D&D 5th Edition: 8th Revision and Counting [Archive] - Page 2

Zeful

2013-01-11, 06:53 PM

I agree that is the main issue here. WOTC seems to favor a system where everybody always has a decent chance at everything and where luck matters more than your character's skill (basically, the 4E philosophy), whereas certain people (such as me) favor a system where a specialist is consistently and reliably better at his specialty, and where character skill matters more than luck. It's not possible to have both in the same system.

Yes there is. If a specialist can only ever achieve a difference of +10 between himself and a non-specialist of the same skills-- all else being equal (essentially, the difference between max rank in a skill, and max rank and all related feats or synergies to boost that skill)-- then the non-specialist can only ever achieve the same results as the specialist 5% of the time (assuming the specialist takes 10), otherwise he has less than a 25% chance to do better when both are under pressure (the non-specialist has to roll eleven better than the specialist, when the specialist rolls 9 or less).

Luck and skill play important roles under this assumption, but the specialist is always going to be generally better. Non-specialists, however still have the opportunity to cover for the specialist should they botch a roll and allow generalist characters to not feel like a waste of resources. Granted it's putting less emphasis on specialization, but considering how 3.5 handled that, I figure that would be a good thing.

Doug Lampert

2013-01-11, 08:13 PM

Yes there is. If a specialist can only ever achieve a difference of +10 between himself and a non-specialist of the same skills-- all else being equal (essentially, the difference between max rank in a skill, and max rank and all related feats or synergies to boost that skill)-- then the non-specialist can only ever achieve the same results as the specialist 5% of the time (assuming the specialist takes 10), otherwise he has less than a 25% chance to do better when both are under pressure (the non-specialist has to roll eleven better than the specialist, when the specialist rolls 9 or less).

Luck and skill play important roles under this assumption, but the specialist is always going to be generally better. Non-specialists, however still have the opportunity to cover for the specialist should they botch a roll and allow generalist characters to not feel like a waste of resources. Granted it's putting less emphasis on specialization, but considering how 3.5 handled that, I figure that would be a good thing.

How do you plan to EVER get +10 over a non-specialist in the world of bounded accuracy? There are no synergy bonuses, the only feats I know of that boost trained skills have one to give a minimum of 10 on the d20 roll and one giving advantage.

Not rolling less than a 10 happens almost 80% of the time with advantage, so basically, you can get advantage, which can also be done without the feat.

To summarize, if you can get advantage with a trained skill then 80% of the time you are as good with that skill as you could be with EVERY FEAT that could possibly boost it.

And bounded accuracy means they may well NEVER issue any feats that simply give a numeric bonus with the skill, and without such a feat or the non-existent synergy bonus your argument largely falls apart.

Also, your claim that the less skilled guy only has a 5% chance to tie and no chance to win requires that skill dice die in a fire, which they haven't yet and may never do. The skill die increases variance, and doesn't CARE about any of the other bonuses that might apply. At high level the d12 skill die has a range which exceeds your entire, probably not possible, +10 extra bonuses.

Zeful

2013-01-11, 08:42 PM

Well, yes. Because the assumptions I started with don't reflect the current game, because nobody seems to like the current game.

I started with the D20. Looked at the probability and found that limiting non-attribute skill boosts to just +10 allows luck to play a part in the success of certain actions without making success nothing but luck. This is admittedly really only works for opposed checks, as static checks are just that, static.

The point in even designing something like this is that limiting the range in which a specialized character can specialize opens up actual tactics for things like stealth and detection, or forgery, or bluff and sense motive. It prevents one character from just steam-rolling one of these scenarios because he has all the pluses to it, and lets the designers create interesting mechanics to fall within these fields. Hell the mathematical underpinning of the system also lets designers accurately value feats and templates and know whether systems like Level Adjustment are even needed.

Oblivious

2013-01-11, 08:57 PM

It's definitely swingy right now because of the small base numbers and large die. The current numbers would work a lot better with a d12 than a d20 (but you would need to change other things, like DCs). Of course you would then face a different problem where natural aptitude overwhelmed training (ability scores being too important relative to skill die).

There is another problem where it is hard to play a charismatic knight or a magical thief, because skill tricks are the exclusive domain of rogues and spells have effects that are very isolated from the skill system. Background traits are kind of a limited band-aid.

Yora

2013-01-12, 05:28 AM

That's not reliable, it means that an untrained rookie has a 50% chance of doing better than you.

Okay, I want the detailed math for that!

But why not go back to Nonweapon Proficiencies? You can double, tripple, and qadrouple train a skill and in turn get double, tripple, and quadrouple the bonus to skill checks.
I think I might actually be using that, regardless of what the standard skill system might turn out to be.

Craft (Cheese)

2013-01-12, 06:33 AM

Okay, I want the detailed math for that!

Let's assume that you do an opposed roll with this kind of rule, where your opponent has a feat that lets them either take 10 or their d20 result (whichever is higher), just like the Rogue feature.

Assuming you and your opponent have the same attribute bonus, the chance of winning the roll is 36.25%.

Assuming your opponent has a +3 attribute bonus against you, this lowers to 22.75%.

At +5, it's 15%.

At +10 (the maximum attribute difference allowable for PCs under current rules) it's impossible for you to win. But at +9 your chances are 2.5%.

Tehnar

2013-01-12, 06:41 AM

There have been many suggestions on how to improve 5e's math in this thread (and its previous incarnations), a few of them quite good, but the fact remains WotC is doing nothing to fix its math. Or at least nothing statistically significant.

And that is the pink elephant in the room. WotC, with 5E, has so far delivered absolutely nothing new that is of any significance. In my opinion they even regressed in a lot of areas.

Yora

2013-01-12, 12:59 PM

Let's assume that you do an opposed roll with this kind of rule, where your opponent has a feat that lets them either take 10 or their d20 result (whichever is higher), just like the Rogue feature.

Assuming you and your opponent have the same attribute bonus, the chance of winning the roll is 36.25%.

Assuming your opponent has a +3 attribute bonus against you, this lowers to 22.75%.

At +5, it's 15%.

At +10 (the maximum attribute difference allowable for PCs under current rules) it's impossible for you to win. But at +9 your chances are 2.5%.
I would consider someone with a +9 bonus and the ability to take 10 an expert and not some untrained person.

1337 b4k4

2013-01-12, 02:23 PM

I would consider someone with a +9 bonus and the ability to take 10 an expert and not some untrained person.

I think you might have misread. He was saying the expert had that, and with those stats, an untrained person still had a 2.5% chance of doing better.

Me personally, I don't find that so horrible but I can see where others might. Of course this does go to the question whether D&D is (and should model) a world of experts or of generalists.

Draz74

2013-01-12, 03:41 PM

Kurald Galain

2013-01-12, 07:02 PM

I think you might have misread. He was saying the expert had that, and with those stats, an untrained person still had a 2.5% chance of doing better.
Yes. This is the difference between an untrained rookie, and an olympic level athlete. There should be several levels possible in between that. If a rookie has a 2.5% chance of beating an olympian, then you can't model regularly skilled people in the middle.

I know in real life that if I'm a trained tennis player and you're not, then I will beat you. I will not beat you 60% of the time or 85% of the time or by "taking ten" while hoping you don't roll high, or somesuch, I will just beat you. And, meanwhile, I'm just a trained guy; somebody from the national team will beat me, no questions asked, and a Wimbledon winner will beat the national guy, again no questions asked.

This is nothing particularly spectacular or epic; it's just true in real life that a skilled person will beat a rookie, hands down. This means that if I play a roleplaying game that is intended to be spectacular or epic (and most D&D games I've played are) then I DO NOT want my skilled character to lose against a rookie.

I realize this is a big YMMV. But if my character sheet says "hero" and I have a 10-30% chance of losing against a commoner, then my sheet is lying and I'm not actually a hero yet. And if my sheet says "epic" or somesuch, then the character had better not lose against ordinary heroes 20% of the time, either. WOTC has a tendency of writing a system where the fluff says you're oh so powerful and mighty, but whenever a test is called for, you're really not. Which means that the devteam should read more Exalted.

Zeful

2013-01-12, 07:41 PM

Yes. This is the difference between an untrained rookie, and an olympic level athlete. There should be several levels possible in between that. If a rookie has a 2.5% chance of beating an olympian, then you can't model regularly skilled people in the middle.

I know in real life that if I'm a trained tennis player and you're not, then I will beat you. I will not beat you 60% of the time or 85% of the time or by "taking ten" while hoping you don't roll high, or somesuch, I will just beat you. And, meanwhile, I'm just a trained guy; somebody from the national team will beat me, no questions asked, and a Wimbledon winner will beat the national guy, again no questions asked.

This is nothing particularly spectacular or epic; it's just true in real life that a skilled person will beat a rookie, hands down. This means that if I play a roleplaying game that is intended to be spectacular or epic (and most D&D games I've played are) then I DO NOT want my skilled character to lose against a rookie.

I realize this is a big YMMV. But if my character sheet says "hero" and I have a 10-30% chance of losing against a commoner, then my sheet is lying and I'm not actually a hero yet. And if my sheet says "epic" or somesuch, then the character had better not lose against ordinary heroes 20% of the time, either. WOTC has a tendency of writing a system where the fluff says you're oh so powerful and mighty, but whenever a test is called for, you're really not. Which means that the devteam should read more Exalted.

So what happens when the PCs face such an epic hero? Based on your logic, there shouldn't be a chance for the PC's to succeed: it's just a "Rocks Fall, Everybody Dies" moment. Or will they somehow have an even chance of success regardless of the opponent, shooting your entire argument to pieces?

Dienekes

2013-01-12, 07:51 PM

So what happens when the PCs face such an epic hero? Based on your logic, there shouldn't be a chance for the PC's to succeed: it's just a "Rocks Fall, Everybody Dies" moment. Or will they somehow have an even chance of success regardless of the opponent, shooting your entire argument to pieces?

Ehh, as I've told my players before. "Right now you guys are low-level, and I'm not going to be a **** and throw something utterly impossible at you. But if you suddenly get it into your heads that you four level 3s are good enough to take down a dragon I will let you track one down, I will let you do your best, and I will kill your characters so bloodily you'll have nightmares for weeks."

If you're a novice spellcaster and you decide to see if you can outmagic the royal archmage you should not expect to win, or have anything close to a chance of winning. Now, if all 4 of the players find a way to get that archmage into an uneven fight, then they should have a chance.

To use Kurald's example even that trained tennis player may have a bit of trouble going 1 against 4 untrained, and so on up the ladder.

Zeful

2013-01-12, 08:07 PM

Ehh, as I've told my players before. "Right now you guys are low-level, and I'm not going to be a **** and throw something utterly impossible at you. But if you suddenly get it into your heads that you four level 3s are good enough to take down a dragon I will let you track one down, I will let you do your best, and I will kill your characters so bloodily you'll have nightmares for weeks."

If you're a novice spellcaster and you decide to see if you can outmagic the royal archmage you should not expect to win, or have anything close to a chance of winning. Now, if all 4 of the players find a way to get that archmage into an uneven fight, then they should have a chance.

To use Kurald's example even that trained tennis player may have a bit of trouble going 1 against 4 untrained, and so on up the ladder.

Except this argument misrepresents the actual sheer scale of Kurald's argument. He's talking no chance, so even "the hero" rolling a 1 and the untrained character rolling a 20 fails to represent any actual risk of failure, he then scaled it up so that a "normal" hero would have the same chance of success against an "epic" hero, i.e. none.

Preserving the argument means that in your example, the PC's still have no chance, 4 on 1, to beat the royal archmage, even in an uneven fight, as even rolling 20s will not be enough to actually do anything (especially if armor class is always "taking 10"), and thus there is no appreciable chance of even an infinite number of enemies not of his "grade" actually defeating him in combat. That was my point.

Anecronwashere

2013-01-12, 08:12 PM

noparlpf

2013-01-12, 08:27 PM

Yes. This is the difference between an untrained rookie, and an olympic level athlete. There should be several levels possible in between that. If a rookie has a 2.5% chance of beating an olympian, then you can't model regularly skilled people in the middle.

I know in real life that if I'm a trained tennis player and you're not, then I will beat you. I will not beat you 60% of the time or 85% of the time or by "taking ten" while hoping you don't roll high, or somesuch, I will just beat you. And, meanwhile, I'm just a trained guy; somebody from the national team will beat me, no questions asked, and a Wimbledon winner will beat the national guy, again no questions asked.

This is nothing particularly spectacular or epic; it's just true in real life that a skilled person will beat a rookie, hands down. This means that if I play a roleplaying game that is intended to be spectacular or epic (and most D&D games I've played are) then I DO NOT want my skilled character to lose against a rookie.

I realize this is a big YMMV. But if my character sheet says "hero" and I have a 10-30% chance of losing against a commoner, then my sheet is lying and I'm not actually a hero yet. And if my sheet says "epic" or somesuch, then the character had better not lose against ordinary heroes 20% of the time, either. WOTC has a tendency of writing a system where the fluff says you're oh so powerful and mighty, but whenever a test is called for, you're really not. Which means that the devteam should read more Exalted.

Well. Everybody has their off days, or slips up sometimes. So there should be some chance of failure, even for experts. It should just be very small (i.e. not the 5% of a natural one). Tennis pros don't trip over their shoelaces every other swing, but they might once in a while. And, sometimes rookies get lucky. Only, very rarely (i.e. not the 5% of a natural twenty). And in a game of tennis, for that particular example, scoring one point by luck still won't win the game. So there should be some way to model luck more realistically. I think it's probably by ditching the d20, though I don't have an alternative.

Zeful

2013-01-12, 08:45 PM

I'm ok with that.
In 3.5 do you complain when your lvl10 Wizard is thrashed by a lvl20 Sorcerer?
How about when your lvl3 Fighter can't hit a CR10 monster?

They are above their level for a reason. Your grizzled old 15th level Fighter should NOT be beaten by a guy who picked up a sword yesterday.
The greatest smith in the nation should not be outdone by an apprentice smith on his first try

That's not my argument. Moreover it's irrelevant to the point I'm making.

If "an epic hero" cannot be meaningfully challenged by even an infinite number of heroes (due to the mechanical nature of the game if one hero poses no mathematical threat, than any number of heroes also pose no mathematical threat). Than a suitable villain for such a hero should be able to completely and utterly roll the armies between him and his goals... so why hasn't he?

Taking Kurald's argument and simply turning it around, means that large scope games are suddenly rife with plot-holes simply because there's an high level evil guy, why hasn't he already achieved all of his goals? The game system forces Forgotten Realms style logic around at every turn. If this villain hasn't already won because of a group of opposed heroes, what are they doing when they aren't stalemating him? The setting falls apart logically, as answering these questions raise other questions.

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-01-12, 09:10 PM

A character of level X being able to win against a single character of level Y 100% of the time does not, in fact, mean that he wins against infinite level Y characters, because (A) synergies exist and (B) d20 roll modifiers aren't the only indicator of power.

As an example of point A, take Aid Another in 3e. It is impossible for a level 1 "expert" guard (4 Spot ranks, +4 Wis, max result 28) to spot a level 10 "expert" burglar (13 Hide ranks, +6 Dex, +10 item, min result 29) sneaking past them, but 3 guards working together can; if two of them Aid Another the third, he has a 20% chance to catch the burglar now where he had a 0% chance before.

As an example of point B, a single level 1 wizard goes splat if he tries to attack a level 10 fighter with a magic missile; the fact that it auto-hits won't stop the fighter from shrugging it off and slaughtering him. If 100 level 1 wizards all cast magic missile at that fighter at the same time, however, the 200 minimum damage from all those magic missiles will take him out unless he has exceptionally high HP for his level or some other defense against it, because "this spell automatically hits" is a factor that is effective at any level.

While those particular examples and mechanics might not make their way into 5e, it's still the case that you can set up the rules such that "a level 1 character loses to a level 8 character 100% of the time" and "4 level 1 characters have a (small) chance against a level 8 character" are both true.

TuggyNE

2013-01-12, 09:10 PM

Well. Everybody has their off days, or slips up sometimes. So there should be some chance of failure, even for experts. It should just be very small (i.e. not the 5% of a natural one). Tennis pros don't trip over their shoelaces every other swing, but they might once in a while. And, sometimes rookies get lucky. Only, very rarely (i.e. not the 5% of a natural twenty). And in a game of tennis, for that particular example, scoring one point by luck still won't win the game. So there should be some way to model luck more realistically. I think it's probably by ditching the d20, though I don't have an alternative.

I do like the idea of having <5% chance of auto-miss/auto-hit; opposed rolls can actually give that, in fact, if both sides use d20s, but taking 10 messes that up again.

Preserving the argument means that in your example, the PC's still have no chance, 4 on 1, to beat the royal archmage, even in an uneven fight, as even rolling 20s will not be enough to actually do anything (especially if armor class is always "taking 10"), and thus there is no appreciable chance of even an infinite number of enemies not of his "grade" actually defeating him in combat. That was my point.

As long as you can do something vaguely analogous to aiding another/flanking/volley shots/whatever, there's still some point to it. That is, having a moderately accessible means of cooperatively bumping the RNG is useful for extending the range of possible encounters.

Gamgee

2013-01-13, 03:11 AM

Anyone have an idea when this will be released?

huttj509

2013-01-13, 04:45 AM

Anyone have an idea when this will be released?

I think the comment last GenCon was about 2 years from potential release, or at least that they would be fine waiting 2 years if that's what it took. The playtest stuff started WAY earlier in the development cycle than players are used to seeing (such as video game "we're saying it's beta but buy it and pay us anyway").

Kurald Galain

2013-01-13, 05:31 AM

So what happens when the PCs face such an epic hero? Based on your logic, there shouldn't be a chance for the PC's to succeed:
Not if they play to the epic guy's strengths, no. You'll never defeat the Wimbledon champion in tennis. You can quite possibly defeat him in chess, though.

(edit) or, of course, you cheat. Poison him, break his equipment, play with five against one, stuff like that. I love mechanics that force the players to use creativity to stack the odds in their favor. Or, if all else fails, you train or find magic weaponry, and come back later. I find it disappointing if a group of first-level characters can already take down a dragon.

For inspiration: anyone seen the movie Hero? There's a scene somewhere where three high-level heroes stand on the roof of a monastery, and a couple dozen mooks fire arrows at them. And they parry ALL the arrows. Not 60% of them, not 19 out of 20, but just all. That is awesome, and D&D heroes should be able to do that.

Yora

2013-01-13, 05:58 AM

Anyone have an idea when this will be released?
Given how far they have come in 2012 and assuming they keep that pace, I would say mid 2014.

Frozen_Feet

2013-01-13, 07:13 AM

There are loads of ways to model crowd power while still allowing an expert to win 1-on-1 100% of the time. Mechanics like flanking and Aid Another were already mentioned. Facing rules and penalizing an outnumbered opponent would also do that.

But so do increasing amount of rolls in a contest, or other added layers of mechanics. To give a simple example: in one corner, we have Joe the Commoner, with AC 10, AB+0 and 12 HP, doing 4 points of damage. In another, we have Fred the Fighter, with AC 18, AB+8 and HP 18, doing 6 points of damage per hit.

Sure, Joe can hit with a single strike some 10% of the time, and Fred will likewise miss 10% time. But Joe needs to hit Fred five times, while Fred only needs two shots. Joe's chance of hitting five time in a row is one out of hundred thousand. Fred will kill him 81% of the time before he gets the third strike in.

So, due to existence of a resource like HP, Joe's chances of triumphing are so meager as to be non-existent. Now, if Joe's friends John and Jane stepped in to help, then he would have much better chances.

Craft (Cheese)

2013-01-13, 08:18 AM

How much would it improve the issue if Skill Dice changed from

1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12

to

1d4, 2d4, 3d4, 4d4 ...

I mean, I could run the math myself, but I'm lazy and I suspect this wouldn't fix the game overall even if it fixes the corner case of success chance of novice vs. expert ...

Assumptions: We run an opposed roll where your opponent as at least as many dice as you do, and we use d6's for simplicity's sake (they're easier to roll large numbers of). The number of skill dice you have can range the gamut from 0 to 6 as a character gains levels. We take the percentage chance of success, assuming we resolve ties by rerolling. We do not factor in the effect that the increased number of dice has on the skill trick mechanic.

We use the format (i,j,b) - %, where i is your own number of skill dice, j is how many more skill dice your opponent has than you (with 3 >= j >= 0), b is your opponent's attribute bonus (5 >= b >= 0), and % is your percentage chance of winning the roll. We place limits on the variables to reduce the data in fitting with our assumption that your opponent is superior to you and thus "should" win the roll, on average.

In other words, we're measuring the probability that 1d20+id6-1d20-(i+j)d6-b > 0.

Warning! Massive text dump incoming! I could have arranged this into a series of tables but meh, I can't be bothered to change my script to auto-format it and I'm sure as hell not doing it by hand.

(Ironically the time spent writing this apology took longer than modifying the script probably would have. Ah well. Mine is a special type of laziness and apathy.)

