am sure.
Viser opslag med etiketten dndnext. Vis alle opslag
Viser opslag med etiketten dndnext. Vis alle opslag
lørdag den 8. september 2012
Posted with Blogsy
tirsdag den 21. august 2012
Musings on Monster Design in dndnext
So I finally got some time to look at the Bestiary: I had saved this for last, as monsters are my favorite part of D&D. Also, after Mearls' Legend & Lore articles on the subject. Now, the monsters had plenty of positive notes, there was a lot that I liked. However...
Looking over the monsters in playtest 2 bestiary, I can not make much sense of what they are going with when it comes to hit points and hit dice. Basically, it seems from a non-designer's point of view that the there is no correlation between level and number of hit die for monsters. As to why, I have no idea. I have tried to organize things, so it becomes easier to see just how little structure there is ATM. It starts off decently at level 1 and 3, and then the system, if there is one, just breaks down. Take a look for yourself.
Level 1 monsters:
There are 9 level 1 monsters that all have 1 hit die. Small monsters use d6, medium use d8. So far so good. Then there are two level 1 elite monsters. Both small. They have respectively 4 and 5 hit die.
Level 2 monsters:
There are 3 level 2 monsters which (correctly?) have 2 hit dice. The small monsters still use d6 and medium use d8. Then there is a level 2 solo, which is large. It has 7 hit dice, and uses d10.
Okay, so far, looks like 1 HD per level, d6 if small, d8 if medium, d10 if large. And you add 5? HD if it's a solo. Okay, sounds decent.
Level 3 monsters:
One level 3 monster has 1 HD. Another two level 3 monsters have 2 HD. Yet another has 3 HD. We also have two level 3 elite monsters with 4 HD, two elite level 3 monsters with 6 HD and tthree level 3 elite monster with 5 HD.
Okay, no long sure there is a system. Still follows the 1d6/1d8/1d10 spread depending on size, but otherwise, I am at a loss.
Level 4 monsters:
One level 4 monster has 3 HD. One has 5 HD. One level 4 elite has 5 HD and another level 4 elite has 6 HD.
Level 5 monsters:
One level 5 has 2 HD(!!!), another has 3 HD, and the level 5 elite has 7 HD. Still following the size HD-rule though.
Level 6 monsters:
The level 6 monster has 4 HD and the level 6 elite has 7 HD. Still following the size HD-rule though.
So, what does it all mean? I am not sure. I like the d6/d8/d10/d12(?) HD depending on size, makes sense. However, it would make total sense if a regular monster had 1 HD per level. Apparently that is not the case. Then an elite monster would have twice that, and a solo 4 times that? Or perhaps that is too much. Perhaps the "modifier" should be different, an elite monster having *0,5 HD extra and a solo 2* HD. I do however expect a fixed modifier. Right now things seem arbitrary. Maybe it is the result of the monsters not being the focus of the playtest, or maybe it's because levels and such have been changed so many times they lost track of what needed to be edited. Either way, I hope we soon get some more info about how to build monsters in dndnext.
Looking over the monsters in playtest 2 bestiary, I can not make much sense of what they are going with when it comes to hit points and hit dice. Basically, it seems from a non-designer's point of view that the there is no correlation between level and number of hit die for monsters. As to why, I have no idea. I have tried to organize things, so it becomes easier to see just how little structure there is ATM. It starts off decently at level 1 and 3, and then the system, if there is one, just breaks down. Take a look for yourself.
Level 1 monsters:
There are 9 level 1 monsters that all have 1 hit die. Small monsters use d6, medium use d8. So far so good. Then there are two level 1 elite monsters. Both small. They have respectively 4 and 5 hit die.
Level 2 monsters:
There are 3 level 2 monsters which (correctly?) have 2 hit dice. The small monsters still use d6 and medium use d8. Then there is a level 2 solo, which is large. It has 7 hit dice, and uses d10.
