D&D 5th Edition IX: Still in the Idea stage

[neonchameleon]

The point is, though, that if a game can be interpreted in multiple ways and some of those lead to problems, then that is very much so an issue in the game.

Indeed. It's an issue in the game. The issue in the game is that they should have been clearer about how it was intended to be interpreted. It's not that the rules are wrong, it's that the guidance is poorly written and leads to interpretations that make little sense. This is very much an issue in the game.

And your approach - that the right way to run 4e is the problematic one - is something that needlessly and pointlessly encourages people to run bad games. The approach that where there are two valid readings of the text, the one that leads in 99.9% of cases to a result that is either as good or superior is the indended one should not be controversial.

And by actively claiming that the rules tell you to do things the utterly daft way you are making it actively harder to see what the genuine problems are, and leading to negative experiences in a lot of directions including pouring oil on the troubled fires of the edition wars.


Also, if you don't see a particular issue and other people do, then that is also very much so an issue in the game.

Indeed. There is an issue with the game. However if we are talking about the rules rather than the guidance being bad, you are obfuscating what the problems are. The problems are quite simple - that the guidance sucks. This is not a controversial statement. Neither is it a controversial statement that in most cases where the guidance is poor, if the guidance can be read in two ways and one leads to much better results than the other you take the charitable reading. And then put the blame where it belongs - on the guidance.

No if you actually care about the issues, please stop obfuscating where the problems are. And please stop encouraging people to have bad experiences with 4e (or any other game) by telling them that the interpretation that leads to bad results is the right one. If on the other hand you simply want a club to beat 4e with please stop edition warring.

[Water_Bear]

So when a game says "Here is the way you set DCs, pick Easy/Medium/Hard and find the level which corresponds to it" that means you're supposed to be picking the level and difficulty of whatever NPC put it there in the first place? And that's the sane way to interpret it?

When a Paladin gains a singing voice better than most of the Bards she'll ever meet as a result of clearing out a few dozen dungeons and foiling a doomsday plot, we can just say "well she's experienced!" and that's the end of it?

When some Trolls can take hits all day and others are arbitrarily killed with a single blow, yet both hit the PCs with the same force at the same level, we're supposed to just shrug and say "well those guys were just minions, what do you expect?"

The problem with all of these issues are they are the results of dissociated mechanics; these rules make perfect sense from the perspective of mechanically good gameplay, but do not have any genuine connection with the game world. And just like ankle-high fences in a video game, these kinds of purely metagame restrictions break immersion and detract from roleplaying.

If Next wants to get Pathfinder/OSR players back they're going to need to re-associate their mechanics, because that's pretty much the price of admission. If they can keep it nice and tightly balanced, hopefully the 4e crowd won't mind. But given the direction they seem to be going it looks like they're going to try and piss off both groups with a poorly balanced dissociated mess.

[SiuiS]

Of course it's not spending 5-10 minutes on lava. It's spending 5-10 minutes on the combat total, explaining the rules for this particular combat (which may include any terrain elements, which monsters are minions and which aren't, and rules for the combat's skill challenge if any; such as whether using a skill today requires a minor, standard, free, or action-of-your-choice-but-a-lower-DC-if-you-use-a-standard, and so forth).

Reason being, many players I know are of the opinion that they need to know exactly what everything on the field does in order to make a proper decision.


That... Eh... No. Man. No. I'm with the other guy on this one. If you stand there refusing to act because you don't know the crunch? Okay, the bad guys go first because you have up your turn standing there. There's okay ("that's lava, it's hot.") and there's asinine ("the lava inflicts slow while you're in it, 2d12+8 damage and lights you on fire for another 5 ongoing fire damage and you can't make a save while in it.") and I think asinine is way past where to draw the line.


SiuiS: I have two gripes with how the current playtest uses skills:

1) "+1d6" to a skill is not going to be a meaningful boost to allow characters to reliably hit high DCs. It's also adding another dice to roll which I think is pointless. I also think the "progression" to higher dice is weak. A static modifier - a meaningful static modifier - would be a better idea. +3 is not as significant on a d20 as a +5 would be, especially if you're setting rough DCs at multiples of 5.

Aye, the 1d6 is paltry. +3 is meaningful I think, though, because its not a stand-alone number; +3 in addition to your native attributes gives you around +2–+8, which allows the whole variance between specialists and generalists thing. I don't think increasing skills at the same rate you increase DCs is clunky and ineffective.


2) The DCs in the playtest are too high. If part of the point of the skill system is to say "you're awesome at this, don't bother rolling" (perhaps it isn't, my read is they're backing away from that) they're doing a pretty lousy job mechanically at representing it.

Why are trivial checks given a DC that isn't "0"? Why should the reward for investing in a high ability score and training only qualify you to pass "easy" checks? Why should people with training and a high ability score fail "moderate" (DC 15) checks so dang often? In many ways, the current DCs to me are a step back from those in the first playtest, where at least a Moderate DC was a 13 and Hard a DC 16 (again, I would prefer Moderate to be DC 10 and Hard to be DC 15).[/quote]

This I think is a lesson design learned from 3e's "how come commoners don't know what roses are? Because they can't make the knowledge check for it!" Thing. Looking at the list of challenges for DCs, I got the impression that if something was that easy you didn't roll. I really do get a vibe of only roll attributes IFF it has meaningful results on both success and failure.


I think part of the skill system should be about making players feel awesome for their investments. A system that says "I know you're really supposed to be good at this, but you just failed an easy check" is not one that suggests that the system will accomplish this. Is my suggestion really just about pushing around numbers? Yes, but it's pushing those numbers around to make the players feel good, which I think should be the point.

I agree. Currently only the rogue has any real skill (getting 2d6 at first level), and everyone else... Yeah. I understand why they want to add dice, it changes the feel of things. But the slow progression, gaining an average of +1 for each improvement isn't the way to do it. There's a component missing. I think an actual rule on applying changing DCs would go a long euro cleaning up what we already have.


So when a game says "Here is the way you set DCs, pick Easy/Medium/Hard and find the level which corresponds to it" that means you're supposed to be picking the level and difficulty of whatever NPC put it there in the first place? And that's the sane way to interpret it?

Yes, actually. Going off of just what you have between quotation marks, I get a very definite static world feel. If its an right level keep, and the locks are superb, they are superb 8th level locks using the Hard DC for an 8th level character, even if the PCs show up early or late.

[obryn]

So when a game says "Here is the way you set DCs, pick Easy/Medium/Hard and find the level which corresponds to it" that means you're supposed to be picking the level and difficulty of whatever NPC put it there in the first place? And that's the sane way to interpret it?
It's one way to do it, certainly. Or you use the PCs' level and call something Easy or Hard, based on the fiction surrounding it. It works out adequately either way. Someone trained in a skill with a matching stat basically can't fail an Easy roll, so if it's DC 20 or DC 18 it's completely irrelevant. DCs don't exist as an independent thing; they're a mechanic to set probabilities.


When a Paladin gains a singing voice better than most of the Bards she'll ever meet as a result of clearing out a few dozen dungeons and foiling a doomsday plot, we can just say "well she's experienced!" and that's the end of it?
Singing isn't a 4e skill. The bard can always be better, unless the paladin is, say, a trained singer who took up the sword or something. The skills you get better at are specifically the ones you'd expect to get better at through years of adventuring.


The problem with all of these issues are they are the results of dissociated mechanics; these rules make perfect sense from the perspective of mechanically good gameplay, but do not have any genuine connection with the game world.
That's where you're missing the point, IMO. (And leaving aside that the whole "dissociated mechanics" bit is pseudo-intellectual nonsense.)

4e is not a process-sim system. It's not supposed to be, thank goodness. But it builds an entertaining, self-consistent, and world-consistent fiction through gameplay. Having a set DC for "trees" doesn't help the narrative; having characters climbing stuff who should be good at climbing stuff does.

The mechanics don't need a connection with any kind of fake fantasy-world physics to create a believable world and a believable story. They do need a connection with believable fiction being generated around the table. (For example: Novels don't have DCs or mechanics; their "realism" or whatnot is set by the events that happen within them and how self-consistent they are.)

You're basically setting process-sim as your bar and pulling a quick substitution and saying anything that's not process-sim is "dissociated." Which is, admittedly, different from most "dissociation" arguments, which focus on the presence of metagame mechanics, but is still not really saying anything convincing about what an RPG or D&D should be. Remember, there's only one edition (well, 1.5) where process-sim was the accepted standard.

-O

[Ashdate]

So when a game says "Here is the way you set DCs, pick Easy/Medium/Hard and find the level which corresponds to it" that means you're supposed to be picking the level and difficulty of whatever NPC put it there in the first place? And that's the sane way to interpret it?

You can do that, but the point should be to match expectations. And really, that's no different than the process in using in 3.5.


When a Paladin gains a singing voice better than most of the Bards she'll ever meet as a result of clearing out a few dozen dungeons and foiling a doomsday plot, we can just say "well she's experienced!" and that's the end of it?

Well, there's no perform skill in 4e, but to your point, the skill system is not meant to properly capture every single thing a PC could do (how could it?). But you're really talking about two things here: mechanics and fluff. As per the level 20 barbarian/level 1 Wizard Arcana check thing earlier, the mechanics simply stat that a level 20 Paladin is going to be better at many skills than a Bard - perhaps including art - simply by virtue of being a lot more experienced. He/she's presumably hasn't been covering his ears and shutting his eyes when the party wizard has been tinkering with a magic seal, and while the Paladin might look down upon the rogue's... eccentricities, he can't help but pick up a bit of the Rogue's technique as he picks a lock to free them from the illithids that captured them. I find it more difficult to believe that a character can go from level 1 to 20 and never get any better at a particular skill, while his friend starts eyeing some of the DCs on the "Epic skill" table.

Or, as Obryn put it, why are you comparing low-level character to high-level ones? The level 20 Paladin might outshine the level 1 Ranger in identifying poisonous plants, but he won't hold a candle to the Level 20 Ranger at the same task. You should be comparing apples to apples.

As for the fluff, well, why shouldn't the Paladin be great at singing if the player desire him/her to be? Charisma is an important stat for a Paladin, why should only Bards be able to sing majestically? And is art not enriched by experience?


When some Trolls can take hits all day and others are arbitrarily killed with a single blow, yet both hit the PCs with the same force at the same level, we're supposed to just shrug and say "well those guys were just minions, what do you expect?"


Minions do not deal the same damage that non-minions of a similar level do. They're meant to represent 1/4 of a "standard" monster (i.e. you can replace one standard monster with four minions). They deal about half the damage of a monster of their level would do.

I find minions fine (cannon fodder can make players feel really good to mow down), but others don't. They're not a core part of the 4e experience, so if they didn't have an analogue in DnD Next I would not lose sleep over it.


The problem with all of these issues are they are the results of dissociated mechanics; these rules make perfect sense from the perspective of mechanically good gameplay, but do not have any genuine connection with the game world. And just like ankle-high fences in a video game, these kinds of purely metagame restrictions break immersion and detract from roleplaying.

I think Obryn covered what I would say about "dissociation" in 4e, but let me bring this back to DnD Next.

Despite my defenses of it, I don't think 4e is perfect (just as I'm sure most 3.5/PF players would be willing to admit that their system isn't perfect either). You either accept its flaws for what they are, or you play a different game. I get that some players find the 4e mechanics "dissociative" (as an aside, I think people throw that term too liberally around here), and that's fine; I'm not asking DnD Next to be 4e version 3. If I wanted to convince you to play 4e I'd ask you to play... 4e.

As a player who enjoys 4e, I'd rather 5e be another bold step, the way 3.5 to 4e was. I don't want a lukewarm 3e or 4e, I would prefer something that stands apart from both of them. That doesn't mean that 5e shouldn't draw inspiration from previous editions (indeed, it would be ni-impossible for it not to), but rather that it should figure out what it wants to be - both for players and those running it.

As a DM, my priority is giving me a flexible set of tools with which to adjudicate matters. I want the system to do the heavy lifting for me so I can focus on the things that system can't do - create a story to engage my players. I have zero interest in relying on tables to craft my player's experience, because that means we - as a group - are spending more time reading a book than rolling dice, killing trolls (minion or otherwise) and having fun. There is nothing more "dissociative" to me than stopping play so I can see what Mike Mearls thought the DC for climbing a _______ wall should be. I have spent the last three years using 4e as my system of choice, and it's been an absolute joy. I tried DMing 3.5 for a year, and it always felt like the system was stuggling against me, which meant the time I spent thinking up new plot hooks, NPCs, and adventures was cut into by a system that wanted to go left when I wanted to go right. I know there are a lot of 3.5 DMs who have made their peace with the system (I suspect most have simply mastered it enough that they can simply fudge numbers), but I would hope most would agree that if there are some strengths to 3.5, they lean more towards the player side than behind a 3.5 DM screen.

So if you want me to DM 5e, I think the system needs to show that it's as easy to DM for as 4e was. Part of that is a flexible skill system that I can turn to resolve matters in a timely fashion that jives with the narrative I'm telling.

(And yes, part of achieving that involves ensuring that WotC doesn't trip over their own feet while presenting it.)

[Seerow]

So when a game says "Here is the way you set DCs, pick Easy/Medium/Hard and find the level which corresponds to it" that means you're supposed to be picking the level and difficulty of whatever NPC put it there in the first place? And that's the sane way to interpret it?


I tend to go with "pick the level that task is appropriate to" rather than "pick the level of the NPC that put it there", but both of them are better than "Choose the PCs level" which leads to all of the nonsensical complaints you see about 4e.

Because swinging on a chandelier? That's a low level task. I'd peg it as something like a level 3 medium DC. So any acrobatic character can probably do it pretty reliably. A mid-high level acrobatic character? He probably has a good enough bonus to not even have to roll for it.

And honestly even the idea of a "Crystal chandelier vs iron chandelier" (someone else had brought this up)... it's a chandelier, not a lock. What it's made out of shouldn't make it any noticeably harder. Now what you're actually trying to do (say jumping on it, swinging it, cutting it lose, and jumping off before it falls) would make for a higher level/harder DC, but again that's an issue of "try to do something harder, it gets harder" not just "It's harder because the character is higher level"

[neonchameleon]

So when a game says "Here is the way you set DCs, pick Easy/Medium/Hard and find the level which corresponds to it" that means you're supposed to be picking the level and difficulty of whatever NPC put it there in the first place? And that's the sane way to interpret it?

You're supposed to be picking the challenge difficulty. If it's the same lock it's the same lock and the PCs outlevel it. Just as they would enemies. If it comes in nowhere it's probably about the PCs level.


When a Paladin gains a singing voice better than most of the Bards she'll ever meet as a result of clearing out a few dozen dungeons and foiling a doomsday plot, we can just say "well she's experienced!" and that's the end of it?

This might be other than a strawman if there was such a thing as a Perform skill in 4e. In the actual rules of 4e, singing voice is entirely between the DM and the players - so this is a DMing question.


When some Trolls can take hits all day and others are arbitrarily killed with a single blow, yet both hit the PCs with the same force at the same level, we're supposed to just shrug and say "well those guys were just minions, what do you expect?"

This might be other than a strawman if minions did the same damage as standard monsters at the same level. Or if the DM wasn't supposed to put things in the fluff. Or of there was a single minion fully grown troll in the whole of the published material for 4e.

Now if you want to use an actual example of minions from the monster manual we can talk about how orc drudges (i.e. badly equipped and weedy orc non-warriors) go down in a single hit and do about half the damage of full strength orc warriors. Or how kobold tunnellers go down in one hit and trained kobold warriors don't.

There is precisely one living troll I am aware of that can go down in one single hit (from a non-epic character). The Troll Runt. Found in Dungeon 159, the Troll Runt is explicitely a runt - and does significantly less damage than a standard troll. If you are the DM, you are using runts, and describing runts in exactly the same way as non-runts then the problem doesn't lie with the game. If your DM is describing runts in exactly the same way as non-runts then the problem doesn't lie with the game.


The problem with all of these issues are they are the results of dissociated mechanics; these rules make perfect sense from the perspective of mechanically good gameplay, but do not have any genuine connection with the game world. And just like ankle-high fences in a video game, these kinds of purely metagame restrictions break immersion and detract from roleplaying.

Wrong on all counts. The first problem with the issues you outline is that they are all strawmen that have nothing to do with 4e as presented.

The second problem is that 4e is much more closely tied to the fiction than 3e. And whereas in 3e you could simply assume that all trees are equally easy to climb - or that it doesn't matter how you catch someone on fire it does the same damage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm) - or it doesn't matter whether the lava is at the mouth of the volcano or nearing the end of the run, in 4e the fiction actually matters.


If Next wants to get Pathfinder/OSR players back they're going to need to re-associate their mechanics, because that's pretty much the price of admission.

You mean that the price of admission is assuming all economies are identical and location doesn't matter? You mean the price of admission is assuming all trees are identical and species and growth doesn't matter? You mean that the price of admission is not having separate rules to handle troll runts from handling fully grown trolls? And association means "having rules, whether or not they make any sense" rather than having decent guidelines for intelligent DMs to follow? Because these are all explicitely things you have asked for or claimed is wrong with 4e in this thread alone.


If they can keep it nice and tightly balanced, hopefully the 4e crowd won't mind. But given the direction they seem to be going it looks like they're going to try and piss off both groups with a poorly balanced dissociated mess.

That seems to be true.

Edit: And everything @Ashdate said above. You want to break my immersion? Force me to crack open a rulebook while at the table other than for a statblock. Or force me to straightjacket the giant smooth crystal trees and their fractal branches in the heart of the Feywild as having the same climb DC as the old oak down the garden - to me that is utterly nonsensical. Or throw someone into the heart of an active volcano and have them only take 2d6 damage. 4e puts a little more minimum load onto the DM to establish things than 3.X does - but it then gives a superb mix of both guidelines and flexibiilty to cope with any given vision.

[Scow2]

I think I agree that having 10 be the "Baseline DC" is too high for D&D Next, given the absence of the obscene modifiers from previous editions. It's like the developers forgot a d20 rolled 1-20, not 10-20.

But the 'DM sets the DC for a given challenge rule, with guidelines" is a much better system than 3.5's prescribed, Fixed DCs - largely because it makes the skills a lot more usable, and their definition as guidelines. If you want to do something - anything at all - you can make an ability check to do so, and the GM just needs to set the DC. However, I'd spell out that the DM needs to give the DC of an attempted action before it's tried for proactive decisions, to prevent player characters from committing suicide on things they thought would be easy but the GM thought was hard.

Hopefully, the move away from static DCs and narrowly-defined skills will reduce one of the biggest problems that I see popping up at 3rd Edition/pathfinder tables and discussion boards: Rules Lawyering.

[obryn]

When a Paladin gains a singing voice better than most of the Bards she'll ever meet as a result of clearing out a few dozen dungeons and foiling a doomsday plot, we can just say "well she's experienced!" and that's the end of it?
I want to go back to this because I think it's pretty illustrative of the major issue here...

Why is, "20th level Paladin can sing better than a bard" an issue while "Fighter gets better than professional weaponsmith by killing goblins for a few weeks" okay? You've determined that the 3.x/d20 rules are a sensible way to run a game, and have internalized it into a sense of "association" or realism when it's still just as silly in a different way.


You want to break my immersion? Force me to crack open a rulebook while at the table other than for a statblock.
Yep. Or rely on my players' system mastery to communicate threat levels rather than sensible narrative or fiction.


Despite my defenses of it, I don't think 4e is perfect (just as I'm sure most 3.5/PF players would be willing to admit that their system isn't perfect either). You either accept its flaws for what they are, or you play a different game.
Yep, ditto. It's kind of weird - I'll go on at length about the stuff in 4e that could be a lot better. But it's never the same kinds of things as we see in threads like this.

-O

[Scow2]

The thing that bothered me most about 4e was the roles. To me, D&D's class roles have traditionally been "Heavy Fighter, Skillmonkey, Arcane Caster, Divine Caster." This set of roles took the emphasis away from Combat, and more on quest strategy. Combat has the most rules in the system because it's a tense situation where a lot of little details matter, and there need to be concrete rules governing most actions.

[Emmerask]

Why is, "20th level Paladin can sing better than a bard" an issue while "Fighter gets better than professional weaponsmith by killing goblins for a few weeks" okay? You've determined that the 3.x/d20 rules are a sensible way to run a game, and have internalized it into a sense of "association" or realism when it's still just as silly in a different way.


Because the act of putting points into a craft skill can be justified/interpreted as the fighter training in the downtime.

The across the board becoming better in skills somehow however can really not be justified so easily. If every adventure would involve all skill activites maybe I could say well thats okay... but that is mostly not the case.

And if you ask your players what they did during downtime none of them will say they trained everything that was not trained during the adventure.
If you ask the same question to the fighter training crafting, more then likely he will answer I am at the smithy and train some.

/edit I´m not saying the 3.5 skill system is the best ever invented because it does have numerous issues that are more or less gamebreaking but overall I still like it more then the 4e version

[obryn]

Because the act of putting points into a craft skill can be justified/interpreted as the fighter training in the downtime.
What downtime? He's adventured for two weeks and with his level gains, he's now a better weaponsmith than the professional.

(And also, this is exactly the logic people get down on 4e for with encounter powers - that is, post-hoc in-fiction justifications for the outcome of working rules.)

In 4e, all the skills are the sorts of things one would naturally pick up or learn over the course of adventuring, and the justification is exactly the same. The advancement is really slow, too - 1 point per 2 levels, with extras for stat bumps. What's more, in 4e, if a player says, "I didn't know weaponsmithing before, but now I am an expert because skill points," the DM can reasonably say, "No you're not; put in the time." 4e doesn't model the entirety of the non-adventuring world in its ruleset. It doesn't try. This is as opposed to 3.x, which tries but ends up making even less in-fiction sense through trying to expand capable rules for adventurers into senseless rules for commoners and craftsmen.

-O

[neonchameleon]

Because the act of putting points into a craft skill can be justified/interpreted as the fighter training in the downtime.

The across the board becoming better in skills somehow however can really not be justified so easily. If every adventure would involve all skill activites maybe I could say well thats okay... but that is mostly not the case.

And if you ask your players what they did during downtime none of them will say they trained everything that was not trained during the adventure.
If you ask the same question to the fighter training crafting, more then likely he will answer I am at the smithy and train some.

OK. Let's check this claim. Practice improves skills. And in the average adventuring across a level, you are doing a lot of different things. Let's break down the 4e skills to see what you are likely to practice over the course of a level. 4e has 17 skills, all tailored to adventuring.

Physical Skills: Acrobatics, Athletics, and Endurance.

Likelihood adventuring is a very physically strenuous activity at times: Incredibly high.

Heal

Likelihood you are around people getting hurt, are at least seeing people apply emergency bandages, and probably pitching in yourself. You might not be officially trained in osmosis, but you should definitely be picking up a grounding in what is dangerous and how to heal wounds. Indeed if you aren't learning a bit of healing over the course of a couple of levels I want to know what you think you are doing.

Knowledge Skills: Arcana, Religion, History

You're making history and exploring it. You're either practicing your magic, alongside a magic user, having spells thrown at you, or more than one of the above. That a fifteenth level Barbarian doesn't have a much greater chance of recognising a Fireball being cast than a first level one even if their allied wizard has been casting them every fight for the past ten levels as a default is to me one of the many holes in the 3.X skill system.

Noticing Skills: Perception, Insight

You're seeing more and more things under more and more extreme conditions and seeing people under intense stress. If you aren't learning a little in these areas as you level you're doing something weird.

Social Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate

If you aren't more intimidating as you level up, that's strictly a matter of choice. You really have been there and seen it. And this confidence that you can cope with things and are probably not someone to mess with will carry through into how much people don't want to start fights round you when you're being nice. That's in addition to seeing how people function under stress, what the warning signs are, and whatever you've learned. And as for Bluff, you've seen some pretty ridiculous things as an adventurer. You know the details that matter and those to take account of. That's in addition to any actual personal experience with these skills.

Environment Skills: Streetwise, Dungeoneering, Nature, Stealth.

Whenever you adventure you are somewhere and are actively testing your knowledge of that environment. And seeing sides of it few ever get to see and probably weren't in your theoretical training. If you're the person who's guiding the party, you're getting serious practice in with your skills - and if you're following you're (hopefully) learning from watching an expert at work. (Stealth comes here because it's at least in part about how you use your environment - being on either end of a few ambushes should help your stealth skill). Over any given level you're likely to be practicing at least two of the Streetwise/Dungeoneering/Nature trinity.

The single exception: Thievery

Yeah, OK. You probably aren't practicing Thievery unless you're a thief. On the other hand you probably aren't rolling thievery unless you're a thief so it doesn't matter. Thievery is literally the only 4e skill I wouldn't expect the average adventurer to get better with as they became more experienced.

Skills that you shouldn't automatically be practicing just by virtue of being an adventurer: Craft (Blacksmith). Profession (Barmaid), Perform (Singing). Mysteriously those are the major skills that don't exist in 4e. Funny, that.

In 4e you don't have some sort of gamist system which says "I've now killed 20 orcs. That's just given me enough skill points that I can book myself into a cookery course." Or even better "I'm a virtuoso bard. I can either spend the next four weeks practicing before the big recital or killing orcs. Only one of them will allow me to get better at singing and it's not practice." Instead the skill system works organically so you automatically get better at the things you are incredibly likely to be practicing and learning about as an adventurer. And I, for one, can't be bothered to track whether you actually used thievery in the course of a level or whether you managed to avoid cities entirely for one level or avoid going underground entirely for one level.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Instead the skill system works organically so you automatically get better at the things you are incredibly likely to be practicing and learning about as an adventurer. And I, for one, can't be bothered to track whether you actually used thievery in the course of a level or whether you managed to avoid cities entirely for one level or avoid going underground entirely for one level.

I've been staying out of this discussion because I haven't really had anything interesting to say on the skill system, but this gave me a bit of a realization: What if the problem with the 4E skill system is ludic, rather than representational?

Lemme explain: Your character sheet is basically a set of tools that you the player use to interact with the game world. What we call immersion is when the interface of the character sheet disappears and you feel like you are your character and you're actually in the game world. Immersion isn't something every game aims for, but I think it's pretty universally agreed-upon that D&D is ideally an immersive game.

Define a representational problem as when the mechanics of the character sheet don't match the fiction it is intended to create: It breaks immersion when it comes up because these disconnects remind you that the mechanics and the fiction are fundamentally separate. These are popularly called "dissociated mechanics." The thing about these problems is that all mechanics, fundamentally, are dissociated to a degree. Dissociation becomes a problem when it happens too much, too fast, in too specialized an area: If it's small enough, infrequent enough, and general enough, you can absorb it along with the character sheet and retain immersion.

Define a ludic problem, on the other hand, not a mismatch between the mechanics and the fiction but rather a mismatch between the mechanics and the player attempting to absorb them. Ludic flaws, rather than breaking immersion, prevent the player from entering it in the first place.


Now, here's my hypothesis: You say that there's no representational disconnect between the automatic skill increases in 4E because it's assumed your character is just naturally getting better at these things as they adventure, and others have made the additional claim that skill points are almost representationally equivalent as the same assumption is made with regards to skill increases through points.

I think, however, that there's a ludic disconnect, and it lies in how the 4E system makes assumptions about the character (and thus, the player) that the player may not be willing to accept, whereas skill points do not.

When the player spends a skill point to get a new rank in Knowledge (Religion), they choose to say to themselves "okay, my character got in some time to read some new books about gods and stuff." If they're really into it, they'll even name a specific time and place where they managed to get the reading in. The important detail is that if they did not want their character to have done this, they would not have spent that skill point there.

But with the 4E system there is no such choice: It's assumed that the character has been learning more about the gods whether the player wants to take this direction or not. It interferes with the player's ability to merge into their character because it makes the character something alien, outside the player's conception, that the player now has to form themselves around.



...This post came out as incoherent rambling, didn't it? Sorry, running on 2 hours of sleep and too much caffine for my own good, probably. Just ignore me.

[neonchameleon]

What if the problem with the 4E skill system is ludic, rather than representational?

Interesting insight. I'm going to start with a digression.


Immersion isn't something every game aims for, but I think it's pretty universally agreed-upon that D&D is ideally an immersive game.

This is majority agreed - but isn't even close to being universally agreed. The earliest editions of D&D were played in Pawn stance - you were outside the game moving your token around like a pawn on a chessboard. And it was a matter of whether you, the player, had the skill to defeat the dungeon using the resources you had. Immersion is about Actor stance - where you act as the character. (There's a third stance D&D doesn't often touch called Author Stance which is about narrative control).


Define a ludic problem, on the other hand, not a mismatch between the mechanics and the fiction but rather a mismatch between the mechanics and the player attempting to absorb them. Ludic flaws, rather than breaking immersion, prevent the player from entering it in the first place.


Now, here's my hypothesis: You say that there's no representational disconnect between the automatic skill increases in 4E because it's assumed your character is just naturally getting better at these things as they adventure, and others have made the additional claim that skill points are almost representationally equivalent as the same assumption is made with regards to skill increases through points.

I think, however, that there's a ludic disconnect, and it lies in how the 4E system makes assumptions about the character (and thus, the player) that the player may not be willing to accept, whereas skill points do not.

When the player spends a skill point to get a new rank in Knowledge (Religion), they choose to say to themselves "okay, my character got in some time to read some new books about gods and stuff." If they're really into it, they'll even name a specific time and place where they managed to get the reading in. The important detail is that if they did not want their character to have done this, they would not have spent that skill point there.

But with the 4E system there is no such choice: It's assumed that the character has been learning more about the gods whether the player wants to take this direction or not. It interferes with the player's ability to merge into their character because it makes the character something alien, outside the player's conception, that the player now has to form themselves around.

Indeed you might very well be right. But I think that this is a specific edition familliarity issue; it is something that comes specifically and almost exclusively from people who are used to d20 games and who think that skills are normally measured by skill points. If you either accept 4e on its own terms or start without a D20 background, I don't believe this is an issue.


...This post came out as incoherent rambling, didn't it? Sorry, running on 2 hours of sleep and too much caffine for my own good, probably. Just ignore me.

Not at all. It was an interesting insight.

[SiuiS]

New word, valid concept, I like.

I do think that's the issue, one of buy in. It's harder to buy into 4e skill improvement from the outside but easy to accept from the inside.


Can you give me the definition of Ludic? My phone says "showin spontaneous and undirected playfulness" as the definition. Don't add up, that.

[Kurald Galain]

I've been staying out of this discussion because I haven't really had anything interesting to say on the skill system, but this gave me a bit of a realization: What if the problem with the 4E skill system is ludic, rather than representational?
That's a good point.

Yes, skill points allow for a direct player-involved method of character growth with tangible results. 2E, 4E, and 5E lack this, so it makes sense that some players dislike these systems for that reason. This is, of course, a matter of taste.

Then, we have learned that some people want a character trained in a skill to be able to become so much better that an untrained character has a negligible chance of beating him (as in 2E / 3E), whereas other people emphatically do not want this (as in 4E, and even moreso 5E). Again, this is a matter of taste.

Then, some people prefer that skill DCs are set based on what is happening in the game world (2E / 3E / 5E) whereas others want them set based on game balance (4E). Once again, a matter of taste.

And finally, there is the matter of fluff/crunch mismatches. Although every RPG contains some of these, a common complaint against 4E is that it has substantially more of them than earlier editions. Some people strongly object to f/c mismatches, whereas others aren't at all bothered by them, and yet others vehemently deny their existence. Once more, a matter of taste.

Okay, so that's four matters of taste we have identified, where some people (strongly) like Chocolate, other people (heavily) favor Strawberry, yet other people like both tastes with no real preference, and yet nobody suggests it is feasible to have a Strawlate or Chocoberry mix. It is theoretically possible for 5E's alleged modular system to cover all of these, but it seems more likely that 5E will make four clear choices here and alienate those parts of the fanbase favoring the other four.

[Craft (Cheese)]

This is majority agreed - but isn't even close to being universally agreed. The earliest editions of D&D were played in Pawn stance - you were outside the game moving your token around like a pawn on a chessboard. And it was a matter of whether you, the player, had the skill to defeat the dungeon using the resources you had. Immersion is about Actor stance - where you act as the character. (There's a third stance D&D doesn't often touch called Author Stance which is about narrative control).

Actually, the Actor stance uses stronger conditions than I intended to use here: By "immersion" I meant the illusion that the world and your character are real. You can be immersed in the Pawn stance and the Author stance, under this definition, in much the same way you can be immersed in a good movie or book. The Actor stance is immersion plus the intentional modification of your behavior to better fit with the type of story the game is telling.


Can you give me the definition of Ludic? My phone says "showin spontaneous and undirected playfulness" as the definition. Don't add up, that.

Ludic - Of or related to games, from the Latin "ludus".

Or at least that's the original definition: I'm using it in a more specific game design context, where we say the ludic aspects of a game are in the way the player interacts with the game, as opposed to things like art or sound. Take for example a third-person beat-em-up game and a turn-based tactics game: You could, in theory, make them both identical in every way except in how the player interfaces with the game, such that they differ only ludically. Not that this would be a good idea, obviously.

[137beth]

Indeed you might very well be right. But I think that this is a specific edition familliarity issue; it is something that comes specifically and almost exclusively from people who are used to d20 games and who think that skills are normally measured by skill points. If you either accept 4e on its own terms or start without a D20 background, I don't believe this is an issue.
I disagree with you here. Outside of the skill system, specifically, when it comes to attack rolls, 3E has a similar issue as 4e where you must have spent time improving your attack rolls by the time you level up, regardless of how often you used it. Even for low-BAB classes, it is still going up no matter what.
Now, 4e effectively gave everyone the 3E equivalent of low BAB (+1/2 level) to attack rolls (and most other things). But for attack rolls in particular, it is pretty much the same problem as with 3E: increasing your attack bonus is not a choice. What 4e did, on the other hand, was apply this problem to a bunch of other subsystems, including skills.

Now, if you go outside of D&D, in something like GURPS, for example, you aren't forced to increase any of your character's abilities.

[Scow2]

Now, if you go outside of D&D, in something like GURPS, for example, you aren't forced to increase any of your character's abilities.

And you're not forced to increase your abilities in D&D Next either, aside from Combat and dungeon survival, which increases with level (Greater attack bonuses, damage, and HP).

[obryn]

Now, if you go outside of D&D, in something like GURPS, for example, you aren't forced to increase any of your character's abilities.
Honestly, this is precisely why I think generic and somewhat universal increases in competence are not a problem for D&D. D&D's strength - IMO, its major system strength - is its adherence to a class/level system and its exploration of (and establishment of new) archetypes.

In point-buy games like GURPS and skill-based ones like Savage Worlds, it's a very different issue. But to me, adherence to a strong class/level advancement is part of what makes D&D, D&D.

(As an aside, this is a major reason why 3e feels less like D&D to me than 4e; it broke the fundamental class/level basis of the game and replaced it with something much more like a point-buy system, between free multiclassing, large feat lists, micromanagement of skill points, and magic items/wealth as a secondary point-buy advancement track for buying power-ups outside the standard class/level system.)

In short, I don't think it's a problem for D&D; I think it's part of its essence.

-O

[neonchameleon]

Then, some people prefer that skill DCs are set based on what is happening in the game world (2E / 3E / 5E) whereas others want them set based on game balance (4E). Once again, a matter of taste.

And others prefer skill DCs are set based on what is happening in the game world (1e/4e) rather than some game designer's sometimes mistaken generic version of the real world (2e/3e). Your mileage may vary.


