Legends and Lore: Making the DM's Job Easy [Archive]

Lokiare

2014-04-21, 04:13 AM

D&D Next supports both creating NPCs like player characters and statting them up like monsters.

Oh wow, they do understand what modular means! There is hope!

The XP values for NPCs with classes draw only on the benefits conferred by a class.

But balance seems to continue to elude them. So a thri-kreen fighter with 16 attacks at level 10 gives the same xp as a goblin with 3 attacks at level 10. Um ok...

They talk about spells, but a 5th level monster with 1 fireball, 2 Gust of Winds, and 3 magic missiles memorized is an entirely different challenge than a 5th level monster with 1 Flaming Sphere, 2 Mirror Images, and 3 Grease spells memorized (hint: the 2nd one is super deadly), yet they both get the same xp.

The system also supports a method of monster creation similar to that used in 3rd Edition. You can start by choosing a monster's ability scores, hit dice, and so forth, designing it without reference to challenge rating. Once you're done, you can then calculate its challenge rating based on the values you assigned to it

Early on in the play test I suggested this method and the 4E "look up" table method to make all groups happy. Looks like they used one of my ideas. 5E might not be a total loss.

For example, the materials we've assembled for dungeon creation allow you to create and stock a dungeon using elements from a number of different tables. The initial ideas you can generate from the tables determine where the dungeon is located, what's above it, who built it, why they built it, and who lives there now. Other tables allow you to randomly generate a dungeon map and room contents, including monsters, mysteries, and other elements.

If these charts and tables are well thought out and executed, then this might be a good feature.

Envyus

2014-04-21, 07:54 PM

But balance seems to continue to elude them. So a thri-kreen fighter with 16 attacks at level 10 gives the same xp as a goblin with 3 attacks at level 10. Um ok...

They talk about spells, but a 5th level monster with 1 fireball, 2 Gust of Winds, and 3 magic missiles memorized is an entirely different challenge than a 5th level monster with 1 Flaming Sphere, 2 Mirror Images, and 3 Grease spells memorized (hint: the 2nd one is super deadly), yet they both get the same xp.

This is not a big deal and it just means they preform a different role in the fight.

Lokiare

2014-04-21, 08:11 PM

This is not a big deal and it just means they preform a different role in the fight.

The first one will die within 1-2 rounds and the second one can survive for up to 9 rounds with a little luck, all the while causing havok and destruction on the party. There is a huge difference and they should give different xp values.

Sartharina

2014-04-21, 10:53 PM

Lokiare

2014-04-22, 01:15 AM

The first one is capable of utterly destroying a party in the first two rounds through heavy deployment of overwhelming firepower and heavy blasting, especially if it's in a group with something else providing extra control, but is vulnerable to being spiked itself. The second draws out the fight, but if its CC abilities are countered, or it's in a group that can't take advantage of the lockdown of Grease and protections from Mirror Image, it doesn't threaten the party much at all.

The former's Artillery, and the latter's a Controller.

Assuming the party is level 5ish (because its a class level 5 monster), they aren't going to be threatened by a fireball and a few magic missiles. Short of having out of level magic items, they won't have any way to counter grease, and mirror image. Mirror image mathematically is better than wearing plate. With 2-3 of those memorized, that goblin has less than a 10%-20% chance of being hit on any given round. Meaning short of area attacks you aren't taking this thing down. Since grease is flammable, the flaming sphere will do additional damage. It would be a nightmare.

Basically my point is the difficulty of the monster is less about how many class levels it has, and more about which spells it has prepared. A level 10 Fighter monster can be made completely helpless with a single 2nd level spell, especially if they have really low saves. So it goes both ways. If you have a party of 3rd level non-casters, they are going to be especially challenged by a monster with 5 class levels in fighter, whereas a party that has level 3 casters will probably not be affected. For at least 1-2 rounds that monster will likely be helpless and unable to deal damage or make certain saves.

Now they could make a formula that takes all this into account, but it would break their design rule about keeping things simple.

Envyus

2014-04-22, 10:09 PM

Assuming the party is level 5ish (because its a class level 5 monster), they aren't going to be threatened by a fireball and a few magic missiles. Short of having out of level magic items, they won't have any way to counter grease, and mirror image. Mirror image mathematically is better than wearing plate. With 2-3 of those memorized, that goblin has less than a 10%-20% chance of being hit on any given round. Meaning short of area attacks you aren't taking this thing down. Since grease is flammable, the flaming sphere will do additional damage. It would be a nightmare.

Basically my point is the difficulty of the monster is less about how many class levels it has, and more about which spells it has prepared. A level 10 Fighter monster can be made completely helpless with a single 2nd level spell, especially if they have really low saves. So it goes both ways. If you have a party of 3rd level non-casters, they are going to be especially challenged by a monster with 5 class levels in fighter, whereas a party that has level 3 casters will probably not be affected. For at least 1-2 rounds that monster will likely be helpless and unable to deal damage or make certain saves.

Now they could make a formula that takes all this into account, but it would break their design rule about keeping things simple.

I think you're looking at this in a overly critical and narrow minded way. While at the same time not listening.

Lokiare

2014-04-22, 11:55 PM

I think you're looking at this in a overly critical and narrow minded way. While at the same time not listening.

Really? Because I got the same impression from you.

I'm simply noting that there is a huge difference in difficulty based on the spells chosen at any given level. Combine that with the party composition and spell choice and you end up with a wildly swinging range of difficulty for any given encounter, which the xp system is ill equipped to handle.

See in 4E you don't have this problem because everything is closely balanced by level. So it doesn't matter which power they have, the difficulty falls within a well defined range.

Edit: The reason it probably looks like I'm being over critical is because I excise hope and go with the actual data to make determinations. We can hope everything will be balanced, unfortunately we know that you get flaming sphere and fireball at the same level and that the damage potential of flaming sphere is around 3x that of fireball over the course of a battle. We also know that mirror image is one of the most powerful 2nd level spells in the game and almost nothing compares to it in combat. When you look at the actual data, you end up with the conclusion that the difficulty will swing wildly between two extremes.

Jacob.Tyr

2014-04-23, 06:23 AM

1337 b4k4

2014-04-23, 09:10 AM

Grease isn't in any playtest packet I have. Further, maintaining a spell like Grease and a Flaming Sphere isn't possible in Next based on packets I have access to. Correct me if I'm wrong in this.
But yes, there is a huge difference in the optimization floor between PCs still. If you want more balance, don't build NPC's like PC's for enemies.

Grease exists in the last playtest packet. 1st level, 1 minute duration, 50 ft range. It turns a 10' square on the ground into difficult terrain. Creatures in the area when the spell begins or entering or ending their turn in the area must make a Dex(Acrobatics) check against the spells save DC or fall prone.

Flaming sphere also exists, but is a concentration spell with a max duration of 1 minute. 5' sphere. Creatures starting their turn within 5' of the sphere take 2d6 damage or succeed at a DEX save for half damage. Higher spell slots add 1d6 damage per level used. Moving the sphere is an action. Concentration means only one such spell can be active at a time. You lose the spell if you cast another concentration spell, lose consciousness or an attack or other action says you do or the DM decides you are encountering a significant distraction. Simple movement and attacking does not affect concentration.

Lokiare

2014-04-23, 09:28 AM

Grease exists in the last playtest packet. 1st level, 1 minute duration, 50 ft range. It turns a 10' square on the ground into difficult terrain. Creatures in the area when the spell begins or entering or ending their turn in the area must make a Dex(Acrobatics) check against the spells save DC or fall prone.

Flaming sphere also exists, but is a concentration spell with a max duration of 1 minute. 5' sphere. Creatures starting their turn within 5' of the sphere take 2d6 damage or succeed at a DEX save for half damage. Higher spell slots add 1d6 damage per level used. Moving the sphere is an action. Concentration means only one such spell can be active at a time. You lose the spell if you cast another concentration spell, lose consciousness or an attack or other action says you do or the DM decides you are encountering a significant distraction. Simple movement and attacking does not affect concentration.