Okay, so far, looks like 1 HD per level, d6 if small, d8 if medium, d10 if large. And you add 5? HD if it's a solo. Okay, sounds decent.
Level 3 monsters:
One level 3 monster has 1 HD. Another two level 3 monsters have 2 HD. Yet another has 3 HD. We also have two level 3 elite monsters with 4 HD, two elite level 3 monsters with 6 HD and tthree level 3 elite monster with 5 HD.
Okay, no long sure there is a system. Still follows the 1d6/1d8/1d10 spread depending on size, but otherwise, I am at a loss.
Level 4 monsters:
One level 4 monster has 3 HD. One has 5 HD. One level 4 elite has 5 HD and another level 4 elite has 6 HD.
Level 5 monsters:
One level 5 has 2 HD(!!!), another has 3 HD, and the level 5 elite has 7 HD. Still following the size HD-rule though.
Level 6 monsters:
The level 6 monster has 4 HD and the level 6 elite has 7 HD. Still following the size HD-rule though.
So, what does it all mean? I am not sure. I like the d6/d8/d10/d12(?) HD depending on size, makes sense. However, it would make total sense if a regular monster had 1 HD per level. Apparently that is not the case. Then an elite monster would have twice that, and a solo 4 times that? Or perhaps that is too much. Perhaps the "modifier" should be different, an elite monster having *0,5 HD extra and a solo 2* HD. I do however expect a fixed modifier. Right now things seem arbitrary. Maybe it is the result of the monsters not being the focus of the playtest, or maybe it's because levels and such have been changed so many times they lost track of what needed to be edited. Either way, I hope we soon get some more info about how to build monsters in dndnext.
mandag den 23. juli 2012
More musings on dndnext monster design
So, another L&L article on monster design is out (link) and Mike Mearls gives us some more insight on how monster design will be in the next edition of Dungeons and Dragons.
Monster XP direct relation of power. That's pretty much always how it has been, up until 4e, where the xp was solely based of level (and type). While 4e certainly had many things right, this was not one of them. Even when following the narrow guidelines of monster building, it was very easy to build monsters who were much more lethal than other monsters of the same level. So going back to a system where the xp is not soly based on level, is a good thing in my mind.
Apparently there are 3 types of monsters now (instead of 4 in 4e). The mook (please change that name FTLOG), the elite and the solo. I love that they have kept the elite and solo monsters invented for 4e. Even though solos didn't always work, often requiring a lot of work-arounds to function optimally, they improved the DMs ability to make cool monsters. I am not sure how I feel about the types being tied to size. Mooks as small and medium creatures mostly works, but sometimes, at least in 4e, it was pretty cool to make a master swordsman as an elite creature. Now, as long as the above is just guidelines, it's all good, you can still do this. The problem is if it becomes a "rule" and there is an equivalent to the monster builder. On the other hand, making large creatures elite by default does make some sense.
Regarding the statistics, I am a bit torn. While I do like the narrower stat-range they have said they were introducing, mostly because fighters running around with natural STR30 just seems silly, I do think there should be a bit more leeway when it comes to monsters. In another word, I do expect a minotaur to be stronger than the strongest human. Then again, it might work as hill giants have STR 20. Minotaurs shouldn't be as strong as hill giants.
The article also tells us that monsters do follow some sort of realism again, meaning that the minotaur uses a greataxe and thus uses a d12 for damage (since the greataxe does 1d12 damage when a PC wields it), but because it is a large creature, it adds an additional die. This means we can guestimate other monsters, that we have not seen yet. For example, a huge frost giant wielding a greataxe with STR 22 will be doing 3d12+6 damage or a huge hill giant using a clue (and STR 20) will be doing around 3d8+5 damage. Although Mearls did mention the possibility of making it less accurate (and perhaps make it deal more damage?), so perhaps 4d8+5 or something. Is a club even d8? No idea, perhaps we are looking at 4d6+5 or something, although that would barely make it harder hitting than the minotaur. Anyway, I lost my train of thought there for a sec, but the point I was going to make was the following. While there will certainly be a lot who are happy that monster damage is once again more realistic, I am not one who cares. While there was other 4e-isms that broke my suspension of belief, monster damage was not one of them. I do like the simple rule of adding another die when it's made for a large creature. Should make it simple to use stuff like enlarge (maybe it will become "make large spell" instead) and so on.
