Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account
DriveThruRPG.com
Photo
WotC DnD

What Worked, What Didn’t



  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 RPGMP3 Newsbot

RPGMP3 Newsbot

    Full Of Awesome

  • Inner Circle
  • 1,465 posts

Posted 10 February 2014 - 12:07 AM

In this week’s Legends & Lore, Mike talks about the evolution of a few key points of rule design in D&D Next.

View the full article
  • 0

#2 bodhranist

bodhranist

    Goblin

  • Members
  • 148 posts

Posted 10 February 2014 - 04:42 AM

In the article, he keeps talking about reducing complexity. This makes it sound like I won't like D&D Next. If I'm playing D&D, I want complexity. I want the complexity to be managable, to make sense and be somewhat predictable and easy to understand, but in D&D, it should be there. Other viewpoints?


  • 1

#3 Daniel

Daniel

    Gelatinous Cube

  • Members
  • 2,825 posts
  • LocationYork

Posted 10 February 2014 - 04:51 AM

I sit in the completely other camp.  When I play any rpg, I kinda just want the mechanics to gtf out of my way so I can sit back and let my imagination take flight.  I don't necessarily have an issue with mechanical complexity - hell I play BattleTech - but I find more often than not with the later editions of D&D is that there is a tendency to try and apply a mechanic to everything which just isn't necessary in an rpg.


  • 0

#4 Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

    Ghoul

  • Patrons
  • 921 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 10 February 2014 - 05:43 AM

So ... have they fixed grappling then?


  • 1

#5 bodhranist

bodhranist

    Goblin

  • Members
  • 148 posts

Posted 10 February 2014 - 06:43 AM

I searched on the D&D next boards for grappling, and came up with stuff like:

 

 

pukunui wrote:

 

kirkdent wrote:
-Does grappling an opponent count as an "attack?" If so, then a character with multiple attacks per round could first grab, then attack an enemy, which makes sense to me. (Same question goes for the "knock-down" action. Is it an "attack?")

Grappling counts as an action. "Attack" is another kind of action. In order to grapple an enemy and then attack them in the same round, you'd need something like the fighter's Action Surge ability, which grants you an extra action (as opposed to Extra Attack, which lets you make another attack when you use the attack action).

 

-According to the last playtest rules, a creature that's grappling another gets disadvantage to attack, including against the very creature they're grabbing. That means it's as hard to attack someone you're grabbing, as it is to attack someone who is grabbing YOU. Does that make sense? I think that the attack against a grabbed target (only) should waive the disadvantage penalty.

The latest packet (Sept/Oct) only imposes disadvantage when you're restraining the opponent. Grappling just drops the target's speed to 0. You then have to use a separate action to restrain the grappled target, which imposes advantage on attacks against you, and disadvantage on your attacks and Dex saving throws (because you're not just grabbing the guy, you're busy holding him still).

 

How would all of you incorporate a "push" maneuver, or the 4e concept of "Bull Rush" into this? While I understand that many maneuvers like "Bull Rush" often depend on using a grid, the idea of pushing someone off a cliff would be nice to incorporate into the rules crunch regardless of play style.

Again, the latest packet's grappling rules include a section on moving a grappled creature. You can drag or carry them but at half speed ("every 5 feet costs you 5 extra feet of movement"), unless the creature is 2+ sizes smaller.

 

 

and

 

 

There's no "bull rush" in the rules at the moment, although the Charger feat lets you push someone when you charge them. There is, however, an NPC named Ulder Ravenfang in the Murder in Baldur's Gate adventure has a rechargeable shield attack that works rather like a shield rush. In addition to dealing damage on a successful hit, "Ulder pushes the target up to 10 feet, and then Ulder moves up to 10 feet. This movement does not provoke opportunity attacks. If the target ends the movement within 5 feet of a creature friendly to Ulder, the target provokes an opportunity attack from that creature." So there's some precedent for you there at least.

 

So, assuming you didn't like how it worked before, it doesn't look like they've fixed it.

 

I'm not against simplicity in RPGs, either. I've played with FUDGE since it used the d6-d6 mechanic. If I'm looking for simplicity, though, I'm not going to play D&D, I'm probably going to play FATE or BESM or something. For me, stripping out enough stuff to be simple strips out too much of the D&D flavor. (Although I REALLY want to play the Kingmaker adventure path from Pathfinder using the FATE game system)


  • 0

#6 Lockhart

Lockhart

    Yorkton Gamer & RPGMP3 Professional

  • Administrators
  • 1,238 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationRegina, SK, Canada

Posted 10 February 2014 - 06:50 AM

I sit in the completely other camp.  When I play any rpg, I kinda just want the mechanics to gtf out of my way so I can sit back and let my imagination take flight.  I don't necessarily have an issue with mechanical complexity - hell I play BattleTech - but I find more often than not with the later editions of D&D is that there is a tendency to try and apply a mechanic to everything which just isn't necessary in an rpg.

 

The problem, in my view, is that those systems already exist. It's not hard to make a rules-light system, and between original rules and the retro-clones, to my mind, that niche is covered. They need to be offering something new if they want my money. I have the same opinion with Bodhranist. I expect Modern D&D to be a heavier rules system, but building upon the common conventions of the past so as not to be completely unapproachable to players of older editions. D&D is a game that should meet equally a desire to roleplay with a desire to think strategically and create characters capable of mechanically advancing through challenges and the story. Combining equally the roleplayer and the wargamer.


  • 0

#7 bodhranist

bodhranist

    Goblin

  • Members
  • 148 posts

Posted 10 February 2014 - 09:13 AM

I think I probably could have posted those grappling rule explanations into the Mornington Crescent thread with very little modification.


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: wotc dnd

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Gravityscan Badge