And finally, there is the matter of fluff/crunch mismatches. Although every RPG contains some of these, a common complaint against 4E is that it has substantially more of them than earlier editions.

That is a common complaint - but in my experience it is one only expressed by people whose main roleplaying experience is with prior versions of D&D. This is because IMO 4e has fewer fluff/crunch mismatches than any other edition of D&D except oD&D - but in any game familiarity with fluff/crunch mismatches means you stop noticing them.

To take two huge fluff/crunch mismatches that 4e fixed, in editions of D&D before 4e hit points were utterly incoherent (and 3.X was the worst edition this way as it had critical hits; when an orc critically hits someone with a greataxe and it's doing something other than stun damage that person should be dead). 4e hit points mixed with healing surges are actually coherent - just cinematic stun/wounds. But people find the 4e version to be a greater mismatch because they are used to how previous editions did things, and carefully don't examine it too clearly. Also before 4e (and not counting the Bo9S) fighters were effectively untiring robots able to swing consistently until the cows came home and always with the same range of options. 4e fixed this; fighters, like real world athletes pace themselves and take advantage of opportunities that arise in more than just hitting a single target. But because 4e did things differently, despite the crunch being closer to the fluff people were now forced to pay attention to it.


Now, if you go outside of D&D, in something like GURPS, for example, you aren't forced to increase any of your character's abilities.

And this is one of the areas where GURPS isn't simulationist. If I remember my Rolemaster correctly (I may be thinking of another game), you advance your skills based on how much you've used them - and how often you've failed. 4e takes the simulationist approach here (I generally find it a better simulation than 3.X) - and works on the basis that your skills level up as you use them rather than they level up arbitrarily.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Remember, there's only one edition (well, 1.5) where process-sim was the accepted standard.

You know, I hear(/read) the claim all the time that 3e is the only edition that focuses on process simulation/simulationism/fantasy physics/whatever you want to call it.

Does nobody ever remember AD&D's weapon vs. armor tables, Gygaxian naturalism (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/09/gygaxian-naturalism.html), and other fiddly fantasy-physics stuff...like two solid pages spent on the chances of acquiring diseases based on the environments you adventure in and the type and severity of said disease, which shows up right after character background professions in the DMG? Does nobody ever recall that AD&D is the origin of the term "Greyhawking" (stripping the scenery and bodies bare for valuable materials to sell), which basically requires a fantasy-physics approach to the rules, (How thick is the gold layer on El Dorado's buildings and streets? What's the price of gold per pound? How much damage does is take to break the street into chunks without destroying it entirely?) and that the fluffy settings/novels of Dragonlance and Planescape and the like were written as alternatives to that mode of play?

You can say you don't like the particular way 3e implemented that approach, and that's another chocolate/strawberry thing that most people can agree with to some extent, but pretending that the simulationist approach is some strange aberration that 3e introduced as opposed to basically the default mode of play since the game started is really unfair to people who favor that playstyle.


Because swinging on a chandelier? That's a low level task. I'd peg it as something like a level 3 medium DC. So any acrobatic character can probably do it pretty reliably. A mid-high level acrobatic character? He probably has a good enough bonus to not even have to roll for it.

And this here is an example of the problem. To you and me and many others, "swing on a chandelier" is self-evidently a low-level, moderately-difficult task that a relatively acrobatic character can pull off easily. To a different section of the playerbase, it's self-evidently a mid-level, difficult task that only the most acrobatic of swashbucklers can pull off with any reliability.

That's the benefit of having tables of set DCs instead of a level+difficulty formula, really: having a single DC for "chandelier swing" isn't as flexible as a variable DC and might as neonchameleon mentioned be based on inaccurate reasoning or knowledge on the devs' part, but the single DC conveys a set of expectations. If the DC for chandelier-swinging is DC 10, it tells the DM and players "this is a cinematic game where swashbuckler-y acrobatics are simple and/or low level tasks for someone with the training for it," while if the DC for chandelier-swinging is 25, it tells the DM and players "this is a more gritty game where swashbuckler-y acrobatics aren't going to happen unless you're really good at it." In such a case, everyone is on the same page from the start so someone can look at their character sheet and know how swashbuckler-y they are and so forth, and you won't discover mid-game that you think this is a cinematic game and he thinks it's a gritty game and you didn't think to go over that beforehand (which is a situation I've run into several times with players and DMs who come from different systems and have different expectations).

I mean, 4e has static DCs for a lot of things, and the swimming, climbing, and monster ID sections (among others) are very similar to their 3e incarnations if not identical to them, so a bunch of the shorthand examples people are using are actually the same between editions. But those are all obvious, straightforward applications; you don't need page 42 to tell you that climbing a ladder or stairs is trivial most of the time. The page 42 system is used for those situations not already covered in the rules and so is usually used for situations we don't have a real-world benchmark for: How hard is it to forage for humanoid-edible food in the Underdark? Is it still the DC 15 quoted under Survival? Some DMs think so because a big honkin' cave system is still "nature" while some DMs think not because the magical ecosystem is quite different, and asking your DM their opinion on every little thing can slow things down (and forgetting to ask and just assuming can screw the party over).

I actually like the PHB1 skills chapter in general; I'd have condensed skills differently, fleshed some stuff out, things like that, but in general I like it. I just don't like how they went from static DCs there to "figure out an appropriate level" in the DMG. It would be fine if they did what Legend did, for instance, and gave example level benchmarks for individual skills, so even if you don't look up those exact DCs in play you know what a DC 20 challenge/level 10 challenge looks like for Engineering or Stealth or whatever, but leaving everything ambiguous by basing improvised DCs on a different system than the hard example DCs just rubs me the wrong way.

[neonchameleon]

You know, I hear(/read) the claim all the time that 3e is the only edition that focuses on process simulation/simulationism/fantasy physics/whatever you want to call it.

Does nobody ever remember AD&D's weapon vs. armor tables, Gygaxian naturalism (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/09/gygaxian-naturalism.html), and other fiddly fantasy-physics stuff...like two solid pages spent on the chances of acquiring diseases based on the environments you adventure in and the type and severity of said disease, which shows up right after character background professions in the DMG?

The thing is Gygaxian Naturalism isn't a process sim. Gygaxian naturalism is about detailing the bits the characters are likely to want to interact with and making something reasonable looking based on that. The game is about exploration in dangerous conditions so Gygaxian Naturalism includes rules for dangerous conditions. The game is about raiding lairs and not getting caught so Gygaxian Naturalism includes the chance of monsters being away from lairs. The game is about acquiring loot so Gygaxian naturalism works out the loot rules in detail. The game is not about Merchants and Bartenders so there isn't a Profession skill. 3e on the other hand is an 80s-style toolbox game (http://eudaimonaiaclaughter.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/tabletop-roleplaying-traveller-to-a-common-language/) (like GURPS) that tries to cover just about everything.


Does nobody ever recall that AD&D is the origin of the term "Greyhawking" (stripping the scenery and bodies bare for valuable materials to sell), which basically requires a fantasy-physics approach to the rules, (How thick is the gold layer on El Dorado's buildings and streets?

For the record, Greyhawking happened because 1e is an extremely gamist game (with a hell of a lot more mechanics put in for the purpose of balance than 4e). When 1GP was worth 1XP, no one wanted to leave GP on the floors of the dungeon because they were leaving XP behind even if they would normally have had a more relaxed attitude.

No two successive editions of D&D have been remotely the same philosophically - with the philosophy underlying 4e being a cross between 1e's balance and planned mode of play and 2e's high adventure quests. (Actually there's a minor difference between the 2e and 4e high adventure quests in tone; 2e expects you to play the shining hero prophecied at birth (i.e. Luke), 4e expects the scurrilous smuggler and the wookie co-pilot flying a deathtrap (i.e. Han and Chewie).


What's the price of gold per pound? How much damage does is take to break the street into chunks without destroying it entirely?)

Both excellent questions in a highly gamist game about getting as much treasure as possible. Leaving the treasure behind would have been essentially a minor form of level drain. This more or less disappeared in 2e when the focus shifted from dungeon-heists to high fantasy adventures. (With the seeds reaching back to the Dragonlance saga if not before)


That's the benefit of having tables of set DCs instead of a level+difficulty formula, really: having a single DC for "chandelier swing" isn't as flexible as a variable DC and might as neonchameleon mentioned be based on inaccurate reasoning or knowledge on the devs' part, but the single DC conveys a set of expectations.

Agreed - but so does a small collection of indicative DCs (which 4e has). And they don't constrain the DM in remotely the same way.


I mean, 4e has static DCs for a lot of things, and the swimming, climbing, and monster ID sections (among others) are very similar to their 3e incarnations if not identical to them, so a bunch of the shorthand examples people are using are actually the same between editions.

Yup. The amusing thing about the differences is that the two differences between the 3e and the 4e skills are that 4e skills get better with practice, 3e with choice - and that 4e has only about a couple of dozen set DCs for 19 skills whereas 3e has a horde of them. The practical differences are very minor and if you were to import 3e skill DCs into a 4e game or vise-versa I suspect few would notice.

[obryn]

Does nobody ever remember AD&D's weapon vs. armor tables, Gygaxian naturalism (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/09/gygaxian-naturalism.html), and other fiddly fantasy-physics stuff...like two solid pages spent on the chances of acquiring diseases based on the environments you adventure in and the type and severity of said disease, which shows up right after character background professions in the DMG?
First off, "Gygaxian Naturalism" is a latecomer to the stage. :smallsmile: It's OSR philosophy and/or revisionism, and isn't any sort of actual guiding philosophy of AD&D.

And while the 1e DMG has a lot of great stuff in it, its rules don't try to model the physics of the universe. 3e tries to assert that its rules model the physics of the fantasy world, and that the physics of the fantasy world should be modeled as closely as possible through the rules.

AD&D (and especially older D&D) rely on DM-adjudicated realism - which is the opposite of what 3e tries to do, since (as Water Bear described above), 3e removed the DM's judgment from the equation. 3e's obsessive bookkeeping and categorization of every object in the universe was a(n over)reaction to AD&D's relative silence on issues like, "How many hit points does a wall have?" or "why can't my Wizard just pick up some thief skills?" or "just how good is that farmer at farming?"


Does nobody ever recall that AD&D is the origin of the term "Greyhawking" (stripping the scenery and bodies bare for valuable materials to sell), which basically requires a fantasy-physics approach to the rules, (How thick is the gold layer on El Dorado's buildings and streets? What's the price of gold per pound? How much damage does is take to break the street into chunks without destroying it entirely?) and that the fluffy settings/novels of Dragonlance and Planescape and the like were written as alternatives to that mode of play?
Dragonlance and 2e's settings were alternatives to a primarily dungeon-crawl/murderhobo sort of game. But dungeoncrawling doesn't require rules-as-physics. Far from it.

As above, AD&D (and even moreso, OD&D and BECMI) require DM adjudication of physics. Which brings us back to 4e, which requires DM adjudication as well, but is nice enough to provide a helpful table. :smallsmile:

-O

[TuggyNE]

When the player spends a skill point to get a new rank in Knowledge (Religion), they choose to say to themselves "okay, my character got in some time to read some new books about gods and stuff." If they're really into it, they'll even name a specific time and place where they managed to get the reading in. The important detail is that if they did not want their character to have done this, they would not have spent that skill point there.

But with the 4E system there is no such choice: It's assumed that the character has been learning more about the gods whether the player wants to take this direction or not. It interferes with the player's ability to merge into their character because it makes the character something alien, outside the player's conception, that the player now has to form themselves around.

That's an excellent point, and I think it captures the reason for my uneasiness at the idea of a paladin learning to pick locks: sure, some paladins might absorb picking through osmosis in the course of adventures, but most would actively avoid learning anything about it! And there is no way to represent that. Just saying "well, he won't choose to roll, will he?" misses the point: the point is not merely that he doesn't use his covert entry skills, but that he doesn't have any at all.

(The later note that 3.x has a similar problem with BAB is correct; however, I suspect that's only tolerated because no one has come up with a great solution yet, which is certainly not the case for skills.)

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The thing is Gygaxian Naturalism isn't a process sim. Gygaxian naturalism is about detailing the bits the characters are likely to want to interact with and making something reasonable looking based on that.

I fail to see how that's any different from process simulation/fantasy physics. The fact that the rules only cover what the creators expect to need to cover just means that rulebooks have finite space and designers have a finite level of detail they want to explore for a given subsystem.

The link you posted about 3e being a toolbox game says that "Where D&D’s philosophy was centred round “This is a challenge. Beat it.” Traveller’s [and by implication 3e's] philosophy is closer to “Here’s a universe. Do what you like with it.” "--but those two aren't incompatible at all. Both AD&D and 3e say "This is a challenge. Beat it. Here are the tools you need to do so." and give quite detailed rules for doing so. Heck, AD&D had suggestions to mix up your campaign type (dungeon delving, wilderness hexcrawl, city intrigue, etc.) and rules for converting characters to similar systems based in the Wild West and post-apocalyptic Earth in the DMG, which certainly points to it being as much a "toolbox game" as 3e.


For the record, Greyhawking happened because 1e is an extremely gamist game (with a hell of a lot more mechanics put in for the purpose of balance than 4e). When 1GP was worth 1XP, no one wanted to leave GP on the floors of the dungeon because they were leaving XP behind even if they would normally have had a more relaxed attitude.

Players wanted to Greyhawk because of the gp-for-XP rule (in 1e, though I still saw it in 2e when that was removed), but Greyhawking worked because everything they needed for it to work--carrying capacity, commodity prices, transportation stats, hireling prices, etc.--was given rules and those rules were the source of the challenge. To combat Greyhawking, DMs were encouraged to place treasures in copper coins (so they were larger and heavier and harder to transport) or impose taxes on their players and assess "gold pieces recovered" on net rather than gross profits or houserule some of those mechanics or similar.

That implicitly buys into the premise that the world is "there," the players can interact with it via the rules, and the DM should interact with the rules as well, as opposed to a more gamist "You aren't allowed to do that because that would get you more gold/XP than is balanced or than I was expecting" or a more narrative "Don't bother, the gold walls aren't actually valuable because that's just there as a background to this scene" or the like.


Agreed - but so does a small collection of indicative DCs (which 4e has). And they don't constrain the DM in remotely the same way.
[...]
The practical differences are very minor and if you were to import 3e skill DCs into a 4e game or vise-versa I suspect few would notice.

As I continued on to say after the part you quoted, the problem there is that the ones 4e provides aren't indicative: they're a good start, but they don't cover the kind of unintuitive/unfamiliar situations when those DCs are needed most. I can come up with DCs for balance beams myself, not so much DCs for being a hunter-gatherer in a fantasy universe (to use the earlier Survival example).

If the 3e DCs were imported into 4e (after accounting for ELH DC inflation) then you wouldn't need page 42. Page 42 basically boils down to saying "An average trained level X character should be able to accomplish an easy task for an average trained character of level X by rolling a 5 on the die, a moderate task for same by rolling a 10 on the die, and a hard task for same by rolling a 15 on the die, and he needs to roll higher for a task appropriate for a level X+Y character and lower for a task appropriate for a level X-Y character." That's true, but also not helpful, because it doesn't tell you what sort of tasks are appropriate for what levels and that's the actual important part.

Telling you the DC for a Balance check on the supernaturally-slick ice in Stygia and the DC for a Con check to survive frostbite there isn't "constraining" if you wouldn't have any other guidance; "make **** up" works in both cases and being off by plus or minus 5 won't break anything, but having a baseline to work from that you can change or disregard if you don't like it is better than not having one at all.


First off, "Gygaxian Naturalism" is a latecomer to the stage. :smallsmile: It's OSR philosophy and/or revisionism, and isn't any sort of actual guiding philosophy of AD&D.

Gygaxian naturalism is a term given to a phenomenon that was already observed in D&D and that Gygax did indeed say was a guiding philosophy of his in his DMG asides and later Dragon interviews; that the exact term wasn't used in any AD&D book doesn't mean the phenomenon isn't there.


And while the 1e DMG has a lot of great stuff in it, its rules don't try to model the physics of the universe.
[...]
AD&D (and especially older D&D) rely on DM-adjudicated realism - which is the opposite of what 3e tries to do, since (as Water Bear described above), 3e removed the DM's judgment from the equation. 3e's obsessive bookkeeping and categorization of every object in the universe was a(n over)reaction to AD&D's relative silence on issues like, "How many hit points does a wall have?" or "why can't my Wizard just pick up some thief skills?" or "just how good is that farmer at farming?"

AD&D doesn't try to model the universe? AD&D is silent on world-simulation issues? :smallconfused: For Pelor's sake, people! The AD&D DMG is the one that tells you you have exactly a 23% chance of catching a disease if you're an old person living belowdecks with a bunch of other people in a ship that's been at sea for over 2 weeks (and if you do there's a .03975% chance it's a chronic terminal urinary tract infection), that a 10-foot-wide 16-foot-high mine shaft can accommodate up to 16 gnome miners who can each mine out 30 cubic feet of granite per 8-hour mining shift, that a single castle battlement is 14 feet long with two 4-foot merlons and two 3-feet embrasures and costs 20 gp to construct (and takes one week per 10-cubic-foot section to construct but can be built in 1/3 the time by paying 250% of the base cost), and lots of other stuff such as a two-page list of the claimed powers of herbs and chemicals--not mechanical effects, just stuff that NPCs think they do!

Sure, I bet a lot of DMs ignored and/or handwaved most of that stuff, but you can't seriously claim that AD&D wasn't trying to do fantasy physics.


(The later note that 3.x has a similar problem with BAB is correct; however, I suspect that's only tolerated because no one has come up with a great solution yet, which is certainly not the case for skills.)

It's most likely because every class is expected to do some attacking to some extent, with even casters having melee touch/ranged touch spells; if all spell attack rolls were removed and changed to use Ref saves or CL checks or something, people would likely clamor for BAB to be removed.

[Ashdate]

If the 3e DCs were imported into 4e (after accounting for ELH DC inflation) then you wouldn't need page 42. Page 42 basically boils down to saying "An average trained level X character should be able to accomplish an easy task for an average trained character of level X by rolling a 5 on the die, a moderate task for same by rolling a 10 on the die, and a hard task for same by rolling a 15 on the die, and he needs to roll higher for a task appropriate for a level X+Y character and lower for a task appropriate for a level X-Y character." That's true, but also not helpful, because it doesn't tell you what sort of tasks are appropriate for what levels and that's the actual important part.

What's appropriate is left to the DM, and (crucially) it his job to make the DC match the narrative he is trying to spin. While the burden is on the DM to provide this number, he is still bound by the believability of the scenario; it's one thing to ask a level 1 rogue to make a balance check to cross a thin beam, it's another to ask a level 15 rogue to cross the same beam. The DM is still allowed to assign a level 1 DC (making the task utterly trivial for the level 15 rogue), or assign an "easy" level 15 DC (making the task utterly trivial for the level 15 rogue), or the DM must come up with a reason why this beam should be a challenge. Perhaps the party is dealing with high winds in the plane of Pandemonium, perhaps it is not a "beam" but barbed wire (and the rogue is a halfling!), or perhaps the rogue must attempt this stunt while carrying a damsel under one arm, and a 100lb diamond in the other.

The key is that both parties (the DM and the player) agree that this task is worthy of a check. This does not require a table; it merely requires a willingness for both parties to agree that adventurer's sometimes face the prospect of failure. This is not some radical concept; many systems use something similar, and as per my memory, the only D&D system to not do so was 3/3.5e. Page 42 provides the math, and the DM creates the scenario.

Or perhaps to put it another way: we can agree that a DM is allowed to create and use a level "1" goblin (and level "2", and level "3", and...). Yet why is it so hard to accept that a DM could create a level "4" forest, a level "5" chandelier, a level "6" lava hazard, or a level "7" (fill in the blank and etc.)?

[obryn]

AD&D doesn't try to model the universe? AD&D is silent on world-simulation issues? :smallconfused: For Pelor's sake, people! The AD&D DMG is the one that tells you you have exactly a 23% chance of catching a disease if you're an old person living belowdecks with a bunch of other people in a ship that's been at sea for over 2 weeks (and if you do there's a .03975% chance it's a chronic terminal urinary tract infection), that a 10-foot-wide 16-foot-high mine shaft can accommodate up to 16 gnome miners who can each mine out 30 cubic feet of granite per 8-hour mining shift, that a single castle battlement is 14 feet long with two 4-foot merlons and two 3-feet embrasures and costs 20 gp to construct (and takes one week per 10-cubic-foot section to construct but can be built in 1/3 the time by paying 250% of the base cost), and lots of other stuff such as a two-page list of the claimed powers of herbs and chemicals--not mechanical effects, just stuff that NPCs think they do!
Indeed, AD&D was interested in simulating stuff. It's not focused on the simulation of processes, though, and it does it with a completely different philosophy than 3.x does.

You're listing a whole heck of a lot of specific bits here - and the AD&D DMG is full of some great ones - but like I said above, the rulings of physics and the like, including difficulties for standard tasks, came down to DM fiat. Come on - "rulings, not rules?" Ring a bell? :smallsmile:

There's no "standard tree" in AD&D. There's no specific set of skills other than the (awesome, IMO) "secondary skills" in the DMG and the Thief's list. (There's not even a proper system for adjudicating most things we'd think of as "skills"; the whole d20, roll-under-stat bit isn't in AD&D at all.) There's no standardized damage for lava. If you want to climb a cliff, you're on your own unless it's the mid 80's and you pull out the Wilderness Survival Guide. Want to find treasure hidden behind a painting? Your elves might get a free chance, but it's mostly through carefully communicating your action with the DM.

The reason 3.0 went so overboard with its standardized lists of the physical properties of dungeon objects like "stairs" and "doors" was that AD&D (both 1e and 2e) was incredibly sketchy on that sort of thing - the stuff a DM uses while running adventures - while simultaneously capturing a whole host of minutiae, like random mental illnesses and the rarely-used rock-paper-scissors-esque intricacies of psionic combat.

So instead we get Level 15 commoners. We get standard trees. We get standardized lava. Standardized door hit points. And the stuff like building castles, chances of disease, the size of merlons, how quickly dwarves can mine, and the harlots one might encounter in the city are left out.

That's because AD&D wasn't interested in providing rules for every object or action in the world. The AD&D DMG has a wonderful mixture of pieces of advice and just random stuff Gary found out while researching. It doesn't try to create a cohesive system for any of this; the DM is intended to use it to save themselves some research time. (And also so he has random charts for sandbox fun.) Again, unlike 3.x.


Sure, I bet a lot of DMs ignored and/or handwaved most of that stuff, but you can't seriously claim that AD&D wasn't trying to do fantasy physics.
I'll do you one better and point at the RC/BX/BECMI line and OD&D. Unless those are somehow not D&D?

-O

[Kornaki]

Or perhaps to put it another way: we can agree that a DM is allowed to create and use a level "1" goblin (and level "2", and level "3", and...). Yet why is it so hard to accept that a DM could create a level "4" forest, a level "5" chandelier, a level "6" lava hazard, or a level "7" (fill in the blank and etc.)?

Because as soon as you say there's a level 6 gazebo nobody takes you seriously

[Ashdate]

Because as soon as you say there's a level 6 gazebo nobody takes you seriously

You've obviously never seen how dangerous gazebos are. I lost a Lawful Neutral Paladin to one once...

[Scow2]

Or perhaps to put it another way: we can agree that a DM is allowed to create and use a level "1" goblin (and level "2", and level "3", and...). Yet why is it so hard to accept that a DM could create a level "4" forest, a level "5" chandelier, a level "6" lava hazard, or a level "7" (fill in the blank and etc.)?

A goblin is a living, breathing, learning creature that has gone through many life experiences, and plays by the same rules as the characters. Lava is lava - the only thing that can change about it is how much and how close it is. I could see the argument for the trees in a given forest having different DCs (Compare Lothlorian, Fangorn, Mirkwood and the Old Woods By The Shire in Lord of the Rings) - a pine forest isn't the same challenge as a mighty Redwood forest or Oak or Ash forest. But a Chandelier? That's... well, maybe if it had a REALLY complex or unique hanging mechanism (Or floor layout and height). But no matter how fancy the light fixture is, if it's just "Cut the rope and swing across", it should still be the same DC.


5e curbed character power growth, especially in the realm of skills. We no longer have Linear Warriors and Quadratic Wizards. We have Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards, and Logarithmic Rogues.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Or perhaps to put it another way: we can agree that a DM is allowed to create and use a level "1" goblin (and level "2", and level "3", and...). Yet why is it so hard to accept that a DM could create a level "4" forest, a level "5" chandelier, a level "6" lava hazard, or a level "7" (fill in the blank and etc.)?

I'm not arguing against the existence of higher-level hazards--"scary terrain" like the LotR forests Scow mentioned are classic--I'm saying that the page 42 level-and-difficulty method is not the best way to handle them. Saying that an "easy level 3" task or a "difficult level 22" task has a certain DC is absolutely meaningless if there are no guidelines as to what a "level X" challenge is in the fiction.

You mentioned the winds of Pandemonium. What level are those winds? Is it appropriate to face them at early paragon, late paragon, some other levels? When they're faced, should they be more or less difficult than normal? A DM who wants the planes to be more alien might think they should be a high-paragon challenge and a difficult one at that, while a Planescape fan who's used to plane-hopping might think they should be a low-paragon challenge and only easy to moderate in difficulty.

More importantly, the players might not realize that their interpretations of difficulty are different, and that when the DM describes it as being a "dangerous wind" he might be saying "it's dangerous relative to your level and can kill people who are exposed" while the players hear "it's dangerous relative to Prime winds and might bang you up a bit." Again, the players can always ask to clear things up, but (A) these are assumptions, so neither party might think to do so and (B) doing that every time your character walks outside gets old.

Meanwhile, the 3e MotP sets the DCs for Pandemonium windstorms in the DC 15-24 range. No "this wind is probably a hard challenge for mid-level characters" or anything like that, you can look at those DCs (or learn them IC) and look at your character sheet and figure out how dangerous it is for yourself. If the DM doesn't like that and thinks it should be more difficult, he can change that--but as with any other time the DM changes a rule, either he's encouraged to tell the PCs about it (as DMs usually do with general houserules) or he at least knows that because he's explicitly changing things he should give some kind of signal that their expectations might be off (as DMs usually do with homebrewed or tweaked monsters).



There's no "standard tree" in AD&D. There's no specific set of skills other than the (awesome, IMO) "secondary skills" in the DMG and the Thief's list. (There's not even a proper system for adjudicating most things we'd think of as "skills"; the whole d20, roll-under-stat bit isn't in AD&D at all.)

Just because there's no unified skill system doesn't mean that AD&D wasn't attempting to simulate, you had thief skills, surprise rules, bend bars/lift gates, and so forth. Most skill-like rules were usable if you're trained and not if you're not, but fiddliness is not a measure of simulation and deciding that certain things aren't usable untrained can be done for fantasy-physics reasons just as much as it can for other reasons.


So instead we get Level 15 commoners. We get standard trees. We get standardized lava. Standardized door hit points. And the stuff like building castles, chances of disease, the size of merlons, how quickly dwarves can mine, and the harlots one might encounter in the city are left out.

That's because AD&D wasn't interested in providing rules for every object or action in the world.

AD&D was still interested in simulating a world, it just did so differently. 3e has level NPC classes, AD&D has a "Men" entry in the monster manual, and both are ways of saying "this NPC is not important and doesn't deserve a real class."

And AD&D did have stats for doors and walls and such, actually, it was just expressed in siege-engine scale instead of person scale (Siege Engines, DMG 108). A ram deals 1 DP (defensive point) of damage and a wooden door has 1 DP, which is easier than rolling people-scale ram damage (9-16) against door HP; it was done that way because huge structures had lots of HP (like stone gatehouses with 120 DP) and dealing with dozens of dice at once for each shot would be unwieldy. That's like maximizing all HP and damage so you can say a fireball deals 10 "mega damage" and a 10th-level character has 10 "mega HP" to avoid a lot of math, it's just more abstract for simplicity.


I'll do you one better and point at the RC/BX/BECMI line and OD&D. Unless those are somehow not D&D?

They're not AD&D, which is what we both were talking about, and since roll-under-stat skill system thing was in Moldvay as I recall and BECMI was heavy on the realm-management rules at the higher levels, I wouldn't say it's any less simulation-oriented.

You have to remember, "this game is simulation-oriented" doesn't mean it's concerned with GURPS-level fidelity to detail, just that it places "this rule works this way because it makes better sense in-world" before or equal to "this rule works this way because it makes for better gameplay" or "this rule works this way because it makes a better story."

I'm not claiming that AD&D is nearly as focused or as detailed in that direction as 3e is, I'm just trying to show that all the people claiming that 3e is the odd edition out when it comes to the fantasy physics approach are off the mark; all the editions share a strong focus on "what makes sense in-world" while the degree of importance placed on "what makes sense for a game" varies, so 3e isn't unusual for having a high "in-world" quotient any more than 4e is unusual for having a high "game" quotient.

[obryn]

Most skill-like rules were usable if you're trained and not if you're not, but fiddliness is not a measure of simulation and deciding that certain things aren't usable untrained can be done for fantasy-physics reasons just as much as it can for other reasons.
That was the topic that led us down this path, though. Skill rules and the DCs with them.


They're not AD&D, which is what we both were talking about, and since roll-under-stat skill system thing was in Moldvay as I recall and BECMI was heavy on the realm-management rules at the higher levels, I wouldn't say it's any less simulation-oriented.

You have to remember, "this game is simulation-oriented" doesn't mean it's concerned with GURPS-level fidelity to detail, just that it places "this rule works this way because it makes better sense in-world" before or equal to "this rule works this way because it makes for better gameplay" or "this rule works this way because it makes a better story."
Then you've successfully abstracted "simulation" so far that any game is now "simulation-oriented" if it has rules for stuff. I think you're going too broad, here.

You're basically implying that, if you imported realm management rules from the RC into 4e, it'd suddenly be "simulation-oriented." When that's just a subsystem added on.


I'm not claiming that AD&D is nearly as focused or as detailed in that direction as 3e is, I'm just trying to show that all the people claiming that 3e is the odd edition out when it comes to the fantasy physics approach are off the mark; all the editions share a strong focus on "what makes sense in-world" while the degree of importance placed on "what makes sense for a game" varies, so 3e isn't unusual for having a high "in-world" quotient any more than 4e is unusual for having a high "game" quotient.
It is an outlier, though, in its insistence to expand its core system concepts - classes, levels, BAB, saves - to the world as a whole. It's because of this that we get NPC classes, monsters built with levels of "Giant," Commoners with feats, "concentration" skills, and capable blacksmiths who necessarily have a lot of hit points and good attack bonuses.

Instead of a bunch of sub-systems invented to specifically simulate various minutiae - like the random insanity chart, weird percentile unarmed combat rules, 1-in-6 secret door detection, etc. - you get a rules system with "applies to absolutely everything" as its major conceit.

3.x vastly narrowed the realm of DM adjudication; this has been a given so far, this thread. 4e brought it back. I can understand if some folks don't think this is a good thing - it's caused some consternation this thread - but it's definitely a real thing.

-O

[Knaight]

Lava is lava - the only thing that can change about it is how much and how close it is.

Hardly. There's also the small matter of what temperature it is, exactly what the melted rocks and solutes in question are, and the behavior that comes of this. Some lava is very slow moving, viscous stuff that is relatively well behaved, some lava is much less viscous, flows quickly, and is much more prone to coming out in fountains. Then there's the matter of variability in specific heat, heat transferal rates, so on and so forth.


Then you've successfully abstracted "simulation" so far that any game is now "simulation-oriented" if it has rules for stuff. I think you're going too broad, here.

You're basically implying that, if you imported realm management rules from the RC into 4e, it'd suddenly be "simulation-oriented." When that's just a subsystem added on.
That isn't even remotely the case. RPGs are broad, and there are plenty that have rules and are not even slightly simulation oriented. Take any number of games where the rules concern narrative control mechanics at the player level (e.g. Fiasco, Microscope). They have rules, they aren't simulation oriented by the definition in question, and they represent a meaningful fraction of the non D&D market. Similarly, rule sets made with game rule interactions focused upon above mechanizing the fiction within the game would be excluded - Dogs in the Vineyard fits in this category, and the FATE series of games borders it, while also being a comparatively major player in the industry (though D&D, GURPS, and White Wolf dwarf it).

The definition is basically just standard GNS, really. Rules either focus on the game rules as they interact with each other (Gamism), the game rules as things that alter who is describing what when (Narrativism), and the game rules as things which model the stuff of the game world (Simulationism). Simulationism can include everything from extremely detailed GURPS style play to things like Fudge, in which there are a whole seven ranks (sometimes up to 9, and discluding Scale mechanics) for everything from difficulties to skills, and everything uses them. Yet gamist and narrativist games still exist, even with such a broad definition. Granted, GNS has some major flaws, but it's workable enough that this particular dismissal doesn't work.

[SiuiS]

That's a good point.

Yes, skill points allow for a direct player-involved method of character growth with tangible results. 2E, 4E, and 5E lack this, so it makes sense that some players dislike these systems for that reason. This is, of course, a matter of taste.

5e kinda does it, but it's much less granular. Almost strictly binary. But the main character choices – are you good at the skill or not, will you invest in it or not – are still there.



Okay, so that's four matters of taste we have identified, where some people (strongly) like Chocolate, other people (heavily) favor Strawberry, yet other people like both tastes with no real preference, and yet nobody suggests it is feasible to have a Strawlate or Chocoberry mix. It is theoretically possible for 5E's alleged modular system to cover all of these, but it seems more likely that 5E will make four clear choices here and alienate those parts of the fanbase favoring the other four.

Actually...

This is kind of implicit in the design. All the weird DC troubles go away if you look at it as a loose system without the modular rules which tell you how to enforce them. That's the bigger problem; next will build in a system that intuitively let's you play the game you want without having to even decide on the game you want. Then it will bury it somewhere, split it between multiple pages and cross references and sit quietly, expecting you to already get it.



This is majority agreed - but isn't even close to being universally agreed. The earliest editions of D&D were played in Pawn stance - you were outside the game moving your token around like a pawn on a chessboard. And it was a matter of whether you, the player, had the skill to defeat the dungeon using the resources you had. Immersion is about Actor stance - where you act as the character. (There's a third stance D&D doesn't often touch called Author Stance which is about narrative control).

Interesting. Will examine.



Indeed you might very well be right. But I think that this is a specific edition familliarity issue; it is something that comes specifically and almost exclusively from people who are used to d20 games and who think that skills are normally measured by skill points. If you either accept 4e on its own terms or start without a D20 background, I don't believe this is an issue.

4e is the single only RPG I've read rules for that doesn't require investment in a skill to be good at it actually. Across six games I can think of, this is wrong and strictly backwards.


That's an excellent point, and I think it captures the reason for my uneasiness at the idea of a paladin learning to pick locks: sure, some paladins might absorb picking through osmosis in the course of adventures, but most would actively avoid learning anything about it! And there is no way to represent that. Just saying "well, he won't choose to roll, will he?" misses the point: the point is not merely that he doesn't use his covert entry skills, but that he doesn't have any at all.

(The later note that 3.x has a similar problem with BAB is correct; however, I suspect that's only tolerated because no one has come up with a great solution yet, which is certainly not the case for skills.)

Fix combat; make Base Attack a skill. You want to get better at it? Invest skill points into it. You're a wizard? Cross class.


