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

[Kurald Galain]

(Exempt unless the Wizard casts Polymorph, of course.)
Of course not. There shouldn't even be a polymorph spell, except to change enemies into frogs and the like, and druid wildshape into a limited list of animal forms. We don't need that particular can of worms, thank you very much.

[SiuiS]

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.

That's valid.


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.

You lose me on a technicality. You are right, it comes from experience, but the rules do tell you you can do this; they just aren't half as frank about it. Every official thing I've seen from WotC involving encounter and monster design for 3.X involved cross referencing the PCs - which by default means you are looking at the fighter's attack bonus total, and deciding the bad guy get's hit by the best melee PC on a 13, or similar. Same with saves and armor class.

Damage, yes. I fully agree that damage could use the same idea, although with acknowledgement that 3.X allows for a much greater spike in output. But this isn't some handwavey thing I devised, it's the natural end result of internalizing the rules and numbers involved.



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.

That's a solid idea, I may steal that.

But... What does it prove? It doesn't prove that combining PC and NPC tools cannot achieve this, because I didn't register you meant 3.X (I actually thought you were setting up an example of how you were dissatisfied) and so I built similar in my head as I read. No problem.

It also doesn't prove that a combined toolset is fine, because as we've noted I've actually worked on my level of proficiency, so it cannot be assumed as part of the system.


(Exempt unless the Wizard casts Polymorph, of course.)


Of course not. There shouldn't even be a polymorph spell, except to change enemies into frogs and the like, and druid wildshape into a limited list of animal forms. We don't need that particular can of worms, thank you very much.

90% with Kurald, here.

Polymorph is fine. Conceptually. Polymorph as "crack open a monster manual and go to town" is not. As a high level physical buff, which grants attribute changes, combat suite changes (natural weapons, armor, movement, some resistances) it's fine. I'd still stick with wizards not being proficient with monster natural weapons, but that's me. But as a cherry picking tool it breaks easy, and needs so many limits as to be nonfunctional as a single spell, possibly even as a suite of spells.

Baleful polymorph is neat. Wildshape is good, and covers the old Merlin/Arthur thing (and all the druidic variants thereof). Do we need wizards who ca do more than disguise themselves via magic? I don't think having combat suites is really a good idea, after all. not for wizards. High level dragon form, demon form, etc. would be thematic, but not the swiss army morphs, y'know?

[obryn]

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).
It sounds reasonable, but in order to do this, it looks to me like you need that symmetrical PC/NPC setup. If an NPC has a trick in 3.x or Next, it has to be manifested somehow in a....

Feat
Spell or Spell Effect
Magic Item
Class Ability
or Racial Ability

This is where we circle back to those assumptions, I think.

...Unless of course you guys are likewise fine with how I handle it in 4e? That is, make stuff up and don't worry about it until a PC expresses interest, and then attempt to find a workable mechanical implementation post-hoc, so long as it's not game-breaking? I didn't get the impression this was an acceptable solution to the sim/symmetry crowd. :smallsmile:

-O

[Clawhound]

I think shape changing, in general, is ripe for re-examination. It should not be limited to certain classes. Fighters should have path to changing into beefy creatures, rogues into stealthy ones, etc. That way the classes can change into forms appropriate to their needs.

[Water_Bear]

I think shape changing, in general, is ripe for re-examination. It should not be limited to certain classes. Fighters should have path to changing into beefy creatures, rogues into stealthy ones, etc. That way the classes can change into forms appropriate to their needs.

That sounds like a great racial ability for some kind of playable Lycanthrope race, but if Human / Demihuman Fighters just start turning into Minotaurs or whatever at high levels I know I'm not the only one who'll put the book down and walk away from the table. It's very cool, just not very D&D.

[SiuiS]

It sounds reasonable, but in order to do this, it looks to me like you need that symmetrical PC/NPC setup. If an NPC has a trick in 3.x or Next, it has to be manifested somehow in a....

Feat
Spell or Spell Effect
Magic Item
Class Ability
or Racial Ability

This is where we circle back to those assumptions, I think.

I read something about five minutes ago that feels relevent to this conversation, actually, and hits what I fel is the heart of the trouble;


We believe the "throw" mechanic has major benefits, compared to various alternative systems available:
•The throw mechanic directly, rather than indirectly, informs the player of the information he needs to know, i.e. "what number do I need to roll on the die." This number can be listed directly on the character sheet: "Hear noise 14+" "Save v. Death 11+" "Attack with sword 9+".

•The throw mechanic puts the emphasis on the character, rather than the situation. A player understands that if he has "Hear Noise 14+" in most circumstances his character can eavesdrop on a roll of 14-20. If there is a modifier to this chance, it's transparent to the player: "A penalty of -4 to your roll due to the loud noise". In contrast, systems such as 3.5 or 4e, which use a fixed bonus against a variable Difficulty, put the emphasis on the GM's decision as to the situation. Very often the GM is actually encouraged to calculate what chance he wants for success, and to then 'customize' the Difficulty accordingly (this is explicit in 4e). These sort of accounting illusions are unnecessary in ACKS. Where we believed a task should be equally challenging for characters of varying level, we simply either use a type of throw that doesn't change with level (such as the proficiency throw to find secret doors), or we use a roll

This strikes me as something I've seen touched on before, but only as a heuristic, and never examined. The trouble is, a variable system causes DM trust issues because of a lack of transparency. Every D&D system EVER is based on this lack of transparency. 3.X makes it much easier to guesstimate the other side of the screen, via concrete rules, but it also backfires; A PC can guess the target by way of NPCs having the same mechanics, but cannot possibly accurately guess which of the many, many mechanics fit this situation.

The idea of putting all the power in a player's hands by having them make most rolls seems like a sound one, but it directly leads to this issue of needing to know how mechanics fall. What are the down sides of having more throws and less rolss in D&D Next?

I'm also glad to finally have the difference between attack roll and saving throw click in my head.



...Unless of course you guys are likewise fine with how I handle it in 4e? That is, make stuff up and don't worry about it until a PC expresses interest, and then attempt to find a workable mechanical implementation post-hoc, so long as it's not game-breaking? I didn't get the impression this was an acceptable solution to the sim/symmetry crowd. :smallsmile:

Sure, I mean, that's the point, right? That's what 3.X does, mostly. Some people just like bud nipping.


I think shape changing, in general, is ripe for re-examination. It should not be limited to certain classes. Fighters should have path to changing into beefy creatures, rogues into stealthy ones, etc. That way the classes can change into forms appropriate to their needs.

mechanics and description separation.

I've seen a barbarian who's rage was to morph into a dragon, and it worked out just fine. Explained the sudden boost in power and such, too.

[Scow2]

That sounds like a great racial ability for some kind of playable Lycanthrope race, but if Human / Demihuman Fighters just start turning into Minotaurs or whatever at high levels I know I'm not the only one who'll put the book down and walk away from the table. It's very cool, just not very D&D.

I agree here. In 5e, characters who want to shapechange already have the option available - Use a scroll of the spell (Scrolls should be made to be more universal). Magic is a system, not a class feature. Some classes just happen to have access to the magic system as a class feature.

[Scowling Dragon]

What I don't see people talking about is the idea that players don't push invisible buttons. If the players have to jump into the unknown, they will tend to do it less often then those that already have a precedent.

What I mean is that I don't think the idea "They don't ask so I don't have to give a reason" doesn't exactly work that easily.

Players in 3e will ask less about making artifacts, combination ritual spells and the like and some of the more NPC processes, because there is no precendent for it either.

If players know all the buttons. they will be more confident in trying to try out something that they haven't tried before.

Making a Golem (This is a basic example) in 3e has simple (Though thats subjective) explained rules behind it.

A Wizard advancing a level could likely want to go down that path and start making Golems.

4e doesn't have a precedent for it. And thus players will naturally skip over the possibility of that option. Like when I got the 3rd party wizard guide for 4e where it pretty much ballparked the cost of the Golem too its XP then BOOM. I was immediately thinking of how I was going to maximize efficiency and use them as guardians or aid, or what I was going to do with my wizard tower.

But before It, the option was "there" but I was naturally inclined to go with what I knew.

Now I know this isn't true for all cases, but I think this is something worth noting.

[Scow2]

What I don't see people talking about is the idea that players don't push invisible buttons. If the players have to jump into the unknown, they will tend to do it less often then those that already have a precedent.

What I mean is that I don't think the idea "They don't ask so I don't have to give a reason" doesn't exactly work that easily.

Players in 3e will ask less about making artifacts, combination ritual spells and the like and some of the more NPC processes, because there is no precendent for it either.

If players know all the buttons. they will be more confident in trying to try out something that they haven't tried before.

Making a Golem (This is a basic example) in 3e has simple (Though thats subjective) explained rules behind it.

A Wizard advancing a level could likely want to go down that path and start making Golems.

4e doesn't have a precedent for it. And thus players will naturally skip over the possibility of that option. Like when I got the 3rd party wizard guide for 4e where it pretty much ballparked the cost of the Golem too its XP then BOOM. I was immediately thinking of how I was going to maximize efficiency and use them as guardians or aid, or what I was going to doo with my wizard tower.

But before It the option was "there" but I was naturally inclined to go with what I knew.

Now I know this isn't true for all cases, but I think this is something worth noting.

The flipside of this is Players not wanting to do something because they know it's resource-inefficient, or feel entitled to everything, resulting in trying to create stuff like Emperor Tippy's abomination of a universe.

[Scowling Dragon]

The flipside of this is Players not wanting to do something because they know it's resource-inefficient, or feel entitled to everything, resulting in trying to create stuff like Emperor Tippy's abomination of a universe.

True. But that will exist as long as one thing is better then another. Rules or no rules.

[Water_Bear]

I read something about five minutes ago[...]

Keep reading, ACK's system is absolutely gorgeous.


This strikes me as something I've seen touched on before, but only as a heuristic, and never examined. The trouble is, a variable system causes DM trust issues because of a lack of transparency. Every D&D system EVER is based on this lack of transparency. 3.X makes it much easier to guesstimate the other side of the screen, via concrete rules, but it also backfires; A PC can guess the target by way of NPCs having the same mechanics, but cannot possibly accurately guess which of the many, many mechanics fit this situation.

The idea of putting all the power in a player's hands by having them make most rolls seems like a sound one, but it directly leads to this issue of needing to know how mechanics fall. What are the down sides of having more throws and less rolss in D&D Next?

If D&D Next decided to go for a talent-focused rather than obstacle-focused mechanic, I at least wouldn't mind; if anything it would combine the consistency of 3e's flat DCs with the dubious advantages of bounded accuracy while still being genuinely "Iconic." Hopefully the simplicity would win 4e players over as well.

Though in general I'm not too hopeful that WotC will actually borrow anything of substance from any edition before they bought the game, and especially not rules from OSR games made with in d20. Though if they did decide to, ACK is absolutely the place to start looking.

-Edit-

I forgot to actually answer the question. :smallsigh:

I'd say the downsides are that it's not very complex and thus not as fun to fiddle with in character creation (from a 3e perspective) and it doesn't maintain the "sweet spot" of challenging DCs over time (from what I imagine a 4e perspective would be). Though they're easily fixed by adding more fiddly stuff in modules and adding new phases of play at higher levels which have their own distinct "sweet spots".

[Person_Man]

Of course not. There shouldn't even be a polymorph spell, except to change enemies into frogs and the like, and druid wildshape into a limited list of animal forms. We don't need that particular can of worms, thank you very much.

I wholeheartedly agree. But I also think that it's inevitable that similar problems will be replicated in D&D Next.

Here is my reasoning:


1) D&D Next is being written by a committee of writers, and will have hundreds of supplements written by numerous freelance authors.

2) When it comes to the class design, there is not a specific set of roles, structure, or balance between the levels of the various abilities, spells, powers, etc that they have. Each class can basically do it's own thing.

3) WotC has a history of poor editing. There isn't any one person standing guard at the gate, making sure that everything that gets through meets a certain design philosophy or set of quality control checks.

4) When it has created poorly written or unbalanced rules in the past, WotC has hand waved them away by saying that players will basically ignore/avoid/route around such rules like nuclear weapons (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060519a).

So based on the above, I am fairly certain that something akin to Polymorph (fun, open ended, but terribly game breaking) will be included in D&D Next.

[obryn]

Keep reading, ACK's system is absolutely gorgeous.
You know, ACKs is one of the few games I can think of that wins nearly universal acclaim from both the oldschool and newschool crowd. (At least that I've seen.) I really need to check it out.

-O

[Tholomyes]

It seems to me that the more this gets argued, the less gets actually settled, so here's an idea, and I want to gauge peoples' reactions to it from both camps.

Since Next is supposed to be "modular" (a design philosophy I don't agree with, but one I can't really do anything about), how about having the DMG allow for both, without making either one the default option. Essentially, they could have a chapter on building NPCs like PCs, and follow it with a chapter that gives guidelines for building monsters of X CR by just going through a formula of what type of monster it should be (front line, skirmisher, caster, ect), and choosing from a range for its AC, Saves, Attack bonuses, Damage, ect. As such, the People who liked 3.x's design philosophy get rules for them, but it doesn't require people who want to go for the 4e school of monster design to have to re-engineer their own tables and charts for damage, AC, saves, ect, if they want to make monsters separate from the PCs' toolbox.

[NoldorForce]

One thing I've been wondering in this PC-NPC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_%3D_NP_problem) debate is of the implications to the class-based structure. See, I'd wager that most here would, if asked, prefer that characters are members of one class or another. (At least within the metagame if nothing else.) But with sufficient selection for options (as the PC=NPC seems to be looking for, ultimately) we're moving more towards a point-buy system - but a really alien one at that. If you dive through the math enough you can find, for instance, that 3E was more point-buy than class-based; the purchasing "system" was just weird and circuitous. And if you're pushing towards point-buy then it's best to go whole-hog, making the cost structure into a transparent and malleable framework rather than practicing self-delusion and in the process screwing up the math.

The other thing is that if you're going to allow NPC abilities to be potential PC options, you'll need to balance them from the start. (Polymorph was mentioned above as a cautionary example of what happens when such aren't balanced.) One of the benefits of a true class-based system (which most editions excepting 3E have been) is that you can silo abilities within their own containers without having to deal with many of the complexity issues of allowing their combination. Some abilities may be appropriate for NPCs only, not for PCs. (Retributive damage and extra actions, for instance.) An NPC only lasts an encounter (or few); a PC lasts potentially for the whole campaign. If you're allowing for PC=NPC you will have to establish guidelines on what's appropriate and what's not, potentially limiting the crafting freedom of GMs.

Ultimately I'm not saying that PC=NPC is a bad way to go. But if you design the system based around it (Mearls et al. don't seem to have any consistent design assumptions besides "let's make it like our hazy memories say it was" :smallannoyed:) you'll need to work through all of the implications involved - and those implications ain't small.

[Tholomyes]

You know, ACKs is one of the few games I can think of that wins nearly universal acclaim from both the oldschool and newschool crowd. (At least that I've seen.) I really need to check it out.

-O

Personally I'm not a big fan. It's a Retro Clone, with a bit more modern design thrown in than most retroclones, but I still don't find it all that enjoyable. It's my favorite of the Retroclones that I have played, but there are still many other systems I would play ahead of it.

[Scowling Dragon]

Im with Tholomyes. Except its a retroclone I like less the Myths and Monsters.

The stupid 5 saves. Internal rolling system, level limits, the dumb focus on ability scores (Oh sure, don't worry about your ability scores. But your pal with High STR will be advancing MUCH faster then you.), referral to other races as "Demi Humans" (I feel dirty even saying that. And thats fantasy!).

And a even WORSE alighnment system then the Nine choices. Its as banal and simple as Chaos VS law. And not in the "Freedom VS Stability" way. Its even more basic "Hateful monsters VS Awesome lawgivers".

The focus on character progression is a good idea, but I am baffled as why they decided to attach this idea to the system MOST ingrained in "Go into dungeon. Kill stuff".

[theNater]

Don't be silly, if you assume a bad DM then none of the other suggestions here are going to work either.
There are levels of quality aside from just good and bad, and what we're talking about here isn't really overall DM quality anyway, but DM system mastery.

The basic question, then, is "how much system mastery should the DM need before being able to make up new powers for NPCs?". Requiring that the ability be available to PCs massively increases the system mastery required, because the ability has to fit in within the full system. Letting it be an NPC only thing means the DM only has to fit it within this encounter, where it interacts with a much smaller portion of the system.

[1337 b4k4]

The idea of putting all the power in a player's hands by having them make most rolls seems like a sound one, but it directly leads to this issue of needing to know how mechanics fall. What are the down sides of having more throws and less rolss in D&D Next?

Well the biggest downside is that you lose information asymmetry with regards to your characters success or failure at "uncertain" tasks. That is, jumping over a cliff, it's fine that the player knows the DC for that is since failure is obvious, but eavesdropping or searching for something? Sure people can and do make good distinctions between player and character knowledge, but I'd just as rather not give the players the opportunity to kno whey failed that roll rather than rely on keeping the knowledge separate. Not because I don't trust my players, but for the same reason that I make random rolls behind the screen for no reason, because I don't want to telegraph things. As a player, I enjoy information asymmetry, and I enjoy not knowing if everything I "know" is true or not. As you point out this means you have to trust your DM but frankly, I don't see why you should ever play a game with someone you don't trust anyway. The way I look at it, if you can't trust your DM to pick a fair DC, you can't trust them to fit fair with the monsters either.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I'm starting to be of the opinion that if it's a task the players shouldn't know whether they succeeded or not, then the character's stats shouldn't affect the roll.

[Scow2]

I'm starting to be of the opinion that if it's a task the players shouldn't know whether they succeeded or not, then the character's stats shouldn't affect the roll.Whoa, what? Why not? If it's to hide the relevent modifier, why? If it's to keep them from knowing whether they've succeeded or not - a bad roll is a bad roll, especially when you take the modifiers out.

[noparlpf]

I'm starting to be of the opinion that if it's a task the players shouldn't know whether they succeeded or not, then the character's stats shouldn't affect the roll.

Care to explain? I'm pretty sure the characters' stats are the thing that determines whether they succeed, regardless. Do my Int bonus and Knowledge skills not apply to my P-Chem exams just because the professor never returns grades? (Well, they don't, but for other reasons, like "what the hell is a determinant anyway" or "we never learned this ****".)

[navar100]

It's not a crime against gamedom for players to know, Honest True, whether their character succeeded or failed at something. PCs are permitted to know things.

[Seerow]

It's not a crime against gamedom for players to know, Honest True, whether their character succeeded or failed at something. PCs are permitted to know things.

It's not a crime, but honestly I prefer it as a player when things like search/spot checks are secret.

[Oracle_Hunter]

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.
Poor Ben Lehman. He may design some excellent games, but that is just an awful article.

Not because he's wrong, but because he buries the whole point of the damn thing in the very end:
"More playtest does not magically make your game better. Neither does it fix most problems that your game might have. It is not a replacement for skilled writing, a creative and technical vision, editing, inspiration, or game design work. It is a very specific tool for finding very specific problems, and attempts to use it beyond that are detrimental both to your own game design and to design culture in general."

* * *

"Playtesting is necessary for revealing problems with the parts of your game where the mechanics and processes of your game interface with the players at the table, and most particularly with their imaginations and social interactions (this is a broad definition of "mechanics and processes:" including such things as who speaks when, the game's setting, character-player relationships, and so on.) It is only useful for revealing problems, not resolving them, for the reasons noted above. It is useful for the parts of the game that rely on imagination and social interaction because these are the two things which you can't account for procedurally, and so problems there are invisible to your individual testing and calculation.

I should add a word about fun here. Included in this is whether or not the game is any fun (or, as I prefer to think of it, satisfying). For role-playing games, satisfaction is an emergent social property: we like what the game is doing to our imaginations and social interactions. There is, of course, a taste element to this, and because of this you should keep in mind the social context of your design and your target audience, just as you should throughout the whole design process. But there's also a lot that isn't a taste thing. Many games, particularly those in development, simply do not have that spark of satisfaction, and playtesting is required to reveal that."
Ben is absolutely right that Playtesting does not fix things in your game -- it can only reveal problems. Personally, I think he's wrong that Playtesting won't reveal Rules Holes: Players sitting down to game will probably want to do something you didn't think about. This is as true as a game designer as it is as a DM.

Of course (and apologies to SiuiS for mentioning it) I'm nowhere near as experienced a game designer as Ben is so I cannot say for sure whether the "culture" of playtesting is as bad as he says. However, I can say Ben is spot-on with the issues involved in 5e's "playtest" -- Mike Mearls is using a lazy playtest to build his game from scratch.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Care to explain? I'm pretty sure the characters' stats are the thing that determines whether they succeed, regardless. Do my Int bonus and Knowledge skills not apply to my P-Chem exams just because the professor never returns grades? (Well, they don't, but for other reasons, like "what the hell is a determinant anyway" or "we never learned this ****".)

Let's say you're interrogating a witness to a crime. You roll an Interrogate check to try to get the witness to give you the truth about something, and the DM tells you what the character says but not whether you succeeded at the check or not. Can you trust the answer? Having the DM roll this with no modifier from the player means the player can go by neither the dice result nor their character sheet for an answer: They have to critically evaluate the information they're given.

[1337 b4k4]

It's not a crime against gamedom for players to know, Honest True, whether their character succeeded or failed at something. PCs are permitted to know things.

And not every attempt by the DM to trick, mislead or keep information from the players is a sadistic pleasure grab for the DM intent on lording him or herself over your mere PC status. Have you never played with a DM you trust?

[noparlpf]

Let's say you're interrogating a witness to a crime. You roll an Interrogate check to try to get the witness to give you the truth about something, and the DM tells you what the character says but not whether you succeeded at the check or not. Can you trust the answer? Having the DM roll this with no modifier from the player means the player can go by neither the dice result nor their character sheet for an answer: They have to critically evaluate the information they're given.

Your modifier definitely affects it, though, and your character's confidence (or overconfidence) in their skills of persuasion should affect their judgement just like they would any real person.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Let's say you're interrogating a witness to a crime. You roll an Interrogate check to try to get the witness to give you the truth about something, and the DM tells you what the character says but not whether you succeeded at the check or not. Can you trust the answer? Having the DM roll this with no modifier from the player means the player can go by neither the dice result nor their character sheet for an answer: They have to critically evaluate the information they're given.
Then why on earth did I put skill points into Interrogate? Or Persuasion, or Sense Motive, or Insight, whatever skill might be relevant here? I'm all for secret checks in this kind of situation; they make total sense when the result of your check isn't immediately obvious. You still have to critically evaluate the information, because you don't know if the DM rolled well or not, but part of that evaluation can be "Well, my character is pretty good at reading people." I don't see how ignoring the character's capabilities is at all conductive to good play here.

[navar100]

And not every attempt by the DM to trick, mislead or keep information from the players is a sadistic pleasure grab for the DM intent on lording him or herself over your mere PC status. Have you never played with a DM you trust?

I trust my DM. Not in this thread, I don't trust the attitude I've seen in other threads of DM gloating. To be fair, I'm not particularly keen on the current thread asking players how they got their DM's goat either.

[noparlpf]

Then why on earth did I put skill points into Interrogate? Or Persuasion, or Sense Motive, or Insight, whatever skill might be relevant here? I'm all for secret checks in this kind of situation; they make total sense when the result of your check isn't immediately obvious. You still have to critically evaluate the information, because you don't know if the DM rolled well or not, but part of that evaluation can be "Well, my character is pretty good at reading people." I don't see how ignoring the character's capabilities is at all conductive to good play here.

Oh yeah, and you can combine your roll with a Sense Motive type skill roll to see if you can tell whether they're being honest.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Then why on earth did I put skill points into Interrogate? Or Persuasion, or Sense Motive, or Insight, whatever skill might be relevant here? I'm all for secret checks in this kind of situation; they make total sense when the result of your check isn't immediately obvious.

The idea is that this method also gets rid of the relevant skill from the character sheet as well. There'd be no Interrogate skill to invest in, the "does the NPC lie?" would be a subsystem solely on the DM's side.


You still have to critically evaluate the information, because you don't know if the DM rolled well or not, but part of that evaluation can be "Well, my character is pretty good at reading people."

This is exactly the kind of information I don't want to go into the player's evaluation. It brings you back into the primary world, leaving you looking at the little abortive secondary world of the game from the outside.

[tasw]

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...

D. Mearls and co. hope all chatter about gaming and ideas will get both stir up some unhappiness or boredom with the 3X engine after all these years and make them start thinking about, and talking about D&D rather then pathfinder.

Its a ra, ra marketing campaign.

[Grod_The_Giant]

This is exactly the kind of information I don't want to go into the player's evaluation. It brings you back into the primary world, leaving you looking at the little abortive secondary world of the game from the outside.
On the contrary, I'd argue that by forcing me to rely solely on my own, personal abilities, you're introducing a major disconnect between who I'm pretending to be and who I really am. I have to use more and more metagame information and reasoning to progress, because my in-game tools are being taken away.

[tasw]

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

I DM'd 4e too and this is simply false. You still have to write the actual powers and decide the nuts and bolts of them.

even in 4e you cant write "super sword guy who can challenge the whole party, solo" down on a piece of paper and be done. Your absolutely still deciding what that actually means, how challanging he should be, which powers will do that and then what you want their nuts and bolts to be.

Your absolutely still reverse engineering your encounters.

[noparlpf]

The idea is that this method also gets rid of the relevant skill from the character sheet as well. There'd be no Interrogate skill to invest in, the "does the NPC lie?" would be a subsystem solely on the DM's side.

So what you're saying is everybody ever is equally good at coercion, lying, torture, &c., anything that might be involved in interrogation, and at interpreting whether others are lying or not? Or what you're saying is that all social interactions in the game should be based solely on roleplaying, in a group of people not known for their social skills? (No offense guys, but that's the stereotype. Though I am kind of upholding it by stating that bluntly. Hmm.)


This is exactly the kind of information I don't want to go into the player's evaluation. It brings you back into the primary world, leaving you looking at the little abortive secondary world of the game from the outside.

Alternatively, the character knows their training in interrogation, knows they read people well, and is fairly certain they did in fact get useful information. The numbers are just a metagame abstraction, yes, but saying characters shouldn't know roughly how skilled they are is like saying characters shouldn't know that they can cast spells instead of using a sword or bow.

[Draz74]

On the PC/NPC rules-symmetry debate, a question for Obryn and others who feel like symmetric rules create unnecessary work for DMs:

How do you feel about the setup Legend uses, where the PC/NPC rules are symmetric by default, but a skeleton of basic stats is presented in a quick-reference table for speedy creation of NPCs when necessary? Then a spectrum of special abilities, from "none" to "as many as a PC" can be tacked on, as desired?

[navar100]

The idea is that this method also gets rid of the relevant skill from the character sheet as well. There'd be no Interrogate skill to invest in, the "does the NPC lie?" would be a subsystem solely on the DM's side.



This is exactly the kind of information I don't want to go into the player's evaluation. It brings you back into the primary world, leaving you looking at the little abortive secondary world of the game from the outside.

Since I can never know anything I can't trust anything. I don't bother asking questions at all. Just point me in the direction of the bad guy, and I go smashing. No need to think. The DM is uber. The players are merely peons who must remain ignorant.

[noparlpf]

Since I can never know anything I can't trust anything. I don't bother asking questions at all. Just point me in the direction of the bad guy, and I go smashing. No need to think. The DM is uber. The players are merely peons who must remain ignorant.


But how do you know who the bad guy is? Maybe they're lying about being the bad guy. You can never know. Clearly you should just kill everything.

[Ashdate]

I find it interesting that people are mocking the idea of not having skills such as Sense Motive and Intimidate, even though such things didn't even exist in D&D before 3e.

I guess all those people who insist 2e wasn't a dungeon hack simulation were wrong!

[Tholomyes]

I find it interesting that people are mocking the idea of not having skills such as Sense Motive and Intimidate, even though such things didn't even exist in D&D before 3e.

I guess all those people who insist 2e wasn't a dungeon hack simulation were wrong!There are plenty of Retroclones, which can simulate the AD&D and BEMCI type games. This thread is about DDN. DDN does not need to become another retroclone.

[Water_Bear]

There are plenty of Retroclones, which can simulate the AD&D and [BECMI] type games. This thread is about DDN. DDN does not need to become another retroclone.

It's stated goal is to unify the fanbase and provide Iconic play; if it wants to achieve either of those there's going to have to be some Old School elements. So in that sense, yes it does in fact need to become a retroclone (at least a bit).

[obryn]

I DM'd 4e too and this is simply false. You still have to write the actual powers and decide the nuts and bolts of them.

even in 4e you cant write "super sword guy who can challenge the whole party, solo" down on a piece of paper and be done. Your absolutely still deciding what that actually means, how challanging he should be, which powers will do that and then what you want their nuts and bolts to be.

Your absolutely still reverse engineering your encounters.
No, there's no "reverse" about it. It's straight up and straightforward engineering. Of course there's decisions to be made; that's how you make something interesting. And of course your skill level with the system and familiarity makes a difference. See my example of the Templars of Dregoth a few posts back.

The difference is that I'm not building them from a collection of stats, hit dice, BAB, saves, spell-like abilities, natural armor fudge factors, etc.

If I want my swordy guy to dance around and stab things, I give him something like (completely off the top of my head), "Dance of the Crane. Standard Action. Effect: swordy guy shifts up to his speed and makes up to 3 basic attacks at any point during this movement. If he ends his movement at least 4 squares from where he started, he gains a +2 to all defenses until the end of his next turn." Poof - he can flit around the battlefield stabbing at stuff and finish his turn in a defensive stance. What's more, it provides tactics and countermeasures - clearly, Slowing or Immobilizing him will be important. Even better, stick your Fighter next to him and make him pay for the flightiness.