In 3.x there was an issue with monsters with high CON-scores. If you leveled said monster, it would get a huuuuge number of hit points, as each die triggered the high CON hit point bonus. That problem was fixed in 4e, and it seems they have nerfed it even more now. The flattening of the stats combined with the fact that monsters get their con bonus on top of their hit point total (twice if they are elite, presumably x4 if solos), should ensure that we do not end up with monsters with an abnormal number of hit points, while still providing some variation.
I also really like that monster base HD is based on size, not on type. Somehow it just makes more sense. I had some trouble with huge or gargantuan lurker dragons in 4e which had hundreds of hit points less than other dragons of the same size and strength. Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of the brute-controller-soldier-lurker-artillery templates, but I don't think hit points should necessarily be tied to them.
The bit about AC doesn't tell us much, aside from the fact that there are guidelines for which AC a monster of a certain level should have, and that there too, is now more realism in the AC than in 4e.
The abilities look easy to use and fun enough. But the minotaur was never the hardest monster to make suitable. Still looking forward seeing how they will make a complex monster, without making it too complex. I also look forward to the storehouse of iconic abilities, that sounds like all kinds of awesome for the DM. Most of all, I look forward to see how much of all these guestimates we will have to do ourselves and how much will be available as suggestions and explanations.
All in all, this was a much better "monster design" article than the previous ones, and it definitely helped me wrap my little head around their process. I am anxiously waiting for more, and definitely hope future playtests will incorporate some measure of monster building, just like character building will be available. After all, as a DM, I do 100 times more monster building than my players do character building.
Monster XP direct relation of power. That's pretty much always how it has been, up until 4e, where the xp was solely based of level (and type). While 4e certainly had many things right, this was not one of them. Even when following the narrow guidelines of monster building, it was very easy to build monsters who were much more lethal than other monsters of the same level. So going back to a system where the xp is not soly based on level, is a good thing in my mind.
Apparently there are 3 types of monsters now (instead of 4 in 4e). The mook (please change that name FTLOG), the elite and the solo. I love that they have kept the elite and solo monsters invented for 4e. Even though solos didn't always work, often requiring a lot of work-arounds to function optimally, they improved the DMs ability to make cool monsters. I am not sure how I feel about the types being tied to size. Mooks as small and medium creatures mostly works, but sometimes, at least in 4e, it was pretty cool to make a master swordsman as an elite creature. Now, as long as the above is just guidelines, it's all good, you can still do this. The problem is if it becomes a "rule" and there is an equivalent to the monster builder. On the other hand, making large creatures elite by default does make some sense.
Regarding the statistics, I am a bit torn. While I do like the narrower stat-range they have said they were introducing, mostly because fighters running around with natural STR30 just seems silly, I do think there should be a bit more leeway when it comes to monsters. In another word, I do expect a minotaur to be stronger than the strongest human. Then again, it might work as hill giants have STR 20. Minotaurs shouldn't be as strong as hill giants.
The article also tells us that monsters do follow some sort of realism again, meaning that the minotaur uses a greataxe and thus uses a d12 for damage (since the greataxe does 1d12 damage when a PC wields it), but because it is a large creature, it adds an additional die. This means we can guestimate other monsters, that we have not seen yet. For example, a huge frost giant wielding a greataxe with STR 22 will be doing 3d12+6 damage or a huge hill giant using a clue (and STR 20) will be doing around 3d8+5 damage. Although Mearls did mention the possibility of making it less accurate (and perhaps make it deal more damage?), so perhaps 4d8+5 or something. Is a club even d8? No idea, perhaps we are looking at 4d6+5 or something, although that would barely make it harder hitting than the minotaur. Anyway, I lost my train of thought there for a sec, but the point I was going to make was the following. While there will certainly be a lot who are happy that monster damage is once again more realistic, I am not one who cares. While there was other 4e-isms that broke my suspension of belief, monster damage was not one of them. I do like the simple rule of adding another die when it's made for a large creature. Should make it simple to use stuff like enlarge (maybe it will become "make large spell" instead) and so on.