You're basically implying that, if you imported realm management rules from the RC into 4e, it'd suddenly be "simulation-oriented." When that's just a subsystem added on.


I'm not really interests in the emotion facts debate except insofar as it is interesting to get your perspectives, but this here strikes me as actually relevant to Next.

If you were to take the realm management rules and staple them onto 4e, then if we assume they were a core rule and there from day one, it would change te game. The ability to found kingdoms and townships and the implication that you are supposed to puts a different social pressure on the player and changes their expectations. They would reasonably assume a mentality that tackles these problems. It would make it a more simulation isn't game because the player would require that much granularity and the GM, assuming he's on board, would provide it.

This isn't just stapling. It's stapling and declaring Important, and then playing. Which changes a lot. That's what the play test is about. Not just how the rules read but twir organic development at a table, Nd also the feel openly of players exposed to it. It's worth examining not just the technicalities but also the fall out from attempts to use.

[Scowling Dragon]

For example:

As a Wizard, my powers in 3e could heavily change what kind my kingdom would be:

I could make it a necropolis with an army of undead.

I could make a steampunk empire with Iron Golem Guards.

You would insist that I could do this anyway even without rules but its not the same.

If there are rules in place I can engineer creatures and stuff for a SPECIFIC situation. Working out how to make a reasonable working system is half the fun.

Like an evil PC could make a Capital punishment where Prisoners are to be drained to death by Wights.

So I may only be able to control about 5 at a time, yet with this system in place I could potentially have an army of hundreds.

Its not the same if you just handwave and say "Here is an army for you"

[SiuiS]

For example:

As a Wizard, my powers in 3e could heavily change what kind my kingdom would be:

I could make it a necropolis with an army of undead.

I could make a steampunk empire with Iron Golem Guards.

You would insist that I could do this anyway even without rules but its not the same.

If there are rules in place I can engineer creatures and stuff for a SPECIFIC situation. Working out how to make a reasonable working system in half the fun.

Like an evil PC could make a Capital punishment where Prisoners are to be drained to death by Wights.

So I may only be able to control about 5 at a time, yet with this system in place I could potentially have an army of hundreds.

Its not the same if you just handwave and say "Here is an army for you"

Yes. This sense of no Gaving fluff thrown at you is important. When it's happened in the past it cheapens the accomplishment, ringing like cracked gold.

Also, I now realize that if the DM is willing to say "here is an army of wights!" Just because, he's willing to say "the enemy brought a bajillionty clerics and all the wights are destroyed!", which basically means I have no army at all

[Kurald Galain]

AD&D was still interested in simulating a world, it just did so differently. 3e has level NPC classes, AD&D has a "Men" entry in the monster manual, and both are ways of saying "this NPC is not important and doesn't deserve a real class."

Well said. Yes, 2E is very much a world simulating game. People seem to forget sometimes that just because a game isn't perfect at simulation doesn't mean it isn't trying. It's all about the design philosophy. This is why e.g. the 2E Monster Manual has detailed information on monsters' activity cycle and ecosystem.

So basically, in order to please fans of all editions, 5E should have an extensive list of DCs for common tasks, and a short formula for what DC is an "approppraite challenge" for a party of a certain level.

[Saph]

You know, it's funny, but I don't actually think it would be impossible to please most of the fans. I mean, obviously you aren't going to get all of them, but I think if I were designing it I could come up with something that the majority of the 3.X fans and the majority of the 4e fans liked.

[SiuiS]

You know, it's funny, but I don't actually think it would be impossible to please most of the fans. I mean, obviously you aren't going to get all of them, but I think if I were designing it I could come up with something that the majority of the 3.X fans and the majority of the 4e fans liked.

The trick is fitting this working system into hat the designers want and making it unique enough from either system that the fan base doesn't buy five copies, disseminate a bunch of house rules for either edition and then call it a day.

[Moreb Benhk]

5e kinda does it, but it's much less granular. Almost strictly binary. But the main character choices – are you good at the skill or not, will you invest in it or not – are still there.

This is my issue. In a binaryish system there's not really any progression, especially given the fact that most skill-decisions are made at Level 1 creation and are done(you pick your skills then). You either are or aren't skilled at a skill. And that rarely ever changes, even over 20 levels of growth. And the more I played in that system the more I disliked it, because a skill system where nothing ever seems to change seems so pointless.

[Saph]

The trick is fitting this working system into hat the designers want and making it unique enough from either system that the fan base doesn't buy five copies, disseminate a bunch of house rules for either edition and then call it a day.

The second problem isn't a big one, but the first one might be. The designers seem to have a very fixed idea for what they want the system to be like, and I'm not really sure what it's supposed to be (or why they think it'll unify everyone).

[SiuiS]

This is my issue. In a binaryish system there's not really any progression, especially given the fact that most skill-decisions are made at Level 1 creation and are done(you pick your skills then). You either are or aren't skilled at a skill. And that rarely ever changes, even over 20 levels of growth. And the more I played in that system the more I disliked it, because a skill system where nothing ever seems to change seems so pointless.

That's a very good point, and I get what you mean. There is progress, but progress isn't as important as that binary in the start. They obviously want you to be a fully established and mature adult character, but still want growth. It's weird. But over all i feel your pain, because that doesn't feel D&D to me. The d20 generation of games empowering players to grow was a big part of why I stuck with them. I like the old sets out of nostalgia and camp, but d20 really sold itsel well as a mechanical chassis, skills included. Broad skills (a la 4e) aren't even a problem, and Next's skill set is pretty good except the arbitrary see/hear split (which woul be better as a feat, I think).


The second problem isn't a big one, but the first one might be. The designers seem to have a very fixed idea for what they want the system to be like, and I'm not really sure what it's supposed to be (or why they think it'll unify everyone).

Aye.

I do believe unique product identity is very important though, business wise. So it continues to be my go to assumption for why the whole thing has been jiggered the way it has. I also hold out hope that we haven't seen the whole ham and WotC is playing close to the vest, but I recognize that's wish fulfillment fantasy.

[neonchameleon]

You know, it's funny, but I don't actually think it would be impossible to please most of the fans. I mean, obviously you aren't going to get all of them, but I think if I were designing it I could come up with something that the majority of the 3.X fans and the majority of the 4e fans liked.

The amusing thing is that, short of a 4.5 or 4.Pathfinder, most 4e fans I know would be happier with something different as 5e - but boldly so. A game that had a definite vision, and it almost doesn't matter what that vision is as long as it's clear. The biggest problem with Next is that it appears to be a lukewarm mess.


That's an excellent point, and I think it captures the reason for my uneasiness at the idea of a paladin learning to pick locks: sure, some paladins might absorb picking through osmosis in the course of adventures, but most would actively avoid learning anything about it! And there is no way to represent that. Just saying "well, he won't choose to roll, will he?" misses the point: the point is not merely that he doesn't use his covert entry skills, but that he doesn't have any at all.

In 4e that's one skill out of 17. On the other hand can you explain why everyone's heal skill and endurance skill aren't automatically increasing as they do stuff?


(The later note that 3.x has a similar problem with BAB is correct; however, I suspect that's only tolerated because no one has come up with a great solution yet, which is certainly not the case for skills.)

Really? I can't think of a single great way of doing skills. I can think of a lot of ways that do something well - but they all have pretty major flaws.


I fail to see how that's any different from process simulation/fantasy physics.

Gygaxian Naturalism: Put a lot of detail in about the things relevant to the intent of the game. Handwave the rest.

Fantasy Physics: Try to cover everything on the offchance it might be needed.


Both AD&D and 3e say "This is a challenge. Beat it. Here are the tools you need to do so." and give quite detailed rules for doing so.

Not at all.

1e focusses its rules almost entirely round one specific type of game - the dungeon-heist. With some endgame rules for "By this axe I rule". And then throws in a few things people thought might be cool. Even if you play Boot Hill characters in AD&D you're still expected to dungeon-heist. And the sci-fi rules in AD&D came from Barrier Peaks - a dungeon-heist in which the twist was that the dungeon was a crashed spaceship.

3e on the other hand tries to put PCs and NPCs under the same rules (rather than e.g. having the Sage rules) and make everything work consistently.


Players wanted to Greyhawk because of the gp-for-XP rule (in 1e, though I still saw it in 2e when that was removed), but Greyhawking worked because everything they needed for it to work--carrying capacity, commodity prices, transportation stats, hireling prices, etc.--was given rules and those rules were the source of the challenge.

Half backwards. The reason Greyhawking worked was that the DMs were quite happy to fill in blanks that weren't actually present in oD&D let alone the initial playtest. The reason those specific blanks were investigated was to Greyhawk. And the reason they were put into the AD&D rulebook was they were the sort of thing Greyhawkers commonly asked.


That implicitly buys into the premise that the world is "there," the players can interact with it via the rules, and the DM should interact with the rules as well, as opposed to a more gamist "You aren't allowed to do that because that would get you more gold/XP than is balanced or than I was expecting" or a more narrative "Don't bother, the gold walls aren't actually valuable because that's just there as a background to this scene" or the like.

"The world is there and the players can interact with it via the rules" is a premise in almost every major RPG in history. (No, I don't want to get into the Mage the Ascension discussion about whether the world is there in that game). It is one held by 4e. As for the more XP than is balanced, unlike 3e or 4e AD&D has deliberate and explicit rules to deal with that. You can only level up once on a given adventure - if you'd level up a second time you stop 1XP short of the higher level. Because it wouldn't be balanced AD&D deliberately puts a hard cap on the amount of XP you can collect. As for "The gold walls aren't valuable", I believe PF does that in one of its adventure paths - and no other RPG unless the walls are Faerie Gold.


As I continued on to say after the part you quoted, the problem there is that the ones 4e provides aren't indicative: they're a good start, but they don't cover the kind of unintuitive/unfamiliar situations when those DCs are needed most. I can come up with DCs for balance beams myself, not so much DCs for being a hunter-gatherer in a fantasy universe (to use the earlier Survival example).

Believe it or not, your example is undermined by being something 4e has rules for. And about as detailed rules as 3e.


If the 3e DCs were imported into 4e (after accounting for ELH DC inflation) then you wouldn't need page 42.

No. But let's look at the costs of that.

1: I'd need to make my world much blander. I'd need to make all trees the same DC to climb. I'd need to make all the planes much more vanilla rather than vary them campaign to campaign. I'd need to stop differentiating between someone's cloak getting set on fire and them covered in napalm (both set them on fire). My worlds would therefore become much more boring and same-y.

2: I'd need to memorise the damn things. It's been more than a year and a half since I cracked open a book other than a Monster Manual in the course of play. This wouldn't be the case if I imported the 3e skill DCs. Which would mean I'd need to both occasionally break the game to look things up and spend a lot more time preparing games by looking things up and writing them down so I had the DCs to hand.

3: I'd see far more rules lawyering (and do more myself) because there was a definite right answer within the rules.

4: It would be a lot more intimidiating to learn to DM the game. Because I'd have to memorise tables and tables of stuff rather than just go in with best guess estimates.

All four of these consequences are IMO terrible - and I can't think of a single good consequence that would result from importing the 3.X skill DCs.


That's true, but also not helpful, because it doesn't tell you what sort of tasks are appropriate for what levels and that's the actual important part.

No, the important part is that we have a game that's fun for everyone. Getting the exact details right is a minor part of this.


AD&D doesn't try to model the universe? AD&D is silent on world-simulation issues? [snip]

Everything you have listed in that paragraph is stuff adventurers would expect to be interested in. Whether they caught disease. What they could buy to cure themselves. When it's stuff an adventurer would be interested in AD&D provides a lot of detail. But it doesn't try to go into the number of chickens in Greyhawk or how much an adventurer would earn if they gave up being an adventurer and became a sous-chef.

1e AD&D attempts to provide about 2" of depth standing in the shoes of a self-interested adventurer and turning to face any of the walls they can see. But if you stand somewhere else it provides extremely little. 3e attempts to provide about a 1" veneer across the entirety of the world. These are fundamentally different approaches. 3.X is the only version of AD&D under which PCs and NPCs are expected to play by the same rules; in AD&D there are extremely sticky doors for adventurers that require strength checks that goblins can simply walk through. This isn't a physics simulator. This is something designed to look like physics to adventurers until you take the merest peek behind the curtain.


A goblin is a living, breathing, learning creature that has gone through many life experiences, and plays by the same rules as the characters. Lava is lava - the only thing that can change about it is how much and how close it is.

And how hot it is. And the consistency of it. And how fast it's moving. And how strong the rapidly cooling crust on it is. And what type of stone it's made up from - which affects how sticky it is.


The definition is basically just standard GNS, really. Rules either focus on the game rules as they interact with each other (Gamism), the game rules as things that alter who is describing what when (Narrativism), and the game rules as things which model the stuff of the game world (Simulationism).

And GNS is a bad enough system that even Ron Edwards himself now rejects it. GNS grew out of the much more sensible GDS model that said that every decision a GM makes should encourage at least one of those three - but Edwards then used GNS to classify entire games. He then drove it off the track and over the pier by declaring games with more than one of these agendas (rather than rules of decision making) to be a bad thing rather than to be a unifying factor. Finally, although he did excellent work with gamism and rehabilitating its reputation, he simply doesn't understand why you'd try for a simulationist game and so declares it to be incoherent.


I'm not arguing against the existence of higher-level hazards--"scary terrain" like the LotR forests Scow mentioned are classic--I'm saying that the page 42 level-and-difficulty method is not the best way to handle them.

You are aware that page 42 doesn't contain 100% of the skill rules for 4e?


Saying that an "easy level 3" task or a "difficult level 22" task has a certain DC is absolutely meaningless if there are no guidelines as to what a "level X" challenge is in the fiction.

And if there are no guides in the fiction I wonder what the hell you have been doing with your adventurers for the past few levels. "They decided to cross the Trackless Wastes of Nagaroth. I have no idea why, no idea what sort of people go there, no idea how challenging they are, and no idea what their chances of success are." In which case the problem is the DM. If the PCs did even the most basic research on the Trackless Wastes of Nagaroth - or if the DM did any backing just in case they did then the DM should have a pretty good idea of what level they are.

The problem is that you want the guidelines to be in the fiction without consulting the fiction itself.


You mentioned the winds of Pandemonium. What level are those winds? Is it appropriate to face them at early paragon, late paragon, some other levels?

That is down to the fiction at the table. If I've built Pandemonium up as this scary, scary place and then provide low DCs all my foreshadowing is going to flop like a damp squib.


When they're faced, should they be more or less difficult than normal?

What does the fiction say about what's happening in Pandemonium. Hint: it might have something to do with the reasons the PCs are going to want to go there.


A DM who wants the planes to be more alien might think they should be a high-paragon challenge and a difficult one at that, while a Planescape fan who's used to plane-hopping might think they should be a low-paragon challenge and only easy to moderate in difficulty.

And the problem with this is ___? That different DMs are allowed to have different interpretations of cosmology - or even different cosmologies for different campaigns? And that DMs are allowed to decide how alien the planes are in this specific universe? Because I see absolutely all these points as good things.


More importantly, the players might not realize that their interpretations of difficulty are different, and that when the DM describes it as being a "dangerous wind" he might be saying "it's dangerous relative to your level and can kill people who are exposed" while the players hear "it's dangerous relative to Prime winds and might bang you up a bit." Again, the players can always ask to clear things up, but (A) these are assumptions, so neither party might think to do so and (B) doing that every time your character walks outside gets old.

Doing this every time your character walks outside is one thing. Doing it every time your character crosses to a new plane especially in a campaign that doesn't involve planehopping adds to the distinctive feel of the planes. Once again all the criticisms you raise other than the possibility of miscommunication are things I see actively enhancing the fiction.


Meanwhile, the 3e MotP sets the DCs for Pandemonium windstorms in the DC 15-24 range.

That's a hell of a range.


you can look at those DCs (or learn them IC) and look at your character sheet and figure out how dangerous it is for yourself.

If you haven't learned them IC but are still looking at your character sheet you are guilty of blatant metagaming. And if you have learned them (or approximates) IC, you can use exactly the same mechanisms to learn them in 4e. So the difference here is that 4e doesn't encourage blatant metagaming? And this is a problem with 4e?


If the DM doesn't like that and thinks it should be more difficult, he can change that--but as with any other time the DM changes a rule, either he's encouraged to tell the PCs about it (as DMs usually do with general houserules) or he at least knows that because he's explicitly changing things he should give some kind of signal that their expectations might be off (as DMs usually do with homebrewed or tweaked monsters).

At most it's the equivalent of a homebrew monster. It's not that things don't work by the rules - it's that the OOC knowledge the player is imparting to the character about somewhere that is supposed to be mysterious is wrong. The character is not meant to have that information in the first place.


You have to remember, "this game is simulation-oriented" doesn't mean it's concerned with GURPS-level fidelity to detail, just that it places "this rule works this way because it makes better sense in-world" before or equal to "this rule works this way because it makes for better gameplay" or "this rule works this way because it makes a better story."

And under these definitions AD&D is very, very gamist. The entire level structure of D&D is gamist. The weapon proficiencies are gamist. Vancian Casting is a gamist construct. Classes are gamist. Hit points are pure gamism - and the higher damage for swords against large monsters was put in for gamist reasons. As was Weapon Specialisation (Gygax is on record as saying it was for balance).


4e is the single only RPG I've read rules for that doesn't require investment in a skill to be good at it actually. Across six games I can think of, this is wrong and strictly backwards.

Off the top of my head GURPS and Mutants and Masterminds both use defaults from stats. Which means if you don't invest in a skill you're still pretty good because it defaults from your stat, which can itself be pretty good.


If you were to take the realm management rules and staple them onto 4e, then if we assume they were a core rule and there from day one, it would change te game.

Yup. It would make for a very different focus of the game than the Epic Destinies we have..


So basically, in order to please fans of all editions, 5E should have an extensive list of DCs for common tasks, and a short formula for what DC is an "approppraite challenge" for a party of a certain level.

Or in other words it should do exactly what 4e did. A few dozen DCs for common tasks and a table for appropriate challenges.

[Morty]

The second problem isn't a big one, but the first one might be. The designers seem to have a very fixed idea for what they want the system to be like, and I'm not really sure what it's supposed to be (or why they think it'll unify everyone).

Also, as important as choosing the right approach is, it won't help you if you go about it in a disorganized, uninspired and just plain sloppy way, which is what WotC seems to be doing with D&D Next.

[Clawhound]

Part of what gives everyone a different perception about what editions were about was that we had no internet to unite our perceptions. D&D was what our games groups were.

For me, D&D was a combat engine, but absolutely freeform in stories. (I never liked all those pesky rules.) Did I just show my blinders? Yep. We all have those blinders.

All versions of D&D follow the rule, 'What can be done can be done.' Outside of magic or the fantasic, the world still works by familiar rules and your own cleverness is the only limitation.

[obryn]

Well said. Yes, 2E is very much a world simulating game. People seem to forget sometimes that just because a game isn't perfect at simulation doesn't mean it isn't trying. It's all about the design philosophy. This is why e.g. the 2E Monster Manual has detailed information on monsters' activity cycle and ecosystem.
My point hasn't been that it doesn't try to simulate stuff.

My point is that its simulation is (1) targeted at different things, and (2) achieved through very different means. Hence, it's an outlier.

This discussion kicked off while we were talking about climbing trees. That is, something active that a PC can (or can't) do. In RC D&D or AD&D, giant tree-climbing will vary wildly by table - from "you can't if you're not a thief" to "roll at least a 2 on 1d6" to "roll a d20 under your strength/dexterity with/without an adjustment to the roll because of equipment/preparations/etc" to "you're wearing plate mail, no way" to "sure, you just climbed the tree." In each case, it's based on the DM's understanding of the game world and their preferred resolution methods. (And how much the players can wheedle their way into approval.)

Likewise, jumping over a 15' wide chasm. If you're an Unearthed Arcana Thief-Acrobat, you have a fancy table, but for everyone else?

Want to intimidate a horde of goblins? You might or might not be able to force a morale check, based on the DM's adjudication of how you go about it. There's no standard technique for Intimidation. (Unless you have godlike Charisma, in which case you have the awe stuff, I suppose. We're talking mortal adventurers, here.)

This is not at all how it works in 3.x. Because, as I said, pre-3e D&D doesn't try to simulate most actions a PC can take through its rules. It's based on the DM's and (to a lesser extent) the players' understanding of the game world and the "reality" of the situation as opposed to what kinds of rules are used to achieve it. Because of this, I think in many cases it can be a much cleaner and better simulation than 3.x, but to call it the same sort of simulation is an error.

-O

[Ashdate]

I'm not arguing against the existence of higher-level hazards--"scary terrain" like the LotR forests Scow mentioned are classic--I'm saying that the page 42 level-and-difficulty method is not the best way to handle them. Saying that an "easy level 3" task or a "difficult level 22" task has a certain DC is absolutely meaningless if there are no guidelines as to what a "level X" challenge is in the fiction.

But again, the fiction is a shared agreement between the DM and the player. Let me come back to the level X goblin:

Goblins are (and have for a long time) been the foes of low-level characters. The mechanics and fluff have long established that at some point, characters graduate from fighting goblins to something meaner (orcs, hobgoblins, zombies, etc). But there are rules for advancing goblins to levels beyond their entry in the Monsterous Manual in both 3.5 and 4e.

But while there's some wiggle room, at some point the DM can no longer present basic goblins as a threat to a party. Once you've fought ogres, trolls, wights - and maybe even a dragon - Goblins begin testing the patience of believability. That a single goblin can potentially match the capability of a high level fighter or wizard turns the whole situation into something of a farce...

...unless the DM can adequately explain why these goblins are individually as tough as hill giants. I'm not saying that such a feat is easy - perhaps these goblins are half-earth elemental, or they're goblins from space, or (insert DM's imagination). But the point is, if the DM an make the presence of these high-level goblins work in his world, I don't see why they shouldn't exist.

And if that's the case, anything (chandeliers, lava, gazebos) is/are potentially game.


You mentioned the winds of Pandemonium. What level are those winds? Is it appropriate to face them at early paragon, late paragon, some other levels?

The question shouldn't be "are the PCs an arbitarily high enough level to tackle this challenge", but rather, "does it fit the narrative I can and want to tell?"

In my 4e Planescape game, I wanted to start my 3rd level players off on a really alien plane, so I started with Pandemonium.

The wind battered them around like plastic bags in a wind. They couldn't communicate with each other because of the noise (they filled their ears with beeswax), all while the Warforged Warlord who had Telepathy forgot he had it. They fought off strange bug creatures that had killed and were wearing the Sodkiller chaps they were sent to find as skins, abandoned by their Xaositect guide after being beset (and nearly killed) by Howlers, and were forced to make a mad escape back to the portal they came through - chased by the same howlers - where all of them realized that none of them knew the portal key back through, as the Xaositect had opened it during a rather noisy party in the middle of Quake Lavander's bar.

(Said Warforged would fail the Acrobatics check back into Quake's place, and fell straight into the meal that a Marilith was about to dine on.)

It was great, I had a lot of fun, my players had a lot of fun!

I'm going to be blunt: if you want to suggest that my players shouldn't have had the fun they did because *nerd glasses on* "Pandemonium is too dangerous for level 3 characters they should have died unless they were level 14 because this book says so!" *nerd glasses off*?

Hecks no!

And if they go back to Pandemonium at level 13, they'll find the wind mostly bearable (I imagine they'll still be using the beeswax tho), that the Howlers that once nearly killed them are no longer a threat, and I'll simply have to find something else to challenge them (Agents of Loki? A Howling Dragon? A pack of howler that have been mutated by an evil organization related to one of my PCs?).

Their previous experience on Pandemonium will not "ruin" the plane either mechanically or narratively; it will only enhance it.

[Kurald Galain]

Their previous experience on Pandemonium will not "ruin" the plane either mechanically or narratively; it will only enhance it.

The point is that in 3E, the rules provide for consistency and it's up to the DM to make sure the world is balanced; whereas in 4E, the rules provide for balance and it's up to the DM to make sure the world is consistent.

[neonchameleon]

The point is that in 3E, the rules provide for consistency and it's up to the DM to make sure the world is balanced; whereas in 4E, the rules provide for balance and it's up to the DM to make sure the world is consistent.

And there are three points expanding on that:

1: The 3e rules provide for consistency in a way that often clashes with the real world or any fantasy world I'm familliar with that's not explicitely 3.X based (see the Profession skill for details or the Standard Tree).

2: There are more amateur writers who can make a decent story out there than amateur game designers who can produce a decently balanced complex game. If I want a good story and interesting setting to riff off I pay someone like Lois McMaster Bujold or the estate of JRR Tolkein. If I want a balanced game I pay game designers.

3: To keep my world consistent I need to remember what I have done and not contradict that (or cross my own timeline). To keep my world balanced I need to predict what my players will do in the future. And if I genuinely could predict all the insane plans and ideas my players were going to come up with I'd be bored.

[Ashdate]

The point is that in 3E, the rules provide for consistency and it's up to the DM to make sure the world is balanced; whereas in 4E, the rules provide for balance and it's up to the DM to make sure the world is consistent.

Right, and as a DM, I want the rules to work for me, not the rules to dictate what I can/can not do.

I felt I should provide an example of what I'm talking about: I had this one cool (although not necessarily original) idea for a low-level 3.5 game where the PCs enter a haunted house (of sorts) where the wizard had animated a bunch of objects (dressers, knives, stoves, that sort of thing).

But then I found out how expensive animating all that stuff would be, and at that point the whole idea fell apart. Animating all of these objects would require the Wizard to be level 14 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/permanency.htm), spend 3k XP per casting, and the end result would produce a bunch of weak monsters that are nowhere near (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm) the level of power and protection that a level 14 Wizard should be able to produce (why wouldn't he set up symbols of fear/pain/death, walls of force, or use his wealth to hire beefy guardians instead?).

And the idea was scrapped because it didn't make any sense in the world that 3.5 asked me to build.

[Scowling Dragon]

Well nothing says you couldn't modify that framework. The Important thing was that the framework exists:

(Though Im playing with PF which got rid of of XP cost entirely)

A: The Wizard would have allot of money

B: The Wizard found a way to reduce costs (The GP costs is for average ingredients made for fast purchase. Maybe he found a shortcut)

C: He would use a magic item to help him achieve this.

In my opinion, limitations create creativity.

[Scow2]

But again, the fiction is a shared agreement between the DM and the player. Let me come back to the level X goblin:

Goblins are (and have for a long time) been the foes of low-level characters. The mechanics and fluff have long established that at some point, characters graduate from fighting goblins to something meaner (orcs, hobgoblins, zombies, etc). But there are rules for advancing goblins to levels beyond their entry in the Monsterous Manual in both 3.5 and 4e.

But while there's some wiggle room, at some point the DM can no longer present basic goblins as a threat to a party. Once you've fought ogres, trolls, wights - and maybe even a dragon - Goblins begin testing the patience of believability. That a single goblin can potentially match the capability of a high level fighter or wizard turns the whole situation into something of a farce...

...unless the DM can adequately explain why these goblins are individually as tough as hill giants. I'm not saying that such a feat is easy - perhaps these goblins are half-earth elemental, or they're goblins from space, or (insert DM's imagination). But the point is, if the DM an make the presence of these high-level goblins work in his world, I don't see why they shouldn't exist.A goblin can be a threat to high-level parties for the same damn reason a human, elf, dwarf, and/or halfling can be a threat to ancient dragons, the Lords of the Hells, the Demon Princes of the Abyss, and other legendary monsters. Is that really so hard to grasp!?

[Flickerdart]

Right, and as a DM, I want the rules to work for me, not the rules to dictate what I can/can not do.

I felt I should provide an example of what I'm talking about: I had this one cool (although not necessarily original) idea for a low-level 3.5 game where the PCs enter a haunted house (of sorts) where the wizard had animated a bunch of objects (dressers, knives, stoves, that sort of thing).

But then I found out how expensive animating all that stuff would be, and at that point the whole idea fell apart. Animating all of these objects would require the Wizard to be level 14 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/permanency.htm), spend 3k XP per casting, and the end result would produce a bunch of weak monsters that are nowhere near (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm) the level of power and protection that a level 14 Wizard should be able to produce (why wouldn't he set up symbols of fear/pain/death, walls of force, or use his wealth to hire beefy guardians instead?).

And the idea was scrapped because it didn't make any sense in the world that 3.5 asked me to build.
Animate Objects gives you one object per level; at 14th you could easily boost the CL to 20 (UMD a Bead of Karma and Vanguard of Kord, get an Orange Ioun Stone) for 20 Small creatures per casting, or ten Medium creatures, or five Large.

Would you rather have it the other way - that low-level wizards could freely whip up massive batches of powerful minions? Wizards are already powerful, they don't need to be buffed any more than they already are.

[navar100]

A friend mine mentioned he went to a recent 5E playtest session run by WOTC where they said they were getting rid of the DM and running it by computer. He walked out and the others followed, ending up with no playtest being run due to lack of players.

Anyone here know what this is about and could elaborate? My friend was being serious, not joking.

[Kurald Galain]

Right, and as a DM, I want the rules to work for me, not the rules to dictate what I can/can not do.

Pfft. All rulesets work for you, and all rulesets dicate what you can/can't do. Neither 3E nor 4E is stronger than the other in either aspect.

Also: strawberry.

[Ashdate]

A goblin can be a threat to high-level parties for the same damn reason a human, elf, dwarf, and/or halfling can be a threat to ancient dragons, the Lords of the Hells, the Demon Princes of the Abyss, and other legendary monsters. Is that really so hard to grasp!?

Are you suggesting that if your level 3.5 15 party encountered a small band of non-descript goblins who demanded all your money, you wouldn't blink an eyelash if it turned out that those goblins turned out to be CR 15 each? That you would just accept that "yeah, sometimes regular goblins just happen to get 15 class levels. Nothing to do but accept it and move on."


Would you rather have it the other way - that low-level wizards could freely whip up massive batches of powerful minions? Wizards are already powerful, they don't need to be buffed any more than they already are.

I'm not suggesting that 3.5 Wizards should be any "more" powerful, but that the narrative I wanted to build was undermined by the rules which basically said "this is a waste of time for a level 14 Wizard." And I didn't even want the wizard to be level 14. But I would have to to make the rules work consistently.

So I would rather it be like this: I want to players to enter a haunted house filled with animated objects. This wizard figured out how to do that because he's a wizard and they sometimes do strange things like that. The players find themselves appropriately challenged by the dressers, stoves, and fire pokers, and may (or may not) face a level-appropriate wizard at the end. Should the party Sorcerer desire her own enchanted cutlery, I'll create a ritual which does that (and without the problems of "I wave my hand and animate a dozen spoons).

I can do that in 4e and the system supports my efforts; in 3.5e I need to jump through hoops to accomplish the same thing, and for what exactly? To please a small fraction of the players who believe the DM should be a mechanical machine of precision, rather than the players who just want to be entertained?


Well nothing says you couldn't modify that framework.

If the framework doesn't do what I want it to do (and note: many frameworks within 3.5 do work! Just not this one), then suggesting that I can just "DM" in a solution puts me in the same situation as I start with in 4e, except that I've spent a lot more time achieving the same result as I could in the latter.

I agree that limitations can breed creativity, but the important piece of that is that an author have a good reason to accept those limitations. An artist does not paint on just half his or her canvas because they believe it would create a better painting.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The point is that in 3E, the rules provide for consistency and it's up to the DM to make sure the world is balanced; whereas in 4E, the rules provide for balance and it's up to the DM to make sure the world is consistent.
Wait, is this a problem? :smallconfused:

Any half-decent writer can create a consistent fiction. It's kind of their basic job. Making a balanced rules set is really hard -- it takes many games for a novice 3.x DM to figure out their own personal ban-list and which house-rules they need to keep things like Diplomacy or Bluff (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283190) from ruining their game.

If I had to choose between a Balanced System I needed to keep Consistent and a Consistent System I needed to keep Balanced, I'd choose the former every time. Why would any beginning DM or Player choose the latter?

[Kurald Galain]

Are you suggesting that if your level 3.5 15 party encountered a small band of non-descript goblins who demanded all your money, you wouldn't blink an eyelash if it turned out that those goblins turned out to be CR 15 each? That you would just accept that "yeah, sometimes regular goblins just happen to get 15 class levels. Nothing to do but accept it and move on."
In a 3E game, I would expect these to be half-hit dice nobodies. In 4E, however, I would expect them to be an appropriate challenge to the party's level, regardless of what level that is.



I'm not suggesting that 3.5 Wizards should be any "more" powerful, but that the narrative I wanted to build was undermined by the rules which basically said "this is a waste of time for a level 14 Wizard." And I didn't even want the wizard to be level 14. But I would have to to make the rules work consistently.
Consistency doesn't mean you can never make up your own things. Of course you can (heck, custom items and spell research are explicitly part of the rules, as are animated objects from 0.5 to 32 HD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm)). Devise a 2nd level spell that animates stuff, problem solved.

Consistency here is not about the restriction, but about the fact that players could know what a small animated object does (since it'll be consistent with their earlier experiences, even in other campaigns) and that if the party contains a wizard or bard, he can also learn that spell. That's a different approach than stating that animated objects are a level-appropriate encounter (regardless of what level you are) and PCs can never learn to animate things because that's an NPC ability.

[obryn]

Animate Objects gives you one object per level; at 14th you could easily boost the CL to 20 (UMD a Bead of Karma and Vanguard of Kord, get an Orange Ioun Stone) for 20 Small creatures per casting, or ten Medium creatures, or five Large.

Would you rather have it the other way - that low-level wizards could freely whip up massive batches of powerful minions? Wizards are already powerful, they don't need to be buffed any more than they already are.
I think you're missing the point. He thought it would be a cool idea for an adventure. But by the rules of the game, his adventure wasn't strictly possible. And by further adding stuff like specific magic items that wizard would need, you're illustrating the problem rather than solving it.


In a 3E game, I would expect these to be half-hit dice nobodies. In 4E, however, I would expect them to be an appropriate challenge to the party's level, regardless of what level that is.
...And you'd expect all of the necessary in-fiction descriptors to go with it. "Goblins mutated and corrupted by the Far Ream into powerfully psychic nightmare beasts" should be better than minion nobodies.

A DM who just says, "these random goblins in the cave are now just 15th level," without any in-fiction justification is doing a crap job. If your mechanics don't interact with the fiction, you're not doing your job as a DM - in any edition, not just 4e. 4e's mechanics work with the fiction. 3e's mechanics work with the world, which influences the fiction. Same result, but 4e's pathway is a lot more direct. The curtain has been pulled back, and the focus is on the outcomes, not the process.


Consistency doesn't mean you can never make up your own things. Of course you can (heck, custom items and spell research are explicitly part of the rules, as are animated objects from 0.5 to 32 HD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm)). Devise a 2nd level spell that animates stuff, problem solved.
And then, because it's 3.x, your players can learn the spell. You need to justify it in a specific rules implementation, like Flickerdart did a few posts above yours. Your "making up of things" is constrained by the rules, not by the fiction.

The problems such an approach creates far outweigh, in my mind, the advantages of the converse.

-O

[Ashdate]

In a 3E game, I would expect these to be half-hit dice nobodies. In 4E, however, I would expect them to be an appropriate challenge to the party's level, regardless of what level that is.

I think in either case, it's the DMs job to explain why these particular goblins are threatening. It doesn't matter if the system supports CR 15/level 15 goblins (remember that both system do!) but rather, what matters is that the DM can justify their existence in his or her narrative.

(Obryn above knocks it out of the park.)

