PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5th Edition: 8th Revision and Counting



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Oracle_Hunter
2012-12-20, 07:18 PM
There's a 5th Edition of D&D coming out ("D&D Next") and there are playtests and such. So discuss the playtests (within the bounds of the NDA), what you want to see, what you don't want to see, and other aspects of game design that may be relevant.

Useful links:
Playtest sign up (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120109)
Enworld's info compilation (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showwiki.php?title=Books:D+and+D+Next)
Penny Arcade / PvP 5e Podcasts:
Part 1 of 4 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120806)
Part 2 of 4 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120813)
Part 3 of 4 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120820)
Part 4 of 4 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120827)
Previous threads:
First edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218549)
Second edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231033)
Third edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242069)
3.5th edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245504)
Fourth edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244672)
5^2 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245600)
6th Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=252870)
Thread #7 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257952)

Craft (Cheese)
2012-12-20, 07:22 PM
So, game design philosophy discussion time.

"You're not supposed to care about what happens to first-level PCs."

Agree, or disagree?

Oracle_Hunter
2012-12-20, 07:24 PM
So, game design philosophy discussion time.

"You're not supposed to care about what happens to first-level PCs."

Agree, or disagree?
If you are playing a character, you should care what happens to him. Otherwise, what's the point of playing him?

How does level enter into it? :smallconfused:

Craft (Cheese)
2012-12-20, 07:33 PM
I ask the question because I was reading the Lamentations of the Flame Princess Referee's Book (essentially serving the same function as a DMG), and it had this piece of advice:


First level characters are wonderful for the budding Referee. They are entirely disposable and quickly replaceable. A new Referee, even an experienced Referee with a group of new players or players unfamiliar to him, will have some adjusting to do. It is likely that some incorrect assumptions between players and Referee will result in character slaughter.

If the characters are first level, this is not a problem. Nobody should ever feel guilty about killing a first level character, and nobody should ever get upset that their first level character dies. It is during this developmental time in a campaign that everything about thecampaign is established: The campaign tone, the Referee's style, the facts of the campaign world. Taking shortcuts because some people think first level characters are "lame" also shortcuts the greater rewards of the campaign. Those seeds are sewn early on, when PCs are minor, negligible parts of the world and not yet ready to be major players in it.

My first thought when I read this passage was "Wow, I totally disagree with that gaming philosophy", but when I dug deep and asked myself why, the answers were surprising.

Grinner
2012-12-20, 07:33 PM
"You're not supposed to care about what happens to first-level PCs."

Agree, or disagree?

Ideally, yes, but that's difficult to do since they don't require as much work or playtime as a higher level character. Less memories, less sentimental value.

Seerow
2012-12-20, 07:35 PM
Over on the WotC forum there is a thread about how a party of 4 level 13s can one round Asmodeus without any real optimization.

The response from most people: This is a good thing.


Faith in humanity is dwindling.

Saph
2012-12-20, 08:13 PM
"You're not supposed to care about what happens to first-level PCs."

Agree, or disagree?

It can actually make for quite a fun game, but you have to approach it the right way.

Recently our group has been trying out a game called Dungeon Crawl Classics, one of the new retro-D&D systems. In DCC, you start at 0-level, and you make up not one, not two, but three or four 0-level characters, and you play all of them. Whoever survives to 1st-level, becomes your PC. :smalltongue:

Now, this is obviously heresy to some gamers, but when our group tried it we had a lot of fun! The key is to change your mindset. Instead of writing a 4 page backstory for your 0-level character, you treat their journey from 0-level to 3rd-level as their backstory. If they live that long, they'll have an exciting and eventful origin story, which will usually end up being much more interesting than a pre-written one. If they don't live that long . . . well, easy come, easy go. Rolling up a 0-level character in DCC takes 2-3 minutes, so they're not exactly hard to replace.

I wouldn't want to always run campaigns that way, but it's a valid playstyle and it can be quite a refreshing change from the more prep-heavy systems.

Seerow
2012-12-20, 08:29 PM
It can actually make for quite a fun game, but you have to approach it the right way.

Recently our group has been trying out a game called Dungeon Crawl Classics, one of the new retro-D&D systems. In DCC, you start at 0-level, and you make up not one, not two, but three or four 0-level characters, and you play all of them. Whoever survives to 1st-level, becomes your PC. :smalltongue:

Now, this is obviously heresy to some gamers, but when our group tried it we had a lot of fun! The key is to change your mindset. Instead of writing a 4 page backstory for your 0-level character, you treat their journey from 0-level to 3rd-level as their backstory. If they live that long, they'll have an exciting and eventful origin story, which will usually end up being much more interesting than a pre-written one. If they don't live that long . . . well, easy come, easy go. Rolling up a 0-level character in DCC takes 2-3 minutes, so they're not exactly hard to replace.

I wouldn't want to always run campaigns that way, but it's a valid playstyle and it can be quite a refreshing change from the more prep-heavy systems.

This actually sounds kind of fun. I don't like the idea of playing a game of D&D where you have one character rolled up like normal and it being considered expendible. But special rules for sub-level 1 characters that are quick to generate and you're expected to play several at once? That is something I can see working and want to try.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-12-20, 08:31 PM
So, game design philosophy discussion time.

"You're not supposed to care about what happens to first-level PCs."

Agree, or disagree?

Agree, kind of. "You should care about what happens to low-level PCs" is often used as code for "You shouldn't kill low-level PCs because chararcter generation takes a long time and you're taking PCs out of the action," and in that case I completely agree that one shouldn't treat low-level PCs any differently based on the length of chargen.

Even in option-heavy 3e or 4e, it's entirely possible to create a playable first-level character with about five minutes of thought about the basic concept and mechanics and ten minutes of math and writing and then hop right back into the action. The reason that chargen usually takes longer is that you need to think about prerequisites, comb through all the options, etc. So ideally, we shouldn't care because you can make new characters quickly and easily without shooting yourself in the foot down the road, but practically speaking that's probably not going to happen for 5e.


Over on the WotC forum there is a thread about how a party of 4 level 13s can one round Asmodeus without any real optimization.

The response from most people: This is a good thing.


Faith in humanity is dwindling.

Whaaat. There is so much wrong with that sentiment that even one of my trademark page-stretching digression-filled posts wouldn't be long enough to address that. :smallannoyed:

Link, please?

Seerow
2012-12-20, 08:33 PM
Whaaat. There is so much wrong with that sentiment that even one of my trademark page-stretching digression-filled posts wouldn't be long enough to address that. :smallannoyed:

Link, please?

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29595737/Alpha_Strike_Asmodeous

Saph
2012-12-20, 08:37 PM
This actually sounds kind of fun. I don't like the idea of playing a game of D&D where you have one character rolled up like normal and it being considered expendible. But special rules for sub-level 1 characters that are quick to generate and you're expected to play several at once? That is something I can see working and want to try.

We also found the starting "packages" you get as 0-level characters hilarious. Possible starting occupations include farmer (with chicken), blacksmith (with 1 ounce of mithril) and a mendicant (have no idea what that is, but they come equipped with cheese dip).

Craft (Cheese)
2012-12-20, 08:39 PM
It can actually make for quite a fun game, but you have to approach it the right way.

Recently our group has been trying out a game called Dungeon Crawl Classics, one of the new retro-D&D systems. In DCC, you start at 0-level, and you make up not one, not two, but three or four 0-level characters, and you play all of them. Whoever survives to 1st-level, becomes your PC. :smalltongue:

Now, this is obviously heresy to some gamers, but when our group tried it we had a lot of fun! The key is to change your mindset. Instead of writing a 4 page backstory for your 0-level character, you treat their journey from 0-level to 3rd-level as their backstory. If they live that long, they'll have an exciting and eventful origin story, which will usually end up being much more interesting than a pre-written one. If they don't live that long . . . well, easy come, easy go. Rolling up a 0-level character in DCC takes 2-3 minutes, so they're not exactly hard to replace.

I wouldn't want to always run campaigns that way, but it's a valid playstyle and it can be quite a refreshing change from the more prep-heavy systems.

How are you supposed to structure these early, 0th-level adventures?

How long is the climb from level 0 to level 3 supposed to last?

Zeful
2012-12-20, 08:41 PM
mendicant (have no idea what that is, but they come equipped with cheese dip).
It's a beggar.

But yeah, 0-level adventuring sounds kind of FunTM.

RPGuru1331
2012-12-20, 08:43 PM
I could conceivably enjoy what you say about 0 level adventuring, but it would be in the way I enjoy Nethack or Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, not as roleplaying.

Saph
2012-12-20, 08:44 PM
How are you supposed to structure these early, 0th-level adventures?

How long is the climb from level 0 to level 3 supposed to last?

0-level adventures are structured similarly to 1st-level adventures – having multiple characters under your control goes a long way towards making up for how weak they area.

The climb from level 0 to level 1 is very fast, but things slow down significantly after that. Level 1 is where you pick your character class and spells/specialisations, so that's where you start having to actually make build choices.


I could conceivably enjoy what you say about 0 level adventuring, but it would be in the way I enjoy Nethack or Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, not as roleplaying.

We actually found that the players tended to roleplay more with their 0-level characters than they did for regular 3.5/PF/4e ones. I think it was the zaniness of the randomly-generated commoners combined with genuinely having no clue whether your character was going to die or not.

navar100
2012-12-20, 08:48 PM
It is not a crime against humanity for 1st level characters to be "powerful". While ultimately they shouldn't be death immune neither should the DM be looking to kill them off or else he thinks he's doing it wrong. The DM should never be out to kill the PCs regardless of level. Please realize this is not the same thing as saying PCs should never die. I'm talking about the DM being out to get them.

I thought such thinking died at the end of 2E. There were some rumblings during 3E but not so widely spread nor welcomed.

RPGuru1331
2012-12-20, 08:51 PM
We actually found that the players tended to roleplay more with their 0-level characters than they did for regular 3.5/PF/4e ones. I think it was the zaniness of the randomly-generated commoners combined with genuinely having no clue whether your character was going to die or not.

I figured, from what you said, which is why I specified my reactions, not the reactions of all humanity.

Kurald Galain
2012-12-20, 09:17 PM
mendicant (have no idea what that is, but they come equipped with cheese dip).

Religious beggar, a kind of monk with a vow of poverty. More to the point, it's a shout out to Italian comic Groo the Wanderer.

noparlpf
2012-12-20, 09:24 PM
So, game design philosophy discussion time.

"You're not supposed to care about what happens to first-level PCs."

Agree, or disagree?

It's not as black-and-white as "care" or "not care", in my opinion. You did just spend time and imagination creating a unique character, so of course you're going to care if they die before you get to know them better. On the other hand, you don't know them that well yet, so it's not as painful as a high-level character dying.
I think if I found myself in a game from level one in which the DM killed too many low-level PCs I'd probably start playing a large bunch of twins.


It can actually make for quite a fun game, but you have to approach it the right way.

Recently our group has been trying out a game called Dungeon Crawl Classics, one of the new retro-D&D systems. In DCC, you start at 0-level, and you make up not one, not two, but three or four 0-level characters, and you play all of them. Whoever survives to 1st-level, becomes your PC. :smalltongue:

Now, this is obviously heresy to some gamers, but when our group tried it we had a lot of fun! The key is to change your mindset. Instead of writing a 4 page backstory for your 0-level character, you treat their journey from 0-level to 3rd-level as their backstory. If they live that long, they'll have an exciting and eventful origin story, which will usually end up being much more interesting than a pre-written one. If they don't live that long . . . well, easy come, easy go. Rolling up a 0-level character in DCC takes 2-3 minutes, so they're not exactly hard to replace.

I wouldn't want to always run campaigns that way, but it's a valid playstyle and it can be quite a refreshing change from the more prep-heavy systems.

That's an interesting idea...personally I think I'd rather go through that origin-story crawl with only one zero-level character, and probably hit level two or three before finishing it, but only because I think it would be confusing to be four people at once. I have enough trouble being one person at a time.

Deophaun
2012-12-20, 09:31 PM
"You're not supposed to care about what happens to first-level PCs."
Depends on the game. Though generally in D&D, if you're supposed to care about the character from the start, then the campaign starts at level 5.

TheThan
2012-12-20, 09:32 PM
according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendicant).
a mendicant is basically a beggar. So yeah, fancy word for a bum.

Ziegander
2012-12-20, 10:50 PM
Just took a quick look at the equipment and classes sections of the latest playtest packet. Is it just me or does the Monk seem WAY better than the Fighter? Same attack bonus, similar base damage, same number of maneuvers, a bit fewer HP, a little lower AC, but that's traded for more skills, ki powers, automatic overcoming of material-based resistance, a laundry list of useful immunities, solid movement-related class features, and some interesting utility features. So, they have basic numbers that are a bit lower, but they get TONS of additional stuff in terms of passive effects and active things to do.

ghost_warlock
2012-12-20, 10:59 PM
It can actually make for quite a fun game, but you have to approach it the right way.

Recently our group has been trying out a game called Dungeon Crawl Classics, one of the new retro-D&D systems. In DCC, you start at 0-level, and you make up not one, not two, but three or four 0-level characters, and you play all of them. Whoever survives to 1st-level, becomes your PC. :smalltongue:

Now, this is obviously heresy to some gamers, but when our group tried it we had a lot of fun! The key is to change your mindset. Instead of writing a 4 page backstory for your 0-level character, you treat their journey from 0-level to 3rd-level as their backstory. If they live that long, they'll have an exciting and eventful origin story, which will usually end up being much more interesting than a pre-written one. If they don't live that long . . . well, easy come, easy go. Rolling up a 0-level character in DCC takes 2-3 minutes, so they're not exactly hard to replace.

I wouldn't want to always run campaigns that way, but it's a valid playstyle and it can be quite a refreshing change from the more prep-heavy systems.

I'd be the unlucky bloke who somehow managed to get all four of my starter characters killed off...as well as a good number of replacements. So I'd end up playing a brand new 3rd level character with no in-game "background" while everyone else had already established their story. :smallsigh:

IMO, high-lethality games work best as one-shots. But, then, DarkSun is one of my favorite campaign worlds. A guy's gotta have a little contradiction. :smalltongue:

Seerow
2012-12-20, 11:02 PM
Just took a quick look at the equipment and classes sections of the latest playtest packet. Is it just me or does the Monk seem WAY better than the Fighter? Same attack bonus, similar base damage, same number of maneuvers, a bit fewer HP, a little lower AC, but that's traded for more skills, ki powers, automatic overcoming of material-based resistance, a laundry list of useful immunities, solid movement-related class features, and some interesting utility features. So, they have basic numbers that are a bit lower, but they get TONS of additional stuff in terms of passive effects and active things to do.

Monks actually have a higher potential AC than Fighters. But I'm pretty sure Monks have fewer maneuvers known (if I remember right it was 3 vs 5), which they make up for with their Ki abilities.

I agree the Fighter is lackluster in terms of options available, but really so is the Monk. I think where the Wizard is right now (1 spell known/prepared each level) is the absolute minimum I would accept in terms of options for any class.

Draz74
2012-12-21, 01:36 AM
So, game design philosophy discussion time.

"You're not supposed to care about what happens to first-level PCs."

Agree, or disagree?


It can actually make for quite a fun game, but you have to approach it the right way.

Recently our group has been trying out a game called Dungeon Crawl Classics, one of the new retro-D&D systems. In DCC, you start at 0-level, and you make up not one, not two, but three or four 0-level characters, and you play all of them. Whoever survives to 1st-level, becomes your PC. :smalltongue:

Now, this is obviously heresy to some gamers, but when our group tried it we had a lot of fun! The key is to change your mindset. Instead of writing a 4 page backstory for your 0-level character, you treat their journey from 0-level to 3rd-level as their backstory. If they live that long, they'll have an exciting and eventful origin story, which will usually end up being much more interesting than a pre-written one. If they don't live that long . . . well, easy come, easy go. Rolling up a 0-level character in DCC takes 2-3 minutes, so they're not exactly hard to replace.

I wouldn't want to always run campaigns that way, but it's a valid playstyle and it can be quite a refreshing change from the more prep-heavy systems.
Saph: I must congratulate you on reading my mind, expressing my opinions in clear and concise form, and backing them up with actual play experience that I haven't even had anything similar to (at least recently).

In other words: I have no problem with Craft(Cheese)'s statement as a viable structure for an RPG. But I'm ambivalent about whether it should be the playstyle that D&D embraces.


Over on the WotC forum there is a thread about how a party of 4 level 13s can one round Asmodeus without any real optimization.

The response from most people: This is a good thing.

Faith in humanity is dwindling.

I have nothing to say to that except *facepalm*

Craft (Cheese)
2012-12-21, 01:42 AM
Alright, I'll bite. Where are Asmodeus's stats in the playtest data? I can't find him anywhere.

Seerow
2012-12-21, 01:58 AM
Alright, I'll bite. Where are Asmodeus's stats in the playtest data? I can't find him anywhere.

Page 22 of the Bestiary. Listed as Devil: Asmodeus.

Durazno
2012-12-21, 02:07 AM
I think that one of the posters over there raises a good point, though I wouldn't call the DM "stupid" over it:


If your DM is stupid enough to allow you to simply find Asmodeus, unprepared, flat-footed, in a room, with zero prepared defenses or minions, and having allowed you to reach said room immediately following an 8 hour rest, with no other demanding battles between you and the Arch fiend...

...then yes, you can one shot Asmodeus.

If a party of level 13 characters can somehow sneak into his presence and arrange for a surprise round where all of them attack at once before he can react, well, that's amazing enough to give them the kill, I think.

Also, yeah, every roll has to go well for such an alpha strike to work, and it ignores passive abilities that Asmodeus has.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-12-21, 02:18 AM
Page 22 of the Bestiary. Listed as Devil: Asmodeus.

Well that's... stupid. That's how I'd expect to see generic types listed but not a unique creature. Thanks though.

And my opinion is... well, monster hit points numbers are waaaaaaay too low across the board. It's like they haven't taken martial damage dice (or the flat bonus) into account at all. In fact, monster hit point values don't seem to have changed much at all from the previous playtest where DPR was much lower.

noparlpf
2012-12-21, 02:19 AM
I think that one of the posters over there raises a good point, though I wouldn't call the DM "stupid" over it:



If a party of level 13 characters can somehow sneak into his presence and arrange for a surprise round where all of them attack at once before he can react, well, that's amazing enough to give them the kill, I think.

Also, yeah, every roll has to go well for such an alpha strike to work, and it ignores passive abilities that Asmodeus has.

Well, it depends. Did the party get there by intelligent action of their own, or did the DM just say, "You randomly wander into Asmodeus's room. Surprise round, then initiative."

Rixx
2012-12-21, 02:39 AM
I think the idea of being extremely invested in a character from level 1 is actually a relatively new one among tabletop gamers and D&D players in particular. Elaborate backstories for characters you've just made with the expectation that they'd survive to see them through is a very later-edition thing. I think having Level 1 as the "expendable level" as a throwback to the earlier editions is not really harmful to the game, especially when you can always start at level 2 or so.

I think having some "training wheels" time where players and DMs can feel out the mechanics of the game is a good thing, since advanced players have the option of starting at a higher level.

I think this speaks to a wider shift in the idea of heroism as an innate quality rather than something that is achieved through hardship, which is something I want to write about. I think I might pitch that as the next Critical Wits Podcast episode.

Ashdate
2012-12-21, 02:55 AM
I remember playing D&D when character death was pretty common (I think I went through 4 characters before I got one to level 2). Did I have fun then? Yes, but it wasn't because I was having clerics killed by giant-tossed rocks, or bards dying to level drain. I was having fun because I was playing with friends, trying to discover whoever was kidnapping all the magic users in the area.

I get what some games try and do, by creating what is often a very lethal and unforgiving world. It can definitely set a particular kind of mood which can be enjoyable.

But looking back, a lot of what killed my 2nd E. characters came down to inexperience with the system. I didn't know giants could toss giant rocks, and despite having heard of such powerful undead, I never figured we'd fight one so early (most of us didn't even have weapons to harm the damn thing. Is that really fun? I mean, I learned something, but my character sure as hell didn't (they were now dead).

Since modules fix everything I'd prefer the core game to not be lethal. Or at least, I would prefer that deaths come from a string of bad luck/planning rather than "system mastery".

Grinner
2012-12-21, 02:56 AM
I think this speaks to a wider shift in the idea of heroism as an innate quality rather than something that is achieved through hardship..

To me, that says "notions of entitlement".

Anderlith
2012-12-21, 03:26 AM
Death should always matter, but it takes away from it's impact if it never happens. Allow your players to die if thing just happen to go that way. try to save them a little if you can, but if the dice & the story box them into a corner you shouldn't go trying to Deus Ex Machina them

TuggyNE
2012-12-21, 03:35 AM
If a party of level 13 characters can somehow sneak into his presence and arrange for a surprise round where all of them attack at once before he can react, well, that's amazing enough to give them the kill, I think.

While, of course, it should be extremely hard to arrange for the conditions of this alpha strike to occur, the fact is that Big Evil A should not have to rely solely on outside guards and superior senses to avoid getting one-rounded. In other words, a layer or two of redundancy is missing: a level 13 party should get stomped long before they make it there, and also stomped without being able to achieve surprise, and also stomped even if they do achieve surprise. Or, at the very least, they should get some stiff backlash and probably lose several PCs.

shadow_archmagi
2012-12-21, 03:52 AM
To me, that says "notions of entitlement".

I feel like although it's entirely possible that you could argue entitlement issues in many aspects of modern life, roleplaying games are one of those things there 'earning' is a really vague and nebulous concept that can easily go either way.

On one hand, as someone that's played the old (and new) Xcom games, I fully understand how satisfying it is to gradually learn how to survive in a hostile world, how much more meaningful a character is when all they've survived where no one else did... If the game setup is correct, losing can be fun (DWARF FORTRESS!) in and of itself, and make the victories ten times more meaningful.

One the other hand, being a level 1 D&D character can be incredibly frustrating, and a lot of the things that I find fun about D&D just aren't present at low levels, and there's no reason to play a game I don't enjoy. That's the whole point of the game. No pain no gain is all well and good, but I'd prefer that that rule kept itself confined to my exercise, job, and diet. D&D is hedonism time.

Raimun
2012-12-21, 04:03 AM
First level characters are wonderful for the budding Referee. They are entirely disposable and quickly replaceable. A new Referee, even an experienced Referee with a group of new players or players unfamiliar to him, will have some adjusting to do. It is likely that some incorrect assumptions between players and Referee will result in character slaughter.

If the characters are first level, this is not a problem. Nobody should ever feel guilty about killing a first level character, and nobody should ever get upset that their first level character dies.

Dying at the first level? That depends.

Let's imagine we're playing a rules heavy game with emphasis on story. If I spent 30+ minutes creating the character and even more time coming up with a detailed back story, I would be pretty upset, regardless of how he died. That would mean I have to roll up a new character which takes time and I'd imagine his back story wouldn't be nearly as detailed.

On the other hand, if the system is light and it's just a dungeon crawl or whatever, dying wouldn't upset me, if there was a good reason for it, like taking stupid Leeroy Jenkins-style risks. Even then, the campaing should not be a shredder for PCs.

Player death should be a possibility but it should used sparingly. Just like multiple resurrections can cheapen death, constants deaths will cheapen death and also the characters. If you know your characters will likely die on their debut-session, they will all be just blank slates. This isn't Diablo.

RedWarlock
2012-12-21, 10:43 AM
I noticed from the playtest monsters, they seem to be doing HD=CR, more or less. I'd have to check to be sure, but Asmo seemed to have only 20HD, thus explaining the one-shottable-ness.

Jerthanis
2012-12-21, 12:03 PM
I think it's more useful to be able to portray PCs as very weak as well as very strong. I think the idea of having a 1st level character be very very weak, and considered expendable because they are not yet anything special is more useful than a system where 1st level characters are already in fistfights with trolls, if only because you can have level 5 characters in fistfights with trolls and have lost nothing in terms of system versatility.

So yeah, the idea of 'disposable 1st level characters' is useful if only for completeness, as long as there's the assertion somewhere that you're not 'doing it wrong' if you know what you want out of the game and decide to start at higher level with characters with more experience under their belt and heroic events in their pasts.

I will say that the whole idea of the Bonded Accuracy thing will produce unexpected results, but I think at least some of them might be interesting. If it presents a reality where Asmodeus can be killed by a band of pretty powerful dudes, even though he's REALLY powerful, it maybe presents a world where the mighty will always fear the masses. It's different, but MAYBE not worse. Maybe it'll just be accepted that to hold the bridge of Khazad-dûm against 50 orcs will be as heroic as holding it against the Balrog.

I dunno... maybe... I have my doubts, but it's possible.

Ziegander
2012-12-21, 12:37 PM
In the argument of disposable 1st level characters, that can work, and be fun too, but only if creating a character takes 5-15 minutes FOR NEW PLAYERS, and no longer. If it takes an hour to show a new player how to build a 1st level character, and 20 minutes for an experienced player, then 1st level characters better not be expendable.

Anderlith
2012-12-21, 01:02 PM
D&D is not in anyway complicated. I can throw together a character in 5 min top. If you are scared of dying play at a slightly higher level. or house rule an extra padding of hp

Kurald Galain
2012-12-21, 01:05 PM
D&D is not in anyway complicated.

Huh? It's one of the most complicated RPGs on the market, and most editions can require well over an hour to build a character, and many people take quite some time learning it. It may not seem that way when you're experienced, but it's very rules-heavy, and by the indications so far 5E will still be rules-heavy. (possibly because rules-light RPGs can't sell splatbooks).

navar100
2012-12-21, 01:46 PM
I remember playing D&D when character death was pretty common (I think I went through 4 characters before I got one to level 2). Did I have fun then? Yes, but it wasn't because I was having clerics killed by giant-tossed rocks, or bards dying to level drain. I was having fun because I was playing with friends, trying to discover whoever was kidnapping all the magic users in the area.

I get what some games try and do, by creating what is often a very lethal and unforgiving world. It can definitely set a particular kind of mood which can be enjoyable.

But looking back, a lot of what killed my 2nd E. characters came down to inexperience with the system. I didn't know giants could toss giant rocks, and despite having heard of such powerful undead, I never figured we'd fight one so early (most of us didn't even have weapons to harm the damn thing. Is that really fun? I mean, I learned something, but my character sure as hell didn't (they were now dead).

Since modules fix everything I'd prefer the core game to not be lethal. Or at least, I would prefer that deaths come from a string of bad luck/planning rather than "system mastery".

If you were fighting giants at level 1 the problem was your DM was a donkey cavity, not the fragility of level 1 characters or the game in general.

Anderlith
2012-12-21, 02:11 PM
Huh? It's one of the most complicated RPGs on the market, and most editions can require well over an hour to build a character, and many people take quite some time learning it. It may not seem that way when you're experienced, but it's very rules-heavy, and by the indications so far 5E will still be rules-heavy. (possibly because rules-light RPGs can't sell splatbooks).

D&D is not rules heavy, Hackmaster, Rolemaster, MERP. Those are rules heavy. D&D is in the middle ground. You Pick a race, a class & a handful of skills & literally two to three feats. Add up all your bonuses & play. Not hard at all. You could argue that Feat Selection could warrant a minute or two contemplation, but that is the only facet of character gen that could take very long

Ziegander
2012-12-21, 02:20 PM
D&D is not rules heavy, Hackmaster, Rolemaster, MERP. Those are rules heavy. D&D is in the middle ground. You Pick a race, a class & a handful of skills & literally two to three feats. Add up all your bonuses & play. Not hard at all. You could argue that Feat Selection could warrant a minute or two contemplation, but that is the only facet of character gen that could take very long

Except, no, adding up all your bonuses takes a couple minutes by itself. Filling out the character sheet takes a couple minutes, even without all the pondering. Deciding what you want to play, and where you want your build to go. That takes several more minutes. Finalizing your feats takes a few more minutes.

I regularly play with veterans of the game that spend days to build their first level characters. For me, it takes about 10 minutes or so, but I'm the most versed player in my group. Newbies routinely take at least an hour to build the most basic and hobbled characters.

Morty
2012-12-21, 02:22 PM
It certainly doesn't help that the way the game is built, taking the wrong choice at 1st level can ruin your chatacter concept, because the necessary PrC or feat will be delayed by 2 or more levels.

Doug Lampert
2012-12-21, 02:38 PM
Over on the WotC forum there is a thread about how a party of 4 level 13s can one round Asmodeus without any real optimization.

The response from most people: This is a good thing.


Faith in humanity is dwindling.

I think the reaction to Wish is WORSE.

Seriously, Wish doesn't have any significant cost if cast in downtime, and can create rare magic items.

Remember how magic items are optional and don't need to be figured into the math? Level 17, a bit of downtime, and SMASH. There went that assumption, and it's an assumption the game math is being built on.

Remember that Belt of Giant Strength that wasn't a problem because the GM could just not give it to you? He'd better also make sure we all die at level 16, and that we NEVER have a plausible level 17 wizard ally or character with a common interest, and we NEVER get a wish from anything else, and we NEVER get involved in trade with anyone in trade with anyone with access to wish.

Of course you can always play in the ENTIRELY and TOTALLY PLAUSIBLE world where no one can ever get a day of relative safety even at level 17 and yet commoners are able to continue the species.

I'm not QUITE sure how this will work with their legacy system where I can do stuff like found organizations and run kingdoms if I can't even manage a safe night's sleep. But I'm SURE this problem will be solved, maybe in a module

Seerow
2012-12-21, 02:41 PM
I think the reaction to Wish is WORSE.

Seriously, Wish doesn't have any significant cost if cast in downtime, and can create rare magic items.

Remember how magic items are optional and don't need to be figured into the math? Level 17, a bit of downtime, and SMASH. There went that assumption, and it's an assumption the game math is being built on.

Remember that Belt of Giant Strength that wasn't a problem because the GM could just not give it to you? He'd better also make sure we all die at level 16, and that we NEVER have a plausible level 17 wizard ally or character with a common interest, and we NEVER get a wish from anything else, and we NEVER get involved in trade with anyone in trade with anyone with access to wish.

Of course you can always play in the ENTIRELY and TOTALLY PLAUSIBLE world where no one can ever get a day of relative safety even at level 17 and yet commoners are able to continue the species.