(0, 0, 0) - 47.5%
(0, 0, 1) - 42.75%
(0, 0, 2) - 38.25%
(0, 0, 3) - 34.0%
(0, 0, 4) - 30.0%
(0, 0, 5) - 26.25%
(0, 1, 0) - 32.33333333333333%
(0, 1, 1) - 28.458333333333336%
(0, 1, 2) - 24.833333333333332%
(0, 1, 3) - 21.458333333333332%
(0, 1, 4) - 18.333333333333332%
(0, 1, 5) - 15.458333333333332%
(0, 2, 0) - 20.229166666666668%
(0, 2, 1) - 17.229166666666668%
(0, 2, 2) - 14.479166666666668%
(0, 2, 3) - 11.979166666666668%
(0, 2, 4) - 9.729166666666666%
(0, 2, 5) - 7.729166666666666%
(0, 3, 0) - 11.1875%
(0, 3, 1) - 9.0625%
(0, 3, 2) - 7.187499999999999%
(0, 3, 3) - 5.561342592592593%
(0, 3, 4) - 4.180555555555555%
(0, 3, 5) - 3.038194444444444%
(1, 0, 0) - 47.74305555555556%
(1, 0, 1) - 43.27083333333333%
(1, 0, 2) - 38.90972222222222%
(1, 0, 3) - 34.71527777777778%
(1, 0, 4) - 30.729166666666668%
(1, 0, 5) - 26.979166666666664%
(1, 1, 0) - 33.013888888888886%
(1, 1, 1) - 29.173611111111107%
(1, 1, 2) - 25.560185185185187%
(1, 1, 3) - 22.1875%
(1, 1, 4) - 19.0625%
(1, 1, 5) - 16.1875%
(1, 2, 0) - 20.955632716049383%
(1, 2, 1) - 17.957947530864196%
(1, 2, 2) - 15.208333333333332%
(1, 2, 3) - 12.708333333333332%
(1, 2, 4) - 10.458140432098766%
(1, 2, 5) - 8.45698302469136%
(1, 3, 0) - 11.915444958847736%
(1, 3, 1) - 9.787808641975309%
(1, 3, 2) - 7.906057098765432%
(1, 3, 3) - 6.266203703703704%
(1, 3, 4) - 4.861657664609053%
(1, 3, 5) - 3.6826131687242794%
(2, 0, 0) - 47.84297839506173%
(2, 0, 1) - 43.5570987654321%
(2, 0, 2) - 39.3533950617284%
(2, 0, 3) - 35.280092592592595%
(2, 0, 4) - 31.377314814814817%
(2, 0, 5) - 27.675925925925927%
(2, 1, 0) - 33.5735596707819%
(2, 1, 1) - 29.80664866255144%
(2, 1, 2) - 26.24074074074074%
(2, 1, 3) - 22.895447530864196%
(2, 1, 4) - 19.783950617283953%
(2, 1, 5) - 16.91431970164609%
(2, 2, 0) - 21.655333719135804%
(2, 2, 1) - 18.673466435185183%
(2, 2, 2) - 15.931311085390949%
(2, 2, 3) - 13.43307934670782%
(2, 2, 4) - 11.180121527777779%
(2, 2, 5) - 9.171344521604938%
(2, 3, 0) - 12.632103409350709%
(2, 3, 1) - 10.498189764803383%
(2, 3, 2) - 8.603395061728394%
(2, 3, 3) - 6.94270565414952%
(2, 3, 4) - 5.508332261659808%
(2, 3, 5) - 4.289603695130316%
(3, 0, 0) - 47.919077932098766%
(3, 0, 1) - 43.780446244855966%
(3, 0, 2) - 39.71026234567901%
(3, 0, 3) - 35.75038580246914%
(3, 0, 4) - 31.937585733882027%
(3, 0, 5) - 28.302469135802472%
(3, 1, 0) - 34.058376736111114%
(3, 1, 1) - 30.370857981824418%
(3, 1, 2) - 26.864725330075444%
(3, 1, 3) - 23.561546210562415%
(3, 1, 4) - 20.477461812700046%
(3, 1, 5) - 17.6237372113626%
(3, 2, 0) - 22.31762855319311%
(3, 2, 1) - 19.36116945778083%
(3, 2, 2) - 16.633413530235483%
(3, 2, 3) - 14.140388338763147%
(3, 2, 4) - 11.884595645671393%
(3, 2, 5) - 9.865361487387593%
(3, 3, 0) - 13.327330572384799%
(3, 3, 1) - 11.187001274894579%
(3, 3, 2) - 9.277514175859244%
(3, 3, 3) - 7.593936153660518%
(3, 3, 4) - 6.128482219547007%
(3, 3, 5) - 4.870665378276939%

As we can see from the data, attribute bonuses are significant when the skill dice difference is low, but quickly become insignificant when j > 2. But the chance of winning itself at b=0 stays above 10% until j > 3.

Most irritatingly, the j=0 values are always just-barely-dissimilar (as the chance of a draw ever so slightly decreases as i goes up), but this is probably just me being OCD about having elegant maths.

Overall I'm not convinced that this is an adequate solution. At this time I do not have a better proposal.

Zeful

2013-01-13, 12:36 PM

As long as you can do something vaguely analogous to aiding another/flanking/volley shots/whatever, there's still some point to it. That is, having a moderately accessible means of cooperatively bumping the RNG is useful for extending the range of possible encounters.
Again, this isn't taking into account the scale of the argument. Because in keeping with the math for the nat 20 against nat 1 to be failure, than you need at least eleven people aiding your attack to actually have a chance to hit the target on a 20, considering armor class takes ten.

Twelve people attacking in tandem can only insure one of them hits 5% of the time. And that's with no consideration to the dude actually trying to make himself harder to hit, he's making the bare minimum effort in actually fighting back and defending himself.

Not if they play to the epic guy's strengths, no. You'll never defeat the Wimbledon champion in tennis. You can quite possibly defeat him in chess, though.

(edit) or, of course, you cheat. Poison him, break his equipment, play with five against one, stuff like that. I love mechanics that force the players to use creativity to stack the odds in their favor. Or, if all else fails, you train or find magic weaponry, and come back later. I find it disappointing if a group of first-level characters can already take down a dragon.

For inspiration: anyone seen the movie Hero? There's a scene somewhere where three high-level heroes stand on the roof of a monastery, and a couple dozen mooks fire arrows at them. And they parry ALL the arrows. Not 60% of them, not 19 out of 20, but just all. That is awesome, and D&D heroes should be able to do that.

Except, well, how? How are you going to manage to take one of these characters off the field of their expertise when they're so supremely skilled they have to let you hit them in the first place? 5 against 1 isn't going to work, as with above, in keeping with the scale of your argument, you need eleven guys to even get a 5% chance of hit. Poison is going to be iffy, as due to the leveling system they're probably also going to be nearly immune to poisons character of your level will be able to obtain on top of injury poisons just not working. And breaking his gear is considered a big "no no" because of silly "Wealth By Level" Arguments so while it's a possibility on paper, apparently it won't be in practice. And even then he could just take your gear in response, making your position in a fight even worse.

Kurald Galain

2013-01-13, 12:53 PM

Except, well, how? How are you going to manage to take one of these characters off the field of their expertise when they're so supremely skilled they have to let you hit them in the first place? 5 against 1 isn't going to work, as with above, in keeping with the scale of your argument, you need eleven guys to even get a 5% chance of hit. Poison is going to be iffy, as due to the leveling system they're probably also going to be nearly immune to poisons character of your level will be able to obtain on top of injury poisons just not working. And breaking his gear is considered a big "no no" because of silly "Wealth By Level" Arguments so while it's a possibility on paper, apparently it won't be in practice. And even then he could just take your gear in response, making your position in a fight even worse.

You're taking this way out of context. Just because somebody is better than you in one particular skill doesn't mean he's better than you in every single other skill in the world. There's no reason to assume that 5:1 doesn't work, or that poison doesn't work, or that equipment breaking is not allowed. Those are just a bunch of straw men; certainly I never assumed any of that.

Anecronwashere

2013-01-13, 01:07 PM

I think that misses the point.
An Epic Character SHOULD need to face a unit of men before they have a chance of hitting him.
They are Mooks to him.

This is a mob of commoners Vs Merlin here.
Wimbledon tennis player Vs kid who just picked up a racket

Its not a contest.
The expert Wins.
The low-level PC TPKs because they attacked the BBEG before doing all the powerlevelling and foiling schemes
The Evil Party steamrollers the starting town after coming back 15 levels later
The swordsman BBEG makes an example of Town Doomedville personally to motivate the PCs
The apprentice is beaten by the kingdoms best blacksmith

Zeful

2013-01-13, 01:59 PM

You're taking this way out of context. Just because somebody is better than you in one particular skill doesn't mean he's better than you in every single other skill in the world. There's no reason to assume that 5:1 doesn't work, or that poison doesn't work, or that equipment breaking is not allowed. Those are just a bunch of straw men; certainly I never assumed any of that.

No, you didn't. But your argument assumes a certain scale, and applying that scale to combat, along with the other assumptions it provides creates my argument. Unless you are going to tell me that "combat" is not a suitable direction for specialization?

Applying your scale and assumptions to combat systems, means that 5 to 1 odds are insufficient under the mathematical underpinning of the argument, no matter how defenses or armor class are handled, it means that these characters will be so hardy due to the level-based nature of the systems that poisons have a non-trivial chance of failing to work. The equipment breaking was simply pointing out how insane the players of this forum are when it comes to gear, as they admit several times that breaking or otherwise rendering enemy gear otherwise unsalvageable is "reducing their wealth by level" and thus it's a non-viable tactic. And even then, you break their gear, what's stopping them from just stealing yours? How is that going to meaningfully impact your ability to interact with them in a fight?

My problem with your argument is the scale you used to convey it. Otherwise I agree, an untrained person should not be capable of the same things or the same scale of things a specialized expert is. But I also don't think the argument should ever be constructed concerning the difference between an untrained person and a specialized expert, as the result doesn't deepen our understanding of the system to any degree due to, well how easy it is to do. That's why back before I starting questioning your argument I posed the difference between a generalist and a specialized expert. Defining that gives us quite a bit of information about how the system should work, even going as far as to help use define the value of other systems due to it's interaction to those other systems. Considering just how crazy feats, skill tricks, and other things got in 3.5, and how badly 4e handled it in response, I think being able to objectively appraise these things is of particular importance.

Kurald Galain

2013-01-13, 02:15 PM

No, you didn't. But your argument assumes a certain scale, and applying that scale to combat, along with the other assumptions it provides creates my argument. Unless you are going to tell me that "combat" is not a suitable direction for specialization?

You're treating "combat" as way broader than it should be. If some character is an expert swordsman, then no mere rookie should be able to defeat him in a melee duel. However, that doesn't mean said expert is immune to arrows, or to poison, or to grappling/overbearing attacks, or to having his sword stolen while he sleeps. My collection of fantasy books is chock full of characters who are unsurpassed champions in one area, but have a number of weaknesses outside that area.

Like I said, my aim is to encourage the players to use creativity to stack the odds in their favor. Not to have them charge blindly forward with their battle axe and expect it to work every single time.

Zeful

2013-01-13, 02:49 PM

You're treating "combat" as way broader than it should be. If some character is an expert swordsman, then no mere rookie should be able to defeat him in a melee duel. However, that doesn't mean said expert is immune to arrows, or to poison, or to grappling/overbearing attacks, or to having his sword stolen while he sleeps. My collection of fantasy books is chock full of characters who are unsurpassed champions in one area, but have a number of weaknesses outside that area.

Like I said, my aim is to encourage the players to use creativity to stack the odds in their favor. Not to have them charge blindly forward with their battle axe and expect it to work every single time.

If that's your aim, then your base argument-- in this case "If some character is an expert swordsman, than no mere rookie should be able to defeat him in a melee duel," for clarity's sake-- shouldn't be an absolute. After all, what's stopping all of those things from applying in a melee duel?

That's why I object to your argument's scale; when treating combat as a series of mathematical systems (which is what I've been doing), it pretty much does make the character immune to arrows, poison, overwhelming numbers, or other forms of attack; as if a rookie has no chance of victory alone with them within the character's realm of specialization, as your argument paints the scenario, than the reasons that happened, Initiative, armor class, other defenses, make the character immune to mathematically equivalent things elsewhere.

And as for books, so do I, I also own a several books where characters much less powerful or skilled defeat supremely skilled people through lateral thinking, teamwork, determination and luck within the character's sphere of expertise. Books are not game systems, they have fundamentally different rules as to what's expected and allowed. You can compare, but lots of what's needed for a good game, especially a role-playing game, tends to make characters that wouldn't fit well into a planned narrative like a book, or even a movie. Characters are too interchangeable, players too invested in the world, and the math lacking in detail enough to make a varied cast of characters.

1337 b4k4

2013-01-13, 03:30 PM

So, real quickly, sticking with the novice v pro tennis player, what happens if we stop treating the tennis match as a single skill roll, and start treating it as a multi roll situation, like combat is. What are the odds that the novice wins 4 skill rolls before the expert wins 4? As I recall, we can take this even further in that if both get to 3 victories each, the winner must win 2 in a row correct? I suspect if we started modeling skills the same way we model combats, we would see the statistics more model what we expect in reality. So then maybe the answer is to eliminate the idea of single roll skill checks. Perhaps each skill check requires a number of rolls equal to the DC (or in the case of opposed rolls, the skill difference) divided by 5. In opposed rolls, the winner is whoever gets the number of successes first. In unopposed rolls, success is determined by getting a success on 50% of the required number of rolls.

Tehnar

2013-01-13, 06:37 PM

If that's your aim, then your base argument-- in this case "If some character is an expert swordsman, than no mere rookie should be able to defeat him in a melee duel," for clarity's sake-- shouldn't be an absolute. After all, what's stopping all of those things from applying in a melee duel?

That's why I object to your argument's scale; when treating combat as a series of mathematical systems (which is what I've been doing), it pretty much does make the character immune to arrows, poison, overwhelming numbers, or other forms of attack; as if a rookie has no chance of victory alone with them within the character's realm of specialization, as your argument paints the scenario, than the reasons that happened, Initiative, armor class, other defenses, make the character immune to mathematically equivalent things elsewhere.

I think you are really nitpicking here. Its very obvious what Kurald meant.

So, real quickly, sticking with the novice v pro tennis player, what happens if we stop treating the tennis match as a single skill roll, and start treating it as a multi roll situation, like combat is. What are the odds that the novice wins 4 skill rolls before the expert wins 4? As I recall, we can take this even further in that if both get to 3 victories each, the winner must win 2 in a row correct? I suspect if we started modeling skills the same way we model combats, we would see the statistics more model what we expect in reality. So then maybe the answer is to eliminate the idea of single roll skill checks. Perhaps each skill check requires a number of rolls equal to the DC (or in the case of opposed rolls, the skill difference) divided by 5. In opposed rolls, the winner is whoever gets the number of successes first. In unopposed rolls, success is determined by getting a success on 50% of the required number of rolls.

That is all true; the beef I have (and many others) are with the single roll resolution mechanic (and with a very small variation between maximum penalties and bonuses when compared to the spread of the dice).

Unfortunately, WotC is still stuck on that mechanic, and so far nothing appears that it will change. If it does, I can revisit the system and give it another go. However with the quality of the playtest documents thus far, I don't see anything positive in 5e's future.

oxybe

2013-01-13, 07:11 PM

if only D&D had a mechanical framework to represent a challenge that could not be properly represented by a single skill roll.

1337 b4k4

2013-01-13, 07:36 PM

Yes yes, we all know that 4e had skill challenges. We also know that WotC so badly botched the presentation of those skill challenges, that many people nev even used them, and those that did were left with a bad taste in their mouths until the various errata were released.

If only there were a new version of D&D coming out which might seek to take the various lessons and good parts of each edition of D&D and combine them to make a version of D&D which tries to address the shortcomings of each edition. One were you might take the skill challenge mechanic from forth edition and add it to the simplified combat mechanics of say 2nd edition, and lease them together in the "next" version of D&D. I wonder what you might call that? And if only there were some way to convey your desires for what sorts of mechanics you might want in this "next" version to WotC.

Jacob.Tyr

2013-01-13, 08:09 PM

oxybe

2013-01-13, 08:31 PM

well, if wotc would have actually asked for my input i would have gladly given it. except they never did. i've heard about these mythical surveys, but don't remember ever getting one.

only when i asked on a forum for a way to contact them did i get this survey. this forum actually, as kurald gave it to me on page 9, 3rd post.

it doesn't really strike much good faith in me for them actively wanting to hear my desires about what i want from a potential next edition when i have to actively go hunt for a way to contact them, about 7 months and just as many playtests later.

even though they already have a valid method to contact me with, since i've used the same email to login and download the last 7 playtest packages.

then again, i have been mainly critical about their playtests and the direction they've been pushing it in with the people i've been talking to. beyond the various technical issues and some thematic ones, i would say it's biggest failing is that it's trying for, as you put it, "best parts of every edition" to make it a D&D "everyone" wants to play.

i find there is a serious lack of focus on what the experience it's trying to give the player. what experience it is giving me, i can probably do better by using another ruleset entirely.

the main reason for this is that while it sounds lofty, it also strikes me as an impossible goal, since not everyone can agree on what the best parts or the shortcomings of any given edition is.

it's definitely not looking to be a game i'd want to invest time or effort in.

ask for skill challenges, yeah, they could have been better explained in 4th. but then again they were kinda obtuse when initially introduced in 3rd ed too (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/complexSkillChecks.htm).

didn't stop me from using the basic concept back then though.

navar100

2013-01-13, 09:27 PM

obryn

2013-01-13, 09:52 PM

Rolling lots of dice for skill checks might not be so popular an idea to play even if it works mathematically. It was introduced in 3E's Unearthed Arcana and 4E made it official with Skill Challenges which as I understand is not universally loved by those who like and play 4E. If I'm mistaken on that, ok, but it still might be a hard sell for the non-4E players.
The initial math was completely borked. The explanation in the DMG was asinine and ridiculous.

People who enjoyed 4e enough to stick with it have seen the entire system get immensely better, with skill challenges being one of the most-improved areas. (Yes, that errata and update process really did have a net positive result.) But WotC missed its opportunity to sell the system to more skeptical players by initially releasing that skill challenge mish-mash.

Myself, I use them very regularly. They work great now.

-O

1337 b4k4

2013-01-13, 11:50 PM

WotC needs to sell skill challenges the same way that AEG sells the chase system in spycraft (which when you boil it down is basically a skill challenge with a slightly different success/failure goal). The need to sell skill challenges as "The Way" to do any skill check period. "If its important enough to roll, then it's important enough to roll a lot of dice" or some other pithy slogan. But the idea is that they should sell skill challenges as the out of combat resolution system. No one has any problem with multiple rounds to resolve combat, and an opposed skill check is pretty much combat, just without swords so that shouldn't be too hard of a leap. From there, they just need to come up with a way to sell it for DC based skill checks and then back it up with good DM advice. This should be their way of solving all 3 of the major complaints I've heard about D&D skill systems, not accurate enough (Conan v commoner), not interesting enough ("I diplomacy the king!") and not a first class citizen in the system (the really intricate combat options vs the bolt on feel of single roll resolution skills).

Draz74

2013-01-14, 01:42 AM

Myself, I use them very regularly. They work great now.

Although as Kurald has repeatedly pointed out, although the math has been fixed, the fluff of Skill Challenges still only works if you adopt some (possibly obvious) houserules that directly contradict what the rulebooks say ... :smallsigh:

Yora

2013-01-14, 04:12 AM

But the idea is that they should sell skill challenges as the out of combat resolution system. No one has any problem with multiple rounds to resolve combat, and an opposed skill check is pretty much combat, just without swords so that shouldn't be too hard of a leap.
But I don't think rolling dice is desireable. The rules should remain in the background and not disrupt the roleplaying. The more you rely on dice and the longer you suspend roleplaying in favor for dice rolling, the more disruptive it gets. I'm very much in favor of quick and dirty and having players just make a single roll that may take three seconds, and be back into the action.

TuggyNE

2013-01-14, 04:46 AM

Again, this isn't taking into account the scale of the argument. Because in keeping with the math for the nat 20 against nat 1 to be failure, than you need at least eleven people aiding your attack to actually have a chance to hit the target on a 20, considering armor class takes ten.

I did say, didn't I, that taking ten fouls a lot of this up? It does, and that's (one of the reasons) why.

Still, Kurald's points about attacking something other than their strictly strongest point are good.

1337 b4k4

2013-01-14, 08:14 AM

But I don't think rolling dice is desireable. The rules should remain in the background and not disrupt the roleplaying. The more you rely on dice and the longer you suspend roleplaying in favor for dice rolling, the more disruptive it gets. I'm very much in favor of quick and dirty and having players just make a single roll that may take three seconds, and be back into the action.

Sure, and I understand that. The question is why, from a psychological standpoint, does no one think that combat is "suspending role playing in favor of dice rolling"? Why does no one suggest that we reduce combat to a single die roll that takes 3 seconds and gets back to the action? Clearly there is something interesting to combat (as seen by the ever increasing amount of rules and dice dedicated to it). So is it possible to make the skill system just as interesting?

obryn

2013-01-14, 09:31 AM

Although as Kurald has repeatedly pointed out, although the math has been fixed, the fluff of Skill Challenges still only works if you adopt some (possibly obvious) houserules that directly contradict what the rulebooks say ... :smallsigh:
Okay. Kurald is wrong about that; the post-errata rules and guidelines in the Rules Compendium (not just the math, the whole system) are very tight and work well. The DMG system is garbage; I know it, you know it. That was the point of my post.

But my desire to re-hash the same boring arguments is fairly minimal right now, so...

-O

Draz74

2013-01-14, 12:57 PM

New Legends & Lore up ... Nobody commenting on it yet? :smalltongue:

I did say, didn't I, that taking ten fouls a lot of this up? It does, and that's (one of the reasons) why.
So how much can taking 10 fix the overall problems with dice spread being too big compared to skill modifiers? ...

Okay. Kurald is wrong about that; the post-errata rules and guidelines in the Rules Compendium (not just the math, the whole system) are very tight and work well. The DMG system is garbage; I know it, you know it. That was the point of my post.

But my desire to re-hash the same boring arguments is fairly minimal right now, so...
OK. I guess I can't remember how sound his arguments were when the Rules Compendium guidelines (which I've never so much as seen) were in the mix.

But I don't think rolling dice is desireable. The rules should remain in the background and not disrupt the roleplaying. The more you rely on dice and the longer you suspend roleplaying in favor for dice rolling, the more disruptive it gets. I'm very much in favor of quick and dirty and having players just make a single roll that may take three seconds, and be back into the action.
Yora, this quote kinda makes it sound like you aren't really going to be happy with any rules-heavy system. The "roleplay out anything if at all possible, only occasionally make a single die roll to resolve a whole suite of actions"? That sounds like Fate or something rather than D&D.

Not entirely coincidentally, rules-light systems tend to use pools of d6's or d10's rather than a one-die resolution mechanic.

