These people have neither the time nor the inclination to spend time poring over complex rules
Personally, I think most of the rules aren't complex in most systems created post-2000. I also think that, a lot of times, people who want simplistic systems pick up systems like 5E and then ignore half the rules. Which is sad. I've seen it a lot of times, really.
"I cast Cure Wounds, then I can Fireball as my bonus action". (Do note that Fireball requires an action, and you only get 1 action per round. In this example, "Cure Wounds" was the action.)
But everyone handwaves it, because "we're having fun".
Starfinder is pretty complex. Is Pathfinder post 2000? I would rate that as having grown extremely complex.
Generally they rely on the DM (i,e me) to know that to cast Fireball as a bonus action sorcery points must be expended, but Healing Word is a bonus action. Because we can't have people having fun wrongly, can we?
Is Pathfinder post 2000? I would rate that as having grown extremely complex.
PF was post-2000, as it came out in 2009. (So, was D&D 3.X, btw.) At its core, it's not. Once you get into it, it's not that complex. Pathfinder's problem wasn't complexity of the system; it was class bloat.
Generally they rely on the DM (i,e me) to know that to cast Fireball as a bonus action sorcery points must be expended, but Healing Word is a bonus action. Because we can't have people having fun wrongly, can we?
If we have to ignore the rules to have fun, we got an issue.
And I would say, if you don't know your class well enough to know that it costs sorcery points to cast fireball OR to know that Healing Word is a bonus action, then you need to sit down and learn the dang rules. I understand a new player still learning the rules, but there comes a point where the DM should be expecting people to know how to play their class without the DM being the rule manual. If we're treating it that way, then there's a problem.
Tbh, 3.x isn't rocket science, but to include more than a handful of expansion books makes it challenging. In particular, the very cool Complete Scoundrel requires you to do massive reworking of things, from personal experience.
I do agree players need to learn their own class at least, but the DM can and should fudge things if needed, ie to avoid TPK situations. The DMs job is to manage an entertaining game, period.
I'm not sure posting a GIF as a reply is helpful or mature.
These millennials! Too engaged in their day jobs to spend hours studying rules.
Have they no sense of irresponsibility?
Clearly casual gamers are an abomination who must be banned from playing at all costs, even if that means there Is no one left to play with.
In my DnD group I am the only Gen X-er with a bunch of millennials. That mostly translates to playtime however, because guess whose "fault" it is that our next first possible date is in november... lol
It's not the number of classes or archetypes that are the problem with Pathfinder for the casual player: after all there is no requirement to use anything not in the CRB, and if someone is interested in playing a different class then they will be motivated to find out how it works themselves.
The problem is this: four different armour classes (including CMD), 11 different attack roll modifiers, 15 different situational combat AC modifiers, 24 standard actions, 10 move actions, 12 full round actions, 5 free actions, and about 3 other types of action. Just in the CRB.
The problem is this: four different armour classes (including CMD), 11 different attack roll modifiers, 15 different situational combat AC modifiers, 24 standard actions, 10 move actions, 12 full round actions, 5 free actions, and about 3 other types of action. Just in the CRB.
I will agree that was a bit much. Especially since most folks used maybe 1/4 of what was there.
That said, I think if you look at D&D 3.0 and D&D 5th Edition and Starfinder (and I could rattle a few more systems if I wanted), you'll see they have a mere fraction of that. More and more systems are saying that you can use your Move Action for A, B, & C in situations X, Y, or Z. I would hardly argue that a lot of systems are favoring needless complexity on the whole. Starfinder, for example, counting the actions in CRB just now (I got the pdf pulled up as I type), has several standard actions (cast a spell, attack, total defense, etc.; generally what any system allows), move actions (typical movement, but also reload your gun or draw/sheathe a weapon), 2 Swift Actions, and several Full Actions (which are just extensions of other types of actions that you choose to use for the full round). Having played a session last night, I can say that 95% of it was intiutive. We had one instance where a player, coming from 5E to Starfinder, was confused on what a "Full Round Action" was, but that was it. And we had people who hadn't even done more than skimmed the CRB.