I'm not QUITE sure how this will work with their legacy system where I can do stuff like found organizations and run kingdoms if I can't even manage a safe night's sleep. But I'm SURE this problem will be solved, maybe in a module

But the Wizard loses strength if he casts wish for anything other than replicating 8th level spells! That makes it balanced, right? I mean it's not as though being able to replicate any 8th level spell from any spell list spontaneously is really strong....

snoopy13a
2012-12-21, 02:46 PM
D&D is not rules heavy, Hackmaster, Rolemaster, MERP. Those are rules heavy. D&D is in the middle ground. You Pick a race, a class & a handful of skills & literally two to three feats. Add up all your bonuses & play. Not hard at all. You could argue that Feat Selection could warrant a minute or two contemplation, but that is the only facet of character gen that could take very long

I think you are viewing this from the perspective of an expert and not that of a novice. You are familiar with all of the races, classes, skills, feats, and spells. In addition, you understand which are good and which are bad.

A new player is not necessarily familiar with races, classes, skills, and feats. She does not know the mechanical difference between an elf and a half-elf or a human and a dwarf. She does not understand the difference between a fighter and a ranger or a wizard and a sorcerer. If she wants to be a wizard, it will take some time to figure out what spells she should get for her spellbook. Picking feats and skills will take some time as she does not have knowledge of any of them.

Even mundane details, such as starting supplies, may take some time as the new player might read through those and weigh whether to buy things.

Basically, a new player might read through everything pertaining to character creation.

Actually, browsing through the playtest package, I think it is starting to get a complexity creep.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-12-21, 02:50 PM
Except, no, adding up all your bonuses takes a couple minutes by itself. Filling out the character sheet takes a couple minutes, even without all the pondering. Deciding what you want to play, and where you want your build to go. That takes several more minutes. Finalizing your feats takes a few more minutes.

I regularly play with veterans of the game that spend days to build their first level characters. For me, it takes about 10 minutes or so, but I'm the most versed player in my group. Newbies routinely take at least an hour to build the most basic and hobbled characters.


It certainly doesn't help that the way the game is built, taking the wrong choice at 1st level can ruin your chatacter concept, because the necessary PrC or feat will be delayed by 2 or more levels.

As I mentioned upthread, the problem with D&D chargen is not that it's complicated and rules-heavy, necessarily, it's that you need to spend more time on it at low levels because what's good isn't immediately clear for newbies and you need to ensure that you aren't hobbled by those choices at higher level. Complexity isn't overwhelming if you're choosing based on theme without having to judge power levels, and if you're only considering the here-and-now rather than 10 levels down the road; in a campaign where retraining is easy, prerequisites are waived, and another player can tell you to grab Augment Healing and Healing Devotion for a healbot cleric, it's perfectly possible to quickly throw together 1st level characters in 10 minutes and have them work fine.

The impediments to quick chargen go away if your options are all good and roughly equal, ToB maneuver-style, and if you make the options more obvious (in 3e parlance, make it clear to newbies that Power Attack goes well with two-handers and less so with light weapons, and so forth), which, again, is possibly how 5e will turn out but unlikely given their current material. The earlier promise of "pick race, pick class, pick specialty, and go" seems to have fallen by the wayside with the pick-your-own maneuvers and spells and such...though hey, at least generating level 20 characters is as easy as generating level 10 characters because you get practically nothing in the interim. :smallwink:

Doug Lampert
2012-12-21, 03:42 PM
But the Wizard loses strength if he casts wish for anything other than replicating 8th level spells! That makes it balanced, right? I mean it's not as though being able to replicate any 8th level spell from any spell list spontaneously is really strong....

Yeap, it's a good thing that Strength is such a key ability for wizards that NONE of them would voluntarily lose it. It's also a good thing the item list doesn't include ANY items that give them superhuman strength which they can put on to negate this crippling disadvantage.

Frozen_Feet
2012-12-21, 03:49 PM
So, game design philosophy discussion time.

"You're not supposed to care about what happens to first-level PCs."

Agree, or disagree?

Careful there. That sentence doesn't really make justice to Jim's quote. He's not saying "don't care" - if anything, his advocatement of not skipping 1st level speaks quite the opposite. He's saying "don't get upset" - and that I wholly agree with. Especially with a new player, character demise is to be expected. If you're new to a game, losing is normal - this is true of all other games, why should RPGs be exempt? That's Jim's point - learning the ropes takes time, and you won't always win. I agree that it's a valuable lesson to learn.

This is, of course, coming from a big Lamentations & Old School D&D fan who has been playing according to that philosophy for years and years, so take it with a grain of salt. :smallwink:



Now, this is obviously heresy to some gamers, but when our group tried it we had a lot of fun! The key is to change your mindset. Instead of writing a 4 page backstory for your 0-level character, you treat their journey from 0-level to 3rd-level as their backstory. If they live that long, they'll have an exciting and eventful origin story, which will usually end up being much more interesting than a pre-written one. If they don't live that long . . . well, easy come, easy go. Rolling up a 0-level character in DCC takes 2-3 minutes, so they're not exactly hard to replace.


This is pretty much how I run Lamentations, save replace 0th level with 1st level. :smallwink:


I could conceivably enjoy what you say about 0 level adventuring, but it would be in the way I enjoy Nethack or Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, not as roleplaying.

Personally, I've always had tendency to get invested in my roguelike characters, and often immortalized some most succesful ones in short stories or adapting them to other games. The careful-where-you-step and unpredictable environment of such games tends to get my imagination running, and I often seek to replicate that feel in my table top games as well.

snoopy13a
2012-12-21, 04:02 PM
Yeap, it's a good thing that Strength is such a key ability for wizards that NONE of them would voluntarily lose it. It's also a good thing the item list doesn't include ANY items that give them superhuman strength which they can put on to negate this crippling disadvantage.

I'd argue that the magical implication of the Wish spell would overrule the magical belt, but I don't think it is that important.

In a standard campaign, a rare magical item isn't that great for a level 17 character. In a low magic campaign, the DM can always limit or eliminate the Wish spell (I know people will complain that using Rule 0 to correct a flaw is a bad thing, but it is an easy fix). In actuality, it may be more cost-effective for a wizard to wish for a 25,000 gold non-magical item and barter with private collectors for magical items (rare items are valued at 500-2000 gold pieces).

I suppose a level 17+ wizard could use Wish to cheaply outfit his private army, but that could be the start of an adventure in and of itself (e.g., the start of a war between the PC wizard and a NPC rival)

Craft (Cheese)
2012-12-21, 04:06 PM
Careful there. That sentence doesn't really make justice to Jim's quote. He's not saying "don't care" - if anything, his advocatement of not skipping 1st level speaks quite the opposite. He's saying "don't get upset" - and that I wholly agree with. Especially with a new player, character demise is to be expected. If you're new to a game, losing is normal - this is true of all other games, why should RPGs be exempt? That's Jim's point - learning the ropes takes time, and you won't always win. I agree that it's a valuable lesson to learn.

Who says that death is losing?

shadow_archmagi
2012-12-21, 04:13 PM
Except, no, adding up all your bonuses takes a couple minutes by itself. Filling out the character sheet takes a couple minutes, even without all the pondering. Deciding what you want to play, and where you want your build to go. That takes several more minutes. Finalizing your feats takes a few more minutes.

I regularly play with veterans of the game that spend days to build their first level characters. For me, it takes about 10 minutes or so, but I'm the most versed player in my group. Newbies routinely take at least an hour to build the most basic and hobbled characters.

Yeah, it's pretty easy for me to spend six or eight hours on a character, usually broken up into two-hour sessions of poring through splatbooks, contemplating the relative merits of different feats, figuring out which ones work best together, and so on.

Frozen_Feet
2012-12-21, 04:30 PM
Who says that death is losing?

Me, because it usually is. :smalltongue: My reasoning, or definition for it as such, is that characters are game pieces of the players, and death removes piece from the board ---> hence, the player loses it.

Of course, it's not that black-and-white for all game scenarios, and some players take great glee in "losing" in new and imaginative ways. But my general experience is that since earning Experience points, your "score", requires you to survive, most players (and to extent, Jim and his game) hold the default position of "survival = victory" and "death = loss".

EDIT: I noticed I could also reverse your question - who says losing is death? The exact loss condition isn't that relevant in the end - the point is that you probably won't have your way just as you planned when learning a whole new game, and coming to terms with that is important for prolonged enjoyment of any game, I'd say.

Flickerdart
2012-12-21, 06:49 PM
In a standard campaign, a rare magical item isn't that great for a level 17 character.
It's not a rare magical item. If that were so, it wouldn't be a huge deal. But being able to throw around magic loot in a game that is balanced around not having any magic loot is an issue.

Yora
2012-12-22, 03:52 AM
Maybe I got your sentence wrong, but are you saying there needs to be something that makes it impossible for DMs to hand out powerful magic items to the PCs? It's an RPG, the DM can do whatever he wants and no rule will stop him from that.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-12-22, 03:56 AM
Maybe I got your sentence wrong, but are you saying there needs to be something that makes it impossible for DMs to hand out powerful magic items to the PCs? It's an RPG, the DM can do whatever he wants and no rule will stop him from that.

No, the players should not be able to inject magic items into a campaign where the DM has decided not to use them, if supporting such a game with no need for modification is truly one of their design goals. At the very least, Wish as it stands should not be a part of the core.

MukkTB
2012-12-22, 04:35 AM
I like low level characters being weak. If I start at level 1 and make my way up, I feel I've 'earned' the right to be a badass. If its just given to me, I don't feel as happy.

That also requires you to be able to generate a character quickly. There are problems if one player gets unlucky and dies multiple times falling behind the party. It can be a mess.

What I really like is when the DM gives a short explanation beforehand about what kind of story it is going to be, and then makes sure the game mechanics reflect what he said.

Let me give examples.
'Its an epic story of heroism," the DM says.
We make complex characters with some thought to the backstory. Then he puts our level 1s in a noobie zone. We participate in a quest or story that leads up to the main story of the game, and we get experience for completion of goals. Maybe we fight some weak monsters. We have a tactic agreement. The party doesn't go wildly off the rails. The DM doesn't suddenly drop a power attacking Orc with a greatsword on us. The kid gloves are on but we're taking the time to introduce our characters and generate a bit of backstory for when they become more competent.

"Its a sandbox where you can explore the world," the DM tells us, "Kind of like Terraria or Minecraft. I'm trying to make a world with verisimilitude."
We spend a bit of time working on our characters. However we look to survival as best we can. In play we have to be careful. Mistakes may lead to death, but generally we don't get blown away at random. Clear screwups lead to bad consequences, and level 1 is the least forgiving. So we don't really become attached to the characters until level 2 or so. In some ways we maybe even expect to die a bit before we figure out how the world works.

"We're doing a good old fashion dungeon grind," we're told.
Then its time to make some generic PCs and see which of them can survive the meat grinder.

lesser_minion
2012-12-22, 05:14 PM
Over on the WotC forum there is a thread about how a party of 4 level 13s can one round Asmodeus without any real optimization.

The response from most people: This is a good thing.

The response from most people was nothing of the sort -- it was that this is a numbers glitch, not a fundamental problem with the game like the OP in that thread claimed. And they have a point.

As for whether or not a 13th level party should be able to defeat Asmodeus, he probably shouldn't be completely and utterly insurmountable at any level. Powerful characters in the setting should be required to know how to assess threats and pick their fights; there is no need to make them arbitrarily more powerful on-paper.

Gwendol
2012-12-22, 05:30 PM
About the latest playtest; what is the expected gold for 14th level characters? I'm setting up a romp through the mud sorcerers tomb.

Terraoblivion
2012-12-22, 08:29 PM
To me, that says "notions of entitlement".

But does it really matter? It's just a game that people are playing to relax with friends. As long as they aren't playing with you or trying to tell you how to play does it really have an effect on you?

lesser_minion
2012-12-22, 09:15 PM
But does it really matter? It's just a game that people are playing to relax with friends. As long as they aren't playing with you or trying to tell you how to play does it really have an effect on you?

Anyone who ends up influencing the design of the game is going to have an effect on everyone who plays it. And the question of whether or not characters must earn their heroic status is one that could influence a lot of mechanics.

So yes, I'd say it does really matter.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-12-22, 10:19 PM
About the latest playtest; what is the expected gold for 14th level characters? I'm setting up a romp through the mud sorcerers tomb.

They're trying to toss out the concept of Wealth By Level and make wealth a 100% roleplay thing, not tied to character power. You're supposed to be able to toss players as much or as little treasure as you want without the game breaking.

If you still want rough guidelines they may be found in "DM Guidelines" page 13.

Eric Tolle
2012-12-22, 11:27 PM
Anyone who ends up influencing the design of the game is going to have an effect on everyone who plays it. And the question of whether or not characters must earn their heroic status is one that could influence a lot of mechanics.

Well in that case, it's ALWAYS possible to kill 1st. level characters. For example, you could have a random encounter table where every monster has the same chance to appear, and roll a lich meeting the characters walking along the road. Yes, I did witness that one. Alternate TPKs could include meteor strikes, archdevils giving them an offer they can't refuse, and incurable plagues (save vs death at -20).

The only question is whether it's a good idea to make it so players don't bother naming their characters. I've been in games where people simply numbered their characters, and others where the only way to get past 2nd. level was to be sleeping with the DM.. Is it worth that to "earn" a heroic status?

Draz74
2012-12-23, 12:53 AM
For example, you could have a random encounter table where every monster has the same chance to appear, and roll a lich meeting the characters walking along the road. Yes, I did witness that one.

:belkar: I once fought 1d3 dire camels in a swamp. No joke.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-12-23, 03:30 AM
The only question is whether it's a good idea to make it so players don't bother naming their characters. I've been in games where people simply numbered their characters, and others where the only way to get past 2nd. level was to be sleeping with the DM.. Is it worth that to "earn" a heroic status?

Depends. What's the DM look like?

Kurald Galain
2012-12-23, 04:22 AM
They're trying to toss out the concept of Wealth By Level and make wealth a 100% roleplay thing, not tied to character power. You're supposed to be able to toss players as much or as little treasure as you want without the game breaking.

That's nice in theory, but clearly a party with a heap of magical items is going to be more powerful than one without. This is not the first time that WOTC is pretending there's no difference, oddly enough.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-12-23, 04:31 AM
That's nice in theory, but clearly a party with a heap of magical items is going to be more powerful than one without. This is not the first time that WOTC is pretending there's no difference, oddly enough.

To be fair, the book also says that "You might want to adjust the adventure difficulty to compensate for the level of rewards you provide." But it doesn't give any guidelines for when you should adjust the difficulty and by how much.

Akodo Makama
2012-12-23, 05:18 AM
Who says that death is losing?

Black Leaf (http://prefacesandasides.blogspot.com/2011/11/dark-dungeons-in-depth-review.html)

Ashtagon
2012-12-23, 07:47 AM
Religious beggar, a kind of monk with a vow of poverty. More to the point, it's a shout out to Italian comic Groo the Wanderer.

Really? The term mendicant brings to mind Heinlein's novels more than anything else.

Kurald Galain
2012-12-23, 07:58 AM
Really? The term mendicant brings to mind Heinlein's novels more than anything else.

It's the cheese dip :) Try googling for "mendicant cheese dip" and you'll see.

lesser_minion
2012-12-23, 09:21 AM
Well in that case, it's ALWAYS possible to kill 1st. level characters. For example, you could have a random encounter table where every monster has the same chance to appear, and roll a lich meeting the characters walking along the road. Yes, I did witness that one. Alternate TPKs could include meteor strikes, archdevils giving them an offer they can't refuse, and incurable plagues (save vs death at -20).

Yes, because expecting player characters to become heroic in play totally means that you can disregard literally everything else that might stop you from throwing Asmodeus at a 1st level party. Like, you know, them being beneath his notice because they aren't heroes and they aren't the ****ing chosen ones either.

Requiring player characters to earn their heroic status is not the same thing as playing an ultra-hard game where the DM is actively trying to kill you, nor is it the same thing as having a random chance to be screwed over at any given moment.

Ashdate
2012-12-23, 11:34 AM
To be fair, the book also says that "You might want to adjust the adventure difficulty to compensate for the level of rewards you provide." But it doesn't give any guidelines for when you should adjust the difficulty and by how much.

Throw Asmodeus at them, see if they can win.

FatR
2012-12-23, 12:17 PM
Over on the WotC forum there is a thread about how a party of 4 level 13s can one round Asmodeus without any real optimization.

The response from most people: This is a good thing.


Faith in humanity is dwindling.

Mine is returning. This is a good thing. One of the rather few good things in 4E. I'm firmly of the opinion that if PCs cannot deal with every bit of content in a heroic fantasy game (without breaking the game through optimization AND without severe plot contrivances, allowing you catch the big bad alone and unprepared) by the moment they reach the maximum level, then the game designers have failed. My biggest beef with every iteration of 3.X (even bigger than the complexity explosion, the complexity explosion is actually just a part of this problem) is placement of everything suitable for actual high fantasy adventures into "look, do not touch" category. Not even minmaxing solves that, you cannot minmax enough for your character to matter without taking the full force of the complexity explosion and the game becoming... not strictly unplayable, but rather a chore, instead of something you have fun playing. My experience of playing an optimized conjurer to 15th level, and running a couple of competent parties to 9-11th was sufficient to forswear touching two-digit levels in 3.X ever again, unless the game is houseruled to heck. Not because their abilities turned all challenges into jokes (although with the former that was becoming noticeable too), but because managing character sheets and taking everything written there into account during planning was simply too time-consuming and tedious. And even more tedious to watch as a GM.

Just in case you wonder about my definition of high fantasy adventures - their essence, in my opinion, is changing the world. And not in small, transient ways. LotR, which is about as low-power as you can possibly get, while remaining within high fantasy bounds, culminated in an ending of an age. In modern high fantasy heroes battle things like world-destroying evil gods, interdimensional invasions and immortal god-kings.

Now, Next is supposed to be simpler. So, if it is ever made to work, maybe playing to level 20 will be actually viable. But this won't matter if all actual engame content is locked away and needs levels above 20 or extreme optimization to deal with. Considering that Asmodeus isn't the biggest fish to fry in DnD verse, but might be fairly close to that, depending on depiction, doing him in at level 13 might be a bit too extreme, but the general direction the game takes by making guys of his tier beatable relatively early is laudable.

EDIT: On the other hand, the fact that the famed king of hell has only a bunch of piddly abilities that are strictly inferior to what magic-user mooks can do in say, Wheel of Time series is an actual huge problem with 4E design paradigm. He certainly does not feel like one of the the biggest tyrants ever, and the being capable of subjugating multiversally significant forces to his will and threatening miltiple worlds.

Seerow
2012-12-23, 12:46 PM
Mine is returning. This is a good thing. One of the rather few good things in 4E. I'm firmly of the opinion that if PCs cannot deal with every bit of content in a heroic fantasy game (without breaking the game through optimization AND without severe plot contrivances, allowing you catch the big bad alone and unprepared) by the moment they reach the maximum level, then the game designers have failed.

I think you missed the key words of "level 13" (not max level) and "One round" not "defeat".

If a group of level 20s take down Asmodeus in a climactic showdown, then yeah, that's cool, I'm all for that. A group of level 13 characters dropping him in one round, that is very much not cool.

FatR
2012-12-23, 01:42 PM
I think you missed the key words of "level 13" (not max level) and "One round" not "defeat".

If a group of level 20s take down Asmodeus in a climactic showdown,
Level 20s is seriously too high for that, unless you're using the "top god of lawful evil" version of Asmodeus, and I didn't miss the level.

I must admit, "1 round" detail sort of went over my head. Guess I'm just too used to the fact that 4-on-1 battles in RPGs usually end with one side ending or effectively ending other in 1-2 rounds, be it DnD (I don't like 4E), WW games, or Savage Worlds (either the big guy is overpowered and can slay/disable most of the party in a single acton, or action advantage rapidly drives him into the ground). But seeing as Asmodeus doesn't have firepower to take out more than one 13th level character per round... yeah, that's bad too.

Terraoblivion
2012-12-23, 01:49 PM
Anyone who ends up influencing the design of the game is going to have an effect on everyone who plays it. And the question of whether or not characters must earn their heroic status is one that could influence a lot of mechanics.

So yes, I'd say it does really matter.

But that's not what he said. He said that people who have different preferences than him were entitled, rather than just people with different tastes. In short he made a broad, sweeping moral judgment of others.

snoopy13a
2012-12-23, 02:39 PM
Depends. What's the DM look like?

Ha! Post of the thread :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, based on the philosophy in other areas of the playtest--stating that if you want to give a level 1 character a vorpal sword, be our guest and any classes outside of rogue, wizard, cleric, and fighter are in the DM's discretion--I think it is implied that the DM is encouraged to limit, increase, or eliminate any spell he thinks fit.

I mean, if the DM is authorized to say "no monk" then it is implied that she can say "no wish spell" or "no leveling after level 10" or "no magic weapons at all" or "magic weapons for everyone*."

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-12-23, 03:49 PM
Level 20s is seriously too high for that, unless you're using the "top god of lawful evil" version of Asmodeus, and I didn't miss the level.

What other version of Big A is there aside from the "biggest baddest LE guy out there" version?

Personally, I think that deities and such being so easily defeated is more harmful to suspension of disbelief than putting them in "do not touch" territory. These things have ruled their corner of the multiverse since time immemorial, and they're just going to roll over and die when a party of 4 20th-level adventurers come calling? Unless you're playing things such that your party are the Chosen Heroes of Destiny and the very first 20th-level characters in existence, that just doesn't make any sense.

Powers like Asmodeus, Demogorgon, the gods, etc. should be the equivalent of 3e CR+20 challenges or so, I feel. If CR+0 is a cakewalk, CR+4 is a "very tough" encounter for unoptimized characters, CR+8 is very tough for optimized characters, and CR+15ish is very tough for optimized character specifically prepared for a certain encounter, then CR+20 for "nearly impossible unless you really really really focus on this" sounds about right. Named Powers are not random encounters. If you're going to kill a being whose destruction will seriously shake up the multiverse, you should make a campaign goal of it and have to prepare exceptionally well.

Killing such a being should be more like the Test of Iron on the old CharOp boards (attempting to kill the very paranoid, very prepared, very powerful Dis in his home territory on his home plane is practically suicidal and no one has succeeded so far) than the Queen of the Demonweb Pits (yeah, sure, we can waltz in to Lolth's home plane and kill her at level 14, what do we do for the next 6 levels?).

Ashtagon
2012-12-23, 04:10 PM
It's the cheese dip :) Try googling for "mendicant cheese dip" and you'll see.

I don't deny that groo exists. But Heinlein sold more copies.

RPGuru1331
2012-12-23, 04:33 PM
What other version of Big A is there aside from the "biggest baddest LE guy out there" version?



The Solomon's Key one with three other equivalent demons on par with him, for one...

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-12-23, 04:40 PM
The Solomon's Key one with three other equivalent demons on par with him, for one...

Clarification: What other version of Big A is there in D&D lore aside from the "biggest baddest LE guy out there" version? Whether you go with the Planescape version, the Greyhawk version, or others, Asmodeus is the top of the LE diabolical heap, and the Key of Solomon, Ars Goetia, etc. do nothing to change that.

Excession
2012-12-23, 07:25 PM
Clarification: What other version of Big A is there in D&D lore aside from the "biggest baddest LE guy out there" version? Whether you go with the Planescape version, the Greyhawk version, or others, Asmodeus is the top of the LE diabolical heap, and the Key of Solomon, Ars Goetia, etc. do nothing to change that.

I doubt there's any D&D lore that doesn't place him at the top of LE. Stats OTOH might not work as well. Are the 3.5 stats for him any good against an optimised party, or just one well built Wizard?

With 4e they promoted him to full deity level. I'm not aware of any physical stats for him in 4e, and I think I prefer that. At least the way I play it, he transcends physical existence, being more of an embodiment of the concept of tyranny, of trading your freedom for security and ending up with neither. The only way to defeat him might be to bring back He Who Was, the original deity of peace that Asmodeus served and deposed. Bringing Him back is as simple as the right person, in the right place, speaking His name. The name that Asmodeus erased utterly from existence.

There are 4e deities with stats, some of which make sense to me. If you want to defeat Bane and become the new god of war for example, defeating him in physical combat will be part of that; it's part of his definition. Other deities are just of a different power level, and haven't fully escaped reality. My own take on it again, but Lolth and Tiamat for example are just too vain/proud to fully abandon their physical forms.

That said, there are settings where having Asmodeus not be personally all-powerful makes sense. He's the top dog of LE, not CE, so should have whole armies of fanatically loyal minions (and not 4e Minions either) to protect him. A mob boss doesn't have to be personally powerful; he has people to do that for him. I'd be more worried if Tiamat or especially Orcus was this easy to kill. Unfortunately in 4e Orcus is not nearly nasty enough; Tiamat is apparently better. I expect, though I'm not sure, that new-math high level monsters like the Dragon of Tyr and Lolth are pretty nasty.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-12-23, 07:57 PM
I doubt there's any D&D lore that doesn't place him at the top of LE. Stats OTOH might not work as well. Are the 3.5 stats for him any good against an optimised party, or just one well built Wizard?

Not at all, but that's because WotC can't write even mid-high level baddie stats to save their lives. I'll spare you my standard rant on the subject, but essentially the stats should be written to fit the lore (for Asmodeus, Demogorgon, gods, and the rest) regardless of how badly they were done in 3e or 4e.


With 4e they promoted him to full deity level.

Correction: they demoted him to deity level. :smallwink: Part of the cool thing about the various non-divine Powers is that they can stand up to gods without having to bother with the whole worship thing, and making the planar rulers gods sets up a hierarchy of gods that can cause problems (like, where does Tiamat fit into the archdevil hierarchy, and Bahamut into the Celestia hierarchy?).


That said, there are settings where having Asmodeus not be personally all-powerful makes sense. He's the top dog of LE, not CE, so should have whole armies of fanatically loyal minions (and not 4e Minions either) to protect him. A mob boss doesn't have to be personally powerful; he has people to do that for him. I'd be more worried if Tiamat or especially Orcus was this easy to kill. Unfortunately in 4e Orcus is not nearly nasty enough; Tiamat is apparently better. I expect, though I'm not sure, that new-math high level monsters like the Dragon of Tyr and Lolth are pretty nasty.

A mob boss has minions, but in the case of Asmodeus or Demogorgon the lieutenants (the other archdevils and demon princes) are jockeying for position and would be happy to help off the boss if there's something in it for them. They shouldn't just be powerful enough to hold off some uppity adventurers, they should be powerful enough to hold off all their underlings and their underlings' minions as well.

Excession
2012-12-23, 08:16 PM
Not at all, but that's because WotC can't write even mid-high level baddie stats to save their lives. I'll spare you my standard rant on the subject, but essentially the stats should be written to fit the lore (for Asmodeus, Demogorgon, gods, and the rest) regardless of how badly they were done in 3e or 4e.
Agreed. For some stuff I think the best way to write these stats is "AC: No" and "Attack: Yes vs. AC; Hit: You die." There are things you can't beat by hitting them with a sharp stick or a fireball. The god of war, maybe. The concept for war, no.


Correction: they demoted him to deity level. :smallwink: Part of the cool thing about the various non-divine Powers is that they can stand up to gods without having to bother with the whole worship thing, and making the planar rulers gods sets up a hierarchy of gods that can cause problems (like, where does Tiamat fit into the archdevil hierarchy, and Bahamut into the Celestia hierarchy?).
I don't remember anything official in 4e about gods needing worshippers or gaining power from them, but perhaps I just ignored that bit. The 4e cosmology is also a bit different from earlier editions, I find as long as I think of it as a separate idea rather than an update it's pretty good.


A mob boss has minions, but in the case of Asmodeus or Demogorgon the lieutenants (the other archdevils and demon princes) are jockeying for position and would be happy to help off the boss if there's something in it for them. They shouldn't just be powerful enough to hold off some uppity adventurers, they should be powerful enough to hold off all their underlings and their underlings' minions as well.
I do see your point, but jockeying for position isn't quite the same thing as outright challenging him to an honour duel like I might expect with Bane. Declaring against Asmodeus without support should get all the other archdevils down on you like a ton of Balors. Asmodeus doesn't need to beat them all physically, he just needs to be a better politician.

navar100
2012-12-23, 10:21 PM
Asmodeus engineered his own coup against himself and betrayed the only general who was loyal to him. He's not to be taken lightly.

Zenimec
2012-12-24, 02:51 AM
allow me to introduce mine-self to you all. i am called Zenimec at the gaming table, i am a deep lover of D&D and storytelling as an artform, and want to see D&D 5th edition succeed as a storytelling medium.

that said,
heres what ive decided on the three points this thread has drumed up, (first level expendability, ausmodaus alpha one-shot-ablity, and wish being "broken")

* first level caracters and there value scales with the time and crativity devoted in there creation. if next reaches a point where caracters take 5 minutes to make (for a first level caracter with backstory developed and A GOOD NAME CHOOSE) then, then, as i see it, the attachment is less developed an thus grants expendability to the PC. and by the same logic a caracter that takes half and hour to biuld is by its nature more valued, takeing away expendability at the vary start. its in the time that the value of a PC grows. i as a DM would never actually kill a 1st level caracter on perpose unless it was a fake out or a fluke of underestimateing the deadlyness of a creature, and i personally keep, "get out of dead free cards" availabe that suit the polt for reviving dead newbies.

**Ausmodeus has crazy lore and depth to him. if you read as much as i have about him you also have as much free time as i do. (a fancy way of saying to much :smallsmile:)
ausmodeus in his limitless power form is a world sized surpant beast. and the ausmodeus most people know and fear is just a avatar he uses as a medium of evil. if this "Ausmodeus" dies a new one can be made. so its ok if he does die. that said the implication that even with the conditions being as generous as they are, 4 13 one shoting him is luticrise. i love the idea that enought man power is effective for big bads, this same logic lets me send swarms of kobolds (with only slights modifications) at level 15 caracters. but there a limit to my willing sesepension of disbelif. in my mind when it comes to PC anything higher that 3 levels ahead of them aought to dame near kill them if not outright. and to challenge them requires taktical planes to compinsate. if the bestiary segesting ausmodeus is suppost to be takken seriously. you need 5 20th level caracters with magic item. 6 caracters if you dont. to challenge him. im all for mini PC takeing on bigger fish and have never been a fan of "d0 not TOUCH" content. ever. but theres such a thing as to far.