Thus the Mirror Image/Grease/Flaming Sphere deadly combo. Creatures can't move away fast enough to avoid it, and you can't interrupt it because your hitting mirror images. Makes a lowly goblin into a combat God.

1337 b4k4

2014-04-23, 10:43 AM

Thus the Mirror Image/Grease/Flaming Sphere deadly combo. Creatures can't move away fast enough to avoid it, and you can't interrupt it because your hitting mirror images. Makes a lowly goblin into a combat God.

Well, your goblin is only a combat god if it can only be reached by crossing a 10' square area and also only if your party can't wait 60 seconds while your goblin's spells peter out or has no ranged weapons at all. If this were 4e we'd be talking about a ranged blast 2 (or alternatively from the actual spell description, a ranged burst 1.5, but 4e doesn't have anything like that [thank goodness] and the effect is the same). Not the most formidable of effects. Also to get to this point, your lowly goblin has acquired 3 class levels of Mage in order to be casting both Flaming Sphere and Mirror image at the same time. Frankly, I think a goblin with 3 caster levels ought to be at least interesting

That said, a simple change would invalidate this concept completely. Make mirror image a concentration spell (I don't see why it shouldn't be) and now it's either you have mirror images or you have a flaming sphere but not both.

Edit
-----------

FWIW, if you gave your goblin 3 levels of fighter, your goblin would have a +2 to attack, gets any of the base fighting styles, gets a singe second action, gets 1d6+3 HP and either has expanded critical range or expertise dice. I've already stated my preference to having expertise dice fixed up, but even with the current system, that goblin has a pretty good chance of messing someone up. Sure, not on his own, but neither does the mage goblin.

Sartharina

2014-04-24, 07:14 AM

The problem with making Mirror Image a concentration spell is that Concentrating requires an action.

Of course, I think if Grease functions like that, it's OP because it can force a character to save up to 3 times per round or fall prone, and saves are built to usually fail.

Lokiare

2014-04-24, 12:15 PM

Well, your goblin is only a combat god if it can only be reached by crossing a 10' square area and also only if your party can't wait 60 seconds while your goblin's spells peter out or has no ranged weapons at all. If this were 4e we'd be talking about a ranged blast 2 (or alternatively from the actual spell description, a ranged burst 1.5, but 4e doesn't have anything like that [thank goodness] and the effect is the same). Not the most formidable of effects. Also to get to this point, your lowly goblin has acquired 3 class levels of Mage in order to be casting both Flaming Sphere and Mirror image at the same time. Frankly, I think a goblin with 3 caster levels ought to be at least interesting

That said, a simple change would invalidate this concept completely. Make mirror image a concentration spell (I don't see why it shouldn't be) and now it's either you have mirror images or you have a flaming sphere but not both.

Edit
-----------

FWIW, if you gave your goblin 3 levels of fighter, your goblin would have a +2 to attack, gets any of the base fighting styles, gets a singe second action, gets 1d6+3 HP and either has expanded critical range or expertise dice. I've already stated my preference to having expertise dice fixed up, but even with the current system, that goblin has a pretty good chance of messing someone up. Sure, not on his own, but neither does the mage goblin.

The Fighter goblin is going to be standing there doing nothing because one of the casters locked him down into worthlessness, unless they get lucky and the party either doesn't have a caster or the goblin rolls relatively high on their save (20%-30% last time I checked). In other words challenge level of monsters is based on the individual features of the monsters and the parties ability to nullify them. So anything that measures based on level is going to be extremely flawed. If they broke it down into points for specific categories and then had you do a little math "The goblin has 7 points in control, 2 points in staying power, and 1 point in damage potential, the party has 3 points in counter control, 5 points in damage potential, and 3 points in staying power, looks like this is going to be: (7-3=)4 + (5-2=)3 + (3-1)2 = 9 and the party is level 5 so this should be a tough challenge." then it might be workable, unfortunately we have spells that are on completely different power levels in the same spell level, which means going by level is pretty much meaningless.

Note: Mirror Image would be worthless as a concentration spell. The whole idea is to mitigate damage. If they have a 25% chance of disrupting your spell and damaging you on the first round then 66% on the second and 50% on the third then its not much of a spell. 1/4 of the time it will have been completely wasted 1/3 of the time it will have been mostly wasted which is bad when you compare it to spells like flaming sphere that have a 100% impact on the first round of casting and a marginally small chance of not having an impact on subsequent rounds.

Interesting or not, the DM should be able to reliably predict what kind of challenge a goblin with class levels should be. In 5E we can't do that. You can't really do that in 3E either. 4E you can do that. Which is one of the reasons I'm sticking with 4E.

1337 b4k4

2014-04-24, 01:13 PM

The problem with making Mirror Image a concentration spell is that Concentrating requires an action.

This is not true to my knowledge. Concentration merely requires that it be maintained, but you don't have to give up your action for it.

The Fighter goblin is going to be standing there doing nothing because one of the casters locked him down into worthlessness, unless they get lucky and the party either doesn't have a caster or the goblin rolls relatively high on their save (20%-30% last time I checked).

Well heck, if we're going to assume the players are playing their casters intelligently the caster goblin is going to be coup de gras in the first round because one of the casters will have cast sleep and knocked him unconscious. Seriously, any thing the caster can do to lock down a melee goblin is going to be effective against a caster goblin.

In other words challenge level of monsters is based on the individual features of the monsters and the parties ability to nullify them. So anything that measures based on level is going to be extremely flawed. If they broke it down into points for specific categories and then had you do a little math "The goblin has 7 points in control, 2 points in staying power, and 1 point in damage potential, the party has 3 points in counter control, 5 points in damage potential, and 3 points in staying power, looks like this is going to be: (7-3=)4 + (5-2=)3 + (3-1)2 = 9 and the party is level 5 so this should be a tough challenge." then it might be workable, unfortunately we have spells that are on completely different power levels in the same spell level, which means going by level is pretty much meaningless.

It's almost like the arbitrary designation of "level" is not a good thing to use to compare dissimilar things. It's also almost like we really shouldn't be building monsters and npcs the same way we build PCs since they serve two different functions within the system.

Note: Mirror Image would be worthless as a concentration spell. The whole idea is to mitigate damage. If they have a 25% chance of disrupting your spell and damaging you on the first round then 66% on the second and 50% on the third then its not much of a spell. 1/4 of the time it will have been completely wasted 1/3 of the time it will have been mostly wasted which is bad when you compare it to spells like flaming sphere that have a 100% impact on the first round of casting and a marginally small chance of not having an impact on subsequent rounds.

The point of concentration is to reduce the number of ongoing effects any one caster can have. If mirror image plus another ongoing spell are dangerous combinations, then mirror image should be a concentration spell to mitigate that synergy.

Interesting or not, the DM should be able to reliably predict what kind of challenge a goblin with class levels should be. In 5E we can't do that. You can't really do that in 3E either. 4E you can do that. Which is one of the reasons I'm sticking with 4E.

Eh, you can maybe do it easier in 4e, but there's still plenty of edge cases to worry about. I've been through a number of encounters that should have been "on level" in 4e but because we were actually weak at hitting a particular monster's weak defenses or because minions that should have been simple happened to be outside our sphere of control for the encounter, or any number of other variables that enter into the equation, were much harder. Especially when we're talking about combat encounters, rating individual monsters based on their power level is mostly a fools errand given that your group will rarely encounter just one monster. If we're really serious about having a "challenge" rating system, we need to:

A) Forget designing monsters like players. Monsters are not players and serve a different role. Trying to build them like you build players is ... well it's like trying to shoehorn a single flat d20 roll into a complex skill resolution system. You can do it, but it's sub-optimal and just going to annoy people.