And hopefully you can understand that creating an entirely new constructs (i.e. a new level 2 wizard spell that permanently animated objects) in my world to justify the narrative I want to tell is not always an ideal solution. It's like trying to fix a lawnmower, and discovering that I need to invent a wrench first. I think those things should happen because the DM wishes to create such a reward, not because the system demands it.

(But admittedly, I'm not nearly as concerned with PC/NPC symmetry as some people on this forum are.)

[Scow2]

In a 3E game, I would expect these to be half-hit dice nobodies. In 4E, however, I would expect them to be an appropriate challenge to the party's level, regardless of what level that is.I'd see it the opposite way, if any. Why is it suddenly harder to imagine that a GM would deviate from the given statblock for a 3e game than a 4e one?!


Consistency doesn't mean you can never make up your own things. Of course you can (heck, custom items and spell research are explicitly part of the rules, as are animated objects from 0.5 to 32 HD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm)). Devise a 2nd level spell that animates stuff, problem solved.

Consistency here is not about the restriction, but about the fact that players could know what a small animated object does (since it'll be consistent with their earlier experiences, even in other campaigns) and that if the party contains a wizard or bard, he can also learn that spell. That's a different approach than stating that animated objects are a level-appropriate encounter (regardless of what level you are) and PCs can never learn to animate things because that's an NPC ability.[/QUOTE]
The PC can learn to animate objects. The GM just has the leeway to determine what ritual that would be and what you can make, instead of 'empowering' the player to say "The rules say I can do X, and a person of my level is even expected to have X as a resource!"

Rules Lawyering and Tier-1 Game-breaking is a big problem at 3rd-edition tables.

[Kurald Galain]

I'd see it the opposite way, if any. Why is it suddenly harder to imagine that a GM would deviate from the given statblock for a 3e game than a 4e one?!
Simply the nature of Combat-As-Sport vs Combat-As-War, mentioned earlier in the thread.


Rules Lawyering and Tier-1 Game-breaking is a big problem at 3rd-edition tables.
Not that I've seen, no. It's one of those things perennially repeated in the echo chamber that is internet forums, but it's not nearly as much a problem in practice.

[SiuiS]

Off the top of my head GURPS and Mutants and Masterminds both use defaults from stats. Which means if you don't invest in a skill you're still pretty good because it defaults from your stat, which can itself be pretty good.


So does D&D. By you can still pay for skills in GURPS.


Right, and as a DM, I want the rules to work for me, not the rules to dictate what I can/can not do.

I felt I should provide an example of what I'm talking about: I had this one cool (although not necessarily original) idea for a low-level 3.5 game where the PCs enter a haunted house (of sorts) where the wizard had animated a bunch of objects (dressers, knives, stoves, that sort of thing).

But then I found out how expensive animating all that stuff would be, and at that point the whole idea fell apart. Animating all of these objects would require the Wizard to be level 14 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/permanency.htm), spend 3k XP per casting, and the end result would produce a bunch of weak monsters that are nowhere near (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm) the level of power and protection that a level 14 Wizard should be able to produce (why wouldn't he set up symbols of fear/pain/death, walls of force, or use his wealth to hire beefy guardians instead?).

And the idea was scrapped because it didn't make any sense in the world that 3.5 asked me to build.

I did that for a 3rd level player with a 2nd level cohort. My seed was "this lacquer church is important enough to send you because secretly it was built over a minor planar fissure to hell, which a cult turned into a stable bu minor portal. We can't send big guns because that draws attention. They've stopped reporting in, go investigate."

The church was hit by an earthquake, and in the cave in one of the priests was lost and the portal's stone ring cracked. So after braving looting an plundering goblin hordes, the player dug through a collapsed tunnel to find an animated curtain, suit of armor, chest of drawers and some others. Turns out that priest, buried alive with an amulet of Will around his neck, was corrupted by infernal energies and his lich-like corpse still possessed a spark of life, now insane, which possessed and animated the nearest objects he could to free himself.

In other words; wing it. If the players ask how it happened without a 14th leek wizard, smile! Say "that's a good question. Where do you start investigating?"

[obryn]

Devise a 2nd level spell that animates stuff, problem solved.
That's not a solution to the problem. That's an illustration of the problem.


The PC can learn to animate objects. The GM just has the leeway to determine what ritual that would be and what you can make, instead of 'empowering' the player to say "The rules say I can do X, and a person of my level is even expected to have X as a resource!"
That's part of the basic game philosophy of 3.x, though, and intentional in its entire design. If an NPC has a spell, a PC could learn it and cast it. If an NPC has some specific trick they can do with some weapon, it's a feat or class ability, and a PC could pick it up by taking that feat or class. (And if not this PC right now, a different PC later.) If an NPC has a magical effect on them, it's caused by a specific spell (which the PCs might learn and cast) or magic item (which the PCs can take and use).

This philosophy of having the entire DM's toolkit available to PCs even extends to the Monster Manual, which can serve as an expanded list of playable PC races with its ECL modifiers.

-O

[noparlpf]

Rules Lawyering and Tier-1 Game-breaking is a big problem at 3rd-edition fora.

Fixed that for you. I don't see anything above moderate optimisation at real tables, and if you try to pull a "well if you read it like this..." the DM just says no. It's the fora where you get the crazy stuff.

[Doug Lampert]

A goblin is a living, breathing, learning creature that has gone through many life experiences, and plays by the same rules as the characters. Lava is lava - the only thing that can change about it is how much and how close it is.

So all lava is a slow ooze that people can easily walk on in hiking boots without serious risk?

Because THAT'S REAL LAVA! It's fairly common really.

But real lava varies DRASTICALLY in properties depending on conditions, it's VASTLY more variable than you give it credit for. Your "lava is lava" breaks my suspension of disbelief. It's far LESS realistic than making all of species X have identical attributes, because at least species X all has vaguely similar temperatures and chemical compositions, UNLIKE LAVA.

[1337 b4k4]

Rules Lawyering and Tier-1 Game-breaking is a big problem at 3rd-edition tables.

For what it's worth, I know 3 rules lawyers. One plays in a homebrew system, and the other two are 4e players. Rules lawyering is not limited to 3e, and there's plenty of lawyering to be done in 4e.

Edit
--------

And to be completely honest, we shouldn't design RPG rules around the existence of rules lawyers anymore than we should design them around the existence of bad DMs. You can't fix bad players with rules. The best you can do is provide good guidance and a healthy reminder to both Players and DMs that they are under no obligation to continue playing with bad players. When you design for rules lawyers and bad DMs you frustrate the heck out of everyone else.

[Clawhound]

Fixed that for you. I don't see anything above moderate optimisation at real tables, and if you try to pull a "well if you read it like this..." the DM just says no. It's the fora where you get the crazy stuff.

Most fora optimizers also admit that they would never actually play their creations.

There's also something that I call the Ban Pun-Pun principal. Basically, any exploit which produces a character sufficiently overpowered will get banned at the table. Everybody reasonable knows this, so there's just no use building a character around that idea.

Finally, when folks say, "this design takes off at level X," that design has to suffer to get there, and when you have a game that can break up at any time, you may never get there. In practice, there's often a stiff opportunity cost to implementing your super-character.

So, in theory, you can have super-awesome characters, but in practice it just doesn't work out that way.

[navar100]

Right, and as a DM, I want the rules to work for me, not the rules to dictate what I can/can not do.

I felt I should provide an example of what I'm talking about: I had this one cool (although not necessarily original) idea for a low-level 3.5 game where the PCs enter a haunted house (of sorts) where the wizard had animated a bunch of objects (dressers, knives, stoves, that sort of thing).

But then I found out how expensive animating all that stuff would be, and at that point the whole idea fell apart. Animating all of these objects would require the Wizard to be level 14 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/permanency.htm), spend 3k XP per casting, and the end result would produce a bunch of weak monsters that are nowhere near (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm) the level of power and protection that a level 14 Wizard should be able to produce (why wouldn't he set up symbols of fear/pain/death, walls of force, or use his wealth to hire beefy guardians instead?).

And the idea was scrapped because it didn't make any sense in the world that 3.5 asked me to build.

Or you could have stolen from Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" for origin and campaign plot information.

[Person_Man]

Right, and as a DM, I want the rules to work for me, not the rules to dictate what I can/can not do.

I felt I should provide an example of what I'm talking about: I had this one cool (although not necessarily original) idea for a low-level 3.5 game where the PCs enter a haunted house (of sorts) where the wizard had animated a bunch of objects (dressers, knives, stoves, that sort of thing).

But then I found out how expensive animating all that stuff would be, and at that point the whole idea fell apart. Animating all of these objects would require the Wizard to be level 14 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/permanency.htm), spend 3k XP per casting, and the end result would produce a bunch of weak monsters that are nowhere near (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm) the level of power and protection that a level 14 Wizard should be able to produce (why wouldn't he set up symbols of fear/pain/death, walls of force, or use his wealth to hire beefy guardians instead?).

And the idea was scrapped because it didn't make any sense in the world that 3.5 asked me to build.

So I generally don't like bringing up GNS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory), because in some ways it sets up false dichotomies. But I think it's very relevant to this specific point.

Gamist: A system with challenges which players can win, such as 4E, Shadowrun, most board games, most card games, most tabletop games which require game figures or pieces in general, and most computer games. If the DM wants the players to fight Animated Objects, he does so via DM fiat, and worries more about creating fun and balanced encounters instead of how the Animated Objects got there.

Narrativist: A system where the players are the main character in a collectively built story, and the mechanics directly assist and support the creation of that story, such as 1st/2nd edition D&D, Amber, Over the Edge, Prince Valiant, The Whispering Vault, and Everway. If Animated Objects are in a mansion, the players only understand how or why to the extent that their character learn about it through the story, and the DM can always add more or less or different types as needed to further the story. Heck, if the DM suddenly wants the house itself to be a sentient Animated Object it can be, if it furthers the story in some way.

Simulationist: A system that gives you a bunch of building blocks which you can use to build a fantasy world, which theoretically should have a consistent set of internal rules for how each thing is treated, like 3.5, Pathfinder, GURPS, Minecraft, or Legos. There can only be Animated Objects in the house to the extent that the rules say that certain types of classes can create them.


Chainmail and D&D were originally created to make complicated and cumbersome (in that they required a lot of miniatures, and thus a lot of money) Gamist tabletop war games simpler and more Narrativist. And since then, the various editions have tried to do all three in various ways, with varying levels of success. But honestly, there is no way to thread the needle and do all things for all people. WotC just needs to pick one or two, and do the best job they can designing a game which fits their goals, otherwise they'll just end up making a mess which pleases no one.

[obryn]

Gamist: A system with challenges which players can win, such as 4E, Shadowrun, most board games, most card games, most tabletop games which require game figures or pieces in general, and most computer games.
Um... How is the sense in which a 4e player or Shadowrun player can "win" an encounter at all different from the way in which a 3e player can "win" an encounter? In my experience? None at all.

Your categorizations likewise off, in that they don't acknowledge that individual games (and individual mechanics of games) can move towards one or the other orientation over the course of play. IIRC - and it's been a while, and the terms now have drifted far from Ron Edwards's original article - this drift is a core element of the theory.

For example, GP for XP is one of the finest purely "gamist" elements in D&D history, and yet a good deal of recent posts have been about AD&D's bent towards simulation.

-O

[Craft (Cheese)]

I think GNS is much more useful if you look at Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist as aesthetics of play (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uepAJ-rqJKA) rather than design philosophies. Instead of asking "Is D&D gamist?" we should be asking "Is D&D well-suited for providing a gamist aesthetic?"

[TheOOB]

If you want a character in D&D 3.5 to be able to do something not covered by a rules, you can always give them a unique feat/spell/PrC, you don't even need full rules for it. The options in the book are for the most part designed for PC's, and there are lots of things that people in the D&D world might do that isn't something an adventurer might do.

I ran a D&D module once that culminated in a battle with a calzone golem. This is nothing the players need to be able to replicate(nor were the animated objects and imps the players fought), but it made for a memorable encounter. I never had the players be upset that some research wizard had managed to do a few things in their time that the adventuring wizards have not.

[SiuiS]

Fixed that for you. I don't see anything above moderate optimisation at real tables, and if you try to pull a "well if you read it like this..." the DM just says no. It's the fora where you get the crazy stuff.

Not really. I've seen a large amount of both terrible optimization that ruins the game, and GMs cracking down on real or perceived terrible optimization and ruining the game. That's why I'm always broaching moderate, 'whatever, maaan' ideas and trying to not burn everything down as start anew; because it works well at the table and I want it to spread.

The best example I have is a DM who blamed me for ruining his campaign because I was a wizard. I never cast a spell in combat past level 5, I never cast a plot related spell past level six, and spent all my time doing fluff-related research and making items for the party because the DM liked disjunction as a control mechanism. He cracked down so hard on me for having "wizard" on my character sheet because everyone knows wizards are broken, that he didn't notice giving the fighter unbeatable regeneration and making the melee Druid a demigod at level 8 were the actual problems.


For what it's worth, I know 3 rules lawyers. One plays in a homebrew system, and the other two are 4e players. Rules lawyering is not limited to 3e, and there's plenty of lawyering to be done in 4e.

Edit
--------

And to be completely honest, we shouldn't design RPG rules around the existence of rules lawyers anymore than we should design them around the existence of bad DMs. You can't fix bad players with rules. The best you can do is provide good guidance and a healthy reminder to both Players and DMs that they are under no obligation to continue playing with bad players. When you design for rules lawyers and bad DMs you frustrate the heck out of everyone else.

Yo.

[noparlpf]

Not really. I've seen a large amount of both terrible optimization that ruins the game, and GMs cracking down on real or perceived terrible optimization and ruining the game. That's why I'm always broaching moderate, 'whatever, maaan' ideas and trying to not burn everything down as start anew; because it works well at the table and I want it to spread.

The best example I have is a DM who blamed me for ruining his campaign because I was a wizard. I never cast a spell in combat past level 5, I never cast a plot related spell past level six, and spent all my time doing fluff-related research and making items for the party because the DM liked disjunction as a control mechanism. He cracked down so hard on me for having "wizard" on my character sheet because everyone knows wizards are broken, that he didn't notice giving the fighter unbeatable regeneration and making the melee Druid a demigod at level 8 were the actual problems.

That's called "a bad DM". And okay, maybe some tables actually do see some optimisation and excessive cheese, and DMs overreacting in turn, but I don't think it's most tables.

[neonchameleon]

In a 3E game, I would expect these to be half-hit dice nobodies. In 4E, however, I would expect them to be an appropriate challenge to the party's level, regardless of what level that is.

Whereas in 4e I'd expect them to be the comic relief. Or a tribe of doppelgangers pretending to be goblins so they could approach while the PCs were too busy laughing.


Consistency doesn't mean you can never make up your own things. Of course you can (heck, custom items and spell research are explicitly part of the rules, as are animated objects from 0.5 to 32 HD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm)). Devise a 2nd level spell that animates stuff, problem solved.

Problem emphasised. In 3.X if the NPCs can do it, the PCs can do it too.


Consistency here is not about the restriction, but about the fact that players could know what a small animated object does (since it'll be consistent with their earlier experiences, even in other campaigns)

So you mean that consistency is consistency of previous experiences. The sort of thing you are meant to do in 4e. And consistency with the myth - something 4e does well and the 3.X rules don't. Your advice is to give the NPC a power the wizard doesn't have - i.e. to play by good 4e guidelines and ignore the 3.X simulationist veneer.


That's a different approach than stating that animated objects are a level-appropriate encounter (regardless of what level you are) and PCs can never learn to animate things because that's an NPC ability.

Neither of which is a part of 4e. Level appropriate encounters are expected rather than necessary. Indeed the 4e DMG explicitely suggests to occasionally build an encounter using monsters that were a threat to the party six or seven levels ago to underline how much the PCs have grown. Animating things would be a ritual - takes time and costs money. The thing you normally can't learn readily are combat maneuvers without retraining your muscle memory. (And yes, that applies to magical ones too).


Not that I've seen, no. It's one of those things perennially repeated in the echo chamber that is internet forums, but it's not nearly as much a problem in practice.

You mean like locks changing DC and encounters "having" to be balanced whatever the fluff says? And despite the fact I don't play a Tier 1 caster in 3.X it's still a problem for me and one of the reasons I reflexively avoid 3.X; my default playstyle is Batman Wizard if I have spells (they work pretty well in 4e but you need to make them work).


Chainmail and D&D were originally created to make complicated and cumbersome (in that they required a lot of miniatures, and thus a lot of money) Gamist tabletop war games simpler and more Narrativist.

Nope. Narrativism wasn't even slightly a goal of early D&D. It was made by wargamers seeking new challenges - going in at a higher zoom and greater flexibility than ever before.

We are, after all talking about a set of characters including Melf, the Male Elf, Bigby Rigby and Digby Sigbyson, and Zagyg which was based on Gygax backwards. That's a set of board wargamers looking for another game.


I think GNS is much more useful if you look at Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist as aesthetics of play (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uepAJ-rqJKA) rather than design philosophies.

Or simply reverting to GDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_Model).

[Ashdate]

If you want a character in D&D 3.5 to be able to do something not covered by a rules, you can always give them a unique feat/spell/PrC, you don't even need full rules for it. The options in the book are for the most part designed for PC's, and there are lots of things that people in the D&D world might do that isn't something an adventurer might do.

I think the argument here however, is whether NPC-only abilities (be they feats, spells, or otherwise) should be the exception or the rule.

If it is to be the exception (a la 3.5), you need to justify in your narrative why the PCs can't get access to this cool 2nd level wizard spell that permanently animates objects (that you created out of necessity as a tool in building your world).

If it's the rule (a la 4e) then yes, you never need to worry about the details beyond how they'll apply to your narrative, but some players might dislike that NPCs get access to tools that PCs do not.

Myself, I see more value in the latter than the former (the trick: make PC powers are cool and interesting so they don't desire NPC ones). But handwaving the occasional spell/feat/ability completely out of the hands of PCs in 3.5 is hardly the solution, anymore than ensuring that 4e enemy "fighters" be only able to use powers off the 4e Fighter's list. You "solved" one problem by creating another.

[Doug Lampert]

Or simply reverting to GDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_Model).

IIRC GDS doesn't really categorize systems at all though, it's about GM decisions. (Note: I was in the discussions that came up with GDS.)

[noparlpf]

I think the argument here however, is whether NPC-only abilities (be they feats, spells, or otherwise) should be the exception or the rule.

If it is to be the exception (a la 3.5), you need to justify in your narrative why the PCs can't get access to this cool 2nd level wizard spell that permanently animates objects (that you created out of necessity as a tool in building your world).

If it's the rule (a la 4e) then yes, you never need to worry about the details beyond how they'll apply to your narrative, but some players might dislike that NPCs get access to tools that PCs do not.

Myself, I see more value in the latter than the former (the trick: make PC powers are cool and interesting so they don't desire NPC ones). But handwaving the occasional spell/feat/ability completely out of the hands of PCs in 3.5 is hardly the solution, anymore than ensuring that 4e enemy "fighters" be only able to use powers off the 4e Fighter's list. You "solved" one problem by creating another.

If I made something up in 3.5, I'd try to balance it for the level I'm claiming it is, and it would be available to PCs, they'd just have to jump through the same backstory hoops the NPC did to do it.

[Tehnar]

I think the argument here however, is whether NPC-only abilities (be they feats, spells, or otherwise) should be the exception or the rule.

If it is to be the exception (a la 3.5), you need to justify in your narrative why the PCs can't get access to this cool 2nd level wizard spell that permanently animates objects (that you created out of necessity as a tool in building your world).

If it's the rule (a la 4e) then yes, you never need to worry about the details beyond how they'll apply to your narrative, but some players might dislike that NPCs get access to tools that PCs do not.

Myself, I see more value in the latter than the former (the trick: make PC powers are cool and interesting so they don't desire NPC ones). But handwaving the occasional spell/feat/ability completely out of the hands of PCs in 3.5 is hardly the solution, anymore than ensuring that 4e enemy "fighters" be only able to use powers off the 4e Fighter's list. You "solved" one problem by creating another.

Why would you want to keep a NPC ability out of PC hands? If they defeat the wizard with the "Animate small objects" spell and find his spellbook, they should be able to copy it and have it.

The benefit of having NPC's and PC's following the same rules is you can do things like that. PC's should have the option of learning the NPC's tricks, within verisimilitude. Obviously a Half Giant PC won't be learning the halfling's dodge giants tehnique, but he could learn the Ogre's Smush da little Un's club swings.

[Icewraith]

Because if what you made is too good for that level it will haunt you for the rest of the game.

[Tholomyes]

Why would you want to keep a NPC ability out of PC hands? If they defeat the wizard with the "Animate small objects" spell and find his spellbook, they should be able to copy it and have it.

The benefit of having NPC's and PC's following the same rules is you can do things like that. PC's should have the option of learning the NPC's tricks, within verisimilitude. Obviously a Half Giant PC won't be learning the halfling's dodge giants tehnique, but he could learn the Ogre's Smush da little Un's club swings.This is one way of looking at it. I disagree with this thought process. NPCs and PCs shouldn't nessisarily follow the same rules/have the same tricks to choose from. It gives the DM more tools to make cool enemies without having to worry about having to adjudicate the tool for the PC. For example, maybe the DM doesn't want to have to deal with the PCs being able to animate small objects as a spell they can choose from, but they might want to have their antagonist be able to do this.

Essentially it's a gamist/narrativist vs Simulationist split. The gamist and Narrativist will want to have a split in the rules for PCs and NPCs, because it allows for mechanics (for the gamist) and story plot points (for the narrativist) which don't need to be constructed with PCs in mind. The Simulationist will look at it as "Well, why shouldn't the PC have access to it?" My personal feeling is that D&D should pick a side. I'm a mostly Narrativist, slightly gamist, so I'd prefer that side, but honestly, if they continue to try to take the middle path with Next, it's not going to be good for anyone.

[neonchameleon]

IIRC GDS doesn't really categorize systems at all though, it's about GM decisions. (Note: I was in the discussions that came up with GDS.)

Yup. And made sense. But then Ron Edwards decided to convert and extend it to GNS and messed it up for two reasons (one being that he didn't understand S). He also made the quite frankly wrong assertion that underlies his theory that more than one of his agendas is a bad thing. I'm slowly piecing together my own classifications - which is where my idea of toolbox games comes from. (My current model is Goal Driven (e.g. oD&D), Style Driven (e.g. Dungeon World), Drama Driven (e.g. Smallville), Toolbox (e.g. GURPS)).


This is one way of looking at it. I disagree with this thought process. NPCs and PCs shouldn't nessisarily follow the same rules/have the same tricks to choose from.

The point is that more than any other game I can think of (yes, even GURPS), 3E went down the design philosophy of "PCs and NPCs should follow the same rules". And the question is which way Next should go.

[Ashdate]

Why would you want to keep a NPC ability out of PC hands? If they defeat the wizard with the "Animate small objects" spell and find his spellbook, they should be able to copy it and have it.

Keeping in mind that the passage of mine was with regards to this post:


If you want a character in D&D 3.5 to be able to do something not covered by a rules, you can always give them a unique feat/spell/PrC, you don't even need full rules for it. The options in the book are for the most part designed for PC's, and there are lots of things that people in the D&D world might do that isn't something an adventurer might do.

My response was thus not that games shouldn't do it, but that "creating" 3.5 spells for NPC-only use might serve the narrative, but would cause other problems (such as "why can't my PC learn this?"), just as easily as forcing 4e monsters to play by 4e PC rules would have consequences mechanically.

I don't know if I can ever give a satisfying answer as to "why would you not want PCs to be able to do _______?" because _________ can take on a wide range of things which include things we'd absolutely agree PCs should be able to do (i.e. take a feat that improves their initiative in combat) to things we can probably agree PCs should never be able to do (i.e. a feat which lets PCs use moon-destroying energy blasts at will).

Why would you create a 2nd level spell that duplicates the effects of Permanency and Animate Objects without the experience costs, but deny your PCs from having it? I don't know! I think if you were playing 3.5, you'd need to have a pretty outstanding reason for doing so (just as how you would need a pretty outstanding reason to have a tribe of CR15 goblins), because the system tries to have that PC/NPC symmetry.

This ultimately brings me back full circle: I want to challenge a group of low-level PCs to an adventure in a wizard's mansion filled with animated objects. Do the 3.5 rules support such a thing? Yes!...

...as long as I'm willing to make the Wizard level 14 (and accept that such a Wizard believes that a handful of CR 1 to 3 animated cutlery and furniture is an effective defense despite the fantastic magical power he has access to).

If I'm not willing to make the Wizard level 14 however, things start to break down. People have suggested alternatives:

1) It's not the wizard, it's an evil power (who has the ability to make permanency animated objects) I guess that's responsible for the couch being all alive and angry. So I need to change my narrative now.

2) Create a new, lower-level spell to duplicate the effects. So now I need to create a spell that my PCs may want access to.

3) I can just handwave it all and hope the PCs don't bother questioning why this wizard - who the rules say must be at least level 14 - is protecting this abode with animated night stands. When they find out he's actually level 3, hope they shrug their shoulders and not question how the animated loveseat was possible.

I want to be clear that I don't think those three solutions are wrong answers!

Sometimes as a DM I do want a "power behind the throne" (so to speak), and sometimes I do want to create something cool like a new spell or magic item (with the full intentions of PCs using it), and sometimes I do have to handwave some explanations and hope the PCs don't probe too quickly because the game must go on but it's 5 minutes before the game will start I've got no time to craft a proper narrative answer.

But sometimes I just want a car that I can drive without any bells and whistles to justify it being there. I want a cigar that is just a cigar. And sometimes I want a low-level Wizard to have his damn animated furniture that he himself created without needing to bend over backwards to do so. 4e let's me have my wizard. 3.5 does not. And if WotC wants me to DM DnD Next (which is probably the only way my current players will play it), then I hope I've made it clear which style of game they need to lean towards.

[navar100]

There could be a very simple reason why a wizard defends his home with Animated Objects rather than Guards & Wards, Symbols, or Planar Bound fiends. He just wants to. Poof, by fiat. Just because particular more powerful options exists doesn't mean every wizard everywhere will use them every time all the time. Not every wizard has powerful enemies or is that paranoid to need to go to such great lengths.

He might not even be defending his home at all. He may have Animated Objects just to make things lively. He could consider them living beings as pets, children, or friends. He can have "Puppetmaster" affection for them. The plot could be the wizard disappeared before the party arrives. The Animated Objects defend the home against the party because they think they have something to do with his disappearance, but a couple of them are really trying to communicate asking for help. They have some sentience after all, gained from years of being animated or even the Awakened Construct spell. Eventually, hopefully, the party understands and agrees to help. They become allies with the Animated Objects to find out what really happened to the wizard and rescue him. An Animated Object or two accompanies them on the grand adventure. Upon successful rescue of the wizard, he becomes a Patron of sorts. If a PC takes Leadership, an Animated Object with the wizard's blessing, could become his cohort. Perhaps it's a special Animated Object the wizard was working on. Perhaps it's the world's first warforged!

Note: As I was writing this, I wasn't even thinking of warforged at all. Taking a few moments to think about the issue led to ideas and the story wrote itself. 3E rules do not hinder imagination.

[obryn]

Why would you want to keep a NPC ability out of PC hands? If they defeat the wizard with the "Animate small objects" spell and find his spellbook, they should be able to copy it and have it.

The benefit of having NPC's and PC's following the same rules is you can do things like that. PC's should have the option of learning the NPC's tricks, within verisimilitude. Obviously a Half Giant PC won't be learning the halfling's dodge giants tehnique, but he could learn the Ogre's Smush da little Un's club swings.
That's exactly the thing under discussion, though, because not everyone agrees that these are good things. I can think of four main downsides, all somewhat related...

(1) It forces the DM into the PCs' rule set for building new things. This is what leads to the involved and unnecessary process of building monsters like PCs with a few levels in "ooze" or what-have-you, selecting feats, assigning ability scores, figuring out spell DCs, etc. Likewise, you can't just have a Blacksmith with +18 to Blacksmithing without tinkering with the system, giving him levels in Expert, and figuring out what feats he's grabbed. To put it mildly, this is a process I would rather avoid.

(2) It limits the DM to those things which a PC should be capable of, short of racial abilities. (And even those are most often limited to the PHB spell lists.) Much like with Ashdate's animated house idea, I don't care for this limitation at all. There's no reason an NPC shouldn't have abilities that are unavailable to PCs or vice-versa.

(3) It forces the DM to keep adequate value judgments in mind when constructing something novel. If you make a 2nd-level spell to animate objects and it's as good as a 5th-level spell to do so, you've done something with far greater consequences than simply handwaving stuff for an adventure. This is, IMO, a completely terrible requirement.

(4) If you want to use an NPC adversary, to get their numbers right, they have to maintain their gear like a PC, further complicating the building process. This leads to either worthless NPC adversaries, or greatly inflates the availability of magic items for PCs once that NPC is defeated. I don't find this to be an acceptable outcome, either.

No thanks, to any of these. I put up with them for 8 years and I'm not going back.

-O

[Seerow]

Re: Ashdate's animated furniture dilema.

I'd personally just give the NPC a custom feat that lets him enchant random objects and make them permanently animated. ie a new item crafting style feat. It still costs exp to use (which even helps explain why this caster is still low level), and if a PC really wants it, he can find the relevant information to learn how to do it in the NPC's grimoire... but most players when they check into the cost would say "Oh... yeah, nevermind on that. Not worth it". And if they do pick it up? Well they just picked up a feat that is 99% flavor, more power to them!

[obryn]

Re: Ashdate's animated furniture dilema.

I'd personally just give the NPC a custom feat that lets him enchant random objects and make them permanently animated. ie a new item crafting style feat. It still costs exp to use (which even helps explain why this caster is still low level), and if a PC really wants it, he can find the relevant information to learn how to do it in the NPC's grimoire... but most players when they check into the cost would say "Oh... yeah, nevermind on that. Not worth it". And if they do pick it up? Well they just picked up a feat that is 99% flavor, more power to them!
... and that's still an awful lot of effort and trouble for no discernible benefit. again, an illustration of the problem, not a solution.

-O

[Seerow]

... and that's still an awful lot of effort and trouble for no discernible benefit. again, an illustration of the problem, not a solution.

-O

5 minutes worth of writing down a solution off the cuff is a lot of effort and trouble?

Sure it has little discernible difference, in that the player will most likely not take the option. But for a lot of players, knowing if they wanted to they could learn how to do something, even if they don't personally want to make that trade off, is important.

[Tholomyes]

5 minutes worth of writing down a solution off the cuff is a lot of effort and trouble?

Sure it has little discernible difference, in that the player will most likely not take the option. But for a lot of players, knowing if they wanted to they could learn how to do something, even if they don't personally want to make that trade off, is important.The thing is, the game shouldn't necessarily give the PCs access to everything an NPC can do. NPCs are tools of the DM, to accomplish what the DM wants, mechanically and narratively. PCs interact with the world the DM creates, but they shouldn't necessarily draw from the same toolbox.

In addition, the DM shouldn't have to draw from the PC's toolbox to build NPCs. It's time consuming, and really provides minimal value. I don't like 4e for many reasons, but one of the things they did right is to make NPCs built fundamentally differently than PCs. All I'd need to do to build one is look at the DMG for what the Defenses, HP, Damage and Attack bonuses roughly should be. I've worked together a jury-rigged way to do this for 3.5/PF, but this is work for the DM that really isn't necessary.

[obryn]

5 minutes worth of writing down a solution off the cuff is a lot of effort and trouble?

Sure it has little discernible difference, in that the player will most likely not take the option. But for a lot of players, knowing if they wanted to they could learn how to do something, even if they don't personally want to make that trade off, is important.
Exactly, like I said - it's an illustration of the fundamental problem, which is a systemic need to capture everything and translate it into the same rules as PCs. If that's a breaking point for the players - that an NPC might be able to do something they can't - it's further illustrative of how far down the rabbit hole this problem goes.

It's NPC classes all over again - an invented solution to a manufactured problem.

-O

[Seerow]

The thing is, the game shouldn't necessarily give the PCs access to everything an NPC can do. NPCs are tools of the DM, to accomplish what the DM wants, mechanically and narratively. PCs interact with the world the DM creates, but they shouldn't necessarily draw from the same toolbox.

In addition, the DM shouldn't have to draw from the PC's toolbox to build NPCs. It's time consuming, and really provides minimal value. I don't like 4e for many reasons, but one of the things they did right is to make NPCs built fundamentally differently than PCs. All I'd need to do to build one is look at the DMG for what the Defenses, HP, Damage and Attack bonuses roughly should be. I've worked together a jury-rigged way to do this for 3.5/PF, but this is work for the DM that really isn't necessary.

I disagree with the first paragraph, but agree with the second.

If an NPC can do it, there is no reason a PC shouldn't have the capability to learn to do the same thing. Racial differences are one thing (I don't see the need for a PC to be able to breath fire like a Dragon, or shoot 10 eye beams a round like a beholder for example... though 3.5 did provide ways for that to happen), but something like a spell, or a sword move, or whatever, should be learnable by a PC that is willing to invest in it. That's part of the whole world consistency thing.

On the other hand, I do agree that NPCs don't need to be built like PCs. I find tracking feats and skillpoints for NPCs a chore. I don't think that having a list of all 30 spells a NPC caster has prepared is necessary, only really need a list of a couple of spells he knows/favors in different situations.

But the fundamental core should be the same. Numbers can be fudgeable to a degree, as long as they're within the realm of possibility (ie I don't like the idea of a humanoid solo with 4x more hp than anyone else of his level, but I don't care to figure out an NPC's stat array and BAB/HD/base saves and use that to calculate out base values, something in the correct ballpark is close enough). Any abilities the NPCs have should be available to PCs of a similar level, but they don't need to come in the same quantity as a PC, or even follow the same resource rules (if only because the average NPC won't live long enough for resource rules made for PCs won't matter).

So if that means for my NPC wizard I just pull out some level appropriate numbers and pick 2 spells I deem appropriate, that's fine. If I want him to have some special effect from a feat (such as enchanting furniture), I throw that into the stat block too.

If later a player wanted to play something similar, they could have the same spells and feats, plus a bunch of other stuff too. It emphasizes that the NPCs are following the same rules, even if the NPCs are much simpler, they don't get things that players can't, and helps the world feel more cohesive.

[Scow2]

I don't mind the players not having access to certain NPC abilities - after all, they spend a relatively short amount of time kicking in doors and saving the days, instead of devoting years to study and learn obscure stuff.

Unearthed Arcana's Incantations are a somewhat nice stopgap for 3.5... but it doesn't solve the problem of narrative-required magical shenanigans (Such as Low-CR animate-object wizards).

[Flickerdart]

Limiting PC access to certain abilities is already a thing in 3.5 - most monster abilities are sitting on an LA -- chassis, and many prestige classes require that the character gains training from a member, performs a certain task, or meets some other requirement that you can make impractical or impossible in your game.

[Tholomyes]

Limiting PC access to certain abilities is already a thing in 3.5 - most monster abilities are sitting on an LA -- chassis, and many prestige classes require that the character gains training from a member, performs a certain task, or meets some other requirement that you can make impractical or impossible in your game.Most of these aren't to get them out of PC hands (usually). Often times, when 3.5 did these, it was to have flavor dictate mechanics. Even sub-par PrCs are highly limited sometimes, for this reason.

And actually, this is somewhat of a detriment, since, as a DM, I have come to ignore these Flavor-requirements in PrCs, for this reason, so if they start using this as a way to limit PCs, plenty of DMs won't get the memo.