Sure, and I understand that. The question is why, from a psychological standpoint, does no one think that combat is "suspending role playing in favor of dice rolling"?
Good question. Simple blood & guts fascination? Escapism, where combat is further than most other tasks from what (normal, peaceful) players can do to indulge their out-of-game adventurism? Or maybe the risk of death, which is a longer-lasting penalty than failure at most other tasks?

Why does no one suggest that we reduce combat to a single die roll that takes 3 seconds and gets back to the action?
Some do. Again, it's called "rules-light systems." :smalltongue:

Clearly there is something interesting to combat (as seen by the ever increasing amount of rules and dice dedicated to it). So is it possible to make the skill system just as interesting?
Good question again. In addition to the things I mentioned earlier, combat has a tactical (spatial) element that's hard to find an equivalent to in other task resolution.

navar100

2013-01-14, 01:20 PM

Most class abilities are all about combat. Combat is exciting because players get to use their class abilities. The interaction and resolution is what make it interesting. A skill check just uses one number written on the sheet which anybody can have.

3E rogues get to use a lot of their skills out of combat by on purpose class build and function. Rogue players have fun doing their stuff outside of combat because there is lots of stuff to do. They get to roll a lot of different skill checks for various things.

The key then is to give all classes fun stuff to do outside of combat that doesn't intrude on the rogue. It's possible. Not saying it's absolutely perfect in every way, but Pathfinder gave it a shot. Anyone can use Perception to search for traps. Rogues get a class bonus. Anyone can use Survival to track. rangers get a class bonus. The idea then is not to have any skill use be exclusive to one class, but it's ok for a class to have a bonus to reflect it is a bit better.

Menteith

2013-01-14, 01:52 PM

From the new Legends and Lore'

We'd like to...Simplify combat by removing extraneous options. We have 14 options in the rules now. The basic game needs only attack, cast a spell, disengage, hide, hustle, search, and use an item. I'd like the core rules boiled down to about 16 pages, not counting class-specific material.

Fantastic. Wait, the opposite of that. While I don't see any other real issues for their current design goals, this jumps out at me as a really, really bad idea. I've no desire to restart the discussion about how baseline combat maneuvers should work, but forcing them all into either DM Fiat or class features is not something I find appealing.

obryn

2013-01-14, 01:58 PM

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-01-14, 02:00 PM

New Legends & Lore up ... Nobody commenting on it yet? :smalltongue:

What's there to say? The article is basically telling us that WotC wants to have a basic version, a complex version, and a bunch of modules, that the current version is too complex, and that the devs are still making some pretty basic mistakes (e.g. the fighter's listed schtick is "AC and hit points" while the wizard's schtick is "AoE and control"). Nothing new.

noparlpf

2013-01-14, 02:04 PM

Is "cast a spell" really one thing in the same sense that "make an attack" is one thing?

-O

Yes, exactly the problem. Unless every spell is exactly the same mechanically, if core considers "cast a spell" and "make a boring standard attack" the same, we'll have OP casters and boring mundanes again.

Kurald Galain

2013-01-14, 02:34 PM

Draz74

2013-01-14, 03:38 PM

Fantastic. Wait, the opposite of that. While I don't see any other real issues for their current design goals, this jumps out at me as a really, really bad idea. I've no desire to restart the discussion about how baseline combat maneuvers should work, but forcing them all into either DM Fiat or class features is not something I find appealing.
Eh, I really want good, easy rules for baseline combat maneuvers, but I don't really care if they're included in the little beginner's booklet with the "Basic" ruleset. It's hard to argue that most first-time players aren't going to bother with trying to bull rush monsters instead of just hitting them. And if they do, they're probably ok with the DM (if he's a beginner too) just making stuff up as they play. (And if the DM's not a beginner, he'll have read beyond the Basic rules and will just be able to implement more complicated rules quietly.)

What's there to say? The article is basically telling us that WotC wants to have a basic version, a complex version, and a bunch of modules, that the current version is too complex, and that the devs are still making some pretty basic mistakes (e.g. the fighter's listed schtick is "AC and hit points" while the wizard's schtick is "AoE and control"). Nothing new.
... Yeah ... I wasn't really sure how to react either.

That said, I do think the game needs things like bull rush, trip, and stunt, unless that is all considered a form of "attack". And, of course, pick up / drop / throw an item, stuff like that.

Again, pick up / drop / throw an item sounds like the sort of thing that's easy (and harmless) enough to DM fiat, to the point where I'm ok if it's in the "Core" rules rather than the "Basic" rules.

Kurald Galain

2013-01-14, 03:40 PM

Again, pick up / drop / throw an item sounds like the sort of thing that's easy (and harmless) enough to DM fiat, to the point where I'm ok if it's in the "Core" rules rather than the "Basic" rules.

I disagree. Simple, commonplace actions like picking up an item should be in the main rules, not left to fiat. Because that's what the rules are for; otherwise you'd get a lot of crazy table variation. Leave fiat for the obscure / custom / stunt actions.

Draz74

2013-01-14, 03:43 PM

I disagree. Simple, commonplace actions like picking up an item should be in the main rules, not left to fiat. Because that's what the rules are for; otherwise you'd get a lot of crazy table variation. Leave fiat for the obscure / custom / stunt actions.

Anyone who cares whether there's "table variation" shouldn't be playing with just the Basic rules package, though. The way I read the article, "Basic Rules" is code for "super-casual mode."

Menteith

2013-01-14, 04:15 PM

Eh, I really want good, easy rules for baseline combat maneuvers, but I don't really care if they're included in the little beginner's booklet with the "Basic" ruleset. It's hard to argue that most first-time players aren't going to bother with trying to bull rush monsters instead of just hitting them. And if they do, they're probably ok with the DM (if he's a beginner too) just making stuff up as they play. (And if the DM's not a beginner, he'll have read beyond the Basic rules and will just be able to implement more complicated rules quietly.)

Why does he think that it's more important to have Stealth and Search be baseline actions, but not something like Jump or Diplomacy? Why is Hustle deemed important enough to be in the core rules, but not a Run action?

It's just weird to me, and I feel like they've made a bad decision here. It would make more sense if they either mapped out many different baseline actions (Disarm, Bull Rush, Hustle, Sniping, etc) for the core rules, or if they only mapped out actual essentials (Attack, use ability, use spell, use skill, move) with supplements filling in enough to make it playable. The mixed bag thing he's stating as a design goal just confuses me, and I don't think it's a great way to accomplish the goals that he's outlined.

Oracle_Hunter

2013-01-14, 04:15 PM

New Legends & Lore up ... Nobody commenting on it yet? :smalltongue:
Well I'm going to post a link (https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130114) for the sake of completeness.

Sadly, I wont have much to say until Mearls actually says something. This post simply says "we're walking back all of the new ideas we've had since we started the playtest" and made some vague statements about "balancing classes" and "emphasizing abilities" without really making it clear what he means by those statements.

Oh, actually I do have something to note: Mearls seems like he really likes playing Casters. It may be a bit subtle but between what he chooses to concentrate on (i.e. minuate of spellcasting) and what he finds too fiddly to bother with (e.g. combat maneuvers, martial damage dice) his approach to game design is identical to the guy who plays the Batman Wizard in 3e. Personally I think the design team could use someone who cares about the Mundane Perspective -- or at least someone who can consider the keystone feature of the Fighter Class as something more exciting than "[having] the best AC and hit points" :smallsigh:

obryn

2013-01-14, 04:49 PM

Remember that Mearls was responsible for Iron Heroes. He's among the martial-friendliest designers at WotC.

-O

Clawhound

2013-01-14, 05:01 PM

WotC is also responding to player desires. The culture of the game has a fixed notion of what a fighter is. The culture will support fighter experimentation only so far. Technically, Bo9S is beautiful, but a huge part of the D&D community just didn't like it.

Oracle_Hunter

2013-01-14, 05:45 PM

Remember that Mearls was responsible for Iron Heroes. He's among the martial-friendliest designers at WotC.
If he is he's doing a damn good job of hiding it.

Or that may say more about how "martial-friendly" WotC is as a whole.

Anderlith

2013-01-14, 06:09 PM

Sorry but I have a lot of pent up venom after the last few weeks of the Playtest

I am @#*! tired of class "roles"! Why does the party have to be a group of specialists, that can't do anything else outside their narrow purview?

A man with a spear & shield can do a LOT of battlefield control if they actually added some options for it (out side of "I make a basic attack")

In fact, why isn't there a "Smart Warrior" option ever? A warrior who knows & studies things so that he can kill them better? But we'll never get that if the Fighter begins & ends with ARMOR & WEAPON

Or a decent Blaster type wizard, one who is good at war magic?
We'll never get that if WotC keeps thinking that everything can be done with magic, & make spells that make decent war magic spells underpowered.

I'd love a Jack-of-all-ABILITIES rogue like the 3.5 Factotum was but we'll never get that if the Rogue begins & ends with SNEAK ATTACK & SKILLS

obryn

2013-01-14, 06:15 PM

In fact, why isn't there a "Smart Warrior" option ever? A warrior who knows & studies things so that he can kill them better? But we'll never get that if the Fighter begins & ends with ARMOR & WEAPON
It's called a Tactical Warlord. :smallwink:

-O

Grundy

2013-01-14, 06:18 PM

I think the big thing to keep in mind about this article is that he's talking about the stripped-down version, not the standard version. As a dad who wants to play dnd with his kids when they get to be 7-9 years old, I think this is fantastic.
Also I can remember friends asking me about dnd, and watching their eyes glaze over after about the 4th sentance. Introducing new players is probably the most important thing they can focus on, as game developers. They already have a theme, history and product awareness. So they need to reel in new players more than anything else right now. And they've correctly identified that to do that, they need a simple, rigorous system as a foundation. They can build a cool house that makes up for QWLF once they've got a basic system that gets people in the door- IF the basic system will support it.
Let's face it. The QWLF fighter isn't at it's core a game design problem. The problem is:
How does a guy who follows the rules of physics/nature compete with a guy who's whole schtick is "I breaks all the rulez!"

So the designers definitely have to fix that problem, and in the past they have, to varying degrees.... hopefully this time they do it well.

Kurald Galain

2013-01-14, 06:27 PM

How does a guy who follows the rules of physics/nature compete with a guy who's whole schtick is "I breaks all the rulez!"

The obvious answer (at least in numerous fiction books) is to state that magic can't just do whatever you feel like at the moment, but that it also has rules - either strict ones that you can't break, or dangerous ones that you violate at your peril.

It keeps surprising me how many people have never heard of this trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA).

oxybe

2013-01-14, 06:34 PM

i don't see a probably 40$ bare-bones version of 5th ed being too appealing to the mass public, noting that this statement comes from my understanding that the "Basic" version will have less player options then the current iteration of the playtest (i'm taking this from Mearl's statement that: "The current choices that are present in the game—deity for a cleric, tradition for wizard, and so on—won't appear here" and the paring down of the non-class specific rules to 16 pages).

i could work as a free download/intro product, but i find the current playtest far too lacking already to be sold in stores.

this is especially true if it's an extra 40$ for the "standard" and probably another 40$ for the "advanced" versions, that each contain a lot of re-threaded material. worse if you need the basic & standard versions to play the advanced one.

now do also note that the previous paragraph is considering a one-book edition... no PHB/DMG/MM release: just one book for all the needs.

i also would have liked to hear how they will address sourcebooks, like "complete kickpuncher"... is that going to be "basic", "standard" or "advanced"? will it have the same material printed in triplicate, one for each of the B/S/A?

Morty

2013-01-14, 06:42 PM

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-01-14, 06:43 PM

Remember that Mearls was responsible for Iron Heroes. He's among the martial-friendliest designers at WotC.

-O

Having played and run Iron Heroes several times, I wouldn't call it martial-friendly at all. Martial-focused, certainly, and it shakes things up a bit with some of the extra options added, but it doesn't really fix the main problems of 3e martial types ("story" or "plot" abilities, more value per feat slot, built-in scaling, taking massive penalties for small gains with stunting, etc.) any more than just playing 3e without any casters would, and the one caster class in the game is just as breakable as a 3e caster and in basically the same ways.

If IH is Mearls's idea of giving martial classes some love, that would explain how they're faring in the playtest.

Draz74

2013-01-14, 07:04 PM

Why does he think that it's more important to have Stealth and Search be baseline actions, but not something like Jump or Diplomacy? Why is Hustle deemed important enough to be in the core rules, but not a Run action?
I don't know the answers, but here's some guesses:

Stealth has to be in the Basic Rules because it's a vital part of the Rogue's combat tactics.
Search has to be in the Basic Rules because it's a vital part of dealing with traps, which (according to some grognard traditions of D&D) is a vital part of the Rogue's niche.
Diplomacy and Jump are less iconic to any particular class (at least if the Bard isn't in the Basic Rules), so WotC isn't as worried about just representing these kinds of actions with ability checks. Also, Diplomacy is quite a bit less likely to be used during combat than Stealth is.
Hustle is just 5e's jargon for a double move action. So it's pretty easy to understand why it would be "Basic." Meanwhile, running is an action that has traditionally carried some risk (which sounds like more advanced strategy than the Basic package is catering to), and will rarely get used by novice players.

WotC is also responding to player desires. The culture of the game has a fixed notion of what a fighter is. The culture will support fighter experimentation only so far.
Yeah ... I fear that WotC has painted themselves into a corner with incompatible goals:

Make classes balanced.
Make the game "feel like D&D" to our target market.
Choose a target market with a Fighter concept that can't do anything except hit monsters hard and soak a lot of attacks.
Choose a target market with a Wizard concept that can do a lot of crazy world-altering things with its spells.

If they're not willing to bend some of these more than they've demonstrated so far in their playtest packets, they're trying to achieve 4 = 9.

I think the big thing to keep in mind about this article is that he's talking about the stripped-down version, not the standard version. As a dad who wants to play dnd with his kids when they get to be 7-9 years old, I think this is fantastic.
Agreed. I think people are overreacting to the idea of a Basic Rules set that certainly won't be complete, and probably won't be worth paying for on its own, but which would still be adequate to introduce new players to the game until they're ready to learn more complex rules.

I can imagine lots of DMs who know the Core Rules, whose players know only the Basic Rules, but who are able to implement the Core Rules so seamlessly that the players don't even realize what's going on. Because they only interact with the "more advanced" rules on an as-needed basis, like when they ask the DM what happens if their character wants to try knocking the orc's sword out of the orc's hand. They don't have to know the Disarm rules; just the DM does.

They can build a cool house that makes up for QWLF once they've got a basic system that gets people in the door- IF the basic system will support it.
Which isn't looking extremely hopeful IMO. :smallfrown:

Let's face it. The QWLF fighter isn't at it's core a game design problem. The problem is:
How does a guy who follows the rules of physics/nature compete with a guy who's whole schtick is "I breaks all the rulez!"
This, I actually disagree with. It wouldn't be that hard to write a ruleset where magic is a LOT less powerful than good ol' mundane physics-compatible martial skill.

The challenge is how to do so without making your world look very different from a D&D-style setting, or without making it really boring/frustrating to play a spellcaster character.

Grundy

2013-01-14, 08:36 PM

The obvious answer (at least in numerous fiction books) is to state that magic can't just do whatever you feel like at the moment, but that it also has rules - either strict ones that you can't break, or dangerous ones that you violate at your peril.

It keeps surprising me how many people have never heard of this trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA).

I'll agree that fiction typically handles magic in a more managable manner than Dnd, especially since 3rd ed. And I'd love to see magic toned down, maybe even further than it was in 1/2E. Modern Dnd magic has rules- it operates more like flawless technology than anything- it's just that the rules make magic too good. There's absoultely no downside.

obryn

2013-01-14, 08:46 PM

I dunno. If they can make the caster/non-caster discrepancy as manageable as it was in B/X or in AD&D 1e, I think the basic set will turn out fine even with smashy Fighters. There has to be more than that, mind you, in supplements . But in the Basic game, it should be okay.

(Which still leads me to ask - why do I want to pay money for Next instead of playing B/X or RC or AD&D 1e, which I already have?)

-O

Friv

2013-01-14, 09:26 PM

(Which still leads me to ask - why do I want to pay money for Next instead of playing B/X or RC or AD&D 1e, which I already have?)

Well, if it works correctly (and I realize that this is a big if), the ability to move from a basic, OD&D style game to a much more complex one by simply adding modules one at a time, letting players get comfortable with them, and then adding a new one is actually something that would be wonderful for the hobby in general and the game in particular.

This will require an exceedingly cautious balance between the basic game and the advanced one, mind you, but having a situation where more advanced players have to learn new things but don't have to unlearn anything would be big.

Craft (Cheese)

2013-01-15, 12:21 AM

Combat is exciting because players get to use their class abilities.

I could not possibly disagree more. Combat is engaging because it has choices with genuinely uncertain consequences.

Consider this. Your friend about 30 feet away from you just hit -1 hit points and is freshly poised for two nearby trolls to run over and finish him off. But you've got an Ogre 10 feet away with your number.

How do you get out of this with both you and your friend alive? Is it even possible? Better decide fast, you've only got 30 seconds to decide what you're gonna do.

It's moments like this that make combat engaging and memorable, regardless of what class features or specific abilities you used were.

This is the reason for the sometimes-maligned "Cult of Balance." Situations where you have no chance of success or no chance of failure can't be engaging in this way (they can, however, be engaging in other ways).

Zeful

2013-01-15, 02:46 AM

This is the reason for the sometimes-maligned "Cult of Balance."
No, that is universally due to people misunderstanding what balance in game systems fundamentally is. This sentence being a perfect example of this misunderstanding in it's rawest form.

Craft (Cheese)

2013-01-15, 03:14 AM

No, that is universally due to people misunderstanding what balance in game systems fundamentally is. This sentence being a perfect example of this misunderstanding in it's rawest form.

By the ""Cult of Balance"" I mean the idea that all challenges the PCs encounter should be level-appropriate, or else it's a waste of time at best and plain-old mean DMing at worst. The common counter to this idea is that verisimilitude requires the existence of challenges both far below and far above the PC's level, thus a campaign in a fully fleshed-out world should include both.

Reflecting back, I should have called it the "Cult of Level-Appropriateness" as you're absolutely right that its opposite is not percluded by balance. My apologies.

Zeful

2013-01-15, 04:21 AM

Yeah, I thought you were actually talking about balance, and making an ill-informed jab at people who want a better balanced system by making the hyperbolic argument that people who discuss balance only want one option and obtain perfect balance.

But yes, making all challenges surpassable by the player immediately is not a positive thing, as it gives no reason for the player to go back to other areas after he's leveled up some.

noparlpf

2013-01-15, 04:29 AM

The most balanced game I've ever played was a GBA remake of some older game, that my dad had found somewhere. You could pick one of four classes (Fighter, Ranger, Cleric, Wizard, I think) but all you could actually do with any of them was hit I think (B) and use a ranged attack against whatever monsters wandered after you. That's ultimate balance.

Clawhound

2013-01-15, 10:06 AM

I could not possibly disagree more. Combat is engaging because it has choices with genuinely uncertain consequences.

Consider this. Your friend about 30 feet away from you just hit -1 hit points and is freshly poised for two nearby trolls to run over and finish him off. But you've got an Ogre 10 feet away with your number.

How do you get out of this with both you and your friend alive? Is it even possible? Better decide fast, you've only got 30 seconds to decide what you're gonna do.

It's moments like this that make combat engaging and memorable, regardless of what class features or specific abilities you used were.

This is the reason for the sometimes-maligned "Cult of Balance." Situations where you have no chance of success or no chance of failure can't be engaging in this way (they can, however, be engaging in other ways).

At one point, some years back, I argued that the fighter WORKED because he got p0wned in combat. That is, when the fighter gets hit with near lethal damage, the other characters are glad that the fighter is there, in front, doing his job because their characters would have died. Likewise, when the fighter gets hammered by something uncontrollable, rescuing him becomes the moment of drama. That ADDS to the game for normal players.

We aren't normal players here.

Oracle_Hunter

2013-01-15, 10:13 AM

At one point, some years back, I argued that the fighter WORKED because he got p0wned in combat. That is, when the fighter gets hit with near lethal damage, the other characters are glad that the fighter is there, in front, doing his job because their characters would have died. Likewise, when the fighter gets hammered by something uncontrollable, rescuing him becomes the moment of drama. That ADDS to the game for normal players.

We aren't normal players here.
So... who liked playing the Buttmonkey of your group? :smallconfused:

I only ask because I literally can't think of any Player I've had over the years who would say "I want to play a guy who can't protect himself and constantly needs to be rescued by everyone else. Is there a class for that?"

1337 b4k4

2013-01-15, 10:21 AM

^ So you never had anyone ask to play a wizard?

Oracle_Hunter

2013-01-15, 10:31 AM

^ So you never had anyone ask to play a wizard?
Not in a 1st level 3e game. They all went with Sorcerers, Clerics and Druids for obvious reasons :smalltongue:

Now my 5th level 3e game... yeah, lots of people wanted to play Wizards. I wonder why :smallamused:

MukkTB

2013-01-15, 10:59 AM

Well, if it works correctly (and I realize that this is a big if), the ability to move from a basic, OD&D style game to a much more complex one by simply adding modules one at a time, letting players get comfortable with them, and then adding a new one is actually something that would be wonderful for the hobby in general and the game in particular.

This will require an exceedingly cautious balance between the basic game and the advanced one, mind you, but having a situation where more advanced players have to learn new things but don't have to unlearn anything would be big.

This is the best reason I've seen so far.

Anecronwashere

2013-01-15, 11:04 AM

I really hope the end up with the basic classes being something like this:

Fighter: Hits things with a stick. Pool of expertise dice that refreshes each round used for either +damage or using special moves

Cleric: Healbot/Undead controller. Spells refresh daily with prayer

Sorcerer: Generic Blaster with scaling damage single-target attacks and some status inflicts. Spells refresh each Encounter

Rogue: Backstabbing untrustworthy thief. Stabs things in the back. passive class features without use limits but conditions on activation (like Sneak Attack needing flanking)

Psion: Buff/Debuffer inflicting status effects and moving things around. PP refreshes X/round

No multiclassing in Basic.