B) Ignore class levels and start categorizing individual abilities and attributes as you described earlier. Seriously, rather than trying to draw challenge levels out of "X Levels of Y and Q Levels of P", we need a chart more like the one that comes in the Swords and Wizardry book where monsters have a base challenge level based on HD and then are modified with a chart that looks like this:

Special AbilityEffect on Challenge Level

4+ attacks per round (minimum d6 or saving throw each) +1 CL

AC 20 or higher +1 CL

Automatic damage after hit +1 CL

Breath weapon 25 points max or below +1 CL

Breath Weapon 26 points max or more+2 CL

Disease +1 CL

Drains level with no save+3 CL

Drains level with save +2 CL

Flies, or breathes water +1 CL

Greater than human intelligence +1 CL

Immune to blunt/piercing weapons (including half damage)+1 CL

Immune to energy type (acid, fire, etc) +1 CL

Immune to non-magic weapons+1 CL

Magic resistance 50% or below+1 CL

Magic resistance higher than 50% +2 CL

Massive attack for 20+ hps +1 CL

Paralysis, swallows whole, immobilizes enemies (web, etc)+1 CL

Petrifaction, poison, or death magic+2 CL

Regenerates +1 CL

Undead (subject to banishment but immune to sleep, charm, hold)+0 CL

Uses a spell-like power level 3 equivalent or above +2 CL

Uses multiple spells level 2 or lower +1 CL

Uses multiple spells level 3 or above +2 CL

Uses multiple spells level 5 or above +3 CL

Poison +1 CL

Miscellaneous other+1 CL

In my experience that table has been extremely reliable in predicting challenge for a given custom monster. For something like modern D&D obviously it would need to be a bit longer of a table and probably a bit more granular, and the base rating might be something other than HD, but it would be far more effective than trying to translate each level of each class into a challenge rating.

russdm

2014-04-24, 02:32 PM

The Entire post there confused me because it sounds like they are setting it up so you can both use 4E's method of monster creation and that you can use 3.5's method. Also, some stuff about how complex rules require more prep time.

I loved the picture of the kobolds with the dragon and the big pile of gold. It is something that I think looks cool. I really hope that it ends up somewhere in one of the books; maybe the PHB or DMG?

The only other thing I picked up was: We still haven't figured out how to do proper CR making yet, and are going to let you wing it.

Lokiare

2014-04-24, 08:55 PM

Well heck, if we're going to assume the players are playing their casters intelligently the caster goblin is going to be coup de gras in the first round because one of the casters will have cast sleep and knocked him unconscious. Seriously, any thing the caster can do to lock down a melee goblin is going to be effective against a caster goblin.

Except for the fact that the caster goblin will likely have higher saves because they didn't dump their mental stats, but other than that its possible. However locking down a caster is not the same as locking down a fighter. To lock down a caster you have to prevent them from casting spells, which they can do from any distance. Locking down a fighter is as simple as standing next to them and going total defense, or casting a spell that they have a horrible saving throw for.

It's almost like the arbitrary designation of "level" is not a good thing to use to compare dissimilar things. It's also almost like we really shouldn't be building monsters and npcs the same way we build PCs since they serve two different functions within the system.

Hey, don't blame me for WotC's folly. I'm not the one shoving spells with different power levels into the same spell level. I'm also not the one that decided a level 5 Wizard is equivalent to a level 5 Fighter, despite the math and numerous comparisons. That was WotC.

I agree with your second sentence, unfortunately WotC is doing that as one option for making monsters.

The point of concentration is to reduce the number of ongoing effects any one caster can have. If mirror image plus another ongoing spell are dangerous combinations, then mirror image should be a concentration spell to mitigate that synergy.

There are much better mechanics that can reduce the number of ongoing effects at one time. My suggestion of each spell having a 'field' type that negates any other spell of the same 'field' type when cast is one of them. If Mirror Image and Mage Armor both have the 'defense' field type, then you can't have them both active at the same time, however you can have Mirror Image and Polymorph going at the same time since Polymorph's field type is 'change'. WotC however doesn't seem to see that.

Eh, you can maybe do it easier in 4e, but there's still plenty of edge cases to worry about. I've been through a number of encounters that should have been "on level" in 4e but because we were actually weak at hitting a particular monster's weak defenses or because minions that should have been simple happened to be outside our sphere of control for the encounter, or any number of other variables that enter into the equation, were much harder. Especially when we're talking about combat encounters, rating individual monsters based on their power level is mostly a fools errand given that your group will rarely encounter just one monster. If we're really serious about having a "challenge" rating system, we need to:

A) Forget designing monsters like players. Monsters are not players and serve a different role. Trying to build them like you build players is ... well it's like trying to shoehorn a single flat d20 roll into a complex skill resolution system. You can do it, but it's sub-optimal and just going to annoy people.

B) Ignore class levels and start categorizing individual abilities and attributes as you described earlier. Seriously, rather than trying to draw challenge levels out of "X Levels of Y and Q Levels of P", we need a chart more like the one that comes in the Swords and Wizardry book where monsters have a base challenge level based on HD and then are modified with a chart that looks like this:

Special AbilityEffect on Challenge Level

4+ attacks per round (minimum d6 or saving throw each) +1 CL

AC 20 or higher +1 CL

Automatic damage after hit +1 CL

Breath weapon 25 points max or below +1 CL

Breath Weapon 26 points max or more+2 CL

Disease +1 CL

Drains level with no save+3 CL

Drains level with save +2 CL

Flies, or breathes water +1 CL

Greater than human intelligence +1 CL

Immune to blunt/piercing weapons (including half damage)+1 CL

Immune to energy type (acid, fire, etc) +1 CL

Immune to non-magic weapons+1 CL

Magic resistance 50% or below+1 CL

Magic resistance higher than 50% +2 CL

Massive attack for 20+ hps +1 CL

Paralysis, swallows whole, immobilizes enemies (web, etc)+1 CL

Petrifaction, poison, or death magic+2 CL

Regenerates +1 CL

Undead (subject to banishment but immune to sleep, charm, hold)+0 CL

Uses a spell-like power level 3 equivalent or above +2 CL

Uses multiple spells level 2 or lower +1 CL

Uses multiple spells level 3 or above +2 CL

Uses multiple spells level 5 or above +3 CL

Poison +1 CL

Miscellaneous other+1 CL

In my experience that table has been extremely reliable in predicting challenge for a given custom monster. For something like modern D&D obviously it would need to be a bit longer of a table and probably a bit more granular, and the base rating might be something other than HD, but it would be far more effective than trying to translate each level of each class into a challenge rating.

I actually agree with this completely. The reason 4E is easier to predict is that the developers paid close attention to the balance of the monsters abilities, so that no two interacting variables had enough of a gap to make a difference. There are corner cases like you mention, but they are much fewer than in other editions due to the balance.

The Entire post there confused me because it sounds like they are setting it up so you can both use 4E's method of monster creation and that you can use 3.5's method. Also, some stuff about how complex rules require more prep time.

That's exactly what they are saying. You can choose which method to use. Its the first sign I've seen of actual modularity in 5E. Sad that it comes right before things are set in stone and the books are going to the publishers.

I loved the picture of the kobolds with the dragon and the big pile of gold. It is something that I think looks cool. I really hope that it ends up somewhere in one of the books; maybe the PHB or DMG?

The only other thing I picked up was: We still haven't figured out how to do proper CR making yet, and are going to let you wing it.

Yep, I think the main theme of 5e is "We are going to let you wing it." To some DMs that's music to their ears. To others its a grating annoying noise that should have been taken out back and shot. The only real question is "Which type of DM is more prolific?"

1337 b4k4

2014-04-24, 10:51 PM

Except for the fact that the caster goblin will likely have higher saves because they didn't dump their mental stats, but other than that its possible.

It's worth noting in the playtest Sleep does not give you a save merely effects 4d8 (+2d8 per additional spell slot level) HP of creatures starting with the creature with the lowest number of HP. By that definition, it would actually probably be more effective against the caster goblin than the fighter (assuming the fighter one gets more HP, and of course assuming they have friends)

I'm also not the one that decided a level 5 Wizard is equivalent to a level 5 Fighter, despite the math and numerous comparisons. That was WotC.