I engineered it. I didn't reverse-engineer it. I didn't need to figure out what specific combination of class abilities, feats, and magic items would allow this to happen. There's nuts and bolts only in the most abstract sense of the term, and none of them are similar to the PCs' toolbox.

And yes, this is absolutely easier with experience. But even after 8 years of 3.x, it was never, ever this slick and efficient. Nor did it provide results that were nearly as satisfactory.


On the PC/NPC rules-symmetry debate, a question for Obryn and others who feel like symmetric rules create unnecessary work for DMs:

How do you feel about the setup Legend uses, where the PC/NPC rules are symmetric by default, but a skeleton of basic stats is presented in a quick-reference table for speedy creation of NPCs when necessary? Then a spectrum of special abilities, from "none" to "as many as a PC" can be tacked on, as desired?
I'm sadly unfamiliar with Legend. :smallsmile: The main keys are (1) does this actually work to provide a reasonable challenge rather than simply a reasonable NPC, and (2) for those "special things", am I drawing from the same pool as the players?

I mean otherwise, a "skeleton of stats" more or less describes 4e monster creation. After you pick Level and Role, the rest of the stats fall into place more or less by formula, leaving you with some minor tweaking to make them fit the fiction and coming up with 2-5 flavorful traits or powers.

-O

[navar100]

I find it interesting that people are mocking the idea of not having skills such as Sense Motive and Intimidate, even though such things didn't even exist in D&D before 3e.

I guess all those people who insist 2e wasn't a dungeon hack simulation were wrong!

It's mocking the notion that players should not know something for certain.

[TheOOB]

No, there's no "reverse" about it. It's straight up and straightforward engineering. Of course there's decisions to be made; that's how you make something interesting. And of course your skill level with the system and familiarity makes a difference. See my example of the Templars of Dregoth a few posts back.

The difference is that I'm not building them from a collection of stats, hit dice, BAB, saves, spell-like abilities, natural armor fudge factors, etc.

If I want my swordy guy to dance around and stab things, I give him something like (completely off the top of my head), "Dance of the Crane. Standard Action. Effect: swordy guy shifts up to his speed and makes up to 3 basic attacks at any point during this movement. If he ends his movement at least 4 squares from where he started, he gains a +2 to all defenses until the end of his next turn." Poof - he can flit around the battlefield stabbing at stuff and finish his turn in a defensive stance. What's more, it provides tactics and countermeasures - clearly, Slowing or Immobilizing him will be important. Even better, stick your Fighter next to him and make him pay for the flightiness.

I engineered it. I didn't reverse-engineer it. I didn't need to figure out what specific combination of class abilities, feats, and magic items would allow this to happen. There's nuts and bolts only in the most abstract sense of the term, and none of them are similar to the PCs' toolbox.

And yes, this is absolutely easier with experience. But even after 8 years of 3.x, it was never, ever this slick and efficient. Nor did it provide results that were nearly as satisfactory.


I'm sadly unfamiliar with Legend. :smallsmile: The main keys are (1) does this actually work to provide a reasonable challenge rather than simply a reasonable NPC, and (2) for those "special things", am I drawing from the same pool as the players?

I mean otherwise, a "skeleton of stats" more or less describes 4e monster creation. After you pick Level and Role, the rest of the stats fall into place more or less by formula, leaving you with some minor tweaking to make them fit the fiction and coming up with 2-5 flavorful traits or powers.

-O

And yet there is still no reason you couldn't make a 3.5 NPC with that same ability. Monsters have special and unique abilities all the time, just because the NPC is a humanoid doesn't mean they can't have unique abilities.

[Kornaki]

And yet there is still no reason you couldn't make a 3.5 NPC with that same ability. Monsters have special and unique abilities all the time, just because the NPC is a humanoid doesn't mean they can't have unique abilities.

There are people in this thread arguing that if the NPC humanoid got that ability, it must be available to the PCs as long as they meet the prerequisites for it

[DeltaEmil]

There are people in this thread arguing that if the NPC humanoid got that ability, it must be available to the PCs as long as they meet the prerequisites for itYeah, which then means that you have to make up the ability score requirements, possibly other feat prerequisite, a necessary Base Attack Bonus prerequisite, or even worse, create a prestige class for it if the ability is obviously too powerful in the hands of players. *

Suddenly, a GM has to be forced into becoming a game developer. A GM should never be forced to do that.

In D&D 3.x, it seems that you must justify your every action and rulings as a GM.
And that's a terrible attitude that should be done away in any future D&D-edition.

*Woe befalls the GM who makes this a racial ability in an effort to not let the players get it, and then the players get it anyway by polymorphing into that creature.

[Draz74]

Keep reading, ACK's system is absolutely gorgeous.
I gotta say, I do like the part that was quoted. It may in fact be a superior mechanic to the way either 3e or 4e do things.

Although I don't know how complete ACK is if, for some reason, the DM wants to roll the dice to determine whether an NPC succeeds at sneaking past the PCs (for example) rather than making a fiat decision.


I'm sadly unfamiliar with Legend. :smallsmile: The main keys are (1) does this actually work to provide a reasonable challenge rather than simply a reasonable NPC,
Yes, from what I've heard.


and (2) for those "special things", am I drawing from the same pool as the players?
Yes, which is why it's different from the 4e method (er, other than the fact that 4e doesn't really present "build the monsters the same way you would build a PC" as an option).

Although as a caveat, I should mention that there are plenty of abilities ("available" to the PCs) in Legend that more conservative GMs would probably just ban for non-monsters. The default assumption in Legend is of a fairly gonzo setting where mortals, celestials, undead, eldritch horrors, etc. can mingle in a rather cosmopolitan fashion. Obviously this makes it more reasonable for NPCs to draw from the same pool than it would be otherwise.

[SiuiS]

Keep reading, ACK's system is absolutely gorgeous.

The lack of negative feedback is starting to freak me out!


I'd say the downsides are that it's not very complex and thus not as fun to fiddle with in character creation (from a 3e perspective) and it doesn't maintain the "sweet spot" of challenging DCs over time (from what I imagine a 4e perspective would be). Though they're easily fixed by adding more fiddly stuff in modules and adding new phases of play at higher levels which have their own distinct "sweet spots".

Hmm. I am not sure. Thac0 was an attack throw, essentially, and was all kinds of fiddly.

But yes. I am having trouble mentally applying it to next.


It seems to me that the more this gets argued, the less gets actually settled, so here's an idea, and I want to gauge peoples' reactions to it from both camps.

I believe everyone has already said that a modular approach which includes both is fine, now they're just arguing echo chamber technicalities because its something to do.

I'd like to get a mid-high leek playtest going, myself, somewhere online so we can actually observe these things instead of just bantering them though.


Personally I'm not a big fan. It's a Retro Clone, with a bit more modern design thrown in than most retroclones, but I still don't find it all that enjoyable. It's my favorite of the Retroclones that I have played, but there are still many other systems I would play ahead of it.


Im with Tholomyes. Except its a retroclone I like less the Myths and Monsters.

The stupid 5 saves. Internal rolling system, level limits, the dumb focus on ability scores (Oh sure, don't worry about your ability scores. But your pal with High STR will be advancing MUCH faster then you.), referral to other races as "Demi Humans" (I feel dirty even saying that. And thats fantasy!).

And a even WORSE alighnment system then the Nine choices. Its as banal and simple as Chaos VS law. And not in the "Freedom VS Stability" way. Its even more basic "Hateful monsters VS Awesome lawgivers".

The focus on character progression is a good idea, but I am baffled as why they decided to attach this idea to the system MOST ingrained in "Go into dungeon. Kill stuff".

Interesting. Would either of you be willing to give me mechanical break downs of your complaints? I even have a thread for such already. I would appreciate it, and it would be a break from all this silly 5e ranting.


I'm starting to be of the opinion that if it's a task the players shouldn't know whether they succeeded or not, then the character's stats shouldn't affect the roll.

I prefer the DM rolls method, myself, and just having a cheat sheet of player bonuses/penalties. I can't see this really working as anything but a neglected subsystem.


Care to explain? I'm pretty sure the characters' stats are the thing that determines whether they succeed, regardless. Do my Int bonus and Knowledge skills not apply to my P-Chem exams just because the professor never returns grades? (Well, they don't, but for other reasons, like "what the hell is a determinant anyway" or "we never learned this ****".)

Ah, no. See, for rolls where your attributes matter you wouldn't use this. It would be an entire system revamp, not a small tweak. A build from ground up thing.


Poor Ben Lehman. He may design some excellent games, but that is just an awful article.

Not because he's wrong, but because he buries the whole point of the damn thing in the very end:
"More playtest does not magically make your game better. Neither does it fix most problems that your game might have. It is not a replacement for skilled writing, a creative and technical vision, editing, inspiration, or game design work. It is a very specific tool for finding very specific problems, and attempts to use it beyond that are detrimental both to your own game design and to design culture in general."

* * *

"Playtesting is necessary for revealing problems with the parts of your game where the mechanics and processes of your game interface with the players at the table, and most particularly with their imaginations and social interactions (this is a broad definition of "mechanics and processes:" including such things as who speaks when, the game's setting, character-player relationships, and so on.) It is only useful for revealing problems, not resolving them, for the reasons noted above. It is useful for the parts of the game that rely on imagination and social interaction because these are the two things which you can't account for procedurally, and so problems there are invisible to your individual testing and calculation.

I should add a word about fun here. Included in this is whether or not the game is any fun (or, as I prefer to think of it, satisfying). For role-playing games, satisfaction is an emergent social property: we like what the game is doing to our imaginations and social interactions. There is, of course, a taste element to this, and because of this you should keep in mind the social context of your design and your target audience, just as you should throughout the whole design process. But there's also a lot that isn't a taste thing. Many games, particularly those in development, simply do not have that spark of satisfaction, and playtesting is required to reveal that."
Ben is absolutely right that Playtesting does not fix things in your game -- it can only reveal problems. Personally, I think he's wrong that Playtesting won't reveal Rules Holes: Players sitting down to game will probably want to do something you didn't think about. This is as true as a game designer as it is as a DM.

Aye. From this angle, Next is atrocious. All playtest has revealed is aggravation at the company. We have no idea what works and what doesn't, or worse – the designers do have an end product they want and acclaim has been negative. But they are trying to salvage that end product, piecemeal.


apologies to SiuiS for mentioning it.

So long as its not used as a point in an argument, it's fine. It's even relevant, here.


I trust my DM. Not in this thread, I don't trust the attitude I've seen in other threads of DM gloating. To be fair, I'm not particularly keen on the current thread asking players how they got their DM's goat either.

Aye. The antagonistic nature involved is terrible. I just don't play with DMs I can't trust, nowadays.


But how do you know who the bad guy is? Maybe they're lying about being the bad guy. You can never know. Clearly you should just kill everything.

Saved for my next war hulk.


I gotta say, I do like the part that was quoted. It may in fact be a superior mechanic to the way either 3e or 4e do things.

Although I don't know how complete ACK is if, for some reason, the DM wants to roll the dice to determine whether an NPC succeeds at sneaking past the PCs (for example) rather than making a fiat decision.

From the looks of it, the DM wouldn't. Ever. Players have a listening throw, possibly penalized. No dice on the DM's side for that.

Just surmise, though.

[Tehnar]

ACK throw mechanic: It's not bad, just for certain situations you lose out on some amount of tension. Not knowing the exact DC, or AC brings a certain amount of to the table, forcing players to make tough decisions.

I do like that they are shifting more rolls to the players.

Building NPC's as PC's:

Now I agree that building certain NPC/monsters from scratch with the 3.x ruleset was slow and was not guaranteed to produce usable NPCs/Monsters.

What it did is produce NPCs/monsters that felt and acted in a organic fashion. They had strengths and weaknesses in accord with their type (class) and the players felt that.

On the other hand creating NPCs/monster out of thin air (using 4e guidelines) left me with NPCs/monsters feeling like they were "bags of numbers". Without any personality, background; they just felt they existed only for the PC's to defeat.

Granted monsters from various 4e monster manuals felt the same way, so not all fault lies on the user created NPC's.



What I would like from a RPG system (not 5E, because I think all hope is lost there) is to keep PC / NPC symmetry while keeping the NPC/monster generation streamlined and quick while keeping them feeling organic.

[SiuiS]

Building NPC's as PC's:

Now I agree that building certain NPC/monsters from scratch with the 3.x ruleset was slow and was not guaranteed to produce usable NPCs/Monsters.

What it did is produce NPCs/monsters that felt and acted in a organic fashion. They had strengths and weaknesses in accord with their type (class) and the players felt that.

On the other hand creating NPCs/monster out of thin air (using 4e guidelines) left me with NPCs/monsters feeling like they were "bags of numbers". Without any personality, background; they just felt they existed only for the PC's to defeat.

Granted monsters from various 4e monster manuals felt the same way, so not all fault lies on the user created NPC's.



What I would like from a RPG system (not 5E, because I think all hope is lost there) is to keep PC / NPC symmetry while keeping the NPC/monster generation streamlined and quick while keeping them feeling organic.

That's because they literally were just bag or numbers to be thrown at PCs, actually. Kind of discongruous actually. That's one upswing of the PC monster, or at least a broad skill system; it created a sense of ecology.

Speaking of skills, another thing from my net trawling. (http://poleandrope.blogspot.com/2009/03/skill-less-skill-system.html?m=1) it's fundamentally what Next was going for, only in true old school fashion it is actually a skill throw, not a roll. You roll a d20 and try to get under your attribute, or half your attribute if you're poorly trained. Seems legit.

Makes me wonder, actually; would changing skills from a roll to a throw work for skills? An untrained character makes an attribute roll against a DC, where a trained character makes an attribute throw and suffers a penalty for difficulty (ranging from -1 to -5) make sense? It clearly indicates that one mechanic is superior to the other, for example, by providing a rather static target number, an completely shifts the odds of success into a different progression altogether. Suddenly, a trained character at high level cannot Flo but succeed, because their targe number is 20 or less on a 1-20 scale, which means hey beat an epic challenge in their trained skill on a 15.

[Conundrum]

Building NPC's as PC's:

Now I agree that building certain NPC/monsters from scratch with the 3.x ruleset was slow and was not guaranteed to produce usable NPCs/Monsters.

What it did is produce NPCs/monsters that felt and acted in a organic fashion. They had strengths and weaknesses in accord with their type (class) and the players felt that.

On the other hand creating NPCs/monster out of thin air (using 4e guidelines) left me with NPCs/monsters feeling like they were "bags of numbers". Without any personality, background; they just felt they existed only for the PC's to defeat.

Granted monsters from various 4e monster manuals felt the same way, so not all fault lies on the user created NPC's.


That's because they literally were just bag or numbers to be thrown at PCs, actually. Kind of discongruous actually. That's one upswing of the PC monster, or at least a broad skill system; it created a sense of ecology.

I dunno, I feel like the onus for that falls on the DM. If you come up with a bunch of related monsters, make sure they share some skills (like a Hyena's Pack Hunter) and have a consistent feel to their tactics and powers. Also, try to have some flavour that explains their place in the world. It shouldn't all be dependant on mechanics.

Similarly, 4e monsters tend to have strengths and weaknesses based on their role, instead of their "type". So a Skirmisher is strong at hit-and-run combat, but if you can take that advantage away from them by slowing or immobilizing, then they're relatively weak.

4e monsters don't have to just be "bags of numbers to be thrown at PCs", even though they CAN be made that way.


What I would like from a RPG system (not 5E, because I think all hope is lost there) is to keep PC / NPC symmetry while keeping the NPC/monster generation streamlined and quick while keeping them feeling organic.

Heh, I think you could get that... but you'd have to make PC creation simple and quick, too - which usually involves removing options. It's a valid goal, and could work for some games, but I don't think many people would call it D&D. Players would complain about a lack of depth.

[neonchameleon]

What it did is produce NPCs/monsters that felt and acted in a organic fashion. They had strengths and weaknesses in accord with their type (class) and the players felt that.

On the other hand creating NPCs/monster out of thin air (using 4e guidelines) left me with NPCs/monsters feeling like they were "bags of numbers". Without any personality, background; they just felt they existed only for the PC's to defeat.

Granted monsters from various 4e monster manuals felt the same way, so not all fault lies on the user created NPC's.

I couldn't disagree more.

To me, monsters before 4e all felt almost exactly the same. If they were a spellcaster, they were only different from others of their type in the way Star Trek passes off aliens with different prosthetic foreheads as different species. The only major difference was which spells they had prepared that day. And if they weren't spellcasters? Kobolds and Goblins felt identical - and the only substantive difference between a kobold and an orc was the number they added to a dice. So I couldn't tell without directly being told whether something was a kobold rolling well or an orc rolling badly.

In 4e the monsters are genuinely different from each other and there's more personality in 4e monster statblocks than there is in the entire fluff text of 2e (with 3e not coming close to matching 2e for fluff). An orc storm shaman is emphatically not a goblin hexer with different spells selected and a couple of minor bonusses.

First, there's a genuine difference between non-combatants given swords (minions) and trained warriors. It's not just adding +2 to hit and a couple of hit dice. And possibly a point or two of damage. (And seriously, what is with the 3e Warrior (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/warrior.htm) class? The Commoner (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/commoner.htm) makes a better watchman or militia member; they actually have class skills that are useful in their day job).

Second, there's more difference between a 4e goblin and kobold than there is between a kobold and an orc in previous editions. 4e kobolds are really slippery bastards who get a free 5ft step (OK, a 1 square shift as a minor action) every turn. Goblins get to jump back as a reaction - cowardly runts. Both slippery in their own way - but kobolds are just going to dart around you. Orcs on the other hand are really tough bastards who get one final swing before they die. Really adds to the feel in the way an extra racial hit dice in humanoid and a +2 in something doesn't.]

Thirdly, 4e monsters specialise. If you give a pre-4e orc a bow he will be just as good at shooting as any other orc with a bow. I know it's the way PCs also work, but neither are particularly realistic or give you an incentive towards tactics. Especially as the last thing you want your orc archer to do is drop his bow and draw a falchion - and use strength rather than dexterity to hit. A 4e orc archer on the other hand is a genuine specialist with a bow, both hitting hard and specialising in turning the air black with arrows. And more to the point an orc archer does about 50% more damage with their bow than they do in melee. The tactics feel organic, and the reason that orc uses a bow rather than a greatsword is obvious. I have an archer. Who does best being an archer and gets beaten up in melee despite being an orc - but is still big and tough as an orc.

3e monsters feel identikit to me. "That one's a barbarian. That one's a fighter. Those dozen are warriors, almost equally good with every weapon. That one's a wizard. Let's give him spell list C." (1e monsters feel like deliberate obstacles, and for a very good reason). You are never going to get monsters that look and feel organic if you start with the mechanics.

4e, on the other hand, the mechanics are the last thing to fill out. I start when designing monsters with the organic part. The fluff. I then give it abilities to do exactly what my visualisation says it should be able to. The mechanics aren't a straightjacket I need to fight. They are a highly flexible representation, and literally the only thing they constrain are the numbers. If I want a living fire who sets the ground alight with tiny minion fires wherever he passes I can do exactly that (and in the past I have). And if my fluff isn't organic then the problem isn't with the mechanics. Prescriptive mechanics are never going to be as organic as descriptive ones.

That said, MM1 contains some terrible monsters including the MM1 Hydra, and Purple Worm that were put in as filler and the Wraith and Dracolich that were clearly not playtested. Fortunately some of the worst including all the above (for example Purple Worm (https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20101105b)) were fixed in Monster Vault.

[obryn]

And yet there is still no reason you couldn't make a 3.5 NPC with that same ability. Monsters have special and unique abilities all the time, just because the NPC is a humanoid doesn't mean they can't have unique abilities.
As Kornaki pointed out, you're making a much different argument than the posters I was discussing this with. Generally, the consensus is that, in 3.x, there must be some kind of game-currency token (feat, class level, etc.) spent on an ability like that.


On the other hand creating NPCs/monster out of thin air (using 4e guidelines) left me with NPCs/monsters feeling like they were "bags of numbers". Without any personality, background; they just felt they existed only for the PC's to defeat.
I don't get that sense even a little bit. What I end up with is a monster (or hostile NPC) that plays on the table exactly like they're characterized.

I can't see that building up monsters from a few levels of Giant then calculating their BAB, saves, ability scores (modified for size!), AC (modified for size!), weapon damage (modified for size!), final attack rolls (modified for size!), etc. gave me a monster with more personality than short-cutting that and going straight to the final result.

If I need that monster to have a full Ecology write-up like in the 2e Monstrous Manual, I certainly can. Most of the time, I won't bother.

Now, I will give you that the 4e Monster Manual I is a terrible, no-good, awful book. Along with Keep on the Shadowfell, it damaged the line pretty badly since it was released in such a non-playtested, careless state. There's some good stuff there (shifty kobolds), bad stuff in there (needlefang drake swarm), and some utterly horrible stuff (purple worm). The sad truth is that the 4e designers didn't start doing a good job with monsters until Monster Vault.

-O

[neonchameleon]

The sad truth is that the 4e designers didn't start doing a good job with monsters until Monster Vault.

Just to quibble on this point, I don't see the worst of the 4e MM1 as any worse mechanically than the CR3 Shadow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/shadow.htm) - and mechanically 1e and 2e monster manuals simply weren't as ambitious as 3e and 4e. The MM2 is in many places pretty damn good, and I'd say that mechanically the MM3 and Dark Sun Creature Catalogue are about up to the standards of Monster Vault (it's simply that by the time you hit an MM3 you are filling it with monsters you won't use as much, and Dark Sun is Dark Sun).

But yes, the flagship of the MM1 was meant to be the monster design - it's less inspiring than the rivals from other editions on the fluff (most of the fluff is there, it's merely presented for quick reference). And it's horrible in far too many places. (Keep on the Shadowfell is a pretty decent intro to 4e ... if you cut the entire keep out of the adventure. Before that it's decent leading up to Irontooth. Once you enter the Keep itself it's on the list of worst modules ever*.)

* One of the many reasons 4e fans aren't happy with Mearls being leader of the Next design team. H1 Keep on the Shadowfell was a dire adventure, H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth was better, but most people put that down to Mearls' co-author being Richard Baker who wrote both the Forge of Fury and the Red Hand of Doom, and H3 Pyramid of Shadows sucks as badly as H1 Keep on the Shadowfell.

[Water_Bear]

Speaking of Mearls, what's the deal with him? I'm not that knowledgeable about game designers in general and have heard a lot of conflicting things.

Supposedly this guy did really good work in 3.X, contributed to a lot of the problems in 4e, and now in the Next playtests people talk about him like he's WotC's Joe Quesada. Is that trajectory accurate and if so, why?

[SiuiS]

I couldn't disagree more.



See, you're showing me how in combat they operate differently. That's fine, but it's still just bag o'numbers thrown at PCs. The fallout from calculating giant levels, feats, skills and such in 3.5? I could invisibly scrutinize a monster group and they would e different out of combat, as an extension of their mechanics, as opposed to just going off off fluff which can be hand waved.



I don't get that sense even a little bit. What I end up with is a monster (or hostile NPC) that plays on the table exactly like they're characterized.

I can't see that building up monsters from a few levels of Giant then calculating their BAB, saves, ability scores (modified for size!), AC (modified for size!), weapon damage (modified for size!), final attack rolls (modified for size!), etc. gave me a monster with more personality than short-cutting that and going straight to the final result.

I think it's the sense of monsters having no purpose outside combat.


Speaking of Mearls, what's the deal with him? I'm not that knowledgeable about game designers in general and have heard a lot of conflicting things.

Supposedly this guy did really good work in 3.X, contributed to a lot of the problems in 4e, and now in the Next playtests people talk about him like he's WotC's Joe Quesada. Is that trajectory accurate and if so, why?

All i know is that from reading his personal blogs, I am conflicted. On the one end, he supplies good ideas. On the other, the way he says he got there is so backwards i have to assume the good idea was an accident. Like having a good idea, and listing the benefits of this new idea as being the very thing the idea as supposed to correct – it's maddening.

I know a lot of it is professional culpability, but it really sets me on edge to hear someone wee in my ear and tell me it's raining in a happy voice.

[Craft (Cheese)]

So what you're saying is everybody ever is equally good at coercion, lying, torture, &c., anything that might be involved in interrogation, and at interpreting whether others are lying or not? Or what you're saying is that all social interactions in the game should be based solely on roleplaying, in a group of people not known for their social skills? (No offense guys, but that's the stereotype. Though I am kind of upholding it by stating that bluntly. Hmm.)

All games have some degree of player involvement, holes in what the character sheet covers that the player is expected to fill with themselves. What I'm suggesting is merely that the holes are put in different places: It's certainly not for everyone, but it's not objectively worse.

To put this another way, imagine a version of 3.5 where casters don't prepare spells, and don't pick which spells they cast: They roll a Spellcraft check to simulate their character deciding what spell to use, and then the DM tells them what spell they cast and what its effect was.

Certainly, some people prefer this type of game, but I know a lot of folks who wouldn't: For many who like playing casters (including myself), creatively applying your magic is 100% of the fun, and this system robs the player of that.

The people who would like this system (or at least, not mind it) are those who either aren't interested in creatively applying their magic, or just aren't very good at it. I can't objectively determine that one group is more worth sacrificing than the other, but I can determine what works for myself and my players.


Alternatively, the character knows their training in interrogation, knows they read people well, and is fairly certain they did in fact get useful information. The numbers are just a metagame abstraction, yes, but saying characters shouldn't know roughly how skilled they are is like saying characters shouldn't know that they can cast spells instead of using a sword or bow.

The problem is in-character thinking doesn't actually work this way.

Let's say you're a professional programmer who's just finished hammering out 100,000 lines of code, and now it's time to look for bugs. Does an experienced programmer say "Well, I'm a great programmer, so I'm sure I anticipated any problems in advance and there's no need to bugtest"? No: This is the reasoning you see from lazy programmers who have no clue what they're doing.

Yet, this sort of thinking is rewarded in these systems, because it's how the systems actually work. When you want the player to be the one doing the thinking (instead of the character) ludic disconnects like this can be disastrous.

[obryn]

I think it's the sense of monsters having no purpose outside combat.
I'm still trying to get where that sense is coming from. It seems crazy to me that, because you went through an involved process to create a monster from levels in monster types, added feats, set ability scores, and went through all that calculations that it somehow adds an ecological niche to them.

What I'm saying is, I don't think this can a result of the rule set, unless you've so internalized the 3.x rules that you're mistaking "built by the rules" for "has a place in the game world." I think it's a result of the fiction surrounding it.

-O

[DeltaEmil]

I think it's the sense of monsters having no purpose outside combat.The sense a monster has outside of combat is through the GM playing that monster, and the part in the monster's statblock which is about skills and ability scores and alignment and language, which both 3.x and 4th do have.

[neonchameleon]

See, you're showing me how in combat they operate differently. That's fine, but it's still just bag o'numbers thrown at PCs. The fallout from calculating giant levels, feats, skills and such in 3.5? I could invisibly scrutinize a monster group and they would e different out of combat, as an extension of their mechanics, as opposed to just going off off fluff which can be hand waved.

I think it's the sense of monsters having no purpose outside combat.

I think this is the representational/simulationist split that I've already mentioned. In 4e you start with the fluff. You start with the story. You start with what you want the monsters to do and then you fill in the mechanics.

Looking at the giant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/giant.htm) I'm not sure how five pure combat feats (some have Iron Will as well as five normal combat feats), and skill ranks in Climb, Jump, Spot, Listen, and possibly Intimidate and a few ranks in Craft are supposed to be that inspiring. Indeed in 4e you allocate trained skills to the monsters.


All i know is that from reading his personal blogs, I am conflicted. On the one end, he supplies good ideas. On the other, the way he says he got there is so backwards i have to assume the good idea was an accident. Like having a good idea, and listing the benefits of this new idea as being the very thing the idea as supposed to correct – it's maddening.

I know a lot of it is professional culpability, but it really sets me on edge to hear someone wee in my ear and tell me it's raining in a happy voice.

Mearls, from what I can tell, is basically an ideas person with limited follow through. Which is ... not what I want. I'm an ideas person. He's responsible for three good parts of 4e - both of them adding in blasts from the past. The first is daily powers. (Before that 4e had had no mid-term resource management; Orcus had every class on a different short term recharge as the difference between classes - see the Bo9S for details). The second is the boring fighter in Essentials. Which is useful to have - but it took someone else to add in the simple Sorceror. The third is the reactions beat immunities approach to 4e monsters - which is a very good thing.

But every time he's put his name on a non-core 4e product I can think of it's gone down like a lead balloon on its own merits. I've mentioned his adventures earlier. In both the problem is the same. He was trying to write for Mearls' Edition of D&D without taking into account the fact different editions do things differently. And his name is on Heroes of the Shadowfell, commonly considered the worst full 4e splatbook. It's full of great Vorthos (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr278) design that largely fails Timmy, Johnny, Spike (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b), and Melvin.

In fact if I were trying to sum up my impressions of Mearls on design I'd call him almost pure Vorthos, interested in how things feel rather than how they work and how they fit together. There's definite room for Vorthos on the creative team (I think Robert J Schwalb may be another) but Vorthos as lead designer is a bad idea.

[noparlpf]

All games have some degree of player involvement, holes in what the character sheet covers that the player is expected to fill with themselves. What I'm suggesting is merely that the holes are put in different places: It's certainly not for everyone, but it's not objectively worse.