5 classes, Buffer/Battlefield Control, Healbot, Ranged Magic, Tank and Striker
Fighter and Sorcerer would be the only classes capable of Soloing effectively, Basic relying on a team to function (promoting the teamwork and atmosphere that new players would find attractive to get them hooked)
5 different ways of tracking class features too. /day /round /encounter X/round and Passive are the main ones that one can make so the players can find the one they prefer to use and get the same type when getting into the more advanced modules and classes

Gwendol

2013-01-15, 11:26 AM

Sooo, finally getting around to running the "Mud Sorcerer Tomb". Is there anything in that module able to challenge the PC's?

I have a
high elf rogue 10/wiz 4 (will likely try both the assassin and some other scheme)
Dwarf fighter 14 (heavy hitter, again; will probably try different styles throughout the adventure)
Human cleric 14 (trickery god, the one that lets you polymorph X/day)
Wizard 14, still unknown

navar100

2013-01-15, 12:49 PM

I could not possibly disagree more. Combat is engaging because it has choices with genuinely uncertain consequences.

Consider this. Your friend about 30 feet away from you just hit -1 hit points and is freshly poised for two nearby trolls to run over and finish him off. But you've got an Ogre 10 feet away with your number.

How do you get out of this with both you and your friend alive? Is it even possible? Better decide fast, you've only got 30 seconds to decide what you're gonna do.

It's moments like this that make combat engaging and memorable, regardless of what class features or specific abilities you used were.

This is the reason for the sometimes-maligned "Cult of Balance." Situations where you have no chance of success or no chance of failure can't be engaging in this way (they can, however, be engaging in other ways).

A game is a series of interesting decisions. In D&D that happens in and out of combat. Skill use has those decisions, and the resolution is done by a few dice rolls. Combat is also done by a few dice rolls. The question was why is combat resolution done by several dice rolls ok while skill resolution done by several dice rolls is not ok. They both use dice rolls. They both use player decisions. They both have consequences. What is the difference? The difference is that characters get to use their class stuff in combat while having little to no class stuff for skills. Since the Rogue is built for skills, he gets to do more; hence his excitement for skill use is high. He actually does roll lots of dice for skill use resolution and has a ball. Give all classes abilities to do stuff out of combat, and out of combat lots of dice resolution will be acceptable fun.

obryn

2013-01-15, 12:56 PM

1337 b4k4

2013-01-15, 02:52 PM

The difference is that characters get to use their class stuff in combat while having little to no class stuff for skills. Since the Rogue is built for skills, he gets to do more; hence his excitement for skill use is high. He actually does roll lots of dice for skill use resolution and has a ball. Give all classes abilities to do stuff out of combat, and out of combat lots of dice resolution will be acceptable fun.

I think this is a bit too simplified. Consider pre-1e D&D, where there was very little class stuff even in combat. Even then it appears that out of combat rolls (when they happened) were single die checks.

oxybe

2013-01-15, 03:04 PM

i'm currently playing by post it and we're not done with the module yet, so don't spoil it. several posts by the GM have purple text. some posts are comprised of half purple text.

we also decided to try to see if high level 5th ed is playable sans "caster". the team consists of : 2 monks, 2 fighters & 1 rogue.

now, when the DM writes in purple text, this indicates to us that he went away from what was written or the PCs are being PCs and no adventure survives interaction with the PCs.

this is partially to note how often he had to veer and partially for our amusement.

i say amusement as the number one reason he listed off the top of his head for purple text was "Xi did something that the designer didn't think of." Xi is my character. he attempts to dungeon bypass at any opportunity, partially because he's mildly insane, partially because i want to stress test the dungeon.

note: Xi is one of the two monks and his bypasses involves a pick, a spade, a sledge, pitons, a makeshift battering ram called the portable rogue (a 25lb log tied to 50ft of rope), a crowbar, etc...

many of which don't work because : dungeon. but that won't stop me from trying as i had 160lbs of potential carrying capacity and i maxed it out. so yeah, i have a 160lb batman utility belt.

the other reasons for purple are bascially that progress being literally impossible since the party lacks a resource (more on this later).

as for fights, we've only had one up until now

the 3 golem alcove room

and it was a complete cakewalk... we got hit twice i think in the span of the 3 rounds it lasted. it was also pretty boring of a fight with nothing of real importance happening other then "punch punch sword punch punch punch punch punch sword dagger punch punch".

i will admit we do have some magic items on our side. the gm did maths and spreadsheets and got numbers. specifically the number of coin & magic gear we had.

my monk has spiderclimb booties and carries the party's bag of holding. full of healing pots. half of which he spent his share of money on. another PC spent his on the other half.

now remember when i mentioned the purple text due to technically impossible progress? i also admitted to cheating and looked at the early module after the gm dropped hints about our progress being less then possible, going by the module. i saw that going by the rules it should have, indeed, been technically impossible to get the party to that cakewalk fight in the first place as we could not have made the check needed to progress in the dungeon.

past the second room.

also: no one in the party can read the hint/note/texts so he just gave us the fansubbed versions.

thank god we have a gm with a good head on his shoulders. and one who has the sense of humor to add legend of zelda fanfares when appropriate.

Friv

2013-01-15, 04:53 PM

now remember when i mentioned the purple text due to technically impossible progress? i also admitted to cheating and looked at the early module after the gm dropped hints about our progress being less then possible, going by the module. i saw that going by the rules it should have, indeed, been technically impossible to get the party to that cakewalk fight in the first place as we could not have made the check needed to progress in the dungeon.

past the second room.

Nobody with Search in the party, either?

Clawhound

2013-01-15, 04:58 PM

So... who liked playing the Buttmonkey of your group? :smallconfused:

I only ask because I literally can't think of any Player I've had over the years who would say "I want to play a guy who can't protect himself and constantly needs to be rescued by everyone else. Is there a class for that?"

That would be *ME*.

I like playing fighters because it's a challenge. That, and the basic utility of high AC and high HP character really does matter. I am frequently the best informed player of the bunch, so I give myself a hefty handicap to keep the game balanced.

You See: Fighter can't defend himself.
I See: Creature takes huge opportunity cost attacking weakest character with the most hit points.

I play the fighter as an opportunity cost manipulator. Given a fight of 3-5 rounds, even one round of attacking the fighter is a stiff opportunity cost for the opposing creature(s). I have a high AC. High AC is effective about 90% of the time. Most attacks against the fighter miss, thus preventing the need for healing. Many grabbers can only grab one character, so when the fighter gets caught, I've sucked down the creature's main schtick through my amazing power of not dying. The same goes for many limited powers. CON saves predominate at levels 1-10.

You may scoff, but I've seen the look on other player's faces when I move my fighter into danger, survive absurd odds, and give the other players time to use their cool powers. That maneuver is absurdly powerful in round #1, simply because round #1 is so critical to the fight. If you can defray the damage output in round #1, you've cut the opposing expected damage output by 30%-50%.

I used to post Joe dumb fighters in combat challenges as well. After hearing how badly the fighter did as a challengers, I would always run one. If you can't do better than the stock fighter, you aren't designing well. Turns out, the reasonably equipped stock fighter usually did as well as 50% of the optimized challengers. Not bad for a badly designed class.

oxybe

2013-01-15, 05:27 PM

Nobody with Search in the party, either?

nope! we each just dropped our characters in the recruiting/discussion thread and hit the ground running once all slots were filled up, with no care or thought put to actual party composition.

there is nobody in the group with the search skill or a 20 (+5) int to allow us to make the DC 25 int check to find/open the secret door. it should also be stressed that the dungeon walls seem to be impervious to harm, so my various attempts to break through things have always failed.

after reading the last L&L article, i would say this is actually a rather important thing to test: namely WotC's adventure design, since next seems to be going for a pick-up and play style where you can't always assume you'll have wizard, cleric, meatsack & certain specific skills.

from what i've experienced so far i would say it's a pretty piss-poor adventure that absolutely requires a few specific checks to be made to allow for continued progress, especially if it takes counter-measures against people trying to bypass the need to make the check (like the unbreakable walls i have always failed to smash with repeated attempts via sledge, battering ram & mining pick).

a summation of Page 4 of the module:
-you cannot teleport in or out of the tomb. if you're already inside, you can teleport to another area. planar travel & scrying don't work either
-earth or water shaping magic can potentially cause monsters to spontaneously exist and try to murder you.
-divination spells have a higher chance of failure
-several areas and parts of the tomb are warded. these can only be opened with magical keys. can't bypass these obstacles any other way.

Friv

2013-01-15, 06:02 PM

nope! we each just dropped our characters in the recruiting/discussion thread and hit the ground running once all slots were filled up, with no care or thought put to actual party composition.

there is nobody in the group with the search skill or a 20 (+5) int to allow us to make the DC 25 int check to find/open the secret door. it should also be stressed that the dungeon walls seem to be impervious to harm, so my various attempts to break through things have always failed.

after reading the last L&L article, i would say this is actually a rather important thing to test: namely WotC's adventure design, since next seems to be going for a pick-up and play style where you can't always assume you'll have wizard, cleric, meatsack & certain specific skills.

from what i've experienced so far i would say it's a pretty piss-poor adventure that absolutely requires a few specific checks to be made to allow for continued progress, especially if it takes counter-measures against people trying to bypass the need to make the check (like the unbreakable walls i have always failed to smash with repeated attempts via sledge, battering ram & mining pick).

a summation of Page 4 of the module:
-you cannot teleport in or out of the tomb. if you're already inside, you can teleport to another area. planar travel & scrying don't work either
-earth or water shaping magic can potentially cause monsters to spontaneously exist and try to murder you.
-divination spells have a higher chance of failure
-several areas and parts of the tomb are warded. these can only be opened with magical keys. can't bypass these obstacles any other way.

I would tend to agree. Although, to be fair, that's bad module design rather than bad game design. Challenges that can be bypassed with only a single option are not great, and ones that can be bypassed with only a single options and are required to advance the story are a great way to call it a night early.

Especially with that tomb, given that
you can't leave until you finish it, so failing to find the DC 25 secret door means you die of starvation.

huttj509

2013-01-15, 07:17 PM

I would tend to agree. Although, to be fair, that's bad module design rather than bad game design. Challenges that can be bypassed with only a single option are not great, and ones that can be bypassed with only a single options and are required to advance the story are a great way to call it a night early.

Especially with that tomb, given that
you can't leave until you finish it, so failing to find the DC 25 secret door means you die of starvation.

I remember running one module in 3.5, where to ENTER the tomb required a dispel magic.

The problem? The module was for characters level 4-x (don't recall the max). So we were level 4. No 3rd level spells. The DM had to specifically add in a scroll of dispel magic we could buy back in town, once we finally determined that was how we were supposed to get the door open (we thought it was some sort of puzzle having to do wioth the image on the door, cause, you know, we always think of spells we can't have yet as solutions to problems, right?).

Though I just learned that dnd-wiki now has a nice HOMEBREW flag on the right of homebrew articles. That's nice. (was checking dispel magic and found a homebrewed lesser dispel magic, level 1 but caster level doesn't affect the roll)

oxybe

2013-01-15, 10:56 PM

I would tend to agree. Although, to be fair, that's bad module design rather than bad game design. Challenges that can be bypassed with only a single option are not great, and ones that can be bypassed with only a single options and are required to advance the story are a great way to call it a night early.

Especially with that tomb, given that
you can't leave until you finish it, so failing to find the DC 25 secret door means you die of starvation.

i wholeheartedly agree that it's rather bad adventure design in this particular case, but again: WotC wants us to test their game, and if they want their system to be used for quick pick-up games with start-up/teaching akin to games like Settlers of Catan, the adventures need to be made with the idea that you can't expect to have a wizard there to cast the magics or expect someone to read a particular language.

their demo adventures, at least not the high level one, is not pickup game friendly.

Yora

2013-01-22, 10:21 AM

Wizards is running a new playtesting event at a convention this weekend in which they will introduce the barbarian class (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130122).

As it has been practice before, they will probably release the next playtest package about a week after that, in which we also will get our first look of it.

Just give me rangers, and that'd be pretty much a complete game for me. :smallbiggrin:

The LOBster

2013-01-22, 10:58 AM

Kurald Galain

2013-01-22, 11:06 AM

So how many classes are in the current playtests? I know we got Fighters, Wizards, Rogues, Clerics, Warlocks, and Sorcerers, but I'm guessing Monks have made it in, too?
Sorcerers and warlocks have been withdrawn from now. Some of the sorcerer's mechanics have been folded into the wizard. The monk is better than a 3E monk, yes.

it's looking like a game designed with the Grogs in mind,
Frankly I have no idea why you think that; the game is mostly a mixture of 3E and 4E. Anyway, feel free to page through this thread to see everybody's opinion. The game has vastly changed between subsequent playtests, so there's no telling what it may look like in the next round. Personally I preferred the earlier playtests to the current one.

The LOBster

2013-01-22, 11:10 AM

Sorcerers and warlocks have been withdrawn from now. Some of the sorcerer's mechanics have been folded into the wizard. The monk is better than a 3E monk, yes.

Hah, I was hoping for them to fold non-vancian casting into the Wizard somehow. And does that mean the mon's actually good, or is it just less bad?

Frankly I have no idea why you think that; the game is mostly a mixture of 3E and 4E. Anyway, feel free to page through this thread to see everybody's opinion. The game has vastly changed between subsequent playtests, so there's no telling what it may look like in the next round. Personally I preferred the earlier playtests to the current one.
I've heard how in the earlier playtests, wizards were monstrously overpowered and fighters and rogues were essentially kneecapped, not to mention the infamous 36d20 rat swarm. I guess that stuff's gone?

Yora

2013-01-22, 11:11 AM

One poll at enworld resulted in "5th Edition looks like whatever edition you hope it will be like". There was not much difference between any previous editions when it came to what the playtest versions resemble the most. Apparently it's very similar to both 1st, 3rd, and 4th Edition at the same time.

Hah, I was hoping for them to fold non-vancian casting into the Wizard somehow.
That was part of the reason. Thematically it was hard to clearly differentiate them and they mentioned they are thinking about making it possible to play the game either all vancian or all spontaneous, or all something else. Like the spell point variant for 3rd Edition from Unearthed Arcana. I hope they will come back to that, as vancian casting varies greatly between loved and hated between different people. I think it should even be possible to allow each player to chose one system for himself without conflicting with other players who use a different one. Worked with sorcerers in 3rd Edition without problems.

Doug Lampert

2013-01-22, 11:13 AM

So how many classes are in the current playtests? I know we got Fighters, Wizards, Rogues, Clerics, Warlocks, and Sorcerers, but I'm guessing Monks have made it in, too? I hope they aren't suck-tacular like the 3e Monk.

I haven't been keeping up much with 5th ed, since from what the Goons are saying, it's looking like a game designed with the Grogs in mind, so if anyone could tell me what they think about it and if it's gotten better, I'd be happy.

Current playtest has Fighters, Wizards, Rogues, Clerics, and Monks.

They had Warlocks and Sorcerers in a previous packet, and took them out for reconsideration.

The Fighter is very strong if all you look at is combat. They have absolutely nothing outside of combat.

Monks are like fighters, but with slightly stronger offense, weaker defense, and a slew of "utility" powers and abilities that don't look any better in next than in third, oh, and while EVERYONE in next can move and "full attack" the monk's extra speed draws from the same resource pool as his extra damage, so he can't use the extra speed and full attack.

But at least Perfect Self isn't a straight nerf and the DPR is probably the highest in the current version, and the class does actually have a role in combat, especially with a fighter ally with "protect". At higher levels it will even be able to move quickly and attack effectively in the same round.

Not hopeless by any means. I'm not impressed by most of the system, but the monk looks sort of kindof almost right.

Kurald Galain

2013-01-22, 11:15 AM

I've heard how in the earlier playtests, wizards were monstrously overpowered and fighters and rogues were essentially kneecapped,
Once again I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. This has never been the case in the playtests.

One poll at enworld resulted in "5th Edition looks like whatever edition you hope it will be like".
Link please?

I would argue, actually, that this is precisely what WOTC is looking for: a game that looks like N-th edition to the fans of N-th edition, for any value of N. At least in the short term. I would also argue that in the slightly longer term, this would cause most fans to try it and conclude that the actual N-th edition is better, and go back to that.

Yora

2013-01-22, 11:16 AM

The Fighter is very strong if all you look at is combat. They have absolutely nothing outside of combat.
They never did. Nor do they in any other games that have a Fighter class.

Doug Lampert

2013-01-22, 11:20 AM

Hah, I was hoping for them to fold non-vancian casting into the Wizard somehow. And does that mean the mon's actually good, or is it just less bad?

I've heard how in the earlier playtests, wizards were monstrously overpowered and fighters and rogues were essentially kneecapped, not to mention the infamous 36d20 rat swarm. I guess that stuff's gone?

Rogues were kneekapped HARD in the previous test, not as bad in the current one, but still not good in combat. I suspect that in actual play rogues are a self destructive design, they're so good at skills that the DCs will be elevated to where they're effectively nerfed at the one thing they're supposed to be good at. It's already happening in the playtest modules. Autosuccess is boring, so DCs need to be super awesome high if rogue bonuses are super awesome high. Then with super awesome DCs where only a rogue has a chance the skill game is boring, and players and module writers find ways to avoid using it and rogues are totally worthless.

Fighters have been overpowered in combat and totally useless out of combat since the second packet or so.

Wizards are fine if you think fewer slots ballances overpowered spells :). Strangly some people don't seem to believe this. It's like they've had years of bad experiences with that design philosophy or something.

Edited to add: Wizards really are fine at low level, the level 6+ spells are where the problems come in.

obryn

2013-01-22, 11:31 AM

I haven't been keeping up much with 5th ed, since from what the Goons are saying, it's looking like a game designed with the Grogs in mind, so if anyone could tell me what they think about it and if it's gotten better, I'd be happy.
I personally think it has a lot of regressive design elements, but I don't think it's so much being built to appeal to grogs as to appeal to a middle that doesn't seem to exist much.

From what I can tell, they're aiming to be everyone's second-favorite edition of D&D. There may very well be a market for it, but it's basically impossible to imagine it reunifying the fanbase. Those of us who love how 4e did stuff don't want to go back to some of the pre-4e things in a new edition.* Folks who love how 3e works have largely abandoned WotC for Paizo or are content playing 3.x. Pre-3e and OSR players likewise have the games they enjoy, and inclusion of too many modern elements will turn them away.

It's like ... if you one person who loves vanilla but hates chocolate, and one person who loves chocolate but hates strawberry, you're not going to make either of them happier with Neapolitan than they would be with just their favorite flavor.

About the best I can see coming out of it is what they've been alluding to in the recent L&L articles. If they can, indeed, come out with a simple, fun, and full-featured D&D game and put it on the market for a reasonable price aimed at new gamers ... that'll be great. It's everything else that's shaky.

I love RPGs, and I love new systems, but I need a new system to do something different from the other games I already own. Ideally, it should be the best at some theme I'm trying to tackle with a campaign. Much like those who have gone before, I'm content playing a "closed" system and spending my gaming budget on exciting new RPGs than on paying for yet another system where magical elves kill dragons.

-O

* As a note, I'm a big fan of 4e and 1e, and I'd like to know the RC a lot better, too. So it's not like I'm opposed to classic D&D; I grew up on it, and I ran a campaign of AD&D just a few years back. (And found that it's a remarkably strong system, and the best at doing what it does.) I just already have games that do that and don't need to pay WotC for another one.

Yora

2013-01-22, 11:34 AM

Link please?
I might have remembred it somewhat differently:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?329647-What-s-the-closest-system-to-D-amp-D-Next-that-is-currently-available

Still, the tally of mentions is:
BECMI: 2
1st Ed.: 2
2nd Ed.: 6
3rd Ed.: 4
4th Ed.: 5

The New Bruceski

2013-01-22, 12:34 PM

I would tend to agree. Although, to be fair, that's bad module design rather than bad game design. Challenges that can be bypassed with only a single option are not great, and ones that can be bypassed with only a single options and are required to advance the story are a great way to call it a night early.

Especially with that tomb, given that
you can't leave until you finish it, so failing to find the DC 25 secret door means you die of starvation.

WotC needs to make their module designers read their DMGs. Yes, even the skill challenge stuff. In 4e's DMG2 that's where they put the good info like "fail forward; don't make the story stop if the players miss a roll." The edition has its problems but the DMGs have some marvelous advice for new DMs on how to get players engaged and avoid common mistakes. Unfortunately no DM likes to admit they don't know everything about DMing, so they skip those sidebars of "10 kinds of traps to avoid" and "how to say yes without being walked all over."

The LOBster

2013-01-22, 12:37 PM

navar100

2013-01-22, 12:45 PM

Rogues were kneekapped HARD in the previous test, not as bad in the current one, but still not good in combat. I suspect that in actual play rogues are a self destructive design, they're so good at skills that the DCs will be elevated to where they're effectively nerfed at the one thing they're supposed to be good at. It's already happening in the playtest modules. Autosuccess is boring, so DCs need to be super awesome high if rogue bonuses are super awesome high. Then with super awesome DCs where only a rogue has a chance the skill game is boring, and players and module writers find ways to avoid using it and rogues are totally worthless.

As soon as people accept that a PC can be just that good at something to not fail then the problem will go away. Not every roll everywhere all the time needs a chance of failure. Let there be a point when the roll is not needed. The fun is the player earning that expertise over time and now gets to enjoy the spoils.

Oracle_Hunter

2013-01-22, 01:07 PM

Okay, although I'm not too keen on Fighters just being the "dumb guy who hits stuff with a sword and does nothing else to contribute, durrrrr" I gotta admit, as a fan of Fighters... Them being the best at combat actually makes me kinda happy in some weird way, since they were usually outclassed in combat by Casters in 3.x.
I gotta be honest: WotC does not seem interested in making Fighters "best at fighting" in this Edition. If you want more dynamic Fighters in a WotC product I'd say try 4th Edition.

On the other hand if you'd like a game with all the mechanical complexity of 3e that treats mundanes like useful people I'd advocate Burning Wheel or its better-known setting, Mouseguard.

If I ever wanted to play a game of D&D again I'd play Burning Wheel instead.