***finally on the subject of Wish, next has promised ways to play "your version" of D&D, if low magic item. are your D&D then they really REALLY need a side bar for this. this one spell turning everthing into artificers makes me sick. if the spells material cost was more then buying the actual item there might be some balance and logic, id like to see the non spell duplication cost the PC several precious Diamonds worth XXXXXX Gold to proform. but this is defiantly a subject to be focused on. a game playtest flaw for SURE.

MukkTB
2012-12-24, 03:46 AM
Has anyone really found a gaming group where you had to screw the DM to get past level 1? Why would you stay with that group?

IDK. I understand that the statement was an exaggeration. I just find it offensive that my "Earn badass status" has been equated with that garbage.

FatR
2012-12-24, 10:56 AM
What other version of Big A is there aside from the "biggest baddest LE guy out there" version?
I'm not sure if you're being serious. All 3.X versions of him are smalltime compared to even the weakest, lamest evil deity or anyone who exploits epic spellcasting (the deity rules and the epic spellcasting rules in 3.X break the universe, of course, but that's a separate matter). Unless you're houseruling him by giving abilties neither provided in the actual writeups nor following their spirit. And in 2E he doesn't even exist.


Personally, I think that deities and such being so easily defeated is more harmful to suspension of disbelief than putting them in "do not touch" territory.
You do realise that even 13th level is considerably above the point where most campaigns end in most of the editions?

As about suspension of disbelief, mine is not weak enough to be harmed by the fact that important fictional villans can, in fact, be defeated, before you achieve the absolute uppermost tier of power possible. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the whole purpose of villains' existence is to be defeated. I generally dislike 4E, but I can applaud the fact that there you cah walk up to Greed itself, embodied in a draconic shape, and blast her out of existence.



These things have ruled their corner of the multiverse since time immemorial, and they're just going to roll over and die when a party of 4 20th-level adventurers come calling?
Yes. Can you name any actual reasons why not?


Unless you're playing things such that your party are the Chosen Heroes of Destiny
Any party of PCs are such by definition. That's why they are the only heroes in the world who jsut never encounter challenges that cannot be beaten or avoided. And you seem to be implying that this is a bad thing... do you dislike heroic fantasy in general? Because I'll be fairly hard-pressed to find a heroic fantasy (not even high fantasy) book, where at least some of the main characters are the Chosen Ones. Heck, the Black Company of the eponymous series, which are usually considered one of the best examples of the gritty fantasy, ends up basically the most important team of people in the entire history of their world.


and the very first 20th-level characters in existence, that just doesn't make any sense.
Please. Besides the fact that 20th level characters should be super-duper rare, your statement if equivalent to saying that Goths sacking Rome just doesn't make any sense, because many barbarian tribes before them have failed at that.



Powers like Asmodeus, Demogorgon, the gods, etc. should be the equivalent of 3e CR+20 challenges or so, I feel.
Challenges above CR+5 straight up kill the party in 3.X, unless their level of optimization is leagues below.


If you're going to kill a being whose destruction will seriously shake up the multiverse, you should make a campaign goal of it and have to prepare exceptionally well.
I consider "being above level 15" to be exceptional preparation.


Killing such a being should be more like the Test of Iron on the old CharOp boards (attempting to kill the very paranoid, very prepared, very powerful Dis in his home territory on his home plane is practically suicidal and no one has succeeded so far) than the Queen of the Demonweb Pits (yeah, sure, we can waltz in to Lolth's home plane and kill her at level 14, what do we do for the next 6 levels?).
I honestly baffled by your position (besides the fact that the Test of Iron, if I'm remembering the same thing, was a travesty of shifting goals and obvious bias). I must again ask you if you don't like heroic fantasy in general?

Ashdate
2012-12-24, 12:29 PM
I honestly baffled by your position (besides the fact that the Test of Iron, if I'm remembering the same thing, was a travesty of shifting goals and obvious bias). I must again ask you if you don't like heroic fantasy in general?

I think you are missing the point - but in fairness, other people in this thread are missing the point too (I quoted you FatR, but my reply is somewhat general).

Asmodeus is the example, but it's not about Asmodeus. It's about the math behind the system, and what it means for encounters. In this case, it means that expected PC damage output to expected monster hit points is seriously borked, unless we believe that the new standard for combats in DnD Next should be about two rounds.

Save how powerful Asmodeus is/should be for the campaign lore.

navar100
2012-12-24, 12:52 PM
Has anyone really found a gaming group where you had to screw the DM to get past level 1? Why would you stay with that group?

IDK. I understand that the statement was an exaggeration. I just find it offensive that my "Earn badass status" has been equated with that garbage.

It's old pre-3E thinking when the DM was the omnipotent overlord and players had to remain silent and just take it. The thinking equated the DM running the campaign to the DM being in charge of everything. Pre-3E players didn't have a lot of choices to make aside from race and class. Situations the rules didn't cover explicitly were left for the DM to determine, and there were many. The DMG also encouraged the DM to say "no" or at the very least, "yes, but".

At the end of 2E we had the Player's Options series. For the first time players got meaningful choices in creating their character, more than just race and class. They got a say in how their character worked. Some DMs hollered in rage. Player's Options was not absolutely perfect in every way, but the genie was out of the bottle. 3E was the true player liberation of DM dictatorship. From the get go players had a voice in what their characters can do. The DM was still the final arbiter. As splat books were produced he could still limit resources available and determine particular options were unsuitable for the campaign, but still, players got to make decisions of how to develop their character within the DM's parameters. Without the DM deciding everything, DM as overlord dictator went bye-bye. Now such thinking is rightly criticized, but it crops up now and then and not just by grognards. Even newbies can get off on the power trip.

Jerthanis
2012-12-24, 01:07 PM
Now, Next is supposed to be simpler. So, if it is ever made to work, maybe playing to level 20 will be actually viable. But this won't matter if all actual engame content is locked away and needs levels above 20 or extreme optimization to deal with. Considering that Asmodeus isn't the biggest fish to fry in DnD verse, but might be fairly close to that, depending on depiction, doing him in at level 13 might be a bit too extreme, but the general direction the game takes by making guys of his tier beatable relatively early is laudable.


I'll agree with this in general, if not in specifics. D&D does tend to have too many "This tall to ride" signs in its dynamic, going back a long way. From the old way that monsters would be flatly immune to weapons of lower than +X in AD&D to the way spells like Blasphemy or SR worked in 3.5 to the way defenses scaled in 4E there was always a "You aren't allowed to face this until you grow up." element, and I'm glad to see that gone.

But there's also got to be a degree of scalability to encounter design. I personally run games for a 7 PC group. If 4 PCs can bury Asmodeus under the weight of their numbers at level 13th level, 7 could probably do it at level 9 or 10. This means that if I'm going to run truly dangerous fights, I am going to have to be pulling out 'endgame content' for almost every fight from level 9 on. It becomes the reverse problem, where I still can't really run level 9+ content, not because of complexity or the interesting stuff being behind a velvet rope, but because I can't generate worthy threats using the rules.

Basically... I like that it's not going the direction of the fanwank versions of Asmodeus that generate the idea of "Oh, level 20 PCs wouldn't have a prayer of beating him... you'd have to be level... 30, no 50, no, 500!" but I think going too far in the other direction could lead to "Oh, it's just Smaug, we can just get 13 dwarves together and just bury Smaug in numbers... He's not as dangerous as Goblins or Spiders..."

Felandria
2012-12-24, 02:04 PM
I'm still waiting for more Sorcerer info.

I liked what little I saw.

Zenimec
2012-12-24, 02:14 PM
I'm still waiting for more Sorcerer info.

I liked what little I saw.

^this, this just about sums it up.

ive been scaleing the sorcerer they provided and homebrewing because my players love the class (or what the earlier playtest offered) so much.

Anderlith
2012-12-24, 04:37 PM
(I too, want to show my Sorcerer love. They need to bring it back.)

Main Topic. This is the problem I always see in games will class levels. You have to graduate from goblins to orcs, to ogres, to drow, etc. The basic mook, gets bigger & the Big Bad always gets bigger. Instead of this constant power increase why can't we have a design that allows our characters to grow sideways instead of always up? I don't see how anyone above level 12 or so should even be classified as human (or humanoid) They have a mantle of power so far beyond human that they wouldn't be able to relate to the rest of their species.

How about this. Build the game so that you increase in level & get awesome new abilities & become better at doing whatever it is you do.

Then have a tier system that ascends characters to Mortal, Heroic, Paragon, & Epic Tiers.
Anyone who wants to play as characters that are more or less "real" in relative power level go with Mortal or Heroic. Anyone who wants to play Chosen Ones, starts up a Heroic or Paragon.

These tiers would not be factored against your level. You could go from 1 to 20 & stay a Heroic character. The Tier would be like a template, increasing HP, damage, resistances, or whatever else that seems right.

Maybe in your game you want to reward your players with divine might because they helped angels protect the world from annihilation. The angel then makes them Paragons & they become more than human, as they go on to fight & adventure in a whole new battlefield against demonic forces. Maybe your Wizard wants to become a god & finds a ritual that will ascend him to Epic status.

Seerow
2012-12-24, 05:13 PM
I generally do something like that Anderlith. Except I keep it tied to level, and do it sort of like a hybrid of E6 and 4e, but with a primarily 3.5 based system. You are effectively "Heroic" until level 7. But at level 6, you basically hit a brick wall, and until you complete something in game to justify transcending that barrier, you grow more laterally, just gaining extra feats/spells known/whatever, but not going up a level and getting access to that next tier's set of feats/spells/abilities. The same thing happens again around level 14, going from 14 to 15 you hit a brick wall, and basically can't cross that threshold unless you do something special in game to warrant crossing from being Paragon (ie super heroic but still fundamentally mortal) to epic (now at a power level on par with challenging demigods/lesser deities). At level 20 you hit the last brickwall that is basically "To pass this you must actually be a God"


Edit: Basically, I agree that going from one tier to another should be a decision the table makes and not one that happens just automatically from play. I've seen several new DMs get thrown for a loop by suddenly realizing what their 12th level PCs are capable of. But I fundamentally disagree with the idea of a level 1 Epic Character. If you want to start epic characters, start at level 15. If you want to play normal people forever, don't exceed level 6. There's still room for progression in those areas without having to come up with weird paragon/epic templates to make the difference that should be fundamental in a character of that tier.

Morty
2012-12-24, 05:27 PM
The underlying problem, I think, is D&D's extremely steep power curve. In 3rd edition especially, the characters start as roughly normal people. But after a few levels, they become capable of incredible things, even without magic. And then they skyrocket. However, the only thing they need to turn from regular Joes into one-person-armies capable of levelling cities by themselves is to go through a lot of dungeons. There are games that are as high-powered as high-level D&D or more, but they tend to have a consistent power level. How do you realistically portray people who go from competent individiuals in a dangerous profession to powerhouses capable of taking out a dozen of 1st level characters in such a short period?

Anderlith
2012-12-24, 05:30 PM
@Seerow

I believe that your level should reflect your level of training & mastery of your abilities. While mastery & training are by rights a growth in power, D&D could divorce such training & ability from the more meta aspects of the game. Such meta aspects being HP & the new "damage dice" bonus for starters. Granted this would make things very odd if you were to say start as an Epic Level One Warrior. But look at it this way, an Epic Level One Warrior, is someone who is powerful beyond belief in the ways of combat, but lacks the knowledge & understanding to use her abilities to their fullest. Yes she may be able to cut a stone pillar in half easily but she doesn't know how to parry, & defend herself, nor does she know much about tactics or the best techniques to strike her opponent. All the power in the world & she still doesn't know enough about weapons to be able to hit a dodging cat. She is a godling like those in myth. (Hercules for example)

Seerow
2012-12-24, 06:27 PM
1) From a mechanical perspective, a "Epic" level 1 character would simply not be able to access his abilities yet. Hercules would be a character who got a free pass into Paragon rather than having to stop there and find a way to progress. His trials would have been his way of breaking into Epic. He might have exceptional strength from a template, but he's otherwise a pretty normal guy for a while.

2) If you think of it from a mechanical point of view, you would need to pack an incredible amount of things into those templates doing things your way. A Paragon/Epic template would require more information in it than many class write ups. You'd also have to have a separate progression of powers (Spells, Maneuvers, whatever) for each class going all the way through max level for each tier. You'd also either need to apply these massive templates to all monsters, or make three entirely separate progressions of monsters for each tier. Your way simply creates a whole lot more work for no reason other than to let a few stubborn people play their level 20 mundane characters. It makes more sense in the D&D paradigm to tie the power level to level, and simply create break points. It creates less development work, and provides a more sensible progression.

Anderlith
2012-12-25, 02:32 AM
I'd be fine with your way, or my own if WotC actually did it. A hard stop to leveling would be great. Makes me angry that WotC doesn't seem to be listening to the feedback. Several people get upset about Rogues getting Expertise, so they introduce the Monk (who isn't as high up on our wish list as the Ranger & Paladin) & give him Expertise too. Then they get rid of Expertise entirely & make up a crappy damage scaling mechanic.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-12-25, 03:43 AM
I'm not sure if you're being serious. All 3.X versions of him are smalltime compared to even the weakest, lamest evil deity or anyone who exploits epic spellcasting (the deity rules and the epic spellcasting rules in 3.X break the universe, of course, but that's a separate matter). Unless you're houseruling him by giving abilties neither provided in the actual writeups nor following their spirit. And in 2E he doesn't even exist.

As I mentioned before, using any of the statted versions of Asmodeus is a complete and utter joke because WotC can't do high-level baddies well; the point of discussing his power level now is that, given a new edition and (hopefully) some basic knowledge of their own game, the devs can fix that error going forward.

And as Ashdate mentioned, the same applies to deities, demon princes, archomentals, and the other movers and shakers. Even many 3e deities are pushovers to high-level characters (sometimes not even optimized characters) unless they have and are abusing the few useful SDAs, and the only thing that saves someone like, say, Olidammara (rogue 20/bard 10/fighter 10 FTW!) is the DM is fiating things like crazy to simulate his future knowledge.


You do realise that even 13th level is considerably above the point where most campaigns end in most of the editions?

The sentiment that most games end before 10th level so high levels don't matter is why WotC didn't playtest high-level 3e and we got things like the Epic Level Jokebook. I've played multiple games from low levels through level 20, high-level games are popular among my RL friends and the PbP community here, and ignoring those players is not productive.


As about suspension of disbelief, mine is not weak enough to be harmed by the fact that important fictional villans can, in fact, be defeated, before you achieve the absolute uppermost tier of power possible. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the whole purpose of villains' existence is to be defeated. I generally dislike 4E, but I can applaud the fact that there you cah walk up to Greed itself, embodied in a draconic shape, and blast her out of existence.
[...]
Yes. Can you name any actual reasons why not?
[...]
Please. Besides the fact that 20th level characters should be super-duper rare, your statement if equivalent to saying that Goths sacking Rome just doesn't make any sense, because many barbarian tribes before them have failed at that.

Anything should be beatable in theory, but the movers and shakers should take much more effort to defeat than some random Necromancer 20 with delusions of grandeur.

As to why Big A being a pushover is damaging to suspension of disbelief, let me put it this way: The multiverse is really old. I mean really freaking old, as in thousands of millennia and timespans long enough for nigh-immortal dragons to forget about things. Let's assume it takes a solid in-game year to go from level 1 to level 20, conservatively, which is at least 10 times slower than the fastest possible rate in AD&D or 3e. If you assume that the majority of adventuring parties are good or neutral with good tendencies and that there are multiple adventuring parties that start each year, that's at least 3 20th-level characters per year that might have a motivation to go after any given Power, in this case Asmodeus.

If you assume that only 1% of those characters decide to actually go for him, and only 1% of that 1% actually make it to Nessus, and only 1% of the 1% of the 1% make it to Asmodeus himself, that's still at least a few billion adventurers. Think of any games you've played in or run; exactly how often do the BBEGs in your world survive at higher levels if the players really want to kill them--I mean, "this guy personally killed my family so I'm going to true res and go after him as often as necessary" really want to kill them. Every time Asmodeus kills a party, they either get resurrected then rinse and repeat, or if he traps their souls their allies will come after him.

How many characters can you think of, in any edition, who can survive a few dozen 20th-level characters showing up to their doorstep and challenging them to duels to the death? Either Asmodeus can make them not attack him, in which case he has powers of mind control far surpassing the best enchanter if he can convince mind-affecting-immune creatures and gods not to do so; or he doesn't kill them but has practically impenetrable defenses, in which case he surpasses the best 3e Batman wizard; or he has the most powerful offensive abilities, in which case he makes a buff-and-blast 3e CoDzilla look like a child; or a combination of the three.

So if you can throw together a party of 13th-level adventurers--any party of 13th-level adventurers--who have a chance of beating him, it makes no damn sense. It's the same problem that comes up when you say "Hey, there are higher-level adventurers in this world, why don't they take care of X problem?" except that the common-sense answers to that question (they have better things to do, they don't know about it, etc.) don't apply because the thing you're going after is the very embodiment of evil that everyone knows about and whose defeat would be a really really big win for Team Good.


Any party of PCs are such by definition. That's why they are the only heroes in the world who jsut never encounter challenges that cannot be beaten or avoided. And you seem to be implying that this is a bad thing... do you dislike heroic fantasy in general? Because I'll be fairly hard-pressed to find a heroic fantasy (not even high fantasy) book, where at least some of the main characters are the Chosen Ones. Heck, the Black Company of the eponymous series, which are usually considered one of the best examples of the gritty fantasy, ends up basically the most important team of people in the entire history of their world.

Two points:

1) PCs never encounter challenges that can't be beaten or avoided? Seriously? You've never seen a TPK, and your PCs always evade vengeful bad guys? The game revolves around the PCs because you're focusing on their story, but the world doesn't have to; "the PCs are super special chosen ones" is a valid way to play, but not the only one.

2) What works in fiction doesn't always work in games and vice versa. Running LotR as a D&D game would have some people complaining about having to play the hobbits as PCs or some people complaining that they have to escort a bunch of useless NPCs while railroaded by a DMPC; running Star Wars as a D&D game would have some people complaining that they don't get to be the one Chosen One in the party around whom the plot revolves.


Challenges above CR+5 straight up kill the party in 3.X, unless their level of optimization is leagues below.
[...]
I consider "being above level 15" to be exceptional preparation.

Assuming accurate CR, which isn't always the case (you can kill the Tarrasque, many giants, and other "big bruiser" monsters at low levels with good tactics). And requiring optimization is the point: if you want to take out one of the Powers, you should be the best of the best and focused on killing them; the Queen of the Demonweb Pits AD&D module, for instance, has the party spending 5 solid levels doing nothing but trying to get to Lolth in her home plane and take her out, and it can be a very lethal module for the inexperienced and unprepared. "Being level 15" is insufficient, as that implies that gods are as easy to defeat as a random level 15 boss type (like a generic level 20 NPC), which shouldn't be the case at all.

Also:


But there's also got to be a degree of scalability to encounter design. I personally run games for a 7 PC group. If 4 PCs can bury Asmodeus under the weight of their numbers at level 13th level, 7 could probably do it at level 9 or 10. This means that if I'm going to run truly dangerous fights, I am going to have to be pulling out 'endgame content' for almost every fight from level 9 on. It becomes the reverse problem, where I still can't really run level 9+ content, not because of complexity or the interesting stuff being behind a velvet rope, but because I can't generate worthy threats using the rules.

Basically... I like that it's not going the direction of the fanwank versions of Asmodeus that generate the idea of "Oh, level 20 PCs wouldn't have a prayer of beating him... you'd have to be level... 30, no 50, no, 500!" but I think going too far in the other direction could lead to "Oh, it's just Smaug, we can just get 13 dwarves together and just bury Smaug in numbers... He's not as dangerous as Goblins or Spiders..."

+1 to all of this. Quantity and iterative probability on the PC side should not be able to substitute for quality and exceptional preparedness when taking on the big baddies of the setting.


The underlying problem, I think, is D&D's extremely steep power curve.
[...]
How do you realistically portray people who go from competent individiuals in a dangerous profession to powerhouses capable of taking out a dozen of 1st level characters in such a short period?

Well, you can look at Luke Skywalker, Rand al'Thor, and other characters who follow the iconic "farm boy to major badass" power curve. If you're talking about how to portray them personality-wise, their journeys are all about learning to control their powers and use them responsibly, which is part of D&D as well with the expanding scale of the game from killing kobolds in dungeons to deciding the fate of nations.

If you're asking how to portray the world around them, D&D already does that (counters for powerful spells come at the same time as those spells do, high-level NPCs populate the world, the world assumes a certain density of powerful people around to prevent commoners from being wiped out by high-level monsters, etc.), the problem is that a lot of DMs just don't bother to deal with all that and portray the world like medieval Europe plus magic with NPCs not taking advantage of magic at all, then being shocked when a basic charm person or teleport wrecks their plot because they didn't take those into account.

Morty
2012-12-25, 07:35 AM
Well, you can look at Luke Skywalker, Rand al'Thor, and other characters who follow the iconic "farm boy to major badass" power curve. If you're talking about how to portray them personality-wise, their journeys are all about learning to control their powers and use them responsibly, which is part of D&D as well with the expanding scale of the game from killing kobolds in dungeons to deciding the fate of nations.

My point is that it doesn't really look that way in D&D. The PCs don't have any grand destiny, they're not chosen by any higher power or anything of the sort. They come from being reasonably competent people to supermen who topple nations by themselves just by killing increasingly more difficult monsters. I would also argue that few fictional heroes have the sheer individual power a 20th level D&D character - especially a spellcaster - has. Luke Skywalker slipped past the Imperials to confront the Emperor and Darth Vader while his allies fought on Endor and in space around the Death Star. He didn't solo the Imperial army before finally fighting its leaders. I suppose mythic heroes like Gilgamesh or Cuchulainn (who did solo the armies of Connaught) matched them for power, but they were part-divine.


If you're asking how to portray the world around them, D&D already does that (counters for powerful spells come at the same time as those spells do, high-level NPCs populate the world, the world assumes a certain density of powerful people around to prevent commoners from being wiped out by high-level monsters, etc.), the problem is that a lot of DMs just don't bother to deal with all that and portray the world like medieval Europe plus magic with NPCs not taking advantage of magic at all, then being shocked when a basic charm person or teleport wrecks their plot because they didn't take those into account.

I don't think the problem is entirely on the DMs' side. 3rd edition D&D as a system appears not to take the power of high-level characters into account properly. Look at Eberron, which takes 3e magic to its logical conclusion and ends up with a rather bizzare pulp adventure world powered by magic. Of course, it's not just magic - even a straight-classed Fighter can murder an arbitrary number of 1st level Warriors on 20th level because nothing they do can possibly get past his AC and HP. 1st level spellcasters may give him pause because of just how little defense Fighters have against magic, but proper magic items can take care of that... and a better martial class, like the Warblade, can just shrug them off himself.
Part of it may be AD&D legacy, I suppose - as with many other elements, the designers kept various AD&D assumptions without thinking about how the new rules affect them.

Seerow
2012-12-25, 11:36 AM
I would also argue that few fictional heroes have the sheer individual power a 20th level D&D character - especially a spellcaster - has. Luke Skywalker slipped past the Imperials to confront the Emperor and Darth Vader while his allies fought on Endor and in space around the Death Star. He didn't solo the Imperial army before finally fighting its leaders. I suppose mythic heroes like Gilgamesh or Cuchulainn (who did solo the armies of Connaught) matched them for power, but they were part-divine.


Counterpoint: EU Luke Skywalker, or Rand Al'Thor. I'm pretty sure in EU Luke (and jedi in general) are capable of all sorts of crazy feats that would look right at home in a 20th level+ game. Rand Al'Thor in Wheel of Time by the latest book literally single handedly kills an army of Shadowspawn that if I recall correctly was 100,000 strong.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-12-25, 12:45 PM
My point is that it doesn't really look that way in D&D. [...] I would also argue that few fictional heroes have the sheer individual power a 20th level D&D character - especially a spellcaster - has. Luke Skywalker slipped past the Imperials to confront the Emperor and Darth Vader while his allies fought on Endor and in space around the Death Star. He didn't solo the Imperial army before finally fighting its leaders.


Counterpoint: EU Luke Skywalker, or Rand Al'Thor. I'm pretty sure in EU Luke (and jedi in general) are capable of all sorts of crazy feats that would look right at home in a 20th level+ game. Rand Al'Thor in Wheel of Time by the latest book literally single handedly kills an army of Shadowspawn that if I recall correctly was 100,000 strong.

Bingo. EU Luke travels around mastering different Force traditions, training tons of apprentices, taking out dark Force users, and shaping the fate of the galaxy; by later books him, going up against a dozen Sith looks like a high-level Elven generalist with every spell in his book going up against mid-level duskblades. Poor duskblades. :smallwink:

Late-series Rand is capable of wiping an entire palace out of existence several hours into the past using balefire, and balefire is a weapon so dangerous that the most evil and insane channelers in the world who are trying to destroy everything stopped using it because they thought it was too dangerous.


The PCs don't have any grand destiny, they're not chosen by any higher power or anything of the sort. They come from being reasonably competent people to supermen who topple nations by themselves just by killing increasingly more difficult monsters.
[...]
I suppose mythic heroes like Gilgamesh or Cuchulainn (who did solo the armies of Connaught) matched them for power, but they were part-divine.

Chosen Ones aren't the only one with crazy powers in fiction. The Black Company was mentioned, where the whole party of protagonists is pretty darn powerful; magic-users in the Malazan Books of the Fallen are similarly powerful when you get to the top. To use Star Wars and Wheel of Time again, poweful Sith Lords are renowned for (among other things) creating and mind-controlling entire species for slave labor, destroying suns to take out pursuing fleets, blocking the prescience of an entire planet of Jedi, and more; when Rand trains a bunch of channelers for war in the middle of the series, a handful of them show up and take out an entire army of the setting's Proud Warrior Race basically by themselves.

Ancient heroes of myth always had divine heritage or the like because they were set apart from ordinary men, but there's no reason their abilities are inappropriate for high-level D&D characters. If the story you want to tell is "anyone can become powerful if they train, study, or believe hard enough" rather than "you have to be favored by the gods, sucks to be you otherwise" then going from zero to Hercules should be possible. And besides, "So, my PC Gilgamesh is, like, two-thirds god!" sounds like the kind of grandiose backstory someone might give a PC if they're starting at high level, even if it's not true, doesn't it? :smallamused:


I don't think the problem is entirely on the DMs' side. 3rd edition D&D as a system appears not to take the power of high-level characters into account properly. Look at Eberron, which takes 3e magic to its logical conclusion and ends up with a rather bizzare pulp adventure world powered by magic. Of course, it's not just magic - even a straight-classed Fighter can murder an arbitrary number of 1st level Warriors on 20th level because nothing they do can possibly get past his AC and HP. 1st level spellcasters may give him pause because of just how little defense Fighters have against magic, but proper magic items can take care of that... and a better martial class, like the Warblade, can just shrug them off himself.
Part of it may be AD&D legacy, I suppose - as with many other elements, the designers kept various AD&D assumptions without thinking about how the new rules affect them.

Eberron is a direction to take magic, but remember that Eberron was aiming to create a magitek, pulp-y, adventurer-focused world first and to use the conceits of 3e second, so it deliberately focuses on the low-mid levels in Khorvaire and leaves Sarlona, Xen'drik, and Argonessen for the mid-high levels; Eberron's main theme is not "this is what the world ends up like if you take 3e magic to its logical conclusion," but rather "this is a low-level world where the PCs can be HeroesTM, and here's how we can include high-level stuff in the world while keeping the NPCs low level."

You can take 3e in a Tippyverse- or Dark Sun-style direction, where magic is tightly controlled by powerful spellcasters...or in a Planescape direction, where everyone is high level and a single high-level PC won't wreck anything...or in a Greyhawk direction, where mid-level casters and noncasters share power on the Prime and high-level characters take their fights to the planes...or in many other directions. Personally, I tend to run worlds where most NPCs are 3rd-6th level, 0th- through 2nd-level magic is plentiful and ubiquitous thanks to all the low-level casters, higher level characters are exponentially more rare, and the magic is used logically by its inhabitants.

Handling power levels is indeed a GM and worldbuilding problem, whether in D&D or other games, and in D&D all the tools are there for the DM. Granted, the advice to the DM on that point in 3e is lacking (see: WotC incompetence with high-level stuff), but as I mentioned the demographics assume up to 16th-20th level NPCs, economies account for powerful magic items, war is fought using large-scale battle magic, and so forth.

Anderlith
2012-12-25, 02:10 PM
You don't have to be half divine. You could have drank/bathed in the blood of a dragon or other creature. Drank/Bathed in a magical body of water (Like the Styx) Become the Queen of Air & Darkness's consort & Winter Knight. Consume the force of thousands of undead with a dark ritual. Make a deal with a Devil. Infuse your soul with arcane power. Bind the elements to your body. Maybe you are the reincarnated savior of long ago. The only think stopping you from having a cool & interesting way of ascending is your own imagination

snoopy13a
2012-12-25, 02:37 PM
I'd be fine with your way, or my own if WotC actually did it. A hard stop to leveling would be great. Makes me angry that WotC doesn't seem to be listening to the feedback. Several people get upset about Rogues getting Expertise, so they introduce the Monk (who isn't as high up on our wish list as the Ranger & Paladin) & give him Expertise too. Then they get rid of Expertise entirely & make up a crappy damage scaling mechanic.

I'm sure they are listening to feedback. But when 1/3 of people say one thing, another 1/3 say another, and the final 1/3 want something completely different, then they can't please everyone, can they?

As for a hard stop to leveling, there's nothing preventing the DM from capping leveling at any point. Essentially, the base rules provide a framework for the DM and her players. The mission is to form a "vanilla" base that players can alter and customize to their particular interests.

The rules are not written in stone; the gaming group has the option of changing the rules if they want to. If your group thinks high-level characters are too powerful then create a setting in which it is impossible to be a high-level character. If you think a particular character class, spell or race is cheesy then don't allow that class, spell, or race.

However, some groups want extremely powerful characters and they may like the classes, races, or spells that your group finds cheesy. So, the publishers will have powerful abilities and spells. This to benefit as many people as possible.