To put this another way, imagine a version of 3.5 where casters don't prepare spells, and don't pick which spells they cast: They roll a Spellcraft check to simulate their character deciding what spell to use, and then the DM tells them what spell they cast and what its effect was.

Certainly, some people prefer this type of game, but I know a lot of folks who wouldn't: For many who like playing casters (including myself), creatively applying your magic is 100% of the fun, and this system robs the player of that.

The people who would like this system (or at least, not mind it) are those who either aren't interested in creatively applying their magic, or just aren't very good at it. I can't objectively determine that one group is more worth sacrificing than the other, but I can determine what works for myself and my players.

What that sounds like is:
"I cast Fireball."
"No you don't, you cast Charm."
I can't see anybody enjoying not deciding what spells they use.


The problem is in-character thinking doesn't actually work this way.

Let's say you're a professional programmer who's just finished hammering out 100,000 lines of code, and now it's time to look for bugs. Does an experienced programmer say "Well, I'm a great programmer, so I'm sure I anticipated any problems in advance and there's no need to bugtest"? No: This is the reasoning you see from lazy programmers who have no clue what they're doing.

Yet, this sort of thinking is rewarded in these systems, because it's how the systems actually work. When you want the player to be the one doing the thinking (instead of the character) ludicrous disconnects like this can be disastrous.

You've never met somebody who was overconfident? Or the opposite, somebody who was underconfident and second-guessed themselves a lot? Or a more balanced person, who knows what they're good at, but also knows not to be overconfident? Or somebody who includes double-checking as part of the initial process to avoid errors?
What you're suggesting is that although I know I'm good at, say, algebra, I can never assume I've solved a simple problem properly, even though I've checked it over, because that's not how knowing you're good at something works. To apply it back to an interrogation: Somebody who is good at understanding and influencing people is good at understanding people and can probably tell whether or not they're being lied to. You've never met a real person who said something like, "Oh yeah, I'm pretty good at telling when somebody lies to me." Because I have.

[Kurald Galain]

What that sounds like is:
"I cast Fireball."
"No you don't, you cast Charm."
I can't see anybody enjoying not deciding what spells they use.

It's called the Wild Mage. Some players (particularly The Loonie) enjoy that, although their teammates usually don't :smallamused:

[Craft (Cheese)]

What that sounds like is:
"I cast Fireball."
"No you don't, you cast Charm."
I can't see anybody enjoying not deciding what spells they use.

It's more like:

"I cast a spell."
"Okay, you cast Charm Person on the guards, and they let you in."


You've never met somebody who was overconfident? Or the opposite, somebody who was underconfident and second-guessed themselves a lot? Or a more balanced person, who knows what they're good at, but also knows not to be overconfident? Or somebody who includes double-checking as part of the initial process to avoid errors?
What you're suggesting is that although I know I'm good at, say, algebra, I can never assume I've solved a simple problem properly, even though I've checked it over, because that's not how knowing you're good at something works. To apply it back to an interrogation: Somebody who is good at understanding and influencing people is good at understanding people and can probably tell whether or not they're being lied to. You've never met a real person who said something like, "Oh yeah, I'm pretty good at telling when somebody lies to me." Because I have.

"Hey, what year is it?"
"1865."
"Well, I'm good at telling whether people are lying to me, so we must have gone back in time somehow. Quick! We must find Abraham Lincoln and warn him of the assassination plot..."

See the problem now?

[Seerow]

You've never met somebody who was overconfident? Or the opposite, somebody who was underconfident and second-guessed themselves a lot? Or a more balanced person, who knows what they're good at, but also knows not to be overconfident? Or somebody who includes double-checking as part of the initial process to avoid errors?


It's important to note that he used programming as his example there.

I have never met ANY computer programmer who has done anything more complex than "Hello World!" who is overconfident to the point where they won't do any bug checking. Ever. Certainly none that get paid to do it professionally.


That said, I've long since lost track of this extended analogy, and have no idea what it's supposed to represent. I think he's trying to use this as a comparison to why a skilled interrogator shouldn't be any better than an unskilled one, which I fundamentally disagree with. But that doesn't really fit the analogy of a programmer not debugging. In the example of the Interrogator, the person doing the Interrogation should still be cross referencing anything he gets out of the person he is interrogating. He should still be considering whether he's been lied to or not. Thinking about the little details. Keeping an eye out for inconsistencies in the story.

None of that, however, means that a person with good interrogation skill shouldn't have a leg up on that though. A player character should absolutely be able to be trained in "Great at interrogation", and be more likely to have the NPC tell truth (which means the player has fewer, if any, errors to catch), and/or be better at catching lies that the player doesn't catch (ie DM rolls behind the screen and points out "As they say X you get the feeling something's not right about Y detail", to help point the players in the right direction).

The argument that character skills shouldn't impact the roll at all though? That's the kind of crap that tells the quiet guy "No, you're not allowed to play a Bard because you're not charismatic enough to pull it off". D&D is a game about escapist fantasy, and people want to take on roles that they can't actually do in real life. I'm not going to ask the Fighter's player to detail how he holds his sword, or the correct way to parry. I'm not going to ask the Wizard's player to recite from memory the incantation to cast a fireball. And I'm not going to ask the player whose character is a world class detective to actually be a world class detective to pull it off.

That's what game mechanics are for, to allow characters to do things their players can't. A game where a character is only as good at negotiation as the player is good at BSing the DM isn't a game I want to play, and not because I suck at negotiation, but because it encourages you to have the 6 charisma fighter being the one actually running lead on social scenarios because his player is the most charismatic in the group, and that is wrong.

[1337 b4k4]

My impression of Mearls is that he's simply a bad communicator. He's not the person WotC should be using as the front man for the product, but as the lead designer, he has to be (since they apparently aren't interested in hiring someone to be the 5e evangelist).


In fact if I were trying to sum up my impressions of Mearls on design I'd call him almost pure Vorthos, interested in how things feel rather than how they work and how they fit together. There's definite room for Vorthos on the creative team (I think Robert J Schwalb may be another) but Vorthos as lead designer is a bad idea.

Actually, the "feels" guys are great as project leads, provided they have their feet on the ground with regards to making trade-offs and the tough decisions that come with turning "feels" into real tangible items. Details guys tend to get lost in the details, missing the forest for the trees, and so you wind up with incoherent parts bundled together when you put the details type guys in charge. We've all come across the products that were technically excellent, but failed to sell and do well because they were aesthetically and subconsciously unappealing.

That isn't to say that the feelings guys are all perfect either. Too often we've had products that were all fluff and no substance as well. In my experience, the best products are usually developed by teams where the top guy has a vision and a very good sense for how everything feels, and the details are implemented by details guys who are good at one they do, and good at coordinating with the guy at the top to get the details to match the feel.

[neonchameleon]

To put this another way, imagine a version of 3.5 where casters don't prepare spells, and don't pick which spells they cast: They roll a Spellcraft check to simulate their character deciding what spell to use, and then the DM tells them what spell they cast and what its effect was.

Certainly, some people prefer this type of game, but I know a lot of folks who wouldn't: For many who like playing casters (including myself), creatively applying your magic is 100% of the fun, and this system robs the player of that.

The people who would like this system (or at least, not mind it) are those who either aren't interested in creatively applying their magic, or just aren't very good at it. I can't objectively determine that one group is more worth sacrificing than the other, but I can determine what works for myself and my players.

The people who would like that system are all Loonies, in there to instigate and cause as much chaos and confusion as possible. The sort of people who like spamming a Wand of Wonder with the trigger "What's the worst that could happen?" No one else would touch never knowing what your character was even trying to do with a ten foot bargepole. Even wild mages don't come close to that.


The problem is in-character thinking doesn't actually work this way.

Let's say you're a professional programmer who's just finished hammering out 100,000 lines of code, and now it's time to look for bugs. Does an experienced programmer say "Well, I'm a great programmer, so I'm sure I anticipated any problems in advance and there's no need to bugtest"? No: This is the reasoning you see from lazy programmers who have no clue what they're doing.

Yet, this sort of thinking is rewarded in these systems, because it's how the systems actually work. When you want the player to be the one doing the thinking (instead of the character) ludic disconnects like this can be disastrous.

The problem there is that you're using the wrong metaphor for the normal role of an adventurer. Adventurers aren't programmers or architects and time pressure is a major factor. To quote General Patton, "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week."

A good programmer will behave as you say. But programming is at one end of the scale where perfect details matter and the computer can not be trusted to fix any gaps you've made. To quote Patton on the subject (again), "Good tactics can save even the worst strategy. Bad tactics will destroy even the best strategy." and "Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity." Programming and engineering don't have the option of fixing in tactics and at low level any flaws in the plan because computers just follow orders.

Adventuring is almost at the other end of the spectrum where things are falling apart half the time and it doesn't matter what the gaps are plugged with - just that the gaps are plugged. Ticking time bomb situations happen in RP Adventuring (unlike just about any time in the real world), and your resources are generally your skills, your team mates skills, and the contents of your backpack.

Shifting from Patton to Sun Tzu,
“If quick, I survive.
If not quick, I am lost.
This is "death.”
Speed is critical. And for speed you need confidence. Knowing how good you are at something is a pretty crucial skill. Or once again in the words of Sun Tzu:
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle”

And having skills defined amongst other things allows you to know who you are being when that character isn't you. And restrict you almost completely to characters who share your IRL skills.

Your straw man examples I see on preview are merely undermining your case. No one is saying they should happen.

Edit: @1337 b4k4, there's a difference between Johnny and Vorthos as project manager.

[Craft (Cheese)]

The argument that character skills shouldn't impact the roll at all though? That's the kind of crap that tells the quiet guy "No, you're not allowed to play a Bard because you're not charismatic enough to pull it off". D&D is a game about escapist fantasy, and people want to take on roles that they can't actually do in real life.

I think this is where the real point of contention here: I'm not interested in providing, or experiencing, escapist fantasy.

[1337 b4k4]

Edit: @1337 b4k4, there's a difference between Johnny and Vorthos as project manager.

Indeed there is. Hence why I wasn't talking about Johnny.

[ImperiousLeader]

I think it's the sense of monsters having no purpose outside combat.

And I think this is why I have no patience for Simulationists that seem to think that the statblock (or character sheet) is the be-all and end-all of what the monster or PC is capable of.

It's about using the right tool for the right job. I don't need to write-up a statblock for the king the party has been brought before. I need to know he's a proud, vain man, and will respond well to flattery and courtly manners, and will treat attempt to intimidate him with disdain. So depending what the party says or does, I know the DCs for the various social interaction skills and his probable responses.

And, should the party discover that he and his court are actually vampires in disguise, I can then pull out appropriate combat statblocks, if they end up drawing swords.

It's the same on the PCs side. For the life of me, I can't understand the need for all the 3.5 profession and craft skills. Did they exist in 2ed? You can write down "Simple fisherman" as part of your character's background, and that should be sufficient. I will (if you remind me, I don't have every character memorized) provide additional information that a fisherman would simply know to your character.

Heck, if I'm on my game, which doesn't always happen, I may even note that the fisherman finds it odd that the vampire king is "eating" cod, which is considered a commoner's fish in this court.

[SiuiS]

I think this is the representational/simulationist split that I've already mentioned.

Yes. Now we are less hashing anything out and more being conversational while wondering where the hell our next article is.


Looking at the giant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/giant.htm) I'm not sure how five pure combat feats (some have Iron Will as well as five normal combat feats), and skill ranks in Climb, Jump, Spot, Listen, and possibly Intimidate and a few ranks in Craft are supposed to be that inspiring. Indeed in 4e you allocate trained skills to the monsters.

hehe.

Giant, Cloud: Wears chain shirt and wields massive club with spikes. Huge. Likes jewelry, lives on clouds or on mountain near clouds. SLAs levitate and obscuring mist. Feats angled towards awesome swings of low accuracy.

Highland kelts, giants from out of history, fomorians or firbolgs, chased into the topmost mountains by the storm giants. Live in either bachelor groups or extended families along with livestock, keeps pets and animals for companionship and hunting. Occasional war party a la red branch cycle out to make a name for themselves.

So right out the gate I have a large, jovial folk who are proud, value strength, cunning, and family honor who you could meet in large groups, tossing cabers off of moutains and laughing as the sheep and mountain goats run away.

4e kobolds, on the other hand, are shifty. Okay? Sure, you can make a centipede of death out of the dragon warrior ones, but thats it. There are monsters who generate the same flavor, but as an end, not a beginning. What I have here, for these giants? Thats the base chassis, on top of which individualism builds. I don't get that feel from 4e monsters.


What that sounds like is:
"I cast Fireball."
"No you don't, you cast Charm."
I can't see anybody enjoying not deciding what spells they use.

"I cast fireball. My spellcraft is *rolls* 27."
"Okay, well midcast you recognise the particular tribal totems and markings of this beast and realise it reveres Mephistopheles, god of hellfire. You manage to switch your spell to a cold-substituted fireball, and overcome it's defenses"


What you're suggesting is that although I know I'm good at, say, algebra, I can never assume I've solved a simple problem properly, even though I've checked it over, because that's not how knowing you're good at something works. To apply it back to an interrogation: Somebody who is good at understanding and influencing people is good at understanding people and can probably tell whether or not they're being lied to. You've never met a real person who said something like, "Oh yeah, I'm pretty good at telling when somebody lies to me." Because I have.

You're making a false equation, hon. Algebra is objectively verifiable right there. Telling a person's lying is not, usually. Especially since good liars skirt the truth, intermingle the two, make it hard to pick out the kernels you want without doubting the stuff you thought you knew was wrong.

What Craft (Cheese) is saying is that you can't go "I rolled a 17, and have a good bonus, so I got this". That it's not about the character, but about you as the pplayer making decisions, uninformed by numbers. Old School.


My impression of Mearls is that he's simply a bad communicator. He's not the person WotC should be using as the front man for the product, but as the lead designer, he has to be (since they apparently aren't interested in hiring someone to be the 5e evangelist).

yes. Oh god yes. His communication skills are terrifying. But his ideas are sound.


I think this is where the real point of contention here: I'm not interested in providing, or experiencing, escapist fantasy.

What are you interested in then?


And I think this is why I have no patience for Simulationists that seem to think that the statblock (or character sheet) is the be-all and end-all of what the monster or PC is capable of.

It's about using the right tool for the right job. I don't need to write-up a statblock for the king the party has been brought before. I need to know he's a proud, vain man, and will respond well to flattery and courtly manners, and will treat attempt to intimidate him with disdain. So depending what the party says or does, I know the DCs for the various social interaction skills and his probable responses.

yes, congratulations, you can recite the gamebook example of a skill challenge and counter an argument I... didn't actually make? Or even allude to, in this instance? Yeah.

here's the deal. Whether you like "those simulationists" or not (totally rude by the way, what with the needless dismissal of a strawman group) this doesn't have a lick to do with how I feel about the visceral impact of what the game presents me with. Because no matter how much rooster-and-bull you toss around, that is all that matters; satisfaction wiht the product and it's presentation. No amount of lumping people into an easy to deride Other grouping will change that. Nor will any amount of snark make my wants less important than yours.


For the life of me, I can't understand the need for all the 3.5 profession and craft skills.

Cross platform consistency.


Did they exist in 2ed?

Yes.

And who cares if they didn't? 3.X was hailed as a vast improvement ovetr the old morasse; additions to the system would be good. Don't hearken back to the good old days unless you want attack throws and instant death poison, too.

[theNater]

4e kobolds, on the other hand,...

...revere dragons and tend to dwell in and around places where dragons are know to lair. They skulk in the darkness, hiding from stronger foes and swarming to overwhelm weaker ones. Kobolds are cowardly and usually flee once bloodied unless a strong leader is present.
Kobolds like to set traps and ambushes...
Reading the entire entry from 3.5 and only the statblock from 4e is not really being fair.

[Seerow]

I think this is where the real point of contention here: I'm not interested in providing, or experiencing, escapist fantasy.

But you must realize at its core that's what D&D is. It's not a game to test how good you (the player) are at doing something in a situation, it's about how your character, who is most likely better than you in every conceivable way (or at the very least better at his realm of expertise), can handle a situation.

Trying to remove that and make it about how good you, personally, are at reading the DM, bluffing the DM, or just generally socializing, is a pretty major break from what TTRPGs in general and D&D specifically are all about.

[Craft (Cheese)]

What are you interested in then?

To be vague about it, what I want as a player is to be asked good questions, and what I want as a DM is to hear interesting answers. Exactly what makes a good question and an interesting answer is something I'm still trying to figure out, but I know them when I see them.

[SiuiS]

Reading the entire entry from 3.5 and only the statblock from 4e is not really being fair.

I admitted kobolds were a bad example, but I don't have a 4e srd on hand to check :c

You will notice though, that I made my own fluff text by putting the statblock together; I didn't reada darn thin about cloud giants exceptthe stat block and what their exact SLAs were. That's not the game fluff - that is what the game stats combine to demonstrate.


But you must realize at its core that's what D&D is. It's not a game to test how good you (the player) are at doing something in a situation, it's about how your character, who is most likely better than you in every conceivable way (or at the very least better at his realm of expertise), can handle a situation.

Trying to remove that and make it about how good you, personally, are at reading the DM, bluffing the DM, or just generally socializing, is a pretty major break from what TTRPGs in general and D&D specifically are all about.

That is exactly what early D&D was about, and a good many people still like it that way, though.


To be vague about it, what I want as a player is to be asked good questions, and what I want as a DM is to hear interesting answers. Exactly what makes a good question and an interesting answer is something I'm still trying to figure out, but I know them when I see them.

Interesting. I think I understand this actually. I always really want to play an explorer of the world, but I can't exactly trust a GM to have a world thought out far enough for me to find it's idiosyncracies. When a good question comes along to ask, it's never relevant or worse, the DM's answer is bollocks.

[obryn]

You will notice though, that I made my own fluff text by putting the statblock together; I didn't reada darn thin about cloud giants exceptthe stat block and what their exact SLAs were. That's not the game fluff - that is what the game stats combine to demonstrate.
Sure. Give me a 4e monster stat block - preferably from MM2 onwards - with the mechanical details, keywords, powers, stats, etc. intact. Strip off its name. I'll play this game in a heartbeat.

-O

[SiuiS]

I don't want to compete, I was disproving something.
Besides, 4e monsters don't have the same homogeny. You could end up with a priest an extrapolate an entire race from it. The heuristic in 3.x was closer to the formula, is all.

[ImperiousLeader]

Giant, Cloud: Wears chain shirt and wields massive club with spikes. Huge. Likes jewelry, lives on clouds or on mountain near clouds. SLAs levitate and obscuring mist. Feats angled towards awesome swings of low accuracy.

Highland kelts, giants from out of history, fomorians or firbolgs, chased into the topmost mountains by the storm giants. Live in either bachelor groups or extended families along with livestock, keeps pets and animals for companionship and hunting. Occasional war party a la red branch cycle out to make a name for themselves.

So right out the gate I have a large, jovial folk who are proud, value strength, cunning, and family honor who you could meet in large groups, tossing cabers off of moutains and laughing as the sheep and mountain goats run away.

4e kobolds, on the other hand, are shifty. Okay? Sure, you can make a centipede of death out of the dragon warrior ones, but thats it. There are monsters who generate the same flavor, but as an end, not a beginning. What I have here, for these giants? Thats the base chassis, on top of which individualism builds. I don't get that feel from 4e monsters.

You do realize that taking "shifty" as the sum of Kobolds is like taking "Oversize Weapon" as the sum total of a Cloud Giant? Where's the flavour in that ... aside from a feeling that Cloud Giants might be overcompensating?

Besides, I don't necessarily read them that way. I could go with them as aloof, preferring the clouds to the world below. Jewelry and singing mean they have harsh class divisions, you either can afford to be artistic and well-dressed, or not.

Or maybe they're pretty much just big Klingons. Jewelry actually means medals and commendations, which represents their honour and glory in battle. Performing tends towards drinking songs ... though I guess I'd have to rewrite the statblocks. All those useless skillpoints ...


yes, congratulations, you can recite the gamebook example of a skill challenge and counter an argument I... didn't actually make? Or even allude to, in this instance? Yeah.

here's the deal. Whether you like "those simulationists" or not (totally rude by the way, what with the needless dismissal of a strawman group) this doesn't have a lick to do with how I feel about the visceral impact of what the game presents me with. Because no matter how much rooster-and-bull you toss around, that is all that matters; satisfaction wiht the product and it's presentation. No amount of lumping people into an easy to deride Other grouping will change that. Nor will any amount of snark make my wants less important than yours.

And I want a game that I can run. 3.5 convinced me to never DM, it was a horrible experience for a newcomer. And this is the one of its vaunted improvements over earlier editions? 4e is the DnD edition I feel I can play or DM with equal enjoyment, and do my job.

And what did 4e do for me as a DM? It taught me the value of not needing an industrial strength hairdresser to cross the darn desert. Iow, take only what you need to survive. You need a combat stat block? There it is. Need fluff to figure out it fits in your campaign world? The Monster Vault has really well written fluff sections, which can be used, or not, at the DMs discretion. Maybe my Kobolds are gonna be ascetic monks that are never where you expect them.

This is yet another feature. Self-contained. 3.5 statblocks are a mess of cross-referencing, between the spell-like abilities, or the immunities of Oozes relies on looking up the Ooze Type. Monster hitdice, and monster advancement options from 3.5 were a lot of make-work for little return.


Cross platform consistency.

Oh yay, let's bring back THACO to DnDNext, cross-platform consistency is important! Still, amusing given this ...


And who cares if they didn't? 3.X was hailed as a vast improvement ovetr the old morasse; additions to the system would be good. Don't hearken back to the good old days unless you want attack throws and instant death poison, too.

I was just curious, I never played DnD before 3.5. Which has its fill of instant death options too.

But I get it, cross platform consistency is ... inconsistently important. :smallconfused:

[SiuiS]

You do realize that taking "shifty" as the sum of Kobolds is like taking "Oversize Weapon" as the sum total of a Cloud Giant? Where's the flavour in that ... aside from a feeling that Cloud Giants might be overcompensating?

Luckily, I already addressed this. Twice.


And I want a game that I can run. 3.5 convinced me to never DM, it was a horrible experience for a newcomer. And this is the one of its vaunted improvements over earlier editions? 4e is the DnD edition I feel I can play or DM with equal enjoyment, and do my job.

And what did 4e do for me as a DM? It taught me the value of not needing an industrial strength hairdresser to cross the darn desert. Iow, take only what you need to survive. You need a combat stat block? There it is. Need fluff to figure out it fits in your campaign world? The Monster Vault has really well written fluff sections, which can be used, or not, at the DMs discretion. Maybe my Kobolds are gonna be ascetic monks that are never where you expect them.

See the majority of this thread for why "it's tehre if you want it and not if you don't" doesn't seem to be a worthwhile feature, so much as a bug or a cop-out.


This is yet another feature. Self-contained. 3.5 statblocks are a mess of cross-referencing, between the spell-like abilities, or the immunities of Oozes relies on looking up the Ooze Type. Monster hitdice, and monster advancement options from 3.5 were a lot of make-work for little return.

Mileage and variance. The entirety of the fighter class can be condensed down to pages if things are less "self-contained" and the system itself uses keywords like actual keywords. I don't think having to know something about oozes as a whole makes using a gelatinous cube harder. No brain, no crits, the end.



Oh yay, let's bring back THACO to DnDNext, cross-platform consistency is important! Still, amusing given this ...


Seriously, mate. This isn't a contest. I'm already a unicorn, you can be prettiest princess if you want to. I'll make that sacrifice for you.

But since you misunderstood, I'll clarify. Cross platform consistency; 4e, I play the same character across ten DMs, he's a paladin who likes to build towns. I get ten different interpretations of what I can do, what it means, how long it takes and whether it has any value.
3e, I'm a paladin with ranks in carpentry, masonry, and architecture. I get the same results across all ten DMs because it's clearly laid out in a way which describes objective value, allowing it to be leveraged and actually used as a commodity.

Now, tell me, what value do you get from connecting two unrelated points via tenuous semantics to try and 'score points'? Because that's what you're doing. Not only does crossing multiple use platforms ahve nothing to do with tha0, but the part that does have to do with thac0 specifically addresses how it wasn't a good idea.


I was just curious, I never played DnD before 3.5. Which has its fill of instant death options too.

But I get it, cross platform consistency is ... inconsistently important. :smallconfused:[/QUOTE]

[neonchameleon]

I think this is where the real point of contention here: I'm not interested in providing, or experiencing, escapist fantasy.

Then, with all due respect, why do you play D&D? Since the very earliest days D&D has been a power fantasy in a fantastic universe. A level 1 fighter was a veteran and a level 1 wizard could cast spells. And they only got stronger from there. And if you're going for oD&D I'm going back further. pre-1974 Mike Mornard had played a baby Balrog (you know the things that took down Gandalf) in both Gygax' and Arneson's game.


Indeed there is. Hence why I wasn't talking about Johnny.

My understanding is it's Johnny not Vorthos that provides creative direction. Vorthos appreciates it but it's Johnny that provides the expression.


Giant, Cloud: Wears chain shirt and wields massive club with spikes. Huge. Likes jewelry, lives on clouds or on mountain near clouds. SLAs levitate and obscuring mist. Feats angled towards awesome swings of low accuracy.

Fair enough.

Monster vault Frost Giant. (Nearest I can find to Storm Giant). Wears hides and wields a massive freezing greataxe, cabable of chilling the enemy to the bone. Largely because they are part elemental, forged of ice. Huge. Lives high in the mountains or near the poles. Connected to the earth and almost impossible to move, knock over, or make lose their footing on even the slipperiest of surfaces, ice itself presenting almost no problem. Makes awesomly powerful swings of not that great accuracy, the biggest able to channel the mountain's cold.


Highland kelts, giants from out of history, fomorians or firbolgs, chased into the topmost mountains by the storm giants. Live in either bachelor groups or extended families along with livestock, keeps pets and animals for companionship and hunting. Occasional war party a la red branch cycle out to make a name for themselves.

Absolutely none of which is in the statblock - or is anything you can't do with 4e.


So right out the gate I have a large, jovial folk who are proud, value strength, cunning, and family honor who you could meet in large groups, tossing cabers off of moutains and laughing as the sheep and mountain goats run away.

You mean right out of the gate you have a small statblock supplemented by your pre-existing fluff and knowledge? And the anaemic fluff the 3.5 Monster Manual 1 provides?


4e kobolds, on the other hand, are shifty. Okay? Sure, you can make a centipede of death out of the dragon warrior ones, but thats it. There are monsters who generate the same flavor, but as an end, not a beginning.

Indeed. You need to go round the houses in 3.5 or even Pathfinder to generate fluff that 4e can just do. But why do you think shifty is the only part of a kobold's fluff? It's merely an extra layer - and an extra layer no other edition can touch.

For the record, total time spent on traps for Kobolds in the 3.5 Monster Manual:



http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm

Skills: Craft (trapmaking) +2
...
Whenever they can, kobolds set up ambushes near trapped areas.
...
Racial Skills: A kobold character has a +2 racial bonus on Craft (trapmaking)

(Note that the average kobold has spent precisely no ranks on trapmaking).

This is risible when you set it against Monster Vault.



Trap-Filled Warrens: Kobold tribes seek out the shelter of a warren. Like rats, they think nothing of tunnelling through thr ground to make a maze of criss-crossing passages and stacked chambers. A warren's complex structure gives the kobolds multiples routs for escape or ambush, and the passages provide ample room for traps and murder holes in case anything tries to root out the creatures. Nomadic kobolds litter their camps with snares, deadfalls, and trip wires. Once an area is trapped, they dig shallow pits in which to sleep, or else drag together hollow logs that work as makeshift warrens.
...
They rarely reveal their true numbers, and they don't set traps outside their strongholds until after the surrounding inhabitants realise the kobolds are in residence.

Communities that declare war on an established kobold tribe often face destruction. When kobolds know the jig is up, they go on the offensive, booby trapping building and ambushing residents in their homes. Overnight, settlements can become battlegrounds. If a militia tries to take the fight to the kobold warren, the crafty fiends make themselves scarce, allowing the hapless invaders to stumble into the tribe's deadly traps and pets.

For fluff, 3.5's Monsters are in about the same league as 4e's Monster Manual 1 - which is the worst monster book ever written for 4e. For a comparison I'm only using monsters in the Monster Vault preview because I can't be bothered to write that stuff out.



http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/purpleWorm.htm

This creature looks like a massive worm covered with plates of dark, chitinous armour. Its toothy maw is as wide as a human is tall.

These massive scavengers attempt to consume any organic material they find. Purple worms are feared for swallowing their prey whole. Entire groups of adventurers have vanished down their gullets, one after the other.

The body of a mature Purple Worm is 5 feet in diameter and 80 feet long, weighing about 40,000 pounds. The creature has a poisonous stinger in its tail.

A purple worm consumes great quantities of dirt and rock when tunnelling. Its gizzard may hold gems and other acid-resistant items. In mineral-rich areas, purple worm castings may contain unrefined ores.

Four paragraphs, nine sentences other than the combat block. Not one sentence saying how it relates to other monsters other than to eat them.

Now Monster Vault's turn



http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20101105b

Massive burrowing creatures, purple worms are feared for their ability to swallow enemies whole. They are capable of burrowing through solid rock and leave huge tunnels in their wake.

Purple worms are unintelligent beasts attracted to loud noises. They have no regard for other creatures, often interrupting battles, tearing through cities, or disrupting mining operations. Most purple worms are found in the Underdark or in rocky regions near mountains.

