5e D&D is Vaporware

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:05 pm

You know, if the new Baldur's Gate game that's coming out is based on 5E D&D as a promotional game (like NWN was for 3E D&D) and 5E turns out to be the game that we're fearing that it is, we have a real chance that the IP tanks so spectacularly that Hasbro sells it off to someone.

The only problems with this scenario is that Bioware may decide to use a system other than 5E D&D for their new Baldur's Gate game. If it's 4E D&D it might actually end up pretty decent against all odds (I mean, they were able to make the SW d20 system not completely retchworthy like it originally was) and if it's 3E D&D or their own system then it might actually be a damn good game.

Hopefully, the Baldur's Gate revival will be awful but will also be awful in a way that can be attributed to how bad the 5E D&D engine is. That might be the chance to throw the Hail Mary (there's no guarantee that its new owners will be less incompetent than Hasbro) the D&D game is hoping for. It's the best the property has, sadly.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:51 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Hopefully, the Baldur's Gate revival will be awful but will also be awful in a way that can be attributed to how bad the 5E D&D engine is. That might be the chance to throw the Hail Mary (there's no guarantee that its new owners will be less incompetent than Hasbro) the D&D game is hoping for. It's the best the property has, sadly.

I think Hasbro is quite happy with WotC, I expect the licence to linger with them for quite a while longer. Supposedly Magic did 200 million in sales in 2011, why would Hasbro rock the boat for such a comparatively small brand?

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:26 pm

hogarth wrote:There's also the idea behind the (terrible) Shadowcaster from Tome of Magic, where you can cast all of your low level spells as much as you want after you get high enough level.

I see no problem here.

Unless you mean, and I don't know Shadowcaster well (like at all) so don't assume I refer to it specifically, casting ALL LOW LEVEL SPELLS EVER AT WILL

I agree with Frank that the slots should be limited, but 6 seems too few for high level play. It should allow a character to create complexity if they wish, which means scaling that slot total up with levels, but as with everything in RPGs too much of a good thing turns bad.

EDIT: Sorry for coming late to that comment I quoted but it stuck out as I wanted to bring up again before the thread moved on.

Previn · Post by **Previn** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:45 pm

Juton wrote:I think Hasbro is quite happy with WotC, I expect the licence to linger with them for quite a while longer. Supposedly Magic did 200 million in sales in 2011, why would Hasbro rock the boat for such a comparatively small brand?

WotC reports separate brand's profits to Hasbro. So while Hasbro is happy with MtG as a brand, they're not happy with D&D. 4e was supposed to bring in 50-100 million a year, mainly with DDI/VTT subscriptions and it's everything but a verifiable fact that it didn't do that (meaning it brought in less than 50 million a year).

Hasbro won't sell off the D&D brand, but if 5e tanks I would fully expect them to shelve it for a while, or find a group willing license it over WotC.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:48 pm

sigma999 wrote:
hogarth wrote:There's also the idea behind the (terrible) Shadowcaster from Tome of Magic, where you can cast all of your low level spells as much as you want after you get high enough level.
I see no problem here.

That's not a problem. He's saying that's one of the things the Shadowcaster did. In addition to that, it also sucked.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 2:43 am

Red_Rob wrote:This doesn't suffer from the Psionics problem because by forcing the player to prepare their spells beforehand you ensure that they have to diversify as they don't know what they are going to face. Firstly, as Frank stated in his proposal, you would be limited in how many spells of each level you could prepare at once. So, at 7th level his example was 3 of 4th and 3 of 3rd. Straight away you have a minimum of 2 different spells. Now, factor in that one of the much-touted benefits of mages is their ability to target the weak save of a monster - this is only possible if you have spells targeting different saves. Now think about immunities - if your "best" spell is dominate monster, are you going to memorise just that? What about undead, golems, oozes and anything else immune to mind affecting things?

Dominators have an abundance of platonic relationships for just such occaisions.

But Wizards don't use a diverse spell selection at each level, and they never have. The weak save (in 3e) is almost always Will, as the best save is almost always Con. Sometimes Ref is low, but you use Web at 2nd anyway.

Yes, Frank's idea uses two different spells. Where you cast Black Tentacles at the start of the three fights this day and wait while your charmed minions pincushion the monsters to death </reductionist>. You can do exactly the same thing with only 1 slot per level prepared, except you have 1st-3rd level spells that you may as well use this fight too, rather than pissing about with darts (or at-will blast equivalent) from round 2. Forced variety, where the optimal tactic is to be interesting and creative and doing so costs you basically nothing, and starting low has benefits, and you cannot physically have a 15-minute caster day.