In 3.x there was an issue with monsters with high CON-scores. If you leveled said monster, it would get a huuuuge number of hit points, as each die triggered the high CON hit point bonus. That problem was fixed in 4e, and it seems they have nerfed it even more now. The flattening of the stats combined with the fact that monsters get their con bonus on top of their hit point total (twice if they are elite, presumably x4 if solos), should ensure that we do not end up with monsters with an abnormal number of hit points, while still providing some variation.
I also really like that monster base HD is based on size, not on type. Somehow it just makes more sense. I had some trouble with huge or gargantuan lurker dragons in 4e which had hundreds of hit points less than other dragons of the same size and strength. Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of the brute-controller-soldier-lurker-artillery templates, but I don't think hit points should necessarily be tied to them.
The bit about AC doesn't tell us much, aside from the fact that there are guidelines for which AC a monster of a certain level should have, and that there too, is now more realism in the AC than in 4e.
The abilities look easy to use and fun enough. But the minotaur was never the hardest monster to make suitable. Still looking forward seeing how they will make a complex monster, without making it too complex. I also look forward to the storehouse of iconic abilities, that sounds like all kinds of awesome for the DM. Most of all, I look forward to see how much of all these guestimates we will have to do ourselves and how much will be available as suggestions and explanations.
All in all, this was a much better "monster design" article than the previous ones, and it definitely helped me wrap my little head around their process. I am anxiously waiting for more, and definitely hope future playtests will incorporate some measure of monster building, just like character building will be available. After all, as a DM, I do 100 times more monster building than my players do character building.
torsdag den 19. juli 2012
More musings on initiative in dndnext
So, if you have peaked at this blog before, you will know that our dndnext playtests got us thinking and we decided to stop playing 4e and switch to 2e.
Tuesday night, we started our 2e campaign, and it was great fun. It got me thinking about initiative. As I have mentioned in a couple of other posts, I really didn't like way dndnext handled initiative. I put that in the past tense, since Mearls has stated elsewhere, that it's definitely one of the parts they are changing. Which of course made me happy. I mean, the initiative system worked just fine in 3.x and 4e, why change it, I thought. And then I got to play 2e.
Now, the 2e initiative system is radically different from that of the two latest edition of our favorite game. First of all, you roll with a d10, and rolling low means you are quick. Second of all, you state your intent at the start of the round, before initiative is rolled.
The 2e initiative system definitely has got some kinks, and I am not saying dndnext should copy/paste it, but there are definitely something about it that worked well. One of the most common arguments against the 2e initiative is that the fact that you have to roll for initiative every single round slows things down. And I used to think the same thing. But I am not so sure anymore.
You see, while you will of course spend more time actually rolling the dice, there is an X-factor that affects the overall speed of the combat round, which is focus. Namely player focus. During our first session of 2e, I quickly noticed that players were much more focused during the rounds, not just on their turns. We talked about it afterwards, and my players had noticed the same.
I think it is because if you use a 3.x/4e initiative, where everything is cyclical, players quickly pick up where they are in the cycle, after whom they come, and then they have a bigger tendency to "phase out" mentally, until it is their turn, whether it's because of texting, drawing, reading up on rules etc. They feel they can "keep up", even if they are not paying 100% attention.
With the 2e initiative, they can't do that. Their turn in the round changes from round to round, and they got to pay more attention to what happens if they want to keep up. Which in turn leads to a quicker resolution of individual turns.
