The General D&D thread

The alternative, of course, is implicit Charles Atlas Superpowers. So even if your raw strength score isn't 100, you can still deal uber damage because, I don't know, the power of heroism?

I guess that's why you buy belts of ten-ettin strength and stuff? I dunno.

Any one else think they should bring back heal surges as a fighter exclusive ability for Next? I'm cool with removing them from general play but the meat shield kind of needed them.

Heal Surges/Second Winds/etc? I would like to see some sort of mechanic like that, if only so a Cleric isn't an absolute necessity, just really damn handy.

They're doing something like that. Between fights, you can roll your hit die (plus con mod) and regain that much health, even without a cleric. eg, if you have three levels of a class with a d8 hit die and a +2 con mod, then you can heal 1d8+2 up to three times per day outside of battle.

Good. clerics are nice to have around, but it kind of sucks how much of a necessity they were. At least 4e allowed for a bit more choices regarding the 'leader' role.

It's three times a day now? In my play test you only got to roll the hit dice once but I think the GM was just pressed for time.

Regardless if they make a return to old school Dn D I think the fighter need some sort of health bonus beyond just the higher AC and HP if they are going to be fun to play . Maybe like having the power special abiliity to roll more healing dice and cost of Avantage or being able to fight on at negative hit points.

Sounds to me like the implication was "once per level".

That makes sense.

Anyway I don't know about anyone else but Im genuinely excited about 5th edition. Wizards might be making a show about appealing to old school gamers but as hard as is to believe they are not idiots. A lot of the streamline 4e game elements are still there just quitely working away in the background, advoiding encroaching on anyones precious verisimilitude.

edited 25th Sep '12 1:58:15 AM by joeyjojo

Oh, so 5th Edition really is going with modular rules? That's exciting!

Well it ment to be, but I honestly haven't seen much regarding how they plan to include it.

To be frank, at this point in development it is about as concrete as them promising that the game is going to be 'fun'.

Gah! Totally posted in the wrong thread. Sorry guys.

edited 25th Sep '12 9:25:51 AM by AtomJames

I confess that after the first playtest package, I completely stopped paying attention. It was like they abandoned everything that was good about 3.5 and 4E and just threw on a buncha 1st and 2nd edition stuff.

But, it wasn't a complete package. So I'll give it a gander once it's finalized. Almost certainly going to stick with home-modded versions of 4E though.

What seriously? I mean I have only really played 4e and a little of 3.5 so I can't speak for basic and advance dnd but surely it's not that retro. There is no mention of Thaco and elf as a class.

edited 25th Sep '12 5:16:16 PM by joeyjojo

The way the game was presented was very retro. More the rules presentation than anything. In particular, I think it's a mistake to move away from keywords.

...Beta. It's entirely likely they hadn't worked the keywords out yet.

The game is retro styled but there is a lot of the 4e design elements are still there 'under the hood' so to speak.

Exeli: No, the entire point is that they deliberately made a game design choice to get rid of things like keywords and power blocks, and instead to write more "descriptively" and crap like that, in order to appeal to the people who hate the idea of Dn D as being Wow Like. Apparently, keywords were too "video gamey" for a lot of people.

As someone who has a decent amount of experience with 3.5 and a little bit with 4th, the playtest versions so far have felt a lot like a streamlined version of 3.5. That being said, this conversation is probably better suited for the 5th Edition thread.

On keywords, the bloggerprofessor beej makes a case for the less tightly defined lay out of Next over 4e clear cut presentation.

I'm think I prefer the 4e way of doing things myself but I think he makes a valid.

If your DM wants to ad hoc "ray of cold congeals slimes" or whatever, he can. I'm sympathetic to the notion that "less is more" on some points, but I like game rules being well defined.

"Keywords?" I'm a little lost. What are keywords referring to? I don't recall a specific rule, so I assume you're referring to some general aspect of the game?

In 4E a power that deals fire damage will have the fire keyword. By virtue of having the fire keyword, we can use game rules that refer to the fire keyword. "For instance, you deal +X damage with fire powers." Instead of determining whether Death Smoke or whatever is considered a fire power by reading the description you can say "Hey, the fire keyword is a game rule mechanic. This other thing references to the fire keyword-therefore, there's no ambiguity."

More broadly it means the page lay out for how the attacks and powers are explained and presented. The 'keywords' being the important 'gamey' data such as range, damage, power type ect.

4th edition expressed this information in simple (if perhaps dull) point form for easy of reference for the player and DM. But in earlier editions and (next by the look of things) all the 'crunch' info would be given -concealed even- in the actual general 'fluff' description.

As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to flavor, less is more. I don't like things to "bind" me.