Doug Lampert

2013-01-22, 02:01 PM

As soon as people accept that a PC can be just that good at something to not fail then the problem will go away. Not every roll everywhere all the time needs a chance of failure. Let there be a point when the roll is not needed. The fun is the player earning that expertise over time and now gets to enjoy the spoils.

I've accepted that for years, I hate autofail on a 1 rules with a passion and think games like Pendragon that don't have them are superior.

But the problem I cite is ALREADY HAPPENING, in the playtest materials themselves! The DCs are ALREADY increasing despite "bounded accuracy", they redefined them WAY up in the latest iteration. One of their sample modules is a dead stop TPK you lose if you can't find a secret door with a DC of 25. Which means without a trained skill or maxed ability it's outright impossible.

If you don't have either a rogue or a max int wizard then the DM will handwave you past the obstacle, because, "you enter the module and then starve to death in a room you can't possibly leave because the walls are impermiable and dimentional travel is blocked and you can't possibly find the hidden door" is STUPID.

But if you DO have a rogue then it's an actual obstacle. Congradulations, you are BETTER OFF without a rogue even at the rogue's alleged strength of finding secret doors because the secret door DC is too high.

If they'd set the DC at 21 and let the rogue autosucceed with some minor cost for failing then they'd have had something, but WotC doesn't like autosuccess so...

Edited to add: Just to make it even more fun, the skill die rule means that autosuccess SHOULD not be a problem even for those who don't like autosuccesses (7 or worse should always be possible), you just get absurdly high success probabilities. But there are feats to give advantage and a minimum of 10 on skill checks and there's the Rogue "Ace in the Hole" power, so you need even more absurd DCs if you want a single roll to be a guaranteed challenge.

Also edited to add: 3.0 our party rogue rather easily hit the point where search checks on a "take 10" would succeed at any trap or hidden treasure not "overwhelming". But it didn't matter because that ability wasn't baked into the class, so module writers didn't expect it, I could just say, "You find it". But the Rogue in next has skill awesome built into his checks, it's a class feature, so the module writers WILL take it into account, and this WILL destroy the utility of the class in most games.

The LOBster

2013-01-22, 02:43 PM

I gotta be honest: WotC does not seem interested in making Fighters "best at fighting" in this Edition. If you want more dynamic Fighters in a WotC product I'd say try 4th Edition.

On the other hand if you'd like a game with all the mechanical complexity of 3e that treats mundanes like useful people I'd advocate Burning Wheel or its better-known setting, Mouseguard.

If I ever wanted to play a game of D&D again I'd play Burning Wheel instead.

Try fourth edition? That's actually how I got started in the hobby - my next door neighbor's trying to get a group together, in fact :)

Yora

2013-01-27, 06:12 AM

Apparently the "warrior-spellcaster" from an earlier playtest version will return, but they no longer plan to force it on the sorcerer name.

http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2013/01/24/dd_next_qa:_weapon_dice,_sorcerer,_warlock__feats

Not sure what to think of such a class in a D&D core rulebook, but as long as they don't take away sorcerer characters and make it impossible to convert them, I can easily just make it unavailable in my games.

Morty

2013-01-27, 06:23 AM

Hopeless

2013-01-27, 06:35 AM

I've accepted that for years, I hate autofail on a 1 rules with a passion and think games like Pendragon that don't have them are superior.

But the problem I cite is ALREADY HAPPENING, in the playtest materials themselves! The DCs are ALREADY increasing despite "bounded accuracy", they redefined them WAY up in the latest iteration. One of their sample modules is a dead stop TPK you lose if you can't find a secret door with a DC of 25. Which means without a trained skill or maxed ability it's outright impossible.

If you don't have either a rogue or a max int wizard then the DM will handwave you past the obstacle, because, "you enter the module and then starve to death in a room you can't possibly leave because the walls are impermiable and dimentional travel is blocked and you can't possibly find the hidden door" is STUPID.

But if you DO have a rogue then it's an actual obstacle. Congradulations, you are BETTER OFF without a rogue even at the rogue's alleged strength of finding secret doors because the secret door DC is too high.

If they'd set the DC at 21 and let the rogue autosucceed with some minor cost for failing then they'd have had something, but WotC doesn't like autosuccess so...

Edited to add: Just to make it even more fun, the skill die rule means that autosuccess SHOULD not be a problem even for those who don't like autosuccesses (7 or worse should always be possible), you just get absurdly high success probabilities. But there are feats to give advantage and a minimum of 10 on skill checks and there's the Rogue "Ace in the Hole" power, so you need even more absurd DCs if you want a single roll to be a guaranteed challenge.

Also edited to add: 3.0 our party rogue rather easily hit the point where search checks on a "take 10" would succeed at any trap or hidden treasure not "overwhelming". But it didn't matter because that ability wasn't baked into the class, so module writers didn't expect it, I could just say, "You find it". But the Rogue in next has skill awesome built into his checks, it's a class feature, so the module writers WILL take it into account, and this WILL destroy the utility of the class in most games.

Apologies but I stopped following the rule changes since I wasn't playing frequently enough to get beyond reading the first download playtest so I was wondering have they removed aid another actions?

I'm assuming its still a search or perception check to find a secret door which they still need to know about to even try finding it but last I heard you only needed a 10 to grant the rogue looking for that door a +2 bonus to their check per player involved in aiding them.

Is that still the case?

Anecronwashere

2013-01-27, 06:37 AM

Well that covers the 3 main weapon styles
Other than Unarmed combat and Doubleblades or some of the more exotic weapons like chain I guess. But they aren't main styles, more esoteric and thus would use Modules

What other things would you add? If we have 2Handed weapons, Dual weapons, Sword&Shield, what more is there?

Morty

2013-01-27, 07:45 AM

A single one-handed weapon, for instance. It's a fighting style with a long tradition in fantasy fiction, but D&D has always ignored it. Unless you count the Duelist PrC, which I'd rather not.
Mind you, I also disagree with the decision not to give weapon-specific maneuvers. It is the best way to make weapon choices that are sub-par in previous editions actually worthwhile.

navar100

2013-01-27, 08:41 PM

Craft (Cheese)

2013-01-27, 10:21 PM

It's good that they're trying to make two-handed weapons, dual wielding and shield using equally viable, but it doesn't look like they've given any thoughts to the combat styles beyond those three. Can't say I'm surprised.

A worthy trade-off to me: The more asymmetric elements you add to a system the easier it is to screw up the balance by accident. I'd rather have 3 balanced melee fighting styles than 14 where only 1 is actually worth using.

Morty

2013-01-28, 06:34 AM

That's one way to look at it. Of course, a situation in which the three "main" combat styles are equally viable is better than the situation in 3rd edition and Pathfinder, where there's no reason not to use the biggest two-handed weapon you can get.

Tehnar

2013-01-28, 11:37 AM

I actually found TWF quite viable as a pathfinder barbarian.

Saph

2013-01-28, 11:57 AM

Yeah, I think Morty's exaggerating a bit. I've seen the following weapon styles used effectively in Pathfinder:

THF: Best for characters who have Strength as their primary stat, want to do as much damage as possible as quickly as possible, and aren't too concerned with defence (eg fighters, barbarians).
TWF: Best for characters with some sort of bonus on-hit damage that rewards them for landing as many blows as possible, such as classes with Sneak Attack or a lot of elemental damage effects (eg rogues, ninjas).
Weapon & Shield: Best for lower-Strength characters whose main power comes from spells rather than physical attacks, and for whom a bit more AC is more useful than a higher damage die (eg clerics, oracles).
One-Handed Weapon: Best for gish builds or Dex fighters, so they can have a hand free for spellcasting and make use of feats like Dervish Dance (eg magus).
I think it's reasonable for most classes to be predisposed towards one or two weapon styles rather than being equally good with all of them. It'd what you'd expect for a game with a class system, really.

stainboy

2013-01-28, 12:31 PM

You have to spend a feat to be able to Charge now? And people complain about Pathfinder nerfing feats!

I'm reminded of the May playtest when the devs decided AoOs were too complicated and then got all surprised when players kited everything to death.

noparlpf

2013-01-28, 01:49 PM

I think it's reasonable for most classes to be predisposed towards one or two weapon styles rather than being equally good with all of them. It'd what you'd expect for a game with a class system, really.

Most classes, sure. The Fighter should be able to use any weapon style better than anybody else uses any weapon style (discounting Fighter offshoots like Ranger, Rangers might use certain weapon styles better than Fighter but others worse, because they're a kind of Fighter).

Anderlith

2013-01-28, 05:49 PM

In the game Seventh Sea, they had different styles of fighting that had their own internal movesets. I think they could do a lot by using a similar thing with fighting styles.

Fighters of course would know more styles be able to switch from one to the other without penalty

Kurald Galain

2013-01-28, 07:51 PM

And they keep on coming! There's another playtest package out just now. Includes the barbarian, "clarifications" on cleric and monk, and some fixes to character creation and spell durations. According to the document, it is a "known issue" that certain player characters deal more damage than "desired" :smallcool:

So basically, no big deal and no big change here, except for the barb. What does it do? It is basically a fighter with a few different class features, most predictably rage. Fundamentally, a rage gives you advantage on all attacks, and 50% resistance to physical damage. That's pretty impressive, actually, although it interferes with the wonky rules on ad/disad stacking. Of course, the rest of the barb's features are also related to melee combat, and it has little if anything to do outside of combat.

Anderlith

2013-01-28, 09:03 PM

WotC, I know that the Adv/DisAdv mechanic is all new & shiny & stuff, but can you stop plugging it into every little thing? Thanks

Flickerdart

2013-01-28, 09:26 PM

Wait...so does a raging Rogue score Sneak Attack on all attacks, because it has Advantage? Seems like it does.

Are there multiclass rules yet?

Anderlith

2013-01-28, 09:34 PM

Seerow

2013-01-28, 10:46 PM

Okay, I'm just going to throw this out there.

Why not make Classes what you do in combat only
& then add in Speciality & that is what you are outside of combat only

The rogue's combat abilities then becomes "Scout" or "Skirmisher" or "Scather" or "Rake" or something like that, & then the mechanics of their out of combat abilities becomes the "Rogue" Specialty.

Now you can have a thieving Barbarian (Conan fans anyone?)
A jack of all trades weapon master
A Wizard Thief, etc

It will stop the melee classes from becoming obsolete, & open up roleplaying again

It will never fly because it would mean removing all non-combat magic from the game entirely, or making it so anyone could pick up one of the magic specialty options for non-combat utility. People won't accept even the possibility of a Fighter existing who can use magic. Not in their D&D.

Anderlith

2013-01-28, 11:30 PM

It will never fly because it would mean removing all non-combat magic from the game entirely, or making it so anyone could pick up one of the magic specialty options for non-combat utility. People won't accept even the possibility of a Fighter existing who can use magic. Not in their D&D.

Yeah, in a world were studding a book can allow you to fling fire from you hands & a simple soldier flat out can't read a few pages & be able to summon food & water. Or an Unseen Servant to keep his castle tidy. That's unbelievable. Winning a grapple check with a dragon though, that's perfectly legit. :/

Stubbazubba

2013-01-29, 12:11 AM

Zeful

2013-01-29, 01:06 AM

Another problem is that there's no clear distinction between combat magic and non-combat magic. Yes, there are extremes, but there are many spells that don't deal damage but dramatically alter combats. Meanwhile, there are only a handful of non-combat skills that affect combat. So mundane stuff is fairly neatly cut into combat and non-combat, for better or worse, while non-combat magic is still combat magic. The only way to get rid of that is to make them time-consuming rituals. Which could work.

That's not the only way. It's just one way. And as 4e showed it's a pretty poor way. The other way to do it is to do as Dark Souls did and have each spell have a set number of uses per preparation and each spell having it's own stat requirements. This would mean knocking down the number of slots by a significant fraction (down to something like 10-12 rather than the 30-50 we have now), and possibly cut out spell levels entirely (you could keep them, but they'd probably only end up going to like 5 in an actual system modified for it).

The key for this is designing spells to be used on one "scale" of play. A spell like Teleport or Mage's Magnificent Mansion should be long term spells you only need to cast once a day (so you only get one use), and are generally cast when you're moving on what I call the Overland or Town scale. This also includes spells that would only need to be cast once or twice as part of in-town plots, spells used in sieges (for both sides), most divination spells, as well as spells like raise dead or other high end "medicinal" magic. These would also last in-game hours, but also have very high casting times, such that if your interrupted, it would be easier to stop casting deal with the interruption and then recast, because if someone was going to die after the interruption, odds are they'd have died before the spell was cast anyway.

The next scale is when you're running around in a dungeon, or other tactical maps. This is where I'd say most of the 3.5's "utility" spells would end up. Anything that has to do with traps, landscape manipulation, summoning, certain restoration spells and similar things. They'd have like 3-5 uses, cover a variety of things useful for dungeoneering, and they'd take a minute to cast and last up to a half-hour.

The last scale is combat, spells designed to influence fights to some degree. Buffs, Debuffs, Attacks, minor healing spells, short range maneuvering, and most of the Save-or-dies would exist in this scale, and this is where most of the issues would come up, as to incentivize not spamming Save-or-Dies or Save-or-Sucks, they would have few uses, to the tune of one to three, while stuff like fireball, cure wounds, or magic missile would have ten to fifteen, with buffs and maneuvering spells having about 5, and debuffs and terrain control having roughly 4.

It essentially forces casters to play in a fashion that doesn't break the game over it's knee, as the various Save-or-Else spells tend to do. It still gives them quite a variety of tricks to use to save the day, and gives them access to many of the iconic abilities of a spell caster without having to worry about them being too effective or not actually playing like a caster, and gives the DM ways to break players out of bad habits. Yeah, they could pack ten copies of Flesh to Stone and have 20-30 casts, but that's all they'll be capable of all day, so if he needs to do anything else he'll need to switch.

Dark Souls' vancian system is actually one of the best vancian systems I can think of, as it restricts the variety of a caster's day-to-day spells, but doesn't create huge dead zones of time when they can't cast spells unless they do it to themselves. Sure it's not as varied, but 3.5's spell variety is pretty much what causes most of the issues in the game.

The New Bruceski

2013-01-29, 04:10 AM

Dark Souls' vancian system is actually one of the best vancian systems I can think of, as it restricts the variety of a caster's day-to-day spells, but doesn't create huge dead zones of time when they can't cast spells unless they do it to themselves. Sure it's not as varied, but 3.5's spell variety is pretty much what causes most of the issues in the game.

I like that idea. Right now the unit of efficiency is the spell slot (If I can carry a single fireball or a SoL, why bring the fireball), and giving big spells a trade-off of fewer uses is a good way of dividing that slot into smaller units for balance.

Unfortunately I think it would be difficult to import into D&D. Not from a mechanics perspective, but because people are so set with the idea of "this is how magic works" that they'd create a ruckus. Like a lot of mechanics that got slipped into the game via Players' Option (power points) or Book of the Nine Swords (4E's powers system) it would most easily be included as the magic option for a variant of the Wizard, perhaps the Sorcerer, but that would mean sorting out all of their spells IN ADDITION to the basic caster spells. Major headaches.

Anecronwashere

2013-01-29, 05:12 AM

Why not do away with multiple preparations?
Granted this would be its own class or variant, the base Wizard wont have this because it would cause a massive outcry.

Give each spell a Use Rating, Type and Subtype
Use Rating: Number of times you can cast it if it is prepared
Type: Utility, Buff/Heal, Daily Buff, Attack, Control
Subtype: How it can be modified and their Hold times

The Wizard can prepare X spells, Hold Y (Y being something like 1/4 X) and how long they can Hold it.
You cannot prepare the same spell twice.
When you use a Spell you can use less than maximum effect (as detailed in Subtype) to create 2+ smaller magical effects.
eg. Shield gives +2 AC and 100% Immunity to Magic Missile. BUT it can be Held when first cast, cutting it in half, giving 50% Immunity and +1 AC twice.
The second casting goes off whenever you want (though you still need the action to cast it)

So you could cast Cure Serious Wounds to heal 10 out of 40HP, then next turn target someone else with the same usage to heal 30HP. Same amount of healing technically, twice the action cost and you can conserve them.

This way spells can be stretched to maximum effectiveness, deals with only having a limited number of uses in 1 thing (cant load up on Fireball in every slot but those Fireballs can be done 2-3 times, or more if you can deal with less damage) and giving each spell their own Use then more powerful effects can be toned down (can't spam SoDs, can spam damage-dealing spells)

MukkTB

2013-01-29, 06:19 AM

4E had excellent balance. Where it dropped the ball was out of combat things and verisimilitude. Now that we know they definitely wanted to make it an MMO thats understandable.

If you read these boards you'll find that in 3.X the biggest problem we have is the fact that the tier system exists. The imbalance leads to constant arguments. On the other hand we enjoy the game's verisimilitude. We spend a lot of time arguing over the exact nature of how x would play out as if the world was a real place, or an accurate simulation with a consistent world.

Why not keep most of 4E's balance and add some verisimilitude? 4E struggled because a lot of 3.X players felt like Wizards gave them the finger. Pathfinder outsold it. Paizo realized that Wizards had essentially fired their customers. However the lesson Wizards took away from this was that people want the old classic feel of D&D. They're struggling to make 5E feel like the previous editions. I suspect that all the 4E players are going to feel like they've been fired as well. The lesson learned from 3.X is that balance matters. The lesson from 4E should be that verisimilitude also matters. Maybe add that you should design a tabletop game for the table, not the internet.

I'd rather see an attempt to make a balanced game with a solid feel and room for a vibrant living world. I'd like the kind of world that someone could believe would be consistent, make sense, and run on more than just narrative convenience. That would feel like a step forward. This "recapture the classic D&D feel" seems like a step backwards. I can already recapture the classic D&D feel: By playing the old editions.

Morty

2013-01-29, 06:46 AM

Menteith

2013-01-29, 10:13 AM

If you read these boards you'll find that in 3.X the biggest problem we have is the fact that the tier system exists. The imbalance leads to constant arguments. On the other hand we enjoy the game's verisimilitude. We spend a lot of time arguing over the exact nature of how x would play out as if the world was a real place, or an accurate simulation with a consistent world.

I strenuously disagree. If 3.5 didn't have the wide range of possible power levels, it would be an inferior game to me - and there's no way that it could have this range of different power levels and be "balanced". It allows for almost any game possible, and greatly increases the range of characters you can create.

People gaming with a higher op level than other players/DMs might be a problem, but to be completely honest, the inherent imbalance in 3.5 is a pretty big selling point to me, especially when I take a look at 4E.

Dienekes

2013-01-29, 10:24 AM

I strenuously disagree. If 3.5 didn't have the wide range of possible power levels, it would be an inferior game to me - and there's no way that it could have this range of different power levels and be "balanced". It allows for almost any game possible, and greatly increases the range of characters you can create.

People gaming with a higher op level than other players/DMs might be a problem, but to be completely honest, the inherent imbalance in 3.5 is a pretty big selling point to me, especially when I take a look at 4E.

Ehh, honestly I agree that the game should create a wide range of power levels, but those power levels should be represented by you're actual level. If you want to play as gods that fight against evil demon lords and so forth, level 20+ is for you. If you want to be the farm boy who just picked up a sword to defend his home start at level 1. If you want to be heroes, start somewhere in-between.

The problem is only half the classes can reach godhood, while the others are stuck as heroes and we're told that they should be able to play fine together.

Zeful

2013-01-29, 10:59 AM

I strenuously disagree. If 3.5 didn't have the wide range of possible power levels, it would be an inferior game to me - and there's no way that it could have this range of different power levels and be "balanced". It allows for almost any game possible, and greatly increases the range of characters you can create.

People gaming with a higher op level than other players/DMs might be a problem, but to be completely honest, the inherent imbalance in 3.5 is a pretty big selling point to me, especially when I take a look at 4E.

Yes you can. Assuming actual good design and balance you can fit a wide range of power levels into the same system without forcing more than a third of all options in the game to be traps like 3.5 does.

And to be perfectly frank, you still have 3.5, play it. Forcing 5 to be the same objectively terrible game, with the same broken problems does not have any appeal to people like me who have essentially been told I'm not allowed to run the game at all, because I don't think the right way.

lesser_minion

2013-01-29, 01:08 PM

I gotta be honest: WotC does not seem interested in making Fighters "best at fighting" in this Edition. If you want more dynamic Fighters in a WotC product I'd say try 4th Edition.

Honestly, I'm beginning to think that the best option would be to rename the class and re-imagine it as a less subterfuge-orientated skillmonkey. Another possibly worthwhile measure would be cut the bard out of the game, hack it to pieces, and frankenstein those pieces onto the re-imagined fighter and the rogue as themes or optional class features or whatever.

People won't accept even the possibility of a Fighter existing who can use magic. Not in their D&D.

As long as we're talking about feats or optional class features, those people can be safely ignored. There's a big difference between not liking the game for not letting you play your D&D and not liking the game because it permits other people to play theirs. If you're playing a fighter, then as long as overt magic isn't shoved down your throat, you have no grounds to complain about it.

And to be perfectly frank, you still have 3.5, play it. Forcing 5 to be the same objectively terrible game, with the same broken problems does not have any appeal to people like me who have essentially been told I'm not allowed to run the game at all, because I don't think the right way.

3.5 is a mediocre system. 'Terrible' is seriously pushing it, and 'objectively terrible' is patently ridiculous.

Yora

2013-01-29, 01:14 PM

I want D&D to be able to have fighters without magic. If fighters with magic are also available, I don't care. But if I can only play magical fighters, I don't want the game.

Zeful

2013-01-29, 01:36 PM

3.5 is a mediocre system. 'Terrible' is seriously pushing it, and 'objectively terrible' is patently ridiculous.

So 3.5 doesn't have an insane learning curve entirely do to system mastery? It doesn't have systemic power imbalance in options that are otherwise presented as equal? It doesn't have one of it's best subsystems responsible for some of the most curious excesses in the system? And it wasn't written with the designers barely even knowing what they were doing?

3.5 has it's good points, but it's mechanical design is not one of them. Calling it mediocre is probably the highest complement you can pay the system.

lesser_minion

2013-01-29, 02:17 PM

I want D&D to be able to have fighters without magic. If fighters with magic are also available, I don't care. But if I can only play magical fighters, I don't want the game.