Anderlith
2012-12-25, 04:58 PM
I'm sure they are listening to feedback. But when 1/3 of people say one thing, another 1/3 say another, and the final 1/3 want something completely different, then they can't please everyone, can they?

As for a hard stop to leveling, there's nothing preventing the DM from capping leveling at any point. Essentially, the base rules provide a framework for the DM and her players. The mission is to form a "vanilla" base that players can alter and customize to their particular interests.

The rules are not written in stone; the gaming group has the option of changing the rules if they want to. If your group thinks high-level characters are too powerful then create a setting in which it is impossible to be a high-level character. If you think a particular character class, spell or race is cheesy then don't allow that class, spell, or race.

However, some groups want extremely powerful characters and they may like the classes, races, or spells that your group finds cheesy. So, the publishers will have powerful abilities and spells. This to benefit as many people as possible.
It's a matter of the system supporting & facilitating a playstyle. If the game gives no support for running a low "superhuman" game then it makes it very difficult to run one. The logic behind "The Rules are not written in stone" isn't always the answer. Theoretically you can homebrew & houserule any system to do exactly what you want. Say a non-magical, medieval setting in Shadowrun, but if I'm doing that I might as well make my own game.

I want them to give us a reason that our human(oid) characters have become such unstoppable creatures. Some people want to play Epic superheroes. I don't. With your own logic, why not let those people be forced to homebrew their superhuman abilities instead of me homebrewing rules to make everyone less Epic?

navar100
2012-12-25, 08:53 PM
It's a matter of the system supporting & facilitating a playstyle. If the game gives no support for running a low "superhuman" game then it makes it very difficult to run one. The logic behind "The Rules are not written in stone" isn't always the answer. Theoretically you can homebrew & houserule any system to do exactly what you want. Say a non-magical, medieval setting in Shadowrun, but if I'm doing that I might as well make my own game.

I want them to give us a reason that our human(oid) characters have become such unstoppable creatures. Some people want to play Epic superheroes. I don't. With your own logic, why not let those people be forced to homebrew their superhuman abilities instead of me homebrewing rules to make everyone less Epic?

If you don't want to play epic, you can have the campaign conclude at 10th level and be happy. Those who want to play epic can continue on to 20th level. You can slow down advancement if you want to stretch the campaign. Your way, there is never an 11th level for the epic people to use so there's no point to them buying the game.

1337 b4k4
2012-12-25, 10:01 PM
As to why Big A being a pushover is damaging to suspension of disbelief, let me put it this way: The multiverse is really old. I mean really freaking old, as in thousands of millennia and timespans long enough for nigh-immortal dragons to forget about things. Let's assume it takes a solid in-game year to go from level 1 to level 20, conservatively, which is at least 10 times slower than the fastest possible rate in AD&D or 3e. If you assume that the majority of adventuring parties are good or neutral with good tendencies and that there are multiple adventuring parties that start each year, that's at least 3 20th-level characters per year that might have a motivation to go after any given Power, in this case Asmodeus.

If you assume that only 1% of those characters decide to actually go for him, and only 1% of that 1% actually make it to Nessus, and only 1% of the 1% of the 1% make it to Asmodeus himself, that's still at least a few billion adventurers. Think of any games you've played in or run; exactly how often do the BBEGs in your world survive at higher levels if the players really want to kill them--I mean, "this guy personally killed my family so I'm going to true res and go after him as often as necessary" really want to kill them. Every time Asmodeus kills a party, they either get resurrected then rinse and repeat, or if he traps their souls their allies will come after him.


You know, reading this I wonder if part of the disparity in how high level characters stack up to high level monsters has to do with having a far to accelerated leveling process, and a reduced lethality, at least as compared to it's initial assumptions. I mean let's start with your first assumption, that it takes a mere 1 year to go from level 1 to level 20. In early D&D I would argue that this claim is laughable. To start with, you are eligible to gain a stronghold and followers at level 9, somehow I don't see a newly minted adventurer gathering enough resources and notoriety to do this in just 6 months. But further, consider natural healing is extremely slow, so (baring judicious application of cleric) any significant wounds are going to consume at least a few weeks between adventures. Additionally, leveling was restricted to one level per adventure, which did lead to the Bofanorc Paradox, but also would logically mean that to go from level 1 to 20 would require at the very least 20 adventures. Even more consider that in early D&D, adventuring is dangerous business. Your average first level party is likely to lose quite a few men to an errant sword before any of them even begin to reach second level. And that doesn't even begin to take into account the number of adventurers who will simply retire before getting anywhere near level 20, or who will even be killed by other adventurers seeking the same goals.

I think that although the rules don't quite do a good job making this clear, in the D&D world (at least as originally envisioned) level 20 is huge. And while you're playing such characters, you should be aware that those characters are the rarest of the rare. Not even just the 3 per year, but the 1 in a generation. So really the problem to be addressed is just what level 20 means, because it's clear we all (and even different editions of D&D) have different thoughts on that. And then the enemies should be modeled off of that, without regard to their previous levels and stats. After all, if level 20 really means once in a lifetime heroes, then the fact that a party of 4 of them even at level 14, can with a bit a planning one shot Asmodeus doesn't seem like a huge deal. On the other hand, if level 20 means at least 3 people per year are getting there, and the world is crawling with such high level characters, then yes, 4 level 14s one shoting a god is a bit much.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-12-26, 12:02 AM
You know, reading this I wonder if part of the disparity in how high level characters stack up to high level monsters has to do with having a far to accelerated leveling process, and a reduced lethality, at least as compared to it's initial assumptions. I mean let's start with your first assumption, that it takes a mere 1 year to go from level 1 to level 20. In early D&D I would argue that this claim is laughable.

*snip*

First, note that I'm saying that that's a conservative estimate for what's possible; 1e gives out XP for gp, 2e gives out XP for doing your class's job, 3e has faster leveling overall, and in all three leveling can go quite quickly if you handle things well. I'm assuming for those numbers that just a single adventuring party reaches level 20 in a year out of the however many millions of people on the Prime; you could roll up Bob the Fighter, Bob the Fighter Jr., etc. two dozen times before he makes it to level 2, but as long as one party goes from 1 to 20 in a year (which requires one level roughly 18 days, which is certainly doable with a good party) that assumption holds.

Second, even if it takes 10 years to get to level 20, you're still comparing 10 years to hundreds of thousands of years of time on dozens of planes; if you don't like the idea of newly-minted high-level adventurers doing this, think of all the angels, genies, demon princes, etc. who'd love to do the same, on top of the many high-level adventurers roaming the planes.


I think that although the rules don't quite do a good job making this clear, in the D&D world (at least as originally envisioned) level 20 is huge. And while you're playing such characters, you should be aware that those characters are the rarest of the rare. Not even just the 3 per year, but the 1 in a generation. So really the problem to be addressed is just what level 20 means, because it's clear we all (and even different editions of D&D) have different thoughts on that.

Fortunately, I have in my bookmarks an article where someone worked out the level demographics in AD&D from the DMG tables and such: see here (http://www.superdan.net/demogrph.html) for an outline, with the spreadsheet at the bottom giving the numbers. It's not authoritative or official by any means, but it derives that for a human population of 12,000,000 you can expect 12 20th-level characters, or 33 characters between level 20 and 30. The Roman Empire had a population of 56,800,000 at its height, so I think it would be reasonable for an AD&D world to have a human population of around that, which gives 58 20th-level characters or 156 characters between level 20 and 30.

So, assuming a setting where the world's entire humanoid population is roughly the population of the non-magically-assisted-and-embroiled-in-warfare Roman Empire, that still gives us 39 epic-level 4-person adventuring parties at a given point in time. If you think 15th level is the point where taking on the gods should be reasonable (a good assumption, because the QotDP module ends with killing Lolth at 14th level after much preparation), that's ~1618 adventurers or ~405 adventuring parties of that level.

If it were possible for the mortals to just up and decide to off Asmodeus by plane shifting over 1.5 thousand amazingly superhuman people to Nessus and having them confront him, even if only the top 0.01% of them survived the assault against his minions that would mean that Asmodeus should probably be able to hold off 150 20th-level adventurers plus however many archdevils and their minions decided to take advantage of the opportunity to try to earn a promotion. Having tons of minions can account for a lot of that, particularly if they're Big A's hand-picked handcrafted super-pit fiends, but not all of it, and the very incarnation of all things Lawful Evil and diabolical should certainly be able to deal with your average 20th-level 4-person party without issue.

And once more for emphasis: the same applies to Mephistopheles, Demogorgon, Orcus, Nerull, Erythnul, and every other big evil Power that the mortals might want to get rid of. D&D modules and home games are full of adventures where people rally kingdoms and MacGuffins to the heroes' aid to go after upstart mortal villains; how much more effort should they need to go to to take down one of the big guys?


I have no problem with PCs being able to take out [insert Power here] in the abstract, but it should require at least the kind of "rally every epic hero on the plane and lots of artifacts to give the PCs a chance" plot mentioned above; plopping a party down in a room with [insert Power here] with no special builds or preparation should, in my view, give the PCs a 100% chance of being TPKed and having their souls torn to tiny bits, because again fights against these guys should be the focus of campaigns, not random encounters.

If you want to make high levels much rarer than they've been before, depower the Powers, increase the power of individual PCs, etc., and want it to be possible for 4 20th-level PCs to kill a Power, I think that's fine, but even in that case it should require lots of preparation and just flat-out not be possible in a "4 PCs run into Asmodeus, fight!" scenario.

Seerow
2012-12-26, 12:26 AM
I think that although the rules don't quite do a good job making this clear, in the D&D world (at least as originally envisioned) level 20 is huge. And while you're playing such characters, you should be aware that those characters are the rarest of the rare. Not even just the 3 per year, but the 1 in a generation. So really the problem to be addressed is just what level 20 means, because it's clear we all (and even different editions of D&D) have different thoughts on that. And then the enemies should be modeled off of that, without regard to their previous levels and stats. After all, if level 20 really means once in a lifetime heroes, then the fact that a party of 4 of them even at level 14, can with a bit a planning one shot Asmodeus doesn't seem like a huge deal. On the other hand, if level 20 means at least 3 people per year are getting there, and the world is crawling with such high level characters, then yes, 4 level 14s one shoting a god is a bit much.


I agree with the first half of this quote, and disagree heavily with the second half. Yes, level 20 should be huge. I think even once a generation is stretching it. Then again, I look at things from a largely tier centric point of view.

The level 1-6 tier is exceedingly common. This is where 99.9999999999% of all humanity/metahumanity belongs. This is where everyone you know or can think of in real life, or even an average action movie hero at the high end of it.

Level 7-14 tier is the Paragon levels. These guys might be once a generation, or once a century on the national level. Players at this level aren't always going to be the strongest in the world, but by the time they reach this level, they have renown for their deeds and can/have accomplished amazing heroic feats. They are most likely the most powerful humanoids in their general area, and largely operate outside the normal law/order of their lands (unless they actively choose to act within its bounds/take up leadership). This is the area where I figure most super heroes, many mythological heroes and really the vast majority of protagonists in fantasy media.

Level 15+ characters are something comes about once in an age. A single character in this level range is something that will shape their world for centuries after they're gone (assuming they're still mortal at this point). An entire party of epic characters is something that makes gods take notice and prepare contingencies. I figure this cutoff as the difference between Egwene (whom I'd peg at Paragon) and Rand (who is quintessential epic imo) from WoT.

The choices characters at this level make ripple throughout their worlds. Frequently characters reach epic levels in response to a specific struggle, and following that struggle there isn't much that will occur again within their lifetimes (again assuming mortality, which is questionable by this point) that is actually a challenge to them. That isn't to say epic level play need to be one adventure and then it's over, it's just that the sorts of things epic heroes deal with aren't a common occurrence, and if you have a half dozen epic threats within a century of time, then chances are there is a larger force manipulating it that the characters will need to deal with.



So basically? Paragon characters are rare and special, but they occur. There might be as many as a hundred of them around the world at a given time. Epic characters are exponentially rarer. While a character who reaches epic might actually do so within a year, it does not mean that within a year of adventuring the average adventurer will reach epic.

For Asmodeus to have to worry about an epic party hunting him down, then first said epic party actually needs to come about (probably once every few thousand years), and then they need to actually have a reason to come after him. Because seriously, unless the epic party actually got to where they were trying to battle Asmodeus, do you think they would consider it a good idea to go try to kill him, and risk failing and pissing Asmodeus off to the point that he goes and starts causing trouble back home while they are no longer available to defend it? Maybe some would. I think the number of attempts he's had to fight off from PCs who present a real threat is probably in the sub-100 range over the millenia though, as opposed to the billions range.



That all is just a really long winded way of me explaining where I view the relative power levels of character levels, and justifying that I think Asmodeus DOES need to be strong enough to kill off unoptimized level 15-20 characters, but disagreeing with the original assertion from Pair'O'Dice that there have been billions of attempts on Asmodeus' life by level 20 characters. Basically Asmodeus does need to have defenses and such to a point that taking him out is either a temporary set-back (ie you beat him, or maybe put some other devil more amenable towards you into his place, but really he'll be back in a few centuries with a grudge), or can be completely killed, but flat out isn't possible without high optimization and/or some measure of GM fiat. Because while epic characters are world shaping, we are talking about gods and their rivals, they don't just shape worlds, they shape reality itself. Taking out a god isn't just killing another dude, it's altering a fundamental aspect of reality and the campaign setting, which will have huge reprecussions and absolutely should not happen because of some good initiative/damage rolls by a group of lucky mid level adventurers.

Edited to Add: Nothing I said is based off the population demographics in any DMG, just where I feel they should be in terms of what the characters are capable of. Having a handful of level 15+ people in the world at a time is already a huge fundamental change. Having 60 of them running around at any given time? Sounds like Forgotten Realms.

MukkTB
2012-12-26, 01:35 AM
I'm sure they are listening to feedback. But when 1/3 of people say one thing, another 1/3 say another, and the final 1/3 want something completely different, then they can't please everyone, can they?

Well the modular thing would allow for them to do it. The baseline could satisfy the first 1/3. Module A could cater to the second 1/3. Module B could be what the last 1/3 want.

But I'm not sold on the module thing at all. Lets pretend that there are 3 categories that people might want to have a module for, Magic, Nonmagic combat, and noncombat things. Lets say that each of these areas gets 2 modules. These modules could combine in 27 different ways. If you allow multiple modules effecting the same category that leaves us with 64 different ways to play the game. That's only 6 modules.

When we talk about 3.5 or 4e we're all on the same page because we can say RAW, Rules as Written. If we want to do a bit of work we can say RAW plus this house rule and this other one. We're still all on the same page. We are going to get into trouble quickly if there are tens of pages that are equally legit.

I suspect that the baseline people bother to talk about will be Rules As Written Without Modlues, or RAWW/oM for short.

Excession
2012-12-26, 02:04 AM
When we talk about 3.5 or 4e we're all on the same page because we can say RAW, Rules as Written. If we want to do a bit of work we can say RAW plus this house rule and this other one. We're still all on the same page. We are going to get into trouble quickly if there are tens of pages that are equally legit.

Don't know about 3.5, but this is wrong for 4e. Does the group use themes, backgrounds, the considerably more powerful backgrounds out of the FRPG and similar, Essentials, only Essentials, errata, free expertise feats, and so on. Just saying "rules as written" doesn't put me on the same page as another 4e player or group. Myself, I'm not even sure it's a good goal. Rules can and should differ between settings, and the only true definition of the setting is the one defined by the DM and players at each table. If there's something like Encounters for 5e that might end up defining the "default" setting and assumptions, but nobody is going to force people to play with that ruleset alone.


I suspect that the baseline people bother to talk about will be Rules As Written Without Modlues, or RAWW/oM for short.

Mike Mearls has said more than once on twitter, and I think once in a L&L column, that the game we're seeing in the playtest is already more complex than the base. They get the "base plus" working, then see what they can take out.

MukkTB
2012-12-26, 02:55 AM
I'm not that familiar with 4e. For 3.5 its more a matter which books are allowed. Some are controversial like Tome of Battle. Some DMs like core only.

Mostly we assume all books are available but we consider a solution more elegant if it doesn't involve dumpster diving.

tbok1992
2012-12-26, 03:13 AM
Out of curiosity, why is everyone griping about how the fighter is weak? Because, from first glance he looks like a combat beast to me.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-12-26, 03:37 AM
Out of curiosity, why is everyone griping about how the fighter is weak? Because, from first glance he looks like a combat beast to me.

Throw a situation at the Fighter whose solution is not "Hulk Smash!"

Then throw a 0th-level commoner into the same situation.

See the problem? It's not lack of damage output we're complaining about, but lack of versatility.

Anderlith
2012-12-26, 08:31 AM
Out of curiosity, why is everyone griping about how the fighter is weak? Because, from first glance he looks like a combat beast to me.

I have highlighted the problem.

obryn
2012-12-26, 09:53 AM
I'm not that familiar with 4e. For 3.5 its more a matter which books are allowed. Some are controversial like Tome of Battle. Some DMs like core only.
It's pretty much exactly the same situation; the Essentials stuff is just more books with different classes, so it's akin to saying "Bo9s or No Bo9s".

In my own experience, there's usually less table variation for 4e than in 3.x for two pretty big reasons: (1) it's all in the Character Builder and Compendium, making it all standardized and fairly easy to keep track of (while also making it harder to avoid "forbidden" sources); and (2) the errata/updates process files down most of the rough edges when something is overpowered and/or broken.

I know in my own case, I limited sources of 3.x material in every campaign I ran just to keep it all manageable and so we didn't need to hunt through books for the exact wording of a given feat or spell. Having it all online has obviated that need.

-O

shadow_archmagi
2012-12-26, 10:27 AM
Out of curiosity, why is everyone griping about how the fighter is weak? Because, from first glance he looks like a combat beast to me.


I have highlighted the problem.


Anderlith gets it in one. Out of combat, a rogue can climb, tumble, pick locks, tell lies, etc. A wizard can fly, build a castle, control minds, create zombies, etc. Even a paladin can throw around some healing and high charisma and the social status inherent to a paladin.

What can fighter do at a party? Or when the bridge is out?

Anderlith
2012-12-26, 10:46 AM
Anderlith gets it in one. Out of combat, a rogue can climb, tumble, pick locks, tell lies, etc. A wizard can fly, build a castle, control minds, create zombies, etc. Even a paladin can throw around some healing and high charisma and the social status inherent to a paladin.

What can fighter do at a party? Or when the bridge is out?

Exactly. Barbarians are always better at parties (drunken raging Chicken Dancing is always a crowd pleaser) maybe a figher could throw a dwarf over the bridge gap but that's about it.

Clawhound
2012-12-26, 11:11 AM
I'll ramble at this a bit. D&D has a big problem with non-magic classes.

There are those who see non-magic as a penalty, and those who see non-magic as a feature. Stop. I don't see those poles going away any time soon.

Way back when, when everybody else did magic, the fighter did everything else. As specialized roles were created, that range narrowed until the fighter was just, well, a guy who swung the stick. Add in social rules where being powerful and strong didn't add to intimidation or diplomacy, and you wind up with a class with no clear role at all.

I do think it a mistake to call the fighter class inflexible. The class appeals to a certain sort of player who enjoys certain types of tactics. For those folks who like their characters standing next to certain death and beating it with a sharp stick, the fighter works exactly as its supposed to. Why do you need flexibility? Giving those players abilities that they don't want achieves little. Just as often, proposed roles overlap other classes, and those other classes do that role better, so much so that they are usually the better choices.

I do think that backgrounds will help with fighter's flexibility. The real choice about what to do outside of combat will be there. This will help reduce the narrowness of the fighter. The same will be true of rogues.

None of this will solve the ultimate problem. The only way to solve the problem with the fighter is to stop thinking about a warrior as a dumb guy with a big stick. Just defining him as "a smart guy with a big stick" goes a long way to creating design possibilities.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-12-26, 03:11 PM
I do think it a mistake to call the fighter class inflexible. The class appeals to a certain sort of player who enjoys certain types of tactics. For those folks who like their characters standing next to certain death and beating it with a sharp stick, the fighter works exactly as its supposed to. Why do you need flexibility? Giving those players abilities that they don't want achieves little. Just as often, proposed roles overlap other classes, and those other classes do that role better, so much so that they are usually the better choices.

That's all very well and good, but for those people who don't want a one-dimensional class, the fighter might as well not be in the PHB for all they want to play one. Ideally, the fighter should be as flexible, customizable, and interesting as the other classes, but you should be able to make specific builds that focus it down to "pick up pointy metal stick, hit people with it, repeat" for those who want that simplicity--the same way you can either give a 3e fighter all the tactical feats and weapon style feats you want to give him lots of options, or you can give him the WF/WS tree and have all of his class features amount to just +X attack and damage with nothing more complicated.

And the same applies to the other classes, really: it should be possible for new/inexperienced/casual/etc. players to pick up a wizard or cleric and make a fairly straightforward, effective character, while more experienced players can go for more complexity if they want to. As long as the game designates some limited newbie classes and some complex veteran classes and never the twain shall meet, the fighter is never going to be a "real" class because it's been stuck with the newbie class label and people resist giving it Nice Things.

Clawhound
2012-12-26, 04:52 PM
I've been actively working on this whole "make a fighter interesting" project for years, and to be honest, it's a wicked nasty problem. One person's bug is another person's feature.

Next has offloaded some character flexibility to a character template. (I forget what they named them.) That helps with flexibility. It's an interesting solution. If you want a more social fighter, you can pick that. Yet, that doesn't address the basic problem.

How do you make a class that hits things flexible and interesting? Or to put it another way, how do you make hitting things with a stick not hitting things with a stick? What special way can a fighter develop in hitting things that he doesn't start with at level 1? And how do you give a fighter magical stuff without feeling like spells? How do you get a fantasy feel in a way that the player can accept as cool or even literary?

Recently, I'm beginning to think that fighters should pick some sort of power that they seek or develop into. So one fighter could pick the power of a bear, while another claims the lineage of a god, and a third has joined the cult of fire. This is just part of being a fighter, like the ancient Roman legions worshipped Mithra, or tribesmen wore amulets that made them invincible. As they get stronger, their extra-human powers grow, rather than their numbers. I don't see WotC going in that direction, though, so I'm not going to hold out for it.

Perhaps it is time to retire "fighter." Foot soldiers, officers, archers, cavalryman, swordsmen, and the like may be too different to lump into one category. Maybe if we split them apart they will naturally become more interesting.

Anderlith
2012-12-26, 05:43 PM
Firstly, get rid of class skills. Next sort of does that & that is good. Allow for classes to blur a bit, a soldier of the Witchfire Wars should have a basic understanding of magic casting, & maybe the know-how to draw a ward-sign to protect his squad. Another warrior trained on the high mountain monastery, perfecting his body & achieving a total controlled calm in battle, so that he can tear his enemies apart with his broadaxe. A swordsmen from the river city on Jessian Border would know all the Guild-Signs to identify equipment cashes, traps, safe lodging, & the edges of other gangs territories.

One step I could see is too have a handful of Archetypes that the fighter picks. Much like a wizards Speciality this will fine tune the fighter to do different things a bit better.

Tactician- A fighter who uses his smarts to gain the advantage & strike with precision force.

Enforcer- A strong arm fighter, takes what he wants hits hard & knows a lot about the criminal underground, good at throwing his weight & presence around whether it be on the battlefield or conversation

Bodyguard- Protects those under his care

Knight Errant- A questing warrior seeking reknown, follows a cause, loves to adventure

Swordsage- A humble swordsmaster relying on is inner Focus to protect himself & move swiftly across the battlefield, ending his opponents life will calm & determination

Swashbuckler- A braggart & a light armored fighter

Morty
2012-12-26, 06:56 PM
I don't think there's any way for the Fighter to be both simple and competitive with other classes. Trying to achieve this is not the right sort of thinking at all. The right question to ask is "how do we make the classes varied and balanced while making them approachable?". This question applies to all classes, not just Fighter. Dumbing down one particular class doesn't solve anything and just creates a whole bag of new problems.
As for the Fighter offering a wide range of archetypes - again, it's the sort of thing that needs to apply to all classes. Every class should provide for a variety of concepts and styles.

MukkTB
2012-12-27, 06:58 AM
I'd be happy retiring the fighter in favor of more specific classes: Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin, ect.

On that note I'd be happy to retire the PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER of the 3.5 wizard in favor of some more specific classes: Necromancer, Elementalist(Evoker), Conjuror, Illusionist, Enchanter, ect.

If you want a generalist spellcaster maybe call it the Mage and give it access to pure arcane magics and just a bit off the other guy's spell lists.

Clawhound
2012-12-27, 09:10 AM
3.X was going just that way at the end of its run, and those narrower classes came in at Tier 3. They are also generally well liked.

In Next, I hope to see nothing higher than the equivalent of a 6th level spell. 7-9 level spells just wind up being too godlike. And given a choice, I'd rather that casters get too many low-level spells rather than too many high-levels spells.

Nizaris
2012-12-27, 11:10 AM
3.X was going just that way at the end of its run, and those narrower classes came in at Tier 3. They are also generally well liked.

In Next, I hope to see nothing higher than the equivalent of a 6th level spell. 7-9 level spells just wind up being too godlike. And given a choice, I'd rather that casters get too many low-level spells rather than too many high-levels spells.

I have nothing against 7-9 spells so long as they cannot be used more than once per day, like it is now. Spells of those levels should largely carry a ritual option, Wish excluded. Making a wizard stand around for an hour to ritual in an Earthquake is fine by me, maybe the wizard's voice echoes in the targeted area so people have a heads up and can try to disrupt him before the devastation, possibly counter spelling the ritual before it completes. I know some people are really uneasy with Wish giving a Strength penalty with each casting but I'm not that worried about that. Yes a Belt of Titan's Strength exists but since the Wish penalty is ongoing it makes sense that it applies after the belt readjusts the ability score and if they cast again and then have the belt removed (which can be done in several ways) the wizard is automatically paralyzed. With a drain of 2d4 per cast they could only get 1 off before they have the serious risk of going down.

I would like to see more low level spells per day though, and the spells that already that preparation in both materials and time be shifted towards rituals, if it takes 30min to cast normally, it should not eat a combat spell slot. Spell slots are for combat and OP spells like Wish, not more trivial spells that cannot be cast in combat.

Turalisj
2012-12-27, 01:00 PM
I have nothing against 7-9 spells so long as they cannot be used more than once per day, like it is now.

All x/day effects need to die in a fire. Along with feats as class features and dead levels.

wadledo
2012-12-27, 02:01 PM
All x/day effects need to die in a fire. Along with feats as class features and dead levels.

Hey, I like Feats as Class Features and x/day effects.

noparlpf
2012-12-27, 02:05 PM
I don't like X/day things much because you feel like you have to save them for boss fights and sometimes they don't even work, and then what do you do.

Getting a bonus feat that fits a class as a class feature is okay by me, as long as there are other things that are actually unique to the class.

Anderlith
2012-12-27, 06:11 PM
Get rid of spells that should only be cast (if at all) by NPC's. Hero's Feast, Wish, etc.

Zeful
2012-12-27, 06:43 PM
Get rid of spells that should only be cast (if at all) by NPC's. Hero's Feast, Wish, etc.

Also move spells like Rope Trick, Teleport, and other similar "upkeep" spells to rituals rather than spells.

noparlpf
2012-12-27, 06:48 PM
I'd say Wish should be an epic-level ritual-type spell, maybe available around level thirty.

navar100
2012-12-27, 06:50 PM
If 5E did what everyone here has been suggesting lately, I see no reason to stop playing Pathfinder and will add "proud" to my designation as a fired customer.

Scowling Dragon
2012-12-27, 06:54 PM
I don't like X/day things much because you feel like you have to save them for boss fights and sometimes they don't even work, and then what do you do.

So lets get Rid of potions and one time use anything as well. Like arrows, or throwable stuff.

Also lets have all your magic items magicaly return to you if you want to. That way you won't have to worry about selling your magic items and fearing that you might need it later.

Flickerdart
2012-12-27, 06:54 PM
X/day works out fine, with some caveats.

1) X has to be a number that corresponds to the power of the ability. If the ability is just +2 attack/damage, then the X should be hella high. Smite is a lousy approach, spellcasting is a good one.
2) X++ is not a valid class feature. Getting more uses out of older limited abilities is nice, but it should never be all that you get, unless it's a really good ability. Bardic Music is a good example of how to avoid this - you get more music than you know what to do with very quickly.
3) X should be high initially. I shouldn't have to play the character I want only 1 round of the day, and play the character I'm stuck with for the other 15. Turn Undead is a good implementation, Smite is a lousy one. X/day is not very friendly with linear progressions - you start out with way too few and end up with so many that it doesn't matter. Turn Undead is a good example of how to avoid that - at the beginning, you have a pretty fat stack of Turns, but it increases gradually with your Charisma.
4) Whether or not the ability does anything should not hinge on a single roll. Expending a precious use of the ability only to waste it really sucks. Rage is a good example of what to do right.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-12-27, 07:44 PM
Get rid of spells that should only be cast (if at all) by NPC's. Hero's Feast, Wish, etc.

They tried getting rid of interesting utility magic. It's called 4e.

Why should there be any distinction between PCs and NPCs as far as spells castable goes? There can be PCs who want to cast heroes' feast because they fear poison, because they want to treat their allies to a nice dinner, or simply because they're too snooty to eat commoner food at the inn; there can be NPCs who want to cast scorching ray because they're in the military, because they want to defend their farms from goblins, or simply because the fireplace is aaallllll the way over there and they don't want to get up from their comfy chair.

Having magic segregated into a "straightforward combat-focused magic" group for PCs and a "breakable plot-device magic" group for NPCs is one of the worst possible things you can borrow from video games and fiction, I feel. Why should Thulsa Doom be able to summon demons, Jafar be able to turn into a snake, the fairies from Sleeping Beauty be able to conjure food out of thin air, and a PC wizard not be able to do those things? If a PC wants to stop the BBEG's sacrifice-thousands-to-become-a-god ritual and cast it himself, they should be able to try; if it's something that's only usable once every 10,000 years when the stars align and the fates are right, figuring out how to either bypass that limitation or make it to that point while defeating those who want to steal it in turn is an adventure in and of itself.