Ravenous Hunger: A purple worm is a voracious beast that is large enough to swallow a giant whole. Because a purple worm usually goes several days without eating, it tends to gorge when it finds food. A purple worm’s emergence is difficult to predict, and the creature is prone to showing up at the worst possible times. Many underground civilizations, such as those of the drow, the duergar, and the mind flayers, maintain special wards around their fortresses and cities to deter the great beasts.

A purple worm is widely regarded as a living natural disaster. The creatures are engines of chaos and destruction. Many Underdark races will sabotage their enemies’ wards against the worms, leaving a settlement vulnerable to attack. A worm cares nothing for whom it helps or hinders.

A purple worm is motivated only by hunger, so the only predictable characteristic of its attacks is that it favors larger groups over smaller ones. Dwarves have learned to take advantage of this behavior, luring the worm out with a large group only to slay it with artillery and massive siege weapons.

Weapons and Tools: A few people have discovered ways to turn purple worms into weapons. Stories tell of powerful spellcasters who specialized in charm and enchantment and were able to magically seize control of the creatures. The tales recount how these spellcasters could direct the worms at their enemies, wiping out entire cities or armies with a single worm.

Rumors also circulate that some drow priestesses hold worms under their sway and use them for defense in remote areas where reinforcements aren’t available. Dwarves are known to use purple worms for mining and tunnel-building, yet despite centuries of effort, the beasts have never been tamed or domesticated. All attempts to control the beasts eventually end in disaster.

Boons of the Worm: When a purple worm burrows through the ground, it consumes earth and rock, breaking down the substances and quickly excreting them. Hard substances, such as valuable metals and gems, remain within their bodies for weeks or months. A brave or foolhardy treasure hunter might attempt to hunt down a purple worm in hopes of claiming the treasures within its gizzard. A worm’s body also has a boon to offer: Drow and assassins value the poison that a purple worm carries in its stinger.

A burrowing purple worm creates new corridors and highways throughout the Underdark. And, because a purple worm rarely returns to one of its tunnels, such passageways are usually safe from the beasts, as long as an interloper remains quiet. Areas that are rich in prey become interlaced with complex tunnel systems as a result of several worms hunting the area. It’s not long after a purple worm forges a tunnel that smaller Underdark denizens begin to move into the tunnel to do their own hunting.

That's nine paragraphs of fluff. Fluff saying what they do. Fluff saying how other people react to them for good and ill. Fluff saying who uses them and why you might want a purple worm in your vicinity. Fluff saying which parts of the purple worm corpse are useful. And that's just a Purple Worm. A throwaway wandering monster. Or at least it was before Monster Vault.

If I have one criticism of the fluff in Monster Vault it's that there is too much of it. And the second would be it goes into too much depth when a couple of sentences would do.


What I have here, for these giants? Thats the base chassis, on top of which individualism builds. I don't get that feel from 4e monsters.

That says more to me about you than about 4e. Because I do.


3.X was hailed as a vast improvement ovetr the old morasse; additions to the system would be good. Don't hearken back to the good old days unless you want attack throws and instant death poison, too.

Or unless you want to look at the old days and work out which bits were good and which weren't.

[SiuiS]

Absolutely none of which is in the statblock - or is anything you can't do with 4e.

On the contrary, I just showed you how it came from the statblock.



You mean right out of the gate you have a small statblock supplemented by your pre-existing fluff and knowledge?

No? I continue to fail to understand how "I am looking at the numbers and seeing what comes out at me, culture wise" is somehow interpreted as having already devised fluff. Where does "I am reading it in front of you" become "I am puling it out from memory"? BEcause I made all that up while typing that post. Never used cloud giants before. Giants tend to fall off the appropriate CR range at about stone ginat level, and the story never serves to bring them back.



Indeed. You need to go round the houses in 3.5 or even Pathfinder to generate fluff that 4e can just do. But why do you think shifty is the only part of a kobold's fluff? It's merely an extra layer - and an extra layer no other edition can touch.

For the record, total time spent on traps for Kobolds in the 3.5 Monster Manual:

(Note that the average kobold has spent precisely no ranks on trapmaking).

This is risible when you set it against Monster Vault.

For fluff, 3.5's Monsters are in about the same league as 4e's Monster Manual 1 - which is the worst monster book ever written for 4e. For a comparison I'm only using monsters in the Monster Vault preview because I can't be bothered to write that stuff out.

You have completely mised the point, I'm afraid. I didn't say one edition has better flavor text than the other. I said one has numbers which generate flavor text when you compile them. Due to there being no default monster for any particular race (except for those odd traits like 'shifty', interestingly enough, since no one wants to admit that is mechanically all kobolds are) you don't get the same completeness from a monster, because no 4e monster is generic enough. Yes, lack of generic is usually a good thing.



Four paragraphs, nine sentences other than the combat block. Not one sentence saying how it relates to other monsters other than to eat them.

Now Monster Vault's turn

That's nine paragraphs of fluff. Fluff saying what they do. Fluff saying how other people react to them for good and ill. Fluff saying who uses them and why you might want a purple worm in your vicinity. Fluff saying which parts of the purple worm corpse are useful. And that's just a Purple Worm. A throwaway wandering monster. Or at least it was before Monster Vault.

and none of that is crunch or mechanics. Which was my point.

I get the feeling you are less trying to understand my point than you are trying to defend "your edition" which is entirely counter productive. You may note that I like fourth edition. I said it was subpar in one way, which you haven't countered, and I also said it was sub-par to me, specifically, and that it was another instance of there being two equally valid camps. If anything, it is just more reason to try and make 5e modular, so neither group ends up being dissapointed.


Or unless you want to look at the old days and work out which bits were good and which weren't.

That's true.

[SiuiS]

Okay, clearly I am doing something wrong here. But using examples back an forth wont help. So tell me what you think I said that was wrong – not in specific but in principle – and I'll try to do better at communicating.

[Moreb Benhk]

This isn't a criticism of 4e, and I can't say too much about the Monster Vault because my exposure is limited to the single example quoted above, but it was interesting to notice in other examples of 4e monster fluff, that while there was a bunch of stuff there, it was almost exclusively about 'how they fight'. I wonder if that hints at the underlying view of monsters in general in the 4e development?

And looking at 5e, how much attention would we like to see towards crunch and fluff directed at their combat-ness, and how much crunch/fluff would we like to see directed towards their in-worldness/other ways of interracting with them (attempting to pacify or make them allies, how their society works, etc)

[Scow2]

You have completely mised the point, I'm afraid. I didn't say one edition has better flavor text than the other. I said one has numbers which generate flavor text when you compile them. Due to there being no default monster for any particular race (except for those odd traits like 'shifty', interestingly enough, since no one wants to admit that is mechanically all kobolds are) you don't get the same completeness from a monster, because no 4e monster is generic enough. Yes, lack of generic is usually a good thing

Most monsters are self-contained. Most creatures that I've seen share at least a few stats if they're of the same race, or at least interact with each other better. Others are as specialized as the heroes are. Tell me - in 3rd edition, is there any consistency between two CR 10 humans?

[neonchameleon]

No? I continue to fail to understand how "I am looking at the numbers and seeing what comes out at me, culture wise" is somehow interpreted as having already devised fluff. Where does "I am reading it in front of you" become "I am puling it out from memory"?

It doesn't. It becomes "I am pulling it out of memory and imagination. The same thing I would do in 4e"


You have completely mised the point, I'm afraid. I didn't say one edition has better flavor text than the other. I said one has numbers which generate flavor text when you compile them.

If you don't know how to compile 4e monsters, that's your problem. 4e has numbers that generate flavour text.


Due to there being no default monster for any particular race (except for those odd traits like 'shifty', interestingly enough, since no one wants to admit that is mechanically all kobolds are)

If mechanically all kobolds are is shifty, then mechanically all giants are is a big hit dice and darkvision. It is not a case of all kobolds being shifty meaning that everything kobolds are goes down to that one trait.

As for there being no one default monster, that is merely more information to play with. There are a handful of default monsters - which says things about the organisation. Using


you don't get the same completeness from a monster, because no 4e monster is generic enough. Yes, lack of generic is usually a good thing.

Indeed. It's especially a good thing for fleshing out a society.


I get the feeling you are less trying to understand my point than you are trying to defend "your edition" which is entirely counter productive.

Your point, such as it is, is that you are unable to compile 4e statblocks. You have stated this as a universal and that 4e monster statblocks do not compile. The first is something you should ask for help with. The second is just plain wrong.

To demonstrate, I'm about to compile the Monster Manual 1 statblocks for the Rakshasas and give a worked example. Possibly after this you will stop blaming the system for your inability to compile it. Note that I've never used Rakshasas and, like giants, they are outside the range I normally play in.

Rakshasas. Default types: Warriors, Archers, Assassins, Nobles, Dread Knights. Observation: Rakshasas have a status conscious and hierearchical society with a lean towards stealth and infiltration when they aren't ostentatiously displaying their wealth. They are brave and consider valour a virtue - but leave physical work to other races.

Default roles: Soldier, Artillery, Skirmisher, Controller, Soldier. There's a lot of fluff there. Two of the default Rakshasa types are soldiers meaning that they go head to head with the enemy, and the Noble being a controller means that either Rakshasas have two castes or they are all mages and the nobles focus strongly on magic. At a guess (I haven't read the rest of the statblock) I'm going with strong magic. But most telling from the roles used as a default is the Rakshasa Assassin. Normally you'd expect assassins to be lurkers - but the Rakshasa Assassin is a skirmisher. This means that speed rather than patience is the order of the day. When one takes a mission they aren't going to be the sort of assassin to be careful and make sure to kill only their target - they are going to blitzkrieg when stealth fails them.

Just as telling as what is in the Monster Manual is what isn't. There are neither Rakshasa brutes, lurkers, nor minions. That rakshasas have assassins but not lurkers in their default lineup demonstrates a lack of patience. The absence of brutes demonstrates that they lack either physical power or the desire to attack the enemy - but the soldiers show that when they are girded for battle they do go head on. Either they believe in weapons and fine goods or hit and run. But it's the absence of minions that tells me a lot about their society. The default Rakshasa is a Soldier (and a powerful one) and there are two soldier types, but no weak Rakshasa ever fight. This means either that Rakshasa society is incredibly protective of the weak, or it's a "devil take the hindmost" society in which the weak are pulled down - with one of the defaults being assassins I'm going with devil take the hindmost. It also tells me a couple more things - organising Rakshasa is like herding cats, and as I suspected with the noble but no drudges or workers in the type, physical work is done by others.

Then we look at the racial traits. All Rakshasa have Deceptive Veil, have keen senses and low light vision, and are trained in bluff. So they all have misdirection magic and are skilled at the art of misdirection. And are also highly observant with especially keen eyes. Mixing magic and skill for trickery. Also all Rakshasa except the archers are skilled at athletics and all except the assassins are skilled at intimidating (the assassin, as already discussed, leaving behind a trail of corpses). So strong, fast, agile and cruel can be added to the list. Fast cruel tricksters, mixing skill with magic and pulling down their own weak. Charming people. Possibly by that point it should be obvious that Rakshasas are all evil.

And now we've pulled out the common ground we look at the individual statblocks.

Warriors. The well equipped rakshasa warriors toy with enemies like a cat with a mouse. They are fast and skilled (rolling twice) and select one foe as their prey, marking them and intimidating them. But what they really want is for their prey to run - at which point they pounce. Speed, mobility, trickery, wealth, and cruelty all rolled into one nasty package.

Archers are also very fast - they can double attack at will. And they can even infuse their arrows with cruel magic that allows them to pass through enemy armour and prevent the enemy recovering. Speed, magic, trickery, and cruelty all rolled into one nasty package.

Assassins are both fast and vicious, making two attacks in place of one - and cruel, sneak attacking the enemy viciously whenever they get the chance. They also use magic to both distract the enemy, setting them up for really vicious strikes and to walk through walls. Speed, mobility, magic, trickery, and cruelty all rolled into one nasty package.

Rakshasa Nobles have spells whose very names speak of cruelty. Mind twist. Phantom Lure. Frightful Phantom. Even their claws are vicious - and blinding. And they can easily set up magical distractions to upset their enemies - phantom image as a minor action. Magic, trickery, cruelty, and wealth all rolled into one nasty package.

The spectacularly fast and superbly equipped Rakshasa Dread Knights carry a literal aura of doom around them, draining the enemy and meaning they don't recover. Dazzlingly fast, the Dread Knight makes three attacks per round and rolls twice for each, marking the enemy if one hits and dazing if two of the three attacks hit, ensuring the enemy is unlkely to escape. And for foes who'd try to get away, the Rakshasa Dread Knight can fly after them. Speed, mobility, magic, cruelty, and wealth all rolled in to one very nasty package.

All five of the Rakshasa types illustrate most of the Rakshasa's common motivations and approaches. Speed, agility, mobility, magic, cruelty with an almost feline approach to toying with their prey, trickery, and a love of wealth and finery. And although they all exemplify these themes in very different ways, the approach runs straight through all of them. (Having just checked Monster Vault, the magic is played up a bit more - and the wealth is almost gone from the statblocks; the noble becomes a mage, and the assassin and dread knight vanish - but the warrior and archer are both more magical.) Trying to compile just one Rakshasa would cause problems - but then the average human has one breast and one testicle.

[Water_Bear]

And looking at 5e, how much attention would we like to see towards crunch and fluff directed at their combat-ness, and how much crunch/fluff would we like to see directed towards their in-worldness/other ways of interracting with them (attempting to pacify or make them allies, how their society works, etc)

Honestly, I would like to see a decent selection of "monsters" with no combat ability whatsoever; like a Goblin Clan Chief who has abilities which help explain why a Goblin tribe stays together and can serve as a Social challenge for the party in negotiations, or a Dwarven Blacksmith who can make the items the PCs need to go fight the Dragon without being able to fight it themself. If we absolutely need PC/NPC asymmetry, here is an area it can shine; show why things are the way they are, rather than just asserting it with the fluff.

Plus it takes the focus off the miniatures game and puts it back onto exploring a living world.

-Edit-


Rakshasa Analysis
(I actually read the whole thing, I just don't want to reproduce it here)

The problem being; almost all of that information is about their fighting tactics. The only thing which isn't is the name "Nobles," and I'm not so sure that tells us very much; even the free-spirited Elves have a nobility. What kind of skills should a Raksha Noble have trained? What is their race good at, other than fighting? How do you use them at the table when it's not time for a combat encounter?

An example of how this comes into play;

I like to use Rakshasas as manipulators and cult leaders in my 3.5 games because their abilities make sense for that role. In my last Pathfinder game I actually made them the main agents of the antagonist for just that reason. They are highly intelligent, have a lot of ranks in social skills to woo people over, their Spells and Change Shape ability make them perfect infiltrators, and their Native Outsider traits and languages tell you about what their backstory ought to be. Even ignoring the excretable fluff WotC attached to them, their stats actually tell you about how they live and where they fit in a game world.

[ImperiousLeader]

Mileage and variance. The entirety of the fighter class can be condensed down to pages if things are less "self-contained" and the system itself uses keywords like actual keywords. I don't think having to know something about oozes as a whole makes using a gelatinous cube harder. No brain, no crits, the end.

Not exactly (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#oozeType). Actually, the immunity to polymorph surprised me. I would have let the Druid use Baleful Polymorph to turn an ooze into a mindless bunny. After all, one can polymorph into an ooze, and it'd be hilarious.


But since you misunderstood, I'll clarify. Cross platform consistency; 4e, I play the same character across ten DMs, he's a paladin who likes to build towns. I get ten different interpretations of what I can do, what it means, how long it takes and whether it has any value.
3e, I'm a paladin with ranks in carpentry, masonry, and architecture. I get the same results across all ten DMs because it's clearly laid out in a way which describes objective value, allowing it to be leveraged and actually used as a commodity.

Now, tell me, what value do you get from connecting two unrelated points via tenuous semantics to try and 'score points'? Because that's what you're doing. Not only does crossing multiple use platforms ahve nothing to do with tha0, but the part that does have to do with thac0 specifically addresses how it wasn't a good idea.

Thanks for the clarification, mate. And for referring to DMs as platforms. I hope you'll forgive me not catching on to that.

Personally, I view it as needless rules that don't actually work. First, X ranks in Profession (farmer) produces the same wealth as X ranks in Profession (scribe) or Profession (Gourmet Cook). Still, it's nice to know you can make those work checks. Second, it's punitive, at least in the case of Craft. Failing those checks costs time and money, two very handwavey things in a game. And don't generally provide anything interesting in return. Third, it contributes to the imbalances in the system, because a PC investing points in them is mechanically weaker than one that isn't.

I will say, though, that at least the current iteration of Next does backgrounds right. Because if your background is "Commoner", you get a far more useful ability out of being a Farmer than making Profession (Farmer) checks. The Salt of the Earth trait is cool and flavourful.

Which is what I want out of Next. Character choices that are interesting, not skill point accounting. A balanced, functional game that can be run without the headaches of the 3.5 era, or earlier. And I want to build on the successes of 4e, which makes a lot of Next's ideas, and ideas proposed for Next look like backsliding to me.

[neonchameleon]

The problem being; almost all of that information is about their fighting tactics. The only thing which isn't is the name "Nobles," and I'm not so sure that tells us very much; even the free-spirited Elves have a nobility. What kind of skills should a Raksha Noble have trained? What is their race good at, other than fighting? How do you use them at the table when it's not time for a combat encounter?

An example of how this comes into play;

I like to use Rakshasas as manipulators and cult leaders in my 3.5 games because their abilities make sense for that role. In my last Pathfinder game I actually made them the main agents of the antagonist for just that reason. They are highly intelligent, have a lot of ranks in social skills to woo people over, their Spells and Change Shape ability make them perfect infiltrators, and their Native Outsider traits and languages tell you about what their backstory ought to be. Even ignoring the excretable fluff WotC attached to them, their stats actually tell you about how they live and where they fit in a game world.

Correction.

The Rakshasa's Change Shape ability in 4e is called Deceptive Veil - and is called out as an illusion. I called it out under their magic/trickery/racial. I also called the Rakshasas all being trained in bluff and perception and most of them being trained in intimidate - which is their skills. I called the Rakshasa Assassin's ability to walk through walls (at will) - again a useful ability outside combat. Mobility is hardly restricted to combat.

So 4e Rakshasas are highly adaptable, have skills, have useful (if more limited) spells, and have a change shape ability. Their stats tell you exactly what you were calling out the 3e stats as doing - and show you not just where they live in the world but how.

For the record the sort of skills a Rakshasa Noble has trained are listed in the MM1 as Arcana, Athletics, Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, Intimidate, and Perception. Or in 3.5 terms Spellcraft, Knowlege (Arcana), Jump, Climb, Swim, Bluff, Diplomacy, Knowledge (A lot of stuff), Sense Motive, Intimidate, Spot, Listen, Search. I merely mentioned the skills common to Rakshasas (Athletics, Bluff, Perception, Intimidate) - that the Assassin has Stealth trained is obvious.

What is the race good at other than fighting? I covered that. Trickery. Illusion. Mobility. Cruelty. Which is exactly what you are saying you do with your Rakshasas. Trickery, illusion, and mobility don't stop just because the combat ends.

4e treats combat as where the rubber meets the road and it shows what people do under stress.

[Excession]

The problem being; almost all of that information is about their fighting tactics. The only thing which isn't is the name "Nobles," and I'm not so sure that tells us very much; even the free-spirited Elves have a nobility. What kind of skills should a Raksha Noble have trained? What is their race good at, other than fighting? How do you use them at the table when it's not time for a combat encounter?

An example of how this comes into play;

I like to use Rakshasas as manipulators and cult leaders in my 3.5 games because their abilities make sense for that role. In my last Pathfinder game I actually made them the main agents of the antagonist for just that reason. They are highly intelligent, have a lot of ranks in social skills to woo people over, their Spells and Change Shape ability make them perfect infiltrators, and their Native Outsider traits and languages tell you about what their backstory ought to be. Even ignoring the excretable fluff WotC attached to them, their stats actually tell you about how they live and where they fit in a game world.

The Rakshasa Noble from MM1 is trained in Arcana, Athletics, Bluff, Diplomacy, History, Insight, Intimidate, and Perception, on top superb base stats especially in Int and Cha, right there in the stat block. This cat is skilled. He has Deceptive Veil at-will and as a minor action even, which fills the same niche as Change Shape from 3.5. It is exposed by an Insight vs. Bluff check, and he has a great Bluff check.

Part of the difference is 4e's lower levels of "magic for solving problems" including things like the Rakshasa's Suggestion or True Seeing to detect him. You can dislike that as a matter of opinion, but it's part of keeping skills rather than spells relevant at higher levels.

Edit: Rakshasa'ed.

[1337 b4k4]

My understanding is it's Johnny not Vorthos that provides creative direction. Vorthos appreciates it but it's Johnny that provides the expression.

Ah, I believe you have misunderstood "Johnny" then*. Johnny is concerned with creativity in the game in as much as that creativity allows Johnny to express himself in the game. Johnny is the guy that likes having skill lists that include crafting, animal husbandry and performance, not because they allow Johnny mechanical benefits but because they enable Johnny to manifest his vision for the character in a mechanical way. He is the guy that takes the disadvantages not for the extra CP, but because they allow him to express his creativity via that disadvantage. On the other hand, Johnny could care less how accurate the resolution system is, or how DCs are decided except in as much as those things interfere with his desire to express himself.

Vorthos on the other hand is concerned with the feel as a whole, even to the exclusion of the details. Vorthos doesn't care if the resolution system is accurate, he cares if rolling on the resolution system invokes the correct feelings (dread, suspense, excitement, disappointment) and invokes those feelings frequently and in correct proportions relative to the feel of the game as a whole.

As a simple example, it is the Vorthos, not the Johnny who would be responsible for the idea of using a jenga tower as a resolution mechanic. It's then the other "details" people that would work out exactly how that interaction should fit into the rules.

*as a note, I acknowledge my interpretation could be wrong, but this is the interpretation I have and therefore the angle from which I am speaking

[theNater]

Okay, clearly I am doing something wrong here. But using examples back an forth wont help. So tell me what you think I said that was wrong – not in specific but in principle – and I'll try to do better at communicating.
We're talking about what I'll call "place in the world" as a shorthand for culture/society/ecological niche/etc.

What I heard at first was that 4e monsters do not have a place in the world, while 3.5 monsters do. This is absolutely wrong.

What I now believe that you are trying to say is that there is more information on monster's place in the world in a 3.5 statblock than in a 4e statblock. This is certainly true(the environment line is an obvious example). If this is not what you are trying to say, please correct me.

It is my opinion that the statblock is not where information on a monster's place in the world belongs, and I will provide my reasons if asked. However, I recognize it as opinion, and therefore will not argue with anyone who simply wishes to agree to disagree.

[Grod_The_Giant]

In both 3.5 and 4e it's possible to look at a monster's statblock and invent some fluff. That's a function of almost pure imagination, and has little to do with the rules at hand.

I like playing 3.5 for the variety, but I much preferred running 4e, because of all the simple little cheats the system gave DMs. I consider myself a pretty experienced player, and it still took me hours to create one session's worth of custom monsters and NPCs.

My ideal Monster Manual would use mechanics very similar to 4e's-- simple for inexperienced GMs to grasp, fast enough to do on the fly, and customized to create encounters. Have a page or two of how to create level-appropriate powers, with recommended damage values and how much extras like pushes, area damage, multiple attacks, status effects, and the like are worth. Include a sidebar somewhere on how to translate monster powers into PC abilities, via a feat or something. Then structure the fluff like, oh, 3.5's MMV, with a description, statblocks, brief overview, and then detailed sections on tactics, sample encounters/plot hooks, ecology, society, typical treasure, "for player characters," advice on fitting them into major campaign settings, and the like. An average of one two-page spread per monster; more for particularly iconic monsters or societies like orcs and kobolds.

[MukkTB]

The 4E method of generating monsters seems superior to the 3.5 method. Lets not talk about minions. However I prefer NPCs to be built in the same way as PCs for the verisimilitude.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Lets not talk about minions.
What? Why not? I love minions! My players love minions! Everyone loves minions! They get the numbers to be a credible threat, they can be deployed in realistic numbers, and the players get to feel like utter badasses when they mow through them! What's not to like?

[Tholomyes]

What? Why not? I love minions! My players love minions! Everyone loves minions! They get the numbers to be a credible threat, they can be deployed in realistic numbers, and the players get to feel like utter badasses when they mow through them! What's not to like?Some of it, I think, comes from previous editions' philosophy with regards to monsters with 3.x, the minion role would be filled by a CR (something real low), which doesn't mesh with the math in 4e.

I have mixed feelings about Minions. On one hand, they don't fill a hugely necessary role if 5e keeps bonded accuracy. On the other hand, it could cut down on the stuff to keep track of, for DMs. One thing that Minions did, that I like from 4e, is the fact that it's One hit, they die, where in 3.5 you'd have to keep track of HP a fair amount of the time.

[SiuiS]

Most monsters are self-contained. Most creatures that I've seen share at least a few stats if they're of the same race, or at least interact with each other better. Others are as specialized as the heroes are. Tell me - in 3rd edition, is there any consistency between two CR 10 humans?

Straight out of the book? Yes.


It doesn't. It becomes "I am pulling it out of memory and imagination the numbers. The same thing I would do in 4e"

In still not sure where memory is coming from.



If mechanically all kobolds are is shifty, then mechanically all giants are is a big hit dice and darkvision. It is not a case of all kobolds being shifty meaning that everything kobolds are goes down to that one trait.

Why not? Everything elastin are boils down to short range teleportation. Halflings are evasive, elves are accurate, dwarves are sturdy.
Hence my pointing out kobolds are a bad example; all the level 1 monsters are.



To demonstrate, I'm about to compile the Monster Manual 1 statblocks for the Rakshasas and give a worked example. Possibly after this you will stop blaming the system for your inability to compile it. Note that I've never used Rakshasas and, like giants, they are outside the range I normally play in.

Actually, no. It's still 4e's fault that you need five monsters to get the same sense you gain from one in 3e. That's not a bad thing exactly, but it is a thing.


Honestly, I would like to see a decent selection of "monsters" with no combat ability whatsoever; like a Goblin Clan Chief who has abilities which help explain why a Goblin tribe stays together and can serve as a Social challenge for the party in negotiations, or a Dwarven Blacksmith who can make the items the PCs need to go fight the Dragon without being able to fight it themself. If we absolutely need PC/NPC asymmetry, here is an area it can shine; show why things are the way they are, rather than just asserting it with the fluff.

Plus it takes the focus off the miniatures game and puts it back onto exploring a living world.

That would be awesome. I'd love to see that. We should suggest it.


Not exactly (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#oozeType). Actually, the immunity to polymorph surprised me. I would have let the Druid use Baleful Polymorph to turn an ooze into a mindless bunny. After all, one can polymorph into an ooze, and it'd be hilarious.

Makes sense to me. The game has always given amorphous critters and shapeshifter extra protection from polymorph. I actually like that the default assumption (though the backup is lacking) that a dopplegangers hit with a polymorph can just shift back on his next turn.



Personally, I view it as needless rules that don't actually work. First, X ranks in Profession (farmer) produces the same wealth as X ranks in Profession (scribe) or Profession (Gourmet Cook). Still, it's nice to know you can make those work checks. Second, it's punitive, at least in the case of Craft. Failing those checks costs time and money, two very handwavey things in a game. And don't generally provide anything interesting in return. Third, it contributes to the imbalances in the system, because a PC investing points in them is mechanically weaker than one that isn't.

Non-combat trade off. By the rules, two fighters with leadership will play differently if one of them invested in miner/blacksmith/mason, and the other was pure adventuring skill. The professional can lead followers in work using his skills as a foreman, and end up getting X gp in raw materials from the profession check, and multiplying that by up to 27 times through refinement and equip his followers with a slew of awesome gear from the get-go. He's also got more money, allowing for even better awesome gear.

More to the point though, the option to play a non-standard character and benefit from it is nice.


I will say, though, that at least the current iteration of Next does backgrounds right. Because if your background is "Commoner", you get a far more useful ability out of being a Farmer than making Profession (Farmer) checks. The Salt of the Earth trait is cool and flavourful.

Which is what I want out of Next. Character choices that are interesting, not skill point accounting. A balanced, functional game that can be run without the headaches of the 3.5 era, or earlier. And I want to build on the successes of 4e, which makes a lot of Next's ideas, and ideas proposed for Next look like backsliding to me.

100% with you, there.

[Tholomyes]

Honestly, I would like to see a decent selection of "monsters" with no combat ability whatsoever; like a Goblin Clan Chief who has abilities which help explain why a Goblin tribe stays together and can serve as a Social challenge for the party in negotiations, or a Dwarven Blacksmith who can make the items the PCs need to go fight the Dragon without being able to fight it themself. If we absolutely need PC/NPC asymmetry, here is an area it can shine; show why things are the way they are, rather than just asserting it with the fluff.

Not sure I agree with you, necessarily. Apart from the fact that I picture Goblin Clan Chiefs as having at least some combat ability, in addition to social skills, since... well, goblins, I don't think full stat-blocks for Non-combat NPCs is strictly necessary. Usually such characters are defined by a few skills (a Blacksmith would be defined by relevant Craft skills, a Scholar would be defined by Knowledge skills, ect), and I don't think quantifying the character in terms of full stats is necessary. If you want the PCs to have access to magic Items from the blacksmith, you can say that the blacksmith is one of the best in the world, and not have to quantify it.

In pregen adventures, I might agree with you, since that's part of the deal with pregen adventures, that you have some consistency, so knowing that X town has a Blacksmith of Y skill, but Town Z doesn't have a Blacksmith at all, or one of poor ability might be useful, but I don't think the general case needs to be statted up.