@Frank, Str 1 Wizards are funny, but my argument is that you are promoting ability spam with that system.

Foxwarrior · Post by **Foxwarrior** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 4:50 am

Sure, Tussock. Wizards don't select a very diverse selection of spells in their level-appropriate slots, which is clearly why Sorcerers have to be a level behind in order to maintain the balance.

You still want to devote a slot to Dimension Door (or some wimpier equivalent) so the Black Tentacles tactic doesn't also work on you.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 4:52 am

Kaelik wrote:
sigma999 wrote: I see no problem here.
That's not a problem. He's saying that's one of the things the Shadowcaster did. In addition to that, it also sucked.

Oh OK

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:03 am

tussock wrote: @Frank, Str 1 Wizards are funny, but my argument is that you are promoting ability spam with that system.

That's exactly wrong. If you have (some number) of slots and those slots are all filled with roughly level appropriate stuff, then you could at the very fucking least plausibly use the abilities out of those slots in any order. If combats last less turns than you have slots, you could find yourself using many different combinations of abilities.

With your suggestion, there is a strict hierarchy of slots. There's a best ability, then a second best, then a third best, and so on. For combats that last as long as you have slots, not only are all the abilities going to be used (as they would be in any charge system), but they are in almost all cases going to be used in the same order. In fact, all slot hierarchy does is promote Five Moves of Doom and Defaulting. It is the exact opposite of something that would encourage ability use diversity.

While there may be other things elsewhere in the system that promote ability diversity, it is undeniably true that slot hierarchy is by itself a huge incentive to use the better slots and then the worse slots until you either run out of slots or run out of opponents.

-Username17

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:41 am

FrankTrollman wrote:If combats last less turns than you have slots,

there is no reasonable way to force this though, and you WOULD have to force it, because varying playstyles means combat last as long as it lasts.

While there may be other things elsewhere in the system that promote ability diversity, it is undeniably true that slot hierarchy is by itself a huge incentive to use the better slots and then the worse slots until you either run out of slots or run out of opponents.

-Username17

well that is life.. you always use the best tool until it stop working, then use the next best tool an so on, unless you are Voltron, Goku, etc and save the kamehameha and Blazing Sword for last because it "builds dramatic tension".

4th screwed up but had the right idea someone had that mentioned in this thread could help... two sets.. the strict damage spells could be called "combat magic" and they have more limits to use, and the utility spells, though could offer tactical advantage during fights have less restrictions. that way people would employ more interesting spells.

on the first level spells that are crazy to use:
Color Spray
Enlarge
Grease
Sleep

i would use a Grease before a fireball for most occasions.

Red_Rob · Post by **Red_Rob** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 2:07 pm

tussock wrote:Yes, Frank's idea uses two different spells. Where you cast Black Tentacles at the start of the three fights this day and wait while your charmed minions pincushion the monsters to death </reductionist>..

This is weird, its like the opposite of most discussions about D&D Wizards. Normally you get the toolbox-wizard answer to any suggested weakness: "Of course the Wizard ignores melee monsters, Fly is in every Wizards arsenal!" and "Forcecage is anti-fighter because all Wizards memorise Dimension Door!", yet you are suggesting that instead Wizards always memorise lots of copies of the same kill spell. Wizards main power is adaptability and flexibility, I really doubt good players would just memorise 3xDominate 3xBlack Tentacles. This isn't MtG, variation is a good thing

If you were sticking pretty closely to D&D as it stands you might have this progression for max spells of each level memorised:
[/td][/tr]


Level	Slots	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1	5	-	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2	5	-	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
3	5	-	3	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
4	5	-	-	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
5	5	-	-	3	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
6	6	-	-	-	2	0	0	0	0	0	0
7	6	-	-	-	3	1	0	0	0	0	0
8	6	-	-	-	-	2	0	0	0	0	0
9	6	-	-	-	-	3	1	0	0	0	0
10	6	-	-	-	-	-	2	0	0	0	0
11	7	-	-	-	-	-	3	1	0	0	0
12	7	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	0	0	0
13	7	-	-	-	-	-	-	3	1	0	0
14	7	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	0	0
15	7	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	3	1	0
16	8	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	0
17	8	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	3	1
18	8	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2
19	8	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	3
20	8	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

Then you have a seperate allocation for 'Rituals'.

tussock wrote:You can do exactly the same thing with only 1 slot per level prepared, except you have 1st-3rd level spells that you may as well use this fight too, rather than pissing about with darts (or at-will blast equivalent) from round 2.