And one of their biggest mistakes. XP was the way to compare PCs in the older editions because each one's level progressions were different. I know it won't ever happen because WotC (and to be honest gamers and game companies in general) are obsessed with prettiness and symmetry, but they really ought to stop using level as a way to compare different classes and simply use it as mile markers for each class. If that means a wizard only has 9 levels while a fighter has 20 or a bard has 13 over the same amount of XP, then so be it. The sooner the silly obsession with level symmetry is dropped the sooner we can get back to designing classes holistically instead of formulaically.

There are much better mechanics that can reduce the number of ongoing effects at one time. My suggestion of each spell having a 'field' type that negates any other spell of the same 'field' type when cast is one of them. If Mirror Image and Mage Armor both have the 'defense' field type, then you can't have them both active at the same time, however you can have Mirror Image and Polymorph going at the same time since Polymorph's field type is 'change'. WotC however doesn't seem to see that.

That could work, but I can't think of a field that both Mirror Image, Grease and Flaming Sphere would all fall into, meaning your deadly combo remains. But yes, as long as we're going to be dividing spells into schools, one ongoing spell per school would probably be a good restriction, with perhaps a max number of ongoing spells equal to some modifier (let's go with CON or WIS. just to give wizards another attribute other than INT to keep up)

Yep, I think the main theme of 5e is "We are going to let you wing it." To some DMs that's music to their ears. To others its a grating annoying noise that should have been taken out back and shot. The only real question is "Which type of DM is more prolific?"

I suspect, currently type II is more prolific, but only because 3e (and to a lesser extent 4e) really required it. DMing either of those systems requires a certain degree of system mastery. For a lot of new DMs, that means less "winging it" and more "RAW", which becomes ingrained habit. A system which encourages winging it (that is, page 42 writ large and then some), would likely generate more freewheeling DMs and (hopefully) encourage more players to try out DMing. 4e started the process, freeing DMs from some of the heavy system mastery that 3e required. IIRC 4e saw a significant uptake in the number of people DMing and trying out DMing. Unfortunately, (IMO) the system was so finely balanced that while it freed DMs from the strictures of 3e's "build everything from the ground up by RAW" system, it was a system that intimidated a lot of DMs from experimenting on their own, for fear of pulling on the wrong thread and unraveling the whole thing. Whether 4e was truly that fragile or not (I think it was in places), that sort of perception can be almost as intimidating as 3e's Wall o' Rules. A well guided "wing it" system for DMs, with good DMing guidelins, and good charts explaining how the different parts work together* could prove to be extremely freeing both for new and old DMs.

* As opposed to simply showing how to build from the ground up, again that chart up there is so awesome when building monsters and challenges. Much better than any "construct by numbers" system I've seen in a lot of games

captpike

2014-04-24, 11:29 PM

And one of their biggest mistakes. XP was the way to compare PCs in the older editions because each one's level progressions were different. I know it won't ever happen because WotC (and to be honest gamers and game companies in general) are obsessed with prettiness and symmetry, but they really ought to stop using level as a way to compare different classes and simply use it as mile markers for each class. If that means a wizard only has 9 levels while a fighter has 20 or a bard has 13 over the same amount of XP, then so be it. The sooner the silly obsession with level symmetry is dropped the sooner we can get back to designing classes holistically instead of formulaically.

there are good reasons to use a level system, the number of problems with going back to that way of doing it are too long to count.

1337 b4k4

2014-04-25, 07:54 AM

there are good reasons to use a level system, the number of problems with going back to that way of doing it are too long to count.

Start counting then.

captpike

2014-04-25, 12:02 PM

Start counting then.

1) it gives a good idea on power level that is easy to understand and bridges the whole game. rather then level 5 wizard=Level 8 fighter=Level 6 solo.

2) you don't have two numbers do the same thing, XP and level. having two things that are almost but not quite the same causes nothing but confusion for new players

3) DMs who dont use XP would have to start to use it or the system would fall apart.

4) it could easily screw up the basic math of the system, if you have attack or defense bonus based on level then you could have classes who are half as accurate as they should be.
for example you could end up with fighters who hit on a 2, and wizards who cant hit on a 15 for any spell that needs a attack roll.

5) the things that go across class stop working, like feats. if you get feats every 3 levels then a fighter would get 6+, and a wizard might only get 3.
this means you could not calibrate how powerful a feat should be because if you only get three it should be X and if you get 6 it should probably be 1/2X or so.

6) it would be boring for those who are on the slow track, they would hardly ever get anything new, effectively have like 10 dead levels.

7) its pointless. there is no disadvantage whatsoever to just giving everyone the same levels, the point of a level based game is that level 5=level 5. if you think wizards should be less powerful then delevel them, otherwise keep everyone even.

1337 b4k4

2014-04-25, 01:16 PM

1) it gives a good idea on power level that is easy to understand and bridges the whole game. rather then level 5 wizard=Level 8 fighter=Level 6 solo.

Which is just as easy to compare by saying 5000 XP fighter = 5000 XP wizard = 500XP bard

2) you don't have two numbers do the same thing, XP and level. having two things that are almost but not quite the same causes nothing but confusion for new players

They don't do the same thing and that's the point. Level measures your progress within a given class, XP measures your progress relative to the game as a whole. Some classes need (and would have) more break points and levels than others. We could then also do away with the stupid Level 5 wizards cast Level 3 and below spells and just map casting level to character level

3) DMs who dont use XP would have to start to use it or the system would fall apart.

Not really. They would simply either distribute "level up" moments to classes with more levels more often or they would tell everyone to level to the point that they would be at relative to a given XP value. There's no difference between telling your players "ok you're all level 6 now" and "ok you all have 10,000 XP now"

4) it could easily screw up the basic math of the system, if you have attack or defense bonus based on level then you could have classes who are half as accurate as they should be.
for example you could end up with fighters who hit on a 2, and wizards who cant hit on a 15 for any spell that needs a attack roll.

Sounds like a good reason not to have attacks and bonuses based on level then or alternatively to only have them based on the character's level rather than their opponents.

5) the things that go across class stop working, like feats. if you get feats every 3 levels then a fighter would get 6+, and a wizard might only get 3.
this means you could not calibrate how powerful a feat should be because if you only get three it should be X and if you get 6 it should probably be 1/2X or so.

I fail to see the issue with classes being unequal in total number of widgets of type X. If fighters have 6+ feats and wizards only have 2, that would be in part because wizards have 10 spells, and fighters have 0. In fact, we already do unbalanced things like this with meta feats and class features that give you more feats. Might as well simply roll it into the class progression.

6) it would be boring for those who are on the slow track, they would hardly ever get anything new, effectively have like 10 dead levels.

Possible, but it did seem to work for 20+ years. As long as you put the total range of time for the fastest leveling and the slowest leveling classes within the appropriate reward period for the game, it shouldn't be an issue. Speed of leveling would be a choice players make.

7) its pointless. there is no disadvantage whatsoever to just giving everyone the same levels, the point of a level based game is that level 5=level 5. if you think wizards should be less powerful then delevel them, otherwise keep everyone even.

Sure there's a disadvantage. It means every class has to level exactly as fast as the fasted leveling class in your game. It means every class has to gain power at the exact same time in exactly the same amounts. In case you haven't noticed, this has historically lead to some issues with D&D. Part of LFQW is that wizards now level exactly as fast as fighters.

captpike

2014-04-25, 02:22 PM

Which is just as easy to compare by saying 5000 XP fighter = 5000 XP wizard = 500XP bard

Some classes need (and would have) more break points and levels than others.

why? why is it bad to put everyone on equal footing? you don't have to give everyone the same thing at the same levels but why not do it at the same points?

hell having dead levels would be better when going back to using XP, at least with dead levels its possible to get the math to work correctly. With XP the math can never work because you have nothing to tie it to. I guess you could have defences and attacks scale with XP but that would be annoying as hell.