[neonchameleon]

Ah, I believe you have misunderstood "Johnny" then*. Johnny is concerned with creativity in the game in as much as that creativity allows Johnny to express himself in the game. Johnny is the guy that likes having skill lists that include crafting, animal husbandry and performance, not because they allow Johnny mechanical benefits but because they enable Johnny to manifest his vision for the character in a mechanical way. He is the guy that takes the disadvantages not for the extra CP, but because they allow him to express his creativity via that disadvantage. On the other hand, Johnny could care less how accurate the resolution system is, or how DCs are decided except in as much as those things interfere with his desire to express himself.

Vorthos on the other hand is concerned with the feel as a whole, even to the exclusion of the details. Vorthos doesn't care if the resolution system is accurate, he cares if rolling on the resolution system invokes the correct feelings (dread, suspense, excitement, disappointment) and invokes those feelings frequently and in correct proportions relative to the feel of the game as a whole.

As a simple example, it is the Vorthos, not the Johnny who would be responsible for the idea of using a jenga tower as a resolution mechanic. It's then the other "details" people that would work out exactly how that interaction should fit into the rules.

*as a note, I acknowledge my interpretation could be wrong, but this is the interpretation I have and therefore the angle from which I am speaking

My interpretation is slightly different. Amongst other things Vorthos is a lot less creative than Johnny. Johnny's about creative expression and building things up - Vorthos is about what's already there and an existing vision.


Okay, clearly I am doing something wrong here. But using examples back an forth wont help. So tell me what you think I said that was wrong – not in specific but in principle – and I'll try to do better at communicating.

What you are doing is presenting your mistaken impressions as cold hard fact and universal truths. You might not find there to be value in triangulation and multiple expressions of the same concept. Some of us do. You might not be able to compile monster statblocks in 4e - but if anyone can compile them this side of the dev team then that means they do compile.


In still not sure where memory is coming from.

"Highland kelts, giants from out of history, fomorians or firbolgs."

That part about highland, about history, about formorians and firbolgs? That is all you, your imagination, and your memory. You may think that the stat block points in its general direction - but this isn't actually in the statblock. You aren't compiling - you're filling in the blanks. And the statblock never directly points to celts, formorians, firbolgs, or cabers (indeed the only things giants are mentioned throwing is rocks). Even jovial is pushing it - the only thing directly included in the statblock that points that way is Perform (String Instruments) +2.

And before you say anything about double standards, literally everything I pulled out of the statblocks about Rakshasas maps directly there right down to the way Rakshasa Warriors toy with their enemies. I might have had my cat playing with a mouse analogy inspired by the picture - I'm not sure. I certainly didn't include the 4e fluff on Rakshasas, Devas, and reincarnation.


Why not? Everything elastin are boils down to short range teleportation. Halflings are evasive, elves are accurate, dwarves are sturdy.

As normal you are throwing away half the mechanics and then presenting what's left as 100% of what there is. Off the top of my head, Eladrin are fey - i.e. native to the feywild. Kobolds are small, draconic, and have darkvision.


Hence my pointing out kobolds are a bad example; all the level 1 monsters are.

To take the kobolds as an example we'll look at a kobold slinger. Kobold slingers bring pots of stuff with them to battles. If this were put on the default member of the race it would turn kobolds into the comedy gluepot-carrying race. Send in the clowns! However by only giving this to a minority of kobolds by default, it illustrates kobolds love of traps and devices and fighting dirty (literally in the case of the stinkpot). The default level 1 kobold is a tunneller - which also says things about the race.

You could not have a gluepot carrying slinger as the only member of the race presented unless you were going for a slapstick game. On the other hand a race in which a few members sling gluepots and stinkpots in many raiding parties has more depth than trying to fit everything into a single statblock. Having more than one significant choice by default helps.


Actually, no. It's still 4e's fault that you need five monsters to get the same sense you gain from one in 3e. That's not a bad thing exactly, but it is a thing.

You do not need five monsters to gain the same sense you gain from one in 3e. One will do that. Five gives you triangulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation).

To take the Rakshasas again, I find the 4e (and especially the Monster Vault) Rakshasa Warrior more inspiring on its own than the 3e Rakshasa (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/rakshasa.htm).

The biggest part of the 3e Rakshasa's statblock once you've expanded it (by putting all the spells in) is that a 3e Rakshasa is a level 7 sorceror with a shapechange and the ability to detect thoughts. They are also trained at bluffing, disguising themselves, and have a few other skills. But basically they are Yet Another Sorceror.

4e Rakshasa Warriors on the other hand are shapechangers, illusionists who specialise in creating duplicates of themselves and teleportation, and who toy with their enemies like a cat toying with a mouse. And it's this cat toying with a mouse part that tells me far, far more about the Rakshasa than a mere spell list does.

So here one 4e monster gives me more of a sense of the race than the one 3.5 monster does. That they have a handful of statblocks expands on those themes, looking at them for multiple angles.


Non-combat trade off. By the rules, two fighters with leadership will play differently if one of them invested in miner/blacksmith/mason, and the other was pure adventuring skill. The professional can lead followers in work using his skills as a foreman, and end up getting X gp in raw materials from the profession check, and multiplying that by up to 27 times through refinement and equip his followers with a slew of awesome gear from the get-go. He's also got more money, allowing for even better awesome gear.

Um... "Multiply X up to 27 times?"

And basically what you are saying is that a fighter with a job earns more money than a fighter without. Never mind that almost all awesome gear is magic - and thus takes a ridiculous time for non-magic craftsmen to earn.


100% with you, there.

Likewise. Next's backgrounds are the first set of D&D non-adventuring rules I find are any more than a vague nod in the direction of the fact that there's a life outside adventuring.


What? Why not? I love minions! My players love minions! Everyone loves minions! They get the numbers to be a credible threat, they can be deployed in realistic numbers, and the players get to feel like utter badasses when they mow through them! What's not to like?

Indeed. Minions only really run into problems when you've got a wizard slinging enlarged spells around. A standard 3.5 ogre has an AC of 16 and 29 hit points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ogre.htm). A level 10 fighter should never be missing that and will probably be able to one-shot them almost all the time - and so will the rogue with Sneak Attack and the cleric if the cleric is trying. A wizard using a fireball will be forcing them to save or die most of the time (and they have a reflex of +0). I'd have no problem simplifying the small ogre army into minions in 3.5 - boosting their to hit and defences in exchange for avoiding tracking hit points.

[SiuiS]

What you are doing is presenting your mistaken impressions as cold hard fact and universal truths.

Uh, I call bull on that. This entire tangent started with me agreeing to "I feel the old stat blocks were more holistic". There's no cold hard fact there, nor is there a mistake. Stop being so damn rude about it, especially since all you're doing is saying the same damn thing about your prefered edition and declaring "nuhuh, I'm right!" :smallannoyed:


You might not find there to be value in triangulation and multiple expressions of the same concept. Some of us do.

And don't put words in my mouth.



As normal you are throwing away half the mechanics and then presenting what's left as 100% of what there is. Off the top of my head, Eladrin are fey - i.e. native to the feywild. Kobolds are small, draconic, and have darkvision.


Fey and Draconic mean nothing. The unifying theme of all eladrin is their Fey Step; every eladrin has it. I notice you don't look at the other examples.



To take the kobolds as an example we'll look at a kobold slinger. Kobold slingers bring pots of stuff with them to battles.

False analogy. Being a slinger isn't part of being a kobold, thats the problem. Any one monster doesn't have the right granularity. It makes them feel different than just about every other edition I've played, because a kobold slinger and a kobold dragon acolyte are so different i don't even have to consider them the same race.

Contrast with 3e, where a kobold 1 with a sling and some alchemical items is stilla kobold, and a kobold 1 adept or dragon shaman is still a kobold. It's a prime example; from 3e you work forward to an individual, from 4e you work backward from an individual.



Um... "Multiply X up to 27 times?"

Profession: miner check yields 7 GP, but there's no one to pay you so it's raw resources. Using a craft check to smelt and prepare the ore gives you (resources*3=)21 GP worth of refine metals. Working those in your weapon smith shop gets you ((resources*3)3=)63 GP worth of end product, in this case dagger blade blanks. Using your craft skill again can, potentially, get you (((resources*3)3)3=)189 GP, in antiqued artwork daggers.

Daggers are a terrible example and I would probably cut it off at ore>steel>item, but there you go.


And basically what you are saying is that a fighter with a job earns more money than a fighter without. Never mind that almost all awesome gear is magic - and thus takes a ridiculous time for non-magic craftsmen to earn.


Not to make though. Combine those craft and profession checks with the right rituals and such can get you a decent slew of useful for henchman items pretty early. All you need is time and effort to actually train up the best legion you can and equip them to the best of your power. It's not a good economic thing, and would probably be shut down if it were made into an assembly line thing for strict profit. As the point of a fighter though, the man who moves into te wilderness, tames it and gives the settlers teeth and morale, it's pretty solid.

[Scow2]

Profession: miner check yields 7 GP, but there's no one to pay you so it's raw resources. Using a craft check to smelt and prepare the ore gives you (resources*3=)21 GP worth of refine metals. Working those in your weapon smith shop gets you ((resources*3)3=)63 GP worth of end product, in this case dagger blade blanks. Using your craft skill again can, potentially, get you (((resources*3)3)3=)189 GP, in antiqued artwork daggers.Um... no. Using your profession:Miner skill, you're paid 7 GP for working, regardless if there's anyone to pay you or not. You don't get 7 GP of raw material, and it doesn't multiply that way. The abstract nature of crafting and profession checks don't work the way you seem to think they do.

[Conundrum]

SiuS, I think you're very reasonable, so I really don't think you're purposely being contrary or intentionally avoiding the point - which is how it might come across otherwise - but I do think you're missing the point.


False analogy. Being a slinger isn't part of being a kobold, thats the problem. Any one monster doesn't have the right granularity. It makes them feel different than just about every other edition I've played, because a kobold slinger and a kobold dragon acolyte are so different i don't even have to consider them the same race.

Contrast with 3e, where a kobold 1 with a sling and some alchemical items is stilla kobold, and a kobold 1 adept or dragon shaman is still a kobold. It's a prime example; from 3e you work forward to an individual, from 4e you work backward from an individual.

Monster families in 4e still have things in common. As I mentioned earlier, Hyenas have Pack Attack and Harrier - two common abilities that lend all Hyenas some common tactics despite having other unique abilities to fulfill their different roles (brute, skirmisher etc). Kobolds (to continue beating a dead horse) are the same with their shiftiness. Perhaps the problem here is that in 4e, you're rarely comparing a level 1 Kobold with a different level 1 Kobold?

Also, to come at it from another direction - what traits would you consider to be part of "being a human", in the real world? If you were to compare, say, (and someone please alert me if I'm skirting to close to any forum rules here, but I want to use at least a vaguely comparable example), an American soldier to a Vietnamese soldier during the Vietnam war. Vastly different equipment, vastly different tactics, but they're both still human. Why can't Kobolds be the same?

(In fact, I would argue Kobolds should be the same, if you want a realistic ecology).

[Water_Bear]

I don't think quantifying the character in terms of full stats is necessary. If you want the PCs to have access to magic Items from the blacksmith, you can say that the blacksmith is one of the best in the world, and not have to quantify it.

That's kind of the problem though; leaving important parts of the game world up in the air messes with the sense that there is a living world, causes issues when moving between DMs, and makes detailed worldbuilding harder for the DM. Especially if we're pruning the skill lists to represent "Adventuring Skills" which a murderhobo is expected to pick up automatically, there needs to be some way of modeling other skills and abilities.

In addition, part of the point of this would be to take the emphasis off combat. By making it clear that only some monsters are worth fighting, and that even they have a life outside of combat, it changes the way Players think about how they engage with the game. Hell, even just putting Reaction Rolls and Morale Checks back in would make monsters seem less like enemies in a computer game.

[Scow2]

That's kind of the problem though; leaving important parts of the game world up in the air messes with the sense that there is a living world, causes issues when moving between DMs, and makes detailed worldbuilding harder for the DM. Especially if we're pruning the skill lists to represent "Adventuring Skills" which a murderhobo is expected to pick up automatically, there needs to be some way of modeling other skills and abilities.

In addition, part of the point of this would be to take the emphasis off combat. By making it clear that only some monsters are worth fighting, and that even they have a life outside of combat, it changes the way Players think about how they engage with the game. Hell, even just putting Reaction Rolls and Morale Checks back in would make monsters seem less like enemies in a computer game.
I disagree here. You don't need abilties that don't contribute to fighting or avoiding fighting or dungeoneering statted out, and it causes more problems than it fixes by statting them out anyway. The complete divorce of fluff from crunch in 3e was a big problem with the system.

It's not that the abilities aren't represented on the monster/NPC - it's that they're represented with a sentence or paragraph instead of an arbitrary and often nonfunctional number.

[neonchameleon]

Uh, I call bull on that. This entire tangent started with me agreeing to "I feel the old stat blocks were more holistic". There's no cold hard fact there, nor is there a mistake. Stop being so damn rude about it, especially since all you're doing is saying the same damn thing about your prefered edition and declaring "nuhuh, I'm right!" :smallannoyed:

Statements you have made on this page alone have included: "Fey and Draconic mean nothing.", "Everything elastin are boils down to short range teleportation.", "I said one has numbers which generate flavor text when you compile them.", "Sure, you can make a centipede of death out of the dragon warrior ones, but thats it."

Every single one of those statements is presented as cold hard fact, and every single one of those statements is false.


And don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't. Triangulation is what having multiple monsters of a type does. That was my statement. You see no value in it. This, I'm pretty sure is something you agree with.


Fey and Draconic mean nothing.

Strictly false. Fey in 4e means native to the Feywild. It indicates the environment they live in. If you are going to claim that words with meanings have no meaning no wonder you are having problems.


The unifying theme of all eladrin is their Fey Step; every eladrin has it.

The unifying theme of all eladrin is being elves. Not the hippies who live in woods - those have been split off and called elves. But the Fey. The Fair Folk. From the troubadors who invite people underhill (into the Feywild) to the knights who challenge people at crossroads, to the tricksters who offer bags of Faerie Gold.

The unifying mechanical theme of eladrin is being unearthly, able to turn up in unexpected places or to get away surprisingly. This is represented by Fey Step.


I notice you don't look at the other examples.

Frankly I couldn't be bothered.


False analogy. Being a slinger isn't part of being a kobold, thats the problem.

And being a warrior is certainly not part of being a halfling. Yet the default halfling is a halfling warrior in 3.X (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/halfling.htm) - and not only a warrior, but a warrior with Weapon Focus. The organisation presented for halflings is purely military. Mysteriously "The default halfling is a warrior" is fine by you despite going against much of the fluff but "a non-trivial number of kobolds are slingers" isn't.


Any one monster doesn't have the right granularity. It makes them feel different than just about every other edition I've played, because a kobold slinger and a kobold dragon acolyte are so different i don't even have to consider them the same race.

Absolutely. This makes 4e different from any other edition of D&D. Because members of any given race, although they have simmilar approaches to the world, are actually different from each other by default. 4e is the first edition of D&D to actually embrace diversity in approaches and say that any given sapient race is too versatile for there to be one single statblock to cover almost everyone. This is a huge change from older editions of D&D that did not use the variety inherent in a race to flesh out the racial write-up and indeed implied that the masses were almost interchangeable.


Contrast with 3e, where a kobold 1 with a sling and some alchemical items is stilla kobold, and a kobold 1 adept or dragon shaman is still a kobold.

In 4e they are also both still kobolds. With shifty, darkvision, small size.

But a kobold slinger isn't just a kobold with a sling. A random kobold with a sling would probably be a kobold tunneller with a ranged attack. Still a minion. Kobold slingers as a type are experts and kobolds are famed for their slingers (see, for example, Balearic or Rhodean slingers).


It's a prime example; from 3e you work forward to an individual, from 4e you work backward from an individual.

Alternatively 3e is largely about combat and spells with effectively interchangeable foes (even most of what the Rakshasa does is due to casting as a 7th level sorceror) - and non-combatants don't fight. Which is why the racial writeup even for halflings and gnomes is about their warriors. 4e tries to show much more in its monster manuals (yes, even the MM1) - and thus dosn't give you cookie cutter monsters. Instead everyone who's specialised in fighting specialises in some aspect of fighting.

[neonchameleon]

That's kind of the problem though; leaving important parts of the game world up in the air messes with the sense that there is a living world, causes issues when moving between DMs, and makes detailed worldbuilding harder for the DM. Especially if we're pruning the skill lists to represent "Adventuring Skills" which a murderhobo is expected to pick up automatically, there needs to be some way of modeling other skills and abilities.

In addition, part of the point of this would be to take the emphasis off combat. By making it clear that only some monsters are worth fighting, and that even they have a life outside of combat, it changes the way Players think about how they engage with the game. Hell, even just putting Reaction Rolls and Morale Checks back in would make monsters seem less like enemies in a computer game.

To me poor worldbuilding is a much larger problem than limited worldbuilding. I've already pointed out how the profession skills lead to results that apply in no fantasy world I can think of ever (profession: Lawyer earns the same money as profession: Waitress). And for social skills, does anyone ever actually use the rules for diplomacy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) as written?

I like non-adventuring focus even for a high action game when done as well as it is in GURPS. But 2e and 3e both do their non-adventuring focus elements excruciatingly badly. Profession and Craft outcomes resemble no non-3.5 world (fictional or real) that isn't explicitely based on D&D in the history of ever. On second thoughts they might resemble an Workers Paradise where everyone is paid the same amount whatever trade they are in. With the economy being a post-scarcity one thanks to the wizards (i.e. members of The Party) being able to Fabricate stuff. Actually on second thoughts I think we're reaching an Ayn Rand novel where her industrialists are literally wizards and non-industrialists ... aren't.

And unless you're playing in an oldschool group where you literally move the same character between DMs, I have absolutely no problem with different worlds having different economies. Different parts of this world do, after all.

[obryn]

That's kind of the problem though; leaving important parts of the game world up in the air messes with the sense that there is a living world, causes issues when moving between DMs, and makes detailed worldbuilding harder for the DM.
Wow, I don't get that sense at all.

If you don't have respect for the fictional level of world-building, then I suppose statting out every Blacksmith in Nowheresville makes sense. But if you accept the fiction as being as binding as any set of numbers on a page, it really doesn't. In that case, the numbers are just meaningless work.

Don't make the mistake of equating "place in the world" with "mathematically modeled in system." The fiction/narrative is important, and not everything in it needs to be backed up by stats.

What's more, you get better results by leveraging the fiction for your worldbuilding. For example, instead of trying to work out how much a Blacksmith using the Profession skill makes per fortnight using the skill rules, you can try and make a more reasonable estimate from your sense of the world, should it ever be important. Just because there's rules for something doesn't make it a good model.

-O

[Kornaki]

To me poor worldbuilding is a much larger problem than limited worldbuilding. I've already pointed out how the profession skills lead to results that apply in no fantasy world I can think of ever (profession: Lawyer earns the same money as profession: Waitress). And for social skills, does anyone ever actually use the rules for diplomacy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) as written?

I think the profession skills actually make a lot of sense to always pay the same amount. Each skill point represents some amount of time spent training, regardless of profession. Someone with 4 ranks in profession: waitress is probably waiting tables for high nobility and moneyed merchants and pulling in huge tips, whereas someone with 4 ranks in profession: lawyer might be fresh out of law school and is just working small cases when she can find them

[Scow2]

I think the profession skills actually make a lot of sense to always pay the same amount. Each skill point represents some amount of time spent training, regardless of profession. Someone with 4 ranks in profession: waitress is probably waiting tables for high nobility and moneyed merchants and pulling in huge tips, whereas someone with 4 ranks in profession: lawyer might be fresh out of law school and is just working small cases when she can find them
This falls apart immediately. 4 ranks is 4 ranks, same amount of investment. Why is the Waitress a high-class server (Implying many years of practical experience under her belt) while the Lawyer with the same amount of time and investment in his career is still a rookie greenhorn?

[neonchameleon]

I think the profession skills actually make a lot of sense to always pay the same amount. Each skill point represents some amount of time spent training, regardless of profession. Someone with 4 ranks in profession: waitress is probably waiting tables for high nobility and moneyed merchants and pulling in huge tips, whereas someone with 4 ranks in profession: lawyer might be fresh out of law school and is just working small cases when she can find them

Huge tips?

Someone with 1 rank in profession and a wisdom of 8 has a profession score of +0 - or an average check result of 10.5 or 5GP per week.

Someone with 10 ranks, a +5 item, and a wisdom of 20 has a +20 modifier for 15 GP per week.

So even our spectacularly good waitress with the best clients only gets about three times as much as our very very junior waitress probably getting scammed by her employer.

[Scow2]

Huge tips?

Someone with 1 rank in profession and a wisdom of 8 has a profession score of +0 - or an average check result of 10.5 or 5GP per week.

Someone with 10 ranks, a +5 item, and a wisdom of 20 has a +20 modifier for 15 GP per week.

So even our spectacularly good waitress with the best clients only gets about three times as much as our very very junior waitress probably getting scammed by her employer.

Three times as much is the difference between a $30k annual salary and a $90k annual salary... which is still ****ty, given the difference in modifier.

And, it points out the flaw in tying all professions to the same attribute as well. Waitresses should be CHA-based.

[SiuiS]

Um... no. Using your profession:Miner skill, you're paid 7 GP for working, regardless if there's anyone to pay you or not. You don't get 7 GP of raw material, and it doesn't multiply that way. The abstract nature of crafting and profession checks don't work the way you seem to think they do.

So you're willing to tell me that I can magically acquire drvrn golden coins no matter where I am and that the ore I mined disspears, but you aren't willing to see how the same process functionally spends that seven coins on seven coins' worth of useful crafting materials? Lemme guess, if you cut down a forest, you still can't make a staff because there are no trees about from which to get wood?

Crafting can also be used to make art, by the waty, and by using the same rules, too. Straight from the book, you multiply your check by the DC and make progress toward your end result. You can use an uncut gem and craft (gemcutting) to multiply it's value.
You can use a slew of gems to multiply their value by making a diamond encrusted necklace. But for some reason you cannot make gems to encrust a necklace with?


SiuS, I think you're very reasonable, so I really don't think you're purposely being contrary or intentionally avoiding the point - which is how it might come across otherwise - but I do think you're missing the point.

At this point I'm trying to both clarify past misinformation, and clear up the whole aggressive argument thing.


"Everything elastin are boils down to short range teleportation."

I am continually bemused at my phone replacing real words with other, less useful real words.

As a mechanical choice, am I wrong? I think I confused the issue, because when discussing this, we were talking about specifically why kobolds were a bad example, which is why other PHB races came up. It was a tangent that you seem to have folded into the original line, of deriving inerred ecology from the numbers.


"I said one has numbers which generate flavor text when you compile them."

Which is factually true, unless you want to tell me I am not actually aware of my own thoughts?


"Sure, you can make a centipede of death out of the dragon warrior ones, but thats it."

Which was removed from the context of 'let's step away from playable races because of aforementioned reasons'. In that context, it makes perfect sense. I was trying to move onto actual monsters.


and every single one of those statements is false.

Please don't get into technicalities if you aren't going to be technically correct with them. For one, they bog things down - I'm sure we are both being reactionary at this point - and for two they don't really prove anything but that you put weight on technicalities.


You see no value in it.

And again with the words in my mouth!



The unifying theme of all eladrin is being elves.

Technically, no (:smalltongue:). The unifying theme of the eladrin, from the fluff (which is entirely separate and thereby not applicable to our previous discussion of emergence, which was based on numbers and mechanics) is that they and elves were once a common people.


Not the hippies who live in woods - those have been split off and called elves. But the Fey. The Fair Folk. From the troubadors who invite people underhill (into the Feywild) to the knights who challenge people at crossroads, to the tricksters who offer bags of Faerie Gold.

Sure, sure. Strip away the PHB fluff and leave just the numbers and show me the "invite others underhill" power, please? Or their faerie gold stash utility?

Or, is all you can show me a skill, some attribute bumps, and a teleportation that is short range?


The unifying mechanical theme of eladrin is being unearthly, able to turn up in unexpected places or to get away surprisingly. This is represented by Fey Step.

That makes sense.


Mysteriously "The default halfling is a warrior" is fine by you despite going against much of the fluff but "a non-trivial number of kobolds are slingers" isn't.

And again with the words you speak for me. If you want to disprove me, do it with what I said, please. You'll notice that what I've said, consistently, in varying ways, is the player races (Which you can't be bothered with, except here you are, bothering...) are a bad benchmark for it.



Alternatively 3e is largely about combat and spells with effectively interchangeable foes (even most of what the Rakshasa does is due to casting as a 7th level sorceror) - and non-combatants don't fight. Which is why the racial writeup even for halflings and gnomes is about their warriors. 4e tries to show much more in its monster manuals (yes, even the MM1) - and thus dosn't give you cookie cutter monsters. Instead everyone who's specialised in fighting specialises in some aspect of fighting.

I agree with this, but I can't see it as a counterpoint. It's what I was saying.


Aaaand, this is as far as I'll go. If you choose to focus on technicalities over what I was trying to convey (agreement with someone, and why) then I can't help that. But from here on out we will just get snipey-er. So closing arguments?

I understand your point. I don't think you understand mine. It's a technicality of an opinion. It's not the be-all or end-all of my thoughts on the game and games, as you seem to suggest. But as a standalone statement, it's not wrong. It may be inapplicable, or not worth noting to you, sure. But not wrong.

[Person_Man]

Three times as much is the difference between a $30k annual salary and a $90k annual salary... which is still ****ty, given the difference in modifier.

And, it points out the flaw in tying all professions to the same attribute as well. Waitresses should be CHA-based.

Look, I love Traits and/or Non-Weapon Proficiencies or other mechanics which allow you to add rarely useful flavor to characters. (I support non-useful Skills in 3.5 as well, but wish that they had been segregated into a separate sub-system, so that I wouldn't have to choose between Craft and Tumble). But D&D has never, and should never, model real life, especially when it comes to economics. Economists who spend their entire careers trying to model such things often fail spectacularly. And real life is spectacularly unbalanced. (Why should Bill Gates son start out with billions of dollars, while I started out in a family mired in debt?)

[SiuiS]

That's kind of the problem though; leaving important parts of the game world up in the air messes with the sense that there is a living world, causes issues when moving between DMs, and makes detailed worldbuilding harder for the DM. Especially if we're pruning the skill lists to represent "Adventuring Skills" which a murderhobo is expected to pick up automatically, there needs to be some way of modeling other skills and abilities.

In addition, part of the point of this would be to take the emphasis off combat. By making it clear that only some monsters are worth fighting, and that even they have a life outside of combat, it changes the way Players think about how they engage with the game. Hell, even just putting Reaction Rolls and Morale Checks back in would make monsters seem less like enemies in a computer game.

I agree with everything but the bolded part. How does it make worldbuilding harder?


Wow, I don't get that sense at all.

If you don't have respect for the fictional level of world-building, then I suppose statting out every Blacksmith in Nowheresville makes sense. But if you accept the fiction as being as binding as any set of numbers on a page, it really doesn't. In that case, the numbers are just meaningless work.

Don't make the mistake of equating "place in the world" with "mathematically modeled in system." The fiction/narrative is important, and not everything in it needs to be backed up by stats.

What's more, you get better results by leveraging the fiction for your worldbuilding. For example, instead of trying to work out how much a Blacksmith using the Profession skill makes per fortnight using the skill rules, you can try and make a more reasonable estimate from your sense of the world, should it ever be important. Just because there's rules for something doesn't make it a good model.

I agree. There is a certain satisfaction to be had by modelling the world forward from those checks and skills, though. It's often better as a thought exercise, but it's fun and engaging for those who like it, especially when you twist the modifiers around to get as close to expected output as you can. It's like a minigame.


Three times as much is the difference between a $30k annual salary and a $90k annual salary... which is still ****ty, given the difference in modifier.

And, it points out the flaw in tying all professions to the same attribute as well. Waitresses should be CHA-based.

But it's also the difference between a $1,000 salary and a $3,000 salary. For things like this you need to keep in mind the minimum requirements as well as the difference in spread. That five gold could become, functionally, the same as making an extra five bucks a paycheck, or it could be enough to send Jimmy to fighters College.

[Scow2]

Technically, no (:smalltongue:). The unifying theme of the eladrin, from the fluff (which is entirely separate and thereby not applicable to our previous discussion of emergence, which was based on numbers and mechanics) is that they and elves were once a common people.
Fluff and mechanics cannot be stripped away from each other. In 4e, if something is described as being a good smith, despite not having any Craft(Blacksmithing) skill, it's still a good smith because the entry says it is.

[noparlpf]

Three times is also the difference between $100 and $300 a week.

Actually, 5gp/week, assuming you take a week off every couple of months, because you can definitely afford to, is about $100k/year at the current price of gold. So let's just assume that we can't draw comparisons between D&D currency and real-life currency.

[Tholomyes]

That's kind of the problem though; leaving important parts of the game world up in the air messes with the sense that there is a living world, causes issues when moving between DMs, and makes detailed worldbuilding harder for the DM. Especially if we're pruning the skill lists to represent "Adventuring Skills" which a murderhobo is expected to pick up automatically, there needs to be some way of modeling other skills and abilities.