Yes, this is basically what I'm saying.

It's OK to complain when the game doesn't cater to your own preferences, but anyone who complains about something catering to the preferences of other people is clearly in the wrong, no matter how you look at it.

So 3.5 doesn't have an insane learning curve entirely do to system mastery? It doesn't have systemic power imbalance in options that are otherwise presented as equal? It doesn't have one of it's best subsystems responsible for some of the most curious excesses in the system? And it wasn't written with the designers barely even knowing what they were doing?

For a game, being simultaneously approachable and deep -- what Monte Cook called 'system mastery' -- is completely desirable, if not the ideal that every game should aspire to. 3rd edition didn't pull it off, but that's a different matter.

And the question of how far the designers knew what they were doing is difficult to answer. It's easy to look back at something that was published thirteen years ago and pick up on all of the mistakes. It's much harder to spot the mistakes you're making in the present.

As a general rule, the only people who haven't incorporated something ill-advised into a game design are those who have never worked on a game design.

Oracle_Hunter

2013-01-29, 02:23 PM

And the question of how far the designers knew what they were doing is difficult to answer thirteen years on. The only people who haven't incorporated something ill-advised into a game design are people who have never worked on a game design.
That said, the 3e Designers did have an opportunity to correct their mistakes with the release of 3.5.

Take a look at what they did decide to change and what they didn't, and then try to figure out a method to their madness. It isn't a pretty picture for proponents of "intelligent design" :smalltongue:

* * *

That said, arguing for the quality of 3.x on this forum is a quixotic battle. As a strong proponent of not-3.x I can say with authority that we are far outnumbered. So instead of fighting battles that are already lost, how about we focus on the new battlefield of 5e :smallsmile:

lesser_minion

2013-01-29, 02:34 PM

Take a look at what they did decide to change and what they didn't, and then try to figure out a method to their madness. It isn't a pretty picture for proponents of "intelligent design" :smalltongue:

Actually, they didn't. The 3.5 team was completely different to the 3.0 team, with different perspectives and views on what the mistakes were, and IIRC, they didn't talk much to the original team.

Also, the question of whether or not 3rd edition was a good game is somewhat different to the question of whether or not 3rd edition was better than any given competitor. It certainly did some things right, and an ambitious game that falls flat is still more commendable than a game that never aspires to anything beyond mediocrity.

Jacob.Tyr

2013-01-29, 02:42 PM

That said, the 3e Designers did have an opportunity to correct their mistakes with the release of 3.5.

Take a look at what they did decide to change and what they didn't, and then try to figure out a method to their madness. It isn't a pretty picture for proponents of "intelligent design" :smalltongue:

* * *

That said, arguing for the quality of 3.x on this forum is a quixotic battle. As a strong proponent of not-3.x I can say with authority that we are far outnumbered. So instead of fighting battles that are already lost, how about we focus on the new battlefield of 5e :smallsmile:

As someone who started 3.0, and has only played a 4/5 sessions of pathfinder, a few 4E, and maybe 1 session of WoD I'll be honest that 3.x is pretty bad. There is one thing it has going for it, though, and that's customization. There are tons of ways to do different builds and make your character your own and it's great. Of course, 90% of those builds are complete rubbish.

I want 5E to be customizable enough to where my character has a ton of viable options and feels like I actually came up with the concept. I want it to have unique abilities and tactics. I want there to be ways to make a character around any idea I have. And I want some semblance of balance.

I also hate playing casters, so y'know, some decent mundane options would be awesome. I did a grapple build once that found amazing synergy working with a combat reflexes rogue by dragging enemies around him in circles while he turned them into pulp. Was completely unintentional on both of our parts, but wound up being our parties most effective strategy in combat.

4E is great in that it's hard to wreck your character during creation. 3.x is great for customization. I want 5E to be a balance, where all options are valid and different styles work. Thus far I'm seeing something much closer to balance than 3.X had, but not as much customization as I'd like. I don't want to hold out for modules that make the game interesting, especially considering that when they roll them out it's entirely possible they'll be as broken and as poorly balanced as splat books in 3.x tended to be.

Grain of salt: I haven't run a playtest yet, I've only read the materials.

Clawhound

2013-01-29, 04:24 PM

I'm in agreement that the fighter needs reimagining.

I've started some essays examining the various historical types of "fighters" that exist, as well as fighters in books. I'm not nearly done, but one thing that I've discovered is that all historical fighters are better modeled by every class but the fighter. It's as if someone stripped the fighter class of every possible could thing that it could have, then called the carcass a class.

In most books, and most cultures, fighters are face characters. The fighter needs to be a face character, although different from bards. The fighter needs methods of getting extraordinary powers if he wants them. If wizards can make pacts with elemental lords, why can't the ordinary fighter? Why can't the fighter find favor with gods or powerful animal spirits? Why can't fighters shape change?There are so many ways that a fighter can be magical without throwing spells.

If nobody else does it, I'll write the damned source book for this idea myself.

Doug Lampert

2013-01-29, 04:51 PM

Take a look at what they did decide to change and what they didn't, and then try to figure out a method to their madness. It isn't a pretty picture for proponents of "intelligent design" :smalltongue:

Actually, I'd say they did catch many of the worst things.

Heal, Harm, and Haste WERE three of the more broken things in 3.0, there were worse things, but those three spells were PHB, and haste was available from level 5. It almost could not be missed, "Oh, my caster gets one extra spell per round, INCLUDING THIS ROUND, so there's no action economy cost to using this at the start of every battle."

Rangers WERE too frontloaded and dipable, and they and Bards NEEDED the extra two skill points per level (of course fighters and clerics also needed more skill points per level, and whoever wrote the fighter's skill list never read the class fluff of what they were supposed to be able to do).

Losing class exclusive skills was good.

3.5 LA is bad, but it's VASTLY better than the one time XP charge that existed in early 3.0.

Two weapon fighting dropped needing ambidextrous and at least made it possible to get itteratives with the second weapon. TWF is so weak in 3.5 that it's hard to remember just how much WORSE it was in 3.0. 3.5 you COULD optimize a rogue for TWF and have it work out, 3.0, not so much.

The 3.0 monk was as bad as the 3.5 monk PLUS itterative attacks that didn't work like anyone else's itterative attacks and that made for insane multiclassing.

3.5 didn't change ENOUGH, it left far too many broken things in the game, it added some insanely stupid things like natural spell and metamagic rods. And then 3.5 splats added far more broken things. But most of the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 were net improvements. If you didn't have a druid in party I'd say the shift was a clear gain for system design overall.

1337 b4k4

2013-01-29, 05:00 PM

It's as if someone stripped the fighter class of every possible could thing that it could have, then called the carcass a class.

Pretty much. As I said previously here when arguing that it was time to drop the fighter (http://idungeoncrawl.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/is-it-time-to-drop-the-fighter/), the fighter used to be the everything class. Way back when grognards were walking to their games uphill through simultaneous snow and lava both ways, when you sat down to play, your options were magic user, fighting man, or cleric (and later thief). That was it. Ranged attacker good with bows? Fighter. Raging hulking beast? Fighter. Daring buckle-swasher? Fighter. Knight of the Round Table? Fighter. Simply put the fighter did everything that wasn't casting spells. And it worked. The fighter was the only character with the HP, saves and weapon availability to do those things.

But over the years, they kept adding "like a fighter but" classes. And each one of these slowly took away the fighter's options. Ranger, Rogue, Barbarian and so on and so forth, each class took one more thing away from the fighter. Then with 3.x, they stripped all the major limitations on magic and eliminated most of the weapon restrictions. Eventually the fighter became what we see now, a jack of many trades, but a master of none.

obryn

2013-01-29, 05:17 PM

Zeful

2013-01-29, 05:34 PM

For a game, being simultaneously approachable and deep -- what Monte Cook called 'system mastery' -- is completely desirable, if not the ideal that every game should aspire to. 3rd edition didn't pull it off, but that's a different matter.Right, depth, that thing defined by how many meaningful, incomparable choices are allowed within a system, that's system mastery.

Grod_The_Giant

2013-01-29, 05:47 PM

Right, depth, that thing defined by how many meaningful, incomparable choices are allowed within a system, that's system mastery.

It's possible. Mutants and Masterminds does a pretty good job of combining approachability and depth if you ask me. It's not hard to make an effective character-- just make sure you're hitting the power level caps with your attacks and defenses. There's a lot you can do with creative power building, but the your intricately-built martial artist character and your friend's powerhouse who just put 10s in strength and stamina will both operate on around the same level. (Disregarding broken attack teleport combinations that the book encourages GMs to ban)

Treblain

2013-01-29, 05:53 PM

New playtest packet! With barbarian! And cleric takes up half the Classes pdf!

I still think # of rages per day is a terrible thing to scale by level. You don't need fewer rages at low level and more at high level. But at least it starts at 2/day rather than 1.

lesser_minion

2013-01-29, 06:03 PM

In most books, and most cultures, fighters are face characters. The fighter needs to be a face character, although different from bards. The fighter needs methods of getting extraordinary powers if he wants them. If wizards can make pacts with elemental lords, why can't the ordinary fighter? Why can't the fighter find favor with gods or powerful animal spirits? Why can't fighters shape change?There are so many ways that a fighter can be magical without throwing spells.

Yes, very much agreed.

Honestly, even just gutting the class and telling people to play bards instead wouldn't be a bad approach, even if many people would find it unpalatable (which is why I suggested frankensteining the fighter and the bard together instead).

Right, depth, that thing defined by how many meaningful, incomparable choices are allowed within a system, that's system mastery.

If you go back and read Monte Cook's essay on Ivory Tower Design, it's pretty clear what he meant -- he wanted something easy to learn and hard to master. Or, in other words, deep but approachable.

Dienekes

2013-01-29, 06:25 PM

Grod_The_Giant

2013-01-29, 06:27 PM

If wizards can make pacts with elemental lords, why can't the ordinary fighter? Why can't the fighter find favor with gods or powerful animal spirits? Why can't fighters shape change?There are so many ways that a fighter can be magical without throwing spells.

Those, ah... I believe those are called "prestige classes." :smalltongue:

navar100

2013-01-29, 06:38 PM

Zeful

2013-01-29, 06:46 PM

Morty

2013-01-29, 06:50 PM

It is true that the Fighter class needs to be thoroughly reimagined so it sticks to a consistent, unambiguous vision as to what it actually is. Unlike some, I do not believe that it should be removed, though. I believe it is possible to create a fighter class that co-exists with the likes of Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians. It's just that each of them needs to be well thought-out to occupy narrative and mechanical niches that don't overlap too much. Personally, I am unconvinced of the need for the Barbarian class to exist. What does it really offer that can't be replicated with a member of another fighting class that takes feats or PrCs or whatever to get really angry when fighting?

lesser_minion

2013-01-29, 06:54 PM

Not that there can't be a class that mixes elemental powers or shapechanging and combat, that's fine. But it shouldn't be necessary for every character to be magical just to play the same game.

How about terrifying your enemies with a glare? Mentally reciting a litany to overcome fear? Slowing your breathing when trapped under sand?

None of these are spellcasting, all of them fit with the theme of a fighter, and all of them are, as far as the game is concerned, magic. 'Magic' is the fantasy element of the setting. The whole of it, not just the guys in robes waving their hands around and speaking gibberish.

Fighters and rogues might be subtle about their magic, but they're still practising it.

Dienekes

2013-01-29, 07:07 PM

How about terrifying your enemies with a glare? Mentally reciting a litany to overcome fear? Slowing your breathing when trapped under sand?

None of these are spellcasting, all of them fit with the theme of a fighter, and all of them are, as far as the game is concerned, magic. 'Magic' is the fantasy element of the setting. The whole of it, not just the guys in robes waving their hands around and speaking gibberish.

What distinguishes fighters and rogues from wizards is not that they don't use magic, it's that their magic is subtle. But even without the hand-waving, chants, and fireballs, it is still fundamentally just another kind of magic.

I disagree. Glaring at people is not magic and it should not be portrayed as such. Neither should overcoming fear. I mean, sure there could be some magic ability to do so, but if there is there should also be the Iron Heart Surge equivalent. And Deathglare could be a fine spell, but there's no need to make every cool thing magic when it can quite easily not be. Especially since Extraordinary abilities are themselves described as not necessarily being bound by the real world but are explicitly not magic.

lesser_minion

2013-01-29, 07:38 PM

Glaring at people is not magic and it should not be portrayed as such.

There aren't many people in real life who can terrify someone with a glance.

Especially since Extraordinary abilities are themselves described as not necessarily being bound by the real world but are explicitly not magic.

From our perspective as outsiders (not to be confused with the creature type) to the D&D worlds, 'magic' is whatever doesn't work the way it would in the real world (ignoring rules glitches). Its meaning as a game term -- or even an in-setting term -- is irrelevant.

The point is that trying to be 'non-magical' is the same thing as trying to be 'non-fantastic'. The question is what trappings your magic has, not whether or not you're performing magic or even whether or not people in-setting call it magic.

It's also hard to avoid obvious magic -- any character in a D&D game has to know about and be able to deal with whatever magic exists in that game, including many things that Conan, Lancelot et al. would never be expected to have anything to do with.

Knowing that a sleep spell cannot affect someone wearing a red veil is no less overt magic than casting that spell in the first place, but it's also legitimate fighter material (I made this example up on the spot, but it should still illustrate the point). As, for that matter, is eating the dragon's heart and inadvertently gaining some of its power as a result (non-D&D, but I think it's come up in real-world myth).

The LOBster

2013-01-29, 07:47 PM

Personally, I think the best thing they could do with the Fighter is give him some ToB-lite maneuvers/tactics and maybe even marking like 4e to punish enemies for not paying attention to him...

So yeah, basically the perfect Fighter would be a Warblade :P

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-01-29, 08:17 PM

From our perspective as outsiders (not to be confused with the creature type) to the D&D worlds, 'magic' is whatever doesn't work the way it would in the real world (ignoring rules glitches). Its meaning as a game term -- or even an in-setting term -- is irrelevant.

The point is that trying to be 'non-magical' is the same thing as trying to be 'non-fantastic'. The question is what trappings your magic has, not whether or not you're performing magic or even whether or not people in-setting call it magic.

Not necessarily. At least in the mind of many players who don't want "magical fighters" and think ToB is "too anime" there's is indeed a big (and important) difference between the magical and the merely fantastic.

Things such as action-movie tropes (like taking several projectiles to the chest and continuing to fight unimpaired or shattering a window by jumping through it), narrative conventions (like being able to scare enemies with a steely glare or resisting mental compulsions through sheer determination), one-in-a-million stunts (like shooting an arrow through a rope from a hundred feet away or dodging a surprise blow from a foot away by instinct), fantastic physics (like huge birds and dragons that can still fly at their size despite the square-cube law or ambulatory plants), and similar breaks from reality aren't generally considered to be "magic" by those players, despite being just as unrealistic as many magical effects.

Many of said players would consider a barbarian/frenzied berserker to be acceptably "nonmagical" (despite that character being able to bend adamantine bars, punch through a solid stone wall, swim through lava without dying, jump twice as far as Olympic athletes without even trying, easily carry around his horse instead of riding it, and more) while decrying a fighter with the ability to cast burning hands and silent image as "too magical." Similarly, a fighter who fights with a flaming sword or, say, grows in size by eating a dragon's heart per your example would generally be seen as "nonmagical" while a fighter being able to ignite a sword or grow in size under his own power would be "magical," because in the former case the power is external to the fighter while in the latter it's internal to the fighter.

We already know from reactions to 3e and 4e martial abilities that there are players who will accept fairly magical fighters with mundane fluff, players who will accept fighters who are fantastic but not magical, and players who won't accept even a fantastic fighter. Painting everything as being either magical or nonmagical with no middle ground means ignoring a large group of players and limiting the martial classes' design space, which in turn means once again making fighter types bound by realism and obsoleting them at higher levels, and that is something to be avoided as much as possible.

navar100

2013-01-29, 08:28 PM

{{scrubbed}}

It's not a question of popularity. This thread is about the discussion of 5E, not for you to vent your dislikes about 3E.

Dienekes

2013-01-29, 10:39 PM

There aren't many people in real life who can terrify someone with a glance.

Ahh but there are some. My grandfather for instance was famous for this.

From our perspective as outsiders (not to be confused with the creature type) to the D&D worlds, 'magic' is whatever doesn't work the way it would in the real world (ignoring rules glitches). Its meaning as a game term -- or even an in-setting term -- is irrelevant.

The point is that trying to be 'non-magical' is the same thing as trying to be 'non-fantastic'. The question is what trappings your magic has, not whether or not you're performing magic or even whether or not people in-setting call it magic.

It's also hard to avoid obvious magic -- any character in a D&D game has to know about and be able to deal with whatever magic exists in that game, including many things that Conan, Lancelot et al. would never be expected to have anything to do with.

Knowing that a sleep spell cannot affect someone wearing a red veil is no less overt magic than casting that spell in the first place, but it's also legitimate fighter material (I made this example up on the spot, but it should still illustrate the point). As, for that matter, is eating the dragon's heart and inadvertently gaining some of its power as a result (non-D&D, but I think it's come up in real-world myth).

Now I was going to have a counter that there very much is a distinction between non-magical and non-fantastic, basically by pointing to any action hero and badass normal comicbook character ever. But I think PairO'Dice said it better than I could hope to. In short, past a certain level I don't think the characters need to be realistic, but that doesn't mean they're magical any more than James Bond is.

Kurald Galain

2013-01-30, 04:13 AM

From our perspective as outsiders (not to be confused with the creature type) to the D&D worlds, 'magic' is whatever doesn't work the way it would in the real world (ignoring rules glitches).

I disagree with that definition. In many fictional settings you can do things that aren't possible in real life that are nevertheless not considered "magical" in that setting; the easiest example being how many punches/arrows/bullets characters can take before falling over. I don't see why D&D should be any different. Relevant trope (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharlesAtlasSuperPower).

Yora

2013-01-30, 05:24 AM

Does anyone know about reports from the last playtest events and the barbarian class they presented?

Oh wait: New Playtest package available!

Nice how I learned that from enworld, after I had been to the wotc website to see if there's any news on the subject! :smallyuk:

lesser_minion

2013-01-30, 05:29 AM

You're getting hung up on the words I used here.

If it's "the laws of physics just work differently so you can do that", you're still talking about the same thing I was talking about when I used the word 'magic' -- you haven't said a single thing that cannot be said of spellcasting or any of the other things you might find unpalatable in a fighter.

Either way, if you couldn't do it in real life, it's a setting-enabled special power, and part of the fantasy element of the setting, whatever you want to call it.

What I'm saying here is that the question of what you do and what trappings it has is what's important here, not whether or not it fits with your arbitrary personal definition of 'magic'.

I've even seen people complain that expecting a fighter to be proficient with a sword and a bow at the same time was pushing it, even though such people existed in real-life and were very much examples of the sort of person the fighter was written to portray.

Yora

2013-01-30, 05:36 AM

Looking through the new playtest package, I am not too impressed.

It pretty much comes down to Barbarians and Clerics and that's it. The summary says new monsters, but it's still the 1217 bestiary pdf in the package.

And they didn't get rid of skill dice and martial damage bonus, and we still have those silly humans. Boo!

Morty

2013-01-30, 06:21 AM

Ultimately, what counts as magic and what doesn't boils down to presentation and narration. PHB Fighters from 3rd edition are already completely unrealistic once they have more than a handful of levels under their belt. Warblades aren't really detached from reality to a much greater extent than the Fighters, but the way their abilites are presented and narrated gives the impression that they are.

MukkTB

2013-01-30, 08:22 AM

The fighter needs nice things. If he doesn't get them then why is he a playable class next to the reality bending guy? I don't mind linear warriors-quadratic wizards as a thing as long as the warrior gets a decent time in the start being the higher curve. I do object to one class being totally gimp next to another.

Kurald Galain

2013-01-30, 09:01 AM

You're getting hung up on the words I used here.
Yes, I'm doing precisely that. I disagree with the way you define the word "magic", and I disagree that it's the same as having different laws of physics.

The fighter needs nice things. If he doesn't get them then why is he a playable class next to the reality bending guy? I don't mind linear warriors-quadratic wizards as a thing as long as the warrior gets a decent time in the start being the higher curve. I do object to one class being totally gimp next to another.
Well for starters, the fighter needs some things to do outside of combat, such as skills. Remember how in 1E/2E, mid-level fighters got to rule their own army? That would also work.

Nizaris

2013-01-30, 11:37 AM

First off....
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/7090/focusic.jpg

This is a thread on the design of 5e, if you just want to gripe about previous editions, please make a new thread. If you want to talk about things you like and did not like and how that directly ties into 5e, please feel free and do so. Since the new package came out there have been no new posts about discussing the introduction of the Barbarian and how the balance between the four marital classes is currently uneven. There is some point to what the last page has been about but it's mostly 3e and 4e and very little 5e. Thank you.

Does anyone know about reports from the last playtest events and the barbarian class they presented?

Oh wait: New Playtest package available!

I've looked it over and there's a few issues I have with it. Blanket imunities while raging (they made advantage and still won't use it) and their capstone is just silly. It will be impossible to kill a lvl 20 Barbarian since he heals 5 points of damage each round when below half health and falling below 0 does not make him unconscious nor kill him at normal lethal damage, so instead he will heal back to 5 and keep swinging.

hamlet

2013-01-30, 11:53 AM

Personally, I don't see the need for a unique Barbarian class. It could just as easily have been a subset of the Fighter, you know a theme/background combo with some nifty abilities.

But then again, I have a real dislike of too many "base classes" all the hell all over the place.

Yora

2013-01-30, 12:09 PM

I've looked it over and there's a few issues I have with it. Blanket imunities while raging (they made advantage and still won't use it) and their capstone is just silly. It will be impossible to kill a lvl 20 Barbarian since he heals 5 points of damage each round when below half health and falling below 0 does not make him unconscious nor kill him at normal lethal damage, so instead he will heal back to 5 and keep swinging.
The complete immunity against being suprised also didn't look quite right to me. I think it would be better if barbarians lose their first turn when suprised, but are still able to take reactions to avoid damage or other negative effects.

