D&D 5E Discussion

[tuluse]

It took them most of a year to write one page?

Impressive, no?

 

[Spectacle]

It took them most of a year to write one page?

Seems like they've been holding off posting this untill the after the latest print run of the PHB with these errors fixed was on sale. Can't let customers know that there is something wrong with the book they are about to buy, after all.

 

[tuluse]

I love 5e but does anyone think the game was geared to have you level up more frequently? Im using an encounter builder and they're leveling up like every 2-3 sessions. Is this common in the older editions? It feels like they designed this around some kind of stupid "YAY I LEVEL UP AGAIN WHEE" mentality.

Sounds about right to me. I think 3E (I know pathfinder) has different experience tables for how quickly you want levels to be gained.

 

[Keldryn]

I love 5e but does anyone think the game was geared to have you level up more frequently? Im using an encounter builder and they're leveling up like every 2-3 sessions. Is this common in the older editions? It feels like they designed this around some kind of stupid "YAY I LEVEL UP AGAIN WHEE" mentality.

Fifth edition is designed so that characters level up every 2-3 sessions. They determined that the average campaign lasts about a year before getting interrupted by real-life concerns. Thus, a group that plays weekly should be able to advance from 1st through to 20th level during that year.

It's partly about the "I level up again!" mentality, but the main reason for structuring the game this way is so that players actually get to use all of that higher-level content that they read about in the books. Level advancement was much slower in the older editions and many players never really got a chance to play at higher levels unless the campaign started off at high levels. This design goal was something that 3e brought to the table; during the development of that edition, WotC's research indicated that the average campaign fizzled out after about 18 months of regular play.

AD&D and OD&D have an implicit assumption that PCs will generally retire from active adventuring around 9th-11th level. This was when a character was stated to have achieved Name Level in his class, and further advancement in that class changed significantly.

At Name Level:

• a character gains his final level title that reflects his accomplishments and implies some measure of social standing: Lord (fighter), Wizard (magic-user), Patriarch (cleric), Master Thief (umm... paladin?), etc.
• a character gains his final Hit Die plus Constitution bonus to hit points. After this point, he gains 1, 2, or 3 hit points per level (depending on class) with no Con bonus.
• the cumulative number of XP required to reach Name Level becomes the amount of additional XP required to advance each additional level. Up until this point, characters generally needed double the amount of XP for the previous level (for fighters, 2,000 to reach 2nd, 4,000 to reach 3rd, etc). Beyond 9th level, fighters needed 225,000 XP for each additional level; magic-users needed a whopping 375,000 XP for each level beyond 11th.
• a character is able to construct a stronghold and attract followers. At 9th level, when a fighter built a keep and cleared the area around it, he would automatically attract his own small army.

Non-human characters in AD&D were limited as to what levels they could advance to. They would generally be able to achieve Name Level in the class(es) for which they were most suited. Elves topped out at around 7th level as fighters, but could reach 11th level as magic-users, for example.

The most powerful monsters in the AD&D Monster Manuals were designed to challenge characters of Name Level.

So there was assumed to be a very significant shift in the focus of a campaign once the PCs reached Name Level. This was essentially where the "party of heroes explores a dungeon, fights monsters, and brings back treasure" paradigm of gameplay was intended to end.

One very important point is that the primary source of XP in older editions of D&D was treasure, not fighting monsters or "overcoming challenges." Characters would earn 1 XP for each 1 gp value of treasure that they recovered from a dungeon and brought back to civilization. They did earn some XP from defeating monsters, but it was fairly insignificant next to the XP earned from recovering treasure. A lot of players complained about how this didn't make any sense, and it became an optional rule in AD&D 2e (with nothing to replace it, so 2e advancement by the book was excruciatingly slow). But it was another of AD&D's abstractions that was actually a lot more elegant than it seemed on the surface. Higher-value treasures were generally guarded by powerful monsters in the deepest dungeon levels; thus it was assumed that PCs would have to overcome greater challenges in order to acquire the most valuable treasures.

Therefore, a party of six 9th-level fighters would require 1,500,000 gp worth of treasure in order for everyone to advance to 10th level. And for each level after that. When you look at the treasure tables in the Monster Manual, you can see that we're talking about the combined treasure hoards of at least a couple dozen of the most powerful dragons. The rules interact with world-building sensibilities to provide a soft cap on PC advancement around 9th-11th level (depending on class).