People always want to say, "Oh, it's so complex learning all these rules", but it's really not. Most of it is common sense stuff. "Use your movement to take a guarded step AND then fire your gun." You do it once, and then you remember it forever. The average player should be more than capable of learning any of these modern systems, imho. There really is no excuse besides laziness to not know how your class and the actions you regularly tend to use work.
Starfinder deals with the flat-footed AC by making it a status effect, but it has KAC and EAC, which would be fine if there was much of a difference. But EAC is usually just KAC -2, so why have it at all? They could just give energy attacks a +2 bonus - or even more straightforwardly give all classes equal BAB like 5e.
Another issue is the way DCs increase with level, forcing you to optimise your build in order to avoid getting worse at doing things when you level up.
Starfinder deals with the flat-footed AC by making it a status effect, but it has KAC and EAC, which would be fine if there was much of a difference. But EAC is usually just KAC -2, so why have it at all?
EAC and KAC are applicable to different damage types, that's why. Now, you may say, "Why do that?" Simple, because it makes no sense to have Lazers and Plasma blades that are stop by sources of armor like metal plates (which be melted by both of those). But, if you put composite materials which resist energy into armor AND materials which resist bullets or melee weapons, well, now you have a sensible rating for both. Also, there are situations (certain armor types, etc.) where the gap between EAC and KAC widens or narrows.
Another issue is the way DCs increase with level, forcing you to optimise your build in order to avoid getting worse at doing things when you level up.
Considering how you increase multiple stats when you gain ASIs, that's not an issue at all. Build optimization is actually less important than it was in Pathfinder.
Edit: If you want to discuss this further, PM me, @Fardragon.
These millennials! Too engaged in their day jobs to spend hours studying rules.
Have they no sense of irresponsibility?
Clearly casual gamers are an abomination who must be banned from playing at all costs, even if that means there Is no one left to play with.
The defining truth about "power" gamers is that they hated the WiiMote.
Why?
Well, they claim it's for a thousand techical reasons, foremost amongst which is that it is "gimmicky" (ignoring that far from a having no intrinsic value, it is in fact a technical marvel on pair with the nintendo zapper), but the real reason was...
Nah, you can use a wiimote on your couch just fine.
As for the fabled next beamdog project, is there a recap anywhere of the various news that have come up over the last year? I stopped following the forums for about a year and it seems the first post never got updated here (and also i'm too lazy and employed to read these 50 pages =D)
Starfinder deals with the flat-footed AC by making it a status effect, but it has KAC and EAC, which would be fine if there was much of a difference. But EAC is usually just KAC -2, so why have it at all?
EAC and KAC are applicable to different damage types, that's why. Now, you may say, "Why do that?" Simple, because it makes no sense to have Lazers and Plasma blades that are stop by sources of armor like metal plates (which be melted by both of those). But, if you put composite materials which resist energy into armor AND materials which resist bullets or melee weapons, well, now you have a sensible rating for both. Also, there are situations (certain armor types, etc.) where the gap between EAC and KAC widens or narrows.
It would be easy enough to rule that "space armour" is designed to protect against kinetic and energy weapons. There is no armour that simply consists of "metal plates" in Starfinder. Or, if you decide to have two different ACs actually USE them - let the be wildly different depending on gear, stats and class. I.e. give alternative tactical options, rather than complication for no benefit.
Another issue is the way DCs increase with level, forcing you to optimise your build in order to avoid getting worse at doing things when you level up.
Considering how you increase multiple stats when you gain ASIs, that's not an issue at all. Build optimization is actually less important than it was in Pathfinder.
Edit: If you want to discuss this further, PM me, @Fardragon.
Players (who are not power gamers) may want to scatter skill points around, or put skill points into skills then not increase the associated stat at every opportunity. If they do that they will fail skill rolls at level 20 more frequently than they would at level 1.
Given that there is nothing to talk about that is "on topic" I see no reason not to allow the thread to wander to peripheral issues, at least until we actually have some news.
Is it possible for a mod to split this thread from the discussion on P&P versions and Beamdog's next project?
The discussion is not "different P&P versions" - Starfinder is not a version of D&D for a start. Its "killing time until we actually have some information".