[Conundrum]

Limiting PC access to certain abilities is already a thing in 3.5 - most monster abilities are sitting on an LA -- chassis, and many prestige classes require that the character gains training from a member, performs a certain task, or meets some other requirement that you can make impractical or impossible in your game.

And the opposite is already a thing in 4e, too, but with much less effort involved.

If the default assumption is that NPCs work differently, and then you DO want to make an NPC ability available to the PCs, that's easy. I'm running a campaign where Mystra's death opened up the door for less structured magic than the Wizards of the world are used to. This magic is performed through force of will, instead of learned through study or channelled through innate ability, and is largely destructive. The PCs are given a choice whether to fight against this new form of magic, or to learn it and use it to their own ends. And all I have to do to allow this? Write up the NPC powers in a 4e power block, and give the PCs the chance to say "Yes, I'd like to learn that."

The opposite in 3.5, as you've illustrated, is much more difficult and restrictive. What if I don't *want* the NPC to be part of a special prestige class, or have some intricate requirement (which then has to be made impractical or impossible for the PCs to achieve, even if they really want to)?

[Flickerdart]

What if I don't *want* the NPC to be part of a special prestige class, or have some intricate requirement (which then has to be made impractical or impossible for the PCs to achieve, even if they really want to)?
Then your world is inconsistent - why can the PCs not learn the abilities that these NPCs possess? A simple requirement (such as "must have been born in [region that is on the enemy's side]" or "must have trained for ten years with [people] or at [place]") attached to a feat can easily keep it out of player hands while maintaining a reason for them not having it other than "because I said so".

[Tholomyes]

Then your world is inconsistent - why can the PCs not learn the abilities that these NPCs possess? A simple requirement (such as "must have been born in [region that is on the enemy's side]" or "must have trained for ten years with [people] or at [place]") attached to a feat can easily keep it out of player hands while maintaining a reason for them not having it other than "because I said so".

Or you could just use the reason "Because I said so."

Or you could just not make NPCs built the same way as PCs, so you don't have to worry about having to make PrCs and Feats with these prereqs.

[Flickerdart]

Or you could just use the reason "Because I said so."

Or you could just not make NPCs built the same way as PCs, so you don't have to worry about having to make PrCs and Feats with these prereqs.
Then the world is inconsistent, like I said, and personally I would not be satisfied with that state of affairs. If someone in the world does a cool thing, and it seems like a thing that my character could learn (such as a sword technique for a fighter, or a spell for a wizard) then the character would investigate the thing, and then what does he find? That he can't learn it because...?

[Kornaki]

Does anyone actually make up feats for their NPCs, and write down prerequisites for these feats that the PCs don't meet just so they can say "I'm not cheating, you just don't qualify for it?"

If they do, they're crazy. They should just say "no you can't have it" and call it a day

[navar100]

In other words, go back to the days of "Just say No" instead of "Just say Yes" that even 4E promotes. Il Duce DMs itching to return to power from the 3E player liberation movement.

[Tholomyes]

In other words, go back to the days of "Just say No" instead of "Just say Yes" that even 4E promotes. Il Duce DMs itching to return to power from the 3E player liberation movement.The problem with this argument (Though I'm not sure if I understand the argument right, so feel free to correct me) is that when "Just say yes" results in giving PCs tools that really only should belong to the DM, then there's something wrong with the system. The DM needs broader tools, because their role relative to the player is not the same as the player's relative to the DM. The DM is the one introducing the plot threads and establishing the world, so their tools need to be able to tell the story, where the PCs' tools need to be able to interact with the world and plot threads. The PCs' tools don't need to have the same breadth, because they don't need to establish plot-threads or encounters, such as the aforementioned Animated Object fight.

[Knaight]

The problem with this argument (Though I'm not sure if I understand the argument right, so feel free to correct me) is that when "Just say yes" results in giving PCs tools that really only should belong to the DM, then there's something wrong with the system. The DM needs broader tools, because their role relative to the player is not the same as the player's relative to the DM. The DM is the one introducing the plot threads and establishing the world, so their tools need to be able to tell the story, where the PCs' tools need to be able to interact with the world and plot threads. The PCs' tools don't need to have the same breadth, because they don't need to establish plot-threads or encounters, such as the aforementioned Animated Object fight.

The GM has broader tools, even in 3.5. Sure, the character level simulation may be the same, but the GM also has stuff like placing and moving world elements, from broad scale terrain to characters. Players have the option of having a character do things, it's not even remotely comparable.

Also, I wouldn't trust the assumption that plot threads are a GM only thing.

[Kornaki]

In other words, go back to the days of "Just say No" instead of "Just say Yes" that even 4E promotes. Il Duce DMs itching to return to power from the 3E player liberation movement.

No, it's not. Because if your player asks for Animate Small Objects, you would say no whether or not the spell existed (if you would say yes, then the point is moot. This discussion is only relevant if you tell players they can't have any spell they can think up). So the question is does the DM have to "Just say no" to his own ideas, and I'm arguing that the DM can allow himself some leeway beyond what the rules strictly spell out

[obryn]

Then your world is inconsistent - why can the PCs not learn the abilities that these NPCs possess? A simple requirement (such as "must have been born in [region that is on the enemy's side]" or "must have trained for ten years with [people] or at [place]") attached to a feat can easily keep it out of player hands while maintaining a reason for them not having it other than "because I said so".
So ... by putting prerequisites in place that are impossible for the PCs to attain, you're somehow doing something different than saying, "No, you can't have it because it's bad for the game?"

I confess, this sounds a whole lot like splitting hairs to me. So I'll give a 4e example.

In the 4e Eberron Campaign Setting, there's an Aurum Concordat statted up. (Frankly he's not designed all that well. In fact, he's kind of a terrible in an I-hate-my-players sort of way, but that's neither here nor there.) He has an at-will Dominate as a Minor action. This is obviously something a PC should never, ever have. (It's also something a monster or NPC should never, ever have, but again - neither here nor there.)

On the game end, PCs can't have it because (1) PCs and NPCs have different purposes in the game and aren't designed the same, (2) this is a terrible thing for a PC to have, and (3) seriously, it's such a terrible thing for a PC to have that it counts as two reasons.

However, in the fiction (which, you'll remember, is where 4e's justifications all live) if a PC wants to learn this ability, I can just say, "He's studied his whole life and has this one trick to show for it. You have all that other crap you can do, and haven't been trained from birth." I'm not saying "Nuh-uh, monsters aren't PCs" or "nope, it's not on your power list." I'm tying it to the fiction.

How is this in any way different from your imaginary feat hidden behind a brick wall of unattainable prerequisites?

-O

[Conundrum]

Then your world is inconsistent - why can the PCs not learn the abilities that these NPCs possess? A simple requirement (such as "must have been born in [region that is on the enemy's side]" or "must have trained for ten years with [people] or at [place]") attached to a feat can easily keep it out of player hands while maintaining a reason for them not having it other than "because I said so".

I think the others before me (especially obryn) have covered the point, but it bears repeating: what's the difference between your approach and "just saying no"?

If I can say the requirement is "You must have had their exact upbringing", why can't I say the requirement is "You must BE them"? (And therefore, by extension, NOT be a PC).

[Salbazier]

Well, I'm mostly just lurking in this thread but this particular issue made me curious. Why does the world consistency matters?

[Tholomyes]

The GM has broader tools, even in 3.5. Sure, the character level simulation may be the same, but the GM also has stuff like placing and moving world elements, from broad scale terrain to characters. Players have the option of having a character do things, it's not even remotely comparable.

Also, I wouldn't trust the assumption that plot threads are a GM only thing.The point I'm making is that it's a stupid idea to say that, given the DM's broader tools, to say that NPCs should be built from the same tools as PCs and vis-versa.

And I'm not saying plot-threads are a DM only thing, but except in the most sandbox of sandbox games, the DM is the source of the overarching plot. As such, the NPCs need to be able to meet the needs of the DM to meet this plot. The PCs can interact with and build on, and even add their own plot to this, but the requirements of DMing mean that NPCs should have more tools than PCs.

[Tholomyes]

Well, I'm mostly just lurking in this thread but this particular issue made me curious. Why does the world consistency matters?I think it depends on the attitude of the person with respect to Roleplaying. I treat it like a story. In stories plenty of things are of the domain of the Plot-convenience-Fairy, especially in fantasy. Some go into it with the attitude of "If I were the character..." which leads to lines of logic along the "Well, the guy we just beat cast 'Animate Small objects' It must be in his Spellbook; that might be useful. I want it." And when the DM says they can't have it (because it's purpose was entirely for the previous encounter) the PCs feel they are being denied arbitrarily.

I may be wrong (since I admittedly, am much more a Narativist/(lesser)Gamist rather than a simulationist, so I don't understand the latter attitude as much) so if someone wants to correct me, go ahead.

[theNater]

Then your world is inconsistent - why can the PCs not learn the abilities that these NPCs possess? A simple requirement (such as "must have been born in [region that is on the enemy's side]" or "must have trained for ten years with [people] or at [place]") attached to a feat can easily keep it out of player hands while maintaining a reason for them not having it other than "because I said so".
Which works just fine...until anyone at your table makes a new character. Then you have to start coming up with reasons they can't meet the requirement, which are going to eventually boil down to "because I said so".

Why not just be honest with your players from the beginning? Good players will happily collaborate with you on a reason their characters won't want it, preserving the consistency of the world without inviting future abuse.

[obryn]

Well, I'm mostly just lurking in this thread but this particular issue made me curious. Why does the world consistency matters?
It depends on what you mean by "consistency."

I think fictional (or narrative) consistency is key to a functioning RPG. You can't have the Frost Barbarians in the North one week and the South the next. If there's a tribe of goblins harassing King Monarch Plotdevice's realm one week and they're gone the next week, there should probably be a reason for it. If Kathra the Pious is a male dwarf one week and a female human the next, you should probably explain why.

(....At least insofar as is possible without getting overly burdensome. This is a game with real people playing, after all, and the "game" part should never be ignored. If you have a new player join the game, it's probably best for them to start playing pretty close to immediately even if you're roaming through the Totally Uninhabited Desert of Emptiness. Players and DMs alike can overlook stuff really easily, too, which is only noticed later. And if you have a flaky player, handwaving their character when they're absent is probably expected!)

Now ... If you're talking rules consistency, I don't think it matters nearly as much as my 3.x counterparts in this thread. Rules have a few jobs, among them - (1) to structure play and resolve conflicts, (2) entertain players with fiddly bits, and (3) set up reward structures for desired behaviors, etc.

In my mind, rules are there to build a working narrative, and it's possible to have a self-consistent story even if you switch systems mid-campaign. (I've heard of games switching from 3e to Savage Worlds, or AD&D to GURPS without too many hitches.) Systems matter a great deal, but handled properly, you can keep narrative consistency even with switches as massive as this.

-O

[Ashdate]

The last thing I'm going to say on the subject:

I don't want to turn 3.5 into a different game through these comments. If DMs are happy taking the mechanics at face value and using them to craft a narrative, you're not doing it wrong. If DMs want to create spells and items and whatnot so their narrative works, you're not doing it wrong either. 3.5 encourages this behavior, and some players and DMs enjoy that. I just personally feel it's the wrong direction to take DnD Next, and when I talk about animated objects and lava and skill DCs, I make a nod at 4e because the system took what I believe were some bold steps to not create D&D 3.75, but a new D&D. Was it successful? By some metrics, no. Was it a failure? By some metrics, no (it still rakes in hundreds and thousands of dollars a month through D&D Insider, and it's hard to call that a "failure". And before you ask, yes the fact that D&D Insider makes WotC hundreds of thousands of dollars a month is true).

Having DM'd 4e for close to three years now, I've seen not only all its warts and failures, but all these great things the system does right. Some of the things I like you might legitimately dislike, and that's fair. But I think that most players, were they to play (or DM) with these mechanics, might respect the things I like (and the things others dislike) even while they potentially hate various other parts of 4e.

But they won't play 4e, and I get that and that's okay. So instead what I hope is that going forward in the D&D Next Playtest, that some things you really like are in there (like the classes or the backgrounds; hopefully what excites you isn't PC/NPC symmetry because I'll be honest: that's strange), that excite you enough to love the game enough to play it, such that you're okay if some systems that are more similar to 4e than 3.5 are under the surface, not only making me happy, but also recognizing that Armchair DMing is easier than actual DMing.

And look, I've DM'd 3.5, and I'm sure there's a lot of DMs here who will sign a contract with a devil in blood swearing that 3.5 is an easy system to DM for. But I'm going to fight you on that, because I don't think that's true. Is it the hardest thing ever to DM for? No (I would put money on Rifts being harder), but - like 4e - it could be better. And being better should be the goal, because if we're being honest, players are a dime a dozen, but people willing to sit down and put the work into DMing aren't.

We need to remove barriers in the DM process to make DMing easier, and achieving that requires being honest about the complexity related to running a game. Creating new spells, feats, and items is not "easy" - even in 4e. Calculating an individual monster's attack bonus by determining it's number of hit dice, it's size, it's feats, and who knows what else is not easy. And - importantly - no matter how hard a DMG tries, it can't have an answer for every situation that comes up, and that giving 100 pages on telling the DM how to exact rule a given situation is not the way to break new DMs in. Yes if you're experienced you can wing monsters and create NPC only feats and never have to look up the Diplomacy check table in the PHB and can name the DCs to climb various walls off by heart, but not everyone is new. I think if you critically look at 3.5, it's not friendly to DM for.

I found that out when I was new and bright-eyed trying to have a wizard with a cool house that had animated furniture. I think there are others like me, and maybe even some 3.5 DMs who have taken to winging the system it not because they're comfortable doing so, but because the alternative is just tiring.

So we're presumably in this thread to talk about the future of D&D. Not D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder, nor D&D 4e. And this is why I think this is critical: I think 4e took a lot of the bad parts of being a DM that existed in 3.5, and that taking a step to make 5e DM like 3.5 would be a step backwards for the game. And having played and DM'd both (as a player of 3.5 really since 3.0, DM of 3.5 for one year, player of 4e for for one year, DM of 4e for three) I think if DnD Next is to be successful it needs to embrace the ease that 4e brought to the good folks who tireless toil behind the screen so four or five other people can pretend to be Murder Hobos one night a week.

Bring back vancian casting if you must, remove all the things I like about the 4e Fighter if you feel it's necessary, but please, for the health of the game, let me decide how hot lava is today.

Thank you.

[Tholomyes]

[...]Is it the hardest thing ever to DM for? No (I would put money on Rifts being harder)[...]
But, why would you ever want to play Rifts, as a DM or Player? I can think of no reason; even 2e, which I hate, is better than that abomination. I can only think of one system I like less, which is FATAL, and to be honest, I'm not even sure I believe that it exists. I've seen a PDF of the rulebook, but I'm half-convinced that it's a prank.

[Scowling Dragon]

Well nothings STOPPING you from deciding the heat of the lava. Just some people prefer a framework in place.

Though telling 3e players that your going to be winging it and that the rules of the world are going to bend to whats convenient for you will get you some :smallannoyed: looks.

[Flickerdart]

I think the others before me (especially obryn) have covered the point, but it bears repeating: what's the difference between your approach and "just saying no"?

If I can say the requirement is "You must have had their exact upbringing", why can't I say the requirement is "You must BE them"? (And therefore, by extension, NOT be a PC).
Let me try to explain with an example or two.

Sir Swordston is a knight of some renown, skilled with many kinds of combat. One day, he meets another warrior in a tournament, who defeats Sir Swordston with an incredible blade technique he's never seen before. Impressed, Sir Swordston sets out on a quest to learn the source of this technique, so that he too may master it.
Under my approach, Sir Swordston can find the origin of the technique, but it is simply unattainable by him due to his circumstances. Under yours, Sir Swordston will quest in vain forever, regardless of how many people he meets who know the technique, and might even be friendly enough for him to ask about it.

Ron is a wizard of no mean talent. He sees another spellcaster cast an amazing spell, and cracks open his spellbook to try and research it. Under my approach, he finds out that this spell requires a unique focus/is too high level for him/is not on the wizard list. Under yours, he finds that the spell is literally impossible to perform despite having seen it happen.

Is my objection to "because I said so" a little clearer now?

[DrBurr]

Well nothings STOPPING you from deciding the heat of the lava. Just some people prefer a framework in place.

Though telling 3e players that your going to be winging it and that the rules of the world are going to bend to whats convenient for you will get you some :smallannoyed: looks.

And anyone who played any other edition of D&D wouldn't notice at all. Really 3rd is the only edition with standardized everything I don't see why that needs to be core in 5th

[Scowling Dragon]

True, but thats what made it a players game rather then a GMs game. It wen't too far, thats for sure, but it was one of the first editions that felt like it wasn't ******* the players over and gave them the power to actually do more then just explore dungeons.

It had a wider variety of stuff that could be done in it then in 2e or 4e because it wasn't as built around dungeon exploration.

[Conundrum]

Is my objection to "because I said so" a little clearer now?

I suppose, but you don't need to have 100% PC/NPC symmetry to make that happen. I can just as easily say all that in 4e, and it has exactly the same effect. You (as the DM) come up with a unique ability, you decide that you don't want the PCs to have it, so you come up with a reason why they can't.

[Flickerdart]

I suppose, but you don't need to have 100% PC/NPC symmetry to make that happen.
I never claimed that this was necessary. In fact, I specifically said that even in 3.5 this was already not the case.

I can just as easily say all that in 4e, and it has exactly the same effect. You (as the DM) come up with a unique ability, you decide that you don't want the PCs to have it, so you come up with a reason why they can't.
That's been my point all along, though.

[Kurald Galain]

I think the others before me (especially obryn) have covered the point, but it bears repeating: what's the difference between your approach and "just saying no"?
Precisely what I said: consistency of the world. Some players value that highly, others don't care about it.

But the issue is not what you should say to the player to keep the ability out of his hands. The issue is why you're keeping the ability out of his hands in the first place. As Tholomyes points out, if the system can't handle a player getting a simple ability like animating an object, then there's something wrong with the system.

"But balance" is not an argument; if you feel the ability would be unbalanced, write in a restriction so that is balanced (e.g. casting time of 8 hours, or limit of 3 animated items per person, or whatever).

[Conundrum]

I never claimed that this was necessary. In fact, I specifically said that even in 3.5 this was already not the case.

That's been my point all along, though.

Oh, good! I think I may have merged your points with someone elses before you, and thought you were arguing from a position that you weren't. Sorry about that.


Precisely what I said: consistency of the world. Some players value that highly, others don't care about it.

But the issue is not what you should say to the player to keep the ability out of his hands. The issue is why you're keeping the ability out of his hands in the first place. As Tholomyes points out, if the system can't handle a player getting a simple ability like animating an object, then there's something wrong with the system.

"But balance" is not an argument; if you feel the ability would be unbalanced, write in a restriction so that is balanced (e.g. casting time of 8 hours, or limit of 3 animated items per person, or whatever).

You're missing the point. An ability in the hands of an NPC can be balanced where it wouldn't in the hands of a PC - hence the divide we're arguing for. A limit of 3 animated items per person would have defeated the point, in Ashdate's case. A casting time of 8 hours isn't an effective balance if the animated objects are permanent.

If you're truly arguing that you can't think of a single instance where you'd like to keep something out of a PCs hands, then I don't really know what point we can make, here.

EDIT: Also, "consistency of the world" wouldn't be violated by giving a person a unique ability that only they can use. Fiction is full of these "exceptions". As long as you don't then violate it by having someone ELSE having that unique ability (without a damn good reason for it), then you're still being consistent.

[Kurald Galain]

If you're truly arguing that you can't think of a single instance where you'd like to keep something out of a PCs hands, then I don't really know what point we can make, here.
I'm sure people can think of a far-fetched exception if they try; but I'm looking at the common case, not the far-fetched exceptions. My point is that if a PC wants to learn something that he knows an NPC can do, the default answer should be "yes".


EDIT: Also, "consistency of the world" wouldn't be violated by giving a person a unique ability that only they can use. Fiction is full of these "exceptions".
That depends heavily on what kind of fiction you're aiming for in your campaign. Fiction is also full of characters learning tricks/moves/spells from their opponents.

[Scowling Dragon]

Also games that try to be like "Movies" tend to end terribly. Because players are allot more explorative of the world and thus the result would likely be:

"OK, so I just ram my ship into his, killing his evil plan instantly"

"But! What about his honor challenge!"

"My character isn't an idiot. I just do it".

Point is whats "Cinematic" or like a book is often not how players play the game.

[theNater]

"But balance" is not an argument; if you feel the ability would be unbalanced, write in a restriction so that is balanced (e.g. casting time of 8 hours, or limit of 3 animated items per person, or whatever).
Professional game designers have difficulty balancing things when they have years to work on them. Are you really suggesting that DMs should be able to properly balance abilities on the fly?

[Jacob.Tyr]

Professional game designers have difficulty balancing things when they have years to work on them. Are you really suggesting that DMs should be able to properly balance abilities on the fly?

This was brought up in context of someone trying to balance an ability for a session, not on the fly, so as to have it make sense in the world.

Personally I would've just made a component of "sentient child", and had the haunted house gain it's reputation from the many children harvested in it in order to animate the objects.

I would then of course have to deal with my party going to "Murry's Discount Orphan's" and animating a bunch of furniture...

[Kurald Galain]

Professional game designers have difficulty balancing things when they have years to work on them. Are you really suggesting that DMs should be able to properly balance abilities on the fly?
No, I am suggesting that the importance of balance is way overrated on message boards. Note how several of the most popular RPGs (3E, PF, Whitewolf) are poorly balanced, and most players don't mind.

There is nothing about animating a bunch of household items that a good DM can't handle. So what if a player walks around with a dozen items following him, if he spent IC time or money on that? It'll likely make the campaign more fun and memorable; in combat it's still less effective than a good summon spell; and if it's really a big problem, just have an enemy cast Fireball or Dispel Magic at some point.

There really isn't a problem here, so saying "NO!" to your players because you assume that hypothetically there eventually might be one is not what I consider good DM'ing.

[theNater]

This was brought up in context of someone trying to balance an ability for a session, not on the fly, so as to have it make sense in the world.
If the player's don't decide they want the ability, then balancing it in advance is a waste of time. While that's better, it's still not good.

No, I am suggesting that the importance of balance is way overrated on message boards.
Fair enough.

[Conundrum]

I'm sure people can think of a far-fetched exception if they try; but I'm looking at the common case, not the far-fetched exceptions. My point is that if a PC wants to learn something that he knows an NPC can do, the default answer should be "yes".

I really don't think any of the examples presented so far have been far-fetched.


That depends heavily on what kind of fiction you're aiming for in your campaign. Fiction is also full of characters learning tricks/moves/spells from their opponents.

Sure, so both are supported by fiction. What makes your answer the "right" way to do it, given that both learning abilities from opponents and having unique abilities are supported either way?


Also games that try to be like "Movies" tend to end terribly. Because players are allot more explorative of the world and thus the result would likely be:

"OK, so I just ram my ship into his, killing his evil plan instantly"

"But! What about his honor challenge!"

"My character isn't an idiot. I just do it".

Point is whats "Cinematic" or like a book is often not how players play the game.

It's lucky that I didn't use the words "movie" or "cinematic" at any point, then, isn't it? Don't put words in my mouth. I'm talking entirely about the situation where one person has a unique ability (for whatever reason - he spent his whole life learning it, or he's the chosen one, or he built the suit of armour that gives him those powers and noone else knows how to build one).

This doesn't make the world less likely to stand up to exploration. Note that I'm not supporting "just say no" - there SHOULD be a reason that the PCs can't get it, if they can't, and I'm all for PCs being able to learn some things that NPCs have. But that's not the same thing as having all PCs and NPCs built using the same rules, because as pointed out before, it's unnecessarily cumbersome.

Everything you want out of symmetry can be achieved without symmetry and all the downsides that come along with it.


There really isn't a problem here, so saying "NO!" to your players because you assume that hypothetically there eventually might be one is not what I consider good DM'ing.

And yet you've said you're fine with saying "NO!" to your players as long as you can come up with an in-fiction excuse for it.

Balance is a perfectly good reason for saying no. Otherwise, would you let me play Pun-Pun at your table?

[Talakeal]

Why do you even need convoluted explanation for how the animated items got there? Maybe the mage who made them just really liked animated items, used normal means to optimize his character towards making them, and then spent the neccessary GP and XP to do so?

Sure it might be a terribly unoptimized way to play the game, but its a frickin' NPC, who says he needs to be optomized in any way?

[TheOOB]

There is a line in Dragon Age where, as a mage, you can ask the Witch Flemmeth if you could learn her magic, and she says it would take years of studying magic her way. It is not only possible, but likely that there are a number of rituals, incantations, and techniques that allow for unique effects, especially in the field of magic item creation, that require a great deal of time, energy, and resources to achieve. For example, some modules have prisons that ban extra-dimensional travel, and I'm sure they have a better way of doing so that to have a 15+ wizard recast dimension lock every couple of weeks.

If you need a game rule justification, there can be a feat that only allows you to create that one effect(possibly still at an xp and/or material cost, albeit a reduced one), but as a prerequisite requires membership in a specific order, or time spent learning a specific school of spellcraft.

Remember that PC's are typically adventurers. They typically move around a lot, face extreme danger, and often have little fore knowledge of what challenges they are facing, which means the abilities they learn, and thus the abilities in the main books, tend to be quick, powerful, and/or versatile. Most other people in the world, even powerful wizards, tend to not move around, are rarely in danger, and typically do relatively the same thing every day, thus they are going to take classes/feats/ect that take longer and give them more narrow or specific abilities. In a high magic setting you may well have smiths who just know how to make +1 longswords, but make them very well and very quickly, allowing them to sell them at a profit. Instead of that feat, the PC will take Craft Magical Arms and Armor, which, while inefficient, is a much more versatile feat.

If the PC's want to learn how a mid-ish level mage made these animated objects, they could study his grimoire, and find a ritual that is far more lengthy and complex than a simple spell. Even if they could learn it without a lengthy amount of time study the magicians methodology of magic, it's unlikely they would waste a feat for such a narrow application.

[TuggyNE]

Why do you even need convoluted explanation for how the animated items got there? Maybe the mage who made them just really liked animated items, used normal means to optimize his character towards making them, and then spent the neccessary GP and XP to do so?

Sure it might be a terribly unoptimized way to play the game, but its a frickin' NPC, who says he needs to be optomized in any way?

Well, there's a simpler solution than previously proposed: scrolls.

[SiuiS]

Guys, this has gone on forever. You've all already flat admitted it is a matter of personal choice and that both sides have merits; hell, you're all arguing roughly the same damn thing. Can we let it go?


That's called "a bad DM". And okay, maybe some tables actually do see some optimisation and excessive cheese, and DMs overreacting in turn, but I don't think it's most tables.

The point being that I've only seen one (1) DM besides myself not do this, and he is the one I've had multimonth long conversations about balance, ad-hoc and ad-lib flow, narrative, atructure and verisimilitude with. This even came up in a FLGS 4e game, where I asked about something interesting and was told it would be abusable. Optimization exists in the wild enough that DMs and Players in California, Colorado, Nevada and Rhode Island (or there about, those dates are smaller than some counties, it seems!) all have antagonistic relationships because optimization does exist.


I don't mind the players not having access to certain NPC abilities - after all, they spend a relatively short amount of time kicking in doors and saving the days, instead of devoting years to study and learn obscure stuff.

Unearthed Arcana's Incantations are a somewhat nice stopgap for 3.5... but it doesn't solve the problem of narrative-required magical shenanigans (Such as Low-CR animate-object wizards).

It's been demonstrated to not be a problem, on both sides. What are you solving?


The problem with this argument (Though I'm not sure if I understand the argument right, so feel free to correct me) is that when "Just say yes" results in giving PCs tools that really only should belong to the DM,

What tools should only belong to the DM?
In this specific example that's crap. Animated objects in 3e do crap damage and break easy. Animated objects in 4e follow the same rules as everything else, using a light damage expression and requiring guidance from the summoner.

In general, that's crap. On some level, Pcs are able to add to even world building; ascension, kingdoms, genocide, world saving and shaking events.

So what do you reserve jealously for your DM self?


Which works just fine...until anyone at your table makes a new character. Then you have to

Let them have the power. Oh no!
"Just say yes" is an attitude, and this DM here in this example missed the point. Because his lips said yes, and his heart and mind said "**** no", that's not saying yes. That's being passive aggressive and setting the player up.


Why do you even need convoluted explanation for how the animated items got there? Maybe the mage who made them just really liked animated items, used normal means to optimize his character towards making them, and then spent the neccessary GP and XP to do so?

Sure it might be a terribly unoptimized way to play the game, but its a frickin' NPC, who says he needs to be optomized in any way?

You don't even need that much. Just drop in animated objects. Done! PC asks about it, well, they don't know what level the wizard is.

[Scowling Dragon]

So I could be a demigod, guy whos going to be a star in the sky but making a moving chair: Thats just WAAAAY out of his league.

What If I don't want to be a typical adventurer? What If I want to be a bloody conjurer? Or a magical army!

The important thing is the OPTION. Players will find a way to maximize efficiency. 4e simply doesn't have the OPTIONS.

And if its SO inefficient, then why do the other mages use it?

[Marcus Amakar]

Could the following be a solution to the low level wizard in house full of animated objects problem?


There is an abandoned house full of animate objects
A low level wizard comes to the house; he is too low level to make or control the animated objects
He has a magic item which means the animated objects do not attack him
He sees that this means he can live in the house in peace and the animate objects will attack anyone but him
When the PCs come, he can engage them in hit-and-run tactics while the animated objects attack.


From, the PCs point of view, when entering the house, they are attacked by the wizard and the animate objects, which must be under his control as they are attacking the PCs and not him.

Furthermore, when they defeat the wizard, gaining the magic item isn't overpowered as only one of them can have it and they may only fight animated objects as level appropriate opponents a couple more times.

Also, if the DM's is worried about the PCs crafting lots of them, he could give the item, high level prerequisites so they couldn't make it until a level when it wouldn't be worth it. After all, there's no reason why the wizard couldn't have an item which he couldn't make himself.

[neonchameleon]

Point is whats "Cinematic" or like a book is often not how players play the game.

The point here is that most PCs who are not played the way a munchkin would are being played badly. Even if the player isn't playing to win, the character should be - and should be using most of the most accessible dirty tricks they have access to. Seriously, what are the stakes? The character's life? The fate of the town? The fate of the world? All are possible. If the character cares about the stakes (and yes, exceptions are possible; I've played a Paladin of Tyr whose life's goal was to die in noble battle and reach Valhalla). But if a wizard (in particular) cares about both the stakes and staying alive then they should have the most munchkin spell list they can think of IC (and yes, they can get this wrong and think that Evocation is the way to stay alive - but remember that Int score when you do this...)


No, I am suggesting that the importance of balance is way overrated on message boards. Note how several of the most popular RPGs (3E, PF, Whitewolf) are poorly balanced, and most players don't mind.

This is completely false. Most players under 2e, 3e, PF, and White Wolf simply dumped the blame in the wrong place. They were given poor tools and blamed other players for using the tools they were given - and in the case of White Wolf in particular they were told to by the designers.

You see all those notes actually in White Wolf books about 'roll-playing not roleplaying'? That is a note from the game designers blaming players for game design problems. In 4e I have literally never heard someone talk about munchkins. And in some other modern games (Marvel Heroic, Smallville, and just about the entire Apocalypse World family come to mind) the more someone plays the system the more intense, dramatic, and better roleplaying wise the results will be. In core FATE (Spirit of the Century/Dresden Files/Fate Core) a balls-to-the-wall powergamer won't look like a God Wizard - they will look like Rincewind, running away and giving in at every opportunity in the first two acts and dropping a foot high stack of plot points they've earned down on the table in the third act.

Bad balance impedes roleplaying and makes a lot of decent character concepts into silly ones. Good balance with a decent incentive structure (4e has only a very basic incentive structure - even oD&D and 1e have better ones) actively promotes it.


The important thing is the OPTION. Players will find a way to maximize efficiency. 4e simply doesn't have the OPTIONS.

You mean that more than 300 rituals isn't enough options? This is where I have a problem understanding this argument. 3.5 only has the options it does because literally a third of the PHB is spells and there are entire hardback books of spells on top of that - is that really what's wanted? (For non-casters, the 4e PHB fighter and rogue leavel the 3.5 equivalents in the dust).

[theNater]

Let them have the power. Oh no!
Given that it's an ability the DM put a artificial restriction on precisely so it would stay out of the hands of the players, that is indeed an "oh no" situation.

You can argue that there are no abilities which should be kept out of player's hands and therefore no problem, but several people in this thread have treated it as a problem which is solved by the artificial restriction. I'm just saying that the artificial restriction is not any kind of solution.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Here's how I'd handle this "problem":

A wizard (of whatever power level I please) moved into her new manse and, just the teensiest bit crazy, she started talking to her furniture and inventing personalities for them. Over the years, the furniture slowly absorbed some ambient magic and they actually started coming to life and talking to her.

[SiuiS]

Given that it's an ability the DM put a artificial restriction on precisely so it would stay out of the hands of the players, that is indeed an "oh no" situation.

You can argue that there are no abilities which should be kept out of player's hands and therefore no problem, but several people in this thread have treated it as a problem which is solved by the artificial restriction. I'm just saying that the artificial restriction is not any kind of solution.

I agree. What I don't agree with is that it a problem in the first place. It could be made into one, but that unnecessary.

Problem:
A low level wizard with animated objects he made.
But that's a high level spell.
The wizard at low level can't afford to make them.
The wizard has an item, feat or spell that's not cost effective so that the players for get ahold of a high level spell effect – regardless of what that effect actually achieves – because a low level character with an entourage of weak and stupid allies is overpowered.
But then we have to define the limits of the cost, and work out how not to give that to PCs if they should meet the cost.

Not a Problem:
The wizard has animated objects he made.


Basically, I'm saying an argument that only starts because someone is twisting things to support their view isn't really worth out time. Yes, in an arbitrarily defined situation in which only one answer is possible, only one answer is possible. But that's not important to Next at all.

I'm also baffled that all these technically precise people with such great math skills accept blindly that a low level wizard can't have minions who do 1d6 bludgeoning damage, have DR 5 and 7 hit points. Because a Druid can beat that with an animal companion and a psion can beat it with astral construct, all at level 1.

It's not a problem or an example. it's an edition war quibble. And it's been like, pages long.

[1337 b4k4]

The point here is that most PCs who are not played the way a munchkin would are being played badly. Even if the player isn't playing to win, the character should be - and should be using most of the most accessible dirty tricks they have access to.

Say what now? People, real honest to god people, routinely and regularly violate "optimal" behavior for a variety of reasons. The US Marines vow to never leave a man behind, often risking life and limb for that. The rules of engagement with which most national armies conduct themselves (to some degree or another) are often artificially imposed hamstrings on what would be "optimal" behavior for the sake of honor, integrity, future behavior or simple ideals. Hell, there are entire pacifist movements who when their own life is on the line would rather die than pick up a weapon and fight.

The fact of the matter is most people are not optimizers in real life. To say that anyone who doesn't play an optimized character is playing badly is to completely misunderstand how humans operate.

[obryn]

But the issue is not what you should say to the player to keep the ability out of his hands. The issue is why you're keeping the ability out of his hands in the first place. As Tholomyes points out, if the system can't handle a player getting a simple ability like animating an object, then there's something wrong with the system.
...and yet Animate Object exists and is a ... what, 5th level spell? You're saying there's no concerns if you make an identical version of it as a 2nd level spell? Come on, now.