If some spell is "too powerful" to leave in the PCs' hands (and such a thing is very rare in D&D, there's a counter for everything) then it's probably too powerful for NPCs as well, because (A) DMPCs, Special Snowflake villains, and similar "you can't have it because you're only the players" abilities are something the players shouldn't have to put up with, along with railroad plots, DM Ex Machina, and other things better left to books and movies, and (B) you can be damn sure that sufficiently-determined PCs will find a way to get access to any NPC-only abilities somehow, so you've just reserved the most powerful and breakable abilities for those players who you wouldn't want to trust with them.

noparlpf
2012-12-27, 07:57 PM
So lets get Rid of potions and one time use anything as well. Like arrows, or throwable stuff.

Also lets have all your magic items magicaly return to you if you want to. That way you won't have to worry about selling your magic items and fearing that you might need it later.

It makes much more sense for arrows to have a chance of breaking (though I'd rather there be a chance to reuse arrows after a hit as well as a miss) than it does for me to be able to Smite Evil once and then keep on casting spells and Turning Undead the rest of the afternoon.
And yeah, not a huge fan of potions. Kind of on the fence there. I feel they work better in videogames than in tabletop games.

I don't see how your second paragraph makes any sense whatsoever.


X/day works out fine, with some caveats.

1) X has to be a number that corresponds to the power of the ability. If the ability is just +2 attack/damage, then the X should be hella high. Smite is a lousy approach, spellcasting is a good one.
2) X++ is not a valid class feature. Getting more uses out of older limited abilities is nice, but it should never be all that you get, unless it's a really good ability. Bardic Music is a good example of how to avoid this - you get more music than you know what to do with very quickly.
3) X should be high initially. I shouldn't have to play the character I want only 1 round of the day, and play the character I'm stuck with for the other 15. Turn Undead is a good implementation, Smite is a lousy one. X/day is not very friendly with linear progressions - you start out with way too few and end up with so many that it doesn't matter. Turn Undead is a good example of how to avoid that - at the beginning, you have a pretty fat stack of Turns, but it increases gradually with your Charisma.
4) Whether or not the ability does anything should not hinge on a single roll. Expending a precious use of the ability only to waste it really sucks. Rage is a good example of what to do right.

Good points. On #4, I think Rages per day specifically should be based on Con instead, like the number of Turns per day is based on Cha.

Scowling Dragon
2012-12-27, 08:11 PM
It makes much more sense for arrows to have a chance of breaking (though I'd rather there be a chance to reuse arrows after a hit as well as a miss) than it does for me to be able to Smite Evil once and then keep on casting spells and Turning Undead the rest of the afternoon.
And yeah, not a huge fan of potions. Kind of on the fence there. I feel they work better in videogames than in tabletop games.

I don't see how your second paragraph makes any sense whatsoever.


I was being sarcastic. I wanted to tell if people would notice.

Decisions making making is all part of roleplaying and life in general.

Do we remove candy from the game too? Because although I want candy now, I might want it for later?

Because making decisions is hard? Should we add a magic reset button on the belly button of each character that instantly rewinds time to whatever **** up you made so you can fix it? Or should it be that you never **** up, ever.

I get some mechanical issues like Potions messing up the GP rewards system or something, or that you should start off with quite a bit of X/Day abilities so that you can have fun in the begining as well as the end, but taking away numeretical stuff because "Decisions are hard"is just bad. Thats just a step away from never having you make make mistakes ever for the exact same reasons.

noparlpf
2012-12-27, 08:17 PM
I was being sarcastic. I wanted to tell if people would notice.

Decisions making making is all part of roleplaying and life in general.

Do we remove candy from the game too? Because although I want candy now, I might want it for later?

Because making decisions is hard? Should we add a magic reset button on the belly button of each character that instantly rewinds time to whatever **** up you made so you can fix it? Or should it be that you never **** up, ever.

I get some mechanical issues like Potions messing up the GP rewards system or something, or that you should start off with quite a bit of X/Day abilities so that you can have fun in the begining as well as the end, but taking away numeretical stuff because "Decisions are hard"is just bad. Thats just a step away from never having you make make mistakes ever for the exact same reasons.

My point was actually that X/day things where X is small and there's a fair chance of failure are dumb. I was not particularly clear. My bad.

TuggyNE
2012-12-27, 08:21 PM
I was being sarcastic. I wanted to tell if people would notice.

Poe's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law) applies here.

Scowling Dragon
2012-12-27, 08:24 PM
My point was actually that X/day things where X is small and there's a fair chance of failure are dumb. I was not particularly clear. My bad.

Again that depends on the system and implementation. As a core class crutch its usually stupid, but lets say you find the holy satchel of 'Ballserack" and the 6 remaining arrows are the only thing that can destroy the evil McRibBurger then thats another thing.

Turalisj
2012-12-27, 08:46 PM
Again that depends on the system and implementation. As a core class crutch its usually stupid, but lets say you find the holy satchel of 'Ballserack" and the 6 remaining arrows are the only thing that can destroy the evil McRibBurger then thats another thing.

That, is what is called a plot device.

They are sometimes very obvious in being a plot device, such as being a one use item.

Gamgee
2012-12-28, 03:40 AM
I don't get this obsesison with NEEDING such fixed and defined classes. Just boil down the archetypes into the most broad classes as possible. Allow for customization of them with skills, feats, and talents

Ie "The Warrior" Gains 4 skills, 1 free feat 1 bonus, 2 talents (a bonus non magic classes would have over magic classes. They spend so much time mastering magic they don't get to do as much talent stuff.)

"The Warrior" Has access to Melee, Wildsman, Archery, Barbarian, Armour Mastery and however many else talent trees. Since talents are fewer than feats make them a little stronger.

Bam you fix a lot of problems in one fell swoop. But people ABSOLUTELY have to have their classes separate. God forbid you let people customize them and then just "change" the name of their class to whatever the hell they want to feel cool.

Edit
New splatbooks can simply contain more talent trees. Perhaps some new prestige classes to go into for something really specialized and unique.

Anima
2012-12-28, 04:56 AM
I don't get this obsesison with NEEDING such fixed and defined classes. Just boil down the archetypes into the most broad classes as possible. Allow for customization of them with skills, feats, and talents

Ie "The Warrior" Gains 4 skills, 1 free feat 1 bonus, 2 talents (a bonus non magic classes would have over magic classes. They spend so much time mastering magic they don't get to do as much talent stuff.)

"The Warrior" Has access to Melee, Wildsman, Archery, Barbarian, Armour Mastery and however many else talent trees. Since talents are fewer than feats make them a little stronger.

Bam you fix a lot of problems in one fell swoop. But people ABSOLUTELY have to have their classes separate. God forbid you let people customize them and then just "change" the name of their class to whatever the hell they want to feel cool.

Edit
New splatbooks can simply contain more talent trees. Perhaps some new prestige classes to go into for something really specialized and unique.

Well what's the reason for using a class system at all at this point? Wouldn't it be much better to use a point based system if you go that far. Since you already lost most of the benefits of the class based structure anyway.

Anecronwashere
2012-12-28, 06:26 AM
At that point it IS a point-buy system. It's just trying to disguise itself as a class-based.


On the implementation of ritual magic and utility spells:
It is a good idea, in Theory. But one must tread carefully in it's execution. 4e failed at it.

Though, one quickly thought up system:
There are 9 Ritual levels, same as the spell levels of a 3.5 wizard. When a Wizard gets access to the spell level in Preparatory Magic (the combat magic stuff) they also get access to the appropriate ritual levels.
Each ritual has up too 3 variations (really high powered rituals might go over level 9)
1. Something either longer or more expensive compared to level2 or has a special effect that weakens or disadvantageous the ritualist(s). Like a Teleport spell needing an hours preparation, or the Earthquake ritual needs an expensive ruby or the Summon Contract Demon stops the regeneration of the summoners magical reserves for X days
2. The average ritual, and where using them becomes commonplace. Or rather, where having access to them regularly is expected.
3. Fast-casting. It takes a much smaller time than usual to cast this, eg. a 4hour prep-time ritual would take 1 hour. But it has risks involved, mishaps from rushing them, and needs more magic infused.

Metaritual abilities could reduce the time, cost and the magic needed to push into it. Or, alternatively increase them to add other pieces to it. Like upping the level of the Demon summoned.
Using metarituals increases and decreases the Spell level but they have to be able to cast the original unaltered spell and the total increase (not counting decreases) cannot exceed the ritual level the ritualist can use +2 (so a Wizard with 6th level spells can't add +3 metarituals to a 4th level Ritual. Even if he has -6 Metarituals)

All magic-users would have a pool of mana that regenerates over days to be used for Rituals, or to power weak combat-magic in case they run out of normal spells.

Additionally the Caster Level of the Ritualist might even reduce the money expended or time taken, to represent the skill of the Ritualist.


I just solved the Wizards lack of options if they run out of daily spells and made utility magic viable :smallamused:
Assuming they dont make things take too long/cost too much sigh

Morty
2012-12-28, 07:07 AM
Well, there really isn't much of a point in using classes the way D&D does it. Most other ways of segregating character abilities are better. But D&D Next will do it, so there's not much point in discussing it.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-12-28, 11:29 AM
Well what's the reason for using a class system at all at this point? Wouldn't it be much better to use a point based system if you go that far. Since you already lost most of the benefits of the class based structure anyway.

It depends on how exactly you do the talents. The main reasons to have a class-based system over a points-based system are to have certain minimum competencies for everyone (base saves, BAB, etc.), to make certain abilities exclusive (fighters don't get wizard abilities and fighter/wizards trade away their higher-level abilities for the privilege), and to give each class a coherent identity and/or archetype (you should be able to hear "paladin" or "druid" and get an idea of what the class's theme is).

If talents are done in a SWSE style, where every class is just alternating talent-feat-talent-feat-etc., or like the 3e fighter with every class being nothing but feats, there's no reason to use classes for that. However, if it works more like the 3e ranger such that you have some set class features and some selectable features like animal companion vs. combat style, talents could work just fine. Now, that might mean you have very few classes, which 5e isn't necessarily aiming for, but that's essentially how 1e was set up (classes besides fighter/magic-user/thief/cleric were "as [parent class], plus these extra abilities") and it worked just fine.

Alejandro
2012-12-28, 12:38 PM
I would play the heck out of a D&D game using the Star Wars Saga Edition setup, and I have said so in my Next feedback reports. Saga is probably my favorite d20 game, and in our group's Saga game, every PC in the group, Jedi or not, is useful, able, and contributing, with no one overwhelming anyone else.

Morty
2012-12-28, 12:44 PM
I remember looking at Saga rules once and while they seemed fine, two problems from 3rd edition D&D seemed to be present there as well - namely, that ranged weapons aren't as effective as melee weapons (which is arguably an even worse flaw considering it's supposed to simulate Star Wars) and armor isn't terribly useful. It might have just been my impression, though.

Doug Lampert
2012-12-28, 12:46 PM
I remember looking at Saga rules once and while they seemed fine, two problems from 3rd edition D&D seemed to be present there as well - namely, that ranged weapons aren't as effective as melee weapons (which is arguably an even worse flaw considering it's supposed to simulate Star Wars) and armor isn't terribly useful. It might have just been my impression, though.

It's genre for almost all armor to suck in Star Wars. None of the heroes bother with it.

Similarly, the most effective weapon in genre is a lightsabre in the hands of a jedi or other properly trained character.

noparlpf
2012-12-28, 12:47 PM
I remember looking at Saga rules once and while they seemed fine, two problems from 3rd edition D&D seemed to be present there as well - namely, that ranged weapons aren't as effective as melee weapons (which is arguably an even worse flaw considering it's supposed to simulate Star Wars) and armor isn't terribly useful. It might have just been my impression, though.

In a system with lasers it makes some sense for armor to be less useful, but not for ranged weapons to suck.

Alejandro
2012-12-28, 12:54 PM
Well, I can comment on those.

Armor is better for lower level characters than higher level characters, because a PC normally gets to add either their character level or their armor bonus to their Reflex defense (the number attackers will try to hit with their blasters and lightsabers and such.) As you gain levels, armor becomes less useful because your character level begins to exceed it.

HOWEVER, there are Soldier talents a PC can take that allow them to use both their character level *and* some of their armor bonus at the same time. This results in characters who wear armor and benefit from it, they just had to make a small investment to do so. (Boba Fett is a great example.) Armor has other benefits, like boosting your Fortitude defense, making you immune or resistant to things like gas, radiation, vacuum, etc. Situational.

Melee and ranged have never had an issue in my game, but I could see it happening if the GM allowed people to make highly optimized specific builds. We have a Jedi PC who is very good at dishing out melee damage, a Wookiee PC that is even better at melee damage when raging (big surprise) and a Gunslinger PC with two heavy blaster pistols that does more damage than either of them can.

Morty
2012-12-28, 01:02 PM
Hm. Well, I guess armor not being useful does fit the genre... see also armored stormtroopers vs. unarmored good guys. :smalltongue: As for melee vs. ranged, I recall normal melee weapons being better than blasters much like melee weapons are better than ranged weapons in 3e D&D. But like I said, it's been a while and I didn't get too deep into the rules.

Alejandro
2012-12-28, 01:06 PM
You're probably thinking of the d20 Revised Star Wars game, not Saga that followed it.

Stormtroopers actually benefit from their armor in Saga, because the stormtrooper is very low level but their armor has a moderate bonus, so they get to use their bonus instead of their low level for their Reflex. It also makes them resistant to several things, like smoke and gas. The problem in A New Hope is, Han Solo is a 9th level PC fighting CL 1 stormtroopers. :D

Edit: As for melee vs ranged, let's assume two 6th level PCs, one with a lightsaber and the other with a heavy blaster pistol.

Lightsaber: 2d8 (lightsaber)+3(half their PC level)+STR bonus(or 2xSTR bonus, if they wield it two handed.)

Heavy blaster pistol: 3d8 (pistol)+3(half their PC level)

Depending on attributes and dice rolls, either can do more damage. Jedi have some Force powers that can make them do even more damage with a lightsaber, but they don't last forever. Blasters last until you have no more ammo. :)

obryn
2012-12-28, 01:12 PM
I remember looking at Saga rules once and while they seemed fine, two problems from 3rd edition D&D seemed to be present there as well - namely, that ranged weapons aren't as effective as melee weapons
The opposite is true, actually. Melee weapons (including lightsabers) are horrible for a few big reasons. The biggest is that they can't ever get their multi-attacks in because withdrawing from melee is super-easy and - unlike shooters - they need to stay in range.


and armor isn't terribly useful. It might have just been my impression, though.
Not for most PCs, which is largely genre-appropriate. Soldiers get some good perks in it, but need to focus on getting good at it.

IMO, the biggest, fatal flaw in SWSE was in the Force system. Seeds of a good idea, but the math is just broken as all hell because you're using a skill for an attack. (Also, Mind Trick bypasses all social encounters ever.)

The Condition Track was likewise a neat idea with some super-flawed execution if the PCs exploited it.

-O

Alejandro
2012-12-28, 01:17 PM
The opposite is true, actually. Melee weapons (including lightsabers) are horrible for a few big reasons the biggest is that they can't ever get their multi-attacks in because withdrawing from melee is super-easy and - unlike shooters - they need to stay in range.


Not for most PCs, which is largely genre-appropriate. Soldiers get some good perks in it, but need to focus on getting good at it.

IMO, the biggest, fatal flaw in SWSE was in the Force system. Seeds of a good idea, but the math is just broken as all hell because you're using a skill for an attack. (Also, Mind Trick bypasses all social encounters ever.)

The Condition Track was likewise a neat idea with some super-flawed execution if the PCs exploited it.

-O

1. You are entirely correct. However, a later book introduced talents and feats that make it much harder or impossible for enemies to withdraw from you. But, you are still right.

2. Yep.

3. Yes, basing it on a skill (Use the Force) does lead to big problems, the biggest one being level 1 PCs taking Skill Focus: Use the Force, which is very overpowered. I solved it (as many have) by restricting Skill Focus: Use the Force. In my campaign, you can't take that feat until you become a Jedi Knight or its level equivalent. That worked nicely, but I admit it required a house rule.

4. Yes, the condition track can be badly exploited. It's a neat idea in that you can defeat an enemy without grinding away all their HP, but you are right, PCs can badly exploit it (so can villains :) ) In my campaign, I just don't allow PCs to make condition track killer characters, and they agree.

obryn
2012-12-28, 01:24 PM
1. You are entirely correct. However, a later book introduced talents and feats that make it much harder or impossible for enemies to withdraw from you. But, you are still right.

2. Yep.

3. Yes, basing it on a skill (Use the Force) does lead to big problems, the biggest one being level 1 PCs taking Skill Focus: Use the Force, which is very overpowered. I solved it (as many have) by restricting Skill Focus: Use the Force. In my campaign, you can't take that feat until you become a Jedi Knight or its level equivalent. That worked nicely, but I admit it required a house rule.

4. Yes, the condition track can be badly exploited. It's a neat idea in that you can defeat an enemy without grinding away all their HP, but you are right, PCs can badly exploit it (so can villains :) ) In my campaign, I just don't allow PCs to make condition track killer characters, and they agree.
Yeah, I think SWSE is largely fixable, but IMO three things need to happen.

(1) A healthy dose of a 4e-style instead of a 3e-style action economy. Eliminate full-round actions as a "thing" entirely, because Star Wars combat should be fluid.

(2) Make it more difficult withdrawal from melee. Again, I think the 4e shift-1-as-your-move would be suitable here.

(3) Re-figure Use the Force as an attack. Give all PCs +1/level in it. This puts it on par with everything else. The specific DCs within the various Force Powers would need to be tinkered-with, too. Simply restricting Skill Focus to higher levels isn't sufficient because UtF will still remain better than attack rolls through the lowest levels when (IMO) lightsaber combat is more genre-appropriate.

This is kind of a minimum, mind you. :smallsmile:

-O

Morty
2012-12-28, 01:32 PM
You're probably thinking of the d20 Revised Star Wars game, not Saga that followed it.

Stormtroopers actually benefit from their armor in Saga, because the stormtrooper is very low level but their armor has a moderate bonus, so they get to use their bonus instead of their low level for their Reflex. It also makes them resistant to several things, like smoke and gas. The problem in A New Hope is, Han Solo is a 9th level PC fighting CL 1 stormtroopers. :D

Edit: As for melee vs ranged, let's assume two 6th level PCs, one with a lightsaber and the other with a heavy blaster pistol.

Lightsaber: 2d8 (lightsaber)+3(half their PC level)+STR bonus(or 2xSTR bonus, if they wield it two handed.)

Heavy blaster pistol: 3d8 (pistol)+3(half their PC level)

Depending on attributes and dice rolls, either can do more damage. Jedi have some Force powers that can make them do even more damage with a lightsaber, but they don't last forever. Blasters last until you have no more ammo. :)

No, I'm definetly thinking of SW Saga. I'm just misremembering things because I read it long ago.

Turalisj
2012-12-28, 01:45 PM
Edit: As for melee vs ranged, let's assume two 6th level PCs, one with a lightsaber and the other with a heavy blaster pistol.

Lightsaber: 2d8 (lightsaber)+3(half their PC level)+STR bonus(or 2xSTR bonus, if they wield it two handed.)

Heavy blaster pistol: 3d8 (pistol)+3(half their PC level)

Depending on attributes and dice rolls, either can do more damage. Jedi have some Force powers that can make them do even more damage with a lightsaber, but they don't last forever. Blasters last until you have no more ammo. :)

No +half PC level. The errata changed some things around. Option before Errata was to just shoot everyone with the stun setting on, then execute/kick out the airlock.

Alejandro
2012-12-28, 01:51 PM
No +half PC level. The errata changed some things around. Option before Errata was to just shoot everyone with the stun setting on, then execute/kick out the airlock.

I have never seen errata removing the half-level bonus to damage on weapons. This is the errata I have:

http://www.beardeddork.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/SAGA-EDITION-Star-Wars-RPG-Errata.pdf

And I don't see anything about that in there. If I am missing something, please refer me to it.

Rixx
2012-12-28, 03:30 PM
I've written an article about D&D Next and my thoughts on Combat Expertise. You can read the article on Critical Wits here: http://criticalwits.info/2012/12/27/article-dd-next-an-alternative-to-combat-expertise/

I will also paste the text of the article in this post!


Note: This article is aimed primarily at people who have participated in the The D&D Next Playtest. If you haven’t seen it yet, check it out! Furthermore, I refer to “expertise dice” a lot in this article - the current version of the playtest refers to this mechanic as “martial damage dice”. This mechanic was originally called “expertise dice” upon introduction, and the basics of the mechanic haven’t changed, so I use the phrases interchangeably.

The newest D&D Next playtest packet is upon us, and it looks like it’s going to be the last one we get for a while! A dearth of new material doesn’t sound like good news, but I’m sure I’m not the only one taking this opportunity to really delve into the system and start picking it apart. I’ve had a chance to run the game in actual play and I’ve pored over the rules quite a bit, and while this version of the game is much improved over the last playtest packet, there are still a lot of rough edges that need smoothing, nearly all of which have to do with “martial” classes and how their damage scales upwards as they gain levels.

Of course, I’m not writing this article to mudsling for negativity’s sake - I think the spellcasters are handled perfectly so far and the base game is as solid as ever. I’m also not merely going to point out what is wrong without offering solutions - I have solutions, solutions that I think are good ones, and that’s why I got excited enough to share them that I wrote this whole article! But before I can delve into those solutions, I’m going to have to go into what I believe the problems are.

Expertise dice (or “martial damage dice”, as they are currently known) are a feature of Combat Expertise, a class feature gained by all weapon-using or “martial” classes, like fighters, rogues, monks, and to some extent, clerics. The gist of it is that you get a small “pool” of dice you can spend on extra weapon damage, and the pool replenishes at the start of your turn each round. Depending on your class abilities, you can also spend them on “maneuvers” to trade out the extra damage for other effects, like reducing incoming damage, instilling harmful conditions on your opponents, and so on.

They were introduced as a unique game mechanic for fighters, but proved popular enough that the designers decided to try giving them to all weapon-using classes. The current iteration of the game re-frames the mechanic as analogous to 3rd edition’s “base attack bonus” - that is, a representation of any martial combat character getting better at their craft. Currently, only classes that are expected to fight with weapons get this feature (which is all of them but the wizard, as of the current packet). While this sounds pretty okay on paper, it’s presented a lot of challenges and problems.
The Problem
Firstly, your choice of weapon now ceases to be meaningful once you reach mid-levels. One of the differences between different weapons is their damage die - a spear, for example, does 1d6 damage, while a greatsword does 1d12. Martial weapons tend to do more damage than basic weapons, finesse weapons do less damage than their non-finesse counterparts, and two-handed weapons do more damage than one-handed weapons. This is a series of checks and balances meant to incentivize certain play types - for example, fighters get access to more damaging weapons than wizards do, and players who focus on strength in lieu of dexterity get more damaging weapons to make up for their lack of mobility.

However, all of these balancing factors go out the window when you reach higher levels, and your weapon contributes only a small portion of your total damage each round. Take, for example, this graph comparing the average attack damage of two otherwise identical fighters - a dagger user and a greatsword user - at level 1, as compared to level 10:

http://criticalwits.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/DnDWeaponChart.png

Keep in mind, this is the difference between the most damaging and least damaging weapons in the game. At 1st level, the greatsword provides 40% more damage than the dagger - by level 10, this increase has shrunk to only 13%. For all intents and purposes, their output becomes just about level. Perhaps what is most dangerous about this decrease is that two-handed weapons become unattractive relatively quickly, and using your free hand for two-weapon fighting or a shield becomes a better option once expertise dice crowd out your choice of weapon as a damage source.

Secondly, “combat expertise” as it exists now is too complex of a mechanic to be a universal feature of the game. When you roll your damage dice, it becomes important to keep track of which of your dice originate from your weapon and which of them are expertise/martial damage dice, as you can only use your expertise dice once per round. As it’s possible under some circumstances to use abilities linked to your expertise dice when it isn’t your turn, or to make multiple attacks, it becomes more important to track which ones are being spent.

If this were the defining feature of a class, as it was when it was introduced as a fighter-only option, this wouldn’t be too much of an issue. Every class has to keep track of something - typically spells or another sort of resource. However, expertise dice are now being used as a feature of almost every class in the game, and now different classes are being differentiated by other means as well. This has made the complexity of playing as warrior characters skyrocket upwards.

Thirdly, the fighter is now back to lacking a distinctive mechanic or playstyle. Maneuvers are now accessible to multiple classes - the only thing that differentiates fighters from the other warrior classes are the number of maneuvers they get and what maneuvers they have access to. The “parry” maneuver has been repositioned as a unique fighter-only mechanic, but it still works almost exactly as if it were just another maneuver. Even worse, now that expertise dice are depicted as being base damage rather than extra damage, fighters have lost their throne as the most deadly class, as all of their abilities require them to give up damage from their attacks.

Lastly, the distinction between maneuvers for certain classes - as well as the distinction between maneuvers and feats - has become completely arbitrary. Abilities have jumped back and forth from being feats (at-will abilities accessible to any class) and maneuvers (class-restricted abilities powered by expertise/martial damage dice), and there doesn’t seem to be much rhyme or reason between why only fighters can, say, perform a “spring attack”, while a member of any class can use the “cleave” ability. Maneuvers are also restricted to class-based lists (like spells are), where the distinction again seems arbitrary - only monks, for example, can perform a “controlled fall” to reduce falling damage, while fighters alone can “lunge” and increase their reach. This just raises further questions - why can’t a rogue control his or her fall? Why can’t monks lunge forward with a quarterstaff? This conflict is something that’s always been at odds with the idea of fighters having their own distinct game mechanic, and it’s beginning to rear its ugly head once again.

These are problems that have their origin with design challenges plaguing Dungeons & Dragons since the game’s early iterations. How can this be fixed? How can you have a simple mechanic for damage that takes into account your weapon choice, scales with level, is simple enough for all classes to share, and still leave fighters with something unique?
The Solution
My proposed solution is to get rid of per-round expertise/”martial damage dice” as a core feature of combat classes and instead scale base damage for warrior classes by adding extra weapon damage dice that aren’t tracked from round to round. These extra weapon dice become the “base” damage for warrior classes, while “extra” damage now comes from unique class-specific game mechanics.

Under this system, instead of gaining “martial damage dice”, warrior characters instead, as they level up, roll multiples of the damage dice of their weapon with every single weapon attack - no tracking the spending or acquisition of these dice whatsoever. This solves the problem of weapon choice no longer mattering at certain levels - the size of your weapon’s damage die remains a significant portion of your damage output, making the choice between a heavy-hitting two hander or a light, finesse-ready short sword and shield a meaningful one. It also solves the problem of combat expertise being a complicated mechanic shared by multiple classes, as applying extra weapon damage dice to every attack requires no tracking whatsoever.

From here, we can start giving classes simple and unique extra damage mechanics. Keep in mind, these are “extra” damage abilities, not “base” damage - a character doesn’t need a unique extra damage mechanic to be able to make a meaningful impact on a fight - so weapon-using characters like bards, clerics, and non-sneak-attacking rogues can still contribute to fights without having an extra damage ability.

Rogues, like the current playtest packet, can have sneak attack as an option that allows them to double their weapon damage dice when attacking with advantage, but still have the option of playing more “tricky” or defensively by taking one of the alternatives to sneak attack presented. Rangers might have their extra damage come from a third edition-style “favored enemy” ability, letting them do more damage against their preferred prey, or might have a fourth edition-style “quarry” ability that lets them designate a single target. Barbarians may have a ferocious “rage” ability that gives them extra damage at the expense of their own defense and control. All of these are things that can be easily stacked on top of gaining extra weapon damage dice as a core feature of all warrior classes.

So where does that leave the fighter? Simple: keep combat expertise and expertise dice as a fighter-only mechanic that makes up a smaller portion of their total damage output. While some other classes have to “work” for their extra damage, activating some special ability or attacking under certain circumstances, giving the fighter extra damage on every attack regardless of circumstances plays into their role as masters of combat techniques.

From here, there’s two more steps to eliminate the arbitrary distinction between feats and class-based maneuvers: first, eliminate “maneuvers” from the game, re-imagining them as feats. This way, special combat maneuvers and abilities become accessible to everyone who has the gumption to master the technique. Fighters can be kept unique by allowing them to gain certain “combat” related feats for free as part of their fighting style class feature, and giving fighters (and only fighters) the unique ability to spend expertise dice to “enhance” the effects of certain combat-related feats in a way that characters of other classes cannot.

For example, let’s take a combat related feat that exists in the game currently: “Shift”, available to the “Skirmisher” specialty. “Shift” is an ability any character can gain, and it allows a character to move without provoking attacks from enemies, as long as their movement is restricted to only five feet. Under this new system I propose, a mobile fighter could gain the “Shift” feat from their fighting style, and also gain the ability to spend their expertise dice to increase the distance they can move while using it - say five extra feet per die spent.

Going the other way, let’s take an ability that’s currently only expressed as a fighter-only maneuver - in this case, “Lunge” - and make it into a feat anyone can take. As it exists, “Lunge” allows you to spend a single expertise die to increase the reach of your attacks by five feet for one round. We can imagine this as a feat anyone can take and use - say, you can increase your attack reach by five feet, but you have disadvantage from the attack. Now, we can have the “lunge” feat as an option the fighter can select and enhance with combat expertise, spending an expertise die to negate the disadvantage. The overall theme here regarding special combat techniques is along the lines of “anyone can do it, but the fighter can do it better” by using expertise dice.

So, there you have it - something that is simple and universal, which eliminates arbitrary limitations on who can pick what abilities while still giving the fighter something unique and special. I believe that moving to a similar system to this would be a good direction for the game to go - if you agree with me, please spread this article around and mention these ideas in playtest feedback surveys! If you don’t agree, or if you have ideas of your own, feel free to share your own solutions in the comments section or send an e-mail regarding this article to [email protected]!

In the coming weeks, I am likely going to be devising a play-testable modification of the game that uses these suggestions and seeing how they work in play. If they work out all right, I’ll release them in some form for you to try out in your own games - let me know if this is something you’ll be interested in!

Remember, D&D Next can’t be the best edition of D&D yet without your help! Remember to participate in the playtests and keep taking the surveys!