Sounds like a good reason not to have attacks and bonuses based on level then or alternatively to only have them based on the character's level rather than their opponents.

so you DON'T want to see character progress? to be able to fight things at the later levels that they could not do when they started?

I fail to see the issue with classes being unequal in total number of widgets of type X. If fighters have 6+ feats and wizards only have 2, that would be in part because wizards have 10 spells, and fighters have 0. In fact, we already do unbalanced things like this with meta feats and class features that give you more feats. Might as well simply roll it into the class progression.

the problem is that if I only ever get 2 widgets they are very valuable and should never be used on anything that will not change how I play my character in a daily basis. however if I get 10 then they are not valuable, so I could spend them on cool stuff or things that add up to being cool (like taking several small damage increases)

it means that feats would have to exist on two power levels, very good ones for slow progress types, and more minor ones for fast progress types.

Possible, but it did seem to work for 20+ years. As long as you put the total range of time for the fastest leveling and the slowest leveling classes within the appropriate reward period for the game, it shouldn't be an issue. Speed of leveling would be a choice players make.

no it would not, if I want to play a wizard then I am stick with its XP chart. if I play a fighter then I am stuck with its chart.

you would be tying two different things together. if you want a fast progressing character you would have to use class A,B or C. if you want to progress slow you would have to be class D, E or F.

its very bad design to make people pick things in packages like that. that was one problem with 3.x (core at least) if you wanted to be a caster you had to pick classes A,B,C if you wanted a simple class you picked D,E,F with no way of picking a simple caster or a complex fighter.

Sure there's a disadvantage. It means every class has to level exactly as fast as the fasted leveling class in your game. It means every class has to gain power at the exact same time in exactly the same amounts. In case you haven't noticed, this has historically lead to some issues with D&D. Part of LFQW is that wizards now level exactly as fast as fighters.

uhhh what?

4e had no LFQW and used a level system rationally (that is level X of any class = Level X of any other class) having classing be (roughly) equal in power at the same level is hardly an impossibility.

the reasons LFQW existed has nothing to do with levels, it was because at the same point in class progression (in 3e shown by level) the power in classes was too different. this could happen as easily if you used XP to show class progress as anything else.

1337 b4k4

2014-04-25, 03:12 PM

so you DON'T want to see character progress? to be able to fight things at the later levels that they could not do when they started?

That wasn't what I said but I can see where it's unclear. When you said level based abilities I thought you were talking about things like "attack + your level" or "save DC is X + caster's level" or something like that.

the problem is that if I only ever get 2 widgets they are very valuable and should never be used on anything that will not change how I play my character in a daily basis. however if I get 10 then they are not valuable, so I could spend them on cool stuff or things that add up to being cool (like taking several small damage increases)

This is only true if feats are equally important to all classes being able to do things. Arguably, this shouldn't be the case, just like spells aren't equally important to all classes now.

no it would not, if I want to play a wizard then I am stick with its XP chart. if I play a fighter then I am stuck with its chart.

you would be tying two different things together. if you want a fast progressing character you would have to use class A,B or C. if you want to progress slow you would have to be class D, E or F.

its very bad design to make people pick things in packages like that. that was one problem with 3.x (core at least) if you wanted to be a caster you had to pick classes A,B,C if you wanted a simple class you picked D,E,F with no way of picking a simple caster or a complex fighter.

A) Class based systems are package based systems. If you want non-packages, you want a point buy system.
B) Nothing I've stated suggests that you wouldn't or couldn't have both casters and non casters on different scaling systems too. Please stop assuming just because I disagree with you that I don't like fighters or want casters to be all powerful.

4e had no LFQW and used a level system rationally (that is level X of any class = Level X of any other class) having classing be (roughly) equal in power at the same level is hardly an impossibility.

I didn't say it was impossible. But it's also worth noting that one of the complaints of 4e is how the classes feel "the same"

the reasons LFQW existed has nothing to do with levels, it was because at the same point in class progression (in 3e shown by level) the power in classes was too different. this could happen as easily if you used XP to show class progress as anything else.

Prior to 3e, classes leveled unequally such that classes that got considerable more power with each level jump leveled slower than classes who's power built more steadily. With 3e WotC moved all classes into the same leveling scale without accounting for the fact that the power levels were XP based not level based. Suddenly, wizards in the party are much more powerful than their fighter allies. Ergo, putting all the classes on the same progression system contributed to LFQW

Mewtarthio

2014-04-25, 03:19 PM

If levels don't correspond to your power, why even have levels at all? Why not just go fully point-buy? Most people who like level-based systems like them because you can ideally say "Level 5 Fighter = Level 5 Wizard = Level 5 Bard." Remove that, and the term "level" becomes meaningless.

captpike

2014-04-25, 03:33 PM

That wasn't what I said but I can see where it's unclear. When you said level based abilities I thought you were talking about things like "attack + your level" or "save DC is X + caster's level" or something like that.

that is what I mean, without being able to do things like add to your defenses, attacks, or DC's then you cant add to what kinds of things you can fight. a creature that is unhitable at level 1 will always be unhitable.

you need such things to go up to progress from farm boy to godkiller.

This is only true if feats are equally important to all classes being able to do things. Arguably, this shouldn't be the case, just like spells aren't equally important to all classes now.

a feat is a feat. they should be equally valuable, they are something everyone gets not like spells. not to mention problems with feats everyone would want (like defensive ones) or gish classes what want some of each.

A) Class based systems are package based systems. If you want non-packages, you want a point buy system.
B) Nothing I've stated suggests that you wouldn't or couldn't have both casters and non casters on different scaling systems too. Please stop assuming just because I disagree with you that I don't like fighters or want casters to be all powerful.

packages of related things are good, packages of unrelated things are bad. it would be like forcing all humans to be fighters and all wizards to be elfs.
you would have too many players who want to use progression X but class Y and they cant. just like in 3e when players who wanted complex fighters or simple wizards were told "no you cant"

what reason would there be to add the complexity of a XP based progression system that is not because casters are too powerful? that seams to be the reason 2e did it.
if you can run the gambit of simple-complex, underpowered-overpowerd, and caster-marshal, and be able to pick any combo and then pick a scale you would want, then why not just have everyone on the same scale?

I didn't say it was impossible. But it's also worth noting that one of the complaints of 4e is how the classes feel "the same"

give that that is an irrational, incorrect and uselessly vague it should be ignored for the same reason that "it sucks" should be ignored.

Prior to 3e, classes leveled unequally such that classes that got considerable more power with each level jump leveled slower than classes who's power built more steadily. With 3e WotC moved all classes into the same leveling scale without accounting for the fact that the power levels were XP based not level based. Suddenly, wizards in the party are much more powerful than their fighter allies. Ergo, putting all the classes on the same progression system contributed to LFQW

yes I know the history, but there are better ways to solve it. the simplest would be to tone down spells, and not to have them scale.

1337 b4k4

2014-04-25, 03:54 PM

that is what I mean, without being able to do things like add to your defenses, attacks, or DC's then you cant add to what kinds of things you can fight. a creature that is unhitable at level 1 will always be unhitable.

There's no reason this needs to be tied to your level number. You can get bonuses and get better without adding your actual level number.

a feat is a feat. they should be equally valuable, they are something everyone gets not like spells. not to mention problems with feats everyone would want (like defensive ones) or gish classes what want some of each.

There's no reason feats should be something every class gets. Things that "everyone" would want should be built into the class progression. Feats should be extras. If you're making your palyers spend their character building resources on things "everyone wants" in a class based system then you've got a problem. Seriously, if your feats are things that everyone takes because it's just something you should or need to have, that would essentially be the same as them taking your attack progression out of your class and simply making it a feat and giving every class an additional feat to spend every level. Something like that could be an interesting game design, but it's more point buy than class based.

you would have too many players who want to use progression X but class Y and they cant. just like in 3e when players who wanted complex fighters or simple wizards were told "no you cant"

My support of one aspect of an older version of D&D is not an expression of support for all parts of that version of D&D. I would appreciate it if you would stop assuming that.

if you can run the gambit of simple-complex, underpowered-overpowerd, and caster-marshal, and be able to pick any combo and then pick a scale you would want, then why not just have everyone on the same scale?