I guess that's a long way of saying "no, this was not common in older editions." WotC did a lot of research when preparing 3e and they found that most players never actually got to play with the higher-level content that was in every PHB. Thus, 3e through 5e are designed such that players in a typical campaign should be able to advance from 1st through to 20th level (30th in 4e) in 12-18 months of weekly play.

Personally, I think this was a very bad decision. D&D up until around 10th level is generally still on the "believable" side of heroic fantasy. The tone fits reasonably well with most fantasy fiction. The balance between spellcasters and martial characters has now flipped such that the spellcasters are more powerful, but not absurdly so. World-shattering magic is still very rare. Beyond 10th level, you start moving into comic book superhero territory.

Getting back to 5e... there's no reason you can't tweak character advancement to suit your tastes. Leveling up every 2-3 sessions might feel too quick if you play twice per week (or even once per week). It's been a while since I've been able to play, but in the last campaign that I ran, we played about once every 3 weeks and leveling up every other session did not feel too fast.

When I finally do get a chance to run a 5e game, I think that I will probably reduce the amount of XP gained from defeating monsters and focus more on awarding XP for achieving goals and completing quests. That gives me more control over the PCs' advancement rate while giving me more flexibility with encounter design. 5e is a much more flexible game than 3e or 4e and doesn't have the same assumptions baked in as to how quickly the PCs advance and what equipment they should have at certain levels. 4e was particularly bad here.

 

[LeStryfe79]

I just use the gritty realism rules in 5ed, which changes a short rest from an hour to 8 hours, and a long rest from 8 hours to 7 days. Then, I design the adventure around the idea of one to two fights per four hours(of game time). This slows progression down significantly. It's also worth mentioning that 5ed sped up progression to level 3, which I'm a big fan of.

 

[Andhaira]

http://dnd.wizards.com/sites/default/files/media/upload/articles/Psionics.pdf

Looks sweet. Very Darksun-ny; first time I have wanted to play a Psioniscist.

I do wonder if the Mind over Body discipline will over shadow the monk class in it's unarmed combat niche.

Night Goat LeStryfe79

 

[LeStryfe79]

Great! I was wondering when they would re post that.

 

[Andhaira]

New book looks good, promises some crunchy player options. Supposed to be out in November though, so we have a longish wait. Supposed to coincide with the release of Sword Coast Legends, the new RTwP crpg coming out.

http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/sc-adventurers-guide

 

[J1M]

Maybe by the time 6th edition comes out they will release a book for a second setting.

I decided a while ago that I was done with new Wizards products until they released an OGL. (Keep in mind their license plans were supposed to be revealed by the end of 2014.)

 

[Lhynn]

5th edition is really good mate, very solid for PnP.

 

[Ulminati]

Maybe by the time 6th edition comes out they will release a book for a second setting.

I decided a while ago that I was done with new Wizards products until they released an OGL. (Keep in mind their license plans were supposed to be revealed by the end of 2014.)

You'll be done for good then. They dropped OGL after 4E tanked and Paizo lured away a huge chunk of their 3.5 crowd with pathfinder. WotC employees previously stated that they thought the OGL would make people release tons of 3rd party adventures while WotC focused on splatbooks rules supplements. But in reality, most of the OGL stuff was splatbooks too.

 

[J1M]

You'll be done for good then. They dropped OGL after 4E tanked and Paizo lured away a huge chunk of their 3.5 crowd with pathfinder. WotC employees previously stated that they thought the OGL would make people release tons of 3rd party adventures while WotC focused on splatbooks rules supplements. But in reality, most of the OGL stuff was splatbooks too.

Is that also when they decided to stop making good computer games?

 

[Ulminati]

J1M
When did WotC ever make a good computer game?

 

[J1M]

J1M
When did WotC ever make a good computer game?

Temple of Elemental Evil.

 

[Ninjerk]

Original Magic:TG Online-- full price booster packs with no physical cards

 

[Ulminati]

J1M

That wasn't hasbro though. And actually, I think 4E was intended to be a computer game where WotC charged you a monthly subscription for an online tabletop. They just forgot to hire a team of competent programmers.

 

[J1M]

J1M

That wasn't hasbro though. And actually, I think 4E was intended to be a computer game where WotC charged you a monthly subscription for an online tabletop. They just forgot to hire a team of competent programmers.