"But balance" is not an argument; if you feel the ability would be unbalanced, write in a restriction so that is balanced (e.g. casting time of 8 hours, or limit of 3 animated items per person, or whatever).
Sure it is. You're friends sitting around a table playing a game. You can have mature out-of-character discussions of all of this stuff.

Even then, however, the in-fiction answer is never "balance."


I'm sure people can think of a far-fetched exception if they try; but I'm looking at the common case, not the far-fetched exceptions. My point is that if a PC wants to learn something that he knows an NPC can do, the default answer should be "yes".
No. Because now you're back to forcing PC/NPC symmetry into the game, which leads us right back down the garden path of NPC classes and monsters built like characters. (And gods using the same spell list as wizards, for that matter.) This assumption necessarily also assumes, "All things NPCs can do should be attained through the same sorts of resources a PC would have to expend." That is, feats, spells, class abilities, or magic items.

Now, with that said, this door isn't shut in a game without PC/NPC symmetry, such as 4e. It's just that you don't front-load these PC-facing game elements while you're building your NPC. Instead, you take care of your custom building on the back end, after a player expresses interest - either by modifying an existing game element or by making a new one, be it a feat or a power.

The important bit is that, when an NPC was using it, it was neither a feat nor power because he wasn't built like a PC.

-O

[neonchameleon]

Say what now? People, real honest to god people, routinely and regularly violate "optimal" behavior for a variety of reasons. The US Marines vow to never leave a man behind, often risking life and limb for that. The rules of engagement with which most national armies conduct themselves (to some degree or another) are often artificially imposed hamstrings on what would be "optimal" behavior for the sake of honor, integrity, future behavior or simple ideals. Hell, there are entire pacifist movements who when their own life is on the line would rather die than pick up a weapon and fight.

All of which are down the line examples of optimising to the goals they care about. The US Marines never leave a man behind - that is one of their primary goals. And to that end they will use every trick within the rules of war and move mountains (possibly literally if necessary). They optimise as much as they are able to for the outcomes they consider important. The pacifists you are talking about consider the outcome of not committing violence important - at that point not picking up a weapon is about as optimised as you can get.

Yes, you can throw in codes of honour that only allow you to optimise in certain directions. This is simply explicit constraints on optimising.


The fact of the matter is most people are not optimizers in real life.

Indeed. I don't optimise my income. I earn enough to put food on the table, a roof over my head, some extra money in the bank every month - and beyond that I don't care. I have enough and beyond that money's just a way of keeping score in a game I'm not terribly interested in. Putting more away than I do is simply not important. On the other hand, food and shelter are important - and if I were having a problem there I'd be trying hard to fix that.

This is a world away from a D&D character where their own life and death on the line. If they aren't facing death from their challenges then the DM is lobbing softballs. If they aren't worried about death and trying to do what they can to make sure it doesn't happen to them - i.e. optimising - the conclusion is that they have a deathwish.


To say that anyone who doesn't play an optimized character is playing badly is to completely misunderstand how humans operate.

That most people are going to try hard to do what they value? And not so hard when they don't? That most people value their lives (I gave an example of a PC who didn't).

Most people aren't optimisers IRL because we have no need to be. For some reason I consider the stakes higher for matters of life and death than for an office job. Funny, that...

Simple question in empathy. You know that if you fail you are going to die, and your family, your loved ones, and your town are all going to die. Do you optimise? Me? I twink out as much as I practically can. I don't do that in real life because the stakes aren't so high.

[Seerow]

I'm also baffled that all these technically precise people with such great math skills accept blindly that a low level wizard can't have minions who do 1d6 bludgeoning damage, have DR 5 and 7 hit points. Because a Druid can beat that with an animal companion and a psion can beat it with astral construct, all at level 1.


The bigger issue was really permanent animation. You want a wizard who can cast a spell to animate a couple of items to act as weak 1hd minions? That's just a reflavored summon monster spell.

You want a wizard who has animated everything in his house to be alive and defend himself permanently? Yeah, that's actually the sort of thing that's pretty OP for a low level character to have. The druid gets a single animal companion. The psion has to summon his astral construct every fight and I'm pretty sure also only gets one. But having a potentially unlimited number of animated minions? That will wreck games, even if they are individually weaker than the other things.

Which is why you tie some sort of cost to it. Like in my solution, I made it a crafting feat. If you are playing in an E6 game it may still seem like a good idea to take, but for the most part players aren't going to be interested in taking a feat that provides them with low level minions, especially if each minion comes at the cost of experience. Given the choice they'd rather be using that time/exp on magic items, or better yet going out adventuring. On the other hand an NPC who isn't likely to ever attain the god-like levels of power high level PCs know is going to see getting a bunch of animated defenders as a pretty good deal.

[Seerow]

No. Because now you're back to forcing PC/NPC symmetry into the game, which leads us right back down the garden path of NPC classes and monsters built like characters. (And gods using the same spell list as wizards, for that matter.) This assumption necessarily also assumes, "All things NPCs can do should be attained through the same sorts of resources a PC would have to expend." That is, feats, spells, class abilities, or magic items.


Still not sure why you keep saying this.

1) Having NPCs and PCs draw from the same ability list does not make it so that NPCs need to be built like PCs. I already went on at length about this and was pretty much ignored. But the point is you can have NPCs who use the same Fireball that PCs do, and not have to pick out stats/feats/skills for that NPC. Claiming that one forces the other is ridiculous. You just need to acknowledge that most NPCs are going to have far less resources than a PC, so assume he has the resources to pick up whatever you throw on there. As long as you don't go crazy writing up a 4-page long NPC (at which point making him as a character probably would have been easier), chances are he'll fit perfectly well into the rules as a PC.

2) NPC classes similarly aren't needed. They were created for the Paradigm of NPCs being designed in exactly the same way as PCs. But if I wanted something similar I'd just create a NPC who doesn't have any class-powers (ie no spells, no special sword tricks, whatever. Just a basic attack). Pretty straightforward.

The only real issue NPC classes presented to me was that a character was expected to reach high level to be able to have a good skill in something. If redesigning the game I'd put into place some sort of downtime training rule, at the very least for Knowledge/Profession skills, so characters who invest enough time will have top class ranks in those skills. PCs get to break the rules and progress faster because killing monsters and stealing their stuff lets them do that, but NPCs still get to have very high modifiers in their area of expertise because they've literally dedicated their lives to it. And if you play the sort of game where you take years off between adventures, and your players are dedicating that sort of time to a specific hobby, they'll get better than their level would indicate as well.

3) Gods may use the same spell list as Wizards, but seriously that just makes sense. Having them use a different spell list means you have the Wizard capable of all sorts of cool stuff that the God can't replicate without going out of your way to write up hundreds or thousands of divine abilities. That's just crazy. Saying "Gods can cast all arcane and divine spells" basically gives a free pass on letting them do all of that without writing anything new. Then on top of that, they ALSO get their Divine Salient abilities, which are far more potent than spells, and are things PCs don't get access to unless they become literal gods (rather than just having god-like levels of power). To me, having Gods that get access to PC abilities on top of their own unique slice of creation feels more god-like than a god that just has 3-5 unique abilities, but can't recreate the simplest of cantrips.

[obryn]

Still not sure why you keep saying this.

1) Having NPCs and PCs draw from the same ability list does not make it so that NPCs need to be built like PCs. I already went on at length about this and was pretty much ignored. But the point is you can have NPCs who use the same Fireball that PCs do, and not have to pick out stats/feats/skills for that NPC. Claiming that one forces the other is ridiculous. You just need to acknowledge that most NPCs are going to have far less resources than a PC, so assume he has the resources to pick up whatever you throw on there. As long as you don't go crazy writing up a 4-page long NPC (at which point making him as a character probably would have been easier), chances are he'll fit perfectly well into the rules as a PC.
It means that the NPC's resource pool contains the same elements as a PC's resource pool - those being feats, spells, magic items, racial abilities, and class abilities - regardless of how many of these he has access to.

So, if you're saying "Bob the Fighter needs to be able to learn Alzukar the Unworthy's swordy trick," Alzukar has to have gotten that trick through one of those resources available to PCs, regardless of whether or not the DM went through the whole process and assigned every single skill point or not.

If the swordy trick itself is handwaved, it's by definition not a resource available to the PCs. Except in the same sense that it can be done in 4e - that is, a players says, "Wow, I want to learn (something like) that!" and the DM comes up with something after the fact - be it a feat, power, a master training boon, etc. (The boon in particular would be a very good way to do it in 4e. That training becomes "treasure" then.)


2) NPC classes similarly aren't needed.
Here, we seem to agree pretty closely.


3) Gods may use the same spell list as Wizards, but seriously that just makes sense.
Here, I don't think we see eye to eye. I want gods to ignore those spell lists because they're gods. I don't care for the conceit that the spell lists contain most magical effects.

-O

[Scow2]

I heard something about a "Players Liberation" movement? What is this nonsense!? Players have one responsibility in a game - show up, and play your characte. The GM needs to make sure he creates an atmosphere for others to have fun in, create and run a world, and ensure that it's consistent AND fits the narrative he wants. What I've seen 3.5 edition do is create a "Player Entitlement" movement.

4e provided plenty of 'framework' for giving players unique abilities and creating challenges. 3rd edition didn't make a 'framework' - it dictated the entire procedure. The worst rules-lawyers aren't the ones that make characters that with abilties that can be interpretted into horrifically broken things - they're the ones that say "No, your dungeon doesn't work that way, because of Page X in handbook X."

If you want to let a player have an NPC ability such as a new power or spell or ritual, you can choose to let them have it - WITHOUT suddenly making it available to every PC in every campaign, which is a problem 3.5 has. A wizard wants a ritual that lets him animate objects? Sure, but it's a time-consuming, pretty expensive process, and the Minions you create detract from the rewards of encounters they help beat (Or enable the GM to throw tougher encounters at the party without a boost in XP or other meaningful rewards).

In 4e, adventurers have a different station in life. Something I hate about the revised 3rd edition is the reduced emphasis on "Talk it out with your GM if you want something unique or new" - which was a problem 3.0 DIDN'T have.

It's easier to use abstract framework to make rules that fit your campaign than to communicate to players that The Million Obscure Rules You Don't Know or Don't Like are gone or changed. Starting a campaign by spending the entire first session on a filibuster about what houserules have been implementend and what rules have been changed and what rules are now ambiguous and might be up for change is not a good thing.

[Kurald Galain]

You want a wizard who has animated everything in his house to be alive and defend himself permanently? Yeah, that's actually the sort of thing that's pretty OP for a low level character to have. ... Which is why you tie some sort of cost to it.
Precisely.



1) Having NPCs and PCs draw from the same ability list does not make it so that NPCs need to be built like PCs. I already went on at length about this and was pretty much ignored. But the point is you can have NPCs who use the same Fireball that PCs do, and not have to pick out stats/feats/skills for that NPC. Claiming that one forces the other is ridiculous.
And again.


The fact of the matter is most people are not optimizers in real life. To say that anyone who doesn't play an optimized character is playing badly is to completely misunderstand how humans operate.
And also QFT.


Sure, so both are supported by fiction. What makes your answer the "right" way to do it, given that both learning abilities from opponents and having unique abilities are supported either way?
The simplest answer is that 5E should support both. The slightly more complex answer is that 5E could make a clear choice between "rules for consistency, balance is up to the DM" and "rules for balance, consistency is up to the DM" and pick the one that fits their choice best.



And yet you've said you're fine with saying "NO!" to your players as long as you can come up with an in-fiction excuse for it.
Perhaps you missed my post where I wrote "My point is that if a PC wants to learn something that he knows an NPC can do, the default answer should be "yes".", and "the issue is not what you should say to the player to keep the ability out of his hands. The issue is why you're keeping the ability out of his hands in the first place."


Balance is a perfectly good reason for saying no.
It should be obvious by now that to some people, balance is a strong reason and consistency is a weak reason; whereas to other people consistency is a strong reason and balance is a weak reason.

Incidentally, "consistency" also doesn't mean that the DM has to mandatorily use every single thing from every single rulebook, so it is fine for him to say that Pazuzu doesn't exist in his campaign.

[shadow_archmagi]

This is a world away from a D&D character where their own life and death on the line. If they aren't facing death from their challenges then the DM is lobbing softballs. If they aren't worried about death and trying to do what they can to make sure it doesn't happen to them - i.e. optimising - the conclusion is that they have a deathwish.

Of course, this argument assumes that they're aware of the game physics in a way that most people are not. For example, say I wanted to earn a lot of money in the real world- I'd have to spend a lot of time and effort researching what jobs tended to offer what salaries, and what skillsets they required, and what skillsets I actually have. In D&D, we have all those numbers available to us right there.

Meanwhile, what indication is there that every Fighter knows about Shock Trooper Power Attack Optimization? We, as players, can sit down and say "Aha! Haste increases the damage output of each of my allies by an average of 6, but Fireball only does 5d6 damage, which means that if I have three allies, it's 18 damage vs 18 damage, except that Haste confers extra benefits like AC and movement speed and lasts for more than one round!" but a Wizard doesn't really have that luxury. She can't see the dice being rolled, can't really intuit their values from watching it infold.

Of course, a game that falls apart when players try to make strong characters is still poor design, sure, but holy crap is "Everyone should be a munchkin or they're doing it wrong" a poor argument.

[Seerow]

It means that the NPC's resource pool contains the same elements as a PC's resource pool - those being feats, spells, magic items, racial abilities, and class abilities - regardless of how many of these he has access to.

So, if you're saying "Bob the Fighter needs to be able to learn Alzukar the Unworthy's swordy trick," Alzukar has to have gotten that trick through one of those resources available to PCs, regardless of whether or not the DM went through the whole process and assigned every single skill point or not.

I think we're seeing this from two different perspectives.

You seem to be coming at it from "Design the NPCs first, then if PCs can learn what the NPCs can do, you have to post-hoc figure out what resource it is that the PCs have to spend to learn it.

I take the completely opposite approach. You design what the PCs can do first. You then design your NPCs by picking out appropriate abilities from those lists. Whether its feats, abilities, whatever, just pick them out and throw them on there. Most NPCs you're only going to pick a handful of things, so it's not like you'll run into the issue of "That character couldn't have that many feats at that level!" or whatever.

So this only leaves corner cases where you come up with a plot that requires an ability not already existing (like the animated furniture example), at which point you do need to write up the new ability. But it's better to only need to write a new ability when you have a unique concern than having to write up unique abilities for every NPC ever (which is the 4e method), especially when most of those unique abilities are just minor variations on each other that would be better served by having a single central reference point for ease of use.





Here, I don't think we see eye to eye. I want gods to ignore those spell lists because they're gods. I don't care for the conceit that the spell lists contain most magical effects.

-O

Then spell lists need to be constrained far more than they have been in the past, even moreso than 4e did. Given in 4e people were already complaining magic doesn't feel like magic because of the restrictions, I don't think that's a particularly popular choice.

Also, even if spell lists don't contain most magical effects, that doesn't make justification for gods not being able to replicate those spell effects that mortal wizards can. Either way the God should still be able to cast any (or most) Wizard spell, and definitely should be able to cast any Cleric spell (which the god is supposed to be granting, so should be able to recreate on his own).

[Emmerask]

4e provided plenty of 'framework' for giving players unique abilities and creating challenges. 3rd edition didn't make a 'framework' - it dictated the entire procedure. The worst rules-lawyers aren't the ones that make characters that with abilties that can be interpretted into horrifically broken things - they're the ones that say "No, your dungeon doesn't work that way, because of Page X in handbook X."

I actually agree, if the rules stand in the way of a memorable dungeon/event etc then f... the rules (within reason though).
But for those rule lawyers the following always helps:

"Yeah, you are correct, thats really weird isn´t it?" :smallbiggrin:

However "having" to answer to pesky ruleslawyers should not mean we should not have any more indepth rules.

/edit as for the caster discussion I think magics strong point should be versatility, it should be able to do lots of different things BUT it should have downsides that can´t be circumvented.

What downsides is a different matter I´m a fan of limiting resources ie spellpoints are very slow to recover.
The other way I know of would be to make casting dangerous which while it could work and could be fun can also just lead to a tpk which makes casters kind of worthless then.

As for tons of books with spells... Dark eye actually has one leather bound book only for spells and its just glorious it somehow adds so much to the game having this book for each caster (I actually bought 3 copies ^^) that is made to look somewhat old :smallbiggrin:

[obryn]

I think we're seeing this from two different perspectives.
Oh, no doubt there! :smallsmile:


You seem to be coming at it from "Design the NPCs first, then if PCs can learn what the NPCs can do, you have to post-hoc figure out what resource it is that the PCs have to spend to learn it.

I take the completely opposite approach. You design what the PCs can do first. You then design your NPCs by picking out appropriate abilities from those lists. Whether its feats, abilities, whatever, just pick them out and throw them on there. Most NPCs you're only going to pick a handful of things, so it's not like you'll run into the issue of "That character couldn't have that many feats at that level!" or whatever.

So this only leaves corner cases where you come up with a plot that requires an ability not already existing (like the animated furniture example), at which point you do need to write up the new ability. But it's better to only need to write a new ability when you have a unique concern than having to write up unique abilities for every NPC ever (which is the 4e method), especially when most of those unique abilities are just minor variations on each other that would be better served by having a single central reference point for ease of use.
Without a doubt, I'm focused on the end product rather than on the process of getting there. That's my whole purpose for this, and if it's not something in Next, I won't be running it.

You're still building an NPC like a PC, but leaving unimportant stuff out. I want to build an NPC by plugging in a few numbers and either making up cool, thematic stuff for them to do, or repurposing stuff a player can do. What I don't want to do is look at the stuff that PCs have available to them, and use them as building blocks.

I want the NPCs to make narrative sense for the in-game fiction. If Alzukar the Unworthy is an incredible swordy guy, I want him to play like an incredible swordy guy at the table. If he's supposed to be challenging enough for the entire party, I want to be able to build him like that, too. This is flexibility I don't have if I'm primarily using the players' rule set. And it's flexibility I'm honestly unwilling to give up.

-O

[neonchameleon]

Of course, this argument assumes that they're aware of the game physics in a way that most people are not. For example, say I wanted to earn a lot of money in the real world- I'd have to spend a lot of time and effort researching what jobs tended to offer what salaries, and what skillsets they required, and what skillsets I actually have. In D&D, we have all those numbers available to us right there.

And my reply to that is that wizards are known to be (1) smart and (2) learned. If there is any sort of wizarding organisation then they will be discussing such matters. There will be a lot of them, they will be smart, and they will know about fantasy physics.


Meanwhile, what indication is there that every Fighter knows about Shock Trooper Power Attack Optimization? We, as players, can sit down and say "Aha! Haste increases the damage output of each of my allies by an average of 6, but Fireball only does 5d6 damage, which means that if I have three allies, it's 18 damage vs 18 damage, except that Haste confers extra benefits like AC and movement speed and lasts for more than one round!" but a Wizard doesn't really have that luxury.

You mean that there are no spell books, books of lore, and the wizard hasn't actually studied the effect of magic? Or seen their friendly neighbourhood fighter who they trust their life to day in day out?


She can't see the dice being rolled, can't really intuit their values from watching it infold.

You mean that the dice aren't representing anything that happens in the game world? Because by my understanding the wizard can see what's going on.


Of course, a game that falls apart when players try to make strong characters is still poor design, sure, but holy crap is "Everyone should be a munchkin or they're doing it wrong" a poor argument.

The argument is that every character should try to take as strong as practical in character choices. This is one of the many damning things about the 3.X wizard; your spell list is an in character choice. If you don't qualify for Shock Trooper that's from where your character started. On the other hand you should be trying to twink out your equipment.

Tier 1 Casters in 3.X are a special case. Their spells are an in character choice and one freely available. If a sorceror only knows third rate spells, that's the hand they were dealt and they should try to use them as effectively as possible. If a wizard only knows evocation spells that's their own stupid fault and they should fix that in the same way a fighter should fix being only armed with a rusty shortsword. (Whether tier 2 casters fit the same pattern is, like fighters, open to interpretation about how much is nature and how much is nurture - it's specifically the in-game choices that should be optimised).

[Ashdate]

It's not a problem or an example. it's an edition war quibble. And it's been like, pages long.

Said I wouldn't add anything else but I felt I had to respond to this:

My example of the wizard and his animated furniture was not really an issue with 3.5 (any more than I might have that issue in another system. I might have the same complaint in a World of Darkness game; each game is going to have its strengths and weaknesses after all). Ultimately, this is about which direction that 5e/DnD Next should go with regards to ease of DMing.

The various attempts to reconcile my problem within the boundaries of 3.5 are cute, but let me ground this question another way: I want to have a low-wizard who creates some animated furniture to protect his home. How should I, as the DM, be able to accomplish this in 5e?

[Scowling Dragon]

The various attempts to reconcile my problem within the boundaries of 3.5 are cute

That sounded a bit patronizing (Maybe that wasn't your intent).


but let me ground this question another way: I want to have a low-wizard who creates some animated furniture to protect his home. How should I, as the DM, be able to accomplish this in 5e?

Well not as the DM but as a player. There should be rules in place when your powerfull enough to do so and it becomes a goal for your players to attain.

[Ashdate]

That sounded a bit patronizing (Maybe that wasn't your intent).

Right, I apologize because that wasn't my intent. The question was just symbolic of the problems I had as a DM in 3.5. It's not that I didn't appreciate some of the answers (they might have helped, but they were unfortunately five years late). It was simply one of the moments that taught me that I didn't always like 3.5's PC/NPC symmetry.


Well not as the DM but as a player. There should be rules in place when your powerfull enough to do so and it becomes a goal for your players to attain.

I'll try and be a little more specific. I'm a 5e DM and I want my 4th level wizard/adversary NPC to have permanently animated furniture which will challenge the PCs as they explore the house. How do I do that?

The answer - and what it demands from the DM - is the point. We've had a lengthy discussion about how to answer that question in 3.5 and 4e. How should 5e/DnD Next resolve the question?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Re: NPC Ability Justifications

I actually had a standard response in my 4e games.
Sure you can have that power. All you need to do is make a new character with the '??? class.' You have three Powers, one Healing Surge and no Action Points."

"Multiclassing doesn't work because that particular class requires so much study/dedication to master those three Powers that you simply can't learn them any other way. PC Classes are generalized and customizable for a reason.

I'm not sure how this would sit with the "you just make it a Feat with the Requirement of 'not be a PC'" crowd but it worked just fine with my Players :smallbiggrin:

[TheOOB]

So I could be a demigod, guy whos going to be a star in the sky but making a moving chair: Thats just WAAAAY out of his league.

What If I don't want to be a typical adventurer? What If I want to be a bloody conjurer? Or a magical army!

The important thing is the OPTION. Players will find a way to maximize efficiency. 4e simply doesn't have the OPTIONS.

And if its SO inefficient, then why do the other mages use it?

If you don't want to be an adventurer, you may be playing the wrong game. D&D is about adventurers who, you know, explore dungeons and fight dragons. It's a flexible system sure, but if you want to get into the minutia of extensive item crafting and conjuration and it's effects on the economy, you may want to play a game that isn't a hacked war game.

And for the record, when I want a NPC with unique abilities in D&D, I just give them a unique ability, and 9 times out of 10 my group has no problem. The special feat justification is just there if, for some reason, you need justification on how they did this(campaigns move in weird ways sometimes), but even then you don't actually have to make the feat, just say that it exists.

[1337 b4k4]

Simple question in empathy. You know that if you fail you are going to die, and your family, your loved ones, and your town are all going to die. Do you optimise? Me? I twink out as much as I practically can.

The problem here is you're assuming "munchkin optimized" is "optimal for this character for all points present past and future"

Let's expand on your question: You are the hero, you know that if you fail, you are going to die, your family, your loved ones and your town are all going to die. You can go into battle with the powers you have now and you may or may not succeed. Suddenly a devil appears before you and offers you a deal. You can have a brand new <power/spell/sword technique> that will guarantee (or even better, nearly guarantee) your success. The catch is your family, and your loved ones must die, by your hand, slowly over 10 days. And then 1/3 of your town and indeed the rest of the world chosen by the devil will also die. What's the optimized choice and justify why no munchkin would ever choose the other.

And if you're going to argue that morals or non-ultimate power seeking goals are artificial limitations on munchkin optimization, I won't argue on that point. But I will argue that such limitations are an example of people behaving non-optimally from a munchkin standpoint and that if you're going to define optimization as "optimal within the framework of an arbitrary number of arbitrary restrictions" then there is no way to "play badly" because you can devise restrictions to make any choice the "optimal" choice.


I want to have a low-wizard who creates some animated furniture to protect his home. How should I, as the DM, be able to accomplish this in 5e?

My personal answer (and hope for 5e) is that you should accomplish it by fiat. You the DM wish it to be so in your world, and so it should be. What I would then ask is that the rules provide you with the tools to be able to take what you wish to be so and convert it to some reusable mechanic that could be given to the PCs if you so desired. Ultimately the game should ask for as little from the DM as necessary, but provide as much support for the DM to go as deeply as they want.

Or to put another way, say fireball did not exist in D&D. You as a DM should be able to say "I want this wizard to be able to cast fireballs to attack the party", and as a DM you should only need to work out how much damage you want each fireball to do, and how often you want the wizard to cast fireballs. And you should never need any more than that. Only if you later want to allow a PC to have access to fireballs should the system provide you with the tools to convert that fireball you made into a mechanical component. But the system should never require that you first justify the existence of an NPC ability or feature any more than it should force you to justify how a low level NPC managed to build a castle in the middle of a king's domain without anyone noticing and putting a stop to it.

[Scowling Dragon]

If you don't want to be an adventurer, you may be playing the wrong game. D&D is about adventurers who, you know, explore dungeons and fight dragons. It's a flexible system sure, but if you want to get into the minutia of extensive item crafting and conjuration and it's effects on the economy, you may want to play a game that isn't a hacked war game.

Yeah your right. Thats why Kingmaker (http://paizo.com/pathfinder/adventurePath/kingmaker) was SUCH as disaster. Everybody HATED it. Nobody even TOUCHES that game with a 10 foot pole.

And Skulls and Shackles (http://paizo.com/pathfinder/adventurePath/skullAndShackles). A pirate game? How did they think they could POSSIBLY pull THAT off?


The system is more flexible and capable of being worked apon then you give credit for :smallannoyed:.

[Clawhound]

Even in simulationist mode, I presume that the rules are a subset of the world. The rules address adventuring in depth, but everything else rather shallowly or not at all.

Most NPCs live in the rules of "not documented at all" because there's no need to know about those rules for an adventurer.

Mostly it's just easier to hand-wave and deal with the exceptions. Your characters aren't demanding to learn how to make blue paint, weave their own clothes, or birth a foal. In all practicality, documenting everything is just too demanding, so you only document when it matters. When they want to learn something cool, you have a plot hook and you rejoice in the storyline.

[noparlpf]

Even in simulationist mode, I presume that the rules are a subset of the world. The rules address adventuring in depth, but everything else rather shallowly or not at all.

Most NPCs live in the rules of "not documented at all" because there's no need to know about those rules for an adventurer.

Mostly it's just easier to hand-wave and deal with the exceptions. Your characters aren't demanding to learn how to make blue paint, weave their own clothes, or birth a foal. In all practicality, documenting everything is just too demanding, so you only document when it matters. When they want to learn something cool, you have a plot hook and you rejoice in the storyline.

Rules for everything leads to things like rules for anal circumference. Wee bit excessive there.

[Scow2]

Yeah your right. Thats why Kingmaker (http://paizo.com/pathfinder/adventurePath/kingmaker) was SUCH as disaster. Everybody HATED it. Nobody even TOUCHES that game with a 10 foot pole.

And Skulls and Shackles (http://paizo.com/pathfinder/adventurePath/skullAndShackles). A pirate game? How did they think they could POSSIBLY pull THAT off?


The system is more flexible and capable of being worked apon then you give credit for :smallannoyed:.
But Skulls + Shackles and Kingmaker are modules, not rulebooks. If you want to make a 4e or D&D Next module for piracy or kingdom-building, then you can add the needed rules there. Not clutter up the core rules and dictate that GMs use them (And entitle players to free use of potentially sketchy kingdom building or naval combat rules)

[Scowling Dragon]

I meant that the rules where designed in such a way that ALLOWED for this stuff to be built.

The Skulls and Shackles Rules weren't just things that you could slap onto any ruleset. They BUILT apon previously established magic rules (With individual spell descriptions), siege engine rules, and vechicle rules for a singular game thing.

Where the rules non-core to the system? Yes. But the game system allowed them to be built apon.

[Icewraith]

Probably the worst part of fiat is that when I, or my players, encounter a particularly devastating opponent with abilities that would be thematic for their class, they want to know if they can replicate the ability.

This is even more so the case with newer players who don't know what the system is capable of. You've grabbed the new player's attention with an awesome ability and gotten him interested in some of the deeper working of the game, and if you've fiat-ed it, you now have to figure out whether or not you want PCs to be able to do it, how powerful it should be, etc on the fly. OR you have to tell him "no you can't do that because you're a PC" which is probably the worst thing you can say to a new player.

In my experience this almost never works out well. If I instead designed things to be used by the PCs, figuring out where it fit in terms of not TPKing the party was pretty easy because I could use the amount of resources devoted to getting the ability as a direct indicator of how powerful it was - if it takes up X feats and requires y, it needs to be at least as good as Z which requires the same investment.

While I didn't appreciate the length of time it took to create monsters in 3.5, once I got used to it the process sped up quite a lot and there were never cries of "foul!" from my players because they knew whatever I was throwing at them was using the exact same rules that they were using, and if they wanted I could sit down once the session was over and show them exactly how I did it. The only place I found fiat-ing ridiculous abilities worked was when the players started fighting gods, although there's a limit to what you can do even there.

You know those scenes in games like final fantasy or wow, where your characters lose "just because" or where your player gets super-stunned for a minute, the bad guy npc talks for half the time, kills an important NPC and wanders off? And then you fight the same character later and he never uses that ability again, even though it would totally give the boss time to kill you? I hate that. One of the worst parts of computer games is "you can't do anything to influence the plot right now because I say so," and one of the joys of tabletop gaming (with a good DM) is that sort of ridiculous railroading never/rarely happens. Fiating character abilities that the PCs can't replicate to me always feels exactly like that perma-stun helplessness.

[mythmonster2]

So, this question is completely unrelated to the current discussion, but me and my friends have discussed playing Next, so I went and took a look at the classes. So, when I saw the full casters, I was... more than a bit confused. At 1st level, do they really only get 2 spells per day? And even at 20th level, they only get one spell per day of 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th? Did I miss a bonus spells table somewhere or are 1st level casters only supposed to be useful for one encounter a day, or am I missing something else?

[Doug Lampert]

So, this question is completely unrelated to the current discussion, but me and my friends have discussed playing Next, so I went and took a look at the classes. So, when I saw the full casters, I was... more than a bit confused. At 1st level, do they really only get 2 spells per day? And even at 20th level, they only get one spell per day of 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th? Did I miss a bonus spells table somewhere or are 1st level casters only supposed to be useful for one encounter a day, or am I missing something else?

Take a damage dealing Cantrip and cast it all day long. You have cantrips at will. Also, look for class features.

[noparlpf]

Yeah, I think more weaker spells (think like 3.5 Warlock) makes more sense than fewer stronger spells.

[Tholomyes]

So, this question is completely unrelated to the current discussion, but me and my friends have discussed playing Next, so I went and took a look at the classes. So, when I saw the full casters, I was... more than a bit confused. At 1st level, do they really only get 2 spells per day? And even at 20th level, they only get one spell per day of 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th? Did I miss a bonus spells table somewhere or are 1st level casters only supposed to be useful for one encounter a day, or am I missing something else?

It's essentially trying to reign in the god-wizards we saw in 3.x. Essentially, they can always use cantrips, which (if the design goals are to be met) are less powerful/useful than what a Fighter/other mundane class can do at will, but for an encounter or two per day, they can use abilities that are vastly more powerful than what a Fighter can do.

I don't agree with this design, but if vancian casting, or a derivation of it, is going to be in the game, there's not much that can be done to stop it.

[mythmonster2]

Ah, I had forgotten cantrips were at-will, and I figured they were about as weak as in 3.5. The class features do seem to help as well. Thanks for the help.

[Ashdate]

So, this question is completely unrelated to the current discussion, but me and my friends have discussed playing Next, so I went and took a look at the classes. So, when I saw the full casters, I was... more than a bit confused. At 1st level, do they really only get 2 spells per day? And even at 20th level, they only get one spell per day of 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th? Did I miss a bonus spells table somewhere or are 1st level casters only supposed to be useful for one encounter a day, or am I missing something else?

No you're not missing something, but I think you have to understand why the number of spells per day has been reduced drastically compared to the 3.5 Caster.

Casters are generally considered overpowered (or "tier 1") in 3.5 because of a variety of factors:


Individual spells were extremely varied and extremely powerful
Casters could cast too many spells per day
Non-casting classes (Fighters, Rogues, etc.) did not get access to 1) and 2)


4e "fixed" this by giving everyone access to roughly the same number of abilities per day (i.e. the AEDU 'system'), and limiting the overall power of any one particular ability (i.e. few abilities in 4e come close to some of the raw power of individual 3.5 spells).

DnD Next is trying to bring back something more similar to pre-4e spell casting, but they recognized that to keep Vancian casting (that's the "you can cast X 1st level spells, Y 2nd level spells, Z 3rd level spells, etc. per day") they had to acknowledge that bringing casters closer to non-casters would require reducing their number of spells per day.

The alternative to giving Clerics/Wizard/etc.'s extra spells would have been to reduce the overall power and depth of individual abilities, and while they'll probably be doing that too, I think attacking the spells/day allows them to push the level 5+ spells in power level, knowing that a caster will then have to be a lot more careful with his choices/timing than he was in 3.5.

What I hope we see is that the level 1-4 spells become the bread and butter/workhorse stuff that people will associate the class with, and the level 5+ spells will become the "in case of emergency" buttons.

[mythmonster2]

I was aware that casting was OP in 3.5, that being the system I'm most familiar with. I did figure that reducing spells/day was part of reigning them in.

[Emmerask]

It's essentially trying to reign in the god-wizards we saw in 3.x. Essentially, they can always use cantrips, which (if the design goals are to be met) are less powerful/useful than what a Fighter/other mundane class can do at will, but for an encounter or two per day, they can use abilities that are vastly more powerful than what a Fighter can do.

I don't agree with this design, but if vancian casting, or a derivation of it, is going to be in the game, there's not much that can be done to stop it.

Well I don´t actually think there is no way, there are^^

- make regaining the "spellpoints" or slots take longer, for a random number lets say once every ten days.

-make casting dangerous in some form, (not my favorite way but it could work)

-give most (powerful) spells a casting time of 2+ rounds, this would also add the need for defending the wizard during the time by the mundanes ie it adds another tactical layer which d&d REALLY needs.

I´m sure there are a ton more ideas that could balance powerful spells and maybe even add more depth to the game.

[Doug Lampert]

So, this question is completely unrelated to the current discussion, but me and my friends have discussed playing Next, so I went and took a look at the classes. So, when I saw the full casters, I was... more than a bit confused. At 1st level, do they really only get 2 spells per day? And even at 20th level, they only get one spell per day of 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th? Did I miss a bonus spells table somewhere or are 1st level casters only supposed to be useful for one encounter a day, or am I missing something else?