In addition, part of the point of this would be to take the emphasis off combat. By making it clear that only some monsters are worth fighting, and that even they have a life outside of combat, it changes the way Players think about how they engage with the game. Hell, even just putting Reaction Rolls and Morale Checks back in would make monsters seem less like enemies in a computer game.I kind of see your point, I suppose, in that the shear presence of statistics outside combat ones presents a different perspective than one where the stats are simply combat, but I'm thinking logistically, here. There is only a limited amount of space with which to print monsters on. Once you start adding stat-blocks for generic NPCs, which can be winged on the fly much easier than combat-focused NPCs (due to the aforementioned fact that these NPCs usually have a focus on a couple skills and maybe another minor trait, as the sum of their mechanics) you're taking up valuable space in the books for something that, as a DM, doesn't make prep work any easier.

Where I will agree with you is adding Morale back. Perhaps not morale checks, which just to personal taste doesn't sit right with me, but perhaps a version like in 3.x that says "At X HP or below, they will attempt to make a diversion to escape. At Y HP or below, they will throw down their weapons and surrender immediately." Apart from taking too long, that's one of my main gripes with 4e combat; since there are no real rules for morale or the like, switching between combat and non-combat can be jarring, since you're going from what is basically a war-game into roleplay, where Morale helps to simulate that the enemies you're facing aren't just a bag of Hit Points, but are actual people (or the like), who have a survival instinct.

[Conundrum]

At this point I'm trying to both clarify past misinformation, and clear up the whole aggressive argument thing.

Fair enough, though I was hoping for a response to the rest of my post - since I think that would have been informative as to where you're coming from.


Technically, no (:smalltongue:). The unifying theme of the eladrin, from the fluff (which is entirely separate and thereby not applicable to our previous discussion of emergence, which was based on numbers and mechanics) is that they and elves were once a common people.

Sure, sure. Strip away the PHB fluff and leave just the numbers and show me the "invite others underhill" power, please? Or their faerie gold stash utility?

Personally, I fail to see why you think there's no value in using fluff to determine culture and flavour, even if we do ignore the fact that neonchameleon and I both continue to point out examples where 4e mechanics infer culture and flavour.


I understand your point.

I don't really think you do, to be honest, and that's fine - I don't think I understand yours either. It's coming off as completely unreasonable and so I assume I must be missing something. What's wrong with the examples given (such as the Purple Worm, Hyenas, etc) in terms of giving a good idea of the culture and unifying aspects of things, whether it comes from fluff, crunch, or a combination of the two? Why do we have to strip out the fluff?

[Kornaki]

This falls apart immediately. 4 ranks is 4 ranks, same amount of investment. Why is the Waitress a high-class server (Implying many years of practical experience under her belt) while the Lawyer with the same amount of time and investment in his career is still a rookie greenhorn?

Ranks correspond to skill and training. How much training does a waiter get usually? A day? An hour? Most waiters are doing it as a job, not a profession, which means they may have experience but it's all first hand and comes with very little feedback. In my vision of how the skill ranks work someone who world at applebees for two years maybe had one rank in the skill, just like someone who tried self studying to be a lawyer probably gets less ranks than someone who spent the same amount of time at a law school.

[Emmerask]

The problem with such a low resolution though is, what about the guy who has 1 year of experience? does he really have as little knowledge as someone who hasn´t even heard that such a thing exists ie 0?

In one year normally you learn quite a lot, its not in depth knowledge but enough to not make a fool out of you ^^

[Tholomyes]

The problem with such a low resolution though is, what about the guy who has 1 year of experience? does he really have as little knowledge as someone who hasn´t even heard that such a thing exists ie 0?

In one year normally you learn quite a lot, its not in depth knowledge but enough to not make a fool out of you ^^

The problem is that the mechanics that D&D uses (and assuming that it doesn't fundamentally change any time soon) can't reflect that granularity. In a system with a variable number (or size) of dice, you could have checks set up so that someone with no skill has a high chance to fail, a sizable chance to critically fail, a small chance to succeed and a zero (or thereabouts) chance to critically succeed. Then a small bump in skill means critical failures are much less likely, but the total failure chance isn't much less, and it's just about the same chance to critically succeed as before. But a Larger bump in skill would mean critical failures are neigh impossible, total failure chance is much lower and critical success chance is reasonably higher. But D&D is not likely to do that.

One possibility to simulate this is have everyone able to attempt any skill untrained, and then make a critical-failure confirmation roll if they fail (and are untrained) and on a confirmed critical failure, they botch the check badly. That way a minor bit of training doesn't vastly improve the odds of success, but it eliminates the chance to critically fail.

[SiuiS]

Fair enough, though I was hoping for a response to the rest of my post - since I think that would have been informative as to where you're coming from.

I specifically don't want to add details that would confuse the issue. You guys are building a heuristic from examples, and it's causing dissonance. I'm not helping, so I'll stop making it worse Next best thing.



Personally, I fail to see why you think there's no value in using fluff to determine culture and flavour, even if we do ignore the fact that neonchameleon and I both continue to point out examples where 4e mechanics infer culture and flavour.

You're reading into it. I never said I don't find value there. This was all because someone mistook agreeing with a sentiment as denial of all other possible sentiments.

When discussing a technicality, the correct method is to deal only with those technical details. The technicality was "there is an emergence from the 3e stat blocks which I do not get from 4e". This is true, for both me and him (caveat: I may be misrepresenting the original speaker). Zoom out, away from technicalities, and it doesn't matter or apply anymore.


What's wrong with the examples given (such as the Purple Worm, Hyenas, etc) in terms of giving a good idea of the culture and unifying aspects of things, whether it comes from fluff, crunch, or a combination of the two? Why do we have to strip out the fluff?

This is what I meant by technicality.
Why do you have to strip away the fluff? You dont, the fluff is fine.
Why do you have to strip away the fluff in a scenario where the fluff is stripped away? Because by agreeing to the scenario you are accepting it's constraints as true. Not stripping the fluff, in this instance, is just being contrary.


The problem with such a low resolution though is, what about the guy who has 1 year of experience? does he really have as little knowledge as someone who hasn´t even heard that such a thing exists ie 0?

In one year normally you learn quite a lot, its not in depth knowledge but enough to not make a fool out of you ^^

So two camps, then?
Profession is an abstraction where the ranks represent not training time, but ability.
Profession is measured in input, and the amount of output should vary by job.

Hmm.

[Kurald Galain]

Fluff and mechanics cannot be stripped away from each other. In 4e, if something is described as being a good smith, despite not having any Craft(Blacksmithing) skill, it's still a good smith because the entry says it is.
...except when a blacksmithing check is called for, at which point he's suddenly exactly as good as anyone else.

True, this doesn't bother everybody, but the complete divorce of fluff from crunch in 4e is a valid criticism of the system (and not just in the skill system either; powers and conditions tend to have similar fluff/crunch mismatches).

[Scow2]

...except when a blacksmithing check is called for, at which point he's suddenly exactly as good as anyone else.

True, this doesn't bother everybody, but the complete divorce of fluff from crunch in 4e is a valid criticism of the system (and not just in the skill system either; powers and conditions tend to have similar fluff/crunch mismatches).

Why is a blacksmithing check being called for? If you're a blacksmith, you can make the item.

[Kurald Galain]

Why is a blacksmithing check being called for? If you're a blacksmith, you can make the item.
It's a matter of opinion whether such checks are necessary, but it's a matter of fact that 4E cannot handle them, whereas other systems can (and by "can" I do not mean that they have to be a perfect simulation of real-world Keynesian economics or something like that).

Look at this again in terms of 5E game design. If 5E has rules for crafting items, them some people will simply play without them. However, if 5E has no such rules, then the people who miss them will play a different game. It's basically what Saph said earlier,


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.

[TinyHippo]

As hesitatant as I am to wade into the midst of all the name calling (unless you're an elderly Southern waitress calling someone else "honey" is pretty insulting), edition warring (X-E is the best cause 123... Nuh-uh, Y-E is the best and you just don't understand it cause no one who actually understands it and plays it could not find it superior!), and general nerd raging going on here, I'll throw out my own personal, subjective opinion about what I like and don't like and why. Feel free to tell me I'm having fun the wrong way and just don't understand enough to agree with you. :smallwink:

I cut my RPing teeth on 3.X, and it's the system I have the most knowledge and mastery of. I like some elements of it and I've enjoyed playing it, but there are vast swathes of the system I abhor. Vancian casting, cross class skills (if you cast magic it's really really hard to learn how to swim), crafting and professions and social skills in general, and on and on. So when 4E came out I was pretty excited. But when I got the PHB I was more than a little dissappointed. I'd list the reasons why in detail, but 1. I don't remember them that well after the years and 2. I don't want to read a lengthy diatribe about how stupid I am for not understanding the glory and majesty of 4E.

The funny thing is I'd wanted a lot of what 4E was trying to do for years. But the means they used to accomplish it just took a lot of the fun out of it for me. I think the breaking point was minions. One thing I loved about 3.5 was the sense that the world existed outside of the PC's, versus a videogame where things existed for the sole purpose of getting murdered for XP. Now you could argue that it's all just a fluff difference etc, but but the mechanics are still "These critters exist solely to die in one swing." And that makes me feel like it cheapens the victory. Yay, we mowed down hundreds of... creatures with fewer hitpoints than a kitten that exist solely to be mowed down by us. Whee...

So I don't know what classification that makes me, simulationist I guess? And yes, I'm sure you can fluff all you want about the world outside of the PC's. But mechanically, the system seemed geared towards "The world exists solely in terms of your characters, and everything is just a bag of walking XP." Again, maybe that's how most 3.X games were in practice, and I admit that the attempt to not have that be the case in 3.X was done very poorly. But they were trying. And in 4E it seems like they didn't say "We failed at our goal, let's make it better" they said "We need a new goal entirely" and frankly it's not one that I like.

So, on the infinitesimal chance that WOTC is listening and cares about what I think, here's what I hope 5E can be like.
A world that's flexible enough that PC's and NPC's can operate the same way, without a master blacksmith needing to be able to slay hideous monsters with a single blow. "People who aren't you operate under different laws of physics and reality because they, uh, just do. So shut up." is immersion/versimilitude/fun destroying for me. Maybe not for you, and hey good on you, but it is for me.
Non-combat conflict resolution that's not utterly borked, and that doesn't rely on hand waving.
And a way to build a robust world outside of the PC's for them to interact with sandbox style, without the headaches of DMing for 3.X.
Classes that are distinct and versatile without the MMO style "Tank/healbot/DPS" roles slapped on them.
Powers that don't outshine other classes in all areas but aren't just refluffed clones of each other ala "And then you swing your sword really really hard and heal yourself X points of damage" style shenanigans.

Anyway, I realize this post will inevitably result in an outpouring of scorn and derision about my lack of system mastery (cause I think a lot of things in 3.X sucked) and my lack of understanding (cause I think a lot of things in 4E sucked) but in the end I think it's folks like me who love TTRPG's but aren't hardcore grognards or fanboys who will make up a good bit of the marketshare that determines the success or failure of 5E.

[Water_Bear]

If you don't have respect for the fictional level of world-building, then I suppose statting out every Blacksmith in Nowheresville makes sense. But if you accept the fiction as being as binding as any set of numbers on a page, it really doesn't. In that case, the numbers are just meaningless work.

My current campaign is based on a world I made in an abortive novel a few years back, with detailed cultures/religions/languages/politics all based on real world analogues (I like worldbuilding and had a lot of free time) and with a definite theme. And I can tell you, after trying to build that setting in various editions and running several (mostly successful) campaigns based on those game worlds, that just knowing the fiction is not enough to make a setting feel real on its own.

Because the PCs are exploring it through a game, and if the mechanics and the fluff disagree then there is a problem. So either the fiction needs to change to accommodate the mechanics, which can actually have cool results but is hardly ideal, or you can fudge the rules to make the fiction work. And the last thing I want to do as a DM is play game designer and try to patch holes in a ruleset just to play a game.

Having a robust toolkit which handles noncombat elements means that you don't have to compromise the fiction or make up new rules on the fly just to keep the setting intact. Any hole in the rules means more work for me to do just to keep things working, and ultimately produces worse games.

[Scow2]

I likewise didn't like Minions in 4e. I'd have prefered they had lower HP levels so that 1-shotting was pretty reliable, but 1 HP really cheapens them. A bad roll should feel like a bad roll. A good roll should feel like a good roll.

[Conundrum]

Why do you have to strip away the fluff? You dont, the fluff is fine.
Why do you have to strip away the fluff in a scenario where the fluff is stripped away? Because by agreeing to the scenario you are accepting it's constraints as true. Not stripping the fluff, in this instance, is just being contrary.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. I don't understand why you *would* strip the fluff if there's no reason to. Stripping away the fluff so that you can say the thing without the fluff is incomplete/unsatisfactory just seems like looking for an argument. The fluff and mechanics are sold as a package - of course if you take away half the package, then what's left is going to be lacking.

[neonchameleon]

As a mechanical choice, am I wrong?

Yes. You are wrong. You seem to think that everything that Eladrin are boils down to one of the many things shared by Eladrin. I might as well say what defines humans is two arms and a nose.


I think I confused the issue, because when discussing this, we were talking about specifically why kobolds were a bad example, which is why other PHB races came up. It was a tangent that you seem to have folded into the original line, of deriving inerred ecology from the numbers.

I thought they were the same line.


Which is factually true, unless you want to tell me I am not actually aware of my own thoughts?

No. You said they don't compile. That is not a statement about your thoughts. That is an absolute statement.

If you were to have avoided the absolute and instead said "I am unable to compile 4e monsters because I wish to only look at one at a time rather than have to use multiple representatives to get a look at a given fantasy race" you would have been correct. But your exact words were talking about the monsters rather than your approach to them; two very different topics.


Which was removed from the context of 'let's step away from playable races because of aforementioned reasons'. In that context, it makes perfect sense. I was trying to move onto actual monsters.

Like Rakshasa and giants...


Please don't get into technicalities if you aren't going to be technically correct with them. For one, they bog things down - I'm sure we are both being reactionary at this point - and for two they don't really prove anything but that you put weight on technicalities.

I'm technically correct with all of them. You can say that persistently what you meant was that you don't get on as well with 4e statblocks as 3.5 ones. But what you were actually saying was trying to put your readings of 4e as innate properties of the game.


And again with the words in my mouth!

Fine. You do see value in it and you see how having multiple representatives of a race all providing different takes adds depth and flavour to a race and prevents them looking all the same. But they still don't compile because ___


Technically, no (:smalltongue:). The unifying theme of the eladrin, from the fluff (which is entirely separate and thereby not applicable to our previous discussion of emergence, which was based on numbers and mechanics) is that they and elves were once a common people.

I strongly disagree. That's one aspect of the Eladrin - that they were needed because the Elves were massively overloaded. But when encountering an Eladrin in the world the plots are very seldom about elves and that bit of their history.


Sure, sure. Strip away the PHB fluff and leave just the numbers and show me the "invite others underhill" power, please? Or their faerie gold stash utility?

The Feywild equates to Underhill. And you have gone on record as saying that the Fey origin doesn't mean anything. So no I can't - another example of your double standards here where you can not directly read giants being celtic into the statblock but put it there anyway.


And again with the words you speak for me. If you want to disprove me, do it with what I said, please.

Damned if I do, damned if I don't. You claim when I use your own words that I'm only getting at technicalities. When I try to get at your argument you claim I'm trying to speak for you without ever mentioning a single thing about my paraphrase you disagree with.


You'll notice that what I've said, consistently, in varying ways, is the player races (Which you can't be bothered with, except here you are, bothering...) are a bad benchmark for it.

Then see the Rakshasa for details. Rakshasa are not a PC race.

The 4e split is sapient/non-sapient races. Rather than PC/NPC.


I agree with this, but I can't see it as a counterpoint. It's what I was saying.

The point is you see more, more clearly, and deeper by examining a theme on multiple sides. Which is what the 4e statblocks do.


I understand your point. I don't think you understand mine. It's a technicality of an opinion. It's not the be-all or end-all of my thoughts on the game and games, as you seem to suggest. But as a standalone statement, it's not wrong. It may be inapplicable, or not worth noting to you, sure. But not wrong.

Given the switch between your giants being celtic from the statblock despite there being nothing celtic in there to asking for specific powers for my Eladrin, and given you switching from all or nothing statements like 4e monsters not compiling to claiming that rather than the blanket statement you made this was a feeling, I think I understand your argument. But you keep changing it whenever pressed.

[neonchameleon]

Having a robust toolkit which handles noncombat elements means that you don't have to compromise the fiction or make up new rules on the fly just to keep the setting intact. Any hole in the rules means more work for me to do just to keep things working, and ultimately produces worse games.

And robust has what to do with craft and profession skills in 3.X?

I own GURPS. I enjoy GURPS. GURPS has some pretty decent rules that way. But the craft and profession skills are terrible and entirely based on false equivalences. Craft, Profession, and Item Crafting are very vague nods in the direction of a toolkit - and all the bits that were in 3e that are missing in 4e (with the arguable exception of a laundry list of spells) are IMO things that 3e did excruciatingly badly. The out of combat manipulation skills are all still there. (And the broken bits like the diplomacy table have been removed).

Which is worse? Doing something badly so you need to unpick the consequences (or embrace the madness with efforts like the Tome of Awesome or a Tippyverse) or you only have it as a thin veneer that otherwise breaks the world, or not doing it at all.

Seriously, until 4e I hadn't realised that 3e was even an attempt at simulationism. I'd thought that what craft and profession were there for was so you could add two ranks to a PC to have a bit of colour from your background (something 4e does from the aptly titled backgrounds). I'd thought that the notorious Number of Chickens In Greyhawk was an amusing joke based on someone taking what was intended to be a very rough rule of thumb and extrapolating. It was a DMs guideline in the way DMG p42 is in 4e. And as guidelines that way they did a pretty decent job of producing numbers that felt right in a small scale world for low level PCs. It just hadn't crossed my mind that people would take that and think you ran a world that way.

@Scow2, a number of people find minions with a health threshold - you bloody it if you do less than X damage - improve minions.

And @Kurald and @Saph, if the rules are there they will be used and pushed. If they aren't because the game is about something else they won't.

[Water_Bear]

And robust has what to do with craft and profession skills in 3.X?

Nothing. I'm not participating in that discussion any more, and this has exactly ****-all to do with 4e.

[obryn]

...except when a blacksmithing check is called for, at which point he's suddenly exactly as good as anyone else.
Again, not if you leverage the fiction. Things without numbers or die rolls can still make measurable differences in RPGs.


It's a matter of opinion whether such checks are necessary, but it's a matter of fact that 4E cannot handle them, whereas other systems can (and by "can" I do not mean that they have to be a perfect simulation of real-world Keynesian economics or something like that).
"This is a terrible system but hey! At least it's a system!" ...yeah, I'm not buying it.


Look at this again in terms of 5E game design. If 5E has rules for crafting items, them some people will simply play without them. However, if 5E has no such rules, then the people who miss them will play a different game. It's basically what Saph said earlier,
But again - it's not just like, "Look! Profession skill! Total versimilitude and world building ahoy!" There's a system overhead for doing things in this way. You might not lose anyone by specifically putting in a Blacksmithing skill, but you might because of the system you had to build to make that Blacksmithing skill a game element.


My current campaign is based on a world I made in an abortive novel a few years back, with detailed cultures/religions/languages/politics all based on real world analogues (I like worldbuilding and had a lot of free time) and with a definite theme. And I can tell you, after trying to build that setting in various editions and running several (mostly successful) campaigns based on those game worlds, that just knowing the fiction is not enough to make a setting feel real on its own.

Because the PCs are exploring it through a game, and if the mechanics and the fluff disagree then there is a problem. So either the fiction needs to change to accommodate the mechanics, which can actually have cool results but is hardly ideal, or you can fudge the rules to make the fiction work. And the last thing I want to do as a DM is play game designer and try to patch holes in a ruleset just to play a game.
The mechanics and the fluff don't need to disagree if there's no specific mechanics. And IMO you're not patching a hole in a game system if the system isn't meant to handle it.

The 3.x Profession stuff was taking a 30-year-old game of dungeoncrawling murderhobos and trying to mutate that into a simulation of Bakers & Basketweavers. It's a poor enough system for doing so that not having a system is an improvement. And I don't think the game settings of the 80's - including Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms grey box, etc. - suffered in their world-building because nobody knew exactly how much money Joe Blacksmith made every week, you know?


Having a robust toolkit which handles noncombat elements means that you don't have to compromise the fiction or make up new rules on the fly just to keep the setting intact. Any hole in the rules means more work for me to do just to keep things working, and ultimately produces worse games.
Believe me, I am down with having a robust non-combat toolkit! But I'd rather see it applied to stuff where the mechanics might actually matter in play, first. The Exploration rules in Next are a start. (Funny story - it looks like they were partly swiped from Dungeon World.) Also, a better and more complete set of rules for Contests of Will and the like. "Baking bread" isn't even on the radar unless those are handled capably, IMO. (And maybe not even then, because I'd prefer my game system to be good at a smaller set of things than mediocre or poor at everything. :smallsmile:)

-O

[SiuiS]

(unless you're an elderly Southern waitress calling someone else "honey" is pretty insulting)

I call everyone by one of honey, luv, mate or friend, unless they aren't. Depends on cultural steerage, I suppose.

Used to use sugar a lot, too.



The funny thing is I'd wanted a lot of what 4E was trying to do for years. But the means they used to accomplish it just took a lot of the fun out of it for me.

Mhmm. Presentation and delivery mean a lot. It's why people like to have a process. Sometimes having things handed to you or overly sanitized first cheapens them.



Anyway, I realize this post will inevitably result in an outpouring of scorn and derision about my lack of system mastery (cause I think a lot of things in 3.X sucked) and my lack of understanding (cause I think a lot of things in 4E sucked) but in the end I think it's folks like me who love TTRPG's but aren't hardcore grognards or fanboys who will make up a good bit of the marketshare that determines the success or failure of 5E.

I don't understand why you have to attribute such vitriol to others, mate. The cynicism isn't needed; you're just giving to others what you say you don't want from them.


Yes. You are wrong.

Wow. That's a terrible closing argument.

Okay! Guess we will agree to... Uh. Agree? Disagree? I really don't think we are on opposite sides of anything but a technicality.


And @Kurald and @Saph, if the rules are there they will be used and pushed. If they aren't because the game is about something else they won't.

I don't know. After talking to Pair-o-Dice before, I think it may be better to have this as a Module. Making it explicitly optional should help. Then you can have rules for this, and never use them, and that's also RAW, just like using them is.


Again, not if you leverage the fiction. Things without numbers or die rolls can still make measurable differences in RPGs.

It's the ashes-in-mouth thing. You are right, they can. But they need to be handled well – not just okay, but actually good – or the sense of accomplishment is gone. Or worse, it actively detracts from enjoyment.

It's a weird phenomenon, but it's there. I suppose it comes from the Game half of role playing game.



But again - it's not just like, "Look! Profession skill! Total versimilitude and world building ahoy!" There's a system overhead for doing things in this way. You might not lose anyone by specifically putting in a Blacksmithing skill, but you might because of the system you had to build to make that Blacksmithing skill a game element.

Would not the answer then be "don't botch the system"?

We have a method of making potions, antitoxins and such. It's "make up to three total items in an hour. Lose money equal to half their cost". So we have precedent for "you succeed" via fiction, and that feeling of accomplishment because you have to buy into it to do it (get the feat). Could we work out a similar thing with other crafts and professions? Even a feat that lets you build X gp of stuff in an hour, related to your background would work I think. A priest could illuminate grand times, a commoner could repair his equipment, etc. and it's all the same feat.



The mechanics and the fluff don't need to disagree if there's no specific mechanics. And IMO you're not patching a hole in a game system if the system isn't meant to handle it.

Aye.


The 3.x Profession stuff was taking a 30-year-old game of dungeoncrawling murderhobos and trying to mutate that into a simulation of Bakers & Basketweavers. It's a poor enough system for doing so that not having a system is an improvement. And I don't think the game settings of the 80's - including Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms grey box, etc. - suffered in their world-building because nobody knew exactly how much money Joe Blacksmith made every week, you know?

You did know how much he made. I know it covered it in like, B/X. Or maybe BEC. It's been a long time.



Believe me, I am down with having a robust non-combat toolkit! But I'd rather see it applied to stuff where the mechanics might actually matter in play, first. The Exploration rules in Next are a start. (Funny story - it looks like they were partly swiped from Dungeon World.) Also, a better and more complete set of rules for Contests of Will and the like. "Baking bread" isn't even on the radar unless those are handled capably, IMO. (And maybe not even then, because I'd prefer my game system to be good at a smaller set of things than mediocre or poor at everything. :smallsmile:)

Total agreement.

I have to ask though; rules on exploration? Where are those?

[obryn]

Would not the answer then be "don't botch the system"?
When you're trying something as broad as "model the entirety of the professional world with one or two skills," then I don't think that it's possible not to botch the system.

Now, keep in mind, I want characters to have full, meaningful backgrounds. If you were a Baker, I think you should know how to Bake. My preference is to handwave this, but if you can build it into the system in some sort of reasonable sense, it's fine. I don't want "interesting background" to compete with "effective character" in resources, though. Think AD&D Secondary Skills, here.


We have a method of making potions, antitoxins and such. It's "make up to three total items in an hour. Lose money equal to half their cost". So we have precedent for "you succeed" via fiction, and that feeling of accomplishment because you have to buy into it to do it (get the feat). Could we work out a similar thing with other crafts and professions? Even a feat that lets you build X gp of stuff in an hour, related to your background would work I think. A priest could illuminate grand times, a commoner could repair his equipment, etc. and it's all the same feat.
For stuff like potions, scrolls, etc. that have a noticeable and substantial effect in play, I think the system needs to be playable and balanced, first and foremost. I don't think we need to get as far as an Elder Scrolls game or whatever; $X in components yields Y potion with the proper game resource set to let you do it.

Expanding that to everything else? I dunno.


You did know how much he made. I know it covered it in like, B/X. Or maybe BEC. It's been a long time.
The difference here is that you're not making die rolls on some kind of unified skill system. Yes, you can include tables of average "salaries" for hirelings and NPCs. But their performance of those tasks is generally, "Yes, they do it."


I have to ask though; rules on exploration? Where are those?
Newest packet. They're actually a fair (if flawed) attempt to give a usable system for dungeon and wilderness travel.

-O

[SiuiS]

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. I don't understand why you *would* strip the fluff if there's no reason to. Stripping away the fluff so that you can say the thing without the fluff is incomplete/unsatisfactory just seems like looking for an argument. The fluff and mechanics are sold as a package - of course if you take away half the package, then what's left is going to be lacking.

A trick of conversation. Someone else singled out this one thing, and I agreed with them. When challenged, I gave examples. Then we all played telephone, I suppose.

Honestly, my thought at first was that folks would htink it odd I went from being so hand-wavy, good fiction is most important to 'actually yeah I like hard mechanics'. Boy was I wrong! :smallbiggrin:


When you're trying something as broad as "model the entirety of the professional world with one or two skills," then I don't think that it's possible not to botch the system.

Now, keep in mind, I want characters to have full, meaningful backgrounds. If you were a Baker, I think you should know how to Bake. My preference is to handwave this, but if you can build it into the system in some sort of reasonable sense, it's fine. I don't want "interesting background" to compete with "effective character" in resources, though. Think AD&D Secondary Skills, here.

Aye. Again, I like what backgrounds and stuff are doing, now. I think a feat to improve their... profesional reach? Conseuqunces in game? Would not be remiss, unless it did just sort of exist for it's own sake.



For stuff like potions, scrolls, etc. that have a noticeable and substantial effect in play, I think the system needs to be playable and balanced, first and foremost. I don't think we need to get as far as an Elder Scrolls game or whatever; $X in components yields Y potion with the proper game resource set to let you do it.

Expanding that to everything else? I dunno.

Oh, certainly. The only parts that need mechanics are those which matter. Bread would be a waste of time. Building your own castle, though, or something similar.

I am currently handwaving them. The paladin can repair his shield and armor because. I'd prefer either mechanics or some sort of quest for the... Oh, hm. For the completion.

Okay, that might be a thing. Mechanics means, mainly, game rules right? Use the C:tL model. You wanna build somehting, you ned to go on a quest to get the ingredients. The more awesome the story, the deeper the peril, the better the end result can be. It's a set of rules, mechanically incentivizes and protects a player's investment, but doesn't need a roll.



The difference here is that you're not making die rolls on some kind of unified skill system. Yes, you can include tables of average "salaries" for hirelings and NPCs. But their performance of those tasks is generally, "Yes, they do it."

My faux pas. I'm still in argue petty details mode.



Newest packet. They're actually a fair (if flawed) attempt to give a usable system for dungeon and wilderness travel.

Nuts. I still ahve the 4-1-13 packet. Is that not the most recent one? Would be just my luck to have missed an email or suchlike.

[Friv]

Nuts. I still ahve the 4-1-13 packet. Is that not the most recent one? Would be just my luck to have missed an email or suchlike.

That's the one. It's on Page 17 of the DM Guidelines, rather than being in the How To Play section.

[theduck]

Nuts. I still ahve the 4-1-13 packet. Is that not the most recent one? Would be just my luck to have missed an email or suchlike.

Naw, if they are talking about what I think they are, it is simply at the end of the DM Guidelines.

[TinyHippo]

I call everyone by one of honey, luv, mate or friend, unless they aren't. Depends on cultural steerage, I suppose.

Used to use sugar a lot, too.

First I'll note the fact that I tend to read on my phone, with avatars turned off, and expanded so I can only see the text not the side column containing username so I generally have no idea who is arguing what. Which makes it easier to focus on the argument instead of who's positing it, but harder to keep track of other things. Regardless, one's personal mannerisms don't generally translate well to the internet with it's lack of tone and body language, so it does come across as highly condescending.