The level 18 ability should come at a much earlier level. At that level, it's useless, but it would be really cool at 2nd or 3rd.

Also, why do they get Advantage on Initiative, but not calling it Advantage on Initiative?

1337 b4k4

2013-01-30, 12:28 PM

It will be impossible to kill a lvl 20 Barbarian since he heals 5 points of damage each round when below half health and falling below 0 does not make him unconscious nor kill him at normal lethal damage, so instead he will heal back to 5 and keep swinging.

Actually, this sounds awesome to me for a high level barbarian. At level 20, I could definitely get behind a barbarian that's more or less impossible to kill without magic or massive massive damage while he's raging.

Also, why do they get Advantage on Initiative, but not calling it Advantage on Initiative?

My guess is to get around the Advantage stacking rules. My guess it that they're basically trying to say that you can't negate the barbarian's initiative advantage. As for why they didn't go the simple route and simply say "This is advantage, but it can not be countered with a disadvantage", well WotC has never been one for brief a simple where complex and long winded will do. It's iconic!

oxybe

2013-01-30, 12:49 PM

the barbarian is a mundane. you stop him like you stop everything else in 5th ed: magic. a level 3 caster can drop the 20 barbarian's one trick with a successful casting of hold person.

if he spends even 1 turn paralyzed his rage fades as he can't attack that turn.

the barb's hardly unbeatable, tough to be sure, if you decide to go in a punching contest, but with the assumed low-to-none magic items of 5th don't expect to have a counter-item instantly available on hand.

i found the barbarian is generally unimpressive. he seems to play like a tougher fighter overall but is stuck doing nothing but high damage attacks. he gets a few abilities that benefit a good strength but he's still probably better off running around unarmored, going high dex+con instead and running rapier+sword / longbow. advantage on str attacks is nice, but i would much prefer a high defense (21 without any magic) in melee and a long range to initiate combat with.

because (as someone on another forum pointed out) you can longbow while raging.

Doug Lampert

2013-01-30, 12:51 PM

The complete immunity against being suprised also didn't look quite right to me. I think it would be better if barbarians lose their first turn when suprised, but are still able to take reactions to avoid damage or other negative effects.

The level 18 ability should come at a much earlier level. At that level, it's useless, but it would be really cool at 2nd or 3rd.

Also, why do they get Advantage on Initiative, but not calling it Advantage on Initiative?

The level 18 power is only useless at level 18 if you assume a Barbarian will never miss at level 18. Just because without magic he's got +9 to attack and advantage and all the monster's AC sucks doesn't mean he'll NEVER miss. The main bonus is that you get to do all your bonus damage even if you miss, that's always good.

Not advantage on initiative means that it stacks with advantage on initiative. Now WHY this boost gets to stack with advantage when nothing else does and when nothing much gives advantage on initiative is what I'm not actually clear on.

Unkillable at level 20 I find distressing because it's an OBVIOUS interaction, and the writers appear to have completely missed it (they have a rule for the battle ending while the barbarian is negative enough to die, which can happen only if the barbarian takes lethal damage and the battle then ends prior to his turn beginning). We really want the EXACT instant in initiative order that the GM declares the battle over to be a matter of life and death for a PC? It's as if whoever wrote the Barbarian was unaware that healing starts from 0.

In any case, "infinite damage won't kill you till the end of the fight" is bad on so many levels that including it makes me lose a bit more of what little faith I had in these designers.

Doug Lampert

2013-01-30, 12:54 PM

Actually, this sounds awesome to me for a high level barbarian. At level 20, I could definitely get behind a barbarian that's more or less impossible to kill without magic or massive massive damage while he's raging.

How do you expect massive damage to kill him?

INFINITE damage won't kill him. He can't be killed by damage during the fight, he regenerates to 5 HP at the start of his turn.

Hold person will work. Teleport away and then come back prior to the end of a short rest will work. But there is no amount of damage that hurts the barbarian 20 while he's raging.

Yora

2013-01-30, 12:54 PM

To end the rage, you only have to prevent the barbarian from making an attack on one turn.

At level 20, fast healing 5 should be almost irrelevant. Even without special abilities and equipment, a barbarian can do 8d6+24 damage on a hit. When raging it increases to 8d6+38, which is an average of 66 damage.

navar100

2013-01-30, 02:26 PM

Actually, this sounds awesome to me for a high level barbarian. At level 20, I could definitely get behind a barbarian that's more or less impossible to kill without magic or massive massive damage while he's raging.

Many people were quite happy about the concept with the Crusader. This is a warrior gets a Nice Thing situation.

Clarification edit: The mechanics behind it might be questionable, but the concept itself is sound.

Morty

2013-01-30, 02:28 PM

Personally, I don't see the need for a unique Barbarian class. It could just as easily have been a subset of the Fighter, you know a theme/background combo with some nifty abilities.

I agree. I think the concept can be easily expressed with a fighter, ranger or even a paladin who can enter a berserker rage in combat using feats, alternate class features or something like that.

hamlet

2013-01-30, 02:52 PM

I agree. I think the concept can be easily expressed with a fighter, ranger or even a paladin who can enter a berserker rage in combat using feats, alternate class features or something like that.

Agreed, though I'd also stipulate that I think the ideas of Ranger and Paladin can just as easily be subsumed into the Fighter class.

Hell, get right down to it, I think that, for instance, a Ranger could just as easily be applied to a Rogue/Thief class as to a Fighter class and that Paladin could just as easily fit under both Cleric and Fighter and even, conceivably, Monk.

So in my eye, I'm almost to the point where I want to see only four, maybe five base "classes" (i.e., Fighter, guy that fights with weapons or unarmed, Cleric, guy that casts magic granted by deity or faithe or whatever, Magic User . . .) with applique themes or modifiers based on refinements of the concept. It also works with their idea of a simple base set of rules, and then an advanced set full of dials, switches, etc, that you can add on at your discretion. Similar, also, to 2e kits. Apply to base class to support fine modifications of base archetype rather than 25,000 base classes that we don't need.

Jacob.Tyr

2013-01-30, 03:36 PM

I actually really like the barbarian as well, I think the undying madman schtick is pretty brilliant for level 20. And you can bet your ass that if combat was going to end with me at "going to die" levels, I'd start raging on my party to survive. No offense to them, but if they have to get beaten for me to stay alive, and they can't kill me, then I'm turning on them and hitting until I can safely stop.

lesser_minion

2013-01-30, 04:21 PM

This is a warrior gets a Nice Thing situation.

The barbarian class is redundant with the fighter, and doesn't contribute to the game if you aren't among those who think that you can't be a barbarian if that isn't your character class. Giving him nice things doesn't make the game better, it just means that those nice things aren't available where they'd do more good.

Morty

2013-01-30, 05:19 PM

Agreed, though I'd also stipulate that I think the ideas of Ranger and Paladin can just as easily be subsumed into the Fighter class.

Hell, get right down to it, I think that, for instance, a Ranger could just as easily be applied to a Rogue/Thief class as to a Fighter class and that Paladin could just as easily fit under both Cleric and Fighter and even, conceivably, Monk.

So in my eye, I'm almost to the point where I want to see only four, maybe five base "classes" (i.e., Fighter, guy that fights with weapons or unarmed, Cleric, guy that casts magic granted by deity or faithe or whatever, Magic User . . .) with applique themes or modifiers based on refinements of the concept. It also works with their idea of a simple base set of rules, and then an advanced set full of dials, switches, etc, that you can add on at your discretion. Similar, also, to 2e kits. Apply to base class to support fine modifications of base archetype rather than 25,000 base classes that we don't need.

I wouldn't go that far, personally. I think Rangers and Paladins have more going for them than Barbarians. They're both hybrid classes to a degree, merging combat prowess with wilderness survival skills and divine gifts respectively. Barbarians are people who hit things with weapons, just like fighters - they just do it angrily.

noparlpf

2013-01-30, 05:45 PM

Draz74

2013-01-30, 06:08 PM

I agree. I think the concept can be easily expressed with a fighter, ranger or even a paladin who can enter a berserker rage in combat using feats, alternate class features or something like that.

Frankly, "Barbarian" should be a Background, and "Berserker" could be represented by feats or (preferably) a PrC. Or some combination of both.

snoopy13a

2013-01-30, 06:17 PM

we still have those silly humans. Boo!

Well, if every race was cool, then no race would truly be cool would they?

We need humans as an uncool baseline to make everyone else look better :smalltongue:

lesser_minion

2013-01-30, 06:20 PM

I'm ambivalent about the idea of having four or five base classes and making further options variants or prestige classes or whatever. I sort of like it, but I sort of don't. Dunno. That's vague and stuff. Maybe I'll think about words and descriptions of things later.

Nearly everything that existed in a previous edition should have been made to reapply for its job this time around. The responsibility of the devs should be to make the best game that it's in their ability to make, and if the baggage associated with the D&D brand gets in the way of that, it's the brand that has to give.

In fact, if 5e ends up being a truly bad game, it could never have a legitimate claim to the brand, even if it only ended up bad because of the baggage it brought along in the hopes of legitimising its claim to the brand.

But I think this particular discussion has been done to death already.

Dienekes

2013-01-30, 06:24 PM

I'm ambivalent about the idea of having four or five base classes and making further options variants or prestige classes or whatever. I sort of like it, but I sort of don't. Dunno. That's vague and stuff. Maybe I'll think about words and descriptions of things later.

Personally I think you need to either have a bunch of specific class or have a few generic classes. I just don't think what WOTC generally tries to do and mix the two, with Fighters in play I don't see the need for Knights and Barbarians and vice versa. Especially when they end up just stepping on each others toes.

Now personally I would prefer the more generic classes with a nice list of optional customizable abilities to allows the customizable aspect of 3.5 and expand on it. But I'm sure there are some downsides to it.

noparlpf

2013-01-30, 06:44 PM

Let's try that thinking thing now, use some of those words humans are so proud of having.
Hmm.
I don't think loads of specific base classes is a good idea because of multiclassing abuse, roles overlapping, &c. I think a few broad classes is a good idea, if they give us enough options for each class via feats, variant class features, &c. to portray a wide range of characters.

Anecronwashere

2013-01-30, 06:51 PM

Aren't they still going the route that the PHB will have every base class that had appeared in a PHB1?
That kind of precludes 3-4 Generics with a lot of customization :smallfrown:

Unless they have the 3-4 Generics, then provide examples of making different types of characters with modules. But, oh look. The fully-fleshed out Module-Using monobuild just Happens to look like the classes in every PHB1. Like Monk, Barbarian, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard etc.

Stubbazubba

2013-01-30, 08:37 PM

If your opposition at level 20 has no tactics available to them that could end a Barb's rage, something is very wrong with the opposition. Being immune to death in a rage in the final level of the game, when all stops are pulled out, is not OP whatsoever.

I would love 4-5 really polished, generic base classes that only last 5-6 levels, with specializations beyond that. It would be great fodder for the homebrew people, weed out a bunch of filler options (at least at 1-6th level, where probably 60% of games begin and end), and retire the idea that Fighter is a 20-level concept the same way Wizard is. It would force specialization across the board, but do so gradually.

That being said, it won't happen, because with more base classes, people want to rush out and start fiddling with things more, hoping to find their diamond in the rough; they're more willing to forgive poor mechanics and bad classes if there are a lot of options, with hopefully one or two that people think work, and finding those are half the fun. That short-term pop of enthusiasm is what I think the WotC team perceives to be desirable, or at least is all they believe themselves to be capable of delivering, which is sad, but it seems to be how they're operating right now.

noparlpf

2013-01-30, 08:42 PM

The LOBster

2013-01-30, 08:46 PM

Personally, I kind of think that the best way to distinguish a Barbarian from a Fighter is the way 4E did it - make the Barbarian a Primal class (say he just channels the primal rage within every living being) who's burlier than a Fighter but slower (when not raging) and gains various self-buffs depending on the primal rage aspect he's channeling. The Fighter can choose weapon mastery (like PF) and have the ability to "mark" a certain opponent every fight - when he marks an opponent, he gets bonuses to attack and defense when fighting that opponent. Call it "The Fighter's challenge," or something- he can challenge one opponent per fight at lower levels, and gains the ability to challenge more (but only one at a time) as he levels. And then give the Fighter "tactics" that depend on the weapons he's chosen and are sorta like ToB-esque maneuvers.

Because seriously, the best, most distinct Fighter was actually the 4e version. :smallsigh:

Draz74

2013-01-30, 09:26 PM

Because seriously, the best, most distinct Fighter was actually the 4e version. :smallsigh:

True. Ironically, this was largely because they gave him a clear role in the game (i.e. Defender) under the same "roles" paradigm that unfortunately limited several other classes.

MukkTB

2013-01-30, 10:19 PM

The undying lvl 20 Barbarian is fighters getting a nice thing. Its already been pointed out that this nice thing can be countered by a lowish mid level spell. Becoming godlike at 20 is fine. We're well beyond mortal humans at this point.

I do have two problems:
#1 A level 20 nice thing isn't going to see much play.
#2 If the Barbarian was given this nice thing by accident because the designers didn't understand the implications of their own rule interactions then this says terrible things about the design crew.

lesser_minion

2013-01-31, 03:41 AM

Because seriously, the best, most distinct Fighter was actually the 4e version. :smallsigh:

I'm pretty sure that the first law of game design -- or at least a very high-ranking one -- is that there is no one true way to do anything. Just because the 4e fighter worked, it doesn't follow that a subsequent edition should reproduce everything that led to the 4e fighter working.

Kurald Galain

2013-01-31, 04:15 AM

If your opposition at level 20 has no tactics available to them that could end a Barb's rage, something is very wrong with the opposition. Being immune to death in a rage in the final level of the game, when all stops are pulled out, is not OP whatsoever.

Precisely. One of the things that 4E did well was giving very strong capstone abilities to many epic destinies. Some people have complained that these were overpowered, but that's the point. It's the final level in the game so you had better get something good.

Scowling Dragon

2013-01-31, 06:31 AM

I would say a FEW where very powerful. Many others where stupidly boring/ pathetically weak.

Level 30 is another 10 levels of play VS the usual level 20 thing. You earned those 30 levels. You DESERVE to feel like a god. Not a guy with an extra daily power.

Morty

2013-01-31, 08:28 AM

hamlet

2013-01-31, 08:40 AM

Frankly, "Barbarian" should be a Background, and "Berserker" could be represented by feats or (preferably) a PrC. Or some combination of both.

*DING!*

I've always hated the "barbarian" as a class. It just doesn't belong. Doubly so when they made it into the rage and steroid overdosed hulk it was in 3.x.

"Barbarian" is a relative cultural state, not a class. Oh how I wish to whatever powers that be that that particular sacred cow would be ground into hamburger.

oxybe

2013-01-31, 09:02 AM

i would much rather the class have a concept then if it doesn't.

the 4th ed fighter was a defender, yes, but many people get far too caught up on the term and existance of "roles" to actually see what those represent: a quick reference for a player on what the class does in combat and a goal for the designer to work towards.

a fighter in 4th ed is not a swordmage, even if they fill a similar goal in the party structure (defender). both classes single out specific enemies either to draw attention away from the other party members or to allow the rest of the party an opportunity to more easily defeat another foe.

but how both characters go about it is rather different, but they're still both "defenders". the 4th ed fighter was an iron wall and king of melee combat. the sword mage teleported himself or his enemies around the battlefield.

does this focus restrict some concepts? yes. but the concepts it does do it does very well and it tends to do it right from level 1.

now is that a bad thing? should every class do every concept in a mediocre fashion or would it not just be better to go "if you want to be an archer, be a ranger. it does archery very well."?

i'd much rather multiple classes that each do a handful of concepts well and reflavor them as needed, then have a few classes that do many concepts in a lackluster fashion.

the current 5th ed fighter and barbarian are both rather bland. the fighter doesn't do much to stand out from the other martial types beyond having a few extra maneuvers. the barbarian simply feels like a fighter with more HP & survivability.

the barbarian simply looks like they threw darts at the "does this sound barbarian-y" board. they're just throwing ideas around trying to figure out if it looks and sounds like a [class X] and hoping for the best without first sitting down and going "what player experience do we want [class X] to give?".

Clawhound

2013-01-31, 10:41 AM

hamlet

2013-01-31, 10:45 AM

Kurald Galain

2013-01-31, 11:19 AM

If nothing else, the fighter needs a magical explanation to him so that there's some foundation for giving the class amazing abilities.

Why is that necessary, though? "He is just that badass" (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharlesAtlasSuperPower) works fine as an explanation for things like shrugging off damage or surviving falls. Check the Guinness Book Of Records for physical feats that non-magical humans are capable of in real life; then give me a good reason why a high-level fighter should not be able to do that.

Grod_The_Giant

2013-01-31, 11:23 AM

If nothing else, the fighter needs a magical explanation to him so that there's some foundation for giving the class amazing abilities.

"Being around so much magic, magic has accumulated in you. You can't cast spells, but you sometimes exhibit inexplicable traits, such as shrugging off lethal damage or surviving terrible falls."

That's all that you really need. You can design into that, if you want, or ignore it and use it as a reason for being super tough.

No. Absolutely not. I'm sick of fighters with super special amazing abilities.

Just make a fighter who's the best at fighting with weapons and make it so that magic isn't so overpowered that anybody who isn't a full caster is essentially baggage and audience rather than contributing party member.

Unless all classes are incredibly flat in terms of power growth, a 20-level system will produce extremely powerful characters at 20th level. Limiting anyone to "what's really possible" will only hurt them, and results in crap like the 3.5 fighter. How did the 18th level fighter leap across the canyon? He's just that good. How did he survive a full attack from the dragon? He's just that good. Your touchpoint for a high-leveled fighter isn't Conan; it's Beowulf. The guy who, you know, ripped off a monster's arm in a wrestling match, swam for days through the open ocean, wielded a sword only giants were supposed to be able to use, and solo'd a dragon.

This is the kind of thing that 4e did right with the tiers-- it gives a much clearer picture of what kind of scale your characters are supposed to be operating at at any given level than 3.5 did.

Jacob.Tyr

2013-01-31, 11:28 AM

Why is that necessary, though? "He is just that badass" (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharlesAtlasSuperPower) works fine as an explanation for things like shrugging off damage or surviving falls. Check the Guinness Book Of Records for physical feats that non-magical humans are capable of in real life; then give me a good reason why a high-level fighter should not be able to do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87

Anyway, this seems mostly like a fluff argument. I'll agree that I prefer my fighters to be "just that badass", but if someone wants to claim a godly bloodline or something, maybe an accident involving a radioactive spider summon then more power to them.

Honestly, I like how wizards look in 5E so far. Martial damage dice and maneuvers help even the playing field with them as well. Hell, the ability to spam maneuvers makes fighters look much better than wizards to me.

Quick question: Can you string together maneuvers? If I do a lunge attack can I then trip when I hit? Can I trip and shove them back?

ArcturusV

2013-01-31, 11:28 AM

Things like surviving a two mile long free fall. Normal (Not even fit or strong) human could do that. Yet even high level Fighters would fail.

The Fighter thing has been reminding me of a bit of Skyrim I played, reading some book in game where this Fighter was writing about how in ages past legendary swordsmen would teach their students about something like over 900 possible grips to hold their weapon with, and the reasons why. Training them to be poets and artisans as well, to consider their blade work an Art and a Skill rather than a feat of strength. And of course the modern author lamenting about how most fighters of her time only know one grip, the grip they were taught or innately found. How the only way they knew to fight was via two handed overhead smashes, etc.

Which is basically how the Fighter exists in 3rd Edition. Fourth took a step towards that "Past" ideal by giving fighters things to do other than Two Handed Smash, and gave you the feeling, when you were playing a fighter, that you were a learned, trained warrior adept. That the only difference between you and a Barbarian Fighter (Note: Yes, I never did like just calling them "Barbarian" period. I preferred the nomenclature in 2nd edition where it was Barbarian Fighter, and they didn't have 'roid rage all the time, and Barbarian Shamans), was that you were capable of wearing plate mail armor as a Fighter and could read the sign pointing you to the local booze distribution centers.

So I'm kinda sad they are backtracking from the sounds of it and going back to the "Fighter Smash!" style.

Morty

2013-01-31, 11:47 AM

I see no reason why in a world that allows for the existence of giants, dinosaurs or insects the size of cows - none of which are innately magical - warriors and athletes shouldn't be able to break through real-world limitations of what a human(oid) body is capable of through dedication, training and heroism. The questions are when and how much. At which point should non-magical characters leave the laws of physics and biology behind? And when they do, to what degree should they surpass them?

Con_Brio1993

2013-01-31, 11:47 AM

No. Absolutely not. I'm sick of fighters with super special amazing abilities.

Just make a fighter who's the best at fighting with weapons and make it so that magic isn't so overpowered that anybody who isn't a full caster is essentially baggage and audience rather than contributing party member.

Out of curiosity, do you refuse to pump your fighter's strength stat past 18 in 3.5e? I'm pretty sure anything past that is outside the bounds of real life human capabilities, and pushes them into "special amazing" territory.

hamlet

2013-01-31, 11:48 AM

Unless all classes are incredibly flat in terms of power growth, a 20-level system will produce extremely powerful characters at 20th level. Limiting anyone to "what's really possible" will only hurt them, and results in crap like the 3.5 fighter. How did the 18th level fighter leap across the canyon? He's just that good. How did he survive a full attack from the dragon? He's just that good. Your touchpoint for a high-leveled fighter isn't Conan; it's Beowulf. The guy who, you know, ripped off a monster's arm in a wrestling match, swam for days through the open ocean, wielded a sword only giants were supposed to be able to use, and solo'd a dragon.

This is the kind of thing that 4e did right with the tiers-- it gives a much clearer picture of what kind of scale your characters are supposed to be operating at at any given level than 3.5 did.

Actually, my touchpoint for a high level fighter is Conan. It's just that with the advancing editions, the power levels got amped up every single time to the point where it's absurd.