Additional reply, their level 6+ spells are broken powerful and they're not interested in fixing them because they are "iconic".

But you see, if you can only do 4 broken powerful things per day that's not nearly as bad as doing 16, or 20, or 24 broken powerful things per day.


I don't agree with this design, but if vancian casting, or a derivation of it, is going to be in the game, there's not much that can be done to stop it.

STRONGLY disagreed. Give LOTS of spells, and make sure that the spells ARE NOT BROKEN. Vancian is only a problem to the extent that individual spells are a problem. Let a wizard have dozens of choices for his spell to cast each round, but make sure that they are WEAKER than a fighter's sword swing and LOWER utility than a rogue's pick locks.

Give a dozen spells at level 1, and add three more each caster level, and on levels that don't improve access also upgrade your six lowest level slots to your curent highest level. (So at level 10 you have 12 level 5 slots, 12 level 4 slots, 12 level 3 slots, 3 level 2 slots, and if you want to cast a level 1 spell you have to waste a higher level slot.)

The wizard is then actually a master of versatility, he then tries to come up with clever ways to pick the right one of the 20 different options he has available rather than just spamming "I win".

Going to FEWER slots, the D&DN way, makes the problems of Vancian WORSE. Going to more slots lets you fix them by making the spells actually appropriate.

Wizards can and should have enough slots to cast every round. But the complement is that wizard spells don't need to be more powerful than sword swings, and if they give versatility and have utility uses (and both should exist), then they can and should be weaker so that the other classes have a point.

[Emmerask]

Meh giving them lots of weak spells for me cheapens a wizard, it becomes a gunslinger only with magic and not bullets. It ruins the mystery ^^.

Spells should be powerful but actually casting them in combat should be hard and require teamwork with the party :smalltongue:

[Craft (Cheese)]

It's essentially trying to reign in the god-wizards we saw in 3.x. Essentially, they can always use cantrips, which (if the design goals are to be met) are less powerful/useful than what a Fighter/other mundane class can do at will, but for an encounter or two per day, they can use abilities that are vastly more powerful than what a Fighter can do.

I don't agree with this design, but if vancian casting, or a derivation of it, is going to be in the game, there's not much that can be done to stop it.

Actually, if Vancian casting must be in the game, I'd prefer to see them handle it like how the Dying Earth RPG handles it: A Magician starts out with first-level spells, and as they level up they get... more first-level spells per day. There are "complex" spells that take up two spell slots instead of one, but until you become an Arch-Magician your spells themselves don't get much more powerful.

[Kurald Galain]

It strikes me that having few high-level spell slots is just asking for a Ten Minute Adventuring Day again.

Also, it's true that wizard players in 2E / 3E complained when they ran out of spells and had to use a sling or crossbow every round... but wizards in 4E tend to complain if they have to use at-will spells every round, and I expect 5E wizards to make the same complaint about cantrips. Giving an attack cantrip is nice and all, but it's treating symptoms rather than causes.

[Doug Lampert]

Meh giving them lots of weak spells for me cheapens a wizard, it becomes a gunslinger only with magic and not bullets. It ruins the mystery ^^.

Spells should be powerful but actually casting them in combat should be hard and require teamwork with the party :smalltongue:

How so? You're still the only one that can turn someone invisible, still the only one that can hurl balls of fire that harm mulitple foes at once at range.

It's simply that the fighter's one attack does MORE damage than your fireball and the rogue can hear an invisible wizard (but not an invisible rogue), so the rogue is the one you want to make invisible and have scout (exactly as it should be).

There's PLENTY of room in "less damage than a fighter" for "mystery". And how the HECK are bigger numbers mysterious anyway? Seriously.

[noparlpf]

Mundane Invisibility: +40 to Hide and Move Silently.
Mundane Fireball: ER10/fire, light yourself on fire, charge in and use Whirlwind Attack.

[Tholomyes]

It strikes me that having few high-level spell slots is just asking for a Ten Minute Adventuring Day again.

Also, it's true that wizard players in 2E / 3E complained when they ran out of spells and had to use a sling or crossbow every round... but wizards in 4E tend to complain if they have to use at-will spells every round, and I expect 5E wizards to make the same complaint about cantrips. Giving an attack cantrip is nice and all, but it's treating symptoms rather than causes.

I never really saw this from 4e. Granted I didn't play that long, but generally Wizards didn't complain any more than anyone else did (aka, rarely if at all). 4e actually fixed that problem, for the most part. It introduced a boat load of other problems, like combat, that takes for-freaking-ever, and classes that feel too similar (I'm actually one of the people who usually defends 4e on this; I actually feel that the classes play differently, despite the unified mechanics, but I will agree that they went too far unifying the mechanics.), and I think they went too far in condensing the skills. I think PF found a nice medium. But really the main problem is combat takes too long. The other problems I could actually overlook, but combat time just makes the game pretty unplayable.

[Kurald Galain]

I never really saw this from 4e. Granted I didn't play that long, but generally Wizards didn't complain any more than anyone else did (aka, rarely if at all).
In my experience everybody complains when the combat becomes a series of at-wills. Although this is most likely because that means we've already been playing that combat forever; I agree with you that the combat takes way too long to resolve.

[Talakeal]

You know those scenes in games like final fantasy or wow, where your characters lose "just because" or where your player gets super-stunned for a minute, the bad guy npc talks for half the time, kills an important NPC and wanders off? And then you fight the same character later and he never uses that ability again, even though it would totally give the boss time to kill you? I hate that. One of the worst parts of computer games is "you can't do anything to influence the plot right now because I say so," and one of the joys of tabletop gaming (with a good DM) is that sort of ridiculous railroading never/rarely happens. Fiating character abilities that the PCs can't replicate to me always feels exactly like that perma-stun helplessness.

You had me with you until the last sentance. I am not sure I see how having an NPC gaining unfair abilities and then conveniantly forgetting to use them is the same thing as an NPC having balanced (for an NPC) abilities that they use when appropriate.


Mundane Invisibility: +40 to Hide and Move Silently.
Mundane Fireball: ER10/fire, light yourself on fire, charge in and use Whirlwind Attack.

How is ER mundane?

[noparlpf]

How is ER mundane?

Maybe you're like, half-rockmonster or something and you have tough fireproof skin. I dunno. I'm sure there are some monsters in print that have ER/fire (it's pretty common) for nonmagical reasons. If I tried for a bit I could make up some nonmagical fireproof monsters. Maybe you just put on some kind of fireproof suit designed for the purpose, but then you're trying to apply mad science to a fantasy game.

Edit: MMI page 21, Azers are playable Outsiders with Extraordinary fire covering them and and immunity to fire damage.
Edit: And if Barbarians get extraordinary DR to everything (yeah, a "normal" human whose skin repels blades), what's so hard to believe about something being resistant specifically to fire?
Edit: Check the MMI Glossary, page 314. Energy Resistance is always extraordinary.

[Emmerask]

How so? You're still the only one that can turn someone invisible, still the only one that can hurl balls of fire that harm mulitple foes at once at range.

It's simply that the fighter's one attack does MORE damage than your fireball and the rogue can hear an invisible wizard (but not an invisible rogue), so the rogue is the one you want to make invisible and have scout (exactly as it should be).

There's PLENTY of room in "less damage than a fighter" for "mystery". And how the HECK are bigger numbers mysterious anyway? Seriously.

Well damage really wasn´t that big of a problem even in 3.5 with wizards (outside of cheese) however their control was.

The problem I see if you give casters (especially wizards) all these nifty utility and control powers without any downside to them they will be (again) completely op.

So there are basically two possibilities balance wise:
-take them out and reduce wizards to gunslingers with some minor utility
-let them be there retain the "mysteriousness" of wizard but introduce some downside to these powerful spells (like for example multiple round casting times)

[noparlpf]

Well damage really wasn´t that big of a problem even in 3.5 with wizards (outside of cheese) however their control was.

The problem I see if you give casters (especially wizards) all these nifty utility and control powers without any downside to them they will be (again) completely op.

So there are basically two possibilities balance wise:
-take them out and reduce wizards to gunslingers with some minor utility
-let them be there retain the "mysteriousness" of wizard but introduce some downside to these powerful spells (like for example multiple round casting times)

I think it would be best to a. power down individual spells, b. significantly power down utility spells so the Expert and Fighter are always better at their jobs than a Mage of the same level, c. restrict spell lists to some focus/make spells have prerequisites ("spell trees") and/or slow down advancement for generalists. But that's just me.

[Emmerask]

But wouldn´t that make a wizard completely redundant in a balanced group that covers all bases?

/edit Or would they still keep their amazing control spells just in a powered down form so they actually can contribute something to the party no one else can?

[Talakeal]

Maybe you're like, half-rockmonster or something and you have tough fireproof skin. I dunno. I'm sure there are some monsters in print that have ER/fire (it's pretty common) for nonmagical reasons. If I tried for a bit I could make up some nonmagical fireproof monsters. Maybe you just put on some kind of fireproof suit designed for the purpose, but then you're trying to apply mad science to a fantasy game.

Edit: MMI page 21, Azers are playable Outsiders with Extraordinary fire covering them and and immunity to fire damage.
Edit: And if Barbarians get extraordinary DR to everything (yeah, a "normal" human whose skin repels blades), what's so hard to believe about something being resistant specifically to fire?
Edit: Check the MMI Glossary, page 314. Energy Resistance is always extraordinary.


Sorry, I was picturing a PHB race when you were talking about "mundane" characters. AFAIK there is no way for such a character to get ER without magic, although I am sure there is probably some obscure feat in one of the environment books.

[noparlpf]

But wouldn´t that make a wizard completely redundant in a balanced group that covers all bases?

/edit Or would they still keep their amazing control spells just in a powered down form so they actually can contribute something to the party no one else can?

There are still things magic can do that normal people can't, and even things others might do manually, magic might do more quickly or conveniently. Open a door with no tools. Summon an extraplanar creature. Conjure things, create fire from nothing. Divine the future or scry. Allow communication with animals or inanimate objects. Heal wounds near-instantly. Reform physical objects. Manipulate things from a distance. Teleport. Create force barriers. Charm. Change the forms of things. Walk on water or fly. Breathe underwater, for that matter. Buff other characters—boost strength, accuracy, stealth, resistance to damage, speed. But you don't want the Mage to be able to do everything everyone else can, because then it's everyone else who's redundant. Balance utility so the specialists are better—a generalist Mage won't be as good as a specialist in their own field, but they'll be able to do more things not quite as well, but also not so much worse that it's jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none, because that's unbalanced too. Make it possible for a specialist Mage to be as good as a specialist something-else in a specific area, but not better, and not a specialist at everything else too.
Yeah, that might be hard, but they're supposedly professional game designers.


Edit:

Sorry, I was picturing a PHB race when you were talking about "mundane" characters. AFAIK there is no way for such a character to get ER without magic, although I am sure there is probably some obscure feat in one of the environment books.

Mundane characters are basically just any characters who don't use magic (including SLAs), aren't benefiting from a magic item for this effect, and don't have supernatural qualities relating to this effect. Why should that mean PHB races only? Humans and elves are boring. One of my favorite races is only in Dragon Magazine in 3.5, the Grippli.
Anyway, from Sandstorm: Improved Heat Endurance grants ER 5/fire with two feats. All you need is base Fort +6. Fluff: You grew up in the scorching hot desert, or you have trained your body to resist heat.
They also have a feat for Barbarians to burst into flames while raging. Except that the actual text is more boring, and just makes them immune to fire and vulnerable to cold damage (gain the Fire type). Adding fire damage would have been nice, even just 1d6 or something.
(Feats scaling with level would be cool too. Spells tend to scale with level, and you get new ones. Why shouldn't feats scale too, and remain relevant? Instead of requiring you to take another feat to improve it, and make the previous one obsolete, and waste one of your few slots to get a new ability.)

[Scow2]

Additional reply, their level 6+ spells are broken powerful and they're not interested in fixing them because they are "iconic".

But you see, if you can only do 4 broken powerful things per day that's not nearly as bad as doing 16, or 20, or 24 broken powerful things per day.



STRONGLY disagreed. Give LOTS of spells, and make sure that the spells ARE NOT BROKEN. Vancian is only a problem to the extent that individual spells are a problem. Let a wizard have dozens of choices for his spell to cast each round, but make sure that they are WEAKER than a fighter's sword swing and LOWER utility than a rogue's pick locks.

Give a dozen spells at level 1, and add three more each caster level, and on levels that don't improve access also upgrade your six lowest level slots to your curent highest level. (So at level 10 you have 12 level 5 slots, 12 level 4 slots, 12 level 3 slots, 3 level 2 slots, and if you want to cast a level 1 spell you have to waste a higher level slot.)

The wizard is then actually a master of versatility, he then tries to come up with clever ways to pick the right one of the 20 different options he has available rather than just spamming "I win".

Going to FEWER slots, the D&DN way, makes the problems of Vancian WORSE. Going to more slots lets you fix them by making the spells actually appropriate.

Wizards can and should have enough slots to cast every round. But the complement is that wizard spells don't need to be more powerful than sword swings, and if they give versatility and have utility uses (and both should exist), then they can and should be weaker so that the other classes have a point.

I'm going to disagree on both points.

First, what you call "Broken" isn't - In D&D, a party needs a caster. If your table can't get the critical roles filled (Divine caster, arcane caster, bruiser, and skillmonkey), then you're doomed to failure through stupidity. What made the spells horrifically broken in 3.5 was that they could be chained and strung together and used in game-breaking combos. At higher levels, you have more powerful spells - but also more and more powerful enemies, and larger objectives. Having 3 "Too Awesome To Reliably Use" abilties isn't game-breaking for any but the ****tiest DMs.

And other classes do have a point. The at-will cantrips means a wizard can continue to contribute throughout an adventure and dungeoncrawl in meaningful ways, instead of demanding the party stop and sleep after every single encounter. A spellcaster can "Spike" hard - but they have to choose their target carefully, and if it flubbs, they're out a spell. If it doesn't work well enough, they can't do it again. You DO need the firepower of wizard, or at least someone with the access to the scrolls to pull out level 6+ Spell 'Big Guns'

[Emmerask]

Most adventures I have run did not really allow the party to just say lets go to sleep for 8 hours, well they could but it would have ended in a really BAD way for them most likely :smallbiggrin:

Some adventurers yes sure, the majority however no you better don´t.

[Talakeal]

Mundane characters are basically just any characters who don't use magic (including SLAs), aren't benefiting from a magic item for this effect, and don't have supernatural qualities relating to this effect. Why should that mean PHB races only? Humans and elves are boring. One of my favorite races is only in Dragon Magazine in 3.5, the Grippli.

This is going off on quite a tangent, but let's just leave this as a difference in opinion over what words should mean and drop it. IMO "mundane" involves nothing that is "supernatural" even if it has the EX tag on it. For example a fire elemental's innate abilities are not listed as "SU" but there is clearly something magical, or at the very least not normal, going on there to allow a mass of fire to exist without fuel, let alone to being able to move, speak, and think of its own accord.

[noparlpf]

Half the games I played, the caster was by no means the strongest guy. One game, I was playing a wildshape-melee druid, by no means optimised and largely avoiding using spells if possible, and my job ended up being Last-Breath-the-Cleric (buffing/healing, mostly; I don't know what else he might have been able to do in combat because I never saw) because he was so poorly designed that he got killed nearly every round. By the end of the campaign, he'd been most races for a couple of rounds each.

Edit:

This is going off on quite a tangent, but let's just leave this as a difference in opinion over what words should mean and drop it. IMO "mundane" involves nothing that is "supernatural" even if it has the EX tag on it. For example a fire elemental's innate abilities are not listed as "SU" but there is clearly something magical, or at the very least not normal, going on there to allow a mass of fire to exist without fuel and, let alone to be able to move, speak, and think of its own accord.

The way I figure it, the Elemental Plane of Fire has different rules, so fire there doesn't work like fire here, and it doesn't have to be magical. Regardless, fire resistance doesn't need to be magical; like I said, it can be as simple as putting on a fireproof suit, or having tough skin.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Most adventures I have run did not really allow the party to just say lets go to sleep for 8 hours, well they could but it would have ended in a really BAD way for them most likely :smallbiggrin:

Some adventurers yes sure, the majority however no you better don´t.
So, what happened if your Players screwed up along the way and chased a Red Herring or two? Or if they got hurt badly by bad rolls and needed to retreat or they'd die?

Or have your Players never been sidetracked or had rolls go against them?

[Scow2]

So, what happened if your Players screwed up along the way and chased a Red Herring or two? Or if they got hurt badly by bad rolls and needed to retreat or they'd die?

Or have your Players never been sidetracked or had rolls go against them?
Things get really tense as they try to find a way to regroup and recoup their resources. But never have the option of "Oops, I'm short a spell. Let's just sit around here."

[Oracle_Hunter]

Things get really tense as they try to find a way to regroup and recoup their resources. But never have the option of "Oops, I'm short a spell. Let's just sit around here."
Ah, so absolutely every Adventure has no more than 7h 59min of extra time built into it. Are the PCs given a stopwatch by the Old Man At The Inn or have they internalized the logic that absolutely must be done in minimum time +/- 7h and 59 min?

Nonetheless, I am impressed by the scheduling abilities of BBEGs in your world :smallbiggrin:

[Scow2]

Ah, so absolutely every Adventure has no more than 7h 59min of extra time built into it. Are the PCs given a stopwatch by the Old Man At The Inn or have they internalized the logic that absolutely must be done in minimum time +/- 7h and 59 min?

Nonetheless, I am impressed by the scheduling abilities of BBEGs in your world :smallbiggrin:
They can rest several times during an adventure. But the problem is that Encounters come at them fast and hard when they do come.

[Oracle_Hunter]

They can rest several times during an adventure. But the problem is that Encounters come at them fast and hard when they do come.
So... they die when they have a bad Encounter then, since they can't recover enough before the next one? Or do the Encounters come exactly "fast and hard" enough that they can just barely survive the next one :smallconfused:

[neonchameleon]

The problem here is you're assuming "munchkin optimized" is "optimal for this character for all points present past and future"

Let's expand on your question: You are the hero, you know that if you fail, you are going to die, your family, your loved ones and your town are all going to die. You can go into battle with the powers you have now and you may or may not succeed. Suddenly a devil appears before you and offers you a deal. You can have a brand new <power/spell/sword technique> that will guarantee (or even better, nearly guarantee) your success. The catch is your family, and your loved ones must die, by your hand, slowly over 10 days. And then 1/3 of your town and indeed the rest of the world chosen by the devil will also die. What's the optimized choice and justify why no munchkin would ever choose the other.

To reject the offer if the rest of the world must die. If you accept your loved ones die. If you don't they have a chance. But you're ducking the point.

Next silly question?

But you're throwing up a distraction - which is the point about the design of Tier 1 classes and Vancian Magic. There is no downside to loading your spells properly. It's an option and a well known one. You can design almost as you like for a fighter - that's the hand they were born with. But Tier 1 classes get to choose their spells. And wherever fighters get to choose their weapons they should try to min-max.


Yeah your right. Thats why Kingmaker (http://paizo.com/pathfinder/adventurePath/kingmaker) was SUCH as disaster. Everybody HATED it. Nobody even TOUCHES that game with a 10 foot pole.

I've run it. Module 1 the characters were pure adventurers (with serious 15 minute day problems). Module 2 was a hexcrawl mixed with some non-adventuring. Module 3 had a pretty major dungeon crawl; more adventuring. Module 4 involved the PCs in a city behind enemy lines - again adventuring. And module 5 involved the PCs first wading into hostile territory then, if they chose the right options, soloing badly designed armies. And the economy and kingdom ruling is very breakable and poorly thought out.


And Skulls and Shackles (http://paizo.com/pathfinder/adventurePath/skullAndShackles). A pirate game? How did they think they could POSSIBLY pull THAT off?

Because what is a pirate ship but a team of professional treasure hunters on boats rather than foot or horseback?

Seriously, if you were to name Birthright or Age of Wyrms (or whatever it's called) you might have a point.

[SiuiS]

Said I wouldn't add anything else but I felt I had to respond to this:

My example of the wizard and his animated furniture was not really an issue with 3.5 (any more than I might have that issue in another system. I might have the same complaint in a World of Darkness game; each game is going to have its strengths and weaknesses after all). Ultimately, this is about which direction that 5e/DnD Next should go with regards to ease of DMing.

The various attempts to reconcile my problem within the boundaries of 3.5 are cute, but let me ground this question another way: I want to have a low-wizard who creates some animated furniture to protect his home. How should I, as the DM, be able to accomplish this in 5e?

I know it's not that specific issue that's the problem. That's why I tried to move past it. ;)


Yeah, I think more weaker spells (think like 3.5 Warlock) makes more sense than fewer stronger spells.

We have those! My cleric is Eldridge blasting all the things with Lance of Faith. Which is great, because before a retrain into actual paladin, the character it was based off was a warlock/fighter.


It strikes me that having few high-level spell slots is just asking for a Ten Minute Adventuring Day again.

Also, it's true that wizard players in 2E / 3E complained when they ran out of spells and had to use a sling or crossbow every round... but wizards in 4E tend to complain if they have to use at-will spells every round, and I expect 5E wizards to make the same complaint about cantrips. Giving an attack cantrip is nice and all, but it's treating symptoms rather than causes.

Yes and no. I agree, but 4e didn't really have that problem until you leveled up enough that the at wills fell drastically behind in output; for most or all of heroic tier (levels 1-10) they were useful because they did stuff in addition to damage; area, push back, ongoing etc.

For cantrips in 5e we have present regeneration, gain armor, what else?


But wouldn´t that make a wizard completely redundant in a balanced group that covers all bases?

/edit Or would they still keep their amazing control spells just in a powered down form so they actually can contribute something to the party no one else can?

Is uniqueness of contribution really that important?


So, what happened if your Players screwed up along the way and chased a Red Herring or two? Or if they got hurt badly by bad rolls and needed to retreat or they'd die?

Or have your Players never been sidetracked or had rolls go against them?

They fail.

No, seriously. If you have twelve hours to save the princess, and after five of those hours you take a long rest, you lost the princess. She's dead. Deal with the fall out.

Villains and adventures work in stages. If the party fails to thwart a stage, it advances. That's just logic. If you absolutely positively cannot afford the party failing, and they do, that's not a rules issue. If you so this to much then maybe you should back off on the binary world survives or doesn't line. If not, then the party failed and the doomsday cult actually summons the archangel of entropic advancement. Say good game and roll that into the next adventure.

Game history is fun. Part of the experience. And history contains tragedy as well as triumph. If the only tragedy comes form NPCs and the DM, and the players always succeed, it will eventually reach a point of disconnect.

[Craft (Cheese)]

So... they die when they have a bad Encounter then, since they can't recover enough before the next one? Or do the Encounters come exactly "fast and hard" enough that they can just barely survive the next one :smallconfused:

Isn't this like the fifth or sixth time this conversation has come up in this series of threads? It always goes like this:

"Vancian magic has problems."

"Yeah, like the 15-minute workday."

"That's only a problem if you're a bad DM! Just don't let them rest whenever they want, or give them time limits!"

"But usually there aren't good in-world reasons to justify those things, and going out of your way to do so is a problem in and of itself!"

"Then you just aren't running the right type of adventures! So long as you stay within the tight confines of a particular playstyle, vancian casting works fine!"

"Yeah but shouldn't an RPG be more flexible than that?"

"Not at the cost of getting rid of iconic class features and mechanics! Vancian casting has been with D&D since day one!"

(Can you tell which side I'm on?)

And on and on and on. And somehow I doubt anyone will have anything interesting to add to the discussion this time around.

[Emmerask]

So, what happened if your Players screwed up along the way and chased a Red Herring or two? Or if they got hurt badly by bad rolls and needed to retreat or they'd die?

Or have your Players never been sidetracked or had rolls go against them?

Of course they have been and I can´t give this a blanket one fits all answer because a lot depends on circumstances.

If they decide during a dungeon or keep assault that they have run low on resources and retreat for 8 hours then the inhabitants will either get reinforcements if possible, will prepare a nice welcome for the party or will if its rather hopeless abandon the post and take everything worthwhile with them if possible.

If the party decides to just ignore every evidence that the missing persons in the city might be for some ritual and just go on fishing for a while on some island, the ritual will most likely be successfully completed when they return.

A farmers son has been captured by lets say a kid eating ogre (duno if they actually like that^^) but during the fight against some wolfs the party had a streak of bad luck and now wants to recover for 8 hours... yep that kid has been eaten by then what do you expect?

All of this is assuming that the taking a rest is during an adventure of course.


Isn't this like the fifth or sixth time this conversation has come up in this series of threads? It always goes like this:


Yep but its always fun to talk about :smallbiggrin:
we could call it the "15minute adventuring day" day, not as cool as monkday though :-/

[Oracle_Hunter]

And on and on and on. And somehow I doubt anyone will have anything interesting to add to the discussion this time around.
No, I suppose not, but I always like to hear how other DMs have done it.

Or rather, I'd love for the Players of one of these Stopwatch DMs to talk about how much they love their adventures failing due to bad luck or not picking up on the DM's breadcrumbs. I feel like, if I were in their shoes, I'd end up calling quits on more adventures than I'd complete:
Fighter: Man, what a bunch of lousy rolls! I'm almost dead.

Druid: You could go home. My Animal Companion is basically as good.

Cleric: Don't be mean. Besides I'm almost out of heals. I guess we'll abandon this adventure and go home.

DM: What?! But the damsel will get sacrificed in (checks clock) seven hours in game and the Dark Lord will be summoned!

Wizard: Yeah, and if we go on we'll be dead. This is just like the punctual ogre and that fortress full of gnoll cultists which got an extra legion out of nowhere when we took a rest. C'mon, maybe the Time Trial Tavern Keeper has another "rat race" adventure.

[tasw]

The thing is, the game shouldn't necessarily give the PCs access to everything an NPC can do. NPCs are tools of the DM, to accomplish what the DM wants, mechanically and narratively. PCs interact with the world the DM creates, but they shouldn't necessarily draw from the same toolbox.

In addition, the DM shouldn't have to draw from the PC's toolbox to build NPCs. It's time consuming, and really provides minimal value. I don't like 4e for many reasons, but one of the things they did right is to make NPCs built fundamentally differently than PCs. All I'd need to do to build one is look at the DMG for what the Defenses, HP, Damage and Attack bonuses roughly should be. I've worked together a jury-rigged way to do this for 3.5/PF, but this is work for the DM that really isn't necessary.

I am of the school that strongly disagrees with every word of this post.

NPC's are part of the world and the world should have the same rules for everyone

its not a lot of trouble.

the process has great value in that creates verisimilitude in the world and campaign

The DM absolutely should have to draw from the same toolbox as PC's and where he differs it should be in adding a new tool to both boxes.

And you absolutely can easily eyeball it in 3.5/pathfinder. Your NPC's numbers dont have to be spot on exact to the PC's all the time. The game easily tolerates up to the 25% swing in either direction and with creative (or arrogant) tactics the fight can still be made winnable (or losable). If you cant eyeball something to within a 25% margin you need to sit down and learn the rules of the game before trying to run it.

I mean the systems been out for more then 10 years, between the millions of words of guides, tips, tricks, and forum threads that exist theres no excuse at all for anyone running a game to not be able to do that at this point. You should be able to pick up PF book as a brand new GM and with a week or two of planning and reading be able to do just fine.

[Emmerask]

No, I suppose not, but I always like to hear how other DMs have done it.

Or rather, I'd love for the Players of one of these Stopwatch DMs to talk about how much they love their adventures failing due to bad luck or not picking up on the DM's breadcrumbs. I feel like, if I were in their shoes, I'd end up calling quits on more adventures than I'd complete:
Fighter: Man, what a bunch of lousy rolls! I'm almost dead.

Druid: You could go home. My Animal Companion is basically as good.

Cleric: Don't be mean. Besides I'm almost out of heals. I guess we'll abandon this adventure and go home.

DM: What?! But the damsel will get sacrificed in (checks clock) seven hours in game and the Dark Lord will be summoned!

Wizard: Yeah, and if we go on we'll be dead. This is just like the punctual ogre and that fortress full of gnoll cultists which got an extra legion out of nowhere when we took a rest. C'mon, maybe the Time Trial Tavern Keeper has another "rat race" adventure.

I actually was first a player with a stopwatch ( I would call it more causality dming, actions have reactions ^^) dm before dming myself...
what can I say I like it the world feels more real that way to me.

[noparlpf]

No, I suppose not, but I always like to hear how other DMs have done it.

Or rather, I'd love for the Players of one of these Stopwatch DMs to talk about how much they love their adventures failing due to bad luck or not picking up on the DM's breadcrumbs. I feel like, if I were in their shoes, I'd end up calling quits on more adventures than I'd complete:
Fighter: Man, what a bunch of lousy rolls! I'm almost dead.

Druid: You could go home. My Animal Companion is basically as good.

Cleric: Don't be mean. Besides I'm almost out of heals. I guess we'll abandon this adventure and go home.

DM: What?! But the damsel will get sacrificed in (checks clock) seven hours in game and the Dark Lord will be summoned!

Wizard: Yeah, and if we go on we'll be dead. This is just like the punctual ogre and that fortress full of gnoll cultists which got an extra legion out of nowhere when we took a rest. C'mon, maybe the Time Trial Tavern Keeper has another "rat race" adventure.

My old group only tried one "stopwatch game", meant to be a two-to-three session short adventure, but it dissolved after the first when we had already wasted a full day out of the two allotted because he'd made it too hard. Generally we either did things that were slightly railroady (that DM) or more story-based and stuff happened as it happened, but without as many critical deadlines (another guy).

[Emmerask]

My old group only tried one "stopwatch game", meant to be a two-to-three session short adventure, but it dissolved after the first when we had already wasted a full day out of the two allotted because he'd made it too hard. Generally we either did things that were slightly railroady (that DM) or more story-based and stuff happened as it happened, but without as many critical deadlines (another guy).

Yes it does have the problem during world shattering events that it can be felt as slightly railroady, though such events should not really be what most adventures should be about (you can´t ramp it up afterwards).

While some will have no continuation some might have additional adventure paths coming up depending on success or failure.

So you ignored the assassins guild taking a hold in the capitol and did not stop them now the king offers you xyz if you can remove them.
If you ignore it again maybe nothing will come from it, maybe they will dispose the king who knows... actions and reactions :smallsmile:

[noparlpf]

Conversely, a third guy who ran one-shots sometimes had no time constraints. So one game, we're raiding some tower for some reason (I forget; the adventure itself wasn't particularly memorable), and after the first level, we looked at each other, then at the DM, and I said, "We leave. We're going to need to regroup, refresh our resources and get this xenophobe back into her own species somehow after that Reincarnation went wrong, and look at this a different way." So we did. Nothing bad happened as a result.

[Craft (Cheese)]

No, I suppose not, but I always like to hear how other DMs have done it.

My preferred method when some scenario calls for having a time pressure is to secretly randomize it. For example:

"You hear loud grunts and battle-cries as the orcs repeatedly bash the door with the battering ram. The door is holding for now, but you'll only have a few moments to prepare defenses or try to escape before they make their way through."

We'll move in to combat time and start keeping track of things in rounds. Each round, I'll roll a d6 behind the screen: If it's a 4, 5, or 6, I'll advance the clock by one "tick." When it reaches three, the orcs break in and combat starts. If the PCs do something to delay them (like, say, brace the door) then I'll give them an appropriate additional number of ticks. The "tick" is abstract and can be used with any measure of time: It might be days until your water supply runs out, questions you get to ask a prisoner before they clam up and stop cooperating, or how many items you can swipe from a shelf before the guard comes around.

The point is that the players know they're on a time pressure, but they don't know how much time they have. Sometimes the dice will favor them and they'll get more time than they expected (and end up having made a mistake in their unnecessary haste), other times they'll get unlucky and be caught off guard.

[neonchameleon]

I am of the school that strongly disagrees with every word of this post.

NPC's are part of the world and the world should have the same rules for everyone

its not a lot of trouble.

the process has great value in that creates verisimilitude in the world and campaign

The problem with this approach is that the PCs are (in almost all games) professional adventurers. If, instead of adventuring, they had chosen to go to college, then to university, then a pupiliage, and finally qualified for the bar, they might well be kick-ass barristers. However as a rule they didn't. If they'd spent 8 hours a day crafting items for the past ten years they might approach the crafting ability of a truly expert professional crafter. However they were too busy trying to save the world - and instead when they try to craft it's with about the level of expertise Management Consultants normally show with whatever they are doing.

Allowing the PCs to be experts in absolutely everything with experience points gained by kicking ass and taking names destroys my versimilitude. It means that literally the fastest way to become a professional concert pianist is to kill orcs rather than practice with a piano. This makes no sense at all to me. But it's the consequence of the DM and the PCs drawing from the same toolbox in 3.X

If on the other hand the PCs only draw from one tiny corner of the DM's toolbox (as they ought if you want actual versimilitude and to take account of differing types of expertise while giving XP for adventuring challenges and very little else) then you might as well use different toolboxes.


And you absolutely can easily eyeball it in 3.5/pathfinder.

Sure you can if you're a DM and are using a toolbox the PCs don't have access to. I thought you just claimed this shouldn't be done due to versimilitude?

[tasw]

Right, I apologize because that wasn't my intent. The question was just symbolic of the problems I had as a DM in 3.5. It's not that I didn't appreciate some of the answers (they might have helped, but they were unfortunately five years late). It was simply one of the moments that taught me that I didn't always like 3.5's PC/NPC symmetry.



I'll try and be a little more specific. I'm a 5e DM and I want my 4th level wizard/adversary NPC to have permanently animated furniture which will challenge the PCs as they explore the house. How do I do that?

The answer - and what it demands from the DM - is the point. We've had a lengthy discussion about how to answer that question in 3.5 and 4e. How should 5e/DnD Next resolve the question?

By saying he BOUGHT THEM from a higher level wizard who built them following the same rules a PC would. And then transferred the constucts to him via a command word of some sort.

[theNater]

Not a Problem:
The wizard has animated objects he made.
That is my preferred way of handling it as well. Unfortunately, several people in this thread have insisted that the ability with which the wizard made those animated objects must be at least theoretically available to players, for the sake of consistency. Three methods of handling this have been suggested, and none of them are particularly satisfying.

The first is to create this NPC wizard out of extant abilities. The problem here is that there may not be extant abilities appropriate for the wizard the DM wants, forcing changes to the wizard in a way that makes him unusable.

The second is the useless passive aggressive technique of giving him an ability with a prerequisite none of the PCs currently meets. I don't think I need to go into detail on why this is unsatisfactory.

The third is to build the ability carefully enough to be reasonable to put in the hands of players. This requires either that the DM be a highly skilled game designer(most aren't) or be willing not to worry about balance(many aren't).

The last one's the best of the bunch, but it leaves many DMs in the lurch.

I mean the systems been out for more then 10 years, between the millions of words of guides, tips, tricks, and forum threads that exist theres no excuse at all for anyone running a game to not be able to do that at this point. You should be able to pick up PF book as a brand new GM and with a week or two of planning and reading be able to do just fine.
You realize that we're talking about 5e, and using earlier editions as examples, right? 10 years of experience with 3.5 isn't going to help people eyeball 5e abilities, assuming the designers go that route.