Mhmm. Presentation and delivery mean a lot. It's why people like to have a process. Sometimes having things handed to you or overly sanitized first cheapens them.

Indeed, although I'd also argue that the actual mechanics are off in some cases as well as the presentation. Or not off, but just illustrative of design goals which I happen to not like.



I don't understand why you have to attribute such vitriol to others, mate. The cynicism isn't needed; you're just giving to others what you say you don't want from them.

I don't believe you're correct here. I've observed the behavior I mentioned already happening to others in this thread, and merely positied it would be extended to me as well.


All that being said, I hope that the extraneous bits of my post don't detract from the pertinent "I hope 5E is like this" bits.

[SiuiS]

Indeed, although I'd also argue that the actual mechanics are off in some cases as well as the presentation. Or not off, but just illustrative of design goals which I happen to not like.


Certainly.

I suppose this puts me in the "bettter not at all than done poorly" camp, tentatively.



I don't believe you're correct here. I've observed the behavior I mentioned already happening to others in this thread, and merely positied it would be extended to me as well.

Mm. Name calling, sarcasm, sense of fatalism. It is your mannerism though, so I'll concede.



All that being said, I hope that the extraneous bits of my post don't detract from the pertinent "I hope 5E is like this" bits.

I don't have any comments for the specifics that haven't been covered in thread. I think the understanding of roles a la fourth edition may be a necessary evil (though maybe not an evil), even if tank/healer/dps isn't your thing, and the rest of it is modular.

And do what I do, on me phone; recognise signatures :smalltongue:

[TinyHippo]

Hmmm, I'm not entirely sure I understand your criticism of me there, but frankly I don't think it's at all worthy of derailing the thread over so I'm gonna go ahead and skip over it.

Have the devs mentioned a specific modality they're going for here, re simulationism etc? I've seen some of the more generic stuff but not much in terms of what they want 5E to be, aside from silly marketing "all things to all people at all times" kind of stuff.

And I don't know if it all just goes back to a presentation thing re roles. I suppose tank/healer/dps is fine as a concept (although I have very, very grave concerns over the tank part of that) but not as good when it's formally baked right into the character description.

[theNater]

A trick of conversation. Someone else singled out this one thing, and I agreed with them. When challenged, I gave examples. Then we all played telephone, I suppose.
Okay, this made me curious, so I went back to see what started this whole thing. It opened with Tehnar:

On the other hand creating NPCs/monster out of thin air (using 4e guidelines) left me with NPCs/monsters feeling like they were "bags of numbers". Without any personality, background; they just felt they existed only for the PC's to defeat.

Granted monsters from various 4e monster manuals felt the same way, so not all fault lies on the user created NPC's.
Tehnar says that monsters felt disconnected from the world, in general, in 4e. Then you said this:

That's because they literally were just bag or numbers to be thrown at PCs, actually. Kind of discongruous actually. That's one upswing of the PC monster, or at least a broad skill system; it created a sense of ecology.
You didn't just say you also felt that way, you said the reason Tehnar felt that way was because it was objectively correct. You went on to imply that "a sense of ecology" was inherently present in a 3e-like system and inherently absent from a 4e-like system. You have since tried to explain that you only meant in terms of deriving ecology from statblocks, but you were the first one who said 4e monsters were only statblocks; Tehnar said they felt like they were only statblocks.

[Talakeal]

One note about PCs and NPCs following the same rules, some players get really paranoid about it.

Rather than give my NPCs specific feats and equipment I simply apply a template to give them roughly the same scores as a PC of equivalent level and specialization, and it works well mechanically and is very easy for me to use.

However, every time my players encounter an enemy who is as good or better than them in something they immediately cry foul and demand an explanation. I remind them about my templates, and they scoff at how my game is unfair. Then I have to reverse engineer the math and show them how they could have exactly the same score with a specific combination of feats, items, skill ranks, and racial traits, and how they could have an even higher score if they really tried.

The whole process takes about 10 minutes each time, and is repeated once every couple of sessions.




"This is a terrible system but hey! At least it's a system!" ...yeah, I'm not buying it.



That depends on how you define "terrible". I would hardly consider workable but slightly abstract system like 3.5 crafting to be "terrible", and it is probably a lot better for the game than one that perfectly modelled reality with all the tedium that would imply.

Unless they are seriously broken, having some rules which you can use just in case it comes up is a heck of a lot easier than having to house rule something on the fly every time.

Also, 1E had secondary skills and backgrounds and 2E had non weapon proficiencies. Before that many characters in fantasy fiction had careers outside of adventuring. This is hardly something 3E tried to invent whole cloth.

[obryn]

That depends on how you define "terrible". I would hardly consider workable but slightly abstract system like 3.5 crafting to be "terrible", and it is probably a lot better for the game than one that perfectly modelled reality with all the tedium that would imply.

Unless they are seriously broken, having some rules which you can use just in case it comes up is a heck of a lot easier than having to house rule something on the fly every time.
I'm good with abstract. I'm not good with this specific implementation. A secondary skill is abstract. A FATE-style Aspect is abstract. A 3.x Profession or Craft skill isn't.

As far as mechanics go, D&D works just fine without this sort of thing. It has through most of its editions.


Also, 1E had secondary skills and backgrounds and 2E had non weapon proficiencies. Before that many characters in fantasy fiction had careers outside of adventuring. This is hardly something 3E tried to invent whole cloth.
No, I think secondary skills were great. I'm lukewarm at best on late 1e/all 2e non-weapon proficiencies.

And I think 3.x skills are horrible for a game like D&D.

-O

[Scow2]

Actually... I think crafting skills in 3.5 would have worked if the rules about them hadn't been so borked. If it had tried 4e or 5e's approach to DC instead of "EVERYTHING HAS A FIXED DC!", they would have been plenty functional. Need to do something related to crafting? Make a craft check.

Profession has to go, though. I like how D&D Next makes them a Background/Trait.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Actually... I think crafting skills in 3.5 would have worked if the rules about them hadn't been so borked.
To be fair, you can say that about most anything :smallamused:

[SiuiS]

And I don't know if it all just goes back to a presentation thing re roles. I suppose tank/healer/dps is fine as a concept (although I have very, very grave concerns over the tank part of that) but not as good when it's formally baked right into the character description.

Why so?

I still think subclass is the perfect place for this kind of thing. Making different subclasses have different roles is already the norm – an armored and shielde knight would be closer to defender than a loincloth gladiator would – and having the official title doesn't change that. It also means that fighter doesn't have a single role, but several, which is nice.

I saw something on the wizardsa boards that was a dev saying they don't want subclasses to be roles so much as archetypes though, so pooh.


Okay, this made me curious, so I went back to see what started this whole thing. It opened with Tehnar:

Tehnar says that monsters felt disconnected from the world, in general, in 4e. Then you said this:

You didn't just say you also felt that way, you said the reason Tehnar felt that way was because it was objectively correct. You went on to imply that "a sense of ecology" was inherently present in a 3e-like system and inherently absent from a 4e-like system. You have since tried to explain that you only meant in terms of deriving ecology from statblocks, but you were the first one who said 4e monsters were only statblocks; Tehnar said they felt like they were only statblocks.

I've also clarified and explained across several pages what that was supposed to mean. There's a difference between "you're wrong at a conceptual level" and "you're technically wrong because you misspoke". After having backe up, stopped, and trying to start fresh after admitting my tack was backfiring, "you're technically wrong X pages ago" isn't a valid argument anymore.


I'm good with abstract. I'm not good with this specific implementation. A secondary skill is abstract. A FATE-style Aspect is abstract. A 3.x Profession or Craft skill isn't.

How woul you have the game handle it? Assuming "not" is not a valid answer, and the skills would be a removable module. Or crafting/job ability. Needn't assume it's a skill.

[obryn]

How woul you have the game handle it? Assuming "not" is not a valid answer, and the skills would be a removable module. Or crafting/job ability. Needn't assume it's a skill.
I really, really don't think it needs to be done. But if so, the more abstract and free-form the better. So, if it's me, treat it like an Aspect.

[Emmerask]

I really, really don't think it needs to be done. But if so, the more abstract and free-form the better. So, if it's me, treat it like an Aspect.

There is not much sense in creating a module that then says do it by freeform.
If you create a module it should have clear rules, those who want to do it in a freeform way can always just leave the module out ^^

[obryn]

There is not much sense in creating a module that then says do it by freeform.
If you create a module it should have clear rules, those who want to do it in a freeform way can always just leave the module out ^^Abstract isn't the same thing as free form.

-O

[Water_Bear]

I really, really don't think it needs to be done. But if so, the more abstract and free-form the better. So, if it's me, treat it like an Aspect.


Abstract isn't the same thing as free form.

I am very very confused.

[Talakeal]

The problem with going too abstract on skills is it becomes impossible to measure exactly how good someone is.

With NPCs you can simply declare this by FIAT, the apprentice is worse than the town blacksmith and the legendary master is better. But how does a PC stack up against them?

What if two PCs both want to be Blacksmiths, and they get into a pissing contest over who is better? What if a third player decides to also be a blacksmith (and whatever other skills the other players can give themselves by FIAT) because if someone else is getting something for free he doesn't want to be left out.

Maybe you play with a more relaxed group, but the people I play with(myself included) get very uppity when someone else tries to copy them or make them redundant, and are rather competitive about such things.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The problem with going too abstract on skills is it becomes impossible to measure exactly how good someone is.

With NPCs you can simply declare this by FIAT, the apprentice is worse than the town blacksmith and the legendary master is better. But how does a PC stack up against them?

What if two PCs both want to be Blacksmiths, and they get into a pissing contest over who is better? What if a third player decides to also be a blacksmith (and whatever other skills the other players can give themselves by FIAT) because if someone else is getting something for free he doesn't want to be left out.

Maybe you play with a more relaxed group, but the people I play with(myself included) get very uppity when someone else tries to copy them or make them redundant, and are rather competitive about such things.
I have to admit, I've never played in a game of heroic adventurers who loot dungeons and slay dragons in which the precise skill of a given adventurer-blacksmith was ever important. Which doesn't even get into the hypothetical where two given adventurer-blacksmiths may become jealous of each other because they were attempting to make the other "redundant" or somesuch.

In such a situation, I'd feel perfectly justified saying "whip 'em out boys and measure." Naturally, if there is a lady in the group, she wins by default :smallamused:

[obryn]

I am very very confused.
Hah, good call.

When he was saying "free-form", I interpreted it as "no rules." When I was using it, it was alongside "abstract" and I meant "loose and malleable rules."

Just a wording issue.


The problem with going too abstract on skills is it becomes impossible to measure exactly how good someone is.
...
Maybe you play with a more relaxed group, but the people I play with(myself included) get very uppity when someone else tries to copy them or make them redundant, and are rather competitive about such things.
I think this is a table issue, no?

-O

[noparlpf]

I did play in one survival-based campaign where my character's crafting skills came in useful for repairing and replacing weapons. It is pretty niche.

[TuggyNE]

Naturally, if there is a lady in the group, she wins by default :smallamused:

But what do you do if that rarest of rare chances occurs, and there's more than one? :smalltongue:

(Actually, my first group had not one, not two, not three, not even four, but five girls, and four guys counting the DM.)

[tasw]

I did play in one survival-based campaign where my character's crafting skills came in useful for repairing and replacing weapons. It is pretty niche.

I always take craft skills, being able to get weapons for halfprice at character creation makes a huge difference at lower levels.

Especially now that pathfinder has a way for mundane smiths to create magical items I always take crafting skills and they see a lot of use.

[Talakeal]

I think this is a table issue, no?

-O

Maybe it is, but it is a table issue caused by the rules.

I don't know about you, but I have never played at a table where there wasn't some form of jealousy and rivalry between the players.

I remember one time when a new player joined our group and wanted to play a rogue. I was already playing a rogue, and because I was much more familiar with the game I was far more optimized. He quit the game a few weeks later, he stated reason was that he wasn't having fun because everything his character could do mine could do better and that made him feel inferior.

Personally, I look at my characters as people first and collections of powers second. My skills are a lot more important to my concept of a character than their class. If I want to play "The best blacksmith in the land, who also happens to be a fighter" it would be really nice if I could have some rules support for being better at blacksmithing than "The best wizard in the world, who also happened to take up blacksmithing as an afterthought".

I know D&D isn't the best game for this, but it isn't terrible at it either (at least outside of 4E imo). Remember, D&D is usually the only game in town, and as such it is in the best interest of both the game and the players to be at least somewhat accommodating to the various play styles.

[obryn]

Maybe it is, but it is a table issue caused by the rules.
I don't see how?


I don't know about you, but I have never played at a table where there wasn't some form of jealousy and rivalry between the players.
Um, nope. I play with a bunch of my friends, and we're all there to have a good time. That's how it's been for pretty much my entire life. I don't think a rule set should be written with an expectation that the players will be jerks.


Personally, I look at my characters as people first and collections of powers second. My skills are a lot more important to my concept of a character than their class. If I want to play "The best blacksmith in the land, who also happens to be a fighter" it would be really nice if I could have some rules support for being better at blacksmithing than "The best wizard in the world, who also happened to take up blacksmithing as an afterthought".

I know D&D isn't the best game for this, but it isn't terrible at it either (at least outside of 4E imo). Remember, D&D is usually the only game in town, and as such it is in the best interest of both the game and the players to be at least somewhat accommodating to the various play styles.
I repeat, though - Abstract rules are still rules.

-O

[SiuiS]

Personally, I look at my characters as people first and collections of powers second. My skills are a lot more important to my concept of a character than their class. If I want to play "The best blacksmith in the land, who also happens to be a fighter" it would be really nice if I could have some rules support for being better at blacksmithing than "The best wizard in the world, who also happened to take up blacksmithing as an afterthought".

I know D&D isn't the best game for this, but it isn't terrible at it either (at least outside of 4E imo). Remember, D&D is usually the only game in town, and as such it is in the best interest of both the game and the players to be at least somewhat accommodating to the various play styles.

Agree with these. I've spent time and effort finding tables where people don't worry about supposed-redundancy though.

Then again, my player pool now consists of two others, full stop...

[Talakeal]

I don't see how?

-O

By not having rules to cover the situation. The whole purpose of having rules is to arbitrate conflict. Without rules every contest would boil down to the adult version of two kids playing cops and robbers shouting "I shot you first!" "Nu uh, I shot you first!"


Um, nope. I play with a bunch of my friends, and we're all there to have a good time. That's how it's been for pretty much my entire life. I don't think a rule set should be written with an expectation that the players will be jerks.


That's extremely fortunate of you. I don't think I have ever been in a gaming group, including sports teams or video game guilds, where there was not a strong element of jealousy or competition between atleast some of the players.

If you are really in a situation where no one ever feels left out or overshadowed then you are in a utopian situation where concepts like "game balance" are not needed. But that the perfect gaming group is not who the rules should be written for, they don't make up a majority of the market base and really don't need rules in the first place.

[1337 b4k4]

That's extremely fortunate of you. I don't think I have ever been in a gaming group, including sports teams or video game guilds, where there was not a strong element of jealousy or competition between atleast some of the players.

Competition between the players is not the same as rage quitting a game over who has the better skill in what is at best a secondary character trait. I agree with Obryn, they shouldn't design the rules around immature players or players with territory issues any more than they should design the rules around vindictive GMs or rules lawyers. The fact is such players are generally very rare, and designing rules to satisfy or mitigate them really only accomplishes alienating the players and potential players that don't need to be smacked up side the head with a rule book in order to get them to behave.

[obryn]

By not having rules to cover the situation. The whole purpose of having rules is to arbitrate conflict. Without rules every contest would boil down to the adult version of two kids playing cops and robbers shouting "I shot you first!" "Nu uh, I shot you first!"
Right. My point is that a game can't adequately do this for everything in the world. Every rule set has a focus and blind spots. This isn't a problem; this is normal. If your game often has bake-offs, well, you'd better have rules for baking. I don't think D&D as a baseline should have rules for bake-offs or competition between farriers.

As a module, by definition, I don't care. An optional add-on is always optional. As long as it's not an assumption of the base game - where it can affect other design decisions negatively - it's fine.


That's extremely fortunate of you. I don't think I have ever been in a gaming group, including sports teams or video game guilds, where there was not a strong element of jealousy or competition between atleast some of the players.

If you are really in a situation where no one ever feels left out or overshadowed then you are in a utopian situation where concepts like "game balance" are not needed. But that the perfect gaming group is not who the rules should be written for, they don't make up a majority of the market base and really don't need rules in the first place.
I really don't know what to tell you, but I think 1337 b4k4 covered most of it.

My group isn't perfect, but I think it's a lot more common than the sort of cutthroat situation you're describing where the players are in competition with each other. Even in games like Paranoia, that's done good-naturedly for us. Every group I've been in since maybe high school, I'd say.

As for balance, that's a different scale. As a group of friends sitting around a table, we're all there to play and have fun. I think it's more fun when spotlight-switching is relatively rapid - where most players can participate in most challenges and nobody's basically sitting and observing for a long stretch. YMMV; it's what I want in my games, though. That's not about competition, that's about playstyle.

-O

[SiuiS]

I'm with 133t, frankly, and just couldn't muster the will to be blunt. If competition and jealousy go hand in hand, that's immaturity, and frankly the kind of stuff I don't want.

I will note that in situations where the fighter is outshone by the wizard at the fighter's shtick that is a rules problem, though.

[Doug Lampert]

I'm with 133t, frankly, and just couldn't muster the will to be blunt. If competition and jealousy go hand in hand, that's immaturity, and frankly the kind of stuff I don't want.

I will note that in situations where the fighter is outshone by the wizard at the fighter's shtick that is a rules problem, though.

Agreed, and I'll add that if Blacksmith were a significant shtick in the game, then blacksmithing would be an important skill to detail.

As is, I've been in a discussion where people were claiming you could use the 3.x crafting skills as an important element of a game if the players for instance had to repair a wagon quickly to escape their enemy.

I asked if they were carrying components to repair the wagon. "We need components?"

"Yes, equal in value to 1/6th the cost of the wagon."

"Oh, well, we'll improvise that."

"Not by the rules you won't. You need wagon making parts. How much is the wagon worth?"

I get an estimate, I point out that it better be a slow pursuit as they'll need WEEKS to repair the wagon. You need to produce half the cost of the wagon to repair it, and this takes half as long as building the wagon, and progress is measured in SP/week.

"We're just replacing a wheel or something. It won't take weeks."

"It will if you're using these rules YOU CLAIM are important. The rules you don't know well enough to calculate the time needed correctly, the rules you can't use because you don't have components. The rules where the wizard will be able to improvise anyway since craft is usable untrained so you STILL don't actually need anyone with a craft skill.

By the book, you'll fail either way. And if you house-rule the difficulty, time, and components down then you'll succeed either way if working by the book where crafts are usable untrained.

The craft rules in 3.x are a waste of a page or so in the rulebook. They pretty much globally produce WORSE results than the GM can get by frantically waving his hands, and this isn't a "good GM" claim, a BAD GM will still do at least as well as the rules in the book. This game is not an economic simulator, don't try to make it into one unless you're prepared to put some real time and effort into it.

[SiuiS]

Agreed, and I'll add that if Blacksmith were a significant shtick in the game, then blacksmithing would be an important skill to detail.

As is, I've been in a discussion where people were claiming you could use the 3.x crafting skills as an important element of a game if the players for instance had to repair a wagon quickly to escape their enemy.

I asked if they were carrying components to repair the wagon. "We need components?"

"Yes, equal in value to 1/6th the cost of the wagon."

"Oh, well, we'll improvise that."

"Not by the rules you won't. You need wagon making parts. How much is the wagon worth?"

I get an estimate, I point out that it better be a slow pursuit as they'll need WEEKS to repair the wagon. You need to produce half the cost of the wagon to repair it, and this takes half as long as building the wagon, and progress is measured in SP/week.

"We're just replacing a wheel or something. It won't take weeks."

"It will if you're using these rules YOU CLAIM are important. The rules you don't know well enough to calculate the time needed correctly, the rules you can't use because you don't have components. The rules where the wizard will be able to improvise anyway since craft is usable untrained so you STILL don't actually need anyone with a craft skill.

By the book, you'll fail either way. And if you house-rule the difficulty, time, and components down then you'll succeed either way if working by the book where crafts are usable untrained.

The craft rules in 3.x are a waste of a page or so in the rulebook. They pretty much globally produce WORSE results than the GM can get by frantically waving his hands, and this isn't a "good GM" claim, a BAD GM will still do at least as well as the rules in the book. This game is not an economic simulator, don't try to make it into one unless you're prepared to put some real time and effort into it.

I think there is a price for a spare wagon wheel somewhere, actually.

But yes, this sort of thing gets weird. It's not a mid-combat skill by any stretch. Craft takes dedication, and you'll often see characters who hit this snag carrying fun gear like full cooking sets, picking up spare wood and glue and using carpenteer's tools in their down time to produce raw materials, etc. This isn't a problem, in the same way knowing hte specifics of what are in the spell component pouch is a problem, because it is logical to assume that people will pursue their hobby.


Personally, I am loving the ACKS proficiency system. I think it is exactly what we need for this sort of thing, halfwa between skil and feat, so a character picking up a skill doesn't get +d6 or some crud, but an actual benefit.

[neonchameleon]

Personally, I look at my characters as people first and collections of powers second. My skills are a lot more important to my concept of a character than their class.

And with all due respect this is because you are used to the very weak class system in 3.X where your class is a collection of abilities and you can choose pick'n'mix style. In 4e your class is what you do when the rubber meets the road. By choosing a PHB fighter, your statement is "When the rubber meets the road I step forward to protect my allies, focussing on my targets and ensuring they don't dare take their eyes off me." By choosing a rogue you are declaring "When the rubber meets the road I sneak, strike from unexpected angles, and feed my enemies their own kidneys". To me that sort of statement is more important than individual skills. But I agree that skills are more important than "I know how to swing a sword and go crazy" or "I can learn a few spells and have a familliar".


If I want to play "The best blacksmith in the land, who also happens to be a fighter" it would be really nice if I could have some rules support for being better at blacksmithing than "The best wizard in the world, who also happened to take up blacksmithing as an afterthought".

If you want to play "The best blacksmith in the land" then you'd better be using an aspect-based game like FATE where that's your high concept aspect. Or a fluff-driven game like 13th Age where your One Unique Thing is that you are The Best Blacksmith In The Land. And the worst possible game to try to play that sort of concept in is a game like 3.X where your skill level in blacksmithing is capped by your level. Meaning that the mechanics pretty much explicitely disalow the concept. In 1e and 4e you can at least claim to be the best blacksmith in the land without the rules explicitely telling you you aren't until you've done a ridiculous amount of adventuring.


Remember, D&D is usually the only game in town, and as such it is in the best interest of both the game and the players to be at least somewhat accommodating to the various play styles.

Then try introducing other games... For me D&D certainly isn't the only game in town - and I've introduced players to a whole range of other games.


My group isn't perfect, but I think it's a lot more common than the sort of cutthroat situation you're describing where the players are in competition with each other. Even in games like Paranoia, that's done good-naturedly for us. Every group I've been in since maybe high school, I'd say.

My main group has a player who knows she would turn cutthroat with a PVP game - so we don't play Paranoia, Apocalypse World, or Monsterhearts to avoid just that.

[noparlpf]

Craft is a good thing to have in the DMG so you know how long it would take an NPC to make something nonmagical on commission for a PC. PCs use it so rarely it's not worth having in the PHB. Ditto for Profession, unless you add concrete synergy rules for Profession to affect other skills as the result of a character's pre-adventuring background or something.
Oh yeah, I remembered another time I used Craft in-character. As a Paladin with no ranks, sitting in jail, I cobbled together a primitive wind instrument in place of a harmonica so I could produce a terrible, terrible approximation of the music like you see in old movies. That was more as a joke, and we handwaved the time and "cost" because it was basically worthless and I made it out of rubbish in the cell.

[MukkTB]

I like craft. Its flavorful, unlikely to be op, and takes up very little space. The only reason not to include it would be to let people declare they can do it without having to commit resources to it.

[Craft (Cheese)]

How about we just do it through feats? One feat that lets you make normal items, a second feat (that requires the first) that lets you do your own masterwork weapons/armor, and a final feat for the fantastic stuff like making golems.

[Seerow]

How about we just do it through feats? One feat that lets you make normal items, a second feat (that requires the first) that lets you do your own masterwork weapons/armor, and a final feat for the fantastic stuff like making golems.

Why not just make it take skill points instead?

Seriously spending two feats to be able to make mundane gear sounds like a huge waste.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Why not just make it take skill points instead?

Seriously spending two feats to be able to make mundane gear sounds like a huge waste.

Mostly to avoid nonsense like needing to be a 14th-level adventurer to be able to reliably pass routine craft checks. I think it'd also fit with their general plan to bring the power level of feats way down.

[noparlpf]

Huh. My third-level Ranger in that game passed Craft checks pretty regularly, and very consistently by sixth level, without specifically optimising for Craft, which would be a silly thing to optimise.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Huh. My third-level Ranger in that game passed Craft checks pretty regularly, and very consistently by sixth level, without specifically optimising for Craft, which would be a silly thing to optimise.

Well, a simple longsword is DC 15 (masterwork DC 20). Let's say you're a commoner with 10 INT who dumps all of your skill points into Craft (Weaponsmithing). That means you need to wait until 12th level before you no longer need to roll for a craft check. If you have an INT bonus or you get masterwork tools you can do it earlier, but I'd prefer to see an approach where you can just say "I'm a trained Blacksmith. I can make you a longsword, no problem."

[noparlpf]

Well, a simple longsword is DC 15 (masterwork DC 20). Let's say you're a commoner with 10 INT who dumps all of your skill points into Craft (Weaponsmithing). That means you need to wait until 12th level before you no longer need to roll for a craft check. If you have an INT bonus or you get masterwork tools you can do it earlier, but I'd prefer to see an approach where you can just say "I'm a trained Blacksmith. I can make you a longsword, no problem."

I'm pretty sure you can take ten on Craft checks, so a commoner between levels one and three with maximum ranks in Blacksmithing (as that's their job) and probably an Int bonus between 0-2 would be able to make DC 15 regularly. That covers everything except super-fancy locks and traps, or rushed jobs.

[Seerow]

Mostly to avoid nonsense like needing to be a 14th-level adventurer to be able to reliably pass routine craft checks. I think it'd also fit with their general plan to bring the power level of feats way down.

Except if you had it as 3 ranks like you listed, you'd be able to max it out at level 1 if you wanted to. Making it take 3 feats is absolutely ridiculous.

Also, according to every article, their plan is to make feats MORE powerful, not less. They intend to replace prestige classes and the like with feat chains. The fact that they think this is reconcilable with having feats worth +1 to an attribute is indicative of how grossly they overvalue attributes, not indication of them wanting to make feats weaker, much less weak enough to make "You can craft a mundane weapon" worth a feat.

[obryn]

Why not just make it take skill points instead?

Because that would require the game to have skill points.

-O

[Jacob.Tyr]

Except if you had it as 3 ranks like you listed, you'd be able to max it out at level 1 if you wanted to. Making it take 3 feats is absolutely ridiculous.

Also, according to every article, their plan is to make feats MORE powerful, not less. They intend to replace prestige classes and the like with feat chains. The fact that they think this is reconcilable with having feats worth +1 to an attribute is indicative of how grossly they overvalue attributes, not indication of them wanting to make feats weaker, much less weak enough to make "You can craft a mundane weapon" worth a feat.

I feel like the +1 attribute bonus is based on them thinking that weapon focus and weapon specialization were the yard stick to balance things against. As such, I think you're being optimistic in regards to what they're going to make feats do.

Unless you think a "weapon master" prestige class who just gets +1 to hit and +1 to damage every 3rd level is a worthwhile prestige class.

[Seerow]

Because that would require the game to have skill points.

-O

Do you have a skill system that involves some people who are trained being better at something than someone else who is not trained?

Congratulations, you have enough of a skill system to make crafting fit into skills.

If not, well congratulations, you're working with a system that has no method of progressing in out of combat areas at all. I no longer have interest in it. Not even 5e is THAT bad.

Take your pedantry somewhere else.

[Seerow]

I feel like the +1 attribute bonus is based on them thinking that weapon focus and weapon specialization were the yard stick to balance things against. As such, I think you're being optimistic in regards to what they're going to make feats do.

Unless you think a "weapon master" prestige class who just gets +1 to hit and +1 to damage every 3rd level is a worthwhile prestige class.

I am going by the various articles recently where they say explicitly they are powering up feats from where they have been previously. Whether they accomplish this or not (and I too am dubious), the point is that the INTENT is that they make feats stronger, not weaker. Thus Craft(Cheese)'s presumption of feats getting weaker and thus justifying turning crafting into a feat is ridiculous.

[noparlpf]

Do you have a skill system that involves some people who are trained being better at something than someone else who is not trained?

Congratulations, you have enough of a skill system to make crafting fit into skills.

If not, well congratulations, you're working with a system that has no method of progressing in out of combat areas at all. I no longer have interest in it. Not even 5e is THAT bad.

Take your pedantry somewhere else.

You can do it by skill points, by a dice pool mechanic, by an increasing die size mechanic, probably some other things I haven't seen.

[Seerow]

You can do it by skill points, by a dice pool mechanic, by an increasing die size mechanic, probably some other things I haven't seen.

And the increasing die size, dice pool, etc, are all things that could correlate with/replace skill ranks for the purpose of craft training.

My point was that saying "There might not be skill points!" is pedantry because it's obvious there is a parallel in basically any skill system ever.

[noparlpf]

And the increasing die size, dice pool, etc, are all things that could correlate with/replace skill ranks for the purpose of craft training.