Because if you did it right, it would have impacts on how you approach the game and how you play it. I mean heck, if we're going to have a system where everyone is on the same power scale anyway, why have classes at all, why not just go full point buy? Presumably the restriction that classes have and the things they bundle together make for interesting play choices. Why couldn't the speed and nature of your classes leveling progression not also make for interesting choices?

yes I know the history, but there are better ways to solve it. the simplest would be to tone down spells, and not to have them scale.

Didn't you just argue that scaling by level was necessary for progression and advancement?

captpike

2014-04-25, 04:19 PM

There's no reason this needs to be tied to your level number. You can get bonuses and get better without adding your actual level number.
sure give everyone a XP chart with attack and defenses scaling, that wont be annoying or anything. or we could use them new things called "levels" so we could say "half your level" and have it mean the same thing to everyone.

There's no reason feats should be something every class gets. Things that "everyone" would want should be built into the class progression. Feats should be extras. If you're making your palyers spend their character building resources on things "everyone wants" in a class based system then you've got a problem. Seriously, if your feats are things that everyone takes because it's just something you should or need to have, that would essentially be the same as them taking your attack progression out of your class and simply making it a feat and giving every class an additional feat to spend every level. Something like that could be an interesting game design, but it's more point buy than class based.

I meant more categories. in 4e for example somewhere between 8-14 you should start looking at taking a feat or two to help you survive. but there are many options, or you could even build you party in such a way as to not need to take one.

needed to take feat X is bad design, needing to take feat A,B,C,D or F is not.

My support of one aspect of an older version of D&D is not an expression of support for all parts of that version of D&D. I would appreciate it if you would stop assuming that.

I am using something called an analogy, if you don't know what it is please look it up.

Because if you did it right, it would have impacts on how you approach the game and how you play it. I mean heck, if we're going to have a system where everyone is on the same power scale anyway, why have classes at all, why not just go full point buy? Presumably the restriction that classes have and the things they bundle together make for interesting play choices. Why couldn't the speed and nature of your classes leveling progression not also make for interesting choices?

why would it mater what level is written on my sheet? if we are the same power level then why would it mater you had 6 and I had 3? what would that make better that would be worth the trouble?

the same power scale does not mean point buy would work. 4e classes are very different, more so then any 3e classes and they are on the same power scale.

for somethinng like D&D point buy would be harder, not easier to balance.

Didn't you just argue that scaling by level was necessary for progression and advancement?
sorry I should have made myself more clear

I mean scale how useful they are, so scaling the DC of fireball is good, having spells turn from encounter to lasting all day, like 1/level spells is bad. or increasing the number of targets.

that was off the top of my head. to really fix 3e is not possible, the things needed to fix it would change the nature of the game enough that you could not longer call it 3e. however there are things you could do to make it better (none of which 3.5 or pathfinder did)

Telok

2014-04-25, 06:35 PM

It occurs to me that making the job of a DM easier comes down to about four categories.
1) What is the power of the party
2) What is the power of the encounter
3) What tools are available to make this interesting
4) How do I change the default settings to match my campaign/setting

So to my GMing easier I need a way to gauge the power of a party and compare that to the power of an encounter. Then I need to make sure it is interesting and have guidelines for changing the default D&D bits to match my game.

The last few pages have been argiung about how to measure party power and if 5th level monk is equal to 5th level druid or 8000 xp thief is equal to 8000 xp cleric. And I really don't care. All I want is for whichever measure is being used to be reasonably accurate without strangling character options. Then I want the encounter vs. party metric to work well, which has never been true in any version of D&D that had such a metric.

While those points can be overcome by a GM with enouh experience and system mastery the last two points are, in my opinion, more impotrant. Help in making interesting and engaging npcs, monsters, encounters, and adventures is going to be a bigger help than any accurate power assement system. Help with how to tailor the system to my adventure is also really useful. If I want an exploration adventure then easy teleportation, flying mounts, and magic ships for sale can't be available. If the game assumes those things then I need to change the game and I want some guidelines on how to go about it. I want help on knowing what changing one part of the game will do to other parts of the game. That's soemthing I haven't seen in a DMG since AD&D.

DontEatRawHagis

2014-04-26, 08:30 AM

But balance seems to continue to elude them. So a thri-kreen fighter with 16 attacks at level 10 gives the same xp as a goblin with 3 attacks at level 10. Um ok...

Spells I can see the problem with(nearly insta-gibbed one of my players with one).

However, based on what they did for Thri-Kreen in 4th I doubt they will make Thri-Kreen like that. More than likely the Thri-Kreen design will be expanded upon in a less clunky way.

In 4th edition the extra arms allowed them to freely switch weapons once per turn. Now that those actions have turned into insignificant I can imagine maybe +1 attack, but not +16. The races that they are doing for player classes seems to put focus on non-game breaking buffs such as one extra Zero Level Spell or + dice step for health(if I recall correctly). My guess is that they'll do the same for monster races. Though its difficult to say as I don't think that is in the open play test.

All I can say is at most I think the Thri-kreen at lvl 10 would have +1 extra attack from its race, but maybe(using your number) +15 attacks from the class. So the 10th level Goblin might only have +15 compared with the Thri-kreen, but its not that much of an advantage.

Then again this is all speculation on whats really going to happen in August or when ever they release.

So if your worrying about other game facts,
realize its just a game and just sit back and relax.

Lokiare

2014-04-26, 11:54 AM

Spells I can see the problem with(nearly insta-gibbed one of my players with one).

However, based on what they did for Thri-Kreen in 4th I doubt they will make Thri-Kreen like that. More than likely the Thri-Kreen design will be expanded upon in a less clunky way.

In 4th edition the extra arms allowed them to freely switch weapons once per turn. Now that those actions have turned into insignificant I can imagine maybe +1 attack, but not +16. The races that they are doing for player classes seems to put focus on non-game breaking buffs such as one extra Zero Level Spell or + dice step for health(if I recall correctly). My guess is that they'll do the same for monster races. Though its difficult to say as I don't think that is in the open play test.

All I can say is at most I think the Thri-kreen at lvl 10 would have +1 extra attack from its race, but maybe(using your number) +15 attacks from the class. So the 10th level Goblin might only have +15 compared with the Thri-kreen, but its not that much of an advantage.

Then again this is all speculation on whats really going to happen in August or when ever they release.

So if your worrying about other game facts,
realize its just a game and just sit back and relax.

We already see monsters with multiple attacks that will get multiplied if they gain levels of fighter. Its not a question of if, its a question of when. I simply used thri-kreen as an example because it has 4 attacks. They phrase it something like "When the thri-kreen attacks it makes three attacks. Then the fighter description says you gain an extra attack at level 3,7, 9 or whatever (doing this all from memory).

Edit: Let's say you've been driving your favorite brand and model of car for four years and it is completely awesome to you. Now suddenly you wreck it, and your insurance will only pay to have it reconstructed in a certain way that looks and feels nothing like your favorite brand of car. Now you can pay for the repairs yourself (keep playing 4E) or you can go with the insurance company and save money (retain current support for the new edition). How would you feel?

If the game was an advancement with a retro feel, I might like it, as it is its not even up to the 3.5E standards. Its extremely unbalanced, not very customizable, and has about zero visible advancement for non-casters across 18 levels (because people like me aren't going to play the first 2 fantasy vietnam levels more than once). It still falls into the trap of LFQW.

From my view its just a train wreck in slow motion, and there is nothing good about a train wreck.

Warskull

2014-04-26, 12:15 PM

We already see monsters with multiple attacks that will get multiplied if they gain levels of fighter. Its not a question of if, its a question of when. I simply used thri-kreen as an example because it has 4 attacks. They phrase it something like "When the thri-kreen attacks it makes three attacks. Then the fighter description says you gain an extra attack at level 3,7, 9 or whatever (doing this all from memory).