Mike Mearls has seen the article and said that I bring up some good points. Let me know what you think!

navar100
2012-12-28, 03:39 PM
Lightsaber: 2d8 (lightsaber)+3(half their PC level)+STR bonus(or 2xSTR bonus, if they wield it two handed.)

Heavy blaster pistol: 3d8 (pistol)+3(half their PC level)

Depending on attributes and dice rolls, either can do more damage. Jedi have some Force powers that can make them do even more damage with a lightsaber, but they don't last forever. Blasters last until you have no more ammo. :)

I have a hunch the reason blaster deal more damage than lightsabers is to encourage players not to always play Luke Skywalker. Star Wars is not all about the Force. :smallsmile:

Alejandro
2012-12-28, 03:59 PM
I have a hunch the reason blaster deal more damage than lightsabers is to encourage players not to always play Luke Skywalker. Star Wars is not all about the Force. :smallsmile:

Kind of. I gave a basic example. Someone who was trying to could build a Jedi who is an absolute monster with the lightsaber (like Mace Windu.) There are Force powers, like Battle Strike, that let you add large amounts of extra damage, and there are lightsaber forms that add more. Plus weapon specialization: lightsabers, taking the Duelist prestige class, and so on. It also helps that the Jedi can add double their STR modifier to a lightsaber, and blasters don't get attribute bonus damage.

Conversely, you can also build a blaster using character that dishes out horrific damage, especially if you go for the Gunslinger prestige class. Han Solo has it (and Ace Pilot.) Jedi can actually dish out more raw punishment with their Force powers than their lightsabers, but their lightsabers don't run out (Force powers are treated like encounter spells, but there are far more ways to refresh them.)

Morty
2012-12-28, 04:02 PM
I've written an article about D&D Next and my thoughts on Combat Expertise. You can read the article on Critical Wits here: http://criticalwits.info/2012/12/27/article-dd-next-an-alternative-to-combat-expertise/

I will also paste the text of the article in this post!


Note: This article is aimed primarily at people who have participated in the The D&D Next Playtest. If you haven’t seen it yet, check it out! Furthermore, I refer to “expertise dice” a lot in this article - the current version of the playtest refers to this mechanic as “martial damage dice”. This mechanic was originally called “expertise dice” upon introduction, and the basics of the mechanic haven’t changed, so I use the phrases interchangeably.

The newest D&D Next playtest packet is upon us, and it looks like it’s going to be the last one we get for a while! A dearth of new material doesn’t sound like good news, but I’m sure I’m not the only one taking this opportunity to really delve into the system and start picking it apart. I’ve had a chance to run the game in actual play and I’ve pored over the rules quite a bit, and while this version of the game is much improved over the last playtest packet, there are still a lot of rough edges that need smoothing, nearly all of which have to do with “martial” classes and how their damage scales upwards as they gain levels.

Of course, I’m not writing this article to mudsling for negativity’s sake - I think the spellcasters are handled perfectly so far and the base game is as solid as ever. I’m also not merely going to point out what is wrong without offering solutions - I have solutions, solutions that I think are good ones, and that’s why I got excited enough to share them that I wrote this whole article! But before I can delve into those solutions, I’m going to have to go into what I believe the problems are.

Expertise dice (or “martial damage dice”, as they are currently known) are a feature of Combat Expertise, a class feature gained by all weapon-using or “martial” classes, like fighters, rogues, monks, and to some extent, clerics. The gist of it is that you get a small “pool” of dice you can spend on extra weapon damage, and the pool replenishes at the start of your turn each round. Depending on your class abilities, you can also spend them on “maneuvers” to trade out the extra damage for other effects, like reducing incoming damage, instilling harmful conditions on your opponents, and so on.

They were introduced as a unique game mechanic for fighters, but proved popular enough that the designers decided to try giving them to all weapon-using classes. The current iteration of the game re-frames the mechanic as analogous to 3rd edition’s “base attack bonus” - that is, a representation of any martial combat character getting better at their craft. Currently, only classes that are expected to fight with weapons get this feature (which is all of them but the wizard, as of the current packet). While this sounds pretty okay on paper, it’s presented a lot of challenges and problems.
The Problem
Firstly, your choice of weapon now ceases to be meaningful once you reach mid-levels. One of the differences between different weapons is their damage die - a spear, for example, does 1d6 damage, while a greatsword does 1d12. Martial weapons tend to do more damage than basic weapons, finesse weapons do less damage than their non-finesse counterparts, and two-handed weapons do more damage than one-handed weapons. This is a series of checks and balances meant to incentivize certain play types - for example, fighters get access to more damaging weapons than wizards do, and players who focus on strength in lieu of dexterity get more damaging weapons to make up for their lack of mobility.

However, all of these balancing factors go out the window when you reach higher levels, and your weapon contributes only a small portion of your total damage each round. Take, for example, this graph comparing the average attack damage of two otherwise identical fighters - a dagger user and a greatsword user - at level 1, as compared to level 10:

http://criticalwits.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/DnDWeaponChart.png

Keep in mind, this is the difference between the most damaging and least damaging weapons in the game. At 1st level, the greatsword provides 40% more damage than the dagger - by level 10, this increase has shrunk to only 13%. For all intents and purposes, their output becomes just about level. Perhaps what is most dangerous about this decrease is that two-handed weapons become unattractive relatively quickly, and using your free hand for two-weapon fighting or a shield becomes a better option once expertise dice crowd out your choice of weapon as a damage source.

Secondly, “combat expertise” as it exists now is too complex of a mechanic to be a universal feature of the game. When you roll your damage dice, it becomes important to keep track of which of your dice originate from your weapon and which of them are expertise/martial damage dice, as you can only use your expertise dice once per round. As it’s possible under some circumstances to use abilities linked to your expertise dice when it isn’t your turn, or to make multiple attacks, it becomes more important to track which ones are being spent.

If this were the defining feature of a class, as it was when it was introduced as a fighter-only option, this wouldn’t be too much of an issue. Every class has to keep track of something - typically spells or another sort of resource. However, expertise dice are now being used as a feature of almost every class in the game, and now different classes are being differentiated by other means as well. This has made the complexity of playing as warrior characters skyrocket upwards.

Thirdly, the fighter is now back to lacking a distinctive mechanic or playstyle. Maneuvers are now accessible to multiple classes - the only thing that differentiates fighters from the other warrior classes are the number of maneuvers they get and what maneuvers they have access to. The “parry” maneuver has been repositioned as a unique fighter-only mechanic, but it still works almost exactly as if it were just another maneuver. Even worse, now that expertise dice are depicted as being base damage rather than extra damage, fighters have lost their throne as the most deadly class, as all of their abilities require them to give up damage from their attacks.

Lastly, the distinction between maneuvers for certain classes - as well as the distinction between maneuvers and feats - has become completely arbitrary. Abilities have jumped back and forth from being feats (at-will abilities accessible to any class) and maneuvers (class-restricted abilities powered by expertise/martial damage dice), and there doesn’t seem to be much rhyme or reason between why only fighters can, say, perform a “spring attack”, while a member of any class can use the “cleave” ability. Maneuvers are also restricted to class-based lists (like spells are), where the distinction again seems arbitrary - only monks, for example, can perform a “controlled fall” to reduce falling damage, while fighters alone can “lunge” and increase their reach. This just raises further questions - why can’t a rogue control his or her fall? Why can’t monks lunge forward with a quarterstaff? This conflict is something that’s always been at odds with the idea of fighters having their own distinct game mechanic, and it’s beginning to rear its ugly head once again.

These are problems that have their origin with design challenges plaguing Dungeons & Dragons since the game’s early iterations. How can this be fixed? How can you have a simple mechanic for damage that takes into account your weapon choice, scales with level, is simple enough for all classes to share, and still leave fighters with something unique?
The Solution
My proposed solution is to get rid of per-round expertise/”martial damage dice” as a core feature of combat classes and instead scale base damage for warrior classes by adding extra weapon damage dice that aren’t tracked from round to round. These extra weapon dice become the “base” damage for warrior classes, while “extra” damage now comes from unique class-specific game mechanics.

Under this system, instead of gaining “martial damage dice”, warrior characters instead, as they level up, roll multiples of the damage dice of their weapon with every single weapon attack - no tracking the spending or acquisition of these dice whatsoever. This solves the problem of weapon choice no longer mattering at certain levels - the size of your weapon’s damage die remains a significant portion of your damage output, making the choice between a heavy-hitting two hander or a light, finesse-ready short sword and shield a meaningful one. It also solves the problem of combat expertise being a complicated mechanic shared by multiple classes, as applying extra weapon damage dice to every attack requires no tracking whatsoever.

From here, we can start giving classes simple and unique extra damage mechanics. Keep in mind, these are “extra” damage abilities, not “base” damage - a character doesn’t need a unique extra damage mechanic to be able to make a meaningful impact on a fight - so weapon-using characters like bards, clerics, and non-sneak-attacking rogues can still contribute to fights without having an extra damage ability.

Rogues, like the current playtest packet, can have sneak attack as an option that allows them to double their weapon damage dice when attacking with advantage, but still have the option of playing more “tricky” or defensively by taking one of the alternatives to sneak attack presented. Rangers might have their extra damage come from a third edition-style “favored enemy” ability, letting them do more damage against their preferred prey, or might have a fourth edition-style “quarry” ability that lets them designate a single target. Barbarians may have a ferocious “rage” ability that gives them extra damage at the expense of their own defense and control. All of these are things that can be easily stacked on top of gaining extra weapon damage dice as a core feature of all warrior classes.

So where does that leave the fighter? Simple: keep combat expertise and expertise dice as a fighter-only mechanic that makes up a smaller portion of their total damage output. While some other classes have to “work” for their extra damage, activating some special ability or attacking under certain circumstances, giving the fighter extra damage on every attack regardless of circumstances plays into their role as masters of combat techniques.

From here, there’s two more steps to eliminate the arbitrary distinction between feats and class-based maneuvers: first, eliminate “maneuvers” from the game, re-imagining them as feats. This way, special combat maneuvers and abilities become accessible to everyone who has the gumption to master the technique. Fighters can be kept unique by allowing them to gain certain “combat” related feats for free as part of their fighting style class feature, and giving fighters (and only fighters) the unique ability to spend expertise dice to “enhance” the effects of certain combat-related feats in a way that characters of other classes cannot.

For example, let’s take a combat related feat that exists in the game currently: “Shift”, available to the “Skirmisher” specialty. “Shift” is an ability any character can gain, and it allows a character to move without provoking attacks from enemies, as long as their movement is restricted to only five feet. Under this new system I propose, a mobile fighter could gain the “Shift” feat from their fighting style, and also gain the ability to spend their expertise dice to increase the distance they can move while using it - say five extra feet per die spent.

Going the other way, let’s take an ability that’s currently only expressed as a fighter-only maneuver - in this case, “Lunge” - and make it into a feat anyone can take. As it exists, “Lunge” allows you to spend a single expertise die to increase the reach of your attacks by five feet for one round. We can imagine this as a feat anyone can take and use - say, you can increase your attack reach by five feet, but you have disadvantage from the attack. Now, we can have the “lunge” feat as an option the fighter can select and enhance with combat expertise, spending an expertise die to negate the disadvantage. The overall theme here regarding special combat techniques is along the lines of “anyone can do it, but the fighter can do it better” by using expertise dice.

So, there you have it - something that is simple and universal, which eliminates arbitrary limitations on who can pick what abilities while still giving the fighter something unique and special. I believe that moving to a similar system to this would be a good direction for the game to go - if you agree with me, please spread this article around and mention these ideas in playtest feedback surveys! If you don’t agree, or if you have ideas of your own, feel free to share your own solutions in the comments section or send an e-mail regarding this article to [email protected]!

In the coming weeks, I am likely going to be devising a play-testable modification of the game that uses these suggestions and seeing how they work in play. If they work out all right, I’ll release them in some form for you to try out in your own games - let me know if this is something you’ll be interested in!

Remember, D&D Next can’t be the best edition of D&D yet without your help! Remember to participate in the playtests and keep taking the surveys!


Mike Mearls has seen the article and said that I bring up some good points. Let me know what you think!

I think this is a pretty good article, but I'd like to note one thing regarding weapon damage dice. Namely that there's nothing wrong with packing the biggest, heaviest weapon available not always being the best option for warriors. Of course, the situation in which your choice of weapon is mostly irrelevant is just as bad.
Mind you, I don't think a difference in die size is enough of a differentiation between weapons. It tends not to be terribly relevant either, since most of your damage will come from various modifiers.

Draz74
2012-12-28, 05:25 PM
Well, there really isn't much of a point in using classes the way D&D does it. Most other ways of segregating character abilities are better. But D&D Next will do it, so there's not much point in discussing it.
At least not in this thread, no. :smallsmile:


I've written an article about D&D Next and my thoughts on Combat Expertise. You can read the article on Critical Wits here: http://criticalwits.info/2012/12/27/article-dd-next-an-alternative-to-combat-expertise/

I will also paste the text of the article in this post!


Note: This article is aimed primarily at people who have participated in the The D&D Next Playtest. If you haven’t seen it yet, check it out! Furthermore, I refer to “expertise dice” a lot in this article - the current version of the playtest refers to this mechanic as “martial damage dice”. This mechanic was originally called “expertise dice” upon introduction, and the basics of the mechanic haven’t changed, so I use the phrases interchangeably.

The newest D&D Next playtest packet is upon us, and it looks like it’s going to be the last one we get for a while! A dearth of new material doesn’t sound like good news, but I’m sure I’m not the only one taking this opportunity to really delve into the system and start picking it apart. I’ve had a chance to run the game in actual play and I’ve pored over the rules quite a bit, and while this version of the game is much improved over the last playtest packet, there are still a lot of rough edges that need smoothing, nearly all of which have to do with “martial” classes and how their damage scales upwards as they gain levels.

Of course, I’m not writing this article to mudsling for negativity’s sake - I think the spellcasters are handled perfectly so far and the base game is as solid as ever. I’m also not merely going to point out what is wrong without offering solutions - I have solutions, solutions that I think are good ones, and that’s why I got excited enough to share them that I wrote this whole article! But before I can delve into those solutions, I’m going to have to go into what I believe the problems are.

Expertise dice (or “martial damage dice”, as they are currently known) are a feature of Combat Expertise, a class feature gained by all weapon-using or “martial” classes, like fighters, rogues, monks, and to some extent, clerics. The gist of it is that you get a small “pool” of dice you can spend on extra weapon damage, and the pool replenishes at the start of your turn each round. Depending on your class abilities, you can also spend them on “maneuvers” to trade out the extra damage for other effects, like reducing incoming damage, instilling harmful conditions on your opponents, and so on.

They were introduced as a unique game mechanic for fighters, but proved popular enough that the designers decided to try giving them to all weapon-using classes. The current iteration of the game re-frames the mechanic as analogous to 3rd edition’s “base attack bonus” - that is, a representation of any martial combat character getting better at their craft. Currently, only classes that are expected to fight with weapons get this feature (which is all of them but the wizard, as of the current packet). While this sounds pretty okay on paper, it’s presented a lot of challenges and problems.
The Problem
Firstly, your choice of weapon now ceases to be meaningful once you reach mid-levels. One of the differences between different weapons is their damage die - a spear, for example, does 1d6 damage, while a greatsword does 1d12. Martial weapons tend to do more damage than basic weapons, finesse weapons do less damage than their non-finesse counterparts, and two-handed weapons do more damage than one-handed weapons. This is a series of checks and balances meant to incentivize certain play types - for example, fighters get access to more damaging weapons than wizards do, and players who focus on strength in lieu of dexterity get more damaging weapons to make up for their lack of mobility.

However, all of these balancing factors go out the window when you reach higher levels, and your weapon contributes only a small portion of your total damage each round. Take, for example, this graph comparing the average attack damage of two otherwise identical fighters - a dagger user and a greatsword user - at level 1, as compared to level 10:

http://criticalwits.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/DnDWeaponChart.png

Keep in mind, this is the difference between the most damaging and least damaging weapons in the game. At 1st level, the greatsword provides 40% more damage than the dagger - by level 10, this increase has shrunk to only 13%. For all intents and purposes, their output becomes just about level. Perhaps what is most dangerous about this decrease is that two-handed weapons become unattractive relatively quickly, and using your free hand for two-weapon fighting or a shield becomes a better option once expertise dice crowd out your choice of weapon as a damage source.

Secondly, “combat expertise” as it exists now is too complex of a mechanic to be a universal feature of the game. When you roll your damage dice, it becomes important to keep track of which of your dice originate from your weapon and which of them are expertise/martial damage dice, as you can only use your expertise dice once per round. As it’s possible under some circumstances to use abilities linked to your expertise dice when it isn’t your turn, or to make multiple attacks, it becomes more important to track which ones are being spent.

If this were the defining feature of a class, as it was when it was introduced as a fighter-only option, this wouldn’t be too much of an issue. Every class has to keep track of something - typically spells or another sort of resource. However, expertise dice are now being used as a feature of almost every class in the game, and now different classes are being differentiated by other means as well. This has made the complexity of playing as warrior characters skyrocket upwards.

Thirdly, the fighter is now back to lacking a distinctive mechanic or playstyle. Maneuvers are now accessible to multiple classes - the only thing that differentiates fighters from the other warrior classes are the number of maneuvers they get and what maneuvers they have access to. The “parry” maneuver has been repositioned as a unique fighter-only mechanic, but it still works almost exactly as if it were just another maneuver. Even worse, now that expertise dice are depicted as being base damage rather than extra damage, fighters have lost their throne as the most deadly class, as all of their abilities require them to give up damage from their attacks.

Lastly, the distinction between maneuvers for certain classes - as well as the distinction between maneuvers and feats - has become completely arbitrary. Abilities have jumped back and forth from being feats (at-will abilities accessible to any class) and maneuvers (class-restricted abilities powered by expertise/martial damage dice), and there doesn’t seem to be much rhyme or reason between why only fighters can, say, perform a “spring attack”, while a member of any class can use the “cleave” ability. Maneuvers are also restricted to class-based lists (like spells are), where the distinction again seems arbitrary - only monks, for example, can perform a “controlled fall” to reduce falling damage, while fighters alone can “lunge” and increase their reach. This just raises further questions - why can’t a rogue control his or her fall? Why can’t monks lunge forward with a quarterstaff? This conflict is something that’s always been at odds with the idea of fighters having their own distinct game mechanic, and it’s beginning to rear its ugly head once again.

These are problems that have their origin with design challenges plaguing Dungeons & Dragons since the game’s early iterations. How can this be fixed? How can you have a simple mechanic for damage that takes into account your weapon choice, scales with level, is simple enough for all classes to share, and still leave fighters with something unique?
The Solution
My proposed solution is to get rid of per-round expertise/”martial damage dice” as a core feature of combat classes and instead scale base damage for warrior classes by adding extra weapon damage dice that aren’t tracked from round to round. These extra weapon dice become the “base” damage for warrior classes, while “extra” damage now comes from unique class-specific game mechanics.

Under this system, instead of gaining “martial damage dice”, warrior characters instead, as they level up, roll multiples of the damage dice of their weapon with every single weapon attack - no tracking the spending or acquisition of these dice whatsoever. This solves the problem of weapon choice no longer mattering at certain levels - the size of your weapon’s damage die remains a significant portion of your damage output, making the choice between a heavy-hitting two hander or a light, finesse-ready short sword and shield a meaningful one. It also solves the problem of combat expertise being a complicated mechanic shared by multiple classes, as applying extra weapon damage dice to every attack requires no tracking whatsoever.

From here, we can start giving classes simple and unique extra damage mechanics. Keep in mind, these are “extra” damage abilities, not “base” damage - a character doesn’t need a unique extra damage mechanic to be able to make a meaningful impact on a fight - so weapon-using characters like bards, clerics, and non-sneak-attacking rogues can still contribute to fights without having an extra damage ability.

Rogues, like the current playtest packet, can have sneak attack as an option that allows them to double their weapon damage dice when attacking with advantage, but still have the option of playing more “tricky” or defensively by taking one of the alternatives to sneak attack presented. Rangers might have their extra damage come from a third edition-style “favored enemy” ability, letting them do more damage against their preferred prey, or might have a fourth edition-style “quarry” ability that lets them designate a single target. Barbarians may have a ferocious “rage” ability that gives them extra damage at the expense of their own defense and control. All of these are things that can be easily stacked on top of gaining extra weapon damage dice as a core feature of all warrior classes.

So where does that leave the fighter? Simple: keep combat expertise and expertise dice as a fighter-only mechanic that makes up a smaller portion of their total damage output. While some other classes have to “work” for their extra damage, activating some special ability or attacking under certain circumstances, giving the fighter extra damage on every attack regardless of circumstances plays into their role as masters of combat techniques.

From here, there’s two more steps to eliminate the arbitrary distinction between feats and class-based maneuvers: first, eliminate “maneuvers” from the game, re-imagining them as feats. This way, special combat maneuvers and abilities become accessible to everyone who has the gumption to master the technique. Fighters can be kept unique by allowing them to gain certain “combat” related feats for free as part of their fighting style class feature, and giving fighters (and only fighters) the unique ability to spend expertise dice to “enhance” the effects of certain combat-related feats in a way that characters of other classes cannot.

For example, let’s take a combat related feat that exists in the game currently: “Shift”, available to the “Skirmisher” specialty. “Shift” is an ability any character can gain, and it allows a character to move without provoking attacks from enemies, as long as their movement is restricted to only five feet. Under this new system I propose, a mobile fighter could gain the “Shift” feat from their fighting style, and also gain the ability to spend their expertise dice to increase the distance they can move while using it - say five extra feet per die spent.

Going the other way, let’s take an ability that’s currently only expressed as a fighter-only maneuver - in this case, “Lunge” - and make it into a feat anyone can take. As it exists, “Lunge” allows you to spend a single expertise die to increase the reach of your attacks by five feet for one round. We can imagine this as a feat anyone can take and use - say, you can increase your attack reach by five feet, but you have disadvantage from the attack. Now, we can have the “lunge” feat as an option the fighter can select and enhance with combat expertise, spending an expertise die to negate the disadvantage. The overall theme here regarding special combat techniques is along the lines of “anyone can do it, but the fighter can do it better” by using expertise dice.

So, there you have it - something that is simple and universal, which eliminates arbitrary limitations on who can pick what abilities while still giving the fighter something unique and special. I believe that moving to a similar system to this would be a good direction for the game to go - if you agree with me, please spread this article around and mention these ideas in playtest feedback surveys! If you don’t agree, or if you have ideas of your own, feel free to share your own solutions in the comments section or send an e-mail regarding this article to [email protected]!

In the coming weeks, I am likely going to be devising a play-testable modification of the game that uses these suggestions and seeing how they work in play. If they work out all right, I’ll release them in some form for you to try out in your own games - let me know if this is something you’ll be interested in!

Remember, D&D Next can’t be the best edition of D&D yet without your help! Remember to participate in the playtests and keep taking the surveys!


Mike Mearls has seen the article and said that I bring up some good points. Let me know what you think!

Good points indeed. If Next ends up being a decent game, it will be because of intelligent feedback like this that manages to correct some of the dumber errors from the Design Team, without going overboard trying to change the basics of how the game works.

Treblain
2012-12-28, 05:35 PM
Yeah, the weapon dice issue is going to be a problem, especially if the majority of classes will have expertise dice and bonus damage. I loved how 4e's approach with dealing #[W] damage. I don't care if giving fighters +20 damage as they level is what's needed to make the numbers work. While every edition deals with this problem in some way or another, this draws attention to the issue, and players will see it as haphazard and lazy. I really hope they don't stick with this approach for long, or at least do something with weapon categories via maneuvers so 2-handers are distinguishable from daggers.

noparlpf
2012-12-28, 05:39 PM
I've written an article about D&D Next and my thoughts on Combat Expertise. You can read the article on Critical Wits here: http://criticalwits.info/2012/12/27/article-dd-next-an-alternative-to-combat-expertise/

I will also paste the text of the article in this post!


Note: This article is aimed primarily at people who have participated in the The D&D Next Playtest. If you haven’t seen it yet, check it out! Furthermore, I refer to “expertise dice” a lot in this article - the current version of the playtest refers to this mechanic as “martial damage dice”. This mechanic was originally called “expertise dice” upon introduction, and the basics of the mechanic haven’t changed, so I use the phrases interchangeably.

The newest D&D Next playtest packet is upon us, and it looks like it’s going to be the last one we get for a while! A dearth of new material doesn’t sound like good news, but I’m sure I’m not the only one taking this opportunity to really delve into the system and start picking it apart. I’ve had a chance to run the game in actual play and I’ve pored over the rules quite a bit, and while this version of the game is much improved over the last playtest packet, there are still a lot of rough edges that need smoothing, nearly all of which have to do with “martial” classes and how their damage scales upwards as they gain levels.

Of course, I’m not writing this article to mudsling for negativity’s sake - I think the spellcasters are handled perfectly so far and the base game is as solid as ever. I’m also not merely going to point out what is wrong without offering solutions - I have solutions, solutions that I think are good ones, and that’s why I got excited enough to share them that I wrote this whole article! But before I can delve into those solutions, I’m going to have to go into what I believe the problems are.

Expertise dice (or “martial damage dice”, as they are currently known) are a feature of Combat Expertise, a class feature gained by all weapon-using or “martial” classes, like fighters, rogues, monks, and to some extent, clerics. The gist of it is that you get a small “pool” of dice you can spend on extra weapon damage, and the pool replenishes at the start of your turn each round. Depending on your class abilities, you can also spend them on “maneuvers” to trade out the extra damage for other effects, like reducing incoming damage, instilling harmful conditions on your opponents, and so on.

They were introduced as a unique game mechanic for fighters, but proved popular enough that the designers decided to try giving them to all weapon-using classes. The current iteration of the game re-frames the mechanic as analogous to 3rd edition’s “base attack bonus” - that is, a representation of any martial combat character getting better at their craft. Currently, only classes that are expected to fight with weapons get this feature (which is all of them but the wizard, as of the current packet). While this sounds pretty okay on paper, it’s presented a lot of challenges and problems.
The Problem
Firstly, your choice of weapon now ceases to be meaningful once you reach mid-levels. One of the differences between different weapons is their damage die - a spear, for example, does 1d6 damage, while a greatsword does 1d12. Martial weapons tend to do more damage than basic weapons, finesse weapons do less damage than their non-finesse counterparts, and two-handed weapons do more damage than one-handed weapons. This is a series of checks and balances meant to incentivize certain play types - for example, fighters get access to more damaging weapons than wizards do, and players who focus on strength in lieu of dexterity get more damaging weapons to make up for their lack of mobility.

However, all of these balancing factors go out the window when you reach higher levels, and your weapon contributes only a small portion of your total damage each round. Take, for example, this graph comparing the average attack damage of two otherwise identical fighters - a dagger user and a greatsword user - at level 1, as compared to level 10:

http://criticalwits.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/DnDWeaponChart.png

Keep in mind, this is the difference between the most damaging and least damaging weapons in the game. At 1st level, the greatsword provides 40% more damage than the dagger - by level 10, this increase has shrunk to only 13%. For all intents and purposes, their output becomes just about level. Perhaps what is most dangerous about this decrease is that two-handed weapons become unattractive relatively quickly, and using your free hand for two-weapon fighting or a shield becomes a better option once expertise dice crowd out your choice of weapon as a damage source.

Secondly, “combat expertise” as it exists now is too complex of a mechanic to be a universal feature of the game. When you roll your damage dice, it becomes important to keep track of which of your dice originate from your weapon and which of them are expertise/martial damage dice, as you can only use your expertise dice once per round. As it’s possible under some circumstances to use abilities linked to your expertise dice when it isn’t your turn, or to make multiple attacks, it becomes more important to track which ones are being spent.

If this were the defining feature of a class, as it was when it was introduced as a fighter-only option, this wouldn’t be too much of an issue. Every class has to keep track of something - typically spells or another sort of resource. However, expertise dice are now being used as a feature of almost every class in the game, and now different classes are being differentiated by other means as well. This has made the complexity of playing as warrior characters skyrocket upwards.

Thirdly, the fighter is now back to lacking a distinctive mechanic or playstyle. Maneuvers are now accessible to multiple classes - the only thing that differentiates fighters from the other warrior classes are the number of maneuvers they get and what maneuvers they have access to. The “parry” maneuver has been repositioned as a unique fighter-only mechanic, but it still works almost exactly as if it were just another maneuver. Even worse, now that expertise dice are depicted as being base damage rather than extra damage, fighters have lost their throne as the most deadly class, as all of their abilities require them to give up damage from their attacks.

Lastly, the distinction between maneuvers for certain classes - as well as the distinction between maneuvers and feats - has become completely arbitrary. Abilities have jumped back and forth from being feats (at-will abilities accessible to any class) and maneuvers (class-restricted abilities powered by expertise/martial damage dice), and there doesn’t seem to be much rhyme or reason between why only fighters can, say, perform a “spring attack”, while a member of any class can use the “cleave” ability. Maneuvers are also restricted to class-based lists (like spells are), where the distinction again seems arbitrary - only monks, for example, can perform a “controlled fall” to reduce falling damage, while fighters alone can “lunge” and increase their reach. This just raises further questions - why can’t a rogue control his or her fall? Why can’t monks lunge forward with a quarterstaff? This conflict is something that’s always been at odds with the idea of fighters having their own distinct game mechanic, and it’s beginning to rear its ugly head once again.

These are problems that have their origin with design challenges plaguing Dungeons & Dragons since the game’s early iterations. How can this be fixed? How can you have a simple mechanic for damage that takes into account your weapon choice, scales with level, is simple enough for all classes to share, and still leave fighters with something unique?
The Solution
My proposed solution is to get rid of per-round expertise/”martial damage dice” as a core feature of combat classes and instead scale base damage for warrior classes by adding extra weapon damage dice that aren’t tracked from round to round. These extra weapon dice become the “base” damage for warrior classes, while “extra” damage now comes from unique class-specific game mechanics.

Under this system, instead of gaining “martial damage dice”, warrior characters instead, as they level up, roll multiples of the damage dice of their weapon with every single weapon attack - no tracking the spending or acquisition of these dice whatsoever. This solves the problem of weapon choice no longer mattering at certain levels - the size of your weapon’s damage die remains a significant portion of your damage output, making the choice between a heavy-hitting two hander or a light, finesse-ready short sword and shield a meaningful one. It also solves the problem of combat expertise being a complicated mechanic shared by multiple classes, as applying extra weapon damage dice to every attack requires no tracking whatsoever.