So, I do not know if there is a way to dndnext non-cyclical initiative resolution, without running into some of the other issues that such a system has, but I would definitely like our good friends at Wizards try.
Tuesday night, we started our 2e campaign, and it was great fun. It got me thinking about initiative. As I have mentioned in a couple of other posts, I really didn't like way dndnext handled initiative. I put that in the past tense, since Mearls has stated elsewhere, that it's definitely one of the parts they are changing. Which of course made me happy. I mean, the initiative system worked just fine in 3.x and 4e, why change it, I thought. And then I got to play 2e.
Now, the 2e initiative system is radically different from that of the two latest edition of our favorite game. First of all, you roll with a d10, and rolling low means you are quick. Second of all, you state your intent at the start of the round, before initiative is rolled.
The 2e initiative system definitely has got some kinks, and I am not saying dndnext should copy/paste it, but there are definitely something about it that worked well. One of the most common arguments against the 2e initiative is that the fact that you have to roll for initiative every single round slows things down. And I used to think the same thing. But I am not so sure anymore.
You see, while you will of course spend more time actually rolling the dice, there is an X-factor that affects the overall speed of the combat round, which is focus. Namely player focus. During our first session of 2e, I quickly noticed that players were much more focused during the rounds, not just on their turns. We talked about it afterwards, and my players had noticed the same.
I think it is because if you use a 3.x/4e initiative, where everything is cyclical, players quickly pick up where they are in the cycle, after whom they come, and then they have a bigger tendency to "phase out" mentally, until it is their turn, whether it's because of texting, drawing, reading up on rules etc. They feel they can "keep up", even if they are not paying 100% attention.
With the 2e initiative, they can't do that. Their turn in the round changes from round to round, and they got to pay more attention to what happens if they want to keep up. Which in turn leads to a quicker resolution of individual turns.
So, I do not know if there is a way to dndnext non-cyclical initiative resolution, without running into some of the other issues that such a system has, but I would definitely like our good friends at Wizards try.
torsdag den 5. juli 2012
Those Quirky little things - What has been missing from D&D
As mentioned in my last dndnext playtest report, my players went exploring and stumbled over the minotaur caves, which are, as you might know, cursed so that you can not find the way out. And we had a lot of fun there.
It got me thinking. I have missed those quirky little things. It's kinda hard to put into words, but it seems to me that D&D used to be full of those. Weird spells with effects that lasted a long time, which made you do odd things (think old-school confusion, Otto's etc), items with weird and odd properties or abilities. There was just a lot of quirkiness, a lot of unexpected stuff packed in the rules. Then, with 3.x and later 4e, those things got slowly phased out. Maybe it was primarily 4e, but it seems to me that it started somewhat in 3.x already, with the standardization of the magic items. That was the first nail in the coffin, although the metaphor might be a bit harsh. But I hope that no one takes offence. While 3.x was never my favorite edition, it did fix some other issues I had at the time, and brought some remarkable new things to the game. And I am still a big fan of 4e.
Now, I obviously know that the fault might lie with me. The DM. After all, I could just have hacked 4e and introduced those quirky things, but still, fault, if one can speak of fault, still lies with the system. You see, in my opinion, when you make a game, or in this case, an edition of a game, you set the tone, the parameters for said game. Sure, some enterprising DM's will manage to twist and turn it into exactly what they want, creating their own version of the game, but to be honest, I think that the rest of us, most of us, tend to be very influenced by said parameters. So if WotC makes a game such as 4e, that relies on a very strict balance, where everything can be explained with some specific keywords, where all spells do not last longer than (save ends) or the end of the encounter (yes, I know about druid spells), where every item follows a fairly strict format and built.. Well, most of us will keep the game within those boundaries. At least at first. Of course, as an edition gets older, people start to experiment some more, but I want an edition of dnd that caters to that particular aspect from the get go.