My point was that saying "There might not be skill points!" is pedantry because it's obvious there is a parallel in basically any skill system ever.

Yeah, I was just backing it up with other examples. It seems silly to me to not have any mechanic for non-combat skill advancement.

[TheOOB]

True20 had an NPC class that granted skill points every level, but no BAB, saves, or feats(it was a no hp system), so you could justify why that guy could make amazing equipment but not actually be any good at fighting.

I still just rely on the fact that D&D is a game system focused around adventuring, and acknowledge that rules for alternative methods of making a living are sparse at best and require improvisation.

When the characters start making items en-masse for profit, it's time to bring out a different system that handles merchant skills better, because you don't seem to be using the small group war-game that D&D is.

[obryn]

Do you have a skill system that involves some people who are trained being better at something than someone else who is not trained?

Congratulations, you have enough of a skill system to make crafting fit into skills.

If not, well congratulations, you're working with a system that has no method of progressing in out of combat areas at all. I no longer have interest in it. Not even 5e is THAT bad.

Take your pedantry somewhere else.
Holy cow, man. Take a deep breath. You were talking about skill points. If you didn't mean "skill points," I'm hardly being pedantic, here. I'm responding to your post.

I've already said - and I'll say it again - I don't think a detailed skill system - one involving points - has a place in a class/level game like D&D. I'd far rather leverage ... well, classes and levels, but mostly classes. That's the core of the system and its strength. What's more, I want the game to have a focus on the dungeons and dragons - the adventuring - and I don't need or want it to try and model blacksmiths and bakers. (Except in a completely detached module, for those who want that sort of thing.)

If detailed skills for PCs are a modular system? Fine; I think it's obnoxious to object to stuff I don't like if it's not in the assumed core. If there's an abstract/narrative version like AD&D's secondary skills or (better) something like Aspects? Awesome; I'll almost certainly use it. If it's a very simple one, like 4e, with a handful of broad skills you pretty much set and forget? Okay, I'll hold my nose and might use it. If the core is as detailed as 3.x? No interest whatsoever; I'd rather play a game that eschews classes and levels entirely (like Savage Worlds) if I'm going to worry that much about skills.

-O

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

How about we just do it through feats? One feat that lets you make normal items, a second feat (that requires the first) that lets you do your own masterwork weapons/armor, and a final feat for the fantastic stuff like making golems.

Not a bad idea for a feat chain, but they've said that they have other plans for crafting (making magic item crafting part of the epic tier and all that). I would support making the rules for crafting at low levels be the same as the rules for crafting at higher levels, but that might not work with any kind of magic item creation I can think of.

[Seerow]

Holy cow, man. Take a deep breath. You were talking about skill points. If you didn't mean "skill points," I'm hardly being pedantic, here. I'm responding to your post.

I've already said - and I'll say it again - I don't think a detailed skill system - one involving points - has a place in a class/level game like D&D. I'd far rather leverage ... well, classes and levels, but mostly classes. That's the core of the system and its strength. What's more, I want the game to have a focus on the dungeons and dragons - the adventuring - and I don't need or want it to try and model blacksmiths and bakers. (Except in a completely detached module, for those who want that sort of thing.)

If detailed skills for PCs are a modular system? Fine; I think it's obnoxious to object to stuff I don't like if it's not in the assumed core. If there's an abstract/narrative version like AD&D's secondary skills or (better) something like Aspects? Awesome; I'll almost certainly use it. If it's a very simple one, like 4e, with a handful of broad skills you pretty much set and forget? Okay, I'll hold my nose and might use it. If the core is as detailed as 3.x? No interest whatsoever; I'd rather play a game that eschews classes and levels entirely (like Savage Worlds) if I'm going to worry that much about skills.

-O

Still missing the point.

Are you assuming that at the very least there is some form of skill training?

If so, you roll crafting into that skill training.

It's literally that simple. That's why I say you commenting on no skill points is pedantry, because it literally doesn't matter to the main point, it's just trying to provoke yet another argument about the merits of different skill systems, rather than acknowledging the main point that crafting is way too minor of a thing to be handled by a feat, even at the lowest feat power levels we've seen, much less with the promised improved feats.

[DeltaEmil]

obryn was not pedantric.

[1337 b4k4]

Still missing the point.

Are you assuming that at the very least there is some form of skill training?

If so, you roll crafting into that skill training.

It's literally that simple. That's why I say you commenting on no skill points is pedantry, because it literally doesn't matter to the main point, it's just trying to provoke yet another argument about the merits of different skill systems, rather than acknowledging the main point that crafting is way too minor of a thing to be handled by a feat, even at the lowest feat power levels we've seen, much less with the promised improved feats.

I think you're missing his point. I might be misinterpreting, but I thi he's saying that skills (in as much as they should exist at all in D&D)should be declarative rather than a fleshed out point system with ranks. That is, something akin to "if it's on my character sheet that I am a blacksmith, then I am a blacksmith and all that that entails" rather than "I have 5 ranks in metal work, smelting, craft(weapons) and craft(armor)." IOW, just as you say that crafting isn't important enough to devote a whole feat to, Obryn appears to be saying that its also not important enough to devote a subsystem to. And to be honest, I think I agree with that statement. Part of it goes back to the whole "if it's not on your character sheet can you do it" thing. Personally, I've yet to play in a D&D game where crafting, or black smithing in general, or heck, swimming, jumping, dancing and cooking were so vitally important to the outcome of the game that we would have been lost without the skills subsystem to ensure it was resolved fairly.

There's really no reason why crafting and dancing and cooking and about 95% of the skills in 3e couldn't be wrapped into the class and backgrounds system. Were you a blacksmith before you were an adventurer? Great, you can craft weapons. Were you a baker? Great you can cook food. No need to resolve to tiny details just how good of a cook you are since that is tangential to the exploring of Dungeons and the slaying of Dragons.

[Conundrum]

After three weeks, we have a new Legends and Lore article (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130520)!

The changes to the Exploration rules sound sensible to me, though I haven't played with the ones in the current package.

The Interaction rules seem mostly to be making sure they don't repeat the awful broken Diplomacy RAW from 3e.

There's no mention of combat at all, which is kind of disappointing after such a long hiatus.

[DeltaEmil]

I kinda like what I'm reading about the Interaction and Exploration rules. They sound like a mini-game in the D&D roleplaying game, which is good, just like combat is a mini-game in the D&D roleplaying game.

[obryn]

crafting is way too minor of a thing to be handled by a feat
I would agree with this statement. And if you think I'd disagree with this, I don't think you've read anything I've written.


IOW, just as you say that crafting isn't important enough to devote a whole feat to, Obryn appears to be saying that its also not important enough to devote a subsystem to.
That's exactly right; thanks.

-O

[Just to Browse]

Jeebus, am I the only one seeing Seerow's point?

"Skill points" = "Advancement of any kind in a skill". If you change the skill system into something else that uses "skill blorps" instead of skill points, then yes of course the word "skill points" becomes meaningless. If you change skills to "trained v. untrained", then of course skill points becomes a meaningless term. But that's not the point--the point is that skill training of any kind is what you should use for craft. He used the word "skill points" because it's generic, and saying that you could use dicepools/auto-success/int-checks/spinning a top instead of skill points is just saying he's wrong for the purposes of saying he's wrong. It accomplishes nothing.


I would agree with this statement. And if you think I'd disagree with this, I don't think you've read anything I've written.Of course he's not saying that to you, he's saying that to the person who talked about feats for crafting. For one who talks about people not reading...

[SiuiS]

How about we just do it through feats? One feat that lets you make normal items, a second feat (that requires the first) that lets you do your own masterwork weapons/armor, and a final feat for the fantastic stuff like making golems.

No way. Way to heavy an investment; as a level limiter, you're better off saying "no magic items until 9th level" than this.

The benchmarks are sound, but we already have difficult DCs. Set it so making mundane gear is automatic (a-la Herbalism), making special gear is a medium or hard challenge, and making magic gear is hard to very hard (and requires magic, although ambient background magic counts so a fighter could reforge his sword in a volcano for +1 fire), and that's it. Now everyone can craft if they need it, dedicated characters are much more likely to succeed and getting the necessary items can be written in as a quest requirement. Easiest way to handle it; staple it into an existing. Mechanic.


Mostly to avoid nonsense like needing to be a 14th-level adventurer to be able to reliably pass routine craft checks. I think it'd also fit with their general plan to bring the power level of feats way down.

Heh.
I don't believe they intend to de-power feats, though.


Huh. My third-level Ranger in that game passed Craft checks pretty regularly, and very consistently by sixth level, without specifically optimising for Craft, which would be a silly thing to optimise.

You'd be surprised. It's come in handy for everyone who has bothered.


I feel like the +1 attribute bonus is based on them thinking that weapon focus and weapon specialization were the yard stick to balance things against. As such, I think you're being optimistic in regards to what they're going to make feats do.

Unless you think a "weapon master" prestige class who just gets +1 to hit and +1 to damage every 3rd level is a worthwhile prestige class.

An attribute bump is more powerful than weapon focus and specialization though. It's +1atyack, damage, saves, skills, DC and AC, in one feat. That's bland and lame, but not underpowered, especially when you can take it multiple times.


After three weeks, we have a new Legends and Lore article (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130520)!

The changes to the Exploration rules sound sensible to me, though I haven't played with the ones in the current package.

The Interaction rules seem mostly to be making sure they don't repeat the awful broken Diplomacy RAW from 3e.

There's no mention of combat at all, which is kind of disappointing after such a long hiatus.

Hmm. Not sure if like. The one sounds like they are finally finishing up the playtest, for one, and the feeling i have is of a quickly narrowing window of opportunity to get good ideas in. However, not discussing combat is fine. In glad they are takin time to make out of combat stuff.


I would agree with this statement. And if you think I'd disagree with this, I don't think you've read anything I've written.


That's exactly right; thanks.



It's based on a bad preposition though, that a system must be made whole cloth. The nature of a game is such that if sufficiently solid, the engine can handle such additions with minimal input, just directing a current mechanic at the task. The question is not really how to design a holistic subsystem. It is how to meet the minimum benchmark for the game. This means we need two things; a benchmark and a mechanic to reach it.

The benchmark is fluid, but the mechanics part is easy. We have skills, feats and fiat. Which is the best way to enable players to acquire free or cheap things? Either skill (as above) or feat (like 3.5, also Herbalism). The benchmark then is sufficient crafting granularity to be reasonable, but abstract enough to be handled and moved past. Of these, skills achieve more granularity, feats more abstraction.

But in all cases, the rules are almost entirely "hide behind a feat" or "use the skill rules". That's not a problem nor is it a cumbersome system. It's adaptive.

[Conundrum]

The benchmark is fluid, but the mechanics part is easy. We have skills, feats and fiat. Which is the best way to enable players to acquire free or cheap things? Either skill (as above) or feat (like 3.5, also Herbalism). The benchmark then is sufficient crafting granularity to be reasonable, but abstract enough to be handled and moved past. Of these, skills achieve more granularity, feats more abstraction.

But in all cases, the rules are almost entirely "hide behind a feat" or "use the skill rules". That's not a problem nor is it a cumbersome system. It's adaptive.

Except that skills are an optional subsystem already. Do you want one optional subsystem dependent on another, such that if you wanted to play a game with crafting but without skills, you can't?

[Saph]

So, we're coming up on 50 pages, and we all know that that means: New Title Time!

My suggestion: "Edition War. Edition War never changes." :smallbiggrin:

[Kurald Galain]

So, we're coming up on 50 pages, and we all know that that means: New Title Time!

"STILL in the idea stage"

"How many years until 5.5?"

"Where's the Craft (RPG System) skill?"

[TuggyNE]

"Where's the Craft (RPG System) skill?"

Yeah, I'm down with that one.

[neonchameleon]

Yeah, I'm down with that one.

Thirded.


Jeebus, am I the only one seeing Seerow's point?

"Skill points" = "Advancement of any kind in a skill". If you change the skill system into something else that uses "skill blorps" instead of skill points, then yes of course the word "skill points" becomes meaningless. If you change skills to "trained v. untrained", then of course skill points becomes a meaningless term. But that's not the point--the point is that skill training of any kind is what you should use for craft. He used the word "skill points" because it's generic,

If he used the phrase "skill points" because it's generic then he failed. Skill points are a 3e specific thing - and I think 3.X variants are the only game on my bookshelf with direct skill points. A skill system is a generic term - but any term that is explicitely the way things were done in one version of D&D and not in 4e or 2e (both of which had skill systems) is in no sense generic. It is explicitely talking about the 3.X skill system. Now that may not have been what he intended - but when only one edition even of D&D has skill points, talking about something that is present only in that edition is explicitely talking about that system.

As for what I'd do with craft would be to use a specialisation system with my skills.

Craft: You are skilled at making things with your hands, and can turn your hand to almost anything. Gain a +3 to all checks for making or repairing physical objects.

Craft (Major Specialisation - e.g. Blacksmith). You are skilled at making things and focus on one particular area - although many of the skills are transferrable. Gain +4 to all checks within your area and +2 to all checks outside. In the case of the Blacksmith specialisation you'd gain the higher bonus for tasks that required a smith's forge.

Craft (Focussed Specialisation - e.g. Swordsmith, Armourer, village smith). You focus on one area of your craft almost to the exclusion of others. Gain +5 in that area, +2 in the specialisation it is a part of, and +1 in other areas of crafting.

***********

Re: The new article, I'm amused that they are bringing in one minute turns to replace the old 1e ten minute turns.

[SiuiS]

Except that skills are an optional subsystem already. Do you want one optional subsystem dependent on another, such that if you wanted to play a game with crafting but without skills, you can't?

Your objection makes no logical sense. You do realize that what you are complaining about we're two separate, alternate suggestions an not one combined system right? That's why I used "or".

If it is skill based and you choose not to use skills, then skills for work.
If it is feat based and you choose not to use feats, it won't work.

[Conundrum]

Your objection makes no logical sense. You do realize that what you are complaining about we're two separate, alternate suggestions an not one combined system right? That's why I used "or".

If it is skill based and you choose not to use skills, then skills for work.
If it is feat based and you choose not to use feats, it won't work.

Er, what? Yes, I realise they were separate suggestions. And yes, if it's feat dependent and you don't use feats then it won't work. But how can it work if it's skill based and you choose not to use skills? "Then skills for work" must have a phone-related typo in there somewhere because it's not a proper sentence as-is.

[obryn]

The benchmark is fluid, but the mechanics part is easy. We have skills, feats and fiat. Which is the best way to enable players to acquire free or cheap things? Either skill (as above) or feat (like 3.5, also Herbalism). The benchmark then is sufficient crafting granularity to be reasonable, but abstract enough to be handled and moved past. Of these, skills achieve more granularity, feats more abstraction.
My issue is at the high level of "Should there even be a skill system that's distinct and independent from the class/level system?"


But in all cases, the rules are almost entirely "hide behind a feat" or "use the skill rules". That's not a problem nor is it a cumbersome system. It's adaptive.
I think the core of the skill system itself is cumbersome.


Thirded.
Fourthed.


If he used the phrase "skill points" because it's generic then he failed. Skill points are a 3e specific thing - and I think 3.X variants are the only game on my bookshelf with direct skill points.
Yep, that was where I was going with it, too.

When you say "skill points" it seems to me like you mean something very specific - a certain implementation of skill advancement and knowledge. I certainly didn't read it as "any kind of skill system where some things are trained." I would not call 4e's skills "skill points" nor Savage Worlds's.

-O

[Oracle_Hunter]

After three weeks, we have a new Legends and Lore article (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130520)!
Hey, these sound like good ideas.

I'll wait until they screw up the implementation to complain :smallamused:

[Joe the Rat]

The key to the system is to give a DM a structured way to take note of an NPC's traits, allowing the system to speak to them in a consistent way, while also ensuring that Charisma checks don't turn into some sort of mind control.

Well that's a step in the right direction. It might not even be too stupid when used between players.

So why one-minute dungeon turns instead of, oh, however long a short rest takes? (That is still in the playtest, right? I'm losing track of these things) It seems like a good increment. "Explore X far? One turn. Thoroughly search an area? One turn. Take a short rest? One turn. Cast mundane ritual magic (if that's a thing again)? One turn." Tick, Tick, Tick.

(Old system, I pictured the turn as measured by a 10-minute "hourglass". Ten minutes are up, time to turn the glass.)


On thread names: Have we already played off of "Meet the New Boss"?

[Marcus Amakar]

I also like the outline of what Mearls said about the interaction rulings; lets hope it has a decent implementation.

[Just to Browse]

When you say "skill points" it seems to me like you mean something very specific - a certain implementation of skill advancement and knowledge. I certainly didn't read it as "any kind of skill system where some things are trained." I would not call 4e's skills "skill points" nor Savage Worlds's.

-O

Why would you think of something very specific? Is it seerow's fault you decided to nitpick a word that you decided to define all for yourself?

[Draz74]

The Interaction rules seem mostly to be making sure they don't repeat the awful broken Diplomacy RAW from 3e.

Yeah. It sounds a little rules-light for my (D&D) tastes, which isn't surprising -- but at least it sounds like they're avoiding the MAJOR issues that all previous editions had with interaction rules. So, could be much worse!

[Craft (Cheese)]

...[A]t least it sounds like they're avoiding the MAJOR issues that all previous editions had with interaction rules. So, could be much worse!

I'd wait until the actual packet comes out with the rules in detail before saying that.

[obryn]

Why would you think of something very specific? Is it seerow's fault you decided to nitpick a word that you decided to define all for yourself?
Holy cow is this the most ridiculous conversation ever and I ceased giving craps about it several posts back. So good! You win, I'm insanely pedantic in all the ways of pedantry.

Can we move on please?

-O

[Draz74]

I'd wait until the actual packet comes out with the rules in detail before saying that.

I didn't say there wouldn't be any new gigantic problems. :smalltongue: Although yeah, I guess the "could be much worse" part was premature.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I wouldn't put it past them to have new gigantic problems in addition to the silliness of 3E Diplomacy.

Just judging by the description though, it sounds like what they're trying to do with social interaction is move away from a binary pass/fail roll and towards a greater focus on what approach the players are taking to solving their problem.

The biggest flaw I see with their design as presented, though, is a lack of feedback. With no information as to whether a bribe will work on the magistrate or not, the choice to offer the bribe is a false one. As far as I can tell information on what traits the NPC has is strictly up to DM fiat, and I think this is suboptimal. The ideal solution, I think, is to make a diplomacy check a multi-part exchange where the players can try multiple things and get clear feedback as to what strategies are working and what strategies aren't.

[noparlpf]

I wouldn't put it past them to have new gigantic problems in addition to the silliness of 3E Diplomacy.

Just judging by the description though, it sounds like what they're trying to do with social interaction is move away from a binary pass/fail roll and towards a greater focus on what approach the players are taking to solving their problem.

The biggest flaw I see with their design as presented, though, is a lack of feedback. With no information as to whether a bribe will work on the magistrate or not, the choice to offer the bribe is a false one. As far as I can tell information on what traits the NPC has is strictly up to DM fiat, and I think this is suboptimal. The ideal solution, I think, is to make a diplomacy check a multi-part exchange where the players can try multiple things and get clear feedback as to what strategies are working and what strategies aren't.

Whoa, the PCs might actually have to do the 5e equivalent of Gather Info and Knowledge: Local checks to get information about an NPC.

[Conundrum]

The biggest flaw I see with their design as presented, though, is a lack of feedback. With no information as to whether a bribe will work on the magistrate or not, the choice to offer the bribe is a false one. As far as I can tell information on what traits the NPC has is strictly up to DM fiat, and I think this is suboptimal. The ideal solution, I think, is to make a diplomacy check a multi-part exchange where the players can try multiple things and get clear feedback as to what strategies are working and what strategies aren't.

Like noparlpf said, what's wrong with needing the characters to find out what approach will work before entering the social encounter? World building is always up to DM fiat, unless you want rules for what percentage of magistrates in the world are corrupt...

Then it's up to the DM to ensure the PCs have adequate opportunity to discover and use these traits. If they don't put in the effort, then they run the risk of messing it up (or at least not getting the advantage).

[Craft (Cheese)]

Whoa, the PCs might actually have to do the 5e equivalent of Gather Info and Knowledge: Local checks to get information about an NPC.

This works in cases like figuring out whether the magistrate is open to bribes so you can sneak into the jail, but it's not a complete solution. Most importantly it doesn't work in situations that hit the PCs by surprise. Like, let's say the PCs are performing a crime bust, but one of the criminals decides to try to cover his escape by taking a hostage. The PCs want to talk him down into surrendering so they can bring him into custody without the hostage getting hurt. How do you give the players meaningful information about what the best strategy is?

[noparlpf]

This works in cases like figuring out whether the magistrate is open to bribes so you can sneak into the jail, but it's not a complete solution. Most importantly it doesn't work in situations that hit the PCs by surprise. Like, let's say the PCs are performing a crime bust, but one of the criminals decides to try to cover his escape by taking a hostage. The PCs want to talk him down into surrendering so they can bring him into custody without the hostage getting hurt. How do you give the players meaningful information about what the best strategy is?

Why would they have meaningful information about their best strategy? All they know is this guy is clearly a criminal, clearly desperate, and whatever psychology they might know. Have you ever met a psychic who actually knows more than that about a stranger?

[Joe the Rat]

Point blank, no prep is probably a stab in the dark - which it should be. If you've got enough time to banter and chat with the fellow, something sense-motive-flavored might be a good "gut instinct this guy isn't looking for pocket change, but seems to have some anger issues regarding his superiors." Otherwise, if you need something specific from this one person, do your legwork and homework.

Or, y'know, magic. Potion of ESP is always good before negotiations...

[Craft (Cheese)]

Why would they have meaningful information about their best strategy? All they know is this guy is clearly a criminal, clearly desperate, and whatever psychology they might know. Have you ever met a psychic who actually knows more than that about a stranger?

Because "What do I say to make this guy that I know nothing about let go of this hostage?" is not a Good Question. "What do I say to make this angry teenager who's in way over his head let go of this hostage?" generates more meaningful answers. I can't speak to your DMing style but this is a place where I'm willing to let go of verisimilitude, if necessary, for the purposes of making the game more interesting, for certain values of "interesting."

[noparlpf]

Because "What do I say to make this guy that I know nothing about let go of this hostage?" is not a Good Question. "What do I say to make this angry teenager who's in way over his head let go of this hostage?" generates more meaningful answers. I can't speak to your DMing style but this is a place where I'm willing to let go of verisimilitude, if necessary, for the purposes of making the game more interesting, for certain values of "interesting."

There should be something based on character stats because not every player is actually going to be as good at people as their character, (Wisdom or Sense Motive check?) but the character won't always know what to do. That's how life works.

[SiuiS]

Er, what? Yes, I realise they were separate suggestions. And yes, if it's feat dependent and you don't use feats then it won't work. But how can it work if it's skill based and you choose not to use skills? "Then skills for work" must have a phone-related typo in there somewhere because it's not a proper sentence as-is.

For would be don't.

I don't understand why you can accept feat based craft doesn't work without feats but skill based craft not working withou skills is somehow different. If you don't want skills as a DM, that's all skills – even craft.

Unless you have an issue with herbalism because without feats, no one can make potions or antitoxin?


Holy cow is this the most ridiculous conversation ever and I ceased giving craps about it several posts back.

Aye, that's how it's been going. I think it's the lack of actual content to snark, people are chomping at the bit but don't have a target.


Whoa, the PCs might actually have to do the 5e equivalent of Gather Info and Knowledge: Local checks to get information about an NPC.

Gather rumors and political lore.


This works in cases like figuring out whether the magistrate is open to bribes so you can sneak into the jail, but it's not a complete solution. Most importantly it doesn't work in situations that hit the PCs by surprise. Like, let's say the PCs are performing a crime bust, but one of the criminals decides to try to cover his escape by taking a hostage. The PCs want to talk him down into surrendering so they can bring him into custody without the hostage getting hurt. How do you give the players meaningful information about what the best strategy is?

The key there is that having a single strategy in mind is ba DMing. You as the controller know that the players will be caught short and need to account for that.

The answer is built in. In basic, charisma checks. Add a module? Use skills. But there's nothing wrong with Roleplay, is there? Ask the kid what he wants, talk to him, and only use a roll (if at all) when a choice is made, and give it a bonus or penalty. The guy talks about how he just wants respect from his superiors, is tired of being bullied, etc.? Then intimidation is a bad idea, -4. Offer to help him out, take down his superiors a peg, and can prove it? +4. Done.

Engaging the rules is important, but so is dialogue.

[Just to Browse]

Holy cow is this the most ridiculous conversation ever and I ceased giving craps about it several posts back. So good! You win, I'm insanely pedantic in all the ways of pedantry.

Can we move on please?

-O

Ayyyyyup. Just remember that if you tell someone they're wrong in a way that doesn't make sense, of course they will continue to tell you that you're wrong. Not caring about an argument is no excuse for not being called on it.

[Conundrum]

For would be don't.

I don't understand why you can accept feat based craft doesn't work without feats but skill based craft not working withou skills is somehow different. If you don't want skills as a DM, that's all skills – even craft.

Unless you have an issue with herbalism because without feats, no one can make potions or antitoxin?

Right, I understand what you mean now. You think I was arguing for crafting to be feat-based - not at all. I agree that it's too small a benefit to be done with feats.

I was arguing that either it should be its own subsystem that doesn't rely on other subsystems, or that, as obryn says, it doesn't need one at all. If you're gonna do it, do it properly - don't tack it on to something else and say "Yeah, that's done."

[neonchameleon]

Ayyyyyup. Just remember that if you tell someone they're wrong in a way that doesn't make sense, of course they will continue to tell you that you're wrong. Not caring about an argument is no excuse for not being called on it.

@Obryn wasn't saying anything that didn't make sense. He was saying that Skill points are a highly specific implementation of a skill system and one that in D&D-land correlates with skills as used in 3.X. And they are. 4e doesn't have skill points - it has a skill training system and feats. 2e has Non-Weapon Proficiencies (which are skills and feats rolled into one ugly package). 1e doesn't have skill points. It has thief skills. GURPS doesn't have skill points - it has character points and skill levels. WFRP 1e/2e doesn't have skill points. (3e arguably does, but only arguably due to the more fungible nature of the character advance system). From memory Mechwarrior uses skill points - but it's years since I've played that game. Mutants and Masterminds has skill points. Marvel Heroic Roleplaying definitely doesn't (Chargen doesn't normally include point buy) - but it has a skill system. FATE doesn't have skill points; skills are not independent of each other due to the pyramid, but it has skill ranks.

Obryn doesn't have the patience to argue there. But calling him wrong because he has more sense than I do (http://xkcd.com/386/) and you seem unaware of games outside the 3.X family doesn't make him wrong. Now it's possible, even likely, that what was meant was a skill system rather than skill points and the whole thing was a missed communication - in which case @Obryn's attempt to withdraw from the conversation was graceful. But claiming that this makes him wrong is ridiculous.

[Seerow]

Seriously if you're trying to argue that skill ranks from heroes/WW/whatever is meaningfully different from skill points in any way, you're being even more pedantic than obryn was. At least he was arguing from the perspective that he felt a binary trained skill wasn't the same as having a skill that could be improved multiple times (even if in the context of the greater argument it doesn't matter because you can still make crafting something you have "trained" and therefore can do it).

But really, why are you continuing to pursue this stupid argument when everyone else is trying to move on from it?

[Just to Browse]

I can do this too!

3.x doesn't have skill points, it has skill ranks. Those are totally different from skill points.

Notice how that doesn't make sense at all?

EDIT: Sorry, I know I'm wasting all y'alls bandwidth. I just hate it when someone misrepresents someone else's point, especially on the internet.

[neonchameleon]

But really, why are you continuing to pursue this stupid argument when everyone else is trying to move on from it?

Try asking yourself and Just to Browse that. Apparently you both want to continue it - or you wouldn't have bothered posting and Just to Browse wouldn't have tried continuing after @Obryn dropped out. You'll also notice that I didn't include any White Wolf games in my list of games - and the closest thing to Heroes was Marvel Heroic. Yes, if you want to bring in other games I didn't you can find some that include skill points.

And @Just to Browse, if you care about arguments being misrepresented, stop misrepresenting @Obryn. And also try looking at the SRD and telling me if there are skill points in 3.5 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/barbarian.htm).

Anyway, over and out on this topic.

[SiuiS]

Ladies, please. You're all pretty. Let's move on, now? Please?

We had a clear winner in the name vote, I think. Who wants to be the suckerCool guy who plants the D&D5e flag into uncharted earth for all the world to gawk atsee?

Whoops, must have hit multiquote at some point :smallredface:
Right, I understand what you mean now. You think I was arguing for crafting to be feat-based - not at all. I agree that it's too small a benefit to be done with feats.

I was arguing that either it should be its own subsystem that doesn't rely on other subsystems, or that, as obryn says, it doesn't need one at all. If you're gonna do it, do it properly - don't tack it on to something else and say "Yeah, that's done."

Mm. We have differing ideas about what constitutes tacking it on. Usin a system specifically abstracted to handle these sorts of emergent quandaries, isn't (to me). Making a subsystem which is entirely new and thus doesn't jive with the aesthetic of the game or it's mechanics (which is what would have to happen to add it on but be different from skills or feats) is, in my etsimation, tacking it on.

[Saph]

We had a clear winner in the name vote, I think. Who wants to be the suckerCool guy who plants the D&D5e flag into uncharted earth for all the world to gawk atsee?

One new thread, coming right up! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15275919)

The old links were a bit out of date (several were dead) so I tidied them up and added the Legends and Lore archive.