An AD&D fighter is fairly well balanced against even a high level wizard. It wasn't really until 3.x when being a fighter was essentially a joke.

lesser_minion

2013-01-31, 12:03 PM

Check the Guinness Book Of Records for physical feats that non-magical humans are capable of in real life; then give me a good reason why a high-level fighter should not be able to do that.

No reason needs to be given to exclude something from a design. The absence of a good reason to include it is sufficient.

"that could happen in real life" -- or even "that did happen in real life" -- are not good reasons. "It's necessary if we want them to be as valuable as casters" would be, except that it isn't actually true -- one can always nerf the casters instead, which is precisely what was proposed.

I see no reason why in a world that allows for the existence of giants, dinosaurs or insects the size of cows - none of which are innately magical - warriors and athletes shouldn't be able to break through real-world limitations of what a human(oid) body is capable of through dedication, training and heroism. The questions are when and how much. At which point should non-magical characters leave the laws of physics and biology behind? And when they do, to what degree should they surpass them?

Dinosaurs existed in the real world, and don't pose a physics or biology issue. There might an ecological issue, but in a world of literal magic and gods, that's not a problem.

Giants and giant insects are the fruits of magic, so they actually are innately magical.

As for "leaving the laws of physics and biology behind", that's never possible. You can only leave the real-world laws behind, not the ones that exist in-universe.

Con_Brio1993

2013-01-31, 12:09 PM

hamlet, do you think that a human should be able to take on a dragon with nothing but a sword and some armor, or does that count as a "super special amazing ability" ?

Kurald Galain

2013-01-31, 12:22 PM

Out of curiosity, do you refuse to pump your fighter's strength stat past 18 in 3.5e? I'm pretty sure anything past that is outside the bounds of real life human capabilities,

Hahaha! No, really not. Olympic-level athletes are well above that (the participants, not just the winners).

navar100

2013-01-31, 12:23 PM

4e Fighter does well in the context of 4e. For D&D Next, this approach may not work. I don't think that the class should get too hung up on the concept of a "defender". It eliminates a lot of concepts.

As I understand it there were people bothered they couldn't play a two-weapon fighter. Others would respond, "Play a ranger.", but the people wanted to play a fighter. It was not always the case those people needed the literal word "fighter" on the character sheet. They had a distinction between what a fighter and ranger are.

lesser_minion

2013-01-31, 12:24 PM

hamlet, do you think that a human should be able to take on a dragon with nothing but a sword and some armor, or does that count as a "super special amazing ability" ?

It depends on the sword, the armour, and the dragon, doesn't it?

But in general, a dragon should be a major obstacle -- which nothing is if one character sheet holds everything needed to overcome it.

1337 b4k4

2013-01-31, 12:45 PM

As I understand it there were people bothered they couldn't play a two-weapon fighter. Others would respond, "Play a ranger.", but the people wanted to play a fighter. It was not always the case those people needed the literal word "fighter" on the character sheet. They had a distinction between what a fighter and ranger are.

This is a result of WotC's endless hair splitting for differences between classes (though the path was started before WotC, WotC really barreled down it full tilt). The fact is classes should be broad categories describing the key trait of the class. That's why the OD&D class names ("Fighting Man", "Magic User" and yes even "Dwarf" and "Elf") were considerably better. A Ranger isn't a class, it's a type of fighting man. A sorcerer isn't a class, it's a type of magic user. Ultimately, most of the D&D classes should be dropped as full classes and brought back as option packages. This to me would do two things:

A) Eliminate the "I don't want to be a ranger, I want to be a two weapon fighter" disconnect

B) It will bring so many more options back into the core classes without having to worry about stepping over other classes. Distill the parts that make a Barbaian or Ranger distinct from their parent class (the fighter) and suddenly you have new options and powers a fighter could take without needing to invent new ones or worry about making sure a Barbarian or Ranger is better at being a Barbarian or a Ranger than the fighter is.

Clawhound

2013-01-31, 12:45 PM

Some other touchpoints.

Achilles, besides being the best-of-the-best, had been made invulnerable by his mother.
Lancelot was literally protected by God.
The Green Knight had his head cut off, then put it back on.
Heracles was the son of Zeus and was so unearthly strong that even kings feared him.
Samson had unearthly strength, but only as long as his hair remained uncut.
Gilgamesh is 2/3 god.
The Monkey King is just beyond belief on every scale.
African warriors have a belief that eating parts of certain animals literally conveys their strengths to you.
Roman soldiers flocked to the cult of Mithra.
Arthur received Excalibur from the Lady of the Lady.

All this already exists in the literature FOR fighters. From this, we can get such things as:

Weapons can exist as class features.
Divine origins can awake in a character.
Favorable gods can be helpful to you.
Eating the heart of a solo monster (i.e. dragon) could open up optional class features.
Joining certain religions could open up special class features.
Esoteric training

There are ways to get cool or amazing things into a fighter's hand without just slapping "MAGIC" on the class. You would not be forced to take them. The default fighter would be "esoteric training", where you learn/develop the secrets of amazing fighting. This could include learning how to react to/counter magic through the right lucky charms, how sharpening your sword the wrong way bring bad luck, and what twitch reveals that a wizard is about to let loose a fireball.

Flickerdart

2013-01-31, 01:27 PM

Arthur received Excalibur from the Lady of the Lady.
:smallwink:

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-01-31, 01:45 PM

Arthur received Excalibur from the Lady of the Lady.

All this already exists in the literature FOR fighters. From this, we can get such things as:

Weapons can exist as class features.

I disagree that magical weapons as class features is a good idea; you can't expect a fighter to wield supreme martial power just because some watery tart threw a sword at him!

More seriously, the major pitfall of weapons-as-class-feature abilities in 5e is that WotC tends to be very conservative with them; see the soulknife, where the weapon is the entire focus of the class, and the kensai, where the privilege of paying for another plus on your sword is your only class feature at some levels. As long as the feature is something like "Level 4(ish): You have a magical weapon of your choice with any abilities of your choice appropriate to your level, which advances automatically with level and always finds its way back to you somehow possibly with a sidequest involved," where it's only one of many features and you don't have to spend time and effort to improve it like any other magic weapon, it would be acceptable.

Not that I expect something like that, given the class features we've seen so far. WotC giving the barbarian Deathless Frenzy as a capstone is a good step forward, but that's something that you could get around 10th level in 3e; I'd prefer that the barbarian be able to use it for most of his career rather than at the very end of it, and that the other martial classes get similarly-impressive abilities at the mid levels. Ace in the Hole and Combat Surge are nice, but class-defining high-level abilities they ain't.

ArcturusV

2013-01-31, 01:57 PM

Which interestingly enough is how they used concepts like Divine Boons in 4th Edition. So it's not like WotC hasn't had that idea before. You get a divine gift that empowers Object X, with bonuses equatable to a level standard Magical Object. And as you level it continues to grow to remain level equatable.

So yeah. It's not an earth shattering concept that they could never imagine and would never work, is so wild that it's completely untested. It's been thought of, works in systems, and has been tested.

Draz74

2013-01-31, 02:03 PM

I disagree that magical weapons as class features is a good idea; you can't expect a fighter to wield supreme martial power just because some watery tart threw a sword at him!

I mean, if I went 'round saying I was a balanced playable class just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

Ace in the Hole and Combat Surge are nice, but class-defining high-level abilities they ain't.
Yeah. If they were per-encounter rather than per-day, then we'd be talking. Although they'd still be a little ... bland, especially Combat Surge. But acceptably powerful.

obryn

2013-01-31, 02:15 PM

Dinosaurs existed in the real world, and don't pose a physics or biology issue. There might an ecological issue, but in a world of literal magic and gods, that's not a problem.
Most (big) dinosaurs didn't fly, though. Dragons do. Which is kind of an illustration because...

Giants and giant insects are the fruits of magic, so they actually are innately magical.

As for "leaving the laws of physics and biology behind", that's never possible. You can only leave the real-world laws behind, not the ones that exist in-universe.
I find "Any deviation from the real world with which I am familiar must be because magic" to be incredibly stifling. It's a fantastic world with imaginary stuff everywhere, and not everything that's heroic needs to be explained with a wizard.

-O

lesser_minion

2013-01-31, 02:40 PM

I find "Any deviation from the real world with which I am familiar must be because magic" to be incredibly stifling. It's a fantastic world with imaginary stuff everywhere, and not everything that's heroic needs to be explained with a wizard.

Magic is not just some guy in a robe and pointy hat mumbling a load of gibberish. I've already explained this.

obryn

2013-01-31, 03:11 PM

Magic is not just some guy in a robe and pointy hat mumbling a load of gibberish. I've already explained this.
Which is not what I said at all.

I'm saying there can be fantastic and unreal stuff without insisting that it's only possible because of magic.

-O

Con_Brio1993

2013-01-31, 03:41 PM

Hahaha! No, really not. Olympic-level athletes are well above that (the participants, not just the winners).

Let's take a human fighter with 18 strength at level 1.

At level 20 lets assume: +5 strength from level up, +5 from Manual of Gainful Exercise, +6 item.

That's a light load of ~1000 pounds, and a max load of 2800 pounds. And a push/drag of 14000 pounds.

Sorry, but no human in real life is getting those numbers.

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-01-31, 03:53 PM

Let's take a human fighter with 18 strength at level 1.

At level 20 lets assume: +5 strength from level up, +5 from Manual of Gainful Exercise, +6 item.

That's a light load of ~1000 pounds, and a max load of 2800 pounds. And a push/drag of 14000 pounds.

Sorry, but no human in real life is getting those numbers.

He said nothing about level 20, only that there are real-world humans with the equivalent of Str above 18:

I'm pretty sure anything past [Str 18] is outside the bounds of real life human capabilities,

Olympic-level athletes are well above that
Which is true--take this man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcbYHCQRCsA), for example, who can deadlift 1,117 lbs., which corresponds to a Str of 23.

lesser_minion

2013-01-31, 04:35 PM

I'm saying there can be fantastic and unreal stuff without insisting that it's only possible because of magic.

I don't think it's acceptable for a game to needlessly add elements, and I don't think that stops at the mechanics.

Magic is a part of nearly every fantasy setting. The distinction between magic and any other exception to the rules of the real world is essentially arbitrary, which means that there is nothing to be gained by making one.

obryn

2013-01-31, 04:41 PM

Magic is a part of nearly every fantasy setting. The distinction between magic and any other exception to the rules of the real world is essentially arbitrary, so there's nothing to be gained by making one.

I don't think it's good for a game to needlessly add elements, and I don't think that stops at the mechanics.
I'm not adding anything.

What is gained is heroic warrior types being able to perform real-world impossible deeds despite their lack of magic ... and real-world impossible things shouldn't need magical explanations.

-O

Con_Brio1993

2013-01-31, 04:43 PM

He said nothing about level 20, only that there are real-world humans with the equivalent of Str above 18:

Which is true--take this man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcbYHCQRCsA), for example, who can deadlift 1,117 lbs., which corresponds to a Str of 23.

You're right. I poorly attempted to backpedal. Sorry.

Clawhound

2013-01-31, 04:52 PM

I find that fluff matters to designers and players. Once it gets ingrained, the fluff gets very ingrained. If, however, you add a nominal means to explain an interesting set of abilities from the get-go, even if the class stays boring from that point forward, eventually someone will hang a hat on the idea.

If fighters (or barbarians, or rogues) use a variety of skillful techniques and magic-like arts to achieve martial prowess, or amazing skills, then all non-magic classes could have interesting stuff hung from them. The thing is, they would have class appropriate things hung from them. (I hope, anyway.) Folks who want an inherently MORE magical game can have their cake, and so can the folks who just want martial prowess.

Personally, I fear that if non-magical characters aren't set up from the get-go to do exceptional things, then the magical classes will become dominant again as the writers give them good stuff while ignoring the non-magic classes.

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-01-31, 04:56 PM

I don't think it's acceptable for a game to needlessly add elements, and I don't think that stops at the mechanics.

Magic is a part of nearly every fantasy setting. The distinction between magic and any other exception to the rules of the real world is essentially arbitrary, which means that there is nothing to be gained by making one.

When John McClane in Die Hard manages to walk around just fine with minor bandages after lacerating his feet on a bunch of broken glass, despite the fact that wounds and glass Do Not Work That Way, is that magic? Or is that just McClane being a badass?

If a fighter were to do the same in a D&D game, would that then be magic?

Cavelcade

2013-01-31, 05:01 PM

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-01-31, 05:18 PM

His (or her?) point is that what's the point of having two separate words for what is essentially the same thing, as far as I can tell. Basically, what's the difference between "he did it because he's so badass" and "he did it because, in the setting, the natural magic in the system makes people tougher" and "a wizard did it" and etc. Essentially there's none - and you're already going to have magic in there because of fireballs, so you might as well just make 'magic' be what allows people/giants/dragons to do things that are just silly, and do away with meaningless distinctions.

Edit: I apologise in advance if I misrepresented the argument, by the way.

Because in a game like D&D, there are mechanical effects common to things defined as "magic": you can detect it, measure it, dispel it, suppress it, and otherwise manipulate it in ways that you can't manipulate the rest of the world, however fantastic and unrealistic that world may be.

Unless you want people to be able to kill a roc or giant spider with dispel magic because you're dispelling the magic that lets them survive at that size, or to be able to find an elf or dwarf with detect magic because you're detecting things that don't exist in the real world, you need to make a distinction between what is different and remarkable compared to the real world (the fantastic) and what is different and remarkable compared to the fantasy world (the magical).

lesser_minion

2013-01-31, 05:26 PM

@Cavelcade: yes, that is exactly right.

Because in a game like D&D, there are mechanical effects common to things defined as "magic": you can detect it, measure it, dispel it, suppress it, and otherwise manipulate it in ways that you can't manipulate the rest of the world, however fantastic and unrealistic that world may be.

The designers of 3e and 4e never stopped to assemble a consistent framework for how the magic in the setting worked before they started work.

Furthermore, things defined as working on 'magic' don't actually operate consistently on things that are said to be magical -- you can't dispel a zombie or a skeleton, for example.

D&D seems to support the idea of a magical 'structure' that is naturally self-supporting, even if it could never have arisen without magic. I don't think there's a need to do away with that.

Cavelcade

2013-01-31, 05:40 PM

But that's not necessarily the same at all. Say you have a general background level of magic which allows all these shenanigans to happen - then a detect magic looks for areas of unusual concentration of magical energy, which is generally caused by a magic user, and a dispel magic just returns the concentrated energy to the normal concentration. Thus it has no effect on shenanigans, only on spells.

Thus you just have magic - and don't have to shrug away the shenanigans as just "because". Then you can work on deciding what sorts of other effects that magic might have.

Zeful

2013-01-31, 05:45 PM

His (or her?) point is that what's the point of having two separate words for what is essentially the same thing, as far as I can tell. Basically, what's the difference between "he did it because he's so badass" and "he did it because, in the setting, the natural magic in the system makes people tougher" and "a wizard did it" and etc. Essentially there's none - and you're already going to have magic in there because of fireballs, so you might as well just make 'magic' be what allows people/giants/dragons to do things that are just silly, and do away with meaningless distinctions.

Edit: I apologise in advance if I misrepresented the argument, by the way.
Except it's not meaningless in the least. That Lesser Minion doesn't find any meaning in the distinction doesn't mean there isn't meaning in the distinction.

The difference between "he did it because he's just tough/badass" and "he did it because natural magic makes people tougher" is the difference between Conan the Barbarian, and Naruto. Thematically everything changes because then tension and stress around the setting is in completely different places. This makes Lesser Minion's entire argument baseless and incorrect.

And that's not even getting into the "victory through absurdity" that making everything that doesn't conform to someone's narrow view of reality and making everything that doesn't exist in real life only work through magic solves precisely none of the problems of 3.5. It just makes Dispel and Detect Magic effect completely shatter the reality of the setting and remove all other types of play other than just Smash-in-the-Door, because apparently, anything that's not-human can't meaningfully do anything to humans.

Kurald Galain

2013-01-31, 05:47 PM

For the purpose of game design, it strikes me as a good idea to distinguish between "magic" as "stuff that isn't possible in real life", and "magic" as in "the arcane power source". First, because D&D traditionally has made a clear distinction between the two, and second, because many players want or expect this.

And third, because this allows for effects like "dispel magic" that specifically counter effects from the arcane power source, which adds a dimension to gameplay.

From here, we can debate whether the divine power source follows the same rules as the arcane one. Traditionally in D&D, it does, but I've also played in settings where this isn't the case, meaning that you can't just disrupt a priestly miracle with your basic counterspell. I find this interesting, but it does go against the tradition of D&D. Personally I don't find the primal power source meaningfully different from the divine one, nor the psionic and shadow sources from the arcane, but YMMV on that. It does strike me that having too many power sources makes them meaningless, but having more than one is interesting.

Cavelcade

2013-01-31, 06:02 PM

Well, I think my last post addressed what I think of the dispel magic/detect magic ideas (also, why wouldn't humans be affected? They're equally unlike normal humans).

The question is why is he tough/badass? If it's not magic, then what? Just because isn't acceptable - to me, allowing a person who trains enough to become essentially like Beowulf because of the magic in the setting is much more attractive than they can become Beowulf because they can become Beowulf and shut up, that's why.

Note, though, that it's still the person's training that allows them to do this. The background magic gives them the potential to do it - training is what gets them there. It's still 'being a badass' but it means you can stop with the illusion of realism altogether, because, when it comes down to it, it harms the came by causing people to inhibit meleers. You just have to realise that what's possibly by DnD people just isn't doable, and then go from there. Melee at level 20 like Beowulf, why not?

noparlpf

2013-01-31, 06:05 PM

Cavelcade

2013-01-31, 06:06 PM

Yes, but they can also do things that are literally impossible - the STR discussion on this and the last page is an illustration of this. They're not just out of the normal for our world, they are impossible.

lesser_minion

2013-01-31, 06:18 PM

The difference between "he did it because he's just tough/badass" and "he did it because natural magic makes people tougher" is the difference between Conan the Barbarian, and Naruto.

In Conan the Barbarian, there was never a need to explain any of this stuff in the first place, so it doesn't matter what your explanation was. You could apply any explanation you wanted, and it wouldn't change anything.

Thematically everything changes because then tension and stress around the setting is in completely different places. This makes Lesser Minion's entire argument baseless and incorrect.

This is untrue. You could apply any explanation you wanted to any of these things, and it would not change anything. This stuff wasn't, to my knowledge, brought up in the Conan books because it wasn't important to understanding what was going on -- you could interpret it however you wanted, and the functional end result would be the same.

In D&D, it matters a lot more. In a game, you need a better understanding of how things work than you would in a book or a film, because those things inform your rules.

And that's not even getting into the "victory through absurdity" that making everything that doesn't conform to someone's narrow view of reality and making everything that doesn't exist in real life only work through magic solves precisely none of the problems of 3.5.

This doesn't need to solve any of the problems of 3.5, particularly because it's far too high-level to do that.

However, I think that implementing, or at least considering, this, might lead to some better games. If nothing else, I'd be happier.

It just makes Dispel and Detect Magic effect completely shatter the reality of the setting and remove all other types of play other than just Smash-in-the-Door, because apparently, anything that's not-human can't meaningfully do anything to humans.

What?

For the purpose of game design, it strikes me as a good idea to distinguish between "magic" as "stuff that isn't possible in real life", and "magic" as in "the arcane power source". First, because D&D traditionally has made a clear distinction between the two, and second, because many players want or expect this.

I've been making that distinction throughout. Once you get to character classes, the question is what trappings your characters' abilities have, not what their power source is.

The final end result is that it should be acceptable for any character -- not just a caster -- to do something like forge a sword of incredible sharpness that cuts through all armour, sing a song that terrifies her enemies while emboldening or even enraging her allies, and be possessed of such a presence that even while she's asleep, an assassin cannot bear to confront her.

However, all of these things should happen within a consistent, parsimonious framework.

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-01-31, 06:24 PM

The background magic gives them the potential to do it - training is what gets them there. It's still 'being a badass' but it means you can stop with the illusion of realism altogether, because, when it comes down to it, it harms the came by causing people to inhibit meleers. You just have to realise that what's possibly by DnD people just isn't doable, and then go from there. Melee at level 20 like Beowulf, why not?

I completely agree with having high-level martial characters that look like Beowulf, Cu Chulainn, Ares, and other mythical figures (in fact, I've been pushing for that in 5e for some time), and it's perfectly fine if the explanation for why they're just that awesome and why giant insects don't collapse under their own weight and so forth is "a high level of background magical radiation" in the setting. The important point is that, as Kurald noted, there's an important difference between magic-as-power-source and magic-as-lack-of-realism.

You can call the the two whatever you want--magical vs. fantastic, spells vs. badassery, whatever--but the point is that using just the word "magic" for both types and pretending that everything is "just magic" with no flavor or mechanical difference between them is counterproductive for design and discussion purposes. I find it puzzling that lesser_minion is saying things like:

D&D seems to support the idea of a magical 'structure' that is naturally self-supporting, even if it could never have arisen without magic. I don't think there's a need to do away with that.
and

In a game, you need a better understanding of how things work than you would in a book or a film, because those things inform your rules.
while at the same time trying to handwave away the distinctions between magic-as-power-source and magic-as-lack-of-realism.

lesser_minion

2013-01-31, 06:31 PM

While at the same time trying to handwave away the distinctions between magic-as-power-source and magic-as-lack-of-realism.

I've said it before: the question, once you get down to character classes, is trappings, not power source.

For a fighter, any active use of magic is subtle and reflexive. In some cases, there isn't any -- for some fighters, the magic that allows them to do what they do has long since passed, leaving them irrevocably altered.

For a caster, the use of magic is overt, conscious, and intentional. Many casters rely on hand gestures and incantations. Their usefulness is undisputed, but it is argued that their arts have as many weaknesses as strengths -- and spells to exploit those weaknesses have been devised.

You could argue that even that distinction breaks parsimony, but having a choice can add depth, and there is value to having a variety of possible aesthetics.

Anyone could just invoke death of the author and reinterpret the fighter as being a non-magical badass. That would actually be fine. The value of a consistent, parsimonious set of fluff mechanics is in its ability to inform better -- more consistent, more parsimonious -- crunch mechanics.