I guess this is just my way of saying that I am happy about the way dndnext is heading. If the many blogs and L&L are anything to go by, as well as small things in the Caves of Chaos playtest, dndnext is refinding it's roots in the quirky old editions of yore. I mean, as mentioned in previous blog posts, I am now a big fan of (at least the occasional) save or die. Medusa petrifying should not end the next round or after 5 minutes. Wights should drain something permanently, not just cause necrotic damage and the player to lose a surge, something that he probably won't even need that day. There should be odd-ball curses, which can't be explained, which can't be dispelled, which can't be fitted into some frame. The minotaur curse was barely explained, there was no real framework for it, yet, it gave us (okay, maybe me more than my players, but..) a lot of fun, a lot more fun than anyone carefully constructed trap or hazard had in 4e for the last 4 years and thousands of hours.
It got me thinking. I have missed those quirky little things. It's kinda hard to put into words, but it seems to me that D&D used to be full of those. Weird spells with effects that lasted a long time, which made you do odd things (think old-school confusion, Otto's etc), items with weird and odd properties or abilities. There was just a lot of quirkiness, a lot of unexpected stuff packed in the rules. Then, with 3.x and later 4e, those things got slowly phased out. Maybe it was primarily 4e, but it seems to me that it started somewhat in 3.x already, with the standardization of the magic items. That was the first nail in the coffin, although the metaphor might be a bit harsh. But I hope that no one takes offence. While 3.x was never my favorite edition, it did fix some other issues I had at the time, and brought some remarkable new things to the game. And I am still a big fan of 4e.
Now, I obviously know that the fault might lie with me. The DM. After all, I could just have hacked 4e and introduced those quirky things, but still, fault, if one can speak of fault, still lies with the system. You see, in my opinion, when you make a game, or in this case, an edition of a game, you set the tone, the parameters for said game. Sure, some enterprising DM's will manage to twist and turn it into exactly what they want, creating their own version of the game, but to be honest, I think that the rest of us, most of us, tend to be very influenced by said parameters. So if WotC makes a game such as 4e, that relies on a very strict balance, where everything can be explained with some specific keywords, where all spells do not last longer than (save ends) or the end of the encounter (yes, I know about druid spells), where every item follows a fairly strict format and built.. Well, most of us will keep the game within those boundaries. At least at first. Of course, as an edition gets older, people start to experiment some more, but I want an edition of dnd that caters to that particular aspect from the get go.
I guess this is just my way of saying that I am happy about the way dndnext is heading. If the many blogs and L&L are anything to go by, as well as small things in the Caves of Chaos playtest, dndnext is refinding it's roots in the quirky old editions of yore. I mean, as mentioned in previous blog posts, I am now a big fan of (at least the occasional) save or die. Medusa petrifying should not end the next round or after 5 minutes. Wights should drain something permanently, not just cause necrotic damage and the player to lose a surge, something that he probably won't even need that day. There should be odd-ball curses, which can't be explained, which can't be dispelled, which can't be fitted into some frame. The minotaur curse was barely explained, there was no real framework for it, yet, it gave us (okay, maybe me more than my players, but..) a lot of fun, a lot more fun than anyone carefully constructed trap or hazard had in 4e for the last 4 years and thousands of hours.
How dndnext caused us to ditch 4e
Last Tuesday, we had our final run at the dndnext playtest. We had leveled the characters to level 3, and with the cleric being on holiday in France, we decided that the guy running the fighter could easily accomodate another character.
Off they went, back to the caves. I had hinted that they should probably seek towards the deeper caverns, if they wanted to fight something else besides orcs and goblins. So they did just that. At first, they scoped out the ogre cave, but the foul smell turned them off, and they headed up, towards another cave.
Cupid, the intrepid thief, went in. Now, as some might have guessed, this is the minotaur cave. So once he was in, he was trapped, he couldn't find his way out. He grew increasingly frustrated (in the good way) and tried to make maps and such, but couldn't understand why he couldn't find his way back.