So your level 6 Wizard would have 4 spells per day including a cantrip?

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:22 am

Foxwarrior wrote:which is clearly why Sorcerers have to be a level behind in order to maintain the balance.

Sorcerers are not balanced. Are you new here? 59 posts, yes you are.

Red_Rob wrote:Normally you get the toolbox-wizard answer to any suggested weakness

Theoretical Wizards have open slots that instantly fill with whatever's needed, in-game Wizards use their best attack/disable spells, with long-term buffs and items to cover all the problems.

So your level 6 Wizard would have 4 spells per day including a cantrip?

Per fight (in that it takes ten minutes or so to prepare more), and more cantrips if you prefer them to the crossbow. Per day limits as classic/3e to prevent spamming long-duration buffs. I should make a thread or something, but it's just an idea at this point.

Needs more thought in terms of scrolls, potions, wands, staves, rods, bla bla bla; but in general I like to have those things burn slots too (and give casters a few more to compensate), so a wand of fireball acts like a spontaneous fireball rather than a free one.

Frank Trollman wrote:While there may be other things elsewhere in the system that promote ability diversity, it is undeniably true that slot hierarchy is by itself a huge incentive to use the better slots and then the worse slots until you either run out of slots or run out of opponents.

When you get less uses per day of the highest level slots, then you need to try and not waste them on more trivial encounters. Obviously I can't stop players wasting their spells, I'm just providing an incentive to not do so.

Though I'm assuming here there's things like wandering monsters, highly variable fight difficulty, and a combat system that doesn't take forever to resolve easy fights. Not anything like 4e. G1, not P1.

Libertad · Post by **Libertad** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:26 am

tussock wrote: Sorcerers are not balanced. Are you new here? 59 posts, yes you are.

No need to be hard on the new guy.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:27 am

tussock wrote:
Foxwarrior wrote:which is clearly why Sorcerers have to be a level behind in order to maintain the balance.
Sorcerers are not balanced. Are you new here? 59 posts, yes you are.

Pretty sure that was sarcasm from him.

Libertad · Post by **Libertad** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:32 am

Kaelik wrote:Pretty sure that was sarcasm from him.

*Looks at Foxwarrior's join date.*

I missed it!

Foxwarrior · Post by **Foxwarrior** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:27 am

Of course it was sarcasm.

Why do you think Sorcerers are inferior to Wizards, Tussock, despite being slightly better at spamming the most powerful spell available to them at their level? (assuming an even-numbered level, of course)

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:01 pm

Legends and Lore!

So, save or die returns, but with a hit point threshold!

Because setting someone on fire makes it easier to turn them into a frog.

Someone post Frank's CAN, please.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:25 pm

That kind of hit-point based save or die that Monte Cook is proposing sucks and will never work in a hit point system that scales as much as D&D.

Yes, I totally want to memorize the little numbers that Digivolves my spells from 'harmless chaff' to 'save or dies' for every goddamn spell and monster.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:26 pm

I wouldn't mind having two "HP" tracks a la Arkham Horror (and no doubt, other games).

Make it Vigor/Willpower. Failed saves and successful attacks eat away at one or the other (or sometimes both).

When you run out of willpower you cannot resist anymore and are subject to whatever nastiness is cast upon you.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:57 pm

As senior manager for the D&D R&D team, I'm in charge of overseeing the development of every D&D product. The next iteration of the game is currently the biggest thing on my plate. As part of my job, I take a broad view of the project, with an eye toward making sure we're hitting our primary goal of building a game that can encompass a wide array of player and DM styles. As we move into the next stage of development, Monte is going to be even more focused on design, so I'm going to lighten his load and resume writing this column for the time being.

So Mike Mearls is writing L&L again?

If a ghoul's claw damage reduces a creature to 10 or fewer hit points, the creature must make a save or be paralyzed.

The medusa's gaze forces creatures currently at 25 or fewer hit points to make a save or be turned to stone.