They've already mentioned aiming to close some loopholes with additional attacks. This is probably already fixed in the next version because a player can do it too. A Monk 8/Fighter 11 currently gets 3 attacks per round, but with flurry each attack becomes 3 attacks of its own. This gives the Monk/Fighter 9 attacks a round, 12 if they spend ki points.

From my view its just a train wreck in slow motion, and there is nothing good about a train wreck.

This is because you cannot be satisfied, nothing short of a new version of 4th edition will make you happy. This doesn't mean 5th edition is bad, it means 5th edition probably isn't for you.

Lokiare

2014-04-26, 12:35 PM

They've already mentioned aiming to close some loopholes with additional attacks. This is probably already fixed in the next version because a player can do it too. A Monk 8/Fighter 11 currently gets 3 attacks per round, but with flurry each attack becomes 3 attacks of its own. This gives the Monk/Fighter 9 attacks a round, 12 if they spend ki points.

Well hopefully it covers monsters too. Forgive me for my doubts about their competency.

This is because you cannot be satisfied, nothing short of a new version of 4th edition will make you happy. This doesn't mean 5th edition is bad, it means 5th edition probably isn't for you.

Uh no. Please quit trying to tell me what my views are. I literally just got done saying that I wouldn't mind a cleaned up 3.5E with what worked well from 4E, but they aren't even up to 3.5E yet. They are somewhere between 2E and 3E, and they aren't doing a good job there either.

The only thing I require for a TTRPG to be playable is balanced tactical options on level up and each round of play. You could easily do that in a 3.5E framework. It might require nerfing some spells and giving non-casters some nice options each level, but it could easily be done. That WotC isn't even trying to grab the tactical options crowd is sad because they were at least as prolific as the 3.5E crowd.

It just drives me nuts when I see people make obvious mistakes that should have been avoided.

Sartharina

2014-04-26, 12:42 PM

Prior to 3e, classes leveled unequally such that classes that got considerable more power with each level jump leveled slower than classes who's power built more steadily. With 3e WotC moved all classes into the same leveling scale without accounting for the fact that the power levels were XP based not level based. Suddenly, wizards in the party are much more powerful than their fighter allies. Ergo, putting all the classes on the same progression system contributed to LFQWFrom what I saw, Wizards weren't much more than a single level behind fighters.

I actually prefer the unified leveling system as well. If you want to delay growth of power of some classes, then actually delay the growth of power. If a level 20 fighter has the same power as a level 10 wizard, and you want them to reach the same power level at the same time, then fill out the Level 10 wizard with 10 more 'mostly dead' levels or incremental power balances.

BUt the thing about "LFQW" isn't "Wizards are more powerful than fighters" - it's "Wizards are weaker than fighters for half the game, and stronger for the other half", so having delayed progression just makes wizards excruciatingly hard to play in the early game.

Xhosant

2014-04-26, 05:26 PM

They talk about spells, but a 5th level monster with 1 fireball, 2 Gust of Winds, and 3 magic missiles memorized is an entirely different challenge than a 5th level monster with 1 Flaming Sphere, 2 Mirror Images, and 3 Grease spells memorized (hint: the 2nd one is super deadly), yet they both get the same xp.

Thus the Mirror Image/Grease/Flaming Sphere deadly combo.

I'm simply noting that there is a huge difference in difficulty based on the spells chosen at any given level.

Huge emphasis on 'deadly combo'. In other words, you're powergaming here, whereas poor example 1 is built on an ill-conceived 'full salvo' philosophy (unless it's a task NPC built for a specific setting, like fortified artillery, so everything except for blasting power's covered.)

...we know that you get flaming sphere and fireball at the same level and that the damage potential of flaming sphere is around 3x that of fireball over the course of a battle. We also know that mirror image is one of the most powerful 2nd level spells in the game and almost nothing compares to it in combat. When you look at the actual data, you end up with the conclusion that the difficulty will swing wildly between two extremes.

The difficulty WILL swing, but not wildly. As you said, you know these are a selection of top guns, and you hypothetically decked out a monster in them. Why not give grease to the fireball goblin, or drop mirror image from the other guy? Any spell will be better than another at least in a subset of situations, and a unit crafted with the best of the best for his situation and internal synergy is going to be powerful.

"The goblin has 7 points in control, 2 points in staying power, and 1 point in damage potential, the party has 3 points in counter control, 5 points in damage potential, and 3 points in staying power, looks like this is going to be: (7-3=)4 + (5-2=)3 + (3-1)2 = 9 and the party is level 5 so this should be a tough challenge."

This is actually ingenious. It's the exact thing that, if made to work, would be hailed as a great rule for those who want it, a.k.a. a grand house rule. I actually want to see this built, as it would be of immense value in balancing classes as well, or even as a character-building system. Anyway, that's why tabletops still have merit despite videogames: they can be re-coded on the fly. And that comes from a game programmer.

Interesting or not, the DM should be able to reliably predict what kind of challenge a goblin with class levels should be. In 5E we can't do that. You can't really do that in 3E either. 4E you can do that. Which is one of the reasons I'm sticking with 4E.

You just proved you CAN do that in 5E. You predicted that a salvo mage would be weak for its level, and a controller mage would be much stronger. And you'll be on the wheel all along, won't you? Even if something slips past you, you can retcon. If you hadn't planned for that combo you realized you brought with you, maybe the goblin didn't realize it. Maybe your too-powerful mage figured after the first round that his enemies are pushovers, and he'd do well to conserve resources for another danger during the day. And maybe, just maybe, the disappointing challenge-of-a-mage could use a Grease he should have memorized all along, and it's in your power (and role) to fix that.

All in all, yes, the options aren't identical. Some are stronger. Some interact with others. Fire Orb's strong, but you won't use it over fireball while maintaining a bridge for an ally to cross. And I swear, if we went for the smartest and dumbest things we could imagine in order to compare them, not even checkers are safe from our imbalance. The point is to think of something interesting, fit it in with some balance, and leave a little chaos in there too, to see what happens.

captpike

2014-04-26, 09:08 PM

the thing to is not to make a best and worst case scenario characters, but to make a min-maxed (best stats, best spells ect) and a "normal" character. that is someone who (mostly) has stats in the right place, and picks spells that sound cool or fit a theme.

in 4e if you did that both would be useful, if not optimal (hybrids being the exception), in 3e you can easily make a useless character by using the second method.

that is what is to be prevented, and learned from (that is my biggest grip about 5e they seam to not have learned from the mistakes of 3e or 4e).

Lokiare

2014-04-27, 06:15 AM

Huge emphasis on 'deadly combo'. In other words, you're powergaming here, whereas poor example 1 is built on an ill-conceived 'full salvo' philosophy (unless it's a task NPC built for a specific setting, like fortified artillery, so everything except for blasting power's covered.)

The difficulty WILL swing, but not wildly. As you said, you know these are a selection of top guns, and you hypothetically decked out a monster in them. Why not give grease to the fireball goblin, or drop mirror image from the other guy? Any spell will be better than another at least in a subset of situations, and a unit crafted with the best of the best for his situation and internal synergy is going to be powerful.

This is actually ingenious. It's the exact thing that, if made to work, would be hailed as a great rule for those who want it, a.k.a. a grand house rule. I actually want to see this built, as it would be of immense value in balancing classes as well, or even as a character-building system. Anyway, that's why tabletops still have merit despite videogames: they can be re-coded on the fly. And that comes from a game programmer.

You just proved you CAN do that in 5E. You predicted that a salvo mage would be weak for its level, and a controller mage would be much stronger. And you'll be on the wheel all along, won't you? Even if something slips past you, you can retcon. If you hadn't planned for that combo you realized you brought with you, maybe the goblin didn't realize it. Maybe your too-powerful mage figured after the first round that his enemies are pushovers, and he'd do well to conserve resources for another danger during the day. And maybe, just maybe, the disappointing challenge-of-a-mage could use a Grease he should have memorized all along, and it's in your power (and role) to fix that.