After waiting a while, the others grew impatient. The wizard sent in his familiar, who couldn't find the thief either. Then, when he tried to get it to come back out, it couldn't find the way either. This alerted him that something was up, and with a few successful lore checks, he figured it was a minotaur maze and that a curse prohibited people from getting out, as long as the minotaur was alive.
Figuring they better go help the poor halfling, the rest of the party went in, and found him. They then tracked down the minotaur and gave him a good spanking. The cleric-bot cast shield of faith on the fighter, and the wizard spam-immobilized the minotaur next to the fighter. Result, one dead minotaur and a barely hurt party, except for the cleric who had taken the inital charge from the bull-man and nearly died.
After the fight, we took a smoke-break, and got talking about all the good things about dndnext. Which led me to ask: Which edition did you guys really enjoy the most? You see, most of the time, I feel it has been me who has been pushing through edition changes. And while most of them seem happy to do so, I was never really sure, if it was just to make the DM happy, or something else. Well, the odd thing was, that everyone at the table thought that 2e had been the most fun. While no one thought it was a perfect edition, the campaigns we ran back then just seemed more fun, more engaging.
Anyway, to make a long story short, we decided to stop playing our 4e campaign, and to return playing 2e, at least until dndnext is released. Assuming we don't find out our 2e love was just nostalgia or dndnext turns into something we do not like.
So, this blog will convert to a 2e campaign preparation, not a dndnext campaign. My hope is that once dndnext is out, the campaign word will be easily convertable to dndnext. I am fairly sure I will keep making musings about dndnext, it is not like my interest has dimished, quite the contrary.
Right now I am on vacation, but come July 17th, the new campaign should start. And we are probably starting out with a bang, an all-evil campaign.
Off they went, back to the caves. I had hinted that they should probably seek towards the deeper caverns, if they wanted to fight something else besides orcs and goblins. So they did just that. At first, they scoped out the ogre cave, but the foul smell turned them off, and they headed up, towards another cave.
Cupid, the intrepid thief, went in. Now, as some might have guessed, this is the minotaur cave. So once he was in, he was trapped, he couldn't find his way out. He grew increasingly frustrated (in the good way) and tried to make maps and such, but couldn't understand why he couldn't find his way back.
After waiting a while, the others grew impatient. The wizard sent in his familiar, who couldn't find the thief either. Then, when he tried to get it to come back out, it couldn't find the way either. This alerted him that something was up, and with a few successful lore checks, he figured it was a minotaur maze and that a curse prohibited people from getting out, as long as the minotaur was alive.
Figuring they better go help the poor halfling, the rest of the party went in, and found him. They then tracked down the minotaur and gave him a good spanking. The cleric-bot cast shield of faith on the fighter, and the wizard spam-immobilized the minotaur next to the fighter. Result, one dead minotaur and a barely hurt party, except for the cleric who had taken the inital charge from the bull-man and nearly died.
After the fight, we took a smoke-break, and got talking about all the good things about dndnext. Which led me to ask: Which edition did you guys really enjoy the most? You see, most of the time, I feel it has been me who has been pushing through edition changes. And while most of them seem happy to do so, I was never really sure, if it was just to make the DM happy, or something else. Well, the odd thing was, that everyone at the table thought that 2e had been the most fun. While no one thought it was a perfect edition, the campaigns we ran back then just seemed more fun, more engaging.
Anyway, to make a long story short, we decided to stop playing our 4e campaign, and to return playing 2e, at least until dndnext is released. Assuming we don't find out our 2e love was just nostalgia or dndnext turns into something we do not like.
So, this blog will convert to a 2e campaign preparation, not a dndnext campaign. My hope is that once dndnext is out, the campaign word will be easily convertable to dndnext. I am fairly sure I will keep making musings about dndnext, it is not like my interest has dimished, quite the contrary.
Right now I am on vacation, but come July 17th, the new campaign should start. And we are probably starting out with a bang, an all-evil campaign.
Abonner på:
Opslag (Atom)