I don't really understand your desire to split hairs here. I can't recall any D&D games made by hasbro directly. They license out the brand and oversee the IP in game products.

 

[Ulminati]

J1M youre the one who's trying to twist my original statement of what WotC was doing into what other companies do. It's not splitting hairs.
If you want hairsplitting, ToEE was using setting-specific things outside the OGL because it was a paid license from WotC. So it wasn't OGL to begin with.

Anyway, 4E was designed from the ground up to be played on computers. It might even have made a passable CRPG if anyone did a 1:1 implementation of the rules. But noone wanted to buy the license after the lukewarm reception it got from the p&p crowd. (Plus the setting changes were pretty retarded).

 

[J1M]

J1M youre the one who's trying to twist my original statement of what WotC was doing into what other companies do. It's not splitting hairs.
If you want hairsplitting, ToEE was using setting-specific things outside the OGL because it ws a paid license from WotC. So it wasn't OGL to begin with.

Anyway, 4E was designed from the ground up to be played on computers. It might even have made a passable CRPG if anyone did a 1:1 implementation of the rules. But noone wanted to buy the license after the lukewarm reception it got from the p&p crowd. (Plus the setting changes were pretty retarded).

I have no idea why you think these two things are related.

 

[Ulminati]

I have no idea why you think these two things are related.

- You talked about being done with WotC until they made a new OGL.
- I said they wouldnt make more OGL after 3.5
- You asked if the lack of OGL was why no good computer games were made by Hasbro/WotC
- I said that WotC/Hasbro were never directly involved in making computer games (except taking a cut from selling licenses)
- You bring up a troika game as an example of WotC/Hasbro making an OGL computer game
- I point out ToEE was made with no oversight by WotC/Hasbro and was not using the OGL license.
- You have no idea why this has anything to do with your previous statements

 

[J1M]

- You talked about being done with WotC until they made a new OGL.
- I said they wouldnt make more OGL after 3.5
- You asked if the lack of OGL was why no good computer games were made by Hasbro/WotC
- I said that WotC/Hasbro were never directly involved in making computer games (except taking a cut from selling licenses)
- You bring up a troika game as an example of WotC/Hasbro making an OGL computer game
- I point out ToEE was made with no oversight by WotC/Hasbro and was not using the OGL license.
- You have no idea why this has anything to do with your previous statements

I don't think this little spat is doing any service to the other posters. I'm guessing this is just an issue where English is not your native tongue? I've bolded the parts where you are mistaken. Let's drop the issue.

 

[Ulminati]

Game Analists
Yes. It was designed around the idea that it would be played on wizard's own version of roll20. That's why there's a ton of different status effects with different durations. Not having a computer track those made pen and paper 4e very cumbersome and slow. Hence why wotc employees have said 4e was designed for their virtual tabletop. IE: to be played on a computer.

And did you see the idiocy they brought to Forgotten Realms? Like it or not, FR seems to be the "default" setting these days. Floating islands, half-dragons everywhere, people dusting magic items for easy transport like it was a bloody mmorpg.

 

[Caim]

How many books for 5e are out now, anyway? The game's been trucking around since december or something, but from what I can tell there's next to no stuff out for it yet.

 

[Spectacle]

Game Analists
Yes. It was designed around the idea that it would be played on wizard's own version of roll20. That's why there's a ton of different status effects with different durations. Not having a computer track those made pen and paper 4e very cumbersome and slow. Hence why wotc employees have said 4e was designed for their virtual tabletop. IE: to be played on a computer.

4E status effects are either save ends, untill the end of the turn or the end of the encounter, nothing ever lasts for X rounds, unlike every other edition of D&D. They do tend to pile up at higher levels, but they're hardly cumbersome to keep track of if you use some markers on the tabletop, you never have to count rounds to know if an effect is still active or not.

4E would actually be a nightmare to implement 100% on a computer due to the large number of "reaction" abilities that can be triggered by specific events outside your turn. Coding the engine to keep track of all possible triggers and designing an interface that would let players pick a reaction when a trigger comes up would be quite a challenge. This may be why Wizards never finished their virtual tabletop software, if they did design 4E to be played on computers they completely cocked it up

 

[TigerKnee]

I think the reason why 4E never got the virtual tabletop software done is this

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-murder-suicide-that-derailed-4th-edition-dungeons-dragons-online