[Scow2]

On the subject of enforced Encounters/day - if you rest in a hostile zone, you have a chance of being ambushed, or at least having the defenders brace and prepare against you if you try taking your break amidst them. If you retreat, you lose your momentum. I only rarely use "Doomsday clock" adventures, and they generally have time built-in to allow emergency breaks to reprepare.

[obryn]

I am of the school that strongly disagrees with every word of this post.
...
its not a lot of trouble.
...
The DM absolutely should have to draw from the same toolbox as PC's and where he differs it should be in adding a new tool to both boxes.
The thing is, we have a lot of posters here - some of them even preferring 3.x/PF - who think it is a lot of trouble. I can say with no qualifications that if this set of assumptions is the norm, I'll sit this new edition out.

As for me, I find it to be both unnecessary and unhelpful. I want a capable DM toolkit which allows me to quickly and easily create the stuff that I find appropriate to the fiction. I want to focus on the end results - the final numbers - and be able to tweak them to match my vision of the fiction without being beholden to an idiosyncratic notion that all of my building blocks should be available to the players.

I think RPGs function best when they acknowledge that PCs and NPCs have different niches to fulfill in the game. 4e has provided me with an incredibly rich, powerful, and easy to use toolkit and I'm not prepared to give that up. It's on the must-have list, for me.


the process has great value in that creates verisimilitude in the world and campaign
It creates consistency, not versimilitude. You can mistake consistency for versimilitude if you squint really hard and if you've so completely internalized the rule-set that you can no longer see the fault lines they create in the fiction.


By saying he BOUGHT THEM from a higher level wizard who built them following the same rules a PC would. And then transferred the constucts to him via a command word of some sort.
A very inadequate solution to a manufactured and unnecessary problem. You're introducing a weird extra element here which breaks his adventure concept in the name of pointless consistency.

-O

[navar100]

With NPCs following different rules than PCs, I get a sense of unfairness. It harkens back to my 2E days. It really, really bugged me that a lot of monsters got three attacks on their turn - claw, claw, bite - while most PCs only ever got one. The single class fighter with weapon specialization proficiency eventually got more attacks, but monsters have been getting it for a long time. It got even more blatant with psionics. PCs always had to contend with their limited amount of power points. Meanwhile, psionic monsters got to use their powers whenever they want, for free, on top of having a lot more pps than any PC could possibly have for those powers that do require spending them.

Then there's the staple of spell-like abilities. Monsters have them even in 3E, but at least in 3E spellcasters can get reasonable equivalence in effects. In 2E, that was a lot less likely. I'll grant the possibility I misunderestimated PC magic power, but the perception is all real where PCs have to following exacting rules of spell slots, casting times, and expensive material components while monsters get to use those spells, at will, for free, and no casting time at all. We have to face their magic abilities several levels before any PC wizard could possibly produce the same or similar effect.

It felt like the DM was cheating. He obviously wasn't, but it felt like it. You already have the rules advising the DM to say no or put heavy restrictions on players. Player characters have to follow specific rules. Monsters get to break them by fiat. It's a cop-out of not having to worry about the rules restrictions players must suffer.

3E's approach of monsters following the same rules brought a sense of fairness. They still have spell-like abilities, but PC spellcasters can duplicate the effects. Monsters have to spend feats. It's still annoying monsters get arbitrary high Natural Armor to compensate for size penalties and just to have a high AC without wearing armor, but at least everything else follows a pattern of the rules. You can see how the combination of stuff works to create the monster within the rules framework. Even if no PC would or could use that combination, that the combination is a logical progression of the same rules PCs use is satisfying. There's no sense of DM "cheating".

[Tholomyes]

The thing is, it's not cheating, because the DM isn't the PC's opponent. The role of the DM is to present the antagonists and situations for PCs to overcome. But the DM should want the PCs to succeed, though not to the point of making it easy for them. The DM's goal is to make the PCs overcome challenges to succeed.

As such, the DM's monsters need to be able to fill their role. If it were simply a matter of DM vs PCs, then maybe you'd be right, but that's not the case. I agree that the 2e case was pretty stupid, but I think that's more a result of 2e's design philosophy than having PCs and NPCs draw from separate toolboxes. The DM's toolbox shouldn't be used to make the NPCs abjectly more powerful (like giving NPCs more attacks), but to give NPCs interesting abilities that might not be suitable for PCs, but make for fun plot points or encounters. (For example, to break from the "Animated Objects" example, An enemy in one of the games I played a while back, who was an illusionist, and so managing 5 or so realistic illusionary decoys works fine for an NPC whose role is to be a sort of weaselly guy, but doesn't really work for when the PC wizard wants to pick up a tool for his utility belt).

Edit: also, I think in a much more permissive system than 2E, this will be less of an issue. In the case of 2E, there were much more restrictions than (I hope) anyone is looking for in Next. The things that Monsters could do wasn't really a problem with the monsters, but it was more of a highlight of what the PCs couldn't do. With PCs who can specialize in different ways through feats and such, and who have a decent selection of things they can do, both through their build, and on a turn-by-turn basis, seeing the NPC doing something they can't won't be as much of an issue, since they feel like they had a decent amount of choices, and they built a character they wanted anyway.

[tasw]

You realize that we're talking about 5e, and using earlier editions as examples, right? 10 years of experience with 3.5 isn't going to help people eyeball 5e abilities, assuming the designers go that route.

Bounded accuracy, despite its problems, should make eyeballing almost any encounter a breeze.

[Seerow]

Bounded accuracy, despite its problems, should make eyeballing almost any encounter a breeze.

"Hrm... is this a level 1 encounter or level 10 encounter? Who cares, it's all the same! Thank you bounded accuracy!"

[tasw]

A very inadequate solution to a manufactured and unnecessary problem. You're introducing a weird extra element here which breaks his adventure concept in the name of pointless consistency.

-O

Quite the opposite actually.

The only thing thats weird is assuming this wizard must have handcrafted every item in his home. I mean no one else on planet Earth, or Oerth, or Toril for that matter does that. But this one particular wizard must have? Thats ridiculous. No doubt he has a pottery wheel out back for all his dishes, a woodworking shop for all his moving and mundane furniture and an entire farm out behind the house for this meat and drink too.....

No whats a weird concept is actually assuming NPC's work to accumulate wealth just so they have big chests of it sitting around for when some PC's come along and gut them and loot their homes.

A perfectly rationale concept is that this wizard does what he can do as a low level wizard, selling his goods and services to non-magical types for wealth and then trades that wealth or his own services to more powerful wizards in exchange for their goods and services that he cant make himself.

Theres a word for this, I'm struggling for it, I know i've heard it before...... economy? Could it be an economy? Hmmm perhaps websters dictionary.com could help illuminate this weird and mysterious concept.

[tasw]

"Hrm... is this a level 1 encounter or level 10 encounter? Who cares, it's all the same! Thank you bounded accuracy!"

Well you have to admit there IS a certain simplicity to it......

[Kurald Galain]

That is my preferred way of handling it as well. Unfortunately, several people in this thread have insisted that the ability with which the wizard made those animated objects must be at least theoretically available to players, for the sake of consistency. Three methods of handling this have been suggested, and none of them are particularly satisfying.

The fourth is having players that aren't out to abuse things and break the campaign :smallamused:
Because if you don't have that, you've got bigger problems anyway. And if you do, simply setting a time or money cost on the ability is enough to keep it from being abused. That's not hard.

[Saph]

With NPCs following different rules than PCs, I get a sense of unfairness.

This is pretty much how I've always felt. Yes, the GM can still make a fun game when the PCs are banned from using 95% of the abilities in the gameworld . . . but he shouldn't have to.

It's also worth noting that while abandoning verisimilitude/equivalency turns off players who like it, the reverse doesn't generally apply. If you put in the effort to design the system so that it doesn't break as soon as PCs get access to NPC abilities, this does not generally put off players who don't care about equivalency.

So from the game design point of view and on general "keep it simple" principles, it's a lot smarter to use one universal set of rules if you can.

[theNater]

The fourth is having players that aren't out to abuse things and break the campaign :smallamused:
Actually, in this situation, all you have to do is ask the players not to abuse it. Of course, that means the PCs essentially have a different ability than the NPC did, which is apparently a problem for some reason.

And if you do, simply setting a time or money cost on the ability is enough to keep it from being abused.
Putting a disadvantage on it to keep it reasonable is one style of option 3, and has those issues.

[Kurald Galain]

It's also worth noting that while abandoning verisimilitude/equivalency turns off players who like it, the reverse doesn't generally apply. If you put in the effort to design the system so that it doesn't break as soon as PCs get access to NPC abilities, this does not generally put off players who don't care about equivalency.

So from the game design point of view and on general "keep it simple" principles, it's a lot smarter to use one universal set of rules if you can.
That's a good point.
This also applies to disassociated mechanics. Their presence turns off people who dislike them, but the reverse doesn't apply: their absence doesn't generally bother people who don't mind them, or who don't know or accept the meaning of the term.
So a game without disassociated mechanics has a wider audience than a game with them.


Actually, in this situation, all you have to do is ask the players not to abuse it. Of course, that means the PCs essentially have a different ability than the NPC did, which is apparently a problem for some reason.
No, the NPCs have the exact same agreement not to abuse it.


Putting a disadvantage on it to keep it reasonable is one style of option 3, and has those issues.
It doesn't have issues. You make it sound like it's rocket science, but it's really very easy. Just ensure the ability can't be infinitely used for free, by giving it a cost similar to related abilities in the game. That's nothing a good DM can't handle.

[theNater]

No, the NPCs have the exact same agreement not to abuse it.
In this example in particular, one NPC of approximately the party's level has used this ability to become a significant challenge to the entire party. That was the whole idea: a single wizard and the objects he's animated vs. the party. Either he's already abused it, or abusing an ability means something different for the PCs than the NPCs.

It doesn't have issues. You make it sound like it's rocket science, but it's really very easy. Just ensure the ability can't be infinitely used for free, by giving it a cost similar to related abilities in the game.
It's not rocket science, but it is game design, which is plenty hard enough. In this particular case, "similar related abilities in the game" required the NPC wizard to spend far more than a character of his level would plausibly have, so that's out. But in general, making the costs too low gives the PC more power than intended, while making it too high eats the PC's resources inefficiently, making the PC less powerful than is intended. This is fine at a table that doesn't care about balance, but some tables do care about balance. I won't argue with you if you say you don't want 5e to design for those tables, but they are out there.

That's nothing a good DM can't handle.
What about an average DM? Or a beginner? Shouldn't the system encourage them to be inventive, rather than asking them to develop a high level of system mastery first? Again, if your opinion is that it shouldn't, you won't get any argument from me; I just want to be sure that it's been considered.

[neonchameleon]

With NPCs following different rules than PCs, I get a sense of unfairness. It harkens back to my 2E days. It really, really bugged me that a lot of monsters got three attacks on their turn - claw, claw, bite - while most PCs only ever got one.

Part of this depends on the monster. I don't think anyone ever objected to dragons getting claw/claw/bite/wing buffet/tail on the grounds of fairness - or that a PC couldn't do that. They were dragons. On the other hand troglodytes (http://www.dotd.com/mm/MM00289.htm) getting claw/claw/bite when troglodytes are on basically a human scale I agree did feel unfair. Especially as Troglodytes don't even have very big mouths.

Also part of this depends on the other half of the symmetry equation. If we take most asymmetric systems including D&D 4e, the NPCs might be able to do things the PCs can't - but the reverse is true. I'd be incredibly surprised to see an NPC use Villain's Menace or Rain of Steel. Different toolboxes doesn't feel unfair; what feels unfair is (as for 2e) when one toolbox is just a tiny fraction of the other. 3E gave the PCs access to the whole of the monster toolbox; 4e gave the PCs their own toolbox - and set a monster toolbox and monster math to keep things something approaching fair. Both work to deal with this sense of unfairness. 2e pretty much didn't. (Indeed one of the common complaints about 4e at ENWorld (I haven't seen it here) is that 4e is unfair to DMs because all PCs get their own fiat abilities).

(oD&D was intentionally about beating a rigged house - it was gamist in the "Step on Up" sense and the unfairness just added to the challenge - and when Mike Mornard was challenged about what his dungeon's monsters ate he simply added a McDonalds on the sixth level complete with prices in copper pieces).


The fourth is having players that aren't out to abuse things and break the campaign :smallamused:
Because if you don't have that, you've got bigger problems anyway. And if you do, simply setting a time or money cost on the ability is enough to keep it from being abused. That's not hard.

If on the other hand I had players who only did what I expected them to and were unprepared to step on up I'd get bored.


It's also worth noting that while abandoning verisimilitude/equivalency turns off players who like it, the reverse doesn't generally apply. If you put in the effort to design the system so that it doesn't break as soon as PCs get access to NPC abilities, this does not generally put off players who don't care about equivalency.

No. What applies is that you get DM burnout and a massively higher DM workload in 3.X than any other system I can think of. In my main 4e group we have four experienced DMs - three of us happy to run 4e, all of us with at least some experience of older systems, and none of us want to put in the time and the effort to run 3e again (the only way it was run at mid level in the 3e heyday was by the then-professional student). And especially not with the creative and experienced players we have in the group. No other system any of us have tried including GURPS causes these headaches.

[Kurald Galain]

Don't be silly, if you assume a bad DM then none of the other suggestions here are going to work either.

[obryn]

Theres a word for this, I'm struggling for it, I know i've heard it before...... economy? Could it be an economy? Hmmm perhaps websters dictionary.com could help illuminate this weird and mysterious concept.
You're kidding, right?


It's also worth noting that while abandoning verisimilitude/equivalency turns off players who like it, the reverse doesn't generally apply. If you put in the effort to design the system so that it doesn't break as soon as PCs get access to NPC abilities, this does not generally put off players who don't care about equivalency.

So from the game design point of view and on general "keep it simple" principles, it's a lot smarter to use one universal set of rules if you can.


That's a good point.
This also applies to disassociated mechanics. Their presence turns off people who dislike them, but the reverse doesn't apply: their absence doesn't generally bother people who don't mind them, or who don't know or accept the meaning of the term.
So a game without disassociated mechanics has a wider audience than a game with them.
Both of you are looking at metagame mechanics in isolation. They aren't isolated, though, they're part and parcel to the system as a whole. I've found that an RPG with a robust metagame does a better job at creating the results I want at the table with vastly less overhead.

No, I won't say, "oh my goodness, no dissocianonsense mechanics! i'm out!" I will however say, "Wow, this is jumping through some pretty serious hoops to get workable end results," or "The workload here is not what I'm up for with kids and a career" or "It's kind of dull how all of my NPCs are basically just PCs" or "Man, the players in this game have no narrative agency whatsoever; that's pretty boring" or "You know, this process isn't creating anything helpful or workable at all."

There's a cost and substantial overhead to that design philosophy, and it's kind of crazy to pretend otherwise. There's a good reason 3.x was an outlier here, and I don't want Next to go back to it.

-O

[SiuiS]

No, I suppose not, but I always like to hear how other DMs have done it.

Or rather, I'd love for the Players of one of these Stopwatch DMs to talk about how much they love their adventures failing due to bad luck or not picking up on the DM's breadcrumbs. I feel like, if I were in their shoes, I'd end up calling quits on more adventures than I'd complete:
Fighter: Man, what a bunch of lousy rolls! I'm almost dead.

Druid: You could go home. My Animal Companion is basically as good.

Cleric: Don't be mean. Besides I'm almost out of heals. I guess we'll abandon this adventure and go home.

DM: What?! But the damsel will get sacrificed in (checks clock) seven hours in game and the Dark Lord will be summoned!

Wizard: Yeah, and if we go on we'll be dead. This is just like the punctual ogre and that fortress full of gnoll cultists which got an extra legion out of nowhere when we took a rest. C'mon, maybe the Time Trial Tavern Keeper has another "rat race" adventure.

I feel like this is overly extrapolating out a detail. I don't think anyone was saying you need to always prohibit a rest, just that you should apply some horse sense.

Logically, the fifteen minute adventuring day isn't "my guys operate for fifteen minutes, recharge, and astray again 8 hours later", so much as its they do this when doing so makes no sense. When there's something to be achieved now. Some situations are time sensitive. Some situations aren't – I'll be the first to say I love downtime away from the adventure, because that's where most characterization shines through.

But if you sneak into the evil Barron's keep, meet diff resistance and leave... He's going to prepare for when you come back, and knows when to expect you – in about eight hours.



As for me, I find it to be both unnecessary and unhelpful. I want a capable DM toolkit which allows me to quickly and easily create the stuff that I find appropriate to the fiction. I want to focus on the end results - the final numbers

3.x and pathfinder do this easily.


and be able to tweak them to match my vision of the fiction without being beholden to an idiosyncratic notion that all of my building blocks should be available to the players.

Whereas this strikes me as discongruous.

It seems like you've somehow misconstrued something. 3.X is perfectly capable of picking an end goal and filling in up to that point with ease. And yet, you've got this idea that you can't, or that it's hard, and that just doesn't seem to flow naturally from the origin point to me.



A very inadequate solution to a manufactured and unnecessary problem. You're introducing a weird extra element here which breaks his adventure concept in the name of pointless consistency.

Aye.


"Hrm... is this a level 1 encounter or level 10 encounter? Who cares, it's all the same! Thank you bounded accuracy!"

That's not quite fair. There's a fair enough difference between a 5% and 50% chance of success. Enough to certainly make a minimum level character and a maximum level character different.


Don't be silly, if you assume a bad DM then none of the other suggestions here are going to work either.

Aye. I think we need to distinguish between quality of DMing which isn't relevant to the rules, and outfight bad DMing, which is counter to the rules though.

[Tehnar]

What do you think is the point of the 5E's playtest?

a) Mearls hopes someone will hand him a workable system?
b) They are trying to find out what "DnD" means?
c) They are looking for specific problems in their rules?
d) Something else...

[neonchameleon]

Don't be silly, if you assume a bad DM then none of the other suggestions here are going to work either.

How about you do neither and instead assume a novice DM? After all, experienced DMs are going to fudge when building, estimate, and have their own tools to work round the flaws of any system.

[obryn]

3.x and pathfinder do this easily.

Whereas this strikes me as discongruous.

It seems like you've somehow misconstrued something. 3.X is perfectly capable of picking an end goal and filling in up to that point with ease. And yet, you've got this idea that you can't, or that it's hard, and that just doesn't seem to flow naturally from the origin point to me.
I disagree. I ran 3.x for its entire 8-year run and 4e from release until now, and 3.x is nowhere near as slick and efficient for creating new NPCs or Monsters. So it's not "ease" in direct comparison. Nor is it anywhere near as capable at figuring out encounter levels.

4e accomplishes both by focusing on the end result, rather than documenting a process. If I want a legendary swordy guy who flits around swording people, I just make it; I don't worry about the feats necessary to get to that point. I don't worry about his magic items. I have a concept, and the end result fits the concept and plays like the concept should.

Likewise, if I want said legendary swordy guy to be a notable foe capable of facing off against the whole party, I have tools to enable that with Elite and Solo types.

-O

[Scow2]

"Hrm... is this a level 1 encounter or level 10 encounter? Who cares, it's all the same! Thank you bounded accuracy!"

If you're using the sarcasm to mock Bounded Accuracy - Are you really so dense as to be unable to distinguish the difference in challenge between a brute that gets one attack that hits for 1d8+4 Damage and has 10 HP and a horrific monster that can produce fire at-will, strikes twice for 3d6+6 damage each time (Not counting its 4-6d8 damage SLAs) and has 124 HP just because they both have a +6 to attack and AC 14?

[neonchameleon]

What do you think is the point of the 5E's playtest?

a) Mearls hopes someone will hand him a workable system?
b) They are trying to find out what "DnD" means?
c) They are looking for specific problems in their rules?
d) Something else...

So that it can be seen that things are being done whether they are or not. I think the Playtesting: Stop (http://www.lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=565) article was linked in this thread - and Next appears to be breaking all the advice in it. At this point, I think the only possible reason for this playtest is marketing.

[Scow2]

So that it can be seen that things are being done whether they are or not. I think the Playtesting: Stop (http://www.lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=565) article was linked in this thread - and Next appears to be breaking all the advice in it. At this point, I think the only possible reason for this playtest is marketing.Well, I can't see any good reason to follow the terrible advice in that article either.

[noparlpf]

So that it can be seen that things are being done whether they are or not. I think the Playtesting: Stop (http://www.lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=565) article was linked in this thread - and Next appears to be breaking all the advice in it. At this point, I think the only possible reason for this playtest is marketing.

That's a pretty bad article, though.
I agree that hiring competent designers (who know basic math) and editors is important. Rather than playtesting to find out "What is D&D?" they should probably just release a large survey instead before starting development. Having a solid set of rules before releasing playtests is probably a good idea, rather than bouncing random ideas off of us and seeing what sticks and then taking away half of that anyway. But there's no reason that playtest can't then be to find rule holes and get some fresh eyes to look at the game—look at this forum, there's an ongoing thread collecting dysfunctions in 3.X now.

[Scowling Dragon]

Thats like the Anti-Version of whats next is following right now. Its not that it doesn't point out some wrong things, but its that its SO to the opposite end that its just wrong in its own way as well.

[neonchameleon]

Well, I can't see any good reason to follow the terrible advice in that article either.

So "Work out what the hell you think you are doing before playtesting" is bad advice now?


Thats like the Anti-Version of whats next is following right now. Its not that it doesn't point out some wrong things, but its that its SO to the opposite end that its just wrong in its own way as well.

It's a reaction-article rather than a serious proposal one. Pointing out all the flaws on one side and that people are veering too much that way.

[obryn]

Well, I can't see any good reason to follow the terrible advice in that article either.
I think it goes overboard in a few areas, and I think it's specifically wrong in one of them - namely, that I think playtesting is among the best tools to find problems with and weird interactions in your rules.

But the other advice boils down to, "Do the math, make coherent rules, hire a good editor, and don't playtest until the game is in a largely finished state." I think that's altogether sensible.

-O

[Saph]

There's a cost and substantial overhead to that design philosophy, and it's kind of crazy to pretend otherwise. There's a good reason 3.x was an outlier here, and I don't want Next to go back to it.

Thing is, though, if I were designing a new D&D system, I wouldn't be designing it exclusively for you. I'd be trying to design something that appeals to both camps. And it's a lot easier to make a universal system that appeals to the easy-play crowd than it is to make a disassociated/inconsistent system that appeals to the verisimilitude crowd.

[navar100]

Part of this depends on the monster. I don't think anyone ever objected to dragons getting claw/claw/bite/wing buffet/tail on the grounds of fairness - or that a PC couldn't do that. They were dragons. On the other hand troglodytes (http://www.dotd.com/mm/MM00289.htm) getting claw/claw/bite when troglodytes are on basically a human scale I agree did feel unfair. Especially as Troglodytes don't even have very big mouths.

I will allow for inherently obvious special cases, such as dragons, devils, angels, the Tarrasque, etc., working differently than PCs as not being unfair.


Also part of this depends on the other half of the symmetry equation. If we take most asymmetric systems including D&D 4e, the NPCs might be able to do things the PCs can't - but the reverse is true. I'd be incredibly surprised to see an NPC use Villain's Menace or Rain of Steel. Different toolboxes doesn't feel unfair; what feels unfair is (as for 2e) when one toolbox is just a tiny fraction of the other. 3E gave the PCs access to the whole of the monster toolbox; 4e gave the PCs their own toolbox - and set a monster toolbox and monster math to keep things something approaching fair. Both work to deal with this sense of unfairness. 2e pretty much didn't. (Indeed one of the common complaints about 4e at ENWorld (I haven't seen it here) is that 4e is unfair to DMs because all PCs get their own fiat abilities).


A common DM warning to players in 3E games is if you do it, so can NPCs. The idea here is to cut down on save or die spells and I Win D&D shenanigans. It can work both ways. The DM promises not to use Disjunction, for example, before the players would even consider it or be able to use it. That complaint of 4E might be a reflection of this. Those DMs can't use this argument anymore because NPCs can't do what PCs can do. If 5E follows the example of NPCs following different rules, the same can apply. However, if NPCs following different rules can do what PCs do but PCs can't do what NPCs do, then that's a gross unfairness.

[Ashdate]

A common DM warning to players in 3E games is if you do it, so can NPCs. The idea here is to cut down on save or die spells and I Win D&D shenanigans. It can work both ways. The DM promises not to use Disjunction, for example, before the players would even consider it or be able to use it. That complaint of 4E might be a reflection of this. Those DMs can't use this argument anymore because NPCs can't do what PCs can do. If 5E follows the example of NPCs following different rules, the same can apply. However, if NPCs following different rules can do what PCs do but PCs can't do what NPCs do, then that's a gross unfairness.

I think it's silly - and I'm not blaming 3.5 for this because PC/NPC symmetry and Save-or-Lose spells do not need to co-exist together - that a game might produce a "gentleman's agreement" between players and the DM in order to cut down on the crazy (and to be fair, I did it when I played my last 3.5 Wizard because the party had a player who counted as an outsider and that was a box I didn't think was a good idea to open in a relatively low-op game). That's not healthy.

I fall firmly into the separation of PC/NPC abilities. I think the only way I could tolerate the two together in DnD Next would be if PC abilities were VERY simple - far simpler than the current playtest.

[SiuiS]

What do you think is the point of the 5E's playtest?

a) Mearls hopes someone will hand him a workable system?
b) They are trying to find out what "DnD" means?
c) They are looking for specific problems in their rules?
d) Something else...

The purpose of the play test is to create an artificial sense of isolation so people don't compare parts of the rules they don't need to. Remember, this is the Internet. In the old days they would run several groups in isolation.


I disagree. I ran 3.x for its entire 8-year run and 4e from release until now, and 3.x is nowhere near as slick and efficient for creating new NPCs or Monsters. So it's not "ease" in direct comparison. Nor is it anywhere near as capable at figuring out encounter levels.

No, see. You don't build up to what you want, you reverse engineer just like in 4e. You pick their expected attack, damage and AC/saves and build to it, which is cake.

[obryn]

And it's a lot easier to make a universal system that appeals to the easy-play crowd than it is to make a disassociated/inconsistent system that appeals to the verisimilitude crowd.
I disagree. The ways in which good, modern RPGs leverage the metagame let them have high degrees of depth while maintaining overall simplicity.

In order to have a system where PCs and NPCs/Monsters use the same building blocks and keep metagame mechanics to a minimum, you'd have to greatly narrow your design space for both to achieve a similar level of mechanical simplicity. I don't think this is an approach that would necessarily appeal to the 3.x/4e camp, though it may be fine for more OSR-style gamers. (Although even there, constraining the DM in this way probably wouldn't be very appealing.)


No, see. You don't build up to what you want, you reverse engineer just like in 4e. You pick their expected attack, damage and AC/saves and build to it, which is cake.
It's really, really not, especially in comparison. In 4e, I have my final results. I am done. I'm not reverse-engineering anything.

In 3e, you're adding the extra (and IMO unnecessary) step of reverse engineering - by figuring hit dice, BAB, feats, equipment, etc. - to get me to that point. And my toolbox is substantially more restrictive.

-O

[Doug Lampert]

It's really, really not, especially in comparison. In 4e, I have my final results. I am done. I'm not reverse-engineering anything.

In 3e, you're adding the extra (and IMO unnecessary) step of reverse engineering - by figuring hit dice, BAB, feats, equipment, etc. - to get me to that point. And my toolbox is substantially more restrictive.

-O

No such extra step actually exists. Everyone I've ever see try to "reverse engineer to these numbers" gets it wrong. They produce an outright IMPOSSIBLE build based on the numbers and rules they're using. You have too few or too many spell slots, you have feats that are impossible (hello MM1 with all the creatures with weapon finesse as a feat they BLATANTLY didn't qualify for, later erratad into a bonus feat). They have too many or too few skill points.

In point of fact it's "easy" because these people NEVER GO BACK AND FILL IN THE DETAILS. They're doing EXACTLY what a 4th edition GM does except without the guidance, they're making up numbers that "sound good" or "seem about right" and then using them without ever building a character by PC like rules.

There is no symetry, there is a poor illusion of symetry maintained at the cost of not giving that guidance and PRETENDING REAL HARD that the NPCs and PCs use the same rules. Usually if an NPC they "eyeballed" later becomes important enough to actually write up they'll claim that changing the attack bonus by "a few" points or the AC by "just one or two" points or whatever isn't really a big deal and it's still the same character, or they'll just throw in impossible stuff like weapon finesse without a +1 BAB.

The magic items you'd pull off the creature's corpse bear no real resemblance to what it will have if the players ally with it and want a full write-up.

Just consider the most common humanoid NPC class (the one almost every race has in the MM). The warrior. The class can't perform ANY of it's alleged roles (tribal warrior, no survival on someone who hunts for a living; town guard, no spot, listen, insight, or gather information; part time militiaman, no craft or profession). This was in 3.0, it's in 3.5, and it's never been fixed. If anyone were ACTUALLY using these rules to produce NPCs like they were PCs you'd think someone might have noticed that they don't work. Nope. No one notices, because they don't build NPCs like PCs, just wing it.

[eepop]

Rather than playtesting to find out "What is D&D?" they should probably just release a large survey instead before starting development.

The problem is that people can be very bad at knowing what they want. And a survey can only ever gauge what people think they know.

Check out this example with Spaghetti sauce

http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/2011/03/content-marketing-diversification/

By trying lots of different variations, and having people actually try them instead of just surveying what people liked, they managed to find an answer to the question that no one would have answered on a survey.

There probably were a lot of people that spit some sauce out during testing and said that variation was disgusting. So you then stop pursuing those lines, and focus on the things that people liked when they actually tried them.


While its going on, the process can seem scatterbrained, and like it won't accomplish anything. But afterwards, when you are only looking at the successes that grew out of that turmoil, you can recognize the insights it could provide that other methods could not.

[SiuiS]

It's really, really not, especially in comparison. In 4e, I have my final results. I am done. I'm not reverse-engineering anything.

In 3e, you're adding the extra (and IMO unnecessary) step of reverse engineering - by figuring hit dice, BAB, feats, equipment, etc. - to get me to that point. And my toolbox is substantially more restrictive.

Eh, miscommunication of expectations then. I'm fully fine with a sub-boss NPC getting approximate numbers without building them, jut like in 4e. The game supports it. My comment was aimed at the fact that you seem to require 3e to retro engineer; my point is the games are identical, except you could pick apart that NPC with PC rules if you so chose.


No such extra step actually exists. Everyone I've ever see try to "reverse engineer to these numbers" gets it wrong. They produce an outright IMPOSSIBLE build based on the numbers and rules they're using. You have too few or too many spell slots, you have feats that are impossible (hello MM1 with all the creatures with weapon finesse as a feat they BLATANTLY didn't qualify for, later erratad into a bonus feat). They have too many or too few skill points.

In point of fact it's "easy" because these people NEVER GO BACK AND FILL IN THE DETAILS. They're doing EXACTLY what a 4th edition GM does except without the guidance, they're making up numbers that "sound good" or "seem about right" and then using them without ever building a character by PC like rules.

There is no symetry, there is a poor illusion of symetry maintained at the cost of not giving that guidance and PRETENDING REAL HARD that the NPCs and PCs use the same rules. Usually if an NPC they "eyeballed" later becomes important enough to actually write up they'll claim that changing the attack bonus by "a few" points or the AC by "just one or two" points or whatever isn't really a big deal and it's still the same character, or they'll just throw in impossible stuff like weapon finesse without a +1 BAB.

The magic items you'd pull off the creature's corpse bear no real resemblance to what it will have if the players ally with it and want a full write-up.


I know I'm a unicorn, honey, but please don't pretend I don't exist. Or that my experiences aren't right or somehow niche and outlying. Everyone I play with regularly is capable of ball-park accuracy for throwing things at the party. We haven't been wrong in our accounting yet, either. Further, everyone I know builds NPCs up and doesn't do that bullflop different skills/equipment – we aren't Chronotrigger, we are D&D players. There have even times where the party was prevented from acquiring the items in case of lucky rolls and crits, but that also falls in the realm of believable, such as 1/day dimension door as a swift or immediate action on an item. And yes, it's available to the players.

Retroengineerig can be done if you want to. It needn't be done if you don't need it. And they can be built from the found up if you like, for the fun of it.


Just consider the most common humanoid NPC class (the one almost every race has in the MM). The warrior. The class can't perform ANY of it's alleged roles (tribal warrior, no survival on someone who hunts for a living; town guard, no spot, listen, insight, or gather information; part time militiaman, no craft or profession). This was in 3.0, it's in 3.5, and it's never been fixed. If anyone were ACTUALLY using these rules to produce NPCs like they were PCs you'd think someone might have noticed that they don't work. Nope. No one notices, because they don't build NPCs like PCs, just wing it.

False equivalency. A castle guard isn't some surveillance guy, he's a tough who keeps you out by force. All this does is drive home the separation between a PC and NPC – the NPC is never expected to get into high skill use. All NpCs operate on the same wavelength, and PCs are a tier above; they are masterwork people.

[Ashdate]

Eh, miscommunication of expectations then. I'm fully fine with a sub-boss NPC getting approximate numbers without building them, jut like in 4e. The game supports it. My comment was aimed at the fact that you seem to require 3e to retro engineer; my point is the games are identical, except you could pick apart that NPC with PC rules if you so chose.

The bigger issue to me is that reverse-engineer is not what the system asks you to do. It's one of many things that potentially makes the system unfriendly to new DMs, and making the system as friendly as possible to DMs is something I believe should be a priority for D&D Next.

[obryn]

Eh, miscommunication of expectations then. I'm fully fine with a sub-boss NPC getting approximate numbers without building them, jut like in 4e. The game supports it.
The game doesn't provide any tools to support it. You will not find anything akin to 4e's guidelines for monster building, with calculations for defenses, HPs, attack bonuses, and average damage.

I don't doubt you're fine handwaving. I won't even question your accuracy. But this is something that you have built up with experience, not a default assumption of the actual game rules or something that is expected or encouraged by the rules. I don't know that I'd go so far to call it a Rule 0 fallacy - since we're talking about custom-making creatures and NPCs, I don't know if it applies - but there you have it.


My comment was aimed at the fact that you seem to require 3e to retro engineer; my point is the games are identical, except you could pick apart that NPC with PC rules if you so chose.
The results aren't identical, though. The ability to "pick apart" an NPC necessarily implies certain things about how it's built, and imposes limits on the DM's ability to innovate.

Here's an example. A while back, when I was converting City by the Silt Sea, I needed to stat up a bunch of Templars of Dregoth. I wanted them to be unusual and organized, kind of a deadly team with various abilities when mixed together. Since Templars in Dark Sun are a branch off Warlocks, I went with a customization of the Curse mechanic.

Long story short - each of the various Templars has ways to Curse an enemy. This curse gives all Templars of Dregoth combat advantage and ... something else. For the Soldiers, it served as their Mark. For the Skirmishers, it made that enemy unable to make Opportunity Attacks against them. Brutes? An opportunity for extra damage, of course. The Controllers could "burn" the curse to make a powerful area attack around the cursed creature. All told, they worked splendidly. From concept to execution was a pretty quick process, and at no point did I need to fiddle with the PC toolbox. I was thrilled with the results, and they worked out wonderfully in play.

-O

[Kurald Galain]

I don't see any point in reengineering anything, and of course NPCs should require less time to put together than PCs. What I would like is that if an NPC has a special maneuver, spell, or item, then this can also be made available to a PC who wants to learn it (with things like racial powers exempt, of course).

[Ashdate]

(Exempt unless the Wizard casts Polymorph, of course.)