Is it possible for a mod to split this thread from the discussion on P&P versions and Beamdog's next project?
The discussion is not "different P&P versions" - Starfinder is not a version of D&D for a start. Its "killing time until we actually have some information".
One of the questions I thought was an interesting on the survey (and excuse me if I don't remember it correctly, I'm paraphrasing) asked how much you where interested in the following:
A great city Fairie Tale Arthurian myth Vikings Feudal Japan
Now, I'm wondering if they are simply possible themes for a campaign book set in the Forgotten Realms (which can accommodate all of those), or a possible new pseudo-historical campaign setting?
I would also call it out for omitting Cosmic Horror and Science Fantasy (e.g. Expedition to the Barrier Peaks) from the list. As it is, I was fairly luke warm about all of them.
One of the questions I thought was an interesting on the survey (and excuse me if I don't remember it correctly, I'm paraphrasing) asked how much you where interested in the following:
A great city Fairie Tale Arthurian myth Vikings Feudal Japan
Now, I'm wondering if they are simply possible themes for a campaign book set in the Forgotten Realms (which can accommodate all of those), or a possible new pseudo-historical campaign setting?
I would also call it out for omitting Cosmic Horror and Science Fantasy (e.g. Expedition to the Barrier Peaks) from the list. As it is, I was fairly luke warm about all of them.
I love cosmic horror and science fantasy. They are the bread and butter of Marvel and DC's cosmic, and Lovecraft stories kept me company during my frustrated teenage years.
I put very interested in Faerie Tales and Arthurian Myth since I'm greatly intrigued by the Summer and Winter Courts hinted in the Archfey Warlock description and some of the creatures in Volo's Guide to Monsters. I think Seelie and Unseelie are awesome.
Shou Lung (east of Faerûn) is basically China, and Kara-Tur is your feudal Japan. Not sure if it's set there or a its own setting, but there is the Oriental Adventures book as well.
There's also the "1001 Nights"-vibe in Zakhara, which had a sourcebook in 2e I believe.
Shou Lung (east of Faerûn) is basically China, and Kara-Tur is your feudal Japan. Not sure if it's set there or a its own setting, but there is the Oriental Adventures book as well.
There's also the "1001 Nights"-vibe in Zakhara, which had a sourcebook in 2e I believe.
Zakhara was originally its own setting, Al-Qadim, before being integrated in the FR. Beware of the Black Cloud of Vengeance when adventuring there.
I did read the Oriental Adventures sourcebook back in the 80s but I can't remember if it used Kara-Tur or its own setting.
The Oriental Adventurers were example campaign settings with the Far East as focus. Gygax & Co. used them later and created the 8 Kara-Tur modules out of them. There was also another Oriental Adventurers book for 3rd edition, but that didn't feature Kara-Tur. Or Abeir-Toril for that matter.
Isn't Kara-Tur the continent's name, with the Lungs being largely Chinese and Wa being Japanese?
Yeah, but that continent has more on it than just those two.
Northern Wastes = Siberia Plain of Horses / Endless Steppes = Mongolia Shou Lung & T'u Lung = Ancient China Choson / Koryo = Korea Kozakura = Ryukyu Kingdom / Okinawa Wa = Sengoku Japan Tabot = Tibet Malatra = India
The Number of Off-Topic comments is too damn high!
What else is there to talk about?...
I personally really want to see Dark Suns using 5E rules. Cannibalistic Halflings, Elves who are tall and fast nomads, Magic is feared but Psionics are embraced.
Well, this thread should be focused on the next Beamdog's project. It is not called "Let us talk about our favourite setting in D&D" or "Which is the best D&D edition"? There are dedicated threads for those discussions.
Comments
Generally they rely on the DM (i,e me) to know that to cast Fireball as a bonus action sorcery points must be expended, but Healing Word is a bonus action. Because we can't have people having fun wrongly, can we?
Pathfinder's problem wasn't complexity of the system; it was class bloat. If we have to ignore the rules to have fun, we got an issue.
And I would say, if you don't know your class well enough to know that it costs sorcery points to cast fireball OR to know that Healing Word is a bonus action, then you need to sit down and learn the dang rules. I understand a new player still learning the rules, but there comes a point where the DM should be expecting people to know how to play their class without the DM being the rule manual. If we're treating it that way, then there's a problem.