From here, we can start giving classes simple and unique extra damage mechanics. Keep in mind, these are “extra” damage abilities, not “base” damage - a character doesn’t need a unique extra damage mechanic to be able to make a meaningful impact on a fight - so weapon-using characters like bards, clerics, and non-sneak-attacking rogues can still contribute to fights without having an extra damage ability.

Rogues, like the current playtest packet, can have sneak attack as an option that allows them to double their weapon damage dice when attacking with advantage, but still have the option of playing more “tricky” or defensively by taking one of the alternatives to sneak attack presented. Rangers might have their extra damage come from a third edition-style “favored enemy” ability, letting them do more damage against their preferred prey, or might have a fourth edition-style “quarry” ability that lets them designate a single target. Barbarians may have a ferocious “rage” ability that gives them extra damage at the expense of their own defense and control. All of these are things that can be easily stacked on top of gaining extra weapon damage dice as a core feature of all warrior classes.

So where does that leave the fighter? Simple: keep combat expertise and expertise dice as a fighter-only mechanic that makes up a smaller portion of their total damage output. While some other classes have to “work” for their extra damage, activating some special ability or attacking under certain circumstances, giving the fighter extra damage on every attack regardless of circumstances plays into their role as masters of combat techniques.

From here, there’s two more steps to eliminate the arbitrary distinction between feats and class-based maneuvers: first, eliminate “maneuvers” from the game, re-imagining them as feats. This way, special combat maneuvers and abilities become accessible to everyone who has the gumption to master the technique. Fighters can be kept unique by allowing them to gain certain “combat” related feats for free as part of their fighting style class feature, and giving fighters (and only fighters) the unique ability to spend expertise dice to “enhance” the effects of certain combat-related feats in a way that characters of other classes cannot.

For example, let’s take a combat related feat that exists in the game currently: “Shift”, available to the “Skirmisher” specialty. “Shift” is an ability any character can gain, and it allows a character to move without provoking attacks from enemies, as long as their movement is restricted to only five feet. Under this new system I propose, a mobile fighter could gain the “Shift” feat from their fighting style, and also gain the ability to spend their expertise dice to increase the distance they can move while using it - say five extra feet per die spent.

Going the other way, let’s take an ability that’s currently only expressed as a fighter-only maneuver - in this case, “Lunge” - and make it into a feat anyone can take. As it exists, “Lunge” allows you to spend a single expertise die to increase the reach of your attacks by five feet for one round. We can imagine this as a feat anyone can take and use - say, you can increase your attack reach by five feet, but you have disadvantage from the attack. Now, we can have the “lunge” feat as an option the fighter can select and enhance with combat expertise, spending an expertise die to negate the disadvantage. The overall theme here regarding special combat techniques is along the lines of “anyone can do it, but the fighter can do it better” by using expertise dice.

So, there you have it - something that is simple and universal, which eliminates arbitrary limitations on who can pick what abilities while still giving the fighter something unique and special. I believe that moving to a similar system to this would be a good direction for the game to go - if you agree with me, please spread this article around and mention these ideas in playtest feedback surveys! If you don’t agree, or if you have ideas of your own, feel free to share your own solutions in the comments section or send an e-mail regarding this article to [email protected]!

In the coming weeks, I am likely going to be devising a play-testable modification of the game that uses these suggestions and seeing how they work in play. If they work out all right, I’ll release them in some form for you to try out in your own games - let me know if this is something you’ll be interested in!

Remember, D&D Next can’t be the best edition of D&D yet without your help! Remember to participate in the playtests and keep taking the surveys!


Mike Mearls has seen the article and said that I bring up some good points. Let me know what you think!

I think I agree with mostly everything here. Neat ideas.

Morty
2012-12-28, 06:46 PM
At least not in this thread, no. :smallsmile:


That's what I meant, yes. It can be definetly argued to hell and back, but this thread is not the place for it.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-12-28, 07:10 PM
I've written an article about D&D Next and my thoughts on Combat Expertise. You can read the article on Critical Wits here: http://criticalwits.info/2012/12/27/article-dd-next-an-alternative-to-combat-expertise/

I have mixed feelings on the article:


So where does that leave the fighter? Simple: keep combat expertise and expertise dice as a fighter-only mechanic that makes up a smaller portion of their total damage output. While some other classes have to “work” for their extra damage, activating some special ability or attacking under certain circumstances, giving the fighter extra damage on every attack regardless of circumstances plays into their role as masters of combat techniques.

This I agree with completely. The fighter needs a unique schtick and a resource management system, and expertise dice give him both.


From here, there’s two more steps to eliminate the arbitrary distinction between feats and class-based maneuvers: first, eliminate “maneuvers” from the game, re-imagining them as feats. This way, special combat maneuvers and abilities become accessible to everyone who has the gumption to master the technique. Fighters can be kept unique by allowing them to gain certain “combat” related feats for free as part of their fighting style class feature, and giving fighters (and only fighters) the unique ability to spend expertise dice to “enhance” the effects of certain combat-related feats in a way that characters of other classes cannot.

[...]

The overall theme here regarding special combat techniques is along the lines of “anyone can do it, but the fighter can do it better” by using expertise dice.

This, however, I disagree with. The approach of having a bunch of default capabilities with penalties that can be removed via feats is exactly the approach the 3e fighter and his feats took--for instance, anyone can use the Bull Rush combat maneuver, but you provoke an AoO unless you have Improved Bull Rush--and all that meant was that you wanted the feat before you even bothered trying something. Improved Disarm wasn't a feat that gave you a nice perk with something you were using a lot, it was a feat that meant that you were no longer penalized for bothering to try disarming at all.

If all the fighter has is "the same stuff everyone else has, but slightly better or with slightly fewer limitations" he'll be relegated to second string once more. The fighter needs to have maneuvers that other people don't. Not "maneuvers it's harder for other people to access" or "maneuvers that the fighter does better," but maneuvers that everyone else just straight-up cannot get. If the only niche the fighter has is improving maneuvers everyone else gets, you might as well just remove the fighter and give everyone else those improved maneuvers, because otherwise the fighter has no niche of his own: "hit everyone for more damage" is also a barbarian and rogue thing, "fancy fighting styles" is also a ranger and monk thing, and so forth, so unless there's a good reason to not give the barbarian, rogue, ranger, monk, etc. ways to improve on their own niches, the fighter is left as a bland generalist.

It's okay if the fighter is the only class able to access the 5e equivalent of Dungeoncrasher, Robilar's Gambit, and other tactical (or [Tactical]) feats, and it's okay if the fighter can access all of the other classes' maneuvers (the other classes have class features he doesn't that are presumably good on their own), but it's not okay if the reverse is true. It's okay if the fighter has an theme more interesting than "the weapon guy," and it's okay if he has an actual theme instead of being a generalist, but it's not okay if all he gets is "everyone else's stuff, but more so." That's what leads to the fighter being a weak class or a newbie class, and that's the main pitfall to avoid for 5e.

noparlpf
2012-12-28, 07:48 PM
This, however, I disagree with. The approach of having a bunch of default capabilities with penalties that can be removed via feats is exactly the approach the 3e fighter and his feats took--for instance, anyone can use the Bull Rush combat maneuver, but you provoke an AoO unless you have Improved Bull Rush--and all that meant was that you wanted the feat before you even bothered trying something. Improved Disarm wasn't a feat that gave you a nice perk with something you were using a lot, it was a feat that meant that you were no longer penalized for bothering to try disarming at all.

If all the fighter has is "the same stuff everyone else has, but slightly better or with slightly fewer limitations" he'll be relegated to second string once more. The fighter needs to have maneuvers that other people don't. Not "maneuvers it's harder for other people to access" or "maneuvers that the fighter does better," but maneuvers that everyone else just straight-up cannot get. If the only niche the fighter has is improving maneuvers everyone else gets, you might as well just remove the fighter and give everyone else those improved maneuvers, because otherwise the fighter has no niche of his own: "hit everyone for more damage" is also a barbarian and rogue thing, "fancy fighting styles" is also a ranger and monk thing, and so forth, so unless there's a good reason to not give the barbarian, rogue, ranger, monk, etc. ways to improve on their own niches, the fighter is left as a bland generalist.

It's okay if the fighter is the only class able to access the 5e equivalent of Dungeoncrasher, Robilar's Gambit, and other tactical (or [Tactical]) feats, and it's okay if the fighter can access all of the other classes' maneuvers (the other classes have class features he doesn't that are presumably good on their own), but it's not okay if the reverse is true. It's okay if the fighter has an theme more interesting than "the weapon guy," and it's okay if he has an actual theme instead of being a generalist, but it's not okay if all he gets is "everyone else's stuff, but more so." That's what leads to the fighter being a weak class or a newbie class, and that's the main pitfall to avoid for 5e.

For basic maneuvers, maybe have the default doing it with no penalty, and the feat doing it with a bonus? Helps a bit anyway.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-12-28, 07:55 PM
For basic maneuvers, maybe have the default doing it with no penalty, and the feat doing it with a bonus? Helps a bit anyway.

It doesn't matter whether the setup is "basic imposes disadvantage/feat removes penalty" or "basic has no penalty/feat grants advantage," the point is that in neither case does the fighter have anything that anyone else can't do. Dungeon Crasher giving the fighter the ability to damage people with bull rushes when no one else can is a good fighter ability; Improved Bull Rush giving the fighter a +4 bonus and removing the AoO is not, because he's fundamentally doing the same thing, just not as badly.

Anecronwashere
2012-12-28, 08:06 PM
Why not do both?

There are general combat maneuvers. Every class gets these. These are Attacks, Full Attacks, Grapples, whatever.
All classes get a Combat maneuver thing. eg. Rogues have all sorts of Sneakiness they can do. Like Trip attacks. Some classes can just crib off other lists. Cleric and paladin for instance.

Fighters get access to Fighter-Only (like Dungeoncrasher) AND access to X number of other class's Combat maneuvers (so a Fighter can learn Rogue-Trip) AND uses a better version of the general combat maneuvers
Something like this:

General Combat Maneuver:
Bull Rush
You push someone back a square for every +2 you exceed the DC, maximum 5 squares. You follow the person being pushed
Fighter: If you exceed Fighter5 whenever you Bull Rush someone you may choose to either push them up to a maximum of 10 squares OR choose to instead move only 1/2 the distance the target moves (rounded down)

Bull Rush isn't stupid for non-fighters. Fighter gives a benefit. Everyone wins.
Oh, and if you dont want to crib off other lists cause its too lengthy? Dont, limit the number of maneuvers a Fighter can learn, like a Wizard and Spells Known so they can just choose all the ones in Fighter, rather than give up Fighter maneuvers to learn Rogue or Monk maneuvers.

Rixx
2012-12-28, 08:28 PM
Hoboy. I'm going out tonight, so I'm not going to be able to engage in a debate over this, but I'll defend some of the points in my article.

I'm working on a playable module to the current playtest, which should come out within the next week. Here's an example of a maneuver (Trip) that I have turned into a feat:


Tripping Strike
You use your attack to drive your enemy to the ground.
Benefit: As an action, you can make an attack with disadvantage against a creature your size or smaller - if your attack hits, you cause the creature to fall prone.
Fighter's Expertise: You can spend one expertise die to use this ability without disadvantage. If you spend two expertise dice, you can use this ability on a creature one size larger than you. If you spend three expertise dice, standing up requires the creature to spend all of its movement for the turn.

(Note that I've renamed Combat Expertise to "Fighter's Expertise" to further denote the exclusivity of that option.)

Here's an example of a feat and a maneuver (Shift and Spring Attack) that I have merged into one feat, effectively reducing some redundancy.


Shift
You can nimbly bounce from a dangerous position without leaving yourself open to attack.
Benefit: If you move no more than 5 feet on your turn, your movement does not provoke opportunity attacks.
Fighter's Expertise: You can spent expertise dice to increase the distance you can move without provoking opportunity attacks. Each die spent adds 5 extra feet to the distance you can move.


The idea here is that anyone can shift out of a dangerous situation, or anyone can attack someone hard enough to knock them down, but only fighters can dart in and out of whole crowds, or slam their foes into the ground so hard that it takes them all of their concentration just to get up.

The idea isn't that fighters gain access to Tome of Battle-esque "maneuvers" keying off an arbitrary list, but that a balance is struck between old school style "nothing special but best at fighting", 3rd edition style "get more combat abilities than everyone else", and 4th edition style "unique fighter-only attack abilities"-type fighters. One of the slated goals, after all, was to make an edition of D&D that combines the best of all editions.

I think giving fighters exclusive access to Combat Expertise and exclusive access to high-powered versions of feats is unique enough to be a defining ability for them in the base game. I think Tome of Battle style mechanics belong in a rules module, and shouldn't be integrated into the basic system - it's something that can always be added on, but I don't think it has a place as the default assumption.

I don't disagree with the idea of class-exclusive feats, either. I think the system I propose leaves plenty of room for feats that include the line "Prerequisite: Fighter class".

For future reference, toning down the 3E jargon would be helpful - I have no idea what "Rolibar's Gambit" is, what a [Tactical] feat entails, and I only vaguely know of "Dungeoncrasher". I think that people who are enamored enough with 3rd edition mechanics still have 3rd edition to play - I don't necessarily think that 5th edition should be a repeat of expanded/peripheral 3.5. We have things like Pathfinder and other homebrew 3.5 spinoffs that fill that niche already.

In any case, I'm going to keep working on my packet module over the coming days - if you'd like to put together an alternate version of the fighter class closer to what you envision, I look forward to seeing it! I think D&D Next can suit both of our tastes as long as it's kept modular; we'll see where things go.

I'm not going to be able to respond for a while, as the rest of my evening is officially occupied from this point on. I don't think it's possible we will reach consensus on this, as it seems to be primarily a case of "different strokes", but I encourage you to experiment with your own ideas and share your results.

Anecronwashere
2012-12-28, 08:31 PM
Robilar's Gambit is basically "You hit me, I hit you back...Harder :smallmad:"
Or something, idk

Rixx
2012-12-28, 08:54 PM
For the record, before I go:


Dungeoncrasher
You can ruthlessly batter your enemies about, using the walls as your weapons.
Prerequisite: Fighter class.
Benefit: If you force a creature to move and that creature's forced movement is halted by a wall or other impassable barrier, that creature takes damage equal to 2d6 + your Strength modifier. A creature can only take damage from this ability once per round.
Fighter's Expertise: You may spend expertise dice to add to the damage of this ability.


Of course, this isn't playtested, and I'm wary of any ability that can be exploited for extra damage, as bonus damage seems to be handed out very rarely in this edition. Tons of extra damage is what made Dungeoncrasher so popular in the first place, of course - I doubt anyone would appreciate the flavor of knocking enemies into walls if it were a weak ability.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-12-28, 09:18 PM
I don't disagree with the idea of class-exclusive feats, either. I think the system I propose leaves plenty of room for feats that include the line "Prerequisite: Fighter class".

Having the possibility of fighter-only feats is good, but there's a big difference between a fighter who has his own maneuvers or feats or whatever you want to call them and uses general maneuvers/feats/whatever better than anyone else, and a fighter who uses maneuvers/feats/whatever better than anyone else and happens to have a few of his own.

The former case gives the fighter its own identity and niche, which is consistent with the changes being made to the wizard and cleric to also make them less of the nothing-but-spells blank slates they used to be and giving them a more focused identity, and having the fighter mostly rely on his own set of fancy abilities makes him less dependent on what other classes are allowed to do.


For future reference, toning down the 3E jargon would be helpful - I have no idea what "Rolibar's Gambit" is, what a [Tactical] feat entails, and I only vaguely know of "Dungeoncrasher". I think that people who are enamored enough with 3rd edition mechanics still have 3rd edition to play - I don't necessarily think that 5th edition should be a repeat of expanded/peripheral 3.5. We have things like Pathfinder and other homebrew 3.5 spinoffs that fill that niche already.

I'm not saying that the 5e maneuvers should be a repeat of 3e features, but those 3e features are things that most of the Playground would be familiar with; I can use 4e examples if you're more familiar with those. For reference, Robilar's Gambit lets you grant opponents a bonus on their attacks against you in exchange for being able to take an AoO against them each time they hit you, Dungeon Crasher lets you damage people by bull rushing them into things (on the order of 8d6+ damage), and [Tactical] feats each grant three maneuvers usable in certain circumstances (like "if you hit the same guy two rounds in a row" or similar).


I don't think it's possible we will reach consensus on this, as it seems to be primarily a case of "different strokes", but I encourage you to experiment with your own ideas and share your results.

Your basic idea of having the fighter be the best with feats is a good one, don't get me wrong, I'm more worried about Mearls taking your idea and running with it and making the same mistakes 3e made with the fighter. The difference between your take and mine is basically that you want the fighter to be something like 4/5 feats++ and 1/5 unique fighter stuff while I'd prefer to see one closer to 3/5 unique fighter stuff and 2/5 feats++, so we both want essentially the same thing from the 5e fighter, just in different proportions.

Treblain
2012-12-28, 10:39 PM
I'm torn on whether class-specific feats are a good idea. 3e used feats as class-independent sources of customization, and went out of the way to make feats as well as prestige classes open to multiple classes, which led to a system with a lot of unpredictable combinations. 4e bit the bullet and had a lot of class-specific feats, but 4e didn't have class features as you level, and so they basically functioned as additional class features providing more customizable abilities within a class.

I liked the 4e approach, but right now, the classes in 5e seem so dry and rigid that 3e's feats would be much better. I hope they avoid class-specific feats for fighters, because an interesting feat system is looking to be the only area in 5e that would allow creativity and distinctiveness in character building.

Anecronwashere
2012-12-28, 10:40 PM
What about the applications of the Modules? Or was that stuff canned?

MukkTB
2012-12-28, 11:13 PM
I don't get this obsesison with NEEDING such fixed and defined classes. Just boil down the archetypes into the most broad classes as possible. Allow for customization of them with skills, feats, and talents.

That works too. Im ok with Fighter, Wizard, Thief, Cleric. Im ok with Swashbuckler, Urban Ranger, Investigator, Necromancer, Illusionist, Conjuror, Beastmaster, ect.

I'm not ok with Deep Woods Ranger, Rogue Survivalist, Frost Barbarian, ect, Wizard, Cleric. I don't like the way that balances. Either all classes should be fairly specific with a lot of personal flavor, or they should be wide open for personal interpretation via the use of feats and selection of in class abilities.

Anecronwashere
2012-12-28, 11:30 PM
I think you mean Fighting Man there Muk

Also: (sorry I have to, I have the willpower of a lima bean when it comes to these things)
Necron used a Great Ball!

Rixx
2012-12-29, 03:59 AM
I have a feeling that modules are still going to definitely be in the game, but the "core" game is what's being established. I also don't think we should assume that the current iteration of the game is going to be the most basic, either - I think modules are going to involve taking stuff out as much as they involve putting stuff in.

Yora
2012-12-29, 06:17 AM
No, that's too complicated. But the playtest rules might already include some modules that are not refered as such yet.

Rixx
2013-01-03, 02:41 AM
Behold!

My playable D&D Next module has been completed! (http://criticalwits.info/2013/01/02/homebrew-dd-next-playtest-4-module/)

I tried to implement my ideas for an alternative system to Combat Expertise while making the game otherwise play as closely as possible to the current playtest.

Give it a read-through, playtest it if you can, and let me know what you think!

MukkTB
2013-01-03, 05:25 AM
This thread got quiet for quite some time. It seems that nor much worth talking about has been happening. I'm left wondering. If you were tasked with selling this current version as it stands now to the 3.5, 4E, or PF crews, what would your approach be for each group? Does anybody want to take a stab at it? I'm at a loss.

Anecronwashere
2013-01-03, 05:33 AM
To Pathfinder: Both a return and an innovation.
"Come play D&D how YOU want"

To 4E: The next generation of D&D
"Upgrade your game, take control of your character to greater extremes"

To 3.5: See Pathfinder

Clawhound
2013-01-03, 09:56 AM
I think that 1E and 2E players might see this as worthwhile.

Really, I am far more interested in giving these new basic sets to all the kids that I now know. They'll have a blast.

Personally, I want to run a game for kids because they have a rocking good time with anything no matter the rules.

Kurald Galain
2013-01-03, 10:29 AM
This thread got quiet for quite some time. It seems that nor much worth talking about has been happening. I'm left wondering. If you were tasked with selling this current version as it stands now to the 3.5, 4E, or PF crews, what would your approach be for each group?

Right now, I wouldn't. If you want to play a 3E-style game, 3E does it better (and so does PF). If you want to play a 4E-style game, 4E does it better. If you want to play neither, you shouldn't be playing D&D. Right now, 5E simply offers the worst of both worlds: if you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing noone.

Rixx
2013-01-03, 11:47 AM
I could go on for pages and pages about why D&D Next is a better game than 3rd Edition or 4th edition. Next isn't good at emulating previous editions, and I consider that a selling point.

If you want something new, give D&D Next a look and participate in the playtest. If you don't want something new, then don't.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-01-03, 12:01 PM
I could go on for pages and pages about why D&D Next is a better game than 3rd Edition or 4th edition. Next isn't good at emulating previous editions, and I consider that a selling point.

If you could at least go on for a few paragraphs, I'd like to see that. 5e's design goals certainly had the potential to do some things better than a previous edition...but the actual game, as it currently stands or is likely to be implemented, with the actual modules that it will use, given what we've seen so far? Far from superior.

A game or an edition of a game, whether 5e or otherwise, isn't just its ideas. The vast majority of the ideas for the "revolutionary" aspects of 3e (ascending AC, simplified combat, removal of caps, etc.) were either in the 1e/2e UA or common houserules in the 2e era, but the mechanics as implemented in 3e led to a game that could be played very differently. The vast majority of the ideas for the "revolutionary" aspects of 4e (nonmagical healing, encounter powers, rituals, etc.) were either in the 3e UA or the late-3e 4e-playtest books, but the mechanics as implemented in 4e led to a completely different game both mechanically and flavorwise. And the same holds for 5e: its ideas are cribbed from prior editions and its implementations are entirely different.

From what we've seen of 5e so far, you can't really say anything about 5e being a better game than previous editions. It took several years after 3e came out for people to realize that you could play it differently than just "AD&D with new math" and what consequences that entailed; 4e-as-revealed-in-previews looked very different from 4e-as-released. What we do have is constantly-changing material, bland and sparse high level material, and math that is less than stellar. 5e could turn into a good game if WotC gets their act in gear, but to say it is better than either 3e or 4e now is highly premature.

Yora
2013-01-03, 12:08 PM
Right now, I wouldn't. If you want to play a 3E-style game, 3E does it better (and so does PF). If you want to play a 4E-style game, 4E does it better. If you want to play neither, you shouldn't be playing D&D.
Don't tell people to not play something because they are not perfectly happy with some things. That's going into wrongbadfun and Stop Having Fun Guys.

Alejandro
2013-01-03, 12:15 PM
Honestly, I think WOTC is conducting the largest and most record braking trolling attempt in history. :) Much of the real work will be done in house, and what we say will be the sideshow (but that is much better than no engagement at all.)

navar100
2013-01-03, 01:16 PM
While the Expertise Dice concept is cool, I'm not being pulled away Pathfinder. I don't dislike 5E in general so far, but Pathfinder has a great advantage to me because I was never enraged by 3E to have needed a new edition yet Paizo managed to improve it to my liking anyway.

Rixx
2013-01-03, 01:24 PM
While the current playtest had a multitude of flaws (to be expected of a playtest of the "see what sticks" philosophy), D&D Next has the most solid base systen of any edition un my opinion. I will get into more detail if I can find the time, since I am on my phone at work.

obryn
2013-01-03, 03:07 PM
Honestly, between running my actual, non-theoretical 4e game, checking out Earthdawn 3e and Savage Worlds, and getting on board with the amazing FATE Core kickstarter ... my attention for new editions is pretty well shot.

This extended open playtest is bugging the heck out of me though. I'm pretty sure I'm alone in this, but I'd rather the designers get to work designing and testing and run a playtest once it's mostly done to file off the rough edges.

The open playtest is problematic for me because (1) I want D&D Next to be a game that I will buy and enjoy, but (2) in order for it to have a higher likelihood of being so, I need to keep paying attention and providing feedback on something I'd much rather ignore for now.

-O

Yora
2013-01-04, 10:03 AM
At least with the last test version, the advances seemd so very tiny. And in many cases they seemed more like a step back from the previous edition.
It has been almost a year and we still only have humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings and fighters, rogues, wizards, and clerics. The only new thing are monks, which are probably the least popular class in the history of D&D anyway. Instead of 3 levels we have now 10 levels, but it doesn't seem like there would be any progress at all. And for everyone who has done some homebrewing in their free time, that pace seems to be unimaginably slow. Of course we only see very tiny snapshots of all the work that gets actually done, but as it is communicated, it looks like they intend to nail the basic rules down and once that is set in stone, they will start with making all the other races, classes, monsters, and spells.
And to just figure out the basics, a year seems far too long. Not saying they only work one hour every months, but it's easy to lose interest when there is no visible progress to be seen.

Yora
2013-01-08, 11:43 AM
Mike Mearls talks about... actually nothing at all:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130107

Pretty much the same things that had been said last year at this time.

But hopefully we can take this as an indication that the silly Skill Dice get removed again. And they can take that martial damage bonus right with them.

Craft (Cheese)
2013-01-08, 03:00 PM
You know what kind of L&L post I'd actually find a lot more interesting? "So, Mike, you've been doing this D&D Next open playtest thing for about a year now. What have you learned from the experience? What would you have done differently if you had known then what you know now?"

Oracle_Hunter
2013-01-08, 05:14 PM
You know what kind of L&L post I'd actually find a lot more interesting? "So, Mike, you've been doing this D&D Next open playtest thing for about a year now. What have you learned from the experience? What would you have done differently if you had known then what you know now?"
You know what I'd find interesting?

"So Mike, what are you doing to meet these design goals you mention? How do you think the game as-is relates to those goals?"

Because so far Mearls has three types of posts:
(1) Lofty "all things for all people" posts about design goals
(2) Spaghetti-at-the-wall posts about new mechanics they're trying out
(3) Rambling work-in-progress posts responding to survey results

If he could somehow address design goals, mechanics tied to those goals, and tweaks to suit the fanbase within the parameters of those goals in a single post I would be much impressed.

Craft (Cheese)
2013-01-08, 05:33 PM
You know what I'd find interesting?

"So Mike, what are you doing to meet these design goals you mention? How do you think the game as-is relates to those goals?"

Because so far Mearls has three types of posts:
(1) Lofty "all things for all people" posts about design goals
(2) Spaghetti-at-the-wall posts about new mechanics they're trying out
(3) Rambling work-in-progress posts responding to survey results

If he could somehow address design goals, mechanics tied to those goals, and tweaks to suit the fanbase within the parameters of those goals in a single post I would be much impressed.

That'd be pretty cool, but I think you and I both know they're pretty much making **** up as they go along.

Oracle_Hunter
2013-01-08, 05:42 PM
That'd be pretty cool, but I think you and I both know they're pretty much making **** up as they go along.
The funny thing is how easy it is to make those unified posts is you're actually designing a game.

Hell, I'm working on a Superhero RPG and I can give you those right now.
(1) Comic Book Superheroes use their powers in unusual ways all the time. This system will permit Players to use their particular suite of powers inventively as a core part of the rules.

(2) The Power Pool mechanic allows each Player to define the general capabilities of their superpowers (e.g. Creation 1 = create one substance) without strictly defining how those powers can be used (e.g. Creation 1 (Web), for example could be used to swing from buildings, ensnare foes, and stick things together).

(3) [pending playtest]
This sort of causal relationship needs to be established if you're relying on other people to give you feedback. As it is, all that Mearls can expect from his surveys is "that was fun" or "that was not fun" without any idea as to whether a mechanic did what it was supposed to do or not!

1337 b4k4
2013-01-08, 06:34 PM
(1) Comic Book Superheroes use their powers in unusual ways all the time. This system will permit Players to use their particular suite of powers inventively as a core part of the rules.

(2) The Power Pool mechanic allows each Player to define the general capabilities of their superpowers (e.g. Creation 1 = create one substance) without strictly defining how those powers can be used (e.g. Creation 1 (Web), for example could be used to swing from buildings, ensnare foes, and stick things together).

(3) [pending playtest]

OMG the creation rules are so busted. Create 1 (web) is so <overpowered / underpowered> compared to create 1 (<fur/anti-matter>) because you can't do x with <fur / web / anti-mater>. And what an empty post. "Oh wow, we're going to make a system where you can say 'I can has webs' and just do whatever the heck you want with it with no limitations, and we're not going to tell you what you can and can't do with the rules." Why are we going to pay these jokers again? And notice that its yet another post about slingers. Looks like we're going back to the quadratic slingers, linear brawlers again. Thanks Heroes of the Coast!

Which is not to say that WotC doesn't need a better PR front for this than Mike Mearls. Clearly they do, Mike doesn't seem very good at mass communication. But equally there are plenty of critics and commentators out there who are just automatically down on WotC and D&D and will automatically take anything they say in the worst possible light. It really is amazing how much your feelings toward the game can shift just by who's commenting on it. Go read some of the things Greywulf (Microlite20 guy) has to say on next, and you come away feeling hopeful. Read this forum and you come away feeling like potential is there, but there's a long way to go. Go read the PA forums, and you'll come away thinking that Next is the next Fatal, complete with anal circumference rules, that WotC is going to burn your 4e books and the end of the world is nigh. Oh and D&D sucks anyway so you shouldn't play it at all.

Ultimately, I personally think next has a lot of potential. I also think it has a lot of things to get over and around to meet that potential, and it may not do that because of various factors. I'm not overly concerned with the public playtest because I think that it's neither the full story, nor the only play testing or feedback they're getting. They do need a better public face on it ( they've needed a better public face on D&D since before 4e) but I also think that no matter what they said or who said it, there are so many people who a personally hurt by things WotC has done in the past that everything would be read in the worst light.