A creature hit by Tiamat's tail stinger must make a save or die. (Powerful creatures might lack any hit point limit for their save or die attacks.)

tiers for monsters?

medusa < ghoul < tiamat

the stronger monsters have more powerful effects that work on PCs with higher current HP?

not so sure about this. with many i have read.. a medusa i want to be classic, not gamist. i also dont want the idea of "bloodied" to EVER be in D&D again, and something like the HP being a determining factor of "save or effect" is more along the lines of the bloodied mechanic.

if there is some part of the class or race that prevents paralyzation, then HP doesnt mean squat. i want the game to make sense without looking at numbers.

if i want to write up how the game played out, i dont want to have to explain why the fighter last time was safe from it and now isnt by some "weakened immune system" or some crap because of a lesser HP total.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:27 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:That kind of hit-point based save or die that Monte Cook is proposing sucks and will never work in a hit point system that scales as much as D&D.

Yes, I totally want to memorize the little numbers that Digivolves my spells from 'harmless chaff' to 'save or dies' for every goddamn spell and monster.

This is the same situation with the current Power Word spells. Weaker, because it seems there's still a save to avoid the die/suck.

Something that's apparent from the proposed mechanic is that suddenly the barbarian is better than the wizard at resisting not only poisons and medusas, but also charm effects. It also turns belts of constitution and any kind of +HP effect (hello, Vigor!) into an equivalent of Mind Blank / Death Ward / Freedom of Movement.

Something that's not obvious from the post: What happens with the Save or Sucks? Do they work under the same assumption? While it makes some kind of retarded sense that the medusa can only insta-petrify those under 25 hp or such, it's really strange if for instance, Slow only slows those under 30hp.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:55 pm

nockermensch wrote:This is the same situation with the current Power Word spells.

And you didn't think that having to compare and add up 5 or 6 (or more!) separate hit point totals, see if it overflowed, then go back to the last highest number completely sucked monkey fuck? No one uses or likes that mechanic because it's retarded. Thankfully it's just a comparison operator rather than addition + comparison, but having to do that for every spell and monster hit point total? Fuck that mess.

I mean, the fact that it's hit points that have the last word (rather than having a word) is the icing on the ass-shaped cake, but the proposed mechanism fails from first principles. If you're going to use this system at all, people shouldn't have to keep track of more than 12 or so condition track numbers. Total. Not 500+. Meaning that the spell system needs to be unified in its 'bad shit TN' -- which they almost but not quite accomplished for 3rd Edition -- and more important needs fixed hit points.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:00 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:That kind of hit-point based save or die that Monte Cook is proposing sucks and will never work in a hit point system that scales as much as D&D.

Yes, I totally want to memorize the little numbers that Digivolves my spells from 'harmless chaff' to 'save or dies' for every goddamn spell and monster.

Separate digivolve numbers for every effect are a fucking non-starter. Mearls' article is fucking stupid. Ironically, 4th edition had a mechanic that could have actually worked: the Bloodied condition. If you did enough damage to take something halfway out, they were "bloodied". If you had abilities that became SoD on bloodied enemies, it would preserve a sense of fairness while still being manageable.

Although my absolute favorite rumor going around is that 5e is already at the stage of having printing proofs sent to the publisher. That literally all of this "feedback from you!" bullshit is entirely illusory and they couldn't change a thing if they wanted to.

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:08 pm

Oh, wow, Mike Mearls wrote that? The tone of the article totally had a 'eh, I didn't like 4E D&D and didn't work on the edition but I feel obliged to through a bone to the 4rry plebes' feel to it. ... which would actually work with Mearls, too, zing!

Neurosis · Post by **Neurosis** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:10 pm

You know, if the new Baldur's Gate game that's coming out is based on 5E D&D as a promotional game (like NWN was for 3E D&D) and 5E turns out to be the game that we're fearing that it is, we have a real chance that the IP tanks so spectacularly that Hasbro sells it off to someone.

The only problems with this scenario is that Bioware may decide to use a system other than 5E D&D for their new Baldur's Gate game. If it's 4E D&D it might actually end up pretty decent against all odds (I mean, they were able to make the SW d20 system not completely retchworthy like it originally was) and if it's 3E D&D or their own system then it might actually be a damn good game.

Hopefully, the Baldur's Gate revival will be awful but will also be awful in a way that can be attributed to how bad the 5E D&D engine is. That might be the chance to throw the Hail Mary (there's no guarantee that its new owners will be less incompetent than Hasbro) the D&D game is hoping for. It's the best the property has, sadly.

Random Observation:

The Den tends to predict the doom of various companies and brands it doesn't like rather often. This doom generally seems to be less than forthcoming in actual reality.