Have they no sense of irresponsibility?
Clearly casual gamers are an abomination who must be banned from playing at all costs, even if that means there Is no one left to play with.
I do agree players need to learn their own class at least, but the DM can and should fudge things if needed, ie to avoid TPK situations. The DMs job is to manage an entertaining game, period.
I'm not sure posting a GIF as a reply is helpful or mature.
The problem is this: four different armour classes (including CMD), 11 different attack roll modifiers, 15 different situational combat AC modifiers, 24 standard actions, 10 move actions, 12 full round actions, 5 free actions, and about 3 other types of action. Just in the CRB.
That said, I think if you look at D&D 3.0 and D&D 5th Edition and Starfinder (and I could rattle a few more systems if I wanted), you'll see they have a mere fraction of that. More and more systems are saying that you can use your Move Action for A, B, & C in situations X, Y, or Z. I would hardly argue that a lot of systems are favoring needless complexity on the whole.
Starfinder, for example, counting the actions in CRB just now (I got the pdf pulled up as I type), has several standard actions (cast a spell, attack, total defense, etc.; generally what any system allows), move actions (typical movement, but also reload your gun or draw/sheathe a weapon), 2 Swift Actions, and several Full Actions (which are just extensions of other types of actions that you choose to use for the full round). Having played a session last night, I can say that 95% of it was intiutive. We had one instance where a player, coming from 5E to Starfinder, was confused on what a "Full Round Action" was, but that was it. And we had people who hadn't even done more than skimmed the CRB.
People always want to say, "Oh, it's so complex learning all these rules", but it's really not. Most of it is common sense stuff. "Use your movement to take a guarded step AND then fire your gun." You do it once, and then you remember it forever. The average player should be more than capable of learning any of these modern systems, imho. There really is no excuse besides laziness to not know how your class and the actions you regularly tend to use work.
Another issue is the way DCs increase with level, forcing you to optimise your build in order to avoid getting worse at doing things when you level up.
Edit: If you want to discuss this further, PM me, @Fardragon.
Why?
Well, they claim it's for a thousand techical reasons, foremost amongst which is that it is "gimmicky" (ignoring that far from a having no intrinsic value, it is in fact a technical marvel on pair with the nintendo zapper), but the real reason was...
As for the fabled next beamdog project, is there a recap anywhere of the various news that have come up over the last year? I stopped following the forums for about a year and it seems the first post never got updated here (and also i'm too lazy and employed to read these 50 pages =D)
Given that there is nothing to talk about that is "on topic" I see no reason not to allow the thread to wander to peripheral issues, at least until we actually have some news.
Case in point, Hasbro are running a survey. It focuses on different D&D campaign settings: https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/dd-survey.
It's peripherally related to the thread title, but very tenuously.
A great city
Fairie Tale
Arthurian myth
Vikings
Feudal Japan
Now, I'm wondering if they are simply possible themes for a campaign book set in the Forgotten Realms (which can accommodate all of those), or a possible new pseudo-historical campaign setting?
I would also call it out for omitting Cosmic Horror and Science Fantasy (e.g. Expedition to the Barrier Peaks) from the list. As it is, I was fairly luke warm about all of them.
One of the things that occurred to me is a Moonshae setting could cover Arthurian, Faerie, and Vikings...
There's also the "1001 Nights"-vibe in Zakhara, which had a sourcebook in 2e I believe.
"Unearthed Arcana" has a 5e Kensai as a monk subclass, a Samurai for fighters and a Wu-Jen as a mystic subclass.
Northern Wastes = Siberia
Plain of Horses / Endless Steppes = Mongolia
Shou Lung & T'u Lung = Ancient China
Choson / Koryo = Korea
Kozakura = Ryukyu Kingdom / Okinawa
Wa = Sengoku Japan
Tabot = Tibet
Malatra = India
I personally really want to see Dark Suns using 5E rules. Cannibalistic Halflings, Elves who are tall and fast nomads, Magic is feared but Psionics are embraced.
There are dedicated threads for those discussions.