Oracle_Hunter
2013-01-08, 07:03 PM
OMG the creation rules are so busted. Create 1 (web) is so <overpowered / underpowered> compared to create 1 (<fur/anti-matter>) because you can't do x with <fur / web / anti-mater>. And what an empty post. "Oh wow, we're going to make a system where you can say 'I can has webs' and just do whatever the heck you want with it with no limitations, and we're not going to tell you what you can and can't do with the rules." Why are we going to pay these jokers again? And notice that its yet another post about slingers. Looks like we're going back to the quadratic slingers, linear brawlers again. Thanks Heroes of the Coast!
I'm amused that you made any of those assumptions without knowing anything more about the system.

Yes, I know you were having fun there but at the very least there are criteria to judge that isolated mechanic by (which you did not use):
- Was the stated design goal fun/appropriate? (Is it something you would expect in a Superhero Game?)
- Did the mechanic facilitate the stated goal? If not, then how could it be changed to do so?

IMHO, if you're going to do a public playtest of a game, every single one of your posts should tie mechanics to design goals since the public needs to be as informed as the designers to aid in the creation of the game. So far it looks like we are as informed as the designers are about 5e which, unfortunately, means they aren't bothering to tie the mechanics they're using to the design goals that Mearls waxes poetically about in his last post. IMHO, this is a recipe for failure -- or at least, a sub-par game that is only purchased due to brand loyalty.

* * *

Personally, my opinion on 5e is based on the rules I've read. As a result, it doesn't change a lot when I hear other people's opinion of it; at most I'd like to ask them about their play experiences and find out why aspect X of the game did not seem to affect them as I would have expected.

1337 b4k4
2013-01-08, 07:42 PM
IMHO, if you're going to do a public playtest of a game, every single one of your posts should tie mechanics to design goals since the public needs to be as informed as the designers to aid in the creation of the game.

Actually, in my experience, you get the best information out of user testing by not telling the users anything at all. Give them the tools, the basic goal and let them work everything else out. In this way you're us to find how your tools come across to the users in reality, rather than how you see them come across and how you convince them they come across. Additionally, most users don't know what they really want. Oh sure they will tell you what they want, but as a designer, you have to be very good at reading between the lines and reading what they aren't telling you to get a good idea of what they really want. That is part of what makes public tests so dangerous (and why so many companies use it as just plain marketing). To do a test right, there needs to be very little communication from the developers to the users, and a whole lot of open channels from the users back to the developer. Unfortunately this also means that it's ally easy to mistake a bad test for "doing it right"

Are WotC doing it right? I don't know. But from what I have seen so far, I do think they're listening. But whether they're listening to the right things remains to be seen, and likely won't be seen for months to come.

Oracle_Hunter
2013-01-08, 07:59 PM
Actually, in my experience, you get the best information out of user testing by not telling the users anything at all. Give them the tools, the basic goal and let them work everything else out. In this way you're us to find how your tools come across to the users in reality, rather than how you see them come across and how you convince them they come across.
As a counterpoint: why is it that there is emergent gameplay in every RPG system out there even though they all contain text instructing you on how the game is supposed to be played? IME, Players play the game the way they want whether you tell them how the rules are supposed to work or not. The reason I advocate tying Design Goals to Mechanics is so that you can take advantage of the amateur game designers out there (read: homebrewers) who can act as an extra pair of eyes in case your development team falls into Groupthink.


Additionally, most users don't know what they really want. Oh sure they will tell you what they want, but as a designer, you have to be very good at reading between the lines and reading what they aren't telling you to get a good idea of what they really want. That is part of what makes public tests so dangerous (and why so many companies use it as just plain marketing). To do a test right, there needs to be very little communication from the developers to the users, and a whole lot of open channels from the users back to the developer. Unfortunately this also means that it's ally easy to mistake a bad test for "doing it right"
If this is true, then there is no reason to do a public beta. By definition any information you gather from the public will be noise (since they don't know what they want) and the Dev Team would be better off ignoring everyone but their own Enlightened Selves.

Again, I disagree with this premise. IMHO, you run playtests of pen & paper RPGs for the following reasons:
(1) Bug-checking -- Many eyes can identify bugs that few eyes might miss. If 3e had been publicly beta'd I doubt the "crafting zero cost item" bug would have been there.

(2) New Eyes -- Your design team may have plans for the game but it is easy to fool yourself that the game your producing has anything to do with those plans. Is Shadowrun a game of Noir high espionage in a cyberpunk dystopian future or a game of cybered Pink Mohawks blowing the ever-loving crap out of stuff? The design goals say one thing, but the rules say something very different. Outsiders looking at the rules in development can raise issues you may have missed: "if everyone has Expertise Dice, how is the Fighter useful?" "why not have everyone play a Caster?"

At the moment, 5e isn't advanced enough for Bug Checking but it is at the perfect stage for some New Eyes. Unfortunately, Mearls isn't telling us how the game we're testing is supposed to meet the goal of being the One True D&D -- if that's even a real goal he's pursuing. Since we can't tell why he's doing anything, we can't say whether he's doing it well or not.
Tl;dr -- If this is supposed to be a public beta, Mearls is wasting his time by soliciting meaningless feedback. If this is just Focus Group Development then he's doing just fine but 5e will end up being the Edsel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel#Edsel_and_its_failures) of RPGs.

1337 b4k4
2013-01-08, 08:58 PM
As a counterpoint: why is it that there is emergent gameplay in every RPG system out there even though they all contain text instructing you on how the game is supposed to be played? IME, Players play the game the way they want whether you tell them how the rules are supposed to work or not. The reason I advocate tying Design Goals to Mechanics is so that you can take advantage of the amateur game designers out there (read: homebrewers) who can act as an extra pair of eyes in case your development team falls into Groupthink.

This is not so much a counterpoint as proving my point. When doing a user test, you are after the emergent behavior. You want to see what product it is that you have created, rather than seeing if the users see the product you tell them to see. You want the raw feedback about how the users perceive the tools they've been given, not the tools and the additional handholding from the developers that your final end users will not have. You also want to know what your users a expecting from your product.

Allow me to provide an example. Lets take everyone's favorite contention, the skill checks. I postulated early on in this playtest, that the line regarding rolling only when there is a significant risk of failure or uncertainty was a key directive; that the skill system was never meant to model the cripple arm wrestling Hercules, or the wizard breaking free of the ancient dragon pinning him to the ground; and that it was the responsibility of each group to determine what events would constitute a reasonable uncertainty. Many others argued that this wasn't so, and that despite what the rules indicated (at least to me), the skills system was (and is) broken. Now, think about all the feedback they've gotten on the skill system, and ask yourself if you think they would have gotten as much or as useful feedback if they had accompanied the playtest with a directive from on high saying "this is how thou shalt use our skill system, because this is what we intended." They would have had considerably less feedback telling them that the skill system did not match up with what the players are looking for, and much mor feedback telling them that the specific presentation in the rules did not convey the developers intentions clearly enough. That is a bad thing if they're trying to produce a game that meets the expectations of the players.

Or to think of it another way, there's a difference between them getting feedback about how a mechanic works for 4e D&D or 3.x d&d and how a mechanic works for the type of game you sit down to play when you play D&D. They're after that more general level feedback.


If this is true, then there is no reason to do a public beta. By definition any information you gather from the public will be noise (since they don't know what they want) and the Dev Team would be better off ignoring everyone but their own Enlightened Selves.

This on the other hand is the complete opposite of the point I was trying to make. Just because the users don't know what they want doesn't make the feedback noise. Have you ever bought something that you never knew you wanted? Maybe even something that until you had it, you would have said you didn't need at all? In order to generate products like that, developers need to look beyond what people say they want and beyond what people complain about and look at the reasons behind those things. If you just give people exactly what they ask for, often times you wind up producing something that's a solution in search of a problem, or that perhaps solves the problem but simply introduces a whole lot more. This sort of between the lines development is especially important the more openly divisive your customer base is. Despite how it appears on these forums, most D&D fans in general, and rpg fans even mor generally are a lot closer than you might think. This is true about the human population as a whole, that we have far more common ground thawe allow ourselves to see. It is essential to develop a product that speaks to all of your common fans that you listen for the root causes of their happiness and their unhappiness. That is how you make a product that pleases a seemingly impossibly diverse group.

Craft (Cheese)
2013-01-09, 01:03 AM
This is not so much a counterpoint as proving my point. When doing a user test, you are after the emergent behavior. You want to see what product it is that you have created, rather than seeing if the users see the product you tell them to see. You want the raw feedback about how the users perceive the tools they've been given, not the tools and the additional handholding from the developers that your final end users will not have. You also want to know what your users a expecting from your product.

Well, two things.

First of all, you're sorta forgetting something. This ideal of hermetically sealing the player so you only get data from the game (and only the game) is hard enough to achieve in laboratory conditions, let alone in an open playtest. Don't pretend that just leaving your playtesters totally blind will solve this problem. It doesn't even come close, and deluding yourself into thinking that it does will give you way, way, way more problems than non-blind playtesting will ever cause on its own.

Second of all, especially in the tabletop realm, the game is what happens at the table, not what's printed in the rulebooks. The assumptions both the players and the DM bring to the table can completely turn a game on its head. If these assumptions are off, or even directly contradictory to the type of game the developer intended to design, the players aren't going to have a good time.

And you can say "Oh, but designers shouldn't be forcing assumptions onto the players! They should just design whatever game matches the assumptions gamers already have." The problem with this mindset is it's what gets us trapped in tightly-defined genres. The best you can do with this type of design is give your playerbase a refined, polished version of something they already have. You'll never ever get something new and radically different unless you're willing to break these genre-barriers. That means knocking your players outside of their comfort zone and, yes, communicating to them that this is not an ordinary game.


You are right though that it should be the medium itself that communicates this, not anything outside that players of the final version won't be given. So just put a write-up of "how we intended for you to play D&D" in the playtest packet (and the final books) itself rather than on a blog somewhere.

Turalisj
2013-01-09, 01:36 AM
That'd be pretty cool, but I think you and I both know they're pretty much making **** up as they go along.

And pointing that out on the WotC forums gets your post deleted and a warning.

Yora
2013-01-09, 07:44 AM
So it probably is true.



Why do characters not gain feats at 12th, 15th, and 18th level? Is it because they don't have enough feats yet to update the Specializations, or does that have any long-term purpose for the final rules?

obryn
2013-01-09, 09:41 AM
So it probably is true.
Maybe, but I think it's much more likely that they interpret that as simple trolling. And they are probably sick of it and the firestorm it causes in their tinderbox forum.

Personally? I don't doubt they have a plan; it's just not one I particularly like.

-O

Clawhound
2013-01-09, 10:09 AM
I very much understand "public beta." They are testing more than the rules. They are testing the culture

The D&D community also has many unwritten rules about what D&D is or isn't. Those aren't always obvious, so they change the game around trying to find rules or principals to violate. They can create rules that work, but if the players don't like the FEEL of those rules, then the rules are worthless.

My problem with 4th isn't the design. From the DM side, it's an amazingly good game. Unfortunately, they did not pay enough attention to the player experience, and that is what lost them their audience. This time, they keenly aware of the player experience.

1337 b4k4
2013-01-09, 01:46 PM
This ideal of hermetically sealing the player so you only get data from the game (and only the game) is hard enough to achieve in laboratory conditions, let alone in an open playtest. Don't pretend that just leaving your playtesters totally blind will solve this problem. It doesn't even come close, and deluding yourself into thinking that it does will give you way, way, way more problems than non-blind playtesting will ever cause on its own.

What? When did I suggest sealing off the player? I said not influencing the test by providing communication from the developer to the testers about how they're "supposed to play" or what the developer was envisioning when designing a mechanic. That isn't sealing the player, it's avoiding altering the type of feedback you get.


Second of all, especially in the tabletop realm, the game is what happens at the table, not what's printed in the rulebooks. The assumptions both the players and the DM bring to the table can completely turn a game on its head. If these assumptions are off, or even directly contradictory to the type of game the developer intended to design, the players aren't going to have a good time.


Absolutely, and after 30 some years, D&D and it's players have a lot of assumptions baked in. If you're going to design a version of D&D that speaks across the fan base, it is absolutely vital that you understand what assumptions players are bringing to the table. The best way to do that is to give them the rules and observe what they do with them. If you tell them how they're supposed to use the rules you may suppress important feedback about how the players perceive the rules you've given them.


You'll never ever get something new and radically different unless you're willing to break these genre-barriers. That means knocking your players outside of their comfort zone and, yes, communicating to them that this is not an ordinary game.

The question of course is should the next version of D&D be a radical genre busting, out of the comfort zone new version? I would argue that it shouldn't, and that it's pretty clear WotC doesn't think so either. Here's the thing, D&D has 30 years of history and lineage, as you point out that carries a lot of assumptions and culture with it. Additionally, while reaching out to new players via new mechanics or new genres is great, the ultimate goal should be to grow the business, not lose old players as quickly as you gain new ones which is a significant risk for radical changes (a la the loss of WotC customers to Paizo and the various other clones).

Finally, I think it's worth pointing out that it isn't like D&D doesn't have some major room for polishing and cleaning up. The fact is, that there are plenty of things that are and have been broken in D&D for a while. 4e corrected many, but IMO introduced plenty of its own. There's nothing wrong with iterating on a product, incrementally making it better and better, heck that's what they did with D&D through till ~2e.


You are right though that it should be the medium itself that communicates this, not anything outside that players of the final version won't be given. So just put a write-up of "how we intended for you to play D&D" in the playtest packet (and the final books) itself rather than on a blog somewhere.

Sure, and they'll do that, once they have created a product that connects with most of the players even without that. Because let's be honest here, D&D has always included "how we intend for you to play" stuff in their books. Hell, the 1e DMG is still highly regarded (even among people who dislike old D&D) as a quality book on "how to play D&D". But most players will never read them. Hell most players I think (despite old math telling us they will buy splat books) hardly read the rule books at all. They're taught the game by someone else, and if they do buy the books, it's usually for reference. This means it is absolutely vital that the rules themselves convey the intent. That's why even though the rules say "only roll skill checks when there is a significant chance of failure", people still get up in arms over the cripple out wrestling Conan.

TuggyNE
2013-01-09, 10:12 PM
That's why even though the rules say "only roll skill checks when there is a significant chance of failure", people still get up in arms over the cripple out wrestling Conan.

It's probably partly also because that feels like begging the question to many D&D players: how do you define a "significant chance of failure", unless it's "significant chance a die roll will come out failure"?

If you want to redefine that as "only when there's an interesting chance of failure", that would probably work a lot better, though you'd then likely have to expand a bit on what interesting can mean.

Flickerdart
2013-01-09, 10:43 PM
That's why even though the rules say "only roll skill checks when there is a significant chance of failure", people still get up in arms over the cripple out wrestling Conan.
Difference between the strongest possible human and the weakest cripple: 10 points (-5 and +5 mods). The cripple thus beats the weightlifter whenever he rolls 11 better, which happens 10.25% of the time. Would you fly on a plane if it had 10% to explode? After all, it's not a significant chance.

Anderlith
2013-01-09, 11:05 PM
Difference between the strongest possible human and the weakest cripple: 10 points (-5 and +5 mods). The cripple thus beats the weightlifter whenever he rolls 11 better, which happens 10.25% of the time. Would you fly on a plane if it had 10% to explode? After all, it's not a significant chance.

Which is why stats need to be fixed. Also remove the current rules for auto win & auto lose conditions. Replace them with something better

Stubbazubba
2013-01-09, 11:32 PM
Difference between the strongest possible human and the weakest cripple: 10 points (-5 and +5 mods). The cripple thus beats the weightlifter whenever he rolls 11 better, which happens 10.25% of the time. Would you fly on a plane if it had 10% to explode? After all, it's not a significant chance.

1337 b4k4's point is that you ignore the dice and just eyeball the situation; then if there seems like a significant chance of failure, you roll. If things "just make sense," you don't need rules.

The problem with this, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is that at level 15, nothing you do will be eyeball-able. By that time, does Conan have the Strength to arm-wrestle a god Kratos-style is an important and fair question and entirely foreseeable, but completely out of the human experience of the DM. Therefore, resorting to a DM judgment call is going to create vastly differing play experiences. How are players supposed to prepare for that before hand if there isn't actually a consistent rule?

But let's not get off on this one again, it's been done over so many times. So has "Mike Mearls is just making it up!" "No, he's not, you haven't seen the finished product so don't judge!", but, oh, well, there's at least new evidence for that one.

navar100
2013-01-10, 12:02 AM
1337 b4k4's point is that you ignore the dice and just eyeball the situation; then if there seems like a significant chance of failure, you roll. If things "just make sense," you don't need rules.

The problem with this, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is that at level 15, nothing you do will be eyeball-able. By that time, does Conan have the Strength to arm-wrestle a god Kratos-style is an important and fair question and entirely foreseeable, but completely out of the human experience of the DM. Therefore, resorting to a DM judgment call is going to create vastly differing play experiences. How are players supposed to prepare for that before hand if there isn't actually a consistent rule?

But let's not get off on this one again, it's been done over so many times. So has "Mike Mearls is just making it up!" "No, he's not, you haven't seen the finished product so don't judge!", but, oh, well, there's at least new evidence for that one.

Another issue is that some DMs just can't stand it for a PC to be able to auto-succeed at something. They refuse to accept the PC is just that good. They argue it's no fun without a chance a failure, disagreeing that the fun is the journey getting to the point where you can't fail and then enjoy the spoils of that expertise.

Flickerdart
2013-01-10, 12:33 AM
1337 b4k4's point is that you ignore the dice and just eyeball the situation; then if there seems like a significant chance of failure, you roll. If things "just make sense," you don't need rules.
Sure, but how many heroic moments were awesome exactly because they were incredibly unlikely? If the situation was a PC wrestling with an NPC that had a +10 bonus advantage, wouldn't you want to give it a shot as a desperate last-ditch effort, and cheer when it worked and the monster was cast into the pit of death? Beating the odds is a huge part of tabletops, for me at least.

Kurald Galain
2013-01-10, 03:24 AM
1337 b4k4's point is that you ignore the dice and just eyeball the situation; then if there seems like a significant chance of failure, you roll. If things "just make sense," you don't need rules.

The problem with this, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is that at level 15, nothing you do will be eyeball-able.

Another problem is that it's a cop out. It's basically the designers admitting that their mechanic doesn't work, and instructing the dm to make up something whenever the mechanic fails. Oberoni much?

Anecronwashere
2013-01-10, 04:11 AM
Is it an Oberoni if the designers imbed it into the game?
I would have thought it a different fallacy, one less of an arguement, more of a design flaw

Also where did Oberoni get it's name? Was it the username of someone who kept using it?

Yora
2013-01-10, 04:18 AM
It's not a bug, it's a feature. There are lots of games they eyeball to far greater extends.

Kurald Galain
2013-01-10, 04:22 AM
It's not a bug, it's a feature. There are lots of games they eyeball to far greater extends.

Sure, but those are rules-light games. Rules-heavy games like D&D are supposed to have rules that work.

Stubbazubba
2013-01-10, 04:25 AM
Is it an Oberoni if the designers imbed it into the game?
I would have thought it a different fallacy, one less of an arguement, more of a design flaw.

Technically, no, it's not Oberoni if the designers put it that way in the game. Oberoni fallacy is strictly a reaction to a published rule-set.

Edit: After re-considering the definition of Oberoni and seeing Kurald's response, I think I agree with his interpretation more. There's nothing that requires a rule-set be published, or the person making the fallacy to be a non-developer, for it to apply. So it's still the Oberoni fallacy.


Also where did Oberoni get it's name? Was it the username of someone who kept using it?

Yes. (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy)

Edit: Read your question again. No. It was the name of the person who first identified the fallacy as such.

Wow, 0/2, I gotta slow down and work on some reading comprehension here...

Kurald Galain
2013-01-10, 04:28 AM
Is it an Oberoni if the designers imbed it into the game?

arguably yes: just because you can ignore a bad rule doesn't mean it's not a bad rule. That still applies if the designers tell you to ignore one of their own rules. At any rate, it is certainly a design flaw.

Yora
2013-01-10, 04:31 AM
Sure, but those are rules-light games. Rules-heavy games like D&D are supposed to have rules that work.
And I had almost added the line "Not every game is D&D 3rd Edition".

And I don't think they are trying to make 5th Edition like it. It's much more similar to AD&D and 4th Edition in that respect. As far as the playtests show, 5th edition is rules-medium, not rules-heavy.

Anecronwashere
2013-01-10, 04:38 AM
No such thing.
Rules-lite and Rules-heavy are the two different qualifiers
4th Ed is still a Rules-Heavy system


Rules lite is generally short with 1 or 2 dice, very quick char-gen and a high emphasis on improvisation.
eg. the Roll-To-Die system. Pick traits to add +1-6, pick traits to add -1-6 until it equals 0.
Traits are undetermined (GM regulates) and when using one as a weapon roll 1D6+trait bonus -trait penalty if applicable.

Add on a couple tables to give results of the roll, maybe a defence roll or freeform tables for non-combat stuff and bam. One shiny rules-lite learnt in 5 minutes, coincidentally the same number as needed to make a new character (excluding backstory)

Rules-heavy are stuff like D&D 3rd ed with classes, or M&M with their 150 PB and cast range of concrete, stated Powers

Craft (Cheese)
2013-01-10, 05:56 AM
You know... Why is it that we expect the rulebooks to answer questions like this:

"What's the Red Dragon's natural armor bonus?"

"How much treasure should we expect to find in its hoard?"

"What kinds of attacks does it have?"

But we expect the DM to answer questions like this:

"What kinds of traps does the dragon have set up in its lair?"

"Where is its lair, anyway?"

"What has it been doing recently, if anything?"


Could we design a game where it's the other way round?

Scowling Dragon
2013-01-10, 05:59 AM
Craft, I hope that was Ironic.

If not:

Its because the stuff the book deals with is boring ****, and the stuff the DM deals with is storytelling.

Not giving the DM any story ability and just messing around with the crunch is like a setting book, that can't change.

Craft (Cheese)
2013-01-10, 06:06 AM
Craft, I hope that was Ironic.

I'm quite serious. It's obvious that we don't want the rulebooks to define everything, that would be absurd. There's clearly a line between things we want defined in the books and things we want left up to the DM, but where is that line and why isn't it somewhere else? Does the line change depending on the game/table/day of the week? How?

Stubbazubba
2013-01-10, 06:19 AM
I, as a DM, do not want to have to write game rules. I want the game to have all the numbers and such pre-packaged, I just want to set up encounters and run them against the PCs. I want to create worlds, NPCs, evil plots, and deadly challenges. I want the rules to be pieces of furniture in a room I move around to create the perfect atmosphere, not a box of tools with which I can build the furniture and then place it where I want, or, as your example suggests, where they tell me to place it. I am willing to accept the fact that that restricts my options as DM to what the designers make, and if I want to alter that I will, but I do not want the designer to assume that I am going to do any leg-work when it comes to rules, stat blocks, etc.

Clawhound
2013-01-10, 09:56 AM
You could try writing rules for all skill checks all the time and have them work correctly. So far, nobody's done that. I have seen precisely 0 games over thirty years that have perfect skill rules. That's a big goose-egg. So your appeal to rules that work, in this case, is a request for a philosopher's stone.

So given that you are stuck with imperfect skill systems, not matter what you do, are you better off using human judgement rather than a flawed set of rules? Really, the question should be, at what point are you better off using human judgement, and at what point are you better off using rules? Every RPG wrestles with that question. The very fact that you have a human making judgement calls beyond any rules is, in my opinion, part of what makes an RPG an RPG. Which is to say, your bug is my feature.

Kurald Galain
2013-01-10, 10:31 AM
You could try writing rules for all skill checks all the time and have them work correctly. So far, nobody's done that. I have seen precisely 0 games over thirty years that have perfect skill rules.

That, however, is a false dichotomy. The question is not whether the skill rules are perfect; the question is how good they are on a sliding scale.

And the current iteration of 5E's skill rules literally gives the average level-1 commoner a ten percent chance of succeeding at a task that, by the rules, would be challenging even to a demigod. That makes it one of the worst skill resolution mechanics I have ever seen in any RPG.

It doesn't have to be perfect. Nobody is expecting it to be perfect. But it could certainly be much, much better. And that's what we're paying WOTC for, after all.

Cavelcade
2013-01-10, 10:35 AM
I believe that, looking at what they've said, what they need to try defining are situations where "reasonable chance of failure" makes sense. Clearly a 10% chance of failure is when things become reasonable to them - so they should probably start designing their stat blocks/progressions around that idea.

Assuming that I'm reading it correctly, I suppose.

Then they need to be as clear as possible as to when "reasonable chance of failure" is doable. That is obviously the hardest (impossible, possibly) part of the job, but if that's what they want to aim for that is how I would suggest approaching it.

Kurald Galain
2013-01-10, 01:48 PM
New survey is up! Be sure to communicate your likes and dislikes to WOTC!

oxybe
2013-01-10, 02:48 PM
wait, there's a survey?

where does one go to get this survey, because i've yet to receive a single one by email.

Craft (Cheese)
2013-01-10, 05:05 PM
I, too, have not been receiving the surveys.

noparlpf
2013-01-10, 05:07 PM
Haven't gotten any emails from them in absolutely ages, I think they want to make the surveys harder to find so we don't give them negative feedback.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-01-10, 05:26 PM
Haven't gotten any emails from them in absolutely ages, I think they want to make the surveys harder to find so we don't give them negative feedback.

I've noticed that my survey email usually comes half a day or so after someone on the forums mentions getting theirs, but I do always get one. WotC is probably sending them out in batches to avoid overloading their servers.

oxybe
2013-01-10, 05:27 PM
as i said, i haven't received a single feedback email yet.

then again, i wouldn't be surprised they don't want my feedback, lol.

Kurald Galain
2013-01-10, 05:38 PM
http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/1119308/D-D-Next-Open-Playtest-Survey-6

oxybe
2013-01-10, 06:34 PM
thanks. i've left my feedback.

Yora
2013-01-11, 06:45 AM
Skill Dice go die in a fire!

Otherwise, I had mostly positive things to say.

Clawhound
2013-01-11, 09:57 AM
That, however, is a false dichotomy. The question is not whether the skill rules are perfect; the question is how good they are on a sliding scale.

And the current iteration of 5E's skill rules literally gives the average level-1 commoner a ten percent chance of succeeding at a task that, by the rules, would be challenging even to a demigod. That makes it one of the worst skill resolution mechanics I have ever seen in any RPG.

It doesn't have to be perfect. Nobody is expecting it to be perfect. But it could certainly be much, much better. And that's what we're paying WOTC for, after all.

At the moment, the DM decides if it is necessary to roll, so the percentage of unusual successes is actually far less. In addition, you need a character or NPC making a decision to go for the extreme roll. That either means that the roll is either without consequences if you lose, or that the character is desperate and has no better options. That cuts the practical percentages pretty low.

Example 1: A peasant wants to wrestle Heracles, who is known for his murderous temper. By the numbers, he has a 10% chance of winning. However, if he wins, he has a significant chance of being murdered by the loser. So challenging Heracles is not without consequences. This makes the scenario unlikely to happen as the peasant has better things to do than be turned into a human pretzel.

Example 2: In the middle of combat, Heracles wrestles down a peasant. Fireballs are going off. Arrows are flying everywhere. Chaos reigns. The peasant rolls high, successfully turning the tables on Heracles and escaping his grasp. The number here are exactly the same, yet this time they make sense. This is the sort of improbable twist that makes combat fun.

So, unpredictability is baked into the game. Is that a good thing? I think it is. When the peasant is a PC, that 10% chance of success becomes part of the fun. That same 10% chance of success also keeps the players from permanent overconfidence. Something can always go wrong, even with large numbers, and I think that's a good thing.

obryn
2013-01-11, 09:58 AM
Skill Dice go die in a fire!

Otherwise, I had mostly positive things to say.
I haven't seen them in action, but what I heard about them sounded like a pretty elegant solution to (1) adding a curve to skill checks, and (2) working reasonably well (and better than static bonuses) within the constraints of a bounded accuracy system.

Are they really this bad?

-O

oxybe
2013-01-11, 10:55 AM
it's actually rather inelegant.

adding a curve in and of itself doesn't do much to make a system better or worse. for the most part it just changes the frequency of some results. here's a link to anydice giving the results (http://anydice.com/program/1bc7) of a level 14 character with a +5 stat bonus using the d10 skill dice.

it's very easy to get lost looking at a bell curve, but make sure to note the frequency of the lower ends and how low actually they go. i find it makes someone who's supposed to be a trained professional look rather inept as his success can still vary quite wildly even beyond the assumed average as while it seems to be pointing towards 21 +/-5 (so between 16 and 26), but his minimum is 7 and maximum is 35, with a variance of +/- 8 still being quite frequent. my level 14 monk (20 dex) still has no idea how to ball park his actual chance of success when he's stealthing,

with a static bonus you can expect a certain chance of success always as it creates a baseline. let's say instead of a d10 skill dice, my character simply had a +5 training bonus. this would mean my minimum is at least 11 and maximum 30, though it still doesn't solve the problem of wildly different numbers, mainly due to the D20 itself being the issue, IMO, as it can just as easily throw you a 1 as it could a 19.

i will admit that the last two paragraphs are pretty much personal preference, but i don't think much is gained by adding the extra dice roll as it doesn't add that much more of a bell curve and it's still pretty unpredictable in what your character can actually do and generally makes it feel like another case of trained ineptitude thanks to the low bottom you can hit.

i just happen to prefer a higher bottom, is all.

skills tend to act pretty wonky and would probably benefit from a second look at how they interact with the rest of the game, rather then simply changing the resolution mechanic.

hamlet
2013-01-11, 10:57 AM
Skill Dice go die in a fire!

Otherwise, I had mostly positive things to say.

Agreed.

Whatever happened to that elegant advantage mechanic? Seems to be designed to work in such an instance.

obryn
2013-01-11, 11:10 AM
it's actually rather inelegant.
Fair enough!

As I've said, I haven't seen it in actual use. My group has basically stopped playtesting until (if) something comes out that's more to our tastes. Otherwise, I'll just wait until the core book(s) is/are released, and see what I think then.

I'm still perfectly happy with 4e, and when that gets old, I'd rather go to Savage Worlds or else try my group on FATE. (I'd be interested to see how the latter goes, but will wait until I get the books from the incredible kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/evilhat/fate-core) before trying it out. I don't know how good a fit it would be for my tactically-minded group, but I'm interested in trying it out.)

-O