All in all, yes, the options aren't identical. Some are stronger. Some interact with others. Fire Orb's strong, but you won't use it over fireball while maintaining a bridge for an ally to cross. And I swear, if we went for the smartest and dumbest things we could imagine in order to compare them, not even checkers are safe from our imbalance. The point is to think of something interesting, fit it in with some balance, and leave a little chaos in there too, to see what happens.

You kinda missed the point. Both of those goblins I posted could be made by a DM randomly picking spells, and said DM according to the rules would think they were equal, rather than one being super powerful and one being really really weak for its level. The thing about 4E is even the power gamers as you call them (I call them people that like effective characters), can't make a character that is vastly overpowered. They can turn a defender into a striker, but they don't create monstrosities that destroy encounters with one spell. That's the level the game should play at. In 5E if you super optimize the best you should get is 1-2 levels effectiveness ahead of your current level. Instead we can grab a dwarven sub-race, one feat and a few spell choices and suddenly do everything in the game. That's two choices to become better than the fighter and a few more to invalidate every class (yes in 5E Wizards can make healing potions).

Sartharina

2014-04-27, 08:36 AM

Lokiare

2014-04-27, 06:39 PM

Spell selection is like deck building, and expecting two monsters to play the same with random spell selections and no regard for synergy is

Sure, Flaming Sphere has higher damage potential than Fireball... unless you have to handle multiple targets, or the enemy doesn't let you get more than two rounds of damage on them (It's NOT the spell you want when you want the big ugly monster dead by the end of the round). Fireball does a significant deal of instant damage, multiplied by the number of enemies caught in the blast.

The last iteration of flaming sphere in the packets could move as fast as a 2nd level fighter in leather armor and deal as much damage each round. Short of the creature escaping far enough away that the fighter can't even reach it, flaming sphere is going to be extremely effective. The only way a fire ball is more effective is if it can hit 1/3 as many creatures in one hit as the flaming sphere is going to hit over the course of the entire encounter. Since flaming sphere hits up to 8 creatures per round, that's going to be difficult. No, flaming sphere is superior to fireball in almost every instance, except the one where the goblins get in the sphere formation:

Goblin Grunt "Why are we in the sphere formation?"

Goblin Leader "Its the traditional shape that we enter combat in. It was devised by the great goblin general right before his final battle with the arch wizard. We keep this combat formation as a tribute to his bravery."

Goblin Grunt "I hope I'm reincarnated as a kobold..."

Spells of similar levels should not be vastly different in power. That's the whole function of level.

Edit: Oh and 'deck building' is all about getting rare cards that are more powerful and more useful into your deck. So yeah picking spells is exactly like deck building.

Sartharina

2014-04-28, 12:30 AM

Edit: Oh and 'deck building' is all about getting rare cards that are more powerful and more useful into your deck. So yeah picking spells is exactly like deck building.Except it's not really... at least not in good TCGs. It's more about using cards that complement each other well and work together, with cards more balanced around mana cost than rarity.

Person_Man

2014-04-28, 08:07 AM

I'm growing to hate Legends and Lore. I read it. It sounds cool in theory. But whether or not it actually works in practice depends entirely on how the rules are written. So instead of spending a page describing a rule, why not just post the rule, and then describe the design philosophy behind it? That way people can argue over the real specifics of whether or not something works, instead of the theoretical "this sounds like something I might hate."

Morty

2014-04-28, 08:39 AM

Yeah. The Legends & Lore articles are mostly buzzwords. We can argue about the direction and intent expressed in them... unless they're also too general and consisting of "we want to do good stuff and avoid bad stuff" for that.

Stray

2014-04-28, 08:41 AM

Person_Man

2014-04-28, 01:25 PM

Because they would end up publishing the whole core set piece by piece?

Sounds good to me. Put out the core rules on an SRD. Have people play test it. Change SRD piece by piece in response to feedback until most of your customer base is happy with it, play testing it at every stage and rolling back changes that aren't popular. Then publish a hard copy of the final version with a bunch of optional modules (ie, all the play tested pieces that weren't popular with a majority), fluff, high quality art, iconic characters (one for each class), your most popular campaign setting, gaming advice, etc. Then make a cartoon based around your iconic characters and set in your most popular campaign setting, followed by a series of books, comic books, video games, toys, a movie, a bunch of alternative campaign settings, board games, etc, all supported by a robust online subscription service (integrated Skype/online gaming table/character creator/etc)

The game itself is never going to make more then $10-20 million-ish a year, and that number is going to drop off significantly after the first 3 months when the existing customer base of tabletop gamers either adopts it and buys the core books or doesn't. The real money is in merchandizing. Thus it's in their best interest to just give the core game away to get as many potential customers as possible, and then sell all the stuff associated with the brand on a re-occurring basis to them.

Sartharina

2014-04-28, 01:48 PM

Sounds good to me. Put out the core rules on an SRD. Have people play test it. Change SRD piece by piece in response to feedback until most of your customer base is happy with it, play testing it at every stage and rolling back changes that aren't popular. Then publish a hard copy of the final version with a bunch of optional modules (ie, all the play tested pieces that weren't popular with a majority), fluff, high quality art, iconic characters (one for each class), your most popular campaign setting, gaming advice, etc. Then make a cartoon based around your iconic characters and set in your most popular campaign setting, followed by a series of books, comic books, video games, toys, a movie, a bunch of alternative campaign settings, board games, etc, all supported by a robust online subscription service (integrated Skype/online gaming table/character creator/etc)

The game itself is never going to make more then $10-20 million-ish a year, and that number is going to drop off significantly after the first 3 months when the existing customer base of tabletop gamers either adopts it and buys the core books or doesn't. The real money is in merchandizing. Thus it's in their best interest to just give the core game away to get as many potential customers as possible, and then sell all the stuff associated with the brand on a re-occurring basis to them.

Trying to assemble the game piecemeal is a problem, because rules need to be written to interlock and interact with each other in a holistic manner. Patchwork rule design leads to spreadsheets and bulletpoints, not meaningful game experiences.

Jacob.Tyr

2014-04-28, 03:54 PM

Uh no. Please quit trying to tell me what my views are. I literally just got done saying that I wouldn't mind a cleaned up 3.5E with what worked well from 4E, but they aren't even up to 3.5E yet. They are somewhere between 2E and 3E, and they aren't doing a good job there either.

The only thing I require for a TTRPG to be playable is balanced tactical options on level up and each round of play. You could easily do that in a 3.5E framework. It might require nerfing some spells and giving non-casters some nice options each level, but it could easily be done. That WotC isn't even trying to grab the tactical options crowd is sad because they were at least as prolific as the 3.5E crowd.

If you haven't already, check out the Legend system by Rule of Cool.

Kaisos Erranon

2014-04-28, 04:00 PM

Lokiare

2014-04-28, 06:22 PM

If you haven't already, check out the Legend system by Rule of Cool.

Legend isn't that great, even if it's more supported than other things. Fantasy Craft and 13th Age are considerably better for "balanced tactical options".

Actually, I recently picked up 13th age and started reading the rules. I apologize for saying it was more like 3.5E than 4E (even if I did say it was from what I heard and not experience.). It appears to me to be an attempt to make 4E with the OGL. I haven't gotten to the classes yet, but it includes healing surges, non-caster powers, balance and a simplified skill system. It also includes lots of options. You get a patron (icon) or three, as well as a feat almost every level. It has rechargeable powers and powers that rely on something called an escalation die which is basically a cumulative +1 every round to the players with the monsters having it accounted for in their stats. The powers can't be used until the escalation die reaches a specific number or have a lesser effect if used before the escalation die is at a certain number. This probably represents the adrenaline and focus (or being in the zone) that is needed to consistently pull off the maneuver. I like everything I see in 13th age except for the 'fail forward' mechanic which can easily be ignored. I'm going to give it a try on Thursday and see if it is a good replacement for 4E. I might try to move my main group over to it if its as good as I think it might be.